Talk:Transylvania/Archive4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Irredentism run amok 2 A Suggestion 3 Names in the lead 4 Map? 5 Why was this deleted? 6 The map 7 establishing a convention about Transylvania 8 Transylvania lead paragraph 9 traditional division of Transylvania 10 Britannica 11 Disputed 12 dispute resolution 13 Ethnology of Transylvania 14 Recent anon edits 15 Just a question? 16 Lead section 17 Criztu's last edits 18 Michael the Brave 19 What about aesthetics? 20 Civility 21 History has been already written! 22 Assimilation?? 23 Links on Transylvania page 24 Interesting evolution 25 Central 26 Banat

Irredentism run amok

This article is a waste of time and effort. Both the Hungarian and Romanian POV's are grossly irredentist. Has anyone considered looking at our history from a Transylvanian POV? Perhaps independence would solve a lot of these issues, but that will not happen in my lifetime. We've spent centuries defending "christian" Europe from the Turks only to get the shaft in the end. The rest of Europe is affraid of a strong power in middle Europe. If we spent less time arguing over who was here first maybe we could get on with more important issues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.195.26 (talk • contribs)

A Suggestion

Gentlemen,

As I am sure that you are all aware our history is complicated and, in many cases, contensious. We can argue the "facts" ad nauseam, however, there will always be a compelling arguement from one camp or the other. May I suggest that the article be revised to include ALL sides from a completely NPOV and point out that certain parts of our history are uncertain at best? As it exists, the article and dialogue that accompanies it paints a less than pretty picture. Our history is very long and colourful. I would hate to see someone who is not familiar with our situation get the wrong impression. We might not always agree on some things, but we have all managed to co-exist for centuries, not always on the most friendly terms, but we survived non the less. Rik 06/23/06

Yes and no. Our history is indeed colourful, and we managed to survive, but not as a nation, but two. You can't be both hungarian and romanian at the same time, even from a joint origin like me, and a Transylvanian state is an utopia at best. Not because it can't be done, but because we won't accept it, and the bloodshed scenario will follow.

[Do we really need to be a "nation"?? The most powerful country in the world is a polyglot. Plus, I'm willing to bet that a lot of Americans would take issue with the strict definition of nation. In their "Pledge of a Allegience" they refer to themeselves as "one nation, under God, indivisible". Rik 08/07/06]

We're not discussing the USA here, so their definiton of a nation doesn't concern me, they may call themselves whatever they want, all I know is that the "nation of Transylvania" DOES NOT EXIST. Shove it.Cyani 10.08.2006

And the truth must appear in full colour, not from a joint "accepted by all sides" perspective. History did not begin in 2000 BC, nor in 1000 A.D.. But someone was here first.

[History began at the beginning. Not in 200BC or in 1000AD; stating either is beyond stupid. My point is that it cannot be definitively proven that the Magyars or Vlach were there first. For all intents and purposes they may have coexisted quite comfortably for centuries. Rik 08/07/06]

I can prove who was here first.

1. Fact: The daco-getae tribes we're populating Transylvania in B.C. times. This is proven without a doubt (source - Herodot). The Romanian language includes words originating from those tribes.

2. Fact: The Romans conquered and occupied Transylvania, after defeating the Dacian Empire. This is proven without doubt (source - Trajan's column in Rome. IT'S STILL THERE.

3. Fact: After the Roman conquest, the conquered people in Transylvania started using the latin language and formed a new nation (exactly like the french, the spanish, portuguese and the italian peoples). This newly formed nation DID NOT GO ANYWHERE, it's here and it will forever be... we'll at least until the goddamn sun will die. This is proven through the latinity of the romanian language. PROVEN I SAY, not idiotically speculated. WE WE'RE HERE, THE HUNS CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. Beyond doubt. So shove this too. Cyani 10.08.2006

Wonderful!! The Romanians were there before the Huns. But where did the Magyars come from??? For some strange reason linguistics seems to be a major issue for all Romanian nationalists. Romanian is a latin language in a sea of Slavs. Fact! Has it ever occured to you that Hungarian (an equally odd language) exists in a sea of Slavs?? (another fact!)

The past is past. The article as it stands now is a very good history of the Romanians in Traysylvania. However, given the ethinic diversity of the region, would it not be appropiate to add similar articles, or ammend it, giving the history of the other ethnic groups in the region equal time? So you can shove it too. 08/18/06

All claims following are utterly stupid. Discussion over what happened in the meantime is also totally irrelevant, even if at times the region was under someone's control, or it was completely populated by one side, since it was not sold or traded by the original owner in exchange for a herd of steppe horses, it was inherited. Get over it! --Cyani 22.07.2006

[Tell that to the Quebecois in Canada. The French have a much longer history in North America than the English, however, as a result of the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, the British took control. In wasn't until the 1960's and the beginning of the Quiet Revolution that Quebecois nationalism became part of the Canadian lexicon. Rik 09/07/06]

Yeah, and you lost WWI. As a result, your empire has been reduced to... well, you know. Giving you the chance to act on it... shove it nr.3. Cyani 26.07.2006

And the treaties that followed WWI gave Transylvania to Romania. This had more to do with economics and political bullshit than it did to ethnicity. You and I both know that. So you can shove it sideways. 08/18/06

Not that it matters much regarding the article, but I'm always amazed by how some people can identify themselves with people that lived literally thousands of years ago - even if they are their descendants (which cannot be proven anyway over a time span as vast as this). "We were here first" is the most ridiculous argument used on all sides of any ethnic conflict - the point is only to prove that "we" are right and "they" are not, and thus prevent the scenario where somehow all the people living in a region could be peaceful and content with their lives (surprise: it is possible). Shame, shame, shame. KissL 15:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not ashamed, I would be if I would be you and I had absolutely nothing to base claims on, I have things like the language I speak or my people's customs, a history that stretches for millenia, ancestors that Herodot and Trajan's column speak of, even to this day. So to question if I was here or not is a matter I would deal with STFU if I was you. "Thousands of years" seems such a long time for you indeed, but still you trumpet your 1000 like it was "the time of all times", but we just as we are now we claim 2000, and there are words in my language older than 3000 years, but I'm frankly surprised you stopped claiming that U we're here first, like some of you used to, or that u found NO ONE when showing up here, now THAT is hard to believe and ridiculous. So tell u what: STOP DREAMING, as long as we will draw breath, we will be here laying claims u can't match, in our most sacred and ancient land, and we asked nothing of you, for we don't need NOTHING FROM YOU, and you've taken so much from us... so guess what, we have learned, peace is for the weak, we gained nothing but trouble from peace and "happy" coexistence. So take my advice: be humble, be wise..... and IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU'RE GOING, JUST LOOK WHERE YOU COME FROM. Cyani 26.07.2006

Whoa!!! You really need to take a deep breath and relax. Does language really matter that much? Regardless of ethnicity, Transylvania was part of the Kingdom of Hungary for a very long time (much longer than it was part of either Dacia or Romania). Politics aside, we're all Transylvanians! Bucharest doesn't really want us and Budapest definitely doesn't want us. From my POV the only solution is independence. Historically we're a very tollerant society (the Swiss would be a good model). The most powerful nations in the world today are polygots. Can't we be the same?? Rik 08/07/06

You? Tollerant? This makes me sick. And get your facts right, Transylvania was an independent principality more than it was part of Hungary, which of course was not Hungary, but Austro-Hungary. Cyani 10.08.2006

That's my point exactly, shithead! Independence!! We don't need all the leftover communist, irredentist and nationalist bullshit from either side. I don't really give a rat's ass what your mother tongue is. If you're a decent individual and you have something positive to contribute to the future of our nation, wonderful. If you don't; please move to the other side of the Carpathians and reunite with your Balkanized bretheren. 08/18/06

Sapienti sat. KissL 16:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see them.... and your point is...? Cyani 10.08.2006

My point was "Sapienti sat". I'm afraid I can't put it any clearer. KissL 10:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Since neither Magyars nor Indo-Europeans were in Europe 10,000 years ago, this would put everyone on a rather shaky footing, except perhaps the Basques. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of what language we speak, we share a common history and culture that has a wide variety of influences. That may not make us a nation state, but it defintitely differentiates us from both Hungary and Romania. It doesn't matter if my mother tongue is Romanian, Hungarian, or German. The soil of Transylvania is soaked with the blood of all our ancestors. We spent centuries defending western Europe from the Turks only to get screwed by them at every turn. ALL sides need to shake loose of all the irredentist, nationalist bullshit and focus on where we are now; arguing over the past will do nothing for our future. Given our history of tollerance and forward thinking, the Transylvanians should be leading the parade into the 21st century instead of sweeping up after the horses. I am shamed by the politics but still proud of my heritage. We are tough SOB's and will somehow manage to overcome the shit that history has dealt us. Rik August 7, 2006

Names in the lead

Two variants of Turkish names, including the one I've just removed, are listed at the link for "other languages". That link was put in place a few months back by consensus among the editors then active - the names that are historically the most relevant are already listed, we shouldn't clutter up the lead any more. KissL 13:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure of the necessity of having the Romani name in the lead either. Olessi 19:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania has a large Roma population... —Khoikhoi 01:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the 2002 census there are 3.4% Transylvanians who declared themselves Roma, figure that much understates the real percent, since many Roma declared themselves Romanians or Hungarians. The real figure might be 7-9%. Here are some external links about undeclared Roma: [1], [2], [3]. Desiphral देसीफ्राल 10:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe some persons might consider Roma from Transylvania a "quiet" community, not in the mainstream media, but this does not mean they don't exist. --Desiphral देसीफ्राल 10:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, defining "Roma" is difficult. Because the boundaries between Roma, on one side, and Romanian and Hungarian, on the other, is rather fuzzy. There are, of course, the "traditional Roma", which you can easily identify. But most of Romanian Romas are in fact sedentarized, and in fact Roma is often identified with the lower classes of the Romanian society. Thus, many Roma "become" Romanian when their social status increases, and many Romanians "become" Roma when their social status decreases.

In fact, the term Roma federates two notions: a classical ethnic group and a sort of "political nation". Dpotop 12:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of Romanians "becoming" Roma when their social status decreases. What you say is an example of the "quiet community" I wrote above. If Roma are not involved in the mainstream, the others presume their suppositions are true. In fact we are an ethnic group with a clear identity, which does nor dissapear when it is necessary to say to non-Roma that somebody is not Rom. The newspapers wrote that Roma were urged in censuses to declare Romanian or Hugarian ethnicity to reinforce a Transylvanian group or another. Desiphral देसीफ्राल 18:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So, if you say that it's clear-cut, is Stefan Banica jr. rom, or not? Or, are people called "tigani" on the streets rom, or not? My impression is that around a group that is preserving actual rom traditions and language, you have a lot of people that are considered rom for reasons that may be social. Dpotop 18:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I agree that are many (originally) Roma who don't consider themselves Roma. But there are many who have to conceal their identity for all kind of reasons. And in between these views there are all the possible variations. Desiphral देसीफ्राल 20:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're running in the same problems as all people that want to define nationality by "blood". It doesn't really work. In a free society, you really can count only what people say of themselves. Just like many Americans of Romanian ancestry are no more Romania, many Romanians/Hungarians/French/etc of Rom ancestry are no more Rom, and it's their choice. And my presumption is that there are people you call Roms that are of Romanian ancestry and were called "Tigani" by the other when their lifestyle degraded. Dpotop 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course there are lots of reasons for which a person would declares him/herself not Rom. For one, there is discrimination, indeed. My point is that discrimination, today, is not directed to Roms as an ethnic group, but at Roms as a socio-economic group. Which is as bad, of course, and may make the problem even more complex. Dpotop 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Map?

Is there a map of transylvania that can be used for this article?--Scott3 12:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Why was this deleted?

Dahn deleted this: ==Transylvania in the future== - - In the hungarian community a lot of people is considering that the independency of Transylvnia would solve the hungarian-romanian conflict.(This disguised conflict, which is a shoal for the future, because the hungarian problems are not emerege.) Some of hungarians think that Transylvania need to be an autonom republic, because a lot of money is taken from Transylnia, but there are romanians too, who belives in autonomy of Transylvania. There are a lot of parties who have some plans about this. Example: Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania(Uniunea Democrată Maghiară din România), Christian Democratic Party(Partidul Creştin Democrat), Hungarian Civic Alliance (Uniunii Civice a Maghiare).

I don't now why did you delete all this section? There are a lot of true things... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.146.75.26 (talk • contribs)

I'm not Dahn, so I won't be able to tell you why he have done this but I can tell you my problems. I think this section was:

1. A bit POV: "In the hungarian community a lot of people is considering that the independency of Transylvnia would solve the hungarian-romanian conflict." Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms, Wikipedia:Cite your sources: Who are these "lots of people"? Name them and cite your sources, please.
2. Poorly written: (I'm not a native speaker myself, but even I could spot several misspellings (eg. "autonom" [autonomous] , "emerege" [emerge], "independency" [independence], Transylnia), ungrammatical sentences (Romanians who belives), etc.)
3. Too detailed: It would be OK in an article about (say) the Politics of Transylvania, but in this article mentioning that "Autonomy for the counties /w Hungarian majority is the main political goal of the ethnic Hungarian political parties in Transylvania." would be enough. (I may be a bit biased 'coz I hate politics in general, but IMHO detailed description of these political goals and "the reasons behind them" should be "dealt with" in the articles about these parties.) --194.152.154.2 03:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Native speaker or not, I agree wholeheartedly. It is probably beyond the rules of Wikipedia but an independent Transylvania is something that a lot of ex patriots (like me) would like see. Perhaps a serperate article? There has been quite a bit of news about this WRT the Szeklers recently. 07/04/06

What the hell is this about? A separate article about your imaginary world? What does "ex patriots" even mean? What does "a lot" mean? How does local autonomy come to mean the same as independence, and why should it even be a matter for debate on wikipedia when such a thing is not even debated over there? Of all the "political forces" cited above, only one (the Civic Alliance) has arguably pushed for a high level of autonomy (and not "for Transylvania", but for regions inside "Transylvania"), and it's currently appealing to some hundreds of people. The other Hungarian Party is (whoa, surprise!) in government in Bucharest. And I don't even know what the Christian Democratic Party is: the former PNŢ? Dahn 07:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't always agree with Dahn but now I think the deleted paragraph was not accurate and was POW. --KIDB 08:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of proof of notability (not to mention the poor English), Dahn was absolutely right to delete the paragraph. I've never heard of efforts towards the autonomy of Transylvania as a whole; I've only heard of this (which is in the right place, clear, and perfectly sufficient, in my opinion). KissL 09:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

ex patriot from the verb, expatriate: etymology: Medieval Latin expatriatus, past participle of expatriare to leave one's own country, from Latin ex- + patria native country, from feminine of patrius of a father, from patr-, pater father...

• May I presume that "ex patriots" is a misspelling of "expatriates", not intending to mmean "former patriots"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A misspelling, but standardized throughout the North American press. Expatriates is the correct spelling, however, in North America the terms "expatriot" and "expat" have become part of common usage. Definition: Individuals living abroad who still claim ethnic or political nationality. > 08/18/06

• Speaking as a North American, I can assure you that while "expat" is common usage, "expatriot" or "ex patriot" is not, at least not among educated native speakers. - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking also as a North American, in the common US press, the term expat and expatriot are pretty common. In academic circles you won't hear it, however, on the 6 o'clock news (and CNN) throughtout most of the US and Canada I've heard the term used in this context many times. 09/01/06

On the radio, how on earth could you know it was the (misspelled) "expatriot" rather than the (correctly spelled) "expatriate"?? - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the Unification many people of all the major ethnicities have left Transylvania for economic and political reasons. Believe or not, there is now and has always been a lot of discussion about what the future may hold. Reunification is more than unlikely. After what Germany has gone through I don't think Budapest would even be remotely interested in having Transylvania dropped on its doorstep. I agree with this section being deleted from the article because I don't think this is the appropriate forum for it, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss autonomy or independence as fantasy. 07//05/06

The map

The text of the map with light yellow/dark yellow needs to be clearer. I saw that KIDB almost fully deleted the text I added. But where did those regions came from? Didn they come from the Austrian Empire?

