Talk:Islam in Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Islam in Romania 2 Capitulation et al. 2.1 Further objections 3 Romanian Holy sites 4 80 Mosque 5 Pertinence of information 6 Admin, please add! 7 Islam in Moldova 8 Transylvania 9 A trolling-like situation: the Danubians

[edit] Islam in Romania

Romania

Two small Islamic communities have existed on Romanian territory in modern times. The first was built on Ada Kale, a small island in the Danube conquered by the Ottomans late in the 15th century. At the end of World War II, the island's population numbered about 1,000, but the community was dispersed in 1968, when the island was submerged by the construction of the Iron Gate hydroelectric dam. The second community is in Dobroudja, a region conquered by the Ottomans in the 14th and 15th century, but ceded to Romania in 1878, an event that triggered a mass exodus of Moslems to Turkey. Today, the population numbers about 50,000 Turks and Tatars, most of them farmers. Under Communist rule, this small community found itself in a difficult situation: Turkish and Tatar schools were closed, as was the country's only Moslem "seminary" at Medjidiya; Moslem religious publications were banned; and travel restrictions made a pilgrimage to Mecca impossible. Then, beginning in 1972, the changing international situation and the country's enormous economic difficulties forced the authorities to grant a few concessions to the Moslems, clearly seeking to improve Romania's image with wealthy Arab and Moslem states. Today, there is little information available on the Moslems of Dobroudja or on the ties they must have developed over the past two decades with religious bodies in Turkey, the Arab states, and other Islamic countries. --Latinitas 12:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Somebody added that there is (again) a small Muslim community in Drobeta-Turnu Severin. Sure? --Roksanna 17:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitulation et al.

A debate has followed my skeptical edits. I shall answer here.

As you may see for instance from these links http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:MrgvTBbP2VcJ:www.unibuc.ro/eBooks/ and http://www.informatia.ro/Article164275.phtml , the vast majority of historians view the actual text of "capitulations" as fake. This does not imply that documents of some sort had not been signed, and does not mean that the status of Muslims was not transparent in other pieces of legislation, and not even that the texts themselves cannot be deduced by attempting to see their effects. No. It means that we cannot pass into text such notions as certainties.

To the claim that "there was no Islamic presence" (which, in itself, is formulated like some essay, not like a sentence in an encyclopaedic article), I have to point out the article History of Bucharest, which I have largely contributed to, where I reference the small Muslim settlement of traders in the capital (you may also want to think about Michael the Brave mass murdering his Turkish creditors on the same spot...). Furthermore, during the Russo-Turkish Wars, Turkish troops were stationed in the immediate vicinity of Bucharest.

There is one small edit which bothers me: hospodars is a link, leading to an article that is around to explain a quite common reference to the Princes of Wallachia and Moldavia in English! The talk about "translations" and "no need for them" is ridiculous (especially since Slavonic was the language of choice, and since English has for long accomodated the word itself - not its translations).

Moreover, the addition to the text is ungrammatical, repetitive, and informal. Dahn 18:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further objections

The person who keeps reverting to a certain version omits some obvious things.

