Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 397: | Line 397: | ||
:- Again, I already provided an argument in the edit summary, I did not grab a random statistical date but the earliest statistical date, the one that is most relevant. Your second complain from the edit summary that the summary has a duplicate is nonsense. A summary is supposed to well.. summarize.. the main points of the main text. So it goes by definition that the main points of the main text are going to be repeated in the summary, that's what the summary does. Arguing that there are duplicates in a summary is like arguing the architecture prototype is just like the building but smaller. |
:- Again, I already provided an argument in the edit summary, I did not grab a random statistical date but the earliest statistical date, the one that is most relevant. Your second complain from the edit summary that the summary has a duplicate is nonsense. A summary is supposed to well.. summarize.. the main points of the main text. So it goes by definition that the main points of the main text are going to be repeated in the summary, that's what the summary does. Arguing that there are duplicates in a summary is like arguing the architecture prototype is just like the building but smaller. |
||
:- No, they were not. Romanian peasants didn't had the same rights as Hungarian, German and Szekely peasants. They weren't even judged by the same standards, and I mean legally not social discrimination. In order to become anything more than a peasant, a Romanian had to convert to Catholicism and Hungarian culture. John Hunyadi and his son are such examples. [[User:Iconian42|Iconian42]] ([[User talk:Iconian42|talk]]) 03:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC) |
:- No, they were not. Romanian peasants didn't had the same rights as Hungarian, German and Szekely peasants. They weren't even judged by the same standards, and I mean legally not social discrimination. In order to become anything more than a peasant, a Romanian had to convert to Catholicism and Hungarian culture. John Hunyadi and his son are such examples. [[User:Iconian42|Iconian42]] ([[User talk:Iconian42|talk]]) 03:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC) |
||
::It doesn't work that way (implied agreement). Gain [[WP:CONSENSUS]] for your edits. [[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:Tgeorgescu|talk]]) 04:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:10, 5 December 2020
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A highly dubious map
The map added to the article under the title "Migration routes of Hungarians, Bulgarians, Pechenegians, Cumanians and the great Tartar invasion on Romania's territory" is totally misleading, because:
1. The map’s title refers to “Romania’s territory”, but Tisa was never the border river of Romania, and the territory between the Prut and the Dniester rivers is now an independent republic.
2. The map describes a situation which never existed at the same time: e.g., between c. 610 and c. 1002, and after 1187 the Danube was the northern frontier of the Bulgarian Empire and not of the Byzantine Empire, while the supposed "voivodates" (if ever) existed in the 9th century or in the 13th century.
See, for example, John V. A. Fine, Jr.: The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelth Century (ISBN 978-0-472-08149-3) pp. 33-37., 187-188., 197-199.
3. The “Voivodeship of Gelou” and the “Voivodeship of Menumorut” (if ever existed) had been occupied by the Hungarians by 910s even according to the only source which refers to their existence (Gesta Ungarorum); therefore, the reference in the map to the 9th-11th centuries is misleading.
4. Although in the 13th century the Gesta Ungarorum refers to the three voivodates of Gelou, Menumorut and Glad (and only the Gesta Ungarorum refers to them), earlier sources refer to other polities in the territory, for example:
- ♦The Bavarian Geographer in the 9th century listed the Bulgars and some Slavic tribes (e.g., Meheranos) living in the territory presented by the map.
- Around 950, Constantinos Porphirogennetos wrote that the territory on the rivers Tisa, Cris, Mures and Timis had been part of Great Moravia before the Hungarian conquest (around 896), but he also mentioned that at his time the same territory was part of “Turkia” (=Hungary). Moreover, he added that 4 Pecheneg tribes lived around 950 on the territories between the rivers Danube and Dnieper east of the Carpathian Mountains, and the Pecheneg’s territories bordered “Turkia” (=Hungary). Similar descriptions can be found in contemporary or nearly contemporary Muslim writers’ works.
See, for example, Kristó Gyula: Kristó: Early Transylvania, 895-1324 (ISBN 963-9465-12-7) pp. 63-65.
5. The Bolohoveni never lived in the territory where the map locates them.
See, for example, Victor Spinei: The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century (ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5) pp. 93-97., 161-162.
6. The “Principality of Transylvania” was formed around 1570 as a consequence of the Peace of Speyer.
Consequently, I think that the map should be radically changed or deleted. Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
(in Romanian)Înţeleg nemulţumirile dumneavoastră, eu nu sunt un specialist în istorie, sunt grafician. Am preluat harta din cartea unui istoric român recunoscut cel puţin la nivel naţional(vezi sursa)(ROMÂNIA) şi autorul unei enciclopedii a istoriei românilor. Modul în care puneţi problemele începând de la punctul 1, 2, 3, 4, (if ever), mă face să înţeleg disputele referitoare la Transilvania dintre etnicii maghiari şi români. Dumneavoastră nu puteţi şterge această hartă sau să o modificaţi după cum vreţi sau vă imaginaţi, această hartă este publicată în cartea specificată în sursă. Puteţi să faceţi alta după o altă sursă pe care va trebui s-o specificaţi, nu este permisă cercetarea originală la wikipedia. Nu hotărâţi dumneavoastră cine a scris bine despre subiect şi cine nu, lăsaţi cititorii să aleagă adevărul dintr-o mulţime de hărţi făcute de diverşi autori de-a lungul timpului.Asybaris01 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Borsoka, that map is awful. The map contains non-existent borders and non-existent persons. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Britannica
If someone is against this edit, please let me know
Transylvania was not an administrative part of the Kingdom of Hungary, otherwise, the declaration of their Union would not have led to a sort of civil war in 1848/49 (Iaaasi (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC))
De iure Transylvania remained part of the lands of the Holy Crown of Hungary after the Habsburgs repelled the Ottomans in 1686-87. Habsburgs became prince of Transylvania "by the rights of the Holy Crown". However, in the practice, (or "De-facto") Transylvania was administered/governed separately by the Habsburgs.--Blankepage (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Gyula and Pallas lexikon
The very first Rumanian nomadic states were born in the 14th century (Wallachia & Moldavia) according to Encyclopedia Britannica and German Brockhaus encyclopedia.
Original Pallas lexikon is awaiable in the internet. http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/lexikon/pallas/html/bongesz.htm
However it depict Gyulas as Hungarian leaders.
The Gyula article: http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/lexikon/pallas/html/043/pc004395.html#1
The lexikon is very old, therefore its texts are free:
"Gyula 1. Horka fia s Erdély meghódítójának, Töhötömnek unokája, 950 táján utazott Konstantinápolyba, hol csakhamar megkeresztelkedett, patricius lett és vendégbarátja Konstantin császárnak (Kedrénosz görög iró Gulaz-nak, a Névtelen Jegyző Geulának nevezi őt). Hogy hazájában is terjessze a keresztény hitet, Hierotheos szerzetest, kit Turkia (Magyarország) püspökévé szentelt Theophylaktos, magával vitte Erdélybe, hol az nem sikertelenül térített. Maga Gyula vajda mindvégig megmaradt a keresztény hitben, kiváltott és felszabadított sok keresztény rabot s őrizkedett a kelet-római birodalom határainak háborgatásától. A magyar krónikások (a Névtelen s Kézai), kik az Arpádok genealogiáját meglehetősen ismerhették, Sarolta nevü leányt tulajdonítnak neki és ezt csodálatos szépségünek mondják. Saroltát Géza fejedelem (l.o.) vette nőül s ebből a házasságból származott szt. István. 2. Gy., vajda, az előbbinek unokaöccse, Zombor fia, a pogányság és a törzsszerkezet érdekében 1002. fegyvert fogott szt. István ellen. Kán v. Keán moldvai besenyő fejedelem szövetségében egészen a Tiszaág nyomult. István személyesen ment ellene (1103), legyőzte s feleségével és két fiával, Buával (Bolya, Baja?) és Buknyával (Bonyha, Bajna?) együtt elfogván, a kereszténység fölvételére kényszerítette s a róla nevezett Gyula-Fehérvárott Erdély számára püspökséget alapított. Gy.-t azontul olytiszteletben tartotta, mintha csak atyja lett volna. Gy. volt az utolsó magyar törzsfőnök.
3. Gy., magyar főur, 1030. Ajtony levágott fejével sietett szt István udvarába, hol nagy kitüntetésekkel fogadták; midőn azonban Csanád vezér bebizonyította, hogy ő vágta le Ajtony fejét, a király elüzte udvarából Gy.-t.
4. Gy., 1075. nádor
5. Gy., 1134 nádor.
6. Gy. Keán nemzetségéből, 1191-1234 közt a legnagyobb méltóságokat viselte. 1201. már vajda, azután udvarbiró, bán s több vármegye főispánja, 1219 - 1222. s ismét 1224-26. nádor. IV. Béla őt, mint felségsértőt elitélte s a hatalmas főur 1240 előtt börtönben végezte életét. Gy. nevü fiától származnak a Siklósyak.
