Talk:Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711)

}}

title of the article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I agree. Please change title. Thanks.--Bluehunt (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hobartimus (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

status of Translyvania after 1711

[4] This source states that Translyvania was separate entity.
Bernard A. Cook. "Europe Since 1945: An Encyclopedia‎". Routledge; 1 edition (10 Jan 2001), ISBN-13: 978-0815313366. ...and by 1711, the region had become part of the Hungarian portion of the empire... This source states that formally it was part of Hungary, although it was ruled by the Habsburgs. Now which one?--Bizso (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Britannica 2009 Transylvania:

During the reign (1648–60) of György Rákóczi II, the Turks, trying to curb Transylvania’s growing power, stripped it of its vital western territory and made the obedient Mihály Apafi its prince (1662). Shortly afterward, the Turks were defeated before Vienna (1683). The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors. In 1699 the Turks conceded their loss of Transylvania (Treaty of Carlowitz); the anti-Habsburg elements within the principality submitted to the emperor in 1711 (Peace of Szatmár).

During the succeeding century the pressure of Roman Catholic and bureaucratic rule gradually undermined the distinctive character of Transylvania. A strong Magyar movement, overshadowing the declining influence of the Szekler and Saxon nobles, urged the abandonment of the principality’s separate administration and integration with Hungary. Consequently, during the Hungarian Revolution of 1848, the Magyars of Transylvania identified with the insurgents. The Romanian peasantry, which had been developing its own national consciousness and agitating for more extensive political and religious liberties, took a stand against the Magyars and swore allegiance to the Habsburgs. When the Habsburgs reasserted their control over Hungary, Transylvania was separated from Hungary and transformed into a Habsburg crown land, subject to strict, absolutist rule. Subsequently, it was reabsorbed into Hungary (1867).--Bizso (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the data seems contradictory, but if you check Wikipedia:Reliable sources, one should avoid tertiary sources (i.e. Encyclopedias like the 2 examples you offered), including Britannica:

"Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable secondary sources. This means that while primary or tertiary sources can be used to support specific statements, the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion. Primary sources, on the other hand, are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be reliable in many situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research."

The primary source in this case is Diploma Leopoldinum (the text of which I could not find) and, to cite again the contradictory Britannica http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1459175/Diploma-Leopoldinum:

"Introduced after years of anarchy and war, the Diploma offered the promise of internal order and cultural and vocational opportunities for all three nations of Transylvania in their own languages. It soon became apparent, however, that the Diploma had not secured autonomy for Transylvania, as the leadership of the principality came under the direct influence of the Vienna chancellery. Transylvania was therefore severed from Hungary for the next two centuries."

I cited only secondary sources and, because I am Romanian, I cited Hungarian or "independent" authors, avoiding Romanian sources.

Regardless of this discussion, the Principality of Transylvania was not disestablished in 1711, but existed until 1867.--Bluehunt (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit of May 4th

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)

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)

Dear Quorilla, You are right, I added sources about that theme.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Year of Establishment

Is 1570 the correct year? Some say the Principality of Transylvania was established in 1541: [5] [6] [7]. Another source talks about 1556: [8]

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.[9]Fakirbakir (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The authors mix the name of the entity (expert needed)

These sources mix the name of the entity. They talk about principality of Transylvania, however we can not talk about an "official principality" (in other words " a principality as state") until 1570 because Sigismund was a king and ruled a Hungarian kingdom until treaty of Speyer. He established the proper Principality of Transylvania in 1570 when he abdicated as King of Hungary. We can talk about titles as "prince of Transylvania" before 1570 but he was an elected Hungarian king (rex electus) who ruled the eastern part of the partitioned country until 1570. The Hungarian kingdom was the predecessor of Principality of Transylvania. OR we can talk about a "Transylvanian principality" as sub-entity (because the title "prince of Transylvania" existed before 1570) but it belonged to the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom.

A proper principality has a prince(ss) as head of state, but Sigismund's main title was KING of Hungary until the treaty.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

If that guy was King of Hungary, it does not mean that he could not be Prince of Transylvania too. The Voivodeship of Transylvania was a also province (voivodeship) of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary from 12th to 16th century. Please don't disregard the sources. Do you have any sources according to whom the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom existed after 1541? AvramIancu48 (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

