Talk:Transylvania/Archive 3

message: What's this?? King of the Hungarian-Romanian Empire?? Or what?? Historical nonsense ... I'll put it back my comments ...--fz22 17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,...Do you deny or accept that he was of Romanian origin? Matei Corvin was of romanian origin. That's all. And he was born in a romanian city, recte Cluj-Napoca. Both names from Cluj and Napoca are of latin origin. So, no need to be rude since he had romanian origin. Put it back as it was.  Bonaparte  talk 16:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  His romanian origin is hotly contested. Koloswar/Klausenburg in the XV century was a free royal city of the Kingdom of Hungary, with a hungarian-saxon mixed population ... I think Regent or King of Hungary is NPOV.--fz22 18:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not contested. Even his name Corvin (Corvinus) is a latin one :) And the majority of people in Transylvania was always the romanian one.  Bonaparte  talk 17:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In English he is traditionally known by Matthias Corvinus, so that is the name WP should use. Saying that the majority population of Transylvania has "always" been Romanian is POV as well as being inaccurate (its population before the Roman Empire certainly wasn't "Romanian"). The current version listing "Regent of Hungary" and "King of Hungary" seems fine to me, as they are factually accurate and NPOV. I have readded :Category:Former countries in Europe to the article, as Transylvania certainly was a country for a while. Olessi 18:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It is not POV to state that he was also of Romanian origin. If you say that he was Hungarian I don't see a reason not to state also that he has Romanian origin. After all, the current territory of Transylvania is in Romania.  Bonaparte  talk 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with including both; I never stated that saying he was partially Romanian is POV. He should be described as either Hungarian/Romanian OR simply as "King of Hungary". That the current territory of Transylvania is in Romania has no bearing on how we describe an individual from the 15th century. I personally don't see the need to state the ethnicity of each individual in the culture section, as ethnicity had much less relevance during the times when many of these people lived. I personally prefer "János Bolyai, mathematician, Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary etc." Olessi 22:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The fact that the name "Corvinus" is a latin one is quite normal, Latin having been the language used by the elite of Hungary that time. (It is a translation of "holló", it has nothing to do with Romanian origins.) The fact that Transylvania is currently is in Romania is irrelevant to the topic. AFAK, his origins is disputed, furthermore, in Hungary it was quite normal to have Slav/Vlach/German ancestry with a Hungarian identity (see Petőfi, we could call him a Hungarian/Slovak/Serb poet, at the same time he was a true Magyar nationalist). "King of Hungary" is a neutral form, let's stick to it. Vay 23:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Olessi 23:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hungarian/Romanian??? 

message: I think this is a false doctrine ... The authority was complete since King Stephen campaign against Gyula--fz22 20:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Moreover, it had full control over Cumania too ... He Gave the Barcasag/Birsa Land to the Teutons, with parts from Cumania(Wallachia), then took it back ... He apointed the voievod of Cumania to Magyar noblemens until and to Romanians kniazes after the Tartar invasion. He gave Szorenyseg/Oltenia Land to Knights Templars ... etc--fz22 20:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Hungary authority over Transilvania consolidated in 12-13th century? 

message: This isn't a NPOV ... Need to be reformulated. Check this page first: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy05.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fz22 (talk • contribs) 3 Jan 2006.
: Doesn't seem precisely to contradict it, though it raises a reasonable doubt. It says they were a third of the population. Given that there were roughly no Vlachs in the cities, there could have been an awful lot of Romanian serfs. Anyway, I take it that what you are challenging is factuality, not POV, right? 
: Question: is there any citation at all for the ethnic makeup of the class of serfs? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:34, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Undoubtedly, but it is also calculable. Accoding to Hungarian POV in the seven counties the total population was about two-thirds Magyar, and one-third Romanian ... Moreover the nobility, constituted about 5 percent of the total population. So out of the 400,000(the estimated population of T. in the early 16th century) 20,000 belonged to the nobility (all Magyars + magyarised Romanians, but tehy were counted as Magyar), 100,000 were Saxon, 100,000 Szekler, 133,333 Magyars and 66,666 Romanians. So the number of serf = 66,666 (if we consider that all Romanians were serfs) + 113,333 Magyars + an unknown number of saxons and szeklers--fz22 10:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Nonsense ... in the early 12 century Magyars lived for over 200 years in Transylvania. Do not confuse the "Hungarian conquest" (honfoglalas) with the formation of the christian Hungarian state. your population estimation is only a POV same as mine--fz22 12:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the class of serfs consisted mostly of Romanians

