Talk:Transylvania/Archive 3

First union of Romanian principalities by Michael the Brave

 * 1. Transylvania wasn't a "romanian" principality. Much rather a Hungarian state with a contested number of Romanian inhabitants (Vasile Lupu wrote in 1650 to the Sublime Port, that more then one third of T. population was Romanian)
 * 2. We could not talk about a unification ... just a simply Personal Union under Michael the Brave - (Balogh/Left-handed) Mihaly as he was called by Hungarians.

He didn't disolved the Transylvanian diet/Parliament ... he used romanian language only in his relation with the Wallachian noblemen. He negotiated with Rudolf's representatives and the Transylvanian saxons in hungarian!
 * I agree, but I don't agree with what Vasile Lupu said. --Anittas 14:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, he exagerated a bit ;). (aproximatelly 25% were Hungarian, 25% Saxon, 25% Szekely and 25% Romanian)--fz22 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Transylvania it was "romanian" principality. And all historians agree with this statement "unification".-- Bonaparte  talk  15:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Who said this? You? :) ALL? historians??? Germany is a federal and unified state ... His unification was accomplished in the late 19c ... So, that was a unification ...

Left-handed Michael who came to Gyulafehervar with a couple of wallachian noblemens (and with emperor Rudolf army)?? ... that is what you call unification???
 * Actually, my original inclination was to rephrase the caption to "Union of Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia by Michael the Brave." I believe that would be a good NPOV choice of words. Olessi 17:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We should define first what exactly union means? Political or personal union? Definetely was not the first ... just take a look over the Wikipedia definition of Political union.
 * Emperor Rudolf did not recognised Michael's rights over Transylvania, which led to his killing finally--fz22 19:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I made some small modifications, by rearanging the pictures. Also I changed Mihai's picture with a gravure, because I consider it to be better suited and it fits better - there are only gravures for all the personalities. I tend to dislike the other colour picture, due to its presence on old propagandistic romanian history manuals. About the caption on the map, the most neutral and correct text from all POV's, I think, it is the one proposed by Olessi. The appropriate term may be personal union, but I don't think that it is better suited because it will possibly ignite a dangerous discussion. --Mihai -talk 23:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * and what about the historical truth? I suggest to rephrase to "Personal union of Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldova under Michael the Brave" &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fz22 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * The fact is that Mihai seized the opportunity to expand his dominions so that he could better defend himself against the turks and there was no or little nationalist backing, because the ideea of nationalsim hadn't appeared in the 16th century. He had a long military campaign, and he brought under his supreme authority the three provinces. The campaign was short lived, and ended by Mihai's death before any political structure could have been created, so the event was purely a military one. It was a Union and I think simply this fits better here, especialy at the comment of an image. It deosn't state romanian, so it's OK and to use "personal union", in a case which was not quite a personal union in the classical definition fo the term (UK-German Duchies, or Schleswig-Holstein+Danemark etc), it would only push the problem on the other side. -Mihai -talk 15:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian/Romanian???
What's this?? King of the Hungarian-Romanian Empire?? Or what?? Historical nonsense ... I'll put it back my comments ...--fz22 17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well,...Do you deny or accept that he was of Romanian origin? Matei Corvin was of romanian origin. That's all. And he was born in a romanian city, recte Cluj-Napoca. Both names from Cluj and Napoca are of latin origin. So, no need to be rude since he had romanian origin. Put it back as it was. Bonaparte   talk  16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * His romanian origin is hotly contested. Koloswar/Klausenburg in the XV century was a free royal city of the Kingdom of Hungary, with a hungarian-saxon mixed population ... I think Regent or King of Hungary is NPOV.--fz22 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not contested. Even his name Corvin (Corvinus) is a latin one :) And the majority of people in Transylvania was always the romanian one. Bonaparte   talk  17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In English he is traditionally known by Matthias Corvinus, so that is the name WP should use. Saying that the majority population of Transylvania has "always" been Romanian is POV as well as being inaccurate (its population before the Roman Empire certainly wasn't "Romanian"). The current version listing "Regent of Hungary" and "King of Hungary" seems fine to me, as they are factually accurate and NPOV. I have readded Category:Former countries in Europe to the article, as Transylvania certainly was a country for a while. Olessi 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is not POV to state that he was also of Romanian origin. If you say that he was Hungarian I don't see a reason not to state also that he has Romanian origin. After all, the current territory of Transylvania is in Romania. Bonaparte   talk  21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am fine with including both; I never stated that saying he was partially Romanian is POV. He should be described as either Hungarian/Romanian OR simply as "King of Hungary". That the current territory of Transylvania is in Romania has no bearing on how we describe an individual from the 15th century. I personally don't see the need to state the ethnicity of each individual in the culture section, as ethnicity had much less relevance during the times when many of these people lived. I personally prefer "János Bolyai, mathematician, Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary etc." Olessi 22:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that the name "Corvinus" is a latin one is quite normal, Latin having been the language used by the elite of Hungary that time. (It is a translation of "holló", it has nothing to do with Romanian origins.) The fact that Transylvania is currently is in Romania is irrelevant to the topic. AFAK, his origins is disputed, furthermore, in Hungary it was quite normal to have Slav/Vlach/German ancestry with a Hungarian identity (see Petőfi, we could call him a Hungarian/Slovak/Serb poet, at the same time he was a true Magyar nationalist). "King of Hungary" is a neutral form, let's stick to it. Vay 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Olessi 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

TRANSILVANIA=ARDEAL???Then where is BANAT???IN CHINA ???
'''IF Transilvania is ARDEAL then where is BANAT ??? in ARDEAL? Are you CRAZY ???' &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' 84.13.82.246 (talk &bull; contribs) 25 Dec 2005.


 * Not sure I follow that. Historically, "Ardeal" and "Transylvania" had referred to identical regions. Nither included Banat. Timişoara was not counted as a "Transylvanian city". But I know that it is now often customary to divide present-day Romania (other that Dobrogea) just into Moldovia, Wallachia, and Transylvania, and when people do that, they count the Romanian part of historic Banat as part of Transylvania. But certainly before 1918 no one would have called any part of Banat "Transylvania". Yes, this article should probably be clearer on this. Before I edit, does anyone think I've mischaracterized the history?


 * Oh, and to give a non-rhetorical answer to your rhetorical question: part of Banat is in Hungary, part in Serbia, and a small part still in Hungary. And I've never heard anyone include the Hungarian or Serbian parts in "Transylvania". -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The province of Transylvania ceased to exist well before 1918. So, what was the meaning of "Transylvania" in 1918? It is some kind of "common sense" to consider Banat as a part of Transylvania, as it has similar characteristics with other parts of the former province Transylvania. Even divided, Banat was supposed to maintain the economic and human relations over the border. (About that "Banat", you could find a very nice contemporary novel, "Femeia in rosu" -Nedelciu, Babeti & Mihaies.)--Vasile 03:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * So, Vasile, I honestly don't know: when people included "Banat" in Transylvania, would they not also have included it in Ardeal? And would they then have included the Vojvodina in Transylvania? That seems odd to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason is perhaps that Banat and Vojvodina went different ways after WWII. --Vasile 13:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. -- Bonaparte  talk  13:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That really doesn't answer my questions, so I'll ask again and try to be clearer.
 * Do people, speaking Romanian and using the term Ardeal, mean the same as when they say Transilvania, or do they specifically exclude Banat when they say Ardeal? For example, would a Romanian-speaker today say that Timişoara is in Transilvania? Would they say that Timişoara is in Ardeal?
 * You say that in 1918 Banat would already have been considered Transylvania. I asked if that usage would have included the Vojvodina. Post WWII events cannot have any bearing on 1918 usage.
 * Jmabel | Talk 22:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not just Romanians, but Hungarians also consider a broader defintion of Transylvania. You can take a look on Lucian Boia's books version of Romania. Banat is geographical unit or a subregion of Transylvania. --Vasile 13:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine. That sounds like an accurate description of present-day usage, But it still doesn't answer either of my two questions. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Back in 1918, Transylvania was not a political or administrative distinct unit anymore. You got to go way back in the history to seek Banat as a distinctive unit. It depends on who are you talking on the matter. The fans of Poli Timisoara would say that Timisoara is not a part of Transylvania. --Vasile 01:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Was there any time when Banat was an independent country or a separate administrative unit?


 * Pavel Chinezul.

As far as I can think of a definition, maybe it is 1. the land that was occupied by the Turks at the same time with Hungary or 2. the Transylvanian land which fell most frequently on Wallachian rule. Besides that, I think that Drobeta is par of Banat although it wasn't part of the Holy Roman Empire. I am a bit ashamed not to look up for refs, but I am expressing my mundane understanding as a Romanian that in fact there is no basis or a very thin for defining Banat as much as there isn't one for defining Crisana or Bucovina. It is funny to see how the historical provinces are, in the official concept, defined by the current administrative limits (no province border goes through a county) - it's like Ceausescu and his assistants were careful to respect the history, although we know that, 20 years after the admin reform, Ceausescu even forbade the usage of the provinces' names on weather forecasts.

I think that the common usage in Romania these days is that Timisoara is in Transylvania. It's like somebody from Manhattan will claim he's not from Manhattan, but from Soho, or somebody from Bucharest claiming that Titan and Dristor are different neighbourhoods. The kind of detail that is not cared for except for those persons living there. It's just my perception about public perception.

I will not go further into football discussions, as I know Poli AEK Timisoara was named Fulgerul Bragadiru a few years ago and the real Politehnica Timisoara is playing on the second or third league. Somehow, the intellectuals called 'Poli supporters' are creating confusion between the two Poli teams (with a single article which addresses one Poli's past and another Poli's present), the admins don't know the truth or don't care, and feel it's a waste of time to start an edit war.

I would say that defining a Banat region with multiple historical usages and confusing the two soccer teams are both parts of the post-WWII Timisoara people, who are looking desperately for an identity in a country where they don't count as a first league city anymore. My 2 cents.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)  14:40, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I appreciate the depth of your arguments. I am worried people not related will think we Transylvanians (of all flavors) are nuts. At least, unlike others with historic issues, we only argue in a (hopefully) polite form.

Anyway, the point I would like to make is that for the rest of the world "Transylvania" most likely means the territories that were part of Hungary before 12/01/1918 and became part of Romania on that date. That would include the (Romanian) Banat, Crisana (aka Partium), as well as Transylvania proper.

The thing with Transylvania not being an officially defined region either in (1867-1918) Hungary or Romania has to do with the nationalistic ideology of the relatively new nation-states. Both countries pushed the notion of a perfectly homogeneous nation in the mold of France, and tried to erase the regional character of Transylvania and/or the Banat.

Halasz 07:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * A few points to reflect on:

-Romanian Banat was historically only briefly part of the Kingdom of Hungary and starting with the 18th century had probably more austrian influence than hungarian -Transylvania united with Romania on 1dec 1918 while Banat only in august 1919 -present day banat has the most ethnical diverse population in Romania,yet hungarians are not the biggest minority In my opinion when talking of Transylvania we should analyse what it meant in various periods of time.The way the term is used today cannot be a reason to simply include Banat in Transilvania.--Radufan 14:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know of how much help would this be,but take a look at these maps:

&mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radufan (talk &bull; contribs).
 * http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/se_europe.html
 * http://www.library.ucla.edu/yrl/reference/maps/blaeu/europa-nt.htm

King of Hungary authority over Transilvania consolidated in 12-13th century?
I think this is a false doctrine ... The authority was complete since King Stephen campaign against Gyula--fz22 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Moreover, it had full control over Cumania too ... He Gave the Barcasag/Birsa Land to the Teutons, with parts from Cumania(Wallachia), then took it back ... He apointed the voievod of Cumania to Magyar noblemens until and to Romanians kniazes after the Tartar invasion. He gave Szorenyseg/Oltenia Land to Knights Templars ... etc--fz22 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

the class of serfs consisted mostly of Romanians
This isn't a NPOV ... Need to be reformulated. Check this page first: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy05.htm &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fz22 (talk &bull; contribs) 3 Jan 2006.
 * Doesn't seem precisely to contradict it, though it raises a reasonable doubt. It says they were a third of the population. Given that there were roughly no Vlachs in the cities, there could have been an awful lot of Romanian serfs. Anyway, I take it that what you are challenging is factuality, not POV, right?
 * Question: is there any citation at all for the ethnic makeup of the class of serfs? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly, but it is also calculable. Accoding to Hungarian POV in the seven counties the total population was about two-thirds Magyar, and one-third Romanian ... Moreover the nobility, constituted about 5 percent of the total population. So out of the 400,000(the estimated population of T. in the early 16th century) 20,000 belonged to the nobility (all Magyars + magyarised Romanians, but tehy were counted as Magyar), 100,000 were Saxon, 100,000 Szekler, 133,333 Magyars and 66,666 Romanians. So the number of serf = 66,666 (if we consider that all Romanians were serfs) + 113,333 Magyars + an unknown number of saxons and szeklers--fz22 10:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

After the completion of Hungarian conquest (abb. 1120) the population of Transsylvania was relatively stabile under several social and ethnic frames until the fall of Hungary at Mohacs (1526). Even that the overall population increased from abb 300.000 (beginning of the 12th century)to abb. 900.000 (beginning of the 16th century), the population make - up remained relatively stable during 400 years: - 75% Romanians (60% Romanian serfs; 15% Romanian free peasants-mostly highlanders and a negligible proportion of Romanian nobles which accepted Roman-Catholicism and became assimilated to the Hungarian nobility) - 10% Germans (1% German serfs; 6% German free-peasants and 3% German town-dwellers) - 8% Hungarians (5% Hungarian Serfs; 1% Hungarian free peasants; 1% Hungarian town-dwellers and 1% Hungarian nobles) - 7% Szeklers (all of them free-peasants, until the 16th century). The situation changed only after 400 years, in the decades after 1526, when large numbers of ethnic Hungarians arived as refugees from war-thorn Hungarian Plain and the religious Reform altered the old paths of Transsylvanian society. Transsylvanian
 * Nonsense ... in the early 12 century Magyars lived for over 200 years in Transylvania. Do not confuse the "Hungarian conquest" (honfoglalas) with the formation of the christian Hungarian state. your population estimation is only a POV same as mine--fz22 12:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, indeed, the Hungarians had many plundering raids inside Teanssylvania, before the year 1000 (the Christianisation of Hungary under the King Stefan) but there is a enormity to say that ethnic Hungarians ACTUALLY LIVED in Transsylvania before the conquest. The SYSTEMATIC conquest started AFTER the year 1000 and the immigration of Hungarian settler went apace with the conquest. The pre-Christian Hungarians had no possibility to mantain the hold of these territories and neither to organise the colonisation. Only the integration of Hungary into the Western Christianity provided the administrative and ideological "know how" to conquest the relative large Romanian populations East from the Tisza River. Transsylvanian

