Misplaced Pages

Talk:Historical regions of Romania: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:54, 18 May 2015 editBorsoka (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users44,985 edits →Borsova: ???← Previous edit Revision as of 18:54, 18 May 2015 edit undoViuser (talk | contribs)120 edits →BorsovaNext edit →
Line 71: Line 71:
] (]) 12:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC) ] (]) 12:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
:::You are wrong, again. I suggested above you should seek assistance from members of WikiProject:Romania. They can assist you in your native language. ] (]) 16:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC) :::You are wrong, again. I suggested above you should seek assistance from members of WikiProject:Romania. They can assist you in your native language. ] (]) 16:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
::: Oh come on ,Hungarians are funny chaps . All the maps are the same, You took mine because Debrecen nem Debreţin. So let's erase the page, because the maps are made by users so are their own research and where are the sources who states Crişana was partitioned between Hungary and Romania, because you say that Crişana is only in Romania :)). So is wrong with you ? Is Crişana only in Romania or in Hungary too? because ,Crișana (Hungarian: Körösvidék; German: Kreischgebiet) is a geographical and historical region divided today between Romania and Hungary.
I have a better idea, just go on your Hungarian pages, because is an article about Romania, you know nothing about Romanians , my map has all the sources in description.
End of talks.
] (])

Revision as of 18:54, 18 May 2015

WikiProject iconRomania Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
To-do list:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconFormer countries (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesFormer countries

there is an error about Transilvania historical Region. Transilvania does not comprise Banat Crisana and Maramures. Transilvania stands alongside Crisana Banat and Maramures as historical regions of Romania. If Banat Crisana and Maramures make up the Transylvania historical region, if u take them away, then a huge area of this "Transylvania" doesnt reamains unnamed. Criztu 07:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I think Transylvania is more commonly referred to as spanning Crişana, Banat and Maramureş too, which are subregions of Transylvania. I come from Oradea, for example, and I would consider myself Transylvanian, as would most people here ("ardeleni"). We are also from Crişana. I suppose the situation is similar in Banat and Maramureş... I know people from both of those regions who see themselves as Transylvanian when talking to people from Bucharest or Moldavia, for example, since there does seem to be a pan-Transylvanian regional identity, at least in things like language/accent, gastronomy, etc. Ronline ✉ 08:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Huge mistakes

The article contains major errors in maps and in the article. I started with the map and i will continue with the article. First, Bucovina is not a romanian region. We should focus on romanian regions as geographic regions, with traditional ties. Politic borders many times don't respect traditional borders. For example today Orşova is in Mehedinţi county. Also Bucovina and Basarabia people call themself Moldoveni. So partition of Moldova in Moldova,Basarabia, Bucovina is arbitrary and not Romanian. This names are a result of political partition of Moldova not a Romanian partition. Historians from Romania never cleared this matter but that not means that those are different provinces. Also Maramureş was not part of Ardeal, Maramureş and other Marmaţia small voievodships wore transformed in Hungarian county's and wore given to Transylvania(hungarian state) în administration as Partium, but that don't means that romanians from Maramureş, Bârjava, and Ardeal wore given some choice or there wore in the same region. After 1918 the confusion between Ardeal/ Transylvania and the rest of the regions growed, also some parts of Crişana wore artificial included in Maramureş as a compensation for the loss of many parts of real Maramureş. But in this article we must expose the historical, traditional and geographical truth. If some change i will make don't make you happy please post in talk your view and we will discuss it. Also the title is rong, we should change it in Romanian Regions, Romania had only Ţinuturi, and wore made regardless of any tradition of history background of the land. Vasile iuga (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, first of all, you should respect your ban and study basic WP policies, including WP:NOR, in the following six months. Secondly, the map depicts territories which have never been inhabited by Romanians as "Romanian historical regions". Please also remember WP:3RR. Borsoka (talk) 13:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ban? First of all what regions wore not inhabited by Romanians? My map is not named Romanian Historical Regions, is named Romanian Regions, and all the region depicted there wore lived by Romanians and are still lived by them. First of all tell me the problem and then you can edit. Second i don't know about any ban for me, you clearly don't know what you are talking in both cases. Please don't disturb the page without a previos talk. There are many similar maps, and it's a view of what Romanians think about. Hungary or other country's involve in those regions clearly had their own names and view about them. Vasile iuga (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

