Talk:Székely Land/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Present and past

The article should the present status first and only afterwards what it used to be (a historical autonomous region). The opening sentence "Szekelyfold was .." is improper. Szekelys still exist today (unlike Romans, Huns or Dacians) and they live in the same territory since centuries. The term "Szekely land" evokes first of all the area inhabited by Szekelys in the mind of any Hungarian or those who know the region. In fact, there is barely any Hungarian who never heard of or couldn't locate Szekelyfold on a map. On the contrary, those who know about the historical autonomy of the region are much fewer. Akiss 11:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Historical region"

Criztu, why you don't agree with the label "historical region" ? bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:25, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan, is Szekelyfold a historical region of Romania, or is Szekelyfold a historical region of the Kingdom of Hungary ? -- Criztu 19:40, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Székelyföld is an historical region. The fact that it is inside Romania is not relevant to its status. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 20:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

in this case we'd have to maintain that Moesia and Dacia are historical regions in Romania. -- Criztu 05:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moesia is mostly in Bulgaria and Serbia and Dacia included at times parts of Hungary (and as a Roman province parts of Serbia), but, yes, they are historical regions. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 09:56, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

then we have to define what a historical region is.

OK. My definition is that a historical region is a region that has some cultural or linguistic features that differentiate it from the neighbourhood. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

here is the wiki definition of "region" : In European politics, a region is the layer of government directly below the national level. The term is especially used in relation to those regions which have some historical claim to uniqueness or independence, or differ significantly from the rest of the country..

Most words have several meanings. Region may indeed refer to a level of government, but it has several other meanings as well. Here, we are not talking about present-day EU politics, we are talking about culture, history etc--Tamas 19:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

if you say "Szekelyfol is a region in Romania", then you are talking about present-day EU politics. if you are talking about things in the past then you say "Szekelyfold was a region in the kingdom of Hungary" -- Criztu 20:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and the wiki definition of "historical" : History is a term for information about the past.

• is there a current layer of government for Szekelyfold ? there isn't
• was there a layer of government for Szekelyfold ? there was, during the Kingdom of Hungary

can we safely say "Szekelyfold was in the past a historical (meaning it was in the past) region (meaning it had a layer of government) in/of the Kingdom of Hungary" ?

can we safely say "Szekelyfold is in our days a historical (meaning it was in the past) region (meaning it has a layer of government) in/of Romania" ? -- Criztu 19:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• to get a better picture, here is the formulation for Northumbria : Northumbria is primarily the name of an Anglian or Anglo-Saxon kingdom which was formed in Great Britain at the beginning of the 7th century, and of the much smaller earldom which succeeded the kingdom. The name reflects that of the southern limit to the kingdom's territory, which was the River Humber, and in the 12th century writings of Henry of Huntingdon the kingdom was defined as one of the Heptarchy of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. and the formulation for Anjou : Anjou is a former county (c.880), duchy (1360) and province centred on the city of Angers in the lower Loire Valley of western France. It corresponds largely to the present-day département of Maine-et-Loire. and the formulation for Aquitaine : Aquitaine (Gascon and Occitan: Aquitània; Basque: Akitania) (anciently "Guyenne" or "Guienne") now forms a région in south-western France along the Atlantic Ocean and the Pyrenees mountain range on the border with Spain.

so there is no "Northumbria is a historical region (kingdom in this instance) in England" and there is no "Anjou is a historical region (province in this instance) in France" , but there is a "Aquitaine is a region in France" -- Criztu 19:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ardeal is a historical region of Romania, and officialy it can be reffered to as such today. Szekelyfold was a historical region of the Kingdom of Hungary, not of Romania. That is why there is a szekler initiative to attain recognition of a Szekelyfold, historicaly bonded by the Kingdom of Hungary, not by Romania, nor with any form of romanian administration. It has no history with Romania. Szekelyfold never was a region of (or within the borders of) Romania, and certainly not "is". It was a region of the kingdom of Hungary hundred years ago, as Scythia minor was a province of the Roman empire thousand years ago. yet there is no article stating that "Scythia minor is a historical region in Romania" -- Criztu 11:32, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So, you want to make sure that the readers doesn't want to believe it is a historical region of Romania ? I'll try to rephrase it. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I want to make sure we write about things that were in the past, like "Szekelyfold", and things that are in the present, like Harghita, Covasna and parts of Mures counties. -- Criztu 19:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

an then why not listing all administrative regions that existed during the Kingdom of Hungary in the territory that is now within Romanian borders, say "Kis-Kukulo is a historical county in Romania" ? >:) - Criztu 11:52, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because a region has to do with the culture and people, while a county has to do with internal political organization. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 12:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can you show any romanian official map with a "Sekelyfold" region/province alongside Oltenia, Muntenia, Ardeal, Moldova, Dobrogea, Basarabia, Bucovina, Maramures, Crisana and Banat ? -- Criztu 19:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Can you show any official Turkish map with a Kurdistan region/province? Official maps can be quite misleading in this respect.--Tamas 07:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

can you show any official American map with a historical Apache/Comanche region ? Can you show any official Hungarian map with a historical Municipium Iassorum (Yazigia) region ? :) -- Criztu 09:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:)Let me put it this way. (1) Szekelyfold is a historical region. (2) Presently, Szekelyfold is in Romania. (1) and (2): Szekelyfold is a historical region in Romania. Or we could say: Szekelyfold is historical region presently situated in Romania. And as far as official maps are concerned, I do not think official maps should decide what is a historical region and what is not. Official maps contain the present-day administrative division of a country, which may or may not coincide with historical regions.--Tamas 17:05, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

it is obvious that you ignore that "Szekelyfold was" and you want to keep the formulation "Szekelyfold is". i'd say you are making efforts to attain unofficial recognition of a "Szekelyfold autonomous region in Romania" :) -- Criztu 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For the record: I do not agree with Criztu's latest reformulation. I think the part was OK as it was. A historical region does not cease to exist just because administrative boundaries are redrawn.--Tamas 20:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

unfortunately the term "historical region" is used mainly by nationalist hungarian propaganda, no other article on "regions that were and ceased to exist" has the label "is a historical region in [country]" except for the articles about the regions that once belonged to Hungary -- Criztu 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not true. Try and run a search for "historical region". You will get 338 hits, among them Historical regions of Central Europe, Historical regions of the Balkan Peninsula. Some historical regions do not coincide with any present-day administrative region, e.g. Lusatia. (quote from the page: "Lusatia is not an administrative unit") So as far as the established practices of Wikipedia are concerned, there is nothing agains calling Szeklerland a historical region.--Tamas 21:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

funny, many of those articles are locked, and few have the the formulation "is a historical region". I think it is fair to say "Szekelyfold was a region". The Szekely population continues to live in the former Szekelyfold region, and they are wishing for official autonomous status for a Szekelyfold region. But, there is no region Szekelyfold in Romania. pls understand you can write about the existence of a "past Szekelfold", but speaking about existence of a "present-day Szekelyfold" when there are other forms of administration in its place is in my view a form of propaganda. I can't agree with you stating "Szekelyfold is a region in Romania". sorry -- Criztu 05:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think the main difference between us is that you interpret region in purely administrative terms, why I believe that region can be used in a broader sense: cultural, ethnographical whatever. Anyway, I do not want to push this issue any further, if the sentence "The term Szekelyfold is also used in a cultural-ethnographical sense, i.e., referring to the territories inhabited by the Székelys." can stay it is fine for me.--Tamas 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

History

I tried to add some content about the history and development of the region. I know it is not perfect and far from finished, so please help if you can.--Tamas 22:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Székely land

I am thinking of including the definiton of the "historical Szekelyland". I think, the areas where the historical royal privileges were effective could be a possible way to define it. The land belonging to the communities of the former Székely Seats (Székely Székek) before the 1867 administrative reform may be a good basis (Aranyosszék, Csíkszék, Udvarhelyszék, Marosszék, Háromszék). I would not include villages of Székelys outside these areas (eg. in Moldova, Bukovina) because the historical royal privileges did not have any effect in these areas. --KIDB 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of szekelys in Romania

here, the number of szekelys are 1,624,959 in a 1992 census. Approximately this number (1,5 million) is considered as number of ethnic hungarians in Romania, but Romanian nationalists consider this number around 670.000. I don't know wheter the mentioned census is newer than 1992, or not, but I'm absolutely sure, that the 1.6 million can't reduce to 670.000 in 13 years (1992-2005), the number of them here is 1,431,807, so I changed the number of them into approx 1.4 million.

