Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

State: Closed Mediated By: Stifle (talk • contribs)

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Criztu 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Harghita County

Who's involved?

at least me User:Criztu on one side, and User:Hottentot, User:Kissl, User:Olessi on the other side

What's going on?

I am proposing a naming convention that is also the Britannica naming convention, by which "Counties of Romania dont have alternative names given in the lead paragraph". I propose the names by which Hungarian ethnic minority refer to these counties be given in the Population section. The other party propose having the Hungarian names in the leading paragraph.

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to explain them that there are no alternative names for the names of administrative divisions of Romania.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

i prefer total transparency. User:Criztu

[edit] Mediator response

I am taking this case. I would invite users Hottentot, Kiss, and Olessi to please make a submission below in Discussion as to why Hungarian names should be in the leading paragraph of an article about Romania. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this case still active? --Ideogram 14:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not really. I'm closing with the option for anyone to message me if they want more discussion. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

Copied from User talk:Stifle.

We actually had a huge discussion on this last year at Talk:Harghita County/Vote. To me it seems that Criztu is pretty isolated on the view that historical names should not be mentioned in the lead. Also, he hasn't edited since the 19th. Do you suggest we have another vote? —Khoikhoi 21:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I see what you're saying. Anyways, if you take Harghita County, for example, one can notice by the census that it, along with all the other counties in Transylvania was a part of Hungary for thousands of years, and is today 84.6% Hungarian. If one ever goes there they will see that almost all of the street signs are in Romanian and Hungarian as well. This whole attempt of deleting Hungarian names from these articles is seen by myself (and I am sure others) as an attempt to erase history. —Khoikhoi 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful to note the original dispute concerned whether or not to include the Hungarian names at all (Talk:Harghita County/Vote); apparently User:Criztu has now agreed that the Hungarian names can be included, but should not be listed in the beginning. I agree with User:Jmabel's comments at Talk:Harghita County, specifically his closer: "Ultimately, the issue here is what serves the reader, and in this case I cannot imagine how removal of Hungarian names serves the reader."

While I personally feel that including the regional Hungarian name for a county is most useful in the introduction, I have no objection to it being listed later in the article instead. I have always maintained that commonly used alternate names should be listed, however. Here is a possible alternative:

Harghita County (IPA: [har.'gi.ta]) is a county (judeţ) in the center of Romania. The county, whose capital city is Miercurea-Ciuc, is located in the east of the historical region of Transylvania. Although it is not officially known as such, the county is also known in Hungarian as Hargita by its substantial Hungarian population.

Also, it was a little surprising to find myself listed here as involved "on the other side", considering I last was involved in the discussion a year ago. Olessi 22:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

In fact, this discussion was already over a year ago, with Criztu being the only one against having the Hungarian names out of all those who ever edited any article about a judet in Romania. Even some Romanian editors seem to openly disagree with Criztu's standpoint (see e.g. this diff), so I can't see why we need to reopen the discussion at all. I also think that the page on Wikipedia naming conventions, though it is only proposed policy yet, makes things clear: alternative names belong in the lead, unless there is a separate section (likely the first one after the lead anyway) dealing with the name only, which in most cases wouldn't make sense, since there's nothing more to it than a Romanian and a Hungarian name (and maybe a German one in some cases).

The personal part of it is that I think the very existence of Hungarian names in Romania-related articles hurts Criztu's (a bit maybe too intensive) patriotic feelings, a fact that I can understand even if I disagree; but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not group therapy, so this won't prevent me from restoring the Hungarian names to the articles.

If it helps, the leads can be reworded per Olessi's proposal above, or in any other way, so that it emphasizes the non-official nature of the Hungarian names somewhat more.