7. Gy. vagy gylas, Konstantin görög császár szerint a magyarok főbirája, Ibn Rosztéh (Dasta) szerint ellenben (dsila néven) hadvezér, kinek minden magyar engedelmeskedni tartozott. Magyarosan kétségkivül gyulának ejtették s a birói és hadvezéri egyesített hatalmat értették alatta, körülbelül abban a mértékben, ahogy az a gylast a keresztény korban fölváltó nádori méltóságban egyesült. Emléke fenmaradt az ugyszólván alkirályok gyanánt szerepelt erdélyi Gyuláknál (l.o.), kiknél ez a méltóság alkalmasint a nemzetségben maradt s azért lassankint nemzetség-névvé vált, mint p. a Király, Herceg, Kenéz stb. Számos családviselte, s eredeti v. összetett alakjában ma is 22 magyar helység viseli ezt a nevet."--Blankepage (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
According to the "Erdély" (Transylvnia) article of the Pallas lexikon, Romanians came to Transylvania in the 13th century. http://www.mek.iif.hu/porta/szint/egyeb/lexikon/pallas/html/032/pc003255.html#2 It is not a "good" source for Romanian users. If I were you, I wouldn't use it :-)))
Please give a modern (at least after the era of the fall of Communism) high ranked scholarly (Academy edition/press books) counter-argument about the origin of Gyula. For the cause of preservation of the quality of Wiki atricles: Until you can't do that, the more scholarly version will remain.--Blankepage (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Early medieval censuses
What exactly is the source for the 1241 and 1600 "censuses"? The refs only appear to source the post-1700 data (as I don't speak Hungarian, I didn't check whether the source are truthfully represented).Anonimu (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Here is a source:[1]Fakirbakir (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Still can't see any ref to 1241, 1033 or 1330.Anonimu (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- There is a Jean W. Sedlar estimation about 1241 (66% Romanians), however Hungarian demographers state the opposite.Fakirbakir (talk) 20:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- Still can't see any ref to 1241, 1033 or 1330.Anonimu (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
File:Hungary 1550.png Nominated for Deletion
An image used in this article, File:Hungary 1550.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:36, 29 September 2011 (UTC) |
Problematic phrase
Starting then [the end of the 17th century], Transylvania was in name attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary, though it had a separate status
I find this affirmation dubious, consequently I removed it. As far as I know Transylvania was a completely separate entity before 1867 and was not part of Habsburg Hungary 06:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobitocilor (talk • contribs)
- Please read the source. P 152. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've found the text you are talking about [2], but I don't see how it is relevant here. The effects of the 1565 Szatmar Treaty were not valid in the 17th and 18th century... The current version of the article article says "Starting then [the end of the 17th century]", not "Starting 1565" Dobitocilor (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Usually Transylvania was vassal for the Habsburgs and the Turks simultaneously. It is relevant in the 16th and 17th centuries. Cited p.152 "Peace of Speier returned most of the partium to Transylvania in exchange for John-Sigismund's reaffirmation of vassalage and repeated assurance that Transylvania was part of Hungary"...Fakirbakir (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hostilities ceased during the ensuing diplomatic parleys. On 10 March 1571, Emperor Maximilian got Transylvania's lords to ratify the Speyer peace treaty. The terms of that treaty applied only to the Szapolyai dynasty, and John Sigismund died on March 14, but when Stephen (István) Báthori was chosen to succeed him Maximilian dared not to intervene directly. [3] Dobitocilor (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Dual Suzerainty...in the 16th 17th centuries"[4] Fakirbakir (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so it accepted Habsburg suzerainty. But I see nothing about being attached to "Habsburg-controlled Hungary". Dobitocilor (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Probably the phrase was added by Blankepage, who posted the above message: De iure Transylvania remained part of the lands of the Holy Crown of Hungary after the Habsburgs repelled the Ottomans in 1686-87. Habsburgs became prince of Transylvania "by the rights of the Holy Crown". However, in the practice, (or "De-facto") Transylvania was administered/governed separately by the Habsburgs.. However I don't find any source about the legal union between the Principality of Transylvania and Habsburg Hungary, so I will delete this part Mdaaaa (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "legal union"? The text that you have cited also supports that Transylvania was *in name* attached to Habsburg-controlled Kingdom of Hungary, i.e., that is the meaning of the sentence: "Habsburgs became prince of Transylvania by the rights of the Holy Crown". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- By "legal union" I want to say de jure union ("Transylvania was *in name* attached to Habsburg-controlled Kingdom of Hungary"). More exactly I can't find the source for Transylvania being officially considered part of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown. Can you please me point me the source and and the exact quote that contains this information? Mdaaaa (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- What about this: ""for most of its history Transylvania was a land associated with the Hungarian crown" [5] KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- I find your quote kind of vague. The lifespan of the Hungarian Voivodeship of Transylvania + the lifespan of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom + the lifespan of the KoHu after the Ausgleich = ~ 500 years, which is more than 50% of the time elapsed since the establishment of Tr. as a political entity. So even notwithstanding the age of the Principality, we have a very long period of association with the Hungarian crown. Mdaaaa (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- What about this: ""for most of its history Transylvania was a land associated with the Hungarian crown" [5] KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- By "legal union" I want to say de jure union ("Transylvania was *in name* attached to Habsburg-controlled Kingdom of Hungary"). More exactly I can't find the source for Transylvania being officially considered part of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown. Can you please me point me the source and and the exact quote that contains this information? Mdaaaa (talk) 12:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "legal union"? The text that you have cited also supports that Transylvania was *in name* attached to Habsburg-controlled Kingdom of Hungary, i.e., that is the meaning of the sentence: "Habsburgs became prince of Transylvania by the rights of the Holy Crown". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Probably the phrase was added by Blankepage, who posted the above message: De iure Transylvania remained part of the lands of the Holy Crown of Hungary after the Habsburgs repelled the Ottomans in 1686-87. Habsburgs became prince of Transylvania "by the rights of the Holy Crown". However, in the practice, (or "De-facto") Transylvania was administered/governed separately by the Habsburgs.. However I don't find any source about the legal union between the Principality of Transylvania and Habsburg Hungary, so I will delete this part Mdaaaa (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- OK, so it accepted Habsburg suzerainty. But I see nothing about being attached to "Habsburg-controlled Hungary". Dobitocilor (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- "Dual Suzerainty...in the 16th 17th centuries"[4] Fakirbakir (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hostilities ceased during the ensuing diplomatic parleys. On 10 March 1571, Emperor Maximilian got Transylvania's lords to ratify the Speyer peace treaty. The terms of that treaty applied only to the Szapolyai dynasty, and John Sigismund died on March 14, but when Stephen (István) Báthori was chosen to succeed him Maximilian dared not to intervene directly. [3] Dobitocilor (talk) 08:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Usually Transylvania was vassal for the Habsburgs and the Turks simultaneously. It is relevant in the 16th and 17th centuries. Cited p.152 "Peace of Speier returned most of the partium to Transylvania in exchange for John-Sigismund's reaffirmation of vassalage and repeated assurance that Transylvania was part of Hungary"...Fakirbakir (talk) 08:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- I've found the text you are talking about [2], but I don't see how it is relevant here. The effects of the 1565 Szatmar Treaty were not valid in the 17th and 18th century... The current version of the article article says "Starting then [the end of the 17th century]", not "Starting 1565" Dobitocilor (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please read the source. P 152. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Citation needed tag
I was asked by Koertefa to discuss the changes before making them. So: what is wrong about this edit? [7] Dobitocilor (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- You shouldn't just simply delete "citation needed" tags, even if you think that the sentence in question states a fact. You should come up with reliable, scholarly references - which I guess is not hard to find if the sentence indeed states a well-known fact. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Placenames and Demographics
"According to researches based on place-names, 511 villages of Transylvania and Banat appear in documents at the end of the 13th century, however only 3 of them bore Romanian names" - the placenames show in the best case the founders of a settlement. By the way, who is Andre du Nay? What's his competence? 86.127.23.240 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Place names and demographic research
Taking into account that there is little evidence on the population of Transylvania in the Early Middle Ages, place names are often applied for making estimations, as it is demonstrated by reliable sources cited. Please do not remove properly referenced material without discussion. Borsoka (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Reliable source? Who is Andre du Nay? The material was added without discussion, so it should not be kept until reaching a consensus. "Place names are often applied for making estimations" - this is original research. Just compare the number of present-day Transylvanian settlements with names of Hungarian origin with the proportion of the Hungarian population 86.127.23.240 (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think that the source is not reliable? And what do you mean by "was added without discussion"? Who said that sourced contributions can only be added after a consensus? This is only the case if the contribution is being opposed by some editors, but this one is not a new addition: that information was there for months. Thus, it's removal must be rationalized. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because Du Nay is in fact a coward hiding behind a pseudonym. How can be such a person reliable? 86.127.23.240 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- He had to have a very good reason to use pseudonym. Think about it! Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Anyway, read the source properly: "ANDRE DU NAY is the pseudonym of a prominent European scholar of Romance Philology. The pseudonym is forced upon him by political circumstances in Rumania. His most recent work, The Early History o f the Rumanian Language, appeared in 1977 as part of the Edward Sapir Monograph Series in Language. Culture and Cognition, published by Jupiter Press." Fakirbakir (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Because Du Nay is in fact a coward hiding behind a pseudonym. How can be such a person reliable? 86.127.23.240 (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think that the source is not reliable? And what do you mean by "was added without discussion"? Who said that sourced contributions can only be added after a consensus? This is only the case if the contribution is being opposed by some editors, but this one is not a new addition: that information was there for months. Thus, it's removal must be rationalized. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
"phases" map
