User talk:Criztu/Archive 1

Archives
July 2006 – July 2006

Please, please, please...

... when you are making substantive edits to articles, especially deletions, make clear comments on your edits and consider discussing them on the talk page. Especially if you are going to make wholesale changed to long-established articles, and especially if your dispute is with its point of view, this should not happen silently. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:48, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Romanian Revolution again

Could I ask you to look in on User:Ratza's recent changes to Romanian Revolution of 1989? Frankly, it looks to me mostly like conspiracy-theory stuff, but he seems to have at least some documentation (the quality of which I cannot easily judge). I've marked the article as disputed, and for now, I'm not cleaning up his English, because I'd rather have it stick out like a sore thumb, but some attention to it would be welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:30, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC) Tons of the same material at Nicolae Ceausescu, too. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:35, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel, actualy I removed a couple of lines from your contribution to "Communist Romania" article myself ... I invited everybody a week ago to discuss it, since nobody answered i moved those lines to discussion page.... and yes, most of the Revolution is disputed, it is that kind of truth that can't be made public until 25 years have passed. they will soon be 15, 10 more to go. But data on december 1989 chapter is accumulating, and the declarations of the members of CPEX(COmitetul Politic Executiv) in their Trial all point to Ceausescu offered his Resignation on 17 december 1989 following the same Pattern as the rest of the East Communist Countries, but couple of his henchmen asked him to remain chief of state, wich he did. the two members of CPEX that forced his hand into resignation(following the Pattern) were Stanculescu and Vlad, Stanculescu played on both sides, organising Ceausescu's "escape" from the CC building on 22 december 1989 after he(Ceausescu) remained Chief of State, but finally bringing him down at Targoviste. just immagine, most of the members of CPEX were trialed, while Stanculescu was promoted to Head of the Army, after 1990... yes, in Romania he is regarded as the hand of the master mind behind 1989 chapter

and no, Securitate didn't fight for Ceausescu in December 1989, Securitate layed down weapons at the orders of Iulian Vlad on 22 december. at least this is the conclusions of the Trials that took place after 1989. also an Electronic War appears to have been going on over Romania in december 1989, also the number of russian "tourists" in Romania increased with 40 000 above average, altho' in 1989 there was the XVth Romanian Communist Party Congress

most of the info in wikipedia regarding december 1989 chapter is outdated, and seems taken from Voice of America and Europa Libera in 1989; in Romania there is a general consensus that december 1989 chapter is disputable, not "a revolution", not "a coup d'etat" ... 10 years from now we'll have the answer, perhaps

about Ratza additions on Ceausescu - he provides references to his sources. I am acquainted with those informations with the only reserve that all that "curageous communist activity of Dej and Ceausescu" might have been fabricated by the PCR. officialy it happened just like Ratza quoted from his sources. -- Criztu 22:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm a little confused: Ratza's edits were mostly this same Col. Burlan material that you now seem to be agreeing is just one account or many. Do you credit this material or not? I'm not claiming to be expert, but it all looks to me like one highly questionable and possibly self-serving account. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

I think I was talking about Ratza's additions to Nicolae_Ceausescu article(additions reflecting the official information on Ceausescu), while you reffered to Romanian Revolution article (additions that are not so correct ... certainly Stanculescu was not the head of Securitate) ... while there is a group of former officers that claim they plotted against Ceausescu, and the press(media) dealt with this claim, just like the theory of Hungarian interests in Transylvania in relation with december 1989 Tokes Laszlo "protest" was investigated by the media. As i said, the events in december 1989 and the fall of Ceausescu might have a "top secret" status due to implications ... so nothing is 100% certain as to who did what to overthrow Ceausescu . here an article with a couple of declarations of Stanculescu(Minister of Defence in 1989 after the death of Milea) about the december 1989 events: http://www.evenimentulzilei.ro/investigatii/?news_id=170131 Criztu 22:27, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Sibiu

I replied on my talk page -- Ferkelparade π 14:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

fill out a survey? +sj +

"Wikification"

Dear Criztu, I suggest that you start with Russian history - say, rename Ivan Grozny John the Fearful, see the reactions and then come to edit Bulgarian history. VMORO

Please understand i don't intend on vandalising the Bulgaria Article. the name of John Asen was Ionitsa, and not Ivan. please, if you want the name of John Asen to be recorded as Ivan Asen, bring evidence it was Ivan and not Ionitsa, or Ioan, or anything else. The posibility that John Asen to have been a vlach himself is reason for me to wikify his name. i'd like his original name to be recorded on Wikipedia, be it Ivan, Ioan, Ionitsa or else. I've opened a thread on the discussion page of History of Bulgaria Article, where i ask for the name of John Asen. Please comment on the discussion page. Criztu 17:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you have both the transliterated Bulgarian names (with original Cyrillic, if appropriate) and their Anglicised versions afterwards? That way, everyone would be happy. Similar compromises have been found for articles where the English version of a name is not the same as the original. -- Karada 17:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

i've opened a thread on Talk page of History_of_Bulgaria article on 9 december 2004, expressing my intenton on wikifying the name of John Asen. since nobody answered until today, 16 december 2004, and there was the precedent of Michael (in bulgarian it is Mihail), i took it as an acceptance. then VMORO reverted my wikification edit, without discussing the issue, and since i was in the process of operating further wikification, i reverted his revert edit. i think WIkipedia has this rule of prefering the english form of christian/international names like George/Michael/John/Nicholas/etc. Criztu 18:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revolution, yet again

Could you take a look at Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989#Competing narratives? I'm trying to see if we can move toward a consensus version. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC) Could I prevail on you to look in on this (and the following sections on the talk page) again? I've done a good bit of work, but there are still a lot of problems. I'd really like to get this article sorted out. It's clearly going to be arduous. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:34, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

Moldova/Edit war

It's not just Moldova. It's 200 countries. Yes, a few of us are already on top of it. There's discussion of this on the Administrators' Noticeboard (or maybe, by the time you read this, its archives) and we seem to be reaching a solution at Wikipedia:Country infobox vote. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:03, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Moş

About the Moş question: it is certain that the Romanian word Moş has the same etymology as the Albanian words in question (the root is unidentified by scholars, though I think the root is *mer-, 'to waste away'). Those Latin words that I cited (morus, mos, etc.) when I discussed Moş on the Dacian words talk page are perhaps related to the Romanian and Albanian words, and there are some words in ancient Greek that I also connect (moschias, etc.). Decius 09:46, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

thanks Decius, i wasn't "challanging" you, i just wanted to know more from you, i am an enthusiastic in this romanian history thing, don't have a degree in either linguistics or history. I was curious about the origin of the romanian word "mos" beyond the "cf. albanian 'moshe'"(which i agree with), and you say you trace it to Indo-European, which info i find useful. I could only enumerate the word family of mo$

mo$ie - land inherited

moa$a - older(experienced) women assisting at birth

mo$tenire - heritage

mo$gai - slow acting

i'd relate Moesia and the Mesheks(i'm not sure what people were these mesheks in Ukraine, perhaps khazars - i'm thinking at "mojic" - peasant) to this "mo$" word,

about the "x" in 'Zalmoxis', i've noticed the latin Brixium which is now Brescia (read Breshia) or the river 'Argessos' in the lands of the getae, now Arge$ (read 'Argesh') in Romania (i would look also at 'Araxes' river in the lands of the Massagetae), or the word sax - in romanian sa$... what if Zalmoxis was in fact made-up of two words "Zal"+"Mox"(since it was a religious word, I'd expect something like "Bel"+"Marduk" or "Jupiter(Deus+Pater?)") and Herodotus have recorded this "sh" sound using the best available leter which was the "x" letter ? -- Criztu 10:51, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I was gone for awhile (took a nap), but I'm back. Okay, 'Zal' in no way can be the Getic form of 'Zeul'. The Daco-Getic word was more like Deu(s) or Zeu(s). 'Zal' would be a freakish mutation from the original IE root, Deiw-. I seriously doubt that 'Moxis' would contain the word 'mosh', because the Getic word was most likely either 'Mos' or 'Mosh', so the Greek writers should not have used a 'Xi' for the 'S' or 'Sh' sound. Decius 01:18, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Moş is not connected to "mojic". "Mojic" is from Slavic muzhik (peasant), which is from Slavic 'muzh' ('man'), which is not connected to moş. 'Muzh' is said to be from PIE *mon, that meant 'man' (and I'm sure 'moş' is not from that root). Moş is not connected to the Mesheks either. Decius 01:19, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

actualy, i find it quite fascinating, this bulgarian "muzhe/maje" and the spanish "macho", and again, bulgarian momiche(girl) and momche(boy), and spanish muchacho and muchacha, but i'm not a linguist, unfortunately, cuz i can tell i have this talent with languages :) -- Criztu 23:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Alba Iulia/Gyula

