Talk:History of Transylvania

Transylvania as part of the Austrian Empire

All references, except some hungarian pages point to the fact that Transylvania had a special separate status within the Habsburg Empire, and its association with the Kingdom of Hungary was a mere formality. In practice, by namig governors and declaring it a Grand Principality, the Habsburgs handled their Transylvania possesion separte from their Hungary possesion.Gamlastan (talk) 19:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Precisely my point too. Also, in some articles in the Enciclopaedia Britannica it is explicitly written that 'Transylvania was [...] severed from Hungary' . It is precisely the same source which states that ' Transylvania was officially attached to Habsburg-controlled Hungary' and which is used by some hungarian wikipedians to support the ideea that Hungary had some type of control over Transylvania between 1711 and 1867.Octavian8 (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, >>>Austrian Empire<<< did not exist until 1804. Please use the correct and faithful term: Habsburg Empire.--Celebration1981 (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The core of this discussion, which you seem to miss completely while concentrating on paying the smart-one here, is that Hungary had no control over Transylvania after it was incorporated into the Habsburg Empire and until the end of the Austrian Empire and the appearance of Austria-Hungary. Please stick to the point.Octavian8 (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit War

Dear Toroko please STOP vandalizing the article by deleting referenced text that is not in line with your view of history. The current form of the text reflects also your opinions but weighted by the number and importance of the corresponding references -- the fact that they are very few should actually make you wonder if your opinions are correct. If you do not stop behaving like a vandal and return to being a good wikipedian, I'll be forced to report you. Regards Octavian8 (talk) 13:06, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion on Gesta Hungarorum

Gesta Hungarorum has an article of its own, that is also referenced in this article. I belive that commencing a new discussion on the reliability of this source here is redundant. If no contrary opinions appear here in one week, I will deleate the corresponding paragraph in this article. If you have additional references concerning this subject, please add them at the proper place, i.e., in the Gesta Hungarorum article.Octavian8 (talk) 13:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph deletedOctavian8 (talk) 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum = Hungarian Lord of the Rings.--Celebration1981 (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Some thoughts of user Celebration 1981

No, Habsburgs were not ethnically Austrians and they didn't considered themself as austrian or german. In all western countries where the western civilization existed ( the non-Orthodox countries) kings monarchs hadn't national identity and origin. Remember , the political dynastic marriages were exclusively determinant from the beginnings. Therefore France hadn't "national monarchs" England hadn't "national monarchs" Holy Roman Empire hadn't "national monarchs" in most of their history. Also the last truly "national" monarchs of Hungary was Stephen I of Hungary (997-1038).

The parliament of Transylvania retained its position under the Habsburg era. And the majority of this assembly was always Hungarian (only 1/3 part was Transylvanian Saxons). Of course, Hungarian and Transylvanian parliament were not united. Habsburgs rule Transylvania as a very autonomous territory, but under the formal name of the Holy Crown of Hungary.

And look the governors nationality under Habsburg Monarchs: Majority of governors were Hungarian, only one was Austrian, others were local saxons, or from non-austrian (non-Habsburg) parts of German states. But there were not romanians!

• Stephen Haller, 1709-1710
• István Wesselényi , 1710-1713
• Zisgmond Kornis, 1713-1731
• István Wesselényi, 1731-1732
• Francisc Anton Wallis, 1732-1734
• John Haller 1734-1755
• András Hadik 1765-1767
• Carol O'Donell 1767-1770
• Joseph Maria von Auersperg 1771-1774
• Samuel von Brukenthal 1774-1775, 1776-1787
• Samuel von Brukenthal 1774-1775, and 1776-1787
• György Bánffy II, 1787-1822
• Jósika János 1822-1834
• Ferdinand Este 1835-1837
• János Kornis, 1838-1840
• József Teleki, 1842-1848

--Celebration1981 (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

And look the European maps from the 18th century.

You write "western countries where the western civilization existed (the non-Orthodox countries)" do you even know what you are talking about? To me it seems that you just throw with words around whose meaning evades you... What does it have to do with our discussion? For the rest of the post... do you know when the idea of nationality first appeared? Do you know that the Romanians were eliminated from the transylvanian political life since the XIV century? Please don't answer me, post here something only if it has to do with this discussion, otherwise start a new section.Octavian8 (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You didn't know the therm: western world? Please, read about western world and "western culture" , Orthodox countries are not part of western culture or civilisation.

