Talk:Flag and coat of arms of Transylvania

message: I don't get how the sun and moon symbol is supposed to represent the Szeklers when it is already present in the Wallachian and Moldovan coat of arms two centuries earlier. Explain. To me all heraldic elements (sun, moon, eagle) seem common to the Romanian geographical area.  DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they also appear on the Szekely arms, wherever else they may appear, because they were explicitly included in the Transylvanian arms to represent the Szekelys, and because all historians and heradists cite them as such. Please see our core policies on WP:RS and WP:OR. Dahn (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "because they were explicitly included in the Transylvanian arms to represent the Szekelys" Source? I don't see any mention of this deliberate symbolism in the article. Rather, it's just taken as a given that they are the "Szekely sun and moon". This is a form of cultural appropriation and the precedence of the Romanian heraldry should be mentioned, at least to give context.DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article includes an ampler discussion of the origin of the sun and moon in the section "Origins", which I advise you to read before going on a rant. Both that section and the one you're focusing on have citations from Romanian and Hungarian authors, both of whom refer to the sun and moon as standing for Szekely Land -- because this was explicitly mentioned in primary sources. I don't care about your personal conjectures about nonsense such as cultural appropriation, and neither does wikipedia; but let me note that, even if it were the case, ad absurdum, it would be appropriation by the Szekelys as one of the indigenous peoples of Transylvania, not by those who designed the Transylvanian arms in the 16th century. It would also be cultural appropriation by the Wallachians, since, gasp, they may have borrowed the symbols from elsewhere as well. After all, they are some of the most common heraldic devices in Eastern Europe. Now please find yourself another venue for canvassing and trolling, as per WP:NOT. Regards. Dahn (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "It would also be cultural appropriation by the Wallachians, since, gasp, they may have borrowed the symbols from elsewhere as well." There is no evidence of this though. And you still haven't explained why they feature in the Wallachian, Moldovan, and even Oltenian coat of arms first. I think this should be mentioned in the article. DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just like there is no evidence whatsoever that the Szekely took the sun and moon from anyone else. I don't have to explain anything, as wikipedia does not publish, not condone, original research, and is not a reference desk for users with various, more or less germane, concerns. Here we rely on what third-party reliable sources have to say. Also, please understand that the notion of "Szekely sun and moon" at that point in the text refers to them being clearly identified with the Szekely in this particular context, in that early modern heraldry of that particular principality; it is not a comment on their ultimate origin, be it Wallachian or Cuman or Inuit or Babylonian, but merely one on  what they meant by that point in time, and since. Under "Origins", we have a Romanian reference suggesting that the origin of the symbol may be Wallachian or Cuman, which is about as far back as any of the source in this extensive overview will take this speculation. Please stop flogging a dead horse. Dahn (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Szekely sun and moon" 

message: Dahn,
I see, but if the source is wrong we should maintain some close pharaphrasing or copyedit with slight modifications that does not alter the original meaning but to make the statement correct, otherwise we should not add not standing or unreliable information.
As you may see in the linked article (Coat of arms of Austria-Hungary), in 1916 a new small coat of arms was introduced for Hungary (Hungary's small coat of arms), as well for Austria-Hungary (Lesser common Coat of Arms), but it does not mean that Hungary's medium coat of arms or the Medium common Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary did not remain in action (1915-1918), it depended on the context and other circumstances when to use which, and mostly these one are known, which depicted Transylvania.
So please let's find a solution because of the author's interpretation it seems it would have a connection to the war or anything, a the sentence like so is false, since only in the newly introduced small coat of arms Transylvania no longer depicted (similary to the common lesser coat of arms), but the medium ones still had it (btw. they were created in 1915 for the urge of the Hungarian Government, so the usage was possibly depended on size or place, since the small was only introduced one year later).
Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey. I don't take any issue with correcting Moisil's claim by countering it with another source, however in this case I don't have a source contradicting him. The wikipedia article may be entirely mistaken on the dating, for all I know. Consider adding a source, or pointing me to one. (Please, make it a reliable one.) Dahn (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, please note that we already say that the CoA of Tr was not used in the small arms of Hungary, as it hadnt ever been. When you rephrased Moisil to make him say what he didn't actually say, the additional problem was that the reader would not have understood the text: we were telling him that the CoA was no longer used in 1916, but after having told them that the CoA wasnt used in 1867 either. Dahn (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll look into it deeper, since the most used and known coat of arms either Hungary or Austria-Hungary was the medium one and this lasted until 1918. I never said that the small would ever depict Transylvania, so this is not an issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "in 1916, Transylvania was not depicted in the the small Hungarian coat of arms, but still represented in the medium coat of arms" was your rephrasing. This reads like we're telling the reader the exact same thing as for 1867, is my point. Somebody reading that would have to ask "but why are they saying it again?" Dahn (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since before the whole addition I did not notice the same author's statement regarding 1867, maybe that's why my rephrasing was not perfect. I will write here after I looked into the subject deeper.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coat of Arms 

