Talk:Székely

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hungary Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hungary. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion.

???

This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's quality scale.

???

This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

Comments:

[edit] Székelys and Székely land

Before removing link to Szekely land, either explain why the two articles are not related, or propose deletion of the Szekely land article as such. Before choosing the second option make sure that:

there are at least a few Szekely (or even Hungarians) who never heard of or contest the existence of Szekely land.
the 6 volume encyclopedia (cited) talks about a fictional territory.
there are no written historical documents certifying its existence since the 12th century (first one dating from 1116 - sources to be retrieved)
or that Szekely land is not the exact translation of Szekelyfold.

Akiss

The first link to Szekely land was from the mention of the autonomy initiative, which is both awkward and unfair. Szekelys have a particularity with respect to other minorities, which is their tight relationship with the land they inhabit. This is a key factor of their success in preserving their cultural heritage. It is therefore important that the reference to Szekely land appear in the first paragraph. (To compare the injustice, just imagine that in the article about Basques removing reference to Basque Country and placing it within a mention of the Basque movement for autonomy..) Akiss 11:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Numbers

There is no point in comparing to the total population of the 3 counties since total territory of these counties does not match exactly that of the historical szekely land: most of Mures county and a small part of Harghita does not belong there. Akiss

sorry, there is this perception (that i share) that the szeklers that live in Harghita Covasna and Mures are claiming all these three counties as Szekely land (i didn't know that Szekelyfold doesn't mean "exactly" Szekely Land), so listing the total number of the population living in that area should be relevant in this case. -- Criztu 06:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
- Criztu, please read the whole phrase. In fact, I did imply that "Szekely Land" is the exact translation of "Szekelyfold". Akiss 00:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
when one says "1,450,000 Hungarian_minority_in_Romania make up for 20% of the population of Transylvania" it's the same thing as me saying "670,000 skezlers out of 1,140,000 of the total population of Harghita Covasna Mures counties" -- Criztu 11:03, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
you could add info and details on the "historic region Szekelyfold" but it is not an oficial administrative region so you can't say "szeklers live in Szekler Land" but "szeklers live in Harghita Covasna and Mures counties of Romania"; one could say "Szeklers live in parts of the historic Habsburg empire", or i could say "Szeklers live in parts of the historic roman province Dacia", see what i mean ? -- Criztu 11:03, 26 May 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:

This article is about Szekelys, not about the autonomy initiative. The link to Szekely land is valid, and not a matter of the autonomy discussion. It must be restored to the first line. The names Szekelyfold and Terra Siculorum appeared in historical documents centuries ago.

Akiss, please look at the map of administrative regions of Kingdom of hungary in 1918, and you'll see there is no such "historical region Szekelyfold". i don't know in what timeframe did the Szekelyfold existed, anyway, you can't say "szekelys live in Szekelyfold" since there is no such official region and there are other official administrative regions in place. when there will be an official region "szekelyfold" i'll be the first to add the info to the szekely article. Before Terra Siculorum, there was a Terra Dacorum, and now there is a Terra Romaniansorum :) , you can't use historic names for a contemporary administrative region, can you see what i mean? i don't say "the Romanian minority in Hungary live in the historic region of Dacia, since Dacia once streched all the way to Transdanubian plains" -- Criztu 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

"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'.)

Akiss 00:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

since the Szeklers live in three romanian counties, it is of relevance to compare their numbers to that of all people living in those counties. the same kind of comparison is used for the whole hungarian minority in romania, "the hungarian minority numbers 1,450,000 or 6.6% of total population of romania or 20% of the population of transylvania"; see, you compare the minority living in a region with the total population living in that same region, no POV here -- Criztu 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Please, bring evidence for when was this "historical Szekelyland" employed in any official administration (be it Hungary, Habsburg empire, Transylvania or Romania administrations), cuz i look at the map of Austria-Hungary in 1918 and i see no "historical region Szekelyfold" -- Criztu 11:30, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Writing

"Székelys still use a form of Scythian writing known as cuneiform" - any sources besides the external link in the article confirming it? Sound like an April fool to me User:Vassili Nikolaev 2004-aug-27

I removed these:

There are documents showing that around 1200 AD there were important Székely cities in the transylvanian parts of Hungary and it is believed to be correct that they have been living there for more than 1000 years.