About Nationality ethnicity identity existed from the beginings. Only the "nationalism" as ideology and way of thinking did not existed in old times. Nationalism appeared in the end of the 18th century. Until this day, the Hungarian historians considered Vlachs as immigrants and refugees in Transylvania, their first waves arrived to Transylvania after the Mongol attacks (1241-1242) the second huge waves started to immigrate in the age of Ottoman conquest of Hungary (from XVI-XVII century) --Celebration1981 (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but you are not worth any more of my time.Octavian8 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Haha, dear Octavian, you got a checkmate :) --Celebration1981 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that you talk about checkmate and don't even know what chess is and I have better things to do than teach you the game.Octavian8 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture captions

Picture captions should be descriptive for the picture, details should be given in text. For the particular case of the picture of Michael the Brave, details about the time he was ruler of the three Romanian Principalities belong in the article about him. In this article there should be (and it is) a link to the latter and eventually a very short description of the facts, but in the text, NOT in the caption. Octavian8 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For the picture about the Principalities, the text makes the situation clear, also the word 'united' is a LINK to the article about the 'Personal union', which further clarifies things. Also the caption reads '... united under Michael's authority' and not the 'united Principalities.' Octavian8 (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

About Banat

The issue of the Banat region, which I discussed on the Transylvania page, is even more easy to see here. While the history of Transylvania, goes on rightly, having little or nothing to do with that of the Banat (they had quite distinct historical paths), the story happily ends with a Transylvania bigger than it never was in 1.000 years of history. That because of an ethimological dispute and systematic misslead by the Cluj current of thought, ignoring what in fact is the major reason why Banat is not Transylvania: history. Please provide citation on the assertiot that the Banat is part of Transylvania! --Radufan 00:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

That's because Banat has no real history on its own. It was just a frontier region (roman, hungarian, turkish or romanian) . Nothing important happened there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.1.180 (talk • contribs)

Historical population

Some things about the figures in the Historical population table: There are some small inaccuracies when we compare the data in the table with the one from Árpád Varga's book on Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995 and I'm going to correct them. The other thing I'd like to ask is where was the data for 1850 taken from? The most striking thing is that the total population for 1850 is 1,823,222, while after only 19 years it becomes 4,224,436. This is of course impossible, so probably the 1850 census only took into consideration Transylvania proper, which is inconsistent with the rest of the table. The percentages are also significantly different from those in Varga's book, or Rudolf Poledna's figures in his article from the book Interculturalitate. I think we should either correct the 1850 row, or simply remove it. Of course, correcting it is preferable. Alexrap 21:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to be interested in this particular issue. Anyway, I investigated it myself and I found that indeed the 1850 data refers only to Transylvania proper. There is no 1850 data available for Banat and Crişana. The data currently presented in the table is however slightly wrong, so I will correct it. I will also add a note explaining that the 1850 data refers to Transylvania proper only and will give 2 references for it. Alexrap 11:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Magyar tribal states

I can give you no referencies on this subject. this is an evidency among Hungarian scholars: - around 850 Khazar state system adopted - nomadic state - Hungariam conquest - tribal confederacy - Later the Magyar tribes in the Carpathian basin followed separate forign policy (the Horka clan conducted raids in Western Europe, the Gyula in the Balcan peninsula) and even their spiritual orientation wasn't uniform (Geza - Catholicism, Gyula - Orthodoxism) - then followed the second state formation. (on the ruines of the first) Based on Western European state system patterns, under Vajk/Stephen. --fz22 08:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"rulers of independent Magyar tribal states" covers a lot of assumptions (a Wiki reader browsing Wikipedia can easily find that Magyars had some sort of tribal organization, so it's no real problem with that):

• that there were such things as "tribal states"
• that Magyars had them
• that these states were independent
• that the rulers given for example were indeed rulers of those states. Actually some of them are problematic: on what grounds are Kean or Achtum such rulers?

As we're on Kean, are you sure it's in Chronicon Pictum? Is it said there that he is a duke of Bulgarians and Slavs? IIRC, this info is only in GH. And if you include info from GH, then we should include also the scary triad: Gelou, Glad, Menumorout. Daizus 08:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is in the Legend of King Stephen --fz22 09:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I've found the reference. It is also in Keza's GHH. Daizus 11:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

Fz22, don't take it personally, but please provide some transparancy on your attempts of sourcing. I have searched a lot today to check those sources, and still I haven't found them all. If you get the information from some book, or some site, then let the other editors know: "Scholar X believes the source Y says Z". If you access the primary source directly, please provide chapter, paragraph, section, etc.. Thank you. Daizus 14:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on first visit of Magyars in Europe, I don't think you can back it up with a primary source, given there's no contemporary complete history of Europe. All the chronicles are rather localized. So we need a recent scholarly assessment. Daizus 14:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

First visit of Magyars in the Frankish Empire (Pannonia): (they fought in the sub-Danube region even earlier in 838-839 against the Bulgars). "Hostes… qui Ungri vocantur, regnum… depopulantur” Annales Bertiniani: http://mek.oszk.hu/03900/03960/pdf/01fejezet.pdf (chapter 1.4, 3rd paragraph)--fz22 15:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Add the book (the pdf) as reference for that claim. Anyway, I was wrong about Annales Bertiniani, it covers a longer period than I knew. Thank you. Daizus 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hungarians include Magyars and Szeklers?

Hello, I have always found the relation between the 3 words obscure, and maybe this article clarifies it. The article states that both Magyars and Szeklers are Hungarians. Is this hierarchy widely accepted, or mainstream? For instance, does that mean that not all Hungarians are Magyars, just like not all Hungarians are Szeklers? Dpotop 18:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Careful with those terms--a "Hungarian" is technically just a citizen of Hungary, not necessarily an ethnic Magyar. So yes, not all "Hungarians" are "Magyars". ;-) (It's hair-splitting I know, but that's one of those tricky little linguistic oddities that always bugs me.)

