Talk:Transylvania: Difference between revisions
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
Transylvania it means Erdőelve later Erdély translated into Latin as Trans (Beyond) Silvania (Forest or Trees). During the Hungarian Kingdom the official language of Hungary was the Latin, all geographical names had been tarnslated from Hungarian into Latin. As you may not know but the indigenous population of Transylvania were the Hun'''gay'''rians so the beside the Hungarian also the Latin was in use. |
Transylvania it means Erdőelve later Erdély translated into Latin as Trans (Beyond) Silvania (Forest or Trees). During the Hungarian Kingdom the official language of Hungary was the Latin, all geographical names had been tarnslated from Hungarian into Latin. As you may not know but the indigenous population of Transylvania were the Hun'''gay'''rians so the beside the Hungarian also the Latin was in use. |
||
The indigenous population of Transilvania were the Dacians, the capital Sarmizegetusa being built here (Orastie Mountains). The Hungarians came later and they found here the Daco-Romans population. |
|||
== Reliable and unreliable sources, wikipedia policies == |
== Reliable and unreliable sources, wikipedia policies == |
||
Revision as of 14:07, 21 May 2009
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | European history B‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Romania B‑class Top‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives | |
|---|---|
The Land Beyond the Trees?
Transylvania it means Erdőelve later Erdély translated into Latin as Trans (Beyond) Silvania (Forest or Trees). During the Hungarian Kingdom the official language of Hungary was the Latin, all geographical names had been tarnslated from Hungarian into Latin. As you may not know but the indigenous population of Transylvania were the Hungayrians so the beside the Hungarian also the Latin was in use.
The indigenous population of Transilvania were the Dacians, the capital Sarmizegetusa being built here (Orastie Mountains). The Hungarians came later and they found here the Daco-Romans population.
Reliable and unreliable sources, wikipedia policies
The data seems contradictory, but if you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources, one should avoid tertiary sources (i.e. Encyclopedias like the 2 examples you offered), including Britannica:
"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."
The primary source in this case is Diploma Leopoldinum (the text of which I could not find) and, as example of contradictions in Britannica (Britannica was cited in support of Transylvania becoming again part of the Kingdom of Hungary after 1699): http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1459175/Diploma-Leopoldinum
"Introduced after years of anarchy and war, the Diploma offered the promise of internal order and cultural and vocational opportunities for all three nations of Transylvania in their own languages. It soon became apparent, however, that the Diploma had not secured autonomy for Transylvania, as the leadership of the principality came under the direct influence of the Vienna chancellery. Transylvania was therefore severed from Hungary for the next two centuries."
I cited only secondary sources and, because I am Romanian, I cited Hungarian or neutral authors, avoiding Romanian sources.
Your second source only states that the staus did not changed when Transylvania was declared Grand Principality.--Bluehunt (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
These sources
Britannica about Transylvania: "Transylvania, historic eastern European region. After forming part of Hungary (11th–16th century), it was an autonomous principality within the Ottoman Empire (16th–17th century) and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century". And the Diploma Leopoldinum speaks about administrative facts: "The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors". Yes, within the Kingdom of Hungary, Transylvania was separate from administrative Hungary, beacuse it was ruled by the Governor. And the proclamation of Grand Pricipality was a only a formality. Toroko (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think, Grand pricipality of transylvania should be mentioned at the top of the article, because it was only a mere formality. Toroko (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
And the governors of the Translyvanian province were most of the time Hungarians, Hungarian influence was notable. Toroko (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Contradictory sources
The point made by Bluehunt still stays, you cite tertiary sources and he cites secondary sources. If you think these secondary sources are false, you can have them tagged as dubious or unreliable. Eventually you should come with other secondary sources as well. The issue is important as the sources you two cite seem to be contradictory. So I propose this form as a compromise solution. For now, both sources are cited, with their content. It remains to settle this down with additional citations as they become available.Octavian8 (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Hungarian influence
- I think we are getting to the bottom of this. Transylvania was incorporated at the end of the XVII century in the Habsburg Empire, administratively as a part of Hungary (also controlled by the Habsburgs), however, the Hungarians had no control over Transylvania the way they had before 1241 or the way they'll have after 1867, the region being run now by imperial governors.
- I agree that the proclamation of the Grand principality has no place in the summary, however, the fact that the Hungarians had no actual control over Transylvania between 1699 and 1867 does. I'll modify the text along those lines.
- The Britannica reference that Toroko deleted reads: 'and then once again became part of Hungary at the end of the 17th century; later it was incorporated into Romania (1918–20)' and 'Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors.' I see no contradiction here to the way I've described things above, on the contrary, it supports this point of view. Transylvania, being subject to the direct rule of the emperor's governors was under Habsburg and not Hungarian control, although adminstratively, 'officially' it was part of the Habsburg controlled Hungary. Therefore, saying that 'it was separated in all but name from Hungary' is correct. Supported by this reference, that I believe Toroko brought in, and by the other references in the same paragraph.Octavian8 (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hole Hungary was under Habsburg rule, but it was kingdom of hungary, not formally. Yes, you are right about the great autonomy, it was separate autonomically from administrative Hungary, that is true, but it was part of the kingdom of hungary, which was the magyar state. And most of the governers were hungarians, so hungarian influence should be mentioned. Please see my work to find a nice compromise about it. Toroko (talk) 20:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think we both look for a compromise, which is a good basis.
- With respect to our issue, in the period of time we are talking about (1699-1867), I don't think that Hungarians had much influence in Hungary proper, let alone having any influence in Transylvania. The fact that most governors were Hungarians -- which is for now only your allegation -- even if true, has no relevance, as they were just executors of Austrian/Habsburg politics. Hence, the Austrians had the say, NOT the Hungarians.
- This point of view is actually supported by all references. Even you admit that Transylvania had a great autonomy. Therefore, I cannot agree to your text, which suggests the opposite that the Hungarians had some influence. Besides, I am in principle against deleting referenced text without a thorough discussion, especially when they are secondary references. As you see there are enough tertiary sources in the article and even crap-references like some wilde internet sites and .pdf documents that have as author some unknown organizations (e.g., US Bureau of Intelligence and Research. http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS047.pdf.) which are still in, and I would not delete them as well without prior discussion.
- I believe the best compromise was the version before your edit. There it was clear that Transylvania was, within the Habsburg Empire, part of Hungary, but the Habsburgs had the say. Again, all references point to this conclusion, including those you have deleted -- and I definitely don't agree to deleting referenced text, particularly when the references are secondary sources.Octavian8 (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- It wasn't only nominal. A lot of local Hungarians were governors and this is the most important, because they decided about the future of the territory. The reason of the existence the governors is that Transylvania couldn't be led from Vienna. so they needed a local governor. The nobles (who were also mostly Hungarians) decided about local judiciary, administrative, educational, etc. questions. Hungary was the part of the Habsburg Empire, yes, but In Bohemia there was czech influence, etc., despite it was the part of Habsburg empire. Poiting out that there was no hungarian influence and "all but name" is a very big fault and the attachement to hungary must be mentioned. There WAS hungarian influence, it can't be denied, even if it was the part of Habsburg Empire. Toroko (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't nominal, because hungary was autonomous within the habsburg empire. There is no empire where the leaders can define every single aspect. Toroko (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)