Other: In Hungary, every ethnic hungarian who lives in Romania is (very often) considered as Szekelys ----VinceB 19:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)--

[the 2002 census], at the homepage of the political group: Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania

Székely people in the Kingdom of Hungary

Vince, Székely are the people who live in the regions shown in this image. Indeed, there are some people who do not know what the difference is between Székelys and other Magyars, this article is to inform them about it. I will revert your edit. --KIDB 08:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved it to "Székely land"

Well... our policy says to use English when there is an available name. For example, we have Basque Country and not "Euskal Herria". bogdan 21:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Székely Land be better? Olessi 23:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point :-) bogdan 18:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming conventions

Why so many Wikipedia pages on cities with Hungarian majority promote dual names and worse, sometimes the Hungarian name ahead of the official one? The naming conventions are very clear: we use the English name and if none is available we use the official local name. And there's only one such name, so there's no debate about it. If it's no historical context (like the geography of the place today, or events happening in the last few years), there's no reason to use other name (or alternate names). Daizus 17:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Autonomy initiatives

I moved here the disputed text from the main page until an NPOV is elaborated. --KIDB 18:46, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Today there is a local Székely initiative to attain regional autonomy for the Székely Land, within similar boundaries to those of Romania's Hungarian Autonomous Region (1952-60). Most ethnic Romanians, however, oppose this idea. It is also doubtful whether the present constitution of Romania (which defines the country as a unitary nation-state) could accommodate any autonomous regions based on ethnicity.

Since 2005 and 2006, representatives of the Hungarian minority have presented their desire to re-create the autonomous region under the name "Székely Land (Szekler Land)". The proposal stirred a series of scandals within the Romanian press and political system.

At this time, the Hungarians are the only major national minority in Europe that does not have any sort of autonomy (cultural or regional). The right for autonomy is just one in the long list of themes which are controversial in Romanian society. Some Hungarians request the re-opening of a separate Hungarian-speaking only Bólyai University (currently part of a bilingual Babeş-Bolyai University) and the return of cultural and religious properties to the Hungarian community, as well as the creation of a minority law.

Székely Hungarians are seeking territorial autonomy, inspired by Western European models, such as the Catalan minority's model in Spain. The autonomy must have a legal basis and will have to be voted by the Romanian parliament. The Romanian political system and the press considers this initiative an "attempt against the Romanian state's territorial integrity" and therefore rejects it.

Hungarians using the Székely symbols, Hungarian inscriptions, or singing the Hungarian and Székely anthems face aggressive opposition from the Romanian side. The Székely banner is a dark blue field, which contains a golden Sun and a silver Moon. In 2006, a group of Székely Hungarians placed a plaque containing the Székely banner near a road at the entrance to Covasna County. The act got to the headlines of Romanian newspapers and the Romanian Police removed it from the spot.

In 2006, President Traian Băsescu of Romania condemned the idea of an autonomous Székely region.

In February 2007, a local Székely commission organized a public opinion research campaign in the Székely areas. Over 80% of the population voted "yes" for the autonomy of Székely Land, but this act created conflict again and the subject appeared in the headlines of the Romanian news. The public opinion research campaign was called a "separatist attempt" by the Romanian side.

On February 11, 2007 Emil Boc, the mayor of Cluj-Napoca, maintained the referendum is illegal and called it an "instigation to territorial separatism".

On February 12, 2007, President László Sólyom of Hungary visited Romania and met Băsescu. The discussions included the controversial topics of minority rights and autonomy. Băsescu has pointed out the situation of the Székely in Romania is in full respect with the standards of the European Union. He also mentioned a referendum for territorial autonomy is illegal and characterized the Székely initiative not as a test of the public opinion, but as a test of Romanian laws. Romania's Interior Ministry has said that organizing an informal poll is actually not illegal.[3]

Proposal

I worked a bit on the text above, this is the result. 
I would be glad to see any comments if this is NPOV now? 
Should it possibly be moved into a new separate article? --KIDB 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Székely Land is one of the largest European regions with a significant ethnic minority. After the fall of Communism, many hoped that the former Hungarian Autonomous Region, abolished by the Ceausescu Regime, would soon be restored again. The majority of the Romanians, however, don't support this idea, and the new constitution of Romania, passed after the fall of communism, defines the country as a unitary nation-state. President Traian Băsescu declared that regional self-governance should be dealt with in a new regulation about Romanian regions and Székely Land should have no more autonomy than any other region in Romania. In spite of this, there are local Székely initiatives to attain regional autonomy for Székely Land. There are different organisations with different concepts, based on examples of other European regions like Catalonia, or South Tyrol.
The most important political party representing Hungarians in Romania is the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania. They are assuming a somewhat cautious position, and try to lobby for an act on cultural autonomy. This would include provisions like the introduction of Hungarian language History and Geography education in the Hungarian schools, or birth and wedding registration in Hungarian language for those who request it. After negotiations with the coalition partners (the party is presently part of the governing coalition), the draft was submitted to the Parliament by the Government of Romania in 2005. The draft, however, has still not been discussed by the plenary session of the Romanian Parliament.
Other Hungarian organisations with lower political representation have proposed wider level of autonomy. Section 8.b) of the Founding Declaration of the Székely Land based Hungarian Civic Alliance explicitly calls for the support of the autonomy initiatives of the Hungarians in Romania.
In 2006, a group of Székely Hungarians placed a plaque containing the Székely banner near a road at the entrance to Covasna County. The Romanian Police removed it from the spot. Also in 2006, a major peaceful demonstration was held in Odorheiu Secuiesc in favor of autonomy. President Traian Băsescu visited the town the next day and held negotiations with the major of the town, also president of the Hungarian Civic alliance, Jenő Szász.
In February 2007, a local Székely commission organized a public opinion research campaign in the Székely areas. Over 80% of the population voted "yes" for the autonomy of Székely Land. On February 11, 2007 Emil Boc, president of the Democratic Party of Romania, maintained the referendum was illegal and called it an "instigation to territorial separatism". On February 12, 2007, Hungarian President László Sólyom of Hungary visited Romania and met Băsescu. The discussions included the controversial topics of minority rights and autonomy. Băsescu has pointed out the situation of the Székely in Romania is in full respect with the standards of the European Union. He also mentioned a referendum for territorial autonomy is illegal and characterized the Székely initiative not as a test of the public opinion, but as a test of Romanian laws. Romania's Interior Ministry has said that organizing an informal poll is actually not illegal.[4]

Yes, I think this version is OK. Just a few points:

• We should probably get a source for the extent of public support for Szekely autonomy. So, how many people within Szekelyfold support it, and how many within Romania as a whole.

That would be great, the problem is that I don't have any sources. (I wish I had time for it.) I have, however, already met with Székely people who don't think autonomy is necessary (and with more who think it is...) If I may add a personal remark: I think that if Székelys had similar rights to the Italians in Switzerand, I don't think the autonomy would be an issue at all. --KIDB 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think this sentence could be reworked: "President Traian Băsescu declared that regional self-governance should be dealt with in a new regulation about Romanian regions and Székely Land should have no more autonomy than any other region in Romania." What I remember Băsescu saying was that the whole of Romanian should be decentralised more, but that this should be done symmetrically rather than asymmetrically. It is important to note that the current government supports symmetric decentralisation.

Yes, I agree. --KIDB 16:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

• I think more information and analysis should be given about the referendum and its legality. Frankly, the whole idea of the referendum being illegal, or Szekely autonomy being illegal, is Democratic political rhetoric. The fact that Romania is defined as a "nation state" does not mean that certain regions cannot get more powers than others; the constitution stipulates nothing about devolution or asymmetric decentralisation. Szekely autonomy is thus perfectly legal, as was the consultative referendum.
• We should probably mention the SzNT/CNS somewhere, particularly with regard to their reasons for autonomy.

Thanks, Ronline ✉ 15:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I will move this text into a new article called Székely autonomy initiatives for further discussions and edit by other editors. I hope, this way the Székely Land article can be saved from further edit wars. --KIDB 06:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

References

Ethnic map

Ethnic map of Harghita, Covasna, and Mureş Counties (2002 data).

Ethnic map of Harghita, Covasna, and Mureş Counties (1992 data).

I removed the image with the 1992 data because I think it is very hard to see the difference and there is no point in displaying both of them. --KIDB (talk) 09:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

User:MNsRATEw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) initiated a request to move the page, stating "there is no gov. of Szekely it's simply a region from Romania." Looking at the history of this talk page, the name of the article is an issue that has been visited before. Accordingly, there needs to be discussion here before any move takes place. I'm not familiar enough with the issues to say I'm for or against the move right now; if consensus is reached that the article should be moved, I will be glad to offer technical assistance. —C.Fred (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The proposal at WP:RM is for a move from Székely Land to Székely Region so it appears only land vs. region is in question here. Perhaps there is assumed an implication that "land" refers to a state (country) whereas "region" does not. However, as can be seen in Chełmno Land, Victoria Land, Ovamboland, Gorkhaland, and many others, the suffix land is frequently use in English for non-official, sub-state entities. — AjaxSmack 23:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the other map should be deleted, or both be kept but I'm willing to consider sources or any other thing you might want to point out but randomly deleting one of the maps (possibly the better one) can't be right. Hobartimus (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I don't see this a too complicated question. Székely Land has been called Székely Land for many centuries. The historical German name is Szeklerland, too. The similar Saxon historical region in the neighborhood is called Burzenland, AFAIK Burznland is not an independent state. Such attempts to re-write reality can mislead only people who are not aware of local issues. --KIDB (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Differences between maps