1. writing the article from the perspective of "Islamic domination and its effects" avoids its very topic, is redundant to other articles, and expresses perspective that would not interest persons who do not want to get info about the land as much as they want to become aware of the communitiy's past (not of Romania's past).
2. Transylvania and Islamic communities there are covered in the Banat section. Getting Transylvania in the same group with Wallachia and Moldavia, when nothing in that section will deal with Transylvania, and when the purpose is to (again!) repeat the focus on Ottoman rule (which was, evidently, not as relevant for Transylvania) makes no sense. The terminology "Romanian principalities", although favoured by many Romanian sources in its Romanian version (and, even there, it is, frankly, imposing a mild POV), is language invention in English. Calling Transylvania a "Romanian principality" is certainly not academic (it is like calling the Ottoman Empire a "Greek state" for ruling regions inhabited by Greeks)
3. if the user has info on just how the building in Carol Park was not a mosque, but "a monument in the form of a mosque", let him present it and I'll admit I am wrong. In the meantime, it just looks like a halftruth.
4. "vestiges" (which supposedly means artefacts etc.) do not count in assessing Islamic presence in the, say, 16th century. We have sources for that, and the text already mentions that Islamic presence was scarce and whatnot (be is based on "vestiges" or on sources).
5. again, the text deals with Islamic presence as scarce as it was, not with Romanian pride in "not having been Islamicized" or any such other individual perspective. It is common sense to adequately list, in the main body of the article (and not in footnotes) whatever that ammounted to. Doing that will not even hurt the "not having been Islamicized" thesis (which is, in itself, obvious to the point where it needs no presentation); it will, as it should, fit the title and topic of this article! Dahn 09:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
6. replacing "Ottoman subjects" with "Muslim Ottomans" in the statement about "purchasing property" is to be done for obvious reasons (there was nothing preventing Ottoman Christians from doing just that!)
7. the language of praise reserved for one referenced work is too colloquial to fit in a wikipedia article, especially when that work, as it is, reflects a new part of a controversy (what we know is that those historians intepret texts in a certain way, not that they "struck gold" - mind you, I'm not saying they are wrong!). It is also, until further notice, a minority POV. Even more so, the info lacks depth: even if the Capitulations were real, even if they have been uncovered, they would have been periodically reviewed (clue: the tribute sum changed beyond all relevancy) and would have been generally disregarded by the 17th or 18th century (that is why those boyar forgerers were at work in the 1800s, that is why Ottomans were stationed near Bucharest) Dahn 09:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
8. a more minor point: the copyright symbol is implicit, and its use for some of the works as opposed to others is purely subjective. Kinda makes you wish the Ottomans had a sign of that scope: we wouldn't be wasting our time debating 1800s forgeries! Dahn 09:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Does not answer, but keeps reverting. Duly noted. Dahn 13:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian Holy sites

There is a rumour that Babadag is a holy site for muslims. I don't kow if it is an urban legend or not but, it will be intersting to have such section.

I think it is a Sufi thing. The tomb of a certain Sarı Saltık Dede (or Sarı Saltuk Türbesi) - probably a saint. Dahn 22:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 80 Mosque

The term used on the romanian site is "geamia" and not "moschee" for the 80 payer houses. The arab language has two words for the english Mosque (The word "mosque" in English refers to all types of buildings dedicated for Islamic worship, although there is a distinction in Arabic between the smaller, privately-owned mosque and the larger, "collective" mosque (masjid jami) (Arabic: جامع), which has more community and social amenities.) Can somone detail this?CristianChirita

On wikipedia, it looks like they all fit in the article for "mosque". In any case, using "is home to 80 geamies" is pure invention in the English language. Dahn 08:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The Arabs have two meanings for that but most of the islamized nations know only the meaning of Mosque. And so I am sure the Romanians did mean this. --Roksanna 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'sure not. Here is some translation: "Ca lacasuri de cult, mai importante ar fi Moscheea si geamia "Hunchiar" din municipiul Constanta, geamia "Esma han Sultan" din Mangalia, care este totodata cea mai veche din tara, geamiile din Medgidia, Cernavoda, Harsova, Tulcea, Babadag, Macin si Isaccea; aceste lacasuri de cult enumerate mai sus sunt declarate monumente istorice. La acestea se adauga si cavourile "Gazi Ali Pasa" si al lui "Saru Saltik Dede" din Babadag. MOSCHEEA din Constanta (Str. Crangului nr. 1) - monument de arhitectura al orasului, principalul edificiu al cultului musulman, a fost construita de statul roman in anul 1910." As prayer houses, most importans will be Mosque and "geamia" "Hunchiar" from Constanta municipium, geamia "Esma han Sultan" from Mangalia, the oldest in the country, "geami"s from Medgidia, Cernavoda, Harsova, Tulcea, Babadag, Macin and Isaccea; these prayer houses are declared historic monuments. At these we can count the tomb "Gazi Ali Pasa" and of the "Saru Saltik Dede" from Babadag. The Mosq from Constanta (Crangului Street no. 1) historic monument of the town, the main building of the islam, builded by the romanian state in 1910. As you can see the term of gemia is different from the term of Mosque.CristianChirita 15:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the Romanian language does not seem to bother distinguishing in any proper way: [1] - DEX says both Construcţie destinată celebrării cultului la musulmani, de obicei mai mare decât moscheea. and moschee, (înv.) mecet. (~ la musulmani.). Now, if the quoted text does adhere to the first, and better, definition, the logical conclusion is that there are actually more than 80 Muslim places of worship in Romania (I'm not sure whether the tombs themselves are already counted). If, however, it sticks with the vaguer meaning, goodness knows how many there are... Dahn 14:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pertinence of information

Since I've courteously been invited to explain why I am restoring a certain version of the article against another, here are my reasons.

The version I'm favouring, or at least those pieces of information I am responsible for, is pertinent, evidence-based and backed by reliable sources.

