User talk:KIDB/Archive 2

Aranyosszéki székelyek száma:

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

I estimate about a 10000-15000 Szeklers living in the former territory of Aranyosszék (examples for Hungarian villages: Torockó, Torockószentgyörgy, etc.). But (today) the whole territory has a Rumanian majority, who are mainly living in the region of Felvinc. Öcsi 08:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Union of Transylvania with Romania

Hi. The last sentence of the introduction, just before the table of content is:

Below the dates are indicated in both Julian, resp. Gregorian calendars, used at the time, which were 13 days apart. The current calendar is the Gregorian.

The problem is, that during WWI in Romania they still used the old calendar, and did not make a complete switch. Ironically, it was the union of Transylvania with Romania that forced to definitevely drop the old and combersom calendar. The only reason the two dates are present here is that many sourses give them that way. But, look, let's just think how to do it better. I have nothing against some other solution. Maybe, for example, to use the double dating only until 1 december 1918, and only to the events that refer directly to Romania. Now that you mentioned it, writting both styles for Transylvania is not very logical, I don't know why some sourses still do it.

This has nothing to do with orthodox. Even more, as far as I know the orthodox calendar in Romania is presented according to the Gregorian one. It is church business how to calculate the dates according to what it knows, it has nothing to do with the article.

December 1 minus 13 days is November 18. But only on the eastern side of carpathians that date would have been used. The assembly in Alba Iulia used only 1 december.

And in general, please don't see me as hostile in some way. I am very sorry if you had such impression. This is history, long passed history. We are not at war :) You have brought some good info to the article. I hope you will stay and help make it better. Take care, :Dc76 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much (sincerely) for your reply. In short I agree with you on 1,2,3, and disagree on 4. I will begin therefore with the most difficult, i.e. 4:

• The reason that Austria-Hungary desintegrated was that Czech, south Slav, Romanian, etc politicians from A-H made up or elected (aomtimes quite democratically) bodies that took the power and declared independence of territories inhabitted by those national groups. The causes are of course not only the internal situation of A-H, but also the pressure when the country was loosing the war. It would be interesting to talk about how much "constitutional" legitimacy these bodies and declarations had. For example, could Hungarian parliament simply disolve the union with A? C, s S and R were pointing the finger at the time, justifying themselves. In the end, the powers that won the war imposed on everyone to accept the Wilsonian principles of self-determination of national groups. I don't know whether these principles were accepted in a constitutionally legal way. But all commentors/historians on all sides start from the fact that they were accepted/imposed, and none of them goes back to argument that their acceptance might have been legally void. I simply don't know if it was legal or not, I don't know the pre-1918 Austrian law.
• The consequence was that once they were accepted (treaties in 1919-1920), then all the assemblies received legal recognition (of they acctions up to then, i.e. 1918-1919). So, Parliament of Transylvania, or Government of Transylvania is like Chechen separatist government which (to make the example) a year later would receive recognition from Russia of its declarations and practical actions for the previous year. Then it's more, if it were just the Romanians of Transylvania, then it would perhaps have been in the end called separatism, but there were alse the Slovaks, the Croatian, the Czechs, the Slovens, etc. It is very like the dissolution of USSR and Yugoslavia, except that in the later 2 cases we know better the legal side: everyone knew what is written in the constitions (although noone cared until it became so important).
• The (elected) assemblies were national, e.g. there were three assemblies in Transylvania: Romanian, Hungarian, German. Then the Romanian assembly (that was not just a gathering of dismayed peasants, which would have zero legal right, but elected just as the 1910 elections took place) itslef elects 2 bodies that it calls Parliament and Government. I would agree that in order to call them "of Transylvania", they would have to only fill 60% of places, and give 30% to Hungarians and 10% to Germans. But me and you can only write what happend and names that were used, I can not propose names or ways of action.
• A union was internationally recognized, not a military conquest. The R, Cz, Sl, Serb politicians that created self-proclaimed bodies under Entente protection in Paris, Rome, London, New York, were legally completely ignored. The bodies inside A-H were recognized (post-factum) as legal (by Entente, by Austria, by Hungary, by Germany, and even by the Soviet Russia). You can argue, that because the Romanian and German assemblies voted for, and the Hungarian one rejected this, then only 70% of teritorry should have gone to Romania, but in the end the size of H community in R became (1919) approx. 1.3 milion, while that of R community in H became 100,000. Maybe if I were a French diplomat in 1919 and you a Hungarian one arguing exactly this, I might have very well give in... But this is "if..."
• Practically, for the article, we can say the Government of Transylvania, as named and formed by the Romanian assembly on ... and make sure 1-2 sentences later we say about the Hungarian assembly.

