Talk:Transylvania

Association with vampires

"The Western world commonly associates Transylvania with vampires..." Is this really true of the Western world in general ? For English-speakers, naturally. But Germans ? French ? Where´s the evidence ?

It took me a while to work out that Transylvania was identical with the region commonly referred to by Germans as the "Siebenbürgen", and when they do refer to it, it seems to always be as a source of immigrants to Germany.

So this statement seems Anglocentric, IMHO. Sean Ramsay 3084 (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Sean Ramsay 3084, you have a point, but I think there is a good amount of evidence Transylvania is associated with vampires. Just did a quick search on Google scholar for "transylvania" and "vampires", coming up with 3300 results, including...

• [BOOK] Transylvania: Birthplace of vampires
• Getting to Know the Un-dead: Bram Stoker, Vampires, and Dracula
• [BOOK] Transylvania and Beyond: Vampires & Werewolves in Old Europe
• Performing Transylvania: Tourism, fantasy and play in a liminal place
• Halloween in Transylvania
• Dracula's castle in Transylvania: Conflicting heritage marketing strategies

And that's only on page 1 of the results.--Historyday01 (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

But of all those sources are English-language. I never denied that English-speakers associate Transylvania with vampires. The question is whether speakers of other languages do.Sean Ramsay 3084 (talk) 11:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sean Ramsay, should we perhaps change "Western World" to "English-speaking world" (or some equivalent thereof) then? I agree we shouldn't use "Western World" if it is only true of the Anglosphere. I don't see it as anglocentric, though, just a mistake; for, a very great many, if not most similar such cultural associations are not English-exclusive, but are common to western culture generally, it is easy to forget which are which :). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:990E:6194:BD59:277D (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Transylvania Etymology

The etymology of the word Ardeal has been a disputed topic in Romanian for the last 200 years. Various opinions have been put forward in Romanian linguistics gravitating mainly around two options: a derivation from the Hungarian word Erdély, supported by linguists as Alexandru de Cihac, Bogdan Petriceicu Hașdeu, Nicolae Drăganu, Iorgu Iordan and others; while an Indo-European root has been put forward more recently by linguists Sorin Paliga and Mihai Vinereanu. Since more than one option has been put forward I consider, in the interest of neutrality, that the paragraph for Romanian etymology should reflect this in line with other online sources, the relative prominence of opposing views is of course open to debate. I support keeping the Hungarian etymology and the Romanian etymology separate to avoid needles conflicts. This topic has been added as a sign of good faith in regard to discussing the words etymology (in particular for @Gyalu22) following the recommendation of @Borsoka. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I believe both Paliga and Vinereanu to be fringe. Paliga is a professor of Slavic languages and highly controversial [1] while Vinereanu claims to be a former professor at the City University of New York (this needs to be verified) and not much else in the way of an academic track record. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi.

Many theories have been put forward by the Romanian side, however these are fringe and unreliable (not me who decided this), while the unitary explanation from the Hungarian form is internationally accepted even by most Romanian historians. We can't choose two explanations and say that they are the two possibilities, nor we can introduce all ideas. I say let's make a compromise: we show that not everyone agrees with the Hungarian derivation, but we don't define their opinions. Like this:

• The first known written occurrence of the Romanian name Ardeal appeared in a document in 1432 as Ardeliu. The word is thought to derive from the Hungarian Erdély, however some Romanian linguist debate this claim. Further reading in the main article.

Gyalu22 (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Vinereanu is not a reliable source. Paliga fails WP:CHOPSY in my opinion. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The statement that Ardeliu is attested in Romanian in 1432 is dubious since the oldest surviving document in Romanian si Neacșu's letter dated June 1521. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

You can also find this statement here, with this reference:

Drăganu, Nicolae (1923). Anuarul Institutului de Istorie Națională – Ardeal (PDF) (in Romanian). pp. 233–246.

Drăganu didn't cite anyone, but did here on page 322. I don't know who is Bogdan J., but probably he Magyarized and abbreviated the name of Ioan Bogdan. Maybe you can do some research that where did the Ardeliu form come from. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That source reads in "Slavo-Romanian documents" and clarifies in the next paragraph that the documents were written in Slavonic at a Romanian court. Not what the current article reads. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree both Vinereanu or Paliga don't have the same weight as previous mentioned linguists, in particular Draganu. There is however a distance of about 100 years between them and the comparative linguistic method going back to an Indo-European etymon is fairly recently employed in Romanian linguistics. However, to delete a reference to them because of perceived lack of authority is an argument ad hominem, not a balanced review of historical etymology. I could also quote Transylvanian School and dr. Madgearu in support of debated origin of the word, I simply stated the first two due to expressing their views more recently. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:29, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments are the basis of how wikipedia works. This is an encyclopedia that follows mainstream science. Please read WP:CHOPSY. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:32, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