KissL 10:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an effort from my part to resolve a dispute on naming convention of Administrative divisions of Romania. I think the convention that Britannica uses in this matter is best suited for Wikipedia also. Britannica does not offer an alternative hungarian name for a county of Romania. Yes, Wikipedia should offer information to the reader, but information should be offered in a way that is not misleading. I think that providing a hungarian name for an administrative division of Romania is misleading the reader into thinking that administrative division has a legal status shared with Hungary. I was busy for the last year, i didnt make any edits to wikipedia during that period. Criztu 15:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add my opinion on this subject, if I may. The fact that "Britannica does not offer an alternative hungarian name for a county of Romania" does not mean that alternative names for Romanian counties do not exist (as Criztu implied in the "What would you like to change about that?" section). The alternative names DO exist and they are used by some of the population that lives in those counties. In some counties (Harghita and Covasna) the part of the population that uses those names is more than 50%. About the possibility of "misleading the reader into thinking that administrative division has a legal status shared with Hungary", I agree that the lead paragraph should be formulated in such a way that to avoid this confusion (like Olessi suggested, for example). However, we should keep in mind that hungarian people, hungarian language and the country named Hungary are three different things. Using a hungarian name for something does not necessarily mean that it is linked to Hungary. Razvan Socol 17:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, Criztu is, yet again, the only one to oppose an existing text, without making (or seemingly aiming to make) a point that is not linked to pure semiotics and his own brand of territorial marking. As a Romanian, I do not feel represented by Criztu's version of history and geography - just in case a mediator may think this is between "what Romanians know" and "what others know". Also note that the only thing Criztu cites in the way of an argument is his "I propose". Dahn 20:19, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's natural if a Hungarian settlement or county has a considerable German-speaking population, the German name variant should be mentioned in the first paragraph, and similarly I'd think it's natural if a Romanian settlement or county has a considerable Hungarian-speaking population, the Hungarian variant should be included there. I've been e.g. in Budakeszi and Solymár, where the German-speaking population is significant, and I've never thought of it as disturbing or offensive that the German name of the town is also written out on the sign, or that it's mentioned in their articles in Wikipedia. So I can't really understand why certain people consider it different. It may be some deep-seated fears or memories or whatever but it shouldn't be the matter of Wikipedia but that of psychology (no offense intended). I think that in no way would that hurt the political integrity or sovereignty or whatever of Hungary or Romania, respectively; it's just being realistic. Adam78 20:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

To repeat my remark that someone quoted above: "Ultimately, the issue here is what serves the reader." The focus here happens to be on counties, but the issues strike me as being the same for the many geographic entities in Transylvania: the Romanian names are certainly the official ones, should determine the article location, and should come first, but that's it. By way of comparison, the first paragraph for Ho Chi Minh City not only mentions the name Saigon, but also the Cambodian Prey Nokor; the Cambodians last ruled that region in the 16th century. Similarly, Lleida (in the Autonomous Region of Catalonia, Spain) mentions the Spanish Lérida simply because it is in Spain, even though the Spanish-language name no longer has any legal status. - Jmabel | Talk 21:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Critzu is right here. --Eliade 14:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC) - Sockpuppet of permanently banned user Bonaparte. Zello 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It is commonly accepted that Wikipedia mentions alternative geographical names - both the historical and the present-day used ones in the lead. There are countless examples for this, see Aachen, Jerusalem, Burgenland, Sardinia etc. This is also common in Hungarian geographical articles like Pécs, Gyula, Hungary etc. I don't think there is anybody who really wish to erase all this information collected by thousands of wikipedians. The same should be applied to Hungarian names of Transylvania even if a user (or some users) are not able to tolerate them. I'm happy to see that other Romanian editors are much more open-minded so this not an interethnic strife between Hungarians and Romanians. This a question of tolerance and common European values versus old-fashioned nationalistic hatred with a wish to erase the language, culture and every sign of other peoples who lived or still live on the same territory. It should be noted that we are speaking about other alternative names of Transylvania also (Saxon, Roma, Serb, Ukrainian etc). Zello 22:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been part of this discussion, but I'd like to add that in addition to alternative geographical names being mentioned in the "lead" on other Wikipedia geographical articles, alternative names (and spellings) also appear in the "lead" for other types of articles too. See Fish_soup, Cumans, etc. It also seems it would be a hinderance to someone researching to remove historical and common alternative names if someone didn't know the current name to a place. I suppose there should also be redirects... --Stacey Doljack Borsody 16:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I will present what I think is a Naming Convention of a real encyclopedia, namely Britannica. Criztu 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Mureş river (in romanian; Maros in hungarian) rises in Romania and flows into Tisza in Hungary. - the convention is, since Mures flows through both Romania and Hungary, the river has an alternative hungarian name used in english (on english maps, where Mures enters Hungary).Criztu 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Târgu-Mureş city (in romanian; Marosvasarhely in hungarian) is a city in Romania. - the convention is, hungarian name is a legacy name, meaning there are recent english documents (whithin the last 100 years) (like Britannica old editions, english maps, etc.) refering to this city with its hungarian name.Criztu 19:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Mureş County is a county of Romania. - the convention is, there are no legacy names in a foreign language for county Mures (which is an administrative division of Romania, it cannot exist outside Romania). it does not "flow" through Hungary, county Mures of Romania was not a county of Hungary (it is an impossibility), there are no english maps using a hungarian name for county Mures, there are no english sources speaking of an administrative division of Hungary named Maros which is now an administrative division of Romania named Mures county. Criztu 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against informing the english reader how the hungarian minoriy living in Mures county calls that couunty, but the hungarian name is not an alternate name, and by alternate name i understand a name that is used in english sources. I proposed to move the hungarian name to the paragraph of the Mures county (or Harghita county) where mention of the hungarian minority living in that county is given. It is that simple. There are no romanian or english documents using the hungarian name of Mures county, or Harghita county. i gave u google results 158 000 results for "Harghita county"(romanian name), and 12 000 results for "Hargita county" (hungarian name), barely 8% (and these are mainly pages on Hungarian servers, thus not dealing with english sources) Criztu 19:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand Criztu's point now. I agree that it is impossible for there to be an alternate, historical name for a county in Romania that was created later and does not share the same borders as the historical divisions of the same area. To that end I would support Criztu in removing the Hungarian translation from the first paragraph of the Mures county article (also since Hungarians are a minority in that county). The article unfortunately lacks historical information and it was only from looking at the Wikipedia articles "on the Hungarian side" that I found the Romanian Mures county has an historical connection to the old Maros-Torda or Marosszék. So I recommend the addition of a history section (in all the Romanian county articles) like can be seen on other Hungarian county articles as a compromise.