The Hungarians gained control over Transylvania in the 10th century. The tribal leader Gyula (Gyula the Older) put his seat to Alba Iulia in the middle of the 10th century. The map is meant to be an "ethnic map"? The Szekler resettlement from Bihar county to Szekler Land in the 12th century does not mean that the Hungarian kings lacked of control over the eastern parts of Transylvania..... Fakirbakir (talk) 11:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Pleae consider that there are alernative theories. This article itself presents one of them, according to which the Hungarians conquered Transylvania in five stages:
- 1st stage - around year 900, until Someşul Mic river
- 2nd stage - around year 1000, Someşul Mic valley and the middle and lower course of Mureş river
- 3rd stage - around year 1100, until Târnava Mare river
- 4th stage - around year 1150, until the Olt River line
- 5th stage - around year 1200, until the Carpathian Mountains. 86.127.29.8 (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Are we talking about control over a certain territory or spread of ethnic Hungarian settlements?Fakirbakir (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- I suggested you to read the references. Without proper knowledge anything could be weird or WP:NOR. More laughable than the map is the fact some are pretending to have the knowledge without reading and, more than that, then they consider themselves trustworthy! I suspect there will be a lot of laughs. I'm sure a lot of people have laugh strongly hearing for the first time the Earth was not flat. Saturnian (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide proper English translation for the source? Could you answer my previous question ("Are we talking about control over a certain territory or spread of ethnic Hungarian settlements")?. I hope you see that the whole map may be misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not a professional translator so I prefer to avoid creating wrong statements. About the question, as I read it's about both. Perhaps you could find "Romanians and Hungarians from the 9th to the 14th Century. The Genesis of the Transylvanian Medieval State,Cluj-Napoca, Centre for Transylvanian Studies, 1996, 246 p." of Ioan-Aurel Pop. Interestingly I found on History of Medieval Transylvania that during those stages Saxon colonists replaced Szekelys and the most of Szekelys moved estward. Also it mention that a XI-XII century Romanian fortification (Cetatea Scurtă) from Olat, Sibiu county, was built to protect the Romanian population against the Arpadian expansion. Saturnian (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody denies Szekler resettlement (as I mentioned above), however it does not prove that eastern parts of Transylvania before Saxon and Szekler population migrations were not under Hungarian control.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not a professional translator so I prefer to avoid creating wrong statements. About the question, as I read it's about both. Perhaps you could find "Romanians and Hungarians from the 9th to the 14th Century. The Genesis of the Transylvanian Medieval State,Cluj-Napoca, Centre for Transylvanian Studies, 1996, 246 p." of Ioan-Aurel Pop. Interestingly I found on History of Medieval Transylvania that during those stages Saxon colonists replaced Szekelys and the most of Szekelys moved estward. Also it mention that a XI-XII century Romanian fortification (Cetatea Scurtă) from Olat, Sibiu county, was built to protect the Romanian population against the Arpadian expansion. Saturnian (talk) 22:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Could you provide proper English translation for the source? Could you answer my previous question ("Are we talking about control over a certain territory or spread of ethnic Hungarian settlements")?. I hope you see that the whole map may be misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, there is a theory in Romanian historiography which claims that the Hungarians conquered Transylvania fighting against Romanians in several stages. Although no documentary evidence substantiates it, it is an existing theory, and it is not the only theory which is purely based on the imagination and wishfull thinking of historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
- Well dear Hungarian nationalist Borsoka. For your note, you have to many posts on Romanian articles regarding Transylvania to be „neutral”. Second at all, you make confuses between Romanian historians and Hungarian historians. First ones state that from the last records IV-V-VI century's util the XIII century records it should be a continuity. The others claim that it's clear a migration of Romanians in Transylvania, without any records, any evidence. So if you use your brain my Hungarian nationalist, Romanian Historians claim nothing, just assume that nothing special happened if is a lack of evidence stating something big happened. Because i can write a book stating that Maghayrs are space invaders landed north of Black Sea, because there are no written evidence stating something else.
- I suggested you to read the references. Without proper knowledge anything could be weird or WP:NOR. More laughable than the map is the fact some are pretending to have the knowledge without reading and, more than that, then they consider themselves trustworthy! I suspect there will be a lot of laughs. I'm sure a lot of people have laugh strongly hearing for the first time the Earth was not flat. Saturnian (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
To add to your confusion, your Hungarian historians make maps of Kingdom of Hungary ethnic composure based on land names, where the Romanian core regions are booked as not inhabited areas :)). Of course they are, because some are lived from stone age, Dacians wore a mountain nation, Romanians are a mountain nation and 90% of names are Romanians in high regions, but that is minor flaw in the maps. Also if you can copy that, Romanians language evolution is from N-V to East and South, so your nice theory is rubbish, because Romanians migrated from N Transylvania in Maramureş, South Transylvania and Banat and in time of Hungarian Conquest from Transylvania and Maramureş to Wallachia and Moldavia. A bit strange, and that is confirmed by legend, language evolution and history . Also Bulgarian influence is huge, that would not be possible on a nation who lived century's under Byzantine rule, why on earth to take something which you already have. But is very plausible to a Christian nation isolated for century's, because Bulgarians would be the first Christians in ages to make full contact. And coming to your problem, that map is not based on story's, is based on land names who reveal border defensive systems who wore traditional at that time with the Hungarians(prisăci, gyepu, kapus/fortified gate), also is based on gradual flow of the names related to the Szekely, because is very similar to that of the fortifications move. And if you think that Asian tribes from steppe will take mountains regions, and Hungary was a feudal Kingdom from the start, well my Hungarians nationalist, you are very wrong. Because Maghiar in their first years wore more busy pillaging Europe than making a realm. And the lack of evidence is very clear, because Maghiars lack a writhing and even if they write something you must take in the Mongol factor, they burned down all the kingdom. And stating that your Cronicles from XII-XIII-XIV century are legends is a bit off. Because why on earth they will put Moravians or Khazars in Crisana? Because they wore not there in XIII-XIV century. Why not a Romanian too? And why not a Kingodom in Maramures, (K)Hustus King, , because Romanians in Maramureş wore the most strong ones. Maybe because Maramures was not taken yet? Why to invent story's which have no sense at all in XIII-XIV century. I would not say that some historians from Romania go full retard, but those are at the edge, but in Hungary those are at the front. How on earth to make a ethnic map of Hungarian kingdom in XI century? . Your only prouf is that you settle a lord from the south and a legend from Moldova about Maramureş claims on Hungary who say that Maramureş people saved Hungary from Mongols, and that's why they got Maramureş, they single handed crush the Mongols before Hungarian King. The legend is from the time of religious turmoil against ortodox nobility and it's fiasco. Best regards! Vasile iuga (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
TRANSYLVANIA'S INDIGENOUS POPULATION AT THE TIME OF THE HUNGARIAN CONQUEST
FROM THE HUNGARIAN CONQUEST TO THE MONGOL INVASION Fakirbakir (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Antonius Verancius' quote
I found the original text and a different translation. "Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." Translation: "the Romanians' number is equal with any of these three nations". He did not mention "majority". Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- However interpreting this as a 25% proportion for each of the 4 nations is apparently original research (see here the opinion of Doug Weller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Steller (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, however, I commented on the noticeboard to Doug Weller regarding the problem of his deduction, just to be totally precise.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC))
- 123Steller, Your reasoning is quite ridiculous. It's simple math. The likely deliberate mistranslation of Verancsics (Verancius) quote by Romanian historians has to be noted somewhere. Do you agree? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- It may be simple math, but as long as this calculation is not published in a scholarly work, we are not entitled to make this conversion to percentages by ourselves. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. 123Steller (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, Your reasoning is quite ridiculous. It's simple math. The likely deliberate mistranslation of Verancsics (Verancius) quote by Romanian historians has to be noted somewhere. Do you agree? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, however, I commented on the noticeboard to Doug Weller regarding the problem of his deduction, just to be totally precise.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC))
- However interpreting this as a 25% proportion for each of the 4 nations is apparently original research (see here the opinion of Doug Weller. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123Steller (talk • contribs) 22:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
It was concluded here that is not a good idea to "translate" the phrase into figures. 123Steller (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
KIENGIR, can you please post here the relevant quote from Károly Nyárády's work? 123Steller (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yes,
- "Felsorolja, hogy Erdélyt „háromféle nemzet lakja: székelyek, magyarok és szászok” – majd így
- folytatja: „hozzájuk kell tennünk azonban az oláhokat is, akik száma ezek [ti. a székelyek, magyarok vagy szászok] akármelyikével könnyen egyenlő lehet...” („Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant...”)" ->
- "He enlists, that Transylvania is ,,inhabited by three kind of nations: Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons" - then he continues like so: ,,we have to add also the Vlachs, whose number [regarding i.e. the Szeklers, Hungarians, or Saxons] may be equal with any of these..." („Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari,Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant...”)(KIENGIR (talk) 23:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- This is the original quote from Antonius Verancius. I can't see the conclusion that each of them would be around 1/4. 123Steller (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, the author refers on the orignal quote meanwhile interpreting it.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- Please post here the exact paragraph where the interpretation is made. 123Steller (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- This was the pharagraph almost, this is linked also:
- Please post here the exact paragraph where the interpretation is made. 123Steller (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- No, the author refers on the orignal quote meanwhile interpreting it.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- This is the original quote from Antonius Verancius. I can't see the conclusion that each of them would be around 1/4. 123Steller (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- "Pascu, Stefan: Voievodatul Transilvaniei. II. Cluj-Napoca 1979. 443. A latin szöveget helyesen idézi ugyan, de románra elferdítve fordítja. Verancsics szerint ugyanis a románok száma a három nemzet (székelyek, magyarok, szászok) akármelyikével (quamlibet harum) egyenlő lehet, míg Pascu fordításában ez úgy hangzik, mintha ezek együttes számáva (secui, unguri si sasi împreună) volna egyenlő. A románok abszolút többségének bizonyítása érdekében ilyen megtévesztő módszer alkalmazása joggal kifogásolható."
