Talk:Unirea, Alba

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No section[edit]

You can check the census data here. See the table after the Unirea (commune) "1. Unirea - Felvinc".--KIDB 17:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is possible that the old Romanian name is older than 1909, the first mention Attila M Szabó found. Hopefully Romanian users have more access to possible Romanian sources. Zello 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this article is about the Unirea commune, not village. I will not edit it right now, to avoid double edits, but in the current form the article is incorrect. Alexrap 18:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some villages were joined to the town in the 20th century doesn't mean that we should use the present-day administrative borders for the historical context. A dozen villages were amalgamated into Budapest in 1952 but writing about the history of the city I will write about Pest and Buda not the history and demographics of Újpest, Csepel etc. Sooner or later somebody will write articles about the villages around Unirea also. Zello 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All villages belonging to Unirea commune have separate pages on ro.wiki: Ciugudu de Jos, Ciugudu de Sus, Dumbrava, Inoc,, Măhăceni, and Vereşmart. Perhaps the same should be done on en.wiki? Turgidson 03:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to object to that solution, as I have done in the past: what articles on villages accomplish is eternal stubs. They can easily be separate mentions or sections within an article on the commune, which is the only one with a chance of reaching FA status (unlikely in itself, but this should be the ultimate goal); no matter how much info can be gathered for a village, it cannot lead to more than a paragraph (and let's keep in mind that many cities in Romania don't have more than a paragraph). Additionally, I consider it impossible for anyone to write a serious piece on the commune that would not be redundant to the proposed articles on villages. Not to mention that the reader will most likely be searching for all the relevant info in one place, not in bits that are a headache to interlink (present-day is the best point to start from).
In that spirit, articles on villages, if created, are best redirected here, for the sake of avoiding forking and clutter. Don't get me wrong, I consider this solution should be applied everywhere equally (for example, I see absolutely no reason why Islaz and Turnu Măgurele should be different articles). Dahn 10:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also need to ask: what is a map of the county doing here? Shouldn't we have locator maps, if anything? I mean, the map is accessible through the link to the relevant article, and its use here seems strangely arbitrary to me. Dahn 10:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, that was exactly my point. The article is about the commune, as it is done for almost all other Romanian communes. Information about the villages that compose the commune can be very well part of the article. As I said, I will correct the article accordingly. Alexrap 12:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am aware that was your point. We see eye-to-eye here. Dahn 12:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn, the explanations you give make a lot of sense -- I just don't know what the "official policy" is here as regards villages vs communes, I've seen it done both ways, and it's kind of maddening not to have uniform standards. From what I gather, people have created pages for specific villages when there were redlinks, and there is something notable about the village, eg, for Humuleşti. See also the lists of localities in various counties, for more villages here and there. But then, I agree, there is no end to it, and not a viable solution, for the reasons you outline. On the other hand, creating redirect pages from villages to the "mother commune" (which I think is the solution you propose) sounds like a sound solution -- I didn't think of it, but now that you bring it up, sounds like Occam's razor soultion, which I'm always on the lookout for. And, yes, we need an infobox here -- I meant to put one, but was hampered by the map of the county there -- almost all other communes in Alba County have them, I don't know why. Again, there should be a uniform format -- I think a standard infobox would be best. Any thoughts on that? Turgidson 12:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too have seen the format fluctuating, and my proposal is merge, merge, merge (even for Humuleşti). The only time I remember this being brought up was a discussion with Bogdan, where I proposed the same. I also remember a proposal for commune infoboxes, which would also seem like an excellent way to point out what villages where. I tend to be awful on the follow-through when I discuss these major changes, but, if this is to lead anywhere, I'm all for it and willing to lend a hand. Dahn 14:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no connection between the quality of an article and the size of the settlement. You can write fantastic articles about villages inhabited by 50 people and poor ones about huge cities. That only depends on the effort put in the article by the contributors. The history and present of a small community is as interesting as a big one. We are speaking about villages existing since 600-700 centuries - there is certainly enough material to be written. There is no deadline in wikipedia so what is the problem with stubs? Somebody will come who is interested accidentally in the given village and will began to expand it. That is how wikipedia works. Zello 12:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that I am circumspect about it ever being possible to create articles about such villages that would have a hope of meeting all the requirements for content, I have to point out that any content can be just as well added, by anyone, to the page about the commune (in a relevant section). If redirects point this way, I cannot see the problem. And, in the utterly unlikely case that someone will come up with a major expansion on the village that is not redundant to the commune, well, you know the three-step solution: move-main article-category. And, yes, wikipedia does advise us not to create articles that are destined to remain stubs. This in addition to the fact that villages have grown informal in the past 200 years. Dahn 14:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here is a concrete case (I like to think in concrete examples, and move from there): how about the village of Răscruci, which is part of the Bonţida commune. I created the page for the village so as to avoid a redlink in another article -- should Răscruci be merged into Bonţida, and the page replaced by a redirect? Perhaps the next step would be to put some relevant tags on both pages about a merge proposal, and wait and see what the consensus is, as a test case (though perhaps someone wants to use other pages as test cases). I'm not familiar enough with this process -- maybe someone who has a better overview, and feels this could be the way to go, wants to do it? Turgidson 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a simpler way for now, since they are both redlinks: use [[Bonţida|Răscruci]], unless the same page has both redlinks. In the latter case, you could simply delink the village. Sounds good? Dahn 15:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that last comment: for some reason, they both appeared as redlinks on my page for just a second [addition: they actually appeared as burgundy links, which is indeed new - is someone playing with the wikiverse again?]. I think that the best way to go at this is to propose this issue on the noticeboard, and see what consensus there is. Of course, you could simply glue the two articles by redirecting the village to the commune (you replace all text on the page with #REDIRECT [[name of the commune]]; I don't picture any controversy, since you created the village page). In any case, posting this on the noticeboard will get more exposure and will be more practical than voting on mergers on a case-by-case basis (it will also effectively replace the latter process, with much less time and effort spent). But that is just a proposal - an Occamish proposal ;). Dahn 15:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean: I also get those funky burgundy links once in a while -- some glitch in the system, I guess. Redirects: Yes, I like those, they are straightforward to use. I have bigger problems with merge proposals and such -- if nothing else, I've developed a big aversion to tags since seeing the abuse they are subjected to by someone; I try to avoid them as much as possible, except in extreme situations. Noticeboard: OK, good idea, will do it when I get a chance. Gotta run now. Turgidson 16:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With burgundy: I think someone is actually playing with the format (I remember I wanted to beat them up when all internal links showed up underlined). For the rest: I'm with you 100%. Dahn 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name[edit]

