Talk:Harghita County/Vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Survey: about providing or not providing the Hungarian names of Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the Romanian names of Counties of Romania in Transylvania

This poll is now closed. Feel free to add comments, but please don't edit the Votes section below anymore.

[edit] Votes

Voters please indicate which of the reasons below you vote for, or if other reason pls specify.

Options:


  1. Hungarian-speaking locals in some of said counties use the names of the former KoH administrative divisions to refer to the counties of Romania. (Applies to counties where the Hungarian name for the current RO county is identical to the name of the former KoH comitatus, and significant ethnic Hungarian population exists.)
  2. The geographical area covered by some of said counties is identical to the geographical area of a former KoH comitatus. (Applies to counties where such similarity between former KoH and current RO administrative units exists.)
  1. no criteria, total mess - Administrative divisions of Romania are not "former Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary". there is no continuity or "legacy" between the administration of the Kingdom of Hungary and the administration of Romania.
  2. trespassing international conventions and Romanian sovereignty - present-day Romanian official names of Counties of Romania don't have Hungarian alternates. Nobody in the world uses the name of a county of the Kingdom of Hungary from 1900 when referring to a county of Romania from 2000 ... even if it is in Transylvania except irredentists
  3. interference - providing the names of the administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary in the leading paragraph as alternates for the names of the counties of Romania from Transylvania attaches the message Transylvania is Hungarian to those articles..
  4. not encyclopedic - Britannica doesn't provide the hungarian name of the administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the romanian names of the counties of Romania. see Mures county in Romania in Transylvania.
  5. irredentism - propaganda for the claim "Transylvania is Hungarian", the real reason for providing the names of the counties of Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the counties of Romania in Transylvania.
  6. no relevance, no logic - what's the relevance, what's the logic in providing the name of a county of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternate for a county of Romania from Transylvania ? other than "Transylvania is Hungarian" ?
  1. don't provide - all reasons above -- Criztu 13:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. don't provide - as most of the time, I go with Britannica Space Cadet 22:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


  1. provide per reason 1 above, where it applies. I have been convinced about reason 2, we can have a link to the former comitatus in the body of the article. -- KissL 12:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  2. provide - although I'm not happy with either option as they're worded now. IMO all counties with significant minorities should mention the names in the minorities' languages (also German, Ukrainian, Serbian?). Links to predecessor KoH counties in the body text. Markussep 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  3. provide - I agree with "Do" #1 and "Don't" #1. Including alternate names used by part of the populace or names that are important historically is not irredentism, but merely providing additional information. Regarding county information, I agree with Kissl and Markussep regarding links. Olessi 16:10, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  4. provide - although no option is perfect, I believe that the Hungarian minority actually living there makes those names not only encyclopedic, but also mentionable. Also, a reader might encounter those names not only in historical context, but also in contemporary media. Halibutt 18:54, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
  5. provide - You can't just ignore history. These counties were part of Hungary for thousands of years and many of them still have very large Hungarian populations. Take Harghita, for example, which is 84.6% Hungarian. --Hottentot


Not included in the poll, I guess: provide - The relevant criteria is not as much their coincidence with the county grid inside the Kingdom of Hungary (which is literally coincidence, given the history of administration inside Romania - the link system proposed by Kissl is a pretty good idea, perhaps as a see also in the geography section), but the population numbers and their use in modern-day references (official and unofficial alike - see, for example, this) Dahn 22:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation

I have removed the survey listing in Criztu's absence. We had originally decided on a 2-week poll, which should therefore have ended on 1 August. (However, as all of the above votes were cast before this date, this is not a problem.) I see no reason to consider any of the votes invalid, which means that "provide" has a majority of 71.4%. This being above the 60% limit that was initially suggested (and not objected to by anyone), my reading is that consensus is reached. KissL 14:42, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] discussion from Talk:Harghita

  • Where is this survey? I can't find it.
    I think those in favour of providing the names of the administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the administrative divisions of ROmania should present their reasons, so the voters could understand both parts -- Criztu 11:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • This still doesn't answer my question as to where the survey is. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:00, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
    I'm waiting for Hottentot (or anybody else) to present reasons for providing (or not providing) the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the Administrative divisions of ROmania before starting the Survey -- Criztu 18:08, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • So do I understand that despite the heading of this section, there is no survey in progress? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Criztu, I think you are completely misunderstanding this.
    1. An encyclopedia is not only about the present. An article about a city should cover all of its history. One way or another, that should cover at least all of the names by which it has officially been known, and often should cover unofficial names in widespread use.
    2. As I was accurately quoted remarking above, many of these cities are better known historically by Hungarian or German names. People doing research from old books need to know that Sibiu was Hermannstadt.
      the Survey will be about providing the names of the Administrative divisions (counties) of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the administrative divisions(counties) of ROmania -- Criztu 11:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    3. Culture and sovereignty are two separate matters. I cannot imagine us mentioning 8th Street in Miami without mentioning that it is better known as Calle Ocho, or Avenue B in Manhattan without mentioning that it is also known as Loisaida, a Spanglish formation off of Lower East Side. This does not challenge U.S sovereignty over these neighborhoods; it does reflect the culture of their inhabitants. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:11, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
      yeap, this is the problem : Administrative divisions of Romania can't be "better known by the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary" -- Criztu 11:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


  • Other encylopedias does mention all versions of the name; one such example is Encyclopedia Britannica
    1. Encyclopedia Britannica uses first the Romanian version, followed by the Hungarian and the German version of the names. Example:

--- Târgu Mures

Encyclopædia Britannica Article       

  Page  1  of  1

also spelled Tîrgu Mures, Hungarian Marosvásárhely, city, capital of Mures judet (county), north-central Romania. ---

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9072604&query=targu%20mures&ct=eb

--Anittas 13:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Anittas, Criztu is talking about county/judeţ names, not city names. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 14:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, here is a formulation of the arguments for providing the names in other languages, replying to your points one by one. By your leave, I renumbered 3 and 4 that had been inverted.

