Talk:Sibiu

Vandalisms

There are repetead vandalisms from some IP's, generally frustrated students from Sibiu. Please stop!!! Mabye a ban will be necessary. -Orioane 14:16, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to be written the Rumanian language nor the English. I am using an automatic translator. Pardon the herrores. Thanks.

The reason for this note is to ask so that they do not mention any the Esperanto language. Sibiu was, and is, very important for the esperantistas. Please they watch the plate of the wall in the photo. Thanks:

http://flickr.com/photos/kresve/38710067/in/set-865637/

Leaf shaped tower

The phrase "leaf shaped tower on the corners" is sitting here in a context where its meaning is unclear. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I meant that the tower has the shape of a leaf(or spade - ♠), and these towers were situated at the corners of the fortifications - that was the main ideea. Concerning the Arts' House, in Romanian it's "Casa Artelor" :D Thx anyway for your modifications!!! --Orioane 12:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Ah! We'd say something like "House of the Arts", this one can't really be done with a possessive/genitive in English. On the tower shape, I need to think of the right word, maybe trefoil, but let me think on it. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Surface

I finaly found the surface in square kilometers on Sibiu's page on the http://www.romaniatourism.com/ website. -Orioane 08:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Evangelical Cathedral

I don't know if this is the proper nae for the main saxon cathedral in Sibiu. I think Lutheran Protestant or simply Lutheran would be more apropriate, but the exact Romanian name is Evangelical. Any opinions? -Orioane 10:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

It's tricky, because English-speakers who know Central Europe would probably say "Evangelical" when referring to former Austria-Hungary and those thinking in the context of the English-speaking countries would say "Lutheran". I think this can be solved with a parenthetical remark, I'll take a shot. If we ever decide to do an article just on the building—it probably deserves one—I'd put it at Evangelical Cathedral (Sibiu). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

WHen I lived in Sibiu I and everyone I knew (AMerican and Romanian) referted to it in Romanian as you say, but in english as "Lutheran". Is it actually a Lutheran church? I don't know I just always thought of it as one of those cases where the Languages do not line up. Especially with the more moderan (American/western) uses of the term Evangelical. That said either name is I think ok for an article, even though I don't think of it as Evangelical in the same sense as I use the word, that is the sort of thing the article can deal with. Dalf | Talk 05:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. It's tricky. Here in the US, we have at least half a dozen different synods of Lutherans (at least two of which call themself "Evangelical") and some Lutherans who reject the concept of synods. See (link no longer working and system thinks its spam so i can not post Mariushm 07:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) ) for more detail than I would have known. Not a topic to take up in a big way in an article about a city. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:21, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Germans

Article Democratic Forum of Germans in Romania states: "Since the year 2000, the DFDR has won offices on both the local and regional levels. In Sibiu (De. Hermannstadt), the DFDR has held the office of mayor since 2000, and in 2004 it gained 60.43% of the vote in elections for the Lokalrat or city parliament. The DFDR holds 16 out of the 23 seats in the Sibiu Lokalrat, which gives it an absolute majority. In the District of Sibiu (around 450,000 residents), the DFDR has 11 of the 33 seats in the Kreisrat, where it is the strongest faction."

So my question is how in city where Germans compromise 1,6% of total population German party wons majority vote?! I hope somebody can clear this up. Luka Jačov 20:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well... the German mayor did a much better job than all the previous mayors and the people decided to vote for a German local council too. :-) bogdan 20:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

But how did they vote for German mayor in first place?? Could u check the census data. This is very fishy to me. Luka Jačov 20:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There are very few Germans in Sibiu, as most moved to Germany. I know people living in Sibiu that can confirm that. :-)