See this one:[10]Fakirbakir (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. Other sources talk about 1556 [11] [12]. Maybe we should present all these views about the starting year AvramIancu48 (talk) 19:35, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The sources are quite confusing, but I think that Fakirbakir is right. John Sigismund Zápolya had the title King of Hungary until 1570 (Treaty of Speyer). Until that, we should speak about the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, and not the Principality of Transylvania. It is true that the voivodeship of Transylvania was part of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, but the kings did not have the title "voivode", it was given to someone else. 1541 is a strange starting date, since it is the time Buda was captured by the Ottoman Empire. Why should it be given as the starting date of this principality? In my opinion, the two possible starting dates are 1538 (Treaty of Nagyvárad) or 1570 (Treaty of Speyer). The first one set the boarders between the territories belonging to Ferdinand (Royal Hungary) and the territories belonging to John Zápolya (Eastern Hungarian Kingdom, EHK), while both of them had the title King of Hungary. In my opinion, if we want to give a single date as the foundation of the Principality of Transylvania, it should be 1570, since this is the time Jonh Zápolya's son, John Sigismund Zápolya, abdicated from the title of king. For me, it sounds strange that the principality was founded while the kingdom (EHK) still existed (so it formed inside another state). Do we have some sources which claim this? Our other option would be to give all possible dates that could be found in sources, and say that the exact date of the foundation is obscure (but it was surely somewhere in the 16th century). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 04:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you find the "political entity inside another political entity" so strnage? As I said above, the same situation was with the Holy Roman Emperor, who was Hungarian King in the same time... I found yet others sources that assert that 1541 was the starting year [13][14][15][16][17] John Sigismund, first prince of Transylvania (he would later renounce his royal title over Hungary) AvramIancu48 (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

As we know until 1541 the seat of the royal court was in Buda (court of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). After the Turkish occupation George Martinuzzi placed the court to Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia). The seat of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was in Transylvania until 1570. I think Transylvania did not possess sub-entity status. The counties next to the Tisza river were !equal participants! at the Transylvanian diet. Moreover the former apparatus of the Transylvanian voivode was inadequate to the task of administering a state, so Martinuzzi had to establish an entirely new court (See page of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). Another thing, the voivodes were always under the kings of Hungary (until 1570) and they did not count as heads of state. From 1566 John Sigismund was the voivode (prince) and the king simultaneously. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with Koertefa, 1541 is a false date, those sources are inaccurate. The country was invaded by the Turks, however the kingdom was already "officially" divided to two in 1538.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this mutual recognition lasted for only 2 years (1538-1540). The coronation of John II Sigismund was not recognized by the Habsburgs. Why is the lifespan of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom said to be 1538 - 1570? Between 1540 - 1570 (like between 1526 - 1538), the claim to the Hungarian throne was unilateral AvramIancu48 (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Vica versa. At the eastern part of the country the Habsburgs were not recognized as kings of Hungary. The nobles there did not want a Habsburg king. We had 2 Hungarian kings until 1570, and they always thought the division is only a temporary formation.Fakirbakir (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

But the Habsburg king was not recognized in the eastern parts between 1526 - 1538 either. The "civil war" started immediately after Mohacs, why don't we have Eastern Hungarian Kingdom (1526-1570)? AvramIancu48 (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I see your reasoning but until treaty of Nagyvárad there was only one kingdom with its medieval borders "officially". 1538 is the proper date when we can state that the medieval kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist, because of the "official" division, and the Eastern kingdom started to pay an annual tribute to the Ottomans from 1542 or 43. The Ottomans were in the medieval capital from 1541. This period was chaotic.Fakirbakir (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And this "official" division lasted for only 2 years. Between 1540 and 1570 each of them claimed he is the rightful ruler of the whole Kingdom. If the criterion according to which we decide when the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was created and ceassed is the "official" recognition by the Habsburg side, its lifespan should be 1538-1540 AvramIancu48 (talk) 09:39, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

With your logic, the foundation date should be 1540 (not 1541), since that is the time the infant John Sigismund Zápolya was elected as king of Hungary. Even though Ferdinand did not accept him as king, his claim to the Hungarian throne was not unilateral, for example, the Ottoman Empire recognized him [18], and he was supported by the king of Poland (Sigismund's grandfather) [19]. I still do not see any reason why a state inside a state would have been founded. Do we have some sources which talk about this? Of course, there are many examples of sub-entities, but all of these were created when one of the states became subordinated to another state. But in these cases both states existed before the subordination. What's the logic behind creating a sub-state (Principality of Transylvania) inside a (half) kingdom (Eastern Hungarian Kingdom)? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

By "unilateral" I was referring to the relation with the Habsburgs. John Zapolya was also recognized by the Sultan as king of Hungary [20]. What's the difference between 1526-1538 period and 1540-1570 period in the terms of international recognition? Why do we include only the latter in the lifespan of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom?

