Talk:Miercurea Ciuc

---

This is a very silly thing to start a discussion about, but as much as I would like to I have never seen "Ciuc" beer marketed as "Csíki" (assuming we're both talking about the înca-una-si-ma-duc beer). Do they do that outside Hargita? Perhaps we could also mention "Harghita " beer (also made in Csíkszereda), which seems to me to be much more popular in the upper Csík than "Ciuc" is . . .

Meaning of Csikszereda: the article states that the name means Castle of the Szekely in both Hungarian and German. I am a native speaker of Hungarian, and Csikszereda does not mean that. If anyone knows an explanation for that , it would be nice to include it in the article. Otherwise I would suggest to correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.137.98.171 (talk) 12:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Székely

Why do you remove "Szekely" from "Szekely Hungarians"? That's how they identify. It's not like I'm argueing that the Szekelys are not Hungarians, they're just a distinct branch of the Hungarians. bogdan 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that Szekelys are Szekelys, don't worry. And that's why I haven't touched the other parts of the article talking about Szekely culture. But I've checked the data of the 2002 census that the article cites at that point and it refers to Hungarians not Szekely Hungarians: http://www.recensamant.ro/

Well, the Romanian census did not counted subgroups, so Szekelys were included in the figure for Hungarians, Lippovans were included in the figure for Russians, Aromanians in Romanians, etc. bogdan 18:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, but have a look at the earlier sentence:

"According to the 2002 census the city has a population of 42,029, of whom 34,388 or 81.8% are Szekler Hungarians."

This is simply not what the census states. A commenting sentence can be always added but census data should be cited as it is. I think it'd be an acceptable compromise to have Hungarians at that one point and Szeklers at each other place in the article.

Yes, that is a good idea. bogdan 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The Szekely are Hungarians with a distinct culture. Romanian censuses counted them as Hungarians just like the Csango.It has indeed a population 81,8% Szekely despite Ceaucescu efforts to settle it with Romanians. They do identify themselves as Szekely and not as Hungarians so I think we should call them Szekely but explain the Szekely are Hungarians. --Jorgenpfhartogs (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"Szekely land political map" in innapropriate place

This edit is the problem, it is promoting Hungarian irredentism. [1]

Arguments:

• "Szekely land" doesn`t exist anymore and it is not a geographical region (like Banat, Transylvania and others) as User:Rokarudi uses it in the lead sometimes. It was just a political entity that existed some time and now it doesn`t. It can be taken only as a cultural region at most.
• "Szekely land" is not a "reality" [2]. The UDMR political party lobbies to become a reality - the concept of territorial entity is illegal according to the constitution of Romania and the European Union. See this [3] for further explanation.
• "Szekely land" is listed as one of the irredentism movements in Europe. Please see this [4] under Europe/Hungarian. Note: "Szekely land" is a Hungarian claimed region in Transylvania, Romania.

If anyone can enter the discussion and clarify it further. Thank you. iadrian (talk)

The inclusion in the article of the so called "Szekely Land" map, a region which has no official status or recognition in Romania, is a blatant expression of irredentism on the part of Rokarudi, who should revise his nationalistic attitude on Wikipedia, and refrain from making such disruptive edits. Amon Koth (talk) 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Székelyland (Székelyföld) does indeed exist and has existed for centuries. It is bascically todays Kovászna/Covasna (Háromszék), Hargita/Harghita, Maros/Mures and smaller areas of Bákó and Brassó counties. For someone, especially a non-Hungarian to deny it's existence is paramount to cultural genocide. It would be the same if a Hungarian said that "Dobrudja does not exist". Hundreds of thousands of Hungarians are demanding Székelyland have its autonomy again, this has been achieved within Romania before - Mures-Magyar Autonomous Region, Maros-Magyar Autonóm Tartomány. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magyarcsaba (talk • contribs) 23:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:ISNOT. What somebody is "demanding" or this kind of comments like "cultural genocide" to a long time (finished) discussion is hardly constructive. Adrian (talk) 05:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Miercurea-Ciuc or Csíkszereda

Csíkszereda is how this town is know by the overwhelming majority of the population residing there. This has been the case for centuries. Csíkszereda is today just as Hungarian as it was when Transylvania was part of Hungary.

Csíkszereda is the most appropriate name for this Hungarian town, not "miercurea ciuc". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.47.216.73 (talk) 21:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Csíkszereda is known by that name only by the Hungarian minority living in Romania. Miercurea-Ciuc is not a Hungarian but Romanian town(it is in Romania). The real and the only official name is Miercurea-Ciuc. Please respect that and refrain from revisionist/nostalgic/nationalistic edits. If you continue you will be blocked from editing. Consider this as the last warning before reporting you. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing "revisionist/nostalgic/nationalist about naming a City by the name the overwhelming majority of its population know it as. In this case Csíkszereda is how 85% of the inhabitants know it to be. It should also be known by this name in official terms. Currently there is a campaign to change the official name back to Csíkszereda by the local population.