But then again this Case is in reference to Harghita county... So now I found Csik after multiple clicks because the Harghita county article, like all the Romanian county articles, lacks a history section so it isn't easy to find which historic division Harghita is composed of. I find it interesting that the article on Csik mentions the Romanian name for that historical county in the first paragraph when there's no source from which we can deduce that it was an administrative division under Romanian suzerainty. And unlike with Mures county, Hungarians are the majority in Harghita so it might be too biased with a minority POV to not include the Hungarian spelling in the first paragraph.

In all, I think this case is a waste of time because it just 1) demonstrates people's inabilities to creatively compromise, 2) demonstrates attempts to obfuscate historical information for the sake of nationalistic POV, and 3) is another thinly disguised and tired old "Hungarians vs. Romanians on the English Wikipedia" battle. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 20:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

well, this is very simple, i consider Britannica has expertise, and Britannica gives no alternate name in hungarian language for an administrative division of Romania, as it also does not give alternative name in romanian language for an administrative division of the Kingdom of Hungary. I dont think an administrative division of Romania has a history outside of the state of ROmania (eg, a county could have had diferent borders or names within Romania, but its history does not coincide with the history of a county of Hungary, how do we treat then present day Bihor county in Romania and Hajdu-Bihar county in Hungary), while a historical region of Romania can have a history outside Romania Criztu 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you rewriting the Encylopedia Britannica or writing Wikipedia? I like what Jmabel wrote about serving the interests of the readers, not the editors. To not make any connections (wiki-links) between present day territories and historical territories is a disservice to the reader as I demonstrated earlier where I needed to click through a bunch of Kingdom of Hungary county articles in order to find which county corresponded to present-day Harghita. Also you don't make any sense. What does it mean that an administrative division of Romania cannot have a history outside of the state of Romania but a historical region of Romania can? --Stacey Doljack Borsody 23:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That whole historical argument is totally unreasonable, and I am sure that Criztu knows this as much as anybody. These names are not mentioned because they are "historical" (the pre-Trianon counties were not always the same), or had any connection with the state of Hungary but because Hungarian minority living in present-day Romania use them. They are not official names but widely used alternatives by the most numerous minority of Transylvania. Zello 23:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

