Talk:List of Transylvanians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have never stated that "Romanian ethnicity" means "of Romania": I have stated that the only criteria wiki seems to have adopted in categories for such lists is their present status. Before you slander me again by pretending this is about me disregarding "the right of Hungarians" and whatever, at least consider the impracticalities of such a design: using the same logic, I should go and include all Hungarian-related lists into Category:Ottoman Empire or Category:Austria. And the sophistry about how Hungarian=Hungary should imply that you hurry up and do the same for List of Slovaks. There. Dahn 13:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make this even more clear: if the list were to be 60% Romanian or Papuan, but Tr. would be part of Hungary, I would not include this on "Romania-" or "Papua-related lists". Dahn 13:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the list were to be 60% Romanian, and Transylvania would be part of Hungary, I would include it in Category:Romania-related lists. --Zoz (t) 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hungarian = Hungary-related. Don't try to say that whoever is Hungarian isn't related at all to Hungary. And if we have a list of 50 people, with 27 of them being Hungarian, I'd say that list is related to Hungary. See also: List of Transylvanian rulers. Categories: History of Hungary, History of Romania, Hungary-related lists, Romania-related lists. I fail to see why we can't have Category:Hungary-related lists next to Category:Romania-related lists. You'd say that List of English words of Hungarian origin isn't Hungary-related because it's only "Hungarian language-related"? --Zoz (t) 13:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How the hell is Hungarian ethnicity "Hungary-related"? IS anything connected to Germans connected to Germany?! Is anything connected to Jews connected to Israel?! 1. The criteria here is "by region", a region which is now in Romania. Note that Category:Aquitaine is not in "Regions of England"; note that Category:Natives of Trentino-South Tyrol does not refer to either Austria or the Holy Roman Empire. 2. Even by that criteria your argument is flawed, since, Zoz, "Autrian", "Austro-Hungarian", "a citizen of an independent state named Transylvania", a "subject of the Ottoman Empire" etc. ARE NOT NOTIONS SYNONYMOUS WITH HUNGARIAN. Please, try and get over the fact that I am Romanian (and therefore "pre-determined to resent the Hungarian heritage in Tr."), and concentrate on the sheer absurdity of categorising in this manner. Dahn 14:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, calm down. I have no problems with you being Romanian or anything. Btw, according to your reasoning, would you say that List of famous Romanians who were born outside present-day Romania being in Category:Romania-related lists is sheer absurdity? --Zoz (t) 14:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would simply do away with that list, if you are to ask me. However, if it is to stay, I have to say no. Because those people are Romanian citizens from the moment Romania existed (just wait until it gets to point out its paradoxes, and then perhaps I'll be supported in removing it). You missed the point: this does not group people by by ethnicity or citizenship, but by where they were born. That region is now in Romania, and, as I have pointed out, wikipedia disregards past sovereignties - not for the sake of jingoism, but for the sake of simplicity and logic. You could only accuse me of something if I were to go and remove people listed here from their "Hungarian something" categories, or their mention on "List of Hungarians". 14:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand me. I absolutely do not mean that this list should be included in List of Hungary-related lists because Tr. was part of Hungary. No! That would be a weak irredentist argument indeed. I'm saying that because lots of people on this list are related to Hungary. E.g. Endre Ady and János Arany were not only of Hungarian ethnicity (which is less relevant), but they were among the finest Hungarian poets ever imo. And as they are related to Hungarian literature, they are related to Hungary as well, per List of English words of Hungarian origin is "Hungarian language-related" and therefore Hungary-related. Another example: John Hunyadi was regent of Hungary and therefore he is related to the History of Hungary, which is related to Hungary of course. Doesn't that make him Hungary-related? And a list of 27 similar persons, each related to Hungary doesn't make the list itself related to Hungary? --Zoz (t) 14:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Simply: no. Not when they are on thousands of different lists that relate to their etnicity and/or nationality. Dahn 14:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is that an argument? "They are on different lists". That's true, but absolutely irrelevant. We are discussing whether to include them on this list. I repeat: if the list were to be 60% Romanian, and Transylvania would be part of Hungary, I would include it in Category:Romania-related lists, because many people mentioned in the list are related to Romania. I would even revert edits removing the list from Cat:Romania related lists. My opinion has nothing to do with either of our ethnicities. You're a Wikipedian, I'm a Wikipedian, that's all. Come up with a valid argument or restore the category without prejudice. --Zoz (t) 15:00, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have made my point clear. Ethnicity is referenced for both Romanians and Hungarians included on the list - both on the list, and in the relevant articles. You insist with the sophistry of assuming "Romania-related" means "Romanians" and "Hungary-related" means "Hungarian". Do you look at the percentage of Spanish citizens born in Cuba or of Portuguese citizens born in Brazil? Do you go on those pages and add a category which connects them with a situation of 200 years ago? Let me state this very clearly: "Romania-related" indicates the fact that Transylvania belongs to Romania now (which I do not use as a jingoistic point to make). If you are to take into consideration other affiliations, then let me point out that this should only be related to Hungary using your criteria, since most of the Romanian people mentioned where not Romanian citizens! Oh, but wait: being an Austrian or Austro-Hungarian citizen is not exactly being a Hungarian citizen. That is objective criteria, and, for Chrissake, it is the only criteria this page should be dealing with. Dahn 15:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, since Ady was born here, why don't we go ahead and *move* all people on this list to Category:Hungarian poets? Dahn 15:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I? I strongly suggest you to have a cup of tea. --Zoz (t) 16:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is good tea (although not that I am not in any way mad at you). Back on topic: because you are suggesting that a characteristic which applies to one could be extended to all. This goes against the very purpose of categorization. Dahn 16:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: related. That doesn't mean that everything in cat:Hungary-related should be Hungarian. It's Romania-related because there are many people there who contributed greatly to Romanian culture/etc. It's Hungary-related also, because there are many people there who contributed greatly to Hungarian culture/etc. --Zoz (t) 16:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Hungary-related" deals with situations regarding today's Hungary in one way or another. "History of Hungary" (and, partly, "Hungarian people" with its relevant subcats) deal with what Hungary was. The category is not "Romanian-related" because people have contributed to whatnot, but because Transylvania is in Romania today, and the lead here is today, not yesterday. Dahn 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison with "rulers" is flawed: as a country (for lack of a better word), its history was connected to Hungary for a large part - many of the people there were subjects of the Hungarian kings (which explains the categories for Hungary), and the region is now part of Romania (which explains the Ro connection). In no way was either of the lists related to ethnicity. Dahn 14:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You still misunderstand me, I believe. Let me state this clearly:

  • I do not think that cat:Hungary-related should be added because 27 of 50 are of Hungarian ethnicity.
  • I do not think that cat:Hungary-related should be added because of their citizenship.
  • I think that cat:Hungary should be added because 27 of the 50 people on this list are related to Hungary through their acts and influences. The author of the Hungarian national anthem would be Hungary-related even if he wasn't of Hungarian ethnicity or nationality. A regent of Hungary is related to Hungary even if he wasn't of Hungarian ethnicity, even if he didn't have Hungarian citizenship. People writing such great poems in Hungarian language that their work has a decades(/centuries!)-long lasting influence on Hungarian literature are related to Hungary, even if they happened to be of Tibetan ancestry and had Brazilian citizenship.

