Talk:Székelys of Bukovina

Reference

Andrásfalvy Bertalan: A bukovinai székelyek kultúrájáról. In Népi kultúra népi társadalom. A MTA Néprajzi Kutató Csoportjának évkönyve VII, főszerk. Ortutay Gyula. 7-23. o. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1973.

Antal Béla: Emlékek a hadikfalvi székelyek életéből. Bonyhád, 2000.

Balassa Iván: Székely Múzeum (Bonyhád, Tolna megye 1947-1950). In Néprajzi Látóhatár 5:1-2., 239-248. o., 1996.

Belényesy Márta: Kultúra és tánc a bukovinai székelyeknél. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1958.

Csupor Tibor: Mikor Csíkból elindultam – A bukovinai székelyek élettörténete. Magyarország felfedezése sorozat. Budapest: Szépirodalmi Könyvkiadó, 1987.

Fazekas Tiborc: A bukovinai székelyek szókincsének változása. In Néprajzi Látóhatár 5:1-2., 235-238. o., 1996.

Forrai Ibolya: Gazdálkodás a régi Hadikfalván. In Néprajzi Látóhatár 5:1-2., 131-135. o., 1996.

Forrai Ibolya: Népi írásbeliség a bukovinai székelyeknél. Budapest: Múzsák Közművelődési Kiadó, 1989.

Földi István: Mádéfalvától a Dunántúlig. Szekszárd: Tolna Megyei Könyvtár, 1987.

Gáspár Barra Réka 2000 [2000. február 19-20 kiadás dátuma] Bukovinai székely hagyományőrzés Csernakeresztúron [on-line] Nyugati Jelen folyóirat honlapja, URL: http://www.nyugatijelen.com/archiv/2000/2000%20februar/feb.%2019-20%20szombat-vasarnap/jel1.html [2004. január 9.]

Gáspár Simon Antal: A bukovinai magyarok története (részletek). In Népi írásbeliség a bukovinai székelyeknél, szerk. Forrai Ibolya. 185-191. o. Budapest: Múzsák Közművelődési Kiadó, 1989.

Gáspár Simon Antal: Az én szülőföldem, a bukovinai Istensegíts. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1986.

Gombos György: Bukovinai székelyek letelepítése a Bácskában. Láthatár, 8. 190. o.

Höfler Lajosné: Székely gyermekjátékok Bukovinából. In Tolna Megyei Kalendárium 1994., 154-155. o. Szekszárd: Mark-Komm Kft, 1994/b

Höfler Lajosné: A bukovinai székelyek viselete. In Néprajzi Látóhatár 5:1-2., 173-198. o., 1996.

Höfler Lajosné: A bukovinai székelyek viselete. In Tanulmányok a bukovinai székelyekről 1995-1998. 74-111. o. Közreadja Höfler Lajosné. Bonyhád, 1999.

Kiss Lajos: A bukovinai székelyek tánczenéje. In A magyar népi tánczene, szerk. Virágvölgyi Márta-Pávai István. 195-218. o. Budapest: Planétás Kiadó, 2000.

Kiss Lajos – Bodor Anikó: Az aldunai székelyek népdalai. Újvidék: A Magyar Nyelv, Irodalom és Hungarológiai Kutatások Intézete, 1984.

Kóka Rozália: „Betlehemek pusztájában” - Hadikfalvi csobánolás. Folkmagazin 6 (4), 40. o., 1999.

László János: A Bukovinában élő (élt) magyarság kirajzásának története 1762-1914-ig, az első világháború kitöréséig (részletek). In Népi írásbeliség a bukovinai székelyeknél, szerk. Forrai Ibolya. 139-184. o. Budapest: Múzsák Közművelődési Kiadó, 1989.

Lőrincz Aladárné: Bukovinai székely szőttesek – technikák és mintalapok. Szekszárd: Wosinsky Mór Megyei Múzeum, 2000.

Lőrincz Etel: Bukovinai festékesek. In Néprajzi Látóhatár 5:1-2, 199-208. o., 1996.

Lőrincz Imre: A bukovinai Istensegítstől a völgységi Majosig. Tények és tanúk sorozat. Budapest: Magvető Könyvkiadó, 1986.

Nagy Sívó Zoltán: Bukovina, mit vétettem? Újvidék (Novi Sad): Forum Kiadó, 1999.