- ->Pascu, Stefan: Voievodatul Transilvaniei. II. Cluj-Napoca 1979. 443. Perhaps he quotes the latin text properly, but distorting it to the Romanian translation. According to Verancsics the number of Romanians may be equal with any of the (quamlibet harum) three nations (Székelys, Hungarians, Saxons), though in Pascu's translation it is written like it would be equal of the additive number of these (secui, unguri si sasi împreună). Such a deceive method in order to attest the absolut majority of Romanians can be properly disapproved."(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- I am sorry, but there are still no proportions/percentages. I think it is enough to have just the original quote from Verancsics. 123Steller (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller There are proportions, similarly to also other estimates, here two times the author reinforces with his own words that "Romanians may be equal with any of the three nations (Székelys, Hungarians, Saxons)", moreover he demonstrates the famous misinterpretation of an other author that is cited and advertized everywhere (the famous 60% on the same way of deduction but on the falsified translation). Please be fair and raise no objection to this!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- There are no new premises than the ones that we had at the previous discussion, where the editors Doug Weller, Someguy1221 and Zero0000 were also against including figures. 123Steller (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, now there is a new situation, anyway they could not prove their points, only as you had right that on this form it could be considered as an original research, but it is not anymore. Moreover, I checked again, this is also writen before linking of the detailed interpretation:
- There are no new premises than the ones that we had at the previous discussion, where the editors Doug Weller, Someguy1221 and Zero0000 were also against including figures. 123Steller (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller There are proportions, similarly to also other estimates, here two times the author reinforces with his own words that "Romanians may be equal with any of the three nations (Székelys, Hungarians, Saxons)", moreover he demonstrates the famous misinterpretation of an other author that is cited and advertized everywhere (the famous 60% on the same way of deduction but on the falsified translation). Please be fair and raise no objection to this!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- I am sorry, but there are still no proportions/percentages. I think it is enough to have just the original quote from Verancsics. 123Steller (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- ->Pascu, Stefan: Voievodatul Transilvaniei. II. Cluj-Napoca 1979. 443. Perhaps he quotes the latin text properly, but distorting it to the Romanian translation. According to Verancsics the number of Romanians may be equal with any of the (quamlibet harum) three nations (Székelys, Hungarians, Saxons), though in Pascu's translation it is written like it would be equal of the additive number of these (secui, unguri si sasi împreună). Such a deceive method in order to attest the absolut majority of Romanians can be properly disapproved."(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- "Eszerint a románok száma talán valamivel meghaladhatta a népesség egynegyedét" -> "According to this the number of Romanians may be a little bit more than the 1/4 of the population"
- So now you cannot raise any objection anymore.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- KIENGIR I still have one little "objection": where does the year 1551 come from? 123Steller (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, the year comes from when the referred source was written.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC))
- The original text you provided: "Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author. LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, that means you don't know Latin properly, many words have more meanings and also depending on context, and not the subject of arbitray choice. Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC))
- Yet the context of that sentence doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any", unless out of the reader's arbitray choice.LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- No because if Romanians would have been the overwhelming majority, they would be mentioned at the first place, and not just marginally. On the other hand, again, here quamlibet harum together plays with the grammatical structure and the context, not a surprise given the various examples of Latin words and their various meanings and usage regarding similar manner.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
- You are merely making a speculation with no empirical evidence to back it up. The order of mention is no basis for determining whether the Romanians were an overwhelming majority. If you take historical context into consideration, Antun Vrančić's choice of words makes a lot of sense. The 3 nations of Transylvania were made in 1437, the Romanians were not a part of the 3 nations having less rights than the other 3 nations, hence the "however". When saying "however, I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number", Antun Vrančić is explaining why he would list the Vlachs among the nations, therefore he gives his justification after "however". As for the second part, you are arguing against a point that I was not making. I didn't made the argument that the word "quamlibet" doesn't have more meanings depending on context, but that the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any".LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't make any speculation, I answered to your questions, it's not an "empirical" thing, it is the grammar of the Latin language. "The 3 nations of Transylvania were made" -> earlier also lived more nations in Transylvania. No, I explained to you quamlibet harum and about the context as well, by "quamlibet" I just told you what you ignored. By your superficial OR you cannot modify in a way what is not stated, scholars already analized this question and that is represented by the article, so please stop modifications without consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
- You answered the question with a speculation, it's the same thing. A grammar that you don't seem to know very well. At the end of the day, I offered you sources for my claims, you did not offer sources for your claim. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. If you can back up your claims I will, but I will not stop modifications based on empty words alone. The way I see it, you also lack consensus, but at the same time lack evidence too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, I did not do such. Sorry, the page has a consensus on the current content sourced.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
- Yes, you did do such. Sorry, the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, your problem is WP:DONTGETIT.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
- Perhaps you should read WP:DONTGETIT with yourself in mind, because it seems to apply to you. As WP:DONTGETIT clearly states: "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". Your problem is WP:NEUTRALITY, due to personal feelings on the matter, you favor the opinion of Hungarain scholars over the opinion of Romanian, British and American scholars. Your edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear proof of this. Clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hnad, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you think I did not read/know the policies I draw your attention, you're mistaken. What you have cited is exactly you failed to do in several pages, as you recurrently inversly accuse other editors in fact you miss. For instance, neutrality. As even recurrently your summarization fails, as it could be seen so far most of your manifestations. Latin grammar and scholarly opinion has nothing to with personal feelings or favoring opinions, no violation of anything you imply. "despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation" is again OR. What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC))
- You're projecting. Not much of OR as much as simple Latin grammar. But if you were paying attention to the comment you replied to, you'd realise it's not OR. Yet again, you managed to use a lot of words without or saying anything beyond your personal opinion, in other words, you managed to use a lot of words without saying anything reliable. LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you should stop inverse-accusations, wholeheartedly rejected and very unprofessional. Paying attention would mean you don't continue this behavior. What you did/do is clear original research, I say what realiable sources say (any further details we discussed because you did not or refuse to understand some things, or have a different opinion is another issue, a courtesy to help you mostly).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
- It's not inverse-accusations, you really are projecting and should look that you practice what you preach to others. Paying attention doesn't mean that I would do what you want me to do, I am paying attention but at the same time disagree with you. As WP:DONTGETIT states: "Do not confuse hearing with agreeing with". So don't confuse them. Sorry, but what I did is not original research, no matter how clearly you feel about it, and you didn't say what realiable sources say, in fact, that's why we are here, because you said the opposite. Given your style of discussion, I see you expect to be believed simply because you have an opinion, with no arguments or evidence required. Your definition of discuss seems to be: "you tell me something, you provide evidence, then I tell you how it's really like, no arguments or evidence required, and we all do as I say". Since I constantly asked you for evidence but you refused to deliver. I would ask you again if I wouldn't know how pointless that is. But this is not how it works, you have to support your claims, just like before, your accusations are all empty, and what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Until you can actually support your claims, sorry, but I simply won't take your word for it, nothing personal, but you need proof. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, it is, apparently not just here you did. I don't confuse anything, and "dontgetit" is not my problem, and yes, I said what RS states. You simply denying everything, including arguments and evidence, so this essay is completely unnecessary, above I already explained everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC))
- You accuse me of inverse-accusations then you say "you simply denying everything, including arguments and evidence" without a hint of irony. I also already explained everything. Perhaps we should ask a 3rd opinion, which phrase is more neutral:
- (A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".
- Or (B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.".
- I just realised that you didn't include "they easily equal all of the others" but simply "they easily equal the others in number" in the Romanian translation, as the source states, so the version you want to keep is not only not impartial but also factually wrong.LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your explanation failed justify your claim, and I did not make any such alteration you suggest. Your summarization are deteriorating from the sources, and the whole case is nominally not a a neutrality issue, but the earlier mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC))
- Yet another series of false and empty assertions. If I reply to that, you would only make other false and empty assertions and so on. My explanation succeded to justify my claim, you failed to provide a proper counter-argument and switched to filibustering. This is why I asked for a 3rd opinion to determine which phrase is more neutral, as I have no hope we will reach a compromise anymore. If you want to continue the factual discussion (I highly doubt as we already had this discussion, but I'll give you a chance just in case there's hope), the problem was that the content is interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. Your response was "no, you don't get it", please justify your no.
- The text you are trying to keep, is worded overwhelmingly in favor of Hungarian historians implying the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Clear Hungarian bias. I simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources, and removed the language that implied one is objectively correct. Despite the Romanian version being supported by the clean Latin translation, I did not mention that because of WP:NEUTRALITY. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. The sources, for both versions, are already listed in the article, but are interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. My job here is not to tell which one is right, I simply list both versions on equal grounds. Unlike you, who wants to list the clearly in favor of the Hungarians version wording. I get that you disagree, but you can't disagree simply on the grounds that you don't like it. Wikipedia is for education not personal opinions. Which is why I believe the only solution is a 3rd opinion.