So you state that you are not identical with banned Eurocentral. What is the source of your map? Are there reliable sources depicting, for instance, the whole Banat and Debrecen as Romanian historical regions? By the way, what the term "Romanian historical region" means, according to scholarly works? Borsoka (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't state, is clear even for a donkey with glasses. :) As for the regions, you are not in a position to question me or to decide what Romanians claims as regions. Banat was a region with a Romanian majority. A region of the Romanian people is a region inhabited by them, in a minority or majority . Crişana has it's borders on Mureş and Tisa, Oaş, Gutâi,Meseş, Apuseni Mountains . So yes Debrecen/Debreţin is in that region. THe city was of less importance before 1848 revolution, and all the Tisa grasslands wore full of heards of the Romanians or Hungarians. You have a map with the same province, a France map. :)) Vasile iuga (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not have a French map. You should study basic WP policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:Civility. You will be surprised, because all editors are in the position to question any edits which are not based on academic works, according to WP:NOR. If I understand your logic, whole Romania is a Hungarian historical region: Romania has its own borders, there are Hungarians living in Romania and there are no sub-regions in Romania which were not dominated by the Hungarians for a longer or shorter period. Or we could state that whole Southeastern Europe is a Bulgarian historical region, because there are Bulgarians living in Southestern Europe and large territories in Southeastern Europe were under Bulgarian rule for longer or shorter periods. Or we could say that whole Eurasia is a Spainsh historical region, because Eurasia can be easily identified on the map as large region and Spain is in Eurasia. I think this is a quite strange approach, similarly to the approach that territories which were never inhabited by Romanians and were never part of Romania could be depicted as parts of "Romanian historical regions". Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at the second map in the site, if you cannot understand that Romanians consider Crişana west border on the river Tisa, that explain why you consider Trianon a good deal for Romania. Yes the province is not lived 100% by Romanians, but still is a province of them, as it is a province for the Hungarians. And if was or not in a Romanian state is not a argument, Kurd people never had a state, but that don't means that their provinces don't exist. Vasile iuga (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstand something. We need a reliable source based on which this map could be presented. Borsoka (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Ok my sources are in the map description. My map is not a copy of any previous map, it's an exact map of what romanians consider their regions. FO example Ardeal political border was Almaş river, but in some periods was another border, and the romanians consider that Border, Meseş Mountains, as border of the region, not Almaş. This is a map about Romanians view, i hope you understand. I will not go and say Hungarians cannot make their own map, they have Partium in that area, we have other regions. The area was a multicultural one.

Vasile iuga (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You may not know, but WP is not a forum where editors can publish their own views of history or geography. Please read WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes.

A little history of each region, and other stuff. More regions, Partium was not a Romanian region, but a Hungarian one, this is a article about Romania. If you don't like what i have done, post it hear and we can change it or we can discuss it. Vasile iuga (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you should discuss your proposed edits on the Talk page of WikiProject Romania before making them. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest to cry less and say what is your problem with my changes, on topic, point by point, you revert changes, so tell me your arguments point by point.

And what is your problem with my map. Make a list, you have no right to change without any argument. All data are known facts, you have similar maps. So you can go on that talk page, because this page have a talk page and you are the king, the Hungarian King of Wiki. So tell us from your wisdom, what is rong ? Debrecen nem Debreţin? Vasile iuga (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand the case. Please read WP:NOR: the publication of maps which are not based on academic works is forbidden. Borsoka (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Borsova

I think user Borsova vandalize the page, he can't bring an argument, but he reverts all changes. Just let's write Greater Hungary on the maps and for him it will be ok. This site has no rules at all. I am done with this page, i will note lose my time with hungarians angry on 1918. According to this chap is illegal to write history of the province, for him History starts in 1918. And the regions of Romanians are in Wallachia, there is Erdely and Partium. I made my map in 2 years, gatering data about medieval, period. Similar maps are on site, just mine is more exact, more data. The others who had time could battle with this chap. I am done, i will make a map with Greater Hungary to be less angry, from Volga to Alps. You know, this boy thinks maghiars and huns the same people and he can revert changes in history pages. Vasile iuga (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, again. I suggested above you should seek assistance from members of WikiProject:Romania. They can assist you in your native language. Borsoka (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh come on ,Hungarians are funny chaps . All the maps are the same, You took mine because Debrecen nem Debreţin. So let's erase the page, because the maps are made by users so are their own research and where are the sources who states Crişana was partitioned between Hungary and Romania, because you say that Crişana is only in Romania :)). So is wrong with you ? Is Crişana only in Romania or in Hungary too? because ,Crișana (Hungarian: Körösvidék; German: Kreischgebiet) is a geographical and historical region divided today between Romania and Hungary.

I have a better idea, just go on your Hungarian pages, because is an article about Romania, you know nothing about Romanians , my map has all the sources in description. End of talks. Vasile iuga (talk)

Categories: