Talk:Flag and coat of arms of Transylvania

"Szekely sun and moon"

I don't get how the sun and moon symbol is supposed to represent the Szeklers when it is already present in the Wallachian and Moldovan coat of arms two centuries earlier. Explain. To me all heraldic elements (sun, moon, eagle) seem common to the Romanian geographical area. DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Because they also appear on the Szekely arms, wherever else they may appear, because they were explicitly included in the Transylvanian arms to represent the Szekelys, and because all historians and heradists cite them as such. Please see our core policies on WP:RS and WP:OR. Dahn (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"because they were explicitly included in the Transylvanian arms to represent the Szekelys" Source? I don't see any mention of this deliberate symbolism in the article. Rather, it's just taken as a given that they are the "Szekely sun and moon". This is a form of cultural appropriation and the precedence of the Romanian heraldry should be mentioned, at least to give context.DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The article includes an ampler discussion of the origin of the sun and moon in the section "Origins", which I advise you to read before going on a rant. Both that section and the one you're focusing on have citations from Romanian and Hungarian authors, both of whom refer to the sun and moon as standing for Szekely Land -- because this was explicitly mentioned in primary sources. I don't care about your personal conjectures about nonsense such as cultural appropriation, and neither does wikipedia; but let me note that, even if it were the case, ad absurdum, it would be appropriation by the Szekelys as one of the indigenous peoples of Transylvania, not by those who designed the Transylvanian arms in the 16th century. It would also be cultural appropriation by the Wallachians, since, gasp, they may have borrowed the symbols from elsewhere as well. After all, they are some of the most common heraldic devices in Eastern Europe. Now please find yourself another venue for canvassing and trolling, as per WP:NOT. Regards. Dahn (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

"It would also be cultural appropriation by the Wallachians, since, gasp, they may have borrowed the symbols from elsewhere as well." There is no evidence of this though. And you still haven't explained why they feature in the Wallachian, Moldovan, and even Oltenian coat of arms first. I think this should be mentioned in the article. DalbozDuncanthrax (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Just like there is no evidence whatsoever that the Szekely took the sun and moon from anyone else. I don't have to explain anything, as wikipedia does not publish, not condone, original research, and is not a reference desk for users with various, more or less germane, concerns. Here we rely on what third-party reliable sources have to say. Also, please understand that the notion of "Szekely sun and moon" at that point in the text refers to them being clearly identified with the Szekely in this particular context, in that early modern heraldry of that particular principality; it is not a comment on their ultimate origin, be it Wallachian or Cuman or Inuit or Babylonian, but merely one on what they meant by that point in time, and since. Under "Origins", we have a Romanian reference suggesting that the origin of the symbol may be Wallachian or Cuman, which is about as far back as any of the source in this extensive overview will take this speculation. Please stop flogging a dead horse. Dahn (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Hungarian nationalism

A lot of data is difficult to understand because of Dahn's nationalism. He uses forgotten names of cities impossible to find on maps.

I am not even Hungarian, let alone a nationalist. That said, this practice refers a long-standing consensus according to which then-official names are used for the historical period discussed; the modern names are in brackets, and the links in any case lead to articles under the modern names, if anyone should have an actual problem understanding that simple fact (but of course they don't, since typing Hungarian names on Google will immediately get you to the localities under their current names). I'm hoping you understand this, even though your competence in English (and other subjects as well) seems to be very limited.

I'm also going to ask you to stop trolling. This and your biased incoherent edits are enough cause to get your IP moderated and this page semiprotected. Try to be constructive, or I will call on administrators to intervene and then you won't have a soapbox at all. Dahn (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Also, let me enlighten you on a relevant topic. The imperial title used by Maria Theresa refers to her being a ruler of the Holy Roman Empire. Here's a tiny tidbit from history that you, as the resident expert on all things Austrian, are perhaps well advised to take into account: the Holy Roman Empire did not extend into Hungary or Transylvania. At all. Now, you may think she had an imperial title for her other lands, like, say, for the Austrian Empire. Well, here history has this habit of annoying jingoists by callously intervening in their imaginary world: the Austrian Empire only existed from (gasp!) 1804. You may also think that the term Habsburg Monarchy perhaps refers to there being an actual political entity by that name, except (double gasp!) there was no such political entity other than in the realm of convention.

Which brings up to this interesting issue: Maria Theresa ruled Transylvania because she also ruled Hungary, and because the Habsburg rulers had stated an explicit claim to all the Lands of the Hungarian Kingdom, including Transylvania, back in 1526. In fact, it is at their Hungarian court that the coat of arms of Transylvania was first sketched out around 1550. This is well clarified in the text I have added to the article, and you can read up about it in Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867).

