User talk:Iadrian yu/Archive September,2011

Hungarian names in Transylvania

You need to be more circumspect about blatantly removing references to Hungarian in Transylvania. Hungarians constitute a significant minority in Transylvania and are historically more important than Romanians in that region. --Taivo (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask you for some more good faith and without false accusations. Hungarians indeed constitute a significant minority and their status is important(Romanians as the oldest and historically most numerous population is more important, but anyway) but that has nothing to do with my edits. There is a consensus for all places in Transylvania where Hungarians represent less than 20% of the population the alternative names should not be present in the info box, exactly what I did here 1; [1] when your friend accused me of being some kind of ultra nationalist... He accused me also here [2], when you teamed up... Adrian (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When this issue was discussed in March 2010, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive605#Hungarian names of Romanian_places 1, the conclusion was that "the correct method is that the article is housed at the Romanian placename, with the Hungarian placename in the infobox and lede.... unless the English language name is better known".--Toddy1 (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read it more carefully and analyze other editors contributions also. There is a consensus about this issue, but I personally can`t find a direct reference to it. I have posted a reference from the admin`s table on your page. Quote "It was clearly agreed that >20%, Hungarian names should be bolded and put into the infobox, too. Everywhere else in Transylvania, even if the Hungarian population is less than 20%, Hungarian placename should be in brackets.". Please analyze it. Adrian (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the discussion, and I have reread more of it. It was depressing because it contained many familiar elements from other ethnic disputes, such as the citing of the national constitution (as if that were relevant), accusations of bad faith, and statements that reader X was blocked for edit-warring. It is probably more useful to focus on the conclusion, which was what I did in my remarks of 08:25, 13 August 2011.

The statement you are quoting is at the start of the discussion - it was not the conclusion. Having said that, I have no objection to your putting the Hungarian name in the infobox in brackets. I only object to your removing it.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is from the start of the discussion because this particual problem was about something else, but there it has been stated by another user about this practice of infobox use for alternative names(less than 20% of the population that language name should`t be present in the infobox). Since I have no evidence of this consensus (I can`t find it), I suggest to wait for the Buritorul`s answer. I think he is more familiar with this issue than me. I have posted a message on his talk page and hope to get an answer from him today to resolve this problem. Adrian (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this [3]. Adrian (talk) 10:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused you of anything, Iadrian yu, other than removing Hungarian names from the infobox and asking that you be more circumspect about it. Had I not assumed good faith, my wording would have been a lot more pointed. As far as the matter itself is concerned, there are two issues here. First, why do you insist on removing the Hungarian names in the first place? It certainly does no harm to have them there. Indeed, in the case of Sighisoara, the "official" name of the city is simply a Romanicization of the Hungarian name. Second, why do you remove the Hungarian name and leave the German one even when the German minority is virtually nonexistent compared to the Hungarian minority? These are valid questions for you to answer. --Taivo (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Blatantly removing references to Hungarians in Transylvania" wasn`t really - "How are you".

1) I have removed Hungarian names from the infobox because of the already old consensus for Transylvania, if a certain minority is under 20% of the population that language name should not be present in the infobox. In Sibiu and Sigisoara the Hungarian minority represent under 20% of the population. [4]

2) I have left the German name of the city Sibiu because it is considered a center/capital for the German minority in Romania, and as such it should have German name present in the infobox even if there isn`t a single German man living in that city :).