Hey, check out the recent discussion at Gyula Talk. I know you want to get to the truth about the etymology of 'gyula', and so do I. I think we Romanians should work together every now & then, even though we have different ideas. Decius 08:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

there's the "watch" button, so every page i contribute to, it automatically lists in "my watchlist" any consequent changes that other contribs make. -- Criztu 09:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is a good chance that "Scott Moore" is in fact a Hungarian. I've looked at his list of contributions: he's either Hungarian or he has a rare and bizarre case of Magyarophilia. He's living in Hungary, and he's religiously devoted to contributing to any and every Hungarian-related article, and very rarely to non-Hungarian related articles: sounds more like a case of a Hungarian who adopted an English pseudonym so when he edits Hungarian related articles he can appear "neutral". Either way, everything must be verified. Decius 10:05, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leaving aside the question of Mr. "Moore", there are often tell-tale signs left behind in the form of certain turns of phrases, agrammatical phrases, and typos that can reveal the first language (and thus even the ethnicity) of a person: for example, Romanian contributors often incorrectly spell English 'territory' (two r's) as 'teritory' (one 'r') because in Romanian we spell it 'teritoriu'. Now, let's say an anonymous User vandalizes a Hungarian article and leaves a phrase such as "All Hungary is truly to be considered Dacian teritory"---then you can safely assume the author was Romanian. I haven't wasted my time looking for such signs in the case of "Moore". But it's interesting to take note sometimes of these things. Decius 10:56, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe what Scott Moore says on his user page, that he is an englishman living in HU, and if you follow the debate on "Transylvania as part of Romania" you'll see that he looks charmed by the hospitality of the Hungarians (who really know how to be charming hosts, btw :) ) and wants to return them the service by listening to their POV and formulating the ideas accordingly, but he also seems an objective person in the end, as you can see from the aftermath of the "Transylvania as part of Romania" paragraph -- Criztu 11:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If he's objective, then it doesn't matter his nationality. Decius 03:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ceauşescu

I'm hoping you might help in sorting out the remaining dispute at Nicolae Ceauşescu. I've sorted out what I think should be relatively uncontroversial, and I've made comments on the remainder.

Far and away the most serious issues are in the Revolution or/and Coup section of the article, which presents Burlan's claims as if they were uncontroversial fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Kingdom of Vlachs and Bulgars

As you know, Bulgarians such as Vmoro and Ogneslav keep trying to "redirect" the Kingdom of Bulgarians and Vlachs article. That is no different from vandalism, because we have historical references and historical NPOV on our side. This should be settled by an arbitrator. If they keep doing it, they should be cited for vandalism, and even banned from Wikipedia for a time. Alexander 007 11:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Zdravei, Hristo

Izchakai malko vreme, za da podredia neshtata. I uspokoi onzi Decius - rumuncite sa prekrasen narod, no ne sa suzdali te sveta. Imalo e i drugi narodi, koito i sami sa mogli da imat durjava, bez rumunska pomosht. Az ne se byrkam v statiite za rumunska istoria, nali. Pozdravi :) - Ogneslav 12:49, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wait a little, so i can sort things out. And calm Decius - romanians are a wonderful people, but the world is not their creation. There are other people too, which were able to have a state, without romanian help, I don't touch/mess the articles from romanian history, isn't it?" -- Criztu 13:40, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<The frequent occurence of 'narod' in this paragraph is what led me to falsely suspect that it was disrespectful. 'Narod' means 'fool' in Romanian, and the word is from Slavic, so I inferred something that wasn't there. Decius 13:56, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

there is this romanian word "norod" meaning "people" -- Criztu 14:12, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but when I saw 'narod', the word that came to mind given the situation (a lot of bad energy passing back and forth) was not 'norod', but 'narod'. Both Romanian words are from Slavic. Decius 14:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

as ne sam rumanetz, as sam massagetae :) -- Criztu 13:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Im not a Romanian, I'm a Messagetae". Hmm. Decius 13:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A ti otkude znaesh bulgarski? - Ogneslav 12:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ot balgarskata televizia znam, normalno :) -- Criztu 13:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"From Bulgarian television I learned it, of course". Hmm, I think I can learn bulgarian by lunchtime. :) Decius 13:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ama, balgarskata gramatica e dosta cato rumanskata, Ogneslave, misliam ce znaesh che Martenitza i Martsishorul sa excliusivno rumunski-balgarsku obichai, nali ? triabva edno "Martenitza-Martsishor" wikiArticle, kakvo kazvashi ? -- Criztu 13:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

He-he, sure... I never heard of Martsishor - tell me more about it. As one of my friends say: Bulgarians and Romanians are the two nations that are most similar to each other, only that they don't know it yet. And here is what I can say in Romanian:

Necazuri si suparari

toata lumea are

Ale mele sunt mai mari

Cu ce-am gresit oare?

Doamne, de ce nu vrei

Pacatele sa mi le iei?

Cu ce, Doamne, am gresit

Ca eu n-am facut nimic...

Cat a plans inimioara mea

Cat am suferit in lipsa ta

Mare, mare suparare

Cand nu esti sufletul imi moare.

Cate lacrimi am varsat

Cat am plans si am oftat

Dar nu vrei sa ma iubesti

Si din plans sa ma opresti

Pentru cat am suspinat

Cine se duce in iad ?

Pentru cat ma amageai

Cine se duce in Rai?

I know this from the Bulgarian television also :) And here's a small lexicon:

• Ro. ale = Bg. ale/ala
• Ro. cu = Bg. cude
• Ro. gresit = Bg. gresi
• Ro. lipsa = Bg. lipsa
• Ro. iubest = Bg. liubis
• Ro. (i)ad = Bg. ad
• Ro. rai = Bg. rai

And all this is just in a short song ;) - Ogneslav 16:11, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Ro. unde = Bg. kude
• Ro. mea, ta = Bg. moia, tvoia
• Ro. ele sunt = Bg. te sa
• Ro. sa mi = Bg. da mi
• Ro. plans < plange = Bg. placha
• Ro. moare = Bg. umira

- Criztu 16:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ogneslav, learn something about Latin and maybe you would have realized that many of those words are from Latin.

• Ro. 'Ale' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Unde' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Cu' is inherited From Latin.
• Ro. 'Mea' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Ta' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Ele' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Sunt' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Sa' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Plange' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Moare' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Mi' is inherited from Latin.
• Ro. 'Lipsa' is ultimately from Greek.
• Ro. 'Iad' is ultimately from Greek 'Aides' (Hades).

Decius 16:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're so cute in your efforts :)) Then how about rasplata, ispit, izbaveste, voia, in veci, sfinti, dragoste, voinic, veselie, gospodar... more?

Ok now, don't take this too serious - have fun Alexandre :) Pozdravi, - Ogneslav 16:51, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Martsishor(spelled Martisor) e tozi obichai (rumunski "obicei") - Red-White strings gadgets (identical to bulgarian Martenitza, but the bulgarian custom seems richer to me), at the begining of March (Bg. Mart, Ro. Martie) -- Criztu 16:41, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Rom. 'Martie' is actually inherited from Latin (contrary to DEX). Decius 16:47, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BTW, anyone has any idea where is the word Paparuda from ? It appears to be one of those common Romanian-Bulgarian words. Bogdan | Talk 16:55, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Peperuna is the name of a South Slavic goddess of rains and moist, wife of Perun. Bulgarian Slavs celebrated its festivals till 19th century and called it peperuda or peperuga. They named the insect (butterfly) after the goddess. - Ogneslav 17:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i don't know anything extra about Paparuda, i am also curious about the romanian Caloian custom -- Criztu 17:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't take this too serious, but I thank the Stars that my native language is Romanian, and not Bulgarian. Decius 17:08, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You were, it seems (maybe not actually) trying to diminish the Romanian language. I don't care how many Slavic words we do or don't have, the Romanian language is still the greatest Romance language on earth, because it has the true spirit of the old Latin language and even the soul and spirit of the Dacian language, and whatever you say against it is like the buzzing of a fly. Decius 17:48, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of the Slavic languages, I agree that Bulgarian is closest to Old Slavonic, and wow, I guess that is something. I still much prefer Romance to Slavic, aesthetically speaking, though of course I'm not saying Latin/Romance is "superior" , because it's a matter of taste. It doesn't bother me, really, that we have a nice amount of Slavic words, because they add their own flavor. Even though there is also a nice number of words that are generally thought to be "from Slavic" that are in fact native to Romanian, and trust me, there are plenty of linguists out there who agree.Decius 15:46, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am not even slightly agressive: I have subjected you neither to physical, nor to verbal abuse. Well, the first is not even possible:-)). So, pls, amend your terminology. And this is not a personal crusade, this is an established fact which easily can be proven. Anyway, for the time being, I have placed the content of the article on the discussion page.