- So, to keep this short: do you also want to wait for a neutral 3rd opinion or do you want to keep talking about this? LordRogalDorn (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, if you keep pushing on me what is not my fault and identify the things opposite as their are, it's really useless. There has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized (the Romanian and Hungarian interpretations are both identified, in this order), what you do here is pure OR, and yes, your personal opinions should be ignored, which you don't do. This issue has been already discussed with 3rd opinions earlier and editors (including Romanian and Hungarian ones as well) and verified this, even more pages included.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC))
- Your explanation failed justify your claim, and I did not make any such alteration you suggest. Your summarization are deteriorating from the sources, and the whole case is nominally not a a neutrality issue, but the earlier mentioned.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC))
- Sorry, it is, apparently not just here you did. I don't confuse anything, and "dontgetit" is not my problem, and yes, I said what RS states. You simply denying everything, including arguments and evidence, so this essay is completely unnecessary, above I already explained everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC))
- It's not inverse-accusations, you really are projecting and should look that you practice what you preach to others. Paying attention doesn't mean that I would do what you want me to do, I am paying attention but at the same time disagree with you. As WP:DONTGETIT states: "Do not confuse hearing with agreeing with". So don't confuse them. Sorry, but what I did is not original research, no matter how clearly you feel about it, and you didn't say what realiable sources say, in fact, that's why we are here, because you said the opposite. Given your style of discussion, I see you expect to be believed simply because you have an opinion, with no arguments or evidence required. Your definition of discuss seems to be: "you tell me something, you provide evidence, then I tell you how it's really like, no arguments or evidence required, and we all do as I say". Since I constantly asked you for evidence but you refused to deliver. I would ask you again if I wouldn't know how pointless that is. But this is not how it works, you have to support your claims, just like before, your accusations are all empty, and what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Until you can actually support your claims, sorry, but I simply won't take your word for it, nothing personal, but you need proof. LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- I think you should stop inverse-accusations, wholeheartedly rejected and very unprofessional. Paying attention would mean you don't continue this behavior. What you did/do is clear original research, I say what realiable sources say (any further details we discussed because you did not or refuse to understand some things, or have a different opinion is another issue, a courtesy to help you mostly).(KIENGIR (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC))
- You're projecting. Not much of OR as much as simple Latin grammar. But if you were paying attention to the comment you replied to, you'd realise it's not OR. Yet again, you managed to use a lot of words without or saying anything beyond your personal opinion, in other words, you managed to use a lot of words without saying anything reliable. LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC) LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- If you think I did not read/know the policies I draw your attention, you're mistaken. What you have cited is exactly you failed to do in several pages, as you recurrently inversly accuse other editors in fact you miss. For instance, neutrality. As even recurrently your summarization fails, as it could be seen so far most of your manifestations. Latin grammar and scholarly opinion has nothing to with personal feelings or favoring opinions, no violation of anything you imply. "despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation" is again OR. What you did is the assertion some expressions the sources did not say, on the other hand the last stable version properly summarizes what the sources in fact say, without taking sides.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC))
- Perhaps you should read WP:DONTGETIT with yourself in mind, because it seems to apply to you. As WP:DONTGETIT clearly states: "The community's rejection of your idea is not proof that they have failed to hear you. Stop writing, listen, and consider what the other editors are telling you. Make a strong effort to see their side of the debate, and work on finding points of agreement. Do not confuse "hearing" with "agreeing with". Your problem is WP:NEUTRALITY, due to personal feelings on the matter, you favor the opinion of Hungarain scholars over the opinion of Romanian, British and American scholars. Your edits with language that implied one is objectively correct is clear proof of this. Clear violation of WP:NEUTRALITY. While I on the other hnad, simply listed both the Romanian and Hungarian versions with their sources on equal grounds, despite the clean latin version supporting the Romanian translation. LordRogalDorn (talk) 18:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, your problem is WP:DONTGETIT.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:40, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
- Yes, you did do such. Sorry, the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 12:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, I did not do such. Sorry, the page has a consensus on the current content sourced.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC))
- You answered the question with a speculation, it's the same thing. A grammar that you don't seem to know very well. At the end of the day, I offered you sources for my claims, you did not offer sources for your claim. What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Scholars already analized this question, American, British and French scholars agree with the Romanians. While as far as I know, only Hungarian scholars agree with the Hungarians. If you can back up your claims I will, but I will not stop modifications based on empty words alone. The way I see it, you also lack consensus, but at the same time lack evidence too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordRogalDorn (talk • contribs) 13:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- I don't make any speculation, I answered to your questions, it's not an "empirical" thing, it is the grammar of the Latin language. "The 3 nations of Transylvania were made" -> earlier also lived more nations in Transylvania. No, I explained to you quamlibet harum and about the context as well, by "quamlibet" I just told you what you ignored. By your superficial OR you cannot modify in a way what is not stated, scholars already analized this question and that is represented by the article, so please stop modifications without consensus.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
- You are merely making a speculation with no empirical evidence to back it up. The order of mention is no basis for determining whether the Romanians were an overwhelming majority. If you take historical context into consideration, Antun Vrančić's choice of words makes a lot of sense. The 3 nations of Transylvania were made in 1437, the Romanians were not a part of the 3 nations having less rights than the other 3 nations, hence the "however". When saying "however, I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number", Antun Vrančić is explaining why he would list the Vlachs among the nations, therefore he gives his justification after "however". As for the second part, you are arguing against a point that I was not making. I didn't made the argument that the word "quamlibet" doesn't have more meanings depending on context, but that the context "quamlibet" is used here doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any".LordRogalDorn (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- No because if Romanians would have been the overwhelming majority, they would be mentioned at the first place, and not just marginally. On the other hand, again, here quamlibet harum together plays with the grammatical structure and the context, not a surprise given the various examples of Latin words and their various meanings and usage regarding similar manner.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC))
- Yet the context of that sentence doesn't imply the use of quamlibet as "any", unless out of the reader's arbitray choice.LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, that means you don't know Latin properly, many words have more meanings and also depending on context, and not the subject of arbitray choice. Quamlibet means as well "any", to any extent, any degree, "quamlibet harum" in this context appoints this, as the three main nations are listed in the first place, and added one to be mentioned which number may be equal with any of these.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC))
- The original text you provided: "Natio eam triplex incolit: Siculi, Hungari, Saxones, adiungam tamen et Valacchos, qui quamlibet harum facile magnitudine aequant." doesn't specify the word "any" in its translation. The word for word translation is as following: qui = who or whom, quamlibet = however, harum = these, facile = easily, magnitudine = size, aequant = match. The word "any" is non existent and not implied by the author. LordRogalDorn (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- 123Steller, the year comes from when the referred source was written.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC))
- KIENGIR I still have one little "objection": where does the year 1551 come from? 123Steller (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
- So now you cannot raise any objection anymore.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC))
- Wanting to keep a version with clear Hungarian bias is obviously your fault, otherwise you wouldn't be here. But I agree with the it's really useless part, which is why I asked for a 3rd opinion. I don't know why you bring up the "there has been not any bias, sources were cited and summarized" again, since I already told you that the current content is sourced correctly but interpreted in a misleading and non-neutral way in the very comment that you replied to. See WP:DONTGETIT as your are bringing up arguments that were already replied. There is no OR involved, but simply an attempt to comply with Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRALITY policy. An attempt that you are constantly blocking. I just looked at that already discussed with 3rd opinions discussion you mentioned, and it's not related to the wording of this parahgraph, it's another discussion not related to this discussion. It's ludocris how you argue that the version you are trying to keep is neutral with a wording such as "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence", which falsely implies that one is objectively correct. LordRogalDorn (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, WP:DONTGETIT goes to you, apparently and recurrently (and not just here), again you repeat the same points already demonstrated invalid, and as well failed to recognize and as well you fail to understand our policies and not understanding what is OR is as well a problem. There are no false implications, we summarized what the sources tell us.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC))
- Why WP:DONTGETIT applies to me? I already explained to you why WP:DONTGETIT applies to you. The least you can do is have more than empty words and vague statements when making false accusations. Where have you "demonstrated" my points invalid? and how are they invalid? Because so far you have 100% talked about how my point is invalid, and 0% proven how my point is invalid. Of course there are false implications, source (A) tells that this version is correct. Source (B) tells that this version is correct. And then the version you try to keep says that however the correct version is source (B) which is not only clearly against WP:NEUTRALITY but it's also historically false. But we're not here to debate the sources, only to maintain WP:NEUTRALITY. Anyway, I know I won't get anywhere with one who won't listen to reason, so unless you have any proper arguments to add I'll just wait for a 3rd opinion on the matter. If anyone sees this, please give your opinion which version listed above is more netural: (A) or (B). LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your tendetious lengthy wall of text of WP:BLUDGEON-ing is already by far. You were told an explained, more times, read back if not clear. You believe you explained/argued something, you did not and failed to recognize this. Neither sources tell what you summarized, hence your claim on neutrality is fallacious.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC))
- False, both sources tell what I summarized. My version tells what the precious version told, it's the same information. The only thing changed, was removal of the Hungarian bias which falsely implied one is objectively correct. The fault of this was in the poor wording of the editor, not in the sources themselves. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, it didn't, you didn't, btw., no need to repeat yout point of view.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC))
- Well, that's not quite an useful answer, I could reply 'I did, I did' and we could argue pointlessly like that for hours. But I'm glad we can at least have a factual discussion. The burden of proof lies with someone who is making a claim, and is not upon anyone else to disprove. Let us back read together: Originally, I made the claim that the current page does not comply with WP:NEUTRALITY because it falsely implies that the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one. Does the actual page imply that the Hungarian version is in fact the correct one? with a wording like "in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation" I would argue yes, you would argue no, best leave a 3rd opinion decide here. You then said that the version I propose is not merely an attempt to reach WP:NEUTRALITY but OR as neither sources tell what I summarized. You made a claim, now its up to you to prove your claim, it is not my burden to prove you wrong since you must assign value to any claim based on the available evidence first. This is why "it didn't, you didn't" is not an useful answer, what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Either way, I still believe this would be best solved by a 3rd party. I will repost both versions here and request a 3rd party to look at them.
