Talk:Székely Land

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Present and past

The article should the present status first and only afterwards what it used to be (a historical autonomous region). The opening sentence "Szekelyfold was .." is improper. Szekelys still exist today (unlike Romans, Huns or Dacians) and they live in the same territory since centuries. The term "Szekely land" evokes first of all the area inhabited by Szekelys in the mind of any Hungarian or those who know the region. In fact, there is barely any Hungarian who never heard of or couldn't locate Szekelyfold on a map. On the contrary, those who know about the historical autonomy of the region are much fewer. Akiss 11:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Autonomy initiative

Indeed there is an ongoing issue about the autonomy initiative of the szekely region, and the debates stir up strong opposition among Romanians. Criztu's edits seem biased by a POV against this initiative: "670,000 out of 1,140,000" means nothing except trying to prove that Seclers are barely majoritary in Szekelyland. Remember, most of Mures county is not within historical Szekely land. Criztu's statement that "Szekelys are claiming all these 3 counties" is unfounded. (If it implies the claim within the autonomy debates, it is still not true: to my knowledge, they are not claiming the entire Mures county and they propose referendums for each settlement. But again, autonomy discussions are not in the scope of this article. Nevertheless, anyone expert may start an article about that. With of course, references to such 'claims'.)

See Discussion of article Szekely for more.

[edit] Japanese lang.

It is interesting to note the similarities with Japanese: hon, 本 (homeland), and seki, 席 (seat).

That is an useless piece of trivia, since Japanese is not related (as far as we know) to Hungarian. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 07:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Historical region"