Take the time to analyze and synthesize these revelations above. All the time you need, really. It will surely dawn on you at some point that Maria Theresa granted the arms as a Hungarian Queen, as in: Queen of Hungary. Unfortunately for the nice theory you have elaborated in your head, there is yet no way we can expunge mention of Hungary granting the arms. And with that conclusion, you will hopefully stop expectorating your pearls of wisdom into this article. Dahn (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Not all names are in brackets and these show a biased approach. Also Maria Thereza of Austria is a common name in all English historical books. All you want is to mitigate the title of Maria Theresa.

79.112.84.222 (talk) 08:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The capacity in which she granted the arms was as Hungarian queen. She was "of Austria" because she was archduchess of Austria, which, you will note, did not include Transylvania. The bias here is from the one who manipulates historical facts just so to make it seem that Transylvania was not attached to Habsburg Hungary in the 1760s. Dahn (talk) 08:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

Dahn,

I see, but if the source is wrong we should maintain some close pharaphrasing or copyedit with slight modifications that does not alter the original meaning but to make the statement correct, otherwise we should not add not standing or unreliable information.

As you may see in the linked article (Coat of arms of Austria-Hungary), in 1916 a new small coat of arms was introduced for Hungary (Hungary's small coat of arms), as well for Austria-Hungary (Lesser common Coat of Arms), but it does not mean that Hungary's medium coat of arms or the Medium common Coat of Arms of Austria-Hungary did not remain in action (1915-1918), it depended on the context and other circumstances when to use which, and mostly these one are known, which depicted Transylvania.

So please let's find a solution because of the author's interpretation it seems it would have a connection to the war or anything, a the sentence like so is false, since only in the newly introduced small coat of arms Transylvania no longer depicted (similary to the common lesser coat of arms), but the medium ones still had it (btw. they were created in 1915 for the urge of the Hungarian Government, so the usage was possibly depended on size or place, since the small was only introduced one year later).

Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC))

Hey. I don't take any issue with correcting Moisil's claim by countering it with another source, however in this case I don't have a source contradicting him. The wikipedia article may be entirely mistaken on the dating, for all I know. Consider adding a source, or pointing me to one. (Please, make it a reliable one.) Dahn (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, please note that we already say that the CoA of Tr was not used in the small arms of Hungary, as it hadnt ever been. When you rephrased Moisil to make him say what he didn't actually say, the additional problem was that the reader would not have understood the text: we were telling him that the CoA was no longer used in 1916, but after having told them that the CoA wasnt used in 1867 either. Dahn (talk) 22:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into it deeper, since the most used and known coat of arms either Hungary or Austria-Hungary was the medium one and this lasted until 1918. I never said that the small would ever depict Transylvania, so this is not an issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC))

"in 1916, Transylvania was not depicted in the the small Hungarian coat of arms, but still represented in the medium coat of arms" was your rephrasing. This reads like we're telling the reader the exact same thing as for 1867, is my point. Somebody reading that would have to ask "but why are they saying it again?" Dahn (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Since before the whole addition I did not notice the same author's statement regarding 1867, maybe that's why my rephrasing was not perfect. I will write here after I looked into the subject deeper.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

Three names

Putting three names for Saxon cities is just a way of squeezing in their Hungarian name, but this practice has no informative purpose whatsoever. Technically, while the convention we have here is to use the modern name in brackets and the old name as the first variant, the naming conventions do authorize modern names throughout, so please count your blessings. With "Corona", we have the name as it appears in the standard Latin used across three cultures; there is no English reader who will miss not having the vernacular names (with modernized spellings!), thrice in a row for every complicated case; the modern Romanian name may be useful for recognition, the rest is chaff.

Please be reasonable, it's already hard reconciling these articles in the endless tug of war between nationalisms. I approximated a middle ground, try and reflect about it instead of getting alarmed that you dont see "Brasso" in there. Dahn (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This works too. Dahn (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Blessings for you :), I noticed this section long after I've made already my second edit...It had zero motivation just to have "Brassó" (you should already know me enough I try to follow for every period the best contemporary naming possible), but without repeating myself, Corona in that century is outdated, but German/Hungarian was common that time (it had zero connection to any claimed nationalism). Also in other articles where relevant even we identify three names, it was never the problem, though because the sentence puts everything in Saxon context, I chose then Kronstadt accordingly to also satisfy your claims of "overkill". Don't overreact man :-) Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC))