message: What's the basis for mentioning Mediaş as a tourist attraction? Our article on the place is only a stub; I'd never heard of it till it was mentioned here. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will try to extend it sometimes. For some short introduction, Medias was one of the 7 cities from which the name Siebenburgern comes. The old city resembles very much Sibiu and it is on the way between Sibiu and Sighisoara, and diserves a little stop over there. It is also close (20 km) to Biertan a popular destinaiton for the German tourists. You can see I've mentioned it at the Sibiu County page. --Mihai -talk 09:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, if it's one of the seven cities, then its inclusion is probably appropriate. The "Etymology" section of this article should probably identify the seven cities and give their German, Hungarian, and Romanian names. Siebenbürgen redirects here, and someone starting from that name would probably expect to see that. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediaş 

message: In "Late Middle Ages" section, there is inserted a sequence of maps. While the design is wonderful, showing author's market valuable computer related skills, it is hard to understand the meaning of that sequence. Apparently, Transylvania didn't move between the 13th and 16th centuries. The maps don't have any legend, but the 16th century map has some yellow and gray areas (significant climatic changes, maybe?) --Vasile 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The 16th century map need a legend, indeed. I'll fix it. But the another already contains the most important infos. BTW this one is about Hungary' historical dioceses--fz22 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am missing the relevance of this map of historical Catholic dioceses (13th century). Maybe you'll insert something about those important infos in the text of the article. About the map of 16th century, could you you be more precise, it is before or after Mohacs? --Vasile 15:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The battle of Mohacs had no impact on the Transyilvanian counties borders ... more or less they were preserved until Mid-19th century. Likewise dioceses border (exept the Archdeaconate of Satu Mare which was detached in the 14th cent.) the borders were the same as in 1009. --fz22 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to include some aspects about Catholic history of Transylvnia, it would be better to have a new related article, avoiding to overload the current article with details too far away from the actual mainstream. Anyway, I really appreciate your work, but it seems that two maps are one too many in that part of the article. --Vasile 14:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wasn't the first who realised the importance of Cristianity in the region's history from the begining of 11th century. I've just added the map. I don't think two maps are too many ... we are talking about a period which lasted around 650 years.--fz22 19:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequence of maps 

message: …The Visigoths established a kingdom north of Danube. Under these conditions, in Transylvania, like other Romanian historic regions, took place the formation of the Romanian language and people. In this process the new influences were assimilated and integrated in the existing Daco-Roman substrate.
The second wave of migrations brought the Slavic, Turkish and other tribes such as Avars, Huns, Arabs, Varangians ending with Magyars.…
# This seems to endorse the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity and present it as unchallenged fact.
# When in this epoch did the Arabs ever come as far as Transylvania?
# And I'm not too sure about the Varangians, either.
-- Jmabel | Talk 10:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jmabel's #1 concerning the Daco-Romanian continuity. I thought the way the previous version treated the subject was fine (with its link to Origin of Romanians at the end of the Early Middle Ages section). Olessi 13:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The linguistic works rather in favour of Daco-Romanian theory. What's inside of Romanian language is more valuable of what is outside of the language. The lack of early-germanic linguistic in Romanian is probably due to the poor education network developed in time of the rule of those "early Germans" in Dacia. --Vasile 13:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Post-Roman: problems again 

message: I think this section must be reworked ... Contains only Romanian POV ... Orianea's intention (09:35, 18 January 2006) to preserve this "status quo" have raised the question againg ;)--fz22 08:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Middle Ages: From Dacia to the Great Migrations 

