User:02barryc/medtable

Transylvania Dispute - Please place your arguements in the appropriate box - Edit entire table

Dahn	Critzu
POV: "Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600" | NPOV: "Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600"
not at all a union, not even a personal union per se (given that Mihai did not rule all the lands himself) did not bring any change into the legal system in Transylvania if mentioned at all by contemporary sources, it is only as a brief and largely ineffectual episode (no interprataion of the texts will ever justify assertions such as "union", "political awareness", "freedom of Romanians", "political ideal") its status symbol relies on sophistry and POV natonalism of the kind that is not shared by many (and most modern-day) Romanian analyses mention in the lead would imply Romanian jingoism, as there are many, longer and much more relevant events in Transylvania's history that would also need mention through way of consequence (getting all of them in there would clog up the text and add redundancy to both a section and an article on the region's history) it is adequately presented, with adequate commentary, on relevant pages, and certainly does not belong in the lead Comment on the links provided by Criztu: they are all vague comments of facts, and mention is made of documents that don't seem to be quotable (the largest text still says "a document" without specifying how and under which formula); the British texts appear to be directly and undiscriminately quoting Romanian nationalist POV. Gentlemen, I have given you the sources, not the perspectives on sources. I am not asking for removal of text: I am asking for uncertain-at-best things not to be casually dropped into a brief leading section as if they were the unquestionable truth. Future work should further evidence these problems in detail, but, as it is, the articles are either schematic or messy; pushovers such as the one Criztu is attempting here will only make this harder to accomplish. Dahn 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Edit Section	Michael the Brave united Transylvania Moldavia and Wallachia under his authority in 1600. 28 October 1599, Michael defeats the armies of Prince Andrew Bathory, and on 1 November 1599 Michael receives the keys of Alba Iulia. 11 February 1600, treaty between Michael the Brave and Emperor Rudolph II recognizing Michael the Brave as prince of Transylvania. November 1599, the Ottoman Empire recognizes Michael as prince of Transylvania. 27 May 1600, Michael entitles himself Ruler of Transylvania Moldavia and Wallachia. Columbia encyclopedia Britannica encyclopedia Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Romanian national institute for R&D in informatics Dolj County site Edit Section
POV: "Romanians proclaimed union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania in 1918" | NPOV: "Romanians proclaimed union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania in 1918"
the assertion itself is not untrue; what is untrue is the fact that it brought about Romania's rule over Transylvania; what did bring about Romania's rule over Transylvania was the Treaty of Trianon, as the text currently makes clear its relevance was rejected by the Romanian government of the times, and it only surfaced as a "meaningful gesture" in context after the actual decision from above became unfashionable (namely, in Communist Romania) Criztu fails to note that "Romanians taking control of the administration" is not at all equal to "Romania taking control of the administration"; the matter of sovereignty did not at all reside there, and all knots were tied after Trianon, not before it is adequately presented, with adequate commentary, on relevant pages, and certainly does not belong in the lead Edit Section	1 December 1918, Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed Union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania. At the end of War World I, romanians from Transylvania took control of the administrative apparatus in Transylvania, and the Romanian National Party deputies representing the romanians in Transylvania gathered at Alba Iulia where proclaimed Union with Romania. Britannica encyclopedia Columbia encyclopedia Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Romanian National Institute for R&D in informatics Romanian Ministry of Defence Edit Section
POV: "Another traditional division of Transylvania is the Hungarian administrative system"
the very idea that the mention would be flattering the Hungarian community is illogical (since mention is not made of the Hungarian community, but of an administrative system which was created under the Kings of Hungary) the system was endorsed by the local ruling class for centuries on end, and was adopted by rules other than Hungarian (including Transylvania's existance as an independent polity - which should be relevant in itself) the destination page, as is, is for the Kingdom of Hungary; whoever reads into this irredentism or some other chimera uses sophistry the mention is included alongside other traditional divisions, and is perfectly useful as information for people who want to see the way Transylvania was administrated in the past) Edit Section	Transylvania Lead Section explains that Transylvania at its maximum extent encompassed other historical regions too; and that the notion of a region of Transylvania also encompasses other historical regions that are not part of Transylvania proper. The formulation Another traditional division is the Hungarian administrative system i consider to be a weasel term (Historical Regions associated with Transylvania are not Traditional divisions of Transylvania, I have never heard of such thing as Traditional divisions of a historical region). Transylvania was adminstratively divided according to Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary during the time it was under administration of Hungary, and that is a matter of the Hungarian State, and belongs to the History of Transylvania as a province or part of the Kingdom of Hungary. While Historical Regions that are associated with Transylvania proper might be a recognizable thing of the present, the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary are not a recognizable thing of the present, and have the same relevance for the lead section of Transylvania as the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Romania have, none. Administrative divisions of Kgdom of Hungary are not a Tradition of the Transyvlania Historical Region of Romania. They are at most a Tradition of the Hungarian State. Edit Section
POV: "Another traditional division of Transylvania is the Hungarian administrative system"
1. The name is not exactly Transylvania, is it? 2. The name is in Latin because the goddamn chronicle is written in Latin, as the court language in the Hungarian Kingdom. 3. The chronicle is written in 1200, more than 200 years after the region was conquered by Magyars, and reference in retrospect a time when a "Transylvania", if that is indeed what the text means, would have had plenty of time to emerge. 4. If this initiative by Criztu is aimed at getting this info in the lead, I fail to see how the hell he can portray it as relevant enough, especially when mention is made of the name in the sections just a couple of lines further down. Dahn 09:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Edit Section	I also intend on stating it clear that the first mention of a Transylvania (Ultrasilvania) was in Gesta Hungarorum, where Gelou was defeated and his state subdued by the magyars during the 9th century Edit Section