Mediaş
What's the basis for mentioning Mediaş as a tourist attraction? Our article on the place is only a stub; I'd never heard of it till it was mentioned here. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I will try to extend it sometimes. For some short introduction, Medias was one of the 7 cities from which the name Siebenburgern comes. The old city resembles very much Sibiu and it is on the way between Sibiu and Sighisoara, and diserves a little stop over there. It is also close (20 km) to Biertan a popular destinaiton for the German tourists. You can see I've mentioned it at the Sibiu County page. --Mihai -talk 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, if it's one of the seven cities, then its inclusion is probably appropriate. The "Etymology" section of this article should probably identify the seven cities and give their German, Hungarian, and Romanian names. Siebenbürgen redirects here, and someone starting from that name would probably expect to see that. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Sequence of maps
In "Late Middle Ages" section, there is inserted a sequence of maps. While the design is wonderful, showing author's market valuable computer related skills, it is hard to understand the meaning of that sequence. Apparently, Transylvania didn't move between the 13th and 16th centuries. The maps don't have any legend, but the 16th century map has some yellow and gray areas (significant climatic changes, maybe?) --Vasile 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The 16th century map need a legend, indeed. I'll fix it. But the another already contains the most important infos. BTW this one is about Hungary' historical dioceses--fz22 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am missing the relevance of this map of historical Catholic dioceses (13th century). Maybe you'll insert something about those important infos in the text of the article. About the map of 16th century, could you you be more precise, it is before or after Mohacs? --Vasile 15:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The battle of Mohacs had no impact on the Transyilvanian counties borders ... more or less they were preserved until Mid-19th century. Likewise dioceses border (exept the Archdeaconate of Satu Mare which was detached in the 14th cent.) the borders were the same as in 1009. --fz22 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If you want to include some aspects about Catholic history of Transylvnia, it would be better to have a new related article, avoiding to overload the current article with details too far away from the actual mainstream. Anyway, I really appreciate your work, but it seems that two maps are one too many in that part of the article. --Vasile 14:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't the first who realised the importance of Cristianity in the region's history from the begining of 11th century. I've just added the map. I don't think two maps are too many ... we are talking about a period which lasted around 650 years.--fz22 19:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Post-Roman: problems again
"&hellip;The Visigoths established a kingdom north of Danube. Under these conditions, in Transylvania, like other Romanian historic regions, took place the formation of the Romanian language and people. In this process the new influences were assimilated and integrated in the existing Daco-Roman substrate."

"The second wave of migrations brought the Slavic, Turkish and other tribes such as Avars, Huns, Arabs, Varangians ending with Magyars.&hellip;"


 * 1) This seems to endorse the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity and present it as unchallenged fact.
 * 2) When in this epoch did the Arabs ever come as far as Transylvania?
 * 3) And I'm not too sure about the Varangians, either.

-- Jmabel | Talk 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

-Paul- 11:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC), Romania
 * 1) Well it is challenged by some. Especially by the editors of websites such as www (dot) hungarian-history (dot) hu. They like to write about the Daco-Roman theory like it is a legned, and use preferentially the sources only if they suit their needs (example: http://www.hungarian-history (dot) hu/lib/faf/toc20.htm). In case my opinion was not understood: I consider this site an instrument of the irredentist propaganda, like the HVIM organization (see hvim (dot) hu). It is alarming the raising of the irredentist pretentions of some   hungarians. And one of their way of doing this is falsifying the history. That was done sometimes with the help of soviet propaganda machine (especially after the Czecoslovakia invasion) and other times with the help of their diaspora in USA.
 * 2) and 3 - you are right, i was beginning to feel tired by that whour. :) You are welcome to correct or I'll do it myself. (later edit: done)

Sorry fellers, in contrary ... the presence of germanic tribes in Pannonia+Transylvania and the lack of early-germanic liguistic tracks in the Romanian language disprove the daco-romanian legend ...--fz22 12:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jmabel's #1 concerning the Daco-Romanian continuity. I thought the way the previous version treated the subject was fine (with its link to Origin of Romanians at the end of the Early Middle Ages section). Olessi 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The linguistic works rather in favour of Daco-Romanian theory. What's inside of Romanian language is more valuable of what is outside of the language. The lack of early-germanic linguistic in Romanian is probably due to the poor education network developed in time of the rule of those "early Germans" in Dacia. --Vasile 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Misericordia Dei quod non consumti sumus
what's wrong with this?--fz22 21:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's cited as "anonymous German" in Du Nay history. http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/rum.htm --Vasile 21:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And?--fz22 21:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First, nobody can assert that Du Nay is a neutral historian in this field and this must be taken in consideration. Next, using that type of "1600 anonymous document" is a disgrace. And after all, 1599-1604 was a difficult period for the ancient Magyar government, loser of the control of the country. It is hard to assert the same thing for the second rate inhabitants of the time, the Szeklers. --Vasile 00:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not the document is anonymous ... the Saxon writer ... it's not malarkey. Difficult period? Yes indeed. Not because losing of control but in contrary the Transyilvanian Principality (the so called: East-Hungarian Kingdom) was raised from the dead.
 * The Szekelys were not affected?? They were fighting from Caransebes to Giurgiu, then followed the Bloody Carnival, "ordered" by Prince Bathory. Plus the uncounted Ottoman and Tartar invasion of Szekelyland.

Why do I have the feeling that you think I want to expose an anti-romanian POV. Nothing like that. Michael's rule was just an episode in addition to gen. Basta, the Ottomans, the Tartars, the famine, and the plague. --fz22 07:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You might think you are right, but since the debate is not finished, please do nou push your version.


 * The Szecklers did pretty well considering their professional skills at time. --Vasile 14:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * SO LET'S START A DEBATE:
 * Up to this point you've just came here time to time and erased "misericordia" section saying ... nothing ... Actually what's your statement? Wasn't the most tragic period since the Mongols? Or wasn't tragic at all?--fz22 13:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Before starting an eventual debate, you have the option to include in article your version with its reference and then wait to see if accepted. --Vasile 14:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Szamosközy István (http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szamosk%C3%B6zy_Istv%C3%A1n) is good enough for you?--fz22 14:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the anonymous German mentioned by Du Nay? Could you please bring the article to wiki English? --Vasile 15:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he is a famous Hungarian-Transylvanian historian from the early 17th century. He wrote about those years: "They cut strips from the backs of men. They twisted the heads of children so that their eyes fell out."--fz22 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He also discovered coins of Roman emperor Trajan in Transylvania. --Vasile 16:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right!--fz22 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to have an article about Zamosius.

1) You can't include the "anonymous German source". 2) You should rephrase the comparative sentence of Du Nay (Hungarian gov. point of view). --Vasile 20:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Donarium of Birthälm
The History Of Transylvania And The Transylvanian Saxons What a loveble external link! Let me think: "Some finds dating from the 4th to 7th centuries (evidence of early Christianity, Roman coins, sections of Latin inscriptions like the "Donarium of Birthälm", and others) provide sufficient evidence..." of course for daco-romanian legend. This isn't a POV??--fz22 20:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As opposed to History of Transylvania? "Apart from one exception, the isolated, 4th century cemetery at Baráthely, there is no evidence that any of the provincial population might have stayed behind after Aurelianus evacuated Dacia". Or, "Thus the analysis of river names confirms the message borne by archaeological finds: the Hungarians who settled in Transylvania during the 10th century encountered Slavs throughout the region, along with a small Turkic group in the southeast, near Küküllő and Olt rivers.". Its chapter on the Romanians makes its viewpoint pretty clear as well.


 * I see no reason to include one link and not the other. The WP article mentions that the medieval history is unclear and links to the relevant article. The external links are allowed to present the differing viewpoints. Olessi 21:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Early Middle Ages: From Dacia to the Great Migrations
I think this section must be reworked ... Contains only Romanian POV ... Orianea's intention (09:35, 18 January 2006) to preserve this "status quo" have raised the question againg ;)--fz22 08:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Com'on guys stop fighting. Instead lets start rewriting this paragraph. I suggest these subsections: --fz22 19:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. End of the Roman era
 * 2. Vizigoths
 * 3. Huns
 * 4. Gepidae
 * 5. Avars
 * 6. Slavs
 * 7. Hungarian conquest
 * 8. Theories about surviving romanised population

CLEANUP

have done with it!--fz22 16:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Funny Romanian views (or myths)

 * Romanians state that Vlachs (or Wlachs=this is how Romanians were known untill the 19th century) were opressed in Transylvania. Nonetheless, they also state that Mathias Corvinus of wlach origin became king of Hungary. Thus, they were so much opressed that could rise on the royal throne of that country.


 * Romanians also speak about Magyarization, but in the same time they also speak about the formation of Romanian people and language in Transylvania. How some Magyarized people managed to form the Romanian language, that still remains a mistery...Erdelyiek

It's amazing that the Magyarization myth still exists. The Svab managed to retain their language, their culture and their surnames. It's been difficult given the forced deportations, etc since Trianon, but WE'RE STILL HERE!! 06/19/06
 * Look, honey, I'm only answering this because you may leave the wrong impression with people. If anyone is taking into consideration your absurdity because (s)he is not familiar with facts (with should not excuse your blatant indifference to them), (s)he ought to consider the fact that Hungary was at all times part of an Austrian Empire. If anyone suggests that it was feasible for Hungarians to start Magyarizing German speakers, especially after they had forced the Empire to reconstruct itself according to national criteria (1867), that person is disturbed. In fact, this fluctuating relation between Germans and Magyars is one of the keys to understanding the whole issue! Dahn 12:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And, to make it clear: no one but the illiterate would imply that Magyarization was ever a project before cca. 1820, and no one should claim that it was enforced at any time before 1867. For obvious reasons, one of them being that Hungary was not a nation-state in the Middle Ages, another being that it did not exist for most of the period, and a third one being that Transylvania always doubled all ethnic conflict (if the case implied one) with a religious one. Dahn 12:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * A blatant indifference to facts?? If I remember my Hungarian history correctly, the Kingdom of Hungary was a sovereign nation from 1000-1526.  Following the battle of Mohacs the country was divided into 3 parts; one part went to Austria, one part went to the Ottomans, and the third part (Transylvania) remained independent.
 * We also call that third part Transylvania, a Protestant polity under more than nominal Ottoman tutelage, which thanked the Turks for getting it out of Catholic cornucopia. Keep reading. Dahn 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the period 1000-1526 covers the medieval period and part of the Renaissance (at least in the rest of the world) I don't understand how you can say that Hungary was not a nation-state during the Middle Ages. I'm not sure what your definition of a nation-state is, however, most scholars would agree that a crowned monarch as head of state with dynastic lines (starting with Arpad) and sovereignty over an established geographic area would constitute a nation state. According to the Wikipedia "A nation-state is a specific form of state (a political entity), which exists to provide a sovereign territory for a particular nation (a cultural entity), and which derives its legitimacy from that function... [However,] the term nation-state is also used, imprecisely, for a state that attempts to promote a single national identity, often beginning with a single national language".
 * Keep yourself informed that the nation-state appeared as a legal concept with the French Revolution. Hungary was not only a feudal state, it was the prototype feudal state (hence the intellectual distinction between Magyars and Hungarians, favored by the 1848 generation and dismissed by conservatives). It is a textbook case for anyone that Hungary applied Volkeigst only from the early decades of the 1800s, when it began trying to carve out a Hungary out of an Austria on both an ethnical base and a cultural-traditional one (which led to the post-Ausgleich paradox of Croatia being its sole autonomy). Dahn 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've got to disagree with you. The system of government, feudal or otherwise, would have no impact whatsoever on whether the Kingdom of Hungary was a nation-state or not.  Historians such as Benedict Anderson and Eric Hobsbawm would argue that the existence of a nation-state is a precursor to nationalism and that the French Revolution was the result of the existence of a French nation-state.  The existence of the nation-state as a legal entity is moot. 06/21/06

This might not be in keeping with the PRM definition of a nation-state, but it is widely accepted by the intelligentsia in the civilized world.
 * Well, here's the problem, son. If you imply that anyone opposing nationalist POV (the same thing I have been doing here for all nationalisms involved, including, if not starting with, the Romanian one) is the same as the PRM, I shouldn't be bothering explaining the obvious to you. But I do, simply because that person pretends to be representing the civilized intelligentsia over me, the peasant. Dahn 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If it walks like a duck and swims like a duck, chances are, it's a duck. Despite your efforts to oppose nationalist POV's you are, just as I am, a little biased.  The Hungarians are being painted as an oppresive elite forcing Magyarization down everyones throat when the vast majority were, in fact, peasant farmers trying to make a living on a few hectares of rented land just like our Romanian counterparts.  I apologize if I offended you.

As far as the forced deportations and other attrocities heaped on the Hungarian and Svab minorities in Transylvania go, I know first hand. Under Ceauşescu all of my Svab relatives who had lived in the same village for over 200 years were dispossessed, loaded into trucks, and deported to Germany.