New source about 1541: [21] + Britannica 1911 "He attained it by the treaty of Gyula (Dec. 29, 1541), whereby western Hungary fell to Ferdinand, while Transylvania, as an independent principality under Turkish suzerainty, reverted to John Sigismund." [22] AvramIancu48 (talk) 22:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Dear AvramIancu48, you know well your source is inaccurate. 1541 is a false date. As I see the main problem is the authors mix the name of the entity. 1, We can not use the name "Principality of Transylvania" before 1570 even if John had a princely (voivode)title from 1556 because his main title was king of Hungary and he was a counter king of Hungary. 2, It is clear Treaty of Speyer established proper Principality of Transylvania where a prince was the head of the state (not a king) 3, The Habsburgs claimed the Transylvanian territories as well so John's title as prince was also "unrecognized" in their points of view before 1570. 4, The diet of Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was in Transylvania from 1541 (Buda was the previous), however it was the diet of the kingdom and not the diet of the principality. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So what if his main title was "King of Hungary"? It does not mean that the Principality of Transylvania did not exist before 1570, I showed you many sources. The Principality of Transylvania was recognized by the Habsburg side in 1541, by the Treaty of Gyula. After 1690 Habsburg Kings of Hungary assumed the title of Princes of Transylvania too (they owned the both titles, just like John Sigismund). Koertefa, who do you think is right? AvramIancu48 (talk) 10:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

But you mix the voivode (prince) title with the meaning of state. There was a royal court in Gyulafehervar. John II abdicated as king of Hungary and he remained a voivode or prince (in Hungarian: fejedelem or vajda) under the 'nominal' authority of the Habsburg Hungarian king (in accordance with treaty of Speyer) in 1570. This "nominal authority" meant the principality "nominally" belonged to Kingdom of Hungary. According to your reasoning you should state that Principality of Transylvania as a state existed from Mercurius, the first voivode of Transylvania(princeps Ultrasylvanus) (1110 AD).Fakirbakir (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, the tile of voivode existed until 1556 (with the last voivode being István Dobó). In my opinion the Principality of Transylvania, as political entity ruled by Unio Trium Nationum, was the successor of of the Voivodeship of Transylvania. Transylvania was a province of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and remained (even if only de jure) under the authority of the Hungarian king after the mid 16th century. John Sigismund just abdicatedas counter-King and remained only Prince of Transylvania and Partium (a title that he owned before the Treaty of Speyer too)

On the other hand, I still believe that the lifespan of the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom should be 1526-1570 (1526- 1538 and 1540-1270 periods of unrecognition by the Habsburgs, 1538-1540 period of official recognition) AvramIancu48 (talk) 14:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Where did you read that Dobó was the last voivode? It is not true, István Báthory preferred to use the voivode form (in Hungarian vajda).Fakirbakir (talk) 14:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not read anywhere, it was only a presumption. He was the last I knew that used the title. But it seems I was wrong. Who was the list Voivode then? According to List of rulers of Transylvania, it seems that even Sigismund Báthory used the title. AvramIancu48 (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Until 1594, the voivode title was used. After that there was a treaty between Báthory and the Habsburgs and they (the Habsburgs) recognized his new title "prince" instead of the old one "voivode". According to the source, István Báthory was the last voivode, but the Habsburgs recognized it later under the era of Sigismund Báthory (1594).[23].Fakirbakir (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

So before 1594, we can still talk about the Voivodeship of Transylvania... Howver the title Principality of Transylvania is only a convention, because the official title was "Prince of Transylvania and Parts of Hungary". Considering that the Voivodeship (Principality) of Transylvania existed as an entity before 1570 too, what do you say of renaming this article to Principality of Transylvania (semi-independent state) or even better Transylvania (semi-independent state) [24]? AvramIancu48 (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually I do not understand why the Habsburgs had to recognize this title again in 1594. They accepted it in 1570 "princeps Transsylvaniae et partium regni Hungariae dominus". In Hungarian maybe vajda (voivode) is a bit lower title than fejedelem (prince), and that was the reason why initially Stephen Báthory used it. He wanted to emphasize his loyalty to the Habsburg kings but later he changed his mind and started to use the "prince" form.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Question: was fejedelem (prince) used before Mohacs too? Is the medieval province Voivodeship of Transylvania also known as Principality of Transylvania? AvramIancu48 (talk) 06:33, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not think so, "voivode" is not the same as "prince". There is an (almost 3 hundred pages long) scholarly book by Gábor Barta (written in Hungarian) called "The Birth of the Principality of Transylvania" ("Az erdélyi fejedelemség születése") according to which the earliest possible starting date would be 1541, while mostly 1556 is treated as the foundation date of the principality [25] (in Hungarian: "a fejedelemséget legkorábban 1541-től, de többnyire csak 1556-tól szokás számítani"). On the other had, it was surely not an (semi-)independent principality before 1570, therefore, we should keep 1570. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I propose the inclusion of the presentation of the 1541/1556 - 1570 period of the Principality of Transylvania, as province of the (Eastern) Hungarian Kingdom in the article Voivodeship of Transylvania AvramIancu48 (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Treaty of Speyer