It seems that finally people started to vote for a person and not for an ethnicity. And this is not the only case: in Satu Mare, in 2004, for the first time ever, a city with a Romanian majority chose a Hungarian-ethnic mayor. (the Romanian-Hungarian relations are more tense than the Romanian-German relations, as AFAIK, there were never any major disputes between the Romanians and the German minority). bogdan 21:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong about the census. German inhabitants in Transylvania have a good record and are greatly esteemed by the Romanian population there. You could look out at the article Transylvanian Saxons if you would like to know more about that. I am from Sibiu, and I can tell you that there is a quite small german minority left there after the 1990 when most of them emigrated to Germany due to economic reasons mainly. The ones that still live there have formed a small party to represent their interests named the Democratic Forum of Germans in Romania, which besides having a reserved post in the Romanian parliament participated in the elections. Historically Sibiu had a great reputation, and in the last decades of the 20th century it had became an average province town, mainly due to poor administration and bad management. In 2000, there was one of the worst line of candidates from the main Romanian Political Parties one was the ex mayor which had done almost nothing for the city in the public opinion, another was the candidate of the Social Democratic Party (Romania) which deosn't have a good level of suport in the city and the other were quite unknown or with a troubled past and bad reputation to say so. The German's forum, proposed a quite high profile person for a small city like Sibiu a teacher in one of the best highschools in the city and the cheif of the schools administration on the county level, who has had a great level of respect in his branch and was well known. He managed to qualify unexpectedly in the second round of the elections, mostly due to spontaneous votes. In the second round he virtualy crashed the other candidate because poeples weren't verry happy with the other candidate from the party that finaly won the parlamentary elections later that year - so a party with a great level of support on a country wide basis. To conclude, his first election was due to the context. Because he made real improvements to the city and proved to be a good mayor, he was elected for a second term on the first round, and his party also got support on the city-level and county-level elections. He also helped promote mayors to other cities in the county - Cisnădie and Mediaş. That's all. Mihai -^talk 21:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Even more remarkable: he was re-elected with 88.7% of the votes -- possibly the largest percentage for any mayor of a large city (at least in Romania). In terms of German-Romanian relations, historically there have been quite good -- not only no major disputes, but also some Germans have supported the rights of Romanians in Transylvania (see Stephan Ludwig Roth). Eugen Ivan 09:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

"Humane and real studies"

A term that absolutely does not exist in English. I'm guessing that "humane studies" intends to say "Humanities", but I don't even have a guess on "real studies". - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The "real studies" refer to a curriculum of hard sciences or exact sciences such as physics, mathematics, chemistry (called also in Romanian ştiinţe exacte). The so-called "humane" studies refer to the soft sciences. Mentatus 08:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

So is there any problem changing this to "social sciences" and "sciences", respectively? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. Mentatus 12:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not always vandalism

I realize that someone in Romania who thinks they speak English wrote this page on Sibiu, because certain phrases just don't sound natural. When I tried changing them, someone quickly changed them back! What I mean: The Large Square and The Small Square are terrible translations, that's why I tried to use the word 'plaza' to make it more accessible for English speaking people.

"I realize that someone in Romania who thinks they speak English". That is all I have to say. Dahn 22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, way to just pick out a fragment, of course that doesn't make sense on its own. And even if something is gramatically correct doesn't mean people talk that way.

I have no problem with "plaza" instead of "square", if that usage is sanctioned by anything in particular. It's your other interventions in the text. Dahn 17:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Plaza" and "Square" are both common in English. "Square" is more common. But I agree that The Large Square and The Small Square would be unlikely English names. English-speaking cities that have an equivalent of a Piaṭa Mare tend to call it "Central Square", but of course that would be very non-literal. - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The Large Square and The Small Square are word-by-word translations of the romanian names of two squares in Sibiu: "Piaţa Mare" and "Piaţa Mică" (yes, that's how they're called). I will change the names to The "Piaţa Mare" square and The "Piaţa Mică" Square. Also, I am commenting the picture with the footnote Piaţa Mare because it is by no means a good picture for it. All you can see is people drinking at a beer festival(probably). Mariushm 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In which case they are "Major Square" and "Minor Square" in English (my mother tongue) as no English speaking person would say The Large Square and The Small Square. Word by word translation is NOT translation. I suggest Romania be more open to "meaning" corrections and not stick to dictionary translation in such a Germanic way. Garigolf Talk 14:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

FlickR

Why is the Sibiu gallery at www.flickr.com deleted again and again. I've never inserted it (didn't visit this page before) but I can't see why it should not be included. It's relevant and of good quality 62.78.173.36 19:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

My impressions:

• Ads, definitely a minus
• 2nd photo there is clearly a copyvio
• 3 of the next four look like "hi, this is me or my friend in front of this famous place"
• Next several look pretty good
• Then we get a bunch of photos of cups of coffee
• Going on: a similar mixture of good photos & self-indulgent crap (about 50-50), the latter mostly from a guy who signs himself "berlinrocks".

In short, I'd say this site is too "polluted" by someone's self-indulgent crap for me to think it is a good link. - Jmabel | Talk 05:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure i'd say it's as bad as 50/50, I jsut went through the first 28 pages of it. There is one users who apparently has a coffee fetish and appears to have taken a picture of every cup he has while in romania, but even including those I woudl say its about 70% decent illastrative pictures of Sibiu, and another 10% or so of decent pictures of other Romanian topics. In general do article link to flickr? Dalf | Talk 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a policy either way on this. I usually don't link to flickr, though when people have given CC permissions I will gladly see those photos added to the Commons. - Jmabel | Talk 03:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Disputed

How could something in Europe in 1551 be the world's first experiment with rockets? What about the Chinese? - Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"*2010 - 92 years after becoming part of Romania Sibiu is the last City of Europe enjoying permanent electricity" What's this permanent electricity non-sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.164.186 (talk) 16:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Graphics over substance