  • 1: There is a geographical continuity between the former Kingdom of Hungary administrative units and the current Romania units. (I'm not sure whether this applies to all judeţs in Transylvania, but it surely does apply to many.)
  • 2 and 3: The non-Romanian names can (and should) be provided in a context which makes it clear that they are not the official name of the administrative unit, and thus can avoid any kind of implicit "Transylvania is Hungarian" message.
  • 4: Other encyclopedias are not a benchmark for Wikipedia. Current Wikipedia policy, in turn, does not provide a decision in this question (either way). (I'd in fact remove both your point 4 and this counter-argument for this reason.)
  • 5: "irredentism - claiming Transylvania is Hungarian" is your interpretation of things, not a fact. I haven't seen anyone claim that on Wikipedia yet. So same as 4, it should be removed.
  • 6. The relevance of alternative names is, as stated in point 1, that they referred to precisely the same geographical location. As there will probably never be a separate article about the same area, one for the administrative unit, and another for the geographical unit, there is nowhere else the alternative names can go.

(In this section, we're not addressing the "Lake Saint Ann issue", but let's go one at a time, I suppose.)

KissL 14:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

  • What is the "Lake Saint Ann issue"? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
names of rivers/lakes/mountain/etc. entirely in ROmania should be designated by their Romanian name. names of rivers/lakes/mountains/etc. shared by Romania with its neighbours are designated by the name known in the country where the river/lake/mountain/etc. has a more consistent presence, and the name by which the river/lake/mountain/etc. is known in the country where it has a lesser presence is offered as alternate. See Tisza(Romanian: Tisa) and Somes(Hungarian: Szamos) rivers. Lake Saint Anne (Romanian: Sfanta Ana) is entirely in ROmania. therefore the hungarian name of the lake (Szent Anna) should be provided in the Magyar Wikipedia not in the English Wikipedia. -- Criztu 18:28, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Jmabel, the "Lake Saint Ann issue" is about Lake Sfânta Ana. It is a lake, as Criztu says, entirely in Romania, but to my knowledge, there has never been a Romanian majority population in that area, at least not in the last one thousand years (see also Băile Tuşnad or just Harghita for current demographic data). I think that in such a case, although the Romanian name is the official one and therefore it should be used as the title of the article, the name used by the local majority population deserves mentioning (if for no other reason, then because an English-speaking tourist will find it much easier to get along with the locals using that name). You can see Criztu's opposing standpoint above. KissL 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
KissL and everyone, one more thing I don't understand is this recurring "english speaking tourist issue". Do we write the encyclopedia for them? Is their best interest the main criteria to organise/add/delete content? I think most of the users of these pages are non-english natives. Personally, if I invest time and contribute, then I expect to be served on my turn; I hope that my voice doesn't count for less than that of an "english tourist" in deciding what matters and can stay and what is to be deleted. And if you all are working on this english encyclopedia, it's surely because English is a federating language allowing knowledge from different sources to be put together - that will certainly never be the case with Hungarian, Romanian or any other language. Without meaning to offend, I thing Hungarian (or French or any "other" language) encyclopedia is a joke - written by people who don't speak English or are too blind/nationalist to realise the importance of English, or perhaps people who want to keep knowledge for their own community instead of sharing with the world. (Ok, i exagerate; I also wrote once or twice into those "other" encyclopedias. But always things that were already in the English one.) Akiss 08:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
I said "English-speaking tourist" not "English tourist" (and also, "if for no other reason"). I think we write the encyclopedia for those who understand English. I'm not into discussing the importance of other encyclopedias in this thread. KissL 08:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course, "English speaking" I meant. And sure, the point was not discussing the importance of other encyclopedias. That "if for no other reason" was that I thought some might interpret as informing the "tourists" may be more important than preserving knowledge. Anyway the point was, are we writing for ourselves, or altruistically for others? To answer those who try to show us the door with "go away and write things that concern only your people into your people's encyclopedia". Akiss 09:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
Oh right. Well, the Hungarian name remains "knowledge" only as long as many Hungarians live there, in which case the "tourist" analogy also applies; but, admitting that the English language encyclopedia is the most likely to attract worldwide interest (which seems to be disputed though I agree with it), your argument for the same thing is also valid IMO. KissL 09:59, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

People, I really don't understand this obsession to delete knowledge. A name given to a geographic/administrative entity is knowledge. That means, there is - or there was once - a community, important enough to have its own name to design that entity. For example if there is an important Rroma community who calls Harghita say "Foo county", I would be happy to know that. Or if Sfanta Ana lake was called "Boo lake" under the Turks, I wouldn't delete that either. (And please don't send me to Rroma or Turkish wikipedia, I don't speak those languages..) Does this mean I'm a Rroma or Turkish irredentist?? As for the importance, we all have common sense to decide from which size a community can be considered important. And from which point an article is overcrowded with names. In this particular case - names in Transylvania -, several centuries of Hungarian dominance should justify considering Hungarian names as relevant. Competing only perhaps with Dacian names in the order of relevance.. :) Akiss 22:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, when are you going to put this stuff up on RfC? I think both sides have presented their views in much more detail than necessary enough detail. :) KissL 07:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Placement