Alex, please provide evidence that the Romanian and Hungarian names are translations of the Latin one.
Anyway, I don't feel necessary that those long tables are in the article, it was originally included becase you attacked me by claiming that I am magyarizing the town --KIDB 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KIDB, you can find the evidence yourself by simply looking in a Latin-Romanian and Latin-Hungarian dictionary at the word "Superior". The tables can stay now, since people invested time in order to produce them, and they are relevant to the article. Nobody attacked anyone, it's just that you were saying that the commune (btw, it's a commune and a village, not a town) had less than 20% Romanian population. Which was absolutely false, as you can clearly see. Alexrap 16:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious that superior means felső/sus but what about the main part of the name, Vinc? This is not Latin, I don't know its origin. On the other hand never anybody spoke Latin in Transylvania since Traianus so it's much more probable that the Latin name is a translation of a medieval cleric of the real name which was Felvinc as the oldest documentary evidence suggest. Zello 17:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I would likw to point out that Medieval Latin was indeed used by the Kingdom (and probably spoken by all intellectuals and authorities), I find the notion that it was "translated" from Latin very dubious. Because, you know, Romanian in Medieval Transylvania was the tree falling in the forest (while Hungarian was recorded in, if I'm not mistaken, 1300). Let's not postulate the unverifiable. Dahn 17:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerics indeed spoke Latin but only as a second language. Latin wasn't the mother tongue of anybody so medieval Latin names are all secondary ones. In the Middle Ages settlements weren't named by clerks but people living there who spoke there own language (Slavic, Hungarian, Romanian but certainly not Latin). In this case the first appearance of Felvinc is documented (1291) but we don't know the age of the older Romanian name.

I don't think there is any older Romanian name, and the name "Unirea" literally means "the Union" - post-1918 if I ever did see such a name. Personally, I cannot say anything about the tables (are they actually sourced?). Dahn 18:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not try to make things look more complicated than they are. The place was called by its inhabitants differently, each of them using their own language. In official documents however, only the official name was used. This was Latin, German, Hungarian, and is now Romanian. But they all refer to the same village and in all these languages the name means the same thing, i.e. The Upper Wynch/Vinc/Winz/Vint. The etymology of the name Wynch/Vinc/Winz/Vint I don't know if it was exactly established, but as far as I know, it comes from the Latin word for vineyard (I have no reference for this, though). In any case, I think it's remarkable that in all the languages the same meaning was maintained, so this is why I consider it relevant to be mentioned. Since the first mention was the Latin one (as the language used in documents at the time), I cannot see why we cannot say that the other names are translations in the other languages of this first mentioning. Alexrap 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the first mention has no meaning in Latin. Therefore, we must assume that it was a translation of something, not the other way. Simply stating the mentions and languages, without any speculation, moves this article away from original research (as would dropping the weasel wording "it should be noted"). Dahn 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Latin name was certainly the translation in Latin (the language used in official documents at the time) of the names used by the inhabitants (Romanians, Hungarians, Germans). What I am trying to say is that we need to find a way to mention that all the names mean the same thing, The Upper Vint/Vinc/Winz, as this is clearly a fact, and no OR. Alexrap 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You could just say that, then. Dahn 22:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