Hope I have answered your questions. If I did`t answered something, please don`t hesitate to write to me. Adrian (talk) 09:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason for including the German name doesn't hold water. If there are no Germans living in the city, or a very small minority (fewer Germans than Hungarians), then including the German name, but not the Hungarian one is hypocrisy. I don't accept your argument for removing the Hungarian names for the other two cities. Do you have a reliable source? --Taivo (talk) 05:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for including the Hungarian names in the infoboxes are their historical significance and that fact that the Hungarian minority is only recently a "minority". One of the reasons we have alternate names in the infoboxes is their relevance in historical literature. Since Transylvania was Hungarian until just the last century, there is much historical writing that uses the Hungarian names. Second, in the case of Sighisoara, its name is Hungarian and the Romanian name is simply a borrowing. Finally, what does it matter if there is a Hungarian alternate name in the infobox? Why do you care? It's not a waste of bandwidth or irrelevant information. --Taivo (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t think you have much knowledge about Transylvania when you are saying "fact that the Hungarian minority is only recently a "minority"" - but that is not the subject. "Facts" like this doesn`t hold water either :). After Biruitorul explaining it to me I think German name also should be removed.[5]. Their historical relevance is equal with the Turkish one or Byzantine\Greek. Istanbul was named Constantinople for more than 1500 years and I don`t see this name in the infobox.. Anyway since I have found a link to the consensus achieved by several users I will only put in motion what was agreed there (removing Hungarian names from infoboxes where that population is under 20%). Since all of us is familiar with that now[6] I hope that this problem is solved. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 06:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reverting these changes, you identified Toddy's edits as vandalism. That is very offensive. They are not vandalism, they are differences of opinion. Be more careful of your wording since the charge of vandalism is a failure on your part of assuming good faith. --Taivo (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On one article, because he is violating an established consensus (after he received detailed explanation and links), not an opinion - big difference. On the other I have corrected myself because I saw that is not helping all this. Adrian (talk) 19:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's never helpful to accuse another active editor of vandalism, no matter what you think of the edit. Vandalism accusations should be for blatant things like cursing, etc. I looked at that link you provided. Unfortunately, the closing admin didn't actually make a decision on consensus, so citing the 20% as an agreement isn't accurate. What needs to happen for it to be considered a Wiki-wide consensus is for a more formal discussion to take place and for the closing admin to make a determination. However, it seems pretty clear that the majority of editors compromised at the 20% cutoff in that case. As long as the Hungarian variants stay bolded in the initial sentence, I will accept removing them from the infobox. --Taivo (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a voting in the Summary section which determined a consensus about usage of Hungarian names in the infobox. It was a "deal" built by 14 users with supervision from an Administrator. It is respected and implemented for a while now... I think this is a wiki-wide consensus regarding Romania-related articles. All alternative names can be bolded in the lead as per wiki rules but they usually aren`t. ex: Timisoara, Arad.. Adrian (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice, I did not bold these alternate names, but italicized them. This scattered "consensus", found here and there in different places and in different formulations without any proper summary closing statement by an admin is not really usable in a Wikipedia sense. I've accepted it as far as the infobox goes and as far as the not bolding in the first sentence goes, but the way I've written the first sentence is not in violation of any Wiki-wide consensus or administrative summary. --Taivo (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry (am I not being sarcastic or anything, I am really asking), did you actually read this [7]] ? And still think there is no consensus about the "or" version of the lead section? Adrian (talk) 05:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did indeed read it. Just because I disagree with the import of it doesn't mean that I am illiterate. I'm not going to waste any more time on this. Wikipedia is filled with hyper-nationalist problems and there are others that I have more of an investment of time in. I was asked to look into this by Toddy1 since he knows that I'm not afraid to deal with nationalistic issues, but there are simply too many on Wikipedia to invest in all of them. --Taivo (talk) 16:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can think what you want. I have asked many users and 2 administrators [8]. Some of them agreed that what you are doing is vandalism. PS: your latest "idea" is against WP:NCGN - other languages in alphabetical order. I am wondering what`s next? Adrian (talk) 16:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The order in which Hungarian and German names are listed for Sibiu

The order in which the Hungarian and German names are listed for Sibiu is disputed. It is agreed by all parties that the Romanian name should be listed first.

