This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Romanian. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Was the first synagogue really the one erected in 1901? I have found on other sites that the orthodox synagogue dates from 1877. Eugen Ivan 10:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
User:GDP has recently added pictures which scream copyvio, and he has tagged them as his own creations. Dahn 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The history section of the article currently has a strong pro-Romanian POV (Daco-Romanian continuity) and is unreferenced. I am planning to copyedit and make the article more neutral in the next week or so. Olessi 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Dahn - surprisingly, this guy came up with a NPOV edit and I reverted it - my bad. I hope he'll stick only to neutral edits from now on. Mentatus 14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The first four references speaks about the V-XIII century Brasov. There was (see above) an unreferenced section of the city history. I've developed that section and added references.-- Alex:Dan 14:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be brașov not braşov. Please fix this. The ş is not a romanian character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.93.48 ( talk) 02:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I live in the city and believe me there are no more night busses so i'll edit out that part in transportation. 89.123.247.241 ( talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
apart from bucharest,there hasn't been any massive deliberate destruction of XIXth century or older urban architecture with the intent of replacing it with concrete blocks or other housing projects. moreover the old city centers where promoted as tourist destination in the brochures of the time both for the local and foreign market..the newer parts are usually built alongside the old frame of the cities.examples range from larger cities like Cluj-napoca,Sibiu,Constantza to smaller urban areas like Sighisoara.so despite being the exception brasov falls into the other development projects that we're the general rule during Ceausescu's regime.if no one comes with a reliable source for that statement i suggest removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.48.49 ( talk) 03:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You are using a wrong etymology You deleted etymologies proposed by Saxons and by Romanian Etymological Dictionary by Al. Cioranescu, even though it was referenced correctly Also, FYI phonological rules of the language make impossible linguistically the Turkic Barasu etymology for the name Brașov You strongly support it. Yet, your etymology is not proper referenced Blurall ( talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a quote and not a conviction. I am not sure why you are so hostile to other etymoloy since nobody provided until now a correct etymology. I asked a linguist about it Until its clarification, I provide to you a point of view that you might consider, or not S. Puscariu in his book Puşcariu, Sextil (1977) Braşovul de altădată. Cluj-Napoca: Ed. Dacia. OCLC 3446164. wrote
As a reminder, N. Draganu proposed a Slavonic person name. See also wikipedia in French. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%C5%9Fov for what Draganu proposed and Germans Philippi and Kisch eventualy Une interprétation de F. Philippi en 1874 explique que le nom vient de l'ancienne cité Brasovia sur la Tempe, détruite par Corvin. En 1928, G. Treiber et E. Jekelius utilisent cette hypothèse pour expliquer qu'en slave le mot baras, qui veut dire « cité » ou « vérité », est à l'origine de Brasov. They do not mention extincted pecheneg language I personal, do not know what etmology is correct Yet, your material is about a Romanian beautiful city. The etymological aspects shouldn't be so long so that people would miss to see why else it is a beautiful city
Blurall ( talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) and Blurall ( talk) 10:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Dahn,
I added here (on this discussion page, and not in the article!!) that article from French wikipedia since you said how reliable it is wikipedia comparing with other sources that I indicated. I do not want to mislead anyone. I just wanted to inform, and Al Cioranescu dictionary is a reliable source.
And, do not offend me by saying... "(where I suppose the info was also added by you)" ....about that article. You imply some wrong doing
Please verify properly that article's editing history. It appears it is from 2007. By the way, it is a bad translation. It appears like a "Google" translation
Blurall (
talk)
18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Modern wiki pages must contain Other names section Readder ( talk) 11:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
"Once Brașov became a German colony, Romanians were denied several privileges by the new German settlers. They were no longer recognized as citizens of the city, and as such they were no longer able to continue to practice their crafts and operate their businesses." Just to clarify this: Kronstadt was not a "German colony". Kronstadt was a town founded by German settlers (hence I guess they didn't call it "Brasov") invited by Hungarian kings in order to (re)populate devastated regions. That's quite a difference to a colony, isn't it? At that time Transylvania was subdivided on a very small scale into regions which had their own rules and quite different social structures. Just have a look a the architecture in Transylvania - those regional characteristics of that time are easily visible even today. So it is not exactly true that the "descendants of romans and dacians" were "no longer recognized as citizens of the city". The simple reality is: The city belonged to those who built it - say the German settlers. (By the way: According to the Hungarian version of history there were almost none of your "descendants of romans and dacians" in Transilvania at that time at all...). You may also want to review the definition of a colony. You may find out that "In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." If you had learned at least a little bit of history before posting such a crap on Wikipedia you may have noticed that the Transylvanian Saxons were subordinates of the Hungarian king, and not the Holy Roman Emperor (or whatever you might consider "Germany" at that time). Also, the statistics you mention in the article are from a time long after the Transylvanian Saxons lost their regional autonomy and Romanians took the chance to migrate into their cities. Even more pathetic is your statemt: "Romanians were denied several privileges by the new German settlers". As already mentioned: At that time the German settlers had their own territory. The majority of the "Romanian population" (the Romanian nation wasn't yet "invented", but anyway ...) were serfs on the lands of the Hungarian nobility. Those who ranked higher in society melted away into the "Hungarian" aristocracy. So the German settlers could not deny the "Romanians" any privileges because they lived in clearly separated territories/societies. They simply weren't the rulers of the "Romanian" serfs. (It really seems you haven't got any clue about the society of that time at all.) After ww2 borders in eastern Europe tended to shift westwards. Some governments tried to find an historic justification for that. So they started to fake history. In nowadays Europe there is no discussion about adjusting borders and hence no need for such type of prpaganda. So please stop this Ceausescu-style pseudo-historic shit here on Wikipedia. Thanks. (Of course you may try to find some internationally accepted sources for your version of history. If you fail to - and I'm quite sure you will - then I will most certainly delete your nationalistic/propagandistic statements.)