With all due respect, Dahn, I think this edit, removing country names because we have flags went exactly the wrong way. For one thing, any blind person using a voice browser cannot understand the flags at all, so you are making the site less accessible. For another, though, even for normally sighted people, presumably there are many people who would recognize the names of some of these countries but will not recognize there flags. This is a triumph of graphics over substance. - Jmabel | Talk 23:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe, I'm sorry, but your point seems purely abstract. For one, most of the articles on cities with sister cities pick flags over country names (in fact, I think they chose flags on purpose). In any case, it would be extremely odd to include both, as one of them would have to be superfluous. I think it was me who first introduced flag habits to sister cities for Romanian articles, I only did it because I thought someone would do it eventually and I had nothing else to do at that time; regardless, I have nothing against dropping flags in favour of country names - but both is just too much.

Furthermore, your point about disabled people is empathetic (an empathy which I share), but not necessarily applicable here. Keeping in mind that I could pick countries over flags just as I could pick flags over countries, but that I see no reason for having both, a disabled person will have an initial and hardly surmountable problem: if the cities in question are not in the Anglo-Saxon world, then, except for some cities, the reading instrument used will not necessarily produce an adequate pronunciation. Of course, it seems at first that the user may be helped if he or she would also be given the country name (which works for "Beijing, China"); however, consider that all more obscure cities in Hungary, Romania, etc. - they will be, most likely, mispronounced. This leaves us with two situations: the "Beijing, China" where, even if mispronounced, virtually all of could do without the "China" part to figure it out; the "Badacsonytomaj, Hungary", where understanding what the name actually is could only be done on the basis of prior knowledge.

As for people who do not know the flags and can see them, I have to protest. I am baffled by a recent drive to disregard the very point of what makes the wiki system unique, and instead overwhelm every possible space with information that is already available one click away. See my recent comments on Talk:List of unusual deaths regarding the call to duplicate references present in the articles linked there with references for the list.

Sticking to the subject, I am also puzzled by the recent edits on country articles such as Romania and Moldova, where a user has recently added some sort of tacky template constitutes a [poor] attempt to adequately indicate what countries border the one and question and where. This, despite the fact that wikimedia is burrently over-inflated with maps of all possible styles,periods, and colours, despite the fact that such maps are part of the article or just one click away, and despite the fact that the template cannot be as accurate as any map.

I'm sure this was not the intent of your comment, but, in this particular case, you yourself seem to disregard basic instruments, at the risk of turning a quest for clarity into an over-precaution that could only lead to clogging. Both the flag icons and the link for city names are one click away, and at least one of them will prominently indicate what the country in question is. If the users in question cannot click links in case they want more info, they cannot be helped much; what's more, if we should not expect users to click the links, then we should not be editing in a wiki format.

Let's also note that all the paths explored here involve somebody actually involved in finding out the exact list of exact trivialities for each city. Aside from the fact that I have failed to find this sort of interest in details even with editors, it would seem to me that a person looking as deep into the matter would eventually bump into the articles in question, and not just the links inside a related article. Dahn 00:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to fight over this, but I am going to guess that (1) you have a high-speed connection, so "one click away" is never a big deal and (2) you never browse through something like telnet or puTTy, using a text-only browser like lynx. These are not universals. - Jmabel | Talk 00:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No to both :). Nevertheless, the actual alternative [if any!], for all of us, is: go to the library, fill the form, look for the book [in case you know which book] or books you think may help in your query, take it from the shelf or wait for them to find it for you, look through it or them, write it down, return the book. (In case you are disabled, ask someone else to do all of this for you). No matter what sort of or browser connection people have, they beat the hell out of that. As we say in Romanian: God will give you stuff, but He will not pack it in your bag.

And this, of course, relies on three a priori grounds: that one actually cares about the particular bit of information, and can actually understand it if it is presented to him or her; the third one is that he or she can actually read or at least understand English. Dahn 00:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the English Wikipedia, so the last is an assumption we are allowed to make. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Large Square, The Small Square

A few days ago, I have changed "The Large Square" and "The Small Square" to their names in romanian ("Piaţa Mare" and "Piaţa Mică" squares). "Piaţa" means Square/Market in romanian and Mare=Big/Large , Mică=Small . I believe the direct translation from romanian to english is inadequate and people should stop changing the name in Romanian to silly translations. "Large Square" is a very bad term, as someone else has already mentioned, people may be changing that to "Plaza".

Please tell me what is so wrong in listing the original, romanian names for the squares or stop reverting edits.

Also, the revert caused a picture that I've commented to reappear. The picture was supposed to show Piaţa Mare square but all it showed was a closeup of some people drinking in the square at some beer fest. I've replaced the picture with a picture that shows how large the square actually is and I hope you will all agree it's much better than the old one.