And isn't the light yellow part the hystorical principality of Transylvania? Dpotop 12:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, not from the Austrian Empire. The Transylvania Region is a bit older than the Habsburgs and older than the Principality of Transylvania. You know: the part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary that was behind the forests :-)

You may be right, the text can be simplified, but you were the one who started to write the long explanation. --KIDB 12:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

establishing a convention about Transylvania

i would like to edit the article Transylvania in an objective way. I will express my POV hoping to establish a convention that will allow consequent changes on every article where Transylvania is reffered to. these are my POVs about Transylvania:

1.)Transylvania was a principality and a province. Criztu 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Only for a short period in history. --fz22 08:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

thx for comment, refined for precision Criztu 13:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

2.)Today, Transylvania as a legal entity (administrative division) doesnt exist.. Criztu 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course, not, but geographicaly is still widely used. (even on road-maps) Therefore I think it is needless to do this. --fz22 08:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

refined points 1) and 2) for precision. thx for comment Criztu 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

3.)Romanians, Magyars, Germans, Czechs and Slovaks and others citizens of Romania dont have Transylvania written in their ID paper as an identifyiable address, but Counties of Romania (eg. "citizen X lives in city Ploiesti, Prahova County, Romania", not "citizen X lives in city Ploiesti, in Wallachia, Romania" nor "citizen X lives in city Ploiesti, Prahova county, Wallachia, Romania". In historical context, a population lived in Transylvania (eg "Michael the Brave was born in Wallachia") Criztu 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

see my comment above --fz22 08:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

refined point 3) for precision, thx for comment Criztu 12:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

4.)The address of a locality in Romanian documents is given by county not by historical region (eg. "city Ploiesti, Prahova county, Romania" not "city Ploiesti, Prahova county, Wallachia, Romania" nor "city Ploiesti, Wallachia, Romania"). In historical or touristical or additional information paragraphs, a locality is, or was situated in Transylvania. (eg, "city Ploiesti is situated in Wallachia, and it was founded during the reign of Michael the Brave"), but not in the lead paragraph Criztu 16:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

How can a locality "not be situated in Transylvania"? Does Transylvania not exist? It's perfectly factual to say that Ploieşti is situated in Prahova County AND Wallachia. Whether Wallachia is particularly relevant as a division is another issue. Ronline ✉ 13:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

through these points i try to be laconic. i refined point 4) for precision. i am trying to make it understood that lead paragraph about a contemporary place of Romania must contain information about contemporary realities. Transylvania as an address on legal documents of Romania does not exists as Duchy of Milan does not exist anymore. we dont see a leading paragraph in the Milan article stating "Milan is a city in the Duchy of Milan, in Italia" (i could find a better example perhaps, but thats the idea) Criztu 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

now wouldnt it be laughable to have "city Ploiesti is situated in Prahova county, in Muntenia, in Wallachia, in Romania" ? nobody can deny Muntenia is a historical subdivision of Wallachia. i hope i make myself understood Criztu 22:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

That is why we should use common sense when we decide what divisions to include and what not to include. In fact, I actually disagreed with the idea of placing regions in articles about communes and villages simply because they made the lead sentence very long and hard to read "locality XYZ is located in County Y, Transylvania, Northwestern Romania" is quite clunky. However, there is a big difference between the Duchy of Milan and Transylvania. The Duchy of Milan fails to exist today - it was a political division only. Transylvania, on the other hand, very much continues to constitute an informal region of Romania, that is not officially an administrative unit, but that culturally is still important. In the same way that smaller regions such as the "Oaş region" and "Ţara Moţilor" all exist, and are in no way historical. There would be nothing wrong, for example, in saying that a certain commune is in Ţara Moţilor. As I said before, Wikipedia is not an official geographical/statistical almanac, but a more complete encyclopedia, and cultural divisions can hence also be included, alongside political-administrative divisions. Finally, in my opinion we should stop being so tight about the political implications of everything and use common sense to formulate a lead paragrpah that gives the most information but is not too clunky or tangled. Ronline ✉ 02:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My common sense tells me that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia built by the model of Britannica. Conventions established in Britannica are to be discussed and evolved in order to make Wikipedia better. one can not say "since wikipedia is not official, we dont have to meet the standards of Britannica. i will paste here the model i presented on my talkpage

Targu Mures is the capital of Mures County, in central Romania

Geography

The city lies in the valley of Mures river in the Transylvanian Plateau at the base of the Eastern Carpathians etc.

History

First mentioned in historic documents as Marosvasarhely by the magyars [...] a city of Transylvania, a city of Habsburg empire [...] a city of Hungarian kingdom

Population

Mures county has a population ... etc. Ehnic Hungarians reffer to it as Maros. etc.

the following convention exists in Britannica about river Mures

Mures (in romanian; Maros in hungarian;) is a river in south-central Europe, rising in Romania (etc.) and flowing into Tisza in Hungary. this means Romania and Hungary share authority over Mures river.

Targu Mures (romanian; Marosvasarhely in hungarian) is a city in Mures county in central Romania. i am not entirely sure about the convention in this case, i supose it is "Marosvasarhely appears in documents of recent history, and is kept as legacy name

Mures county is situated in north-central Romania, area ... capital Targu Mures. this means Mures county is solely administrated by Romania.

as u can see Britannica doesnt mention Transylvania region in the lead paragraph of not even one of the 3 articles. it gives information about Transylvania in the history section, or cultural section, if such "transylvanian culture" exists. Criztu 12:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

5.)A County of Romania has precedence/preemption over Transylvania in articles that refer to the teritory of today Romania, that was once the teritory of Transylvania. where the employment of a County of Romania is impossible Transylvania will be used (i cant find such situation to exemplify) Criztu 16:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest confining the main reference to the historical region in the county infobox? I can see this alternative avoiding both info clutter and the impression that Romania is decentralized on a regional basis: add "historical region" or "informal region" to all counties and there you go. Btw, the county infobox also needs to leave some room for county heraldics. Dahn 20:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

6.)Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed Union of Transylvania with Romania in 1918

Unitlateraly. There was no plebiscite.

7.)Consult the definition of Annexation before connecting Annexation with Trianon and Transylvania

would it help if the words "de facto" were inserted prior to the word annexation?

8.)Michael the Brave brought Transylvania and Wallachia and Moldavia under his authority in 1599-1601.

9.)Transylvania was administrated by Hungary year-year.

10.)Transylvania is a historic region of Romania

11.)Romanian editors might not be aware of the history of Transylvania out of Romanian history, and Hungarian editors might not be aware of the history of Transylvania out of Hungarian history

A point I have been trying to make with both sides. Thank you!! Rik 08/18/06

With reference to whether or not to mention Transylvania when describing locations of places: I would venture to say that in the English-speaking world, more people have (at least vaguely) an idea of where Transylvania is than of where Romania itself is. For our native English-speaking readers, presumably the primary audience of the English-language Wikipedia, "Transylvania" is a very useful designation for the location of cities, etc. within the region. I am willing to guess that for the average English-speaker, it is the only historical region name in (past or present) Romania they would have heard. I myself would not have recognized Banat, Muntenia, Oltenia prior to visiting the country; I only learned the term Cadrilater by working on Wikipedia (never came up in 6 months in Romania); I did know Wallachia and Moldavia, Bukovina, Bessarabia, and probably a few others that don't leap to mind at this instant, but I knew them mostly because I have a Jewish background. I'd guess that at least 90% of literate English speakers have heard of Transylvania and know at least that it is somewhere in Central or Eastern Europe; I doubt that even one in three would know any of the other regional names I just mentioned. - Jmabel | Talk 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've lived in North America for 20+ years and the majority of anglophones have no clue as to where Transylvania is located. The educated ones know that it is a real place and that it is somewhere in Europe, but the majority of them have a better idea of where Roumania is. Most are familiar with the term Transylvania only as it relates to Dracula in the movies. 09/01/06

I would add a 12: Banat is a historical region on its own and not part of Transylvania--Radufan 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania lead paragraph

I think every bit of Transylvania article should be discussed so that any missconceptions be cleared.

My goal in editing the below lead paragraph was to mention all significant stages of Transylvania. It was an independent state that was brought under authority of Kgdom of Hungary in ~1000. It was an autonomous province during Janos Hunyadi in ~1450. next an (autonomous?) province of kgdom of Hungary during Mathias Corvin. next a principality vassal to the Otoman Empire until 1600 when it was brought by Michael the brave under his authority. then regained independency, then brought under Habsburg authority, then under Austria-Hungary, then Romanians proclaimed union with Romania in 1918, then Treaty of Trianon ratified the union in 1920.

Transylvania (Romanian: Ardeal or Transilvania; Hungarian: Erdély; German: Siebenbürgen (help·info)) is a historical region in the center of Romania. Transylvania was an independent Principality, and a Province of the Kingdom of Hungary and of the Habsburg Monarchy since Middle Ages, with a period of vassalage to the Ottoman Empire and a brief year under the authority of Wallachian ruler Michael the Brave until the end of World War I in 1918, when the Romanian National Party from Transylvania proclaimed union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania. The political union was ratified in the Treaty of Trianon in 1920.

if i wrote something that might be seen as NPOV, (i can say i am not the best in formulating things perfectly), please address the matter. If we discuss the misunderstandings and weaknesses of this article, it will clear things out Criztu 09:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All of these are clarified below in the article (and, btw, all years are as brief or as long, give or take a few days). The question of a local initiative in proclaiming the union is rendered moot by the fact that the Romanian government forcefully dissolved the assembly a couple of years later, did not respect its decision in toto, and relied on international treaties to confirm that Transylvania was more of a war conquest than a Wilsonian present. Dahn 10:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

my point is "listing all significant stages of Transylvania in the lead paragraph" (i understand lead paragraph is not lead section ok). if we dont list all significant stages of Transylvania, then there is room left for endless objections. I think that a brief chronology in the lead would be the least suspicious aproach on the Transylvania article. perhaps the lead paragraph should contain only the contemporary situation of Transyvlania, that of "historical province of Romania" and a brief chronology in the lead section ? Criztu 10:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

We have listed all that is significant, without falling into any POV. I prefer "sins of ommission" to "sins of commission" in a lead paragraph. Dahn 10:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lead section : The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms. It should contain up to four paragraphs, depending on the length of the article, and should provide an overview, or executive summary, of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies, if there are any. The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, should be written in a clear and accessible style, should be carefully sourced like the rest of the text, and should encourage the reader to want to read more. Criztu 11:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing that would contradict my approach. In fact, focus on "concise overview of the article". Dahn 11:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Also: if the lead paragraph is supposed to be an overview and you interpret that to mean "all the facts that anyone might consider important", what the hell is the history section supposed to be when we both can see that there is a "main article" History of Transylvania?! Do we write everything down thrice? Also, I would like to point out that significance should not be established on a communal basis, but on a regional one: it doesn't matter much what was percieved as seminal by Romantic poets etc. for an ethnic community, but what was factually relevant for the region itself! Dahn 11:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am intending on a formulation like in Britannica about Transylvania Criztu 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No you hadn't. Read the text and notice why it is not at all like yours. (Clue: where is Mihai?) Dahn 12:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Britannica about Michael the Brave: "prince of Walachia, who briefly united much of the future national patrimony under his rule". Transylvania is the national patrimony of Romania. The word used is "united". this formulation i think should be provided also, but ofcourse, after reaching an agreement (if such agreement is possible) Criztu 12:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you if you were able to read it in the introductory paragraph. Clue: otherwise, the info is present here as well. The history section also uses "united", which is, IMO, an overstatement (but MO need not pass in the text). Dahn 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I was able to read about the union of Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia in the lead section of Michael the Brave article in Britannica. Criztu 14:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Zero relevance and sophistry. Dahn 17:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Britannica has expertise, u dont. u saying Britannica's "prince of Walachia, who briefly united much of the future national patrimony under his rule" i perceive as disregard of efforts to reach agreement Criztu 17:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

How the hell is what Britannica states in an article about Mihai relevant to the article at hand? Let me also note that you are again reading what you want into Britannica, as well as reading what you want into what I have said: me and Britannica do not disagree, especially since the statement itself is rather vague. Plus, read again where I have said "but MO need not pass in the text". For factual info, note that Wallachia was ruled by Mihai's son, and also that Mihai did not annex any territory (in fact, most sources will agree, even if grudgingly, that he was acting as Habsburg governor of Transylvania in his own view). Dahn 20:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am open to reaching a NPOV formulation to how Michael the Brave united/brought together Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia. my point is his act of uniting the 3 principalities in a single state has to be reflected in the lead section of Transylvania article. Criztu 20:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Britannica sure doesn't seem to care! Weren't you using that as your template? Dahn 21:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not simply an effort to replicate Britannica. If you sample three or four decent encyclopedias (in English, besides Britannica, I'd mention the late lamented Collier's and Americana) that carries more weight. But still, we have to make our own editorial decisions. And I don't really think "Britannica has expertise, u dont" cuts it. Dahn has certainly shown himself to be knowledgable on the topic at hand. And I dare say that looking over and over to Britannica for guidance (or any other tertiary work, but especially the same one over and over) is not the mark of an expert. - Jmabel | Talk 06:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

traditional division of Transylvania

"Another traditional division is the Hungarian (and Austro-Hungarian) administrative system" - this is NPOV

Tradition - 1.) A meme; custom or practice taught by one generation to another, often orally