Whoever thinks to be in possession of information which contradicts that displayed by me, is cordially invited to produce evidences and sources that are 1) as authoritative as the cited sources and 2) more recent.

Until than, the informations provided by me are the only valid ones, since they reflect the most recent stand of historiographical research, accepted by the scientific community.

Actually, the core of the dispute turns around whether "Capitulations" are real or not. They are real, according the most recent research.

The rest is idle talk.

Another small piece of information under dispute refers to the so-called Mosque in the Parcul Carol: it was monument taking the shape of a miniature Mosque [2]

Other points of disagreement refer to diverging appraisal regarding the relevence of different informations.

1. Is Transylvania relevant to the subject "Islam in Romania" ? Of course it is, since it is a Romanian territory. 2. Is the term "Hospodar" appropriate to designate Romanian ruling Princes ? Generally, no. In the given context I think it is rather a cheap trick to call attention to a certain wikilink. The same applies to the use - in our context - of the term "Danubian Principalities".

I guess that the emotional underground of all this ado about nothing is the ridiculous posture of peremptory claiming "Capitulations" to be "ENTIRELY MYTHICAL" and being subsequently forced to (tacitely) admit the opposite evidence.

I preffered to remain silent until now in order to prevent a situation to become even more embarassing for certain user.

It is quite sad to see all this narcissistic, neurotic verbiage.

Thank you for understanding, leting me not to engage any more in all this. (Of course, correct information shall sustitute the false one, in the article)

--Vintila Barbu 15:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Transylvania relevant to the subject "Islam in Romania" ? Of course it is, since it is a Romanian territory. - this completly misinterprets my question. I had asked what relevance does Transylvania have to the topic of Islam in Romania, since the presence of Muslims is already established for the Banat (the sole presence inside Transylvania, as far as I know), and since its inclusion addresses the useless "verbiage" referring to the "Capitulations". In the fragment, there is nothing referring to the presence of Muslims in Transylvania!

I guess that the emotional underground of all this ado about nothing is the ridiculous posture of peremptory claiming "Capitulations" to be "ENTIRELY MYTHICAL" and being subsequently forced to (tacitely) admit the opposite evidence. - actually, what you have, Vintila Barbu, is a recent claim of several historians that Capitulations did exist, challenged by the opinion of most other historians. If you were not able to read my point all the way through, here it is again: the Capitulations as embarassingly presented by boyars in the 1800s are an all-out stupidity; of the rest, both of us are yet to see the "evidence".

The question of moving info relevant to the scope of this article, and not to idle talk about Capitulations, is completely disregarded by this user's edits.

The question of praise (the colloquial recommandation of one work over others) was not addressed by the user. Mention of it has also failed to distinguish between interpretation and document (for example, what documents do those historians rely on? since all historians up to now have deduced the text of the "Capitulations" from their supposed consequences, are those documents comments themselves, or are they actual capitulations?!). I have not deleted the info, I have placed it in its proper place, as a proper reference: indicating that recent does not mean less controversial, until proof will be more than mumbled in the "go and read this book" note added by Vintila Barbu. What the hell sort of evidence is that, I ask you.

The term "hospodar" is, arguably, the main English-language common reference to the princes (as evidenced by the fact that Vintila Barbu has kept the link, while "masking" it under (first) "ruling princes" (!) and then under "princes". It is the only link we have for the rulers of the two principalities together, so the relevancy of it for the unfamiliar user should be obvious by now. (I also want to point out to Vintila Barbu that the term has an article in the 1911 Britannica, which is the skeleton for the present article - but I guess he has already pointed out his unfamiliarity with English-language sources). Dahn 16:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

If this user thinks this is some sort of zero/sum game, let others be aware of certain facts:

1. he still fails to distinguish between Ottoman subjects and Ottoman Muslims. To anyone vaguely familiar with the topic at hand, it should be obvious that Christian Ottoman subjects (Albanians, Bulgarians, Armenians, and even Chrisitan Arabs) did purchase property in the two countries, and many of them became boyars. Furthermore, this would also tend to confirm that such restrictions were not based on Capitulations, but on customary laws: Ottoman subects, evidently, were not all victims of the same restrictions (so where is the "contractual nature" in this instance?), but, at the same time, Jews were not themselves allowed to purchase property. Hence, this is very likely the doing of religious prejudice, not state-to-state dialogue.
2. his own versions have fluctuated between: a).stating that no Muslims were ever present in Wallachia or Moldavia (I quote: "Excepting Dobruja and partially Banat there are no historical traces of islamic presence in Romania") b).repeating in the text, with lack of any semblance of an encyclopaedic tone, that Muslims were an insignificant presence c).moving several indications of actual Muslim presence to the footnotes, as if this article is not about that presence, but about its supposed insignificance (which is, basically, coaching a reader into what he is to think about the topic). Again, I urge the user to read the title of this article and ponder about what its implications should be to the text: all Muslim presence is significant within the scope of this article.
3. the overabundant and unstructured info about Capitulations (as real or fake as they may be) contrasts the fact that the Ottomans seemed to not at all care about them in the 1700s and later (which is why the boyars started forging them for the Russians to see).
4. if the user feels like making a mockery of me by misquoting and misinterpreting my statements, by calling them "neurotic" and "narcissistic", those reading this may want to have a look at how his own statements have fluctuated over time between affirmation and negation of the very same lines of thought ("Excepting Dobruja and partially Banat there are no historical traces of islamic presence in Romania" turns to "However, the lack of Islamic vestiges is due to a scarce or seasonal presence of Muslims in these provinces", both instead of "The pattern of a scarce or seasonal presence of Muslims... can be traced back to etc."). The common element here is saving face in a game bent on minimizing Islamic presence as if it were a stain on one's reputation. Some users have pointed out to me that this has been attempted on the German version (I do not speak German, so I cannot confirm it). Also note the use of "provinces", which only adds a layer of ambiguity (these were states, people) Dahn 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it was me who wrote the german version and I tell you, that there was no attempt to minimize the Muslim presence in Wallachia and Moldavia. I named the three converted princes, for example, but another user declared them as exceptions and did insist to add the phrase about the missing traces. And again the discussion about those capitulations and how important they were or not. --Roksanna 10:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

That is what I meant. I did not want to imply that the article you wrote has vague information, but that someone has attempted to render it vaguer (you wrote on my talk page: "Somebody fight for the phrase that there is and never was any evidence or even any sign of trace of Muslim presence in Wallachia and Moldavia. "). Dahn 11:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin, please add!

After that sentence about the prince´s conversions in Wallachia "... Prince Ilia of Moldavia". In Chotyn, once belonged to Moldavia, the Turkish Alemdar Mustafa Pasha was born, he became Ottoman Grand Vizier until 1808. Two more Turkish Grand Viziers between 1821 and 1828 came from Moldavian Bendery. --Roksanna 11:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems there is no discussion or dispute about this point. And to add those two more examples would not touch the object of former debates and editwars here. --Roksanna 05:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I, frankly, cannot see the relevancy of this addition (as it is anecdotical and character-focused). Also, and this is very important in maintaining proper criteria for inclusion, neither Bender nor Khotyn were part of Moldavia at the time, and neither are part of Romania now. If it need pass into the text, I want to suggest a copyedit:

Khotyn, once part of Moldavia, was the place of birth of Alemdar Mustafa Pasha, who was the Ottoman Grand Vizier until 1808. Two more Turkish Grand Viziers between 1821 and 1828 came from Bender (a once Moldavian city).