I don't give a damn about ethnicity, citizenship, ancestry or anything like that. Their acts/influences are related to Hungary and that's what matters. --Zoz (t) 15:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again: some people on this list are obviously Hungarian (as in: contributors to Hungarian culture etc.). This has no relevance for the list, taking in view both wikipedia conventions and common sense. Their roles are detailed individually, and no one is arguing against that. John Hunyadi was a regent of Hungary, and that is made clear by the categories he is included in. Many American poets were born outside of the United States: the lists they are included on as "natives of" in, say, Aruba do not become "relevant to the United States". I have asked you to consider the parallels, and I have asked you to consider that nobody is removing them from references to Hungary. Allow me to provide you with yet another analogy: Tr. is filled with monuments relevant to Hungary; they are included and mentioned in Romanian tourist guides, not Hungarian ones (Hungarian, as in: of Hungary) - the reader with little knowledge of the subject will not find relevance other than symbolic in seeing that this addresses things of importance only some 100 years ago, and (s)he will be in very much the same situation as someone reading a tourist guide for Transylvania (which, for whatever reasons, is now in Romania). Dahn 16:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your parallels are justified. If there's one native of Aruba who is a prominent poet in the USA that doesn't justify a "List of natives of Aruba" to be added to cat:USA-related. However, if the majority of the Arubians contributed significantly to the American culture then that makes that list USA-related imo. The article Transylvania is in cat:Romania but not in cat:Hungary and that is perfectly justified - ie Tr. is part of present day Romania and not of present-day Hungary. That's fine. But if we have a list of Transylvanians, of whom 27 contributed greatly to the Hungarian culture, then it makes that list Hungary-related. --Zoz (t) 16:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, because, again, those people are not removed from the categories connecting them to Hungary or Hungarian. This is a topical list, grouping people of diverse backgrounds for a single purpose: to show that they were born in Transylvania, which is nowadays in Romania; all those in here are referenced to respective categories, which spare us the ambiguity. Dahn 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So your only reason to add cat:Romania-related to List of Transylvanians is that Tr. is in present-day Romania? Again: the keyword is related. We're not discussing cat:Romania or cat:Hungary, we're discussing cat:Romania - related and cat:Hungary - related. --Zoz (t) 17:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let me state this again: the only way and reason such a diverse group could be related to a single country is if the region is part of that country nowadays. All categories in, say, Category:French people by place, respect this very criterion. Dahn 18:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind asking for a third opinion? Proposed question: "Is List of Transylvanians related to Hungary or not?" --Zoz (t) 17:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do that. Dahn 18:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please edit you question on the 3O page to include a refernce to this talk page and perhaps a summary of the views expressed? I do not want people to answer out of the gut and consider that this is Romanian exclusivism, when in fact it is mostly related to categorization issues. Dahn 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Zoz (t) 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Please add your comments below after reading through the list and the discussion above. Thanks. --Zoz (t) 18:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you've both got good arguments, however what it all boils down to is how wide one wishes to cast ones definition of related. Personally, I think we should have both Hungary-related and Romania-related or neither - if half the people on the list can't be related to Hungary, despite being Hungarian ethnically and politically; both in their own minds and the view of history, neither should the other half be considered related to Romania. --Scott Wilson 20:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: could you perhaps read my point again and see were I state that this is not because of one half or whatever "being Romanian", but because of Transylvania being part of Romania nowadays? The principle taken in view by me, and it seemed to be consistent with wikipedia, was that the starting reference is the political situation of today. (Obvious parallels: Category:French people by place includes all those people born somewhere in France be they or not ethnic French; although Geneva was for long part of France, its inhabitants are not referenced as "French", but as "Swiss" - with the proposed but problematic category "French-Swiss", which does not refer to France, but to