message: :The years when these Orthodox churches were built clearly show how the Vlachs immigrating from beyond the Carpathians advanced into inner Transylvanian terittories.
Immigration is not the only explanation of the building of churches . Many of the early orthodox churches in Transylvania were rather small and made out of wood. (there are some exceptions, like the 13th century Densuş Church) It is quite obvious that they needed to be replaced with time. The new churches were obviously larger and better built so that's why many survived today. bogdan 18:10, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be the case of a small elite group disposing enough land for the graves. --Vasile 01:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This sounds interesting, but I don't understand. Could you expain this a bit more? There was not enogh space in Vlach churchyards to have graves there? There was a fence directly at the walls? --KIDB 08:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The question is still pending: Vlachs (like other Christians) didn't incinerate their dead. Right? So, if you state that there were huge masses of Vlachs in Transylvania in early middle ages, you should show something that remained after them: bones (cemeteries), but also specific farming tools and so on. If you miss to do so, I have to consider the so-named Dacian-Roman continuity theory a pure fantasy. Regards: Erdelyiek 12:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hold your horses here on wikipedia. --Vasile 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are you hitting the table with your opincă? I think you'd be an excellent contributor to the article about Nikita Khruschev...:-)) Erdelyiek 17:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Enough space means possessing land and an appreciable level of civilisation.  --Vasile 14:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was plenty of land at that time in Transylvania. The density of population was much lower than nowadays. Erdelyiek 01:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who was owing the land?--Vasile 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cannot seriously suggest that they didnt have enough space to bury their dead. That is laughable. Druworos 17:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  building Orthodox churches = immigration 

message: The map is very expressive but 
*what is the date of the map?
:10-11th century 
*who is the author of this map?
:I made the map using prof János Balatoni, prof Sándor Csonka works
*what is with that border on the map? 
:What border do you mean exactly?
*for the current article, what is the meaning of that map?
:Shows the Magyars' settlement structure of Transylvania after 900AD.
*do you mind if one will put that map to the corresponding article about Hungary?--
Vasile 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The map contains only Transylvanian datas, eight-tenth part of Hungary from 1000AD. Therefore it fits better into this article--fz22 08:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Because it is based on more recent archeological research than 10th century. Therefore the map can not be dated the 10th century. The discoveries might be of the 10th century as it is asserted. The border didn't exist in the 10th century. Anyway, wouldn't be better to have the image of some of those discovered coins? --Vasile 15:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course, the burial places were discovered more recently than the 10-11th century, you're right :-). The line shows - I think - the Carpathian mountains, but you should ask the author about this. Please do not delete the work of others. If you think you can create a better map, please do not hesitate to do it. If you can include the arceological sites where Vlach burial places were discovered from this period - even better. (In this case please refrain form including ancient Roman settlements, because they were there a millennium earlier.)--KIDB 16:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I really appreciate this mapcraft, that the reason of this discussion. The map in this current form is misleading. You may read the above discussion. --Vasile 16:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  Expecting??? Who the h... are you? Go and see for yourself in central europian museums ...--fz22 19:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will take in consideration your invitation even it is not well placed here. Meanwhile, the map is still misleading. The horse burial is perhaps a sign of the Magyar civilisation. Please add a reference. --Vasile 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really dont know what mislead you.--fz22 20:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please bring the references for your additions. --Vasile 20:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The burial map

message: The history chapters are way too much extended. I will shorten them; if someone would want to extend them, please create other articles. --Vasile 19:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And why? Could you explain to me? And who decide wich part hang out from the paragraph The crap with the Anonymous fairy tail with his fictious princes or the Avars' 250 year presence in Transylvania???--fz22 07:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Bogdan, according to most sources on the web, the bird in the Transylvanian coat of arms is a black eagle, and not a lammergeier.  I see you typed in the sentence about the lammergeier a year ago (February 1, 2005), can you please tell us where do you have this information from? --KIDB 12:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... so that's only an eagle painted black and not an actual species ? :-) Well, in Romanian the Lammergeier is called "black eagle" ("vultur negru"), so I think that was what caused the misunderstanding. bogdan 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: immensely amusing ...--fz22 22:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  83.5.190.37's rampage 