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. [26] Fakirbakir (talk) 10:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen

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)

PS: the source (Encyclopedia Britannica [27]) also uses this form: "The Transylvanians, their land overrun by the troops of the Habsburg emperor, then recognized the suzerainty of the emperor Leopold I (1687); Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary and subjected to the direct rule of the emperor’s governors." KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don`t see a problem here. This is fine.Adrian (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The status of Hungarian language

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)

Is there any exact quote from the status of the Latin language? No, it is listed where and how it was used, the same as in Hungarian. You asked for sources, you got it. but of course, if you want details here you are:

8. March 1556. was the first Diet is Szászsebes where the first law in Hungarian was enacted. After again Latin was used until 1565. If you are further interested, i.e. in Michael The Brave's time the Diet still held in Hungarian, Michael The Brave himself also negotiated with the Saxons in Hungarian, but the during his reign the orders and papers were published in Latin.

For the legistlation, it's enought to investigate source 3 & 4, these are the lawbooks of Transylvania with a Latin title but with a Hungarian content. Source 4 has a link provided where you can check in the original images of the book and you can verify it's Hungarian codification.

But if you really want exact quote, here you are from source 1:

"During the over one and the half century reign of Principality of Transylvania was not only the respective holder of the Hungarian statehood, but between the XVI-XVII. centuries it had a very important role in the history of the Hungarian language. First of all because here and then were possible to have the Hungarian language as a state language that was not only used on lowest level of public life or in the local administration, but in the highest state institutions: by the internal affairs, the Transylvania Diet, and also the lawbooks that were edited from the official decisions had Hungarian as an official language. These times are born the political/jurisdictional/institutional official version of the Hungarian language."

Because I know you are interested on German affairs, I let you know that the Saxon cities' inner administrational language was German (although ther national statutum in 1583 was issued in Latin). If you want add this info on your own regarding the German language.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC))

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)

Nationalist obsessions

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)

Categories

@Dahn: 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)

• @Marcocapelle: I take no objection to that approach, I just minded that it was unexplained, and that, even though I could guess what the reason was, it appeared inconsistent (keeping Serbia, removing Ukraine). I therefore obviously take no issue with both being removed. Dahn (talk) 19:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

r+m

KIENGIR, you removed half of my contribution saying r+m, what is r+m? Iconian42 (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

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))

:- 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)

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))

:::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)

Pierre Lescalopier

The French author wrote: "Tout ce pays la Wallachie et Moldavie et la plus part de la Transivanie a esté peuplé des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l'empereur...Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à-dire romain". He clearly meant that the regions of Wallachia, Moldova and most of Transylvania were inhabited by people who thought they descended from Roman settlers and that they called their language "romanechte", and the source cites the year 1574, when Pierre Lescalopier wrote this, meaning that in the mentioned year Romanians were the majority of Transylvania (la plus part de la Transivanie). Also, why the Letopisețul Țării Moldovei reference was removed? ZZARZY223 (talk) 15:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Let's see the full text not a fragment.

"Tout ce pays la Wallachie et Moldavie et la plus part de la Transivanie a esté peuplé des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l'empereur...Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à-dire romain..."

This is the full text from Pierre Lescalopier:

"At day 23 we arrived in an another town - the last in Wallachia. Here, the voivode held a garrison from a few men, of which soldiers close the road with the help of a single barrier, and prevent anyone from crossing without a passport. They are in a tower, which they reach with the help of a long ladder, which they then pull up behind them. This country [Wallachia] and Moldavia and most area of Transyvania was populated by Roman colonies in the time of Traian the Emperor. The name of their captain was Flaccus, who gave new name to the country: Flacchia, this said Wlacchia by voice shift. The residents of this country [Wallachia] see themselves the true successors of the Romans, and call their speech Romanechte, that is- i.e. Roman. Most of their language consists of half Italian and half Latin words mixed with Greek and some kind of hotchpotch. They hate the Pope and the Roman Church above all else, while their voivode is respected as a god, and in all their actions and prayer, they always put his name first. They are immoderate in drinking: the first glass to God's health, the second for the voivode, the third to the sultan..."

After this story Lescalopier writes about Transylvania when he arrived there.

