Talk:Transylvanian Saxons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

historical figures[edit]

Where are the historical figures concerning Saxon population from 1910 onwards taken from? In 1910, there were not 800.000 Saxons in Transylvania, but only 234.000 according to the official census.

195.56.161.49 14:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Cristi[reply]

Immigrate, emigrate[edit]

I replaced "immigrated" with "emigrated." One who leaves one's homeland emigrates, one who enters a country with the object of becoming a permanent resident immigrates. Sca 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught it was "immigrate to" and "emigrate from". In this case, it would be "Numerous Saxons have immigrated to Germany from Transylvania" or "Numerous Saxons have emigrated from Transylvania to Germany". Olessi 17:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stimmt, mein Freund, aber: It depends in part on the narrative point of view. In this case, we are speaking from the point of view of Transylvania; consequently, the Saxons are leaving, so one must say, "Numerous Saxons have emigrated to Germany" — in which "from Romania" is understood or implied. Nach meiner Meinung. Sca 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strange data[edit]

I have reverted this strange data which looks like WP:OR and gives the impression that there was some sort of ethnic cleaning?!? "allowing greater Romanian ethnic population settling into their place and was part of the Romanian program to increase Romanian ethnic population to make a pure ethnic Romanian state by intimidating other minorities." - having in mind that Romanian population is native and that Romania as a state, is a model when it comes to minority rights in Europe this sentence has no sense - not in this form. Adrian (talk) 16:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It may arguably be NOW, but during the Romanization period things were a bit different.50.111.19.178 (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article contain the Hungarian names of medieval Transylvanian towns[edit]

For most of the life of this article, the section on the medieval fortification of towns has listed the German, Romanian and Hungarian language names of the seven fortified towns inhabited by Transylvanian Saxons.

An editor, deems the Hungarian names not relevant and has deleted them, even though the towns were part of the Hungarian Kingdom at the the time. For most of the second millenium Transylvania was part of Hungary, though it has been part of Romania since 1918. My belief is that it is useful to the reader to know the German, Romanian and Hungarian names. I do not think that editing articles to delete the names used by other ethnicities is helpful.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If talking about a certain period in history when that territory was a part of a certain political entity I would support the use of that territory`s language also, but this is not the case. In that part of the article we are talking about present time (Fortification of the towns section). In this section there is an simple enumeration of fortifications. As per other examples on wikipedia when talking about present time we use that territory`s language (in this case Romanian) but since this is an article about German people , German names are very important, therefore included. The fact that one city was a part of the Kingdom of Hungary has no relevance in this case. Also, if other version names are needed by any editor they can be easily found on that article`s page.Adrian (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section in question starts "The Mongol invasion of 1241-42 devastated much of the Kingdom of Hungary." It then continues to talk about the Middle Ages. Deleting the Hungarian names is entirely inappropriate. It seems part of a crusade by you to delete references to Hungarians in Transylvania. I have reverted your edit.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It starts like that and it ends "The rapid expansion of cities populated by the Saxons led to Transylvania being known in German as Siebenbürgen and Septem Castra in Latin, referring to seven of the fortified towns (see Historical names of Transylvania), presumably:" - Your accusations of some kind of crusade please keep to yourself. All my edits are according to consensus and wiki rules. I did`t accused you for crusade for adding Hungarian names in inappropriate places. It talks about present time, and as I explained it is an article about Transylvanian Saxons, not Hungarians therefore Hungarian names have no relevance here. If you still insist on this maybe we should ask for third opinion or similar. GreetingsAdrian (talk) 06:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I still insist.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Np, regardless of your blatant accusation and insults[1];[2] I will still assume good faith. I will ask one more editor(already asked) on this subject that has knowledge about this and post a third opinion template. Adrian (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion at User_talk:Iadrian yu#Hungarian names in Transylvania is also relevant to this. This discussion cites conclusions from from a discussion in March 2010 of whether Hungarian names for places in Transylvania should appear in the lede and the inforbox for such places., Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Hungarian names of Romanian_places 1.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well this isn`t really related because that was a discussion on totally another matter, I just stated it as a reference of one user to the 20% under population in Transylvania. That particular discussion was whatever to use Hungarian names in the lead imidietly after the official one in the form "Sibiu or -Hungarian name, (xxx German)..." Please don`t complicate this section because like that there will never be an answer :). Adrian (talk) 10:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my perception it is exactly the same issue.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry but that is ridiculous. Maybe you should stop looking at me as some kind of nationalist as you stated and actually read that case what was about. That issue states exactly what it is about, as the closure by the admin also. there is no mine or your perception. Adrian (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It strikes me as a bit odd to include the Hungarian names in this particular list. For one, as Adrian notes, they are readily accessible at the respective articles, should readers be interested. For another, none of these places has had a significant Hungarian presence (except perhaps, late in its history, Braşov), and while they were indeed part of the Kingdom of Hungary, they were also under Saxon self-government. And finally, what is relevant here is the German name (since the article is about Germans) and the Romanian name (since the cities are now part of Romania, and are commonly known by their Romanian names). - Biruitorul Talk 15:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd Opinion Request[edit]

