Talk:Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711)

message: The Principality of Transylvania existed not only as a semi-independent state, but also as part of the Habsburg Monarchy and Austrian Empire (until 1867). Logic dictates: if the article is about the semi-independent part of its history, then it should be evident from title or, if not, the rest of the history of the Principality completed.--Bluehunt (talk) 07:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have already an article called Translyvania and many other articles to cover other periods besides its simply not true. The Principality of Transylvania existed until 1711 that is the scope of this article as it is clearly defined.. Hobartimus (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do not agree. Nowhere in the title is this specified, and The Principality, as you well know, existed until 1867.--Bluehunt (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In the name Principality of Transylvania is already the exact name of the independent state, when talking about the geographical unit and NOT a state as in after 1711 usually its called simply Translyvania or as an administrative unit Grand Duchy of TR or some such a clearly different and distinct name. The "Principality of Transylvania" is different territory actually from just the geographical Translyvania what you refer to from 1711 onward it's much different and many articles already cover it. This article is very clearly about the independent state previously known as Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (exactly b/c it has much more territory than just Transylvania). So the article is clearly about the state and nothing else. Some days ago I had the exact same conversation with a user named Olahus, do you know him by any chance? Hobartimus (talk) 07:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excerpt from Wikipedia article on Hungary:  "The Kingdom of Hungary existed with minor interruptions for 946 years" As you well know The Kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist as an independent state after the Battle of Mohács in 1526 until 1867. But no one is absurd to discuss its history including only the independent period. About Olahus, I don’t know him, I've checked your discussion and it happens that I agree with his position.--Bluehunt (talk) 08:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really understand what's your problem Wikipedia discusses the post 1711 period as well (the name wasn't principality btw it was Grand Duchy then with completely different status and territory) just not in this article. This article was always about 1571-1711 it clearly says it in the article why are you trying to change this? Hobartimus (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  correction: the official name was not Grand Duchy but Grand Principality. See Emperor of Austria and Austrian Empire --Bluehunt (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't have anything against adding "independent" into the title, I see that you mentioned that as one of the options acceptable to you so the title would change but the articles content could be preserved. Hobartimus (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Please change title. Thanks.--Bluehunt (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Hobartimus (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: title of the article

message: In the future, please sort the languages either alphabetically or by the number of speakers. For my edit, I chose the latter. I have also removed the following OR and weasel-word statement: ruled by mostly Calvinist Hungarian princes. SISPCM (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I made an edit with a source, writig in the article once again that the Principality was mainly ruled by Hungarian princes. Even if we don't look at the source: Transylvania was ruled at the time by the Szapolyai, Rákóczi, Bethlen, Báthory, Bocskay, Apafi families. These were Hungarians. Look at the article List of rulers of Transylvania. Most rulers in the period of the independent principality were member of one of these families. Why can this not be mentioned in this article then? The fact that this territory is now part of another country does not change history. Qorilla (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Quorilla, You are right, I added sources about that theme.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit of May 4th 

message: Is 1570 the correct year? Some say the Principality of Transylvania was established in 1541:   . Another source talks about 1556: 
:::Treary of Speyer (1570) is the correct date (and the treaty was ratified in 1571) when John II renounced his claim as King of Hungary and he became a Transylvanian prince.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of Establishment 

message: Hypothetically, according to treaty of Speyer (1570), in the sense of public laws, the Principality of Transylvania remained an inalienable part of Kingdom of Hungary.  Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Speyer 

message: The phrase Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen is an umbrella term, using this instead of Hungary or Kingdom of Hungary would only make the article unreadable. Moreover, preferably it should be used after 1867. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don`t see a problem here. This is fine.Adrian (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen 

message: I ask User:KIENGIR to post here the exact quotes from his sources where it is written that Hungarian was used "in the Diet and legistlation". 123Steller (talk) 12:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: KIENGIR, thanks for your answer. I understand now. You seem to have good knowledge on this subject. I was confused because of the Latin titles of those lawbooks (I hadn't read below to see that they have a Hungarian content). 123Steller (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The status of Hungarian language 

