This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think that lead section of the article is a bit POV. First, there is a question whether lead section about one geographical region should contain any historical references. I think not. Since this is primarily geographical article, the lead section should contain only basic geographical data about region, for example its location, size, population, etc, while all historical references should be in the separate "History" section and not in the lead section. So, I propose removing any mention of the history of the region from the lead section. But, if other users do not agree with that, then I propose that we expand current historical references in the lead section and to mention that region belonged to ancient Dacian state. Current version of the article that mention Kingdom of Hungary, but not Dacia is really POV and anti-Romanian, and even me (I am not an Romanian) can see that. PANONIAN (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that indeed there is a confusion between two separate notions:
These two are different, and the article should clarify it. Dpotop 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When did Transylvania cease to exist as a political entity? The Hungarians tried to do it in 1848, and then succeeded under the Ausgleich (but when?). Then, was Transylvania autonomous for some months in Greater Romania, or not? This should be mentioned somewhere. Dpotop 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
The current article maintains a confusion between historical Transylvania and what is today understood by Transilvania (i.e. the territory that went to Romania in 1918). This is not OK. Of course, it is difficult to solve this problem, but let's think about it. My first note is that it's not OK to put the picture of today's Transylvania next to the text talking about the medieval principality. Dpotop 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"as a voivodship with a large autonomy" funny ... Let's see this sentence: "In Romania, a prefect is the governmental representative in a county (judeţ), in an agency called prefectură. ". gotcha. this is a perfect definition for the "voivodship of Transylvania" in the Middle age. So what is the definition again: In the Kingdom of Hungary, a voivode was the governmental(King's) representative in a 7 county (judeţ), in an agency called voivodeship. Great! Another fact: the voivode of Transylvania never was vassal of the King... -- fz22 12:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No objection in my second amendment. I think the form "The Transylvanian state" is much more expressive showing that the period between 1570-c.1690 is unique in the history of the region.-- fz22 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The voivodeship question: i see no original research just a proof. The voivode was something similiar to the prefect title: military and judiciary representative of the king in a distant region. Ruler, autonomy? cloak and dragger story, but no more... Transylvania ruler in those days was called King of Hungary, not voivode. Regards -- fz22 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have two problems with this article.
1. I don't understand the relevance of the fragment "part of the Gepid Kingdom". If it was any such kingdom, than the fragment can be very well replaced by a link to the article Gepid Kingdom. If not, than why use the fragment?
2. I don't see how the mentioned reference supports "Gepid Kingdom". In lack of appropiate term, it can be used, but please specify the compromise/concensus. Until the evidence will pop up, this is qualified as original research.
My note is that indeed "Gepid kings" seems to rely heavily on the fact Gepids are said to have a kingdom, but unless you have proper scholarsip to clarify this (the structures of power in Gepid world), I don't see there's any place for the information in Wikipedia. Scribus 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
On 26 January an unregistered user started playing around with the 2002 Census data. The official 2002 Census data are public and can be easily checked by downloading the full tables from the official website [1] or by checking the database tools from the Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Centre website [2]. According the these results, in 2002 the total population in Transylvania was 7,221,733, of which 5,393,552 (74.69%) Romanians, 1,415,718 (19.60%) Hungarians, 244,475 (3.39%) Roma and 53,077 (0.73%) Germans. Alexrap 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
A question for Fz22: You recently edit the Population section saying that "630,000 inhabitants moved from Regat to Transylvania, and 250,000 from Transylvania to Regat, most notably to Bucharest". What is the period when this internal migration was supposed to take place? You also put a reference for that statement, namely "Recensămîntul populaţiei şi al locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie 1977, Vol I, Populaţie - structura demografică". Bucureşti, 1980. My question is: were the figures taken from that book (if so, please put the page numbers on the reference list) or were they taken from another book (and if so, please cite that book)? I am asking because according to a Hungarian book (Árpád Varga, Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995) that also cites the same Romanian Census, the numbers are quite different than the ones you put into the article. Alexrap 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
My messages about the Banat issue are systematically being avoided. Without a word, editors that seem to "own" the article keep extending Transylvania to areas which are far from being Transylvania. It is a big mistake to only take into account the so-called "Cluj-current of thought"- a quite recent one. As to the Cluj historians love-affair with the term Transylvania, there is no doubt. Unscientifically they made it bigger than it is, (the article unbelievably calls it: "extended version") there's no doubt. But other than that there is no historic ground on which you can assert that Transylvania would (etymologically or not) include such a distinct region as the Banat (for which I can speak and I'm primarly concerned). I provided you with details and would provide you with the whole bibliography about the Banat region and if you can get one statement or even slight interpretation, that the Banat is part of Transylvania, then I'm convinced.
Here's also my previous message: I don't know if the point was considered settled but that's far from being the case. The Banat region is no part of Transilvania. A good analyse of the improper inclusion of Banat in Transilvania can be found here: (in romanian) Apartine Banatul de Transilvania? Nu! by banatian historian Sorin Fortiu. I added a "citation needed" tag at the beginning. It follows that all references to the counties and the cities of Banat are also false. -- Radufan 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please answer using the book or whatever source you are making the statements, in your hand and ready for confrontation. This has to be settled, what's happening here is insane. -- Radufan 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
PS:Please provide citation for the distinction between a so-called "core-territory" and the so-called "extended version"-- Radufan 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It has unquestionably become a rather common oversimplification, so to say, to use the "extended version" of the name Transylvania as explained in the article. (As mentioned already earlier by some: it is commonly said that Romania is made up of three main parts: Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania, and also that 1 December 1918 marks the union of Transylvania with Romania. Unless someone wants to argue that the Banat is part of Wallachia, or not part of Romania at all, this should be more than enough for a proof.) If those living in (or otherwise emotionally connected with) the Banat find this change in the use of the term regrettable or even offensive, the right way to proceed is to mention this in the article; I don't think there is a point in the OR and CN tags inserted recently. K issL 08:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Other points to be considered:
Whether on purpose or by chance, this is a straw man argument. Nobody said the Banat actually is a subregion of Transylvania in a geographical sense. Nobody said that indignation or offence is to be dismissed. (Much nearer the opposite, in fact.) I think I have made the point as clear as it gets: this usage is a geographically, culturally, [insert other qualifiers here] incorrect oversimplification, yet it has become common. Thus if we want our reader to understand what any other sources he may be reading mean by the word "Transylvania", we'll have to include this – incorrect – definition. As to your only argument that is actually countering this point – the question "commonly said by whom?" –, I can only say for sure that it is commonly said in Hungary (which might already be reason enough to include this definition, since a significant amount of sources talking about Transylvania will stem from Hungarians), but your fellow Romanian editors have repeatedly asserted that it is the same in Romania. Obviously, it's not the Banatians that will be ignorant about the exact geography of the region they live in – nor even the Transylvanians, I guess –, rather those who live in neither of these two regions: in the rest of Romania or in Hungary. So the fact that a Banatian has never heard this kind of usage doesn't prove anything. K issL 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Banat is just a subregion of Transylvania. After 89 people Timisoara began to think of themselves too highly and began to forge a new identity, that has nothing to do with history or geography. It was not enough that the Plain of the Theiss was artificially split by the Serbo-Hungaro-Romanian border, now it's split again by these haughty Timisoreans. Enough with these "ghermanist" ideas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.1.180 ( talk)
Hmmm, did I hear someone say straw man? :) K issL 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen that people suggested several versions for listing the different parts of Transylvania. I suggest we discuss in here about these issue and hopefully produce the best version in the end. Here are some of my comments:
Why aren't these names even mentioned in this article? Legend or not, the three should at least be referenced in an article about Transylvania. The Romanian version of this article does reference these pre-Magyar rulers.
Menumorout = Ménmarót. Hungarian name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.112.212 ( talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The thesis of Romanian immigration in Transylvania in the 17-18th centuries is controversial and AFAIK rejected by most Romanian scholars. D. Prodan dedicated a large part of his work to Romanian population from Transylvania living in this period and he rejects the thesis of immigration with impressive arguments. Therefore the view that Romanian population grew to a majority in 18th century cannot be added without mentioning the opposite view, that Romanian were majoritarian even before the first census was conducted. If you believe in the section of demographics we should detail on the historiogaphical controversy in estimating Transylvanian demographics, then I'll try to provide the missing information from Romanian scholars. The first official census for the entire Transylvania, IIRC, is that of Joseph II. I will try to find a scholarly source on that and solve the {cn} tag. Daizus 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw from the maps on this article that Banat is considered part of Transylvania, which is not correct, only ignorants consider this way. A correction is necesarry.-- MariusM 12:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. And Kuala Lumpur is the capital of the USA.
