User talk:Hubacelgrand

Secui/Szekely
Hello,

I see you speak many languages :) if you wish, we can speak in Serbian/Croatian/Romanian :). About the Secui article you wrote this sentance Nonetheless, Eberhardt's is a fringe opinion unsubstantiated by most other researchers, and the Székely emphatically do not consider themselves Slavic or ethnic-Romanian. I don`t know of that is true or not, nevertheless that is not important to the Wikipedia but it is important who said it? According to who Eberhardt's theory is a fringe opinion ? I personally know that Secui identify them-self as a part of the Hungarian nation but that doesn`t change what are they in fact. Greetings.iadrian (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since it is better for a discussion to be centralized i hope you don`t mind. iadrian (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

iadrian (talk) 11:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

iadrian (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC) iadrian (talk) 19:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Trying to solve this
I saw you participated to this subject and have knowledge about this, I hope you don`t mind for inviting you here to help to reach a consensus. (i`l copy the invitation i sent to other users)

Hello, i would like to invite you to try to solve this dispute. Consider participating please in the interest of solving this dispute. Thank you.Adrian (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Consensus not reached ?
Hello, I have read the whole section again and it looks to me that we have a consensus about the "Szekely land" issue. I am correct? Can you please have a vote at the end just to be clear and to avoid any further possible confusions. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 15:52, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Székely Land settlements
Hi, I try to improve some Székely Land-related articles, especially those on settlements. I saw that you made contributions to the Sandominic article. I partly reverted it, but I feel sorry now, as I would like to encourage you to participate, to the extent that you have time for it, in the improvement of these articles. I am working now on Harghita county towns and villages, I move according to the alphabet, so I already added info from A to L. As I am Hungarian, I am neither a native speaker nor an uninterested editor, so the advice and assistance of a neutral + native speaker editor would be a great help not only by having a better text but also in preventing edit conflicts and presenting the area in such a way which makes useful information available for English-speaking people ie. information useful for them and not information that Hungarians and/or Romanians consider important to be propagated. Kind regards Rokarudi--Rokarudi 16:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My problem was with the sentence "It lies in the "unofficial" Székely Land area of the historic region of Transylvania. My feeling was that the word "unofficial" is more like an epithet than a simple adjective. The sentence must express that the village is in the Székely Land AND while it must not create the impression that the Székely Land is some sort of independent country or separate administrative unit but it should not confine Székely Land into the historical past either. The sentence reminded me 'Turkish Kurdistan as the unofficial name for Eastern-Turkey', although the term Székely Land does not have a primarily political sense, so we do not have to be so cautious to use it only with explanatory epithets. I personally felt a negative connotation in it: unofficial >not legal> illegal. By now, I am not quite sure I was right.:)Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I completely understand, it's not the first time this has come up (even among my friends in Transylvania). At least the way I was using it, and the way it is generally used in English, "unofficial" simply means that it's not "officially" recognized as a political entity, and doesn't make the Székelyföld any less real, important, or current a concept. (If we don't put in "unofficial" we will have Romanians misinterpreting it as irredentism, which is something I'd like to avoid if at all possible.) For us, Székelyföld isn't primarily a political thing, it's about culture and identity beyond politics - but for some Romanians, who are (understandably) misinformed about the autonomy movement by irresponsible Romanian media (or who have come across some of the really extreme and embarrassing irredentists), it sounds political, so "unofficial" seems like the best compromise - and lets them know we aren't currently considering it a political unit. Thoughts? Hubacelgrand (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I entirely agree with you, this is exactly what I mean. The problem is that sometimes it is difficult to find the proper balance between avoiding giving ground to (unwarranted) suspicion of irredentism by our Romanian collegues and self-censorship by repacing what we think by what is politically correct in the Romanian concept. I have grown to love "unoffial Székely Land" Rokarudi.--Rokarudi 07:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Question