French speakers; "Natives of..." by région -not historical province- of France are the norm, even if they include people who have been born hundreds of thousands of years before régions were created as administrative units; etc etc etc). Add to this that people included on the list have not actually been Hunagarian or Romanian citizens, and some have been alive at a time when ethnicity was a vague concept (and when citizenship simply did not exist). Dahn 21:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Again: we are not discussing something like cat:Hungarian ethnicity or cat:Hungarians. We have to deciede whether this list is Hungary - related. As I said, because the majority of the people on the list contributed greatly to Hungarian culture / history etc., this list is definitely Hungary - related. That does not imply that Tr. is part of Hungary or Tr. should be part of Hungary (I don't think so). Adding this to cat:Hungary related lists would only mean that the list is related to Hungary. It has nothing to do with ethnicity or nationality, citizenship or anything like that. --Zoz (t) 21:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is subjective criteria, and it pretends that the list will forever remain in this form (why don't you check out Category:Natives of Transylvania, which I still do not know how to categorize, and note how many people are not included on the list). It has no relevance to their contributions that they were born in Transylvania - which is the sole criteria this list is about. Consider that a large number of British kings have been sovereigns of Hannover (which should imply that they have contributed significantly - whatever objective value "significantly" has - to the history of Germany); should this imply that "List of British monarchs" is to be included in cat "List of German monarchs or whatever", or that those monarchs to whom it applies be included in the respective cat? Really, now. Dahn 21:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is subjective? That Matthias Corvinus was a prominent figure in the History of Hungary? Is he not related to Hungary? --Zoz (t) 21:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you place your clam on the value of gestures, that is subjectivity. I am not saying that you are wrong: I am saying that placing something in cat:Hungary-related just because you consider the gestures of some (be it half) of the people on a list is whimsical. Again, culture and contributions are of no relavance here: it is not included in "Romania-related" because of how many Romanians are noted on it, but because of the fact that Transylvania is now a part of Romania. All the people included share a criterion, a single one, and are grouped according to it and no other: they were born in Transylvania. All their other offices, skills, attrributes, eye colurs, and dance styles form the criteria for other, different, and respective lists and categories. Dahn 21:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the article Transylvania as I explained above. This is a list of 50 people, with 27 of them definitely related to Hungary and another part of them related to Romania. I'm repeating myself: the article Transylvania is in cat:Romania and not in cat:Hungary, which is fine. But we have a group of people here and the discussed cat says related to Hungary and not something like "Hungarian Lists". I wouldn't categorize this under "Hungarian lists" but it says related to Hungary, which happen to be true. --Zoz (t) 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stressed before, this list is not historically more justified to be included with Romania than it is to be included with Hungary (given that Romanian did not xist until 1859, and did not exist in Transylvania until 1918-20); it is justified to be included with Romania, and only with Romania, because it is part of Romania at this moment: I have presented numerous instances where Wikipedia agrees with me. I had also pointed out that connecting this with Hungarians would be almost as much as a stretch, but not quite as much, as connecting this with Hungary. What we have is: wiki agrees with me that the list should not be placed anyplace else but with Romania-related (since current sovereignty is the rule), and all persons who are Hungarian-related are categorized as such 1,000 times in 1,000 respective categories. Dahn 22:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is funny you mention Matthias Corvinus, because I the one responsible for cleaning out the Romanian POV in that article. Dahn 21:56, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be true. Thank you for doing so. That shows that you're a good-faith editor, but I oppose your opinion in this matter. --Zoz (t) 22:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key thing here is related. This isn't cat:Hungary/Romania; it's Hungary and Romania -related. As I've said, you must decide how far you want to spread your definition of related, but then you should apply it equally to both. --Scott Wilson 13:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: that list includes Transylvanian Saxons. Does this mean that it is related to