Wouldn't this survey be better placed on a more visible page, similar to the Talk:Gdansk/Vote page? The majority of contributors interested in the subject probably will not know about it when it is only on the Talk page for Harghita. Olessi 21:09, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian versions of cities in Romania

i intend on removing the hungarian versions of cities towns and communes listed at the end of the article. reason: no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it. the hungarian versions should be given in their respective articles. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 14:13 (UTC)

You removed the Hungarian names of counties and towns inside the article. Now this is, IMHO, totally unjustified: as Covasna and Harghita have a significant Hungarian population (a large majority in fact), it is fitting that the Hungarian versions of place names are given too. (Of course, after the official Romanian name.) What are your reasons for deleting them? And you should at least have asked our opinions before deleting a dozen or so names from the article unilaterally. What you did verges on v..., well, I don't want to use the V-word, that would be too strong, but really, please tell us first here on the talk page first, like you did about the communes at the end of the article.--Tamas 28 June 2005 14:25 (UTC)
As far as the communes are concerned, is it any gain to the English reader to know the names of communes in Romanian if there is not even a stub about them? I don't see why we should delete the Hungarian versions: the fact that these communes have widely-used Hungarian names reflects an important reality about the history, culture and ethnography of the county.--Tamas 28 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)

I think the best policy about placenames in Romania is the following: The wikiarticle of a city/river/place from Romania/AnyCountry should contain all versions of that name in all possible languages. But outside that placename's article no "in hungarian : hungarian version, in german : german version, in all possible languages : all possible language versions". -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)

as an example look at Alsace (french-german historical dispute) - in its wikiarticle there is the German version listed in the lead. But outside that article we don't see the german version of Alsace , see Nikolaus_Ager. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)

But look at every place in Transylvania in Transylvanian related articles - it was effectively an English-Hungarian encyclopedia, all rivers, all cities, all mountains, all lakes, all placenames in Transylvania however insignificant, with a hungarian version in paranthesis . That's irredentism spree on Wikipedia -- Criztu 28 June 2005 17:16 (UTC)

(I asked Jmabel to have a look at this problem: he left a message on my talk page saying he didn't have time to engage the individual issues, but made his comments on the problem in general, which I qoute here with his permission--Tamas 28 June 2005 17:33 (UTC))
"Besides the fact that the Hungarian-language names in these areas still have quite a bit of currency among the local population, anyone looking at materials predating the incorporation of Transylvania into Romania is going to encounter these place names without Romanian equivalents, and needs to be able to look them up. Not only should all of these names be mentioned in the appropriate articles, they should be redirects wherever appropriate. For some geographic terms -- e.g. Székelyföld -- I have no idea what the Romanian would even be, and I say this as an English-speaker who reads a reasonable amount of Romanian and virtually no Hungarian. For Transylvania Romanian names should almost always be given first, but Hungarian and German names that have even historical importance should typically be included parenthetically on first mention, especially for places that are not famous. Which is to say that not every mention of Sibiu necessarily needs to say, parenthetically, "Hermannstadt", but for smaller towns most people won't know, these are an aid to the English-language reader." <end of qoute from Jmabel>
I think what he says could be a reasonable compromise: let's include the Hungarian/German equivalent parenthetically on the first mention, and only where the Hungarian/German name has historical importance or where there is a significant Hungarian/German population. I agree with you that we should not give the Hungarian equivalent of every little creek or of small villages without a single Hungarian inhabitant, but in places like Harghita, where the Hungarian names are used by the vast majority of the population, or places like Cluj, which have been referred to by their Hungarian/German names for centuries; we should. To do otherwise would be unfair and misleading. --Tamas 28 June 2005 17:33 (UTC)

I don't think it's a matter of percentage. There may be several Romanian towns and villages which don't have a significant Hungarian population any more, but which are important from a Hungarian perspective because a Hungarian personality was born there 100 or 200 years ago (see List of famous Hungarians who were born outside of present-day Hungary). These place names should be unambiguously identifiable both in Romanian and in Hungarian (if there is an article about them), irrespective of the current majority percentage. Remember that this is the English Wikipedia, not the Romanian one, and the interest of the English-speaking reader is that they should be able to locate and identify a place name whether in Romanian or in Hungarian. I don't think any harm will be to Romanian national pride if the towns and villages can be located and identified for an international audience. -- Adam78 28 June 2005 17:52 (UTC)

if one searches wikipedia for a place by its hungarian name, one should be redirected to that placename apropriate article as Jmabel rightfully says. If the place hapens to be in ROmania or Hungary or Serbia and its apropriate article has its hungarian version, the wikipedia will list the article, that's easy. see the example of Alsace, just search for Elsass -- Criztu 28 June 2005 18:00 (UTC)

Thank you the example of Alsace, I agree with you in that. This is the normal solution when beside the official variant, the alternative(s) is (are) given as well in italics, in parentheses. This is the practice which should be followed in the case of Romanian cities, towns, villages, rivers, creeks etc. as well (just like in the case of Hungarian cities, towns, villages, rivers, creeks etc.) because this is the general Wikipedia practice. Outside of the specific articles, no mentioning need to be given to the non-official place names, if the place name is linked to the article about that place providing other name versions in its first sentence – and the context is (historically speaking) present time. Since there is some advice in the Wikipedia Manual which should be remembered:

  • Many place names have a historical context that should be preserved, but common sense should prevail. There can be few places that have not been parts of more than one culture or have had only one name. An article about Junipero Serra should say he lived in Alta Mexico not the U.S. state of California because the latter entity did not exist at the time of Junipero Serra. The Romans invaded Gaul, not France, and Thabo Mbeki is the president of the Republic of South Africa, not of the Cape Colony. To be clear, you may sometimes need to mention the current name of the area (for example "what is now France"), especially if no English name exists for that area in the relevant historical period. (source: Wikipedia:Proper names)