Pierre Lescalopier wrote clearly "Wallachia and Moldavia and most area of Transyvania was populated by Roman colonies in the time of Traian the Emperor" - he clearly say "by the time Traian the Emperor", I see you delibaretly missed however his name is in the French quote, the topic is the Principality of Transylvania (1570-1711), so it is irrevelant what was in the time of Traian. Morover Pierre Lescalopier talks about Wallachia and not about Transylvania when he says "the residents of this country [Wallachia] see themselves the true successors of the Romans", which is also irrevelant because the topic is the Principality of Transylvania and not Wallachia. Pierre Lescalopier also talks about the voivode of Wallachia, a garrison, a town in Wallachia.

Moldavia was not part of the Roman Empire, which means the text in this case not correct: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#/media/File:Roman_Empire_125.png

"the source cites the year 1574" "meaning that in the mentioned year Romanians were the majority of Transylvania" - the original text cleary does not say this OrionNimrod (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR Gyalu22 (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

In this case the original text does not matter, because the original text is irrevelant in the topic, morover it says different than what ZZARZY223 wrote in the article. OrionNimrod (talk)17:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Or it doesn't matter how ZZARZY223 himself translates hundreds of years old texts because it goes against WP:NOR. In this topic there's not much to argue about. Gyalu22 (talk) 10:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

First of all, he claims that those areas were inhabited by Roman colonists in the time of Traian because when (1574) he wrote the text those lands were inhabited by people who he thought descend from the said Roman colonists, hence he also included Moldova which was never part of the Roman Empire, neither was most of Wallacchia. It's true that the translation I've given at the beginning was incorrect, as the traslation is as you said "The residents of this (Wallachia) country", however in this whole part Lescalopier is obviusly speaking about Romanians which inhabited those regions mentioning also Moldova and most of Transylvania, implying that in 1574, when he wrote the text, most of the regions' inhabitants were Romanians. Nevertheless the source does not specify it, so I agree this should not be included in the article. Still, the Letopisețul Țării Moldovei reference shouldn't be removed, as it is a conteporary source of the Principality of Transylvania, written in 1642-47 by Grigore Ureche, and it does not go against Wikipedia:NOR rules, besides that there's also Vasile Lupu's refence in this same article. ZZARZY223 (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The text say most area of Transylvania (so not the full) was colonized by Romans at the time of Trajan, he do not write at all "the most of the population of Transylvania would be Roman in 1574" what is your false suggestion, reading the full text he does not imply anything what is your personal view. Btw territory of Moldavia was not really part of the Roman empire by the time of Trajan or later, so this statement is inaccurate. Anyway the topic is Principality of Transylvania (1570-1711) and not the Roman Dacia province 1500 years earlier. He talked about Wallachia because he visited Wallachia in that chapter. He clearly states name of Walacchia came from Flacchia, and the resident of this country see themself descendant of Romans. After Wallachia, in the next chapter he arrived to Transylvania and he write many other details there. Please read the full book to understand the full content.

Ureche's translation also incorrect.

https://ro.wikisource.org/wiki/Letopisețul_țărâi_Moldovei,_de_când_s-au_descălecat_țara

"Pentru Țara Ungurească de jos și Ardealul de sus vom să arătăm, fiindu-ne vecini de aproape și cum au avut și ei crăie mare ca și léșii

Aicea nu vom lăsa și de Ardeal sau Țara Ungurească, cumu-i zicu unii, ca să nu atingem și să nu pomenim de începutul lor și de obicéiul lor, fiindu-ne vecini de aproape și de multe ori năzuia domnii țării Moldovei, de să acioa și să ajutoriia de la dânșii.

Ardealul sau Țara de jos Ungurească să chiamă Țara peste Munte, carea coprinde o parte de Dațiia și piste munte. Direptu acéia-i zicu Țara peste Munte, căci este încunjurată de toate părțile cu munți și cu păduri, cum ar fi îngrădită. Zicu-i și țara de 7 orașă, din limba nemțască, iară lăcuitorii țării își zicu ardéleni, carii să hotărăscu cu ungurimea dispre apus, sau cumu-i zicu unii Panonia. Iară dispre miiazănoapte să hotărăscu cu Țara Leșască, dispre amiazăzi cu Țara Muntenească, dispre răsăritu cu Moldova. Țara Ardealului nu este numai o țară însăși, ci Ardealul să chiamă mijlocul țării, care multe coprinde în toate părțile, în carea stă și scaunul crăiei. Iară pre la marginea ei suntu alte țări mai mici, carile toate de dinsa să țin și suptu ascultarea ei suntu : întăi cumu-i Maramoroșul, dispre Țara Leșască și Țara Săcuiască dispre Moldova și Țara Oltului dispre Țara Muntenească și Țara Bârsei, Țara Hațagului, Țara Aoașului și suntu și altle horde multe, carile toate ascultă de Crăiia Ungurească și să ținu de Ardeal.