message: Putting three names for Saxon cities is just a way of squeezing in their Hungarian name, but this practice has no informative purpose whatsoever. Technically, while the convention we have here is to use the modern name in brackets and the old name as the first variant, the naming conventions do authorize modern names throughout, so please count your blessings. With "Corona", we have the name as it appears in the standard Latin used across three cultures; there is no English reader who will miss not having the vernacular names (with modernized spellings!), thrice in a row for every complicated case; the modern Romanian name may be useful for recognition, the rest is chaff.
Please be reasonable, it's already hard reconciling these articles in the endless tug of war between nationalisms. I approximated a middle ground, try and reflect about it instead of getting alarmed that you dont see "Brasso" in there. Dahn (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This works too. Dahn (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Blessings for you :), I noticed this section long after I've made already my second edit...It had zero motivation just to have "Brassó" (you should already know me enough I try to follow for every period the best contemporary naming possible), but without repeating myself, Corona in that century is outdated, but German/Hungarian was common that time (it had zero connection to any claimed nationalism). Also in other articles where relevant even we identify three names, it was never the problem, though because the sentence puts everything in Saxon context, I chose then Kronstadt accordingly to also satisfy your claims of "overkill". Don't overreact man :-) Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Right on. We cool. Dahn (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

text: As a general point: three names in any article is overkill. I would recommend using the Saxon or Latin name and current official name for Saxon cities in old Transylvania, at least down to 1848 or so, and the Hungarian or Latin name with modern equivalent for Transylvanian Hungarian localities in the same period. It is simply annoying to read through an article that has such triplicates, and the only "need" to have them is because editors feel or anticipate that abstract national pride may be hurting. I am just as unimpressed by that as I would be with having, say, triplicate names for once-Romanian towns in Ukrainian Maramureș. Our priority is with presenting information, not with reclaiming any sort of symbolism. Dahn (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are only very rare cases when three names are shown and until now these instances could be handled easily, I think we should not overargue this issue (also this case without raising this in the talk I solved it in a harmless way and you agreeed indeed). I think, since the overly complex history and continously varying status quo, administration, official langauges, better always the current situation has to be examined ("need to have them is because editors feel or anticipate that abstract national pride may be hurting." & "with reclaiming any sort of symbolism" was never the reason); general rules would fail in some cases (i.e. sometimes Hungarian/Latin, Saxon/Latin, Romanian/Hungarian, Hungarian/Romanian, Romanian/Saxon, etc., all variables may vary in some special conditions, in case we would set the fix parameters to two). Having some special environments like the case mostly with "Pressburg (Pozsony, Bratislava)" is harmless and universally accepted solution (though it is combination of a more complex situation). Regarding i.e. Transylvania this is as well rare, so don't worry, in the past years there was not any notable conflict or problem regardings such (and in those very-very rare cases, like this, we can easily discuss and solve).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Three names

message: It's quite lovely when, after the attempted censorship by a Romanian nationalist, we get this "correction" from a self-appointed Censor who knows The Truth and has decided to share it with us. Because simply presenting notable viewpoints he disagrees with means that we endorse them. Also note the audacity where they not only removed sourced info, not only added their own inept and ungrammatical commentary, but simply modified exact quotes from the sources.  is evidently not here to build an encyclopedia. Dahn (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: This nonsense again

message: Hello, this article is pretty long and I think it could be split without any problem. As far as I know, this is the most common practice and the flag and coat of arms are only kept in the same article when both are by themselves not notable enough as to have separate articles by themselves. What do you think of this?
:Hi. There is apparently no standard practice, but things are dictated by the structure of the topic (see Flag and coat of arms of Johor, Coat of arms and flag of New Jersey etc.). In this case, the flag and CoA are closely intertwined, as one is derivative from the other (either for having a CoA on a monochrome field or for being a tricolor scheme based on the CoA). Splitting the article would mean a lot of duplicated info and a lot of duplicated sources. Dahn (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, fair enough... I guess there's not any actual solid reason to split the article. I've removed the template from it. Super Ψ Dro 22:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Split article?

message: As a causal note due to the recent edit war. Actually reading through the article would clarify it: the notion that heraldic symbols represent ethnicities is rejected from a bipartisan position, meaning both Romanian and Hungarian historians reject it as grossly inaccurate. This is explained and quoted at length, so asking "Which historians?" is frankly inept. Dahn (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: "this interpretation is criticized as inaccurate by various historians"