Hello, i moved my comment here, I hope you don`t mind, don`t want to confuse the subjects on the ANI board. My question was: ''If you don`t mind me asking, why do you use this format "Sândominic/Csíkszentdomokos" ? For instance when I write about Debrecen I use only the official Hungarian name not Debrecen/(Debreţin). Also we don`t use that format anywhere on Wikipedia. Why is that?'' Adrian (talk) 19:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair question, I don't mind your asking at all. I lived for a while in the Székelyföld and lived among mostly Hungarians, so I still think of the towns in terms of their Hungarian names. Furthermore, in most of these places, the Hungarian name is co-official with the Romanian name on a local level (the signs entering Sândominic give both the Romanian and the Hungarian names, the official buildings have signs in both languages, the local council produces documents in both languages, the meetings are usually in Hungarian). However, given that the towns are in Romania and have nationally-official Romanian names, I like to put those first. I am not apprised of the legal situation of the Romanian minority in Hungary, but I don't think there is a current Romanian majority in Debrecen or a significant Romanian minority with legal language rights (if there were, your using the slashed names would be a very good thing to do - I would probably do it myself too. If I ever needed to talk about Uzdin/Uzdâni, I would write it just so.) My using both names is an attempt to give maximum respect both to the majority Hungarian population and to the Romanian state - and an acknowledgement that while the inhabitants use one name, the Romanian central government uses another. Hubacelgrand (talk) 20:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand. Just some minor corrections, the Hungarian language has some of the attributes of an official or co-official language, administration and educational use, but it is not articol 13. The bilingual signs have an informative character. About the Debrecen subject, the percentage of the population is not that important in this case, what matters most are the forms used by the Romanians and Hungarians. Ex: The Hague , the English people refer to it as such and not as Den Haag (Dutch). Another example, Romanians will refer to Chernivtsi as Cernăuţi regardless of the actual ethnical composition of the city. The same goes for Timisoara , the Hungarians will refer to it as Temesvár regardless of the ethnical composition of the city, because it is the Hungarian name. Of course you are free to use any name in real life, but on Wikipedia, there are rules and guidelines when it comes to official names. I don`t  believe that you show any disrespect to the Hungarian minority using only the official(Romanian) name  but on the other hand it shows a minor level of disrespect toward Romanians. It is not used only by the Romanian central government but by the Romanian population who also visits and live in those places. I appreciate your help in reaching a compromise about the Szekely land. I hope we will collaborate in the future. Chears.  Adrian (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I also hope this is only the first of many fruitful collaborations with you. I understand your points and am aware of the article in the Romanian constitution - but Hungarian is "de facto" co-official, if you like, even if it isn't exactly "de jure." And needless to say, I mean no disrespect to any ethnic Romanian person who lives in Harghita or Covasna, or who might visit from somewhere else. My using the Hungarian name is not because of any undue importance I attach to Hungarian over other languages, but mostly because the majority of people who live there use it. Otherwise your points are well-taken. Hubacelgrand (talk) 21:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw this, your comment about the capital of the Szekely land. The Hungarian names of villages from Romania are used only by the Hungarian minority (and you :-) ). What you are doing (in some instances using only Hungarian names) is called POV pushing, because not only an editor from Romania would`t know what are you talking about, but you are also forcing them to find and on some level learn Hungarian names for Romanian settlements. We are talking about a Romanian-related issue and we should use only official names like we would do for any other example (country). In real life this doesn`t matter that much, but on Wikipedia when you interact with non-Hungarian users I would advise to at lest use the official names in front of the alternative , as you did till now. As something very strange is your knowledge of the Romanian language (2), Hungarian(1), and you prefer the use of alternative (Hungarian) names. I hope you don`t understand this comment in bad faith, but you must admit that some things you do are indeed strange and inappropriate. Adrian (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Adrian, I only saw this message today, so I'm sorry I took so long to respond. If I used only Hungarian names for something it was either a) a temporary slip-up or b) because I was directing my comments toward a Hungarian editor who would be more familiar with them, and it's not a policy I generally follow. To be honest I am still a bit confused why Romanians would resist learning a bit more about a very beautiful and interesting part of their country (the lands inhabited by the Székely are part of Romania - Romanians should learn about that part of their country too, which is impossible without understanding the people who live there and what they call their settlements, whose official Romanian names are usually translations or transliterations of the original Hungarian ones). I prefer the Hungarian names because my experience with them is deeply personal, a product of actually living in the places, where almost everyone refers to them in conversation by their Hungarian names - it's just how I learned them in the course of my work, research, and trips to the bars :-). (When you're living in Western Europe or America, there's not much chance to learn these things.) You've already established enough good faith with me that I wouldn't dream of taking this comment badly, but try not to read my preferences as strange or inappropriate. I'm more careful in the articles than I am on the talk pages, necessarily. And