As for Old Bulgarian: First, Old Bulgarian regards the period between the 9th and the 11th century. In the 14th, 15th century we are talking about Middle Bulgarian. The name Church Slavonic is likewise wrong as it is used for the Russian recension of Church Slavonic and this was not the recension used in Wallachia and Moldova. Any other questions? VMORO 21:35, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)~

Confirming Balkan

Hi Criztu. I'm going to go to a good university library in a few days, and I'll look for a comprehensive Turkish dictionary, and see what I find. The internet dictionaries (as you know) aren't good enough. Alexander 007 23:49, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PIE *bhers- and PIE *bhereg-

You know more Bulgarian than I do, so I was wondering if there is any such word (doesn't have to be exactly the same) as 'varlav', an adjective meaning 'quick', in Bulgarian? One of these days, I plan on learning to fully read Bulgarian, so I can know at least one Slavic language. Alexander 007 00:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

there is this върл ("vurl", read 'vārl') in the BG-RO dictionary meaning "1.rāu, crud 2.pishcātor 3. grābit 4. pasionat, fervent"

there is this върлувъм (vurluvam", read 'vārluvām') meaning "a-shi face de cap, a face ravagii, a bântui"

i only know about "burzo/burz"(read 'bārzo/bārz' meaning fast/quick (i'm thinking of Trajan's "inde Berzobim" and the Barzava/Bistritza rivers in RO... i don't know) -- Criztu 11:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That Bulgarian word burz/burzo (quick, fast) is from PIE *bhers- (quick, fast). Since PIE *bhers- is rather common in Indo-European languages, it may well be that the Daco-Thracians also had the word in some form, and there is a Thracian name Bruzas which is beleived by some to derive from *bhers-. Alexander 007 00:52, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

i found this "gaelic"(welsh) word brèagha meaning fine, splendid, beautiful http://www.mackinnon.me.uk/Faclair -- Criztu 20:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I don't know what root that Welsh word is from, but there is a Proto-Indo-European root *bhereg-, 'to shine, bright, white'. Alexander 007 00:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Olteanu has an update in his LTDM website where he derives the Dacian toponym Berzobim (Berzobis) from PIE *bhereg-, 'to shine, bright, white'. Our Romanian word barzǎ (stork) also derives from PIE *bhereg-, and Olteanu thinks (logically) that in Daco-Thracian *bhereg- came to mean 'white mixed with black'. The Romanian word breaz is also from PIE *bhereg-, but breaz was probably borrowed from south Slavic. If breaz was native, it would more likely have been *berz- or *barz-, as we see in barzǎ (native). Alexander 007 03:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Transylvania

I agree: we should lock the Transylvania page, so idiots like the recent 'anonymous' won't fill it up with bullshyyt. How do pages get locked? That sounds interesting. Alexander 007 22:37, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection -- Criztu 23:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tarraco

I don't know of any strong connecting link between Tarraco, Traci, and Targ (or Greek Targaino) other than the similar forms. Here is a short article about Tarraco: [1]. The city is now known as Tarragona. The name of the town may be from the Iberian language spoken before Romanization, and the similarity is probably (but not definitely) a coincidence. Alexander 007 05:23, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that might be of interest is the Tarragon plant: the name is from Arabic, related in some way to Greek 'drakon' (dragon, serpent). Any relation to the city is unknown. Since the plant name is connected with serpents/dragons, if someone connects 'tarragon' to 'tarraco' then someone is connecting 'tarraco' to 'dragons, serpents'. Alexander 007 05:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dacia Malvensis

I'm trying to gather more info on the borders of Dacia Malvensis, a southern province of Dacia. I was wondering what you know about Dacia Malvensis, which is said to have been named after a town called Malva. I also started this stub Malvesa, a Roman mining town near the border of Bosnia and Serbia, that had a similar name. I read somewhere that Dacia Malvensis was equivalent with Dacia Ripensis (mal>ripa) but that source didn't give evidence. Alexander 007 06:40, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons

Here is a site I find interesting (and sometimes useful), and which will help: it's called 'Magyar Comparisons', put together by a private researcher (don't know if he has credentials), some Hungarian guy. He is doing a cross-comparison of Hungarian words to words from all kinds of languages. I've only looked through some of it. Mostly he seems to be looking for cognates, though sometimes he proposes that certain words of obscure origin are "in fact" from Hungarian: well, what can you expect from a Hungarian researcher. Anyway, the site is interesting: [2]. Alexander 007 14:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is also 'férj' that means 'man' (and 'old man', etc.), and that has to be analyzed together with 'ferfi', I would assume. I don't plan on comparing too many Hungarian words to PIE roots until I verify the Hungarian etymologies---too many chances for error, and who wants to make errors. Of course, in private papers one can research all kinds of connections. Alexander 007 15:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Spargapeithes vs. Spargapises

I don't like connecting Getae and Daci to the Massagetae (who Herodotus tells us practiced institutionalized cannabalism: see Herodotus 1.216), but I found a 'datum' that in my opinion definitely connects Agathyrsi to Massagetae in some fashion: there was an Agathyrsi King named Spargapeithes (recorded in Herodotus), and there was a Massagetae leader named Spargapises (also recorded in Herodotus), son of Tomyris, Queen of the Massagetae. I'm looking at 5 possibilities (among others one might think of): 1) the Agathyrsi were Scythian; 2) or they were more Scythian than Thracian, and it is already known that the Scythians were probably Iranic, and the Massagetae were also probably Iranic: so that explains that similarity. 3) Or, one can say the Getae (and Daci) were Scytho-Iranic, and not Thracian: I don't like that idea, nor do I see real evidence for it. 4) Fourth possibility, the Agathyrsi were Thracians with a large Scythian element. 5) Fifth possibility, Agathyrsi, Scythians, and Massagetae were a separate branch, not Thracian or Iranic. Alexander 007 00:57, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

yes, I noticed this Spargapises vs. Spargapeithes too. I've also noted the name "getae" that Herodotus asssigned to a number of barbarians. Has anyone tried to find out the meaning of "getae" ? -- Criztu 12:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen any etymology for it. Any etymology would probably be a guess at this stage. Alexander 007 22:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read that there was a word segestos or egetos meaning 'royal' in ancient greek. i think it might explain some ancient people names in ancient greek documents Criztu 22:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

If the Daci and Getae were Iranic, then our substratum words are not Dacian, they are Thracian. But I'm not worried about the Daci being Iranic, because the names, toponyms, etc., don't look Iranic (if they were Iranic, linguists would have found out by now). Alexander 007 01:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

if i'm not mistaking, "getae" would be pronounced as "Ghetai"(in romanian)

1. i wonder if there's any connection to Katai/Kitai (the bulgarian word for China) this would've probably meant "people from direction of China" - arguments: the romanian word tarim (realm) confer turkish tarim is exactly the name of the Tarim Basin where the tocharian Taklamakan/Urumchi mummies have been found. read the Yuezhi wikiarticle... and look at the names of the various tribes Asi/Azi/Uzi/Iassi/Yazi, which i think meant "from Asia". -- Criztu 12:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Efendi" Criztu,la o adica e usor de presupus ca noi, romanii din ziua de astazi am avea legaturi cu Asia Centrala.Dar daca le avem (si le avem in limba, destule cuvinte), le avem din pricina migratorilor tarzii (uzi, pecenegi, cumani mai ales, tatari),in nici un caz din pricina ca dacii vor fii venit de pe-acolo.Te inteleg intr-un fel, cauti adevarul, nici pe mine sincer nu ma multumesc teoriile actuale despre formarea poporului roman, dar de aici pana la a face astfel de presupuneri, e o cale FOARTE LUNGA.Doar o parere.

Assumptions must be avoided: I'm not sure whether those tribal names mean 'from Asia'. I'll get back to you on this issue. Alexander 007 23:07, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

2. i am wondering if "Ge-tae" isn't a fusion of the words 'Aga' (leaders/royals) and 'Dahae/Daai', something like yaz-iG or aGa-thyrsi, or oG-uz. -- Criztu 12:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agathyrsi might contain Aga (leader), and I once read a website by a Turkish guy who was trying to prove that the Scyths spoke a Turkic language, and he cited that example. Now, I don't see any indication that Getae contains "aga" in any form. Alexander 007 23:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Getae should be separated like this: Get+ai, 'ai' indicating plural. I'm satisfied with saying that in no way whatsoever can '-tae' have any relation to Dac-. Alexander 007 01:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A lot of scholars and linguists view the Agathyrsi as mixed Thraco-Scythic or Scytho-Thracic (probably most hold this view), while many simply class them as Scythian. Sorin Olteanu in his Thraco-Daco-Moesian Index (A-Alm) classifies the Agathyrsi as a Scythian tribe, and he placed a cross symbol in front of the Ethnonym "Agathyrsi", which indicates that he doesn't consider it a Thraco-Daco-Moesian ethnonym. I now agree: the Agathyrsi were at least heavily mixed with Scythian if not Scythian (Herodotus indicates they had many Thracian customs; archaeologists connect them with a "Thraco-Scythian" culture). Alexander 007 03:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

what if the turkish (what's the origin of "Dag" ? from what ancient lang.?) word Dag (mountain) is connected to Dacia ? look at these parthian words Katpatuka(Cappadocia) and Kopet Dagi(Kopet Mountain), what if Dacia meant Montana/Mountainia or something ? -- Criztu 12:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't really researched those Turkic or Asiatic languages, so I don't know. I still feel that Dacia was more likely named after the Daci, so probably we should ask "what does Daci mean"?. Alexander 007 22:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you a question, so I can understand what framework you are dealing with. Do you believe that the Daci and Getae were Thracians?: 1)yes, 2)no, 3)undecided/still debating. I consider that the Daci and Getae were Thracians. Alexander 007 23:46, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i think there is a relation betwen MassaGetae and Getae, between Dahae and Dacians, between Thracia and Turkia. -- Criztu 09:28, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thracia and Turkia? Nope. Alexander 007 09:34, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there is this legend of the Turks: A child was all that left from a tribe massacred by their enemy, and this She-Wolf named Asena found him and nursed him until he grew up and had children with her, then they kidnaped the women of the neighbouring tribes and that's how the first Turks came into being... somewhere in Tarim Basin, where the yuezhi and daxia and tocharians roamed ... i don't know... :o| -- Criztu