Rónai Béla: A bukovinai székelyek nyelvéről (A bukovinai székely nyelvjárás főbb sajátosságai). In Bukovinai székely népmesék I. kötet, szerk. Sebestyén Ádám. 331-341. o. Szekszárd: Tolna megyei Tanács VB. Könyvtára, 1979.

Sajti Enikő: Székely telepítés és nemzetiségpolitika a Bácskában - 1941. Nemzetiségi Füzetek 6. Sorozatszerk. Kővágó László. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1984.

Sántha Alajos: Bukovinai magyarok. Kolozsvár, 1942.

Sebestyén Ádám: A bukovinai andrásfalvi székelyek élete és története Madéfalvától napjainkig. Szekszárd: Tolna Megyei Tanács VB. Művelődésügyi Osztálya, 1972

Sebestyén Ádám: A bukovinai székelység tegnap és ma. Szekszárd: Tolna Megyei Könyvtár, 1989.

Seres Attila 2003. [2003. május 3. utolsó módosítás] Bukovinai székely exodus 1944-1945 [on-line]. A Magyar Országos Levéltár honlapja.

Sima Péter 2000. [2002. január 24. utolsó módosítás] A bukovinai székelyek története [on-line]. Garabonciás Közhasznú Egyesület honlapja. URL: http://www.garabonczias.hu/dolgozatok/bukszek.htm. [2003. szeptember 18.]

Solymár Imre: A legtávolabbi bukovinai székely kirajzás: Boldogasszonyfalva, Brazília. In Források a bukovinai székelyekről Szerk.: Foki Ibolya–Solymár Imre–Szőts Zoltán. 281-306. o. Szekszárd: Babits Kiadó, 2000.

V. Kápolnás Mária: Ahogy a kormánybiztos látta… Bodor György visszaemlékezése a székelyek letelepítésére. In A Völgység két évszázada, szerk. Szita László–Szőts Zoltán. 127. o. Bonyhád, 1991. Virágvölgyi Márta– – Pávai István: A magyar népi tánczene. Budapest: Planétás Kiadó, 2000.

Merging with Bukovina

I correct my own mistake - the three Székely villages next to the Lower Danube are in Vojvodina, not Romania. Zello 21:39, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Bonaparte, do you have any reason for merging with Bukovina?

I think that it would not be a good idea, because Bukovina should discuss about the general history of Bukovina and this ethnic group is more like a detail of its history. bogdan 10:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems too much hungarian POV here. -- Bonaparte talk 10:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Moving the text does not make it more NPOV. :-) bogdan 11:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merging with Bucovina means obviously deleting almost the whole article and indeed deleting this folksgroup from history.

I accept some of your changes but I disagree with two:

• First what's your problem with the atribute "ill-famed". This is one of darkest event in Székely history and remembered today. Or you think a massacre can be something positive, for example merry?

  Exactly that is the problem: all massacres are "ill-famed", so there's no need for that adjective. bogdan 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• Secondly what's your problem with the last sentence? Székelys of Tolna are really famous about their folk culture, they organise performances, receive awards etc. Zello 02:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

  "Special" and "rich" are POV adjectives, so I removed them when I re-inserted the phrase in the text. bogdan 10:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

If this is POV than it is totally harmless - every folk culture is rich and special in the world. But it doesn't matter.

Merge

The merging of the article with Bukovina or Székelys is against the merging policy of the Wikipedia. Look up here: Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. This article is clearly

1, not about the same subject 2, there is not a large overlap between them 3, not too short

The merging proposal is indeed a proposal for deletion. Than do this! It would be obvious for everyone that you are trying to obliterate the memory of a folksgroup. Zello 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jmabel merging with Székely is indeed the same as merging with Bukovina - it means the deletion most of the facts presented here. The two articles is not about the same subject, they are not largely overlapping in content, and this article is not too short. So your proposal is in clear contradiction with Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages policy. If you'd like to obliterate this folksgroup from wikipedia (whatever reason you have) then launch an adequate deletion process! Zello 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the proposal is very much in line with the policy. What is so different between Székelys of Bukovina and normal Székelys ? Why would you need two articles about Székelys ? --Lysy ^(talk) 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Székelys of Bukovina are a different, little subgroup. Their history is totally different than general Székely history, their folk culture is different, they live in two different countries (not Romania but Serbia and Hungary), they have an indepent ethnic identity. It is the same as with Christians generally-speaking and for example Baptists. Baptists are Christians of course but they are not the same as Christians generally. This is not a real merging proposal but an attempt to eliminate something that these guys don't like. Of course they will delete the content of the whole article sooner or later on the Székely page. Zello 08:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