message: I have noticed a lot of unsigned users and IPs vandalizing this page lately, while making offensive comments or passes. I will only say this once. If this happens again, I will contact an admin. This is really getting annoying.Constantzeanu 01:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the greatest of all vandals is yourself. You have the most deletions and reverts and if one comes with a source, you immediately label it as "unreliable". What kind of discussion can be done with you? Erdelyiek 13:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not once have you ever come to the talk page and posted all your sources and asked for concensus. The least you can do is act in a civil fashion and not pretend that you did.Constantzeanu 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: I'm going to start up cleaning this article. All the history section has been removed to History of Transylvania article, and here I will try to leave only a brief description of each period. Also I've removed the sections most pbobably copied from other articles by annon users about Trajan's Column, Mihai Viteazul and Greater Romania to the Talk:Transylvania/Text subpage. In the event of another series of anon edits, I'll proceed with  blockings, and I hope we will not arrive at protecting the page. Mihai -talk 10:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately this will only lead to our hungarian "friends" to make unsigned edits to the history of transilvania, instead of this one. Did you see what they wrote? That the schythians are the oldest inhabitants of Transilvania and that they spoke Hungarian. I think you have to block that article too before it will turn into an article on how Hungarians lived in transilvania for 10.000 years and dacians actually are the ones who migrated there from asia in 1000 AD.Constantzeanu 18:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been observing the disputes on this article recently. There have been anonymous nationalist editors from both points of view, and it is not fair to single out one side or the other as being more at fault. I would like to thank Orioane for his work on maintaining a quality article by rolling back, protecting, and creating the long-overdue History of Transylvania article. Olessi 20:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is hardly fair to say that only Hungarians edit this page in ridiculous ways. Furthermore, you are implying that Dacians have lived in Transylvania for 10.000 years, which cannot be supported, and is most likely false, as Dacians were likely IndoEuropean. Furthermore, it can hardly be proved that Romanians descend directly from Dacians in any way. In fact, the very Latin language they speak proves that they are, to a great extent, descendents of  Roman colonists. That being said, it is fairly unlikely that there ever was large scale Scythian presence in Transylavania, and any association between Scythians and Magyars is a myth, and nothing more. Druworos 17:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not a priori appear that Constantzeanu was implying that Dacians were there for 10,000 years, though he may have meant this. I have seen no credited scholar question the Indo-European-ness of the Dacians: so yes, it is fairly certain they were an Indo-European people. In any case, we can be certain that there were no Dacians 10,000 years ago, and by the same token, no Scythians. Herodotus writes of an apparently mixed Thraco-Scythic tribe, the Agathyrsi, possessing lands roughly corresponding to Transylvania in his time. Alexander 007 03:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: I've just blocked the page due to repeated vandalism from a bunch of annon users. Will unprotect once the situation calmes down. Mihai -talk 17:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I welcome the protection, and maybe we have to start to discuss seriously about each of the paragraphs. For me, it is unacceptable to see after "Ancient History" emphasized the fact that it was a heart of Dacian state. The Dacian state was one of any other states that dominated Transylvania during antiquity. Erdelyiek 17:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately what it is for you or for me or for anyone else matters very little, unless you can bring into the attention of everyone that participates in the writing of the article, some kind of reliable source which states that in fact the dacian kingdom did not dominate Transilvania's antiquity.Constantzeanu 18:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more unfortunately, I think even the presence of a unified Dacian kingdom with any kind of long-term presence isn't exactly based on rock-hard evidence, is it? That being said, no, Scythians didnt rule Erdely, and no, Scythians were not in any way related to Magyars. Only Hungarian chroniclers without any factual evidence, mythologists, and far-right theorists would claim such a thing, and I would strongly suggest to my Magyar half-brothers to abbandon such claims, for they trully make them sound ridiculous.Druworos 18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block 

message: So how do we proceed? This is my draft for the Middle Age period:--fz22 21:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about now? I've removed the paragraph about gelu glad and Menumorut, and the second one about Gyula. Also I managed to condensate into 4 paragraphs. Wayting paragraph about Mongol Invasion. Mihai -talk 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: From what I can tell, it wasn't a suggestion to remove them from WP, but simply to shorten the history article at Transylvania and instead move the information to History of Transylvania. Olessi 02:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transylvania throughout the Middle Ages 