Also consider this: the ancients considered the Getae as Thracians, and (Strabo) said the Daci were the western division of the more easterly (towards the Black Sea) Getae. There is no account or even myth that the Daci and Getae came from the east. Yet, in the case of Cimmerians (I can't remember the Cimmerian account, but I think I read it) and Scythians, and even Agathyrsi (in the form of a symbolic myth), there are indeed such accounts. The Daci & Getae were in the area long before the Scythians. The most likely scenario is that the Daci and Getae were Thracians, and were living in Romania since very early times (probably since the Indo-European invasion of Europe, if there was such an invasion). I really can't understand why you are looking towards the east, and towards the Asiatic hordes---let the Hungarians and Mongols look in that direction, is what I say. Also, the Massagetae had this custom: no one died of old age among them, because when someone passed a certain age, the family members gathered around, killed the person, boiled them, then ate their flesh. A mere rumor? maybe not. I can't imagine why anyone would even want to include Massagetae among their ancestors. Alexander 007 00:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As I suspected, Asia is from Greek, and they of course applied it to the Asiatic lands they knew of: at first, mostly to Anatolia, later extending east. The source and etymology of the Greek word is unknown: some connect it to Akkadian (Semitic) asu, 'to go out, to rise', referring perhaps to the east where the sun rises. From what I know, the term Asia was not even used in Asia till it was imported much later (it's still hardly used among Asiatic peoples themselves). Those tribal names, I'm pretty certain, do not mean "from Asia". Alexander 007 02:12, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In this situation, there are some things that bother me: It must still be proven/demonstrated that Getae is not related to the apparent "-getae" suffix that we find for example in Massagetae; it must be further shown that Daci and Getae are not related to those tribes with similar names that lived near the Caspian Sea. When I say "must", I mean just to clear up the matter once and for all. Most scholars do not seriously consider any connection, so the burden of establishing a case is on those who seriously consider a connection. Alexander 007 06:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Avars, Hebrews

Here is an interesting idea I found in these articles, that the Avars who once invaded Transylvania and set a temporary kingdom may have been a Hebraic people (Evrei): see Eurasian Avars and Caucasian Avars. The Caucasian Avars, when they refer to key Biblical and Koranic figures, use the adjective 'avarkov', which may be etymologically related to Hebrew. There are also supposedly ancient Hebrew inscriptions in the Transylvania area (?), perhaps from those Eurasian Avars. Alexander 007 03:32, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

interesting indeed, and i thing the IE root *Wlkwo stands at the origin of the name Avar.

i am looking at the following words:

• Hercynia - caes.gal.6.24 ; caes.gal.6.25 : Accordingly, the Volcae Tectosages, seized on those parts of Germany which are the most fruitful [and lie] around the Hercynian forest, (which, I perceive, was known by report to Eratosthenes and some other Greeks, and which they call Orcynia), and settled there. [...] The breadth of this Hercynian forest [...] extends in a right line along the river Danube to the territories of the Daci and the Anartes
• Hyrcania - Hyrcana (Old Persian Varkâna, 'land of 'wolves'; - there is this relation Parthians< Parni< Dahae and ofcourse Massagetae revolving around the area of Varkana.
• Varega - varangians
• Farkas (hungarian) - wolf
• Varcolac (romanian, RO DEX gives bg. origin Varkolak) (read V'rcolac) - werevolf .. is Varcolac a Vulk+Lycos construction ?
• Vulk (bulgarian) (read V'lk) - wolf
• Harc (hungarian) (read Hartz) - fight ... in romanian "Harţã"(read Hartza)

• Hercule - what if Hercule meant "warrior/wolf" or something like that ? i'm wondering

and ofcourse, in today Dagestan there is this Avar lang. still spoken, and further east of Dagestan there lies Tadjikistan, in the same area where the Dahae and Massagetae once roamed. i read about this country called Daxia (Bactria, today Balkh) by the chinese in the antiquity (i don't know in what circumstances did the chinese call the area Daxia, but i assume it was in relation to the migration of the Yuezhi to Bactria - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&rls=GGLD%2CGGLD%3A2005-12%2CGGLD%3Aen&q=chinese+Daxia

closing the circle, one of the ethnicity of Menumorout and his Bicharia could have been the Kabar/Kavar, but then look at Bukhara with its Tadjik population, the same area that the Massagetae inhabited... (i hope that Bughar/Bulgar/Voulgares/Balkhar, Balkan, Blachii, Valachia and Bucuresti/Bucharest have already crossed your mind reading the infos i enumerate here (in a non-scholarly fashion, unfortunately) -- Criztu 10:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The DEX says Romanian vârcolac is from Bulgarian vârkolak, but I notice that Slavic languages (including Bulgarian: see Bul. 'vâlk', 'wolf') have not rhotacized the 'l' (from PIE *wLkwo). Romanian rhotacizes more than Slavic. But I haven't studied this word enough to say the DEX is wrong yet. Alexander 007 11:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From your list, Hercules is not possible (it is indeed from anc. Greek 'hera-kles', no need to debate that). Varega/Varangian also doesn't look right. The Hungarian word (farkas) is indeed an interesting parallel (which I've noticed before), and also interesting is that we find the same form as a common Caucasian language root *bhark, meaning 'wolf'. I don't think avar is from *wlkwo based on what I've seen so far. Alexander 007 11:11, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

interestingly, the english word "bark" - a dog barks -- Criztu 08:53, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that also, and who knows... maybe there is something onomatopoeic behind all these forms. Alexander 007 09:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vulk-Lycos is not the case in vârcolac. Alexander 007 11:14, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not make a connection to Hung. harc, and I don't think there is one. Ro. Arţsagos is from Hung. harcag (=harc). Alexander 007 11:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think Daxia is a pure Chinese compound, Ta-Hia, and if so: we can be sure it has nothing to do with Dacia. Alexander 007 11:19, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think it has a connection with the Daha/Dahae -- Criztu 19:07, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hercynia in old Europe is not likely to be from PIE *wlkwo: though it might be from a Pre-IE parallel form. The Hyrcania example is misleading: 'Urkania (a more direct transliteration of Hyrcania from Greek: remember Greek had no letter for the 'h' sound) was a Greek rendering of Varkana: Greek by that time no longer had the letter or sound for 'v/w', so the 'v' in Persian 'varkana' got dropped: varkana>'yrkana ('urkana). Now, the problem is, if the same thing happened in the case of Greek orcynia (which in your scenario would be from Vorcunia, 'wolf forest'), why was the 'v/w' not represented (Ex: 'Vercynia')in Latin (Caesar's text)? The Latin hercynia shows that there was no 'v/w', and there is no known Indo-European language that can yield *herc from *wlkwo: and it is not likely that any Indo-European language could do that (it requires a weird w>h sound-change as well as a l>r, which is an unlikely combination). The only way to salvage the 'wolf' connection is to derive Hercynia from a parallel pre-IE form (see Caucasian & Hungarian forms). There is always the possibility that the forest name was not connected to 'wolf' also. Alexander 007 14:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Szekelyfold

Dear Criztu, unless proven otherwise, you should consider the edits of someone as made in good faith. It seems you have set up your mind for an edit war, which i'd have no pleasure to pursue. You keep deleting objective reference to Szekelyfold on the basis of your perception that there is no such historical region. I just wonder if you would delete reference to, say, Oltenia based on the same argument. (Or would you "lol" at the statement that Olteans are inhabitants of Oltenia?). Indeed, there is the same strong connection between Szekelyfold and a geographical region in the mind of every hungarian, as for Oltenia in Romanians.