Criztu, why you don't agree with the label "historical region" ? bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 12:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, is Szekelyfold a historical region of Romania, or is Szekelyfold a historical region of the Kingdom of Hungary ? -- Criztu 19:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Székelyföld is an historical region. The fact that it is inside Romania is not relevant to its status. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 20:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
in this case we'd have to maintain that Moesia and Dacia are historical regions in Romania. -- Criztu 05:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Moesia is mostly in Bulgaria and Serbia and Dacia included at times parts of Hungary (and as a Roman province parts of Serbia), but, yes, they are historical regions. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 09:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
then we have to define what a historical region is.
OK. My definition is that a historical region is a region that has some cultural or linguistic features that differentiate it from the neighbourhood. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 12:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
here is the wiki definition of "region" : In European politics, a region is the layer of government directly below the national level. The term is especially used in relation to those regions which have some historical claim to uniqueness or independence, or differ significantly from the rest of the country..
Most words have several meanings. Region may indeed refer to a level of government, but it has several other meanings as well. Here, we are not talking about present-day EU politics, we are talking about culture, history etc--Tamas 19:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
if you say "Szekelyfol is a region in Romania", then you are talking about present-day EU politics. if you are talking about things in the past then you say "Szekelyfold was a region in the kingdom of Hungary" -- Criztu 20:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
and the wiki definition of "historical" : History is a term for information about the past.
  • is there a current layer of government for Szekelyfold ? there isn't
  • was there a layer of government for Szekelyfold ? there was, during the Kingdom of Hungary
can we safely say "Szekelyfold was in the past a historical (meaning it was in the past) region (meaning it had a layer of government) in/of the Kingdom of Hungary" ?
can we safely say "Szekelyfold is in our days a historical (meaning it was in the past) region (meaning it has a layer of government) in/of Romania" ? -- Criztu 19:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • to get a better picture, here is the formulation for Northumbria : Northumbria is primarily the name of an Anglian or Anglo-Saxon kingdom which was formed in Great Britain at the beginning of the 7th century, and of the much smaller earldom which succeeded the kingdom. The name reflects that of the southern limit to the kingdom's territory, which was the River Humber, and in the 12th century writings of Henry of Huntingdon the kingdom was defined as one of the Heptarchy of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. and the formulation for Anjou : Anjou is a former county (c.880), duchy (1360) and province centred on the city of Angers in the lower Loire Valley of western France. It corresponds largely to the present-day département of Maine-et-Loire. and the formulation for Aquitaine : Aquitaine (Gascon and Occitan: Aquitània; Basque: Akitania) (anciently "Guyenne" or "Guienne") now forms a région in south-western France along the Atlantic Ocean and the Pyrenees mountain range on the border with Spain.
so there is no "Northumbria is a historical region (kingdom in this instance) in England" and there is no "Anjou is a historical region (province in this instance) in France" , but there is a "Aquitaine is a region in France" -- Criztu 19:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Ardeal is a historical region of Romania, and officialy it can be reffered to as such today. Szekelyfold was a historical region of the Kingdom of Hungary, not of Romania. That is why there is a szekler initiative to attain recognition of a Szekelyfold, historicaly bonded by the Kingdom of Hungary, not by Romania, nor with any form of romanian administration. It has no history with Romania. Szekelyfold never was a region of (or within the borders of) Romania, and certainly not "is". It was a region of the kingdom of Hungary hundred years ago, as Scythia minor was a province of the Roman empire thousand years ago. yet there is no article stating that "Scythia minor is a historical region in Romania" -- Criztu 11:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
So, you want to make sure that the readers doesn't want to believe it is a historical region of Romania ? I'll try to rephrase it. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 12:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I want to make sure we write about things that were in the past, like "Szekelyfold", and things that are in the present, like Harghita, Covasna and parts of Mures counties. -- Criztu 19:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
an then why not listing all administrative regions that existed during the Kingdom of Hungary in the territory that is now within Romanian borders, say "Kis-Kukulo is a historical county in Romania" ? >:) - Criztu 11:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Because a region has to do with the culture and people, while a county has to do with internal political organization. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 12:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
can you show any romanian official map with a "Sekelyfold" region/province alongside Oltenia, Muntenia, Ardeal, Moldova, Dobrogea, Basarabia, Bucovina, Maramures, Crisana and Banat ? -- Criztu 19:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Can you show any official Turkish map with a Kurdistan region/province? Official maps can be quite misleading in this respect.--Tamas 07:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
can you show any official American map with a historical Apache/Comanche region ? Can you show any official Hungarian map with a historical Municipium Iassorum (Yazigia) region ? :) -- Criztu 09:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 :)Let me put it this way. (1) Szekelyfold is a historical region. (2) Presently, Szekelyfold is in Romania. (1) and (2): Szekelyfold is a historical region in Romania. Or we could say: Szekelyfold is historical region presently situated in Romania. And as far as official maps are concerned, I do not think official maps should decide what is a historical region and what is not. Official maps contain the present-day administrative division of a country, which may or may not coincide with historical regions.--Tamas 17:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
it is obvious that you ignore that "Szekelyfold was" and you want to keep the formulation "Szekelyfold is". i'd say you are making efforts to attain unofficial recognition of a "Szekelyfold autonomous region in Romania" :) -- Criztu 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
For the record: I do not agree with Criztu's latest reformulation. I think the part was OK as it was. A historical region does not cease to exist just because administrative boundaries are redrawn.--Tamas 20:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
unfortunately the term "historical region" is used mainly by nationalist hungarian propaganda, no other article on "regions that were and ceased to exist" has the label "is a historical region in [country]" except for the articles about the regions that once belonged to Hungary -- Criztu 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This is not true. Try and run a search for "historical region". You will get 338 hits, among them Historical regions of Central Europe, Historical regions of the Balkan Peninsula. Some historical regions do not coincide with any present-day administrative region, e.g. Lusatia. (quote from the page: "Lusatia is not an administrative unit") So as far as the established practices of Wikipedia are concerned, there is nothing agains calling Szeklerland a historical region.--Tamas 21:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
funny, many of those articles are locked, and few have the the formulation "is a historical region". I think it is fair to say "Szekelyfold was a region". The Szekely population continues to live in the former Szekelyfold region, and they are wishing for official autonomous status for a Szekelyfold region. But, there is no region Szekelyfold in Romania. pls understand you can write about the existence of a "past Szekelfold", but speaking about existence of a "present-day Szekelyfold" when there are other forms of administration in its place is in my view a form of propaganda. I can't agree with you stating "Szekelyfold is a region in Romania". sorry -- Criztu 05:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, I think the main difference between us is that you interpret region in purely administrative terms, why I believe that region can be used in a broader sense: cultural, ethnographical whatever. Anyway, I do not want to push this issue any further, if the sentence "The term Szekelyfold is also used in a cultural-ethnographical sense, i.e., referring to the territories inhabited by the Székelys." can stay it is fine for me.--Tamas 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History

I tried to add some content about the history and development of the region. I know it is not perfect and far from finished, so please help if you can.--Tamas 22:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Reunited with or placed under its administration