"it is believed" ! by whom ?

Sculptures have been found depicting Scythian scenes in Transylvania, and in addition Székelys still use a form of Scythian writing known as cuneiform.

if it's about Old Hungarian script, that is not a cuneiform. And, to the best of my knowledge, the Scythians never had an alphabet. Bogdan | Talk 08:30, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The second extrenal link contains data that disputed data. It is not true that szeklers were persecuted after 1989 in Romania. Somebody should remove that link. All that site contains only nationalistic junk about Great Hungaria.

i've removed the two external links on the following grounds: Even under a new "free" Romania extremists continue to attack Hungarians, Hungarian culture, and democratic values. Hungarian language schools and centuries-old universities have been closed, churches burned, and people beaten for demonstrating for democracy and basic human rights, or simply for speaking Hungarian - (See Helsinki Watch Report "Destroying Ethnic Identity, the Hungarians of Romania," for more information.) http://www.webenetics.com/hungary/szekhimn.htm - infamous as it uses a Helsinki report from 1989 relating it to the post 1990 Romania realities. -- Criztu 18:26, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Identity

User:Sch. Dávid has, without comment, reversed the sense of a statement that said that not all Székely consider themselves Hungarian. (In any event, the majority clearly do.) Although I think this change is wrong, I am not reverting, because I am not expert and do not have a citation. Does someone have a citation on this matter? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask more clearly: obviously, the Szeklers are Hungarian-speaking; are they considered a subgroup of ethnic Magyars, a distinct group, or is this a matter of controversy? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:10, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Due to their language, they usually identify with the Magyars and in official censuses, they are considered Magyars (unlike the Csango, who declared themselves either "Ceangău" or "Maghiar"). Their legends tell a different origin from the Magyars, but there is no proof they were not simply Magyars who were colonized near the eastern border of the Hungarian Kingdom. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 17:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bogdangiusca is correct when he states that the Szeklers consider themselves to be Magyars, but that their legends suggest they are descended from the Huns (and thus consider themselves different from the other Magyars). Hungarian historians generally believe that the Szeklers were scattered throughout the Carpathian baisn (including many in south of Transylvania) following the Magyar conquest of the Pannonian plain but were resettled towards the east to act of border guards. There is no consenus on whether the Szeklers were originally part of the Magyar peoples or another tribe (possibly Turkic, but this seems to be no evidence for this theory) which had already become assimilated by the 9th century. There is a recent theory postualted by Gyula Laszlo, which seems to be gaining wider acceptance, that the Szeklers are descended from Magyar-speaking Avar tribes which occupied the Pannonian plain in the 6th-7th century. Scott Moore 14:52, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

languange "There is no consenus on whether the Szeklers were originally part of the Magyar peoples or another tribe (possibly Turkic, but this seems to be no evidence for this theory) which had already become assimilated by the 9th century."

-The sicul' or Székely never called turcois.
-But the "Magyar" conquesters (AD895) was called turcois. P. Constantinos tell more : The khazars teach the turcois own language so the turcois have two dialect, their own and the khazar(μαζαροισ).
-Other source tell: the Sicul(Székely) speeked the old-bolgar...(We know well they reserve his original lenguange)
-Other: "the old-bolgar languange equal is the [[khazar]] on-gur(μαζαροισ) languange..."
I geting to see The old-bolgar language is same sicul,secun (székely) and "old-hungarian poor" languange like khazar.
Today we can not found signifikant diferent between the hungarian(magyar) and sicul(Székely). More the different has the "old-hungarian-poor's" languange and dayly hungarian, because the old is more color of prenounce. But it is lesser then englis and Shakespeare-endlish.--Elder sun 21:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unio Trium Nationum