În țara Ardealului nu lăcuiescu numai unguri, ce și sasi peste samă de mulți și români peste tot locul, de mai multu-i țara lățită de români decâtu de unguri. Iară în Țara Ungurească de jos, unde să chiiamă Unguriia cea Mare (sau cumu-i zicu unii pre limba nemțască Panoniia), acolo numai unguri trăiescu, iară de să află și români pre alocurea, încă lége ungurească țin."

You wrote: "asserts that Romanians are more numerous than Hungarians in Transylvania."

Ureche wrote: "the country is more spread out by Romanians than by Hungarians"

"spread out" does not mean "numerous", the Romanians lived mostly in the countryside while many Hungarians concentrated in cities. So I think we should use a proper translation and use modern academic source refering to this. You can see Ureche was the man of Vasile Lupu, and Vasile Lupu wrote different what is in your assumption. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"hence he also included Moldova which was never part of the Roman Empire, neither was most of Wallacchia" Let's see.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Roman_Empire_full_map.jpg

https://as1.ftcdn.net/v2/jpg/00/17/03/80/1000_F_17038026_Ry2WS27NYBaOKg5ShgnvdCtJyGo0qkz8.jpg

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/map-of-ancient-roman-empire-picture-id175231534

https://media.istockphoto.com/illustrations/roman-empire-illustration-id172857210

https://rlv.zcache.com/vintage_map_of_the_roman_empire_1889_poster-r3afd8f925c8547d88253b410b89ab800_0init_8byvr_736.webp

https://pictures.abebooks.com/inventory/30769416174.jpg

https://preview.redd.it/twsyybrkj3821.jpg?auto=webp&s=2c4c3fe1e52622471d1823d84d55246910c3b5ca

https://media.davidrumsey.com/MediaManager/srvr?mediafile=/Size4/D0112/1753005.jpg

Why do you expect your ancestors to perfectly know the Roman frontier which we still don't? Imagine them reading an old text saying that the Romans conquered Dacia.

And your references also go against WP:NOR, see WP:PRIMARY specifically. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

You listed quite old outdated maps with different Dacia borders. The Great Hungarian Plain was not part of the Roman Empire. OrionNimrod (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Please read the context. Gyalu22 (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

About Pierre Lescalopier, I literally wrote that Moldova and most of Wallachia were not part of the Roman Empire, and it's obvious that were outside the borders of Roman Dacia, but the author included them because he claimed that the Romanians (called by him "Wallachians", and he uses this name also for Romanians in Transylvania - Le dernier jour nous disnasmes a Flada village habité d'Hongres & d'Allemans et de Walacques, c'est a dire qui retienn<en>t le parler d'allemand et de walacque) saw themselves as descendants from the Romans who were settled by Traian, so he wrote "This country [Wallachia] and Moldavia and most of Transyvania was populated by Roman colonies in the time of Traian the Emperor.", Romanians which in 1574 inhabited Wallachia, Moldova and most of Transylvania.

Also, the translation of Grigore's Ureche text is:

• "There we will not leave Transylvania or Hungary, as some call them, so as not to touch and not mention their beginnings and their customs, being our close neighbors and often the lords of the country of Moldavia, to that and help from them. "Transylvania or Lower Hungary should be called Country over the Mountain, which includes part of Dația (Dacia) and mountain tracks. Directly that is called the Country over the Mountain since it is surrounded on all sides by mountains and forests, as if fenced. It is also called the country of 7 cities, from the German language (Siebenbürgen), and the country's builders called themselves Ardéleni, who border with the Hungarians on the west, or as some called it Pannonia. Towards the north they border with Țara Leșasca (Poland), towards the south with Țara Munnească (Wallachia/Muntenia), towards the east with Moldavia. The country of Transylvania is not only a country itself, but Transylvania can be called the middle of the country, which encompasses a lot in all parts, in which the seat of the county is also located. And on the edge of it are other smaller countries, all of which are subject to her obedience: firstly, Maramoros (Maramureș), on the other side of Lesasca Country and Săcuiasca Country (Szekelyland), on Moldavia and Olt County on Munneasca Country and Barsei Country (Burzenland), Hațagului Country (Hatzeg), The country of Aoaș (Oaș Country) and there are also many other hordes, all of which obey the Kingdom of Hungary and hold Transylvania. In the land of Transylvania, not only Hungarians live, but also many Saxons and Romanians all over the place, but the country is more "lățită" (spread out) by Romanians than by Hungarians. Again in Lower Hungary, where it is called Great Hungary (or how they call it in German, Pannonia), only Hungarians live there, and if also Romanians in the area, they still follow the Hungarian law"

The literal meaning is "the country (Transylvania) is more spread out by Romanians than by Hungarian" (de mai multu-i țara lățită de români decâtu de unguri), the subject of the phrase is Transylvania not Romanians, "de mai multu-i țara lățită" - the country is more spread out. It's not the Romanians that are more "spread out", but the country (Transylvania) is by them.