I noticed my original wording ("Szekelyfold was reunited with the Kingdom of Hungary") has been changed to "was placed under the Kingdom of Hungary's administration". Now this wording may be more polite, but it is also incorrect. In 1867, the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania were as a matter of fact united, that is, completely amalgamated, Transylvania ceased to exist as a legal entity and enjoyed no administrative independence whatsoever: it was completely merged into the uniform county system. Cultural etc. differences of course remained, but as far as the legal situation is concerned, the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania were reunited. In this case, reunited is a neutral word: it simply indicates that earlier in time, they were one country, now they became united again, i.e., re-united. To say that "Transylvania was placed under the Kingdom of Hungary's administration in 1867" would be like saying that "in 1920, Transylvania was placed under the Kingdom of Romania's administration" which would of course be incorrect to. In both cases, Transylvania was united, first with the K of H, then with the K of R. --Tamas 17:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please try to answer my arguments first and do not just keep reverting what I wrote. Also, until 1920, Transylvania legally belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary. So the date is 1918, not 1920. --Tamas 20:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the fact that Hungarian administration effectively ceased to exist in 1918 when Transylvania representatives proclaimed union with Romania, but the union was ratified in 1920 has to be clearly stated. but erasing/ignoring the period between 1918-1920 (when the area was disputed between Hungary and Romania) might not beregarded "as made in good faith" -- Criztu 21:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i ain't an expert, but there are these forms of administrative/statal actions:
  • Transylvania unites with Romania/Hungary, that is: the representatives of Transylvania sign a legal paper by which they proclaim union with Romania/Hungary
Such a thing has never really happened: it was the Romanian and German inhabitants of Transylvania who singed such a declaration, Hungarians (about a third of the then population) were not asked about their opinion.--Tamas 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
the representatives of Romanians proclaimed union of Transylvania with ROmania in 1918, Saxons and Scwhabs approved the legal document, which was ratified by international powers in 1920, so Transylvania united with Romania really hapened, and the union was recognised as such by the international legal bodies. If you can present a Proclamation of unification of Transylvania with Hungary ratified by international legal bodies then i wont object to a formulation "Transylvania united/reunited with Hungary -- Criztu 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transylvania is placed under Romania/Hungary administration, that is: there are no representatives for Transylvania, but there are legal papers signed by the owners (in this case an empire) of Transylvania and Romania/Hungary
I am sorry, but that's how things worked in those undemocratic times . We cannot impose our democratic values on undemocratic times.--Tamas 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Transylvania was placed under Hungary's administration, this is the correct formulation -- Criztu 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Transylvania reunites with Romania/Hungary, that is: the representatives of Transylvania sign a legal paper in which they proclaim the reunification with Romania/Hungary
True, that's why I wrote "was reunited" (passive voice) and not "reunites" (active voice)--Tamas 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
lol, if you and me would have each 51 % of two different legal business, could these two businesses "be united" (passive voice) against our will ? can we instead "unite" giving that we each legally hold 51% of the shares of these businesses, even if there are share holders not wishing a union ? :) -- Criztu 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
so, there can't be a "Transylvania was united/reunited with Hungary/Romania" but either "Transylvania united/reunited with Hungary/Romania" or "Transylvania was placed under Hungary/Romania administration" -- Criztu 20:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What I want to say is that according the legal standards of the age, Transylvania was reunited with Hungary in 1867, and united with Romania in 1920 (or 1918, although I think it is the date of the treaty that matters here.)--Tamas 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
you should be able to provide similar examples of administrative territories "being united", and please provide evidence that "Transylvania was united with Hungary" before 1867, if you claim that "Transylvania was reunited with Hungary" -- Criztu 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, you are probably right that united is emotionally loaded and can be misinterpreted as something that happened democratically. What about "incorporated"? That is a purely legal term, it says nothing about whether people liked it or not, or whether it was a democratic decision. "Reincorporated" would be more accurate, as Transylvania was a part of the K of H between 10c-16c. I agree with you that what happened in 1867 was deeply undemocratic, but that's how it happened. The Habsburg Monarchy was a Monarchy, after all, and not a liberal democracy. If people click on Austro-Hungarian compromise, it will tell them it was a deal between the ruling classes, not a democratic process. So let's stay with reincorporated, it is more accurate then either 'placed under the administration of" or "united with".--Tamas 21:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what is wrong with saying "Transylvania was conquered by the Kingdom of Hungary in the XIth century", and "in 1867 the compromise of the Dual Monarchy placed Transylvania under Hungarian administration" ? -- Criztu 06:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that Transylvania was conquered by Magyar tribes in the end of the IXth century. The Kingdom of Hungary was founded later, around 1000. But I have absolutely no problem with the word conquering when refering to the IXth c. My problem with "placed under Hungarian adiminstration" is that it sounds like a provisional measure, like "Kosovo is under UN administration", that is, until there is a decision on its final legal status. 1867 was not meant to be a provisional measure: Transylvania ceased to exist as a legal entity, it was completely merged into the Hungarian county system. What about "Transylvania became a part of the Kingdom of Hungary and ceased to exist as a legal entity"? Is that more acceptable to you? --Tamas 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
i had a similar discussion with Scott Moore about the Trianon Treaty and "Transylvania is placed under Romanian sovereignty" which is the formulation used in the treaty, haven't thought that 'placed under administration' may be interpreted as a temporary thing. i'm fine with "incorporated", i'll search for the formulation used in this "Transylvania became a part of Hungary"... just for the record, any administrative action is temporary, that is, until a new administrative measure takes place :) -- Criztu 12:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 :) --Tamas