"Significant growth in real estate prices continues, along with other major Romanian cities, as investor sentiment remains high, given the large foreign direct investment influx, recent accession to the European Union and forthcoming airport. Like most of Romania and Poland, cities like Brașov are predicted to exhibit strong growth for many years to come. Many foreign investors are sourcing their own land, or engaging local firms to create holiday or investment property."
Local (and global) real estate has crashed, along with investor sentiment. The whole paragraph reads like a veiled advertisement for the real estate sector as a whole, with the author just waxing optimistic. No sources for "strong growth for many years to come" whatsoever. In light of the current real estate, financial and economic slump, this bit can safely head for the shredder. MordechaiBV ( talk) 19:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Bran Castle are - not - in Brasov. I have been both places. Bran Castle are in Bran, many, many miles far away from Brasov. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Buskerudalge (
talk •
contribs)
11:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brașov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sR_TAB_3.xlsxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brașov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I propose restoring the following, with reasons below:
Austria-Hungary 1867–1918 (de jure Hungary
until 1920)
Romania 1920–present (de facto
from 1918)
In the interests of efficiency, the results of this survey will apply to other cities in Romania, adapted to each city’s particular history.
Lengthy tangential discussion
|
---|
|
In my view, it’s not especially relevant that Brașov and other cities in Transylvania were governed under four successive Romanian regimes. The salient information is that they were part of Romania. Therefore, I would simply write “Romania (1920-)” or, for Northern Transylvania, “Kingdom of Romania (1920-1940)”, and then “Romania (1945-).” Thoughts? - Biruitorul Talk 01:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in Romanian. Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Was the first synagogue really the one erected in 1901? I have found on other sites that the orthodox synagogue dates from 1877. Eugen Ivan 10:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
User:GDP has recently added pictures which scream copyvio, and he has tagged them as his own creations. Dahn 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
The history section of the article currently has a strong pro-Romanian POV (Daco-Romanian continuity) and is unreferenced. I am planning to copyedit and make the article more neutral in the next week or so. Olessi 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
You're right, Dahn - surprisingly, this guy came up with a NPOV edit and I reverted it - my bad. I hope he'll stick only to neutral edits from now on. Mentatus 14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
The first four references speaks about the V-XIII century Brasov. There was (see above) an unreferenced section of the city history. I've developed that section and added references.-- Alex:Dan 14:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
It should be brașov not braşov. Please fix this. The ş is not a romanian character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.93.48 ( talk) 02:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I live in the city and believe me there are no more night busses so i'll edit out that part in transportation. 89.123.247.241 ( talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
apart from bucharest,there hasn't been any massive deliberate destruction of XIXth century or older urban architecture with the intent of replacing it with concrete blocks or other housing projects. moreover the old city centers where promoted as tourist destination in the brochures of the time both for the local and foreign market..the newer parts are usually built alongside the old frame of the cities.examples range from larger cities like Cluj-napoca,Sibiu,Constantza to smaller urban areas like Sighisoara.so despite being the exception brasov falls into the other development projects that we're the general rule during Ceausescu's regime.if no one comes with a reliable source for that statement i suggest removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.48.49 ( talk) 03:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You are using a wrong etymology You deleted etymologies proposed by Saxons and by Romanian Etymological Dictionary by Al. Cioranescu, even though it was referenced correctly Also, FYI phonological rules of the language make impossible linguistically the Turkic Barasu etymology for the name Brașov You strongly support it. Yet, your etymology is not proper referenced Blurall ( talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
I added a quote and not a conviction. I am not sure why you are so hostile to other etymoloy since nobody provided until now a correct etymology. I asked a linguist about it Until its clarification, I provide to you a point of view that you might consider, or not S. Puscariu in his book Puşcariu, Sextil (1977) Braşovul de altădată. Cluj-Napoca: Ed. Dacia. OCLC 3446164. wrote
As a reminder, N. Draganu proposed a Slavonic person name. See also wikipedia in French. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%C5%9Fov for what Draganu proposed and Germans Philippi and Kisch eventualy Une interprétation de F. Philippi en 1874 explique que le nom vient de l'ancienne cité Brasovia sur la Tempe, détruite par Corvin. En 1928, G. Treiber et E. Jekelius utilisent cette hypothèse pour expliquer qu'en slave le mot baras, qui veut dire « cité » ou « vérité », est à l'origine de Brasov. They do not mention extincted pecheneg language I personal, do not know what etmology is correct Yet, your material is about a Romanian beautiful city. The etymological aspects shouldn't be so long so that people would miss to see why else it is a beautiful city
Blurall ( talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) and Blurall ( talk) 10:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Dahn,
I added here (on this discussion page, and not in the article!!) that article from French wikipedia since you said how reliable it is wikipedia comparing with other sources that I indicated. I do not want to mislead anyone. I just wanted to inform, and Al Cioranescu dictionary is a reliable source.