Recently, the bluelink to Mezőség in the "Geography and Ethnography" section has been changed to a redlink to Câmpia Transilvaniei. I'm not an ethnographist, so my means to prove which of the two names is more ethnographically relevant are limited, but the Google test has a pretty clear result. I also wonder why the editors insisting on using the Romanian designation of the particular area choose to fight for this here rather than proving their point at Talk:Mezőség. Any third opinions? K issL 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Mezoseg and Campia Transylvaniei aren't two overlapping region by all means. The Hungarian Mezoseg is consisted of several important settlements like: Szek, Magyarszovat, Nagysarmas, Uzdiszentpeter, etc and I have no infos about they really belong to the Romanian -ethnographycaly speaking -Campia Transylvaniei region too?! So using an "official" term for them is inadequate here -- fz22 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I intrude: I see no problem with having a disambig with two articles - the dance and the geographic area - in fact this is recommended to lumping them together. Also, it would be nice to give the exact composition of the area: what localities, and in which county(ies) are the situated nowadays. This should also help deciding whether Mezoseg and Campia Transylvaniei are the same or differnt areas. : Dc76 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have a lot of articles on Transylvania. Besides this one we have at least: History of Transylvania, Historical names of Transylvania, Coat of arms of Transylvania, List of Transylvanians, Transylvania in fiction, Transylvanian Saxons, Union of Transylvania with Romania, Northern Transylvania, List of Transylvanian rulers, Ancient history of Transylvania, to name just those that I can find, not to mention all of those on the Kingdom of Hungary or various ethnic groups in the area. Yet there are regions/counties within Transylvania on which there are either no articles or the names aren't linked to the main article.
Since I'm coming at this as part of WikiProject European History and since Transylvania is itself an historical region it seems proper to try to get a handle on all of the articles on Transylvania at once. Although a bit beyond the scope of a Collaboration of the Month, it will be hard to really improve this article without at least considering the relevance of the others.
-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What's with the Transylvanian Diet? No, first, WHAT IS IT? It's in the introduction. Basketball 110 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003 when their king Stephen I, according to legend, defeated the native prince Gyula.
When Austria-Hungary was defeated in World War I, the Romanians of Transylvania in late 1918 proclaimed the land united with Romania.
Quote from Britannica:
The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary
Hungary was controlled by the Habsburgs, but Transylvania was still attached to Hungary from 1687.
Another quote from their lead:
historic eastern European region. After forming part of Hungary (11th–16th century), it was an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire (16th–17th century) and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century; later it was incorporated into Romania (1918–20).
I know we could mention every single year, but the question is: what are the key dates here? 1071 is the new key date? Don't think so. BTW is there a reliable English language source mentioning that, because
Britannica's short summary misses that "important" year too.
It is a region of Romania from 1918/1920. That's what the original version pointed out.
Squash Racket (
talk) 10:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Just like Britannica (don't want to repeat the quote from the beginning of this thread) Columbia Encyclopedia also mentions the year 1003 (which has been "cca. 1000" in the infobox, but 1003 is also OK with me), so it definitely seems to be important in understanding the history of this region:
they did not fully control it until 1003, when King Stephen I placed it under the Hungarian crown.
Squash Racket ( talk) 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Britannica highlights the following in its summary in the lead of its own article:historic eastern European region. After forming part of Hungary (11th–16th century), it was an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire (16th–17th century) and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century; later it was incorporated into Romania (1918–20).
Let us think the issue unpartially: when does Transylvania's history begin? In the year 1003? Well, isn't Dacia a part of Transylvania's histrory?-- Olahus ( talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How about the merging of the articles Transylvania and Principality of Transylvania ?-- Olahus ( talk) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Transylvania is only a historical region and a former principality. I thoght about something like in the case of Moldavia, a historical region and a former principality. -- Olahus ( talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I just took a quick look, but to me it seems that Moldavia was a principality all along, while this is not the case with Transylvania. I don't know whether the phrase "Moldavia" is used today, but "Transylvania" is still in use.
BTW you seemed to agree with
FZ22's proposal to remove most of the redundant history from this article and leave it only in
History of Transylvania.
Squash Racket (
talk) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Idsocol! You don't want to start another revert war on the subject, do you? OK, fixed :)) bye -- fz22 ( talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The gypsies are not known as tatari, the Tatars are known as Tătari and tătăraşi is an area in the moldovan (region not country) city of Iasi. Ţigani is sometimes viewed as pejorative so we might want to avoid the term. I'm not actually familiar with the demographic numbers to know if there are any significant Tatar presence that far west or I'd do my own edit. TMLutas ( talk) 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some explanation is needed regarding this unacceptable deletion and
this edit summary.
Why don't you accept relevant referenced material (I cited the book almost word by word about the topic) especially when it comes to this controversial material?
Squash Racket (
talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't. I don't want to copy my arguments to another section. I think this is a very simple question about whether the source is according to Wikipedia policies.
Squash Racket (
talk) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of things here that
I don't like, but I am not allowed to just delete those, because that's not a good enough reason here. If an information is presented in a reliable source, it can be/should be added.
You are a newcomer, so I didn't want to put overload on you, but for example the information you presented regarding Hunyadi, belongs into his own article only. Genealogy data shouldn't be repeated every single time his name is mentioned in other articles.
One more thing for now: your insistance on citing exactly what the source says is considered
copyright violation, that's why I changed a bit what the book says, but you removed it.
Squash Racket (
talk) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Still no valid reason given for your deletion. The book
even mentions the three names repeatedly, so its relevance can not be questioned. Title=History and myth in Romanian consciousness.
About the book:
Boia closely examines the process of historical culture and conscience in nineteenth and twentieth century Romania, particularly concentrating on the impact of the national ideology on history. Based upon his findings, the author identifies several key mythical configurations and analyses the manner in which Romanians have reconstituted their own highly ideologized history over the last two centuries.
Squash Racket ( talk) 06:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the trios of Gelu, Glad, and Menomorut and Horea, Closca and Crisan, the Transylvanian heroes are actually more numerous than those of Wallachia or Moldavia, illustrating the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausecu era in Romania.
For a complete and systematic illustration of the rating of personalities in the last years of the communist dictatorship, we need look no further than the sequence of busts lined up in the front of the National Military Museum in Bucharest-an official and competent guide. Here is how the great figures of history are laid out: Dromichetes and Burebista; Decebalus and Trajan; Gelu, Glad and Menumorut; Basarab, Roland Borsa and Bogdan; Mircea the Old and Alexander the Good; Iancu de HUnedoara, Stephen the Great and Vlad Tepes; Michael the Brave, Dimitrie Cantemir, Constantin Brancoveanu and Ferenc Rakoczi II; Horea Closca and Crisan; Tudor Vladimirescu; Balcescu and Avram Iancu; Kogalnicanu and Cuza. The selection and grouping of the heroes invites commentary. I shall say no more about the Dacian sovereigns, whose rise in status I have already noted. However, the clever balance between the Romanian provinces is worth noting, with Transylvania situated, as a Romanian land, on the same level as the other two principalities. (In addition, the captions employ the terms: Romanian Land of Muntenia, Romanian Land o Moldavia, Romanian Land of Transylvania). Thanks to the trios of Gelu, Glad and Menumorut, and Horea, Closca aand Crisan, the Transylvanian heroes are actually more numerous than those of Wallachia or Moldavia, illustrating the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausescu era.
My citation was this:
Emphasizing this trio illustrates the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausecu era in Romania.
Doesn't
Carpaticus think that kind of reflects what the reference says in this section? Probably overemphasizing would be more correct.
It would be nice if
Carpaticus wouldn't mix the citations, because their existence is questioned in another part of the book, not here. I repeat: I cited the book almost word by word, because new user insisted on that not knowing about copyright problems.
Their existence was questioned here (p. 124-125):
Rather than being real people, these three seem to be symbolic figures, the individualizations of a certain political idea
Again: how many threads does Carpaticus want to continue on this? One would be enough. Squash Racket ( talk) 08:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether they admit it or not, what gives Romanians complexes is the absence, for a thousand years, of a Romanian state, the lack of a political tradition deeply rooted in time, comparable with that of the neighboring nations.
inventing out of nothing a Romanian republic in the year 271
I only wanted to show that you didn't present everything what the book says here clearly. This section shows the large influence of national communism on Romanian historiography too. You simply ignored that.
So if Romanian historians invented 271, we should accept without criticism what they wrote about the 10th century, right?
Squash Racket (
talk) 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that this unreferenced bit from the article is untrue and is, indeed, absurd:
I suspect that 'Ultra-Silvam' means the same as 'Transylvania'. I.e. 'Beyond the Forest' not 'Ultra-Forested'! Also it is not clear whether 'ultra silvam' is meant to be the name of Transylvania or a description of it. Colin4C ( talk) 11:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I opened this section in order to help to mediate last days editing conflict. The main controversy is about the reliability of this Hungarian chronicle, which I observed is contested by some Hungarian historians, including the facts and the historical figures described within, including Gelou, Glad and Menumorout. So, is it a document that historians can trust or not? My opinion is that is a reliable historical document because:
Carpaticus ( talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Boia closely examines the process of historical culture and conscience in nineteenth and twentieth century Romania, particularly concentrating on the impact of the national ideology on history. Based upon his findings, the author identifies several key mythical configurations and analyses the manner in which Romanians have reconstituted their own highly ideologized history over the last two centuries.
It is a reliable source and this is relevant information.the priviliged position of these figures tended to put brakes on the normal exercise of Romanian critical historiography
. This means this theory either happened or not (see above about the Gesta), but the national communism era pumped it up. Squash Racket ( talk) 06:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Rather than being real people, these three seem to be symbolic figures, the individualizations of a certain political idea
Instead that I wrote:Thanks to the trios of Gelu, Glad, and Menomorut and Horea, Closca and Crisan, the Transylvanian heroes are actually more numerous than those of Wallachia or Moldavia, illustrating the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausecu era in Romania.