We have two maps in the article, in one of them the South of Covasna (Întorsura Buzăului area) is part of the traditional Szekely land, while in the other is not. Which is the truth?--MariusM (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the second map which seems inaccurate.--MariusM (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the other map should be deleted, or both be kept but I'm willing to consider sources or any other thing you might want to point out but randomly deleting one of the maps (possibly the better one) can't be right. Hobartimus (talk) 00:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope Hobartimus will join this talk page and provide sources for the accuracy of the second map. I consider first map as accurate because the South of Covasna is not populated with szekelys, it is a Romanian-majority area. In Întorsura Buzăului there are 99% Romanians [5]--MariusM (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually I joined it at the same time :) just edit conflicted. I see your problem now you confused about the second map. If you read the caption it says nothing about present day population only about 19th century "traditional" borders of Székely Land. So the two maps show 2 different things with the colored area one is present day population other is area. Hope this explains it, the population has nothing to do with coloring on the second map. Hobartimus (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

First map is showing also a "traditional szekely land" (separately from current population) and is conflicting with the "traditional land" of the second map. Considering that Întorsura Buzăului is today 99% Romanian (as sourced above) I doubt it was populated by Szekelys in the 19th century. Please provide sources specifically including the actual South of Covasna county in the traditional Szekely land in 19th century.--MariusM (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually the first map shows two lines one is titled "Traditional" but it is unspecified if this is 14-15-17-19th century exactly. The other line is titled pretty badly it's also not clear what is the source of it but it also includes the area we talk about. So even the first map had some source based on which it included the territory in one of the lines. Also IMHO population has not much to do with this the "traditional land" is simply the actual borders within which Székely's had certain extra rights I imagine this wasn't redrawn every year to follow smaller (in regards to area) changes. Hobartimus (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I also found that the city you qoute and linked Bodzaforduló is indeed 99% Romanian population but it was formerly known as Magyarbodza (city was split to several parts then some villages attached to this part to get todays Buzaului). The most I could find about this city is that it was in the 'Sepsi' area (1202 km2) 45 274 ppl out of 12402 Romanians ,some but not all of the population there. But as I said population not that relevant here. Hobartimus (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the blue line in the first map is given a clear explanation: "Szekely Land as claimed by the autonomy supporters". This is different than "traditional Szekely land" which is showed in the same map. For me is quite obvious the basis of the claims of autonomy supporters: The main basis is the actual Romanian county system as it was designed by Nicolae Ceauşescu. The autonomy supporters are claiming the entire teritorry of Harghita and Covasna counties, regardless of the fact that it was or not part of the traditional Szekely land or it has or not an ethnic szekely majority. In adition of that they are claiming a part of the Mureş county, based on two principles: the traditional Szekely land (regardless if it has or not a Szekely majority) and also the Hungarian-majority areas which are contingeous with the traditional Szekely land. As is written in our article: In 1876, a general administrative reform abolished all the autonomous areas in the Kingdom of Hungary and created a unified system of counties. As a result, the autonomy of the Székely Land came to an end as well. We can not discuss about a "traditional Szekely land" after 1876, when the Austrian-Hungarian kingdom abolished Szekely autonomy. Even if Întorsura Buzăului was part of the Hungarian Haromszek county after 1876, this is not proving that it was part of traditional Szekely land. We need sources for the teritorry of the traditional Szekely land before 1876. Actual claims of the autonomy supporters are not relevant for the historical situation.--MariusM (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I should add that the first map is quoting as source "the map of Szekely Land in the 19th century".--MariusM (talk) 23:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Clear explanation? But what is the source of it? Quote obviously there must be some source from which the information was taken by map creator but this is not given. You guess that it is based on the Romanian county system a guess good as any. One thing was achieved by giving it a tendentious name "claimed by autonomy supporters" is attempt to generate distrust in that version using the word "claimed". Truly we have no idea what it's based on but we have another map which states somewhat similar borders as the "traditional Székely land", which includes the area in question. Can be resolved quickly if the creators reply. Hobartimus (talk) 00:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also the difference is really little I don't think it's worth this much energy to debate it. Hobartimus (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I've announced both the authors of the maps, User:KIDB and User:Andrei nacu, to join this discussion.--MariusM (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My map was mostly based on the already existing map of the Szekely Land plus the 2002 ethnic data and the border of the territory claimed by the autonomy supporters, mainly the CNS (Szekely National Council).

According to this site Intorsura Buzaului was also 99% Romanian in 1850 (only 2 Hungarians lived there), so it is very unlikely that it was part of the Sepsiszek.

http://www.intorsurabuzaului.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=40#Istoric

This map of Transylvania in 1869 shows the area (most of it) as part of the Feher/Alba County.

http://sebok1.adatbank.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=erd1869

These links (in Romanian) are pointing out the claims of the Szekely National Council on all of Covasna and Harghita as well as parts of Mures. A few of members of the Council even claim the whole of Mures (this is why I represented the blue border in the Mures County with an interrupted line).

http://www.transilvaniaexpres.ro/index.php?mod=articol&id_articol=40552

http://www.muresinfo.ro/stiri/stiri.php/dt/2007-11-02/Stirile_zilei/

http://www.infoms.ro/home/detalii-stiri/article/1507.html (the end of the article)

Andrei nacu (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The question is really simple what map you used as your source of the "traditional Székely land" line on the map in question, was it this one, 1806? Hobartimus (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian town names were taken from this map and borders from the map I already mentioned 1869. I think my only mistake is that I wrongly included the Tusnad area in the Szekely Land.

Andrei nacu (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

What I find odd that the 1869 map doesn't have a territory marked as Székely Land (pls don't forget the é insted of e on map captions). Other maps have a more clearly marked territory as [6] Széklyföld (Székely Land) and even the 1806 has a colored region Székely székek. 1806. I don't see any colored area on the 1869 one. Btw I'm not arguing for deletion of your map I want to keep both actually. A minor point for your map is that the captions could be "Traditional Székely Land in 1869" (so give the date to show it's only 1 point in history) and "Proposal of Székely council" or something more precise instead of the vague "autonomy supporters". Hobartimus (talk) 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

All the informations in the first second map are present also in the second first map, which is giving also some aditional informations and seems to be more accurate. I don't see any reason to keep the first map, except to confuse our readers. Regarding the caption, I think that "autonomy supporters" is more clear for our readers than "Szekely Council", they will not need to read an other Wikipedia article to understand what it is all about. The main political Hungarian party from Romania - UDMR - is publishing on its website a study proposing to redraw Romania's development regions, one of the proposed regions being formed by Harghita, Covasna and (entire) Mureş counties see page 43 of the study. While in this study is not used ethnicity as basis of argumentation, there is evidence about the desire to have a region with a Hungarian majority and the proposed inclusion of the entire Mureş county (not only traditional Szekely land) in this region. As I told, the main basis for such demands is the actual Romanian county system as designed by Nicolae Ceauşescu.--MariusM (talk) 20:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how what you say is relevant here. None of the maps under discussion include anything like you said. If you watch the borders closely none of the maps follow county borders even not in the case of Mures and not in other cases. In some places it goes over the county borders somewhere it stays well within, but none follow them exactly like the proposal you speak about. The maps in the article supposed to depict Székely Land's historical borders as they actually existed as that is the topic of the article lines on them supposedly from "autonomy supporters" are not really on topic in the first place. Hobartimus (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I made a mistake in my previous explanation, is the second map which I removed, based on following reasons: (i) is unsourced and probabily inaccurate; (ii) the informations about traditional Szekely land is already included in the other map. we don't need two maps for this. I explained in my edit summary. Your comment is not giving any reason to keep that map.--MariusM (talk) 21:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction, as the creator said the first map gives a 1869 version of Traditional Székely Land one point in time, the other gives possibly a different one. What exactly is the harm in keeping both maps? Hobartimus (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Is your guess about the second map. We don't write encyclopedia based on guesses, but on sources. An unsourced information can always be removed. The harm can be for the credibility of Wikipedia, if there are inaccurate informations in the articles.--MariusM (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Better put a map like this, which will include Aranyoszek, it has some aditional information for our readers.--MariusM (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The 1869 version gives the names of the individual Székely sees and Székelyföld is not written because there's simply no room left. The older maps 1809, 18th century etc. are not showing the sees because their borders are not exactly known. The 1869 map is more detailed and, I think, more accurate than the other maps on that website. Secondly, I also think that both maps should be kept. The first one to show the current political issue of the Szekely Land and the second to represent the administrative organisation of the Székelys in the XIXth century. The second map could be improved and Aranyoszek added as User MariusM proposed. I could redraw it if the map creator agrees.

Andrei nacu (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

An improved second map, including Aranyoszek and excluding Întorsura Buzăului area from Szekely land as long as there are no sources to specifically include it should be better for this article.--MariusM (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we all agree then. Hobartimus (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I am sorry I visit Wikipedia rarely these times so I was not able to comment before my map was deleted. I like the design of the new map, however, I must say it is inaccurate.