-- Adam78 28 June 2005 18:21 (UTC)

Well, let me put it this way: it is absolutely correct if we only provide the Hungarian names of places in their appropriate articles. So I won't revert these names outside their appropriate articles, if you are so much bent on not having them there. But off the record, is it such a huge problem for you that the Hungarian version of Miercurea Ciuc is given in parentheses in the Harghita article? I mean, it is in parentheses, in italics: there is ample indication that the official name is the Romanian one. Nobody will be misled by this extra piece of information. This is not an attack against the unity of Romania or anything like that. --Tamas 28 June 2005 19:51 (UTC)

what's the purpose of writing the hungarian name of a city of Romania outside its apropriate article ? all i can think of is : 1. propagating hungarian lexicon in an english environment via romanian related wikiarticles 2. hungarian irredentism on wikipedia -- Criztu 28 June 2005 20:47 (UTC)
I'm sorry you feel that way. I find the naming issues on these articles to be as disappointing. I find it interesting that it is described as "crushing once and for all" and "propaganda wars." I have not observed this to be the case. I have not seen vandalism and slander on the pages (look at German/Polish articles for that), rather just disagreement on how to provide names.
I am neither Romanian nor Hungarian, but an American. I use Wikipedia primarily for historical reference concerning locations and events I do not know a great deal about. My personal use of wiki is not geared toward the contemporary status of localities, but toward the various people who have lived there and the events they have experienced. Regarding contemporary information, I have no problem with it primarily listing names in the current state language. However, whenever it comes to historical issues, especially when different ethnicities involved, I expect Wiki to provide alternate names at least once. The goal of Wikipedia is to provide information- I say the more information the better. Everyone has the opportunity to improve or degrade the information here; if false information is posted, it will be removed. I see no reason to remove information if it is not factually incorrect. I believe that common sense should be used- we don't need the Bulgarian names when discussing events in Transylvania during World War II. However, I fully expect as much information to be provided as possible regarding the respective parties in a historical event. I appreciate the streamlining of names in articles if it is done for consistency; I just expect that a historically-relevant alternative names be provided for at least the first mentioning in an article.
Concerning the Harghita article, the text clearly states the overwhelmingly Szekler/Hungarian population. It is common sense to me to include the names used by the majority of the population in addition to the official names. Olessi 28 June 2005 23:17 (UTC)

I have no connections of any kind to the area, nor do I speak either of the languages involved. While I wouldn't see the point in, for example, including Hungarian names in an English-language article for places few Hungarians live in or visit, it makes good sense to me to include Hungarian names for places near the border where ethnic Hungarians do live, or Hungarian nationals do visit. Similarly, I would expect to see (to continue the example) Romanian names for places on the Hungarian side of the border if ethnic Romanians live there or Romanian nationals visit. Having more information is almost always better than having less. Katzenjammer 29 June 2005 19:56 (UTC)

[edit] English encyclopedia or Encyclopedia for the english?

I found absolutely stunning the remark of User:Criztu "no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it". And even more the actions he pursued in consequence:

  • Are we writing an encyclopedia for the english or for anybody speaking english who might find it useful? I presonally feel it is my encyclopedia, and am happy to be able look up anything i might find interesting. And I'm rejoycing to see facts and objectivity emerging and strengthening.
  • Those names you talk about, I find them informative and relevant, and there are lots of other people like me, so please don't delete them.
  • Transylvania had a long Hungarian history, and every little creek and settlement has a Hungarian name, none of which is too insignificant to be mentioned only in Romanian. And please don't throw arguments like ".. and how many other names?", to lengthen the description list. If there is one name besides the official one that can be considered significant, well there is great chance that it is Hungarian. So please leave those names throughout. I can't believe anyone ever complained to remove those names in parantheses because they really reduce readability.
  • ".. a city that hasn't got even a stub... " Deleting those names would be even worse than removing them from within an article body: It will make sure to leave no trace of the hungarian names wheresoever. However I try I can not find any good faith in such actions. I don't know if or how many such deletions actually occured, so this is only a warning call. But if it did happen, it cannot be called anything but vandalism.
  • In general, think twice before removing information, and don't forget to assume the good faith of someone's edits. This applies to all of us, but especially if you have a long record of disputed edits. We would all be better off if you stuck to consturctive edits and refrain from your patriotic or philantropic duty to reshape the articles. You save a lot of useless effort both for yourself and the rest of us.

Akiss 28 June 2005 20:27 (UTC)