Very false presentation? I think it still borders copyright problems. Squash Racket ( talk) 06:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Emphasizing this trio illustrates the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausecu era in Romania.
Regarding what you say about Gesta Hungarorum: "nobody is really convinced" about it. I can tell you that are many books written by neutral authors who are prestigious historians, professors at Cambridge and the University of York who mention without any doubt Gesta Hungarorum and the three characters: Gelou, Menumorout and Glad [ [5]]. These historians are "nobody"? I believe that you see only what you like to see, the other opinions just don't matter for you. Carpaticus ( talk) 06:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I repeat once again: we are not chatting about the Gesta, I'd like to know why a reliable/relevant source got removed with the citations. That's all. The Gesta citations were not removed from the article. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The article cited by you
was written by Matei Cazacu (Romanian sounding name), NOT Cambridge historians. Again: this encyclopedia is NOT
Britannica.
Squash Racket (
talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
May we ask for unprotection of the article? I hope by now you also think some criticism of the
fringe theory IS valid.
Squash Racket (
talk) 10:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
After 1683 victory over the Turkish armies at the gates of Vienna, Transylvania came under Habsburg rule. [1] All Austrian emperors took the title Prince of Transylvania administering the country through governors. This status was changed by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, when Transylvania became an integral part of Hungary. Carpaticus ( talk) 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Squash Racket ( talk) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors.
Squash Racket ( talk) 03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)In 1699 the Turks conceded their loss of Transylvania (Treaty of Carlowitz); the anti-Habsburg elements within the principality submitted to the emperor in 1711 (Peace of Szatmár).
A whole paragraph has been recently included, based of one source which is evidently faulty cited, namely: "Transylvania, Walachia, And Moldavia From The Eleventh Century To The Seventeenth Century", A Country Study: Romania. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress
Please, correct this. Thanks, -- Vintilă Barbu ( talk) 17:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The page is protected, I am not a registered user, and I want to write the interwiki in aragonese language an:Transilbania, can anybody do it?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.121.111 ( talk) 10:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
So Julius Caesar was using the phrase "Ardeunna Silva" to describe land of forrested hights, it is used in hundreds of locations with the root "Ard" not "Erd" and in English language which has 40 % of words coming directly from Latin and 0 % coming from Hungarian language but the word Transilvania came through Hungarian and not through Latin. How much history can you falsify dear hungarians ? Rezistenta ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The reference says the Latin form was derived from the Hungarian, so this theory questions that it was used in 50 BC.
Pennsylvania is a direct translation of an English term (Penn's forest), not an original Latin term. Thank you for your help.
Squash Racket (
talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The sufix silvania is a translation according to the source, I hope you understand that. Would you elaborate on that "trustful source" please? Squash Racket ( talk) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The other source supporting the 50BC version is this one: Delamarre pp.51-52. Which book is that? Squash Racket ( talk) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. Who deleted references based on ethnicity, you or me? I say this: all relevant theories should be presented with sources, let the reader decide which one to trust.
For the fourth time -
what is this "source"?
Squash Racket (
talk) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is
the English "reference": I didn't find anything about 50 BC here.
So the Belgian website was added by you hoping nobody checks it?
Squash Racket (
talk) 09:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
At
John Hunyadi you want to remove a reference because it's not English. So why should we keep the French one here?
Where does the Belgian source say anything about Transylvania?
What does the English reference prove?
Squash Racket (
talk) 09:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I need a full quote from the French source per WP:NONENG.
Well, I won't register, but it doesn't matter, both theories are presented in the text.
Squash Racket (
talk) 10:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not add the academic Romanian view as present in etymological dictionaries [6] and which incidently coincides with the so-called Hungarian view? As a Romanian I feel offended that pseudoscience creeps in wikipedia articles under the label "Romanian veiw". Plinul cel tanar ( talk) 14:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a paragraph in the Etymology section about a "somewhat similar phrase" “Ardeunna Silva”. I do not understand why is it important to mention a somewhat similar phrase used by Caesar. Can someone explain it to me? It seems to me it is not fit to this section. Faller ( talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Until someone explain the relevance of this paragraph I copied it there:
I place this unsupported paragraph here from the Etymology section Faller ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC):
Examples: Ardal (Iran) , Arduba (Albania), Ardnin (Austria), Ardel (Italy), Ardelu (France), Arduinna (region of Belgium, Luxembourg and France) etc. [4]
Ultra silvam doesn't mean "extremely forested"; it means "beyond the forest", "on the other side of the forest" -- or just about exactly the same meaning as the phrase Trans silvam. The word Transylvania is a convenient packaging of the phrase Trans silvam together into a one-word place name (as also in Pennsylvania...). AnonMoos ( talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
But then, aren't they all?
It's a shame there isn't a standard tag for "This section reads like a tourist brochure". 60.234.182.52 ( talk) 06:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Carpaticus ( talk) 11:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The coat of arms used in the article is the coat of arms of Romania, not Transylvania. I suggest using the historical Coat of Arms also used in Romania's one in the lower-right corner. Everyonesequal ( talk) 13:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The citation from Magocsi says: "It is actually the influential, though unreliable, twelfth-century chronicle by "Anonymous," Gesta Hungarorum, that is the source for the theory that Rusyns ..." Squash Racket ( talk) 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
there are some issues with the country box for transivania. For one, Transilvania is not a country. Secondly, whoever put in the population probably did so by adding up the populations of the counties that ROUGHLY make up the province, however as noted on the map they do not really represent the historical territory of Transilvania. Finally, the flag is the FLAG the province had at one time, however Transilvania had many flags, for example the bicolour flag and the "tricolor" of the Transilvanian Directorate of 1918-1920. Dapiks ( talk) 07:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The intro is based on Britannica and unless there is some explanation to changes without other citations it should be reverted. I've made a report at WP:ANI. Squash Racket ( talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Note to readers: the two version can be compared here.
I edited the intro after because common sense told me that some phrases could be improved ( Wikipedia:Article development) and because I failed to answer some questions. I detail below.
→ ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Reliable, neutral references are the key in this project. You changed the wording of a neutral, reliable reference ( Britannica). You seem to be a beginner, so let me explain the basic rules here to you and not vice versa, OK? Squash Racket ( talk) 19:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to inform you, the phrases "The Hungarians conquered...", "the Magyar tribes slowly occupied Transylvania..." were removed and replaced with the factual and clear "the territory of Transylvania was .. incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary" because they have ethnic overtones, are repetitive, and they are in contrast with the general way in which Wikipedia articles (especially lead paragraphs) are made. Nonetheless, I left the phrase "ruled .. by Calvinist Hungarian princes". ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 16:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
A chronicle, by definition, contains events, not legends; the events narrated in a chronicle are not presented as legends. Quite the opposite, if a legend is meant to be presented as factual, then the chronicler would certainly NOT say that what he states is/may/could be a fabrication. It would undermine his authority. Anyway, according to the reference (Ioan Aurel Pop, The History of Transylvania) Anonymous's account is enforced by archeological, linguistical, etc. arguments (btw. how come other accounts of Anonymous are corroborated by other writings such as Legenda Sancti Gerardi - see for example Ahtum - if they are fabrications?) ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to ask you all what do you think about renaming the Etymology section to Name. The section deals with the name of the region, not only with its etymology. Transylvania was not called only like that, but it has at leas three names, so the name of the section is missleading. The section contains information not only about the etymology of the word "Transylvania", but also of "Erdély"/"Ardeal" and "Siebenbürgen". Moreover, the section lead contains the following message: "Main article: Historical names of Transylvania". ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
(...)the author probably had no information (apart from some familial and tribal legends) regarding the actual circumstances of the conquest. Thus he invented enemies and rivals for his heroes to vanquish; he casually borrowed the names of rivers (Laborc), mountains (Tarcal and Zobor), and castles (Gyalu) to conjure up knights and chieftains (e.g., the Bulgarian Laborcy, the Cuman Turzol, the Czech Zobur, and the Vlach Gelou) who are not mentioned in other primary sources. They also emphasize that Anonymus obviously had no knowledge of the settlers' real enemies (e.g., Svatopluk II, Emperor Arnulf I, the Bulgar Tzar Simeon); of the settlers' actual adversaries, which included the Moravians, Slovenes, Karantans, Franks, and Bavarians, he knew only of the Bulgarians. Thus he arbitrarily counted among the Hungarians' opponents the Czechs, who at the time lived exclusively in the Czech Basin; the Cumanians, who moved to Europe only in the 11th century; and the Vlachs which suggest that his choices reflect the ethnic and political realities of the 12th century.
No. I think this is simply too controversial to be in the lead. It misleads readers instead of informing them. Squash Racket ( talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute among historians over whether Hungarians or Romanians first entered the territory of Transylvania.