I've rewritten this section as it was incorrect. It is false to depict medieval Transylvanian society as split between three ruling nations (Hungarians, Szeklers and Germans) and oppressed Romanian serfs. Most Hungarians also belonged to the class of serfs rather than to the nobility (which is why so many Hungarians took part in the Bobalna revolt in 1437). To help avoid confusion I've followed the practise of Pal Engel and used the term estates to describe the nobility, burghers and Szeklers.Scott Moore 14:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

this question have croped up again ... The Romanian people were not excluded from the UTN because they were Romanians ... They were serfs just like the vast majority of Magyars ... (hungarian POV: 60-70,000 Romanians + 120,000 Magyars serfs formed this social class). These Magyar serfs were also "excluded" ... In fact this word "excluded" is deceiveable ... Could not be excluded someone who never belonged somewhere ...

In the early middle age, the Vlachs had also the oppuruntity to form their own national autonomy. We have datas about such initiatives but they have failed ... and not because the evil Hungarian nobility impeded it. The Vlach knyazes (who got temporary and normal nobility from the king) subjugated their own people. --fz22 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I am not sure the exclusion of Vlach peasants from the Three Nations should be discussed in this article, because this article is about Székelys and not Romanians. It is funny to encounter crying and suffering Vlach shepards and serfs in each and every Transylvanian topic on Wikipedia... For anybody wishing to elaborate on the issue, there is the Unio Trium Nationum article. --KIDB 17:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

-Could you be more specific with your statement "It is funny to encounter crying and suffering Vlach shepards and serfs in each and every Transylvanian topic on Wikipedia... " ? Bonaparte talk 17:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

-I consider as a lack of civility the fact that KIDB doesn't not wish to respond here for his statement: "It is funny to encounter crying and suffering Vlach shepards and serfs in each and every Transylvanian topic on Wikipedia... ". We can start an RfC against you if you don't wish to respond. Bonaparte talk 17:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bonaparte, I agree, my comment did not fully follow the civility rules. I beg your pardon, especially if you feel personally attacked. I hope we can keep this article a conflict-free zone. I maintain my point that the history of Romanians should be discussed in other articles. --KIDB 18:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Now that you recognize your out of line statement you have to withdraw it. Bonaparte talk 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Scoloti"

Scythian is quite common in English. I've never seen Scoloti before. Is there any reason for saying "Scythian (Scoloti)", or can we just say "Scythian"? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] in Romania ethnic Hungarians have escaped the Slavic influence ??

"The regions to which they are indigenous, now split between Vojvodina and Transylvania (both outside Hungary's present day borders), mean that the population speaks the local language with some distinction from standard Hungarian. Many words archaic to standard Hungarian have survived among the Szeklers, more so in Romania where ethnic Hungarians have escaped the Slavic influence of word origin which applies to Hungary's modern language." apple souce ... must be reformulated. There is no causal linkage between the szekely dialect and between now they live in Romania. There are many other hungarian dialects into the Carpathian basin, and they have also a couple of specific words --fz22 19:29, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This question is still pending ... I'll extract it from the article until we conclude an agreement.--fz22 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I know some Székely and they speak regular Hungarian. They seem to have a slight accent and they have some different slang, but that's it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2006.

[edit] quite numerous

It's funny you press for sources for "quite numerous", but you just simple dogmatize the contrary :) --fz22 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Székely people adhere proudly to their Hungarian identity.

We have written documents from the early 16th. century which poves this!! I'll restore it--fz22 12:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

This is POV. Bonaparte talk 13:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Easy to confirm. Ask any of the Székelys. Do you have the chance? --KIDB 14:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How is that a POV? It's true, look at the Székely Himnusz. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2006.

[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 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How would this be distinct from Székelyföld? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The distinction would be the lack of ethnic considerations in defining the Historical Szekler Land (or Historical Székelyföld). Today, Székelyföld means the parts of Covasna, Mures and Harghita Counties, with a majority of native Hungarians, or native Hungarian speakers, because, since the administrative abolishment of the Hungarian Autonomous Area, there is no other way to define it.

Also, in medieval times, ethnic issues were less important, the social status was decisive. Our Romanian friends often say that Romanian (Vlach) serfs were heavily supressed by Hungarian landlords. Hungarian serfs also had a very hard time, even more, there are examples of ethnic Hungarian villages on the Saxon territories where Saxon cities behaved as their feudal landlords.