1. There is no clear definition of the area autonomy supporters would like to see as autonomous region. There are many different groups with different ideas. You should specify, which group, party, or association designed the map you refer to.
2. Traditional Székely Land included Întorsura Buzăului, too. Traditional Székely Land was an administrative unit of Hungary, later Transylvania, not a region based on ethnicity. Here is a 19th century map of Háromszék for you. Regards, --KIDB (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems the border of administrative units varied in time. In interwar Romania Întorsura Buzăului and Sita Buzăului were part of the Braşov county, as mentioned in Romanian Wikipedia [7]. I have also a map of interwar Romania which confirmed that. "Trei Scaune" Romanian interwar county didn't include the south of actual Covasna and our article is saying that "Szekely adminstrative borders were preserved".--MariusM (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Quote from Romanian Wikipedia article about inter-war Braşov county: Plasa Buzăul Ardelean cuprindea localităţile: Barcani, Budila, Dobârlău, Întorsura Buzăului, Mărcuş, Sărămaş, Sita Buzăului, Teliu şi Vama Buzăului. It is exactly the South of Covasna which was included in the administrative unit (plasă) Buzăul Ardelean (Magyarbodza), and was part of Braşov county, not of "Trei Scaune" (= Haromszek) county.--MariusM (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You should change the text in the Romanian Wikipedia then. Here is another source. I am sorry, you have to accept that the most reliable sources about Székely Land are in Hungarian. --KIDB (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is difficult for me to understand Hungarian. I copy from your source:

Întorsura Buzăului (Întorsura Buzăului, CV, oraş) Bodzaforduló.# Név: 1839 Bodza-Fordulás; (O.T.) Bodza-forduló; 1863 Bodza-Forduló; 1873 Bodzafalu. # Névvált. 1839 Floroje. # Nemz. 1839 oláh. # Nyelv: 1873 román. # Közigazg. 1839 Háromszék, Sepsi-Szék, Feketeűgy-mellyeki j. pr.; 1850 Udvarhelyi katonai ker. Sepsiszentgyörgyi krz. Nagyborosnyói alkrz.; 1857 Brassói ker. Barátosi j.; (O.T.) Udvarhely (Székelyföld) tvh. Sepsi-Szent-Györgyi ker.; 1863 Háromszék, Sepsi fiókszék, Feketeügyi j. >> Bodza; 1873 Három szék, Sepsi felső j. = Bodza (Vámos-); 1880-1900 Háromszék vm. Sepsi j.; 1910 Háromszék vm. Sepsi j. >> Magyarbodza; 1930 jud. Braşov, p. Buzăul-Ardelean, = Buzăul-Ardelean; 1941 jud. Braşov, p. Buzăul-Ardelean; 1956 R. Stalin, r. Codlea; 1966 R. Braşov, r. Tîrgu Secuiesc, com. urb. Întorsura Buzăului. . As far as I understand, that is showing that in 1930 Întorsura Buzăului was part of Braşov county, that mean Romanian Wikipedia is correct. Maybe our article is not correct saying that "Szekely adminstrative borders were preserved" (in interwar Romania). I see in 1839 mentioned Haromszek and in 1857 mentioned Braşov, I am not able to translate exactly.--MariusM (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, basically there is not too much translatable text in it :-) According to this, the village belonged to Háromszék, except for the period after the 1848 Revolution, when it was temporarily, for a couple of years, part of Udvarhely, later of Brassó districts, then it returned to Háromszék again. Anyway, I don't think the Romanian county system after the 1st World War has any relevance to Traditional Székely Land. I am still convinced that the new map is not correct. --KIDB (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

After seeing the arguments of KIDB, I decided to modify the maps in order to include Intorsura Buzaului/Bozdafordulo in the Sepsiszek. I am waiting for suggestions regarding the limits of the Szekely Land as proposed by the organisations supporting its autonomy. Andrei nacu (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --KIDB (talk) 13:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Hungary

I removed this tag from the talk page. According to the project page, WikiProject Hungary "is mainly designed to help users collaborate on articles, but also to resolve disputes, and to coordinate work on vandalism, clean-up". I think, most of these activities can be successfully done on this talk page. If you do not support the removal of the tag, please discuss it here with other contributors. Thank you. --KIDB (talk) 13:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

POV section

I removed the following text:

The actual name/brand of "Székely Land" is a political creation financed by Hungarian revisionist organizations and does not have any serious ethnic basis, since less than 500 inhabitants of the region actually declare themselves as "Székelys". Tinutul Secuiesc is nothing more today than an historical and ethnographical region of Romania.

This language is POV in the extreme and adds nothing to the discussion that is not covered in more neutral language elsewhere. It clearly violates NPOV. As this article assumes the existence of Székely Land, tendentious statements about it not existing are out of place. If they are to be included, they should be placed in a properly referenced and neutral section on controversy about the designation. That would add something to the discussion and facilitate dialogue. What I removed does not do so at all. Wikipedia is not the place to make political statements. (Yes, I edit Hungarian-related topics, but I am not Hungarian, and I would remove this sort of stuff from Hungarians as well.)

-Fenevad (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I see that the same editor made a number of edits to get his/her political point in. I have reverted all of them for the reasons listed above. If he/she wants to be constructive, the arguments needs to be cited and they need to be inserted in a constructive and non-tendentious manner. - Fenevad (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Dear me, now it seems this started a revert war. I don’t think the person doing the reverting to add the problematic language in has read the talk page (and does not seem interested in discussion), but I'll add a comment here about the following summary reason given for a revert:

This territory is Romanian, so the Romanian point of view is the official one.

That rather misses the point. NPOV does not mean that the “official” perspective is right or neutral: often it is not. NPOV does not mean that editors must follow any official perspective. Official perspectives are one perspective and there are ways to discuss them. The edits I reverted are an example of how not to discuss them on Wikipedia.

Setting that aside, the statement is highly misleading since Magyar and Székely are not mutually exclusive categories. Thus if one declares oneself as Magyar in a census, one could also be Székely. So the (uncited) census does not necessarily mean what the editor says it does, and it certainly does not mean that "the actual name/brand of ‘Székely Land’ is a political creation financed by Hungarian revisionist organizations." (I really doubt the census demonstrated that.) That may be true (although I think the Magyar/Székely population there would strongly debate that proposition), but asserting it is not enough. That bit most definitely violated NPOV as it is clearly tendentious in a political debate. (For the record, I would just as strongly object to someone coming in and claiming that census data “proves” that the area should be handed over to Hungary.)

As mentioned above, if they editor wishes to add content about the political debate and frame it properly, it would add to the article. The political diatribe I removed does not add to the article, although it may make the editor feel good. I would encourage him/her to try to be constructive within the framework of how this article works rather than trying to argue a particular ethnic/political perspective. The point actually becomes much stronger when it isn't so obviously trying to argue one side.

And note, if it is reverted again, I will request outside adjudication on this point. -Fenevad (talk) 12:16, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I believe you are talking about this edit [8]. As you can notice, I have reverted it too. The statement is written problematically (NPOV) and it lacs sources. If the IP editor finds a reliable source, we can add this data, of course written in a way to reflect the NPOV as much as possible. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I realized I misread the edit history and thought that the bits about “a political creation financed by Hungarian revisionist organizations” had been reintroduced, when it hadn't been. So that is my mistake. I actually think the census bit would be useful, if framed properly and cited. But the way it was used was problematic. (I think we are in agreement here.) Let's see if we can engage this user to be more constructive. Thanks -Fenevad (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Np. I apologize, I wasn`t aware of that statement. I will watch for it if reappears. I don`t believe that the IP editor will be active anymore but if I can help in any way please don`t hesitate to contact me. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 21:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia of the stateless nations

Encyclopedia of the stateless nations is an ureliable source in this matter. For example the total population that is presented there is highly unrealistic Raysdiet (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think that it is unreliable, please, follow WP:RSN. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Its cultural center, the Székely capital - an unexisting administrative / political unit can't have a capital Raysdiet (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Székely Land is, of course, not an administrative or political unit, and so the term "capital" is used as a metaphor. You should look at the article Historical region, it states, e.g., that "Historical regions (or historical countries) are delimitations of geographic areas for studying and analysing social development of period-specific cultures without any reference to contemporary political, economic or social organisations.". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:27, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem in this statemet, maybe it could be written more precise but the location of it is the main problem. This data should be located in the history section, because Targu Mures was the capital of Szekely land, it is not anymore. Adrian (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

This source has a lot of problematic data, one of them making the Szekely land a "region". The only mention in this source when the author tries to translate the Hungarian name " Székelyföld" miraculously to Szekely "region". Reading the next page and the whole data about the Szekely land and people, mentioning where they live or anything similar about this location there isn`t a clue about the Szekely "region" and as such it is false to add this source to this statement[9]. There is nowhere a clear mention that Szekely land is a region. Not to mention that this is one of the very few sources(maybe the only one published by scholars) that even in this context(bad translation) has the definition of the Szekely land as a region. Per that, beside being unreliable, it may be also a case of WP:FRINGE. Adrian (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think James Minahan's books are unreliable you will have to check a lot of wiki articles. [10] Fakirbakir (talk) 07:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The provided number of 1,125 million Szeklers in Romania does not denote a well-informed author Raysdiet (talk) 07:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The book is from 2002 before the Romanian census. He could use only census of 1992 to estimate the Szekely population, so we do not really know his methodology. Britannica assumes 860,000 Szekelys in the seventies. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian-speaking ethnic group vs subgroup of the Hungarian people