 * Interesting. You are saying West Germany bought ethnic germans from Romania while knowing this was against their will? I mean, after the first "delivery", they certainly knew it. Which makes them accomplices of Ceausescu in doing this. Can you point me to some reference? Dpotop 07:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)::::::: Read what I wrote again, please. I didn't mention West Germanay (although the German government did pay a "ransom" to the post war Romanian government to "liberate" ethnic Germans).  As far as reference goes lets start with a couple of pieces of legislation: Cassa pentru Administrarea si Supravegherea Bunurilor Inamice,and Buletinul Oficial, nr. 9/1952, February 16, 1952.  And then there is: "Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe", edited by S.B. Vardy and T.H Tooley, C.U. Press, 2003 and A. M. de Zayas "Terrible Revenge", St. Martin's Press, 1994.  06/22/06  :::::I might add that the deportation to Germany story is what the authorities told the people in the village at the time.  I'm inclined to think that they were actually either taken a short distance away and executed or sent to Siberia or some other less than pleasant Bolshevik "resort".  Either way, none of the men, women, and children have been seen or heard from since. 06/23/06


 * Where did you see me denying the truth of deportations? And what the hell does this even have to do with the issue? (note that "other attrocities" would require some proof) Dahn 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Relevant yet irrelevant. I was expecting (hoping for?) the typical, rabid nationalist diatribe.  Instead I got an intelligent response.  I'm quite pleased that it's turned out otherwise.06/21/06

And as resently as a few months ago I was denied service in a Romanian owned establishment in Sighetu Marmatiei because I forgot to speak to the waitress in Romanian instead of Hungarian.
 * Well, that shit happens I hear. Apparently, it also happens with people not speaking Hungarian in Covasna. Either way, stupid people will be stupid people. Dahn 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Very true.  At least we can agree on that.  06/21/06

If I've painted an unpleasant or distasteful picture of present day Romania, I apologize, but these are the facts. I have no issues with individual Romanians. Personally, if you're a decent person I don't care what language you speak. The politicians in Bucharest, however, have to pull their heads out of their asses. In Canada approximately 20% of the population speaks French and the majority are concentrated in the province of Quebec. Their language and cultural rights are guaranteed by law and those laws are actually enforced. Why can't Bucharest do the same? 06/20/06
 * The language and cultural rights of Hungarians are guaranteed by law in Romania, and those laws are actually enforced. They may not be to the same level as in Canada, but Romania is not a federation; also note that laws passed since 1997 have given an unprecedented level of cultural recognition.
 * The old regime may be gone but some of its bad habits still linger. Wasn't a Romanian newspaper editor in Cluj recently charged with treason for starting a Transylvanian secessionist party?  The laws may be adhered to more in large urban areas but out in the rural areas the authorities are little lax and turn a blind eye depending on who may be watching.  Things are, however improving, albeit at a snails pace.  Do you not find it very frustrating to see what other countries have managed to accomplish under similar circumstances while we continue to wallow in all this ethnicity shit?  With Transylvania's history of tollerance and forward thinking I find it incredibly frustrating. 06/21/06

Those that deny this merit (and I myself will not indicate that they are necessarily sufficient) will involve highly subjective and much more debatable demands: while Hungarian-language higher learning has been guaranteed, they will demand an independent university instead of the Hungarian-Romanian one (may or may not be necessary - in any case, I don't see the absence of such luxury as indicative of any kind of oppression);
 * Post secondary education is available in Hungarian but the courses offered are very limited. Bucharest has adhered to the letter of the law but has not embraced it's spirit.  Although some might see it as just another demand from a bunch of disgruntled Hungarians a seperate university might be the most cost effective way of doing things.  If it was set up like the parochial schools in North America it could make both sides happy (Municipal education tax is allocated to support which ever school system the taxpayer wishes to support.  In this case, Hungarian taxpayers would be able to elect to have their portion of the education tax used to support a seperate Hungarian university.  It's a pretty fair system and it seems to work quite well.). 06/21/06

an ethnic Hungarian party has been in power, no matter how cabinets changed, since 1996; the granting of territorial autonomy would question the whole basis of the Romanian legal system, so the claim that "Romania does not grant autonomy because it's a meanie" is pure propaganda - that would require a public debate far longer than any up to now, and changes to organic laws (in other words, it is irresponsible to launch a topic and then say that everybody not responding to it and bringing it about in the next four minutes is a Nazi moron who hates Hungarians). I happen to agree with a higher degree of devolution myself (although, as someone left of the center, I tend to oppose the one on ethnic grounds, and would rather have it under a regional form), but I do not accuse someone opposing me of being things that (s)he is not (centralism=/=ethnic cleansing, Bucharest=/=Beijing; the Romanian Constitution, if indeed a paradoxical document at times, is by no means an authoritarian one). Dahn 15:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)::::: Constitutional reform is a very long and arduous task. However, would autonomy or even independence be such a bad thing? Currently Transylvania produces approximately 30% of Romania's GDP. Does Bucharest spend that much on Transylvania? I seriously doubt it. Romania, despite the way I may have come across, is not the meanie. The short story of our recent history: Transylvania was part of Hungary; there was a war; Hungary lost; Romania got Transylvania as part of the spoils of war. Although a thorn in most Hungarians side, Trianon was just a formalization of what the Entente and Bucharest wanted. The Entente wanted a weak and passive middle Europe (I think they were more afraid of the Hungarians than the Germans or Austrians), and Bucharest wanted the natural resources. It had more to do with politics and economics (and maybe just a little hint of Vlach Imperialism ;} I'm only kidding!!). 06/21/06
 * BTW I'm not too sure if English is your first language or not but I would strongly recommend that you avoid calling anyone "honey". It doesn't matter if you're addressing a male or a female but using the term "honey", especially in North America, is a good way to really piss someone off and to almost guarantee a trip to the either the dentist or the hospital.  You are forgiven... this time :>) .  06/20/06
 * Even in 18th century, the Daco-Romanian theory had plenty of scientific material. Szamosközy István (Stefan Zamosius)'s archeological work in Transylvania was the main material fundament of Daco-Romanian theory. Maybe today that archeological work would be considered forgery, but a century after Zamosius, they didn't know that. --Vasile 17:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

- LOL. I am more than suprised. István Szamosközy was an archivist and not an archaeologist, who lived between 1570 and 1612. His main writings were "Analecta lapidum" and "De originibus Hungaricis". It seems that he was more interested in writing about the origins of the Hungarians than that of the Vlachs. Erdelyiek 17:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, this is ironic, he was interested in something else. But you'll be more than surprised if you'd read Zamosius. --Vasile 18:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And what if already read Szamosközy? His book is on my table right now...

Erdelyiek 23:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

building Orthodox churches = immigration

 * The years when these Orthodox churches were built clearly show how the Vlachs immigrating from beyond the Carpathians advanced into inner Transylvanian terittories.

Immigration is not the only explanation of the building of churches. Many of the early orthodox churches in Transylvania were rather small and made out of wood. (there are some exceptions, like the 13th century Densuş Church) It is quite obvious that they needed to be replaced with time. The new churches were obviously larger and better built so that's why many survived today. bogdan 18:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

-- In other words, Romanians started to rebuild their wooden churches on the peripheries first, then step by step also reconstructed those allegedly being in the center. Very strange people... Erdelyiek 23:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC) --- Wooden buildings are not durable indeed, but where are the foundations, and FIRST OF ALL the cemeteries? I suppose that you are aware that Christians used to bury their dead around the church. So, even if a church disappears, the cemetery, or its remnants can be identified. Erdelyiek 19:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This would be the case of a small elite group disposing enough land for the graves. --Vasile 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This sounds interesting, but I don't understand. Could you expain this a bit more? There was not enogh space in Vlach churchyards to have graves there? There was a fence directly at the walls? --KIDB 08:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is still pending: Vlachs (like other Christians) didn't incinerate their dead. Right? So, if you state that there were huge masses of Vlachs in Transylvania in early middle ages, you should show something that remained after them: bones (cemeteries), but also specific farming tools and so on. If you miss to do so, I have to consider the so-named Dacian-Roman continuity theory a pure fantasy. Regards: Erdelyiek 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses here on wikipedia. --Vasile 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Why are you hitting the table with your opincă? I think you'd be an excellent contributor to the article about Nikita Khruschev...:-)) Erdelyiek 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Enough space means possessing land and an appreciable level of civilisation. --Vasile 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There was plenty of land at that time in Transylvania. The density of population was much lower than nowadays. Erdelyiek 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Who was owing the land?--Vasile 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You cannot seriously suggest that they didnt have enough space to bury their dead. That is laughable. Druworos 17:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Majority of Hungarian historians
Is the history a matter of state in Hungary? What is about with this majority expression? Every Hungarian historian must expressed his/her attachement with the official history? --Vasile 21:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Far from it ... there is no official history. I know only the mainstream's opinion. Of course I couldn't affirm there is no other oppinion at all ... So the majority of ... is quite adequate.--fz22 21:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As you wish then. --Vasile 23:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * History seems to be more a matter of state for the Romanians than it does for the Hungarians. The "official" history of the region sactioned by Bucharest is very revisionist and very nationalistic.  Prior to 1862 the population of Transylvania was made up of Magyars, Germans, Wallachians, Moldavians, Gypsys, and a few other smaller ethnic groups.  Notice that I didn't mention Romanians.  The reason for this is that they didn't exist!  The concept of Romania as a nation did not exist until the 19th century.  The Romanian claim to the region is based on the Daco-Romanian continuity theory which is just that; a theory.  There is no substantial evidence to back it up.  Why does the name given to the region mean the same thing in both Latin and Hungarian but mean nothing in Romanian?  If the continuity theory is more than just a theory one would expect that Ardeal would mean something similar. -RB
 * You are definately wrong. The concept of a Romanian nation (whatever you may think on it) was born with Transylvanians at the middle of the 18th century, when they had started petitioning the Court in Vienna. In fact, your spin ignores what was yesteryear a very delicate point: 1848, when Hungarians fought Romanian nationalists (I underline the point, because it is clear that is what they believed themselves to be). Furthermore, the order in which you cite the ethnicities is a delicate spin. AS I HAVE STATED BEFORE: ultimately, a nation and/or ethnicity is a matter of choice, but rest assured that the choice existed way before 1862. Even in earlier documents, there is no reference to "Transylvanian Moldavians" (and there couldn't be one, since Moldavia came into existence way after the setting in motion of the aristocratic system in Transylvania), and there always was talk of "Vlachs". In fact, the common reference "Vlachs" or even "Romanians" was available to both Moldavian and Wallachians from Renaissence times - in the same way "Germans" was available to countless states who did not display a wish to join onto one (or "Russians" at the time of several "Russias", or Greeks/Romeioi with no state, or Jews etc). Romanian historians tend to exaggerate the matter, and often pretend that the people who referred to themselves as Romanians must have aimed to form a single state that far back (which is lunatic propaganda); two wrongs don't make a right. Make sure you inform yourself a bit more. I suppose you are Hungarian, and yet you seem to relate to our country as you would to something as far away as Namibia: you know the capital, and something about the people. Dahn 05:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong or just not in agreement with what has been taught in Romanian schools as the "official" history? All three of the major ethnic groups (Romanians, Magyars, and Germans) have made important contributions to the history of Transylvania.  However, to maintian a NPOV, is it not inaccurate to refer to Vlachs or Moldavians as Romanian prior to 1862?  The concept existed long before 1862, however, Romania as an actual entity did not exist prior to that date.  As far as 1848 goes, my understanding is that the conflict arose from the failure of the petition made by the Serbians to include language issues raised by the Romanian Orthodox chuch and the creation of an autonomous region within the Empire (a little over simplified).  And, if I'm not mistaken, the Hungarians were sympathetic to the national aspirations of the Romanians within the context of the Empire.  And no, I'm not Hungarian. RB::  And so as to not appear biased or anti Romanian, wouldn't it be more accurate to refer to the different German groups (Szeklers, Saxons, and Svabs)as such?
 * Szeklers are in no sense German. - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, please don't assume I am as gullible as to take the word of Romanian official history. Let me explain again: Vlachs or Moldavians is not the real oposition, despite the foreign confusion involving the terms. Vlachs never stood for the inhabitants of Wallachia as opposed to those of Moldavia, and was in limited use in Romanian or the Slavonic used by the two countries. The Wallachains even referred to themselves as Romanians with the first usage of Romanian in their official documents, and the term became popular with Moldavians as a cultural reference around the same time (XVIth-XVIIth centuries); note: the term "Romanian(s)" was used to define an ethnicity in the way it surfaced in the Renaissance - not as the will to create a "nation state" or anything like that, but as a way for the learned to argue such cliches of the time as noble origin, tradition, cultural equality with others etc. At the same time Hungarian and other foreign sources used the term interchangeably for Romance-speaking inhabitants of the two countries (although not for the states), as well as for the Transylvanian Orthodox subjects. Terms like "Welsh", "German", "Arab", "Greek", "Basque", and even "Italian" were in abundance in the Middle Ages, and flourished with the proto-nationalism of the Renaissance, without standing for any political reality. I am aware of the bias of modern Romanian sources, but I've looked beyond it: references to Vlachs have consistently covered all Romance-speakers in the area, and specifically speakers of Romanian (a language which was certainly distinct in the XVth century and earlier (cannot tell you how much earlier), as well as covering the same area at the same time (ie: borders between Moldavia, Wallachia, and Moldavia weren't really important in this area). With 1848, you have missed the mark by far: Romanian nationalists (I guess we can safely call them that, since that is what they called themselves) engaged in violence with the Serbs in the Banat, but they fought a guerilla campaign against the Hungarian revolutionaries, as allies of the Emperor. They had been promised national rights, which Kossuth never conceded, and were even given hope that the "Romanian" provinces of the Empire - Transylvania, Bukovina, the Banat - would form a single entity in Austria (with a maximalist program of getting Moldavia and Wallachia into the Empire); the Hungarian Revolution included Transylvania into Hungary, which got Romanians to arm themselves and act as agents of Vienna until Bem sweeped the place over; also note that the Austrians awarded them freedom from all forms of servitude, a thing which the Hungarians did way too late to matter. Arguably, the Austrians had only appealed to the Romanians because they were in dire straits, and the Russian presence (which they had only accepted as a last resort) made them suspicious of the fact that Romanians and Russians could become buddies, and that Romanians could help Petersburg conect Russia with Serbia, and make them seccede from the Empire - this is one of the reasons they agreed to the Ausglech. Dahn 17:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to clarify.