try to understand my position: for almost every town in Harghita, I had to go and learn the Romanian names after I learned the Hungarian ones, which was certainly not a problem at all for me but which means that for me, personally, the Hungarian names are the ones I think of first for all of these places. (Strange? I have had the strange experience of being a person from the "West" getting to know and love Romania, including Harghita, so yes, some things I do or say might seem "strange." But "inappropriate" ? On talk pages I may occasionally slip up, but I hope I've established enough good faith with you for you to know that I don't mean anything inflammatory or anti-Romanian by it.) Hubacelgrand (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize, I had your talk page on my watch-list only for a day or so, therefore I have missed the answer. I understand.
 * Well Romanian names aren`t "new" since in many cases are just accommodated from the Latin or Dacian version (Ex: Cluj-Napoca) but forbidden for public use while it was under the Hungarian authority. Hungarian language is unique in Europe and many people can`t notice the resemblance(transliteration from Latin or other languages to Hungarian) when it comes to names of various places and back (Ex: Szvidnik - Felsővízköz (in Slovak Svidník, now Slovakia), Najdás - Néranádas (in Romanian Naidǎş, now Romania)). This article for an example article, it needs to be expanded but if you take a look in some better equipped library you can find that majority of names were a target of this assimilation policy. Also take a look at this section.
 * I said "inappropriate" because here we are talking publicly and if someone looks at our discussions he can`t know that "Temesvar" is in fact Timisoara and by that forcing everybody else to use Hungarian names that carries a gentle reminder of oppression(Magyarization) in ex-Trianon territories and neglect the official ones used by the majority. Hungarian names are not beign used (except by the Hungarian minority) for almost a century. I understand your good faith, that is why I contacted you to talk. Over the time territories changed it`s owners and every nation imposed their own version of names for it, but present time names takes precedence, the usage of names that are used officially. You must understand that with all due respect for the Hungarian(Szekely) minority with this kind of name usage you aren`t doing any good for any ethnic group(Romanian and Hungarian), after all we are talking about places that are in Romania now and using Hungarian names by non-Hungarians only brings up bad memories for the Romanian nation (and other ex-Trianon nations) and reinforces Hungarian extremist groups that live even today(As a reminder, last political program that brought a lot of success is a party with "Greater Hungary" program). On the other hand it doesn`t bring any respect from the Hungarian minority since they already live in other countries (Romania,Slovakia,Austria,Ukraine,Serbia,Croatia..) and it is only natural to use those nations`s names in public at least. I am talking about social integration of minorities in various contries by this.
 * In real life of course we should`t neglect alternative names all over the world as an addition to our knowledge of some places(regions). By accident I know people that live in the cultural area (Szekely land) too and some of my best friends are also Hungarians. Everybody is OK except for a small group of people that demands territorial division and not minority rights in Romania. According to Western Europe Hungarians in Romania have all the rights one minority should have. In many instances this minority is given more than others like an ethnic political party (UDMR) that if standards for political establishment were to be followed would seize to exist. The point is that everything is OK but we should use official names primarily for the respect of every country`s nation. I live like a minority in Vojvodina right now so I can understand how one minority might think and even if all the region of the Serbian Banat has Romanian names and historically native Romanian/Vlach population, publicly, on Wikipedia too, I use only Serbian names.
 * I apologize if my comment is kinda long and boring, hope that you understand what am I trying to say. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you're trying to say, and I never find your comments boring. They are really helping me to understand a perspective on this issue that is sometimes different from mine, and for that I am grateful. I just have a few clarifications to make: first of all, my reference to the toponyms being Hungarian first and then translated into Romanian was a reference to toponyms in Harghita and Covasna. I do not think anyone will argue that "Sândominic," "Leliceni," or "Cristuru Secuiesc" are the "original" names and not translations or adaptations of the Hungarian. (In many other places, of course, especially in non-Székely Transylvania and Slovakia, the toponyms were originally Slavic or Romance - and your linguistic profile will show you that especially clearly). I am very familiar with the damage that Magyarization did to cultures and families in pre-Trianon Hungary, and can understand that someone from Košice, Osijek, Timişoara, or the Bačka would be justly horrified by my referring to those areas with Hungarian names only. (They were not originally Hungarian, they were Magyarized, they no longer have much to do with Hungarian culture - only with Hungarian history). When we are speaking of most of Harghita and Covasna, though, we are speaking of areas that have mostly been majority-Székely for as long as records have been kept - the only "Magyarization" we can speak of in those two counties is the gradual shift among the Székely themselves from