I think traditional hungarian "divisions" would be "mezoseg, szekelyfold, nosnerland etc.". Since Administrative divisions of Hungary are something that imply "a state authority" (just like Counties of Romania are divisions of Romania) these "administrative divisions" belong the history paragraphs. where Hungary exercised authority over Transylvania, link to Administrative divisions of Hungary is provided. where Romania exercised authoriy over Transylvania, link to Counties of Romania is provided. You dont see romanians rushing to put a text in the lead "traditional divisions of Transilvania see Counties of Romania". i understand a hungarian editor may be suspicious about the intentions of a romanian editor of Transylvania. I hope u will understand that providing information about "administration of Hungary" in the lead paragraph would consequently motivate romanians to put information about "administration of ROmania" in the lead paragraph, and the lead paragraph soon becomes an article itself Criztu 09:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1. It is not "in the lead paragraph". 2. The main difference between it and the Romanian administrative system is that the former had a traceable history to the times when Transylvania was independent (thus, it pertains to Transylvania in a traditional manner). Say what you want about the Romanian system, but reference to it as "traditional" would be revertible on sight. Dahn 09:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

but there are romanians and hungarians and other nation in Transylvania. saying "another traditional division of Transylvania are the administrative divisions of kgdom of Hungary" would imply "people of Transylvania refer to its regions with the names of administrative divisions of Hungary" when this apply only for Hungarians in Transylvania. perhaps a formulation "Hungarians living in Transylvania traditionaly refer to the regions of Transylvania also with the names of the administrative divisions of the kgdom of Hungary" would be more exact. I am sure these counties of kgdom of Hungary are not traditions of the romanians in Transylvania. Criztu 10:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Again: I was stating that these counties existed and took historical precedence over the Romanian ones. Dahn 10:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania has not a single Tradition. if there is a Hungarian Tradition, then it has to be stated clearly that that is a Hungarian Tradition, if requested. I request it Criztu 11:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania as a state and region has a single tradition: its tradition as a state and region. Surely, that would tend to be Hungarian more than Romanian, and German more than Romanian but less than Hungarian etc. etc. Nothing ethnic about it: Transylvania was a region before Romania even came to be. As such, its divisions are and were those (especially since there are no competing "Romanian" ones: do you know of a parallel Romania adminstrative structure? do you know of any literate Romanians who were not aware of what capital their respective county had?). Hell, even Romanian sources make reference to traditional Transylvanian counties! Dahn 11:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

a tradition is a "custom or practice taught by one generation to another, often orally. since there are many nations and groups of populations in Transylvania, there are many traditions, so i request you be specific to traditions of hungarians and not present them as the traditions of Transylvania Criztu 11:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That is absurd. Especially since your take on tradition could not at all be including such a domain as regions. Transylvania has a tradition as a political entity: that is not equivalent to folk traditions and the like. A state is one, a province is one - no matter how many cultures it may have, they do not create parallel administrative systems. Dahn 12:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

my point is Traditions are mainly associated with population, a culture of a population. we could say that a political class has a tradition, we can extend it to states/provinces having a tradition. But, Transylvania has many populations, many culture, has no political class since it is not a state/province. I am perfectly aware of Transylvania having today many cultures and nations, but I object to treating Transylvania as having today a political culture or a political tradition. a connection between Transylvania and Hungary should be provided in the leading section, but, I object to formulations like "Transylvania has a (or another) traditional division (see counties of Hungary) or is divided traditionaly (see counties of Hungary)". I have no objection to "Transylvania has been part of Hungary (see counties of Hungary)" Criztu 13:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Were do you see the implication that "today, Transylvania is divided along such lines". For Chrissake, the term "traditional" establishes precisely that that is not the case! It is otherwise bewilderlingly false to imply that those administrative divisions do not carry the same historical weight as, say, Nösnerland. Transylvania does have a tradition, whether or not this is the basis for modern realities. We are talking about hundreds of years of history, which are relevant in themselves. This is not even about the usual thought police of Romanian nationalism, the one pretending that Transylvania was never a political construct: the mention only establishes things of major interest to the reader ("Transylvania was divided by the vast majotrity of its administrators along this lines"). Let us not forget that, unlike that pattern, Transylvania in Romania has went to four or five radically different administrative reforms! Dahn 13:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

i have no objection to "Transylvania was divided by the the kingdom of Hungary along this lines", i object to "vast majority of administrators". i think tradition implies something that is alive, in use. administrative divisions of kingdom of hungary were, in the past; they are not in use today, they are not "handover to the today generation of political class of Transylvania" to qualify as a political tradition, since today there is no political entity TransylvaniaCriztu 14:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Not, but this article deals with what was a political entity. The article makes it as clear as possible that Transylvania is not a division of Romania. Hence, all tradition is in the past. Stating that "today there is no political entity Transylvania" is absurd: all references to it being so (which, again, is an integral part of this article) also refer to tradition. In other words: accepted or not in Romania's legal system, that is Transylvania's tradition. If it is not a political entity today, it does not mean that it was not, and that the counties comprising it were not granted legal status by the vast majority of its administrators (Kings of Hungary, local princes, Habsburgs). I frankly cannot see any room for spin here - nobody could imply that it is the case today, just as nobody could deny that Transylvania's administrative tradition does not reside with the Romanian state (that would be absolutely nonsensical). Dahn 14:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

the article states it from the first line that Transylvania is a historical region of Romania. if one continues with "another traditional division of Transylvania is the hungarian admin system then u have a dispute in the lead section. i do not object on providing info about how Transylvania was administrated by kgdom of Hungary, i object to such weasel term formulations Criztu 15:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you do not. Because the only status Transylvania has in Romania is that of informal region (cultural reference). As such, mentioning that the traditional administration was centered on Hungarian Kingdom counties is by no means contradictory. There is no goddamn "weasel term" in there. Dahn 15:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

administrative divisions of Hungary is a tradition of Hungary. as soon as Transylvania exits the authority of Hungary and enters Otoman/Habsburg/ROmanian authority, administrative divisions of Romania are in use, but they remain traditions of Otoman/Habsburg/ROmania. I dont see a territory as having a tradition, but I see a state/population having a tradition. Criztu 15:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You do not seem to get that these counties were in use by all suzerain powers, and not just Hungary (as all inside the Kingdom were to be eventually). Ottoman sovereignty has even less relevance for the topic of local administration than it has in Wallachia or Moldavia. Dahn 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

from my information, the administrative divisions of Hungary changed throughout the time, i will accumulate more info on that. However, they are "traditional administrative divisions of Hungary". Criztu 16:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah? How and when? Dahn 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

point is they are a "tradition of the hungarian state" Criztu 16:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And of independent Transylvania, and of the Habsburgs, and of the Ottomans if need be. That's a point for you. Dahn 16:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Britannica

the below text is from Britannica concise. I use Britannica as an expert guide, recognised by Wikipedia. Criztu 11:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Transylvania Britannica Concise

Historic region, northwestern and central Romania.

It comprises a plateau surrounded by the Carpathian Mountains and the Transylvanian Alps. It formed the nucleus of the Dacian kingdom and was included in the Roman province of Dacia in the 2nd century AD. The Magyars (Hungarians) conquered the area at the end of the 9th century. When Hungary was divided between the Habsburgs and the Turks in the 16th century, Transylvania became an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire. It was attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary at the end of the 17th century. Transylvania was the scene of severe fighting in the Hungarian revolution against Austria in 1848. When Austria-Hungary was defeated in World War I, the Romanians of Transylvania proclaimed the land united with Romania. Hungary regained the northern portion during World War II, but the entire region was ceded to Romania in 1947

Hm. If you use that as guideline, you will have to remove more of your additions than mine. If this is about the way the union was carried out, I have to point out that Britannica is inaccurate and rather casual in presenting the facts. Dahn 11:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying I am an expert, so yes, i may formulate things less perfect. thats why i use Britannica as a guide. you Dahn are not an expert either, so i wont use you as a guideline Criztu 11:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I must stutter or something: I have given you facts, and told you why the Britannica is wrong in one instance (it is ignoring succession of facts), while pointing out that it has more to contradict in your interventions oin the trext than mine. Dahn 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see Transylvania as a former principality and a province of Kgdom of Hungary and Habsburg Empire. I dont see Transylvania as the core of Dacia for example. u may see things differently. In the lead paragraph i am trying to point the events that had significance at their time, and the events that are significant now.Criztu 13:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I see the below formulation as NPOV, pointing successive significant moments for both romanians and hungarians.Criztu 13:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Transylvania an independent state in the 9th century, became part of kgdom of Hungary in 11th century, became Principality under Otoman suzeraity in the 15th, briefly united with Wallachia and Moldova in 1600, autonomous province of the Habsburg empire until 19th when became province of kgdom of Hungary again (u add brief info about a proclamation of union by hungarians), until WW 1 when became part of Romania (i add brief info about proclamation of union with romania) ratified by Treaty of Trianon (u add info on how it was taken from HU, i add info on how it was ratification of union proclamation)."

Again: instead of making this communal, we could notice that we are referring to a region. Regardless of "patrimonies", some things were dead relevant to the region itself. Mentioned briefly, they avoid both confusion and casual, well, lie (again: the union was "proclaimed", but this is not the factual source of the union - as Mr. Maniu himself pointed out). Dahn 13:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania is a historic region, Transylvania was Province and Principality. If u have details on what exactly united Transylvania with Romania, then point them out. There was a union of Transylvania with ROmania, u propose a formulation on how this Union should be presented in the Lead Section, if u are not satisfied with my formulation Criztu 13:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"was awarded to the Kingdom of Romania by the Treaty of Trianon (1920)". Simple, correct, and undisputable. Dahn 14:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have detailed the exact situation at Romanian National Party and Peasants' Party (Romania). There is also some information on Iuliu Maniu, Ion I. C. Brătianu, Alexandru Vaida-Voevod, and Alexandru Averescu (the former is unsourced, because I got lazy, but the sources are the same as for the other three). Dahn 14:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If Britannica would have used the term "awarded" i would have had double thoughts. since you cant claim u have more expertise than Britannica, i will go with "united". If u present a quote of the Treaty of Triannon where it is written "present treaty awards Transylvania to ROmania" then i will go with the text from Treaty of Triannon Criztu 14:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

You will of course note that a treaty does not "unite" - it confirms, gives, cedes, or, in this case, awards. The factual connection between the Alba Iulia proclamation and the Treaty is paralogical (not sophistical, just paralogical). Also note that the Britannica does not clarify the relation between the two (prolly because it does not need to, since it is not an "encyclopedia to which anyone can contribute"). Lastly: note the term Britannica uses for what happened in 1947 - "CEDED", which is more questionable than "awarded", but in fact reflects the very same process. Dahn 14:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, in 1947 north Transylvania was CEDED to Romania. i have no objection to that. u should read the Treaty of Triannon and if u dont find a formulation "Transylvania is given/ceded/awarded to ROmania" then i will go with Britannica formulation. check Political union Criztu 14:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

What does it say, pray tell? "The frontiers of Hungary shall be fixed as follows". FIXED. As in: "this is a decision that we take" [note: of course, "we" means the winning powers in WWI, including Romania]. Dahn 14:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

so there is no award/given/ceded. check Political union Criztu 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean: "A political union is a type of state which is composed of smaller states"?! What the hell are you on about?! How do you figure this applies here, my friend? And how is "fixed", used by a congress of political powers in Romania's presence not the same as "awarded"?! Dahn 15:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

hmm, yes, wikipedia doesnt quite explain what is a Union. political union might be interpretated in this Transylvania united with Romania; better english word Unification (disambiguation). could u explain what do u understand by, and how "Transylvania was awarded to ROmania"? Award An award is something given to a person or group of people. Criztu 15:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, why don't we ask you to explain international law to all of us? You seem to know a lot about what "might be interpreted" (albeit whimsically so). As for the rest: An award is something given to a person or group of people - precisely. I fail to see what pedigree that would ruin - it is factual (more factual than the "ceded" used for the 1947 Treaty). Dahn 15:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

if u cant quote Treaty of Trianon stating "Transylvania awarded to Romania" then i can object indefinately. i have no objection to the formulation "Transylvania united with Romania" used by Britannica Criztu 15:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting spin. Note the succesion and relevance of facts, and stop misquoting and mindreading Britannica editors. Transylvania plus ultra was factually awarded to Romania in 1920 - the article makes it clear that the region itself was not "symbolically", but factually awarded (as should be made clear by the fact that the last borders of Transylvania no longer coincided with the western Romanian border). This is to say that all of Transylvania was blended into Romania - as you have noted is the custom with centralist Romanian administration (in blatant contradiction with the Alba Iulia resolutions). Dahn 15:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

lol. "the Romanians of Transylvania proclaimed the land united with Romania" is the formulation of Britannica, this is what i intend on using. unless u quote from Trianon i will object indefinately to formulation "Transylvania was awarded" Criztu 15:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Will you not understand the simple fact that this had no legal basis in hell? I like Maniu and the rest better than Brătianu myself, but that does not mean that Brătianu did not win the day at Trianon and after. Did you know that the National Party was negotiating a revision of Trianon in the late 1920s? Stop playing with facts! I have quoted from Trianon: "the borders are fixed as such". That was a conference of the winning powers in goddamn WW1, and Hungary was a defeated country. "Being awarded" was surely not a problem for the Romanian gvt., so let's not invent it in retrospect. Dahn 15:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

as u said, Trianon fixed borders of Hungary. there is no mention of "Transylvania awarded". I think it would be most reasonable to use the formulation of Britannica, so that no one can accuse nobody of any POV Criztu 16:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That is absurd! Transylvania had existed within those borders, and was at the moment governed as a region by the Directory Council, which Romania refused to recognize. This is like telling me that I cannot say that "Transylvania enjoys a higher standard of living than the rest of Romania", and have to use instead Alba, Arad, Bihor, Bistriţa-Năsăud, Braşov, Caraş-Severin, Cluj, Covasna, Harghita, Hunedoara, Maramureş, Mureş, Sălaj, Satu Mare, Sibiu, and Timiş! For Chrissake, that was the case: the territory, comprising for the most the former polity, was awarded de facto to Romania. Dahn 16:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

lets use the formulation from either Britannica or Treaty of Trianon, Versailes and other Treaties that settled the legal status of Transylvania Criztu 16:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And I quote:

Hungary undertakes to recognise the full force of the Treaties of Peace and additional conventions which have been or may be concluded by the Allied and Associated Powers with the Powers who fought on the side of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, and to recognise whatever dispositions have been or may be made concerning the territories of the former German Empire, of Austria, of the Kingdom of Bulgaria and of the Ottoman Empire, and to recognise the new States within their frontiers as there laid down.

Hungary hereby recognises and accepts the frontiers of Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Poland, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and the Czecho-Slovak State as these frontiers may be determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers.

Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all rights and title over the territories which previously belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and which, being situated outside the new frontiers of Hungary as described in Article 27, Part II (Frontiers of Hungary), have not at present been otherwise disposed of.

Hungary undertakes to accept the settlement made by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers in regard to these territories, particularly in so far as concerns the nationality of the inhabitants.

Hungary will hand over without delay to the Allied and Associated Governments concerned archives, registers, plans, titledeeds and documents of every kind belonging to the civil, military, financial, judicial or other forms of administration in the ceded territories. If any one of these documents, archives, registers, title-deeds or plans is missing, it shall be restored by Hungary upon the demand of the Allied or Associated Government concerned.