This is why I think the definition of Historical Szekler Land should be based on the territories controlled by the Szekler estate or Szekler Seats.

By the way, the expression "Székelyföld" literally means Szekler Land in English. I don't know if today's Romanians have an expression referring to this area, but I suppose they must have had something in the past. I would not be surprised if an expression like "Tara Secuiesc" turned up. Anyway, I think the English translation of the native name of the area would be the most appropriate (and politically correct) in Wikipedia. --KIDB 09:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware that is what it means. But just as "Burzenland" is almost always rendered in German in English-language texts, "Székelyföld" is almost always rendered in Hungarian. I can remember seeing "Székelyföld" translated by way of explanation on first use, but then they go on to use "Székelyföld" on further use. And only in Romanian have I ever seen "Ţara Secuiesc" or "Ţara Bârsei". -- Jmabel | Talk 10:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I was not clear enough, my intention was not to inroduce a new way to call Székelyföld but to define which territories belonged to the historical Székelyföld.

I don't mind if "Székelyföld" is used in English texts, I hope native English speakers will understand that it is about a region (in the case of Burzenland, the German word "Land" is included and it is easyier for English to see it refers to a territory).

A question: Do you think the expression "Seat" is the proper English expression to translate Székely or Szász (Saxon) Szék(ek)? (In the dictionary: Seat, or chair) --KIDB 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow your question. One doesn't normally translate a proper noun, and I don't know more than maybe 200 words of Hungarian, so I have no specific opinion on this one. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The historical Székelyföld: Image:Szekelyfold.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nekromanta (talk • contribs) 17 December 2006.

[edit] Number of Székelys in former Aranyosszék

Maybe the total number of Hungarians in the former Aranyosszék villages? It is quite a bit of work to count from the census data. I don't know however, if all of them consider themselves to be Székelys.--KIDB 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I estimate about a 10000-15000 Szeklers living in the former territory of Aranyosszék (examples for Hungarian villages: Torockó, Torockószentgyörgy, etc.). But (today) the whole territory has a Rumanian majority, who are mainly living in the region of Felvinc. Öcsi 08:33, 18 September 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.

The Hungarian minority is 1.4 million strong, according to the Romanian National Census in 2002. 45% of them, aka 665.000 are living in Harghita, Covasna and Mures. This is not a nationalistic claim. This is a fact accepted by everybody, including the Hungarians in Romania (except nationalist, of course).

Other: In Hungary, every ethnic hungarian who lives in Romania is (very often) considered as Szekelys ----VinceB 19:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)--

the 2002 census, at the homepage of the political group: Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania --VinceB--

The Magyars living in Szatmar, Bihar, Arad, ...etc are counted as Szekely by you?? Or what?--fz22 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Vince, Re: Székelyudvarhely - I am not sure this demonstration should be included in the article, it has not even happened, let's wait. --KIDB 07:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Szekelys consider themselves as hungarians, proud about their hungarian acestry, the people living in Hungary also considers them as hungarians, they speak the hungarian language, with minor differences, ( difference between american english and english spoken in England is bigger ) I live in Hungary, I know people from transylvania in my college, they are from those counties, wich are here mentioned, I talked to them, they all consider themselves hungarians. --VinceB 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Kedves Vince, látom a jószándékot, de még mindig pontatlan dolgokat írsz be. Ha a teljes magyar lakosságról akarsz írni, arra külön szócikk van, ott egyébként már le vannak írva a pontos adatok. Egyszerűbb lenne egy linket tenni ebbe az irányba: Hungarian minority in Romania --KIDB 13:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please translate that last remark? I know almost no Hungarian. - Jmabel | Talk 04:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I simply wrote him that he was using inaccurate data and he should refer to the Hungarian minority in Romania article where these numbers are dealt with.