- (A) According to the Romanian interpretations, Antun Vrančić wrote that Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks",[59] while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number...".
- (B) According to Antun Vrančić, Transylvania "is inhabited by three nations – Székelys, Hungarians and Saxons; I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal the others in number – have no liberties, no nobility and no rights of their own, except for a small number living in the District of Hátszeg, where it is believed that the capital of Decebalus lay, and who were made nobles during the time of John Hunyadi, a native of that place, because they always took part tirelessly in the battles against the Turks". According to the Romanian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that they easily equal all of the others,[59] while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation of the first part of the sentence would be that "...I should also add the Romanians who – even though they easily equal any of the others in number.". LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NOTBLOG, no WP:BLUDGEON, everything have been already discusssed and demonstrated above, no need to lenghty, repetitive copy-paste material. All the reactions are above, even repetititively.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC))
- Yeah... look how you interpret everything the wrong way. The argument why a 3rd party is needed was made and I'm waiting for a 3rd party. I only reposted the (A) and (B) versions so that users won't have to search for them. Even another user slightly changed the version to a more neutral "while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation" but you rechanged it to "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation". The part in between quotation, which is what the source itself says, was left completely unchanged, so you cannot speak of utilizing things the sources did not say. Except that is exactly what you are doing, you are accusing me and also accused him of utilizing things the sources did not say, despite the part that the source itself says being completly unchanged. This is completly unreasonable and there's no point in debating with one who won't listen to reason. A desperate argument. The words "according to" seem to bother you so much because it makes the phrase seem neutral, and this is exactly what you don't want, neutrality, you want to make it sound as if the Hungarian version is objectively the correct one. Which is why I won't reply to this anymore, but I'm not leaving the discussion, I'm simply waiting for a 3rd opinion as it's clear we have a stalemate. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- The issue not just reading A or B, this is your approach only, claiming neutrality although there is not such issue (hence your summarization there is not appropriate, to say nothing of the misplaced context). No, the source itself attest as well about the user changed, so anything written and concluded by you after your second sentence was again useless speculation.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC))
- You're starting from a false premise, and you know it's false, there is an issue of neutrality. With all respect, I have no idea what you just said here: "No, the source itself attest as well about the user changed", English may not be your first language, but good luck trying to decipher what you said, the source and something about a user being changed? Regardless of what your point was there, I don't see any arguments to support your stance. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I have nothing to do with false premises (again, on the contrary), and I explained everything, you simply fail to understand what is written in the source, which is summarized appropriately; one of the sources notes what would be the appropriate translation. And really don't claim English and mind reading when you recurrently even deny things/diffs which may be checked by a few clicks, despite you're pushing the same hypothetic scenario of yours.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC))
- Yes, you have everything to do with false premises. You didn't explain, you merely stated your personal opinion with nothing to back it up, you are a long way from explaining. What you fail to understand is that one of the sources could be wrong and it's not our place to pick sides so a neutral language has to be used. Please read WP:NEUTRALITY for further information on Wikipedia's policy. I never said you claim English, I said I have no idea what you said previously because it made no sense in English. Oh my god, so much nonsense... which things/diffs I denied? You may be confusing this discussion with another argument you have. And which hypothetic scenario? Are you running out of accusations and start fabricating things? LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Repeating the same things whch have been already demonstrated not to be true with a tendentious verbiage does not save you, here diffs talk. Again, please don't preach about WP policies which you are not familiar with, despite it has been explained many times, here both of the sources are neutrally summarized, just you don't like one's summarization and wish to alter/hinder it's content, that fails NPOV. WP is a set of consecutive diffs, which contain evidence, many of these and their content you recurrently deny by your argumentations, in more pages (like when you denied sources was presented, or fail to check what was written somewhere, and then you construct hypothetic scenarios by your fallacious description of the situation in which in fact I receive invalid accusations and this is going on and on). Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC))
- Sorry, but since you keep making the same false accusations, I'll keep telling you the truthful answer. What do you expect? That if you say "the sky is red" over and over again, eventually I'll agree with you? You should first take a look at yourself before looking at me, because you've been making the same argument over and over again. And of course the same argument has the same response. If that can be called an argument, since an argument requires logical reasoning and evidence behind it. You provided no evidence and have no reasoning, you only bragged about how you have without actually doing it. It is merely an opinion, a declaration, as all your stances are in general, not an explaination as you fancy yourself. Apparently, I know the WP policies better than you. You keep denying things that have been proven and switch to false ad hominems instead of having a truthful discussion. I realise at this point that it doesn't matter how many times I explain it to you, you WP:DONTGETIT. Either you don't know any better, you're that unreasonable or you are fully aware of your bias and fallacious reasoning but simply don't care as you don't care about truth and reason. The cause does not matter, the effect is the same, lies and not listening to reason. So, just like on other topic, I'll wait for a 3rd opinion, one that is more reasonable than you are. Because I can't argue with you in the same way you can't play chess with a pigeon. We already have a discussion more educated than this one at the neutral point of view noticeboard. I'll stop replying here from now on but I'm not dropping the discussion, I'll only reply there from now in hopes of solving this discussion, as it has become clear there's no hope on solving this discussion in one on one with you. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- Repeating the same things whch have been already demonstrated not to be true with a tendentious verbiage does not save you, here diffs talk. Again, please don't preach about WP policies which you are not familiar with, despite it has been explained many times, here both of the sources are neutrally summarized, just you don't like one's summarization and wish to alter/hinder it's content, that fails NPOV. WP is a set of consecutive diffs, which contain evidence, many of these and their content you recurrently deny by your argumentations, in more pages (like when you denied sources was presented, or fail to check what was written somewhere, and then you construct hypothetic scenarios by your fallacious description of the situation in which in fact I receive invalid accusations and this is going on and on). Boring.(KIENGIR (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC))
- Yes, you have everything to do with false premises. You didn't explain, you merely stated your personal opinion with nothing to back it up, you are a long way from explaining. What you fail to understand is that one of the sources could be wrong and it's not our place to pick sides so a neutral language has to be used. Please read WP:NEUTRALITY for further information on Wikipedia's policy. I never said you claim English, I said I have no idea what you said previously because it made no sense in English. Oh my god, so much nonsense... which things/diffs I denied? You may be confusing this discussion with another argument you have. And which hypothetic scenario? Are you running out of accusations and start fabricating things? LordRogalDorn (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, I have nothing to do with false premises (again, on the contrary), and I explained everything, you simply fail to understand what is written in the source, which is summarized appropriately; one of the sources notes what would be the appropriate translation. And really don't claim English and mind reading when you recurrently even deny things/diffs which may be checked by a few clicks, despite you're pushing the same hypothetic scenario of yours.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC))
- You're starting from a false premise, and you know it's false, there is an issue of neutrality. With all respect, I have no idea what you just said here: "No, the source itself attest as well about the user changed", English may not be your first language, but good luck trying to decipher what you said, the source and something about a user being changed? Regardless of what your point was there, I don't see any arguments to support your stance. LordRogalDorn (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
- The issue not just reading A or B, this is your approach only, claiming neutrality although there is not such issue (hence your summarization there is not appropriate, to say nothing of the misplaced context). No, the source itself attest as well about the user changed, so anything written and concluded by you after your second sentence was again useless speculation.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC))
- Yeah... look how you interpret everything the wrong way. The argument why a 3rd party is needed was made and I'm waiting for a 3rd party. I only reposted the (A) and (B) versions so that users won't have to search for them. Even another user slightly changed the version to a more neutral "while according to Hungarian interpretations, the proper translation" but you rechanged it to "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation". The part in between quotation, which is what the source itself says, was left completely unchanged, so you cannot speak of utilizing things the sources did not say. Except that is exactly what you are doing, you are accusing me and also accused him of utilizing things the sources did not say, despite the part that the source itself says being completly unchanged. This is completly unreasonable and there's no point in debating with one who won't listen to reason. A desperate argument. The words "according to" seem to bother you so much because it makes the phrase seem neutral, and this is exactly what you don't want, neutrality, you want to make it sound as if the Hungarian version is objectively the correct one. Which is why I won't reply to this anymore, but I'm not leaving the discussion, I'm simply waiting for a 3rd opinion as it's clear we have a stalemate. LordRogalDorn (talk) 02:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- WP:NOTBLOG, no WP:BLUDGEON, everything have been already discusssed and demonstrated above, no need to lenghty, repetitive copy-paste material. All the reactions are above, even repetititively.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC))
- No, it didn't, you didn't, btw., no need to repeat yout point of view.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC))
- False, both sources tell what I summarized. My version tells what the precious version told, it's the same information. The only thing changed, was removal of the Hungarian bias which falsely implied one is objectively correct. The fault of this was in the poor wording of the editor, not in the sources themselves. LordRogalDorn (talk) 09:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your tendetious lengthy wall of text of WP:BLUDGEON-ing is already by far. You were told an explained, more times, read back if not clear. You believe you explained/argued something, you did not and failed to recognize this. Neither sources tell what you summarized, hence your claim on neutrality is fallacious.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC))