considering themselves different from (but related to) Hungarians to considering themselves (I will exaggerate to make a point) the Most Hungarian Of All Hungarians, a process which only really ended in the 20th century. I assume you are familiar, too, with the aggressive Romanianization policies that the Communist authorities pursued against ethnic minorities all over Transylvania - policies that greatly changed the demographic makeup of places like Bălan, Sfântu Gheorghe, Miercurea-Ciuc and Târgu-Mureş. Now, this being true - Magyarization never taking place on a large scale in the 19th century (because almost everyone was something like Hungarian already), but some Romanianization taking place in the 20th - sets Harghita and Covasna apart from much of the rest of Transylvania and is another reason why the "Székely Land" is a unique ethno-cultural region. The Székely have been there for a very long time, have not driven any other ethnic groups out since at least the 13th century and possibly earlier (and unfortunately the records of that time are very sparse, so we can't know for sure who was there then), and have maintained a majority without much help from any government for the entire history of the settlements we're talking about. So while my saying "Udvarhely" instead of "Odorheiu Secuiesc/Udvarhely" was a slip and I'm not proud of it, I do not think it expresses the same kind of offensive sentiment that a non-Hungarian talking about the present and saying just "Kassa" or "Fehértemplom" (Bela Crkva) would.
 * As for the other things you are saying, I mostly agree - I have no sympathy for people who want to divide Europe along ethnic lines, and I am very, very suspicious of any political program that serves to create "ethnically pure" states or regions. For this reason I have a complicated and nuanced position on Székely autonomy that wins me no friends among Hungarians (who often say I am not going far enough) or Romanians (who often say I am going too far). In general, you are correct to say that Hungarians in Romanians are treated well and have their human rights recognized. (There are still a few things to be improved, but generally the situation is not bad - especially compared to the situation of Hungarians in Slovakia or Vojvodina, for example). I also agree with you entirely that minorities should be socially integrated into the countries where they live (everyone in Miercurea-Ciuc should be able to speak Romanian, no exceptions - for their own good). The only place I can see where we disagree is that I think some actions and positions that are unacceptable and borderline-irredentist when they deal with areas that were Magyarized ("Kassa" instead of Košice) are not equally odious when they deal with areas that are and have for a thousand years been culturally Hungarian ("Csíkszereda" instead of Miercurea-Ciuc). Perhaps there are some people who see use of Hungarian names as reminiscent of some of the less enlightened policies of the Kingdom of Hungary - but in areas which have historically not had a big minority presence, using those names cannot be seen as "Hungarianizing" them since they are culturally Hungarian already. People offended by that are guilty, in my view, of oversimplifying and failing to draw the distinction between "cultural imperialism" and the continuation of an autochthonous population.
 * Thanks again for taking the time to explain your position. (Living in Vojvodina I'm sure you know good Romanians and bad Romanians, good Serbs and bad Serbs, good Hungarians and bad Hungarians, etc, and you know how silly it is to turn everything into questions of nationality. I wish more people lived in ethnically-mixed areas. It would solve a lot of problems in the world.) You've brought up a lot of things I had not previously considered, and you've convinced me to be even more careful in the future. I hope this discussion is showing you some new perspectives too - otherwise you must be really horribly bored. Cheers. Hubacelgrand (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. That is where problems usually appear, a minority that lives in a country and refuses/don`t want to speak/use language of the country they live in. About Szekely land, I agree on many levels with this idea "have for a thousand years been culturally Hungarian ("Csíkszereda" instead of Miercurea-Ciuc)" but from another perspective analyze Istanbul, for approximately 1500 years it was Constantinople but now this name is used only in a historical context and it can be compared in some sense with our case because the name change happened in 1930. I agree with you that these places have a long cultural Hungarian presence and that are not the same thing like other examples, but when it comes to Wikipedia, we should`t make an exception. In Vojvodina live many minorities and it is really great to see that many cultures in one place living without some major problems. I for instance have neighbors on one side Hungarians on the other Germans (my house in the middle) and across the street Slovakians,Croats and Greeks :-). Of course there are many, many mixt families (one minority with Serbs). Since we agree on everything I have nothing else to say :-) except it was nice talking to you and hope to hear from you again. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Székelyföld
Hi Hubacelgrand, I was already grateful for your contributions as a mediator in the Székely Land discussion. And thanks for following these articles and improving them from time to time. I plan to visite the area soon and, hopefully, I can upload some nice pictures. Kind regards: Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Notification
Hello. This message was sent to notify you about this ongoing discussion (Iaaasi (talk) 14:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC))