[Please Criztu, a bit of respect, don't cut my comment into pieces. Besides you are really difficult to follow. Your answers are all over the place. You would do better to concentrate your answers and spare the reader.] Akiss 28 June 2005 22:04 (UTC)
listen, there is the Tisza river, and there is the Mures river. You won't see me hunting down the articles where Tisza is mentioned and writing in parantheses that its Romanian name is Tisa. That is the problem in Romanian (actualy Transylvania related) articles, someone at somepoint went through all Transylvania related articles and put in the Hungarian versions for places in Romania hundreds of times. and edited the Transylvania related articles in a twisted irredentist anti-romanian fashion. That someone made me lost couple of days of my life, having to "crush once and for all" all of that someone's actions. If you go through all Transylvanian related articles and check their history you'll have the whole picture of this propaganda war. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)
i don't delete the Hungarian version of a place in Romania if it is mentioned in that place's article. outside of its article, and adding other places too, it becomes a hungarian propaganda campaign about Transylvania on Wikipedia, and from there across the Internet, that falls into irredentism -- Criztu 28 June 2005 21:07 (UTC)
what's the gain for a reader of Wikipedia to read the Hungarian version of river Mures in each and every single article where Mures is mentioned ? The Hungarian version Maros is irrelevant, as it is simply a Hungarization of a name known since antiquity : river Marisus. It's like, you would go through all articles where Danube river is mentioned, and make sure every mention of Danube has a little hungarian version in paranthesis -- Criztu 28 June 2005 21:12 (UTC)
This is an ENGLISH environment. this is not about "hungarian traces" -- Criztu 28 June 2005 21:19 (UTC)
Dear Criztu, you are right in saying that recently someone went through many Transylvania-related pages and added a lot of nonsense to it. So I really appreciate that you removed all that misleading stuff. But I'm afraid in many cases you went too far and removed stuff which was absolutely OK and relevant. And you are right, we do not have to give the Hungarian equivalent of Mures in each and every article, that would be crazy. What I am asking for is to give the Hungarian versions of toponyms in the Harghita article, because there, and in the Covasna article too, this is a relevant peace of information, as indeed these are the names used by the vast majority of people there. Admittedly, there is no Wikipedia policy requiring this, it would only be a nice, decent, magnanimous thing on your part to leave that stuff there.--Tamas 29 June 2005 08:42 (UTC)
I think that localities have a historical load. Like, when in the Csík article of Counties in the Kingdom of Hungary: -- Criztu 29 June 2005 10:34 (UTC)

-"The capital of the Csik county was Miercurea Ciuc (Csíkszereda in Hungarian)" looks forced beurocracy to me

-"The capital of the Csik county was Csíkszereda (Miercurea Ciuc)" looks aesthetical to me.

But, rivers and mountains are not "historicaly tied by Hungary", so e.g.:

-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Duna/Maros (Danube/Mures) in Nagy Alfold (Pannonian plain)" is silly (aka hungarianization of the wikification)

-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Danube/Mures/Tisza in Pannonian plain" i consider ok.

-"Turks fought Hungarians at river Duna/Maros in Carpathian Basin (Nagy Alfold)" is worst.

however, for ancient times, when no current hungarian version for the river Danube/Mures/Tisza existed:

-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danube/Mures/Tisza in Pannonian plain" looks ok

-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danubius/Marisius/Tisia (Danube/Mures/Tisza) in Pannonian plain" looks aesthetical

-"Dacians fought Romans on river Danube/Mures (Duna/Maros) in Pannonian plain (Nagy Alfold)" looks like hungarization of wikipedia

-"Dacians fought Romans on river Duna/Maros in Carpathian Basin (Nagy Alfold) is worst

further, when an article refers to contemporary status quo of a city in Romania :

-"Romanians fought Germans at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehervar) in WW 2" is hungarian melancholia

-"Romanians fought Germans at Alba Iulia in WW 2" is ok

but in historical context where hungary is involved:

-"Hungarians fought Germans at Gyulafehervar (Alba Iulia) in 1876" is ok

-"Hungarians fought Germans at Alba Iulia (Gyulafehervar in Hungarian) in 1876" is too beaurocratic

-"Hungarians fought Germans at Alba Iulia in 1876" is unfair toward hungarians thats true

Your examples are perfectly OK, I could not agree more, but the whole discussion started about articles which give the topography of a region/county etc. in the present, not historical articles. Miercurea Ciuc is called Csíkszereda in the present by over 80% of the inhabitatants of Harghita county, that's why I think it would be nice to give this version too (in brackets, italics) in the Harghita article as well, not only in the Miercurea Ciuc article. Admittedly, no wikipolicy requires us to do so, that's where common sense, cooperation and things like that come into the picture.--Tamas 29 June 2005 16:14 (UTC)
I agree about cities that have that 20% hungarian to be accompanied by their hungarian version in paranthesis, after all this is the official policy about localities in Romania. But, Wikipedia is a media channel, and an english one; you'll never see on an english/hungarian media channel the name of say Bucureşti mentioned in parantheses everytime an info about Bucharest/Bukarest is broadcasted.. and that city is "purely 93%" romanian. same goes for "Lacul Sfanta Ana" (romanian); it is presented by the english media as "Saint Anne Lake", not "Szent Ana to" (hungarian). Szeklers might have an "ownership" for their history (names of cities inhabited by szeklers over time), but not for the territory(lakes, mountains, rivers) or present day administrative divisions of Romania. It's about sovereignty: allways mentioning the hungarian name of a geographical unit will identify it as "hungarian sovereign", or label it as "hungarian claimed", that i think will be the relevance of mentioning the hungarian version of a topographycal unit in ROmania outside its apropriate article. -- Criztu 29 June 2005 16:39 (UTC)
I see your point, and in general, you are right, but (1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a media channel, and (2) it is not about sovereignty: if we use the official name first, and alternative names only after it, in parentheses, this is ample indication that the first name is official, and the second, third etc. are just additional stuff. I guess that's what's nice in an Encyclopedia: it can go into details media channels can't. But all in all, you are right, the general practice is to only give the official (here: Romanian) version, but not so much for reasons of sovereignty but because that's the name on maps, road signs etc., which are usually monolingual, so it is for this practical reason. But actually the fact that the Hungarian names are there in their appropriate articles makes me quite happy already. And again, I understand your fears about the sovereignty issue, they are not entirely without ground, there are indeed some unregistered guys around here with revisionist agendas.--Tamas 29 June 2005 17:51 (UTC)
about Mures river vs Mures county: look up for Mures river in Britannica, and youll find the Hungarian version Maros (and that's only cuz the river Mures flows through Hungary also). Look up for Mures county in Britannica, no Hungarian version -- Criztu 29 June 2005 21:14 (UTC)
OK, but we are here to beat Britannica, aren't we? One way to beat them is to provide more information.:) (OK, just kidding.)