Now the other 3 issues, are simple:

• is confusing to use both calendars I brought the simultaneous isage of both calendars to minimum. If other editors agree to remove from the remaining few dates, consider me also agree.
• even if you bring just info, unsoursed, and/or observation (like the one about calendar), or copyeditting to the article, at least from me you will be always welcome. Crucial info that raises objections, that I believe that people would object and eventually remove if not soursed. By sometimes maybe others will find the reference for your info. Anyway, do as you feel like doing.
• December 1 is national day for ethnic Romanians - no, at least formally, it is the national day for all Romanian citizens, and many ethnic Hungarians nowadays don't feel anyway offended by it. The same goes about March 15. So what if H and R 1848's instead of collaborating in the end clashed? So what that in 1990 there was ethnic conflict (organized by the former communists to justify the emergence of SRI with the old Securitate officers)? I believe that for the few R that are in H, 15 March is their holiday as well.
• The same time, the occupation of Transylvania and of East Hungary meant that millions of Hungarians were cut from their motherland, who did not wish to be Romanian citizens at all. With some explanation or rewording (so it does not suggest that Transylvanian Romanians have occupied Transylvania), I think that can be a good sentence to put in the article in comments about the historic event.
• The text should not suggest that the unification happened because Romanians at the Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) meeting simply decided so. Huge ethnic Hungarian and mixed territories were occupied too. Romanian assembly only represented the teritorries (120 electoral districts) that were majority Romanian inhabitted. Purely Hungarian areas were not represented in the Romanian assembly, but in the Hungarian one.
• It should be clear that Romania wanted to occupy these territories - people and coutries might want a lot, but that can not legally happen just because someone wants. But yes, I agree that we should elaborate more in the first section on how R regarded the belonging of T to A-H, and not only the 1916 treaty, but also the diplomacy of the end of 19th century. That's why I said "please, don't go". We want to eventually add more info to this article (our daily life permitting), so your input will be more then welcome.
• the Entente powers wanted to reward Romania for their 1916 efforts and that France wanted Hungary, a potential ally to Germany, to become as weak, as possible after the war - I wouldn't push too much on reward, since France made sure R got very hard for signing a separate peace in May 1918. But wanting Germany, and Austria, Hungary along, as week as possible - that I don't mind saying at all. I would even put it in bold. Let them remember that they have their good share for indirectly bringing people like Hitler to power.:Dc76 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You changed The government of Transylvania sends a delegation to Ethnic Romanians of Transylvania send a delegation, and then again to The Directory Council of Transylvania, elected by ethnic Romanians, sends a delegation. You see, you yourself realize the correct formulation. Of course, I would have protested to the second (on the same tokken I understand your protest to the first), and of course noone is objecting to the third. If we all realize (which I think we already, at least partially, did) that on the other side are logical and intelligent persons who do not wish wrong to the other ones, perhaps we can leave the emotions aside at least in 99% of cases, and produce a good informative article. About your suggestions to the name, I suggest to wait for more oppinions, at least from the other main contributors, so that we don't move it back and forth. :Dc76 13:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD

Hi KIDB/Archive 2, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 09:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note

Just a note of style. Header must have no capitals: say..