Right on. We cool. Dahn (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

As a general point: three names in any article is overkill. I would recommend using the Saxon or Latin name and current official name for Saxon cities in old Transylvania, at least down to 1848 or so, and the Hungarian or Latin name with modern equivalent for Transylvanian Hungarian localities in the same period. It is simply annoying to read through an article that has such triplicates, and the only "need" to have them is because editors feel or anticipate that abstract national pride may be hurting. I am just as unimpressed by that as I would be with having, say, triplicate names for once-Romanian towns in Ukrainian Maramureș. Our priority is with presenting information, not with reclaiming any sort of symbolism. Dahn (talk) 09:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Since there are only very rare cases when three names are shown and until now these instances could be handled easily, I think we should not overargue this issue (also this case without raising this in the talk I solved it in a harmless way and you agreeed indeed). I think, since the overly complex history and continously varying status quo, administration, official langauges, better always the current situation has to be examined ("need to have them is because editors feel or anticipate that abstract national pride may be hurting." & "with reclaiming any sort of symbolism" was never the reason); general rules would fail in some cases (i.e. sometimes Hungarian/Latin, Saxon/Latin, Romanian/Hungarian, Hungarian/Romanian, Romanian/Saxon, etc., all variables may vary in some special conditions, in case we would set the fix parameters to two). Having some special environments like the case mostly with "Pressburg (Pozsony, Bratislava)" is harmless and universally accepted solution (though it is combination of a more complex situation). Regarding i.e. Transylvania this is as well rare, so don't worry, in the past years there was not any notable conflict or problem regardings such (and in those very-very rare cases, like this, we can easily discuss and solve).(KIENGIR (talk) 23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC))

This nonsense again

It's quite lovely when, after the attempted censorship by a Romanian nationalist, we get this "correction" from a self-appointed Censor who knows The Truth and has decided to share it with us. Because simply presenting notable viewpoints he disagrees with means that we endorse them. Also note the audacity where they not only removed sourced info, not only added their own inept and ungrammatical commentary, but simply modified exact quotes from the sources. PetrusdictusA (talk · contribs) is evidently not here to build an encyclopedia. Dahn (talk) 22:12, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• To sort out this claim about text being removed as "unreferenced", allow me to notify the self-appointed censor and flag enthusiast that, per WP:LEAD, the summary section at the top of the article need not have references, since the info is expected to be summarized and referenced in the body of text. In their subsequent edits, said user proceeded to delete and manipulate text within quotes, in the body of text, including removing those citations backing exactly the part they removed from the lead; though even what they left in the text after this still backed the fact of Transylvanian colors being used by Romanians as an alternative flag -- because this fact is backed by tens of sources. Just to be clear about this more obscure aspect which may pass for good-faith editing, when it is pure vandalism, just like about 90% of what PetrusdictusA has ever contributed to wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• And concerning this wanton removal of three sources for some whimsical claim that some guy knows "better" than them: even leaving aside that claims on wikipedia are citable when they are verifiable, regardless of whether they are ultimately "true" according to some guy's POV, it is exceptionally absurd to claim that the banner of arms in the colors of the coat of arms could not have existed in this particular case, when this was common practice in that era, and when such a banner clearly existed in the 19th century; moreover, one of the sections before that, which the vandal didn't even bother reading, has a citation to Vencel Bíró, a Hungarian (!) author, who, right or wrong as he may be, dates the Transylvanian tricolor back to the 17th century. So what we have here is an argument from ignorance: "I ain't never heard of it, so it ain't true"; PetrusWhatever never bothered researching the matter before proclaiming that this and that could be or couldn't be. And in any case, if they want to contribute their own supposed research on the matter, it's high time they understood that wikipedia is not the place for that. Dahn (talk) 07:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Why?

• @KIENGIR: I have to ask, why would you endorse this stealthy change? The info in there was sourced from various authors, of any nationality, and it emerges as quite clear that the bird was never interpreted as a Turul, or even a Hungarian symbol, until an invented tradition in the 19th century. I've reviewed Hungarian articles by professional Hungarian historians, none of whom claim that the bird was a specifically Hungarian symbol, let alone one that obscure; as you can read in various parts of the text, Szabolcs de Vajay, Attila István Szekeres and Sándor Pál-Antal all reject the very notion that the symbols are to be read as referring to ethnicities. Moreover, if there is any claim to an ethnic reading of that detail, it is the contestable, but not implausible, one in Papoiu and Căpățînă, namely that the blue field was added by the Austrians to hint at their Romanian subjects, who were in favor. That the ultimate origin of the bird may be Roman or Polish, both of these clearly through a Hungarian intermediary, is clearly stated in Tiron's work, who bases himself on Hungarian records.

The whitewashing you're endorsing is detestable, the way in which the lead is used to promote ideas not discussed in the body is stupid, and your endorsement of both is bewildering. Not only that, but the stealthy change managed to contradict the lead itself, which specifically mentions that ethnic connotations are assigned to the symbols in popular reference, but that scholars reject such readings.

Please explain yourself. Dahn (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dahn:,

I think you are heavily overreacting the case, I don't endorse any "whitewashing" or similar, using such epithets like "detestable" etc. should be avoided, you should have first shortly ask me before proposing multiple negative scenarios of any judgment, etc., considering I did not challenge the revert of my edit. Btw, what deceived me is one of the Hungarian wikipedia's page about this, where suprisingly the Polish theory is missing, but after I realized on other sources where i.e. Sebestyén Köpeczi explaines the same you are reffering. Sorry.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC))

I'm not proposing any scenario, let alone multiple ones, I am asking you specifically: why? Also: you did not simply endorse the removal about the bird's Polish (or other) origin, you specifically approved of an edit which credited the utterly modern myth about the bird as a stand-in for Turul. The only semblance of an answer in the above is that you're basing yourself on the claim made in the wholly unsourced, presumably ignorant, article on Hungarian wikipedia, and not even reading this sourced one, to see how the legend was already addressed here. I must urge you again to be more discerning and check your biases for accuracy or relevancy. Dahn (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dahn:,

You already judged me in a negative way, in a way ignoring my explanation, that I made a mistake, and when I realized it, it has been already reverted, so the case is null and void (as any case, where a single revert is not contested anymore, that may be commited by several reasons, btw. I met usually daily at least five similar or bigger mistake in WP, but I do not contemplate or proposing scenarios until an editor does not push recurrently something, assuming good faith and only after get into a wider discussion)

Thus, especially when an editor is doing something recurrently/repeatedly, please only after consider about any clear endorsement/approval of something. What happened was only a sequencing mistake on my behalf, because I realized and recovered something later, and anyway I would have corrected myself as usual if others would not do (specifically: why? -> a procedural mistake). Don't worry, I see from my behalf such errors are unexpected, but since fortunately such very rarely happens, I still consider this quite an overreaction.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: your edit consisted of adding a link on Turul and had the edit summary "yes". This looks like POV-pushing, much like the latest edit from Fakirbakir (talk · contribs). Can I persuade you gentlemen to heed and take the time to actually understand that rejecting a Turanist myth perpetuated in fringe Hungarian sources, or ignorant folklore based on it, is not the same as silencing relevant Hungarian accounts, or whatever you're imagining this is? Dahn (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dahn:, I don't know how many times I have to explain something that should have been already clear or not be an issue, but you are still riding on this. In your 14 years of WP career you've never commited a sudden edit thereafter you realized you were wrong and others reverted you before correcting yourself? Really we will pursue an NCIS like investigation because of adding two [ ] charachters? I explained already, one edit will never be POV-pushing (at least on my behalf, however, if all the editors would have been charged for that after a sudden edit, there would have every day thousands of talk page issues, that's why we likely enter on the talk page after two reverts when any suspect is likely to be reinforced, etc., but an experienced editor like you know this). So please drop the plural, Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: I'm not pursuing this as an investigation, nor do I have any power, or wish, to do so. I was simply asking for a cogent explanation as what may have happened, and this simply because I wanted to understand what bias I'm dealing with here, and how I can address it. I don't find your explanation convincing, but I don't have to; what I have to do is find a way to reach out to you so that you evaluate the edit and rethink it, which you claim to have done. You see, if you indeed have a bias on this issue, if you really think that the questionable factoid about the Turul should take precedence over any account and deconstruction of myth, I would have to point out to you what I did: namely, that the article was written (even I say so myself) with much more careful investigation of sources than that, and that any such edit would bring its quality down; that, if this is the case, it's much better to actually read the article and any underlying sources you can access and verify whether in fact your version makes any sense at all. In other words, that you would have to meet me halfway and investigate your own biases; that, instead of endorsing edits that sound good from a folkloric POV, you should actually question and even revert them yourself. A patriotic lie, whether Romanian or Hungarian, is still a lie; I can control Romanian lies from seeping into the article, but will you do the same when it comes to Hungarian lies? Dahn (talk) 06:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Dahn:, this is really an overkill of nothing, Jesus. I answered to you three times, now is this four. It has zero conenction to your convincement, I simply described what happened (even overly detailed, despite I get from you on and on the same accusations). Again, you are making presonally proposed assertions if your really think, etc.. Just simply accept the fact, I was tired, made a sudden edit, soon wen't offline, after re-awaken I realized I did the procedural mistakes (checking other sources, lead vs. core, etc.), but the content was already restored (what a big deal, I inserted a wl...pfff). Point. I don't discuss this issue more, because it would be really unprofessional. If you never did such mistake I described earlier in your life, you have my admiration.