shouldn't the list of names in the first line be replaced with "(known also by several alternative names)", per WP:NCGN, art 2?Anonimu 10:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

I have problems with the demographic table of the commune. I think the information itself is important because it shows that the surroundings of village had a different ethnic structure. But the commune was created - I think - in the recent past, and didn't exist in 1850 or 1910. We should include some information about this because the present version is a bit misleading. Zello 18:07, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing with the demographic section is that is quite long, but this is only because you insist to have a different table for the centre of the commune only. As we said, the article is about the whole commune, so normally one table should be enough. I have the feeling that you are trying too hard to isolate parts of the region with the highest possible Hungarian percentage and then present only that. But we should all focus in here in writing a good article, not in trying hard to ignore the Romanian element in the region. Because I can't believe that you are saying that a region of 5,000 people is too large.
And about the text after the tables: what is the point in commenting the figures already presented in the tables. And also more strikingly, doing so only for one ethnicity. Shall we all start to include comments about how each ethnicity evolved in time. As I said, this is superfluous, as any reader can find all the information in the text. Alexrap 19:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't concentrate only on Hungarians I wrote a section about Romas also. The text contains information that you can't deduce from the tables itself. It gives a real picture about the changes during the last 150 years. I didn't say that the commune table is superfluous I said that the commune hadn't exsisted that time and we should mention this fact. Villages are the natural settlement units while communes change with every administrative reform. Felvinc was indeed an independent town during its existence since the Middle Ages (oppidum/mezőváros) so the second table is really needed. Not because the ethnicity question - as I said before the mainly Romanian populated villages also deserve their own articles in the long run. Zello 20:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Alexrap that you requested the data about Felvinc - and later you deleted and replaced them with those about Unirea. Anyway, I think that this large amount of numbers is not really needed in a (presently) short article. It would be enough to have a written explanation about them and if we only mentioned that the commune was created in ... from the villages .. .. and .. , .... From these, Vintu, called Felvinc until the 20th century, was the administrative centre of Aranyosszék and had a majoriy Hungarian population until it was united with the other villages. The Hungarian names Felvinc and Aranyosszék are important to be emphasised because all the medieval documents about the area are using these names and these names will appear in WP later when history articles will be more elaborated. --KIDB 20:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should keep the collected data. They are encyclopaedic, important and other towns also had similar tables for example Oradea. The article will be longer as time goes on. Zello 00:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, but in this case we should certainly keep the data about Felvinc --KIDB 06:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep writing false and superfluous information in the article? Firstly, Unirea is not a town (urban area), but very much just a village/commune (rural area). Secondly, insisting in commenting the figures already included in the table is non-encyclopaedic and it certainly looks like we want to make a point. And let's not forget that the article is about the entire commune, which is the lowest level of administrative subdivision in Romania. Saying that the Romas became the third ethnic group is again false, as they are actually the second ethnic group, whether we like it or not. Alexrap 08:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The information is absolutely correct, sourced and encyclopaedic for the town or village (it doesn't matter how you call it, it was considered a town for 4-500 years...). The table didn't contain numerical data which is needed only percentages. And it needs explanation how the ethnic composition changed so radically in 80 years time. There is no original research in the paragraph only facts (that you obviously don't like). Zello 09:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zello, it was you the one that compiled the table for the village. The initial data you had was number of inhabitants, but you decided that percentages are better (so you had to do all the calculations yourself). Now you are saying that numbers are actually better than percentages, so you write a paragraph describing the numbers. I think you should make up your mind and if you really want both, you can put both in the table. But writing a paragraph that focuses on one ethnicity and trying to make the point that it's unfortunate that they lost their majority is not encyclopaedic at all.