Done. --  Netsnipe  ►  15:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

But, again, I vote against its inclusion. I would, however, welcome sourced information about the impact of the devshirmeh or Sufi activities in Dobruja, both of which we need more than drawing a list of very streched connections between certain characters and what was, according to some, Romanian soil. Dahn 10:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the new sentences. The idea to add this was to show that those "capitulations" were not managed that strongly as others wanted make us believe. Either there was a devshirme in Moldovia (but we have no historical trace about that) or there already a small community of Muslims lived inside the principaute. In both cases it is the same result, there was an Islam in Moldavia despite the capitulations. --Roksanna 10:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Although I take your stand on the general topic of Capitualtions, this does not involve them in the least. At the time these people were born, those regions were not part of Moldavia: they were under Ottoman military administration and subject to Muslim colonization (the Laz community). Please, check your facts. Dahn 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Bender and Chotyn were part of Romania 1918-1940, so even the regional relevancy exist. --Roksanna 10:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This has no relevancy here. We should refer only as little as possible to what is no longer in Romania, and we should do it only when it serves a direct purpose. Otherwise, the informative value of articles is lost. Dahn 10:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, this map is very interesting. If Bender, Chotyn were under direct turkish rule as same as other more cities, then it is the answer why Braila, Girgiu and so on were exceptions where Islam was established despite those capitulations. --Roksanna 11:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But the supposed "Capitulations" did not prevent Muslims from settling in and around Bucharest etc. The problem is that appealing to the documents as "factual" is un-historical, and does not involve the issue of Muslim presence (since Christian Ottoman subjects were allowed to settle, and since, Capitulations or no Capitulations, the Sultans initially did not want to have and then could not have direct authority over the territory - when they did want to and could have it, they disregarded all previous agreements, fake or real, and I wish to remind people that this was the longer of two sections of Ottoman tutelage). Additionally, the indication that all Ottoman presence was "accompanied" by Muslim colonization is primitive: not only is it obviously not true for the Balkans at large, but Fernand Braudel and many others have already shown that colonization and conversion were avoided by Ottomans (since they could no longer draw on extra taxes - including in present-day Romania, where the tribute included the harac). The fact is that Muslims were not allowed to settle here under the provisions of local oral laws that reflected universal prejudice (and were enforced by this or that ruler according to what they pleased or needed), that the laws were in fact irrelevant to Ottoman-Danubian relations (since there is no proof that the Ottomans would have wanted to settle the territory), and the laws turned completely irrelevant by the time the Ottomans grew more interested in the territory (Muslims settlments were scarce but always free). Hope this clarifies the topic. Dahn 11:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Of course ottoman rule did not automaically mean muslim settlements. But those enclaves and the in the romanian weblink mentioned muslim communities are an exception of the capitulations what let doubts on those capitulations grow. Whatever, so what about die create a sub-chapter ==Islam in Moldavia== (as I did in the german version) for include Bender, Chotyn and the Grand Viziers there? --Roksanna 15:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

First, I need to apologize: when I was talking about the primitivism of conquest=settlement, I was specifically referring not to your fine and detailed investigation into settlement, but to another user's obsession in introducing info about how "they were not allowed to settle" (as if that it was Muslims in general and Ottomans in particular wanted and needed).

Now, the thing about the Moldavian subsection. You see, from the moment Moldavia lost those regions, it never got them back until they were all part of Romania in 1918. They mostly belong to Islam in Moldova and Islam in Ukraine, IMO; a mention of them could be made here, but it needs to be carefully phrased (so as not to mix criteria), placed in context, and reciprocated with a mention on the Ukrainian equivalent for this page (bearing in mind that we need to do the same for Islam in Moldova). After all, consider that articles such as this one marginalize past sovereignties - otherwise, mention of Islam in Banat would belong on the Islam in Hungary page. Dahn 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you mentioned a Laz Community in Moldavia? --Roksanna 15:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, with the above provisions (not in Moldavia per se, but around Khotyn). I found the mention in Ion Gumenâi, Istoria ţinutului Hotin: de la origini până la 1806, Civitas, Chişinău, 2002 (cannot reference the page, but the book is rather small). Again, i think this belongs on Islam in Ukraine. Dahn 15:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islam in Moldova

My respected friend Dahn, I understand your doubts but otherwise an extra stub-article about Islam in Moldova is not needed when we could add some few facts here. --Roksanna 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that would be: 1. highly unorthodox, since it will merge topics that have nothing in common today (despite your feelings, it would be like merging Moldova with Romania for the sake of it); 2. indifferent to the template at the bottom of the article (which expects a link for Moldova); 3. unacademic, since the topic of Islam is Moldova is in no particular and substantial way connected with the topic of Islam in Romania (note, for example, that all references to Islam in Bender refer directly to a period when the region was no longer under Moldavian rule and determine the start of period that culminated in Moldova not being a part of Moldavia/Romania ever since - except for 1918-1940; in other words, it would be like treating an article about the Mohawks as part of British history, given that the US were part of the British Empire at the time, if never again). Dahn 16:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transylvania

It is wrong to mix the danubian with the transylvanian history in that point. --Roksanna 11:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean specifically? Dahn 11:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC) I had not seen the edits you were addressing. Dahn 11:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Roksanna,

I cannot but answer to your irresistble charming arguments against mentioning Transylvania in the history section of an article named "Islam in Romania".

As you certainly know, Transylvania is a historical province of Romania. As such, Transylvania should be chiefly mentioned in an article regarding Romania. Thus, mentioning Transylvania in an article called "Islam in Romania" is legitimate.

Moreover, Transylvania was itself from, say, 1541 to around 1700 a vassal tributary principality to the Ottoman Empire, that is, to one of the great Islamic Powers. It is therefore absolutely necessary to inform the readers about the consequences for an Islamic presence in Romania, that such a quite lasting vassality should have had on one of the main regions of present Romania.