Both formulas are sourced. Why to change the original sourced version? Raysdiet (talk) 10:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I understand user:Rob.HUN's intention. The form "Hungarian-speaking ethnic group" is misleading. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree, they are ethnic Hungarians, as several academic sources claim, not just "Hungarian-speaking". KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic composition

There are contradictory data (percentages) in the lead and in the Population section Raysdiet (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I think the problem is caused by different definitions of Székely Land. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hungarian language sources

Please offer the exact quote + translations of the targeted text from Hungarian language sources http://adatbank.transindex.ro/regio/kisebbsegkutatas/pdf/V_fej_04_Bottoni.pdf Also, who is Stefano Bottoni? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysdiet (talk • contribs) 10:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Stefano Bottoni: http://www.tti.hu/tagok/userprofile/sbottoni.html --Rob.HUN (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Please offer the exact quote + translations of the targeted text from Hungarian language text Raysdiet (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I found an English site about him [11]. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. But the cited text and an English translation from http://adatbank.transindex.ro/regio/kisebbsegkutatas/pdf/V_fej_04_Bottoni.pdf is still necessary Raysdiet (talk) 11:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"A Magyar Autonóm Tartomány közigazgatási központja Marosvásárhely város." "The administrative center of the Hungarian Autonomous Region is the city Targu Mures." --Rob.HUN (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I Inserted this info [12] Raysdiet (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It has been already cited. --Rob.HUN (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tirgu Mures as a Hungarian political center

I agree with this statement "Tirgu Mures as a Hungarian political center". One of the most important headquarters of the UDMR is in Tirgu Mures.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Today, Targu Mures represents indeed a political and cultural center for the Hungarian minority in Romania. I have nothing against this data. Adrian (talk) 10:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted Rob.HUN here [13] because I find these details inappropriate for the lead section. Why is so relevant that "Târgu Mureș is the county seat of Mureș county" and it deserves to be included in the lead? Also, Târgu Mureș is not the only political center of Szekely Land — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysdiet (talk • contribs) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Szekler National Council

No need to mention this organization in the lead section, there are too much details. This topic is expanded at the linked article Székely autonomy initiatives Raysdiet (talk) 05:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Mention of Council removed. --Rob.HUN (talk) 07:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Unexplained changes by Rob.HUN

Rob.HUN keeps making this unexplained change: Ethnic map of Harghita, Covasna, and Mureş based on the 2002 data, showing areas with Hungarian majority → Ethnic map of Harghita, Covasna, and Mureş based on the 2002 data, showing areas with Hungarian (Székely) majority

It is well known that only a few hundred Hungarians declared themselves as Szekelys at the census. The data refer to the Hungarian population

Also Székely Land → Székely land is an explained change. The correct name has a capital letter (Székely Land)

Târgu Mureş was the the Székely capital. - this information is present in the History section, no need to add it in the lead section Raysdiet (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don`t understand the change about the map? As for the Capital, it is all about context, it is stated in what period of that the city was the Capital. Since this is the article about Szekely land I guess there isn`t such a big problem mentioning it right after the lead, however this info "Under the name Magyar Autonomous Region, with Târgu-Mureş as capital[8], parts of Székely Land enjoyed a certain level of autonomy between 8 September 1952 and 16 February 1968. as of 2013 territorial autonomy initiatives aim to obtain self-governance for this region within Romania." would be better suited at the history section - simply because it is history. If we put data from history everywhere else, why do we have the history section then? Adrian (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Changes referenced. Census categories corrected. Capital L restored. Since this article is about Székely Land, mentioning its center (Targu Mures) in the lead is pretty much self-explanatory.--Rob.HUN (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

If Szekely land would still exist, yes , you would be right. But in this case you have inserted historical data right after the lead. If you notice there are present day data mixed with historical now. As I said, this is not a huge problem because it is the article about Szekely land but it is a little anachronous.Adrian (talk) 08:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Székely Land of course does exist, even if it's currently not recognized as a separate administrative entity. That's all. --Rob.HUN (talk) 11:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"At times of self-governance of Székely Land, Târgu Mureș has served as the administrative center"

This affirmation is dubious. According to different sources (example: [14]) the main seat was Udvarhely Seat, which was also called the Principal Seat (Latin: Capitalis Sedes). The Szekely assemblies took place at Székelyudvarhely [15] Raysdiet (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I can`t find this data in the article, but if it has reliable source it is valid. You can add your data too in the form "according to other sources Odorheiu Secuiesc served as administrative center as well". Adrian (talk) 09:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Please offer the exact quote + translations of the targeted text from Romanian and german language text. --Rob.HUN (talk) 09:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

"La Odorheiu Secuiesc au fost ţinute adunările „naţionale" ale secuilor" translated as "At Szekelyudvarhely were held the national assemblies of the Székelys"

Here it is a relevant English source: [16] Raysdiet (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The English source says "Many Székely national assemblies were held [at Székelyudvarhely]." Székely national assemblies were held at Marosvásáhrely as well [17].--Rob.HUN (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The conclusion is that there was not an unique political/administrative center in that age. However Udvarhely Seat is known as the Principal Seat ("Capitalis Sedes") Raysdiet (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Enclave

The term "enclave" is not appropriate. Look to the definitions I found: - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/enclave 1. A country or part of a country lying wholly within the boundaries of another. 2. A distinctly bounded area enclosed within a larger unit: ethnic enclaves in a large city. - an area with people who are different in some way from the people in the areas around it Szekely Land is not a country, clearly not a bounded area (the proposed limits of the territory a subject of dispute even between Hungarians), people are not generally different from the surrounding area (same mixture of Romanians, Hungarians, Germans and Gypsies), just that there are more Hungarians and even so, within the territory the population is not compact (largest city - Targu Mures is with Romanian majority and so there are other cities as Toplita or Balan). Would you agree cancelling the statement about the enclave? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 08:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as there are reliable sources that use this formula, I think it should be kept. On the other hand User:Idsocol, could you please also express your view regarding the dispute form the section above? (the issue of the name in the Old Hungarian aplhabet) 85.237.234.150 (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable Bela Tomka is generally, but he's using in relation to Szekely Land the term (referenced on the page) "homogenous enclave". I think I just mentioned why it cannot be considered homogenous enclave (Targu Mures, Toplita, Balan and others). So I'm not sure Bela Tomka is presenting good data on this (couldn't check Sherrill Stroschein as the page referenced is not displayed). Anyway, reliable source or not, the use of the term doesn't look appropriate if we use facts. Not sure if references (one side or another) can change a fact.

I don't mind using it. Although I understand the points made by the people opposing and personally I don't see the added value of the info, if it's correct (I don't know the Old Hungarian alphabet), it could stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 09:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2015

I'd like to request the elimination of the text below:

Old Hungarian alphabet:

from the lead section. This removal is widely supported by editors (User:Biruitorul, User:Themightyquill, User:Ditinili, while User:Idsocol "doesn't see the added value of the info", but he is not against keeping it if it's correct), with arguments given above, inside the section Talk:Székely_Land#The_name_in_the_Old_Hungarian_alphabet. The only editor which firmly supports the inclusion is User:Fakirbakir. 89.173.211.164 (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I support firmly nothing. The debate about the runic name started ONLY day before yesterday. Why is is so urgent to you? ... Fakirbakir (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no emergency, but I consider that enough solid arguments against inclusion were already presented. I don't know what else is to say. There is no standard duration for a debate, I don't think that 3 days is a too short period. What deadline do you propose for the end of the debate? 78.98.130.144 (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir, Thanks for considering our arguments. I cancelled the edit request. 87.244.231.143 (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The name in the Old Hungarian alphabet

I consider that the name in the Old Hungarian alphabet should not be included in the lead section. Where exactly does this name appear? In which historial documents? As far as I know In medieval Hungary Latin was the official language. 95.103.172.174 (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The runic name appears on modern maps. [18] Fakirbakir (talk) 12:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand that the transcription of the name Székelyföld using Old Hungarian runes is a recent invention of the Hungarian nationalists (it is some kind of "reconstruction"). I think it is misleading to keep this anachronistic name here, it gives the readers the false impression that it was in use in the old times (in the age when the Old Hungarian alphabet was utilized). User:Fakirbakir, do you share my view? 95.103.234.93 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

A lot of modern names (invented by nationalists) are anachronistic and misleading in regard to the Middle Ages (e.g. the word "Romania" ---> there was no "Romania" in the Middle Ages), but it doesn't really matter. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand your analogy. The word "Romania" was not invented by a group of nationalists (like in the case of ). Romania is derived from Romanian (the endonym used for hundreds of years by Romanians to designate themselves)

The name was artificially created after the recent attempt of popular revival of this alphabet which fell into disuse for a long time. So I am asking you User:Fakirbakir, which are your arguments for having it in the lead section?95.102.188.212 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Half of Romania's settlement names are "artificial", created after Treaty of Trianon. Even if the runic name is a recent invention (I am not sure about it) it is getting more and more popular in the Hungarian communities. I don't see any problem with it. The Hungarians are proud of having this runic name. The name DOES exist regardless of its age. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Romania's "artificial" settlement names that you are referring are official names which are used by millions of people and by thousands of reliable sources.