The burial map
The map is very expressive but


 * what is the date of the map?
 * 10-11th century


 * who is the author of this map?
 * I made the map using prof János Balatoni, prof Sándor Csonka works


 * what is with that border on the map?
 * What border do you mean exactly?


 * for the current article, what is the meaning of that map?
 * Shows the Magyars' settlement structure of Transylvania after 900AD.

Vasile 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * do you mind if one will put that map to the corresponding article about Hungary?--
 * The map contains only Transylvanian datas, eight-tenth part of Hungary from 1000AD. Therefore it fits better into this article--fz22 08:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

why did you put a 18th century border on a 10-11th century map? Anonimu 18:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is impossible to have this a burial map dated the 10th century. It would be rather an undated map with some 19th century border. (There was any indication of names of the rivers in 11th century? The archeological research found any indication of that discontinue line border in 11th century? How differ the 10th burial sites of that of 11th century?) --Vasile 23:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Impossible? Why? Of course, there was no border in the 10th century, only "indagines regni" (gyepu/border teritory). The 19th century border follows the crest border of the Carpatians. eg Negoiu was inside Transylvania (and it was the highest peak) on the other hand the Moldoveanu belongs to Muntenia. Differencies: coins, costums, horse burial, stirrups, weapons, jewelry, "head to west,facing east" like cemeteries, skulls with ritual trepanations, etc--fz22 14:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Because it is based on more recent archeological research than 10th century. Therefore the map can not be dated the 10th century. The discoveries might be of the 10th century as it is asserted. The border didn't exist in the 10th century. Anyway, wouldn't be better to have the image of some of those discovered coins? --Vasile 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to spoil the magyar argument, but one counter-argument to continuous Romanian inhabitation of Transylvania is that one does not really know what language the inhabitants speak (you cannot be sure). Intuitively: You can be sure of continuous inhabitation, but not of the language those guys speak. Why wouldn't it apply here? :) Dpotop 16:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Even in that new form, the map can not be dated the 10-11th century. It is the result of much more recent cartographical and archeological work. --Vasile 16:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, the burial places were discovered more recently than the 10-11th century, you're right :-). The line shows - I think - the Carpathian mountains, but you should ask the author about this. Please do not delete the work of others. If you think you can create a better map, please do not hesitate to do it. If you can include the arceological sites where Vlach burial places were discovered from this period - even better. (In this case please refrain form including ancient Roman settlements, because they were there a millennium earlier.)--KIDB 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate this mapcraft, that the reason of this discussion. The map in this current form is misleading. You may read the above discussion. --Vasile 16:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile has deleted the map in question  5 times since 21th january, incl. three times during the last two Hours. This is not the first time he is behaving this way. User_talk:Vasile --KIDB 18:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Expecting??? Who the h... are you? Go and see for yourself in central europian museums ...--fz22 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC) I'll give you a horse burial instead


 * I will take in consideration your invitation even it is not well placed here. Meanwhile, the map is still misleading. The horse burial is perhaps a sign of the Magyar civilisation. Please add a reference. --Vasile 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I really dont know what mislead you.--fz22 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Please bring the references for your additions. --Vasile 20:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vasile, it was very kind from you to include the Transylvanian Magyar horse burial image in the Hungary main page. Don't you think it would be better placed in the History of Hungary Origins of the Hungarian state section instead? Thanks, --KIDB 17:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Timok
Someone has added the following paragraph:


 * However, in light of more recent research, it is more probable that the Vlach (Romanian) people and languge formed south of the Danube, in the basin of Timok river. This is proven by the fact that the Timok river basin (now in Serbia) is still inhabited by an ethnic minority that calls itself "Vlach" or "Wlach". Vlachs may have immigrated in huge masses in Transylvania from that region, and this is an explanation why the Romanian Orthodox church of Transylvania was under the control of Serbian Orthodox church and the ceremony language of Romanian Orthodox church in Transylvania was the Slavonic language until late 18th century (19th century?). In early medieval Latin documents Vlachs were also referred to as "Timocanis". Also, the term "moţ", used to designate Romanians living in Western Carpathian mountains, may have its root in the Timok word. (Ti-mok => ti=Hungarian "you" + mok-> moţ (say: motz)).


 * 1) Only suppositions, and please no Original research
 * 2) Timok comes from the old latin name of the river "Timacus" - if you know romans were there before the hungarians, so nonsense hungarian relation.
 * 3) It is a known fact that orthodoxy came in Romania from the south, so the same way as the church in Wallachia was under control from the bulgarian church, the one in Transylvania was under the control of the Serbian church - due to proximity.
 * 4) there are differences grai spoken in the Timok valley and in Transylvania - mainly in the Ţara moţilor, Vlachs of Timok speak the Oltenian grai of Romanian, not the Transylvanian one. (This does not exclude a migration from Timok before the graiuri were splitted, but the Hungarians theory states that the Romanians came to Transylvania rather late).

About the ther paragraph i reverted:
 * The "carreer" of John Hunyadi and his son, Mathias Corvinus, as well as that of Esztergom Archbishop Nicolaus Olahus (Michael, the Vlach)(It is Nicolas not Michael) shows that the Vlachs (Romanians) could raise up to the highest ranks in medieval Hungarian and Transylvanian society. So, there was no discrimination based on ethnic origin, as present day Romanian historians would like to make us to believe so.

You are right, there are cases, but a rather small number. 3 cases at a majoritary population I think it is quite a small number - Exceptions that harden the rule.

Thank you Mihai -talk 19:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "someone", but me. Do you really think, that what Dimitrie Cantemir or Inocentiu Micu-Klein wrote about the origins of the Romanians was more true than what I wrote here a few minutes ago? Do you really think that all scientific (e.g. archeological) findings of more than 3 centuries passed after your "carturaries" made their suppositions, can be neglected???

+Nicolaus in Latin ==> Michael in English, Nicolas in French. Please note, this is en.wikipedia.org, not fr.wikipedia.org, just to make this clear.
 * "Timok comes from the old latin name of the river "Timacus" - if you know romans were there before the hungarians, so nonsense hungarian relation. "
 * ??? Ok, Timok comes from Timacus, and what if? when romanians moved from sout to north, the Timacus/Timok was still there with unchanged name (nonetheless Transylvanian places changed their names!), and they were called Timocanis when they arrived in Transylvania. From timocanis-> mocanii -> motii. I think this is clear as "buna ziua". Erdelyiek 21:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Mocan" and "moţ" are indeed words of unknown origin, but your proposed "mocan" -> "moţ" change is rather dubious, in the context of Romanian language, since it does not fit any known sound change. bogdan 14:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael = Michel in french, Michael in latin. Nicolaus= Nicholas in en, fr etc. About the first part, honestly yes, what they wrote was mor true that what you wrote. A policy by Wikipeia is called No Original Research. If you want to argue about the Origin of Romanians go to the corresponding article. Mihai -talk 21:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, but you also must insert your information there, not here.
 * This article, as you relevantly mentioned isn't about the origin of Romanians. So, Mr. Cantemir's theories are objectless here.
 * And please respect: Neutral point of view
 * Erdelyiek 21:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, about NPOV, it is you who started unballancing the article by adding tendentious affirmations, which were POV - until it is not 100% clear if romanians existed in Transylvania before 12th century any affirmation about the migration pushes the article on the other side by imposing a sole POV as the only viabile truth. So it is good that you've learded about the existance of that article next time try and read it. The affirmation about Timok is not apropriate here, it should be discussed at the Origin of Romanians. Also about the relation ti->you (in hungarian) I think that you could find tousands of meanings for different words this way. Mihai -talk 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Who are Bedőházi (198 Google hits), Bilkei, Ilosvai, Dánfi (141 google hits), Rékási, Dobozi, Mutnoki (21 Google hits), Dési ???? I've tried to find some relevant infos about them but most of them seem ordinary hungarian names. Mabye we should add them to the Magyarisation article, because if they are names of romanian families thay are fine examples of that. Mihai -talk 14:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

History
The history chapters are way too much extended. I will shorten them; if someone would want to extend them, please create other articles. --Vasile 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

So, please do not extend these chapters. --Vasile 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please do not extend the current article history section. --Vasile 00:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * And why? Could you explain to me? And who decide wich part hang out from the paragraph The crap with the Anonymous fairy tail with his fictious princes or the Avars' 250 year presence in Transylvania???--fz22 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
Bogdan, according to most sources on the web, the bird in the Transylvanian coat of arms is a black eagle, and not a lammergeier. I see you typed in the sentence about the lammergeier a year ago (February 1, 2005), can you please tell us where do you have this information from? --KIDB 12:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm... so that's only an eagle painted black and not an actual species ? :-) Well, in Romanian the Lammergeier is called "black eagle" ("vultur negru"), so I think that was what caused the misunderstanding. bogdan 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
In the historical Population section everything looks quite right unless you check the first date for the year 1713 when an alleged hungarian majority existed. According to Hungarian Government's Office for Hungarian Minorities abroad (here): --Radufan 23:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As a first remark: you should not forget that when speaking about Transylvania, HTMH usually excludes the Partium (Crisana, Banat, Maramures). Even so, these figures are very inaccurate. I will check them later. Erdelyiek 18:57, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Also the Banat, in which there are many more Romanians than Hungarians (for example, in Caraş-Severin County, only 1.76% are Hungarians and I assume this was true a few centuries ago, too). bogdan 23:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't be so sure. A few centuries ago there were no English people in America, now there are a lot (because of immigration, BANG!). The only difference is that Americans with English roots never denied that they came in the US from somewhere, in a given point in time. They've got plenty of sand. The same with Hungarians, we always recognized the we settled in the Carpathian Basin after 570 and 896 again. All people were on the move in ancient times, if only because they followed the animals they hunted or later grazed. For exaple, before AD, Massagetae could be found in the Eastern part of the Black Sea, from where they moved south of the Danube, and established - guess what?- Moesia. The same with us. We left Sharkel (=White Fortress) behind, and built the White Fortress of the Gyula at Balgrad (Alba Iulia)...(I just wanted to say that ALL people are moving during the time, but they carry with them their "cultural heritage". See also: York-> New York etc.) Erdelyiek 00:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

-
 * Inacurate? Why cause they are not in tone with Hungarian irredentist and fascist propaganda? Please come with documents, scholarly articles or some kind of reliable source of information. I would say that the data presented above by Radufan is quite accurate. I would like you to take notice that it comes from a Hungarian site and it cannot be in any way biased towards the Romanian cause. Constantzeanu 22:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When speaking about fascism, you made a self-characterization, I suppose... Demographical data of Translyvania were thoroughly analized by Nyárády R. Károly . Unfortunately, I did not find any English or Romanian translation, but is almost sure that there is one somewhere. (Actually, I can read Romanian, as being Rumanized, so maybe you will be able to read Hungarian, because you spoke about a large scale Magyarization of Romanians.) Erdelyiek 22:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow Erdelyek, what a constructive response? I think it shows that you have a certain anti-Romanian biased and people who are biased should not be allowed to contribute. Erdelyiek, please do not give sources which are biased. The least you could do is provide an English translation of it. Also it seems to me that your interest here is only political. Your name too seems to me to hint that your whole point is to "contribute" to this article in particular. You seem to change data as to census, etc. etc. It is also quite strange that you are continously changing census data. Before you gave a strange number of 37% Romanians in 1720, now you seem to give an even smaller data for a census allegedly taken in the 14th century. Are we really to believe that censuses were taken to such a precision in the 14th century and that ethnic origin was one of the questions? Please! Everyone knows that nationalism and everything tied with it started only after the French Revolution. Constantzeanu 05:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Your name too seems to me to hint that your whole point is to "contribute" to this article in particular." My name is referring to a place: Transylvania. Your name is also referring to a place: port Konstantza . So, what's the problem?? (Bang! :-) Erdelyiek 13:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, bang! You shut me up there, for sure. Man I think I am speachless. Funny, how this is the only issue you decided to respond on. I would like to propose something to you. Why don't you come here with reliable neutral data or sources, even scholarly articles (neutral ones). Translate them into English so people can understand them. Wait for responses. Then ask for consensus and only then make the changes. This is how wikipedia functions. Otherwise people are going to think you are a vandal and a troll and you are going to get blocked. Constantzeanu 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it's your side that should keep vandals away from the article: a Bonaparte-clone made a mess of it (what does the article on Greater Romania do here?). Perhaps you should lecture HIM about how wiki works. User Erdelyiek made valuable contributions, calling him vandal is an ad hominem attack. 195.56.95.83 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ohh, sorry, I've seen your user page (no-EU, unification of Moldova and Romania). It's frightening that this country with its mortal stray-dogs and chauvinists will be part of EU next year... THAT will be a challenge for the Union for sure...


 * yeap, it's frightening... who knows.. maybe romanians will conquest again budapest.....
 * Sorry, but I cannot miss the opportunity for a bit of sarcasm. So if you want to play this game, let me add this to the above comment: or who knows ... maybe Hungarians will conquer Bukarest again just like back on 6 December 1916.

A few things
I'm not entering in this dispute, I just want to say a few things based on linguistic data:

1. It is quite clear that Wallachia and Moldavia were colonized (or recolonized) by Romanians coming from Transylvania. There is quite a number of words borrowed from Hungarian. (oraş, cheltui, făgădui, pahar, etc.) There's absolutely no other way that those words could have entered all the Romanian subdialects. (BTW, this is also supported by the descălecat legends)

2. Recent (i.e in the last five-to-seven centuries) large scale migrations from Wallachia or Moldavia are really unlikely because some Transylvanian subdialects show linguistic features that are long lost in Wallachian and Moldavian subdialects.

