Talk:Mărginimea Sibiului
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Alternative names in Hungarian
I was surprised to see short articles for the vilages in this region like: "Jina (Hungarian: Zsinna) is a community in Transylvania, Romania."
This makes the reader think "aha, there is something there like a significat Hungarian minority, or some important event for Hungarian history took place there"
As I justify below except for Sălişte, Orlat, Boiţa and Tălmaciu (where we could argue that it's not so black and white) the above is missleading.
- we're talking here about a Transylvanian region that had traditionally a strong Romanian ethnicity (predominantly shepherds)
- and no significat historical events important for Hungary took place here (apart from the efects of the Romanian emancipation movement)
- that's reflected in the names which are merely phonetic rewritings in Hungarian
Data to support this point of view:
| Vilage/Town | Total | Romanians | Hungarians | Others |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jina | 3728 | 3725 (99.92%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (0.08%) |
| Poiana Sibiului | 4678 | 4669 (99.81%) | 2 (0.04%) | 7 (0.15%) |
| Fântânele (Cacova%) | 725 | 711 (98.07%) | 0 (0%) | 14 (1.93%) |
| Galeş | 614 | 564 (91.86%) | 0 (0%) | 50 (8.14%) |
| Gura Râului | 3109 | 3105 (99.87%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (0.13%) |
| Orlat | 2229 | 2131 (95.6%) | 30 (1.35%) | 68 (3.05%) |
| Rod | 1187 | 1177 (99.16%) | 0 (0%) | 10 (0.84%) |
| Sălişte (town%) | 3767 | 3598 (95.51%) | 32 (0.85%) | 137 (3.64%) |
| Sibiel | 1008 | 1008 (100%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
| Tilişca | 1824 | 1811 (99.29%) | 0 (0%) | 13 (0.71%) |
| Vale | 980 | 977 (99.69%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (0.31%) |
| Boiţa | 1872 | 1752 (93.59%) | 67 (3.58%) | 53 (2.83%) |
| Sadu | did not find data for 1930) | |||
| Râul Sadului | did not find data for 1930) | |||
| Tălmaciu (town) | did not find data for 1930) | |||
| Tălmăcel | did not find data for 1930) | |||
| Răşinari | did not find data for 1930) | |||
| Poplaca | did not find data for 1930) | |||
| Total | 25721 | 25228 (98.08%) | 131 (0.51%) | 362 (1.41%) |
Bajamircea 00:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
What's wrong with mentioning the Hungarian name? It's historical. —Khoikhoi 05:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- the "Alternative names in Hungarian" section above should have answered your question. On short: mentioning the Hungarian name on the first line is misleading the reader. I think "It's historical" it's not seriously enough argumentation. BTW, have you visited the region? Bajamircea 23:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- I see what you're saying now. No, but part of my family is from Transylvania. How about yours? —Khoikhoi 23:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh my god, a region in Transylvania is not important for the history of the hungarian nation? So the thousand years rule is not important? Why it is disturbing you that we inform the foreign visitors the hungarian name of this region. In an encyclopedia every additional information is good, beneficial and useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HunTomy (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 June 2006.
-
- The hungarian rule over Transylvania took place only between 1867 and 1918. Until then, Transilvania was autonomous. The 1.000 years is just a joke. (not to mention that around 1200 the hungarians barely reached the Olt River, and in 1241 the tatars did not encounter any hungarian army foot until Tisa River...)--Alex:Dan 01:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