External links

instead of

External Links

Bye and good work. --Attilios 08:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention

You're quite right ... however i don't think we have the slighest chance to carry these rules into execution. Regards --fz22 14:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the notice, but I agree with Fz22 that it would be impossible to carry this out. And these debates and revert wars about Hungarian place names need a lot of energy; I recently decided to stay out of this as I want to focus more on Ancient Egypt articles. regards, – Alensha ^talk 15:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't want to be involved in edit wars and was not intending to involve you either. I am not as pessimistic as you are and I sincerely hope that the majority of Romanian users will understand we are in the 21th Century. I even see a chance for some Romanians supporting this idea. --KIDB 16:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we should change the names too, regardless what the Romanian Constitution says. Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, which does not have to obey the laws of any country, and not the official home page of the Romanian State. It is ridiculous, that we can't call a ethnic homogenous village in it's common name - the name of it's population. For example, the city Sterzing in South Tyrol is also titled with it's German/Austrian name and italian is only brackets.

However I am also a bit pessimistic that the Romanians simply won't agree, though they are some quite liberal and tolerant among them, like Ronline (no wonder, he lives in Oradea), Dahn, etc.

But if they do not agree, we have to face the truth that they are quite intolerant, and in my opinion wikipedia must not be the forum of a few xenophobic guys (Bonaparte, etc.). --Öcsi 11:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think that legally it's not possible to change the names as Hungarian isn't official in Romania or even in Székelyföld. I don't think there will be such a wide consensus between Romanian users that they allow such a change. That needs so much generosity that is unknown here in Central Europe. I think that the new WP:NCGN that banned Hungarian names even in historical context is our biggest problem now. Zello 16:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Most õszintén, ezzel a hivatalos név irányelvvel simán lenyomnak, nem nagyon van esélyünk átnevezni a szócikkeket. Csak akkor lehet némi esély, és akkor lenne korrekt, ha a szavazásban nem vennének részt sem magyarok, sem románok. Lakeof 04:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Méhkerék

Hi. I've implemented the changes with the Hungarian name in bold in all of the Hungarian-majority towns of Harghita/Hargita - see Miercurea-Ciuc, Gheorgheni, Cristuru Secuiesc, etc. I see that you've implemented a similar system at Méhkerék. Would it be possible to also include the Romanian name in the infobox? Is the Romanian language recognised officially in this locality? From what I know, the Hungarian minority rights law is based on a system of "self-government authorities" established both nationwide and in certain counties (they're called "autoguvernări" in Romanian) - do these also regulate language law? Ronline ✉ 09:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: From what I see at http://www.mehkerek.hu the city hall seems to have inscriptions in both Romanian and Hungarian (in fact, Romanian is listed first). There also seems to be a Romanian flag in the picture. So, I have added the Romanian name to the infobox. I think we should outline the policy for Hungarian-majority localities in Romania under a Romania subheading. I will formulate this soon. Ronline ✉ 09:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Mystery

We both fully agree that the minorities' rights should be protected. There is no discussion about this point at all. What I don't understand, though, is how can some people admire the structure and policy of the Kingdom of Hungary and in the same time say that the Hungarian minority in today's Romania does not enjoy full rights. This is the mystery I was referring to. For me, that is a very good example of double standard. I have no problems with Hungarians making sure that they enjoy all the rights in today's Romania, but unfortunately I see a significant number of Hungarian users here in Wikipedia "mourning" the loss of the Hungarian majority in some Transylvanian cities. When in fact the only major change in their ethnic structure was the levelling of the urban/rural ethnic composition.

The history of Transylvania is quite complex and, to make things even worse, it is also very much contested between "rival parties". Nationality, for a long time was not an issue in Transylvania at all. Religion was, though. Romanians in Transylvania after 1366 were left with a difficult choice: conversion to Catholicism, or a decay in social status. Some of those who chose the first option became in the end an integral part of a Transylvanian political life (e.g. John Hunyadi) and are now considered by the Hungarian historians as part of their nation. Many others remained Orthodox. This meant that almost all of them were serfs. Unio Trium Nationum only made things worse for them, establishing a legal system that excluded Romanians. In these condition it was absolutely impossible for them to become integrated in any sort of urban development, as they were restricted to the land of their "owners". Unfortunately, after the feudal system started to be abolished in Transylvania, ethnicity became an important issue and minorities in the Kingdom of Hungary started to be faced with the Magyarization policy. But, at least for me, is quite clear that such policies cannot be sustainable (especially in today's world).