[edit] a county in Transylvania region

since most of the discussion about places formerly hungarian, now romanian is here, i will address the "Transylvania region in ROmania" here as well: - there is no Transylvania region in Romania. take a look at Regions of Hungary. The same goes for Regions of Romania. the regions of ROmania are not Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia. the regions are CEntral, Southern, Northern, etc

-so when writing "Harghita is a county in Transylvania in ROmania" this is simply wrong.

-Harghita is a county in Romania, (and if you want to point the region, then it is in Central Region of ROmania.

-if you want to mention that the county is in what was once the voivodship/province/governorate/principality of Transylvania that is fine by me, altho' not encyclopedic. so mention it something like "Harghita is a county in Romania, in Transylvania".

i'd personaly(and probably will) remove this "in Transylvania", "in Wallachia", "in Moldavia" thing from the lead paragraphs and add details in the History section of Harghita/other counties, but for the moment i'm not so pretentious about Wikipedia. -- Criztu 2 July 2005 08:14 (UTC)

Come on, Criztu, can't you see the difference between region and administrative region? Transylvania is a region, I mean, what is it, is it a vehicle, an animal, a subatomic particle? Just because it is not an administrative region, it can be a region, and it is a region. I mean, I guess you too have used the word "Ardeal" several thousand times in your life, referring to the geopraphical region so called. Wikipedia is not an administrative-political encyclopaedia, it is a general encyclopaedia.--Tamas 2 July 2005 14:03 (UTC)
Transylvania refers to the territory recognised by the Treaty of Trianon as ROmanian sovereign, former teritory of Hungary betwen 1867 and 1918. This Transylvania is made up of four "regions" (which actually had a level of administration, thus they were administrative regions): Ardeal (proper Transylvania), Banat, Crisana and Maramures. thus Timisoara city is in Banat, Oradea in Crisana, Satu Mare in Maramures, Cluj in Ardeal. I'm ok for the moment with the formulation Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Transylvania, or Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Banat, but since everybody speaks of Euroregions these days, it would be confusing to think of Transylvania as a region, cuz it's not. If we treat Transylvania as a region, then it would refer to Ardeal only, and the information from the Transylvania article : In 978 Vatican missionaries established a church in a fort at the site of the present-day city of Oradea (which is actualy in Crisana "region") would be wrong-placed.
So, either we refer to:

Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, region of Romania (wrong, as it is in Banat)

Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, administrative region of Romania (wrong, as Romania doesn't have a Transylvania admin region)

Timisoara is a city in Transylvania, former teritory of Hungary (correct, but irredentist) -- Criztu 3 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)

Timisoara is a city in Romania, in Banat - perrrfect :)

Actualy this all thing with "Transylvania a region in Romania" i consider a hungarian propaganda. Its purpose is to propagate the impression that Transylvania has some "distinct unifying features" that are differentiating it from rest of Romania and gives it special status within ROmania, and those features would be the Hungarian features. that's crap -- Criztu 3 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
Dear Criz, check out the Romania page, Geography section, map; I qoute what's written there: "Administrative map of Romania

Transylvania is green, Wallachia blue, the Moldavian region red, and Dobrogea yellow" So it is okay to talk about a Translyvania region in the Romania page, but it's not okay to do so in the Harghita page? How is that? And please-please realize that "region" can be used in a non-legal, non-administrative sense. The page Region has this to say: "A region can be any area that has some unifying feature. Typically they are, but are not necessarily, smaller than a country." It is not necessary that it be a legal entity.--Tamas 5 July 2005 15:40 (UTC)

that text is ambiguous. Those 41 counties are the Administrative divisions of RO; Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia are not represented on any Administrative map of RO. and these are the Administrative Regions of Romania http://www.rgic.ro/ana_regionale.html ; and these are the historical regions of Romania http://www.ici.ro/romania/images/turism/regiuni.jpg ... unfortunately there is not so much information on the net about "historical regions" of RO -- Criztu 9 July 2005 15:54 (UTC)


[edit] lets organise this Survey before submitting it to Voting, right now it is a mess

My intention was to debate and come to an agreement on how the Survey should look like, before starting the VOte. Currently the survey/poll is split in 2, one part at the top (the "Survey"), the other at the bottom (the "Poll"). If we submitt a badly organised Survey/Poll, how do you want the voters to understand what's the vote about. My point should have been clear . "Providing or not providing the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the Counties of Romania . I am not voting on "including the Hungarian/German names of Counties of Romania" -- Criztu 16:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree. We have clearly not reached a consensus about:

  • The statement to vote on;
  • The form to present the arguments in;
  • Start and end date;
  • The way of evaluating the result.

KissL 16:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, could you then please remove the listing from Current surveys? I can see it's done, thanks. KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

So, let's not mess up everything again, I'm starting subsections below here.

[edit] What is the statement people will be supposed to "Support" or "Oppose" in the poll?

I suggest two separate statements, to be voted on separately (that also shows my position, but everyone knows it by now anyway):

  1. "In articles about geographical entities (including administrative units) in Romania, provide also the Hungarian name of the entity in question, if that name is used by over 20% of the local population."
  2. "In articles about administrative units in Romania being geographically at least 95 percent identical to a former administrative unit of the Kingdom of Hungary, provide also the name by which the former Kingdom of Hungary administrative unit was known." (This kind of resembles what Criztu wants to vote on.)

KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In what form shall we present the supporting and opposing arguments?

I suggest we decide the statement first, then write our arguments up, and then summarize. KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How long shall the poll last?

