Talk:Șchei

Etymology
What is its etymology? Is it derived from from "sclavis" or something similar? Phonetically, it would fit to the patern Latin clavis -> Romanian cheie (key). bogdan (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * a derivation from "sclavis" sounds likely. See the etymology of ciao. My DEX does not list the word and I have no other reference at the moment. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 23:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe it's from sclavis and I can provide a source if you think it would be a good inclusion. Todor→Bozhinov 10:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an interesting fact that even the popular designation of the South Slavs (Bulgarians and Serbs) in medieval Albanian and Romanian shares the same root— sclav— a word well known from Latin and Greek sources from the 5th-6th century. In Albanian, Bulgarians and Serbs were known as shkja, shkje [not sure about spelling, that's phonetic through Cyrillic] and in Romanian as şchei.

Omissions - !!
Someone should talk to the editor of this material, so that he will complete it or it has to be changed the title It doesn't seem to be neutral

Since the title is Şchei, and is talking about a word from Romanian language and etymologies it should be a complete definition I am not sure about the reason for this article, but, so be it

1) In Romanian, Şchei means also 1. gorge defileu. 2. sacrum (of horses) " crucea-şalelor (la cai)" See Dicţionar de arhaisme şi regionalisme, Gh. Bulgăr şi Gh. Constantinescu-Dobridor, Editura Saeculum Vizual, Bucureşti, 2002 2) Who consider Şchei was an old Romanian exonym referring to the Bulgarians, especially in Transylvania and northern Wallachia?

This statement is not accurate because it reffered to all Slavonic speaking people Also, you have to consider there were toponyms and there maybe shuold be a direct quote about Bulgarians because all Slavonic people (Bulgarians, Serbians, Russians were included in Slavonic speaking people) There were more toponymes in Moldova, than in Tansylvania as you can see from in the book of Puşcariu, Sextil Braşovul de altădată. Cluj-Napoca: Ed. Dacia, 1977. OCLC 3446164. Quotation from the book " The inhabitants from the large village Scheia near Suceava and the ones from villages Scheia, Scheaua, Scheiul and Scheiulul from the counties: Brãila, Prahova, Roman, Vaslui, Arges, Buzãu, Muscel, Dâmbovita, Scheii Brasovului had been at one time slavonic colonists, but totally asimilated by Romanians no later than 10th - 11th century "

In fact, about Şchei Brasovului and not Scheii is another story, and there are Saxons chroniclers, Romanian historians, linguists and many others that explained why the name Schei in Brasov And, please consider there are in Romanian two completly different words: Şchei and Schei The bottom line, it would be neutral to consider all aspects of the Schei

Blurall (talk) 09:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly: huh? The only marginally reliable source in there, Puşcariu, which you would still have to cite properly, is simply not going to provide a statement of "facts", but, at best, an alternative opinion, which you could in no way claim is the "Romanian" viewpoint. The quote you provide (again, unretriavable!) does not in fact state anything about the etymology, and the claim it makes seems to be random and itself unsupported; just "it must have been so". Really, can we give this game a break? Dahn (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Dahn, I was going to contact you about this whole Şchei and Bulgarians in Romania topic, particularly the Şcheii Braşovului article which has been heavily edited. I'm not really able to judge whether Blurall's sources are reliable, and I don't have the expertise in the area to argue for or against his additions and removals. To what extent are those edits worth keeping? Best, Todor→Bozhinov 12:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To none, so far: there's a lot of original research on the margin of very thin and very fringe sourcing (the bit of it that's reliable is not properly cited, and appears to be used to feed original research speculations that not even they would validate). Dahn (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

About Schei

It looks like you imply scheii means bulgarian. Blurall (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ignoratio elenchi. Dahn (talk) 23:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Puscariu Sextil work about Scheii and Scheii Brasovului
He was the first who made an approach about Latin sclavis
 * It would help your article if you add Puscariu Sextil’s philological opinion on this matter
 * Regarding to the above comment of the owner fo the article that Puscariu Sextil is “a marginally reliable source”, even though this article is about a Romanian exonym word see http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextil_Pu%C5%9Fcariu. Please consider his work. Among other works, this scholar initiated and coordinated the Romanian Language Dictionary of the Romanian Acadamy

Your article states that Scheii and Brasovului are Bulgarian settlements and that maybe needs to be clarified at some extent For your article you may consider the followings, from his book Puşcariu, Sextil Braşovul de altădată. Cluj-Napoca: Ed. Dacia, 1977. OCLC 3446164 :


 * ”I politely ask the readers to forgive me for this philological relapse that, in my opinion, proves that Scheii are not a Bulgarian settlement from 14th century (as chroniclers assert, but it belongs to an older population from Southern Carpathian, it doesn’t matter if the origin had been Romanian or it received this language later (but not until 13th century when Saxons came to Brasov)” [1]

[1] Puşcariu, Sextil Braşovul de altădată. Cluj-Napoca: Ed. Dacia, 1977. OCLC 3446164. [2] Saxon scholar

Blurall (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * For one, none of what you cite addresses the matter, you just interpret it as such by making a (partisan) statement about colonization in general - see WP:SYNTH already. Secondly, the "sources" you cite are actually one: Puşcariu, who supposedly interprets another source (presuming the quote is accurate, presuming the conclusion he draws is beyond interpretation etc.). Thirdly: yes, Puşcariu is a marginally reliable source, coming as he does from the age of nationalist historiography and being himself, for part of his life, an affiliate of the far right. His entire argument is structured around minimizing the "foreign" presence in and around Braşov, and, in this context, it counts as fringe, when the other sources apparently tend to agree on the Bulgarian presence (which he apparently denies in toto...)
 * This is the substance of your argument over several pages. I'm sure we all know by now: we've read it over and over, and at no point in time did it add anything new to the discussion. Will there be anything else? Dahn (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote "especially in Transylvania and northern Wallachia"