as for the "magyar tribes conquered Transylvania in the end of IXth century", it is only propaganda (that is, a lot of talk with little certain evidence). what is known for sure is that Kingdom of Hungary conquered Transylvania in the XIth century (talking about a "union/conquest of Transylvania with/by Hungary", not a "union/conquest of Transylvania with/by Magyar tribes"), at least i assume there are chronicles and ancient documents testifying the conquest during the XIth century. (assuming that those documents and chronicles weren't "pure inventions" :D ) -- Criztu 12:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I am not a medievalist either, but as far as I know, Hungarian tribes occcupied more or less all of the Carpathian basin at the end of the 9th C - beginning of the 10th C. Now until 1000, that is, Hungary's becoming a kingdom, there was no unified administration, Transylvania was governed by one of the "chieftains" or princes or whatever you call these leaders of the tribes. It was the first king who brought in a centralised government. Which the "chieftain" in Transylvania opposed, and then the king defeated him and brought Transylvania under his rule. One interpretation of this is what you have just said: "the Kdom of H conquered Transylvania". The king's interpretation would have been different: "T belonged to the Kdom of H in the first place, I only crushed a rebellion against my legitimate rule" :) Personally, it does not really matter to me whether this happened in the 9th C or the 11th C, I am really fed up with this who arrived first, who was more civilized etc debate. --Tamas
this is the hungarian propagated version of what might have hapened in those days, based on those "scarce" documents and chronicles like Gesta Hungarorum :D. remember, there was a chronicle/legend speaking of a duke Salan in Pannonia that was defeated by Arpad in 896, Arpad whose legendary father Almos (born by a virgin mother) lead the magyars out of the enslavement of the khazaars, being foretold that as soon as he enterss Panaan he will die, and so on (straight up medieval forgery of the past)... this version is as thin as the story of Gelou, Glad and Menumorout whose states were conquered during the Xth century, and which the hungarian POV disaproves as being "fiction". i think the only thing certain is "the kingdom of Hungary claimed sovereignty over Transylvania starting with the XIth century" (but so did the Angevin Hungary claimed sovereignty over Moldavia and Wallachia, it doesn't mean "Moldavia and Wallachia were united with the kingdom of Hungary" or "Moldavia and Wallchia were conquered by magyar tribes" :) -- Criztu 17:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • No, Criztu, what Tamas writes above is not propaganda but more or less the opinion of modern Hungarian historiography (and is in lime with the Wikipedia [Arpads] article, which has a large number of contributors, and not all of them Hungarians). Transylvania was subjugated in the early 11th century by King Stephen of Hungary and from then on was part of his realm (sovereignty was not just claimed but was a reality). There is plenty of evidence supporting this (not just GH, which seems to be the only piece of evidence about Gelou - hence both Slovak and Hungarian historians believe that Gelou was probably created by Anonymus). Angevin claims over Moldavia and Wallachia is an entirely different issue. As you point out the Angevin kings were largely unable to enforce their claims. Scott Moore 16:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
well, the "Hungarian tribes occcupied more or less all of the Carpathian basin" is pretty "touched" by a "magyar-centric" view on history of "carpathian basin". the example with the Angevins claiming authority (but not ethnicity or ethnic majority, or effective control of the internal administration) over Wallachia and Moldova should make clear that it is not clear how thorough was the control of the Kingdom of Hungary over the population and territory inside its borders, let alone the "percent of occupation" of the lands in this "carpathian basin" during the 9th century. you may say there's plenty of evidence, i say there's plenty of deductions/theories (based on scarce evidence), that are propagated by the hungarian side. -- Criztu 17:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think it is just a fact of life that there are certain problems in history that we cannot clear up once and forever, for lack of conclusive evidence etc. Which means that it is absolutely possible to have two (or more) perfectly plausible theories about a single problem (just visit the page on Daco-Roman continuity, you will find 3 nicely elaborated theories, all three of them perfectly plausible). So just because someone has different opinions from you, like those Hungarian historians you refer to, you should not call it "propaganda" out of hand. Believe me, most Hungarians (me included) don't give a damn whether Transylvania was occupied in the 9thC or the 11thC. This whole nationalistic "who arrived first in Transylvania and has therefore the "historic right" to it" debate is so embarassing, it was embarassing when it started, but now in the 21stC its even more so, we should really not get caught up in it here. --Tamas 18:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Criztu, you are mixing two issues. Occupation of Transylvania in the 9th/10th century by Magyar tribes is one issue, which we can address on the Translyvania article Talk Page. But,I was writing about the control of the Kingdom of Hungary over Transylvania from the 11th century onwards, which is a separate issue. As I wrote, there is plenty of evidence for this. Scott Moore 10:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
wikidefinition about "incorporate" : In local government, municipalities such as cities, towns, townships, villages, and boroughs are considered incorporated when they are self-governing entities under the laws of the state or province in which they are located. -- Criztu 06:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, but that's a definition for the word "incorporated" (an adjective), used in a limited (local government) sense. I'm speaking about the verb "to incorporate" which has many broader meanings. See also [1], the wiktionary entry for the verb incorporate. --Tamas 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Can I join the debate gentlemen? Just one point - in 1867 Transylvania became part of the Kingdom of Hungary (not just placed under its administration). However in the Transylvania article it is currently written that Transylvania "became a province under Hungarian control." I'll see if I can find more details on the precise status of Transylvania after 1867 and how it is termed in English (I have an American book on the 1848 revolution which probably has a final chapter on the ausgleich). After reaching an agreement on the formulation, we should make sure that we have consistent text in both the articles. Scott Moore 15:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting link about the many kinds and meanings of regions