The problem with this edit is not being revisionist/nostalgic/nationalistic. You are always quick to tag others while your main focus on cenzoring out Hungarian placenames is not very fruitful program either. Anyone can tag others e.g. revisionist/nostalgic/nationalistic or dominant ethnie maniac/chauvinist/extremist etc, but this leads nowhere. Csíkszereda could well be under Csíkszereda title as this is a predominantly ethnic Hungarian town which has been under Romanian sovereinty since 1920. The problem is that due to harsh Romanian opposition to the idea of naming articles on places with Hungarian majority by their Hungarian name, there is no consensus behind such a move. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 08:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Rokarudi, but when someone has this kind of edits and say: "Csíkszereda is today just as Hungarian as it was when Transylvania was part of Hungary. Csíkszereda is the most appropriate name for this Hungarian town, not "miercurea ciuc"." I don`t think that I am wrong in my comment. There is nothing harsh in reverting Hungarian ultra-nationalists that still can`t "live" with the fact that some territories are not a part of Hungary anymore due to the active Hungarian propaganda. This is not anything new that Hungarian users can`t understand that Hungarian names have no place anymore, not only in Romania-related articles but in Slovakia and Serbia also, in fact, in the beginning you also did`t understood this. I am not quick to judge other people, in fact I do that only when I have hard evidence , like I did about you. Miercurea-Ciuc is not recently transfered to Romania and there should`t be anymore doubt about this place recognition in Romania and outside of the country under Miercurea-Ciuc while Csíkszereda is only known as a local name within the Hungarian minority living in Romania which is already represented in the article like any other alternative name, on any other article on Wikipedia. Adrian (talk) 11:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This town is known as Csíkszereda by 85% of the local population. Why should outsiders tell the locals otherwise? This has absolutely nothing to do with "nationalist/revisionist/nostalgic" ideas, it is to do with facts and reality. Transylvania may now be in Romania, but can we remind people that it was given to Romania in the Trianon Diktat against the wishes of Hungarians living there. Therefore calling Csíkszereda by it's true and most appropriate name should not be opposed, unless you are an anti-democrat.

Yes, Csíkszereda is definitely a Hungarian town in Transylvania, and happens to be part of Romania at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.70.117 (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi, you were saying something that this user is not revisionist/nostalgic/nationalistic?

I think that the comments of this user are not made in the appropriate wording and style, but he has a point saying that places are not necessarily to be named by the name used by the contry's dominant ethnic group. I remember how you became upset when I once reminded you of the Kosovo-issue. I can only repeat that I will not enjoy with pleasure the edit conflict (the eruption of which is only a question of the level of internet accessability in Kosovo) when my arguments so vehemently opposed by you with respect to Transylvania will be echoed all over Kosovo article talk pages by pro-Serbian Vlach editors when Albanian editors start changing Serbian article names to the corresponding Albanian one for Kosovo settlement articles saying "that this is not anything new that Serbian users can`t understand that Serbian names have no place anymore, and there should`t be anymore doubt about this place recognition in Kosovo Serbian name is only known as a local name within the Serbian minority living in Kosovo (who knows, maybe Greater-Albania at that time in the future)... Apply the golden rule, I always try to do it Rokarudi--Rokarudi 18:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo certainly can`t be compared to anything we could have in Romania. There wasn`t a war that expelled Hungarians from Romania, and there isn`t any political nor geographical entity apart from the republic in question. We should respect the borders we have today, and to be real, there is little or no chance of change in Europe(EU). This user is clearly calling for some sort of Greater Hungary, that is called revisionist and nationalistic/nostalgic attitude. I mean what should we say when Treaty of Trianon is called a Trianon Diktat? Serbian names are just local alternative names, since 2008, because Kosovo is a partially recognized republic with all the institutions one state could/should have. I don`t believe that we have something similar or even comparable anywhere else in Europe(EU). Adrian (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian, check your facts by going to the Pristina article and look at the Kosovo municipalities template, you will see that all of them are still under Serbian name with Latin script. The Treaty of Trianon was a "Diktat", and an unfair one. (not in every, but in many respect) The use of Hungarian names has nothing to do with territorial clames. It has only to do with fairness, democracy, respect of minorities etc. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 08:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I know, but since that territory is still disputed there are many strange thing still in Serbian only. The only one who thinks that Greater Hungary should still exist are Hungarian nationalists. Treaty of Trianon was a fair one at least, and the only ones who think otherwise are nationalists under the influence of active Hungarian propaganda who still dreams of some territory change in their favour like this IP address user. I mean Transylvania was a part of Hungary where Romanians always represented the majority.. No comment. I don`t want to get into details since it is clear that with this you could express some nationalistic attitude(like you already did and on Wikipedia nationalism has no place), but all the territories Kingdom of Hungary "lost" were populated by other nations (Serbs,Croats,Slovaks and Romanians). About Hungarian names, everything that has to do with respect of minorities and democracy it is done. We are not deleting alternative names, we are just limiting their use in accordance with their status in reality. Don`t get me wrong, but I don`t want to continue to talk like this, since it is clear that you have strong fellings toward territories under the Treaty of Trianon. A friendly advice, don`t edit articles where it is clear that you can`t maintain NPOV. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 11:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

other names

Modern wiki pages have Other names section Readder (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lead#Separate_section_usage Mdaaaa (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

look at all pages of hungarian and serbian cities Readder (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I agree with Readder here. I have noticed this too and on the wiki guildline it says that if more than 2 other names present a name section should be present. Although I have noticed at Serbian articles that places with even 1 or 2 other names have this section. But at this particular article (Miercurea Ciuc) this section should not be present because it has only 2 alternative names, not more than 2.Adrian (talk) 08:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

siculi origin

Some of Miercurea Ciuc citizens are of siculi origin. Some? The vast majority of Csikszereda are Székely Hungarians!

Siculi are of Turkic or Cuman origin. They were using Turkic runes and after intensive magyarisation they lost their language. They did not have their own language, because they have always been Hungarian speaking.

Siculi can be recognised after their Assian appearance (chinese eyes). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.32.169 (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What is Siculi? I think the word you are looking for is Székely, or Szekler in English. Assian appearance? What is that? Chinese eyes? I have never seen any people with 'Chinese eyes' in Csikszereda. What a ridiculous statement this is. Is this a child who has written this? Surely you should be able to write in a decent standard of English before you decide to make a rather ignorant and such a non sense as this?