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

The differences are not ethnic but cultural and historical. I think the historical part is presented here, the cultural part is not yet. I would like to improve the article, to enhance differences and to present their special folk culture with a whole new section. But this merging proposal means the killing of the article. Zello 09:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

All right, let's postpone the merger then and hope that the cultural differences between the groups will be explained. I cannot do it myself, as I do not have enough knowledge of the Székelys. --Lysy ^(talk) 09:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually Secui/Szeklers do not share the same origin with Hungarians. Should be merged with the other article. Bonaparte talk 09:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually this question is totally indifferent here. If Székelys and Hungarians had different origin than we should merge the two Székely articles? Where is the connection? You are not arguing, you are only expressing your hatred. Zello 10:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's have it explained in the article first and then we'll see if there should be two articles about Székelys or one. I think the quality of the information in the article could be improved in the meantime. If there is a controversy about the ethnic origin, it should be mentioned in the article as well. --Lysy ^(talk) 09:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will indicate the gaps in the article but I need time to do real research. It is not a very frequented topic. Nobody was interested in it until Bonaparte and his friends "discovered" and created here a new battleground with this merging trick. I think their favourite "origin of the Székelys" war is inadequate here because the independent story of the Székelys of Bukovina began only in the 18th century. What happened in the 10th century doesn't matter in this topic - there is the link to the Székelys in general. I would be interested if they had any REAL, valuable information about the Székelys of Bukovina, for example dances, folk costumes etc. Zello 10:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This page should definitely not be merged into anything. The Szekelys of Bukovina are an interesting cultural group, and the article has lots of good info. There's no reason to move at all, provided the page is linked from Bukovina and Szekely. As to the origin of the Szeklers, there are reasonable grounds to believe that initially they weren't of the same origin as Hungarians - however, today they speak Hungarian and have been mostly assimilated into the Hungarian ethnic group. But please let's not descend into anti-Hungarian feelings here. Hungarians are our best neighbours at the moment. Köszönöm, Ronline ✉ 12:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

cooperation ?

I'd say try to work on the article first, and if there are contoversies, let's discuss them. There's nothing wrong if the article clearly presents different points of view and I hope eventually everyone will be able to accept this. It does not make much sense to argue before the real differences in POVs are identified and indicated - until then it's just a waste of our time... Maybe we could try to respect opposing views (I know it's often more difficult than it sounds) and make this article an example of good cooperation on a difficult subject ? --Lysy ^(talk) 11:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, what I can do now is looking after sources about culture. In some days I try to produce something. Zello 12:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the article is POV per se. Rather, the language it uses in some places is a bit too melodramatic, making it sound more like a history essay than an encyclopedia entry. Other than that, it's fine. Ronline ✉ 12:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

moving Secui of Bucovina

Bonaparte:

1. when moving, use the "move" button, don't copy and paste the article, because it does not keep the edit history

   OK.

2. there is no consensus for the moving and I see no point in using the Romanian names. Bukovina is the term more used in English.bogdan 13:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   Is the same thing, however. But since they live in Romania, the first option in all the cases around the world is to state in the official language of the state. Romanian is the official language. Bonaparte talk 13:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

   The Szekelys lived for one and a half centuries in Austria and for 23 years in Romania, after which they moved to Hungary. bogdan

• Bogdan and Ronline - thanks for being calm and helpful. I didn't know the Romanian names of the villages, thanks for looking them up even to Bonaparte. As for your other changes you can guess my opinion. At this point I hope that the usual, silly revert war about place names and the origin of Székelys won't happen again. I looked after books and there are a lot of good scientific studies about the Székelys of Bukovina (I found 4-5 books). Probably we can talk about normal and interesting things and not only fight. Have a good day! Zello 14:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Bonaparte - Székely is the English name for these people, based on the Hungarian. I think that's normal since they're a Hungarian-speaking ethnic group (in the same way that we call the Aromanians by that name - their name - rather than "Vlahos" or whatever the Greeks call them). As to the bibliography, I think it would be helpful to include it in the article. The other information that would be useful is a bit about their current situation - approximately how many Bukovina Szeklers live in Hungary, their culture, etc. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I try to collect some information. As for the bibliography I chose the 3 most important books because I think the whole list would be frightfully long in the article. But I put the Reference section at beginning of the discussion page, so the reader will find it easily. Zello 16:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

INLINE CITATIONS !!!!

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