Talk:Transylvania/Archive 5

Lead section is POV

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 First, there is a question whether lead section about one geographical region should contain any historical references.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should contain only basic geographical data about region, for example its location, size, population, etc, while all historical references should be in the separate "History" section and not in the lead section.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 But, if other users do not agree with that, then I propose that we expand current historical references in the lead section and to mention that region belonged to ancient Dacian state.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)

Transylvania is not a geographical region. Also the region started to be called Transylvania/Ultrasylvania starting with 11th century, which means its history (as a historical region) starts with Hungarian conquest (though the article is inaccurate in saying it belonged to Hungary since then as its conquest was gradual process between 10th and 14th centuries - Maramures). I may agree with you the lead is biased but you have to work hard to get it right. For instance, you can add (if others agree) the history of the territory before being called Transylvania in the lead, but maybe one would say "why start with Dacians?", we can start with first archaeological culture we know. If you care to discuss here, I'll gladly contribute, but I wouldn't want to do all the work and have endless quarrels with both Hungarian and Romanian nationalists. Daizus 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

As to your comments from the last edit the answer is - yes, maybe the phrase is confusing. Sometimes it was a political entity (a principality), sometimes it was not. But was always something we label today as 'historical region'. And this is the point of the article and I suppose this is what the lead should suggest. Daizus 21:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that if you treat this as a "historical political region", then history of such region ends in 1867. After this year, there is no political history of Transylvania, but this article speak about post-1867 history as well, thus it is simply not correct that article is only about political history of Transylvania (from 11th century to 1867). Furthermore, the history section also mention pre-11th century history, so it is clear that article speak about entire history of Transylvania from ancient times to the present-day. Therefore, if we already have brief mention in the lead part of its history from 11th century to the present-day (note that it is not from 11th century to 1867), then I see no valid reason to omit pre-11th century history. If we want to be consistent, then lead paragraph should mention either only 11th century-1867 history (if we speak only about Transylvania as political entity) either entire history from ancient times to the present day (if we do not speak only about Transylvania as political entity). PANONIAN (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article says 'Transylvania was a historical political region' but 'Transylvania was a historical region'. A historical region's history (I apologize for the repetition, I find it necessary) starts with its first attestation and ends with its last. This means Transylvania's history starts in 11th century and ends now as the name is still in use (Scythia Minor, for instance, is the name of a historical region which is no longer in use). Of course, we can extrapolate the history further in the past (in future we can't :P). And if you want a nitpick it is really debateable if Transylvania was in 11th century a political entity. Daizus 09:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "historical region" do not apply to something that exist today, but to something that existed only in history. Claiming that something is historical region today is inaccurate. I know that such usage of the term could be found at some places, but no matter of that, such usage is wrong. Transylvania as it is today is (before everything else) an geographical region, and usage of the term "historical region" is accurate only if we use it for 11th century-1867 time period of Transylvania, not before that and not after that. PANONIAN (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, I have to say that makes no sense. The very meaning of "historical" indicates that the main or entire application of the term is in relation to the past (historical symbolism and tradition, not administrative reality). At the same time, a "geographical region" is not at all created by popular usage, but by accepted usage in geographical science. Dahn 00:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Even more, the regions we call today 'historical' were 'geographical' for the ancient geographers (e.g. Dacia for Ptolemy) but AFAIK Wikipedia doesn't have much emphasis on historical geography, only on our modern version. Today Transylvania means more than the Transylvanian Plateau (the geographical entity closest in shape), in the most restrictive usage would include at least some of the surrounding geographical entities. For instance, Tara Hategului and its surrounding mountains (Retezat, Sureanu and Poiana Rusca - though the latter only a part) are Transylvanian and only Tara Hategului could be in extremis considered a part of the plateau (from Mures valley going up on Strei like a kind of "limb") but mostly it is not, it is a distinct geographical entity.

For the legitimity and the meaning of the syntagm 'historical region' please check these Wikipedia pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_regions_of_Central_Europe or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_regions_of_Pakistan or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castile (check historical region vs Kingdom of ~) or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_regions_of_Romania. Daizus 09:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know for these pages, but the point is that if you for example say how many inhabitants Transylvania have today or if you post picture gallery of modern Transylvanian cities into this article, you do not speak about history, but about geography. There are two kinds of historical regions - those that existed only in history and whose names are not used today for geographical purposes and those that existed in history and whose name is used today for geographical purposes. Here are two examples: Eyalet of Temesvar and Banat of Temeswar, both historical regions existed in the same territory in the past, but what is a difference between them? Name of the eyalet is not used today as geographical designation, while name Banat is used, so if somebody today say that he live in Banat, it is before anything else his description of the geographical location where he live because of the simple reason that he live in 2007 and not in the 18th century when Banat of Temeswar existed. In another words, you may call all of those historical regions, but their modern function is in the first place geographical one, and only then anything else. PANONIAN (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Panonian, you mistake historical region for former political entity (there is no requirement for one to have been the other). In the case you cite, the Eyalet and the Banat of Temeswar are the latter, while the Banat is the former (your theory is equivalent to saying that there is no historical region called England, but rather a Kingdom of England and the geographical region called England). Dahn 15:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I would say that for Englad too. Tell me, if you say that something that is not an political entity today is a historical region, to what exactly word "historical" here refer to? To its present or to its past? The present-day events are subject of geography, not of history. PANONIAN (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To keep it simple, I will say this: "was a historical region" is either a tautology or an oxymoron. "Is a historical region" is neither (as a rule, the meaning of historical region to present-day situations is minuscule symbolism, since "is" does not reflect actual political status, but tradition). Dahn 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Which only mean that somebody who live in Transylvania today and who say that he live in Transylvania mean that as an geographical designation. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 02:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely POV and OR to say what a person thinks about when he or she says something. If we are merely speculating, I can tell you that it may just as well be both, none, or, of course, the other one. What we are talking about, I believe, is "Transylvania is a geographical region if the term is used in geography" and "Transylvania is a historical region if the term is used in historical tradition and historiography [be they Romanian, Serbian, Hungarian, Turkish, Danish or Twa]". Dahn 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a slippery slope. Being a region on the surface of the Earth always it is possible to say 'well, it's geographical'. But IMO the criterion is in its definition. How do you know you live in Transylvania and not in Wallachia or Banat. Is there any particularity of the land? Sometimes may be (a historical region mapping over an island or a peninsula or whatever, though many times the word is used differently and its usage is controversial - see Balkan peninsula, is one thing to talk geographically of Balkans, another to talk politically or culturally), but many times it is not. You can say the Transylvania is the land inside the Carpathian arch, but this would raise many problems and after all, as I argued above, it doesn't fit with the geographical region having the most similar definition, the Transylvanian Plateau. The borders, as Dahn rightfully says are given by human tradition, not by land's particularities. The borders of an ex-kingdom, duchy, province, etc., the borders surrounding the habitation of an ethnicity (like the many terra x-orum), but more generally an identity. Such a region usually preserves a distinction in many cultural aspects: in clothing, in folk music, in cuisine, in pottery, in language (dialect, though sometimes there may be only some particularities in the speech) etc.. Of course, there were also cultural influences and transfers along the time and many particularities tend to fade (especially now with globalization phenomena), but as the Dahn's attempt to define says, it is the tradition, the history giving the borders, not the current identity. If you can give Transylvania a definition which is not at all dependent on the history of the humans living in it in the past millenium, then I'm sure both Dahn and I will agree with you, it is only a geographical region. Daizus 07:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

As the article is currently written I have nothing against expanding history in the past. As long as there're no solid criteria on how to write a meaningful lead, a lot of aspects are under interpretation. I am willing to concede to any decent form if most users find it useful that way. Daizus 22:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Another issue about the lead and some subtle POV. There's an enormous confusion about the autonomy of Transylvania outside Kingdom of Hungary, the dates of 1526, 1541 and 1571 being thrown in various Wikipedia articles and talk pages and basically depending on what you read you get with a different conclusion. Daizus 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that indeed there is a confusion between two separate notions:

• a geographic region
• a political entity formed in the 11th century.

These two are different, and the article should clarify it. Dpotop 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Transylvania as a political entity

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).

Without getting involved in editing, at least for now, this is how it looks: for the period discussed, Transylvania was a political entity stricto sensu until 1867 (when it had its own Diet), and in 1918-1920 (before the union was confirmed, and before Averescu dissolved the Directory Council). Dahn 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I will point this out: Transylvania is a geographical region as well (references to the Transylvanian Plateau and the Transylvanian Alps are commonplace to say the least). Dahn 22:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see we still agree on some subjects (see the previous section). :) Dpotop 22:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Question 2: what is Transylvania

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)

Though I said above Transylvania is not a geographical region I think in extenso can be considered one if it is taken as the territory of the historical region Transylvania. I've noticed in the article concerning the geography of Romania there is a brief on the historical regions (with an unusual emphasis on Transylvania). Daizus 22:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But what are the limits of this Transylvania? Isn't it simpler to say that the name has its origin in a toponyme, but is mainly associated with:

1 the medieval voivodship/principality

- medieval voivodeship + Universitas Saxorum, and the Szekelyland - the voivode was appointed by the King - was a title generaly received by noblemans outside Transylvania--fz22 14:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

2 the territory that went from Austria-Hungary to Romania in 1918 (Bukovine excepted)? Dpotop 12:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

voidvodeship

"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)

First of all, Fz, that is original research (the ruler of Transylvania is called "voivode", never "prefect", and the country is never a "prefecture"). Secondly, it would do you some good to research facts: the Romanian word for each of the divisions of Transylvania is "comitat", not "judeţ" (the latter is rendered back into English as "county", which, if by now widespread, is still an approximate translation for a word that could actually be translated as "for judging" or "for putting to trial"). Not to mention that a prefecture is not "over several counties", but over one. Dahn 13:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, that is not to say that the preferred and proper alternative is not in fact "principality". But the edit you made referred to the Ottoman period, so I can't even begin to understand what your objection actually is. Dahn 13:22, 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)

Potato, potatoe. Dahn 13:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Not realy ...