Germany (or Austria)? In fact, if it is Saxons we are talking about, does it mean that it is related to England? (Please consider this in addition to my other points, and not as my sole point) Dahn 13:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a significant number of those people make a significant contribution to those countries? If so, yes. --Scott Wilson 14:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please inform yourself on the fact that many of the Hungarians mentioned were not actually citizens of Hungary, and their contribution to Hungarian culture resides in the claim Hungary has to represent ethnic Hungarians in general. Also, as I have noted, that list is in no way finalized - I am not saying that the end result will be different in numbers, although one could never know for sure, but that what you are proposing relies on a momentary state of facts and is unprecedented as a measure. Let me note again that the very same fact regarding citizenship is true for Romanians included on the list (given that Romania began to exist in 1859, some years before the refoundation of Hungary within the Austro-Hungarian Empire), and certainly for Saxons. This is why I had chosen not to include at all in categorization subjective criteria like ethnicity and contribution to culture, but only the fact that the region is nowadays related to the modern Romanian state. If it had been included in Jamaica, I would have only kept "related to Jamaica" as the category. To give you yet another example: Canada still is a dominion of the UK, yet List of Canadians is not included in any category related to Britain - the people that have contributed to British culture or society are, however, related to that topic individually (per article). Dahn 14:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Canadians doesn't have Canada-related as a category either. List of Cypriots has neither Greece or Turkey-related categories. My point is not necessarily that the Hungary-related category should stay or that the Romanian-related category should go; just that we should have either or both - the same standard should be applied to both. --Scott Wilson 16:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
List of Canadians is included in Category:Lists of Canadian people, which is a subcategory of Category:Canada-related lists. Category:Greek Cypriots exists as a parallel to List of Cypriots - those people included there are included in Category:Greek Diaspora, which is included in Category:Greek people, which is included in Category:Greece. This is exactly what I am proposing here: Natives of Transylvania are not defined by ethnicity, but by place of birth - just as Cypriots are defined by citizenship; all article's categorizations are adequately detailed according to ethnicity (and nobody is planning to remove Ady Endre from Category:Hungarian poets), just as "Cypriots" is parallel with "Greek Cypriots". Dahn 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let me be very clear, Dahn. Please read through the list again. Then ask yourself this: is this list related to Hungary in any way? --Zoz (t) 18:06, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Dahn 19:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is Category: Hungarian people - this is not about the state of Hungary but only the ethnicity. Would you accept that given the fact that a lot of people on the list were Hungarian? Zello 21:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And have this included in "Hungarian people"? That would be equally absurd, and as absurd as this being included in "Romanian people". Dahn 23:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not absurd if we inculded the list in BOTH category as the people are mainly Romanian and Hungarian on it. Zello 09:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dahn here. "Hungarian people" is not the way to go. My opinion is that it should be included under Hungary - related lists per the pages of text I've wrote above and per WP:3O User:Scott Wilson. --Zoz (t) 10:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another opinion[edit]

I think that the category is not appropriate because it is arbitrary. We have Hungarians in the list, but we have a few Germans in that list too! Should we add it to Germany-related lists, too? What about Serbs? I'm sure we have some article about some Serb from Transylvania! It should be in Serbia-related lists, right? Maybe even in the Ukraine-related lists. Now, what if we find a Frenchman born in Transylvania? Should we add the list to France-related lists, too?

Now you'll say that there are more Hungarians than French people in that list. That is correct, but how do we choose at what percentage do we add the category? 10% of people in the list? 20%? Choosing an arbitrary limit is obviously POV. That's why I think we should not associate the list with any other category than Transylvania. bogdan 14:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. - FrancisTyers · 15:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Does it mean that you agree with User:Scott Wilson's proposal of having both or neither (hun-related, rom-related)?