The infobox was recently reintroduced into this article without discussion. I don't think it belongs here as it wasn't created for historical regions, but I'm open to debate on this. I think an infobox with GDP data for a historical region is awkward, this kind of data belongs in other articles. Squash Racket ( talk) 08:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In have rewritten the introduction due to the reasons exposed just above at Talk:Transylvania#New_intro. Since other editors involved in the editing of this article, and who have other points of view, haven't even bothered answering to any of the points, I will be of good faith and assume this was because of the controversial paragraph about how "In the 10th century Transylvania allegedly witnessed the emergence of the first attested Romanian polity. This episode of the region's history is controversial, as the account itself may be a legend". Even though I still believe that it's a balanced and needful piece of information, I will not re-add it, at least for the moment. I have also removed the "ruled mostly by Hungarian princes" in the paragraph "in 1526 it became an autonomous principality, ruled mostly by Calvinist Hungarian princes under the Ottoman Empire's suzerainty", since it's more than is needed/required for a lead section. Arguably, what mattered most was the fact that the region had an absolute Romanian majority (may it be immigrant), than the ethnicity of some who have ruled it at some point during its 1000 years old history. ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 03:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your points:
I modified the lead addressing the points I considered at least partly valid. Squash Racket ( talk) 09:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
→ ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I also couldn't find this in your "version", though earlier this seemed important to you:
There is an ongoing dispute among historians over whether Hungarians or Romanians first entered the territory of Transylvania.
And you didn't even mention deleting this information:
The Hungarians conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003. [5]
` ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 07:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute among historians over whether Hungarians or Romanians first entered the territory of Transylvania.
The Hungarians conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003. [5]
I think "Central European region comprising part of Romania since the end of
World War I" would be better than that, but
User:ITSENJOYABLE keeps removing it and there are rules against edit warring on Wikipedia, so I'm going with the second best. Still better than "historical region of Romania" (his favored version), which is POV knowing the history of that region to say the least.
Britannica says "historic eastern European region", I'm fine with that too.
Squash Racket (
talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
These are CATEGORIES. The article's first words are historic eastern European region. Please don't confuse the actual article with the categorisation. Squash Racket ( talk) 08:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop the
personal attacks please.
Not to mention the fact that this can't be the most important issue with the article as I even offered to accept "historical region in Romania", but User:ITSENJOYABLE still decided to revert to his version deleting among others references to the Treaty of Trianon (a crucial event in the history of Transylvania), the following quote from Britannica:
The Hungarians conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003. [5] [6].
I added "the historical region of Hungary" part after I saw the editor was deleting all other references to Hungary (also the sources). He tries to present this as the "only version I accept" trying to hide the context of his disruptive editing pattern.
I'm encouraging reviewers to look at all changes that result from his edits besides that one.
Squash Racket (
talk) 08:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As the lead didn't reflect the scholarly debate over the population of Transylvania before the Hungarians anymore, I added a short sentence about it with a link to the article with the details. I left the Britannica sentence in the lead, but Britannica is still a tertiary source, while secondary sources contain different theories about this time. Squash Racket ( talk) 09:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these years would be problematic (exept it's 106, not 105). But if you insist to remove all years, I conceed. Dc76\ talk 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone insert please the citation in below on the Line 66 to the image Magyars in Transylvania (10-11th) century. thanks.
<ref>KÖPECZI Béla (editor) - HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA [Bóna István - The Settlement of Transylvania in the 10th and 11th Centuries], Primary translation by Szaffkó Péter et al. - Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, ISBN 0-88033-479-7 http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/54.html</ref>
Aakmaros (
talk) 12:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
...Is not a reliable source, just a Romanian POV site made by someone, to push non academic views. Some example from its homepage:
Transylvania it means Erdőelve later Erdély translated into Latin as Trans (Beyond) Silvania (Forest or Trees). During the Hungarian Kingdom the official language of Hungary was the Latin, all geographical names had been tarnslated from Hungarian into Latin. As you may not know but the indigenous population of Transylvania were the Hungarians so the beside the Hungarian also the Latin was in use.
The indigenous population of Transilvania were the Dacians, the capital Sarmizegetusa being built here (Orastie Mountains). The Hungarians came later and they found here the Daco-Romans population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Doandes ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The data seems contradictory, but if you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources, one should avoid tertiary sources (i.e. Encyclopedias like the 2 examples you offered), including Britannica:
"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."
The primary source in this case is Diploma Leopoldinum (the text of which I could not find) and, as example of contradictions in Britannica (Britannica was cited in support of Transylvania becoming again part of the Kingdom of Hungary after 1699):
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1459175/Diploma-Leopoldinum
"Introduced after years of anarchy and war, the Diploma offered the promise of internal order and cultural and vocational opportunities for all three nations of Transylvania in their own languages. It soon became apparent, however, that the Diploma had not secured autonomy for Transylvania, as the leadership of the principality came under the direct influence of the Vienna chancellery. Transylvania was therefore severed from Hungary for the next two centuries."
I cited only secondary sources and, because I am Romanian, I cited Hungarian or neutral authors, avoiding Romanian sources.
Your second source only states that the staus did not changed when Transylvania was declared Grand Principality.--
Bluehunt (
talk) 06:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Britannica about Transylvania: "Transylvania, historic eastern European region. After forming part of Hungary (11th–16th century), it was an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire (16th–17th century) and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century". And the Diploma Leopoldinum speaks about administrative facts: "The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors". Yes, within the Kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania was separate from administrative Hungary, beacuse it was ruled by the Governor. And the proclamation of Grand Pricipality was a only a formality. Toroko ( talk) 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think, Grand pricipality of transylvania should be mentioned at the top of the article, because it was only a mere formality. Toroko ( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
And the governors of the Translyvanian province were most of the time Hungarians, Hungarian influence was notable. Toroko ( talk) 19:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The point made by Bluehunt still stays, you cite tertiary sources and he cites secondary sources. If you think these secondary sources are false, you can have them tagged as dubious or unreliable. Eventually you should come with other secondary sources as well. The issue is important as the sources you two cite seem to be contradictory. So I propose this form as a compromise solution. For now, both sources are cited, with their content. It remains to settle this down with additional citations as they become available. Octavian8 ( talk) 21:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't nominal, because hungary was autonomous within the habsburg empire. There is no empire where the leaders can define every single aspect. Toroko ( talk) 15:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
There are some issues with this reference that make me believe that it should be deleted. Some of them are listed below.
Perhaps we interpret ' sovereignty' differently, but the vast majority of references, that are already in the article, point to the fact that Hungary had no control over Transylvania after it was incorporated into the Habsburg empire until 1867. The contrary is supported by a single reference, i.e., Reference [1]: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf and I cite " The Habsburgs, while recognizing Hungarian sovereignty over Transylvania...".
The same reference ( http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf) mentions a change in the ethnic composition of Transylvania (by immigration of non-Hungarians) during the time this was under Habsburg control. I am lost at which census and which demographic data is the base of this wild allegation. I also understand that some people here try to give the Roessler theory more weight by such references, but I believe they are actually hurting their own cause by using references of such low quality. Also, the same references, supports the idea of the Daco-roman continuity by stating that 'It is likely that elements of the mixed Daco–Roman population held out in Transylvania or in the adjoining mountain fastness'... Octavian8 ( talk) 11:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not doubting this is a good faith source. I am simply saying the compiling of information that they have done has left us with too many questions in that sentence. What exactly is wrong with the edit I did which from my pov gives a better version? Dc76\ talk 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Part of the talk here seems to have been archived, but I can't fin the archive..., also the discussion here may be still on. Octavian8 ( talk) 13:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There are some issues with this reference that make me believe that it should be deleted. Some of them are listed below.
Perhaps we interpret ' sovereignty' differently, but the vast majority of references, that are already in the article, point to the fact that Hungary had no control over Transylvania after it was incorporated into the Habsburg empire until 1867. The contrary is supported by a single reference, i.e., Reference [1]: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf and I cite " The Habsburgs, while recognizing Hungarian sovereignty over Transylvania...".
The same reference ( http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf) mentions a change in the ethnic composition of Transylvania (by immigration of non-Hungarians) during the time this was under Habsburg control. I am lost at which census and which demographic data is the base of this wild allegation. I also understand that some people here try to give the Roessler theory more weight by such references, but I believe they are actually hurting their own cause by using references of such low quality. Also, the same references, supports the idea of the Daco-roman continuity by stating that 'It is likely that elements of the mixed Daco–Roman population held out in Transylvania or in the adjoining mountain fastness'... Octavian8 ( talk) 11:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not doubting this is a good faith source. I am simply saying the compiling of information that they have done has left us with too many questions in that sentence. What exactly is wrong with the edit I did which from my pov gives a better version? Dc76\ talk 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Please change the word representatves. right spelling: representatives 93.122.218.132 ( talk) 04:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "Outside Romania, the region is also often associated with Bram Stoker's novel Dracula," is a good point, but I would recommend changing the wording a bit to either: "Outside Romania and Hungary..." "Outside Central Europe..." or other suggestions? Emika22 ( talk) 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody who has the right add the Slovak translation for Transylvania next to the Hungarian, Romanian and German? I see this as justified, since Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary and at times significant portion of the now-Slovak territory was ruled by the Prince of Transylvania. The translation is "Sedmohradsko" Ohtar ( talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Szekler Land >>>>>>>>>> Szekely Land
80.98.187.247 ( talk) 20:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think that lead section of the article is a bit POV. First, there is a question whether lead section about one geographical region should contain any historical references. I think not. Since this is primarily geographical article, the lead section should contain only basic geographical data about region, for example its location, size, population, etc, while all historical references should be in the separate "History" section and not in the lead section. So, I propose removing any mention of the history of the region from the lead section. But, if other users do not agree with that, then I propose that we expand current historical references in the lead section and to mention that region belonged to ancient Dacian state. Current version of the article that mention Kingdom of Hungary, but not Dacia is really POV and anti-Romanian, and even me (I am not an Romanian) can see that. PANONIAN (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
My impression is that indeed there is a confusion between two separate notions:
These two are different, and the article should clarify it. Dpotop 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
When did Transylvania cease to exist as a political entity? The Hungarians tried to do it in 1848, and then succeeded under the Ausgleich (but when?). Then, was Transylvania autonomous for some months in Greater Romania, or not? This should be mentioned somewhere. Dpotop 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
The current article maintains a confusion between historical Transylvania and what is today understood by Transilvania (i.e. the territory that went to Romania in 1918). This is not OK. Of course, it is difficult to solve this problem, but let's think about it. My first note is that it's not OK to put the picture of today's Transylvania next to the text talking about the medieval principality. Dpotop 22:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
"as a voivodship with a large autonomy" funny ... Let's see this sentence: "In Romania, a prefect is the governmental representative in a county (judeţ), in an agency called prefectură. ". gotcha. this is a perfect definition for the "voivodship of Transylvania" in the Middle age. So what is the definition again: In the Kingdom of Hungary, a voivode was the governmental(King's) representative in a 7 county (judeţ), in an agency called voivodeship. Great! Another fact: the voivode of Transylvania never was vassal of the King... -- fz22 12:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
No objection in my second amendment. I think the form "The Transylvanian state" is much more expressive showing that the period between 1570-c.1690 is unique in the history of the region.-- fz22 13:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
The voivodeship question: i see no original research just a proof. The voivode was something similiar to the prefect title: military and judiciary representative of the king in a distant region. Ruler, autonomy? cloak and dragger story, but no more... Transylvania ruler in those days was called King of Hungary, not voivode. Regards -- fz22 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I have two problems with this article.