3. There are three regions that are most likely to have had early Romanian populations: Banat, Făgăraş and Maramureş (Apuseni could be included but I'm not sure) It's funny how those regions are exactly the regions where there are no points in Fz22's 10th century Magyar burial map. :-) bogdan 14:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to see this map. It would be interesting to bring it fourth. Meanwhile, I think trolling and vandalism by user Erdelyek should end.Constantzeanu 17:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Image:MagyarsInTransylvania.PNG bogdan 17:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well now I see your point Bogdan. I would also say that the regions mentioned by you above would have had exclusive Romanian populations. The descalecat( settlement in English) of the Romanians into Moldova and Wallachia is well known (even from Hungarian sources). If anything, the migration was done from Transilvania to the other voevodates, not the other way around. It is also well known (from Hungarian sources) that Hungarians fought Romanian political entities such as the ones of Gelu when they entered into Transilvania (thus showing that Romanians lived there already).Constantzeanu 18:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The points are missing because the map was made for proper Transylvania (the teritory which was name Ultrasylvania in the 10-11th century)exclusivelly. Gesta Hungarorum is not a reliable historical source ... just a fairy tail ... None of the Magyars' real enemies were mentioned ... I'll be back ;)--fz22 19:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not really. There are huge "empty" spaces from Sebes to Cluj and from Mures to Olt. Also in the southern part(where Fagarash region is) there are empty spaces. So your excuse is a nice try but it fails to explain that.Constantzeanu 21:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes there were virgin forests (called Forest Igyfan and King's Forest in the Arpads period) near Sebes. The Magyars due to their way of life settled in the main river's valley ... but is up to you to show us similar maps with romanian burial sites from the 10-11th centuries. btw the Fagaras region was called Terra/Silva Blacorum (French name of balcanian latin sheperd people) and Bisenorum (Pechenegs) in the early 13th century ... no evidence about continual romanian presence in the fagaras region, either.--fz22 22:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Blacorum<=Vlach+land inhabited by. B in the Cyrillic alphabet is V in the Latin alphabet. Mihai -talk 22:36, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, "Terra/Silva Blacorum" means "The land/forest of the Romanians", since "Vlachs" is the Slavic name for "Romanians". :-) bogdan 22:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * + One more thing: As far as I know Fogaras belonged to the Wallachian Voivods for about 100-150 years around the 14th century (I have the book at home, now I can't tell you exact data). --KIDB 07:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, there were two regions (Ţări in Romanian), Ţara Almaşului (W of Sibiu) and Ţara Făgăraşului. They were around the rule of Mircea cel Bătrân, and also from time to time smaller regions and for shorter durations (Sâmbăta Monastery -SE of Făgăraş was built by Constantin Brâncoveanu). Mihai -talk 08:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

--- When Gesta Hungarorum speaks about Terra Blacorum, it may well referred to Wlachia (Muntenia) as well. why? Because Terra Blacorum means exactly Tara Romaneasca. Also, the fact that Transylvanian Romanians preserved many archaic language elements isn't a proof of their continuity in Translyvania, but in the contrary. I would only mention the American English or Australian English that preserved many elements of Old English, because people who left their fatherland preserved some archaic elements of their original culture. Actually, this is also the case for the Csángós, Hungarians who left Transylvania during the Middle Ages, and they still speak an ancient Hungarian dialect. so, the example is very good, but proves exactly the opposite as the quoter wanted to demonstrate. Erdelyiek 18:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A more recent, very edificatory, argument: "In Québec, in anii 1970 a avut loc “revolutia linistita”, miscare care a avut ca scop sa nege orice cultura din afara Quebecului. Si nu trebuie sa privim mai departe decit limba vorbita care in aceasta provincie este franceza din timpul lui Loudovic al XIV." Let's translate for those who don't understand Romanian: "...the (French) language spoken in this province (Québec) is the one spoken in France of Louis XIV". Thus: the immigrants preserved an old dialect of French. The same with Transylvanian Romanians who emigrated into Transylvania from beyond the Carpathians. Actually, I can confirm this, because I am half Romanian (Bang!). My ancestors from fathers lineage, but some of them also from mother's lineage emigrated to Translyvania from Moldavia and Walachia. (So, I am a real mixed Transylvanian with both Hungarian and Romanian blood). The difference is that our family never enjoyed lies, and we preserved from father/mother to son/daughter some major events of family history. We cannot say lies against the Hungarian people of Transylvania who welcomed us sometime at the beginning of the 18th century. We must never forget their tolerance and hospitality. Erdelyiek 13:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody cares who are you and what are you Erdelyiek. Untill now you are just an irredentist hungarian POV vandal. Everything you say may be seen as fascist irredentist opinions. What are you trying to say? That romanians came after hungarians in Transylvania? WAW! That is such a fascist hungarian propaganda!
 * And what are you, my dear anonymous friend, trying to say? That Hungarians came after Romanians in Transylvania? That looks like POV fascist Romanian propaganda to me! gravy_t 17 June 2006

--- These rather unbased suppositions seem to me to be rather personal research, and as you all well know this is not allowed by wikipedia. If vandalism shall continue on the part of user Erdelyiyek, I will feel compelled to ask an admin to block him from WIkipedia. Obviously this user does not know how to go about when adressing an article. First, you come with a reliable source, then you discuss it WITH YOUR PEERS, then you listen to them, then you reach concensus and only then do you actually make the change.Constantzeanu 00:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

83.5.190.37's rampage
immensely amusing ...--fz22 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
I have noticed a lot of unsigned users and IPs vandalizing this page lately, while making offensive comments or passes. I will only say this once. If this happens again, I will contact an admin. This is really getting annoying.Constantzeanu 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the greatest of all vandals is yourself. You have the most deletions and reverts and if one comes with a source, you immediately label it as "unreliable". What kind of discussion can be done with you? Erdelyiek 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not once have you ever come to the talk page and posted all your sources and asked for concensus. The least you can do is act in a civil fashion and not pretend that you did.Constantzeanu 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
I'm going to start up cleaning this article. All the history section has been removed to History of Transylvania article, and here I will try to leave only a brief description of each period. Also I've removed the sections most pbobably copied from other articles by annon users about Trajan's Column, Mihai Viteazul and Greater Romania to the Talk:Transylvania/Text subpage. In the event of another series of anon edits, I'll proceed with blockings, and I hope we will not arrive at protecting the page. Mihai -talk 10:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately this will only lead to our hungarian "friends" to make unsigned edits to the history of transilvania, instead of this one. Did you see what they wrote? That the schythians are the oldest inhabitants of Transilvania and that they spoke Hungarian. I think you have to block that article too before it will turn into an article on how Hungarians lived in transilvania for 10.000 years and dacians actually are the ones who migrated there from asia in 1000 AD.Constantzeanu 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have been observing the disputes on this article recently. There have been anonymous nationalist editors from both points of view, and it is not fair to single out one side or the other as being more at fault. I would like to thank Orioane for his work on maintaining a quality article by rolling back, protecting, and creating the long-overdue History of Transylvania article. Olessi 20:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It is hardly fair to say that only Hungarians edit this page in ridiculous ways. Furthermore, you are implying that Dacians have lived in Transylvania for 10.000 years, which cannot be supported, and is most likely false, as Dacians were likely IndoEuropean. Furthermore, it can hardly be proved that Romanians descend directly from Dacians in any way. In fact, the very Latin language they speak proves that they are, to a great extent, descendents of Roman colonists. That being said, it is fairly unlikely that there ever was large scale Scythian presence in Transylavania, and any association between Scythians and Magyars is a myth, and nothing more. Druworos 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not a priori appear that Constantzeanu was implying that Dacians were there for 10,000 years, though he may have meant this. I have seen no credited scholar question the Indo-European-ness of the Dacians: so yes, it is fairly certain they were an Indo-European people. In any case, we can be certain that there were no Dacians 10,000 years ago, and by the same token, no Scythians. Herodotus writes of an apparently mixed Thraco-Scythic tribe, the Agathyrsi, possessing lands roughly corresponding to Transylvania in his time. Alexander 007 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Block
I've just blocked the page due to repeated vandalism from a bunch of annon users. Will unprotect once the situation calmes down. Mihai -talk 17:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I welcome the protection, and maybe we have to start to discuss seriously about each of the paragraphs. For me, it is unacceptable to see after "Ancient History" emphasized the fact that it was a heart of Dacian state. The Dacian state was one of any other states that dominated Transylvania during antiquity. Erdelyiek 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately what it is for you or for me or for anyone else matters very little, unless you can bring into the attention of everyone that participates in the writing of the article, some kind of reliable source which states that in fact the dacian kingdom did not dominate Transilvania's antiquity.Constantzeanu 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Even more unfortunately, I think even the presence of a unified Dacian kingdom with any kind of long-term presence isn't exactly based on rock-hard evidence, is it? That being said, no, Scythians didnt rule Erdely, and no, Scythians were not in any way related to Magyars. Only Hungarian chroniclers without any factual evidence, mythologists, and far-right theorists would claim such a thing, and I would strongly suggest to my Magyar half-brothers to abbandon such claims, for they trully make them sound ridiculous.Druworos 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

New version of Transylvania history
Is nothing else than Romanian nacionalist propaganda (copy of school books of communist times) ... I'm stading against this new version. Just a few examples: Migration period (600 years!!!) 5 lines ... the fairytale of Menumorut 6 lines ... Nothing about 400 year!! Arpad era ... independent Transylvania no words about Bethlen, Rakoczy, Bathory ... If Michael the Brave deserve o picture why the others not?!? No words about Rakoczy revolt...etc etc--fz22 18:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for responding here and not starting to chop off the page. Second I am saying again that I will not allow once again for the history section to grow out of hand because there is almost nothing written about the rest and that's why I've created the History of Transylvania article. I am not historian nor an expert in history, and all I did was to try and reduce the existing history section according to my knowledge, and then I decided to ask for your help, so that we can create a compact nonPOV section in the article because I think it is better for us to work together than agains each other so that we shall not allow any kind of nationalist propaganda to appear. Mihai -talk 18:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * About the pictures, I agree that other important personalities could appear, because that could enhance the aspect of a compact article, that's why I searched for a picture of Brukenthal. for the moment there are 5 pictures, the one of John Hunyadi against which I d not know if there are any objections, the one of Brukenthal at the Austrian rule, Two pictures at Tr as an independent principality - Michael the Brave and Stephen Bocskai and the one of Maniu at Transylvania in Romania. One or two other pictures could be added, I have nothing against that.


 * As I looked more, I think that two small sections could be dropped, the one about the GGM and the first one about the first world war. Also the first two sections at T as aan independent principality could be merged into one or two shorter phrases, so that one could add one more paragraph. Mihai -talk 19:27, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest drastically shortening the history section of the main article even further, similar to the way it is done at Timişoara and History of Timişoara? Olessi 19:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That would be a good ideea. But, I don't think it could be reduced to that size because this is a far wider subject. For example we could discuss a list of paragraphs that should be included. So, I consider that there must be a small line for each of the following:
 * Dacia (As all main cities were here)
 * Hungarians migration
 * Settling of Szeklers and Saxons
 * Unio Trium Natiorum
 * John Hunyadi
 * Protestantism
 * Michael the Brave
 * Austrian Rule
 * 1848
 * Ausgleich
 * 1918
 * As fz22 said I forgot some things, and I am open to any other sugestions. Mihai -talk 19:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, as long as the material is brief and succinct. When so much history can possibly be presented, I believe it important to keep the main article brief and summarized, while the actual History article expands upon it in much greater detail. For instance, I don't understand why the history at Gdańsk is so big when there is already a History of Gdańsk article. Olessi 20:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this has been said already somewhere. Anyway: "Ausgleich" should include a brief reference to the transitional period starting in 1848. First, the Austrians placed Tr. under a military government, and partly started reaching out to the Romanian representatives who had remained loyal to the Empire. The problem was that Romanians had attracted suspicion after the Russian intervention (which Austria had accepted as a last resort, while Romanians seemed to be welcoming it), and Austria was not ready to exchange Hungarian insurrection for a Romanian tutelage over the lands. It also relates to the context in the Austrian state. The Transylvanian Diet (should become an article) was convened in Sibiu, giving better repr. to the Romanians, and the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania was given official recognition. But talks in the Diet lingered on, and Romanians arose still more suspicion. Even prior to the Ausgleich, Austria reverted to a higher property requirement for voters. Of course, not all of this needs to be included - it's just to give you the background for the general idea. Also, the Ausgleich-to-1918 period should make reference to the decay of the agricultural economy that Hungarian aristocrats relied on, as well as to the concentration of Romanian efforts in the industrial field. Romanians created all-Romanian credit institutions, whose main purpose was arguably to profit of the changing balance and buy off Hungarian domains. It also contributed that a huge number of Romanians left for the USA, and usually returned with money that they invested in an autarkic economy. Note that this reality contradicts two bogus statements made by each nationalism: the Hungarian claim that the move in 1918 introduced a manifest campaign by the Romanian state to distable the Hungarian elite (although some abuses did exist IMO); the modern Romanian one that Romanians were totally underprivileged. I also think the statement about Hungarian repression in 1867-1918(20) should be nuanced: Romanians were not repressed as much as they were under-represented (to which they answered by segregating themselves from the Hungarian society - politically, as well as economically; with notable exceptions: the representatives in the Budapest Parliament etc.). Hungarians were genuinely suspicios of Romanians' nationalism: when the latter tried to petition the higher authorities (the usual mechanism), they were put on trial (arguably, at that point all contact ceased - and Romanians turned to Bucharest rather than Vienna). Dahn 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania throughout the Middle Ages
So how do we proceed? This is my draft for the Middle Age period:--fz22 21:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The former Dacia Trajana province was controlled by the Visigoths and Carpians until they were in turn displaced and subdued by the Huns in 376, under the leadership of Attila. After the disintegration of Attila's empire, the rule of Gepids succeeded between 451-568. Then Transylvania was controled by Avars between 568 and 800. The region was also influenced during this period by massive Slavic migration. Under Khan Krum at the beginning of the 9th century and Transylvania, along with eastern Pannonia, was incorporated into the First Bulgarian Empire.