Yes, obviously, you should experience on my behalf I very much like and pursue precisity and accuracy, it is valid for Hungarian lies, Romanian lies, Spanish, German, Hottentotta, and Zulu and Venusian lies as well. However, I am not a machine, despite very rarely mistakes happens, but will try to reach from 99.2% to 99.9%. Have a nice day!(KIENGIR (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC))

No. I obviously expect you to read the article you are "correcting", and, instead of getting riled up about a tidbit not showing up here just because some Hungarians strongly believe it (and because it features in the idiotic article on Hungarian wikipedia, despite being questioned ever there), that you actually reflect on it. Dahn (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, because primarily you should sew those who altered the lead on this due weight, not necessarily for inserting a wikilink or an approval of a sudden mistake. I agree with you your expectations towards me, however I informed you quite enough times I realized my mistake afterwards. The article you refer is very poor comparing to your precious work here, but we should avoid strange epithets (however, some articles there are very good and punctuate and better, some are poor, empty and even for months there is not even a revision of a bold edit, etc.) Highlighting on this is just brick of the wall (and just one part of the story of the events, however funnily the Sebestyén Köpeczi source I found elsewhere is cited in there, so your concern about that aticle is well founded). Even very experienced editors commit daily sudden clicks & reverts, after realizing they have missed an elemental step in their edit process.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC))

Split article?

Hello, this article is pretty long and I think it could be split without any problem. As far as I know, this is the most common practice and the flag and coat of arms are only kept in the same article when both are by themselves not notable enough as to have separate articles by themselves. What do you think of this?

Hi. There is apparently no standard practice, but things are dictated by the structure of the topic (see Flag and coat of arms of Johor, Coat of arms and flag of New Jersey etc.). In this case, the flag and CoA are closely intertwined, as one is derivative from the other (either for having a CoA on a monochrome field or for being a tricolor scheme based on the CoA). Splitting the article would mean a lot of duplicated info and a lot of duplicated sources. Dahn (talk) 06:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, fair enough... I guess there's not any actual solid reason to split the article. I've removed the template from it. Super Ψ Dro 22:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Title renaming

This article is one of the only two in Wikipedia that uses "Coat of arms and flag" and not "Flag and coat of arms" in the title, the other being Coat of arms and flag of New Jersey [1]. There are way more articles using "Flag and coat of arms" [2]: 12 redirects and 21 actual articles. These include Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia and Flag and coat of arms of Wallachia (the latter is a redirect, but we don't have another redirect titled Coat of arms and flag of Wallachia). Thus, for consistency I suggest moving the article to Flag and coat of arms of Transylvania. Dahn, I'm pinging you as you are the main contributor to this article. What do you think? Super Ψ Dro 07:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus No objection whatsoever -- I don't feel committed to this particular title at all; though I can note in passing that were flags are banners of arms or derivatives it would maybe make more sense to have them titled "CoA and flag" (this very light suggestion would of course include every other instance, not just this article). Dahn (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I believe that's the case for many other flag and coat of arms (regardless of the order) articles in Wikipedia. Since you are not opposed, I'll do the move, thanks for your stance! Super Ψ Dro 16:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I imagine there's not a common infobox for the flag and the coat of arms, so I was wondering if it would be a good idea to add another infobox for the flag, as right now we only have one for the coat of arms of Transylvania. This is the way it is done in Flag and coat of arms of Moldavia. Super Ψ Dro 16:36, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

If we can cram it without downgrading the article, sure. Personally, I wish the Coat of arms infobox ere overhauled to include in one place info for banners-of-arms, where these exist. That would be a much more elegant solution. Dahn (talk)

"this interpretation is criticized as inaccurate by various historians"

As a causal note due to the recent edit war. Actually reading through the article would clarify it: the notion that heraldic symbols represent ethnicities is rejected from a bipartisan position, meaning both Romanian and Hungarian historians reject it as grossly inaccurate. This is explained and quoted at length, so asking "Which historians?" is frankly inept. Dahn (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)