First Transylvania after 1570 was not independent (from the Ottomans) at all, except the years when Bathory was elected King of Poland.

Second T. also preserved its status as (Grand)Principality inside the Habsburg Empire.

I must repeat myself: the title "The Transylvanian state" is much more expressive to a neutral reader than the actual form. --fz22 22:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the independence is questionable considering the Habsburgs and Ottomans. The key word here is autonomy (expressed as semi-independence in the text of that section). However, I don't find any reason to call it as a state (beside the obvious criterion - the contemporary titles). A state, by definition, is independent. Read Wiki's own article on state http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State and please realize the concept is anachronic and inaccurate when applied to 16-17th century Transylvania. Daizus 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

State = indepentent?? So there was no Hungarian state after 1947? Nor Romanian state(hood) before 1878? Must be kidding...

I think you have a lengthy article there to explain what we should call a state and what we shouldn't. In case of external dependencies there's a thin line to cross, and we should not abuse words and create confusions. Romania's vassalage to Ottomans after 1829 was only nominal, therefore the criteria of internal and external autonomy was de facto fulfilled as most of the ties were cut progressively between these dates. And we don't have a Romanian state, nor even two Romanian states in 1821. Daizus 14:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What autonomy are we talking about? The voivode had an annual salary of 8000 forints, from his "employer" the King. + There were no voivode estates he was only a curator on the King's mannors + if we talk about political entity in fact there were 3 on the teritory of Transylvania: the seven counties (ruled by the king by deputy, this was the voivode), the saxons lands and szekelyland (Hunyadi was the first who was Count of the Szekelys and voivode simultaneously) These alltogheter are mentioned by the Romanian historiography as the autonomous Romanian voivodeship of Transylvania ;) --fz22 11:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually the autonomy under foreign suzerainity is regarded internal. And not always is complete, there might be degrees of autonomy. But reading your comment, I think you're talking about something else than Transylvania's status in 16th-17th centuries, the section we were discussing here. Daizus 14:19, 21 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)

OR or no OR, it seems that your edits have nothing to do with that topic or period, so why are we wasting our time having this conversation? Dahn 14:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research and relevance

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)

I'd appreciate to mention my name when you quote me and eventually to what purpose. Thank you. Daizus 18:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

2002 Census data

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)

Internal migration within Romania

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)

Thank you for reminding me ... You're right, in Varga's book the number of Romanians from Regat is placed somewhere between 800 and 900 thousand (1992 census). c. 1 million minority person (Germans, Hungarians, others) left Transylvania and almost 1 million Romanians arrived in the same interval. I think my datas were taken from a book written by Nyarady (http://mek.oszk.hu/00900/00983/html/nyaradi.htm) in the '80s. Sorry. --fz22 14:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Fz22, at the moment the text you inserted is inconsistent and this is exactly what I wanted to avoid. We can only compare apples with apples, don't you think so? You took a number from one source (referring to a specific period) and the other from another source (referring to another period) and then compared them. My opinion is that, at least until we find internal migration figures that can be compared, mentioning numbers only creates confusion. What do you think? Alexrap 12:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I wrote about some 800-900,000, and 250,000 Romanians from the same source and for the same period (1945-1992). The first group arrived to Transylvania the latter left Transilvania. In the same time I also said that around 1 million minority person left the country. I see no incosistency, do you? --fz22 13:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Initially you said that you've used another book from the 1980s, where the two numbers were 630,000 and 250,000. Then you modified only one number to account for a longer period (1945-1992) and you left the other one the same. That's why I thought it is inconsistent. But now you are saying that this number is also taken from Varga's book, so I guess in this case everything is fine. I didn't read all that book, so could you please tell me which page contains the 250,000 estimation? Thanks. Alexrap 15:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Quite right. search this link for "250": http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/erd69-95.htm --fz22 16:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I did what you suggested and it seems that you are not quite right. The 250,000 refers only to 1945-1977, while the 800,000-900,000 refers to 1945-1992. At least this is what I can read in Tamás Sályi's translation of Varga's book, which is available here: http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/erdang.htm . The exact text is the following: With this in mind, the number of persons moving from the Transcarpathian region into Transylvania from the end of World War II until 1972 can be estimated at 630 thousand. Using similar calculations we find only 74 thousand Transylvanians moving to the Transcarpathian region between 1966 and 1977, and taking the whole period from the end of World War II, this figure rises to a mere 250 thousand. You say that the Hungarian version says something else, does it mean that Tamás Sályi made some errors during his translation? Because if not, you are indeed comparing apples with cabbages. Alexrap 16:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Fz22, you don't seem to say anything about this, but I'm sure you agree that we cannot leave the asymmetrical comparison in the article. I will modify the text to account for the migration until 1977 only, in order to present comparable data. It would be great though if we could find data for migration from Transylvania until 1992. Please feel free to update it if you find a reliable reference. Alexrap 12:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You could specify it in the following way: Regat2Transylvania(1) = WWII-1992 and WWII-1977 respectively for Transylvania2Regat. I think it isn't appropiate to cut off the period between 1977-1992 for (1) just becasue we don't know the exact number for the second direction ...--fz22 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Banat

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)

I'm with you there, however please specify the sentences objected by you ... I think this forced unification (Banat+Crisana+Maramures+Transylvania proper = modern Transylvania) happened rather inside the Hungarian culture. --fz22 08:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you looked, I added the "original research" and "citation needed" to parts of the geography section, where the whole bias starts (see: In its extended version, used after 1920 both in Romania and Hungary, the term Transylvania designates Transylvania-proper together with regions that have had fluctuating status towards the core area). Then it goes on with the Administrative regions, where I previously took away Timis county and Timisoara, but it was back into the article with no reason given, ni discussion, even if I brought up the question in december. As for the forced unification inside the Hungarian culture, you'd have to actually provide a source, an analyse, that would draw that conclusion because it doesn't result to me and it certainly doesn't result to the Banat historians who have written extensive material about the Banat region and for my knowledge, are now working on a huge project for a Banat history. In fact it is easy to draw conclusions from the article History of Transylvania, where 1000 years go on with no interference and little or no mention of the Banat, only to "happily" end with an ideological Transylvania bigger than it never was. Where did that come from? get some inquiry, the bias is there. The article I provided (if you can read Romanian), identifies and exposes the flawed source of the myth.--Radufan 12:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see your points and Fortiu's cronology is very accurate. Hovewer this is matter a fact, that after 1920 most of the people (especially in Hungary but also ethnic Hungarians living in Romania - http://mek.oszk.hu/01700/01764/pdf/12ev_3.pdf) encapsluated the region in single unit. I don't want to pretend that this is scientific. Far from it. We can clarify this in the lead section and as you can see Pannonian already started a discussion in line with your raising.--fz22 14:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Practically, what you state is that most of the people actually means people in Hungary and some ethnic Hungarians. On which scale does people's opinion in one state can be the argument for discussion for an issue in another state, that I fail to see. At best, this article can include reference to the wrong or ideological interpretation of the word, which is at this point, correct. But it can't say it's a fact just because the wrong interpretation exists. It makes no sense. There's plenty of wrong interpretation out there. You can expose it, analyse it and all that, but you can't make a truth out of the blue. That the Banat is part of Transylvania is just not true. It follows that maps, references, number and figures are all wrong and they are wrong. It's not just a matter of definition. If the definition is wrong, all other conclusions based upon, are wrong as well. --Radufan 17:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't make an ass of yourself with this gas about "another country". As i said I'm on your side but you must accept that some geographical and historical concepts might changed during history (just an example: ethnic Hungarians from Romania are using a term for Apuseni borrowed from the Romanians in tha past 80 years, calling it: "Nyugati" western Carpathians, however its Hungarian tally is/was? Erdelyi Erchegyseg, or Fogaras/Fagaras Mnts were called Kerci havasok in the Middle age, etc etc) regards --fz22 19:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see the gratuitious remark since the concept came right from you while I only translated it into a simple, meaningful phrase. But even if I don't want to be focusing on your messages, what you said in fact gives quite a good explanation on where the bias comes. Then again, if we're on sides or not is irrelevant, what we want to settle here is to why isn't the proper distinction made. And it looks like there's a problem inherent to the english wikipedia and its community of editors. Because now that I have looked over the German article I could take a deep breath because what I found there was quite good. Even on the hungarian page (though I do not understand the language), there was nowhere to be found any reference to the Timis county, Timisoara as being part of Transylvania. Banat, maybe? But at least the map was that with the distinction of the so called "core" and "extended version". Maybe I missed it, but then maybe someone who does understand hungarian might have a look and clear things up a bit on where the Hungarian Wikipedia stand on the issue. What's clear is that the article here as it stands is not acceptable.--Radufan 23:27, 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. KissL 08:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It is commonly said by whom? I'm a banatian and certainly nowhere here it is to be heard that we are in some way transylvanian. Actually it's pretty insulting to call us other than bănăţeni, since the banatians have pretty specific cultural traits, different than in other parts of Romania, different history and so on. Not only, there is no banatian historian who ever claimed that and in fact the historian community in Timisoara (capital of Banat) is yet outraged at the continous bias perpetrated by the Cluj historians. It is common sense that if you want to pretend that your country, region or whatever, extends to some part, people there have to conform to that status, otherwise that can be classified as "imperialistic", be it only ideological. So what I'm asking is that sources be provided to the alleged "common meaning" (i.e.feeling) that Transylvania is greater than it actually is; for now it is obviously it's just a feeling of the editors. --Radufan 12:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