''During the 10th century, Gelou - ruler of the Vlachs in Ardeal, Glad in Banat, and Menumorut in Byhor (Bihor and Bihar counties), were defeated by the Magyars. The existence of these leaders is a subject of debate between various historians and the history of Transylvania during the early Middle Ages is difficult to ascertain due to the scarcity of reliable written or archeological evidence. There are two major theories concerning whether or not the Romanized Dacian population continued to live in Transylvania after the withdrawal of the Romans; see: Origin of Romanians.'' I suggest to remove this and move into History of Transylvania

From the 9th century Magyar tribes controled the region linking Transylvania organically to the Principality of Hungary. In the early 11th century King Stephen I of Hungary had to wage war against Gyula of Transylvania. After the defeat of the later, the Transylvanian Catholic episcopacy and the comitatus system was organised. The authority of the Kings of Hungary over Transylvania was consolidated in the 12th and 13th centuries. = contradiction: the goal of the war against Prince Gyula was to assure the kingdom unity.

By the 12th century the Szeklers were established in eastern and southeastern Transylvania as border guards and in the 12th and 13th centuries, the areas in the south and northeast were settled by German colonists called (then and now) Saxons. Siebenbürgen, the German name for Transylvania, derives from the seven principal fortified towns founded by these Transylvanian Saxons.

I'll put here some notes here about the Mongol invasion ... John HunyadiAfter the suppression of the Budai Nagy Antal-revolt in 1437, the political system was based on Unio Trium Natiorum (The Unity of the Three Nations). Society was divided into three privileged nations, the nobility (mostly Magyars), the Szeklers, and the Saxon burghers. These nations, however, corresponded more to social and religious rather than ethnic divisions. The Romanians were Orthodox, having the right to own land or access to nobility only through conversion to Catholicism.

A key figure to emerge in Transylvania in the first half of the 15th century was John Hunyadi. His subsequent military exploits against the Ottoman Empire brought him further status as the governor of Hungary in 1446 and papal recognition as the Prince of Transylvania in 1448. John Hunyadi was also the father of Matthias Corvinus of Hungary.


 * How about now? I've removed the paragraph about gelu glad and Menumorut, and the second one about Gyula. Also I managed to condensate into 4 paragraphs. Wayting paragraph about Mongol Invasion. Mihai -talk 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not so sure that Gelu, Glad and Monumorut should be erased. If I am not mistaken Hungarian documents which talk about them do exist. Constantzeanu 01:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell, it wasn't a suggestion to remove them from WP, but simply to shorten the history article at Transylvania and instead move the information to History of Transylvania. Olessi 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is far better now--fz22 07:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Avram Iancu


Does it annoy so much this picture? I don't understand why are so many pictures with the hungarians people here. Nobody even heard of them, they are all so unknown...
 * nobody heard of them ... that's telling! :)))--fz22 19:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't push it dude. you may be a hungarian irredentist and POV pusher, I don't care about you. But I will write for every hungarian picture 6 more romanians ones. This is just to balance your POV. This is the proportion between the romanians and hungarians in Transylvania. Have fun :)))
 * OK, body. I have a picture for every Transylvanian Prince:

*1541-1551 János Zsigmond *1551-1556 I. Ferdinánd King of Hungary *1556-1571 János Zsigmond *1571-1576 Báthory István *1576-1581 Báthory Kristóf *1581-1598 Báthory Zsigmond *1598-1605 Báthory Endre *1598-1605 Mihály vajda *1598-1605 Rudolf király (Basta) *1605-1606 Bocskai István *1606-1608 Rákóczi Zsigmond *1608-1613 Báthory Gábor *1613-1629 Bethlen Gábor *1629-1630 Brandenburgi Katalin *1630-1648 I. Rákóczi György *1648-1660 II. Rákóczi György *1658-1659 Rhédei Ferenc *1660 Barcsai Ákos *1661-1662 Kemény János *1662-1690 I. Apafi Mihály *1690 II. Apafi Mihály *1690 Thököly Imre *1691-1705 I. Lipót King of Hungary *1705-1711 II. Rákóczi Ferenc
 * So it is your turn to give me 24x6 picture ... --fz22 22:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought history it's about what happened in the past and not what the proportion of ethnics is nowadays. I think to insert Romanian historical personalities (like Michael the Brave who belongs to the Walachia article) just because the current proportion of nationalities it's completely wrong.I suggest to insert all those rulers, who ruled more than Micheal the Brave did (approx. 1 year).Zmiklos 14:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

For now, we have these pictures of realy realy important persons: John Hunyadi which is a good picture as it is both a romanian and a hungarian personality, Michale the Brave - Romanianone of the most important personalities of Romanian History, and I chosed him for the reason that now Transylvania IS Romania, Stephen Bocskai - Hungarian because he was the Transylvanian Prince who started an extraordinary period in Transylvania and assured its autnomy, Samuel von Brukenthal - German, because in this continuous fight betwen Romanians and Hungarians Germans have been forgotten and he is the representative of the golden age of austrian rule in Transylvania, and last but not least, Iuliu Maniu - Romanian, one of the top Romanian politicians in the first half of the 20th century, prime minister and one of the first victim of communism. As you can see from 5 pictures, 3 represent Romanian personalities, 2 represent hungarian personalities and one represents german personalities. All of them have the same width - 150px, a simple caption with only the name. Asm much as I ould like to add Avram Iancu, I do not consider the picture to be apropriate in the brief section on the Transylvania article, but it should not miss on the History of Transylvania larger article. Avram iancu, despite his influence in the 1848 revolution, has became an icon of Romanian nationalism in Transylvania and that's why I refrained from keeping his picture here. Mihai -talk 01:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Culture
Here is a list of Transylvanian personalities who have influenced the region's culture.


 * 1) Endre Ady, Hungarian poet
 * 2) János Arany, Hungarian poet
 * 3) George Bariţ, Romanian historian and publicist
 * 4) Béla Bartók, Hungarian composer
 * 5) István Báthory, Hungarian noble and governor
 * 6) Lucian Blaga, Romanian poet, playwright, and philosopher
 * 7) Stephen Bocskay, Hungarian governor
 * 8) Farkas Bolyai, Hungarian mathematician
 * 9) János Bolyai, Hungarian mathematician
 * 10) Samuel von Brukenthal, Transylvanian governor of German origin
 * 11) Emil Cioran, Romanian essayist and philosopher
 * 12) Matthias Corvinus, Hungarian Renaissance king
 * 13) George Coşbuc, Romanian poet
 * 14) György Dózsa, peasant and revolt leader
 * 15) Octavian Goga, Romanian poet
 * 16) Johannes Honter, Renaissance humanist and Reformer
 * 17) John Hunyadi, Regent of Hungary
 * 18) Avram Iancu, Romanian revolutionary
 * 19) Ştefan Octavian Iosif, Romanian poet
 * 20) Sándor Kőrösi Csoma, Hungarian explorer and researcher
 * 21) György Kurtág, Hungarian composer
 * 22) Ferenc Kölcsey, Hungarian poet and author of the national anthem
 * 23) Gheorghe Lazăr Romanian teacher
 * 24) György Ligeti, Hungarian composer
 * 25) Béla Lugosi, Hungarian actor
 * 26) Iuliu Maniu, Romanian politician and Prime minister of Romania
 * 27) Andrei Mureşanu, Romanian poet and revolutionary
 * 28) Hermann Oberth, German physicist
 * 29) Péter Pázmány, Hungarian theologist and writer
 * 30) Dumitru Prunariu, Romanian cosmonaut
 * 31) Liviu Rebreanu, Romanian novelist
 * 32) Stephan Ludwig Roth, pedagogue and Lutheran pastor
 * 33) Ioan Slavici, Romanian writer
 * 34) Sándor Veress, Hungarian composer
 * 35) Aurel Vlaicu, Romanian aviation pioneer
 * 36) Traian Vuia, Romanian inventor and aviation pioneer
 * 37) Johnny Weissmuller (1904-1984), German actor ("Tarzan")
 * 38) Miklós Wesselényi, Hungarian politician and writer


 * Transylvania in fiction - in the Western world, Transylvania is famously the home of Bram Stoker's Count Dracula.

The above list is misleading. For examples there are far too many hungarians names there. Let's not forget who were and still is the majority in Transylvania. It seems like a fascist hungarian propaganda. Let's remove this exageration or modify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.100.15 (talk)

There are so many hungarians because nobody, until me, has added Romanians. As you cna see I've bolded the romanians so that you can see them, and italicised the germans for the same reason. To remove the hungarian personalities is an obtuse and nationalistic POV, as you cannot deny them. For example, look, there is János Bolyai after which one of the top 5 universities in Romania is named - the Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca if you didn't knew, you have Béla Bartók and Endre Ady important hungarian personalities which no one can deny, and also Béla Lugosi one of the most influential world-level actors from the interbellic period. These are only personalities which any person with a decent level of culture and a basic knowledge of Hungarian culture should have. Mihai -talk 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have added some names myself, but the first impression one gets when seeing this list is that it is far too long. We should probably create a list with all these names in a new article. And I think we should only keep in here a maximum of (let's say) 10 most important names and put the full list in that other article. Although it would be very cynical, if you think this helps then we could "negotiate" the ethnicity of the 10 most important names from the main article. My proposal however is to remove the ethnicity from the description of each figure, as this whole list is about culture. --Alex 12:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW Hunyadi, Dozsa, Avram Iancu, Iuliu Maniu have nothing to do with the culture ...--fz22 12:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

83%?
What 83% of romania in transilvania? Only hungarians are 19,7%... And what meens that a large romanian majority...

in the 2002 romanian census 83% of the people said that they were romanians. Whats so hard to understand?

i dont now where you get this statistic but if you calculate that thing that in tr. in 2002 live 1415000 hungarian and the population where 7,5 million then you can see that this number is 19,7% so the romanian percantege can be 83% when only the hungarians are in almost 20%.


 * First, I must say that your maths is not very good, as 1.415 out of 7.5 is just 18.87% and not 19.7% as you suggest. However, I looked on the 2002 Census data myself, just to solve the "mistery". The data in this article is indeed incorrect and I will correct it in a few days if there will be no objections on this discussion page. The real data looks as follows: total population in Transylvania is 7,221,733 (and not 7.5 million), 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. -- User:Alexrap 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there a problem between Hungarians and Romanians in Transylvania?
It is fairly common to hear, that average Romanians have no problems with Hungarians, only governments and politics cause troubles. And it is as silly as it gets.

„Anyway, the fight in late-19th century / early-20th century was against the Hungarian government, not against the Hungarian people.”

Since this is the best example, allow me to go back to the Romanian uprising of 1848-1849 against the Hungarian rule. One can clearly see a pattern there of ethnic cleansing from the Romanian side, in fact the mass killings of Hungarians in Abrudbánya (Abrud) and Nagyenyed (Aiud) and about 20 villages in Alsó-Fehér county show that sometimes things went beyond that. The atrocities were committed by the local population lead by local leaders. I will be the last to deny that there were severe reprisals from the Hungarian side, but again committed by the local population – against the wishes of the Hungarian government. This is forbidden history in Romania, of course.

As for the later political struggles, it is very clear again, that not all was high politics. Romanians naturally wanted the better economic and social positions occupied mostly by the Hungarian and German community (most notably the land owned by Hungarian landlords). There was a real feeling of economic and political deprivation towards the whole Hungarian community (not only the government) until 1919, and after that a real and common fear that if the Hungarian rule returns they will loose the advantages – like a good job with the state railway previously occupied by a Hungarian.

„es, there are extremists in Romania, especially in Transylvania (just like there is the KKK in the US), but most Romanians are not like that, especially since some people in Transylvania are from mixed families. (who they hate?) „

The problem with this is that research and facts on the ground proves the contrary. Hungarians tend to score very low in Romania, usually second the most unpopular national group right after the Roma community, and the standing of Romanians in Hungary and among the members of the Hungarian community in Transylvania is similarly very negative.

Mixed families are a tiny minority, to argue with them is not very sound. As for the KKK in the US, its presidential candidate never got 30% of the vote in national elections, like Mr. Tudor a few years ago. And if you look at the results of the Greater Romania Party in Ardeal in the last decade, you will see that about 30-35% of the ethnic Romanians in the region support this openly anti-Hungarian party. I would also call PSD a rather anti-Hungarian grouping on the local level in Ardeal. When territory changes hand whole communities lose and win and the memory of this is a good enough basis for suspicion and even hatred. Hungarians in Transylvania today generally dislike their disadvantegous position, and I think Romanians generally dislike the strong national identity and struggle for autonomy of the Hungarian community. So I stand by my statement about the general anti-Hungarian feelings of the Romanians both historicly and currently, without trying to deny that there are general anti-Romanian feelings on the Hungarian side also. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by DAttila (talk &bull; contribs).