1. I don't understand the relevance of the fragment "part of the Gepid Kingdom". If it was any such kingdom, than the fragment can be very well replaced by a link to the article Gepid Kingdom. If not, than why use the fragment?
2. I don't see how the mentioned reference supports "Gepid Kingdom". In lack of appropiate term, it can be used, but please specify the compromise/concensus. Until the evidence will pop up, this is qualified as original research.
My note is that indeed "Gepid kings" seems to rely heavily on the fact Gepids are said to have a kingdom, but unless you have proper scholarsip to clarify this (the structures of power in Gepid world), I don't see there's any place for the information in Wikipedia. Scribus 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
On 26 January an unregistered user started playing around with the 2002 Census data. The official 2002 Census data are public and can be easily checked by downloading the full tables from the official website [1] or by checking the database tools from the Ethnocultural Diversity Resource Centre website [2]. According the these results, in 2002 the total population in Transylvania was 7,221,733, of which 5,393,552 (74.69%) Romanians, 1,415,718 (19.60%) Hungarians, 244,475 (3.39%) Roma and 53,077 (0.73%) Germans. Alexrap 13:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
A question for Fz22: You recently edit the Population section saying that "630,000 inhabitants moved from Regat to Transylvania, and 250,000 from Transylvania to Regat, most notably to Bucharest". What is the period when this internal migration was supposed to take place? You also put a reference for that statement, namely "Recensămîntul populaţiei şi al locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie 1977, Vol I, Populaţie - structura demografică". Bucureşti, 1980. My question is: were the figures taken from that book (if so, please put the page numbers on the reference list) or were they taken from another book (and if so, please cite that book)? I am asking because according to a Hungarian book (Árpád Varga, Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995) that also cites the same Romanian Census, the numbers are quite different than the ones you put into the article. Alexrap 13:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
My messages about the Banat issue are systematically being avoided. Without a word, editors that seem to "own" the article keep extending Transylvania to areas which are far from being Transylvania. It is a big mistake to only take into account the so-called "Cluj-current of thought"- a quite recent one. As to the Cluj historians love-affair with the term Transylvania, there is no doubt. Unscientifically they made it bigger than it is, (the article unbelievably calls it: "extended version") there's no doubt. But other than that there is no historic ground on which you can assert that Transylvania would (etymologically or not) include such a distinct region as the Banat (for which I can speak and I'm primarly concerned). I provided you with details and would provide you with the whole bibliography about the Banat region and if you can get one statement or even slight interpretation, that the Banat is part of Transylvania, then I'm convinced.
Here's also my previous message: I don't know if the point was considered settled but that's far from being the case. The Banat region is no part of Transilvania. A good analyse of the improper inclusion of Banat in Transilvania can be found here: (in romanian) Apartine Banatul de Transilvania? Nu! by banatian historian Sorin Fortiu. I added a "citation needed" tag at the beginning. It follows that all references to the counties and the cities of Banat are also false. -- Radufan 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Please answer using the book or whatever source you are making the statements, in your hand and ready for confrontation. This has to be settled, what's happening here is insane. -- Radufan 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
PS:Please provide citation for the distinction between a so-called "core-territory" and the so-called "extended version"-- Radufan 00:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It has unquestionably become a rather common oversimplification, so to say, to use the "extended version" of the name Transylvania as explained in the article. (As mentioned already earlier by some: it is commonly said that Romania is made up of three main parts: Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania, and also that 1 December 1918 marks the union of Transylvania with Romania. Unless someone wants to argue that the Banat is part of Wallachia, or not part of Romania at all, this should be more than enough for a proof.) If those living in (or otherwise emotionally connected with) the Banat find this change in the use of the term regrettable or even offensive, the right way to proceed is to mention this in the article; I don't think there is a point in the OR and CN tags inserted recently. K issL 08:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Other points to be considered:
Whether on purpose or by chance, this is a straw man argument. Nobody said the Banat actually is a subregion of Transylvania in a geographical sense. Nobody said that indignation or offence is to be dismissed. (Much nearer the opposite, in fact.) I think I have made the point as clear as it gets: this usage is a geographically, culturally, [insert other qualifiers here] incorrect oversimplification, yet it has become common. Thus if we want our reader to understand what any other sources he may be reading mean by the word "Transylvania", we'll have to include this – incorrect – definition. As to your only argument that is actually countering this point – the question "commonly said by whom?" –, I can only say for sure that it is commonly said in Hungary (which might already be reason enough to include this definition, since a significant amount of sources talking about Transylvania will stem from Hungarians), but your fellow Romanian editors have repeatedly asserted that it is the same in Romania. Obviously, it's not the Banatians that will be ignorant about the exact geography of the region they live in – nor even the Transylvanians, I guess –, rather those who live in neither of these two regions: in the rest of Romania or in Hungary. So the fact that a Banatian has never heard this kind of usage doesn't prove anything. K issL 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Banat is just a subregion of Transylvania. After 89 people Timisoara began to think of themselves too highly and began to forge a new identity, that has nothing to do with history or geography. It was not enough that the Plain of the Theiss was artificially split by the Serbo-Hungaro-Romanian border, now it's split again by these haughty Timisoreans. Enough with these "ghermanist" ideas.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.1.180 ( talk)
Hmmm, did I hear someone say straw man? :) K issL 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
I've seen that people suggested several versions for listing the different parts of Transylvania. I suggest we discuss in here about these issue and hopefully produce the best version in the end. Here are some of my comments:
Why aren't these names even mentioned in this article? Legend or not, the three should at least be referenced in an article about Transylvania. The Romanian version of this article does reference these pre-Magyar rulers.
Menumorout = Ménmarót. Hungarian name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.112.212 ( talk) 03:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
The thesis of Romanian immigration in Transylvania in the 17-18th centuries is controversial and AFAIK rejected by most Romanian scholars. D. Prodan dedicated a large part of his work to Romanian population from Transylvania living in this period and he rejects the thesis of immigration with impressive arguments. Therefore the view that Romanian population grew to a majority in 18th century cannot be added without mentioning the opposite view, that Romanian were majoritarian even before the first census was conducted. If you believe in the section of demographics we should detail on the historiogaphical controversy in estimating Transylvanian demographics, then I'll try to provide the missing information from Romanian scholars. The first official census for the entire Transylvania, IIRC, is that of Joseph II. I will try to find a scholarly source on that and solve the {cn} tag. Daizus 15:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I saw from the maps on this article that Banat is considered part of Transylvania, which is not correct, only ignorants consider this way. A correction is necesarry.-- MariusM 12:25, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Sure. And Kuala Lumpur is the capital of the USA.
Recently, the bluelink to Mezőség in the "Geography and Ethnography" section has been changed to a redlink to Câmpia Transilvaniei. I'm not an ethnographist, so my means to prove which of the two names is more ethnographically relevant are limited, but the Google test has a pretty clear result. I also wonder why the editors insisting on using the Romanian designation of the particular area choose to fight for this here rather than proving their point at Talk:Mezőség. Any third opinions? K issL 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Mezoseg and Campia Transylvaniei aren't two overlapping region by all means. The Hungarian Mezoseg is consisted of several important settlements like: Szek, Magyarszovat, Nagysarmas, Uzdiszentpeter, etc and I have no infos about they really belong to the Romanian -ethnographycaly speaking -Campia Transylvaniei region too?! So using an "official" term for them is inadequate here -- fz22 19:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry if I intrude: I see no problem with having a disambig with two articles - the dance and the geographic area - in fact this is recommended to lumping them together. Also, it would be nice to give the exact composition of the area: what localities, and in which county(ies) are the situated nowadays. This should also help deciding whether Mezoseg and Campia Transylvaniei are the same or differnt areas. : Dc76 19:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
We seem to have a lot of articles on Transylvania. Besides this one we have at least: History of Transylvania, Historical names of Transylvania, Coat of arms of Transylvania, List of Transylvanians, Transylvania in fiction, Transylvanian Saxons, Union of Transylvania with Romania, Northern Transylvania, List of Transylvanian rulers, Ancient history of Transylvania, to name just those that I can find, not to mention all of those on the Kingdom of Hungary or various ethnic groups in the area. Yet there are regions/counties within Transylvania on which there are either no articles or the names aren't linked to the main article.