You say, "cuz i look at the map of Austria-Hungary in 1918 and i see no "historical region Szekelyfold".. Do you think this is enough argument to suppose it didn't exist? In fact, there was an administrative region, Szekelyfold, too. It lasted until 1867 when new counties were drawn after a compromise with the hapsburgs. You may even find maps of it (and see that its shape has nothing to do with today Harghita, covasna, mures) on the Hungarian national library site [[3]] or on [[4]]. But I'm not historian, I'm sure there is even more reference to it than that. Akiss 06:01, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You can find a quite detailed description of the history of the Szeklerland in the German Wikipedia ([[5]]) --Tamas 10:00, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Akiss, Tamas, pls make an effort and put a timeline of the Szekelyfold in the Szekelys and Szekelyfold articles, that would be great. -- Criztu 10:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Aromanian & Megleno-Romanian

You might want to check on these pages every now & then and revert the greek propaganda: Aromanian language and Megleno-Romanian language. An unscrupulous user here is User:Theathenae and his/her nationalistic Greek agendas. Alexander 007 01:56, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Romania

I've just seen your edit to mine, so I thought I'd drop in and say I agree, to make things clear. Please review my recent edits to Transylvania and History of Romania as well, and feel free to comment on (or object to:)) them at my talk page.

KissL 16:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Name variants: what need not be removed

Hi, I saw you removed the Hungarian name at Timiş ([6]), and I'm afraid it was a mistake. In the English Wikipedia, it is usual to provide different name versions in parentheses when they exist, for example those with historical significance. See this excerpt from the Wikipedia style guide:

As a source of knowledge, it is helpful for any article to provide alternative names where these are likely to be recognized by some sizable subset of the English-speaking population. Following a widely used name by one or more alternative(s) in parentheses is an acceptable way of pointing out that there exists other opinions on what a person or place may be called. (Source: Wikipedia:Proper names)

Adam78 28 June 2005 10:34 (UTC)

river Timis and Timisoara city are one thing, Timis county is another. Usualy an alternate(say hungarian name for a romanian name) name of a city/town/river is relevant when the river has to do with hungarians or Hungary. the Timisoara city had to do with Hungary/Serbia/Turkey in the past, so we can read in the Timisoara article the hungarian/serbian/turkish versions. But translating the name for the Timis county in hungarian has no relevance, since Timis county is 100% romanian administrative matter... and official. you'll never see Temes county in an english document for the romanian Timis county. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 11:10 (UTC)

I think an encylcopedia has to be functional and spartan. The international name of a river/city (say Timis river) should be always writen when it is mentioned outside its own article, with no "(in Hungarian Temes ,in German Temesch, in Romanian Timiş)" which only clogs the articles (when it comes to Transylvanian placenames) with "these river used to flow through Kingdom of Hungary a century ago, and the Treaty of Trianon took it away from its historical motherland" camouflaged into "Hungarian name recognized by sizable subset of english speaking population" with a diplomatic "German name added just so we don't look like Trianon centrist hungarians" -- Criztu 28 June 2005 11:10 (UTC)

May I be frank? You're being a bit paranoid. :-) Let me give you an example. I have a U.S. friend who likes the music of Béla Bartók and is interested in his life. It is possible that when he reads books about him, he will meet Hungarian place names for Romanian towns and cities, for whatever reasons (as Béla Bartók was born in today's Romania, and authors of these books might have more Hungarian-language sources than Romanian-language sources). You can edit this Wikipedia, but you can't edit those books, can you? Let's suppose he would like to look up Kolozsvár in Wikipedia, which he found in his book. He will find that when he enters Kolozsvár into the Search field, the article Cluj-Napoca will appear. This is all right, but he will have to be clarified that he's at the right place, since Cluj-Napoca is the name of what used to be called Kolozsvár. If he sees this: "Hungarian: Kolozsvár", he will be reassured that "Wow, I'm at the right place!" If he doesn't see this notice, he will say "Uh-oh, where is that Kolozsvár which I've been looking for? I don't understand why I'm here..." And this latter is not good. Why not help him (and other people like him) find what they look for? This is the reason why alternative names should be included.

To avoid misconceptions like Trianon and everything, let me tell you another example. If you look up the Hungarian city Győr, you'll see that its German name (Raab) and Slovak name (Ráb) are added too. Is it because German, Austrian or Slovak people want to occupy Hungary? No, it is not. It is only to ease German- and Slovak-speaking people recognize this city, if they happened to read or hear about it by its German/Slovak name.

I hope you're starting to understand it now. Adam78 28 June 2005 11:57 (UTC)

read with more attention what i wrote Adam :). The Cluj-Napoca article should list all possible names of Cluj-Napoca. but when you are in the Romania article, and say: "the highway to Cluj-Napoca from Bucharest was completed in 20 years" what would you do? list 20 names of Cluj-Napoca in parantheses to "increase knowledge" ? see talk page of Transylvania for same discussion. Wikipedia should redirect you to Cluj-Napoca when you search for Kolozsvar, that's easy -- Criztu 28 June 2005 12:15 (UTC)

Read with more attention what I wrote. (And note that I never spoke about modifying the Romania article, only the articles dealing with the specific towns.) Redirect is absolutely useful indeed, but not enough: users should be informed why they are taken to that new page, and the reason is given in the alternative names. Those users who look for Kolozsvár, as well as those users who look for Temes, need explanation why they are taken to Cluj-Napoca and Timiş, respectively. Your explanation "(Timis county is an official administrative romanian term, no connection with hungarians)" shows you didn't understand what I wrote you about Győr. :-( Once again: Győr is an official name for a Hungarian town which has no connection with Austria, Germany or Slovakia. However, this town has the German and Slovak names, to let speakers of German and Slovak speakers identify the city. The case is the same with Timiş. Adam78 28 June 2005 12:43 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw you removed the hungarian names for the villages in Alba county. While you consider those irrelevant, conform to your reason for deleting, there are quite a few medieval and early modern sources that use the hungarian (and german, but I haven't yet had a good source for those to add them) names for the places here. Please refrain from deleting them in the future - or at least ask for some neutral opinions before deleting. Dunemaire 28 June 2005 12:53 (UTC)

there is a prolem with all these hungarian version for placenames in Romania, that has to be solved, i propose the following:

1. the hungarian name of a city in Romania is listed in that city's article considering that city had something to do whith Hungary.

2. the hungarian name of a city in Romania is listed only when the city has at least 20% of its population of hungarian ethnicity.

but i don't see Wikipedia as an English - Hungarian encyclopedia, and i think everything that is written in Wikipedia got to have a relevance. not "relevance for Hungarians" but relevance for the english readers. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 13:05 (UTC)

No need to worry, these have relevance for Romanians alright. Our local history section at the 1 Decembrie university uses this list of villages extensively (heck, I borrowed it from them) when dealing with documents older than 1918 concerning Alba county- since everything official written before that date features the hungarian name . And trust me, the profs here are as romanian as they come. So what I'm trying to say is basically that we need those hungarian names listed too, since they have an established historical significance.Dunemaire 28 June 2005 13:28 (UTC)

i'm not worrying, i am organizing things. all versions of a city in romania belong to the city's article. should we list the Rumania/Roumania/Roumanie/Rumunska/Rumunija/Romanorszag/etc. in the other wikiarticles except Romania for historical purposes ? see Wikipedia:Naming conventions -- Criztu 28 June 2005 13:43 (UTC)

well then. Would you be so kind to either create the stubs for each article, or leave the foreign names in place for 2-3 days until I create them?Dunemaire 28 June 2005 14:10 (UTC)

kindness is my second nature Dunemaire darling :) -- Criztu 28 June 2005 14:15 (UTC)

It's good to see such noble traits are not extinct yet :D. So, which one will be? Either one is fine by me.Dunemaire 28 June 2005 14:20 (UTC)

until stubs are created, either by you, me or anyone else, i wont "organise" those hungarian versions -- Criztu 28 June 2005 14:26 (UTC)

I thanketh thee, fair wikipedian. Dunemaire 28 June 2005 14:30 (UTC)

Re: propaganda

Let me share my thoughts about that edit.