Michael the Brave
I am wondering why a picture on Michael the Brave should be included in the Transylvania main article. He was involved in Transylvanian history only for one year from the 2000 years the History paragraph is about. It is like including pictures of all Hungarian kings in the Romania main article who controlled Moldavia and Wallachia for a longer period than one year... As a compromise, I think, he could be possibly included in the History of Transylvania Article (I think it was a good idea to create), however, his role is quite well discussed in the History of Romania Article.--KIDB 08:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What Hungarian kings controlled Moldavia after 1369? I would like to know this. --Candide, or Optimism 12:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did not say "after 1369". I meant eg. Louis I of Hungary But if you wish, there is a more recent example: Franz Joseph I occupied Romania after their failed attack on Transylvania in 1916. Should his picture be included in the History of Romania article? :-) Yes, if we follow the logic of Mihai because he was an important personality in Hungarian history and there are Hungarians living in Romania. :-) --KIDB 13:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * When Louis controlled the land of Moldavia, Moldavia hadn't declared independence. When Bogdan declared independence, Louis lost his possession of the land. Also, in WW1, Moldavia was not occupied by the enemy. Only Wallachia. :) --Candide, or Optimism 12:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Only if you accept a picture of Ferdinand I of Romania in the History of Hungary. :-) (Romania occupied Budapest in 1919, fighting against the Hungarian Soviet Republic) bogdan 13:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree. :-) Put it there, I promise I won't delete it :-) --KIDB 14:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For the romanians, the moment 1600 was like the creation of the Kingdom of Hungary for the hungarians so he is one of the foremost personalities for the Transylvanian Romanians, so I think his picture should stay. Mihai -talk 10:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What Romanians? Perhaps those from Transylvania and Wallachia felt that way, but I don't think the Moldavians interpretted his personal union, as a liberation. How many statues of Michael do you find in Moldavia? Perhaps one, in Iasi. How many statues do you find of Stefan in Moldavia? You find them everywhere. How many statues of Stefan do you find in Wallachia? The popularity of Michael was raised with the beginning of nationalism and was completed during the Communists. I like Michael, but his union was a personal union, for his own ambitions, and not one under "Romanians". At least he should have written a referendum of some kind. He didn't, and I think he was poor in diplomacy. --Candide, or Optimism 14:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anittas, you're trolling. One of the largest avenues in Bucharest is Şoseaua Ştefan cel Mare, although he sacked Bucharest and set it on fire. :-) bogdan 15:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a good question, should a personality, who is important in the Romanian history, emphasized with a picture in another article too, where he is not one of the most important people, just because he is a Romanian national hero?
 * Another question: Why is it more important for you to include him in the Transylvania article than in the Moldavia, or Wallachia articles? He is not mentioned there at all, except for one single sentence in the Wallachia article...
 * If you note, the history section in this article is much longer than the history section in either of the two articles. bogdan 13:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I do not say he should be completely deleted, I only suggest that his one year should be mentioned in the History of Transylvania article instead of the Transylvania main article. --KIDB 12:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael's actions had more influence than the actual ruling. He was often invoked by the Romantic Nationalist Transylvanians in the 18th/19th century and the development of the Romanian national identity in Transylvania. bogdan 13:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This is correct. --KIDB 14:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Boborul
"Ăştia sîntem, peticiţi în cur, rupţi în coate; intrăm în istorie ca-ntr-o infectă crîşmă de cartier. Între două ghiorăituri şi-o înjurătură, poporul (boborul, domnilor), vorbeste bâţos despre Posada, despre Mihai Viteazu, despre "trăiască şi-nflorească Moldova, Ardealul şi Ţara Românească." "Alţii se laudă cu Michelangelo sau Da Vinci şi mie mi se arată scrisoarea lui Neacşu din Cîmpulung. Fantastică realizare, delaţiunea!... Dacă regret ceva, acum la treizeci de ani, e că m-am născut aici, că fac parte din cei ce au învăţat pe la şcoli că poporul ăsta, boborul, domnilor, a fost într-o erecţie continuă în faţa istoriei. Care popor? Noi, cei care n-am făcut nici măcar o dată dovada virilităţii, noi, care în timpul invaziilor ne ridicam poalele în cap şi fugeam în păduri, noi, care leşinam prin sălile unde se hotăra istoria, noi, care astăzi ne scremem pentru o bucată de pîine şi nu mai ştim ce şmechereli să mai inventăm." &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zmiklos (talk &bull; contribs).


 * And what it is that you want to prove with this? Mihai -talk 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to be sure: is this cited from Sabin Gherman? Dpotop 12:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. You can have the full article here. Enjoy. Zmiklos 13:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I read his productions some time ago. Full of shit, in a sense. Dpotop 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article
I have serious doubts about the neutrality of the "Transylvania" article. Please add to the header that: The neutrality of this article is disputed. Those users who agree with this please add a comment to this section. Zmiklos 13:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree - An article like this will always have a bias. Right now the myths held Romanians seem to be more numerous in the article. If there were more Hungarians on Wikipedia it would probably be the opposite. But I digress. What about adopting an attitude of only adding facts (with citation) and not removing facts from the article? Maybe this is pointless, and the inherent flaw of Wikipedia is manifesting here. If there was a Romanian Free Online Encyc. and a Hungarian one, everyone would happily add their reality to the relevant one and only trolls would go to the other. But with a single Wikipedia that is supposedly trying to be the definitive source, this article will always be in a state of "edit wars". Because, there is no obvecjive truth here. --Boborok 03:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Unio Trium Nationum
"By the same act, Orthodox Romanians were denied any political rights, being declared as tolerati - tolerated. Though they were permitted to own land, the only possibility to remain or access nobility was for them through conversion to Catholicism."

Does historical truth hurt so much ?

Fighting historical facts through deleting them from texts ?
 * 1. This is a project. You have not intertwined your contribution with questionable info (which would make it hard to keep sentences that may be otherwise correct).
 * 2. It would not hurt you to look at the style of other articles (generic, as well as in-detail) before you start adding stuff. You have no idea how annoying it is to look into every bit of info that you post and make it consistent with style and manner.
 * 3. Getting your foot in the door by stating this is necessarily "truth" that we should all admit to is, well, rude.
 * 4. Get yourself an identity and post on the talk page first (while you're at it, expect for others to reply). Dahn 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

i must confess, i understand nothing of your abstract and too general message

you write: You have not intertwined your contribution with questionable info

which questionable info ?!?

you write: which would make it hard to keep sentences that may be otherwise correct

so, if i don't intertwine my contribution with questionable info - which was that ? - my sentences may be eventually correct

I cannot get anything inteligible for me of all that, sorry it is too general, too alusive...

you write:
 * 2. It would not hurt you to look at the style of other articles (generic, as well as in-detail) before you start adding stuff. You have no idea how annoying it is to look into every bit of info that you post and make it consistent with style and manner.

so, every bit of info which i posted - info which is anyway questionable, according to point 1 - had to be brought in accordance with the style and manner of the other article. By whom ? By you ?

Could you please elaborate on the incompatibility of my statemets with the style and manner of Wikipedia texts ? Could you please give an example ? It would be helpful for me.

you write:
 * 3. Getting your foot in the door by stating this is necessarily "truth" that we should all admit to is, well, rude

It is necessarily the "thruth" since my assertion regards an historic document - Unio Trium Nationem - which can be read by anybody. In this document it is explicitely stated that the only Nationes which are receptae - admitted in Transylvania are the Nobles, the Sachsen and the Szeklers, while the Blachii" (Romanians) are only tolerati'' - tolerated.

This is what i wrote about, remainig absolutely factual, with no comment or interpretation and THIS should have been the subject of our debate. Instead, you delivered a content - avoiding but tutoring message with irritated and arrogant undertones.

I am very disappointed.


 * For one, you have named Michael the Brave "voivode of Romania" (which is absurd). Again, you are right about the document on more than principle, but you have neither wikified it, nor have you monopolysed the interpretation for it (for the third time: you are mixing it with subjectivism, in the purest of senses). I was indeed "tutoring" you: look at formated articles (no, not "by me"), by which I mean the featured articles. Try and keep consistent with the format. I have reverted you because you bombarded the text with info that disregarded the deliberative nature of what is being attempted here, and because you did not notice that info here should be partly mirrored, partly expanded in the History of Transylvania. Others will simpy revert you because you are anonymous and don't provide a summary - which leads to this article becoming disjointed, untidy, and objectionable. Word of warning: this repeated gesture can get you banned (this is not a threat, it's a risk assesment - admins don't care if you are right, they care about triple reverts). Dahn 01:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

How did Romanians lose their political and social rights in Transylvania - clarify/reformulate
Following fragment needs to be clarified and/or reformulated:


 * However Eastern Orthodox Romanians were not given to build up local self-governent (unlike the Székelys, Saxons in Transylvania, Cumans and the Jassic people in Hungary); the comparatively small Romanian ruling class of nobilis kenezius (classed as lower nobility in the Kingdom as a whole) had the same rights as the Hungarian nobilis conditionarius. Contrary to the situation in thre Maramureş region, the only possibility to remain or access nobility in Transylvania-proper was through conversion to Roman Catholicism.

More precisely,

-please briefly explain Why :


 * 1. "Eastern Orthodox Romanians were not given to build up local self-governent"


 * 2. "the only possibility to remain or access nobility in Transylvania-proper was through conversion to Roman Catholicism"

-please give evidence for the allegation


 * 3. the Romanian ruling class was comparatively small

Thank you, --Vintila Barbu 10:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure:
 * 1. Due to the lack of sources we have only piece of information about Romanians in the Transylvanian Alps. But according to Hungarian historians a kind of frontier teritory was organised around 1150-1200 based on Romanian kniazes and their people in "terra blacorum": "asumserunt ipsi Walachi custodim alpibus ab Tolmacz usque ad magnam vilam Walachicalem" and in the territories between Vorostorony Pass and Hatcak. Unlike Szekelys and Saxons, the Romanian "nobilis kenezius" were awarded by the King with estates in these regions and not in the seven county ( = outside the Szekelyland and Universitas Saxorum). Thus, the free Romanians (sheperds and frontier guards) became serf of their former kniazes ... none resistance was recorded
 * 2. I've used South Transylvania ... where conversion to catholicism was a requirement. In Maramures the marity preserved their original religion
 * 3. According to Hungarian sources the Romanians where small in number before 1400AD.

--fz22 12:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thak you for promptely answering


 * to 1.
 * Romanians being awarded with or confirmed in their estates doesn't answer the question:


 * My question was: why "Eastern Orthodox Romanians were not given to build up local self-governent" ?

please answer question 1


 * to 2

I My question didn't referr to the use use of the term "South-Transylvania" (Besides, South-Transylvania is not the right term, since historical Maramures didn't belong to Transylvania. To differentiate Maramures from Transylvania one should simply say proper Transylvania)


 * My question was Why "the only possibility to remain or access nobility in Transylvania-proper was through conversion to Roman Catholicism"

please answer question 2


 * to 3

please insert specification "According to Hungarian sources "

Regards,--Vintila Barbu 13:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. The answer to the question "why Catholics?" is simple: because that was the requirement of Catholicism (mirroring the fact that a Catholic in Moldavia was a half-citizen as well). Those were the Middle Ages, dudes.
 * 2. I had introduced "comparatively small" to refer to the ruling class, not the population. Btw, Fz22, I doubt Hungarian sources counted the population at the time, or even estimated it with accuracy (not only because numbers are improbable, but because no one could and/or attempted to do with any hope for accuracy, in Hungary, Transylavnia, or the world at large - or else I'm wrong, and Transylvania was already 500 years ahead of everyone). I also mistrust using "Romanians" or even "Vlachs" as a designation or self-designation: we are talking about religious identities first and foremost. Meaning: I am ready to believe that people who were Easten Orthodox, and very likely corresponding to the modern trm "Romanians", were the majority (I cannot picture a majority Hungarian ruling-class over a minority of serfs and peasants... it just doesn't work, people; before you ask, I also believe that the majority of serfs were Orthodox, since Orthodoxy could legally block your acces to any higher level: meaning that religion was an economical tool for the aristocracy). Dahn 14:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

---
 * 1. I'd like to know it too :). What the historians know for sure: a form of frontier guard system existed in the Transylvanian Alps based on Romanians ~1150-1200. A best answer would be: the free Romanians did not put up resistance. (the seklers did fight for it for almost 800 year and they were able to keep their land in public/collective ownership) sure the different religion was not subserved neither...--fz22 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

-- Dahn: the serfs were mostly Magyars, the Romanians were sheperds near the manor (they payed no taxes except "quinquagesima ovium") ruled by knyazes in the early 13th century. They were not so numerous beacause according to some sources the King order to assemble all Romanian into a single estate, in the Mid 13th century. Sure after the Mongol invasion and the Black Plague from the 14th century their number started to increas. It is well documented eg. in the Mid 14th century a Romanian clan immigrated into the Kingdom transacted by the Archibishop of Kalocsa. I know it is much simple to believe in Normans like conqest of Transylvania with a vast Romanian/Romanised serf-class oppressed by a small number of Magyars. But the toponyms, archeological datas and impartial contemporary sources proof the contrary ...--fz22 16:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You are using sophistry. Let me point this out: a document would refer to "Vlachs" only when such Eastern Orthodox had an organized community (the ones you mention, on the border). Otherwise, as everywhere in Europe, serfs were just serfs (which would make it difficult to draw any conclusion). If the mention of toponyms and whatnot is relying on Raffai Erno, well, I can't take it into consideration. This topic is one of the many related to whether Hungarians "found anyone there". I myself am inclined to believe that the Romanian language was also formed in areas south of the Danube, that the Bulgarians extended their dominion to Maramures after 900, that most of what Romanian historians claim about "Romanian polities in the Carpathians having somehow descended into the plains before 1000" is suspiciously biased, etc. BUT: atributing clear ethnicities before 1500 or even 1800 (depending on the case), especially in Eastern Europe, is absurd; "Hungarian" should stand for "ruler", especially after absorbing the small, standing, Romanian elite, and forming a domination system with the Szeklers and Saxons (which were both, also, defined more by economic role than "nationality" - though they overlaped in this case); in this context, when the question of "having a nation" was posed, most people at the bottom of the scale, which were clearly majority Orthodox, decided they wanted to be Romanian. Because, no matter what, it is a decision. That is that. Also, I think that it is most likely (in accordance with common sense) that most of them already spoke a Vlach language. Or I'm wrong, and being a serf was such hapiness that Vlach migrators flocked to Transylvania just to be pampered by Hungarian noblemen with low fertility rate. Dahn 16:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds quite logical that people living in the mountains were not reached by the light cavalry of the Tartars. They didn't spend enough time in Hungary to take control of all remote areas. If Vlachs were mostly shepherds, many of them survived and they could move into the deserted agricultural lands during the second half of the 13th century. Did Hungarians find a deserted land in the 9-10th century? Possibly not, however, the population density must have been very low. Were the Hungarians, the Slavs or the Vlachs in majority during medieval times? I don't know, because I am not a historian. I would be glad, however, if a group of respected Hungarian and Romanian scientists sat down together and wrote a history book together... --KIDB 09:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to see a group of scholars from the UK (Oxford, Cambridge...) and North America (Harvard, McGill...) with absolutely no bias sit down and hash this one out. There are a lot of brilliant Romanian and Hungarian historians, however, on this particular topic I don't think you'd find an NPOV on either side. ARB 06/15/06

--- Definetely the Slavs and the Vlachs were not the majority for at least two reason: one the turcik Bulgars were assimilated by the Slavs ... and so the Magyars could be also assimilated by the Slavic people. Two: the shortage/absence of archeological findings ... we know about contemporany Hun, Avar, Gepides, Slav, ... cemeteries except for Vlachs or any romanised propulation--fz22 10:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The latter seems to be convincing. --KIDB 12:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Refrain Vandalism !
The allegation "the decree of Turda openly called to expel or exterminate Romanians in Transylvania" is substantiated in the article Decree of Turda on the basis of primary, original documents.