By the way, Magyar is an easy language to learn for Indo-European languages speakers, why don't you try it? :-) --KIDB 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Hungarian Language is very hard to learn for Indo-Europeans. In my hometown Cluj-Napoca, 15% of the population is fluent in Hungarian but everybody prefer to use Romanian Language, because is much more easy to use and the vocabulary is 75% similar to other widespread Latin Languages and 60% similar with the English Language. After all, the effort to learn Hungarian is not rewarding at all, because one can't find much literature and scientific works avaluable in Hungarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.196.150.157 (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Autonomy on the Catalan model

Hi. Are there any sources to confirm the fact that the Szekelys are campaigning for autonomy on the Catalan model? There is an increasingly strong autonomist movement, but so far I have not really heard any firm proposal regarding the specifics of this autonomy plan. Personally, I think Catalan-style autonomy would be great for Szekely Land, but I just haven't heard it used anywhere else. Ronline ✉ 06:43, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Catalan-style autonomy is indeed an aim: [1]

Ronline ✉ 23:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Romanian-language links

None was academic, for starters (so the caption was misleading). Dogaru was expressing his own opinions, and I think anyone familiar with his prose knows just how fringe that man is. Altermedia is a far right tribune, mainly venting out anti-gay sentiment. Dahn 14:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it is particularly correct to delete external links on a certain issue, even if they represent views outside the norm, but I agree that those particular links can't be used as references. Altermedia in particular is known for its far-right-wing disturbing stance, Noua Dreaptă style, even though it claims to informing people with the "objective, uncensored truth" and is in collaboration with organisations such as the FNRP (Foundation for Romanians Abroad) and received a prize from the ARP (Asociaţia Română de Patrimoniu), both of which are more moderate. I found that quite disturbing, actually.

Ronline ✉ 07:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

So in the end, why were they deleted if they were not used as references? greier 11:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Because they had no purpose in the article. Altermedia and Dogaru's opinion do not represent Romanian mainstream public opinion.

Ronline ✉ 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How can you say what they represent or do not? Does that have any relevance on whether it should remain or not? Who is the one who decides that? greier 14:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's why I said that it may not be particularly correct to delete external links just based on their political viewpoint. However, even if they remain, their point of view should be tagged properly so that they are not misleading (otherwise, as Dahn said, they risk being mistaken for mainstream academic opinion). Since the articles are in Romanian, I also fail to see how they are particularly relevant to people reading the article. If they were in English, then perhaps that could be OK; if they were used as references, then again that would be OK. But they currently serve neither purpose.

Ronline ✉ 08:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You say they don`t, I say they do. 08:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs)

But the majority of Romanians don't believe that Szeklers are non-Hungarians or do not have a contemporary Hungarian national identity. Additionally, the Altermedia article has clearly nationalistic and tendentious undertones.

Ronline ✉ 09:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That`s not what the articles are about. Second, what Altermedia has or has not is POV 11:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greier (talk • contribs)

[edit] Names and pronunciation

Right now, this begins "The Székely or Szeklers, (Hungarian: Székely, Romanian: Secui, German: Szekler, Latin: Sicul, 'sék-ei' in pronunciation)…" Should that not be "The Székely ('sék-ei' in pronunciation) or Szeklers, (Hungarian: Székely, Romanian: Secui, German: Szekler, Latin: Sicul)…" Or have I misunderstood the intent? - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for correcting me! :) It's fixed now. —Khoikhoi 00:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serbian Hungarians

Hungarians from Vojvodina don't identify themselves with the Székely. They look at themselves as normal Hungarians who simply live outside of Hungary's borders due to land being lost after the First World War. Whereas the Hungarians in Romania (Székely) consider themselves a different people then other Hungarians. Hungarians and Székelys can be compared to Germans and Austrians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2006.

Possible, however several thousand of Szekely of Bukovina were relocated in Banat in the late 19th century. They are the so called Low-Danubian Szekelys (al-dunai szekely) --fz22 10:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why dropped?