On the other side, the name does not appear in any book (no printer ever cut a typeface for Hungarian runes, nor has a book ever been printed in them). No community uses this alphabet. The only places where this name can be found is present-day propagandistic maps and banners (the name does not appear in old instriptions like this one). Interest in runic writingis highly correlated with a specific ideology of Hungarian history and culture, characterized by extravagant claims to Hungary's antiquity and glory

I think even the name of Székelyföld written in the Braille alphabet more relevant than . 178.143.92.15 (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, "Half of Romania's settlement names are 'artificial', created after Treaty of Trianon", really? Take a look at this map from 1915. While the names for some of the Székely places are indeed a bit shaky, the great majority of Romanian-language place names in Transylvania are essentially the same now as before Trianon. And this is not surprising, for two reasons: Romanians lived there, so of course they had their own names for the places; and Transylvania's Romanians had a rather well-developed literary culture by the mid-19th century, which led them to standardize those names in print. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"No community uses this alphabet" [19][20][21][22][23][24] [25] .... Fakirbakir (talk) 08:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, there are some road signs installed here and there by a weird bunch of "linguistic nationalists", but there is not any group of people which regularly uses this alphabet in their daily life. It is a dead alphabet. These placenames don't appear in the lead sections of the corresponding wiki articles (Letenye, Csongrad Beregszasz, Hodmezovasarhely) 95.102.248.52 (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It can be used only as a curiosity without any encyclopedic relevance in the lead. Absolutely meaningless, like transcription of the name of the current Hungarian president or Budapest in glagolitic alphabet (or Klingon name of USA). Remove.Ditinili (talk) 09:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The names "Romania" and "" are both relatively modern inventions by nationalists. But "Romania" has found general acceptance, while the runic name has not, for obvious reasons. The runic name should be omitted from the lead. Maproom (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Idsocol wrote below that he "doesn't see the added value of the info", but doesn't mind keeping it if it's correct. This approach is wrong. It is not enough for a piece of information to be correct to deserve inclusion in an article. In this case, I think we talk about unacceptable propaganda, about the promotion of ideological linguistic nationalism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. 62.197.243.19 (talk) 10:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I want to add that according to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines "the title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses" including "relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place)". Given that is neither used used by at least 10% of sources in the English language nor used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place, I request its removal. 92.245.4.66 (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Guys, don't mind me. I didn't write on this topic. I just answered to a direct question. But please don't say something I didn't; I simply didn't feel that this was propaganda (and I'm entitled to an opinion). If you consider that this is propaganda, please continue the debate. I agree that wiki should present facts, not opinions and it's exactly the fight I'm fighting now on other topics. Idsocol (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you have to read again my comment. I didn't say anywhere that you mentioned propaganda. 37.61.161.86 (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No, you implied it. I said if the info is correct, but it's included that it also has to be no propaganda and all the others. Anyway I'm off this topic. And it will be nice to know your nickname. Idsocol (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I wrote that "I think we talk about unacceptable propaganda" not that "Idsocol thinks we talk about unacceptable propaganda". I have no nickname. And that being said, let's end the off-topic discussion. 77.234.239.68 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As a compromise solution, I'd like to propose to User:Fakirbakir the inclusion of File:Szekelyfold_rovasiras.png somewhere in the article body (for instance in Székely_Land#Image_gallery) instead of the lead section mentioning. 95.105.149.193 (talk) 12:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not a compromise, but an introduction of pseudo-historical, confusing and irrelevant information.195.91.10.236 (talk) 13:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• 1) If we keep runes for this article, where does the trend end? Do we put runes for every place in the Székely Land, or perhaps every place in the former Kingdom of Hungary?
• 2) As has been pointed out before, this script is artificial in the sense that no books have been published using the script, no schools teach it, no academy regulates it, no government employs it, no letter-writers or Internet users communicate with it, no academic publication has treated it as anything but a phenomenon separate from the standard Hungarian language (which uses the Latin alphabet) - in other words, it has none of the attributes of a standard European script. It's a curiosity, a hobby for enthusiasts. It's basically harmless, but it's also not legitimate in the way the regular Hungarian alphabet is, or the Romanian alphabet, or the Slovak alphabet, or the Serbian alphabet, etc, etc. Old Hungarian alphabet supplies a decent explanation of this phenomenon (though of course there's room for improvement), but given its nature, and given the wording of WP:NCGN, this has no place in the lead. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I definitely oppose the inclusion of these runes in this or other articles that aren't specifically related to the runes. As Biruitorul suggests, this script is hobby for a relatively small group of enthusiasts (even in Hungary), and not worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The plea of User:Biruitorul is convincing. There is a large majority of editors that support the elimination of the name Székelyföld represented with Hungarian runes, so I am going to make a request for edit. 195.78.44.111 (talk) 10:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Given that the purpose of this project is to inform and educate, I see no reason why the rune should not be included in the article body assuming it is properly sourced and its significance is explained. As for the Lead, whenever ANYONE fights to include something in a Lead and can't substantiate that its a major point of the article, I begin to question if its WP:NPOV or not. If its not a major point, then is usually WP:UNDUE for the Lead. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I propose to include transcription in Norse runes. It is only artificial transcription and it has never been used for Szekely land, but we can document some enthusiasts using this alphabet. If the common agreement is that this approach is valid, I can do it for all articles about the central and eastern Europe and maybe for Asia.195.91.5.226 (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Peace treaties

The use of Peace treaties as cut-off moments for the Union of Transylvania with Romania and rejoining of the north-eastern Transylvania to Romania instead of Proclamation of Union from 1st of Dec and Armistice Agreement from '44 is wrong. Peace treaties might be an indicator (sometimes the only one) for the moment when territories become part of one country, but certainly one should not judge only based on this. Peace treaties are very often signed long time after the event has actually happened or sometimes are never signed (see USSR and Japan). Using them as cut-off would mean for example that:

- USA did not became independent following Proclamation from July 1776 (makes you wonder about what is celebrated on the 4th of July), but in 1783 when the Treaty between USA and Great Britain was signed in Paris;

- Paris did not rejoined France in 1944 when it was liberated, but Aug '45 when the border between France and Germany was established at the Potsdam Conference;

- Sakhalin and Kurile islands are still part of Japan and all the maps in the world need correction. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idsocol (talk • contribs) 08:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Nobody would care if I proclaimed that Transylvania was an independent country, it would not be recognized by any country. Proclamation is just a proclamation. Internationally recognized treaties are far more important.... Occupations, annexations, proclamations etc. have to be recognized by treaties.... Fakirbakir (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

If you alone would proclaim probably not. If the deputies of the majority of the population are doing this, then is something else and this was the case on the 1st of Dec. And I just gave you examples above showing that what you say is wrong (Declaration of Independence, Paris liberation, USSR/Japan that have no treaty), you're just biased and you don't want to admit it. Luckily, there are Hungarian scholars (Zoltán Szász, Elemér Illyés, Laszlo Kurti) admitting that the Union took place in 1918, so if your only arguments are the ones above, I consider the issue closed and I'll reintroduce the paragraph you deleted.

If you want to debate the date of Union there are two pages treating the subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Transylvania_with_Romania and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transylvania This is a page about a historical region, Szekely Land, which unless is outside Transylvania it cannot have a different date of joining Romania.

If you delete it again I'll report you for vandalism. Idsocol (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Pls feel free to report me (you have already done it). Your sources don't support your POV editing. Did you say Szeklerland is a "region"? Wow. FYI, usually peace treaties are used to end wars between hostile parties. It doesn't matter that Transylvania became occupied by Romania between 1918 and 1920. Actually, Budapest was also under Romanian occupation after World War One. Do you think that Budapest was a Romanian territory in 1919? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

MY sources support perfectly what I said and not at all what is posted now on the page. Let's take it backwards.

Northern Transylvania - 1944: it's not "controlled", "occupied" or whatever maliciously you put there. The Armistice Agreement with Romania from September 12, 1944, signed by the United States of America, the United Kingdom, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics says at point 19: "The Allied Governments regard the decision of the Vienna award regarding Transylvania as and void and are agreed that Transylvania the greater part thereof) should be returned to Rumania, subject to confirmation at the peace settlement, and the Soviet Government agrees that Soviet forces shall take part for this purpose in joint military operations with Rumania against Germany and Hungary." This means ("void") the Vienna Award was cancelled as it never existed and it was an act that nobody recognized internationally. This happens on Sep '44 and it's said to be confirmed by the peace treaty. So the only correct phrasing is "It rejoined Romania in 1944 and this was confirmed by the Paris Peace Treaties". It was not returned as legally it was never taken, it was not occupied as you cannot occupy your own land and it was definitely not just controlled.

Transylvania 1918 - It's not just that you have a public proclamation of the deputies of the majority of the inhabitants, it's not just that you have decision of a king (a territory cannot unilaterally join a country), it's not just that you have the territory controlled by the Romanian army and the Austrian-Hungarian administration replaced, but we have the Armistice from Belgrade from 1918 which recognizes the borderline. A quote from Laszlo Kurti, prof. at the Miskolc University from his book published by the NY State University clarifies the significance of the armistice:"...in November 1918, at the Belgrade armistice between the Allies and Hungary, an arbitrary line of demarcation was fixed between Hungary and Transylvania. This act was of international significance, for it acknowledged the presence of the Royalist Romanian army in Transylvania and the legal incorporation of Transylvania into the unified (Greater) Romania."