This clearly has the meaning that Romanians "enlarge" more Transylvania than Hungarians do, and it's not simply that they live in a larger sparse rural area than Hungarians.

Also the author also makes a distincion between "Lower Hungary" (Transylvania) and the "Greater Hungary" (the Pannonian plains), where he clearly claims that meanwhile in "Lower Hungary" the ethnic composition is different, in "Greater Hungary" only Hungarians live there. ZZARZY223 (talk) 20:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

1. No, back then all of Moldavia, Transylvania and Wallachia were thought to be part of Dacia. Don't ignore the maps I've sent.
2. WP:PRIMARY

Gyalu22 (talk) 20:31, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

"back then all of Moldavia, Transylvania and Wallachia were thought to be part of Dacia. Don't ignore the maps I've sent."- the reason why Moldova and Wallachia were thought to be part of Roman Dacia during that time was because those regions were inhabited by Romanians, hence being a Romance speaking people scholars thought the Romans controlled those areas, but modern historians all agree that Moldova was never part of the Roman Empire, and of Wallachia only Oltenia and a small part of Muntenia were in Roman Dacia.

The author writes that "[Wallachia] and Moldavia and most of Transyvania were populated by Roman colonies in the time of Traian the Emperor." Why he wrote most of Transylvania and not just Transylvania, just like he did with Wallachia and Moldova? Also he writes this sentence when he is describing Wallachia. ZZARZY223 (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I wrote the same:

"the country (Transylvania) is more spread out by Romanians than by Hungarian"

Which means the Romanians (by Romanians) spread out more in that country than Hungarians. It is well know the Romanians lived mostly in the countryside and less Romanians lived in cities than Hungarians or Saxons. But also it was Hungarian peasants and village population. Still I think we should add the correct translation not the personal view. For example Vasile Lupu clearly write the population data "Romanians are already one-third of the population", the "spread out" is not an exact word.

"where he clearly claims that meanwhile in "Lower Hungary" the ethnic composition is different, in "Greater Hungary" only Hungarians live there." Yes, Transylvania was multiethnic, it is well known. OrionNimrod (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

ZZARZY223, your reference for Letopisețul Țării Moldovei clearly goes against WP:NOR, see WP:PRIMARY specifically. Please don't try to put them back. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, it's a perfectly valid source. Please do not try to bend Wiki rules to your liking. Aristeus01 (talk) 14:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Translating hundreds of years old documents? Gyalu22 (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Those documents have been translated already many times, and even if they were not I do not see the problem. Wiki is opened to all editors. Stop deleting everything that goes against your particular approach to the subject and discuss your issues with the editors. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You do not see the problem with going against WP:PRIMARY? Please continue on the Grigore Ureche section. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Grigore Ureche

Aristeus01, can you tell me what is abusive in deleting a rule-breaking source?

• Primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

• Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.

• Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

Gyalu22 (talk) 11:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Gyalu22, the primary source is uninvolved in the situation we are speaking of, offering an outsiders view. It is also a chronicler, therefore a historian. There is a secondary source interpreting his view in the next paragraph. If you are referring to translation as sort of interpretation, there is no doubt on the meaning of the words, we do not need an authorized translator to verify it. The only problem I see here is repetition. Aristeus01 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

1. At least a publisher is needed for verifiability, not just the name of the chronicle, that's not an appropriate reference.
2. In my opinion a text from the 17th century has to be translated. I'm also aware that there is a secondary source a paragraph away, but that is not a citation for the sentence we are talking about. So I think we can safely say that all three sentences I referred from the rule were ignored by ZZARZY223.
3. I'm not even sure that Louis Roman indeed analyzes the text in his paper, or just states what it is saying without any further comment. (Like does he write down the translated text?) If he does put down an analysis, then my only problem is the same as yours: the upper exists without an appropriate citation when the same content with an appropriate citation is already said below.