I suggest 2 weeks. KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evaluation of the result

I suggest the following:

Discount all votes from:

  • anonymous users
  • users registered after 10 July 2005
  • sockpuppets, should they turn up

If either "Support" or "Oppose" has at least 60% of the votes, conclude that a consensus has been reached. Otherwise, continue discussion (eg. ask for more votes, extend the deadline, whatever).

KissL 16:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

i agree; i think voters should present the reasons for their option. Like, if a voter votes "not providing" he will indicate the "not encyclopedic"/"total mess"/etc. or else(will specify). that is why I think offering reasons "for providing" should be presented. -- Criztu 18:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I provided them, anyone supporting the same view feel free to add to them. KissL 13:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
about the title of the Survey/Poll : i see the problem as "providing or not providing the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the Counties of Romania", if you want to formulate the title "Including or not including the Hungarian/German names of the Administrative divisions of Romania" then we have two titles, i'm ok if my title goes with my "reasons for not providing" and your title goes with "reasons for includin" -- Criztu 18:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean formulating the options like below?
Topic: Providing the names of the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the Counties of Romania
  • Option 1: Never provide these names
  • Option 2: Provide these names whenever the Kingdom of Hungary administrative division is geographically at least 95% identical to the county of Romania
I'm ok to replace my question 1 with the above. While we are at polling, I'd prefer to have a concurrent poll on my first question as well. KissL 13:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
I have to tell you that I consider the voting just a phase of the dispute resolution. I will go to arbitration comitee if voting will not be satisfactory from my POV -- Criztu 18:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
The arbitration committee is there for just that reason: that anyone who feels that the Wikipedia spirit is not properly reflected by community consensus may appeal somewhere. So, if and when you think it is appropriate, I think you can go there without even warning anyone. KissL 13:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] OK, so I'm difficult

When the regions are not "95% identical" to former Hungarian regions, then we probably need a separate article on that former Hungarian region, linked as a "See also" from the modern territories it overlaps (and, reciprocally, linking to them). This is essentially what we do with former regions in the U.S., for example. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me we are closer to a consensus than it appeared. Nobody wants Kingdom of Hungary names as "alternates" for today counties, I believe. Transylvanian counties all have hungarian names, by which transylvanian hungarians call them today. So it seems logical to provide these names. It's true that most (all?) of these names were originally used for former Hungarian counties, but history is another issue; a county's history section should have reference to what it was before, and of course this may not be in the title paragraph. So this overlap issue would not matter; it can be mentioned in case of non perfect match, something like "the county lies on the territory of former X, and partly Y counties of Kingdom of Hungary". This would also avoid using percents which are pointless and random (one may ask why 95% and not 98? or why 20 and not 15?). And on the other hand, articles labeled using the Hungarian name should also link to modern RO county, not only to former Hungarian one (I saw this was not always the case currently). I find this way of putting things the most complete and closest to reality - if anyone knows a more objective formulation or with less "irredentist message", I'm listening. Akiss 08:42, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Mures river originates and flows mostly in Romania. Mures river also flows through Hungary, so the way the hungarians spell and pronnounce Mures (hungarian Maros) indeed has to be provided. -- Criztu 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Targu Mures is a city in Romania. Targu Mures was under hungarian administration until 1918 and was known in hungarian as Maros Vasarhely. It came under romanian administration after 1918. so providing its "hungarian version during hungarian administration" is ok -- Criztu 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Mures County of Romania is a county of Romania and was created in 1918 ; there is no document prior to 1918 where it appears as "Mures county" cuz it didn't exist until Transylvania united with Romania in 1918. Mures county does not "flow through Hungary" so that the way the hungarians spell and pronounce Mures would have relevance to an english encyclopedia. If you may find "knowledgeable" that the english reader should be informed how the hungarians would translate the romanian names of the Counties of Romania, I find it "irredentistic" to provide as alternates of the romanian names of the counties of Romania in Transylvania the names of the administrative divisions of the kingdom of Hungary or their translation in Hungarian. Is Maros county anything more than a translation into hungarian of the romanian Mures county ? -- Criztu 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
can you explain to me how is it possible to "transfer/take" a county from Hungary ??? since it is only an administrative thing ? -- Criztu 12:01, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I got your point: it's No hungarian name for Ro county (or anything else not "flowing through" Hungary), no matter how many people call it that way. Then I was wrong again, we are nowhere near consensus. Akiss 12:34, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
what should be the critieria for providing "alternate names" for the Administrative divisions of Romania in your view then ? -- Criztu 12:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the survey as it's worded now ("about providing or not providing the Hungarian names of Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the Romanian names of Counties of Romania in Transylvania"), is not right. Take Harghita for instance, the Hungarian name (which I think should be given, with such a large Hungarian majority there) is apparently Hargita. In the history section, references should be made to the Kingdom of Hungary county Csík. All KoH counties have references to present counties etc., why not do the same vice versa, it's interesting information. There are very few RO counties that have a 90%+ overlap with a KoH county, maybe Hunedoara, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Sălaj, Cluj. Markussep 10:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