I read the article through several times in its entirety because I know it is controversial and I wanted to make sure there is no anti-Hungarian propaganda hidden inside. My knowledge about the topic is limited (counting only the established facts – the rest I strive not to believe even if I'm inclined to), but most of what I read in the article conformed more or less to what I do know. This was the only sentence I found ambiguous, because "(Transylvania was) largely populated by Romanians by this time" can mean "There were many Romanians in Transylvania at this time" but also "Transylvania had been filled by a Romanian population by this time", the latter implicitly assuming a previous depopulated period, and thus denying the coexistence of a Hungarian population in the same area, which both of us know would be incorrect. So I replaced this by "a significant Romanian population", which can only be meant the first way, and says nothing about the exact proportions, essentially unknown due to lack of reliable sources. KissL 28 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you really disagreed with is by this time which assumes that there had been less Romanians in the area previously, but I didn't touch that, nor did I choose a phrasing that is more sensitive to it than the one before (and I had no reason to think you didn't like it, because you had plenty of recent edits on that page). Anyway, the whole phrase is already gone as I see, so no point in discussing it. KissL 28 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)

both were propaganda, i've erased them, now someone else underlined "T M and W make up the main parts of RO", if you find propaganda in that sentence, feel free to point it out and edit it -- Criztu 28 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)

That's a fact regardless of how much certain people happen to like or dislike it, so I have no issue with it. KissL 6 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

I'll leave it to you whether this edit or any other edit I have done so far is really sufficient explanation for an accusation like the one I had to find on my talk page. Let it suffice to say, I never met anyone in Hungary who would have said "subcivilised ... multiplied like rats" about any ethnic group whatsoever, though I'm not assuming that such people don't exist. KissL 28 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)

wikipedia is huge, im not a guardian of Romanian articles, but i don't like hungarian propaganda (which is very skilful btw) -- Criztu 28 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)

I don't like it either. It's just as skilful as any propaganda; but that's not a reason to attribute it to me. Never mind. KissL 6 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

aaand, aha, you have something against rats ? since when "multiplying like rats" is a bad thing ? ... should have i used "significantly increasing their number" (like romanians did in Transylvania by 1600) would have been less degrading eh ? :)) Criztu 28 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Ummm, it's not quite me, but rather the English language. See the article on rats. :)) KissL 6 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

One more note, I think I'm fairly aware of half of the propaganda around these "once Hungarian now Romanian" topics, so I can only hope you are not unaware of that other half originating in your country :) Whether it is the larger or the smaller half, I neither know nor care, but if you doubt its existence, you don't know the nature of propaganda nearly as much as you say. KissL 28 June 2005 10:46 (UTC)

everybody is poluted by propaganda, i have difficulties recognising romanian propaganda, you have difficulties recognising hungarian propaganda. feel free to edit romanian articles as much as you like, i myself make propaganda edits sometimes, like i did some time ago in Transylvania article. Scott Moore and BogdanGiusca edited me big, fortunately :) -- Criztu 28 June 2005 11:23 (UTC)

Rest assured I'll always edit whatever I think appropriate. :) KissL 6 July 2005 16:28 (UTC)

English encyclopedia or Encyclopedia for the english?

I found absolutely stunning your remark in Talk:Harghita: "no gain for the english reader to know the hungarian name of a city in Romania that hasn't got even a stub article about it". You may check my comments on that talk page. And a friendly advice: please try to be more positive with this encyclopedia. Do good to others so that they can do good to you. Try to do things as if watching your actions from the outside; foresee how much controversy your actions would generate. Imagine, say, you looking at an article from a place in South America - you find that the article is a complete mess, because its authors wasted their energy (and time!) in such small fights over spanish or portuguese names issues. Akiss 28 June 2005 21:08 (UTC)

I agree with Akiss & User:Adam78 completely. Criztu, you are a very knowledgeable and valued contributor to Wikipedia. However, some of your edits have been very frustrating recently. You seem to have a very defensive attitude toward Wikipedia. Oftentimes when you have changed information, your comments for it seem quite hostile and angry, even when the previous poster was not vandalizing. Wikipedia is not and will never be an "official" encyclopedia. It does not need to restrict itself to official, government information. There is no need for it to be spartan. Wikipedia is a general-knowledge encyclopedia designed to provide both depth and breadth on a subject.

Regarding the Târnava, the other-language names should be provided. On pages that link there (like Sighişoara), we only need to include "Târnava." However, on the article Târnava we should include the alternates. This is the English-language Wiki- someone who only speaks English should not be forced to go to the German-language Wiki (which he would not understand) just to learn more about the "Kokel" river that he saw while reading about the Saxons. I do not see it as propaganda when alternate names relevant to an article are mentioned once and then only in italics.

Sometimes it seems that you approach the naming issues as a personal crusade. Wikipedia is built on consensus, and most contributors prefer having the various names listed; if some posters are vandalizing or pushing an agenda, their changes will be removed. Wikipedia is here to provide a wide range of information, not restrict it. Please only remove information if it is clearly available elsewhere on the (English language) Wiki. Olessi 3 July 2005 17:45 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a Magyar wikipedia so that any reader will be able to read the Hungarian version of anything in Wikipedia. Putting the Hungarian name of a county's name in ROmania is like putting a ROmanian name for a county's name in England. THat's simply futile, as there is a Romanian Wikipedia also. Providing Hungarian names for RO administrative divisions is weird (i consider it hungarian irredentism on wikipedia) -- Criztu 3 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

It seems that we are at an impasse. Contributors like Adam78 and I are not advocating Hungarian claims or irredentism or anything along those lines. I do not know how to explain my views further. I do not see how you can seriously compare Hungarian names for places/geography in Transylvania (which was under Magyar rule for centuries) with Romanian names in England (which was never under Romanian rule, nor has had substantial Romanian-inhabited localities). This is not a government website with strict information, this is a general encyclopedia. I repeat, English-users should not be required to go to a site in another language just to find a historical name. To me this is common sense. Olessi 3 July 2005 19:25 (UTC)

I don't compare "names for places", i compare "names of administrative divisions which are internal affairs". They are not "historical names" -- Criztu 3 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I understand and agree with this rationale for administrative divisions, such as Harghita. It would be better if the Hungarian names for the municipalities there were on a separate article. I would be willing to move the Hungarian names for the towns to Kingdom of Hungary stub articles. I do not have a strong background on this material, nor do I speak Magyar or Romanian, so it might take some time before I can move everything. While I figure out how to do that, could you please hold off on deleting information?

I do no agree with your line of reasoning for a geographic feature, such as rivers. They are not man-made, they do not "belong" to any nationality. They are called different names by different people, and the historically most important of those names should be listed. Olessi 3 July 2005 19:56 (UTC)

like, Szent(saint) Ana(Anne) To(lake) is a historical Hungarian name ? lol -- Criztu 3 July 2005 20:15 (UTC)

I don't delete information, i delete HU versions for counties of Romania, which HU versions belong to Magyar Wikipedia -- Criztu 3 July 2005 21:02 (UTC)

I am not familiar with that locality. I am, however, trying to compromise with you. Olessi 3 July 2005 20:46 (UTC)

we're not making compromises here, we're trying to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, not a propaganda vehicle for irredentism -- Criztu 3 July 2005 21:03 (UTC)

Alba Longa

See: [7]. Roman tradition says that Iulus (also known as Ascanius) founded Alba Longa. It's mentioned in the Aeneid and other sources. Alexander 007 29 June 2005 02:35 (UTC)

If gyula is related to Julius, it would be from PIE *deiw, 'to shine', as noted before. Alexander 007 1 July 2005 02:06 (UTC)

Romanian Counties

Hi Criztu,

I suggest you check out this website: http://www.talmamedia.com/map/hhcounty/hhcounty.htm This is an atlas of Historical Hungary around the year 1910. As you can see, all the counties that you have been reverting were once part of Hungary, and you can't just ignore history. It doesn't matter if they shouldn't have ever been part of Hungary, they were. Why would an English-speaking person go to a Wikipedia in Hungarian?? --Hottentot

There is a Wikiarticle about Counties of Kingdom of Hungary. there you can put information on these counties. providing HU names immediatly after RO names of counties of Romania would be interpreted as some sort of "shared County". Like, Mures (Maros in HU) is a river flowing through RO and HU. when you write Mures (Maros in HU) is a county in RO, people would think "oh, this county is in RO but it has some HU status within RO or something", when you're simply offering a HU translation of the RO name of the county. if i;m not making myself understood from the above, bottom line is that providing HU names for administrative(gov layers of administration) divisions of RO is interfering with Sovereignty of RO. That is why you won't find on the internet a map of ROmania with Szeklerland on it, cuz it is gov. thing. Internet is not a "free for all" thing. i gave the same example to Tamas on Harghita talkpage: look up for Mures river in Britannica, and youll find the Hungarian version Maros (and that's only cuz the river Mures flows through Hungary also). Look up for Mures county in Britannica, no Hungarian version -- Criztu 3 July 2005 20:34 (UTC)

Glad to see from the discussion above that the absurdity of Romanian nationalist belief to eradicate all place names other than Romanian ones in the territories administered by the Romanian state has been exposed. Not sure why Hungarian names should be moved to Kingdom of Hungary stub articles though. Hargita County is mentioned as an example above. This is a county with a massive Hungarian majority, within the borders of which Romanian names are only used by state authorities and by the Romanian minority. Moving place names other than Romaian ones to Kingdom of Hungary stubs will give the impression that the multi-national character of Transylvania is something that ended with the break-up of the Kingdom of Hungary, which it certainly did not. Szent Anna-tó for example is not merely a historical name in terms of state administration, but the current name used by the majority population, today. If the Romanian state allows inhabitants to use their own place names, surely so should Wikipedia.--Pali 3 July 2005 20:56 (UTC)

(What Pali said) --Hottentot

That is why Magyar Wikipedia is here for, so the Hungarians be able to read how the Hungarians call the Saint Anne Lake. English Wikipedia is not English-Hungarian encylopedia. How would it be to read in Magyar Wikipedia a romanian version of everyplace in Hungary. say, "Nagy Alfold (Romanian: Campia Mare, English: Great Plain)" i guarantee you you'll find pockets of romanians in this Nagy Alfold. As for Administrative divisions of RO, i've explained it thoroughly, providing HU version for counties of RO in English Wikipedia is a form of irredentist propaganda -- Criztu 4 July 2005 07:48 (UTC)