Adrian believes that the German form should be listed before the Hungarian form, per WP:PLACE, alphabetical order. [9] In a place with 20%+ population we can list Hungarian names against alphabetical order because then they have a co-official status. [10] Adrian (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taivo believes that the Hungarian form should precede German form in Transylvania since Hungarians presently outnumber Germans in the region of Transylvania [11].
Toddy believes that the the German form should be listed before the Hungarian form, because (1) there are signs in the city with the German and Romanian names - see photo below, and (2) because Hermannstadt is still commonly used by Romanian people as the name for Sibiu.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Please note the following from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) "As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name." My understanding is that the German form, Hermannstadt is co-official, hence the signs.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - According to Romanian law the only official language is Romanian. In places where a minority represents more than 20% of the population that language place name`s are used together with the Romanian one. [12]. Sibiu has 2% Hungarian population and 1.6% German [13]. Adrian (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And given the rampant anti-Hungarian prejudice in Transylvania (I have friends who live there so this is not just speculation on my part), it's not at all surprising that the Romanians have removed all trace of Hungarian from city signs as they try to forget their Hungarian history. It's a silly thing to list the German name of a city without any real German population before the name of the city in the language that it bore for most of its history. This whole discussion is just another typical East European hyper-nationalistic attempt to rewrite history. --Taivo (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected you have some personal POV on all this having in mind your behavior. As I said before, think what you like but don`t use Wikipeda as a forumWP:NOTFORUM for your ideas or opinions (whatever that might be). PS: Before you write this kind of "statements" at least consult some data based on facts, not some opinions. Sibiu historical population and Historical population of Transylvania. Adrian (talk) 21:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian. There you go again, attacking people who dare to disagree with you. Please stop this bully/victim behaviour. Why can't you just accept that some people do not slavishly agree with you, but still act in good faith?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toddy please stop. I did`t attacked anybody I just said that it is clear from his POV that he has an strong opinion on this matter. He said it himself with numerous comments like "blatantly removing references to Hungarian in Transylvania", "Hungarians constitute a significant minority in Transylvania and are historically more important than Romanians in that region", "their historical significance and that fact that the Hungarian minority is only recently a "minority", "rampant anti-Hungarian prejudice" , "try to forget their Hungarian history", "This whole discussion is just another typical East European hyper-nationalistic attempt to rewrite history.". And I did`t say that opinion is non-neutral or anything, just said that he has one which is more than obvious. In all this discussions I never expressed my opinion on this matter and I was accused several times even from your behalf. From all that you know I could be a Hungarian living in Miercurea-Ciuc :). I did`t insulted again anybody nor bully - never did. Sorry but your accusation is out of place having in mind what he wrote on this subject. Adrian (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My "personal POV" is that I have BOTH Hungarian and Romanian friends in and from Transylvania, so don't accuse me of pushing a POV. I understand the dynamics there because I hear it from both sides. --Taivo (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Romanians "delete" anybody`s history from Romania is a false inflammatory statement (as others you wrote). If you understood the dynamics you would`t write something like "rampant anti-Hungarian prejudice" , "try to forget their Hungarian history", "This whole discussion is just another typical East European hyper-nationalistic attempt to rewrite history." directly accusing me again. I could write a km long comment about this but if you could only know how many Hungarian mayors are in communes that are not populated by Hungarians, how many German mayors are in places there are no significant German population. Take for an example Sibiu. I could go on and on but I myself would violate WP:NOTFORUM then. Adrian (talk) 05:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding accusations of edit warring

So that none of us get accused of edit-warring, I suggest that we adopt a policy of no more than one revert per calendar day per article.--Toddy1 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will not revert anything or do anymore edits on the problematic articles until this problem is solved. There is no point in edit warring or editing the article until this is solved. The important thing is that you are constructive and that we are talking. When the other party refuses to talk then it is a problem :). Adrian (talk) 07:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion you seek is here, especially in the "Compromise" section: alternate names in the infobox if that name is co-official, i.e. if the minority in question forms ≥20% of the population. This has been the practice since May 2007, and as you can see if you read enough of the discussion, was the practice before that time as well. Just recently, I too have removed several such names from infoboxes, not because of some sinister anti-Hungarian agenda, but because in all those places, they make up a minority significantly smaller than 20%. - Biruitorul ^Talk 13:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm sympathetic toward including Hermannstadt, Schäßburg, Kronstadt, Mediasch, etc. on grounds of historical importance. On the other hand, we do have to be mindful of the fact that editors can make similar claims of historical importance - similar, and quite valid - about Kolozsvár, Déva, Vajdahunyad, Arad, Gyulafehérvár, and so forth, despite all these cities having under 20% Hungarians. So if you include Hermannstadt, you'll have to be prepared to include Kolozsvár as well - indeed, the claim is if anything stronger, given that city's still-vibrant Hungarian community. Thus, I would probably and reluctantly just stay with the 20% rule in all cases in order to avoid subjective complications. (I'm not saying it's subjective to say Hermannstadt is a relevant name, just that we could see subjective claims in the future. For example, Orsova's importance to Hungarian history is that the Holy Crown of Hungary was buried under a tree in the area during the 1848 revolution. But if Orsova gets put into the infobox, someone else might say that's a rather insignificant claim of historical notability, etc.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why thank you, I really appreciate that. Keep up the good work! - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sibiu

In the case of Sibiu my opinion is the following. In terms of present day population both the Hungarian (2%) and the German (1.6%) name could be removed from the infobox. There might be justification to reinclude them because of historical significance (1910 population suggests Romanians Hungarians and Germans all had a significant presence in the city(8824, 7252, 16832 respectively) but this would have to be discussed on the talkpage. As far as I know the practice of using the 20% threshold comes from local Romanian law which says a language can become "locally official" or something similar at that level. Probably that's why it got connected with the infoboxes. Hobartimus (talk) 11:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Taivo

I've commented on his talk page. As I'll not be around so much for the next two weeks you may need to go to WP:ANI or WP:ANEW should Taivo continue the same pattern of behaviour without entering into discussion. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Mjroots, your accusation that I have not been in discussion is absolutely false. The discussion is right above where you posted this. --Taivo (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]