Removing primary evidence-based informations represents a clear case of VANDALISM.

Please refrain !

--Vintila Barbu 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

the Decree of Turda (1366), which openly called for expeling or exterminating Romanians??
The key word malefactor is missing ... which changes considerably the meaning of the sentence. The Decree have had only a single purpose to assure the main traderouts in South-Transylvania against malefactors rised in number after the Black Death ... The word "exterminating" (the Romanain, Jewish people) is a 18-19th century invention. Can not be elucidated in the 14th century. the Jewish were expeled from Hungary by Lois the Great but nobody had the intention to "kill'em all"--fz22 07:12, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is why English has a word called "or". I wanted to erase the fragment, but the article for it is well-written and researched: and nowhere is it implied that Vlachs or Jews were actually murdered. I'm sure your view is more speculative than that. Dahn 07:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC) 07:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

And what this sentence wants to mean: "which openly called for expeling or exterminating Romanians". For me: there was a state politic to expel or exterminate Romanians from Transylvania, just beacause they were Romanians! Which is crap ... The original text is about "malefactors, especially (most of them were) Romanians"--fz22 10:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, sure, "especially Romanians" means "most were Romanians"... Come on, dude, I've been reasonable. This is just your own version of history. The document calls for killing Romanians, which are viewed as malefactors (a language consistent with the medieval frame of mind - like all peasants were considered potential cutthroats - consider the origin for villain in villein); to assume that such a thing happened on a significant scale is idiotic, of course - but the language is relevant for relations inside Transylvania at the time (note: at the time - not earlier, not later). Dahn 12:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

So, what do you want to suggest? That there was a state-politic in the Mid14th century for exterminating Romanians from the region? Or what? Rigth after the Black Death the worst natural disaster of the history of Europe?--fz22 13:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Take please this examples:

"I like all beautiful animals, especialy horses"


 * The one and only sense is that the second category belongs logicaly to the first. The meaning is not " I like only those horses that are beutiful", but "among all beutiful animals, I like especialy horses"


 * After all, this is quite cheap sophistry. Every sound-minded person would understand the phrase "to expel and exterminate evil doers, especially Romanians" in the sense that Romanians are evil-doers and "esse delendam".


 * It is exactely the impression which I tried to avoid through my interpretations.


 * Would I strictly observe the "philosophy" of Wikipedia, I could very well limit my article to a factual presentation, with ample citations of that decree, refraining from every attempt of an historical interpretation.
 * As Jmabel | Talk (18:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC) very pertinetly notes, I transgressed the limits of NPOV, taking the risks of a quite comprehensive interpretation, which puts the Decree of Turda in an historical perspective.
 * I assumed the responsibility of a not strictly NPOV, precisely in order to avoid that the Decree of Turda is percieved as sanguinary as it looks at first lecture.
 * I do this out of a self-evident scientific

bona fide.

Regards, --Vintila Barbu 15:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

because of the gradual loss of a nobility of its own, Romanians were not able any more to keep their Universitas Valachorum.
In contrary, the Romanians lost their self-government just because a romanian origin nobility rose. the same thing happened with the Cumanians. They were obliged to fight in the King's army personally, later to set up a 600 men strong contingent, and around mid14 century a Cuman origin nobility evolved and the rest of the free Cumans were impinged into slavery.--fz22 10:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's probable that both things happened in both cases. Dahn 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you re-read this ?


 * "In contrary, the Romanians lost their self-government just because a romanian origin nobility rose"

you're good enough an historian to clearly know how absurd this phrase is

I'm afraid that sometimes for you amica veritas, sed magis amica Hungariae.... Regards,  --Vintila Barbu 17:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My point was a minor one: both could work together. If the authorities allowed converts to join the ranks of nobility, if they were allowed to keep privileges, and gained land ownership in a system that was truly feudal, then I could still see why the offer was limited (consider Anglo-Saxons after the writing of the Doomesday Book). A limited offer meant that the rest in the traditional hierarchy fell to a low level (or, indeed, the level they were on became less significant). From what I know, all theories about the origin of boyars in Moldavia and Wallachia revolve around the same chemistry, and their cases were virtually free from kingly pressure. Dahn 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not a historian :). Why is absurd? I don't think it is absurd. The Saxons, and the Seklers kept their privileges because they were able to keep their lands in public property. If a Saxon or Sekler gained nobility the land was outside the Saxon Universitas or Seklerland. Never got an estate inside terra saxorum or siculorum. A Sekler was considered noble if he could prove that he is Sekler in any part of the Kingdom. The Saxons planted on an estate outside the Universitas became serfs ... The Romanian nobilis kenezius were awarded with estates inside the "Romanian Universitas" thus the free Romanians became serfs... --fz22 21:04, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Decree of Turda and its never-ending ideological aftermath
The Decree of Turda is crucial for the history of Transylvania and its understanding for at least three reasons:

1. Establishing regulatory measures to limit and control access to the supporting pillar of the kingdom, i.e. the nobility, it initiates the decline of Romanian nobility through mechanisms explained in Universitas Valachorum.

2. Calling for reinforced law enforcement against Romanians, introduces in Transylvania the legal principle of discriminating laws according ethnical criteria.

3. Officially, overtly and repeatedly emphasising Romanians as evildoers (diversorum malefactorum, specialiter Olachorum) (malefactores quarumlibet nacionum, signanter Olachorum), this legal act lays the ground for a long-lasting negative view about Romanians.

Along with “Unio Trium Nationum” (1437), which consecrates a constitutional order tacitly excluding the Romanians and with the “Tolerance Edicts” (around 1565), which explicitly excluded Orthodoxy, the Decree of Turda is one of the three legal acts which founded a system which I call “Transylvanian Apartheid”. Also note that negative views about Romanians gradually became part of the self-fulfilling, self-legitimatory ideology of that system.

In contrast to the large public, which insouciantly applies modern concepts such as nation/nationality to past times, young and/or amateur history students proudly take care not to commit this methodological error.

One should however bear in mind, that ethnic denominations and their correlative entities always existed. In pre-modern times the nation was the venue for essential linguistic, religious, cultural, behavioural, etc. characteristics and differences. The XIX century only gathered and focused all these in a kind of unique identity-founding over-symbol.

Certainly did the Decree of Turda not discriminate Romanians because they were Romanians in the modern sense, but definitely because they were Romanians in the sense of their time, that is because of their religion and way of life.

Actually, the document crystal-clearly explains the reasons of the reinforced prosecution of Romanians: these evil-doing Romanians are of presumptuous, astucious behaviour (presumptuosam astuciam) and of disorderly condition and customs (statum simul et usum inordinatum). Hopefully it is not necessary to translate from English what was meant by presumptuous, astucious behaviour and disorderly condition and customs. However, just in case: being in very considerable number and of heretic confession, owning/using land dispersed all over Transylvania, easily circulating across the Carpathian border to and from the two emerging orthodox Romanian states, they were judged as an instability factor by a Hungarian Crown which already was facing grave and multiple problems. Hence, a law-and-order decree in part explicitly directed against those peace-troubling Romanians.

A last comment: among other mystifications of the vulgar historiography one of the most common is to take past events as epitomes of the present. Neither the Decree of Turda nor Unio Trium Nationum or Dosza György Revolt or whatever else can symbolise or even explain anything in the present. Things like the saint apostolic mission of the Hungarian Crown, the 500-years victimisation of the Transylvanian Romanians or the civilisatory mission of the Transylvanian Germans are purely ideological constructs.

Another ideological error of unqualified historiography is to judge past events according to present standards. Good old Louis did definitely harm Romanians, but this was his job. Fortunately for him, he hadn’t to talk and act politically correct.

--Vintila Barbu 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I for one agree completely. I might also want to point out this debate I've had with other wikipedians Dahn 19:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So, at least we have a clear view about History of Romanians from Transylvania :)
 * 1. It initiated the decline of many other classes, like "varjobbagy" (sorry I was not able to find a term for this in english), free peasants, etc. In fact the transformation to a new political/economical sructure was responsable for this not a simple Edict
 * 2. The same problem was the Cuman question (Mid 13th century) in the Pannonian Plain ... I new ethnic element appeared in the region with an unclarified status. cause of many friction between the settled Magyars and the nomad Cumans. Similar to this in Transylvania from the Mid14th century such a conflict occured between the Romanians and the Saxons, Magyars, Szekelys (just think to the Pact between Saxons from Hermanstadt and the Romanains concluded by Bishop Goblin: the Romanians were obligated to abstain from even drawing a bow)
 * 3. The writer/composer of the Edict recorded the facts without the slighest bad intention ...--fz22 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Designating Transylvania at any moment before 1919 as “Romanian” as a whole is massive ideological bias and has nothing to do with serious historiography.

Nevertheless, ethnical identity is very old in history. Exasperation with the ideological projections of the modern term of “nation/nationality” onto historical past times shouldn’t lead us to neglect the importance or even the existence of ethnicity in history. Before the 19th century, ethnicity was an identity attribute among others, clearly not the most important, but it was there, permanently accompanying social structures and individual destinies. As we now, it is the European 19th century that fulfilled the big shift in the identity construction, inventing the nation, be it on a contractual-constitutional basis (French-American thinking) or on a ethnical basis (German school, subsequently spread to East Europe).

2. In spite of a document-attested historical tradition of presumptuousness, I would definitely not arrogate to get a clear view about History, be it that of the Romanians from Transylvania. As any other science, historiography works with models, trying to approximate and reconstruct the past. In doing so, if we cannot be more intelligent, at least should we try not to be stupid: in other words, if we cannot create better historical models, at least try not to be trapped by ideology.

3. Excepting very notable examples like Stalin or Hitler, politics is rather seldom based on bad intentions and always on interests. The Edict of Turda corresponded to a raison d’état, that’s all.

For me it remains however quite intriguing the opinion that the Edict contains “recorded facts”. This must be probably in another section of the document, which I ignore.

If, by accident, the “recorded facts” are those mentioned in the fragment: because all our faithful noblemen from our land of Transylvania have been endless and day by day suffering due to the presumptuous astuce (deceit, cunning ) of many malefactors, especially Romanians - (quia fideles nostri, universi nobiles terre nostre Transiluane, propter presumptuosam astuciam diversorum malefactorum, specialiter Olachorum… ineam moda patiebantur cottidiana et infinita), than I can consider this “recorded facts” as a cute interlude meant to divert us for a second from the aridness of the topic.

3. I fully agree that the decline of the Romanians as a political class (Estate) was the result of a slow process of transformation to a new political/economical structure. Of course, a simple Edict couldn’t be responsible for this. It only initiated this process.

Supposing that the Edict have not been issued, one could assume two scenarios:


 * 1. A consolidated (Romanian) orthodox

nobility disposing of a very large (IMO majoritarian) (Romanian) orthodox peasantry would have “fraternised” with their fellows in faith and language from across the Carpathians, driving Transylvania into a centrifugal movement. I presume that this was the scenario which the Hungarian Crown feared and successfully prevented.

I think that the Holy Apostolic Crown overestimated the danger. As the medieval history teaches us, feudal nobility maintained in principle a reliable loyalty to the structures which guaranteed their privileges. Orthodox Romanian nobility would have been a good Hungarian nobility.


 * 2. The Romanian nobility would have

continued its slow decline, due to several causes (great dispersal of estates, lack of a strong religious structure, etc.) In both cases, I think that the Angevins overreacted in ostracising the (Romanian) Orthodox.

Both history and present events show that political power permanently tend to overreact. Thus, nihil nove sub sole.

--Vintila Barbu 15:42, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

- Louis the Great have visited Transylvania and spent a couple of months there. He saw the lions of the place (he visited Bistrita twice and accorded privileges to the town - identical to Hermanstadt's privileges) and confirmed the liberties of Saxon seats. A marginal act during his visit was the above mentioned Edict of Turda. (Based on Saxons complaints against the Romanians) I think you overrate the importance of this edict ... National interests of those times were enforced in Naples, in Poland, in Moldavia (liberated from Tartar control by King Louis) not in Transylvania. A majoritan Romanian population would resulted a "Statutes of Kilkenny" like laws (What a coincindence from 1366 ;)--fz22 21:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

All that list of persons at the bottom
Couldn't we do witrhout it? Is there really no way to link this to a List of Transylvanians or something? For one thing, it is insanely long. Also, if you ask me, people like Florin Piersic are yet to gain the importance necessary to be cited in an article about the regions itself (I realize this may be troubling about fans of the seed-cracking hajduk). A list of Transylvanians, however, would simply include all people born or resident in the region, and would be expandable to lenghts this article does not allow. Plus, I am sure people such as Piersic are already cited as natives of respective cities. Really, as is, this is nothing but a flame war, and highly subjective, as well as not present in similar articles that I know of. Note that we already have a Category:Natives of Transylvania. Thank you for taking this into consideration. Dahn 22:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Images
As of right now the images are so cluttered that this article looks bad from them, particularly in the history section and the section on coat of arms. I did what I could without deleting any as I knew that would cause an uproar, but would there be a chance of discussing which images should be kept in the main body of the article itself? I also added a country scenery picture from the photo gallery section to the top of the article to make the beginning bit look less bleak. Andromeda321 01:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

1568 Edict of Turda
The 1568 Edict of Turda probably deserves an article, no? Especially because of possible confusion with the 1366 Decree of Turda. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)