Talk:Csángós

60,000-70,000 Csangos (maximum estimates)

I was not able to find this piece of information in the given source - https://web.archive.org/web/20051217084748/http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/TA01/EREC1521.htm If there are not objects, I propose the removal of this estimation. 82.78.61.124 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It is on the fourth point of the document. Super Ψ Dro 11:42, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The number says of those who still spoke Hungarian between 1992-1996 in Moldavia (without some Hungarians in cities and other places with another origins), information from the Council of Europe based on the research of Vilmos Tánczos. The number of people of Csango origin is higher. So please correct and don't modifiy without informing yourself about the subject.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Turkic Székelys

Kun Kipcsak, as far as I know, that the Székelys are an originally Turkic nation is not universally accepted in academics. Thus, even if there might be some authors supporting this, they shouldn't be given more weight than those saying they weren't Turkic. Super Ψ Dro 09:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a tendency on the part of Hungarian and Romanian authors not to unnecessarily complicate the issue of Székelys origins and it is stated that they are simply Hungarian. But the situation is not unique: Hungary has many regions with populations of Turkic origin mixed with Hungarians and Indo-European people (Páloc, Kiskunsag, Nagykunsag and so on) but this is not emphasized in order not to make them "less Hungarian". The situation is different in the academic works, where the Hungarians and the Romanians affirm the Turkic origins of the Székelys. Perhaps it should be clarified that only in the works of popularizing history, for everyone's understanding, it is stated that the Székelys are just Hungarians.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

I see that this claim of the Székelys being widely accepted to be originally Turkic is also mentioned on Origin of the Székelys, page you haven't edited. Could you inform me about the theory that page mentions? I think I won't oppose the Székelys being labelled as Turkic but I'd like to be informed first. Also, why is this not mentioned more at the Székelys page? Super Ψ Dro 17:30, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated and I don't know all the details either. I know the works written in English, Romanian and others translated from Hungarian into English. The papers in Hungarian contain several details in this regard. The idea in short would be that the Székelys are a mixed population, with several populations: the first layer of Avars, maybe also Slavs, over which the Khazars (Kavars) certainly settled. The Khazars were a mixed Eurasian population consisting of Turkic, Iranians (mostly Alans), Finno-Ugric people, Arabs (Semites), etc. When the Hungarians gained their independence in 830 from the Khazars, they took with them 3 tribes of Kavars (Turkic, Iranian, Finno-Ugric people) who led them to the Eastern Carpathians, to Transylvania. These Kavars are part of the ancestors of today's Székelys. But their classification as a Turkic population is not fully accepted due to those mixed origins. I mentioned, quoting others, the Székelys in the Turkic populations in the composition of the Csangos because those Székelys come from certain areas in Harghita County where the Turkic people settled. There are areas in Covasna County where Muslims also settled, but their origins are somewhat unknown, although it is known that many Turkic Khazars were also Muslims. There were also Jews, but it is not known for sure if the Kavars were Jewish and fled from the rest of the Shamanic Khazars or if the Shamanic Kavars fled from the Khazar Jews. This is what I am trying to write here: The Hungarian-Khazar War.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for your explanation. I'm still kind of skeptical since I haven't seen details like these in other pages at English Wikipedia, but since I am not any expert about the Székelys I'll let the text in. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you shouldn't just relate to the English Wikipedia on such a complicated and somehow controversial topic.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 06:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 14 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Discussion has found that English-language reliable sources are evenly split between the names, but there are too few sources in English to constitute an established usage...If this happens, follow the conventions of the language in which this entity is most often talked about (emphasis in original at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) § No established usage in English-language sources). (non-admin closure) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Csangos → Csángós – Seems to be the correct name of this people. We already use diacritics for the article Székelys and would consider "Szekely" incorrect and fix it, so I don't see why this would be any different for the Csángós. Context for people without knowledge of the area: the Székelys and the Csángós are Hungarian subgroups outside Hungary, the first lives in Transylvania and the second in Moldavia, both in Romania (which is divided into three regions, the third being Wallachia). By the way, it isn't like Csangos is some kind of compromise for the Romanians, it is still pretty much the same name as the Hungarian one. For all of this, I see no reason for keeping this name without diacritics. For those wondering about what do reliable sources say, results are mixed [1]. I see Csángós more often than Csangos though. Also note the category of this people uses diacritics. Super Ψ Dro 21:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per WP:COMMONNAME.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree Zsovar3 (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. An ngram suggests that book sources favour the version without diacritics.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The guideline WP:DIACRITICS says: The use of modified letters (such as accents or other diacritics) in article titles is neither encouraged nor discouraged; when deciding between versions of a word that differ in the use or non-use of modified letters, follow the general usage in reliable sources that are written in the English language. The correct name of this people is Csángós, but, as Amakuru showed above, the variant without diacritics is more prevalent in Google Books, and this is what matters. 77wonders (talk) 07:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Relisting comment can any of the support voters (@Kun Kipcsak, Super Dromaeosaurus, and Zsovar3:) comment on the guideline at WP:DIACRITICS? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support, there is no specific English name for this ethnographic group. Of course, English-language publications often omit the use of accents but this is almost always the case. I checked GB result and both versions ("Csángó" and "Csango") are found in roughly equal proportions. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support — a sensible idea. It’s not really a big deal to add two common accents, and it improves accuracy. There isn’t really an established way of referring to this group in English, so we may as well use the “correct” name. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:15, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support per User:Norden1990. User:Amakuru's use of the ngram for determining accent usage is flawed as Google does not accurately determine such usage in the results. (Click on some of the results and try it for yourself. Below the graph, I clicked "Search in Google Books > csangos [no accent] > 2002-2019" and got this Google Books results page. The first result was this book full of accents; the second, also full of accents. The next few had no accents, but they popped up again a couple of times in the top ten.) —  AjaxSmack  05:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support. If ngram for determining accent usage is flawed, I reconsider my opinion, because the correct form, with the diacritics, seems more logical. 77wonders (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was NO CONSENSUS to merge. Joyous!