 * "Şchei (Bulgarian: шкеи, shkei) was an old Romanian exonym referring to the Bulgarians, especially in Transylvania and northern Wallachia"

In Transylvania, especially in the Brasov County (Schei Brasov), "Schei” had political / historical connotations (or whatever you want to call it) From a long list, I inlcude here the historically first I known, See Xenopol, and the last Vasile Oltean  About Xenopol reliability (as it will be argued)
 * Alexandru Dimitrie Xenopol (1847–1920) = a Romanian scholar, historian, professor, sociologist, and author. Among his many major accomplishments, he is credited with being the Romanian historian credited with authoring the first major synthesis of the history of the Romanian people) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Dimitrie_Xenopol

In his work, “Les Roumains au moyen-age:une enigme historique, Paris, 1885 at page 237" Alexandru Dimitrie Xenopol

I translate for you from French
 * “Now you can see why Hungarians still denominate today the Romanian quarter of Brasov (Kronstadt) Bolgarszek. This proves very well that Romanians had been found under Bulgarian domination at the moment where Hungarians came in Transylvania” (“Les Roumains au moyen-age:une enigme historique, Paris, 1885 at page 237" Alexandru Dimitrie Xenopol)

Anyone can see this book at : http://books.google.ca/books?id=BngeAAAAMAAJ&dq=Alexandru+Dimitrie+Xenopol&printsec=frontcover&source=an&hl=en&ei=APVFS4OdGpSolAf9o9EP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBUQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 Scheii, Scheii Brasovului with Vasile Oltean About the reliability of this researcher Vasile Oltean - among others, he is a philologist, curator of Scheii Brasovului Museum, teacher and  teologist see http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasile_Oltean

In his book Junii Braşovului şi Troiţele lor din Şcheii Braşovului, Editura Semne, Bucureşti, 2000 (http://www.primascoalaromaneasca.ro/cat_carte_junii_din_scheii_brasovului.html) researcher Vasile Oltean investigated the Scheii people true (his word) ethnogenesis and concluded:
 * "Despite the fact that there is an oldest known Romanian ethnic settlement and despite its continuity on the same places, as attested in the context of its relations with Wallachia and Moldova, some historians, wrongly informed and victims of the some superficial considerations, but not knowing Romanian realities, created a legend of a Bulgarian origin for Romanians Şcheii Braşovului, by ignoring even the basic testimonies of the local history, existing today, too" (Junii Braşovului şi Troiţele lor din Şcheii Braşovului, Editura Semne, Bucureşti, 2000 Vasile Oltean)

About the Tempea chronicle (copy of an initial chronicle) he wrote this is “an obvious epenthesis added by Brasov’s authorities, after the chronicle time, in the purpose of the denying historical rights of the Scheii inhabitants”

In Vasile Oltean opinion, the attribute “bulgarus", in the Magyar and Saxon documents is coming from the reality of the Romanian Middle Ages, when the Church language was Slavonic (redacţie medio-bulgară), Since the Orthodox culture that was coming from Byzantine Empire through Bulgarian territory, Catholic authorities defined the Orthodox people with term “bulgarus” the same way Romanians from Muntenia named Romanian from Transylvania "Hungarians".

Blurall (talk) 15:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If your tactic is to wear out your reader's patience, you're doing very well so far. When it comes to Xenopol (and leaving his own issues of reliability aside), you cite an interpretation of facts that addresses nothing in this article, nothing at all. I will again suggest you read the wikipedia policy WP:SYNTH.
 * With Oltean and Editura Semne, we're again going into WP:FRINGE and WP:RS land, within the realm of Romanian historiography. At this point, I will again present WP:SOAP for your consideration.
 * Oh, and, for future reference: the quotes you list above, whatever their value, are in any way without practical use as long as you don't provide a page number (WP:CITE). Also, one final time: the existence of info on other wikis means nothing when it comes to proper referencing, nothing at all - wikipedia is not a source for wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Toponims especially in Transylvania and northern Wallachia
The article is saying “especially in Transylvania and northern Wallachia” As I provided to you (But it had been deleted, so be it), there were more toponyms in Moldova than in Transylvania (Suceava, Roman and Vaslui counties) mentioned also by Sextil Puscariu in the above mentioned Book "Brasovul de altadata"

The reason this article titled "Scheii" might include meanings as with Romanian dictionaries and books help understanding some toponims from Romanian (Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania) that might derivate from word Schaeii that has various meanings, beside the meaning Slavic attached to it

Sorry for my ignorance, that you pointed out to me (because I knowm the oponion of V. Oltean, S. Puscariu and historians Xenopol. Popa, Onciul and others) but maybe I am just wrong. My intentions are honest and in good faith for a correct and neutral material, as you can see it can have various connotations.

I read in your article "This Romania-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it." Sorry for trying it

I wish you good luck with this article. Good bye Blurall (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not impinging on anyone's right to contribute to wikipedia, as long as the contributions respect the wikipedia policies and content guidelines. Simply adding a mass of unverifiable or slanted cruft misinterprets such natural restrictions on content, particularly when it interferes with text that is properly referenced. That remains a fact, no matter how you or I relate to it. Dahn (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)