Talk:Șumuleu Ciuc

Extremely biased POV perfect for a Hungarian forum
I am really interested in discussing the following paragraph: ''The church and the Franciscan monastery of Csíksomlyó stand as a landmark in the Székely Land. This complex, and the pilgrimage here each year, have become a symbol of the brotherhood of the Székelys, their cultural and ethnic awareness of survival at any rate and, therefore, its importance for the Székely and Hungarian people in Transylvania would be difficult to over-estimate.''

I am appalled at such an ethnically-charged statement and bewildered by the intentions of the editor making it. ethnic awarness of survival ? landmark in the Szekely Land?, difficult to overestimate? Such hyperbolic statements are perfect for a "long live Greater-Hungary" forum but I am afraid they do not fit properly on Wikipedia. The editor making these statements must truly be empowered by a "higher entity" to claim their legitimacy. Unless someone does something right here and now, (nothing can be to extreme mind you) the chances of survival of this endangered group will be for surely compromised by the wars raging all around it. Sorry for the sarcasm. Amon Koth (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Location section
About this little remark, mentioning Szekely land is not a problem as long it is done in proper context(as I said before to Rokarudi), not in one that expresses various political views or feelings. That area does not exist anymore (geographically or politically) therefore it has it`s place in the history section ONLY. Analyzing your contributions to Wikipedia, where in many occasions we also had disagreements you provided zero arguments and showed no sign of modifying this disruptive attitude. It would be nice, for a change, to state your arguments about some changes that are clearly controversial. If I or somebody else are people with bad intentions and unreasonable mind(as you say) why don`t you try to explain it then? Not to mention that this section was created artificially just to mention this currently inexistent entity and that majority of your edits are a part of tendentious editing. This sentence about "location" should be placed in the lead. iadrian (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) It is ridiculous when you request me first to keep status quo here Mediation Cabal until dispute resolution, then start to delete its subject according to your POV. (2) The Székely Land has never been an admistrative-territorial unit, so I do not know what you are speaking about. (3) If you do not know what Székely Land is, please be so kind as to have a look at here map with your ars poetica on your user page. Székely Land is the light green patch in the middle of Romania.(North of Brasov). Rokarudi --Rokarudi 19:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (1) Reverted everything to "pre-Rokarudi" state, as it should be until mediation cabal is over (although i doubt that it will start since there is nothing new there for 3 days). (2) ??? It has no place in the artificially created section "Location", except in the history section.(3) I know very well what it is, looks like you have a problem with what you want it to be. "ars poetica"? I think you lost yourself there. Still, you did`t explained to the people with bad intentions and unreasonable mind(as you say) your mentioning of the Szekely land in other sections that the history one? iadrian (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Rokarudi: Székely Land has never been an admistrative-territorial unit. You are mistaken, it was a self-governed entity in the past with administrative functions whose autonomy was abolished by the Hungarian government in 1876. It is very clear what Szekely Land is today, one can speculate easily what Szekely Land means for you based on your nationalistic edits. Szekely Land is just a cultural area, like it or not, and unless the law requesting autonomy passes it will remain so. This is the only avenue for making it a reality because the said area has no geographical aspect being defined by the spread of the most important ethnic group in the region. I am sorry to inform you that changing articles on Wikipedia does not alter reality and maintaining status-quo actually means mantaining the status before you made these controversial changes. It is probably safe to state now that your edits have reached beyond what could be perceived as good faith on your part. You are too politically indoctrinated. Amon Koth (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Component village or neighborhood
The settlement is halfway between being a component village and a neighborhood. The usual way as locals refer to it implies that its status is more of a separate village than of a neighborhood. I never heard, at least from Hungarian speakers, such phrases that 'I am going to M-Cuic' referring, however, to Somlyó. More than that, it has a separate signboard on its border which ususally component villages have. In M-Cuic, Taploca neighborhood does not have a signboard as it used to be a separate village but nowadays it is not regarded as such. Rokardi--Rokarudi 17:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Legally, the case is clear. Miercurea-Ciuc has three villages attached to it: Ciba, Harghita-Băi and Jigodin-Băi. Since the infobox is the most rigid and legalistic part of an article, I suggest respecting that technical distinction there. Of course, within the body of the article, we can discuss to the extent necessary how it's a former village, a neighborhood but somewhat more than that, etc. (That could be hard to source, but that's another story.) - Biruitorul Talk 06:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)