And, do not offend me by saying... "(where I suppose the info was also added by you)" ....about that article. You imply some wrong doing
Please verify properly that article's editing history. It appears it is from 2007. By the way, it is a bad translation. It appears like a "Google" translation
Blurall (
talk)
18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Modern wiki pages must contain Other names section Readder ( talk) 11:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
"Once Brașov became a German colony, Romanians were denied several privileges by the new German settlers. They were no longer recognized as citizens of the city, and as such they were no longer able to continue to practice their crafts and operate their businesses." Just to clarify this: Kronstadt was not a "German colony". Kronstadt was a town founded by German settlers (hence I guess they didn't call it "Brasov") invited by Hungarian kings in order to (re)populate devastated regions. That's quite a difference to a colony, isn't it? At that time Transylvania was subdivided on a very small scale into regions which had their own rules and quite different social structures. Just have a look a the architecture in Transylvania - those regional characteristics of that time are easily visible even today. So it is not exactly true that the "descendants of romans and dacians" were "no longer recognized as citizens of the city". The simple reality is: The city belonged to those who built it - say the German settlers. (By the way: According to the Hungarian version of history there were almost none of your "descendants of romans and dacians" in Transilvania at that time at all...). You may also want to review the definition of a colony. You may find out that "In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." If you had learned at least a little bit of history before posting such a crap on Wikipedia you may have noticed that the Transylvanian Saxons were subordinates of the Hungarian king, and not the Holy Roman Emperor (or whatever you might consider "Germany" at that time). Also, the statistics you mention in the article are from a time long after the Transylvanian Saxons lost their regional autonomy and Romanians took the chance to migrate into their cities. Even more pathetic is your statemt: "Romanians were denied several privileges by the new German settlers". As already mentioned: At that time the German settlers had their own territory. The majority of the "Romanian population" (the Romanian nation wasn't yet "invented", but anyway ...) were serfs on the lands of the Hungarian nobility. Those who ranked higher in society melted away into the "Hungarian" aristocracy. So the German settlers could not deny the "Romanians" any privileges because they lived in clearly separated territories/societies. They simply weren't the rulers of the "Romanian" serfs. (It really seems you haven't got any clue about the society of that time at all.) After ww2 borders in eastern Europe tended to shift westwards. Some governments tried to find an historic justification for that. So they started to fake history. In nowadays Europe there is no discussion about adjusting borders and hence no need for such type of prpaganda. So please stop this Ceausescu-style pseudo-historic shit here on Wikipedia. Thanks. (Of course you may try to find some internationally accepted sources for your version of history. If you fail to - and I'm quite sure you will - then I will most certainly delete your nationalistic/propagandistic statements.)
"Significant growth in real estate prices continues, along with other major Romanian cities, as investor sentiment remains high, given the large foreign direct investment influx, recent accession to the European Union and forthcoming airport. Like most of Romania and Poland, cities like Brașov are predicted to exhibit strong growth for many years to come. Many foreign investors are sourcing their own land, or engaging local firms to create holiday or investment property."
Local (and global) real estate has crashed, along with investor sentiment. The whole paragraph reads like a veiled advertisement for the real estate sector as a whole, with the author just waxing optimistic. No sources for "strong growth for many years to come" whatsoever. In light of the current real estate, financial and economic slump, this bit can safely head for the shredder. MordechaiBV ( talk) 19:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Bran Castle are - not - in Brasov. I have been both places. Bran Castle are in Bran, many, many miles far away from Brasov. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Buskerudalge (
talk •
contribs)
11:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Brașov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sR_TAB_3.xlsxWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Brașov. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I propose restoring the following, with reasons below:
Austria-Hungary 1867–1918 (de jure Hungary
until 1920)
Romania 1920–present (de facto
from 1918)
In the interests of efficiency, the results of this survey will apply to other cities in Romania, adapted to each city’s particular history.
Lengthy tangential discussion
|
---|
|
In my view, it’s not especially relevant that Brașov and other cities in Transylvania were governed under four successive Romanian regimes. The salient information is that they were part of Romania. Therefore, I would simply write “Romania (1920-)” or, for Northern Transylvania, “Kingdom of Romania (1920-1940)”, and then “Romania (1945-).” Thoughts? - Biruitorul Talk 01:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)