I have requested and obtained a written permission from the author of the site, if that permission needs to be uploaded somewhere for proof, please let me know, I'm only a 1 week old wikipedian. Mariushm 07:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I do not disagree with your changes on principl, I just wish you had discussed them first. Ultimately, I have no opinion on this issue, but those who contributed the image and who have provided the translations may. Myself, I see several additional and smallish problems surfacing, that I would have rather dealt with here than copyedit in the text: one being that it is ungrammatical to refer to "Piaţa Mare square" when you use "square" as a translation of "piaţa" ("the Large Square square", so just "Piaţa Mare" will do). I welcome your editing (especially since it seems to me that you are a local, and could bring a lot to this article), but such a large edit in one go risked yielding some problems. Dahn 14:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you and I apologize for the tone of the message.

You may be right about the whole naming issue, perhaps the best solution would be to simply drop the final "square" and use directly the translated name.

About the previous picture, I'd like to explain why the previous picture was inadequate. In our country it is a "tradition" to have several parties during the year to celebrate certain events like start of autumn, "beerfests", first day of harvesting grapes for wines and so on. Most likely, the author of the previous picture was at a stand that served beer or wine during a party, asked a friend to take a snapshot and than uploaded it on Wikipedia, to show off. You couldn't even see the square, which was probably the whole ideea (beeing one of the largest squares in Europe). That's why I have requested permission for that picture, obtained it and replaced the inadequate picture with the current one.

If no one else has a problem with replacing "The Large Square" and "The Small Square" with "Piaţa Mare" and "Piaţa Mică", I will change the text (in a few days).

I am a local, I was born in Mediaş, a city near Sibiu, and have visited Sibiu lots of times and know it well. Mariushm 18:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd just use Piaţa Mare and Piaţa Mică, possibly with parenthetical translation on first use: Piaţa Mare ("large square") and Piaţa Mică ("small square"). Definitely not Piaţa Mare Square, which, as Dahn correctly says, is effectively "Large Square Square".

By the way, assuming that you mean this photo, I took the photo, and your hypothesis is entirely incorrect: no one I know is in the picture. Since I was alone in a city I had never before visited, I can say this with certainty. I would suggest that you might assume good faith on the part of other contributors.

I happen to prefer the photo I took (which shows something of the life of the city) to yours (which makes the square look bare and abandoned), but I'm not going to fight about it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How is it pronounced? According to this article, it's [si'biw], but in Sibiu County it's [si'bju]. Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.73.121 (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Official names

Public sign in Sibiu/Hermannstadt

It appears Sibiu and Hermannstadt are both official names of the city; both names are used on public signs, and the official website of the city as European Capital of Culture lists the name of the city as "Sibiu – Hermannstadt" and "The City of Sibiu/Hermannstadt"[1]. For this reason, I think the name Hermannstadt should be bolded and treated differently than the names in various other languages (Serbian etc.). Urban XII (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

This is likely for tourism purposes: Germany isn't far from Romania by plane, Germany is still oriented East to some extent, lots of Saxons and other Germans might want to visit the place (and do so), etc. But under Romanian law, to qualify for official status at the local level, you need 20% of the population. Sadly, this happened - they almost all left. Of course, since the city's history is so thoroughly German, I have no objection to bolding Hermannstadt, but it's not official either. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The city uses it officially, in interna communication on German. There exists an officially decision of the city council to use the Name Hermannstadt together with Sibiu. Anyway, definitely not only for Tourism purpose.--Ickerbocker (talk) 12:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

History section

Hello, "Kingdom of Hungary, present-day Romania" is not clear. It anticipates, for readers who do no know the history of this area well, that the Kingdom of Hungary is now Romania. Transylvania was a "co-country" of Kingdom of Hungary, a seperate entity with high autonomy inside KoH (in some cases more tied to KoH some cases not). The list is showing that a lot of things were started in Sibiu, which were the firsts inside the complete KoH (and I think for Romania as well, as at that time it was Moldavia+Wallachia). My suggestion is to replace with "Kingdom of Hungary, (Transylvania is present-day Romania)". Abdulka (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you went ahead and did this, too. Now every other line has this little bit of info. I think from reading the page it becomes clear to everyone that Transylvania is present-day Romania without reading it all this time. Transsylvania has a long and complex history. Perhaps it would be better to include a link to the history of Transsylvania. Now it reads like it was added by a Romanian nationalist who wants to make it absolutely clear Transsylvania is yours now.. Hertog (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

References (was Disputed - Hahnemann)