About your mention of the emotional side: it is such a poor argument. What you say is that if there is indignation or offense, that is to be dismissed, because anyhow the banatians are not a majority opinion. That implies that you dismiss the opposed sentimental issue of the ones benefiting ideologically: that is arrogance of whoever claims and diffuses the biased ideology. So take for example, if you decided to call every serbian-banatian a transylvanian, but you had no proof, then you'd use every means of communication to convince all romanians that the serbian-banatians must also be transylvanian. Then you would write on Wikipedia that the serbian-banatians are frustrated by being called transylvanian but nevertheless they are called so even they liked it or not? Or would you write that even though the romanian press calls them transylvanians and people in Romania start calling them transylvania, there is no scientific ground for the statement and the use is false? And by the way, being a banatian it means you have a high probability of living in Serbia, not in Romania.--Radufan 13:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Other points to be considered:

• If the Banat was a "sub-region" of Transylvania, that should also be stated in the Banat article, but that cannot easily be done in that context, it would be ridicolous and going against the whole article; obviously there is no proof. In fact the only reference is concerned with the biased format with the historical regions.
• In the section Transylvania as part of Romania just like in the same section of the History of Transylvania, you find that The National Council of the Germans from Transylvania approved the Proclamation, as did the Council of the Danube Swabians from the Banat. It cannot be that whoever wrote it, did not know that Transylvania united with Romania in 1918 while in fact the Banat only joined in august 1919. In fact if the two were to be distinct, as it should be, then in the article it would emerge a very different picture, that of a region independent from Transylvania - which in in fact it is.
• As I said before, there is the argument of the population concerned. While Wallachia or Moldavia were/and are both recognised by the regions that compose it (Oltenia and Muntenia for example), the same is not true for the banatians. Might be true for the Maramures region, I don't know (though I know there is a strong identity there), but I know that banatians are nothing else but banatians. Is it just my feeling? Then plase read the literature on the Banat. Or read literature on the History of Transilvania. You'll find no more than shy remarks on the Banat.
• As for what the science of geography is concerned, the statement that Transylvania would include the Banat, is simply hilarious.--Radufan 12:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

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. KissL 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? :) KissL 08:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the article mentioned the "oversimplification" and stated that it is geographically and historically incorrect, nevertheless used in Hungary, some parts of Romania (of course it is unheard of in the Banat), then that would be fair as to representing the facts. Is it used? yes Is it actually correct? no. That would be all. But then it would follow that you can't just make references to places and facts of the Banat - in talking on a Transylvania subject, without always making that distinction.--Radufan 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Radufan, I agree with what you are saying. Transylvania and the Banat are two distinct ethnographical regions. However, I think that they have quite a lot of things in common and this is why I wouldn't eliminate everything related to the Banat from this article. But we should probably try to make it clear that the Banat is not a subregion of Transylvania, but a distinct region that is sometimes associated with Transylvania. Alexrap 16:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Geography

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:

• Ţara Moţilor is certainly part of Transylvania proper
• Do we have some criteria for listing in there a region or not?
• How do we decide what name should be used? (e.g. Câmpia Transilvaniei or Mezőség?)
• Partium is certainly not part of Transylvania. I understand that we extended the geographical concept of Transylvania to include the other areas to the west and north which also united with Romania in 1918. This is why we included Crişana, but Partium is not the same thing with Crişana. Unless we want to say that Debrecen is part of Transylvania. Alexrap 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

To use a name here first we have to resolve the articles they refer to. I'm working atm in Burzenland and once I'll prove it is more than a historical episode of the Teutonic order I'll act to rename it Tara Barsei. The same should be done on the other two zones. They are ethnographical areas still in use today, and is really on reason for using it under a non-actual name. Daizus 22:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• agree, but in this case, the map in the administrative divisions sections is incorrect. What is written, and what is pictured should be the same. Same about Almas and Chioar.
• any region should be listed. Think of this as a tourist curiousity guide
• don't know. The one most used in English. Or even both. Someone who is not from Transylvania or even not from Romania or eastern Europe should not think that Burzenland and Tara Barsei are different things. As long as that is stated at the begining of the article for the region, that's ok. The problem is, how about before there is an article, like Câmpia Transilvaniei or Mezőség. Maybe just create a stub article.
• as I understand about 60% of what was called Partium is Crisana and Maramures, the rest being in Hungary and Ukraine. We can add see also Partium or something like that.
• Tara Oasului and Tara Lapusului are in the Maramures county, but not in the historical region Maramures. I don;t know what to do about them.:Dc76 11:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Gellu, Glad and Menumorut

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)

Romanian immigration in Transylvania

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)

According to the Hungarian historiography the Romanian immigration was insignificant between 1700-1740. Respectively increased in the next 20 year. According to them the main reason for this Romanian population grew was not just the Romanian immigration but the Hungarian "emmigration" toward the Hungarian Great Plain. The hungarian population growth in Transylvania between 1710 and 1770 was only c. 15,000 ...--fz22 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen in Prodan some figures for 1750-1760 and it's no boom in Romanian demographics for Transylvania (1750: 537,722 Romanians in Transylvania except Braşov and Ţara Bârsei, 1761: 552,820 after one source - Buccow, 547,273 after another - J. Benkő, in the same area). He also disputes some of the emmigration arguments like those of Ignácz Acsády (1896). Daizus 06:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Why Banat is included in Transylvania?

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)

maybe because is generally considered part of transylvania? wikipedia notes use, it doesn't establish rules.Anonimu 12:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Banat is a part of Transilvania; I think you are confusing it with "Ardeal" (of course Banat its not a part of Ardeal) Eurocopter tigre 14:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And Kuala Lumpur is the capital of the USA.

Anonimu and Eurocopter are giving incomplete (Anonimu) and uninformed (Eurocopter) replies. The correct reply is the following, in several parts:

1. Today, the use of the word "Transylvania", for instance at TV, makes it include Banat, Crisana, and Maramures.
2. Geographically speaking, this incorrect, as Arad or Oradea were never "Beyond the forests" w.r.t. Hungary proper.
3. Historically, it's more complex. At one time, the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom of Zapolya encompassed more or less today's Transylvania. However, the "Historic Transylvania" is only the core of today's region. You have a map describing this later in the article.

Dpotop 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ethnography

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? KissL 16:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The name of the dance Mezőség is and should remain as it is. If we speak about an area in Romania, we have to use the coresponding name af that area: Câmpia Transilvaniei, same as Banat, Maramureş, Mărginimea Sibiului etc. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  16:46, 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)

WikiProject European History Collaboration of the Month

How many articles are there?

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)

Transylvanian Diet

What's with the Transylvanian Diet? No, first, WHAT IS IT? It's in the introduction. Basketball110 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's kind of like Atkins diet but with more blood. Or something like that.

Actually, apparently it was a governmental organ of Transylvania. I'm researching it right now to try to find something helpful. - Revolving Bugbear 21:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Transylvania, not Principality of Transylvania

• This article is about Transylvania and the infobox should reflect that. Principality of Transylvania is a separate article and a different issue.
• Britannica clearly emphasizes:

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.

Also:

When Austria-Hungary was defeated in World War I, the Romanians of Transylvania in late 1918 proclaimed the land united with Romania.

These seem to be the key dates here (should be emphasized in the infobox), 1110 and 1867 are not key moments regarding Transylvania's status (remained under Hungarian rule in those years). But we may ask a third party if necessary.

• Romanian (official language) — from 1920 should be added, otherwise it's misleading (this is an encyclopedia)
• let's not define the Székely people here (this definition is disputed and the article is not about them), just mention them
• www.impulzus.ro - important to add that? Seems like spam
• István Bocskay and János Hunyadi go by their original, Hungarian names in Britannica, so I thought mentioning them at least in brackets wouldn't be a problem... Squash Racket (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania as a adminitrative etity ceaded to exist in 1867, not in 1918. Until 1867 it was called Großfürstentum Siebenbürgen. After the Ausgleich, it was fully integrated into the Hungarian Kingdom (as it never was before in it's entire history), it didn't have the same status as Croatia-Slavonia.--Olahus (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is about a historical region, not an administrative entity. Transylvania was under Hungarian rule from 1003 till 1918. In 1867 it remained under Hungarian rule just like before. Key date: end of WWI, from when it belongs to Romania.

Britannica doesn't even mention 1110 as a date of anything and you insert it as a key moment. Squash Racket (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The territory of Transylvania belonged to Hungary between 1003 and 1526 and again between 1867 and 1918. But: the first document that mentiones a denomination of this territory dates fom 1071. Besides, it is also a historical region of Romania. In fact, it is only a historical region of Romania today. --Olahus (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

So, Transylavia wasn't a part of Hungary "only" between 1526 and 1687/1699, right? But even after 1687/1699, Hungary was a part of the Austrian Empire and Transylvania was a separate administrative entity, a principality, until 1867.

