Talk:Banat of Temeswar

message: German name: 
Temeswarer Banat was what I found, as the spelling has usually been with s rather than sch, even though it is pronounced as the latter (Hungarian orthographic influence, I guess).  I don't know if we want to bother giving all the various German forms of Temeswar on this page, since people can click on the main Temeswar article.
For those who are interested: note that a literal translation of "Banat of Temeswar" would be "Banat von Temeswar", but more likely would be "Banat Temeswar", similar to "die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien" (in German you would never say "die Bundesrepublik von Jugoslawien").  
In any case, it should be more clear than all this, since German was probably the first if not the second language of the Habsburg empire.
Westermanns Atlas zur Weltgeschichte (1963) uses "Temesvar" to refer to the city throughout the book. It uses "Banat Temesvar" on the map "Hungary's Reconstruction after the Turkish Wars". It uses Temesvar (Timişoara) on "Europe after the First World War (1918-1937)". I will check my copy of Atlas zur Geschichte der deutschen Ostsiedlung (1958) next week to see the terminology used there. Olessi 21:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I edited the page, and I'll try to bring some references in the future. I removed also the population data which seems to be imprecise, and I'll try to look after some.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joranne Sutt (talk • contribs) 09:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  editing 

message: Koertefa and Dobitocilor, I hope that you are aware that this speaks about an Habsburg province that existed from 1718 to 1778. This is not article about entire history of the Banat region (there is separate article for that). So, it makes sense that we mention what existed immediately before and after this province, but elaboration of entire history of Banat is simply out of scope of this article. PANONIAN 09:13, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We discussed the same issue here: User_talk:Koertefa#Banat_of_Temeswar Dobitocilor (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: User pages are not good place for discussion, so please try to discuss the issue here. Also, regarding the source that mention events in year 1233, that should be either mentioned in history section of Banat article either separate article should be written about medieval province (with confirmation from more sources and with more info of course). PANONIAN 09:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that such articles like this should give a brief overview of the history of the region, even if there is a separate article that discusses these issues in more detail. For example, in the article Republic of Serbia, in the "History" section not only the immediate predecessor of the country, Serbia and Montenegro, is mentioned, but also, for example, prehistorical events, even though there is a separate article about the History of Serbia. Therefore, I do not see any problem with briefly mentioning the history of the area in this article, as well. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is big difference between articles about Republic of Serbia and Banat of Temeswar. Republic of Serbia is an existing political entity and it is common practice that histories of currently existing political and geographical entities are also including entire history of the geographical area which this entity includes. Contrary to that, former entities existed only in one strictly defined period and therefore their histories could be written only within the limits of that time period. Besides that, if we already have Banat article which elaborating entire history of the region, what is the point of repeating that history here? PANONIAN 09:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about the Kingdom of Croatia (medieval), it is also a former entity, still the article discusses the arrival of Croats and other historical events. It does not just simply point to the Principality of Pannonian Croatia article. And I do not see a problem with giving a very brief (few sentences) description of the past of the region, even if there is a more detailed article about that, since it greatly helps the reader to put the entity into a historical context. Why do you think that it is a problem? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a second: the "the Banat frontier province of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary created in 1233" is nothing else but the Banate of Severin (see the year when first ban of Severin ruled). PANONIAN 11:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And here are further evidences for that: , . PANONIAN 11:27, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the preceding history of the area, I now rewrote the sentence and elaborated this history in accordance with following criteria: former political entities that were centered in Banat or had sizable part of their territory located in Banat. PANONIAN 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I also think that it was the Banate of Severin. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of the Banate of Severin, I proposed a page move:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Banate_of_Severin Dobitocilor (talk) 08:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Scope of this article

message: Some IP editors (or more likely one editor behind proxies) try to delete the sourced statement that the Habsburgs prevented the *return* of Hungarians . Dear IP editor: of course, you are welcome to disagree with this statement, but simply removing a sourced information is not acceptable. If you do not agree with it, then please, (1) either provide counter sources, or (2) if you think that the source above is not reliable, please, raise the issue at WP:RSN. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know who other editor is. Why would I use proxy? To hide my IP? My IP is already visible, so editor behind that proxy is somebody else who wants to hide his own IP (proxies are used for that, right?). Anyway, the problem with your source is that it was misused in the article text. Yes, source uses expression "return of Hungarians" and it obviously mean by that "return as a people" implying that "Hungarians as nation" lived in Banat in the Middle Ages and now "they returned there as a nation". However, this source does not say that 18th century Hungarian settlers were direct (bloodline) descendants of medieval Hungarians of Banat and there is no any other source that says such a thing. There is no single evidence about direct bloodline connection between two Hungarian populations separated by long period of time. Because of that, statement about "return of Hungarians" is controversial and used in rather political purpose. The two Hungarian authors are obviously nationalists, which can be seen from some other parts of their book, and they used term "return" in order to emphasize fictional "Hungarian historical right to land", which is main nationalist motive in "no Trianon ideology" of modern Hungary. Or to put it this way: term "return" is controversial, used with nationalistic purpose and if it would be used in the article, it should be properly explained. I am proposing current compromise article version where term is properly explained, and if you and our proxy colleague would agree with that, we should stop this stupid revert war. 178.253.205.102 (talk) 18:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now here is a list of various sources that using term "Hungarian colonists" in connection to Banat: . These sources are directly challenging source that speaks about "return of Hungarians" because colonists are always new settlers, not those "who return". 178.253.205.102 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, one question for two Hungarian editors of Wikipedia: why you are so against word "settle"? Do you want to say that this word is somehow incorrect? Or perhaps you are nationalists who want to promote fictional "Hungarian right to land"? Do you sincerely believe in idiotic ideas such is Greater Hungary? 178.253.205.102 (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Also question for Fakirbakir only: why you deleted statement that "the Hungarians were almost totally absent from Banat" - this is exact quotation from source that you introduced. Why you choose to use one sentence from that source and you delete another one? It seems that you use what you like and delete what you dislike? 178.253.205.102 (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

text: That is not the point. These medieval Hungarians left the area in the 16th century and moved to other places, while there is no evidence that 18th century Hungarian settlers were direct descendants of those. If you use words like "return" or "resettle" you imply that they were direct descendants of those from the middle ages. Why you want to imply that if there is no evidence for that? Can you finally say what is wrong with word "settle"? It is fully accurate and neutral word that only describe events from the 18th century and that doesn't contain misleading meaning. 178.253.205.102 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know what you are talking about see:  . I mean the "Hungarian ethnicity returned" and nobody wants to mention direct descendants. I have tried to rephrase the text. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Fakirbakir, I agree with your version; it is the most precise one so far. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with 178.253.205.102. "re-settled" can also mean "settled again". Expression is disputed. There is also sockpuppetry involved. Account Csendesmark is obvious sockpuppet sleeper account inactive for month and now appear to revert. 113.229.65.134 (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that Koertefa is sockmaster. Both accounts(Csendesmark and Koertefa) appear in same time in this other article too: . After another abusive Hungarian account (Magyarcsaba) is blocked administrators should pay attention to remaining ones. 113.229.65.134 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have such suspicion, you should lodge a sockpuppet investigation. You can read WP:SPI for more details. Otherwise, let's focus on the content and not on the participants themselves. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preventing the return of Hungarians 

message: Temeswarer Banat: 3.390 Google Books results
Temeswarer Provinz: 8 Google Books results
I think the name Temeswarer Provinz was too rarely used to it include it here. Hahun (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  German names of the Banat of Temeswar