This is not a flee market negotiation; we have 2 documents saying clearly what it was and how info should be presented. Idsocol (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Maliciously? Remember, the Soviets actually did not allow the Romanian administration to come back to Northern Transylvania until 23 March 1945. You misunderstand the Armistice Agreement. The wording of the agreement is conditional ("should be returned"). Moreover, this agreement didn't solve the border issues between Hungary and Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, maliciously. You just said in the debate about 1918 vs. 1920 that the moment when the administration was replaced is not relevant; only the international documents. So I gave you the international documents, but now you don't use the same principle anymore.

As for the "conditional wording", nice try, but you miss the condition ("if") in the sentence. In English "should" also expresses an obligation or duty, which is the case here. The meaning is very clear: as the decision from Vienna was "VOIDED" (as in "CANCELLED" ), Transylvania "SHOULD BE" (as in "HAS TO BE") returned to Romania. This was the deal in the armistice: Romania turns against Germany and Hungary (exit Axis/joins the Allies) and the Allies void the Vienna Award. That's why the two things are in the same paragraph.

Please find link to "A Calendar of Soviet Treaties, 1917-1957", by Robert M. Slusser, Jan F. Triska (Stanford University Press) https://books.google.de/books?id=RE2lAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA164&lpg=PA164&dq=armistice+agreement+romania+transylvania+1944&source=bl&ots=4pvF4fab55&sig=B2MDhRkCvwqu8tzexxFNlckILFE&hl=ro&sa=X&ei=TtssVbWVC8vWaunZgMAJ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=armistice%20agreement%20romania%20transylvania%201944&f=false

providing a clear and objective interpretation on the Armistice and leaving no room for debate (p. 164) “Entered into force on signature. Restores the boundary between the USSR and Romania established by the agreement of June 28, 1940, and restores Transylvania to Romania”.

So again, anything else than "It rejoined Romania in 1944 and this was confirmed by the Paris Peace Treaties" (e.g. occupied, controlled and so on), it's deliberately misleading.

And what about Union between Transylvania and Romania in 1918? You have everything: Proclamation from Alba-Iulia from the local population, replacement of the administration, international document fixing the border (Armistice from Belgrade), opinions confirming that the Armistice from Belgarde represents the legal incorporation of Transylvania into Romania. What else do you need to change back to my wording? Idsocol (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"the transfer of northern Transylvania (or a “large part” thereof) to Romania, was made subject to the approval of the coming peace conference" (Dreisziger). James F. Byrnes even said at the meeting of foreign ministers in 1945 that 3000 square miles (7680 km2) should be given back to Hungary.... Fakirbakir (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, provided the quote is correct (no reference) whoever Dreisziger is (the name sounds Hungarian), he's obviously wrong as the original text is saying (see above) that the Vienna award is VOIDED, Transylvania returned to Romania and this should be CONFIRMED (not approved) at the peace settlement. Also we don't discuss here opinions said at meetings (not referenced), but official documents.

Basically to the original document interpreted by reputed American historians that "restores Transylvania to Romania" (see above) you are opposing an incorrect quote of a Hungarian person to which you give your personal interpretation. Come on! Leave the Jobbik propaganda and give Wiki readers just facts and documents.

And again, what about 1918? Idsocol (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Idsocol, let me answer your question, unfortunately it is unclear for the majority of Romanians, however, some expert historians etc. know the legal situation. In the corresponding wiki pages it is also clear, however, there are some references or allusions that make a layman to misunderstand. So, 1 December 1918 is nothing, but the declaration of Transylvania's union with Romania by the National Assembly of Romanians. Nothing else, it has zero legal or jurisdictional consequence, it is just a symbolic day. Why?

- the inhabitans are not only Romanians, but Hungarians, Saxon's, etc. they were not invited to the assembly, their opinion were ignored, and just the Romanians have no right to decide in the behalf of other nations

- it could be a base of legalty, if an official plebiscite would have been made, but such did not have been made unfortunately

- armistice of temporary demarcation lines had no legal value in the end, only the final peace treaty that has been signed in 4 June 1920. Also liitle people know, after the signature there isa legal period to enact and accept these treaties and their consequences legally on countries parliament, etc., to make it internationally recognized thus the proper date would be 26 July 1921. - and it is not just Transylvania the assembly made the declaration, but other parts of Hungary (Banat, Partium etc.)

- Moreover, the Romanians acted many times illegally, as they expelled 200 000 Hungarians and they forced people to make oath for the Romanian state on that time, when not even a final agreement was made, and if someone denied the oath it was fired, expelled etc. It was illegal, and all internatinal treaties and wartime laws that Kingdom of Romania signed were banning such activity. The same reason more trials and debates were initiated between Hungary and Romania, since Romania sewed people for "activities against the Romanian state" in Transylvania when Romania did not legally had the territory and it was a legal nonsense. So the introduction of Romanian administration was a one-sided act from the Kingdom of Romania, it had no connection of the official status of the corresponding territory. This fact does not depend on the Romanian Kings, or Parliaments decision, since they don't have the right to judge only, at least is a bilateral (Hungary-Romania) at first level, secondly trilateral (Hungary-Romania-International acceptance) in final level. Hungary's and the international approval lacked.

Unfortunately these facts are not highlighted in the Romanian historiography, but I hope you've got the clear answer you expected. Thus we accept as turning day "1920" (the time of the treaty signed), and we don't make mess about teh full legal date "1921", but 1918 we don't accept, because it's totally illegal.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC))

Japanese lang.

It is interesting to note the similarities with Japanese: hon, 本 (homeland), and seki, 席 (seat).

That is an useless piece of trivia, since Japanese is not related (as far as we know) to Hungarian. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not "a useless piece of trivia"; it's a reflection of a formal but thus far unproved theory that the Finno-Ugric languages share parentage with Japanese. It may or may not be germane here, but it's not some random fact. Laodah 23:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

All languages are related. Japanese is in the Altaic branch of language families whereas Hungarian comes from the Ugric branch. They are both considered Eurasiatic languages. The_plague — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.29.10 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Autonomy initiative

Indeed there is an ongoing issue about the autonomy initiative of the szekely region, and the debates stir up strong opposition among Romanians. Criztu's edits seem biased by a POV against this initiative: "670,000 out of 1,140,000" means nothing except trying to prove that Seclers are barely majoritary in Szekelyland. Remember, most of Mures county is not within historical Szekely land. Criztu's statement that "Szekelys are claiming all these 3 counties" is unfounded. (If it implies the claim within the autonomy debates, it is still not true: to my knowledge, they are not claiming the entire Mures county and they propose referendums for each settlement. But again, autonomy discussions are not in the scope of this article. Nevertheless, anyone expert may start an article about that. With of course, references to such 'claims'.)

See Discussion of article Szekely for more.

Reunited with or placed under its administration

I noticed my original wording ("Szekelyfold was reunited with the Kingdom of Hungary") has been changed to "was placed under the Kingdom of Hungary's administration". Now this wording may be more polite, but it is also incorrect. In 1867, the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania were as a matter of fact united, that is, completely amalgamated, Transylvania ceased to exist as a legal entity and enjoyed no administrative independence whatsoever: it was completely merged into the uniform county system. Cultural etc. differences of course remained, but as far as the legal situation is concerned, the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania were reunited. In this case, reunited is a neutral word: it simply indicates that earlier in time, they were one country, now they became united again, i.e., re-united. To say that "Transylvania was placed under the Kingdom of Hungary's administration in 1867" would be like saying that "in 1920, Transylvania was placed under the Kingdom of Romania's administration" which would of course be incorrect to. In both cases, Transylvania was united, first with the K of H, then with the K of R. --Tamas 17:19, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please try to answer my arguments first and do not just keep reverting what I wrote. Also, until 1920, Transylvania legally belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary. So the date is 1918, not 1920. --Tamas 20:01, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the fact that Hungarian administration effectively ceased to exist in 1918 when Transylvania representatives proclaimed union with Romania, but the union was ratified in 1920 has to be clearly stated. but erasing/ignoring the period between 1918-1920 (when the area was disputed between Hungary and Romania) might not beregarded "as made in good faith" -- Criztu 21:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i ain't an expert, but there are these forms of administrative/statal actions:

• Transylvania unites with Romania/Hungary, that is: the representatives of Transylvania sign a legal paper by which they proclaim union with Romania/Hungary

Such a thing has never really happened: it was the Romanian and German inhabitants of Transylvania who singed such a declaration, Hungarians (about a third of the then population) were not asked about their opinion.--Tamas 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

the representatives of Romanians proclaimed union of Transylvania with ROmania in 1918, Saxons and Scwhabs approved the legal document, which was ratified by international powers in 1920, so Transylvania united with Romania really hapened, and the union was recognised as such by the international legal bodies. If you can present a Proclamation of unification of Transylvania with Hungary ratified by international legal bodies then i wont object to a formulation "Transylvania united/reunited with Hungary -- Criztu 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Transylvania is placed under Romania/Hungary administration, that is: there are no representatives for Transylvania, but there are legal papers signed by the owners (in this case an empire) of Transylvania and Romania/Hungary