When an english citisen travels to Romania, buys a map of Romania, made in England. The name of Mures county is written on that map, not the hungarian name Maros county. When an english citizen watches a report about Romania on CNN, he sees a text Mures county, not hungarian Maros. When an english citizen sends a postcard to Romania, sends it to Mures county, not hungarian Maros. etc. these are modern usages of the name of Mures county, read Wikipedia:Lead section for more. There is a hungarian ethnic minority living in Mures county, as there is a hungarian minority living in London. Yet, the presence of an ethnic minority living in London does not make Wikipedia list the name used by that minority when refering to London as an alternative name of London. sure, you can put information on how all nations of the planet call Mures county or London, there is enough space in the article. But providing these names as alternative names for Mures county or London i consider a mess, a propaganda, a lack of standard. Criztu 07:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are maps sold in Cluj ideal for foreign tourists that do indeed show the name of everything in both Romanian and Hungarian, and German where applicable. CRCulver 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in Wikipedia: Lead section guideline that is against mentioning alternative names. No wonder as it is customary all over wikipedia... Zello 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Having hungarian names it's a bullshit. No need for hungarian irredentist POV here. Koiule go away, you're just a jewish hungarian from Transylvania. You told me once. --203.109.33.34 08:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Good to see you again, Bonaparte... Zello 17:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re "another thinly disguised and tired old ‘Hungarians vs. Romanians on the English Wikipedia’ battle" - this is oversimplification, to say the least. There have often been edit wars around some touchy topics, but the overwhelming majority of registered Hungarian and Romanian editors who edit here regularly respect each other. Also, Dahn (see his opinion above) and Ronline (see the diff I cited above), both Romanian editors, have disagreed with Criztu on this particular point, a clear sign that this dispute is not simply between Hungarians and Romanians. KissL 09:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I note that Criztu has let a spurious conclusion pass into acceptance, an I need to stress what precisely is bogus in one claim of his. County X in Romania has name Y in Hungarian; we happen to note that name Y was also used by a county (indeed, with separate borders etc.) during the time when Transylvania was part of Hungary. Please note that counties in Hungary with names that fall into category Y have separate pages (you may find them in Category:Kingdom of Hungary counties in Transylvania). All of this adds does not contradict the simple and obvious fact that the present-day counties have names in Hungarian: simply because Hungarian-speakers do not switch to Romanian when they have to use the name of the county in plain conversation!). Thus, the Hungarian name of the county is a present-day reference, and not a reference to the Hungarian counties of yesteryear! To the notion that "they should not be used because thay are not official, I answer by joining my message with the 1,000 posts that have made it clear why this is by no means a rule as long as the name's use is relevant (see the alternative names provided for the French region of Bretagne and other millions of articles out there - in case this is not clear, I quote from the Breton language article: "Breton is not an official language of France", with the same officially-sanctioned level of bilingualism: " the regional and departmental authorities do use Breton to a very limited extent insofar as they feel able, for example in signage"). The names' usage is relevant for Hungarian names, and does belong in the lead. This has gone far enough. Dahn 20:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the mediator has noted that it finding the connection between, say, Harghita and Csik is difficult. It certainly is. The articles certainly need some sort of History section, and a link to the former administrative units (with explanations of administrative changes in-between). As it is, I have tried to make this relevant connection available in at least one point: the Transylvania page, where I had provided a link to the counties of Hungary. Let's see if you guess who started a mediation against me for "POV"... why, the very person who requested this one! I ask meditors not to give in to an attempt of obscuring relevant data. I consider this the very first requirement to finally getting a move on cleaning up, turning relevant, and making accurate and non-partisan all Transylvania-related articles. We have an opportunity to reach a consensus on what is factual, not on what is symbolic: as a Romanian, I aim to help along in bringing these pages to a higher level of quality and to indisputable accuracy, with focus on what the reader may wish to know, not on localist arguments of zero quality (be they Romanian or Hungarian). Dahn 20:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking over what I have posted just above, I wonder if I have made my point obvious. Let me reduce it to this statement: I support both a Hungarian name in the lead and reference in the History section to the county in the Kingdom of Hungary. I think it is common sense, valuable information, provided for the sake of thoroughly presenting a topic. I also think that Criztu's claim that "the Hungarian name=the Hungarian administrative tradition" is bogus agitprop. Dahn 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

All the Transylvanian county articles became battlegrounds with a lot of reverts, heated comments, appearance of sockpuppet-like users, page protections. There is a Hungarian proverb (I don't know the English version): Trees are known by their fruit. Zello 23:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree"? (Az alma nem esik messze a fájától). —Khoikhoi 23:19, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I thought about: Gyümölcséről ismerszik meg a fa. That's the case with Criztu's campaign I think. Zello 23:30, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you mean Matthew 7:16... I don't remember a Hungarian proverb like that. KissL 10:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know that it's Biblical, my parents simply used liked this - although we are non-religious people from Bp. So the English version is "By their fruits you will know them", I almost hit :) Zello 16:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If one wishes to begin historical research with the Wikipedia then one certainly must readily see the Hungarian names as these were almost exclusively used before 1918. Not including them would diminish the value of Wikipedia. Istvan 05:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I am closing this case as there has been only one update in almost the last three months. Anyone can ask me on my talk page if they need further help. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)