Just for fun, check out this interesting presentation: [2]--Tamas 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Székely land

I am thinking of including the definiton of the "historical Szekelyland". I think, the areas where the historical royal privileges were effective could be a possible way to define it. The land belonging to the communities of the former Székely Seats (Székely Székek) before the 1867 administrative reform may be a good basis (Aranyosszék, Csíkszék, Udvarhelyszék, Marosszék, Háromszék). I would not include villages of Székelys outside these areas (eg. in Moldova, Bukovina) because the historical royal privileges did not have any effect in these areas. --KIDB 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of szekelys in Romania

here, the number of szekelys are 1,624,959 in a 1992 census. Approximately this number (1,5 million) is considered as number of ethnic hungarians in Romania, but Romanian nationalists consider this number around 670.000. I don't know wheter the mentioned census is newer than 1992, or not, but I'm absolutely sure, that the 1.6 million can't reduce to 670.000 in 13 years (1992-2005), the number of them here is 1,431,807, so I changed the number of them into approx 1.4 million.

Other: In Hungary, every ethnic hungarian who lives in Romania is (very often) considered as Szekelys ----VinceB 19:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)--

[the 2002 census], at the homepage of the political group: Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania

Székely people in the Kingdom of Hungary
Székely people in the Kingdom of Hungary
Vince, Székely are the people who live in the regions shown in this image. Indeed, there are some people who do not know what the difference is between Székelys and other Magyars, this article is to inform them about it. I will revert your edit. --KIDB 08:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I moved it to "Székely land"

Well... our policy says to use English when there is an available name. For example, we have Basque Country and not "Euskal Herria". bogdan 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Székely Land be better? Olessi 23:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Good point :-) bogdan 18:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia naming conventions

Why so many Wikipedia pages on cities with Hungarian majority promote dual names and worse, sometimes the Hungarian name ahead of the official one? The naming conventions are very clear: we use the English name and if none is available we use the official local name. And there's only one such name, so there's no debate about it. If it's no historical context (like the geography of the place today, or events happening in the last few years), there's no reason to use other name (or alternate names). Daizus 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/z/%C3%A9/Talk%7ESz%C3%A9kely_Land_a176.html"