Now, with all due respect, dear Roksanna, I'm afraid that some slight inaccuracies snuck into your argumentation. Under the utmost draconic and strict calculation of the period of Ottoman vassality in the Romanian Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, one comes to some 460 years for Wallachia and some 370 years for Moldavia. This is quite far from the "500 years" vassality claimed by you. (In fact, such a calculation would't comply to the conditions of what historians like to call "historical truth"; rather they agree in suggesting that the periods of actual Ottoman vassality were of some 400 years for Wallachia and some 330 for Moldavia)

One more thing in your already likable comments marveled me quite a bit. Who should actually be those Danubians you're mentioning ? It seems that they even had a history of their own, which you call danubian history.

Since the Danube is a quite long European river, one could conjecture about the identity of those Danubians. Should they be the Franken or the Oberbayern ? Or maybe the Nieder- or the Oberoesterreicher ? Or possibly the Magyars ? Or the Serbs ? Should they be perchance the Bulgarians or the Romanians ? Donauschwaben or Lipovans ?

I still wonder about who Danubians might be !

Please, dear Roksanna, do continue to contribute on the Wikipedia.

--Timor Stultorum 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the topic of Transylvania has nothing to do with that section. The problem ofr "Capitulations" was never the same for that principality, its history under Ottoman rule was never shaped by the same factors (nor was Islamic presence there - the only one dealt with in the subsection "Banat"), and the article is primordialy about Islamic habitation (et al.) inside present-day Romania (mentioning Transylvania, never itself witness to an Islamic presence, adds a lot of irrelevancy in this context). Bluntly: there is nothing in the respective section that would refer to Transylvania. You do make a point about the years, though. Dahn 11:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but I have to disagree with your point on Transylvania.

To simply claim that "Actually, the topic of Transylvania has nothing to do with that section" doesn't make things go further. As for your arguments, I'm afraid that they are either not very substantiated: - "Capitulations" stipulated same conditions for Transylvania as for the other vassal Principalities (very roughly: non interference into internal affairs in exchange of external compliance/submission and tribute) - Ottoman-related factors that shaped differently the history of Transylvania from that of Moldavia and Wallachia occured first after the Austrian-Ottoman (provisional) partition of South-East Europe due to the failed seige of Vienna: the seizure of Transylvania by the Hapsburgs and the quite concomitant subservience of the Romanian Principalities with the Phanarioti Regime.

Therefore, there is nothing of such a great pecularity in the status of Transylvania as an Ottoman vassal state, to justify NOT to mention Transylvania in this article and section.

I agree that the article should be about Islam in to-day Romania (alleging that "the article is primordialy about Islamic habitation (et al.) inside present-day Romania " is hence not the best formulation of it).

Anyway, inasmuch as the article contains a historical section, mentioning Transylvania is inevitable, out of the reasons I've already shown.

Thus, mentioning Transylvania in an article dealing with "Islam in Romania" is both legitimateand necessary.

Nobody hinder users to then develop some comments about specificity of Transylvania among historical provinces of present Romania in relation to a (not-significant?) Islamic past and present.

--Timor Stultorum 12:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not relax for a bit and actually understand my points, Timor Stultorum? The question of Transylvania having a "different status" is moot: on one hand, we don't knoew precisely what status the other two countries had (rather, we presume); on the other, Transylvania is generally not involved in disputes about the capitulations, and the matter of its vassalage to the Ottomans (which was both much shorter and much less relevant) is clarified by documents of another era.b If you will note, Transylvania is already mentioned in the text of this article: use your logic, please - if the scope of this article is to clarify the matter of Muslim presence, your edits ammount to "there's also this region, and this one, although they did not have a Muslim presence"; all the info you included in the text, which is purely trivial in context, belongs and is included on other pages. Again: the article is about Islamic presence, not about listing whatever regions form Roamnia today or have formed it in the past; if there is no Islamic presence, then the text does not belong here. Dahn 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I really did a honest attempt to understand your point. On the one hand, you agree that "the question of Transylvania having a "different status" is moot", on the other you refuse even to mention Transylvania. If you agree that the specificity of Transylvania against Wallachia and Moldavia, as an Ottoman vassal state is difficult to ascertain, than why refusing to first mention all three Principalities and subsequently to differentiate among them.