The reality is that we cannot have isolated islands of segregated ethnicities in a normal society. If we had that during the times of the Kingdom of Hungary, I think we all agree that it's a very good thing that it's not the case anymore. A region where 5000 people are living is a small region anyway, and it's a natural thing for the people to mix and interract. And it's also very natural for a minority, in time, to loose from its share. Implying in a Wikipedia article that we should have kept the segregated communities system from KoH is not something we should do. Don't you agree? Alexrap 11:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers and percentages are both needed. As for your latest comment this is your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that I don't have to be delighted at the disappearance of Hungarian communities even if it is a natural process (although it was actively promoted between 1920 and 1990). But regardless of personal opninions it's an important change in the life of a village when one ethic group looses it 700 years old majority and gradually ceases to exist. It's similarly important when another ethnic group that was insignificant formerly becames an important minority like Romas. These are the most important demographic changes in the life of a village and you can't hide them behind the data of other neighbouring villages or deleting (unpleasant) numbers. Zello 21:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Felvinc was the centre of a whole ethnic group, the Székelys of Aranyosszék who almost totally disappeared in the last 80 years. It's not un-encyclopaedic to register the existence and the end of them. The history of this village was mainly their history during former centuries (similarly that the history of Sighisoara was mainly the history of Saxons). Zello 21:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps: You wrote "normal society" but you mean "modern society". In old peasant society it is absolutely natural that small ethnic groups lived next to each other with only a limited amount of intermarriage. Intermarriage was limited even between H-H and R-R villages. In a modern world where people always travel, move to neighbouring towns and all distances are dicreasing, small communities are more open to changes and they often disappear. But this is not "normal society", only the way of our living (since 30-40 years). The people of the 19th century (and older) had an absolutely different concept about normailty. Zello 21:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that if you're saying that we need both numbers and percentages, why not put all of them in the table? Making comments in a pretty subjective way is not something we should aim for. Presenting the data should be enough. Any reader can think for himself.
A 700 year old Hungarian majority in the village is just your guess and there is no evidence to support it. But that is another discussion.
No, you don't have to be delighted. But not all things are black or white in life. Even if there are some things we might not like, they might still be the best outcome, from an objective point of view. You can call it just "modern" if you like (and not "normal"), but for me this modern society is more normal that the 19th century one. Segregation is not sustainable. And yes, you are right, people of the 19th century (and older) had an absolutely different concept about normality. But I'm glad that concept is no longer actual, because it was very very wrong. I'd be surprised to hear that some people still admire it. Alexrap 11:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not speaking about "segregation" (I don't think that this a good word for the past, it was the natural seclusion of small communities) but the total disappearance of an ethnic group. In the long run I'm sure that Hungarian communities outside the present-day borders of Hungary will have to disappear, this is a natural process, seeing the demographic trends. But there is nothing subjective to show to the reader that a certain community reached the end of its existence (not the first such case in the history). Everything you wrote about segregation and natural assimilation obviously doesn't work in the case of the Romas who are rapidly inreasing in the same time. There are no general rules but specific demograhics of the different communities that are running on a totally different way. And you have to emphasise the important trends - it's the essence of writing an ecyclopaedia otherwise 100'000 census table would do the same. Zello 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps. The version you presented in your last edit is generally acceptable for me. Natural immigration into towns is an important factor and I never denied that we should take this into consideration when speaking about demographic changes. On the other hand you should also notice that populations generally increased in numbers during the 20th century while minority Hungarians didn't. This is not a "natural" phenomenon although you can say that everything that happens in life is natural. Zello 21:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we both agree about this version. If we are to comment on the data presented, then at least we should try to give an overall picture, and not focus only on some aspects. Anyway, I have one comment on your last edits:
- The phrase you added about the Roma is incorrect, as there were 294 Roma in 1850, 398 in 1930 and 1956, so their number did not oscillate between 100 and 200 in the 20th century. Anyway, I think this whole phrase is not really needed as we already made a comment on the trend experienced by the Roma community. And to be honest, I don't even know how much we can trust the data for the Roma in the Censuses. First of all, they were not even counted between 1850 and 1930. So they were considered Hungarians/Romanians for a long time.
- And just a curiosity now: What does "Egyéb összesen" mean? Alexrap 11:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the census data about the Romas is unreliable but I still think that some numerical data is needed. Egyéb összesen means "all the others". Zello 12:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tables[edit]

Once again, why is it really necessary the second table? Because if someone just like to put tables in articles why is not doing the same for roma people? Are they not good enough for this? --Roamataa 20:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The second table is not about one ethnicity but the thnic composition of the whole village. And I wrote a paragraph about Romas which was also deleted. Zello 21:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Unirea, Alba. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unirea,_Alba&oldid=1212326157"