There are numerous instances, however, when WP does not have a strict policy (e.g. notability - WP:N is an essay, not a policy, btw) and the word related is essentially something that you can't define strictly. I'm invoking common sense when I say that this list is related to Romania and Hungary and is not related to France. --Zoz (t) 15:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously only Roman, Hungarian and Saxon people will appear on the list in a significant number. Three categories is not confusingly several. Zello 18:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out, this would be highly irregular. As I have pointed out, it is only sophistry that confuses place of birth and ethnicity. And, aqs I am pointing out right now, what would you link Saxons to in your lovely system? Germany? Austria? the Austrian Empire? The only reason this was included in any "x-related" category is that Transylavnia is part of Romania, not that there are Romanians on that list. Duplicating categories to indicate artificial situations is whimsical, and, of course, not used on wikipedia! Dahn 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would link Saxons to Saxons themselves, they deserve an own category. I don't see what is whimsical when we have a list with Romanian, Hungarian and Saxon people and put it on the adequate categories without any terrítorial claim. And what is "artificial" in ethicity? Zello 19:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saxons have their own category. In fact, they have their own list as well (which is destined to remain short). They are both included in Category:Natives of Transylvania. This list we're talking about, my friend, groups people according to place of birth, and not to cultural or ethnical heritage - that is the sole criterion used, unlike that on a list of Transylvanian Saxons, and unlike that on a category such as Category:Ethnic Hungarian politicians outside of Hungary. It is not ethnicity which is artificial (although in several cases it may be), it is implying the fact that Transylvania nowadays has a connection to Hungary. My only concern was not mixing up criteria. Click on any Hungarian included there, and tell me where it is not clear that the said person is Hungarian, or where that person is not ultimately included in a relevant subcategory intimately connected with Hungary. Speak to the point, and understand my position. Dahn 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The version proposed by me doesn't imply that Transylvania has a connection nowadays with Hungary, it implies that these Transylvanians have connections to other Romanians, Hungarians and Saxons. I think categories are practical measures - they allow the reader the find other similar articles and lists. I think the reader would like to get from this list to other famous Romanians, Hungarians and Saxons. He/She can click to one person to find the adequate category but we can save for him/her this step including the three relevant categories here. Zello 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Category:Natives of Brussels. People in there are not included in ethnical categories, because they are grouped by place of birth; if they were to be included in ethnical categories, am I to understand that you would be including them in Flemish, Walloons, and whatnot? Please, note the purpose of categorizing. Dahn 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would include it in the Flemish and Walloon categories. Zello 20:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dahn that this list shouldn't be categorized by ethnicity. But please note the word "related". This is a list. Let's look at the list, read it through and decide whether it's related to Romania and whether it's related to Hungary. I say it's related to both. --Zoz (t) 19:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, Wikipedia tends to say that it is not related to both. Dahn 19:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Dahn: I think there's a reason why Category:Romanian-related lists and Category:Hungarian-related lists don't exist. Namely, they meant to be included (per common sense) under Category:Romania-related lists and Category:Hungary-related lists. You wouldn't endorse renaming them to Category:Romania_or_Romanian_-_related_lists and Category:Hungary_or_Hungarian_-_related_lists, would you? KISS principle. --Zoz (t) 19:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I stutter? Where is it apparent that this list is connected with Hungary if not in your very own criteria? Dahn 20:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You said "that would make it "Hungarian related""[1]. --Zoz (t) 20:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note what I was replying to: well, if more than half of the people listed here are Hungarians . I will state it even more clearly: that would make them Hungarian-related (which is expanded upon in articles about and categories including those people). Don't take me out of context. The pure criteria was that it is "Hungary-related" - it is not; the argument I was opposed to as it was stated implied that - it was wrong; many people there are related to Hungary (although, and let's not make this another topic, some of them were not citizens of Hungary, just as many Romanians there were not citizens of Romania) - that is a fact; however, since this page includes several ethnical attributes, and ethnicity does not count as a criteria (as it does not for Natives of Paris), an ethnical grouping would have been just as irregular. In fact, I had detailed that precise attitude on this very talk page (frankly, theree is not much room for arguments in an edit summary); read it, if you haven't already. Dahn 20:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you did say "it"[2], and not "them". As there are more than one Hungarians ("or people connected to Hungary" if you prefer that) on the list (=plural) and we're talking about 1 particular list (=singular), your "it" must refer to the list itself. If you're constantly changing your opinion and keep repeating that "ethnicity does not count as a criteria" as if that was something I didn't agree with (see [3]) then this discussion will not go anywhere. --Zoz (t) 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if your concern is tripping me, then do me the favour of reading what I was posting on the talk page at roughlly the same time (to say that I am "constantly changing my opinon" would require a bit more proof). I had said before that those people who contributed whatever are referenced individually as such - while many on this list have not contributed to whatever; this is aside from the fact that significant contribution would be a subjective criteria for inclusion on a list that deals solely with were these people were born (not wrong in most or all cases, but subjective - and, thus, out of place here). Let me use common logic: if person x born in y region has contributed significantly to the culture of z state (a claim which is made in retrospect, as many of these people completed their works at a time when Hungary did not exist, and without being Hungarian citizens), and k person has not contributed anything to the culture of z state, then all x and k have in common is being born in y. Dahn 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, then, but why not plug in Tr. for y and Romania for z? And we'd get Scott's opinion. By the way, we're still not here to categorize the article Transylvania but this list. So don't repeat that "but Tr. is in Romania" - sure, but this is not the article Transylvania. This is a list with many ks and xs. Also, see this about subjectivity and this about categorization in general. (I hate to repeat myself.) --Zoz (t) 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See above, where I note that, were Transylvania to be part of Hungary, that would be the sole "-related" category I would accept (I would not press to have it include in "Romania-related" under no pretense). "This is a list with many ks and xs" is parallogical - state the full truth, this is a list with many xys and kys - extract the common denomibnator (y), and you get the goddamn purpose of this list. If you continue to ignore all the instances where I have made it clear this policy applies, and if you pretend that you do not notice that "Romania-related" covers perfectly "people born in what is today a part of Romania", and not "Romanian people" (where this category IS NOT INCLUDED, and SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED), then you are talking to projections, and not to my arguments. Dahn 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state that ""Romania-related" covers perfectly "people born in what is today a part of Romania", and not "Romanian people"" and also "Wikipedia agrees with me", "wiki agrees with me". Would you kindly check that (1) List of Romanians is in Category:Romania-related lists, (2) List of famous Romanians who were born outside present-day Romania is in Category:Romania-related lists (!), (3) List of rulers of Moldavia is in Category:Romania-related lists (!), (4) List of Romanian poets is in Category:Romania-related lists. Please compare: "How the hell is Hungarian ethnicity "Hungary-related?"[4]. Does wiki really agree with you? Or did you mean that the community agrees with you? User:Scott Wilson, who provided the 3rdO, as well as User:Bogdangiusca (a Romanian), User:FrancisTyers and User:Zello expressed that they do not agree with your opinion. --Zoz (t) 22:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You fail to note that those are politicians in Romania, they all are Romanian citizens. 2. You fail to note that those people are united by the fact that they are Romanians in Romania, wherever they would have been born (precisely opposite to what we are debating here); 3. You fail to note that Moldavia is a Romanian region, and Moldova isn't (which is exactly like the case about this List). 4. List of Romanian poets defines poets by both citizenship and ethnicity, as well as by the obvious fact that they were all poets (precisely like Hungarian poets, which also includes or may include Hungarian poets who are not ethnic Hungarian) - two of the three criteria are shared by all. THIS list has but one criterion, place of birth. The place of birth, when it serves as a criterion for creating lists and categories, is connected only to that country to which it belongs now (directly or by proxy: not Edimborough directly in British cats, but Edinborough in Scottish cats - if you think that there should be a cat related to Transylvania, make note that it shall still be referenced to Romania and only Romania - whereas articles comprised in it would be included in other cats that are relevant to them).
Let me note that neither Bogdan nor Francis said you were right - in fact, they said you were wrong (and I don't know if they agreed with each other on whether this should be excluded from "Romania-related", since Bogdan did not touch that topic). Scott claimed that what I am invoking has no precedent, but he has failed to note that it does (see the section of the talk about Canadians and Cypriots), AND has NOT answered how he stands on the matter ever since. Dahn 22:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And another example
all kings of Hungary who have been kings of Poland are rendered on two lists (for kings of Hungary and for kings of Poland). If your criteria is good for anything rather than causing a stir on this page because of some Romanticist take on life you would have, then the list for kings of Poland should be included in category:kings of Hungary and viceversa. Please understand the difference between what applies to some and what applies to all, and stop implying that I am "hiding my real reasons", which would be, of course, "to persecute you and your kin". Really now, some common sense. Dahn 00:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Transylvanians&oldid=1203698106"