Since I'm coming at this as part of WikiProject European History and since Transylvania is itself an historical region it seems proper to try to get a handle on all of the articles on Transylvania at once. Although a bit beyond the scope of a Collaboration of the Month, it will be hard to really improve this article without at least considering the relevance of the others.
-- Doug.( talk • contribs) 04:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What's with the Transylvanian Diet? No, first, WHAT IS IT? It's in the introduction. Basketball 110 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003 when their king Stephen I, according to legend, defeated the native prince Gyula.
When Austria-Hungary was defeated in World War I, the Romanians of Transylvania in late 1918 proclaimed the land united with Romania.
Quote from Britannica:
The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary
Hungary was controlled by the Habsburgs, but Transylvania was still attached to Hungary from 1687.
Another quote from their lead:
historic eastern European region. After forming part of Hungary (11th–16th century), it was an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire (16th–17th century) and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century; later it was incorporated into Romania (1918–20).
I know we could mention every single year, but the question is: what are the key dates here? 1071 is the new key date? Don't think so. BTW is there a reliable English language source mentioning that, because
Britannica's short summary misses that "important" year too.
It is a region of Romania from 1918/1920. That's what the original version pointed out.
Squash Racket (
talk) 10:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Just like Britannica (don't want to repeat the quote from the beginning of this thread) Columbia Encyclopedia also mentions the year 1003 (which has been "cca. 1000" in the infobox, but 1003 is also OK with me), so it definitely seems to be important in understanding the history of this region:
they did not fully control it until 1003, when King Stephen I placed it under the Hungarian crown.
Squash Racket ( talk) 10:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Britannica highlights the following in its summary in the lead of its own article:historic eastern European region. After forming part of Hungary (11th–16th century), it was an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire (16th–17th century) and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century; later it was incorporated into Romania (1918–20).
Let us think the issue unpartially: when does Transylvania's history begin? In the year 1003? Well, isn't Dacia a part of Transylvania's histrory?-- Olahus ( talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
How about the merging of the articles Transylvania and Principality of Transylvania ?-- Olahus ( talk) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Transylvania is only a historical region and a former principality. I thoght about something like in the case of Moldavia, a historical region and a former principality. -- Olahus ( talk) 17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I just took a quick look, but to me it seems that Moldavia was a principality all along, while this is not the case with Transylvania. I don't know whether the phrase "Moldavia" is used today, but "Transylvania" is still in use.
BTW you seemed to agree with
FZ22's proposal to remove most of the redundant history from this article and leave it only in
History of Transylvania.
Squash Racket (
talk) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear Idsocol! You don't want to start another revert war on the subject, do you? OK, fixed :)) bye -- fz22 ( talk) 09:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The gypsies are not known as tatari, the Tatars are known as Tătari and tătăraşi is an area in the moldovan (region not country) city of Iasi. Ţigani is sometimes viewed as pejorative so we might want to avoid the term. I'm not actually familiar with the demographic numbers to know if there are any significant Tatar presence that far west or I'd do my own edit. TMLutas ( talk) 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some explanation is needed regarding this unacceptable deletion and
this edit summary.
Why don't you accept relevant referenced material (I cited the book almost word by word about the topic) especially when it comes to this controversial material?
Squash Racket (
talk) 13:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Please don't. I don't want to copy my arguments to another section. I think this is a very simple question about whether the source is according to Wikipedia policies.
Squash Racket (
talk) 05:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of things here that
I don't like, but I am not allowed to just delete those, because that's not a good enough reason here. If an information is presented in a reliable source, it can be/should be added.
You are a newcomer, so I didn't want to put overload on you, but for example the information you presented regarding Hunyadi, belongs into his own article only. Genealogy data shouldn't be repeated every single time his name is mentioned in other articles.
One more thing for now: your insistance on citing exactly what the source says is considered
copyright violation, that's why I changed a bit what the book says, but you removed it.
Squash Racket (
talk) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Still no valid reason given for your deletion. The book
even mentions the three names repeatedly, so its relevance can not be questioned. Title=History and myth in Romanian consciousness.
About the book:
Boia closely examines the process of historical culture and conscience in nineteenth and twentieth century Romania, particularly concentrating on the impact of the national ideology on history. Based upon his findings, the author identifies several key mythical configurations and analyses the manner in which Romanians have reconstituted their own highly ideologized history over the last two centuries.
Squash Racket ( talk) 06:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to the trios of Gelu, Glad, and Menomorut and Horea, Closca and Crisan, the Transylvanian heroes are actually more numerous than those of Wallachia or Moldavia, illustrating the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausecu era in Romania.
For a complete and systematic illustration of the rating of personalities in the last years of the communist dictatorship, we need look no further than the sequence of busts lined up in the front of the National Military Museum in Bucharest-an official and competent guide. Here is how the great figures of history are laid out: Dromichetes and Burebista; Decebalus and Trajan; Gelu, Glad and Menumorut; Basarab, Roland Borsa and Bogdan; Mircea the Old and Alexander the Good; Iancu de HUnedoara, Stephen the Great and Vlad Tepes; Michael the Brave, Dimitrie Cantemir, Constantin Brancoveanu and Ferenc Rakoczi II; Horea Closca and Crisan; Tudor Vladimirescu; Balcescu and Avram Iancu; Kogalnicanu and Cuza. The selection and grouping of the heroes invites commentary. I shall say no more about the Dacian sovereigns, whose rise in status I have already noted. However, the clever balance between the Romanian provinces is worth noting, with Transylvania situated, as a Romanian land, on the same level as the other two principalities. (In addition, the captions employ the terms: Romanian Land of Muntenia, Romanian Land o Moldavia, Romanian Land of Transylvania). Thanks to the trios of Gelu, Glad and Menumorut, and Horea, Closca aand Crisan, the Transylvanian heroes are actually more numerous than those of Wallachia or Moldavia, illustrating the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausescu era.
My citation was this:
Emphasizing this trio illustrates the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausecu era in Romania.
Doesn't
Carpaticus think that kind of reflects what the reference says in this section? Probably overemphasizing would be more correct.
It would be nice if
Carpaticus wouldn't mix the citations, because their existence is questioned in another part of the book, not here. I repeat: I cited the book almost word by word, because new user insisted on that not knowing about copyright problems.
Their existence was questioned here (p. 124-125):
Rather than being real people, these three seem to be symbolic figures, the individualizations of a certain political idea
Again: how many threads does Carpaticus want to continue on this? One would be enough. Squash Racket ( talk) 08:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Whether they admit it or not, what gives Romanians complexes is the absence, for a thousand years, of a Romanian state, the lack of a political tradition deeply rooted in time, comparable with that of the neighboring nations.
inventing out of nothing a Romanian republic in the year 271
I only wanted to show that you didn't present everything what the book says here clearly. This section shows the large influence of national communism on Romanian historiography too. You simply ignored that.
So if Romanian historians invented 271, we should accept without criticism what they wrote about the 10th century, right?
Squash Racket (
talk) 12:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that this unreferenced bit from the article is untrue and is, indeed, absurd:
I suspect that 'Ultra-Silvam' means the same as 'Transylvania'. I.e. 'Beyond the Forest' not 'Ultra-Forested'! Also it is not clear whether 'ultra silvam' is meant to be the name of Transylvania or a description of it. Colin4C ( talk) 11:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I opened this section in order to help to mediate last days editing conflict. The main controversy is about the reliability of this Hungarian chronicle, which I observed is contested by some Hungarian historians, including the facts and the historical figures described within, including Gelou, Glad and Menumorout. So, is it a document that historians can trust or not? My opinion is that is a reliable historical document because:
Carpaticus ( talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Boia closely examines the process of historical culture and conscience in nineteenth and twentieth century Romania, particularly concentrating on the impact of the national ideology on history. Based upon his findings, the author identifies several key mythical configurations and analyses the manner in which Romanians have reconstituted their own highly ideologized history over the last two centuries.
It is a reliable source and this is relevant information.the priviliged position of these figures tended to put brakes on the normal exercise of Romanian critical historiography
. This means this theory either happened or not (see above about the Gesta), but the national communism era pumped it up. Squash Racket ( talk) 06:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Rather than being real people, these three seem to be symbolic figures, the individualizations of a certain political idea
Instead that I wrote:Thanks to the trios of Gelu, Glad, and Menomorut and Horea, Closca and Crisan, the Transylvanian heroes are actually more numerous than those of Wallachia or Moldavia, illustrating the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausecu era in Romania.
Very false presentation? I think it still borders copyright problems. Squash Racket ( talk) 06:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Emphasizing this trio illustrates the obsession with Transylvania and the Hungarophobia that became accentuated towards the end of the Ceausecu era in Romania.