message: Here is a list of Transylvanian personalities who have influenced the region's culture.
# Endre Ady, Hungarian poet
# János Arany, Hungarian poet
# George Bariţ, Romanian historian and publicist
# Béla Bartók, Hungarian composer
# István Báthory, Hungarian noble and governor
# Lucian Blaga, Romanian poet, playwright, and philosopher
# Stephen Bocskay, Hungarian governor
# Farkas Bolyai, Hungarian mathematician
# János Bolyai, Hungarian mathematician
# Samuel von Brukenthal, Transylvanian governor of German origin
# Emil Cioran, Romanian essayist and philosopher
# Matthias Corvinus, Hungarian Renaissance king
# George Coşbuc, Romanian poet
# György Dózsa, peasant and revolt leader
# Octavian Goga, Romanian poet
# Johannes Honter, Renaissance humanist and Reformer
# John Hunyadi, Regent of Hungary
# Avram Iancu, Romanian revolutionary
# Ştefan Octavian Iosif, Romanian poet
# Sándor Kőrösi Csoma, Hungarian explorer and researcher
# György Kurtág, Hungarian composer
# Ferenc Kölcsey, Hungarian poet and author of the national anthem
# Gheorghe Lazăr Romanian teacher
# György Ligeti, Hungarian composer
# Béla Lugosi, Hungarian actor
# Iuliu Maniu, Romanian politician and Prime minister of Romania
# Andrei Mureşanu, Romanian poet and revolutionary
# Hermann Oberth, German physicist
# Péter Pázmány, Hungarian theologist and writer
# Dumitru Prunariu, Romanian cosmonaut
# Liviu Rebreanu, Romanian novelist
# Stephan Ludwig Roth, pedagogue and Lutheran pastor
# Ioan Slavici, Romanian writer
# Sándor Veress, Hungarian composer
# Aurel Vlaicu, Romanian aviation pioneer
# Traian Vuia, Romanian inventor and aviation pioneer
# Johnny Weissmuller (1904-1984), German actor ("Tarzan")
# Miklós Wesselényi, Hungarian politician and writer
* Transylvania in fiction - in the Western world, Transylvania is famously the home of Bram Stoker's Count Dracula.
The above list is misleading. For examples there are far too many hungarians names there. Let's not forget who were and still is the majority in Transylvania. It seems like a fascist hungarian propaganda. Let's remove this exageration or modify it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.154.100.15 (talk) 
There are so many hungarians because nobody, until me, has added Romanians. As you cna see I've bolded the romanians so that you can see them, and italicised the germans for the same reason. To remove the hungarian personalities is an obtuse and nationalistic POV, as you cannot deny them. For example, look, there is János Bolyai after which one of the top 5 universities in Romania is named - the Babeş-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca if you didn't knew, you have Béla Bartók and Endre Ady important hungarian personalities which no one can deny, and also Béla Lugosi one of the most influential world-level actors from the interbellic period. These are only personalities which any person with a decent level of culture and a basic knowledge of Hungarian culture should have. Mihai -talk 01:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added some names myself, but the first impression one gets when seeing this list is that it is far too long. We should probably create a list with all these names in a new article. And I think we should only keep in here a maximum of (let's say) 10 most important names and put the full list in that other article. Although it would be very cynical, if you think this helps then we could "negotiate" the ethnicity of the 10 most important names from the main article. My proposal however is to remove the ethnicity from the description of each figure, as this whole list is about culture. --Alex 12:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW Hunyadi, Dozsa, Avram Iancu, Iuliu Maniu have nothing to do with the culture ...--fz22 12:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Culture

message: What 83% of romania in transilvania? Only hungarians are 19,7%...
And what meens that a large romanian majority...
in the 2002 romanian census 83% of the people said that they were romanians. Whats so hard to understand?
i dont now where you get this statistic but if you calculate that thing that in tr. in 2002 live 1415000 hungarian and the population where 7,5 million then you can see that this number is 19,7% so the romanian percantege can be 83% when only the hungarians are in almost 20%.
: First, I must say that your maths is not very good, as 1.415 out of 7.5 is just 18.87% and not 19.7% as you suggest. However, I looked on the 2002 Census data myself, just to solve the "mistery". The data in this article is indeed incorrect and I will correct it in a few days if there will be no objections on this discussion page. The real data looks as follows: total population in Transylvania is 7,221,733 (and not 7.5 million), of which 5,393,552 (74.69%) Romanians, 1,415,718 (19.60%) Hungarians, 244,475 (3.39%) Roma and 53,077 (0.73%) Germans. -- User:Alexrap 17:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  83%? 