Am I right in that you are comparing pockets of a few hundred Romanians with the "pocket" of 700,000 Székely Hungarians? Draw your own conclusions. Even though the Romanian state allows majority populations (actually minorities from 20% and up) the use of the local place names AND county names, you are actually saying Wikipedia should not. The discussion above should clarify how totally unreasonable your viewpoint is.--Pali 4 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

ok, then we'll search for ethnic minorities (say chinese, or sioux) in US that are "majoritary" in an area where there is a lake, and see if Wikipedia offers that lake's name in the mother tongue of that minority besides the american name.

about the convention for providing the name of a city in the language of minorities living in ROmania on the panels at the entrance of that city, i invite you to show me a romanian encyclopedia that provides HU names for counties of ROmania. I invite you show me a Slovakian, Croatian or Ukrainian encyclopedia where the hungarian names of counties of these countries are provided

you'd better start writing the MAgyar WIkipedia articles for counties of ROmania -- Criztu 4 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

Criztu, you can't just take out the complete reference of former names of counties, acting like it never happened. I know many people that refer to Maramures as Máramaros, and by removing that from the Maramures article would cause people to become confused. You are removing important information. As I have said already, why would an English-speaking person read the Hungarian Wikipedia???? --Hottentot

Maros is not the former name of the county Mures. Maros is the hungarian version of romanian Mures. Since Mures county is a county of Romania, providing its hungarian version is some sort of English-Hungarian dictionary. If you want to provide information about the counties of the Kgdom of Hungary, you have the wikiarticle COunties of the Kingdom of Hungary. County Mures is not shared with Hungary, like river Mures. If you want to provide the Hungarian version of a county of RO, you have the Hungarian WIkipedia for that. Why should en English reader read the hungarian translations of the names of Counties of ROmania on an English Encyclopedia about RO internal administrative divisions ? -- Criztu 5 July 2005 06:26 (UTC)

Ok Criztu,

Thank you for making your point understood, but I still believe that you are wrong. The bottom line is that you're removing important information and that is against Wikipedia policy to use your own beliefs (that you think people won't care what the Hungarian name is) on a NPOV Encyclopedia. I think you're the only one that thinks that we shouldn't have the Hungarian names. Because of that, I think we should have a vote. --Hottentot

Similar to the Gdańsk/Danzig vote? Olessi 5 July 2005 23:09 (UTC)

I agree a bit with both sides. I think the Hungarian names should be provided even for counties if the borders of the county are largely the same as they were when the county in question was part of Hungary. However, to avoid that people should think "oh, this county is in RO but it has some HU status within RO or something" (quote from Criztu), it should be provided in a form like: "Before 1918, when it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, this county was called Maros in Hungarian." at the end of the leading paragraph (extended with other names in other languages if applicable). How's that? KissL 6 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

Of course we can vote too, if that's really necessary. KissL 6 July 2005 16:41 (UTC)

I don't quite agree with this wording: "Before 1918, when it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary, this county was called Maros in Hungarian." On the one hand, it's a bit too complicated and unusual, on the other hand, it suggests that the Hungarian names aren't used any more (at least by Hungarians living in Transylvania and in Hungary). Note that for place names no historical justification is usually given for the name variants; they are known to some by this name, to some others by that name, period. See for example Győr in Hungary, where the Slovak and German name are given too, although this city never belonged to either Slovakia or Austria. It is simply to assist English-speaking Slovak and Austrian people to identify that city. Nobody is afraid of others thinking "oh, this city is in Hungary, but it has some Austrian/Slovak status within Hungary or something". Ambiguities can be (and are) excluded.

Criztu's claim to remove Hungarian names to prevent people from thinking "oh, this county is in RO but it has some HU status within RO or something" is an unfounded fear – at the expense of encyclopedic content. There are clear and unambiguous clues in the article against this supposition: (1) The article has the official Romanian name in its title. (2) It is written in the article that the county is in Romania. (3) It is put in the Category:Counties of Romania. No trace of ambiguity is left; any more fear would be paranoia. Let's suppose readers of Wikipedia are not imbecile and they can read and understand plain English. Adam78 6 July 2005 19:24 (UTC)

I'm figuring out how to submit to voting this "Hungarian name for administrative divisions of Romania". To provide Hungarian "alternate" for names of counties of RO is simply irredentism. No academic encyclopedia does such thing. Same about rivers and places entirely in RO -- Criztu 6 July 2005 21:07 (UTC)

i propose we continue discussion on Harghita talk page, and agree on the voting text. I am thinking of a formulation and present it to you on Harghita talk page -- Criztu 6 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

If you call this irredentism, then either all the Wikipedia is irredentist, or you misuse the term "irredentism". Whatever we call it, this is the policy of Wikipedia (see Alsace, Gdańsk etc.). Why would Romania be an exception? If you want to make Romania an exception to overall Wikipedia policy, it would be not Hungarian irredentism, but the claim of Romanian supremacy/superiority (which is not permissible in a neutral encyclopedia). Seriously speaking, there can be no reason to make Romania an exception, is there? -- Adam78 6 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)

Criztu, you say, "To provide Hungarian "alternate" for names of counties of RO is simply irredentism."... Indeed, not much comment can be added to this statement. If you are thinking about a formulation to submit for a vote, you might consider quoting from the definiton of irredentism (claiming a right to territories belonging to another state), just in case some people wouldn't check it out before voting. And maybe also from paranoia (persecutory beliefs concerning a threat to themselves or their property, often linked to a belief in conspiracy theories). About the vote, I guess (wish I were wrong) that as you used up all your "reasonable" arguments, your last hope is that enough people are like you, and join forces to counter the "enemy". I honestly hope you win. Thinking that this would make people realise that something is wrong with wiki-style democracy: if there is a majority of interest to "forget" a truth, then it's all right to delete it. And if they realise it, that might make them do something about it. Akiss 7 July 2005 00:28 (UTC)

in my opinnion this "providing the names of counties of Kingdom of Hungary from 1918 as alternates for the counties of Romania from 2005" shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. I would simply notice the owners of Wikipedia about this unencyclopedic behaviour, but i read we have to go through voting before arbitration -- Criztu 7 July 2005 07:16 (UTC)

Criztu, I think your opinion is clear for everyone now. I still think that Hungarian names should be given on the basis that those names were, for a long time, applied to precisely the same geographical units as today's official Romanian names, and this is a piece of information that an English-speaking person could quite possibly need. You can see that there is no such problem with administrative units of Slovakia, as there is no geographical coincidence with the previous Kingdom of Hungary administrative units. So you can see for yourself that this is not a matter of irredentism.

I strongly disagree with you about "Lacul Sfanta Ana" / "Szent Anna-tó", because that is actually a place where there has been, and still is, a Hungarian majority population for over a thousand years, so it is again pretty much possible that an English-speaking person will hear about this place by its Hungarian name even today. I'm not contesting the title of the article because I'm willing to give priority to the Romanian name by virtue of it being official today, but not to give the Hungarian name is just not a good idea, and in this particular case I would even consider it propaganda.

A lake/river situated inside the territory of Romania is Romanian sovereign. Therefore it is mentioned in encyclopedias by its Romanian name. A lake/river shared with Hungary is mentioned by both Romanian and Hungarian names. Lake Saint Anne and river Tarnava are entirely in Romania, they are not shared with Hungary, so if one wants to read how the Hungarians say to "lake", they can go to Magyar wikipedia and read the Szent Anna To (lake). Why do you Hungarians keep talking about "the Hungarian kingdom of a thousand years" ? -- Criztu 09:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I can pretty much understand that you don't want to let yourself be convinced by a load of Hungarian editors (though there have been some non-Hungarian editors as well who disagreed with you, and I can't see any who would agree), so I ask you to pull in some of your fellow Romanian editors into this discussion. I'm interested in the general Romanian opinion about this anyway. KissL 7 July 2005 09:54 (UTC)

---

i have presented my points for an "against" in the Survey about providing the names of the counties of Kingdom of Hungary as alternates for the names of the counties of ROmania in Talk:Harghita -- Criztu 9 July 2005 15:27 (UTC)

---

Politeness

Criztu, the talk page of an article is not only for you and the one you are talking with. Others should understand the discussion too. In the last section of Talk:Harghita you interspersed your comments along Jmabels's lines. For someone else who reads it, it is now very difficult to understand who said waht. Besides, it looks very impolite - just as interrupting a person who talks at every phrase. Could you please show some respect to your fellow editors? Akiss 07:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Akiss, Wikipedia is not your backyard. what you may find unesthetical and impolite others may find very efficient and functional. When I'm discussing with another user it is impolite from you to revert the discussion cuz you find it difficult to follow. Ask for permission if you want to organize others' users discussions -- Criztu 08:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Survey

Hi Criztu, what's wrong with my formulation of the arguments of "the other side"? I think we shouldn't wait for Hottentot or anyone. I suggest you go ahead and initiate that poll. KissL 15:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

nothing's wrong, just waiting for a week so everybody can have the oportunity to make an input to the text of the survey. it's been only three days since i posted the proposed text of the survey -- Criztu 16:20, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, as you wish. KissL 16:24, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand why you want to have the discussion in both places... First Hottentot moved the entire discussion to the Talk:Harghita/Vote subpage. Then I added a pretty clear notice to this effect to both the Talk:Harghita page (see the revision by me) and the subpage (revision by me), so that those who look for it may find it.