Key terms: "disposition", "frontiers as there laid down", "frontiers determined by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers", "renounces, in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all rights and title", "accept the settlement made by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers", "Hungary will hand over without delay to the Allied and Associated Governments". Dahn 16:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

can u point to where is it written "Hungary cedes/gives/renounces/awards/etc parts of its teritory to Allieds and Associates" ? i can understand u dont understand these legal treaties as u lack expertise, i dont understand why dont u understand that Britannica is a compromise that neither me, or other romanian i think, will consider POV. Criztu 16:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure I can point it out. It is right here: "Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers all rights and title over the territories which previously belonged to the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and which, being situated outside the new frontiers of Hungary as described in Article 27, Part II (Frontiers of Hungary), have not at present been otherwise disposed of." May I also point out who definite factor of decision is? Here: "settlement made by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers". "Say, who made the settlement?" "Why, the Principal Allied and Associated Powers did". Dahn 17:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"neither me, or other romanian i think, will consider POV" This is borderline amusing. No Romanian? What am I, then - chopped liver? And how is a statement "less POV" if it is likened by Romanians and only Romanians? Dahn 17:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

i understand this discussion my have tired u. what this treaty says is "Hungary renounces(that means, Hungary doesnt claims) the rights and titles of the Austria-Hungary (which was a defunct legal entity), in favour (that means Hungary doesnt express claims over them) of Allies and Associates (that means ROmania among others). that means, Allied and Associates have the legal right over Austria-Hungary as far as Hungary is concerned. that means, Hungary is not a successor of Austria-Hungary in that matter. that means, Hungary recognises the right of kingdom of Romania(as associated power) over rights and titles of Austria-Hungary". check Allies of World War I Criztu 17:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

That just makes no sense. You forget that Hungary had decalred its independence in extended borders around 1917. Dahn 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

then why did Hungary renounced to the rights and titles of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in favour of Allies and Associates in 1920 ? and what legal Treaty recognized the rights of Hungary over the rights of Austria-Hungary in 1917 ? Criztu 17:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple. Although the treaty itself considered it a sovereign nation, it did not sanction its sovereignty over all territories of St. Stephen's Crown (which were part of a very obvious Hungarian half of Austria-Hungary, not just "of Austria-Hungary") - comparable to the USSR recognizing Romania, but not Greater Romania. Now, are we just about done here? Dahn 19:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose either formulating the lead section the way Britannica formulates it, either coming to an agreemant that would reflect the romanian view of what is relevant about Transylvania. I am not editing Transylvania lead section yet, hoping for an agreement. If u express no intention in reaching an agreement or using the Britannica formulation, then it is survey, mediation, arbitration. it will take some time i think, but as the lead section looks now, i will have to object to it Criztu 20:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

So, let me see: you propose either a version that does not contain "the romanian view of what is relevant about Transylvania" (I will not comment further on the narrowness and absurdity of the quoted statement) and contains an inaccuracy or a version that you came up with which "would reflect" that? And you imply that what you support in front of, the way it looks now, all contributors other than you, is a "cause for mediation"? You admit that you do not have any sort of expertise, meet with some topics for the first time in your life, and imply that you're still right for not dealing with them at all? You formulate half of all your answers in accordance with what unsanctioned you and you only read into them, and tell me that we ought to include that in an article? You tell me that Mihai's entry into Alba Iulia is the most important moment in Transylvanian history, dismiss a reference to the counties which made up Transylvania for most of its history as (paraphrase) "Hungarian stuff", and then you actually expect anyone to believe that you are into NPOV? You imply that the very same information should be included no less than three times in Transylvania articles, then you invoke wikipedia guidelines? And, after all of this, you expect people to actually take into consideration what you "have to object to", without being able to present a single valid reason as to why "your objection" is not strictly synonymous with "your POV"?! Am I to understand that replying to you is simply wasting my time? Dahn 20:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am asking for mention of the Unification of Transylvania with Wallachia in Moldavia by Michael the Brave in the lead section. I am asking for mention of Proclamation of Unification of Transylvania with kgdom of Romania in 1918, and i am asking to avoid a formulation that presenting Transylvania as a present day legal entity having an administrative tradition that belonged to kgdom of Hungary. Criztu 21:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

First request: you are asking, and you yourself cannot point out why. Second request: that has no true relevance to soverignty, and is obscuring an important decision taken two yeras later (one which did have relevance to soverignty). Third request: you would only make sense if anyone would have implied that Transylvania is a legal entity. Repeating the same sentences will not make you sound more informed or correct, and you have not clarified why your indifferent and uninformed oppinion should be a guideline for the text. Dahn 21:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

first request: Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Romania in 1600, that is a fact stated by both romanian history and Britannica. It expressed the will of Romanian politic class to unite Transylvania Wallachia and Moldova in a single state. second request: currently, Transilvania is a historical region of Romania. before being a historical region of Romania, Transilvania had a different status. the moment when Transylvania ceased to have a status other than historical region of Romania, becomes relevant to the lead section. That moment is identified by romanian history and Britannica as the Proclamation of Alba Iulia 1918. I wouldnt object if mention to treaty of Trianon is provided, Trianon having the relevance "Hungary legaly recognises Transylvania as a teritory of Romania". Trianon didnt "award/cede/give" Transylvania to nobody. The legitimicy of Transylvania becoming part of Romania is settled in other Treaties. third request: if Transylvania is no political entity today, then it has no political tradition. administrative divisions of kgdom of Hungary are tradition of Hungary. Criztu 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

first request: Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Romania in 1600, that is a fact stated by both romanian history and Britannica. It expressed the will of Romanian politic class to unite Transylvania Wallachia and Moldova in a single state. second request: currently, Transilvania is a historical region of Romania. before being a historical region of Romania, Transilvania had a different status. the moment when Transylvania ceased to have a status other than historical region of Romania, becomes relevant to the lead section. That moment is identified by romanian history and Britannica as the Proclamation of Alba Iulia 1918. I wouldnt object if mention to treaty of Trianon is provided, Trianon having the relevance "Hungary legaly recognises Transylvania as a teritory of Romania". Trianon didnt "award/cede/give" Transylvania to nobody. third request: if Transylvania is no political entity today, then it has no political tradition. administrative divisions of kgdom of Hungary are tradition of Hungary. Criztu 11:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

first request:stop playing games - Britannica mentions that somewhere else (have the curtesy of looking not only through other, specific, articles, but also in this one and the adjacent History of Transylvania, and you'll see the info present and dealt with). The statement "It expressed the will of Romanian politic class to unite Transylvania Wallachia and Moldova in a single state" is irrational Romanian POV - an interpretation that stretches reality and disreagrads facts aknowledged by all; it is, at best, dismissable. Also note that Britannica does not sate anything remotely similar to that phrase. second request:again, Transylvania was not incorporated into Romania after the Alba Iulia Assembly. Quit switching your position around, and note at least that all this is already addressed in the article. Trianon didnt "award/cede/give" Transylvania to nobody - before I advise you to return to studying English grammar, I have to point out that this is strictly your POV interpretation of the Trianon text, as can be seen from what we have already debated; unless you can add anything here, your alleged point is moot. third request:Transylvania was a political entity, and as such has a tradition (logical point: it had its own administrative divisions back when it was a legal entity - since being a legal entity was part of its tradition, that division is indeed traditional itself; if we contrast it with the Romanian counties, which may or may not reflect the Hungarian system, the latter cannot possibly be traditional). The divisions are not just associated with the Kingdom of Hungary, and you well know it. Dahn 11:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1.) I consider relevant for the lead section of Transylvania the mention "Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600". That is a fact, and its relevance in the lead section is reflected today in Transylvania's status as part of Romania alongside Wallachia and part of Moldova. (i leave it to you to argument how is this irrational romanian POV) 2.)Allied Powers recognised Transylvania as part of Romania since the moment Romania entered WW1 in 1916. Romanians from Transylvania took control of Transylvania in 1918. Hungary renounced the rights and titles of the defunct Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in favour of Romania in 1920. these are facts. 3.) Transylvania is a historical region of Romania. it has many nations, many cultures, many traditions. It has no "traditional" administrative divisions because it is not a legal entity. it had administrative divisions when it was a legal entity. Criztu 12:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1) While the term to use may actually be closer to "collected" than it is to "united" (no single administration for Chrissake! no new sovereignty, since he was a vassal of Rudolph! a minor episode of the Habsburg-Ottoman War, that cannot be singled out in the lead, as no source other than Romanian will!), that is besides the point. A mention of Mihai in the lead for the sake of mentioning Mihai in the lead would call for a review of much more important moments: Transylvania in the Thirty Years' War, Transylvania in the Great Turkish War etc., as moments not "important for Hungarians", but "relevant for the goddamn region this article is about" - getting into all that info is already done on this very page, and much better than a lead possibly could. For all those interested into further details, there are several articles explaining even further. The information about the union is not necessarily biased, it is highly irreleavnt in that succint a context; the "information" about "what it meant for the Romanian politic[al] class" is POV run amok for reasons as obvious as the fact that you seem to be unable to properly spell "romanian" as "Romanian" (it stands for "an unspecified someone's belief" and is of no goddamn importance in defining the historical relevance of the events for anything other than the more provincial part of Romania). 2) It should be obvious to you that Romania had kinda lost the war in-between. Romanians "took control" of Transylvania only to lose it to Romania's military occupation, the effects of which were granted legal recognition at Trianon (after Romania did a little raiding through Hungary); the Council did not have legal status in either Hungary or Romania, so its mention belongs in the history section. Trianon not only settled the inclusion of Transylvania, it also settled the Aliies' attitude towards Romania ("a defeated state? an unlucky Ally? those guys that were engaged in banditry in Budapest when no one had asked them to "stomp Bolshevism"?... wait... we'll call those guys "Associates"). Saying that "Romania had been recognized rule over Transylvania in 1916" is newspeak: on the one hand, it is like saying that "Denmark had been recognized rule over South Jutland County in 1914"; on the other, you fail to note that the post-WWI border was not fixed on the Tisza. 3) For the 14th time, Transylvania has an administrative tradition. You are contradicting yourself hen you cite "it being [whatever] to Romania", because Transylvania has no status in Romania. The relevance of past regions to a past state is obvious, and it is also obviously readable in the article that Transylvania is no longer a legal entity. So, your "concerns" make no sense. Dahn 12:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1.) i think you dispute the meaning of the word unite 2.) Transylvania united with Romania is a legal thing, settled by Treaty of Versailles. Treaty of Trianon settled the borders of Hungary. i am not diving into "Romania raided Hungary or Hungary raided ROmania" discussions here. 3.) Hungarian political class has a tradition of dividing teritories under its authority acording to a Hungarian system. Transylvania is currently a historic region of Romania, has no administrative status, and is not divided according to any traditional division system. I request clear statement that "administrative divisions of kingdom of Hungary" are not a thing of the present, and refer to Transylvania as a Principality or a Province. Criztu 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Are we talking about the Kool & the Gang album? Seriously, that link leads nowhere! 2. Disregarding the fact that that would be your spin, I have to point out that what you would get in that event is "the Treaty of Versailles awarded Transylvania to Romania", and nothing concrete about the Directory Council (again, check your comments for relevance). 3. "Transylvania is currently a historic region of Romania" makes no sense as a statement. If its traditional status was thatr of a politcal entity, then its administrative units are part of that tradition. The dominating tone of Transylvania's description is in the past, and this article clearly establishes that the region is not a province or a state at the present moment (again, check your comments for relevance). Dahn 19:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

I guess a tag Disputed should be put to the article until we come to an agreement Criztu 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Please point out one disputed fact that I have dropped in the text. Dahn 11:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

are we going to dispute over the DisputeTag ? lol Criztu 12:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, is there any reason for it to be there? Answer to the point. Dahn 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

i hope we come to an agreement, as it is now, the lead section is disputable Criztu 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I have asked you what is disputable about it. Dahn 13:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am asking u what is disputable about "Michael the Brave brought Transylvania under his authority in 1600" and "Transylvania united with romania through the proclamaition of 1918 ratified in the Treaty of Triannon 1920" in the lead section ? are u disputing the factual accuracy of these sentences ? cuz u are the one who removed them Criztu 13:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I dispute their relevance to the lead section (for the former, Britannica seems to agree with me). For the latter, I also dispute factual accuracy: the Treaty of Trianon ratified the union, not the Alba Iulia gathering. The latter was not allowed to have legal basis by the Romanian government. Dahn 14:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

U cant dispute that Romanians proclaimed union at Alba Iulia 1918. I cant dispute Treaty of Trianon in 1920 made the situation legal. we can also add that between 1918 and 1920 Romania and Hungary fought over Transylvania, now i see i forgot to put that in the lead section Criztu 14:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

As Mrs. Brătianu and Averescu intended, as king Ferdinand backed their attitudes, connecting Alba Iulia to Trianon is pure fallacy. If the top section does not aim to be casually disputable, confine such terms to the history section and the immense "History of " article. Dahn 14:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

u can not dispute the factual accuracy of "romanians from Transylvania proclaimed union with Romania - alba iulia 1918", i can not dispute "Trianon recognized Union of ROmania and Transylvania in 1920". i have no intention in keeping them connected if u dont see a connection between them Criztu 14:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first lines should be a review of soverignties: Romanian sovereignty began in 1920 (not early 1919). Furthermore, the Treaty of Trianon does not seem to make any reference to Transylvania as such (unlike the Alba Iulia gathering), but to the specific new borders of Romania - as Brătianu intended it, not as Maniu and the others did. Can you see my point? Dahn 15:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

u are objecting to information presented in Britannica. since Britannica chosen Union, do u think we have to dispute weather awarded would fit better ? noone awarded Transylvania to Romania, since in 1920 Transylvania was under Romanian authority. Criztu 15:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Britannica says "the Romanians of Transylvania proclaimed the land united with Romania" - I have pointed out why this is of no relevance to the sovereignty itself. The treaty awarded - it did not "recognize", since the Alba Iulia gesture was ignored by the Romanian gvt. itself, and since the text of the treaty mentions new borders being awarded to Romania by the winning states, and not Transylvanian decision. Check your comments for relevance. Dahn 15:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I can as well say Trianon doesnt say anything about Transylvania, so u cannot say "Trianon awarded Transylvania to Romania". As for Romanian kgdom, since there was a coronation of Alba Iulia couple years later, that would be enough to see the importance of Michael the Brave at Alba Iulia in 1600 and of the Proclamation of Alba Iulia 1918 Criztu 15:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

All of that is just absurd. Instead of arguing symbolics and pretense, we could stick to the relevant. Btw, the Alba Iulia politicians were outraged by the coronation, for the precise reasons which you advocate. Dahn 15:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Michael the Brave entered Alba Iulia 1600. the relevancy of its act is mirrored in the Proclamation of Alba Iulia 1918. the relevancy of both Michael and Proclamation are strengthen by Coronation of Alba Iulia 1922. further strengthtening of the relevancy of Michael and Proclamation is ROmania national celebrated at Alba Iulia. this is most relevant to the article Transylvania Criztu 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm just about done arguing reason here. "this is most relevant to the article Transylvania" is just bewilderingly Romantic POV. Dahn 15:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I intend on using the formulation Britannica uses in the lead section of its Transylvania article as a NPOV formulation Criztu 15:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't. You want to use it as a template for your POV. You want to add references about Mihai, you want to imply what "the most important facts are", and you want to misquote and take out of its rather casual context the statement about local decision for the union (in the latter case, a simple forray into the facts themselves will show you why Britannica does not make any sense). Dahn 15:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I intend on using Britannica as an expert guide. I understand u may not agree with information about Michael the Brave that i want to add, that is why i am proposing to stick with Britannica formulation that i quoted in this talkpage as a NPOV lead paragraph. Criztu 16:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

But it is either factually wrong or simply idiotic. The Alba Iulia gathering has had no legal consequence! Dahn 16:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

what, u want to discuss what is legal and what not ? we are both lacking expertise. I choose Britannica formulation. It doesnt reflect all my opinions, but at least has expertise. Criztu 16:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is common knowledge and beyond any possible POV that the Romanian government dissolved the Directory Council. That is the legal state of facts. Say what you will about my expertise, but it seems to surpass yours. You attacked the text on self-contradictory grounds, and are sticking by a caption of text which is at best obscure. The Treaty was, obviously, the ultimate legal result. What you would have to prove is that it mentions and sanctions the Directory Council - it does neither, since Brătianu just up and took the region. From a legal point of view, Transylvania as a political entity ceased to exist at that moment - it was partly revived by Carol II and his intended quasi-regionalist administrative reform, and came back with a vengeance in 1940. In other terms, it remained a cultural, not legal, reference. As such, given that we have to stick with facts, and not with interpretations, the text as is remains the better formula. All that needs to be detailed will be so in the history section and its main article (may I remind you that, since the former is supposed to remain succint, mentioning the more minor events in the lead would be thrice redundant?). If you kinda got the idea that I support regionalism or a Transylvanian identity, you would be wrong: I have no definate POV on that matter, I am not remotely Transylvanian, and I am carrying out this debate simply because history is not my plasticine playground. Dahn 16:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

i will add POV tag to the article, until we reach agreement Criztu 21:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