Regarding what you say about Gesta Hungarorum: "nobody is really convinced" about it. I can tell you that are many books written by neutral authors who are prestigious historians, professors at Cambridge and the University of York who mention without any doubt Gesta Hungarorum and the three characters: Gelou, Menumorout and Glad [ [5]]. These historians are "nobody"? I believe that you see only what you like to see, the other opinions just don't matter for you. Carpaticus ( talk) 06:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I repeat once again: we are not chatting about the Gesta, I'd like to know why a reliable/relevant source got removed with the citations. That's all. The Gesta citations were not removed from the article. Squash Racket ( talk) 07:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
The article cited by you
was written by Matei Cazacu (Romanian sounding name), NOT Cambridge historians. Again: this encyclopedia is NOT
Britannica.
Squash Racket (
talk) 10:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
May we ask for unprotection of the article? I hope by now you also think some criticism of the
fringe theory IS valid.
Squash Racket (
talk) 10:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
After 1683 victory over the Turkish armies at the gates of Vienna, Transylvania came under Habsburg rule. [1] All Austrian emperors took the title Prince of Transylvania administering the country through governors. This status was changed by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, when Transylvania became an integral part of Hungary. Carpaticus ( talk) 07:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Squash Racket ( talk) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors.
Squash Racket ( talk) 03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)In 1699 the Turks conceded their loss of Transylvania (Treaty of Carlowitz); the anti-Habsburg elements within the principality submitted to the emperor in 1711 (Peace of Szatmár).
A whole paragraph has been recently included, based of one source which is evidently faulty cited, namely: "Transylvania, Walachia, And Moldavia From The Eleventh Century To The Seventeenth Century", A Country Study: Romania. Federal Research Division, Library of Congress
Please, correct this. Thanks, -- Vintilă Barbu ( talk) 17:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The page is protected, I am not a registered user, and I want to write the interwiki in aragonese language an:Transilbania, can anybody do it?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.33.121.111 ( talk) 10:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
So Julius Caesar was using the phrase "Ardeunna Silva" to describe land of forrested hights, it is used in hundreds of locations with the root "Ard" not "Erd" and in English language which has 40 % of words coming directly from Latin and 0 % coming from Hungarian language but the word Transilvania came through Hungarian and not through Latin. How much history can you falsify dear hungarians ? Rezistenta ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The reference says the Latin form was derived from the Hungarian, so this theory questions that it was used in 50 BC.
Pennsylvania is a direct translation of an English term (Penn's forest), not an original Latin term. Thank you for your help.
Squash Racket (
talk) 17:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The sufix silvania is a translation according to the source, I hope you understand that. Would you elaborate on that "trustful source" please? Squash Racket ( talk) 17:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The other source supporting the 50BC version is this one: Delamarre pp.51-52. Which book is that? Squash Racket ( talk) 18:10, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Don't put words in my mouth. Who deleted references based on ethnicity, you or me? I say this: all relevant theories should be presented with sources, let the reader decide which one to trust.
For the fourth time -
what is this "source"?
Squash Racket (
talk) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
This is
the English "reference": I didn't find anything about 50 BC here.
So the Belgian website was added by you hoping nobody checks it?
Squash Racket (
talk) 09:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
At
John Hunyadi you want to remove a reference because it's not English. So why should we keep the French one here?
Where does the Belgian source say anything about Transylvania?
What does the English reference prove?
Squash Racket (
talk) 09:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I need a full quote from the French source per WP:NONENG.
Well, I won't register, but it doesn't matter, both theories are presented in the text.
Squash Racket (
talk) 10:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not add the academic Romanian view as present in etymological dictionaries [6] and which incidently coincides with the so-called Hungarian view? As a Romanian I feel offended that pseudoscience creeps in wikipedia articles under the label "Romanian veiw". Plinul cel tanar ( talk) 14:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There is a paragraph in the Etymology section about a "somewhat similar phrase" “Ardeunna Silva”. I do not understand why is it important to mention a somewhat similar phrase used by Caesar. Can someone explain it to me? It seems to me it is not fit to this section. Faller ( talk) 20:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Until someone explain the relevance of this paragraph I copied it there:
I place this unsupported paragraph here from the Etymology section Faller ( talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC):
Examples: Ardal (Iran) , Arduba (Albania), Ardnin (Austria), Ardel (Italy), Ardelu (France), Arduinna (region of Belgium, Luxembourg and France) etc. [4]
Ultra silvam doesn't mean "extremely forested"; it means "beyond the forest", "on the other side of the forest" -- or just about exactly the same meaning as the phrase Trans silvam. The word Transylvania is a convenient packaging of the phrase Trans silvam together into a one-word place name (as also in Pennsylvania...). AnonMoos ( talk) 17:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
But then, aren't they all?
It's a shame there isn't a standard tag for "This section reads like a tourist brochure". 60.234.182.52 ( talk) 06:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Carpaticus ( talk) 11:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The coat of arms used in the article is the coat of arms of Romania, not Transylvania. I suggest using the historical Coat of Arms also used in Romania's one in the lower-right corner. Everyonesequal ( talk) 13:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The citation from Magocsi says: "It is actually the influential, though unreliable, twelfth-century chronicle by "Anonymous," Gesta Hungarorum, that is the source for the theory that Rusyns ..." Squash Racket ( talk) 13:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
there are some issues with the country box for transivania. For one, Transilvania is not a country. Secondly, whoever put in the population probably did so by adding up the populations of the counties that ROUGHLY make up the province, however as noted on the map they do not really represent the historical territory of Transilvania. Finally, the flag is the FLAG the province had at one time, however Transilvania had many flags, for example the bicolour flag and the "tricolor" of the Transilvanian Directorate of 1918-1920. Dapiks ( talk) 07:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
The intro is based on Britannica and unless there is some explanation to changes without other citations it should be reverted. I've made a report at WP:ANI. Squash Racket ( talk) 17:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Note to readers: the two version can be compared here.
I edited the intro after because common sense told me that some phrases could be improved ( Wikipedia:Article development) and because I failed to answer some questions. I detail below.
→ ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Reliable, neutral references are the key in this project. You changed the wording of a neutral, reliable reference ( Britannica). You seem to be a beginner, so let me explain the basic rules here to you and not vice versa, OK? Squash Racket ( talk) 19:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to inform you, the phrases "The Hungarians conquered...", "the Magyar tribes slowly occupied Transylvania..." were removed and replaced with the factual and clear "the territory of Transylvania was .. incorporated into the Kingdom of Hungary" because they have ethnic overtones, are repetitive, and they are in contrast with the general way in which Wikipedia articles (especially lead paragraphs) are made. Nonetheless, I left the phrase "ruled .. by Calvinist Hungarian princes". ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 16:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
A chronicle, by definition, contains events, not legends; the events narrated in a chronicle are not presented as legends. Quite the opposite, if a legend is meant to be presented as factual, then the chronicler would certainly NOT say that what he states is/may/could be a fabrication. It would undermine his authority. Anyway, according to the reference (Ioan Aurel Pop, The History of Transylvania) Anonymous's account is enforced by archeological, linguistical, etc. arguments (btw. how come other accounts of Anonymous are corroborated by other writings such as Legenda Sancti Gerardi - see for example Ahtum - if they are fabrications?) ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 16:42, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I would like to ask you all what do you think about renaming the Etymology section to Name. The section deals with the name of the region, not only with its etymology. Transylvania was not called only like that, but it has at leas three names, so the name of the section is missleading. The section contains information not only about the etymology of the word "Transylvania", but also of "Erdély"/"Ardeal" and "Siebenbürgen". Moreover, the section lead contains the following message: "Main article: Historical names of Transylvania". ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
(...)the author probably had no information (apart from some familial and tribal legends) regarding the actual circumstances of the conquest. Thus he invented enemies and rivals for his heroes to vanquish; he casually borrowed the names of rivers (Laborc), mountains (Tarcal and Zobor), and castles (Gyalu) to conjure up knights and chieftains (e.g., the Bulgarian Laborcy, the Cuman Turzol, the Czech Zobur, and the Vlach Gelou) who are not mentioned in other primary sources. They also emphasize that Anonymus obviously had no knowledge of the settlers' real enemies (e.g., Svatopluk II, Emperor Arnulf I, the Bulgar Tzar Simeon); of the settlers' actual adversaries, which included the Moravians, Slovenes, Karantans, Franks, and Bavarians, he knew only of the Bulgarians. Thus he arbitrarily counted among the Hungarians' opponents the Czechs, who at the time lived exclusively in the Czech Basin; the Cumanians, who moved to Europe only in the 11th century; and the Vlachs which suggest that his choices reflect the ethnic and political realities of the 12th century.
No. I think this is simply too controversial to be in the lead. It misleads readers instead of informing them. Squash Racket ( talk) 17:20, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute among historians over whether Hungarians or Romanians first entered the territory of Transylvania.