Now about the Hungarian rights in today's Romania: I have the feeling that many people actually have no idea of the situation as I was faced with some opinions that were so far away from the truth. Any Hungarian in today's Romania has access to education in Hungarian at all levels and not many people know that they are actually positively discriminated in this respect. Also there is a very well established Hungarian cultural life (media, theatres, operas etc.). What else could we ask for, in order to make life any better in Transylvania? Other than economic development which is needed for everyone (Romanians, Hungarians, Romas, etc.). Alexrap 13:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Grey spot near Tusnad

It was part of Felso-Feher county (consisted of c. 20 separate enclaves in the Szekely and Saxonland). You can find several maps on the web about the Szekely seats ... --fz22 16:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Current situation

It is really great that after your proposal we reached a new compromise with Romanian users. I'm really happy with the current solution. What's more the debate remained civil, objective and generally friendly. But you should notice that in the meantime Hungarian names are all over deleted in articles according to the new WP:NCGN which prohibits their usage even in historical context. I don't believe that a similar friendly debate is possible with Tankred and Panonian. After almost two years I'm not assuming good faith. On the other hand guidelines aren't set in stone and I think we should try to change this one somehow. It's a much harder case than the Transylvanian one and I still don't know whether I have the energy to struggle for it. Zello 17:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Időnként mélységesen elegem szokott lenni nekem is az egészből, de mindig visszajövök vmiért. Zello 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at János Apáczai Csere, where one user already discovered this phantastic new opportunity... Zello 21:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no oportunity but rules are rules for everyone. In Europe, America or Africa naming, there are the same rules. And you should maybe take a look also at Mezőség, where the Romanian names were not even specified. Compromise means to respect the other. --Roamataa 05:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

This new rule was never discussed with Hungarian editors, it appeared from the nowhere recently. It was forced on Hungarians mainly by Tankred and I will behave as everybody whould behave in a my case: protesting, affronted and defiant. Zello 16:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Friend

KIDB, I have no idea what you mean. Where have I deleted relevant information about Transylvania? On the contrary, I added quite a lot. We should also pay attention on the quality of the articles that we edit. Alexrap 16:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Romania_-_Roman_Empire.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Romania_-_Roman_Empire.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MER-C 04:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maramureş (historical region)

Hi, you added the following: "Another possible explanation to the term "nameşi" is that in the Hungarian Kingdom, nobles (i.e. people possessing land) were called "nemes" in Hungarian (pronounced [name'sh])." My observation is technical: nobles are not the only people possesing land. In fact, I guess here "namesi" means exactly one who possesses land without being a noble. A nobleman has to have some seniority alegiance, etc... Especially when we talk about 13th century. I know it was different in Poland in 17-18th century with szlachta, but I believe that was an exceptional case. An example, in the Principality of Moldavia, there were "razesi" - free peasants, but they were not nobles. Their leaders (maybe 5 or 10% of "razesi"), who were written in special books (lists), and were perhaps equiv. of smallest nobles, being even called "cucon", not "cumatru" in common speach, would be the only one who could theoretically qualify as "noble". Are you sure you mean "noble" in the sense of "knight or higher"? :Dc76 12:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your answer proves my point (IMO), "free people" rather than "nobles". Szeckely captains and sub-captains were small nobles, but ordinary people - just free, no nobility. You describe exactly what I was saying about "razesi" - similar system. As for the origin of the word "names", since it has meaning in both languages, I guess it is safe to wait until we have a scholarly reference, until then "another possible explanation" is fine with me. :Dc76 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good intentions

KIDB, I am trying hard to think that your intentions are all positive, but it seems like you are also trying hard to prove me wrong.