Székely or Székelys
The plural form Székelys is already adopted in English:

I've also provided a link:, so the usual plural form is Székelys. The plural form without the desinence -s, is also used, but more rarely:
 * -|"the szekelys were" has 189 results on google books
 * -|"the szekely were" has only 26 results on google books  (Iaaasi (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

Move proposal
I'd like to invite you to express your opinion on the following thread:. The previous move request (Székely → Szekelys) was canceled and the new title proposal is Székelys(Iaaasi (talk) 08:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC))

Talkback
Adrian (talk) 10:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Adrian (talk) 15:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Answer: Mihai Viteazul
Hi, I made some reactions on the talk page as well, but of course will answer you in private...I've written there as well "personal union" can be accepted because Michael The Brave's rule fulfilling the needed requirements, however, this expression was never used, neither in contemporary, nor in later sources. There are famous and openly declared personal unions in history, like Hungary-Croatia, etc. but I think, to have some compromise it's ok. I am considering to add some more info where Kosztin's refercence were inserted, because not only he "thinks" written there, many other sources, of course, the other side probably accuse them beacuse most of them are Hungarian (however, the value of a work does not depend on nationality or how many foreign sources state the same, as you can read my longer explanation on Anglo-Saxon-type methods). However, I won't make any further edit, if you have some other notice/advice to me please tell it, I am really grateful you helped to have a consense. Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 01:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC))


 * KIENGIR, first of all, thank you for your kind response to my suggestions. I'm glad we can all accept the "personal union" formulation. As for Kosztin's position on Transylvania's distinct identity, I am inclined to agree with you that it's not just his opinion, so more serious sources, Hungarian or not, would be welcome. (I frankly do not know enough about Moldavian history to say much one way or the other on the details of the situation there.) Of course, the body of the article already makes clear that Transylvania was not legally incorporated into Wallachia - Mihai did not dismantle the Diet and preserved most of the privileges established by the Union of Kápolna and the Unio Trium Nationum - but since many sources (mostly Romanian and post-Bălcescu) do not place much emphasis on this state of affairs, we run the risk of it looking like original research if we start making our own statements about it. Finally, I wish I could help more with research, but I'm far away from the region now and don't have easy access to the sources. Thank you for the spirit of compromise you've brought to editing this article - soon, I think we'll have something everyone can accept and even be proud of. Hubacelgrand (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Hubacelgrand,

I am very glad as well, if you agree you could help me in the future to arrange such disputes, however, since my registration this was almost the first kind of "conflict", and this case (with all of its distractions) is very edifying, and this was only a minor topic, can be reinforced with Romanian sources also, I think I would place them. Unfortunately you can do everything, but the Romanian or Anglo-Saxon history writing deals with serious imbalance and if you support any other thing you will be immediately "pro-Hungarian" or "unreliable", although, only evidence and facts should talk. If you have problems to acces sources, tell me what you need, I would gladly help you if I can! Cheers (KIENGIR (talk) 22:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC))

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 06:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello - Help
Hello,

Sorry to bother you but you helped the last time I had this problem. I am wondering if you are wiling to do so this time too. There is a problem on this page, adding unreferenced data and writing really long and answers :). Apparently I am not able to explain to him how wikipedia works (WP:OR, WP:AGF, WP:SOURCE). If you are wiling to help, I would appreciate it. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)