I have removed the section where it is claimed that Hahnemann visited Sibiu in 1797 and opened the word's first homeopathic laboratory there. What is the source of this claim? Hahnemann was in Sibiu in 1777, accompanying baron Samuel von Brukenthal to catalogue his huge book collection and act as unofficial physician. There is no proof that he was even thinking about homeopathy at this stage. I have checked with the curator of the Pharmacy Museum in Sibiu and she confirmed Hahnemann never opened a homeopathy laboratory there (he never returned to Sibiu after his short stay in his youth). Jo Esoteric (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this removal, and also noticed that large parts of this article are unreferenced. I've added the refimprove tag to mark this as a problem that needs attention. Thanks, Verbal chat 18:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sibiu MAZ bus 3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Sibiu MAZ bus 3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Sibiu MAZ bus 3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Total revamp of some sections

Hello, would somebody be interested in helping with remaking some of the sections in this article? Namely transportation and main sights. I also suggest removing some of the images. Some of them are in excess. (check main sights) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2F08:428F:FFFF:0:0:50F:EA48 (talk) 20:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sibiu. 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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sR_TAB_3.xlsx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927210503/http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/pdf/ro/cap1.pdf to http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/pdf/ro/cap1.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sibiu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120111141158/http://www.descopera.net/foto_sibiu.html to http://www.descopera.net/foto_sibiu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Sibiu. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422163814/http://www.turism.sibiu.ro/en/istorie.htm to http://www.turism.sibiu.ro/en/istorie.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060501001954/http://www.sibiu.ro/ro/cultura2005.htm to http://www.sibiu.ro/ro/cultura2005.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927185014/http://www.sibiu.ro/cms/news_more.php?id=424_0_1_0_C to http://www.sibiu.ro/cms/news_more.php?id=424_0_1_0_C
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070313201030/http://sibiupeople.ro/en/reports/474 to http://sibiupeople.ro/en/reports/474

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 10:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

Andymxm,

are you serious? After you are adding the Romanian name of Békéscsaba ([2]), and nobody removes it, although the Romanian population is about 0,5 %, and here, about 1,6 % Hungarians and 1,1% Germans you "deduce" that the Hungarian population is insignificant thus the Hungarian name should be removed because of "bilinguality", but the German can stay....

Sorry,

ad 1: significance here is not necessarily based on the percent of the population, but historical designation that is common in Transylvania related articles

ad 2: it has not any connection to "bilinguality" (!= other name), as similar holds for hundreds of other articles. Usually we show three main historical names, Romanian, German and Hungarian.

So there is no consensus for the removal.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC))

KIENGIR

Hello,

Why do you destroy the history of Sibiu? According to Britannica, Sibiu was built by the Saxon settlers initially existed as a Daco-Roman city called Cedonia. Are you trying to Hungarise everything, but in such way you are deleting the history of towns entirely? Like it started with Hungary? Christina (talk) 13:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Hungary has important contribution, but the town wasn't founded by king Geza of Hungary. He just sent there the Saxons. Hermann of Nuremberg, do you remember? Let's be fair, and Sibiu was attested previously in Roman Dacia as Cedonia. Christina (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me what? I did not "destroy" anything, I advise to mind your words! I did not "Hungarize" anything, and I don't understand what you refer with "like it started with Hungary"??? I am always fair, so please again mind your words befeore any groundless accusations!(KIENGIR (talk) 13:58, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

If you are fair you have my respect. But the city wasn't founded manually by the king Geza of Hungary, only by paper. Of course that the saxons were linked to Hungary, just that manually the Saxons and Hermann founded it. Why do you think it's called Hermannstadt? The money were of Hungary and Transylvania probably, also of the Germans of Nuremberg, but the organisation was pretty much Saxon. It's sad there was no mention anymore of the Daco-Roman name. We can't delete that, although maybe you did not remove it. :( Christina (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

What I loved, was at Brașov, there are more theories. Nothing is removed as history. Christina (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Christina, please avoid to assume and stigmatize editors, you put in condition "if you are fair", although you I was not the opposite, not now not before. If you wish to give me history lessons, things are a bit uncertain since the whole mentioning of the area, city itself is positioned to the religious provostship that is undoubtedly was of Géza's hands, and if you acknowledge that "by paper" he is the founder, you should have left it adding that in fact Saxons built the city, etc.