After all, the purpose of a history-section in an article about "Islam in Romania" is to inform the readers about the past of an Islamic presence on the territory of the present Romania of which Transylvania is an important part. It is simply impossible to avoid mentioning Trnasylvania. (as for your claim, "Transylvania is already mentioned in the text" - this cannot be but a joke)

I fully agree that "the scope of this article is to clarify the matter of Muslim presence,..." but I also think that the core of our controversy lies in your statement: "if there is no Islamic presence, then the text does not belong here"

If we follow this rationale, than the whole article about Islam in Romania is actually useless, since there is not too much to tell about this topic, in the present as well as in the past (!).

Personally, I believe that an article with enciclopaedic ambitions should go far beyound this simplistic logic. The reader of an encyclopaedia is entitled to learn in-depth information. In our case, we should explain why regions like Dobruja display a long Islamic tradition (is already done in the article) and why others like, say, Maramures, don't.

The reader should understand why Islamic presence in Romania is not only scarce but also inhomogeneous, with large regions with non-significant presence and others with some.

Against the background of historical diversity of the main Romanian provinces, the article should cover the whole spectrum of the to-day Islamic presence in Romania, from, say, modest but with ancient roots (Dobruja) to not significant and without any notable history (Maramures).

Please, consider this methodical proposition: mentioning all historical Romanian provinces and briefly explaining the current situation of Islamic presence from an historical background.

--Timor Stultorum 12:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

What I have actually said is that the very topic and the reason for debating the present version is moot. Including Transylvania for the sake of including Transylvania is, indeed, irrelevant. And, again, this article is not about Romania's relation to Islam, but about Islamic presence in Romania: I do not go into an article about Islam in x country to write down "the history of y region in x country, which, unlike z region in x country, had no Islamic presence". Furthermore, the reasons why Islamic presence is scarce, as I have explained and despite the traditional Romanian obsession, have nothing to do with the yet-to-be-discovered "capitulations", so the relation between Porte-Danubian diplomacy and Islamic presence is, at best, too ellusive not to be POV. In this context, and I want to be very clear about it, Transylvania was a different polity subject to different requirements, and all mention of it without ample reason only serves to write history backwards (making Transylvania then more connected to Romania than it actually was). Dahn 13:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify other matters, as I think I should:

• I have said that, since Banat is mentioned in the text, and Banat is the only part of [extended] Transylvania with a Muslim presence to speak of, I suggest you review your "cannot be but a joke" comment.
• since the only reason you apparently had for mentioning Transylvania at all was in direct connection with the "capitulations", I must caution you that, even for those less reserved historians who treasure the thought that the documents are "traceable", Transylvania is not part of the analysis
• you have been very unfair to Roksanna: on one hand, I do not believe anyone could have taken her comments to imply a "Danubian ethnicity". On the other, I think it is way less risqué to use "Danubians" as shorthand for two former countries than it is to indicate that hundreds of years of inclusion in altogether different empires matter less than the fact that the arguable majority in one country was of the same ethnicity as than in two others (especially since commoners in neither area had any political rights). Dahn 16:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all Transylvania was 1000 years a province of Hungary, since less than 100 years it is a province of Romania now (including an new Hungarian intermezzo 1940-44). I do not want to support Hungarian revanchism but I have to stop Romanian manipulations in history. If you want to mention it in Islam in Romania (it is worth to be mentioned here, you are right) then you have to create a new chapter ==Islam in Transylvania== The Transylvanians never have been subjects to the Danubian principalties and never began to feel themselves Romanian before the 19th century, so please do not mix apples and lemons. --Roksanna 16:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked in vain for new and/or more substantiate arguments against my proposal to mention Transylvania in the history section. Instead, I've come across speculations about my presumed reasons, turbid accusations, a sulfurous atmosphere of strange imputations and suspicions, a dreary and quite paranoide discourse, which departs from the actual topic of the debate.

I'm afraid that this kind of discourse is in fact a symptom that the arguments of my counterpart are exhausted.

Summarizing the arguments carried over, there are, IMO, only two alternatives in presenting "Islam in Romania":

• adopting the argument that only relevant islamic presence should be presented, thus, removing every mention of other Romanian provinces excepting Dobruja and briefly mentioning Banat (which, by the way, DOESN'T belong to Transylvania, even in its utmost expanded version)

• following the argument that an in-depth article should contain information about the historical and other reasons of an inhomogene presence of Islam on Romanian soil, hence mentioning Transylvania

Personally, I intend to plead for the second solution.

As for our adorable Roksanna, a user who openly reveals her agenda on the Wikipedia, declaring herself commited "to stop Romanian manipulations in history", who writes that "Transylvania was 1000 years a province of Hungary", that "Transylvania and the Danubian principalties,(...) almost 1000 years they had nothing in common before the 19th century " and that " Transylvanians (...) never began to feel themselves Romanian before the 19th century", I think that she is exactly the right company for user Dahn.

An association of the two would bring together their most specific qualities: the intelligence, mind and erudition of user Roksanna will meet the neutrality, objectivity, peace of mind and good faith of user Dahn.

I look forward with great expectations.

--Timor Stultorum 11:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yet another straw man argument from a person who has nothing to contribute but obscure propaganda. Troll-o-rama: such allegations deserve no answer. Dahn 11:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am inconsolable to see that you lose your temper and run over personal attacks and diffamation. It must have hurt to exhaust arguments in a debate. However, this doesn't justify your reaction, which is both pitiful and ridiculous.

Slandering me doesn't make things better. Absurd denouncing, even worse.

It wasn't none of my intention to humiliate you or make you appear ridiculous. It's only you placing yourself in ungraceful situations.

I hope however that you will overcome this situation.

--Timor Stultorum 12:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A trolling-like situation: the Danubians

On this page as well as in an edit summary, user Roksanna used the terms Danubians and danubian history to designate Romanians and Romanian history. I was intrigued by such an unheard designation. After carefully reading this and other related pages, I could understand how this user came to that bizzare designation for Romanians.

There is an article named Danubian Principalities. This is a conventional name for the Romanian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, traceable in some documents of the late 18th and the first half of the 19th centuries. Thus, it is an occasional and time-limited denomination of Moldavia and Wallachia.

The problem appeared, as user Dahn begann to systematically wikilink this article to almost every mention of Moldavia and Wallachia, so that an honest user like Roksannaa, taking for granted the edits of other users, could believe that Danubians' really represents an alternative denominations od Romanians (!).

The whole situation inherrs some trolling-like touch, since it reveals a systematic desinformation. However, I don't think that it deserves to be reported, because neither Dahn nor Roksanna can be suspected to deliberately troll.

However, such situations should be taken seriously: any good-faith user could believe, as roksanna did, that danubians is another name for Romanians.

More sense of responsabiliy and moderation in wikilinking preffered articles would be very welcomed

--Timor Stultorum 13:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The term "Danubian Principalities" is traditional in English, and "Romanian Principalities" is both un-tradional and vague (not to mention self-contradictory). Nobody has ever implied that the name "Danubians" is an ethnonym, and Roksanna (again!) did not use it in that sense. The only trolling here was your message, Timor, as it misinterpreted two explicit points. Dahn 13:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should comment on the obvious sophistry in implying that, because "Danubian" is an adjective to "Principalities", it must be an ethnonym (as should, by the same rule, "United" be to "Provinces" in the Netherlands, "Papal" be to "States" in Rome, and even "Habsburg" to "Empire"). Demanding "moderation", suspecting "systematic disinformation" when a simple adjective of tradition in English (and of value in helping the reader connect information common to Moldavia and Wallachia at a quick glance) was used, is either deliberate slander or a case of paranoia. Dahn 22:50, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not an idiot, I know that a Danubian people does not exist, no need to remind me. I used the term "Danubians" only as shortcut for "Danubian principalties", I was to lazy to wrote the long term. I used it to show the differences between Transylvania and the Danubian principalties, excepted the year 1600-1601 almost 1000 years they had nothing in common before the 19th century although they now together form Romania (actually "Romania" originally was created without Transylvania) and so they should not mixed up in a chapter about the history of Islam in Romania. Transylvania can have an own chapter although there is no need to mention an Islam in Transylvania. --Roksanna 20:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Granted that you are not an idiot, "Danubians" still does not exist in English as a shortening of "Danubian principalities" or "people of the Danubian principalities". -Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but English is not my mother-tongue and so I do not care if it exist or not. In an article I always would write the full term, but in discussions I am too lazy. By the way, the context did show what was meant. Any Danubian nation never was the subject of discussion here. --Roksanna 21:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

@Dahn: yes, the few thousand, because all of them were driven out. Encyclopaedia of Islam mentioned unter "Temesvar" article 5-8.000 Muslim settlers in the 16th century, and of course they became more during the years... --Roksanna 21:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. (It's just that the original text could theoretically leaned either way,and I was too involed in something else to be checking sources.) Dahn 00:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)