The following appears to have been removed without explanation some time in the last month: Romanians "lived in relative peace with the Székelys until the Romantic nationalism movements swept 19th century Europe. In fact, in parts of such conflicts as the Long War, the Székely allied with Vlach leaders like Mihai Viteazul against the armies of Hungarian nobles like András Báthory." Inaccurate? Off topic? Inappropriately deleted? I have no idea. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel, I reinserted the information. It was apparently deleted by an unregistered user (who previously, without reason, deleted some statistics regarding the Vásárhely riots) who didn't give a reason. As far as I can tell those two sentences are an important strike against the tendency to set Hungarians and Romanians at each other's throats, here on Wikipedia and elsewhere. If anyone has a good reason for deleting the information again, please make your case here. Hubacelgrand 01:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dracula

I have not read the Dracula novel, and I do not wish to confirm if the paragraph connecting Székelys to this fiction hero based on a Vlach person is correct. Consequently I haven't deleted it. Still, I don't think it is of great importance what an English fiction writer on remote island :-) invented about Székelys in the 19th Century. --KIDB 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Since the text must be in public domain by now, I thought I'd look it up, and lo and behold, here it is in a searchable e-text :) Dracula indeed says this in the novel.

Harker mentions in the next paragraph that "this diary seems horribly like the beginning of the "Arabian Nights". If that page was a wiki, I'd feel inclined to add "and it's also as historically accurate as the Arabian Nights." :D – Alensha ^talk 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear this :-) I think, however, there are hundreds of novels where Székelys are mentioned and this one is not the most important of them. --KIDB 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For the fictional Dracula being a Székely, the ethnic Romanians sure do take pride in him. Yet at the same time they harass Hungarians and Székely living in Romania. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

How exactly do Romanians "harass" Hungarians and Székely living in Romania? While I believe further rights for Hungarians, such as territorial autonomy, would be even better, I don't think their current situation can in any way be described as "harassment". So please, don't throw around words. And, no, I wouldn't say Romanians take particular pride in Dracula. In fact, most Romanians don't like the fact that their country is immediately associated with a fictional (and not all too positive) character like Dracula, instead of other, real historical figures.

Ronline ✉ 07:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox images

I inserted four images of persons whom I considered to be important for Székelys. If there are other suggestions, please do not hesitate to include your proposal here for discussion. Also, if you have better quality images for the infobox, please replace them. --KIDB 08:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't even mind if these boring historical people were replaced by a couple of people dressed in Székely traditional costumes... Like in the Dutch (ethnic group) infobox, I quite fancy that. The problem is I can't find any attractive images with free license. --KIDB 15:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see the template ({{Infobox Ethnic group}}) still (or again?) contains the related ethnic groups info. --KIDB 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] etymology of "Székely"?

I remember reading somewhere that the word "Székely" originally meant something like "border guard", and thus is connected with the old legends about being descendants of Attila left behind to guard the land and wait for the Magyars. Anyone else heard this, and can anyone share some more insight into the origin of the word?

[edit] Gyimesi Csángók

I realize this is an extremely hair-splitting comment, but on the map of ethnic Hungarian repartition in Hargita/Kovászna/Maros, there is a spillover into Bakó megye, specifically the Gyimes pass/upper Tatros valley. In my experience most people in Felsölok, Középlok (Hargita megye) and especially Bükk and Nagy-Gyimes (Bakó megye) consider themselves Csángó rather than Székely (although they gladly admit they are descended from Székely who crossed the pass several hundred years ago). Any advice on an elegant, unobtrusive way to dispel the idea that all the Hungarians on the map are Székely? Hubacelgrand 02:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presenting hundreds of thousands of people as a few dozen

Even if the Romanian census data is correct, presenting hundreds of thousands of people as a few dozen is very misleading and unencyclopedic. We may have that data in the article in a short form, but not in the infobox, where data reflecting reality is needed not to confuse readers who are not familiar with the topic.
I don't think the "Székely dialect" differs so much from Hungarian that it's worth mentioning, but I'd appreciate experts' opinion on that. Squash Racket (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh you're wrong. BeenZaQ (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Székely dialect

Everybody knows Székely is a language.BeenZaQ (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I started to respond to this, but instead, let's avoid feeding the trolls; BeenZaQ is banned already. Hubacelgrand (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)