so the criteria for providing alternate names for the Administrative divisions of Romania should be the majority of a minority living in one such Administrative division of Romania ? While it is useful to know to which previous Administrative division of no matter what Country the territory or parts of the territory of an Administrative division of Romania once belong to, it doesn't mean that that Administrative division has an alternate name. -- Criztu 11:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
That sounds like a sensible criterion to me. If in addition another name is in use in English, we should also mention that, but I think for the modern Romanian counties that would be the Romanian name. I'm sure most of the counties in Transylvania with a substantial Hungarian minority have a Hungarian name that's different from the Romanian one, you know the languages are very different. Markussep 12:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
well i bet the chinese minority living in Romania have a hard time pronouncing Harghita Covasna and Mures, so they also have a Chinese name thats different from the Romanian one, but this doesn't mean those Chinese names are alternates for the Administrative divisions of ROmania -- Criztu 12:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
If there were more than 20% Chinese living in my home town, I would like to know how they call it, and I would happily add the Chinese name in its WP article (between brackets). Markussep 12:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
If there would be a 0.001% Chinese living in Romania, I would like to know how this 0.001% Chinese calls, pronounces and spells (even using Chinese characters) the names of all places in Romania. -- Criztu 14:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
But you probably wouldn't add the Chinese name of Harghita to its WP article if there were 0.001% Chinese (that would be about 3 persons) living in Harghita, and no chance of finding the Chinese name in (historical) English text about the county. With over 80% ethnic Hungarians in the county, it would be really odd not to mention its Hungarian name. Regardless of whether there are nationalists who want Harghita to be part of Hungary (or China). Markussep 14:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Is there any other name besides the romanian name, used for a County of Romania (say Harghita or Mures) in any document, historical or not historical, English or Hungarian or Chinese ? -- Criztu
Google test: 719 hits on Hargita and county in English language. I really don't understand what's the objection against mentioning the Hungarian name here. Compare it with Carinthia (state) in Austria, you'll see the Slovenian name there. Or South Tyrol and everything in it, you'll see German names everywhere, and more prominently (e.g. Bozen-Bolzano). Markussep 16:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
now I'm sure some hungarians dream of a restored Great Hungary, and that there is a huge propaganda to change the public perception in such a direction out there on the net. One result on your Google test linked exactly to Wikipedia, where it was written : "Miercurea-Ciuc is the county seat of Hargita county, the former county seat of the Szekler county Csíkszék." 1 not bad eh ? :) -- Criztu 18:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm sure you can see irredentism everywhere if you want to. That statement is completely correct, there was a Szekely county Csíkszék from the dark middle ages until the 19th century, and its capital was Miercurea Ciuc aka Csíkszereda. It's a piece of information, which belongs in a history section. Not a demand for reunion with Hungary, for crying out loud! I think your removal of this information is pretty close to vandalism. Markussep 18:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
so you can't show a document using the name Hargita or Maros reffering to Harghita and Mures counties. all you can show are google hits on obscure pages, mostly nationalist/irredentist hungarian pages about 700 of them ... and an overlooked article in wikipedia that was just been fixed by me :D, Now i can show you 90 700 google results on Harghita county google ubertest -- Criztu 20:42, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Of course you can show more Harghita's, it's the official name. And I showed you many documents with Hargita, but apparently they're not good enough for you. Whatever. How stubborn can you be. If you call every site with a word Hungarian on it irredentist, I can't help you. Markussep 22:18, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] when are you going to present reasons for providing the names of Administrative divisions of the kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the counties of Romania ?

I have presented my reasons for not providing the names of Administrative divisions of the kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the counties of Romania. when are you guys intending on presenting the "reasons for" ? -- Criztu 12:50, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I know the hungarian names of all Transylvanian counties, I probably won't have the occasion to teach them to my children born in France. They will probably not be able to speak Romanian, perhaps not even Hungarian. Why should they not have a chance to learn them from Wikipedia - the ultimate reference of tomorrow? Or should we tell their hungarian grandparents living in Transylvania to use "Satu Mare megye" instead of "Szatmar megye" when speaking to their grandchildren? I hate being sentimental but I'm still baffled when some people find reasons for not putting obviously correct and relevant information on Wikipedia. Why can't we build instead of destroying? Akiss 13:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Or should we teach them first what's irredentism when they would want to add those names, so that they understand why is it forbidden to do so? :) Akiss 14:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
i think your last comment is placed on wrong topic -- Criztu 14:59, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
What are you talking about? How is it "placed on wrong topic"? --Hottentot
Look at the top of this page. I have listed 6 reasons for not providing the names of the ... . I also left space for "reason for providing he names..." Are you going to list some reasons for providing the names of the... so the voters can understand right from the text of the survey your point>? or should the voters simply vote for "providing the names of the ..." with no reason offered ? -- Criztu 07:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Survey listed in Current Surveys, waiting 2 weeks for results

well, i;'ve listed the survey over at Current Surveys page, waiting for 2 weeks see what people think -- Criztu 12:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarian names for Romanian counties

This is a list I picked from hu:Románia. Some of these were counties of the kingdom of Hungary, some like Fehér and Maros before 1876. Hargita and Kovászna weren't names for KoH counties. Maybe someone knowns which of these have significant (e.g. over 5%) Hungarian population. Markussep 12:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Arad (Arad)
  • Beszterce-Naszód (Bistriţa-Năsăud)
  • Bihar (Bihor)
  • Brassó (Braşov)
  • Fehér (Alba)
  • Hargita (Harghita)
  • Hunyad (Hunedoara)
  • Kolozs (Cluj)
  • Kovászna (Covasna)
  • Krassó-Szörény (Caraş-Severin)
  • Máramaros (Maramureş)
  • Maros (Mureş)
  • Szatmár (Satu Mare)
  • Szeben (Sibiu)
  • Szilágy (Sălaj)
  • Temes (Timiş)
Acording to the 2002 Romanian census, all of the counties above except Krassó-Szörény and Szeben have a Hungarian population exceeding 5 per cent. Hargita and Kovászna (Háromszék) have Romanian minorities of some 15 and 25 per cent respectively.

[edit] dispute resolution

i have opened a case regarding the naming convention of administrative divisions of Romania at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 names of administrative divisions of Romania Criztu 16:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Good.--Eliade 14:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Those hungarian words will be deleted.--203.109.33.34 08:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)