message: This article is awash with the usual mind-numbing nonsense of both sets of nationalisms, Hungarian and Romanian. Other than that it says nothing on the crucial topics of Hungarian and Saxon civilization in Transylvania (Protestantism, Renaissance, Baroque, religious toleration and its limits, manorialism, printing, etc. etc.), let alone an actual overview of what Romanian society was like, it obsesses with a discourse about ethnic identity that was hardly relevant to people living at the time, and is hardly relevant now -- and to achieve that, it presents the assumptions made by entrenched historians on either side as the "Hungarian POV" and the "Romanian POV", as if to say you can't be a Hungarian/Romanian and not have that entrenched POV (when, in fact, most historians on both sides are quite capable of seeing eye to eye on most issues). The Principality produced some of the defining elements of Hungarian culture, and also shaped a Transylvanian heritage that is now the pride of tourism in Romania, yet there's not a word to be found on this in the entire article.
The obsession with Romanian mistreatment in Transylvania is not merely jingoistic, it hides under the rug various inconvenient parts of the narrative -- to wit, that "ethnic discrimination" never prevented the Romanian elites, small as they were, from joining the ranks of Hungarian nobility; it also glosses over the numerous instances in which Wallachians, boyars and peasants alike, fled over the border, including during rebellions sponsored by Transylvanian princes -- rebellions that were nationalist, at least in the sense that they were anti-Greek. That discursive duplicity is sometimes glaring in Romanian nationalistic sources, which refer to Transylvania as a hellhole for Romanians, but then commend Transylvanian princes for their project of creating a "Dacian" state merged with Wallachia and Moldavia, or applaud their warm welcome of figures such as Matei Basarab, or mention the flowering of Romanian culture under Saxon rule, while forgetting to mention that there was a Saxon rule, or that said flowering was largely a by-product of Protestant proselytism. Then, the whole logic of religious discrimination, which was the standard in virtually all of Europe (though Transylvania was probably one of its most tolerant regions!), is depicted as ethnic discrimination; and the stratification of society, with a wide base of serfs who were largely (but by no means exclusively) Romanians, and a tip of elites who were largely (but by no means exclusively) Hungarian, is persistently and misleadingly presented as a purposeful mechanism of ethnic destruction. Even with evidence that serfs in Transylvania were often better off than those living in Wallachia -- because, lo and behold, Romanians also had serfdom, and, my oh my, most serfs there were also Romanian.
On the Hungarian side, the most glaring POV in the narrative, as now induced through the article, is the anti-Habsburg lore. You see, we are led to believe that the massive number of Hungarians who consciously supported the Habsburg version of Hungary were not really Hungarian, or did not exist (just like the Romanian elites who joined the ranks of Hungarian nobility never existed). The interesting part of (mainly Protestant) Hungarian elites choosing Turk over Pope is a much more contextually important issue than any speculation by nationalist historians as to how Romanians organized and suffered. Dahn (talk) 10:48, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalist obsessions

message: I have taken the liberty to remove the Ukrainian categories since only a tiny part (1%) of current Ukraine once belonged to this principality. Even a considerable part of Máramaros County does not currently belong to Ukraine. Similarly for the Serbian categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories 

message: KIENGIR, you removed half of my contribution saying r+m, what is r+m? Iconian42 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Revert and minor edit. I don't to the reason to re-add identical problematic material already contested in other pages, while adding data outside the scope of the article, etc.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

text: - What problematic material? and what data outside the scope of the article? You are talking about the contribution on History of Transylvania, while it has some common points with this one, there is material here that differs from the one on History of Transylvania, so even if you disagree with the contributions on that other page, your removal of the whole contribution here because of that is not justified. Iconian42 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The identical materials, as I said. 1730 and 1850. Not all of your contrinbutions were removed here.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason you removed the  first Austrian statistics of 1730 and the first population census of 1850 from History of Transylvania's lead was because they were already in the main article. Which is an absurd reasoning because all information from the lead has to be already in the main article by definition. You did not offer any response to that or any other explicit reason for the removal but you're still against it. However, in the article History of Transylvania they were removed from the lead arguing it's already in the main article, while in the article Principality of Transylvania they were removed from the demograhpics sub-section of the main article, which is clearly not the same case, because you can't use the same reasoning in this case. Iconian42 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  r+m 

message: Having the demographics section outweigh all the rest of the article isn’t right, surely? Boscaswell talk 20:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think just needs extend the other contents, events, battles, rulers, etc... there are a lot of things. Anyway the demographic is a hot spot, because the historiography of the surrounding countries and Hungarian historiography does not know about Romanians in the region before the 13th century, and it says the Romanians became majority only in the 18th century for various reasons, while the nationalist Daco-Roman Romanian historiography claim for political reasons that the Romanians were always the majority from the ancient times. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics section is disproportionately large