- Why WP:DONTGETIT applies to me? I already explained to you why WP:DONTGETIT applies to you. The least you can do is have more than empty words and vague statements when making false accusations. Where have you "demonstrated" my points invalid? and how are they invalid? Because so far you have 100% talked about how my point is invalid, and 0% proven how my point is invalid. Of course there are false implications, source (A) tells that this version is correct. Source (B) tells that this version is correct. And then the version you try to keep says that however the correct version is source (B) which is not only clearly against WP:NEUTRALITY but it's also historically false. But we're not here to debate the sources, only to maintain WP:NEUTRALITY. Anyway, I know I won't get anywhere with one who won't listen to reason, so unless you have any proper arguments to add I'll just wait for a 3rd opinion on the matter. If anyone sees this, please give your opinion which version listed above is more netural: (A) or (B). LordRogalDorn (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Sorry, WP:DONTGETIT goes to you, apparently and recurrently (and not just here), again you repeat the same points already demonstrated invalid, and as well failed to recognize and as well you fail to understand our policies and not understanding what is OR is as well a problem. There are no false implications, we summarized what the sources tell us.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC))
Population estimation for the year 1700
"Hungarian scholars in the early 1900s estimated that in 1700, prior to the losses due to Rákóczi's War of Independence, the population stood at 500,000, but more recent estimates put it in the plausible range of 800,000–865,000" (source: http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/280.html)
It would be nice to know more about the recent estimations, because the Manual of Style says that absolute specifications of time are preferred to relative constructions using recently, currently, and so on. 123Steller (talk) 07:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
"Kingsland"
Hi Steller,
You think Kingsland would be a proper English name, did you met somewhere with this word referring to Királyföld? I am very curious.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC))
- KIENGIR, the name Kingsland is very rarely used (for instance I found it in The Politics of Identity: Transylvanian Saxons in Socialist Romania by Marilyn McArthur from the University of Massachusetts). I don't know which should be the proper English name, but certainly it should exist an article about Königsboden / Királyföld / Fundus Regius. The article already exists in 5 other languages, but the English one is missing. 123Steller (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, yes, also Terra Regis was used, and many other alternative names exists. Yes an article should also exist...Borsoka, Fakirbakir, what are your opinons regarding the English naming, you have any other source or possible reference in English? Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC))
- "Their region was called the Szászföld (Hungarian: Saxon Lands) or Királyföld (Royal Lands)." (quote from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Transylvanian-Saxons) 123Steller (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- Well, yes, until now "Royal Lands" seems to be the most suitable in English as it follows the most official and common name...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC))
- I will create an article named Royal Lands (Transylvania), because the name Royal Lands is also used in other sources, like:
- unesco.org, in a document about "Villages in Transylvania"
- Linguistic Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe edited by: Christina Bratt Paulston, Donald Peckham. 123Steller (talk) 11:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
- I will create an article named Royal Lands (Transylvania), because the name Royal Lands is also used in other sources, like:
- Well, yes, until now "Royal Lands" seems to be the most suitable in English as it follows the most official and common name...(KIENGIR (talk) 23:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC))
- "Their region was called the Szászföld (Hungarian: Saxon Lands) or Királyföld (Royal Lands)." (quote from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Transylvanian-Saxons) 123Steller (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
- 123Steller, yes, also Terra Regis was used, and many other alternative names exists. Yes an article should also exist...Borsoka, Fakirbakir, what are your opinons regarding the English naming, you have any other source or possible reference in English? Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC))
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Transylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060424065630/http://www.recensamant.ro/ to http://www.recensamant.ro/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011083322/http://www.korosladany.hu/helytortenet1.php to http://www.korosladany.hu/helytortenet1.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Transylvania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090820003355/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hunyadi/hu03.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/hunyadi/hu03.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170202185918/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy03.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy03.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170823022435/http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/minor/min01.htm to http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/minor/min01.htm
- Added archive https://archive.is/20061124190547/http://www.adevarulonline.ro/2006-11-16/Prima%20Pagina/romania-si-ungaria-rescriu-istoria-ardealului_206829.html to http://www.adevarulonline.ro/2006-11-16/Prima%20Pagina/romania-si-ungaria-rescriu-istoria-ardealului_206829.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Problematic paragraph
"According to the historian Eutropius in Liber IX of his Breviarum, in 271, the Roman emperor Aurelian evacuated the Roman population from Dacia Traiana and resettled them across the Danube in the newly established Dacia Aureliana inside former Moesia Superior.
However, it appears proven that part of the Vulgar Latin-speaking, Christian Daco-Roman (Proto-Romanian) population remained in Dacia Traiana and flourished in remote communities, evidenced by findings from the fourth to the seventh centuries including Roman coins, sections of Latin inscriptions (such as the Biertan Donarium) and early Christian artifacts.[15]"
Saying all the Roman population of Dacia was evacuated by Aurelian in one sentence and then saying part of the Roman population remained in the original Dacia in the following centuries can create confusion for the casual reader, don't you agree? Eutropius's quote "Roman citizens, removed from the town and lands of Dacia, he settled in the interior of Moesia" itself says that Romans from Dacia were resettled south of the Danube, so shouldn't we reformulate the first phrase to "evacuated Romans from Dacia Traiana", "evacuated some Romans from Dacia Traiana" or "evacuated part of the Roman population of Dacia Traiana"? -Scheianu (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, the second sentence should obviously be modified, because it presents a highly debatable POV as a fact. (There are Roman coins and artifacts with Latin inscription from the same period in Scandinavia, but no one claims that a significant Latin-speaking population inhabited the region in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.) Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
- The quote from Etropius should not be altered, it would be totally false. The second pharagraph is a sourced content, deliberately I read the deatils and yes, it is a POV in the support one of the origin theories, that's why I added "appears proven" that is as well written in the original source. Since the evaluation of the early history of Transylvania goes in at least two patterns, usually both of them are demonstrated in a way, but it does not necessarily mean we may forge an "unified" theory by bending some sentences to it. All in all, what is not clearly a fact, we should be cautious.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC))
- Yes, the second sentence should obviously be modified, because it presents a highly debatable POV as a fact. (There are Roman coins and artifacts with Latin inscription from the same period in Scandinavia, but no one claims that a significant Latin-speaking population inhabited the region in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages.) Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
@KIENGIR the quote from Eutropius shouldn't be modified, i agree with you. What i meant was, the sentence written based on it should be modified. Eutropius' quote says that Romans from Dacia were resettled south of the Danube. The sentence based on it makes it look like he said all the Romans from Dacia were resettled south of the Danube (the "evacuated the Roman population" part), and he didn't actually say that. @Borsoka Roman coinage from 275/276 (a few years after Aurelian's retreat) to 326 was discovered in the city of Napoca, however the Goths started settling in Transylvania only after 330. The most logical explanation for this is that a Daco-Roman population continued to inhabit Napoca after Aurelian's retreat. The Biertan Donarium is an object that logically, could have only been created by a local Daco-Roman. I don't see what's there to debate. However I too believe that the second sentence should be modified as well, because the neutral German historian who wrote it failed to also mention the post-271 Daco-Roman pottery discovered in various places of Transylvania.Scheianu (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
- Are you sure that only Latin-speaking people could use Roman coins? Please remember that Roman coins were found in many places outside the Roman Empire where the presence of no Latin-speaking population is documented. Are you sure that the Biertan Donarium was made in Dacia? Please read the following article: Madgearu, Alexandru (2004). "The Spreading of Christianity in the rural areas of post-Roman Dacia (4th–7th centuries)". ARCHÆUS. VIII. Centre d'Histoire des Religions, Université de Bucarest: 41–59. ISSN 1453-5165.. It contains a series of more probable explanations (especially, because the Donarium was most probably produced in Illyricum). Yes, pottery was produced in Transylvania, but nothing proves that its producers or users spoke Latin. Please remember that the Goths, Germans and Slavs who settled in the region did not adopt the Latin form of the name of a single river, which suggest that no significant Latin-speaking population survived the Roman withdrawal (I refer to Schramm, Gottfried (1997). Ein Damm bricht. Die römische Donaugrenze und die Invasionen des 5-7. Jahrhunderts in Lichte der Namen und Wörter [=A Dam Breaks: The Roman Danube frontier and the Invasions of the 5th-7th Centuries in the Light of Names and Words] (in German). R. Oldenbourg Verlag. ISBN 3-486-56262-2.). Eutropius wrote that Aurelian "withdrew the Romans from the cities and countrysid" of Dacia Traiana and "resettled them in the middle of Moesia" (to the south of the Lower Danube) (Eutropius: Breviarium (Translated with an introduction and commentary by H. W. Bird) (1993). Liverpool University Press. ISBN 0-85323-208-3, page 59.) Borsoka (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Borsoka in this particular case the use of Roman coins indicates the presence of native Daco-Romans in Dacia Traiana post-271. Let's take things logically:
-Quite a large amount of Roman coins dating from the reign of Marcus Claudius Tacitus (275-276) was discovered in Napoca
-Aurelian did his retreat a few years earlier
-The Goths began to settle in Transylvania around 330
Since Tacitus's reign was very brief, the circulation of coins from this period some 50 years later when the Goths began to settle in Transylvania is highly unlikely. Therefore, logic tells us that Napoca (one of the most important settlements of the Daco-Romans) was still functioning in the years immediately after Aurelian's retreat of 271. So, who were the inhabitans? Since again, the Goths settled in Transylvania only some 50-60 years later, the most likely possibility is that they were native Daco-Romans who remained in Transylvania after Aurelian's retreat. I need to thank you for telling me about that work of Mr. Madgearu, i enjoy his writting and i was unaware of this work prior to your mention of it. Madgearu mentions the donariums in Illyricum, however i think you might have missinterpreted your source since his conclusion is that those were way too complex to be related to the much simpler Biertan Donarium, so this object wasn't created in Illyricum. The most similar donariums to the Biertan one were the ones uncovered in Pannonia, so if Dacia wasnt the place where the Biertan Donarium was created, Pannonia could have been. However, i find this higly unlikely, as it would imply unlikely explanations:
-Goth warriors taking this object from Pannonia as spoils of war
Goths generally prefered gold or silver objects. If they would have taken the Biertan Donarium from Pannonia, they would have done so only to scrap it for the metal (which obviously didn't happen so this possibility is out of the question), or one particular Christian Goth took the object, carried it all the way to Dacia to use it as an offering (which sounds even more unlikely than the first possibility that we know for sure didn't happen).