Gyalu22 (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

History of Transylvania modern academic source

Hi Aristeus01,

I am referring to your edit:

"mek.oszk.hu is a Hungarian POV site not reviewed by international community and not a neutral source"

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Transylvania_(1570–1711)&diff=1119991495&oldid=1119800875

The website: Hungarian Electronic Library (main site: oszk.hu)

https://mek.oszk.hu/indexeng.phtml

Hungarian wiki about the website:

https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyar_Elektronikus_Könyvtár

Owner: National Széchényi Library (biggest Hungarian library) https://www.oszk.hu/en

Wiki page about the library: National Széchényi Library

This wesbtie cannot be "Hungarian POV", because it is a library where it was uploaded various many ten thousand of books. That is why many Hungarian related topic use links from this website because many books were uploaded there.

The linked book is this: HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Volume 1-3, from the beginning until 1919 (when Transylvania belonged under the Hungarian crown), it is a really big book, edited by many Hungarian scholars and historians, published by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 2001, the English version (what is in the link) was published Hungarian research institue of Canada, University of Toronto, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York. This book made by academic historians.

http://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/index.htmlThe first volume is 899 pages:

https://books.google.hu/books/about/History_of_Transylvania.html?id=YJtqjgEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

The third volume is 871 pages: (You can see it is a vast amount of academic work)

https://link.library.eui.eu/portal/History-of-Transylvania-Vol.-3-From-1830-to/lBNoVQDxt2U/

Wiki page about the publisher: Hungarian Academy of Sciences

https://mta.hu/english

Cambridge review from a previous version:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/austrian-history-yearbook/article/abs/bela-kopeczi-ed-erdely-tortenete-history-of-transylvania-vol-i-a-kezdetektol-1606ig-from-the-beginnings-to-1606-ed-laszlo-makka-and-andras-mocsy-vol-ii-1606tol-1830ig-from-1606-to-1830-ed-laszlo-makkai-and-zoltan-szasz-vol-iii-1830tol-napjainkig-from-1830-to-the-present-ed-szasz-zoltan-budapest-akademai-kiado-1986-pp-1945/F590DB27BADD3DD9FAA3C5B8CBE9CF51

When I use this book, I usually provide the links to the appropriate chapter, you can read the full content. In the content which was removed by you, it was presented a contemporary Austrian estimate from 1712 (which cannot be also a Hungarian POV), those datas was collected and presented by modern academic historians in todays, in 2000s.

Compare with this, you restored this content, which is was published in 1850, which cannot be a reliable historical academic source, morover, the author do not write population data from his age, from 1850, but the presented content is about 500 years earlier. It cannot be a reliable academic modern historian work refering an author from 1850, what he think about the population in 1310. By the way what is the basement of his statement? What is the base that is was more German than Hungarian and Szekelys in Transylvania? (Even the calculation is wrong 400 000 +150 000 + 300 000 is not 1 000 000)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Transylvania&oldid=prev&diff=1119993498

OrionNimrod (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I think that part has already been restored. Yes, that is my opinion of the site but until more editors agree I will not press the topic. All I am saying is that citing the book instead of the site is the correct way of referencing. This eliminates the possibility of synthesis done on the text by a different author than the author of the book. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"All I am saying is that citing the book instead of the site is the correct way of referencing." Yes, I linked the chapter url, what was in the removed content. "This eliminates the possibility of synthesis done on the text by a different author than the author of the book" Yes, agree, that is why I removed the Pierre Lescalopier content, because the editor used different content what Pierre actually wrote. "that is my opinion of the site" Do you think that ten thousand of uploaded books with various contents (of course not all of them relating history) in an electronic Hungarian library means, that all of them is "Hungarian POV", and should remove from Wikipedia? Please tell me then which sources should we use for the Hungarian related contents? Perhaps Chinese, Mexican sources? Or only English, German, Romanian, Slovak sources can be ok for Hungarian related contents? Or only Hungarian, Bulgarian sources good for Romanian related contents? I think the local people always know better the local history and things because they have much more sources and local knowledge, then people from far countries, except if somebody a specialist. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know against what you are arguing here. Are you upset because I see mek.oszk.hu as unreliable? Remember when you argued against the definition of Romanian language as "nationalistic"? It's the same situation. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

"Remember when you argued against the definition of Romanian language as "nationalistic". I argued about only one sentence in one source which stated "that in today west Hungary and Transylvania the Romanian language was uninterruptedly spoken 2000 years long until today" which is total unproven and even regarding west Hungary is total false.

I asked just simple questions. I see you put this on that user page "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view", and now you say that a complete Hungarian library where there is many ten thousands books uploaded is "unreliable" for you. Can I ask you why? Basically you state that for you all Hungarian authors are "unreliable". How can be a full library "unreliable"?For example, should we use in Wikipedia only Romanian authors for all Hungarian related topic, because those would be not "unreliable"? OrionNimrod (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Demographics section is disproportionately large

Having the demographics section outweigh all the rest of the article isn’t right, surely? Boscaswell talk 20:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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)