I can see that there are personal tensions between you and Hottentot – which is none of my business until I'm not impacted – but this time you reverted my edit too, without notice or explanation anywhere. That's not fair. And, what's the point? KissL 13:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

no tension; when I want to move someother people's discussion i normally ask permission. Why would Hottentot's decision to move the discussion to other page without asking what those involved think about such move be better then my decision to keep the discussion on the Harghita talk page ? sorry about your consequent additions that got reverted, i'll recover them to the talk page if you wish -- Criztu 14:56, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, never mind. However I think that there is a risk of people adding new comments to both the main talk page and the subpage, if the content remains duplicated.

well, the Survey should have been clearly formulated before starting it on its own page. -- Criztu 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, check out my recent formatting changes, are they OK for you? What would be a good end date in your opinion? I think we should allow 2 weeks, that is, an end time of Wed 27 July 2005, 12:00 UTC. I suppose everyone taking any interest in this topic will have the opportunity to express his/her opinion by then. KissL 15:59, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

these kind of discussion i think belongs to the Survey page, now that it is created :| -- Criztu 16:21, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that what you have been removing as "trolling" from your talkpage doesn't really classify as such, and so you are harming yourself by providing a weak spot that can be brought up against you in an eventual RfAr. There is no consensus on removing even personal attacks, which these haven't quite been.

In case this comment annoys you however, feel free to remove it. (I would have sent it in an email to avoid complications, but you seem not to allow mail from Wikipedia.) You have been civil to me so far, I have done my best to be civil to you myself, and I don't want otherwise for such a small reason :) KissL 13:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

it was a troll no doubt about that -- Criztu 14:19, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Bistriţa Rivers

Why did you merge the river articles Bistriţa River (Moldavia) and Bistriţa River (Transylvania)? I'm going to revert it. And what is all this fuss about Transylvania, isn't it a perfectly normal term for western Romania? If you know a better way to distinguish the two rivers, say so. Markussep 08:07, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

the articles about those rivers are mere mentions, i dont think theyll ever grow into articles, but im ok with having them separate. about the region of Transylvania there is no fuss, its just that these days everybody talks about EuroRegions, well Romania has Administrative regions like Central Region, Western Region etc. thats why i think its prefferable to say "a river in ROmania in Transylvania" rather then "a river in the region of Transylvania in Romania" especialy considering that Transylvania designates both the Principality of Transylvania and the region of Ardeal (proper Transylvania) and encompassed the regions of Crisana and Maramures and territories that are today in Ucraine,Hungary and Serbia. And Banat is also asociated with Transylvania if we consider Triannon. same problem with Moldavia, it was a principality that encompassed Bukovina and what is today Republica Moldova. So i think it is missleading to diferentiate the locations of Bistritza river by the names of the Principalities of Transylvania and Moldavia presented as regions of Romania. I would differentiante the locations of Bistrita rivers by the specificaly ROmanian Ardeal and Moldova so no confusion with the Principalities arise ... donno, things should be sorted out here -- Criztu 10:10, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Excuse

I saw you removed my comment from your Talk page, and I'm sorry if you found that offensive. Maybe you found I was too quick to react saying your comment makes the discussion difficult to follow, and should have waited first for Jmabel (whose text you interspersed) to reorganise your comments if he found that possibly confusing - which he did eventually. I trusted you have a good English that's why I would have liked you to reshape your comment. Anyway the issue is over, and appologies again for anything you might have found offensive. Akiss 09:21, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

sorry, i just rereverted you revert, you can add your comments back anytime

ah but no, your comment on my talkpage is right there i havvnt removed it, the revert was on talk page of Harghita --Criztu 10:04, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, damn how clumsy I am! My fault again, I overlooked that. I scrolled down this talk page and seemed to have missed that section, then I have found KissL's comment in the next section.. and thought I have found the explanation. Quick to react again, I'm such an idiot. Akiss 12:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

latin blood :)) -- Criztu 12:12, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Romanian Counties 2

Where do we vote? I believe I have already stated my reasons on your talk page. --Hottentot

well, voting will take place on Talk:Harghita/Vote. we'll list the survey on Wikipedia:Current surveys page. I think the Survey page should have the reasons for or against and users to sign for or against, indicating the reasons as listed. I listed 6 reasons against providing names of... . If you are ok with starting the vote with no reason for providing the names... offered for those who may vote, then we should proceed with listing the survey and wait for deadline (2 weeks ?) -- Criztu 17:35, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Gelupara

There was a Thracian village named Gelupara, mentioned in an inscription (written in Greek) from Thrace in 202 AD. As is known from numerous examples (Bessipara, Dardapara, Bussipara, etc.), the toponym would be translated as Gelu town (with Gelu remaining an as yet untranslated Thracian element). Alexander 007 03:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, good news, see: Gelou. It seems that this is not original research (though I came upon it independently), so we can include it in the article. If Thracian Gelu was an anthroponym, then Gelupara could be translated as Town of Gelu (though Gelu could also have been a word in Thracian, maybe an adjective). Alexander 007 07:27, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

gutt, gutt :) see Alba > Alba lui Iuliu over at http://www.gk.ro/sarmizegetusa/index_files/meniu_st.htm presenting Mircea Dogaru's (military historian) view on these Gilau,Giulesti,Julea,etc. -- Criztu 08:10, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Thracian Gelu was probably an anthroponym. See Gelo, a name found among some ancient Greeks (besides the one in the article, there were some others named Gelo). Alexander 007 08:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

i guess you already know about the Gelones related to the Agathyrsi and Scythians acording to Herodotus -- Criztu 09:23, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Survey again

I think you shouldn't have listed the survey yet. The "reasons for" are not presented, and the survey doesn't have a clear format as described in Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. Also, your current formulation is pretending that those who oppose you in this matter want to have Hungarian names for all Romanian counties in Transylvania, which is not the case and is therefore a package-deal fallacy. KissL 13:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

well, its been a week since we started designing the Survey. I presented my reasons, i;ve asked those with opposite opinnion to present theirs and ahve an input on the Survey appearance. At least Hottentot made sure every county of ROmania in Transylvania to have those alternate names. So i assume the problem is about counties of Romania in Transylvania. -- Criztu 13:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Gelou

You're right about that translation, I changed it back. KissL 13:47, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

3 revert rule

Hi I just wanted to infom you of the 3 revert rule while I think that you are just about ok on Hungarian Soviet Republic if you contine as you are going you are liekly to run into it. Try using the talk page more to disscuss things (yes I know how fustateing that can be at times).Geni 14:42, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Harghita survey

Hi Criztu,

you seem not to be around here, but the two weeks are already largely over for that poll. If you don't object, I'll close it this week.

Hope you're not ill or something...

KissL 13:41, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

What poll? Alexandru 06:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hercynia

Check this out:Hercynia. The most likely etymology proposed seems to be from PIE *perkwu-, 'oak'. Alexandru 06:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Salut

Salut Criztu! trebuie sa-ti spun ca imi place cum si ce scrii, esti un adevarat watch dog! ai grija in continuare la ce scrie KissL cam denigreaza Romania!

Watch dog, indeed

I read your posting on Tamas's page: "-ROmanians in Transylvania were denied rights cuz they were Orthodox and ROmanians, until the WW II, when Transylvania united with Romania. Not alowed to dwell in the cities of Transylvania, not allowed to own land, reduced to the state of serfs. Keep this info in mind when you'll make further edits in which you'll "balance" articles of ROmanian cities with references to the "ethnic hungarian predominance" in the cities from Transylvania before the union of Transylvania with ROmania."

This is a non-sense, you don't know much about Transylvanian history. There was no such prohibition especially against Romanian, but - BANG! - against Hungarians, too. First of all: Hungarians had not the right to settle in Saxon villages: Brasov, Sibiu, for example. Then: after 1713 (defeta of Rákóczi freedom fighting) Hungarians were denied the right to settle in some more regions: Satu Mare, Banat. Hungarians, were allowed to settle in Banat somewhere around 1750, when Maria Thereza came to power. Of course, all these restriction were lifted by Joseph II (1880-1890), so both Romanians and Hungarians, +Germans, Jews etc. were allowed to settle everywhere they wished. Sincerelly speaking, you, Romanians, were so much lied about Translyvanian history, that I am not surprised that you make such statements without any remorse. Erdelyiek 17:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

?--Andrei George 15:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)