• Why on Earth would you insist in writing one of the ethnic Romanians brought in from Ibăneşti village. Nobody brought nobody from nowhere. Men are not cattle, and they can decide for themselves where to go.
• As you are very much aware, the naming policy in Transylvania (when compared with the ones used in Serbia or Slovakia) is very open and friendly. So why trying to push it even more than any reasonable limit? And I'm talking now about the Unirea article, which you just modified. Are you going to start doing the same for all articles about places in Transylvania? Alexrap 09:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course Cofariu was not shopping on that day in Târgu Mures. But it does not mean that he was brought in. I'm sure that you know the difference and I don't understand why you insist to have this POV phrasing. He wanted to go, as many others, to participate at the demonstration that was happening in the centre of his own county. Alexrap 10:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right Alex that 12% is not enough for bolding in the case of Unirea (the limit was min. 20 % in the agreement). On the other hand I think that with the "brought in" sentence KIDB would like to enhance the fact that the Romanian villagers went in an organized group to the town to fight with Hungarians, not spontaneously. Zello 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Campaign against Hung. names

A Romanian user, Roamataa began deleting minority language names in the infoboxes, see for example Bistra and Moldoveneşti. Indeed Roamataa deleted Hungarian names all over the infoxes in Cluj County (about a dozen villages). As far as I know there was a consensus among Romanian users that they accept bilingual infoboxes (with 20 % population limit), and there was no problem with them in the past half year. Take a look at the changes sometimes and give me some support. Zello 00:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Kommuna

Thanks for telling me about that :) I am going to change it to "község" right away. Cheers, Ronline ✉ 06:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re

I think at first you should try to find a peaceuful solution to the content dispute. I suggest to add again the deleted information together with a citation. Hopefully he won't delete again (deleting sourced information is strongly discouraged in wikipedia). If he begin an edit war you should ask for help an admin (Khoikhoi, Ronline or anybody you met here and showed good-will). I will also pay attention to the discussion, and try to help. Zello 12:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain me what do you mean by "the appointed voivods were not interested in Transylvanian issues" and where do you have this info? --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  14:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. OK, if will be reciproc for me works fine this way. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  18:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

new Székely article

Hey, thanks for telling me about the new article. I do love the Székely. ;-) It looks pretty good already--I fixed a few grammar things and added an "expand section" template to the Post-Trianon section. I'll take a closer look at it later, I haven't got much in the way of free time this week... K. Lásztocska 16:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you, please, tell me also what was the final decision from the talk page of Odorheiu Secuiesc / Székelyudvarhely. I see people reverting each other again in some pages... :Dc76 19:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just point me to an edit that reflects in all details the agreed one.:Dc76 21:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

So, I understand there was a clear majority for this. The only problem was, for which towns it applies. For >50% there is a majority. So the only open question is what do we do for the interval 20%-50%. I am pritty sure the majority would not mind if there is a plurality (less than 50%, but higher than any other group). One way out of it would be to list (as we go through and edit in the coming weeks, months) in some talk page these towns with 20%-50%, and take case by case. Another way out of it is to use

Odorheiu Secuiesc or Székelyudvarhely (Romanian: Odorheiu Secuiesc, Hungarian: Székelyudvarhely, German: Oderhellen)

for the 20%-50%. Yet a third way would be to come back to this again, with a clearcut question: "50% or 20% ?", and force a majority one way or another. (all these IMHO)

Anyway, thank you very much for summing up the discussion for me.:Dc76 16:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Erdeniss

No worries, and have a nice day :) Ronline ✉ 07:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Answer

Where exactly I said that "all Hungarians are irredentists"? No, I certainly do not think that "all Hungarians are irredentists", but if you noticed problems that I had with certain Hungarian users like VinceB, Bendeguz, HunTomy, etc, you certainly cannot deny that their minds are indoctrinated with irredentism. So, it is really not question whether 2-3% or more Hungarians are irredentist - the question is that those irredentist Hungarians who come here think that Wikipedia is a good place where they can present their ideas and that is a source of the whole problem. It is very basic fact that banned user VinceB was the one who was writting Hungarian place names everywhere on Wikipedia and his goal was exactly irredentism. Regarding link about Rúzsa Magdi, it was not me who deleted that link, but user Duja: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vojvodina&diff=60991673&oldid=60983617 So, you have to ask him why this was deleted (I cannot answer this). Anyway, may I suggest that you post this link into subarticle about Music of Vojvodina if you want. PANONIAN 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Szepes

Thanks for joining the Szepes edit war. There is no need for two identical articles, there are articles about the region (Spiš) and about the county (Spiš county), if you want to rename the latter propose that on its talk page. Markussep ^Talk 12:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)