Your question I assume based on the fallacious hyphotehticial assumption that I would be not aware of Hungary's, the towns or the Transylvanian Saxons' history, that is definetly not the case, thus I would avoid this "game". Though it is quite interesting you keep argumentation even if you were not called for that, that is based on the same fallacious assumption that I've would "removed" any name before. I advise you again not to prejudicate/judge/stigmatize editors in advance, that is heavily improper in our community.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

I didn't say it was you, I am just saying that all the Transylvanian cities of Romania have the Antiquity history removed. Like there were no Dacians there, and Roman Dacia. I know you dislike this theory, from where all the Romanians showed up, but it's part of the territory history. Like even others like Avars, Gepids etc. Our point here and work on Wikipedia is not to prove who was first but to present the facts and all the theories if you the Hungarians want that. Suddenly it all disappeared, I just mentioned that. And if you are a fair historian, you should have also re-established that, but I guess it's not in your interest. It's not your interest. I am gonna do that and please no hard feelings. Christina (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Christina, this is my final warning, please avoid prejudications & stigmatization like "I know you dislike this theory" (??? who said there was no Dacians there or what?) What I should have re-established? (I did not know about any removal...) and again..."but I guess it's not in your interest. It's not your interest." I think your prejudicative and offensive fantasies you should keep personal at least and avoid any further malevolent accusations.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2019 (UTC))

Ok, sorry, nothing personal. I do apologise. I will fix this. I informed about this injustice. Christina (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@KIENGIR: She's in the process of getting a TBAN about Romania. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:, I see, I read just through the whole case. What caught my attention, though the thing initially would not have any connection to Hungarians, they are recurrently and dominantly targeted:

- "the users on Wikipedia including the Hungarian nationalistics" -> so everbody who is Hungarian is a nationalist?

- "And the Hungarian history is against the Trianon and the international regulations".....??? Such unprofessional and ridiculous sentence rarely I heard, it suffers from elementary problems...Trianon is part of the Hungarian history, how can it be "against"??? And "international regulations"?? Is there any international regulation regarding the history of Hungary, or general history at all? Just bad English or broader semantic problems? Sounds like the case with some totalitarian states, where it is prohibited how you may research or elavaluate history, or should it be reduced in the borders of "Trianon-set" Hungary? (it raises me the question of WP:COMPETENCE).

- "but it's the result of the stupid nationalism in Hungary, Ukraine or Russia. In Germany, Romania, we talk about patriotism" -> Hungary in the first place - I don't even surprise - so that means the level of German and Romanian nationalism (sorry patriotism) are comparable and solid, while the others are "stupid nationalist"...not really realistic, considering extremist people with extremist views are present in every country, but in my opinion the biggest problem is the lack of neutrality...nowadays mainly as per the Ukrainian-Russian conflict there are significant problems regarding nationalistic views, but Hungary or Romania even both or one by one to be compared each other to the previous ones could have their own special charachteristics, not easily to be measured just as a list of order. Generally regarding Central and Eastern Europe (not exclusively but significantly), as we head more to the east, more extreme views or evaluations we met that is also the by-product of the former Communist-Era that affected the people by all means on the contrary to Western-Europe, almost with a linear co-efficient with the general standard of living or average level of education and moral conditions.

Regading this, ([3]), again Hungarians, Hungarians and last but not least Hungarians are targeted...although as I recall it started mainly as a "Canadian" affair....though everybody is targeted who by in any means or any way does not share a view with the subject, or is under suspicion or prejudication, filled with various personal attacks - as I see you've got another big load of it...This girl should have concentrated on the topic, not any collateral pejudication/accusation/personality issues...(KIENGIR (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC))

All good now, Daco-Roman name mentioned, the Saxon settlers and king Geza of your Hungary. Better history. Christina (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

“Cultural city”

I think the term is kind of meaningless — by definition, every city is cultural, in that they are the products of civilization. Looking through the List of cities and towns in Romania, how many of, let’s say, the first 50 would you not describe as “cultural”? Just a handful, I would guess.

The fact that Sibiu has a rich culture should be demonstrated through the text, not asserted in the opening sentence. - Biruitorul ^Talk 12:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

When it comes to cities, cultural obviously doesn't mean that they are a product of civilization, but that they are important when it comes to cultural events, like the European Capital of Culture. That's also a definition of the word cultural - see the second definition given here https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/cultural. Lupishor (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

And yet, no other place is described as a “cultural city”. Florence, Prague, Amsterdam, Salamanca, Linz, Porto, Antwerp — all are just plain “city”. Rather makes you wonder, no? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I've actually looked at that too, even before adding cultural, but I still thought, why not add it, as long as there is no Wikipedia rule which forbids that? When I think about it now, though, I think cultural is the only word of the type that could be added to a page opening, and - like you've said - there are a lot of cities worldwide which you could consider cultural. But then again, there are probably a lot more that you can't. I do get your point, but seeing as the cities that can be called cultural are the minority - despite being big in number - I don't see what's wrong with adding the word. It could also be added on other city pages, like the ones you've mentioned. Lupishor (talk) 18:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

So, then, if a city is a plain "city", as opposed to a "cultural city", does it mean it is a "некультурный city"? I know, there must be some kind of logical fallacy in my attempted reductio ad absurdum argument, but still, we should be mindful of the potential slippery slope one would engage in trying to decide by fiat which cities of the world are to be afforded the honorific, and which are not. Unless perhaps there is a clearly defined metric by which one could make a more-or-less impartial decision? Turgidson (talk) 00:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, if it's 2 vs 1, I am going to remove cultural, despite there being no rule that forbids adding that. Lupishor (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Improved sections

I've made the following improvements to the sections:

1) I've changed "Climate" to a sub-section of "Geography" – most other city pages do that as well (see Prague and Brno for example).