WHAT? DO I HAVE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT WITH YOU FOR THIS ARTICLE TO BE NPOV? Who died and made you an encyclopaedia, dude? Dahn 21:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I will list Transylvania on Wikipedia:Current surveys, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, and Wikipedia:Third opinion. after that I will list Transylvania article on Wikipedia:Requests for mediation and after that on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Until this process will be over I will put a dispute and POV tags to the article. Reverting them will signify you are not willing to reach a NPOV formulation of the Transylvania article Dahn Criztu 10:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What is my POV, Critzu? You do not answer any concern and accuse me of whatever you dreamt of last night. Is it "my POV" that Mihai does not truly belong in the opening paragraph for conducting a one-year campaign that arguably placed Transylvania under the same administration (although: fact - his son ruled Wallachia; fact - he did not give the countries the same administration; read any goddamn source on the topic and you'll see this at worst alluded to)? Well, hell, even the source that you are otherwise so keen about quoting disagrees with you on this topic. Is it "my POV" that you propose casually dropping a highly controversial and self-contradictory reference to the Alba Iulia Assembly in the first paragraph (while detailing it there would be providing info thrice redundant!), when every goddamn Romanian politician of the time, as common sense history tells you, rejected the resolution of the Assembly. Find a tag that better reflects what you mean; since you cannot even begin to prove why what challenges your claim would be POV, I suggest one that says "this article is contested by one person, because it does not comply with that person's POV". Hell, you are not even contesting the article, my friend, but failure to mention things in the article (which should make both tags misused). I'm going to, again, erase the tags: you want to bring arbitration or whatever, do it - the tags are not at all necessary for that. Let me also note that you advertise this an open debate, but have failed to answer any question raised in the last posts, and are now only replying to inform me not of "why I am wrong", but of "how you're going to take measures against me". Your behaviour is irrational. Dahn 10:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didnt make any accusations toward you. I stated clearly that i intend on reaching a consensus on what informations are relevant for, and how to formulate the Transylvania Lead section (and after that all article will be discussed). I expressed my agreement in a Britannica like formulation until we reach a consensus. The way it looks now, Transylvania article is disputed by me and you, and i consider its lead section far from being NPOV. I will add the POV tag and Dispute tag until the dispute resolution will settle our dispute. Criztu 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You implicitly accuse me of having a POV. As it is, you are the only one debating anything on this page, and that thing is not even my or anyone's POV, it is failure to include yours. We cannot possibly "settle our dispute", Criztu, because you added nothing to the debate, did not present anything relevant, have quagmired in your interpretations about Trianon, do not answer to the point, and only repeat the same mantra about how I am biased without specifying what my bias is. Furthermore, I find it perplexing that you write in all seriousness on this very talk page that what we need to do in order to remove a tag that you placed is to settle a dispute between you and everybody else! The very implications of that are phantasmagorical. Moreover, since you do not actully contribute to debating your own point anymore, and since you pretend not to notice that even the Britannica (and, as was already pointed out, there is nothing saying that it should be used as a guideline!) does not agree with the points you make, you yourself contribute nothing to solving the alleged debate. If you figured that this "passive resistance" will make others ignore the fact that you make no sense, just because you'll annoy all to death, I have to tell you are wrong: you'd have to come up with at least one relevant reason. Dahn 11:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not making accusations. as u can see i dont revert what u wrote, hoping to reach a consensus on talk page. until we reach a consensus i will add POV tag and Dispute tag. i will proceed to RfC and Mediation not as a threat toward you, but I follow the guidelines of Wikipedia: Dispute resolution. Criztu 12:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What is my POV for a POV tag to be there? Dahn 13:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1.)Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia. it is relevant for the lead section in that today Transylvania is a historical region of Romania. 2.)Romanians proclaimed union of Transylvania with kgdom of ROmania in 1918 after they took control of Transylvania administrative bodies. it is relevant in that it expressed the will of the ROmanians living in Transylvania to a union with Romania. 3.) Transylvania is curently a historic region of Romania, "another traditional division of Transylvania is the Hungarian system" suggests an administrative system currently in use, and being a tradition of a legal entity Transylvania. i consider such formulation a weasel formulation Criztu 14:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is your POV: Michael the Brave did not rule Romania, nor did he bring a single administration to the countries he led, nor did he express any will other than Emperor Rudolph's. Romanians "taking control" of the administrative bodies only happened for a brief period after factual military occupation by Romania - all this is to be explained in the history section, especially given that Romania was effectively awarded sovereignty over the region by and only by the Treaties system. The tradition system of administration is currently reflected by Kingdom of Hungary pages - covering three different types of administration. Let's hear some arguments that are not gibberish, Criztu. Dahn 19:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

While I disagree with Critzu's proposed changes, I also disagree with Dahn's stance that the lead is good in its present form. As it stands, the lead is way too heavy on details, it appears to be leaning towards a Hungarian POV, and it fails its purpose as outlined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead_section. To the point:

• "Initially part of..." Why is "initially" 1000 AD, and not 100 AD, or 100 BC, or any other arbitrary date?!

Because there was no Transylvania prior to that. If it is disputed precisely when it began to exist, that certainly happened under Hungarian rule. (I don't think the text as it is is in danger of giving readers the impression that Hungary already existed by the time Homo sapiens came to exist) Dahn 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"If it is disputed precisely when it began to exist..." What exactly is the IT that begun to exist, the name, the region, a political entity, something else? You're saying "there was no Transylvania prior to that"; there was no name "Transylvania" prior to that, we agree here, but you cannot say "Initially the name was part of...", can you? What became part of the Hungarian Kingdom was the region, not the name, and the region existed (under different names, perhaps) way before that. This article is about the region that these days is called Transylvania, isn't it? Dmaftei 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, all of that would be meaningful if the article would imply that Transylvania and Hungary were created by God Himself on the 8th day or something. The reference to the region as a region dates from its creation inside the kingdom of Hungary: France did not come to be with Gaul, Romania did not come to be with Dacia. If you still find the word awkward, change it to something relevant and, in your own words, not "too heavy in details". Dahn 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• Why mention Cluj-Napoca, Alba Iulia and Sibiu, as former capitals, as opposed to mentioning Cluj-Napoca and Timişoara, as the largest cities, and with a lot of historical, economical and cultural significance (both past and present)?!

Because this was following an obvious criterion. Move all data about regional tradition to the geography section if you will, but stick the reference to populous cities to the same section. Also, I cannot see how mentioning a tradition of Transylvania as a state falls under the label "Hungarian POV" (last time I checked, the present Hungarian POV tends to prove that, even when emancipated, Transylvania was in reality Hungarian). Dahn 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say one word to the effect that "mentioning a tradition... falls under the label..." (though your reply brings to mind qui s'excuse, s'accuse; think about it...) Dmaftei 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to disregard the ad hominem here, because I don't think it was intended. Let me read again what you first posted: "it appears to be leaning towards a Hungarian POV", which was a general point you were making - since you did not detail, I had every right to assume it was behind the critique for this point as well. Dahn 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• The fact that the peripheral regions "fluctuated" has no relevance to the current meaning of the term...

The term "Transylvania", you mean? Well, it is quite obvious that there is no consensus, not even on the same side of the border, as to what "those regions are to Transylvania". Dahn 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean the term "Transylvania". What I point out is the fact that the past political status of Banat, Crişana and Maramureş has nothing to do with the fact that these days there are people that think of Transylvania as Transylvania-proper plus Banat, Crişana and Maramureş. I couldn't care less about consensus; please stick to the point if you really want to have a meaninful discussion... Dmaftei 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is the very point. Up until 1918, Transylvania was, for both Romanians and Hungarians, as well as for all people referring to the land, something else than it is today. For regions other than Banat, Crişana and Maramureş, it is only natural to say that their status has been fluctuating in regard to the core area or their respective overlords - I did not categorize them, I had established what all possible basis for reference to subregions of Transylvania may be (if you will note, the introduction aims to cover, without detailing, all possible relations between those areas and whatever Transylvania was; it also common sense not to imply that a region which was attached to Transylvanian state's territory is exactly the same as a part of Transylvania, even if common reference has come to believe that it is). Dahn 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• The list of regions is misleading: Ţara Bârsei, Mezőség (whatever that means), Ţara Năsăudului, Ţinutul Secuiesc and Ţara Moţilor had always been part of Transilvania-proper. Only Banat, Crişana and Maramureş had been "fluctuating", and are now considered part of Transilvania in the "extended version of the term".

You could change that to "traditionally fluctuated". Also note that the verb "fluctuate" referrs to the status they had towards various powers inside and outside Transylvania - this is highly relevant if we consider that the region was for long a state. Dahn 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I understood very well what you meant by "fluctuate", and again, my point has nothing to do with traditionally or non-traditionally. See above. Dmaftei 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor had mine. See above. Dahn 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• The list of minor teritories is totally useless in the lead. They may very well be mentioned, together with Ţara Bârsei, etc., but in the body of the article, not here.

Move all to geography section, then. Dahn 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since we're talking about a region in Romania, we should probably say "Ţara Bârsei (German: Burzenland)", instead of "Burzenland"...

Not my business. Talk to those who dealt why the article and ask them why they did so. Dahn 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe this is very much your business, since as far as I can see from the article's history it was you who put the list in the lead. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Dmaftei 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I meant to say that I did not give the articles their titles, and that I did not want to be factor in establishing wiki policies towards the naming convention to be used. As it is, I gave them the name present in the articles' lead, and I do not know if English sources do not agree with me (frankly, I don't care that much to look into it). My point was: seek an agreement with other users and, if you do, make the change both here and there. Dahn 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

• "Another traditional division..." belongs either to "Administrative divisions", or to "History". The only "benefit" of having it in the lead is that it's giving ammunition to those inclined to acuse Dahn of pro-Hungarian bias.

As I proposed above, move it to the Geography section. The debate I was having with Criztu centered on my use of the word "traditional" and his move to place it in a subsection of the History section under an inaccurate header. Dahn 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Since borders are mentioned (as seems to be the norm in articles about regions), why stop at the border with Hungary?! I think it would be more proper to say "Transylvania borders Hungary in the west, Ukraine in the north, and the historical regions of Moldova and Wallachia in the east and south, respectively."

Sure. I propose: "In common reference, the Western border of Transylvania has come to be identified with the present Romanian-Hungarian border, settled in the Treaty of Trianon although geographically the two are not identical; Transylvania other borders are with Ukraine to the north [with perghaps a mention of what historical regions in Ukraine], and the historical regions of Moldavia [the proper term as opposed to Moldova] in the east and south, respectively." Dahn 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I propose what I proposed before: "Transylvania borders Hungary in the west, Ukraine in the north, and the historical regions of Moldova and Wallachia in the east and south, respectively." I don't see what purpose "in common reference... has come to be identified" serves; the borders, both international and inter-regional, are what they are, regardless of some people's feelings about them. I also don't understand your assertion that the western border of Transylvania and the Romanian-Hungarian border are not geographically identical... What's that supposed to mean?! Dmaftei 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of "in common reference... has come to be identified" is, again, that post-1918 Transylvania is different from the pre-1918; this needed to be alluded to somewhere, as the article made no reference to that whatsoever (and thus involutarily mentioned conflicting versions of what Transylvania actually is). I think you will find that the "geographically" was not added by me, but by a Hungarian user who, probably, wanted to stress that a border between Hungary in Transylvania "does not exist"; I did not bother with it because, just as well, if redundant, it established just as well what that user had not read into his/her own addition (namely, that the border had almost always been to the east of that line) - I never liked the word, but, as such, it is superfluous rather than false. Dahn 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, when one speaks of "Transylvania borders" one can understand "Transylvania is delimited as a teritory" when in fact Transylvania is no more. Culturaly yes, informally yes, but when "borders" are presente the matter could be seen as "official". Transylvania does not border Hungary, Romania borders Hungary. see Border "Borders define geographic boundaries of political entities or legal jurisdictions, such as governments, states or subnational administrative divisions." Criztu 21:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Borders, boundaries, abutments, whatever. My point is why stop at the western neighbor, and not go round. As for your "Transylvania is no more", excuse me, but that's nonsense. Dmaftei 22:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania as a legal entity with boundaries defining its teritory is no moreCriztu 07:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as the neutrality tag goes, I think it's warranted. It doesn't have to be Critzu against many, or Dahn against many; the fact that two equally competent editors think of each other as biased is more than enough justification. Dmaftei 18:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is entirely appropriate to say we have a disagreement about NPOV, but the {{disputed}} tag relates to something being factually wrong, and I haven't seen that be the case here except perhaps temporarily and accidentally. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

dispute resolution

I requested mediation in reaching a consensus about Transylvania article at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 Transylvania article Criztu 14:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

This case is still listed as "open". Is further mediation required here or can I close the case? --Ideogram 07:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Apart from Criztu, nobody ever thought mediation was required, and he hasn't been around since 14 August. This is why interest in the case just died down... I guess it's perfectly ok to close the case. (I thought you had, anyway.) KissL 08:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ethnology of Transylvania

I propose to add a new paragraph about ethnology to make a clear distinction between Mezoseg and eg Partium. I will also add a map with the most important Romanian, Hungarian and Saxon ethnological regions. --fz22 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

--fz22 14:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Thanx :)--fz22 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. It will clarify the difference between divisons as understood by folklore and divisions as understood by politics (by the latter, I mean "as understood by the politics of yesteryear", in case Criztu feels he should object to the formula). May I ask if it is possible to edit the map further? As it is, I see two problems with it: not all grey regions are Hungarian (Bukovina?), and the blue nemes do not show all proper diacritics. I propose showing all names of bordering regions in a different colour, and keeping that minimal: the Csangok are not really relevant to this map. Thanks. Dahn 14:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, please do. This is just a draft... Of course I know Bukovina is not exclusively Hungarian ... we have to use a separate notation for "mixed" (I mean the region exist in both Romanian and Hungairan ethnography) regions ... --fz22 16:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The most important Saxon regions are listed here: [4][5] . These include: Nösnerland (Ţara Năsăudului, Naszód), Siebenbürgische Heide (Câmpia Transilvaniei, Mezöség), Zwischenkokelgebiet, Reener Ländchen (Zona Reghinului), Unterwald (around Sebeş, Antesilvana?), Hatzeger Land (Ţara Hategului), Altland (near Sibiu), Weinland (around Mediaş, Ţara Vinului), Fogarascher Land (Ţara Fâgârasului), Haferland (around and west of Rupea), the Burzenland (ara ŢBârsei, Barcaság), and Drei Stühle (Trei Scaune, Háromszék). Of these I would say that Burzenland, Nösnerland, Unterwald, and Altland were the most notable. This Romanian link also seems to list a number of alternate names, but I don't speak the language. Olessi 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The most important HUNGARIAN ethno-regions are (without claim of completness): Maramaros, Avassag, Szamoshat, Ermellek, Hegykoz, Rezalja, Fekete-Koros volgye, Hegyalja, Bansag, Szilagsag, Kalotaszeg, Torocko videke, Mezoseg, Aranyosszek, Hegyalja, Marosszek, Kiskukullo mente, Sovidek, Udvarhelyszek, Gyergyo, Csik, Erdovidek, Kaszon, Haromszek, Barcasag, Hetfalu. --fz22 19:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's establish a guideline. First of all, the issue of Bukovina is moot (I myself do not see why it would be a Hungarian region - but what is relevant here is that it is not part of Transylvania). Also: the map need not and should not include regions that were political in nature (Hungarian or Austrian counties, Romanian counties - if these are present in the listings above, please remove them); the map need not present ethnic subgroups (especially since these are, like the Csangok, not really inside Transylvania - those that are inside Transylvania, as the link provided by Olessi reads, are covered by the name of the Gyimesek subregion). What this map should present: those regions that are defined solely by folk customs, cultural characteristics, and not reflected in any administrative grid (perhaps with the exception of Szekelyfold, which arguably fits the both main criterion and the administrative one). I also propose that this map and the projected header in text be a subheader of the Geography section). A minor point: if possible, regions bordering Transylvania or Transylvania-proper be featured under their most common name in English (i.e. "Banat", not "Banát"); if this last point and the one I made about Bukovina are controversial, we could drop those references altogether - "Banat" is not as much ethnographic as it is political in nature, and "Bukovina" is not part of Transylvania. Dahn 20:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, by the look of it, that map will need to be way larger (lest we flood it with letters). Dahn 20:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but to do this we need a better hydrogeological map of Transylvania ... it's fully acceptable to use the English term for Banat, Bucovina etc. BTW I didn't say Bucovina has ever a Hungarian majority or it was "Hungarian". But thank's to Szekelys of Bucovina and the Habsburgs ;) Bucovina became a Hungarian ethnographical realm.