I am sorry, but that's how things worked in those undemocratic times . We cannot impose our democratic values on undemocratic times.--Tamas 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Transylvania was placed under Hungary's administration, this is the correct formulation -- Criztu 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Transylvania reunites with Romania/Hungary, that is: the representatives of Transylvania sign a legal paper in which they proclaim the reunification with Romania/Hungary

True, that's why I wrote "was reunited" (passive voice) and not "reunites" (active voice)--Tamas 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lol, if you and me would have each 51 % of two different legal business, could these two businesses "be united" (passive voice) against our will ? can we instead "unite" giving that we each legally hold 51% of the shares of these businesses, even if there are share holders not wishing a union ? :) -- Criztu 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

so, there can't be a "Transylvania was united/reunited with Hungary/Romania" but either "Transylvania united/reunited with Hungary/Romania" or "Transylvania was placed under Hungary/Romania administration" -- Criztu 20:44, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I want to say is that according the legal standards of the age, Transylvania was reunited with Hungary in 1867, and united with Romania in 1920 (or 1918, although I think it is the date of the treaty that matters here.)--Tamas 20:57, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

you should be able to provide similar examples of administrative territories "being united", and please provide evidence that "Transylvania was united with Hungary" before 1867, if you claim that "Transylvania was reunited with Hungary" -- Criztu 21:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, you are probably right that united is emotionally loaded and can be misinterpreted as something that happened democratically. What about "incorporated"? That is a purely legal term, it says nothing about whether people liked it or not, or whether it was a democratic decision. "Reincorporated" would be more accurate, as Transylvania was a part of the K of H between 10c-16c. I agree with you that what happened in 1867 was deeply undemocratic, but that's how it happened. The Habsburg Monarchy was a Monarchy, after all, and not a liberal democracy. If people click on Austro-Hungarian compromise, it will tell them it was a deal between the ruling classes, not a democratic process. So let's stay with reincorporated, it is more accurate then either 'placed under the administration of" or "united with".--Tamas 21:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

what is wrong with saying "Transylvania was conquered by the Kingdom of Hungary in the XIth century", and "in 1867 the compromise of the Dual Monarchy placed Transylvania under Hungarian administration" ? -- Criztu 06:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to say that Transylvania was conquered by Magyar tribes in the end of the IXth century. The Kingdom of Hungary was founded later, around 1000. But I have absolutely no problem with the word conquering when refering to the IXth c. My problem with "placed under Hungarian adiminstration" is that it sounds like a provisional measure, like "Kosovo is under UN administration", that is, until there is a decision on its final legal status. 1867 was not meant to be a provisional measure: Transylvania ceased to exist as a legal entity, it was completely merged into the Hungarian county system. What about "Transylvania became a part of the Kingdom of Hungary and ceased to exist as a legal entity"? Is that more acceptable to you? --Tamas 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

i had a similar discussion with Scott Moore about the Trianon Treaty and "Transylvania is placed under Romanian sovereignty" which is the formulation used in the treaty, haven't thought that 'placed under administration' may be interpreted as a temporary thing. i'm fine with "incorporated", i'll search for the formulation used in this "Transylvania became a part of Hungary"... just for the record, any administrative action is temporary, that is, until a new administrative measure takes place :) -- Criztu 12:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

:) --Tamas

as for the "magyar tribes conquered Transylvania in the end of IXth century", it is only propaganda (that is, a lot of talk with little certain evidence). what is known for sure is that Kingdom of Hungary conquered Transylvania in the XIth century (talking about a "union/conquest of Transylvania with/by Hungary", not a "union/conquest of Transylvania with/by Magyar tribes"), at least i assume there are chronicles and ancient documents testifying the conquest during the XIth century. (assuming that those documents and chronicles weren't "pure inventions" :D ) -- Criztu 12:57, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not a medievalist either, but as far as I know, Hungarian tribes occcupied more or less all of the Carpathian basin at the end of the 9th C - beginning of the 10th C. Now until 1000, that is, Hungary's becoming a kingdom, there was no unified administration, Transylvania was governed by one of the "chieftains" or princes or whatever you call these leaders of the tribes. It was the first king who brought in a centralised government. Which the "chieftain" in Transylvania opposed, and then the king defeated him and brought Transylvania under his rule. One interpretation of this is what you have just said: "the Kdom of H conquered Transylvania". The king's interpretation would have been different: "T belonged to the Kdom of H in the first place, I only crushed a rebellion against my legitimate rule" :) Personally, it does not really matter to me whether this happened in the 9th C or the 11th C, I am really fed up with this who arrived first, who was more civilized etc debate. --Tamas

this is the hungarian propagated version of what might have hapened in those days, based on those "scarce" documents and chronicles like Gesta Hungarorum :D. remember, there was a chronicle/legend speaking of a duke Salan in Pannonia that was defeated by Arpad in 896, Arpad whose legendary father Almos (born by a virgin mother) lead the magyars out of the enslavement of the khazaars, being foretold that as soon as he enterss Panaan he will die, and so on (straight up medieval forgery of the past)... this version is as thin as the story of Gelou, Glad and Menumorout whose states were conquered during the Xth century, and which the hungarian POV disaproves as being "fiction". i think the only thing certain is "the kingdom of Hungary claimed sovereignty over Transylvania starting with the XIth century" (but so did the Angevin Hungary claimed sovereignty over Moldavia and Wallachia, it doesn't mean "Moldavia and Wallachia were united with the kingdom of Hungary" or "Moldavia and Wallchia were conquered by magyar tribes" :) -- Criztu 17:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• No, Criztu, what Tamas writes above is not propaganda but more or less the opinion of modern Hungarian historiography (and is in lime with the Wikipedia [Arpads] article, which has a large number of contributors, and not all of them Hungarians). Transylvania was subjugated in the early 11th century by King Stephen of Hungary and from then on was part of his realm (sovereignty was not just claimed but was a reality). There is plenty of evidence supporting this (not just GH, which seems to be the only piece of evidence about Gelou - hence both Slovak and Hungarian historians believe that Gelou was probably created by Anonymus). Angevin claims over Moldavia and Wallachia is an entirely different issue. As you point out the Angevin kings were largely unable to enforce their claims. Scott Moore 16:04, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

well, the "Hungarian tribes occcupied more or less all of the Carpathian basin" is pretty "touched" by a "magyar-centric" view on history of "carpathian basin". the example with the Angevins claiming authority (but not ethnicity or ethnic majority, or effective control of the internal administration) over Wallachia and Moldova should make clear that it is not clear how thorough was the control of the Kingdom of Hungary over the population and territory inside its borders, let alone the "percent of occupation" of the lands in this "carpathian basin" during the 9th century. you may say there's plenty of evidence, i say there's plenty of deductions/theories (based on scarce evidence), that are propagated by the hungarian side. -- Criztu 17:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think it is just a fact of life that there are certain problems in history that we cannot clear up once and forever, for lack of conclusive evidence etc. Which means that it is absolutely possible to have two (or more) perfectly plausible theories about a single problem (just visit the page on Daco-Roman continuity, you will find 3 nicely elaborated theories, all three of them perfectly plausible). So just because someone has different opinions from you, like those Hungarian historians you refer to, you should not call it "propaganda" out of hand. Believe me, most Hungarians (me included) don't give a damn whether Transylvania was occupied in the 9thC or the 11thC. This whole nationalistic "who arrived first in Transylvania and has therefore the "historic right" to it" debate is so embarassing, it was embarassing when it started, but now in the 21stC its even more so, we should really not get caught up in it here. --Tamas 18:20, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criztu, you are mixing two issues. Occupation of Transylvania in the 9th/10th century by Magyar tribes is one issue, which we can address on the Translyvania article Talk Page. But,I was writing about the control of the Kingdom of Hungary over Transylvania from the 11th century onwards, which is a separate issue. As I wrote, there is plenty of evidence for this. Scott Moore 10:06, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

wikidefinition about "incorporate" : In local government, municipalities such as cities, towns, townships, villages, and boroughs are considered incorporated when they are self-governing entities under the laws of the state or province in which they are located. -- Criztu 06:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, but that's a definition for the word "incorporated" (an adjective), used in a limited (local government) sense. I'm speaking about the verb "to incorporate" which has many broader meanings. See also [26], the wiktionary entry for the verb incorporate. --Tamas 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can I join the debate gentlemen? Just one point - in 1867 Transylvania became part of the Kingdom of Hungary (not just placed under its administration). However in the Transylvania article it is currently written that Transylvania "became a province under Hungarian control." I'll see if I can find more details on the precise status of Transylvania after 1867 and how it is termed in English (I have an American book on the 1848 revolution which probably has a final chapter on the ausgleich). After reaching an agreement on the formulation, we should make sure that we have consistent text in both the articles. Scott Moore 15:09, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Interesting link about the many kinds and meanings of regions

Just for fun, check out this interesting presentation: [27]--Tamas 09:17, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)