Since the time a third opinion was requested, Biruitorul (t c) has already weighed in on the discussion and provided a third opinion, so I've removed this discussion from the 3O list. —Darkwind (talk) 18:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor Saxons- Gundisch[edit]

In the times of German's emigration to Transilvania or to other parts, Saxons were known as poor miners or persons convicted to work in mines. Their fame as workers or convicted in mines was so big that finally Saxon was a name of a category of workers (guild) and not of ethnicity. K. Gündisch, Autonomie de stari si regionalitate în Ardealul medieval, în Transilvania si sasii ardeleni în istoriografie, Asociatia de Studii Transilvane Heidelberg, Sibiu, Heidelberg, 2001, p 33-53 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.28.202 (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saxons were brought to Transilvania by Catholic kings from Hungary because the majority of local population was Orthodox and was considered schismatical and unfaithful. The Pope launched several campaigns In Transilvania and in Cumania in order to oblige the orthodox Romanians to change their creed.

Saxons exile in Transylvania is a forgotten tragedy[edit]

Saxons were sent in exile (over 2000 km) by local barons after repeated requests of Hungarian kings. Hundred of Saxons were forced to leave their homes and to go to an unknown land. It was a great tragedy for the Saxon families to leave their homes and their natal lands. Majority of Saxons were very poor persons and even outlaws and convicted persons who brought no money for barons so were chosen to be exiled. Many Saxons died on the road. Of course, very few Saxons were adventurous and rich but the exile was a tragedy for majority of Saxons. Saxon's exile is a forgotten tragedy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.108.103 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. All the information in the articles comes from reliable sources, not opinions or original research. See WP:Introduction, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:Cite. If you can find one or two reliable sources that say what you'd like to see added to the article, you can add the material either by quoting from the source or paraphrasing, but either way you have to cite the source of the statements and information. Corinne (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of this "article" is without sources. Really just look at all the claims this article makes. The whole article is full of false claims and does not adhere to wiki rules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:8600:B080:D051:CFF7:900:BDA (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Franconian[edit]

The introduction says, generally spoke Franconian dialects. Franconian languages denotes Dutch and other varieties.Sarcelles (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Transylvanian Saxons. 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:

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) 08:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical Population[edit]

The table is inconsistent with the article, and prepares not to be sourced. I intend to delete it, barring other opinions. Jd2718 (talk) 05:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better first demonstarte here especially what you consider inconsistent, as well what you would consider the correct data.(KIENGIR (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The table is unsourced; it probably should be deleted just for that. But in addition, the article (sourced) reports 100,000 emigrated to Germany and 70,000 were arrested and brought to Ukraine after WWII - inconsistent with the table. Also, the lede reports half a million left after the fall of Ceauşescu, also inconsistent with the table. Jd2718 (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the table is quite correct, the BBC source is not accurate, since half million was the number around 1910, but including not just the historical Transylvania, and not just particularly Saxons, but all Germans. On the other issue, in 1948 Germans may have also returned, as well from the deportation, there is not a so much significant deterioration like the earlier case. Thus I rewrite the historical overview section (not the lede containing that info) accodringly.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you. That is much better. The table, however, still needs a source. Can you find it? If I have a chance I may clean up the writing a bit. Jd2718 (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The table is most probably the collection of each sourced data from different sources, most likely already linked in the History of Transylvania article.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
That's a problem. To stay in the article the table needs to be properly sourced. It is plainly not the same table as in History of Transylvania. If it was borrowed from somewhere else in Wikipedia, that page should include the sources, and we can copy them here. But it needs the source. Jd2718 (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it's the same, but relevant sources are surely there. Sooner or later they will be/couold added by any user, but the most important is the table contains fine data.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]
The table can be restored when a source is located; for now it is in violation of WP:Unsourced and I have removed it from the page. I have copied it just below so that we can find it easily when it is time to restore it.
Historical population
YearPop.±%
1880 211,748—    
1890 217,640+2.8%
1900 233,019+7.1%
1910 244,085+4.7%
1941 241,000−1.3%
1948 160,000−33.6%
1989 95,000−40.6%
2003 14,000−85.3%
Late 19th to early 21st century statistics of Transylvanian Saxons recorded in Transylvania and, later on, Romania as a whole.
Jd2718 (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It'ts not the best solution, that's why we have some tags, instead of raw removal (Btw. you could have also taken part of the sourcing)(KIENGIR (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The original numbers were added by a user whose account has been blocked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transylvanian_Saxons&type=revision&diff=11078419&oldid=9965769 He added the numbers, unsourced, as a minor edit. I'd absolutely welcome sourced numbers - but these cannot stay in the article with a citation needed tag for an extended time. It's been two months, and neither of us nor any other editor has found anything. Jd2718 (talk) 15:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you shown is not identical with this table. You should have waited more time, since uncited tags are present even more than a year, and the table is informative anyway.(KIENGIR (talk) 05:13, 31 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Transylvanian_Saxons&oldid=1207133781"