I kinda guesed what you meant, but I thought we should agree on not including it at all here. Btw, the acceptable English name for the region is Bukovina. Dahn 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

So here is my new list: Maramaros, Szamoshat, Ermellek, Hegykoz, Rezalja, Fekete-Koros volgye, Hegyalja, Szilagsag, Kalotaszeg, Torocko videke, Mezoseg, Aranyosszek, Hegyalja, Marosszek, Kiskukullo mente, Sovidek, Udvarhelyszek, Gyergyo, Csik, Erdovidek, Kaszon, Haromszek, Barcasag, Hetfalu, Gyimes.--fz22 21:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

We'll leave this settle for a while, and see if it is contested or if any additions ought to be made to the two lists. Meanwhile, I'll come up with the Romanian list, subject to the same settlement process (if anyone feels that they should get in front of me in doing so, please do). Dahn 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Romanian regions (with the proper diacritics): Maramureş - as indicated on the map; equivalent to Maramaros

Mărginimea Sibiului - between the northern limit of the Olt Gorge (east) and the Sebeş River (west)

Ţara Bârsei - as indicated on the map; equivalent to Burzenland

Ţara Haţegului - equivalent to Hatzeger Land

Ţara Mocanilor - south of Kalotaszeg, down to the River Ompoi (Hung. Ampoi), comprising the middle course of the Arieş (Aranyos).

Ţara Moţilor - as indicated on the map

Ţara Năsăudului - Nösnerland

Ţara Oaşului - as indicated on the map

Ţara Oltului (the same as "Ţara Făgăraşului", but a more proper term) - equivalent to Fogarascher Land; a narrow east-west oriented strip along the Olt, formed around Făgăraş and corresponding with the depression. Dahn 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This map is likely to meet another problem (I would call it "a minor one", but you never know whose sensibilities you touch): the matter of text placement and priorities on the map. I propose the following pattern (bear with me):

• step 1: the editor of the map (presumably Fz22) will keep in mind what the approximate limits of the region he wants to provide the name for are.
• step 2: let's say the region is one were three names are available. The editor may want to use this system for naming:

Name 1

Name 2

Name 3

or

Name 1

Name 2

Name 3

or any such indentation.

(where all three names confined within the limits of the area defined under step 1)

This could, of course, be further made clear by the use of different curvatures and/or angles for all name variants. However I suggest that the curves and angle degrees themselves should not vary, since this could confuse the reader and lead him/her to believe that the lettering would indicate three different regions, and not three different names for the same one. Example:

/

/

/

and not

/

\

/

Since all three names may be argued to be of equal importance, the editor may want to simply randomize their selection. Ideally, this should tend towards having an number of regions where "name 1" is Hungarian equal with the number of regions where "name 1" is Romanian and regions where "name 1" is Saxon. This pattern could also be extended to regions where two names are available.

Does this make sense? Tell me your opinions. Dahn 21:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent anon edits

To the anonymous editor who has repeatedly replaced the section about "Transylvania as part of Romania" like this: don't. It's nothing like conforming to the standards of Wikipedia, most notably NPOV; it is a violation of the copyrights of this site; and it is bad form anyway to deliberately avoid discussion and try forcing something into the article. (And, by the way, it hasn't a snowball's chance in hell of remaining in the article for over a few hours, since anyone watching this article will revert this kind of edit on sight.) KissL 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a question?

The introduction part: "Initially part of the Kingdom of Hungary". Well, was it Transylvania initially part of the Dacian state? History does not begin in 1000 AD. :) PANONIAN (talk) 11:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The relevant part of the above debate:

• "Initially part of..." Why is "initially" 1000 AD, and not 100 AD, or 100 BC, or any other arbitrary date?!

Because there was no Transylvania prior to that. If it is disputed precisely when it began to exist, that certainly happened under Hungarian rule. (I don't think the text as it is is in danger of giving readers the impression that Hungary already existed by the time Homo sapiens came to exist) Dahn 19:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"If it is disputed precisely when it began to exist..." What exactly is the IT that begun to exist, the name, the region, a political entity, something else? You're saying "there was no Transylvania prior to that"; there was no name "Transylvania" prior to that, we agree here, but you cannot say "Initially the name was part of...", can you? What became part of the Hungarian Kingdom was the region, not the name, and the region existed (under different names, perhaps) way before that. This article is about the region that these days is called Transylvania, isn't it? Dmaftei 20:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, all of that would be meaningful if the article would imply that Transylvania and Hungary were created by God Himself on the 8th day or something. The reference to the region as a region dates from its creation inside the kingdom of Hungary: France did not come to be with Gaul, Romania did not come to be with Dacia. If you still find the word awkward, change it to something relevant and, in your own words, not "too heavy in details". Dahn 08:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dahn 12:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the first reference to a political or statal entity known as Transylvania is in Gesta Hungarorum - Gelou uero dux ultra siluanis. Criztu 20:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Noting that I do not have a special appreciation for your habit of selectively answering, Criztu, I will draw a clear picture for this particular one: the book is written from inside Hungary at a latter date, and the "mention of Transylvania" is not clear enough to add something to this debate. I will not engage in further discussions with you if you continue to carry it like this. Dahn 20:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think information to first reference to Transylvania in a historic document belongs to Lead Section. Since there is no mention of Transylvania in documents of Roman times, i dont mention Dacia in the Lead section. If i find a historical document dating from Roman times would mention Transylvania, i would provide the info in the Lead section Criztu 10:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you read not coments are which I posteed for yous to reads: not truly "Transylvania"; about Gelou - but written 200 years after; no reason in hell why, even if it were factual, it is to be mentioned in 5 goddamn places on the same two pages! Really, Criztu, are you on a crusade to brainwash everybody here by stating the same stuff over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? Dahn 10:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania is first refered to in GH, so this belongs to Lead in my opinion. I am not debating when was GH written, or how many individuals roamed the teritory of Transylvania in year 943. It is simply the first mention of a state Transylvania, and mention is also given to a ruler Gelou defeated by a ruler Almos Criztu 10:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well Dahn, here is problem: it should be first defined whether this sentence speak about geographical region of Transylvania (as it is now) or about historical political entity of Transylvania. If you speak about political entity then you should change sentence and writte something like this: "Initially, the Transylvania as political entity was part of the Kingdom of Hungary". Just not to have confusion here. PANONIAN (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. Although its definition as a "region" mentioned in the first sentence serves that purpose IMO. Change it, if you will. Dahn 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

However, regarding the origins of Transylvania, was it Gyula an independent ruler as it is shown on this map? http://www.euratlas.com/big/big1000.htm So, maybe the introduction sentence could be like this: "Initially, it was an independent Principality of Gyula". :) What you think? PANONIAN (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article on the guy establishes a connection between him and Hungary. Even if that weren't the case, a single term defining the region is not attested for that period. Dahn 13:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but you still did not answered part about political vs geographical entity. PANONIAN (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, you did answered, I did not saw. I will try to improve this sentence a little. PANONIAN (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Dahn, I realized -- too late, unfortunately -- that my replying to your comments will transform my observations into a debate. In reality I have no desire to debate anyting with you or anybody else here on WP. The sole purpose of my observations was to let whoever might be interested know that, at least to some readers, the lead section seems to be of dubious quality. If somebody will find some of my observations reasonable and proceed to make changes accordingly, that's fine; if not, I don't care that much. I do acknowledge, however, that by replying I mislead you into thinking that I'm willing to enter into a debate with you, and I apologize to you for that. Dmaftei 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is Transylvania, not History of Transylvania. Presumably someone coming here wants a mainly geographically and culturally oriented article. A lot of what has been debated here is probably more relevant to the other article. We need an overview of the history here, certainly one that indicates that there are competing narratives and certainly one that gives an indication of why the term Transylvania can designate several overlapping but not identical regions, but I would hope that the focus of the article can be more on the place as it is today or has been in living memory, and push the details of the history to History of Transylvania. The history section has come to be half of the article, pretty silly when we have a separate History of Transylvania article. - Jmabel | Talk 06:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

I think this version has a lead section that is pretty much OK. It would maybe be useful if those who agree would list their names here, and those who disagree would explain why. KissL 10:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

i try to formulate acording to Wikipedia:Lead section.

• Transylvania is a historical region of Romania, current status. Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• first mention of Transylvania as Ultra Silvania in Gesta Hungarorum.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• part of Kingdom of Hungary until 16th century.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• principality during 16th century.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• united with Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• principality under otoman suzeranity in 17th century.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• principality under Habsburg suzeranity until 19th century.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• part of Kingdom of Hungary until end of WWI.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• united with Kingdom of Romania in 1918.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• disputed military by Soviet Hungary and Kgdom of Romania in 1919.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• restored Hungary renounced any rights over Transylvania to Romania in 1920 Trianon.Criztu 10:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly support Critzu's fight against hungarian irredentism. --211.237.95.101 12:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

---

For Criztu's claim to follow guidelines, please read the lead sections in articles such as England, Ireland, Bangladesh (featured), Belgium (featured), etc. and tell me how you think they can possibly sanction Criztu's "guidelines". For those who want to see what is disputed and disputable about Criztu's historical perspective, let them look into the long discussion above and that on the mediation page opened by Criztu at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 Transylvania article. (I cannot possibly be demanded to spell out my reasons for the third time around, and I kindly ask anybody wanting to form an opinion about this to check points made on those places.)

Changes were proposed to move part of the present lead into the geography section, and expand the latter to cover ethnology, thus making the arrangement of subregions more specific and clear. I endorse these changes, and I reject all interventions in the text made by Criztu - as biased, casual, irrelevant to the lead section and, let's not forget, ungrammatical. Dahn 10:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree perfectly if Lead section would contain only reference to current status of Transylvania, and its geographical position. But if information "Transylvania was awarded, assigned, given, etc to Romania by a Treaty of Trianon; Transylvania was part of kingdom of Hungary; Transylvania was province of Habsburgs" is inserted in the Lead Section, then i will ask for providing information about Gesta Hungarorum, Michael the Brave, Proclamation of Alba Iulia in the Lead. Criztu 11:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow, blackmail. Listen, Criztu: anybody able to merely glimpse at the facts will note that Transylvania was given to Romania by and through the treaty. Delegates offering the crown, gathering in public places, establishing administrative councils do not mean recognition of Romania's rule over the region, and are very disputable as to their exact pourpose and how much of it was still present when Romania began voting its new organic laws (as the conflict between Maniu and Bratianu adequately shows). We are looking at a murky and complicated period, and, under any circumstance, the role of Romanian military occupation of Transylvania and later Hungary was essential. All events until Trianon were highly problematic, given that Romania had lost the war, and that its situation was dire (as can be deduced from Bratianu's speech I referenced earlier, as well as can be read in the Treaty's text: Romania's diplomatic status with the Entente improved between Paris and Trianon). In order not to drag this into celebratory and false jingola, we need to reference, in a section of the article text dealing only and briefly with sovereignty changes, the one and only action which was certain and legally-binding: the Trianon treaty'. Other events can be expanded and commented in the History article, and briefly in the History section.

the text of Trianon Treaty says : "Hungary renounces any rights over rights and titles of Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in favour of Romania.'". Romania rights over Transylvania were already recognised by the Entente since 1916. and in 1918 there was a national assembly of the romanians from Transylvania and they proclamed union of Transylvania with Romania. debates on how exactly did Transylvania become part of Romania belong to history section of Transylvania Criztu 12:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Read below (Bratianu, Pavlowitch, the National Party), to see why this is spurious! The Entente took Romania tabula rassa in 1919: the country had lost the war and was, as defined by the treaty itself, as "Associated Government". If the Prime Minister of Romania made it clear, you should learn to accept it. Dahn 17:59, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gesta Hungarorum reference, as I have said before, is purely the result of your sophistry (click the link, take your time to read the article). So is, for a large part, the Michael the Brave one (which I note that you do not support "on principle" anymore). The proposed "only current situations" goes against the very same wiki:guidelines you advocated 10 minutes ago! I have repeated 1,000 time what is meant by the inclusion of the Hungarian counties' reference (especially since, for the 500th time, they were also those of independent Transylvania, and are, under any circumstances, relevant to a user who actually needs this page to be of some use as a centralization of data on the region), and you may note that I was always open to a more strict and detailed Geography section where the regional division systems could be moved, if the latter is expanded to cover terms and distinguish between them (a main objection was the fact that ethnography and political divisions were not clearly separated: I am still waiting to see where we are with the map project and adjacent section). I am yet to find any single constructive or, at the very least, informed suggestion coming from you; if the section needs work, I pray to God your text version is not considered "work". Dahn 11:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

have u read Wikipedia:Lead section ? Criztu 12:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have, and I have provided examples of what it means to articles for regions. The reasonable thing to do is to list changes in sovereignty succintly, as mentions of obscure events (lasting for a couple of months would need a whole lot of info from the History section to be moved upward, just to even the text with events of equal importance to Transylvania itself, i.e. the topic of this goddamn article) would only lead to an impossible management of the page and a higly uninformative and purely jingoistic text. I have made this clear 11,111 times by now; I will not be forced to stress it again just because you return to the same old lyrical "feel" of history. Dahn 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Trianon: I read the whole text of the Treaty, and it really do not say anything about that any land was "transfered" from Hungary to another country. The Treaty only define borders of Hungary, and there is also one sentence that say that Hungary renounces any rights over territories that belonged to Austria-Hungary, but that does not mean that Hungary had rights over them. It just mean that Hungary stated that it will not claim that it had rights over them. PANONIAN (talk) 12:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

1. There was no Austria-Hungary to sign a peace with. 2. The Allies recognized Hungary, but not its borders; which were, by then, fictitious (Romania, Czechoslovakia etc. had already aquired them through occupations); Trianon decided to give legal strength to the borders which Romania claimed for itself (and got de facto), not to the territories claimed by Hungary. 3. The treaty reference also is the best middle way between the Romanian "we voted it" (which was initially, as I have shown, "we took it") and the Hungarian "you robbed it". 4. If the treaty was so irrelevant, why didi Romania sign it? You say that it mainly deals with border changes, but do not note that border changes were not passed into international law at any time before that. Dahn 12:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, u dont seem to understand that Treaties are Conventions. Transylvania united with Romania in 1918 is a legal thing, even if it is ratified in 1920 (which as Treaty of Trianon itself say it, it is not about Transylvania becoming part of Romania legaly, but Hungary renounces claims over Transylvania in favour of Romania. I think your aproach on this event is more of an Original research Criztu 12:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of references at the mediation page which you started, including speeches by Bratianu. There was no prior international committement to recognizing Romanian rule in Transylvania. None. Dahn 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not say that it deal with "border changes", but with borders. It do not speak that border has changed, but it define borders. In fact you can read the text of the Treaty for yourself and you will see what it say: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm And why Romania signed a Treaty? To end a war with Hungary, of course. :) PANONIAN (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What I have said is that the Treaty confirmed the fact that Hungary was not recognized in its pre-war-inner-Habsburg borders, and this especially since the situation involved the Serbs and Czechs. Romania, however, had lost the war. The Entente refused to back Ro intervention in Hungary, and the Ro-Hu border remained disputed (as no pre-War promise was sanctioned any longer). There was no previous international committement to establish a Greater Romania (I have read the Treaty already - note that my country is an "Associate Government") and the Alba Iulia resolution had to campaign for its recognition in America and other places - including in Paris, where, according to Bratianu's own assessment, Romania was not recognized anything in hell. Furthermore, the Wilsonian drive behind the local resolution was: 1. not sanctioned by the Entente; 2. not sanctioned by Romania's own government, the Liberal-maneuvered Averescu one. The Alba-Iulia Assembly, in short, had no legal value at all (as Maniu himself acknowledged when he started re-negotiating borders with Hu representatives in the late 1920s). Hence, the first international treaty settled for Hungary had to be a reference to a change in borders - which was definitive only when overviewed by the Powers. All these details need to be explained in the text; their inclusion in the header is imposing a POV (just as "annexation" is the Hungarian one). That is the common sense perspective I am asking for instead of bravado. Dahn 16:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There were Romanians gathering at Alba Iulia in 1918 and they expressed the will of the ROmanians from Transylvania. This is a fact, undisputable Criztu 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The relevancy is disputable. The ad hoc move was non-Wilsonian (it was not the result of a referendum). Its provisions were not passed into law. And, for whatever purpose, it does not begin in the lead section unless we move half of the History section there - which I advise against, as should be common sense and in conformity with the wiki rules you yourself provided. If all you have to add is this disjointed phrase about what is "undisputable", I'm afraid your comments are highly irrelevant. After all, you have chanted the exact same mantra for the past weeks. Dahn 17:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See Bratianu's speech to the Chamber after the Paris Treaty, where he complains about the refusal of the Entente to accept Romania as an ally and to sanction the 1916 guarantees.

See also the National Party's demands from the new constitutional regime and the National Party's conflict with the Liberals some time after Averescu dissolved the Alba Iulia Council with brutal force, with mention of how neither the Assembly nor Wilsonian principles had been passed into the new constitution (whereas the Assembly had required that the conditions it specified for the teritory to join Romania, at a time always described as in the future, be the basis for organic laws).

See Stevan K. Pavlowitch's History of the Balkans, Chapter 10 (p.214-215 in my Ro edition, Polirom): about the Treaty being the sole agreement concerning Transylvania, with the elloquent accent on the Romanian occupation ("[the Treaty] left Hungary with a third of its pre-war territory"; "Romania was the winner, In the spring of 1919, its troops had entered Hungarian territ. to demand their rights"; "[in Paris], the Allies considered themselves free from their obligations"; "Bratianu refused all compromise" (my underlining), after the gvt change, Romania accepted provisions regarding minorities (p. 215). What does this tell us about the Romania's statute in 1919 Transylvania? THAT IT WAS VOID until the signing of the Treaty, and that it was centered on unsanctioned occupation! Let me also add that there is no mention of the assembly as legal vehicle for the change in sovereignty.

I think you want to provide an interpretation of the events and facts regarding Transylvanias union with Romania. Why not listing the facts only, and let the reader draw their own conclusions. It is a fact that Romanians of Transylvania proclaimed union with Romania (u can add the fact that the Romanian Government did not sanctioned their act). It is a fact that Hungary signed Treaty of Trianon in 1920, and the text of the treaty reads "Hungary renounces in favor of Romania to claims over rights and titles of Austro-Hungarian monarchy". How is presenting these informations a subjective thing. Were there more people proclaiming the union of Transylvania with other states and have I selected only the proclamation of Romanians ? Criztu 17:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, yes. The Hungarian Assembly fron Cluj (mid Dec. 1918) proclamed their loyalty to Hungary --fz22 18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To Criztu. Facts: the Entente did not recognize Alba Iulia; Romania occupied Hungary; Romania was not awarded status as an Entente Power; the Treaty settled sovereignty as it is defined by international law, not by a Romanian POV. Criztu's interpretation of facts, which is also spurious: the Alba Iulia Assembly is relevant to the Treaties' system and to changes in sovereignty. All these questions need to be addressed in sections drawn up for them, not where they flatter a post-modern Romanian nationalist perspective (I call it post-modern because it was obviously not endorsed by the government of the times, and because the events it focuses on brought no actual change in sovereignty). Dahn 18:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have more sources to back this up, but I wish others would simply do some investigation of his/her own in what is common sense data freely or cheaply available out there. Note that the facts (pure facts, gentlemen) do not do anything to increase the amount of justice in exaggerated Hungarian claims. They are to be used for what they are, regardless of not going out of their way to flatter the distorted, if commonplace, Romanian perspective.Dahn 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into the bulk of this: Michael the Brave's brief uniting of Transylvania with Moldavia and Wallachia may form an interesting part of the history of Romania and of the Romanians (especially when viewed from a nationalist perspective), but it is a relatively minor episode in the history of Transylvania, and certainly does not belong in the lead paragraph of this article. - Jmabel | Talk 16:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Criztu's last edits

I will copy here the message left on my talk page by the person mediating between me and Criztu. This constitutes a provisional answer, but no one has taken up mediation after that.

"Unfortunately, I am going to be taking a wikibreak soon and will not be able to continue the mediation any further. My attempts to get another mediator to take over have failed, and you may have to find some one else to finish it. However, I can make these remarks on the topic abstractedly:

1. You must always cite references, and if somebody opposes your verified view on the matter, and they cannot back it up, then their claims are dissmissable.
2. To give an accurate, NPOV, you must give both sides of the coin - contraversial views must be included somewhere.
3. And most importantly, the head section is a summary and should not go into great detail on subjects - it should say what is widely accepted and no mention should be made on trivial ans specualatory subjects.

Hope that helps you. --BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)"

The message was posted by BarryC on Criztu's talk page as well. The changes he made in the text with knowledge of this verdict, the repeated allegation that, otherwise, the text "cannot be NPOV", show, IMO, that Criztu isn't just imposing views that are not sanctioned by anybody else, but that he is moving towards overt vandalism. Dahn 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Michael the Brave

I understand that a lot of Criztu's edits may have been anti-Hungarian, but why was the reference to Michael the Brave removed from the lead paragraph? Even though this union lasted for a very short time, it is still relevant and significant to the Romanian history of Transylvania, which is significant to Transylvania in general considering, particularly considering that Romanians are a significant ethnic group in Transylvania (in fact, the majority). The lead paragraph mentions how Transylvania was part of Hungary and Austria-Hungary, and that's all good and well, but if that's going to be mentioned, I think the Michael the Brave episode - which only takes up a few words - should also be mentioned, since it marks the first union of Transylvania with the rest of the majority-Romanian territories. Ronline ✉ 03:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel has said it all above: "Michael the Brave's brief uniting of Transylvania with Moldavia and Wallachia may form an interesting part of the history of Romania and of the Romanians, but it is a relatively minor episode in the history of Transylvania". Having a Hungarian bias, I am also worried that including a sentence about him in the lead would suggest "Transylvania always had a Romanian majority" to the reader, which is controversial, thus at best OR, and at worst factually wrong. KissL 10:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I shall further explain the reasons for not including a reference to Mihai in the lead. I wish to note that I do not agree with Kissl on what our reasons should be, but that I believe my arguments will carry weight with any POV.

First of all, the lead (and the article in general) should not focus on what is important for community X or community Y. That would have an implicit POV. Secondly: who says what is important for a whole community, especially when that gesture is not ascribed a single quality by Romanian sources in general. I mean: we know that Mihai's gesture was so significant for Bălcescu or Iancu or Iorga that they needed to lie about it; but Romanians are not necessarily Bălcescu, Iancu, Iorga. As a sidenote, we also have to wonder if Mihai himself would have cared much about "Romanianness" - after all, the name in circulation for "Romanians" was first used by him in connection with the most destitute class of peasants! I am not going to draw more conclusions about it: I am simply going to ask users to cast a doubt on the relevance of nationalism to any 1500s' mind.

We have already noted the brevity of his rule. This is relevant, because, since the topic at hand is Transylvania, and not "what some Romanians today think about Transylvania", people need to have a succint listing of what is relevant to the subject. If we get in there, alongside changes in sovereignty, a gesture which lasted less than 6 months and never saw a day of peace, frankly, we will have to get the most sordid changes in leadership from the History section and article just to match the relevancy (thus making this article repeat stuff three times around).

Moving on, we come to the practicalities of Mihai's move. Romanians like to use the term "unite" indiscriminately - the term may have its uses, but let us note that, if used to describe what Mihai did and not thoroughly explained, it leads to some overt paradoxes.

1.Mihai did not rule Wallachia for the time he ruled Transylvania: his son reigned in Bucharest (look it up - I suggest you read the "Cantacuzino Chronicle" quote I have provided as a source on the mediation page)

2.Mihai did not change anything in the administration of Transylvania (even Bălcescu had to explain as "Mihai's great mistake blahblah" the fact that he recognized and consecrated the social and political divisions in the land)

3.Mihai was directly supervised by Emperor Rudolf, until, as the "Cantacuzino Chronicle" puts it, he "wanted to make peace with the Turks".

Considering point 3, we may even have to wonder if Rudolf was not, in fact, the one "uniting" the lands (and, indeed, if the first ruler to "unite" the three countries under a single rule was not Suleyman the Magnificent when he obtained Transylvania's submission). If to "unite" still applies after taking in view points 1 and 2, then the meaning of "uniting" would be indeed to obscure to render ok its casual use (not an administrative union - point 2, not a personal union - point 1, but... what?!). Taking in view all point: who the hell is going to call "a union between Wallachia and Moldavia" the events just after Mihai was removed from the throne in Iaşi, when the Movilăs (father and son, just like in Mihai's case) took over rule in Bucharest with Polish help (just like Mihai did with the Holy Empire), for almost as many months?! Are you?Dahn 11:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I've read also the mediation page and I think you're taking the chronicles text too ad litteram. Many chronicles mention rulers instead of states. When the chronicle text says sultan X went on a campaign, or voivod Y built a monastery or they met on the battlefield and clashed, these are not personal actions (though at a shallow glance they may look like). Also, when reading early Romanian chronicles one must be careful at the words as coming from the part of nobles (to make a historical parallel is as judging Justinian after the chronicles of Procopius), therefore their judgements have a bias we must discard. The text of Cantacuzino Chronicle does not suggest a personal union, but a political union (if it's to talk about an union). I will try to use other sources to persuade you it was at least an attempt of union if not a real union.

In the letter Bartolomeo Pezzen sent in 1599 to Maximilian of Habsburg, the author manifested his worries Michael tried to keep Transylvania for himself. And this was followed by an embassy of ban Mihalcea and treasurer Stoica in Prague to ask the Transylvania for Michael. Another embassy was sent in 26th of January 1600 when the logothete Pantazi asked the same thing. He also carried a proposal of border between the Habsburg Hungary and Transylvania but also some other requests like autonomy in internal affairs ("ce vom judeca noi sa fie judecat si sa nu mai aiba voie a cautarea leage intr-alta tara"). Another interesting clause in this embassy was that anything which was to be taken from Ottomans (the embassy considered Transylvania taken from Ottomans: "sunt 74 de ani de cand Transilvania au fost lepadat supt curuna tarii ungurest si au fost inchinat turcilor") was to be included in the same state "acealea sa le lase noau, sa fie unite cu aceaste 2 tara". These requests were also reformulated in July 1600. By then he was acknowledged by Habsburgs as governor of Transylvania but he asked all the three countries (Wallachia, Moldavia, Transylvania) for him and his successors and if his line would end to allow those countries to elect a ruler ("de sa va savarsi samanta Domnii Lui, iar aceste doua tari (from context it seems he talks about Wallachia and Moldavia which were supposed to be ruled by his sons and successors) sa aiba voe de cistitul imparat sa-s pue domnu cine le va placea lor den tarile lor si sa ia steag de la cistitul imparat" and keep their Orthodox faith ("si calugarii si popii si manastirile den leagi lor si obiceaiul lor nimea sa-i nu-i scoata"). The emperor was supposed to take care of the external affairs but to leave internal autonomy "sa poarte griji de trebuinta ostilor si de hotara ce se vor face despre pagani" and "sa n-aiba a judecarea, neci a darea, neci a luarea, numai Domnul sa aiba a judecarea si a darea, cu svatul tarii". This doesn't look as a personal union to me.

With such documents, invoking later chronicles of historians like Boia (which with all due respect, he's a historian of mentalities, of images, of myths, he can't be a reference in a discussion about the historical facts of 16-17th centuries) seems inapropriate. And in conclusion I think you should accept either "union" or "attempt of unification" (considering the Habsburgs never really agreed with Michael's claims). Daizus 09:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For one, this issue was only part of my point in this context. Hopefully, we agree that the issue is open to interpretation (even the documents you cite are lists of he said/she said, and much of what you conclude is based on interpretation of vague events and actions - thorough and reasonable, but still interpretation; for all that is worth, even if your conclusions do apply, they do so only for a year in the history of Transylvania). All that needs to be proven in this instance, and was proven, is that: a) the episode was just that - an episode (minor in comparison with other changes in rules), and evidencing it is in the most schematic overlook is sheer boasting; b) there is a controversy over its significance - no matter what side you and I take in it, it will not become less controversial. Dahn 09:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think such documents asking for internal autonomy or assurances for future are subject to interpretation. These were treaties, proposals, official letters between Michael, the Habsburgs and their diplomats. I've invoked them specifically to dismiss the wrong image Michael was an adventurer who wanted only a domain for himself (as it was suggested). Or admitting he was, then clearly he had influencing people around him who thought of this union as a permanent state for the future under the protection of the Habsburg empire. And that proves this union was thought as a political union. The importance is not so little if one considers all such projects in the 16th and 17th century, when under the influence of post-Renaissance Humanism the idea of reuniting Dacia (as an union of Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania) emerged. This is actually a first step to 18-19th century nationalistic movements. These are the first (attested) occurences of ideas, but most important, projects of union between the three provinces. And it is not modern nationalism, it is 16-17th century nationalism (if you allow me to use this term avant la lettre), where of course the common identity (common law, common customs, traditions, religion, even language - not in Michael's project but in the projects of the Transylvanian Humanists) is not the nation but a concept just starting to be shaped. These are the first lines drawing the borders of modern Romanian state. These significances are not controversial. One cannot claim otherwise only when ignoring the contemporary documents. Which, no offense, you did when you replied to Critzu. Let me be a bit more specific. For instance you claimed Michael ruled in Transylvania and his son in Wallachia according to Cantacuzino's chronicle. Well, the imperial embassy reported to the emperor Michael refused to leave his son in Transylvania and him to return in Wallachia because what's his is his son's and what is his son's is his and they two rule as one. Between the report of the imperial embassy and a chronicle written many decades later, the undebateable credibility has the former. The internal acts from the summer of 1600 give him ruler, from the mercy of God, of all the Wallachia, Transylvania and Moldavia. Again I must emphasize, these are official acts. True, the Habsburgs weren't happy about it, true, they didn't openly admit it (AFAIK, one of the most favorable statements belongs to emperor Rudolph himself in september 1600 - he'd prefer for Michael to return in Wallachia, but with all that he accepts Michael's requests from the treaties with imperial officials and B. Pezzen and allows him to govern Transylvania).

So yes, it was an ephemerous and a not well-estabilished rule (as you remarked full of wars and instability). As impact however the significance is worth mentioning. And not only from a teleogical point of view, thinking from an united Romania of the 21th century, but even for Michael's contemporaries and the following generations. When Gabriel Bathory invaded Wallachia in 1611 he justified his actions to the Ottoman Sultan making a parallel with that "bandit", Michael claiming that if such a fellow was allowed to rule Transylvania and Wallachia, of course he, being much nobler, he had rights on Wallachia acting for the same purpose. And there were other several attempts in the 17th century to follow Michael's project. These facts themselves prove the significance of the 1600 act.

Oh, and to clarify - it is not my original research. Many of the conclusions you can find in the study of Gh. Punga - "Unele consideratii privitoare la planul dacic al lui Mihai Viteazul" (I have it in a collection of studies published in 1999) and the other considerations and docuements you can find in "Mihai Viteazul in constiinta europeana" (multiple authors - 5 volumes), 1982, in other languages I know only of the study of Andrei Pippidi - "Resurection de Byzance ou unite politique roumaine? L'option de Michel le Brave" (if I'm not mistaken in Revue des Etudes SEE, don't know the year) but there are also some other studies encompassing more generally the idea like the recent work of Ileana Cazan and Eugen Denize - "Marile puteri si spatiul romanesc in secolele XV-XVI", 2002 (this one can be found online on the site of the University of Bucharest) or in some recent number (last 3-4 years or so) of Magazin Istoric there was an interesting article of the unification projects in the 17th century. Daizus 15:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, you are doing original research here. Britannica says it clearly Michael the Brave briefly united much of the future national patrimony under his rule.. I will use Britannica as a guide on Transylvania wikiarticle, not your research Criztu 17:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you can find a shitload of published works which support my position. Furthermore, you systematically disregard that the topic here is not about what he did, but about what relevance this has in comparison with the 1,000 changes in sovereignty at the time, all of them lasting more than Mihai's "rule", and all of them not mentioned or, for the very same reasons, mentionable in the lead. What you are doing is jingo-phantasmagorical, and your tactics are simply diversional, changing topic from one minute to the next, but repeating ad nauseam arguments you do not truly comprehend. Also, make sure you let people know that Britannica does not use that in the lead for its version of Transylvania - or rather, carry on with your halftruths. Dahn 17:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia are historical regions of Romania. It just hapened that a Wallachian Ruler united them in 1600. If you can present similar event in the history of Transylvania, then put info in the lead, if u can present 1000 such events in the history of Transylvania, then i will agree Michael the Brave was just another guy uniting Transylvania Wallachia and Moldavia Criztu 18:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That may not be worth an answer, but I'll try yet again. Pray tell, Criztu, what relevancy and to whom does it have that these particular regions, as opposed to other, were "united" (emphasis on relativity of the word) with Transylvania? What relevancy and for what reasons? Certainly, as the intelligent person that you are, you will realize that, no matter what myth the events encapsulate, they cannot even be relevant for Romania (which, clue, unlike the Habsburg Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire, did not exist at the time and was not rendered "existing" by Mihai). Less rhetoric, more logic. Dahn 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point Dahn. But remember that Transylvania is a region of Romania nowadays, and hence this article should take account of that. Due to that, the Michael the Brave episode is relevant because it marks the first time that Transylvania was united with the rest of "Romania" (if not the present nation-state, then at least a historical version of what we would see as Romania). I think it's relevant to note in the lead the first attempt at uniting Transylvania with the other regions that make up present-day Romania. The Michael the Brave episode is thus quite a bit more relevant than other transfers of power. Ronline ✉ 08:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that Transylvania is part of Romania today is, and to the best of my knowledge always has been, stated in the first paragraph. It should not make us write history backwards. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is, Transylvania Wallachia and Moldavia were united by Michael. You can argue that officialy Wallachia was ruled by Michael's son, so i invite u to formulate the sentence about the act of Union of these three principalities in a way that would satisfy u as NPOV, but the Union was done by Michael, is as relevant an event in the history of Transylvania as the rule of Habsburgs and Hungarians Criztu 14:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, by now all of Criztu's arguments are entering their 400th round of exact repetition, so I guess they have been covered by all good-willing replies I could hand out. I cannot, however, allow myself to ignore a claim which, albeit repetitive, has never been stated in this precise form: "as relevant an event in the history of Transylvania as the rule of Habsburgs and Hungarians" (I am ignoring the repeated and tricky confusion Criztu makes between "Hungarians" and "Hungarian rule", and I suggest everyone does the same). What I feel I should answer on the topic of "relevancy" (because Criztu has let past him all instances were this has already been addressed) is an obvious and direct comparison. No, Criztu, six months of rule by a Habsburg subject (who entitled himself "lieutenant of the Emperor" until late in the episode) are certainly not "as relevant" as hundreds of years of Habsburg rules! No, they rather match in relevancy the expeditions of Mircea Ciobanul and Nicolae Mavrogheni into Transylvania, or Matthias Corvinus' adventure in Moldavia! In other words: they may not be sordid in themselves, but they are certainly sordid and trivial when applied to what should be elementary information on the region this article is about. And, again, there is no goddamn logical connection to be made between Michael and Romania! Dahn 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I suggest u read the Wikipedia: Lead section. You may consider irrelevant that Michael brought Transylvania together with Wallachia and Moldavia, many editors may consider it irrelevant, but i consider it relevant. It is the first time Transylvania Moldavia and Wallachia were brought toghether and administrated by Romanian politics, and i am not tricking anyone by formulating Romanian politics :) Criztu 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The heterodoxy of your POV. "Romanian politics" in the 1600s... I will not spend any more of my time dignifying such absurdites with an answer. Dahn 15:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

lt;---------- Since several people have had no hesitancy to repeat themselves in this discussion, I am going to (literally) repeat myself: "Michael the Brave's brief uniting of Transylvania with Moldavia and Wallachia may form an interesting part of the history of Romania and of the Romanians, but it is a relatively minor episode in the history of Transylvania." We "should not… write history backwards." - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What about aesthetics?

The lead section is too LARGE. I would suggest moving much of its content (about regions of Transylvania) to "geography" section. Opinions? PANONIAN (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I am still waiting for feedback on the ethnography, which I see as condensing and clarifying info provided now in the lead (by differentiating between the political and folk traditions etc.). Dahn 00:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Civility

I am putting everyone on notice: if people continue on this page to say things like "shove it" and "shove it sideways" and other comparably uncivil things in addressing one another, I will feel free to block the offender for a week, without regard to political views or to whether "Johnny said it first." Losing your temper once in a while can happen to anyone, but this has become an unacceptable pattern. - Jmabel | Talk 19:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

History has been already written!

Please read the following article carefully in order to understand the real world-wide recognised history : - As somebody else said, the "nation of Transylvania" DOES NOT EXIST, it is pure ROMANIA and Romanians! Therefore, we will tell some real history here. Within the chronicles of Herodotus , one may find that he described the Dacians(Getae) as the nation living within the present Romanian and Moldavian territory, including the part that is called Transylvania today, which means “beyond the forests”, after the Latin definition given by Romans and which consisted of the Carpathian Mountains and the Pannonian Plains. A more accountable map can be found here: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Dacia_82_BC.png .. Therefore, the nation living there consisted of dacians, which were known as Geton (plural Getae) in Greek writings, and as Dacus (plural Daci) and Getae in Roman documents. The dacians were conquered, after great efforts, by the Romans and Dacia was transformed into a Roman Province. Following, it was a period of Romanization, period when the main Romanian people rose. As an answer to the Magyar origin, the history says that their starting point within the actual Hungary is related to the invasion of the Mongols ruled by Genghis Han and the Huns ruled by Attila within the European territory. After their settlement within the Pannonian Plains, the Hungarian people emerged, by mixing with the local populations. As a clear conclusion, one may say that nobody can contradict the written past or the great historians in terms of the origin of Dacians and the territory within they lived, called today Transilvania/Transylvania. The truth that has to be admitted is that Dacians/Getae were here as a nation BEFORE the Hungarian people came over and rose as a nationality. Moreover, NEITHER the Mongols and Huns NOR the actual Hungarians WERE here BEFORE the Romanization of Dacians, therefore they were not present before the emerging stage of the Romanian people. International history admits that the Hungarians appeared within today’s Hungary territory around the 9th century A.C. (according to Britannica) as an immigrating people coming from the actual Tibet region/Mongolia. After settlement they conquered Transilvania and nowadays they fabricate they were first to live on this land. Bear in mind that Romanians will never stop claiming their internationally admitted origin, dating from Daco-Romans times and they will never stop viewing Trasilvania as their own home! If the Hungarians want to live without conflicts, they should stop claiming what does not belong to them, the Transylvania land. PEACE! —The preceding Sign your posts on talk pages comment was added by Cabbynet (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 October 2006.

Assimilation??

Please cite your sources about the assimilation of the minorities of Transylvania during the Ceausescu regime.

For Chrissake,it has been the subject of an imnternational inquiry and the start of a political scandal in Ceausescu's time! Not to mention that, in itself, it includes the paid-for departure of Saxons. Ever heard of that? Sources are cited in other relevant articles - if we need to cite them here as well, there is still no reason to erase info just because you avoided other pages. Dahn 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find references to assimilation neither in the article about the history of Transylvania, nor in the article about Ceausescu. Plus, the departure of Saxons does not qualify as assimilation. --Disconnect 6 22:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Saxons leaving+Hungarians leaving+Romanian coming=what? Dahn 22:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Romanians coming and leaving

You talk only about migration, but our subject was Assimilation = the process whereby a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture. Were the minorities forced to change their names to Romanian ones? Were they officialy persecuted for speaking their native tongue? Were they denied basic rights? Or education in their mother tongue? etc. --Disconnect 6 11:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they were discouraged from using Hungarian after the autonomous region was dissolved, and Hungarian cultural ventures were no longer supported by the state. They were denied basic right, beyond those tht we were all denied under that regime (including the right to be taught in the language they spoke). The areas they inhabited were subject to state-sponsoored immigration. The regime had developed a nationalist discourse which appealed to ethnicity (an ethncity other than theirs). Overall, the percentage of Hungarians declined at a steady pace: I have argued elsewhere that this was largely a natural process, but, nota bene, even that falls under the requirements of volutary assimilation (and was, after all, welcomed by a totalitarian regime - reason why it happened so often then, but does not happen at all today). Dahn 11:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

About the migration of the minorities from Transylvania to Bucharest: I'm removing this part, as I reckon there are much much more Romanians who migrated to Bucharest than Hungarians (or whatever minority). You can't say that the percent of Hungarians in Transylvania diminished because they came to Bucharest. --Disconnect 6 17:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting maths.What you fail to note is the cummulated effect: a community of Romanians and Hungarians has its members leaving in equal numbers; BUT, no Hungarians are flowing into Transylvania. I will restore the section, as it is common sense. Dahn 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the exodus of the Saxons qualifies as "forced assimilation policy". Actually, Romanians themselves leave even today due to the poor living conditions. Many would have left at the time, too, if only they were allowed to. :) Uniform economic causes do not make for "forced assimilation". It's more like "economic migration exploited by the Communist regime". Dpotop 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Hungarians, I have no information except the census data. However, when making such a statement one should cite some source. Dpotop 13:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Finally, if you mix "forced assimilation" with "voluntary assimilation", you should make sure there is no confusion. Dpotop 13:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Links on Transylvania page

I notice some problems with the external links on the Transylvania page. The first link called 'Transylvania Tourism" leads to the Transylvanian Webcatalogue in Hungarian language, little to do with Transylvanian Tourism. The next one is called 'Cycling in Transylvania' which is very nice, but not only it hasn't been updated since 2001, it also represents a commercial biking holiday company.

I propose to re-name the first link as Transylvanian Webcatalogue and delete the second one.

I myself tried to add the links www.kalnoky.org (Built Heritage Preservation in Transylvania) and www.transylvaniancastle.com (Heritage Tourism in Transylvania) as I believe it could be of general interest to those who want to know more about genuine Transylvania, but the link got immediately erased as spam. If the cycling link is accepted, I don't see why links on Transylvanian Heritage get deleted. Gingko1 09:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Gingko1Gingko1 09:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I was about to copypaste your message on my talk page here just before I noticed you posted here as well. Personally, I think you make a fine point about the current links; I do not, however, know if the site you mention is a more valid link than the one to be deleted. Dahn 11:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, have a look at www.kalnoky.org, and surf through www.transylvaniancastle.com (not just the homepage, there is a lot behind). I truly believe it is interesting to know that such a venture as the one depicted on these sites, namely the effort to save and revitalize Transylvanian built and natural heritage, is existing. I suppose you know that most of Transylvania's cultural heritage is derelict and neglected. Our venture is selfsustaining, and ethically sound. Please consider. Gingko1 13:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Gingko1Gingko1 13:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

May I propose the following: Rename the first link to 'Transylvanian Webcatalogue', keep 'Cycling in Transylvania', add 'Built Heritage Preservation in Transylvania' and 'Transylvanian Heritage Tourism'. Can we agree on this? Gingko1 11:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Gingko1Gingko1 11:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinons about the subject myself. i was waiting for other users to weigh in. You can introduce the changes as you best see fit yoursef - I don't think anyone would object to renaming and reordering links, but your link may get reverted again. Dahn 11:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was waiting, too. Any more opinions on the subject before I give it a try? Gingko1 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Gingko1Gingko1 11:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gingko. While I understand what you mean, the adding of external links like this is generally discouraged. Instead, we encourage you to add content to articles, because that's how Wikipedia grows. If you see any other commercial links please remove them. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 15:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I just removed the cycling link. The 'Real Transylvania' link doesn't work, if it persists it will have to be deleted, too. I still believe that to delete the heritage links is making the page poorer.Gingko1 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Gingko1Gingko1 16:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if you contributed to this article it would make the page better. :-) —Khoikhoi 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'd get deleted immediately. We have enough problems out here to make understand the authorities and locals that built and natural heritage needs to be preserved and can actually become an important asset for rural development. Thanks god, our foreign guests appreciate what we are doing and support our efforts.Gingko1 08:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)Gingko1Gingko1 08:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting evolution

It appears that the Romanian Academy and the Hungarian Academy decided to collaborate on a common version of the history of Transylvania. It's an important development, so it should figure in the article. But where? Here is the link [6]. Dpotop 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I added something at History_of_Transylvania#Historiography. I'm not sure if anything belongs in this article just about the prospect of a book. - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Central

Why do we say Transylvania is "in the centre of Romania"? I suppose the centre of Romania is in Transylvania, but clearly Transylvania, especially in the broad definition used here, constitutes the northwest of the country as well. - Jmabel | Talk 03:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 00:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Banat

I don't know if the point was considered settled but that's far from being the case. The Banat region is no part of Transilvania. A good analyse of the improper inclusion of Banat in Transilvania can be found here: (in romanian) Apartine Banatul de Transilvania? Nu! by banatian historian Sorin Fortiu. I added a "citation needed" tag at the beginning. It follows that all references to the counties and the cities of Banat are also false. --Radufan 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)