The infobox was recently reintroduced into this article without discussion. I don't think it belongs here as it wasn't created for historical regions, but I'm open to debate on this. I think an infobox with GDP data for a historical region is awkward, this kind of data belongs in other articles. Squash Racket ( talk) 08:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
In have rewritten the introduction due to the reasons exposed just above at Talk:Transylvania#New_intro. Since other editors involved in the editing of this article, and who have other points of view, haven't even bothered answering to any of the points, I will be of good faith and assume this was because of the controversial paragraph about how "In the 10th century Transylvania allegedly witnessed the emergence of the first attested Romanian polity. This episode of the region's history is controversial, as the account itself may be a legend". Even though I still believe that it's a balanced and needful piece of information, I will not re-add it, at least for the moment. I have also removed the "ruled mostly by Hungarian princes" in the paragraph "in 1526 it became an autonomous principality, ruled mostly by Calvinist Hungarian princes under the Ottoman Empire's suzerainty", since it's more than is needed/required for a lead section. Arguably, what mattered most was the fact that the region had an absolute Romanian majority (may it be immigrant), than the ethnicity of some who have ruled it at some point during its 1000 years old history. ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 03:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding your points:
I modified the lead addressing the points I considered at least partly valid. Squash Racket ( talk) 09:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
→ ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I also couldn't find this in your "version", though earlier this seemed important to you:
There is an ongoing dispute among historians over whether Hungarians or Romanians first entered the territory of Transylvania.
And you didn't even mention deleting this information:
The Hungarians conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003. [5]
` ITSENJOYABLE ( talk) 07:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute among historians over whether Hungarians or Romanians first entered the territory of Transylvania.
The Hungarians conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003. [5]
I think "Central European region comprising part of Romania since the end of
World War I" would be better than that, but
User:ITSENJOYABLE keeps removing it and there are rules against edit warring on Wikipedia, so I'm going with the second best. Still better than "historical region of Romania" (his favored version), which is POV knowing the history of that region to say the least.
Britannica says "historic eastern European region", I'm fine with that too.
Squash Racket (
talk) 07:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
These are CATEGORIES. The article's first words are historic eastern European region. Please don't confuse the actual article with the categorisation. Squash Racket ( talk) 08:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Stop the
personal attacks please.
Not to mention the fact that this can't be the most important issue with the article as I even offered to accept "historical region in Romania", but User:ITSENJOYABLE still decided to revert to his version deleting among others references to the Treaty of Trianon (a crucial event in the history of Transylvania), the following quote from Britannica:
The Hungarians conquered the area at the end of the 9th century and firmly established their control over it in 1003. [5] [6].
I added "the historical region of Hungary" part after I saw the editor was deleting all other references to Hungary (also the sources). He tries to present this as the "only version I accept" trying to hide the context of his disruptive editing pattern.
I'm encouraging reviewers to look at all changes that result from his edits besides that one.
Squash Racket (
talk) 08:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As the lead didn't reflect the scholarly debate over the population of Transylvania before the Hungarians anymore, I added a short sentence about it with a link to the article with the details. I left the Britannica sentence in the lead, but Britannica is still a tertiary source, while secondary sources contain different theories about this time. Squash Racket ( talk) 09:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think these years would be problematic (exept it's 106, not 105). But if you insist to remove all years, I conceed. Dc76\ talk 10:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Could someone insert please the citation in below on the Line 66 to the image Magyars in Transylvania (10-11th) century. thanks.
<ref>KÖPECZI Béla (editor) - HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA [Bóna István - The Settlement of Transylvania in the 10th and 11th Centuries], Primary translation by Szaffkó Péter et al. - Columbia University Press, New York, 2001, ISBN 0-88033-479-7 http://mek.niif.hu/03400/03407/html/54.html</ref>
Aakmaros (
talk) 12:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
...Is not a reliable source, just a Romanian POV site made by someone, to push non academic views. Some example from its homepage:
Transylvania it means Erdőelve later Erdély translated into Latin as Trans (Beyond) Silvania (Forest or Trees). During the Hungarian Kingdom the official language of Hungary was the Latin, all geographical names had been tarnslated from Hungarian into Latin. As you may not know but the indigenous population of Transylvania were the Hungarians so the beside the Hungarian also the Latin was in use.
The indigenous population of Transilvania were the Dacians, the capital Sarmizegetusa being built here (Orastie Mountains). The Hungarians came later and they found here the Daco-Romans population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Doandes ( talk • contribs) 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The data seems contradictory, but if you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources, one should avoid tertiary sources (i.e. Encyclopedias like the 2 examples you offered), including Britannica:
"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."
The primary source in this case is Diploma Leopoldinum (the text of which I could not find) and, as example of contradictions in Britannica (Britannica was cited in support of Transylvania becoming again part of the Kingdom of Hungary after 1699):
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1459175/Diploma-Leopoldinum
"Introduced after years of anarchy and war, the Diploma offered the promise of internal order and cultural and vocational opportunities for all three nations of Transylvania in their own languages. It soon became apparent, however, that the Diploma had not secured autonomy for Transylvania, as the leadership of the principality came under the direct influence of the Vienna chancellery. Transylvania was therefore severed from Hungary for the next two centuries."
I cited only secondary sources and, because I am Romanian, I cited Hungarian or neutral authors, avoiding Romanian sources.
Your second source only states that the staus did not changed when Transylvania was declared Grand Principality.--
Bluehunt (
talk) 06:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Britannica about Transylvania: "Transylvania, historic eastern European region. After forming part of Hungary (11th–16th century), it was an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire (16th–17th century) and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century". And the Diploma Leopoldinum speaks about administrative facts: "The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors". Yes, within the Kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania was separate from administrative Hungary, beacuse it was ruled by the Governor. And the proclamation of Grand Pricipality was a only a formality. Toroko ( talk) 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think, Grand pricipality of transylvania should be mentioned at the top of the article, because it was only a mere formality. Toroko ( talk) 19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
And the governors of the Translyvanian province were most of the time Hungarians, Hungarian influence was notable. Toroko ( talk) 19:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
The point made by Bluehunt still stays, you cite tertiary sources and he cites secondary sources. If you think these secondary sources are false, you can have them tagged as dubious or unreliable. Eventually you should come with other secondary sources as well. The issue is important as the sources you two cite seem to be contradictory. So I propose this form as a compromise solution. For now, both sources are cited, with their content. It remains to settle this down with additional citations as they become available. Octavian8 ( talk) 21:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't nominal, because hungary was autonomous within the habsburg empire. There is no empire where the leaders can define every single aspect. Toroko ( talk) 15:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
There are some issues with this reference that make me believe that it should be deleted. Some of them are listed below.
Perhaps we interpret ' sovereignty' differently, but the vast majority of references, that are already in the article, point to the fact that Hungary had no control over Transylvania after it was incorporated into the Habsburg empire until 1867. The contrary is supported by a single reference, i.e., Reference [1]: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf and I cite " The Habsburgs, while recognizing Hungarian sovereignty over Transylvania...".
The same reference ( http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf) mentions a change in the ethnic composition of Transylvania (by immigration of non-Hungarians) during the time this was under Habsburg control. I am lost at which census and which demographic data is the base of this wild allegation. I also understand that some people here try to give the Roessler theory more weight by such references, but I believe they are actually hurting their own cause by using references of such low quality. Also, the same references, supports the idea of the Daco-roman continuity by stating that 'It is likely that elements of the mixed Daco–Roman population held out in Transylvania or in the adjoining mountain fastness'... Octavian8 ( talk) 11:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not doubting this is a good faith source. I am simply saying the compiling of information that they have done has left us with too many questions in that sentence. What exactly is wrong with the edit I did which from my pov gives a better version? Dc76\ talk 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Part of the talk here seems to have been archived, but I can't fin the archive..., also the discussion here may be still on. Octavian8 ( talk) 13:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
There are some issues with this reference that make me believe that it should be deleted. Some of them are listed below.
Perhaps we interpret ' sovereignty' differently, but the vast majority of references, that are already in the article, point to the fact that Hungary had no control over Transylvania after it was incorporated into the Habsburg empire until 1867. The contrary is supported by a single reference, i.e., Reference [1]: http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf and I cite " The Habsburgs, while recognizing Hungarian sovereignty over Transylvania...".
The same reference ( http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf) mentions a change in the ethnic composition of Transylvania (by immigration of non-Hungarians) during the time this was under Habsburg control. I am lost at which census and which demographic data is the base of this wild allegation. I also understand that some people here try to give the Roessler theory more weight by such references, but I believe they are actually hurting their own cause by using references of such low quality. Also, the same references, supports the idea of the Daco-roman continuity by stating that 'It is likely that elements of the mixed Daco–Roman population held out in Transylvania or in the adjoining mountain fastness'... Octavian8 ( talk) 11:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I am not doubting this is a good faith source. I am simply saying the compiling of information that they have done has left us with too many questions in that sentence. What exactly is wrong with the edit I did which from my pov gives a better version? Dc76\ talk 21:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Please change the word representatves. right spelling: representatives 93.122.218.132 ( talk) 04:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The sentence "Outside Romania, the region is also often associated with Bram Stoker's novel Dracula," is a good point, but I would recommend changing the wording a bit to either: "Outside Romania and Hungary..." "Outside Central Europe..." or other suggestions? Emika22 ( talk) 17:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Could somebody who has the right add the Slovak translation for Transylvania next to the Hungarian, Romanian and German? I see this as justified, since Slovakia was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary and at times significant portion of the now-Slovak territory was ruled by the Prince of Transylvania. The translation is "Sedmohradsko" Ohtar ( talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Szekler Land >>>>>>>>>> Szekely Land
80.98.187.247 ( talk) 20:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Britannica
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)