Talk:Lupeni, Harghita

Terra Siculorum\ Székely Land\ Székelyföld\Ţinutul Secuiesc\ Szeklerland

The official name of the territorial-administrative unit in question, both in the Kingdom of Hungary and Principality of Transylvania was Terra Siculorum (until 1867) when Latin was the official language in the aforementioned political entities. Today the term Székely Land denotes nothing more than a particular cultural area among the Hungarian ethnic group. There are laws in the Parliament of Romania which seek to change this matter(official recognition); however, until they do, I will do my best to respect historical accuracy and help troubled editors for whom the line between fantasy and reality is extremely thin. Amon Koth (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The existence of the Székely Land is not dependant on the decision of the Romanian parliament. Until 1876, the name of the territory names was also Székely Land/Szeklerland. By the way, the Austro-Hungarian constitutional compromise was in 1867, so forget 1876 as a date when something crucial was changed. Study the relevant article before adding historical non-sense to articles. In 1876, only the medieval community-based self-governments ('szék'-system) were changed for a modern county system, however, the territorial units remained same (eg. from Csíkszék > Csík County.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 20:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• You have major problems in separating the historical past from present reality. The crux of the problems is represented very concise in my second statement. I will reproduce again for more clarity: Today the term Székely Land denotes nothing more than a particular cultural area among the Hungarian ethnic group. And I have mentioned several times that trying to add a geographical dimension to this cultural region you are very fond of, is a blatant form of Hungarian irredentism. Of course this is Wikipedia, and while Romanian laws may not apply, they still represent an important factor because, like it or not, if these laws do not state the existence of such a territorial-administrative unit, then it really means the unit in question does not exist. Your obvious contempt for the laws of Romania and its constitution is evident, your biased POV, as well.
• Edits introduce changes to articles. When you attempt to introduce such a controversial and highly inappropriate, irredentist claim as you have, you could at least try to offer a reasonable explanation for it instead of blindly reverting an edit while avoiding any avenue for discussion. You should widen your horizons a little because the burden of proof is on you.
• The year I was most interested in my previous paragraph was 1867, not when the territorial-administrative change happened; the context should have made it more clear for you that I was referring to the year when the respective unit ceased to exist. A typo on my part.
• I have been very tolerant towards you. I really doubt your fellow nationals would have behaved this way if I were to provide the full extent of the Romanian cultural region Crisana until it meets the Tisa river. I should inform you that I am strongly considering taking this whole dispute and your clear nationalistic stance to the attention of an administrator. Amon Koth (talk) 22:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

And if you really deem it necessary that the unit be mentioned, do try to do it in the proper place at the History section and not in the Geography one. I am favoring the use of the official Latin name followed by the name in the most relevant vernacular language as the term Szekely Land, (Anglo-Hungarian hybrid) is of more recent use and not necessarily the most relevant one in this particular case. Additional opinions always welcome.Amon Koth (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Romanian Wikipedia says the following about the Székely Land: "Ţinutul Secuiesc (maghiară: Székelyföld, germană: Szeklerland) este o zonă istorică din România, situată în estul Transilvaniei." Székely Land (Hungarian: Székelyföld, German: Szeklerland) is a historical area in Romania, situated in Eastern-Transylvania. This is what I apply to the article, nothing more. I never asserted it is a territorial-administrative unit. Try to tell the difference between geography and political-geography. Your nationalistic stance creates a polemy from nothing. If your agenda was other than nationalistic polemics, you could easily find articles to improve instead of deleting the expression "Székely Land" eg. in neighboring Bacău County almost all village articles are 1 lines stubs. By the way the, the "non-existant" Ţinutul Secuiesc has 49.400 Romanian results. Székely Land is the area where Székely people live for many centuries as a majority population.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 23:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You offer Wikipedia as a source for your statements? This is your explanation? That is evidently, inadequate, I am afraid. Szekely Land holds no significance except for the Hungarian ethnic group, as I have already mentioned, being nowadays nothing more than a cultural area. Including settlements in cultural areas which hold little significance except for a particular ethnic group is of limited relevance and would be very inappropriate. I believe your are amalgamating some concepts without bothering to understand them fully. You perceive hostility from any opinion other than your own and the high-strung attitude you exhibit is overbearing at times and not very constructive. It seems you have declared some type of virtual independence on certain articles on Wikipedia where those who maintain other opinions than your own are not welcomed anymore. What is your rationale in sending me to the Bacau County for making edits? What is the difference between the Bacau County and Harghita County? Are they not both part of the same Romania? I hope you are not offended if I take the liberty to pursue my own interests and not what you would have me do. I have moved the term Szekely Land in the appropriate place at the History section then referred to it using its official Latin name followed by the most relevant vernacular name (Hungarian). I have also provided in my previous paragraph a clear explanation and willingness to discuss the issue, which you ignored completely, like many other aspects before it. Unless you can back up your actions with an argument, I will bring this issue to the attention of an administrator (announcing the action on your page). The conviction and infallibility of your crusade is evident to me and this discussion is, unfortunately, going nowhere. I am sorry you perceive me as an unwanted element. Amon Koth (talk) 01:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)