What kind of relaible source is actually www.encyclopedia.com ?? I never heared about it. Besides, give me a reason to believe that Transylvania's history began in 1003 (or "cca. 1000")... Transylvania had a rich history long before the Hungarian conquest.--Olahus (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm repeating the quote from the lead of the article Transylvania (Britannica), I think it's pretty easy to understand:

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).

Britannica highlights the following in its summary in the lead of its own article:

• formed part of Hungary (1003-1526)
• Ottoman Empire (1526-1687)
• Hungary again (1687-1918/1920)
• Romania (from 1918/1920)

The site you mentioned hosts Columbia Encyclopedia which is frequently used besides Britannica when disputes arise here. Click on the encyclopedia's Wikipedia page and read about it.

Transylvania's pre-1000 history is mentioned in the article, but we're still talking about the infobox, right? Based on the lead of the Britannica article what info would you include? Squash Racket (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

This is a good question. Certainly some reference to preexisting governments might be useful, but doing so in every article which deals with territories whose names have changed would make for a lot of redundant content. I would take a guess that maybe the way to go here would be to have this article use as its starting time when the area first began to be popularly called "Transylvania", and add a "see here" link to whichever article deals with the history of the region before that time. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All we need is infobox data, the article itself deals with all the history of the region. So is there a better proposal for the infobox? Squash Racket (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How about the merging of the articles Transylvania and Principality of Transylvania ?--Olahus (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be like merging Kingdom of Romania into Romania. Squash Racket (talk) 04:15, 28 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)

Transylvania and the Principality of Transylvania are two different things (the latter only a period in the history of the historical region), while Moldavia is a historical region and a former principality at the same time. Squash Racket (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I can also say: "Moldavia and the Principality of Moldavia are two different things (the latter only a period in the history of the historical region)". Where is the difference? --Olahus (talk) 11:49, 29 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)

we could overstep this problem only by simplifying it. Let's move the infobox here and let's identify T. as a geographical unit. Another problem is the lack of exact distinction between the historical Transylvania (T. without Maramures, Crisan, Banat) and the post-Trianon - IMO wrong - usage of the term. I think this issue deserve a separate paragpraph. The infobox is also inacurate from this point of view too, for the simple reason that a proper Transylvania map was included. Also the history section is ambiguous in the way that the reader never knows for sure what Transylvania compass in the current paragprah (eg. Bihor is automatically added to the history of T. however it has nothing to do with it, except for a short period, in the era of the semiindependent Principality) But this is not unusual even in historical essays where the starting point is that "Transylvania"(+Maramures, Crisana, Banat) know belongs to Romania, and everything is deducted backwards from this basic idea ... --fz22 (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

History of Idsocol

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)

INFOBOX

The infobox should be moved to the Principality of T. article, I think. Does not belongs here. (see Kingdom of Prussia or many other similar articles) --fz22 (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

How about simplifying the History paragraph. Now we have a relatively detailed version in two diffeent article (+ I don't feel like fighting a two-front "war" /see idsocol latest edits/) --fz22 (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Tatari = Tatar , Gypsies = Roma or Ţigani

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)

Recent deletion

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)

the text you quoted is out from its original context; do you want to manipulate the readers by using citations that lost their original meaning? That book tells us how a few historical facts and characters were used by Romanian Communist regime to emphasize some nationalistic ideas and Ceausescu myth: he was put aside of these characters to obtain historical hallow. The existence of Gelou, Glad and Menumorout is never questioned in that book - the idea you want to underline. If you want to contest the relevance of Gesta Hungarorum, please find some sources outside Hungarian historiography - in this way you might convince me. I am not a Romanian supporter, but when I see your Hungarian nationalistic frenzy, I am just not impressed. Carpaticus (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 10:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The book tells what it needs to tell: the theory was heavily influenced by nationalist ideology, its only source is the Gesta Hungarorum, which is not enough to justify it. The history books of the Ceausescu era started to depict these figures whose mere existence is questionable as "national heros". That is what the reference says and I cited it almost word by word.

Please avoid personal attacks especially in light of your editing pattern. Squash Racket (talk) 10:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither Britannica, nor Encarta mention this theory in their respective articles. Squash Racket (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

you should know that Encarta and Britannica usually have very brief articles and they are by far smaller than today Wikipedia. Therefore they present in a few words general data, which is not the case here.``Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages`` is a history targeted source, written by neutral authors (they are not Romanians neither Hungarians): Andre Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Adrian Walford, Michael Lapidge. They are prestigious historians, Medieval History professors at Cambridge and the University of York. They mention Gesta Hungarorum and the three local lords: Gelou, Menumorout and Glad [[3]]. THIS ENCYCLOPEDIA WAS NOT WRITTEN BY CEAUSESCU AND THEIR AUTHORS WERE NOT INFLUENCED BY THE COMMUNISTS! So, you cannot delete a theory that is sustained by NEUTRAL sources, written by authors that are not Hungarians, neither Romanians. But you try to bring false arguments and to fabricate texts that you extract from various books and then you "help" them to lose their original meaning. Thus you want to creat some "trustful" material in order to sustain your theory. This is not compromise and NPOV at all!

I DIDN'T DELETE THE SOURCE ADDED BY YOU SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR PROBLEM! WHY DO YOU USE LARGE LETTERS? Squash Racket (talk) 06:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please watch your language, this is not the first time I ask you to do this. Wikipedia allows us to use Hungarian, Romanian, English etc. references as long as they're reliable. I cited an English language book published by a reliable university press. It is 100% accepted source here and you won't remove it by force.

Please next time add your comment after mine to see who said what. Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Please watch your language. The capitals were put there for you to see the text better. : Carpaticus . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpaticus (talk • contribs) 06:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with my language? Would you exactly point this out?

We usually don't use large letters in discussions. Squash Racket (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Expressions like "I don't understand your problem" are not colloquial, I think you realize this. Carpaticus (talk) 6:01, 4 August 2008

Please don't post your comment in the middle of mine. I always have to move it after mine, thank you.

You obviously have a problem with the material if you remove it repeatedly despite all the warnings and a block. What would you call that if not a problem?

Secondary sources (books published by reliable university presses) overwrite tertiary sources (like encyclopedias), so I'm still waiting for a valid explanation. Squash Racket (talk) 05:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I will open a new section, because this subject "recent deletion" does not reflect the main idea of the debate, OK? Carpaticus (talk) 05:12, 4 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)

Please, let's discuss on the real subject of controversy, that is Gesta Hungarorum, see the section bellow. I know the copyright policy, thank you. Carpaticus (talk) 05:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you knew the copyright policy, you wouldn't insist on exact citations.

The main question is the recent deletion of a relevant reliable source, not the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum. I didn't remove the citation based on the Gesta, you removed the well-referenced criticism. Squash Racket (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The criticism was not "well-referenced" at all, please read that book carefully and after we can discuss. I told you many times before, I do not agree the way you extract text and put it apart from its original sense. Carpaticus (talk) 05:59, 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)

Yes, this is the summary of the book. so do you think if you copy-paste the summary this would be a relevant reasoning? I really doubt. Carpaticus (talk) 06:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the citations and the intro, you won't see big contradictions. I used the source what it was meant for. Squash Racket (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So, you cited:

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.

To understand the meaning of this phrase we need to start the reading from the previous paragraph, same page 222 of Lucian Boia's book (hope this would not infringe the copyright policy, and I need to quote the paragraph to prove that your citation lost its original sense):

page 222 [[4]]

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.

The text is about the false relations created among the various historical characters and the author gives the example of the sequence of the statues (busts) lined up in the front of the Military Museum in Bucharest. The author criticize and therefore does not agree with the selection and grouping of these personalities. He does not question their existence or credibility, like Squash Racket intended to evoke. Carpaticus (talk) 08:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

As many as necessary. Again your reasoning is not correct. In that part of the book (pages 124-125) the author is telling about the exercise of the critical historiography, which was not followed by some communist historians. Therefore he concludes that, because of these historians lack of documented reasoning, these personalities lost their real character and became the individualisation of a certain political idea. So, again, the critics are for the methods communists used to emphasize some ideological ideas. The author does not question the existence of Gelou, Glad or Menumorout. Carpaticus (talk) 09:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your reasoning is again incorrect:

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.

The section gives some rather general information too, it is about the influence of national communism on Romanian historiography:

inventing out of nothing a Romanian republic in the year 271

Encyclopedias usually give their sources for their articles: a guy called Matei Cazacu (sounds Romanian) wrote the article in Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages that you cited based on various sources. The Cambridge guys just edited the whole encyclopedia, not this specific article. They simply put in the encyclopedia an article written by a Romanian. Squash Racket (talk) 10:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your reasoning: the year 271 has nothing in common with our subject, please do not try to divagate, it is useless. We are speaking about the period of 10th-12th centuries A.D when the Magyars arrived in the region. Carpaticus (talk) 11:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Ultra Forested???

I suspect that this unreferenced bit from the article is untrue and is, indeed, absurd:

"Transylvania was first referred to in a Medieval Latin document in 1075 as ultra silvam, meaning "exceedingly forested" (ultra meaning "excessively or beyond what is common" and the accusative case of sylva (sylvam) meaning "wood or forest")."

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)

Gesta Hungarorum - is it a reliable historical manuscript or not?

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:

1. First of all - because is cited by numerous international encyclopedias and history books;

2. Second - it is a real manuscript written at the Hungarian King Bela court;

3. Third - many facts described in this document are confirmed by archeological proofs

Carpaticus (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Ménmarót, Gyalu, Galád (their Hungarian names) nobody is really convinced, because the manuscript is from two hundred years after these events. So you may see it as a fairy tale, or a fringe theory just as well and criticism is valid.

But the title of this section is absolutely wrong, because that is not the question here. Some believe what the Gesta says, some don't. It is a matter of belief. Nobody knows to what extent it is reliable, because there are mistakes in it.

The main question here is why you deleted a book by a non-Hungarian author (the name Lucian Boia to me sounds Romanian BTW), a book published by a university press that is considered more reliable on Wikipedia than tertiary sources (encyclopedias). Squash Racket (talk) 05:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please merge the two sections, I wanted to avoid commenting in two threads, and asked you not to start a new one. Squash Racket (talk) 05:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, so we have a start of the discussion, at least we can talk much closer to the subject. Please read the entire book (or at least the chapter you quoted from) and you will see that Boia's book is telling about how a few Romanian nationalist/communist historians overestimated the importance of some historical figures, among them being the Gesta Hungarorum characters: Gelou, Menumorout and Glad. The author does not question the reliability of Gesta Hungarorum, but makes some critics of the manner those historians presented and emphasized the facts. The way you presented the citations clearly changed the original meaning of the text, by inducing the idea that Gesta Hungarorum is not a trusted source because it evokes Ceausescu's communist political theory. This meaning is far away from what Lucian Boia's original text. Carpaticus (talk) 06:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you finally decide which thread to continue? Why did you start this one?

You don't need to read the whole book to quote it (wrong request). I copy the intro of the book here too:

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.

I used exact citations from the book, because you deleted the earlier version which wasn't copyright infringement.

The book says:

the priviliged position of these figures tended to put brakes on the normal exercise of Romanian critical historiography

It is a reliable source and this is relevant information.

Also:

Rather than being real people, these three seem to be symbolic figures, the individualizations of a certain political idea

. 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)

The next citation I used:

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.

Instead that I wrote:

Emphasizing this trio illustrates 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)

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)

You cited that encyclopedia in the article and nobody removed it. But as you couldn't tolerate another point of view, it was you who repeatedly removed the well-referenced criticism of the theory. Please don't accuse me with your own actions. Squash Racket (talk) 06:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

These are your words "nobody is really convinced" and I showed you that those "nobody" are coming from prestigious universities, like Cambridge. Carpaticus (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.17.85.18 (talk)

They included it in an encyclopedia article. Fine. Does that mean they are really convinced? They accepted the Gesta as a source, others don't. They had this material on their hands. Other encyclopedias don't do that, other academic sources criticise the theory (like the one added by me). I repeat: when secondary and tertiary sources are in conflict, we accept the secondary source. I still don't want to remove the whole theory though. Squash Racket (talk) 07:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I will continue the discussion about the above citations in the initial section not to divagate from the subject of Gesta Hungarorum Carpaticus (talk) 07:17, 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)

Sure, we don't, but you wrote before that "nobody is really convinced" about Gesta. I think we should talk on separate sections because here are 2 issues:

1. the citations you extracted from Lucian Boia's book (please see my comments above)

2. the credibility of Gesta Hungarorum which you consider a not reliable source (if we look in the Transylvania's page history, you wrote this: Besides the source of this theory being the unreliable Gesta Hungarorum...)Carpaticus (talk) 08:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's focus on the first one now, there are enough sources about the problems with Gesta Hungarorum. Remember? You can add Hungarian, Romanian, American etc. sources as long as they're reliable.

So for now let's close this thread. Squash Racket (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This thread I opened to mediate a dispute and to clearly understand the reasons why some (I suspect Hungarian) users are arguing that it is not a reliable source. I presented my POV. Would you please indicate some non-Hungarian sources that are putting this chronicle under question? Carpaticus (talk) 09:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules allow the usage of Hungarian sources just as well as Romanian or American, German etc. ones. It is not you who sets the rules, but the community. Just for clarification. Squash Racket (talk) 09:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia policy allows the usage of different sources but I would rather rely on neutral sources when the subject is disputed in order to preserve a neutral point of view (NPOV). The Hungarian or Romanian sources have not credit in this matter. Would you please indicate some non-Hungarian sources that disqualify Gesta Hungarorum?Carpaticus (talk) 09:52, 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)

Most of the people know that all encyclopedias are written by tens or hundreds of authors and the publisher supervises and endorses the content. Would be useful for you to look at the references cited above the name of the author. They includes also a Hungarian book. So your criticism is just not in the right place. Carpaticus (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I cited a book written by a Romanian containing some criticism in English and published by a university press, the book is a secondary source. You cited an article from a tertiary source written by a Romanian author about Romanian POV (let's guess what sources he used for the story of Menomorut&Co.). Squash Racket (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Transylvania's status after 1690

After 1683 victory over the Turkish armies at the gates of Vienna, Transylvania came under Habsburg rule. 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)

That's the administrative status of Transylvania, right?

Britannica puts it this way:

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) 07:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So than this question shows, how superficial is Britannica. in fact the end of the Transylvanian statehood is dated 30 April 1711. --fz22 (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Britannica goes on like that:

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).

Squash Racket (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Faulty Citation

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)

I cited the research of the Library of Congress word by word as their material (at least their country studies) as far as I know are not copyright protected. Thanks, Squash Racket (talk) 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki

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)

Etymology of Transylvania

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)

See main article Historical names of Transylvania. It is unacceptable that you delete every single reference on the Hungarian name. The English first encountered Hungarians here, not Latin people.

BTW your criticism of the references is a bit strange after adding this "neutral reference". Squash Racket (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

How can you say Transylvania is coming from Erdoelve and not from The Medieval Latin form Ultrasylvania ? Does Transilvania sounds simmilar to Erdoelve ? because it's not a translation from Hungarian to English it's a LATIN WORD . If it was taken from Hungarian then it would sound similar to Erdoelve not Ultrasylvania. I must remember you that "Ardeunna Silva" is used in Latin language as early as 50 BC . Can you bring neutral sources for your claim and not hungarian ? Rezistenta (talk) 17:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is that strange, because it's in french language? Rezistenta (talk)

By the way, it's also Pennsylvania coming from Hungarian ? Rezistenta (talk) 17:06, 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)

And the sufix "-silvania" came from Hungarian language not Latin isn't it ? My friend, the phrase "Ultra Silvam" wa used by Julius Ceaser in De Bello Gallico and like I said before it's used in hundreds of locations with symilar characteristics. Your source is a HUNGARIAN source, we all know how much hungarian historians "enrich" the reality with fantasy . Based on what he says the word comes from hungarian and not Latin ? just because he says so and we must believe him ? Have you seen me citing romanian sources over here ? Give me some neutral sources because hungarian historians are untrustfull and we know the principle by how you guys fabricate history : " Or we will maghyarize every nation , or we will dissappear ! " ( Nemzeti politica a Felvideken , Budapest , 1898 , page 25 ) Rezistenta (talk) 17:23, 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)

-silvania it's a Latin word, how could it be a translation into English from Hungarian ? What's wrong with that source ?Rezistenta (talk)

OK, if you don't understand the first part, forget it. But - for the third time - what is this? I don't see anything regarding Transylvania there, it seems to be some Belgian website. Squash Racket (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Latin form Ultrasylvania, later Transylvania, was most likely a direct translation from the Hungarian form", Latin form most likely translation. There is nothing there about English. Also Engel Pál is a respected historian, so please cut back on some of your comments. Hobartimus (talk) 17:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say he's not a respected historian, but would you trust a romanian source which would claim something really improbable ? How could it be a translation from hungarian to Latin since this phrase in Latin exists since 50 BC ? And I really don't have anything against hungarians let's just try to reach a censous based on sources and logic Rezistenta (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I would understand that you would distrust something that was really unprobable, but this case seems to me like a minor point is it really that improbable? I don't see this as a big issue at all. Also as I read the text direct translation simply means that translating something rather than naming it in that language let's say a place is called "Fehérvár" in a language meaning word for word White Tower. So if you direct translate a place into English you can call it WhiteTower from the translation of the Hungarian name but the phrase was used in let's say Lord of the Rings, The Two Towers doesn't mean anything regarding the name of the place that was translated. So in this sense that a phrase existed or not in 50BC and was used to describe other things like a fictional tower in a book as opposed to an actual city won't solve the matter. Hobartimus (talk) 18:29, 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)

http://www.bookfinder.com/author/x-delamarre/ Rezistenta (talk) 18:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A French source is also non-English. Is it possible that a French source will favor a Romanian theory over a Hungarian one? You see this as a neutral source? The reference I added is at least written in English. Squash Racket (talk) 18:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

So you accept that the ethnicity of the author may weight in one's claims. Do you think a hungarian author will favor the hungarian theory over the other ones ? Furtunatelly with Ardeunna Silva it's not the case The "De Bello Gallio" it's a work by Julius Caesar and not written by Delamerre :) Rezistenta (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And someone please explain to me this phrase " Transylvania, was most likely a direct translation from the Hungarian form" It's a litterary translation from the source or it's your opinion ? Rezistenta (talk) 18:45, 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)

When you phrase like this "most likely the hungarian version is the right one not the others" I think the readers may be a little bit disinformed, is this what you call neutrality ? I changed that reference into an english one Rezistenta (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The English reference doesn't say anything about the usage in 50 BC.

For the fifth time: would you finally clarify what this Belgian website has to do with anything? Squash Racket (talk) 06:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

De Bello Gallico it's written in year 50 BC, what part of this you don't understand ? Rezistenta (talk) 09:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I Will remove that source I already added a better english one Rezistenta (talk) 09:28, 13 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)

It's from De Bello Gallico from the Dellamerre source, what the heck man do a google search for "De Bello Gallico" . The belgian source was taken exactly as a souce from somewhere else where it cites exactly the same thing, I didn't checked it before altought Rezistenta (talk)

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)

Did you got blocked with the french source ? Can't you read ? " The belgian source was taken exactly as a souce from somewhere else where it cites exactly the same thing, I didn't checked it before altought and I will remove it" Rezistenta (talk) 10:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The english reference proves that the romans were using that phrase, but I think you must register to read the full text Rezistenta (talk) 10:19, 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)

Read the etymology section of Arduinna The name Arduenna silva for "wooded heights" was applied to several forested mountains, not just the modern Ardennes: it is found in the départements of Alleuze, Haute-Loire and Puy-du-Dôme (Delamarre pp.51-52). Rezistenta (talk) 10:32, 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)

Relevance of a "somewhat similar phrase" “Ardeunna Silva”

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:

The first occurance of a somewhat similar phrase to this phrase referring to a forest in today's Belgium can be found in Julius Caesar’s work “De Bello Gallico”, where the Forest of Soignes is called by him “Ardeunna Silva”. The name “Ardeunna Silva” for "wooded heights" was applied to several forested mountains, including Ardennes in France.

I place this unsupported paragraph here from the Etymology section Faller (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC):

It may be a result of an elision from the Romanian words aur and deal ("gold" and "hill", respectively), resulting in Ardeal from the composed word Aur-deal. It may also take its origin from the Indo-European root "Ard" found in hundreds of geographic locations, all sharing these topographic characteristics.

Examples: Ardal (Iran) , Arduba (Albania), Ardnin (Austria), Ardel (Italy), Ardelu (France), Arduinna (region of Belgium, Luxembourg and France) etc.

Latin problem

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)

"Transylvania is an ancient land..."

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)

Maybe it should be written "ancient land of civilisation"; among other archeological discoveries, here were found some tablets dated 5500 BC with pictograms that could represent the oldest known form of writing in the world, see Tărtăria tablets

Carpaticus (talk) 11:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

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)

Exact citation

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)

the country-like box

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)

Intro

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)

New intro

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.

1. What is this dubious term "Carpathian Basin" (which 1. redirects to Pannonian Basin and 2. is very contested by non-Hungarian historians as well as by balanced Hungarian historians, as it is heavily loaded with irredentistic elements), and why is it used on the intro? Is that really necessary?
2. Why "is a Central European region located in the eastern half of the Carpathian Basin... bla bla bla in present-day' central Romania" and not the simple and concise (using the well established pattern) "historical province and geographical region of Romania"? What is with the "present day"? Why does the fact that it is a "Central European region" (as opposed to a Balkan one, like... you know who, right?) "in the Carpathian Basin" primes over the fact that Transylvania is a Romanian region?
3. In the paragraph "the term sometimes encompasses all the territories that belonged to Hungary before World War I: not only Transylvania proper, but also the historical regions of Crişana and Maramureş (see also Partium), and (Romanian) Banat. Before 1918/1920 the term was sometimes used in "lesser" Romania to denote the eastern part of Greater Hungary with a significant Romanian population." I found the following issues: 1. why is the reference a map [7]? 2. Were else on wikipedia can you find, in the lead paragraph, a "see also" link? Is the mentioning of the (Hungarian) Partium region essential? What is this hinting at? 3. And why does the word "Hungary" mean in the phrase "territories that belonged to Hungary"? Isn't that Austria-Hungary? 4. The whole paragraph is long and confusing. There is part about what the term meant before 1918/1920, and another one about what it meant afterwards. This is superfluous, as the term meant the same. The only necessary dichotomy is that between "Transylvania proper" and Transylvania=Transylvania proper+Banat+etc.". My edit ("The term encompases north-west of the Carpathians which did not belong to Romania before World Word II") is simple and accurate, it is valid now, and it it was valid then (all you have to do is read hte phrase in negative; anybody with an ounce of brain can do it.
4. Why the need for the "gold and salt" in "conquered the territory and its wealth (gold and salt) was systematically exploited"?Isn't that superfluous? I would rather include the info that Dacia was the main imperial granary, above all.
5. The phrase "Visigoths, Carpians, Huns, and Gepids Slavic peoples", which is grammatically incorrect, also contains excesive info (the Carpians and Huns are mentioned, though their role was not prominent in Transylvania's history) while at the same time omites information which is more usefull and correct (i.e. the Avars). My version and which would be in consonace with the trivial character of the phrase (meant to present a quick and timeline of the area) up until the 10th century.
6. The info that "In the 10th century Transylvania witnessed the emergence of the first attested Romanian polity." is 1. crucial for any reader 2. hold great importance in Romanian historical conscience, and is, likewise, heavily referenced in Romanian historiography.
7. The phrase "Starting with the 10th century Magyar tribes slowly subdued Transylvania, which became part of the Kingdom of Hungary (11th–16th century). As a political entity, Transylvania is mentioned from the 11th century (after the Hungarian conquest) as a voivodeship, part of the Kingdom of Hungary" was replaced with "Between the 11th and 13th century the Magyar tribes slowly subdued Transylvania, and henceforth, as a political entity, Transylvania survived as a voivodeship, part of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen alongside the Kingdom of Hungary (proper) and the Kingdom of Croatia". The latter version is more accurate (the juridical status of Transylvania) and clear (for example, the former version states that "startig with the 10th century the Magyar tribes subdued Transylvania" but it doesn't say up until what moment this "subdueing" took place. And then we are presented with a pair of round brackets containing the info "11th–16th century". We already knew that Transylvania was included in KoH starting from the 11th century, but what the heck, you might say, it may be repeating previous info, but it also presents us with new one (i.e. "16 century"). Wrong!!! Just a few lines down we are informed, yet again, that "after the battle of Mohács in 1526" Transylvania seized to be part of KoH. I prefered to replace all these duplications (another one: we know that Transylvania was "subdued"; we've just read that. Yet we read again that, when Transylvania was first mentioned as a voivodeship, it was "after the Hungarian conquest". Duhh!) with usefull information.
8. The affirmation that "the province was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary" is preposterous!!! It was a land of the Habsburg/Austrian Crown (as was KoH, K. of Croatia, Duchy of Bukovina, etc.; furthermore, it was officially a "Grand Principality". This is what my version states - compare this to the previous lapidary and obscurantist term used: "the province"). No need to develop my argument further more.
9. The phrase "again part of the Kingdom of Hungary (within the newly established Austria-Hungary) in 1867" was replaced with "Subsequently, Transylvania was included in the "Kingdom of Hungary" (Transleithania) part of the newly established Austro-Hungarian empire" because: 1. the year when Transylvania became part of Austria-Hungary is already given, few lines above, in the paragraph about Transylvania as a Habsburg/Austrian land. 2. Transylvania was part of the KoH inside Austria-Hungary. That is, the region of Transylvania was part of the state called Austria-Hungary (albeit in the Transleithanian part), and this how the info should be presented.
10. The phrase "and a part of the Kingdom of Romania after World War I" was replaced with "is a part of Romania since World War I" becasue Romania is not a kingdom anymore, as the former version (undeliberately) implied.

→ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You received your warning for edit warring.

The version added by you is not the version that was based on Britannica. It is a POV, but it is not referenced by reliable, neutral, English sources.

"In the 10th century Transylvania witnessed the emergence of the first attested Romanian polity" - are you serious? I advise you to change it back to the earlier version, you made controversial edits without waiting for the input of other editors and now it looks like this version is based on Britannica which is not true. Squash Racket (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this all you have to say? And stop flashing the word "Britannica". It doesn't really help you as long as you don't address the crux of the problem. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 19:31, 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)

• I added a reference for the unreliability of the Gesta Hungarorum on which the "early Romanian polity" theory is based. But for the fact itself a reliable, neutral possibly English citation is needed. I think as this is a more than controversial theory, it does not belong in the lead. Squash Racket (talk) 08:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
• I added a tag (to avoid reverting) for the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen designation which is not used in this time period and Britannica definitely didn't use it. Transylvania was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary at that time. Squash Racket (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but so was Croatia, yet this Land of the Kingdom of Hungary/ Land of the Holy Crown is presented in a quite distinct manner than Transylvania. This is despite the fact that the two lands had simmilar statuses (not identical, I never stated that). I won't re-add the info yet, I have to check my books and perhaps search a little on the internet for accesible references. And stop it already with Britannica. You sound like a broken record... ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

You push your POV, while Britannica is a reliable, neutral, English source. So I won't "stop it with Britannica" and I ask you to read WP:CIV again and also WP:NPA. Squash Racket (talk) 16:36, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply put this is not the way forward. Make smaller changes that can be discussed one by one. Simply forcing your massively changed rewrote version over and over is not likely to achieve consensus. Hobartimus (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity stressed. Why?

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)

End of 9th century and 1003 - important dates/periods in the timeline of Transylvania from the Britannica article - these got removed. Why?

Just to inform you, you removed citations from Britannica and replaced those with your original research. Not accepted. You received your warning for edit warring. Squash Racket (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Legend

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)

Section renaming

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)

Reliability of Gesta Hungarorum

The Gesta Hungarorum contains many mistakes while fails to mention basic facts. Only those parts of the chronicle are accepted that are confirmed by other written sources. The part regarding Transylvania doesn't belong to these. Quote:

(...)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.

Squash Racket (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Than isn't the version "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" ok? It used both the reference in favour (and states that is the events only "allegedly" happened) and the Britannica ones (which states that the events could simply be a legend). ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

And in any case, you, or anybody else, have to respect the fact that in Romanian mentality (as reflected in its historiography), the events about the early history of the voivodeship of Transylvania (may they be truth or legends) hold great importance, and I think this suffices for the inclusion of two sentences in the article's lead paragraph ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

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)

It is only controversial in certain "circles"... For the casual reader, it is certainly not controversial. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

For the casual reader this is simply misleading.

I added this:

There is an ongoing dispute among historians over whether Hungarians or Romanians first entered the territory of Transylvania.

And a link to the article Origin of the Romanians that tries to present the full debate. This is the most neutral solution as we can't list all the arguments pro and contra in the lead. The lead should contain only undisputed facts based on neutral, reliable, English references. Squash Racket (talk) 08:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

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)

Introduction

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)

Please, your argument is really weak at this point. You say it does not matter what happened at some point during it's 1000 year history, however this point is a 150 year long "point" (that's some point) and also the only "point" during which Transylvania was somewhat independent which never happened before or since. What's your problem with the Britannica based version anyway? Hobartimus (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

Don't call a revert to the Britannica-based version "vandalism" in your edit summary. You may be blocked for that. (Read WP:VAN.)

Feel free to remove the "Calvinist Hungarian princes" part, I only reverted because you made too many other changes too. Among these deletion of important, well-referenced information (Britannica) which — I repeat myself — wasn't accepted and I won't spend another hour separating your constructive edits from your unconstructive ones.

Please leave the Europe map above the detailed map as the reader obviously needs to know where the region in Europe lies first. Squash Racket (talk) 09:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your points:

• I removed the Carpathian Basin part, it's not crucial or may be renamed to Pannonian Basin if you wish
• Transylvania is rather a historical region of Hungary and a present region of Romania; the "historical region of Romania" part is simply unencyclopedic knowing the history of the region. I think "Central European region comprising part of Romania since the end of World War I" is an acceptable compromise (Hungary directly not even mentioned).
• the lesser Romania etc." part and the map from another wiki was dropped
• feel free to remove "gold and salt" if it bothers you
• I've left there the Avars and removed the Carpians as you wished
• I've added the sentence about the dispute on early Hungarian/Romanian presence with a link to the article "Origin of the Romanians"
• your deletion of "the Hungarians conquering Transylvania at the end of the 9th century and establishing their rule in 1003" (right from Britannica) wasn't accepted.
• "the province was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governor" - Britannica exactly says that. We may add "as a Grand Principality" if you wish.
• "again part of the Kingdom of Hungary (within the newly established Austria-Hungary) in 1867" - you may add Transleithenia in brackets after "Kingdom of Hungary" if you really insist on that
• Kingdom of Romania/Romania: pick the one you like.

Squash Racket (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I modified the lead addressing the points I considered at least partly valid. Squash Racket (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent edit

1. The map of Transylvania inside Romania comes FIRST, then that of Transylvania inside Europe. And they both have the SAME size.
2. It is clear what Transylvania is (i.e. a region of Romania), and it should be clear to the reader. Hence the removal of sophistry regarding the Treaty of Trianon, WW1 etc. Also removed "belonged to Hungary before World War I" since Transylvania and Banat, Maramures and Crisana, belonged to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. During their history, they also belonged to other states, such as the Austrian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and even the curious Banat Republic.
3. The word is "historical", NOT "historic". See a dictionary for more info.
4. Added reference for Transylvania as part of the Habsburg Empire.

→ ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Editor blocked and warned by administrators, still keeps on edit warring

• The map of Europe comes before the detailed one, because the reader has to locate the region in Europe first
• it is clear that Transylvania as a historical region has a longer shared history with Hungary, while not a very long one with Romania and that has to be clear for the average reader
• your minor grammatical correction is no excuse for deletion of important Britannica information for several days
• I found in the reference that Transylvania was controlled by Habsburg officials, which doesn't contradict what Britannica says, but the latter also says "attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary" which you happened to delete. Not accepted.

Squash Racket (talk) 07:21, 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.

Squash Racket (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Your argument about the maps is simply silly and twisted.
2. I think you are too emotionally involved to accurately decide what has to be made clear to the reader or how long is Transylvania's history "shared" (whatever this means...) with Hungary (is that MODERN Hungary?) compared to I don't know what other country. And, ultimately, it's irrelevant to the CURRENT STATE of Transylvania.
3. Check what the historiographical canon regarding the Austrian lands is (you could start by perusing this) and then use WP:common sense.

`ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 07:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I think you've been warned by an administrator and I'm warning you now to stop personal attacks. I can't make a judgment about your argument, because you haven't presented one.
• If those 900 YEARS of shared history with Hungary don't matter to you while based on less than 100 years you want to present the region as "a historical region of Romania", then I think you are too emotionally involved to accurately decide what has to be made clear to the reader.
• I didn't find the citation that you used the reference for, only words that were also found in Britannica (which you removed because of facts you don't like to put it simply). We are not referring to the whole time period from 1526, that must be clear. You turn on and turn off "Common sense" whenever it seems to fit you. Squash Racket (talk) 07:59, 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.

Still no answer for these, please don't try to bury these facts. Squash Racket (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The article already states that the region was part of the Kingdom of Hungary between the 11th century (ahh... btw, the year 1003 is in the 11th century) and 1523. And using "Hungarians" (btw. why did you linked it to the article about the modern Magyar people?) instead of "Kingdom of Hungary" gave rise to a number of interpretations and speculations, besides the redundancy itself. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Hungarians conquering Transylvania at the end of the 9th century. I CITED A RELIABLE SOURCE. If that "gives rise to speculations", I'm very sorry. Squash Racket (talk) 08:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of a statement

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)

The FIRST THREE WORDS of Britannica's article are: "Transylvania, region, Romania". I rest my case. And Wikipedia is Wikipedia, not Britannica. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 07:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And my version is "Historical and geographical region of Romania". Simple & Terrible Accurate. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 07:58, 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)

Nonsense! :) ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 08:05, 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..

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)

Scholarly debate

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)

what issues are in the article

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)

Citation

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)

www.DACIA.org*Pages of TRUE HISTORY...[8]

...Is not a reliable source, just a Romanian POV site made by someone, to push non academic views. Some example from its homepage:

• "Dacic Website dedicated to the true history"
• "DACIA.ORG pages are not just a portal for information, but also a vehicle for liaison and exchange of experience for historians, teachers, scientists and culture, willing to learn and spread the truth"
• "The greatest Rumanian historian Nicolae Densusianu proves: the Dacians spoke the Latin language, before the Romans existed" [9]
• "The fact that the Rumanians are not Rome ’s descendants and that the Romans are their later “grandsons”, stil waits to be discovered by some of the Rumanian historians today Augustin Deac [The History of the Historical Truth- 2002])"
• "It is dificult to explaine today that the ancient Greeks may have “borrowed” their mythology or letters from the Dacians." Removed informationBaxter9 (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The Land Beyond the Trees?

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)

Reliable and unreliable sources, wikipedia policies

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)

These sources

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)

Contradictory sources

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)

Hungarian influence

I think we are getting to the bottom of this. Transylvania was incorporated at the end of the XVII century in the Habsburg Empire, administratively as a part of Hungary (also controlled by the Habsburgs), however, the Hungarians had no control over Transylvania the way they had before 1241 or the way they'll have after 1867, the region being run now by imperial governors.

I agree that the proclamation of the Grand principality has no place in the summary, however, the fact that the Hungarians had no actual control over Transylvania between 1699 and 1867 does. I'll modify the text along those lines.

The Britannica reference that Toroko deleted reads: 'and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century; later it was incorporated into Romania (1918–20)' and 'Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors.' I see no contradiction here to the way I've described things above, on the contrary, it supports this point of view. Transylvania, being subject to the direct rule of the emperor's governors was under Habsburg and not Hungarian control, although adminstratively, 'officially' it was part of the Habsburg controlled Hungary. Therefore, saying that 'it was separated in all but name from Hungary' is correct. Supported by this reference, that I believe Toroko brought in, and by the other references in the same paragraph.Octavian8 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hole Hungary was under Habsburg rule, but it was kingdom of hungary, not formally. Yes, you are right about the great autonomy, it was separate autonomically from administrative Hungary, that is true, but it was part of the kingdom of hungary, which was the magyar state. And most of the governers were hungarians, so hungarian influence should be mentioned. Please see my work to find a nice compromise about it. Toroko (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we both look for a compromise, which is a good basis.

With respect to our issue, in the period of time we are talking about (1699-1867), I don't think that Hungarians had much influence in Hungary proper, let alone having any influence in Transylvania. The fact that most governors were Hungarians -- which is for now only your allegation -- even if true, has no relevance, as they were just executors of Austrian/Habsburg politics. Hence, the Austrians had the say, NOT the Hungarians.

This point of view is actually supported by all references. Even you admit that Transylvania had a great autonomy. Therefore, I cannot agree to your text, which suggests the opposite that the Hungarians had some influence. Besides, I am in principle against deleting referenced text without a thorough discussion, especially when they are secondary references. As you see there are enough tertiary sources in the article and even crap-references like some wilde internet sites and .pdf documents that have as author some unknown organizations (e.g., US Bureau of Intelligence and Research. http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf.) which are still in, and I would not delete them as well without prior discussion.