2) Removed city districts from "Geography", added them to the new "Administration" section, where I've also integrated the "Politics" section.

3) Changed section order by putting "Tourism" and "Culture" at #4 and #5, since they are more representative for Sibiu and include the European Capital of Culture part. The same (or similar) section orders are used on many different city articles too, like Ruse, Prague and Brno

4) Added new "International relations" section where I've integrated "Twin towns" and "Consulates".

Further changes I am going to make:

• adding new images to replace outdated ones and/or improve image quality. Also adding new images to Gallery.
• improving content of most sections (like History, Tourism and Culture – they really need improvements)
• adding a new "Architecture" section, like many other cities do (see Bucharest, Cluj-Napoca)

If you disagree with the changes I've made, please write here instead of simply undoing my edit. Thanks! Lupishor (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Lupishor, reaction to your edit log:

- if you say they came from 'modern-day Germany then it is irrelevant if you ever said if Germany would exist then or not, it is simply fallacious, since they did not come from modern-day Germany, etc.

- on the other hand, it is not necessarily as you say that mostly they would come from the territory of present-day Germany, since mostly they came from the left bank of the Rhine and the area of Moselle, only one thing may have confused you, that Lorraine was linked instead of Duchy of Lorraine, which covers as well those territories that are part of Germany today. This is I will correct and will re-add, but there is no consensus for claiming modern-day entities anachronistically back in the past, also try to sepatate supposed legends from facts.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Not sure what you find wrong with the "modern-day country" part. It obviously means that those territories are nowadays located countries x, y and z, not that they came from an actual modern country. I'd therefore find it much better to add my modern country list, since we're on the Sibiu article, not on the Transylvanian Saxons article. The Transylvanian Saxons article is linked to the Sibiu article, and as you have said, contains the list that you want to add to the Sibiu article. Therefore, if you want to read that detailed list, you can simply click on the linked Transylvanian Saxons article; we don't have to add such a detailed list here.

Also, they didn't all come from that western area you're mentioning. They also came from eastern Germany (Bavaria), look it up. It would therefore be wrong to claim they only came from the western area. I've clearly researched the history of Sibiu better than you, so I know what I am talking about. Lupishor (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lupishor:,

What you would consider obvious for yourself, it is not necessarily obvious in real, or for others. The wordage and concept is problematic, as the earlier mentioned mixing of present status quo with contemporary happenings often lead to confusions and sometimes misleading/misunderstandable representations, hence we mostly in historic concepts struggle to give the most fair contemorary representation possible. The Sibiu article's history section is excatly the place where we it belongs to the contemporary representation, and not necessarily those parts where not historical concepts are discussed, it may be true for any article, nothing special in the Transylvanian Saxons article about this (and it is not about space/list, but concept).

I would not comment who would research better the history of Sibiu or whatsoever, and read back what I have written before, I wrote "it is not necessarily", that is not a full omit of other possibilities, but what matters, if you present a reliable source here the time they also arrived from Eastern Bavaria, then of course we may add the contemporary entity to the list.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Sorry, I think I've expressed myself in a confusing way. The thing I don't like about the list you are proposing is the fact that it's too detailed. As I said, we are on the Sibiu article, not the Saxons article. Therefore, something that isn't directly related to the city of Sibiu shouldn't be described in that much detail and should be kept simpler, instead. Look, I think I've got a new variant that satisfies both of us: "They came from territories of the Holy Roman Empire (nowadays situated in Germany, France and the Benelux countries) and arrived at around 1147". If we use this variant, we use the term "Holy Roman Empire" instead of modern countries, so it can't lead to any confusion like my old variant did. The modern day countries are only mentioned in brackets, so it gives the reader a better understanding of where exactly they came from. I now think that both my first variant and the one you're proposing have their flaws, but combining them like I've suggested is the best option. I've also added a source mentioning the Saxons also came from the Bavarian area. :) Lupishor (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lupishor:,

ok, but next time wait for approval before you would launch it, until we are discussing about proposals. I uphold that my proposal did not have flaws. Anyway, if this solution, it has to Kingdom of France has to be also added, as Flanders shared part of it that time.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2020 (UTC))

@KIENGIR: Alright, I am glad we've solved it. Thanks for your completion with the Kingdom of France. You're right, I should have waited for approval, but you also changed my first edit without discussing it on the talk page, so I think it applies for both of us. Lupishor (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lupishor:, I am also glad, but please have in mind a new bold edit may be changed without compulsory discussion for a time.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2020 (UTC))

Puffery

User:Lupshor, in a recent edit, added "Sibiu's culture has been compared to that of Paris, its romance to that of Venice and Rome and its picturesqueness to that of Prague and Santorini." This is credited to European Best Destinations, which says about itself on its About page that it "work[s] with major tourism offices in Europe". That is, it is a promotion office, clearly not an independent source. In any case, language like that is inherently puffery, even if it came from a third-party guidebook, say.

