Talk:Székelys of Bukovina

message: I correct my own mistake - the three Székely villages next to the Lower Danube are in Vojvodina, not Romania. Zello 21:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moving the text does not make it more NPOV. :-) bogdan 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging with Bukovina 

message: The merging of the article with Bukovina or Székelys is against the merging policy of the Wikipedia. Look up here: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. This article is clearly
1, not about the same subject
2, there is not a large overlap between them
3, not too short
The merging proposal is indeed a proposal for deletion. Than do this! It would be obvious for everyone that you are trying to obliterate the memory of a folksgroup. Zello 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the proposal is very much in line with the policy. What is so different between Székelys of Bukovina and normal Székelys ? Why would you need two articles about Székelys ? --Lysy (talk) 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: If they are different, then it would be good to have the differences clearly exposed in the article. Until then, for a casual   reader, it seems that these are the same Székelys  and the only notable thing about them is that they were once settled in Bukowina. Would you be able to add a sentence or two about the ethnic and other differences between the Székelys ? --Lysy (talk) 09:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: All right, let's postpone the merger then and hope that the cultural differences between the groups will be explained. I cannot do it myself, as I do not have enough knowledge of the Székelys. --Lysy (talk) 09:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually Secui/Szeklers do not share the same origin with Hungarians. Should be merged with the other article.  Bonaparte  talk 09:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually this question is totally indifferent here. If Székelys and Hungarians had different origin than we should merge the two Székely articles? Where is the connection? You are not arguing, you are only expressing your hatred. Zello 10:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's have it explained in the article first and then we'll see if there should be two articles about Székelys or one. I think the quality of the information in the article could be improved in the meantime. If there is a controversy about the ethnic origin, it should be mentioned in the article as well. --Lysy (talk) 09:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I will indicate the gaps in the article but I need time to do real research. It is not a very frequented topic. Nobody was interested in it until Bonaparte and his friends "discovered" and created here a new battleground with this merging trick. I think their favourite "origin of the Székelys" war is inadequate here because the independent story of the Székelys of Bukovina began only in the 18th century. What happened in the 10th century doesn't matter in this topic - there is the link to the Székelys in general. I would be interested if they had any REAL, valuable information about the Székelys of Bukovina, for example dances, folk costumes etc. Zello 10:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page should definitely not be merged into anything. The Szekelys of Bukovina are an interesting cultural group, and the article has lots of good info. There's no reason to move at all, provided the page is linked from Bukovina and Szekely. As to the origin of the Szeklers, there are reasonable grounds to believe that initially they weren't of the same origin as Hungarians - however, today they speak Hungarian and have been mostly assimilated into the Hungarian ethnic group. But please let's not descend into anti-Hungarian feelings here. Hungarians are our best neighbours at the moment. Köszönöm,  Ronline ✉ 12:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I'd say try to work on the article first, and if there are contoversies, let's discuss them. There's nothing wrong if the article clearly presents different points of view and I hope eventually everyone will be able to accept this. It does not make much sense to argue before the real differences in POVs are identified and indicated - until then it's just a waste of our time... Maybe we could try to respect opposing views (I know it's often more difficult than it sounds) and make this article an example of good cooperation on a difficult subject ?  --Lysy (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the article is POV per se. Rather, the language it uses in some places is a bit too melodramatic, making it sound more like a history essay than an encyclopedia entry. Other than that, it's fine.  Ronline ✉ 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cooperation ? 

message: Bonaparte:
# when moving, use the "move" button, don't copy and paste the article, because it does not keep the edit history
#:OK.
# there is no consensus for the moving and I see no point in using the Romanian names. Bukovina is the term more used in English.bogdan 13:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, exactly. Bonaparte - Székely is the English name for these people, based on the Hungarian. I think that's normal since they're a Hungarian-speaking ethnic group (in the same way that we call the Aromanians by that name - their name - rather than "Vlahos" or whatever the Greeks call them). As to the bibliography, I think it would be helpful to include it in the article. The other information that would be useful is a bit about their current situation - approximately how many Bukovina Szeklers live in Hungary, their culture, etc. Thanks,  Ronline ✉ 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I try to collect some information. As for the bibliography I chose the 3 most important books because I think the whole list would be frightfully long in the article. But I put the Reference section at beginning of the discussion page, so the reader will find it easily. Zello 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving [[Secui of Bucovina]] 

message: Many references are noted, but the article's paragraphs have no footnotes!  I think this article needs a thorough review by some professional historians to ensure that it conforms to mainstream scholarly opinion on the subject, also. HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  INLINE CITATIONS !!!!