No, ad hominem is a logical fallacy . What you mean to say is pro-academic bias. This isn't the case for such reviews since we are describing the history of the word, therefore quoting more than one variant is the factual form, while reducing to a single view is non-factual. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not arguing to reduce the article to a single view. I am arguing that Vinereanu and Paliga are WP:FRINGE and therefore should not be in the article. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

That means we can show only view. Gyalu22 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me make one point very clear. Ad hominem is indeed a logical fallacy when attempting to establish truth, which by definition wikipedia does not seek to do. The article has to reflect the mainstream view, with due weight given to minority points of view and no weight given to fringe sources. My argument is that references to Vinereanu should not exist in any wikipedia article and references to Paliga should be restricted to modern Slavic languages (or not even there, that is debatable). These are, obviously ad hominem arguments but it is how we identify fringe sources here. I don't mind having 1, 2 or PI theories in the article, what I do mind are references to Vinereanu and Paliga. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, would you agree then to a reference to either Transylvanian Schoo or Paul Magheru, Paul Lazar Tonciulescu, Dorin Ștef, Vasile Duma etc to support the debated nature of the etymology. I don't mind any. I cannot agree with the repeatedly invoked "mainstream view" as this is not the reality of the situation. None of the online sources like DEX or Wiktionary give only one variant, and a poll or study hasn't been conducted within Romanian academic world to determine an overwhelming majority. Respectfully, none of the editors involved in this debate know either. Since I cannot (nor really want to) refute your argument against Vinereanu and Paliga, I can replace the ref with a more appropriate source. Aristeus01 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Greater Romania Party politician Paul Magheru does not pass WP:CHOPSY, Tonciulescu is a well known source of Dacianism, Dorin Stef is a journalist with no notable academic track record whatsoever, Vasile Duma does not seem to give any relevant hits on google scholar but seems to be related to well known pseudoscience website Noidacii. In short: the last three are clearly fringe, the first is likely fringe. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Josef Ladislav Píč then, or Johann Wolf, although I don't have their books I can try an acquire them for reference? Also, while I understand a certain standard has to be kept, Wikipedia:CHOPSY is not to be confused with political bias. We discuss linguistics here, the quoted author's political view is of no consequence unless expressly stated in the etymology itself (for example Ardeal is a Romanian word because we are Dacians and pre-date Hungarians in this land). Aristeus01 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CHOPSY incites us to stay away from authors who have an h-index that seems to be 0 (but are used as a reference in a small circle of nationalist fringe sources). I'm being cruel, I know, but seriously, Magheru is probably a valid reference for an article on Russian poetry - that is what he studied in Leningrad after all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Hungarian etymology for Ardeal reflects pretty standard vowel shifts (Drăganu says so and also it's pretty elementary, e.g. nem -> neam); semantically it makes perfect sense and is based on... well, actual words not reconstructed pseudo-Indo-European. Josef Ladislav Píč? Why are you doing this? An archeologist, specializing in prehistory with, we must say it, a valid contribution to paleontology (in tha late 1800s - early 1900s!!) but also known for his involvement in an affair of nationalist forgeries. The guy has not produced a single significant contribution to Romanian linguistics, probably didn't speak a word of Romanian. No, seriously, why are we doing this? Is the aim here to actually help build an encyclopedia or just get that fringe etymology in there at any cost? Plinul cel tanar (talk) 02:52, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Both views

Hi ZZARZY223, you can I see did not remove your content. [2]

Please check carefully the result and compare, I did not remove anything! Timeline: I added the Battle of Kosovo after the Mongol invasion. I updated the source format and I added the Hungarian view together with the Romanian view. Your content is there

The stage after your edit:

In the 12th and 13th centuries, Southeast and Northeast Transylvania was settled by Saxon colonists. After the Battle of Kosovo and Ottoman arrival at the Hungarian border, thousands of Vlach and Serbian refugees came to Transylvania. Nevertheless, Vlachs constitued an important part of Transylvania's population even on the eve of the Mongol Invasions.

The stage after my edit:

In the 12th and 13th centuries, Southeast and Northeast Transylvania was settled by Saxon colonists. In Romanian historiography, Vlachs constitued an important part of Transylvania's population even on the eve of the Mongol Invasions. Hungarian historiography claims that the Vlach population entered Transylvania from the Balkans only in the 12th century, and the devastating invasion of Mongols had also as consequence the large-scale immigration by Romanians, however the immigration of Romanians did not happen all at once, the process of settlement stretched over several centuries. After the Battle of Kosovo and Ottoman arrival at the Hungarian border, thousands of Vlach and Serbian refugees came to Transylvania.

OrionNimrod (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)