-Merchants from Pannonia took such name-personalized objects to sell them to the population of Dacia (doesn't make any business sense).
The most logic and obvious explanation is that a Daco-Roman Christian named Zenovius was thankful to God for whatever reason so he comissioned or personally created the Biertan Donarium. It's interesting that "Zenovie" was a name used by Transylvanian Romanians even as late as the 20th century. The pottery included pottery of late-Roman derivation. I doubt that the Goths and later the Slavs learned this style of pottery east of the Carpathians where the Romans had no influence. They could have done so only from Romanized people in Dacia. "No latin river name survived" Seriously? Mures (latin Maris), Somes (latin Samus), Olt (latin Alatus) don't ring any bells to you? Scheianu (talk) 11:29, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- (1) Hoards containing coins struck during the reign of a dozen emperors (over a period more than 50 years) are not unusual outside the territory of the Roman Empire. Why do you think that the Sarmatians, Vandals and Gepids who lived in the Carpathian Basin did not penetrate to western Transylvania before the arrival of the Goths? Aurelian withdrew the Romans from Dacia because he could not secure the deffence of the province against the neighboring barbarians. Do you think that Sarmatians, Vandals, Gepids, Carpians could not appreciate Roman currency? Do you think that we can take for granted that only those who speak English have dollar bank accounts and use the dollar in commerce? (2) Yes, we can assume that the same design came to the mind of a smith who lived outside the empire and an other smith who lived in a Roman province. However, this is only a scholarly theory, not a fact. (3) The Gepids, Carpians, Vandals, Sarmatians and Goths had close contacts with the Romans even after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia. Why do you think they were unable to buy or produce Roman-style pottery? Do you think that French, Pakistanian, Indian or Hungarian taylors are unable to sew blue jeans, because originally jeans were produced in the USA? (4) The present form of the river names cannot be explained from the Latin language. For instance, the consonant [ʃ] at the end of the river names Mureș/Maros, Timiș/Temes and Criș/Körös could hardly be derrived from the Latin form of the name of the same rivers, which ended with [s]. (4) Nevertheless, we can conclude (based on the works referred to above) that the second sentence contains a POV, not a fact. Consequently, it should be modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, moreover these few river names were preserved and adopted by every nation following, and according to the linguistic rules current versions could not be derived from Latin directly, but some from i.e. the Slavic versions and after they were mediated further. However, every etymology has its own particular history.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC))
- (1) Hoards containing coins struck during the reign of a dozen emperors (over a period more than 50 years) are not unusual outside the territory of the Roman Empire. Why do you think that the Sarmatians, Vandals and Gepids who lived in the Carpathian Basin did not penetrate to western Transylvania before the arrival of the Goths? Aurelian withdrew the Romans from Dacia because he could not secure the deffence of the province against the neighboring barbarians. Do you think that Sarmatians, Vandals, Gepids, Carpians could not appreciate Roman currency? Do you think that we can take for granted that only those who speak English have dollar bank accounts and use the dollar in commerce? (2) Yes, we can assume that the same design came to the mind of a smith who lived outside the empire and an other smith who lived in a Roman province. However, this is only a scholarly theory, not a fact. (3) The Gepids, Carpians, Vandals, Sarmatians and Goths had close contacts with the Romans even after the Roman withdrawal from Dacia. Why do you think they were unable to buy or produce Roman-style pottery? Do you think that French, Pakistanian, Indian or Hungarian taylors are unable to sew blue jeans, because originally jeans were produced in the USA? (4) The present form of the river names cannot be explained from the Latin language. For instance, the consonant [ʃ] at the end of the river names Mureș/Maros, Timiș/Temes and Criș/Körös could hardly be derrived from the Latin form of the name of the same rivers, which ended with [s]. (4) Nevertheless, we can conclude (based on the works referred to above) that the second sentence contains a POV, not a fact. Consequently, it should be modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
So after the Aurelian Retreat, all the migratory people that arrived - the Goths, the Huns, the Gepids, the Slavs, the Avars, the Hungarians - adopted these river names, passing them to each other? Leaving aside that the chances of an event like this occuring are very low, from whom did the Goths adopt these names, if not from native Daco-Romans? Also Borsoka may i ask, why did you modify Eutropius' quote? Scheianu (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
(1) Yes, the "migratory" peoples, each inhabiting Transylvania for more time than the Romans had held it, adopted the river names from each other: the Gepids from Carpians, the Slavs from Gepids, the Hungarians from Slavs, and the Romanians from Hungarians and Slavs. (2) Because I used the standard English translation of Eutropius' text. Borsoka (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I'd really love to see if you have any proof to back up that statement. Scheianu (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The first one. Scheianu (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- I refer to Schramm's above mentioned work, but Grigore Nandris also writes that only the name of the river Cris was possibly directly inherited by the Romanians from Antiquity.Borsoka (talk) 18:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Transylvania was not a separate Land of Hungary
Is this addition necessary? The same info was removed by Borsoka from another article because "we do not need to write that it was not this or that". 86.120.179.46 (talk) 07:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
- Since no one opposed, I made the change. 82.78.61.224 (talk) 06:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Grammar
@Johnn Francis:, it's not my quarell. I did not discuss about changing quotes, but what the source says, and it is noting what the proper translation would be, literally, which you cannot delete or alter to according to only. So use the talk page and respect our policies, propose then an appropriate replacement for are noted that or equivavent, the same place in the sentence.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC))
- Please believe me when I say that I still don't understand why you accuse me of having changed the meaning of the source. The part in between quotation marks I have left completely unchanged. The edit I've made is a completely benign change that is solely concerned with the phrasing of the sentence and not with its deeper meaning. Judging from your way of writing, I'm assuming that you're not a native English speaker, but do you at least acknowledge that the phrase "while in Hungarian interpretations are noted that" is not grammatically correct English? How about the following: "while in Hungarian interpretations, it is noted that the proper translation of the first part of the sentence is:"? It's grammatically correct, and it doesn't include the words "according to" which seem to bother you so much. Is it okay to you? If not, could you please develop your reasons for rejecting it? Yours truly. --Johnn Francis (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Johnn Francis:,
- I accept your correction. Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 22:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC))
- Okay, thanks a lot. I'm doing the changes right now for both this article and the Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) article. --Johnn Francis (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oops, never mind. I've just realized that you had done the changes yourself. Glad to see this. ;) --Johnn Francis (talk) 22:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks a lot. I'm doing the changes right now for both this article and the Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) article. --Johnn Francis (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Recent edits
Iconian42,
just because I highlighted a few problems, it does not necessarily mean the agreement with other contributions, if reverted.
- the lead currently mentioning surely existed entities in history, while Gesta has a debated credibility, which is anyway mentioned in the body - the other additon that Transylvania would became de facto independent in a short personal union... is simply erroneus - your description about the 12 points and the force is as well erroneus, the Kings action were not made by "force", etc. - again I disagree simply grabbing out one statistical date, because we have for this a chart - such like second class citizenship did not exist in the country, the rights of the nobles were different than the peasants, regardless, of ethnicity, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC))
Only you reverted my contribution, so the agreement of other editors is implied until other editors argue otherwise.
- - It's debated credibiltiy is why I stated "According to Gesta Hungarorum (Latin for The Deeds of the Hungarians)".
- - why is it erroneus? I already provided an argument in the edit summary, of why it was made by force. If you want to use an alternative word instead of "force" that's fine by me, but he didn't do it out of the kindness of his heart of love for Hungarians.
- - Again, I already provided an argument in the edit summary, I did not grab a random statistical date but the earliest statistical date, the one that is most relevant. Your second complain from the edit summary that the summary has a duplicate is nonsense. A summary is supposed to well.. summarize.. the main points of the main text. So it goes by definition that the main points of the main text are going to be repeated in the summary, that's what the summary does. Arguing that there are duplicates in a summary is like arguing the architecture prototype is just like the building but smaller.
- - No, they were not. Romanian peasants didn't had the same rights as Hungarian, German and Szekely peasants. They weren't even judged by the same standards, and I mean legally not social discrimination. In order to become anything more than a peasant, a Romanian had to convert to Catholicism and Hungarian culture. John Hunyadi and his son are such examples. Iconian42 (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't work that way (implied agreement). Gain WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)