---

I propose merging Csángó Land into Csángós. The subject and the scope is basically the same. Csángó Land is the name given to the Moldavian area where most of the Csángós live, however it never was a political or administrative unit. It hasn't a specific history different of the rest of Western Moldavia. The phrases from the Csángó Land article refer to the Csángós as an ethnographic group, not to the region itself. The information from Csángó Land article mostly exist in the Csángós article. So there is large content overlap. Csángó Land is unlikely to be expanded in a different direction. 77wonders (talk) 06:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose there is indeed overlap but the article can still be expanded more. We could take Székely Land as basis and make sections of geography, history (when did the Csángós settle there, their geographical distribution over history), population (ethnicity and religion of the place), and a few more. Super Ψ Dro 13:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. If this article ever gets drastically improved, we might consider integrating the other one (which is actually good). But until that time, keep them separate. They’re discrete enough topics. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Currently, the only text from the Csángó Land article that refers to the Land itself is the following: Csángó Land is located close to the eastern Carpathian Mountains, in the valley of the Siret River, near the town of Roman[1] and Bacău. It may also be defined as the part of Bacău County where ethnic Hungarians reside as a minority.[2]. All the other phrases talk about the Csángós as a population group (that is already the subject of the destination page). The example of Székely Land was given per WP:WHATABOUT. The two cases are not identical, because Székely Land was for centuries a separate region with a special status. 77wonders (talk) 14:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  We can still talk more about the geographical region by saying what rivers, mountains, plains, fauna and flora (and whether the latter affects the Csángós somehow, through cuisine for example), why did the Csángós settle there (maybe there's a source suggesting they preffered plains because their ancient homeland were plains too, kind of obvious but noteworthy if an academic article has mentioned it), and a few more. There's many information that can be potentially added to the article. And all ideas that I mentioned are for one section. Super Ψ Dro 14:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

  I doubt that there are enough information available to justify a new article. In my opinion we should have went the opposite way: to add first all the relevant stuff to the Csángós article, and to resort to WP:SPLIT if the original article becomes too large. 77wonders (talk) 14:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• Comment We cannot make an argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist. But if Székely Land was given above as example for separate articles for the Land and for the people, I will also present the case of the Royal Lands (the region where the Transylvanian Saxons lived in the Kingdom of Hungary), which is currently just a redirect. 77wonders (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

  It is a redirect because it originally was created as a two-sentence long stub with no sources, not because there was a merge discussion. And by mentioning Székely Land I meant that we could use it as a model to show the potential future expansion of Csángó Land. You just mentioned another similar article being a redirect. It's not the same. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support. Csángó Land is not a well defined geographical concept. Practically it may refer to several settlements with a Hungarian/Catholic minority scattered all over in Moldavia, but these settlements do not form an actual geographical/political/cultural unit. Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment There is no such thing as Csángó Land, nor historical, nor geographical. There were some csángós people in the villages near Roman, but they're long gone. adidas00 — Preceding undated comment added 00:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
• Support Any geographic meaning outside of the purely ethnographic connection is covered by "Seven Villages". I also doubt that the term "Csángó Land" has any traction in scholarship. Dahn (talk) 04:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] – Zsovar3 (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.