Lupshor also added the claim that a manuscript says that "the first ever rocket launch in Europe took place in Sibiu in 1555", footnoting this claim to [4], which gives as a timeline item "Conrad Haas experimentează prima rachetă în trepte din lume" -- that's a very weak source for a strong claim. He also footnotes an article in Ancient Origins, which not only does not say that Haas launched a rocket, but that "the first liquid-fueled rocket didn’t become a reality until 16 March 1926". In any case, we have a full Conrad Haas article with detail on this.

We need to be careful on Wikipedia to stick to reliable, third-party sources and reflect what they say soberly and without "enthusiasm" or puffery. --Macrakis (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Macrakis: Hello. It's spelled "Lupishor". Please spell it correctly in the future so I get notified when you send a new message.

"In any case, language like that is inherently puffery, even if it came from a third-party guidebook" – can you please explain this statement? I don't see how it's puffery, especially if coming from a third-party source, since it is just a comparison to other cities. You can find similar comparisons on other articles; they were not claimed to be tourism promotion attempts.

How is the source I gave for the Haas claim weak? It's the history section of Sibiu's heritage website. Here is another source that supports my claim; you can surely find more of them yourself. So, from what I see, it's not clear whether it truly happened or not. Don't you think it would be a good idea to revert my original edit with the addition of the word supposedly? Since we are not sure whether the event actually happened or not, I'd also find it wrong to say it never happened, like your current edit suggests.

Also, everything I've added to this article was done so from a neutral point of view. I didn't use any "enthusiasm" or peacock terms. Lupishor (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lupishor: -- sorry about the spelling error.

About the puffery, first of all, it didn't in fact come from a third-party source. It comes from an agency that redistributes promotional materials from various city tourism offices, as I said above. We can worry about hyperbole in third-party travel guides if that issue comes up.

A quiz on the Spektrum site (not an article!) is a very weak source. I would suggest you first work on the Conrad Haas article and find some solid sources for the claim that Haas in fact launched a rocket, and didn't just write about it. After all, we also don't claim that Leonardo Davinci put into practice most of the things in his notebooks. --Macrakis (talk) 18:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

@Macrakis: Hey, no problem. You were right about the tourism agency not being a third-party source, since it does in fact collaborate with city tourism offices. I think it would still be okay, though, to add that comparison to the article's "Tourism" section, instead of the page opening, with the mention that it comes from a tourism-promoting website.

I've done more research on Haas and you are probably right, since most sources don't mention that he actually experimented with a rocket. I think I could modify your edit by mentioning both Conrad Haas and Hermann Oberth, since both are associated with Sibiu, the latter having been born there, and have had massive contributions to rocketry. That wouldn't be a problem, right? Lupishor (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe statements like "Sibiu's culture has been compared to that of Paris, its romance to that of Venice and Rome and its picturesqueness to that of Prague and Santorini." belong anywhere on Wikipedia, regardless of the source. You can always find someone who "compares" X to Y, and who cares about comparison anyway? What if the comparison said "city X is 1000x less romantic than Venice"? -- that is, after all a comparison, if not a flattering comparison.

Articles in travel magazines are not much better than city tourist offices, since they are promoting travel to destinations, even if it is a positive comparison. Suppose there was an article in National Geographic Travel that said "To me, Sibiu is as picturesque as Prague". What have you learned? Mostly that the article is promoting travel to Sibiu. I bet the same writer in other articles has said "Mulhouse / Padua / Oslo is as picturesque as Prague".

Subjective evaluations of picturesqueness just aren't very encyclopedic.

As for rocketry, sure, we can mention that scientists/engineers X and Y are from Sibiu. Without using peacock words like "massive contributions". --Macrakis (talk) 18:07, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

@Macrakis: Got it, thanks for the constructive response. And yeah, "massive" might be a peacock term, despite it actually being true, since Hermann Oberth is considered one of the founding fathers of rocketry on his article. "Big" or "important" might be better terms to use. Lupishor (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

eGold section

@Lupishor are you sure that section belongs in the intro paragraphs of the article? I would put them in the economy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniffitz (talk • contribs) 08:10, 14 February 2021 (UTC)