message: "Ăştia sîntem, peticiţi în cur, rupţi în coate; intrăm în istorie ca-ntr-o infectă crîşmă de cartier. Între două ghiorăituri şi-o înjurătură, poporul (boborul, domnilor), vorbeste bâţos despre Posada, despre Mihai Viteazu, despre "trăiască şi-nflorească Moldova, Ardealul şi Ţara Românească."
"Alţii se laudă cu Michelangelo sau Da Vinci şi mie mi se arată scrisoarea lui Neacşu din Cîmpulung. Fantastică realizare, delaţiunea!... Dacă regret ceva, acum la treizeci de ani, e că m-am născut aici, că fac parte din cei ce au învăţat pe la şcoli că poporul ăsta, boborul, domnilor, a fost într-o erecţie continuă în faţa istoriei. Care popor? Noi, cei care n-am făcut nici măcar o dată dovada virilităţii, noi, care în timpul invaziilor ne ridicam poalele în cap şi fugeam în păduri, noi, care leşinam prin sălile unde se hotăra istoria, noi, care astăzi ne scremem pentru o bucată de pîine şi nu mai ştim ce şmechereli să mai inventăm." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zmiklos (talk • contribs) .
:And what it is that you want to prove with this? Mihai -talk 12:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to be sure: is this cited from Sabin Gherman? Dpotop 12:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. You can have the full article here. Enjoy. Zmiklos 13:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read his productions some time ago. Full of shit, in a sense. Dpotop 16:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Boborul

message: I have serious doubts about the neutrality of the "Transylvania" article.
Please add to the header that: 
The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Those users who agree with this please add a comment to this section. Zmiklos 13:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of the article

message: The allegation "the decree of Turda openly called to expel or exterminate Romanians in Transylvania" is substantiated in the article Decree of Turda on the basis of primary, original documents.
Removing primary evidence-based informations represents a clear case of VANDALISM.
Please refrain !
--Vintila Barbu 18:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrain Vandalism ! 

message: In contrary, the Romanians lost their self-government just because a romanian origin nobility rose. the same thing happened with the Cumanians. They were obliged to fight in the King's army personally, later to set up a 600 men strong contingent, and around mid14 century a Cuman origin nobility evolved and the rest of the free Cumans were impinged into slavery.--fz22 10:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probable that both things happened in both cases. Dahn 12:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "In contrary, the Romanians lost their self-government just because a romanian origin nobility rose"
you're good enough an historian to clearly know how absurd this phrase is
I'm afraid that sometimes for you amica veritas, sed magis amica Hungariae....
Regards,   --Vintila Barbu 17:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was a minor one: both could work together. If the authorities allowed converts to join the ranks of nobility, if they were allowed to keep privileges, and gained land ownership in a system that was truly feudal, then I could still see why the offer was limited (consider Anglo-Saxons after the writing of the Doomesday Book). A limited offer meant that the rest in the traditional hierarchy fell to a low level (or, indeed, the level they were on became less significant). From what I know, all theories about the origin of boyars in Moldavia and Wallachia revolve around the same chemistry, and their cases were virtually free from kingly pressure. Dahn 00:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: because of the gradual loss of a nobility of its own, Romanians were not able any more to keep their Universitas Valachorum.

message: Couldn't we do witrhout it? Is there really no way to link this to a List of Transylvanians or something? For one thing, it is insanely long. Also, if you ask me, people like Florin Piersic are yet to gain the importance necessary to be cited in an article about the regions itself (I realize this may be troubling about fans of the seed-cracking hajduk). A list of Transylvanians, however, would simply include all people born or resident in the region, and would be expandable to lenghts this article does not allow. Plus, I am sure people such as Piersic are already cited as natives of respective cities. Really, as is, this is nothing but a flame war, and highly subjective, as well as not present in similar articles that I know of. Note that we already have a :Category:Natives of Transylvania. Thank you for taking this into consideration. Dahn 22:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All that list of persons at the bottom

message: As of right now the images are so cluttered that this article looks bad from them, particularly in the history section and the section on coat of arms.  I did what I could without deleting any as I knew that would cause an uproar, but would there be a chance of discussing which images should be kept in the main body of the article itself?
I also added a country scenery picture from the photo gallery section to the top of the article to make the beginning bit look less bleak. Andromeda321 01:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: The 1568 Edict of Turda probably deserves an article, no? Especially because of possible confusion with the 1366 Decree of Turda. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1568 Edict of Turda