I believe the best compromise was the version before your edit. There it was clear that Transylvania was, within the Habsburg Empire, part of Hungary, but the Habsburgs had the say. Again, all references point to this conclusion, including those you have deleted -- and I definitely don't agree to deleting referenced text, particularly when the references are secondary sources.Octavian8 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't only nominal. A lot of local Hungarians were governors and this is the most important, because they decided about the future of the territory. The reason of the existence the governors is that Transylvania couldn't be led from Vienna. so they needed a local governor. The nobles (who were also mostly Hungarians) decided about local judiciary, administrative, educational, etc. questions. Hungary was the part of the Habsburg Empire, yes, but In Bohemia there was czech influence, etc., despite it was the part of Habsburg empire. Poiting out that there was no hungarian influence and "all but name" is a very big fault and the attachement to hungary must be mentioned. There WAS hungarian influence, it can't be denied, even if it was the part of Habsburg Empire. Toroko (talk) 15:10, 19 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)

Reference [1]

There are some issues with this reference that make me believe that it should be deleted. Some of them are listed below.

Hungarian sovereignty over Transylvania(1699-1867)

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...".

Sovereignty has many forms, definitions (external, internal and others). For example Transylvania still had big autonomy, it had his own independent diet. (It was this diet which later elected Francis II Rákóczi.B@xter ⁹ 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually if one reads the paragraph a few times, one could also conclude that they mix-up (willingly or not) the period ~1700-1867 with 1867-1918. About sovereignty, just follow the link in my previous post to see what this is according to Wikipedia and we should stick to that definition.Octavian8 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Change in ethnic composition of 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)

First, I would not call the "Office of Research in Economics and Science Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State and office of Geography" a poor quality source. Second, sorry but I dont understand your problem. The source says, that Romnians migrated to Transylvania during the habsburg rule, which made change under the ethnic composotion of the territory. It does not say that Romanians did not live in Transylvania at that time, or before, so it is not against the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. I also understand that some people here try to give the Daco–Roman theory more weight by questioning references. (it is not you, blocked users and their sockpupets)B@xter ⁹ 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, as long as somethings comes from some US official or semi-official bureau it must be true, irrespective what it says... Whatever, my main problem is with the sovereignty issue, I (and others) found a multitude of different sources claiming the contrary of what this source claims. On these grounds I believe the source is at least in this respect unreliable. If this is the case, it automatically rises questions on the rest.

The issue with the change in the ethnic composition is just an example for a baseless allegation, there is nothing (no census data, no historical note, etc.) to sustain this, other than the 'original research' of the unknown authors of this Reference[1]. If you want to go along such lines, then one could argue that Transylvania underwent a change in ethnic composition with the arrival of the Hungarians to begin with.Octavian8 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

", as long as somethings comes from some US official or semi-official bureau it must be true, irrespective what it says" No of course not, i did not say that, but I would not call them "poor", (this one) since it is on a Univeristy server and is written by scholars and US works like country studies and others are recommended by wiki in cases.B@xter ⁹ 16:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This source doesn't say directly that the ethnic composition was changed in 17th-18th centuries, but that it is considered that it happened so, unfortunately without telling who considers that and more importantly without giving details. If there were censa, even unreliable ones, it would have been ok to write "according to the data of these censa, x claims the ethnic composition changed radically". It is very strange when "it is alleged/considered" but it is not clear who alleges and based on what considers. For example it's ok to write "According to the Soviets, the capitalist class washed the brains of Hungarians/Romanians. This claim is based on a campaign in newspapers from year x to year y", but it's not ok to write "It is considered that the capitalists washed the brains of Hungarians/Romanians." Dc76\^talk 20:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like, the study is based up on own research by the US government.

"This International Boundary Study is a special issue to supplement the numbered

issues of t h i s series of publications. Pending the preparation of future

International Boundary Studies, each one limited to a single boundary Segment,

this issue gives pertinent information on the status of boundaries throughout

the World. It was written in accordance with provisions of Bureau of the Budget

Circular No. A-16, Exhibit D.

Government agencies may obtain additional information and copies of the study by

contacting the Office of the Geographer, Room 8744, State Department Buildin'

Department of State, Washington, D. C., 20520 (telephone: Code 182, Ext. 450"

I have searched the internet, and found these links: http://foia.state.gov/RecordsMgt/DispSchSection.asp?cat=records&RMH=A&Chapter=17&Section=004 and http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a097/a097.html ("Bureau of the Budget Circula" and "Circular No. A-97")B@xter ⁹ 21:03, 11 June 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)

I think your edits are OK, there is nothing wrong with them.B@xter ⁹ 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, I'm glad I was of assistance. :) cheers and good luck working with this article. Dc76\^talk 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

THX! :) To you too!B@xter ⁹ 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive

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)

Reference [1]

There are some issues with this reference that make me believe that it should be deleted. Some of them are listed below.

Hungarian sovereignty over Transylvania(1699-1867)

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...".

Sovereignty has many forms, definitions (external, internal and others). For example Transylvania still had big autonomy, it had his own independent diet. (It was this diet which later elected Francis II Rákóczi.B@xter ⁹ 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually if one reads the paragraph a few times, one could also conclude that they mix-up (willingly or not) the period ~1700-1867 with 1867-1918. About sovereignty, just follow the link in my previous post to see what this is according to Wikipedia and we should stick to that definition.Octavian8 (talk) 15:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Change in ethnic composition of 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)

First, I would not call the "Office of Research in Economics and Science Bureau of Intelligence and Research, U.S. Department of State and office of Geography" a poor quality source. Second, sorry but I dont understand your problem. The source says, that Romnians migrated to Transylvania during the habsburg rule, which made change under the ethnic composotion of the territory. It does not say that Romanians did not live in Transylvania at that time, or before, so it is not against the Daco-Romanian continuity theory. I also understand that some people here try to give the Daco–Roman theory more weight by questioning references. (it is not you, blocked users and their sockpupets)B@xter ⁹ 15:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly, as long as somethings comes from some US official or semi-official bureau it must be true, irrespective what it says... Whatever, my main problem is with the sovereignty issue, I (and others) found a multitude of different sources claiming the contrary of what this source claims. On these grounds I believe the source is at least in this respect unreliable. If this is the case, it automatically rises questions on the rest.

The issue with the change in the ethnic composition is just an example for a baseless allegation, there is nothing (no census data, no historical note, etc.) to sustain this, other than the 'original research' of the unknown authors of this Reference[1]. If you want to go along such lines, then one could argue that Transylvania underwent a change in ethnic composition with the arrival of the Hungarians to begin with.Octavian8 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

", as long as somethings comes from some US official or semi-official bureau it must be true, irrespective what it says" No of course not, i did not say that, but I would not call them "poor", (this one) since it is on a Univeristy server and is written by scholars and US works like country studies and others are recommended by wiki in cases.B@xter ⁹ 16:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This source doesn't say directly that the ethnic composition was changed in 17th-18th centuries, but that it is considered that it happened so, unfortunately without telling who considers that and more importantly without giving details. If there were censa, even unreliable ones, it would have been ok to write "according to the data of these censa, x claims the ethnic composition changed radically". It is very strange when "it is alleged/considered" but it is not clear who alleges and based on what considers. For example it's ok to write "According to the Soviets, the capitalist class washed the brains of Hungarians/Romanians. This claim is based on a campaign in newspapers from year x to year y", but it's not ok to write "It is considered that the capitalists washed the brains of Hungarians/Romanians." Dc76\^talk 20:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like, the study is based up on own research by the US government.

"This International Boundary Study is a special issue to supplement the numbered

issues of t h i s series of publications. Pending the preparation of future

International Boundary Studies, each one limited to a single boundary Segment,

this issue gives pertinent information on the status of boundaries throughout

the World. It was written in accordance with provisions of Bureau of the Budget

Circular No. A-16, Exhibit D.

Government agencies may obtain additional information and copies of the study by

contacting the Office of the Geographer, Room 8744, State Department Buildin'

Department of State, Washington, D. C., 20520 (telephone: Code 182, Ext. 450"

I have searched the internet, and found these links: http://foia.state.gov/RecordsMgt/DispSchSection.asp?cat=records&RMH=A&Chapter=17&Section=004 and http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a097/a097.html ("Bureau of the Budget Circula" and "Circular No. A-97")B@xter ⁹ 21:03, 11 June 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)

I think your edits are OK, there is nothing wrong with them.B@xter ⁹ 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, I'm glad I was of assistance. :) cheers and good luck working with this article. Dc76\^talk 21:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

THX! :) To you too!B@xter ⁹ 21:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

representatves ->representaTIVES

Please change the word representatves. right spelling: representatives 93.122.218.132 (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

reputation of Dracula's home

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)

Geograohically Hungary is CE, Romania is EE. And I think that people in Austria also know what Transylvania really is. It was part of their empire for a time :) … - Matthew Beta (talk) 23:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Slovak translation

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)

Edit request from 80.98.187.247, 13 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Szekler Land >>>>>>>>>> Szekely Land

80.98.187.247 (talk) 20:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Changed all occurrences of Szekle to Székely and Szeklers to Székelys. Sorry for the inconvenience with the semi-protection. jonkerz♠ 21:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes

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:

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).