As far as I know, most Szeklers do consider themselves to be Magyars. There is certainly the consciousness that they are a distinct group of Magyars with distinct history, tradition etc., but it's generally accepted that they are Magyars. I do believe, however, that there are some Szeklers who consider themselves to be an entirely separate ethnic group, related to the Magyars but not Magyars. According to the legends they are descendants of Attila's son Csaba...but whenever we go back far enough that our main sources are legends, it gets pretty murky.

Do we have any Szekler Wikipedians on here btw? A real Szekler could probably explain this situation much better than me... K. Lásztocska 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Székelys consider themselves Magyars, except for those who have double personality and also think they are descendants of Prince Csaba :-). They vote for their parties called Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség, or for Magyar Polgári Szövetség. Actually, if you compare Székely Land with Hungary, it is very surprising to see that Székelys have more "pure" Magyar traditions. Eg. unlike Hungary where the population is of a very much mixed origin, with a lot of Slav and German surnames still in use, in Székely Land you will find a lot more original Hungarian names.

Anyway, in the Hungarian language there is only one expression for Hungarian, this is: "magyar", so there is no distinction between ethnicity and citizenship, like in English. If you want to say somebody is Hungarian (citizen) the expression you can use instead of "magyar" is "magyarországi", or "magyar állampolgár". Consequently if you ask a Székely he/she will say he/she is "magyar". Now, if you translate this into English, the translation will usually be "Hungarian", because Hungarians, as a result of their native language, are not sensitive to this distinction in English. Also, because "Magyar" is less often used and known to English speakers. example 1: BBC Hungarian Language Serviceexample2: RMDSZ

Why are there two expresions used for Hungarian and one for Romanian? I think because the medieval name "Hungarian" is still used by foreigners, while Vlach/Wlach/Olahus was abandoned. --KIDB 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies. I try to synthesize:

• In the Hungarian language: Magyar=both nationality (citizenship) and ethnicity. In an ethnic context Szekler is a sub-set of Magyar.
• In English: Hungarian= both nationality and ethnicity and in an ethnic context Szekler is a sub-set of Hungarian.

Is this correct?

If yes, then should we remove references to "Magyar" on Wikipedia, and replace them with "Hungarian". In fact this is why I asked this question, because someone used the 3 words with seamingly different meanings in a single phrase. Dpotop 07:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "Magyar" and "Hungarian", the way I use them in English is "Magyar" to refer to ethnicity and "Hungarian" to refer to citizenship, regardless of ethnicity. So no, we should not replace all instances of the word "Magyar" with "Hungarian" because they do have different meanings, even though they are too often (and incorrectly) used interchangeably. The sentence with "Hungarian", "Magyar" and "Szekler" in it all at once was just an example of really confusing writing (probably by some well-meaning contributor who was nonetheless unclear on the concept...)K. Lásztocska 22:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This issue is difficult to solve, there was already a discussion here, the result was that there are no clear rules. --KIDB 08:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The migrations part of the lead

I will delete it, because it is not Ok for several reasons:

1. The region was diverse not only starting in the 4th century AD, but even before. You can go as far as the indo-europeas, if you wish.
2. The great migrations did not only come from central Asia. I understand the interest in that region, but the slavs were actually closer, as were goths, a.s.o. Arguably, it was the indo-european part that mostly affected the region.
3. Given points 1 and 2, your conclusion (the ethnic and cultural diversity) cannot be a conclusion. It can be a statement, however, because it's true.

Cheers, Dpotop 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

PS: Nobody answered my previous question on magyars, szeklers, and hungarians. Dpotop 23:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Romania 1600 02.gif

Image:Romania 1600 02.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ottoman rule?

I don't get it - did the Ottomans come to rule Transylvania in 1540 or 1541? --PaxEquilibrium 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Does one have a reference for the ethnic composition of Transylvania in 1713?

question asked by Dc76\^talk 15:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Dear User:Koppany, it is very unfortunate that you are starting again this kind of edits. We've already gone through these discussions some time ago. There is no reliable data for the 18th century and before, as unfortunately no Censuses were conducted at the time. Alexrap (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I have not mentioned Ceasusescu, just added data and sources: Nyárády R. Károly Erdély népesedéstörténete [1] --Koppany (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what does Ceausescu have to do with it. But to address the issue here: the table contains information from official censuses. There were no censuses before 1850, so we can't mix things and put them in the same table. Is like comparing oranges with apples. There are indeed several estimations on the ethnical composition of Transylvania before the 19th century, but unfortunately there is no consensus over the accuracy of these estimations.

So what you're trying to do now is to impose one particular estimation (which I can't even find in your reference - by the way, could you please translate for the rest of us here on the English Wikipedia who don't speak Hungarian the fragment making reference to the 1713 data) and put it next to some census data. Well, we just cannot do that. Alexrap (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Koppany, I believe that you are wrong to remove the useful comment in the Historical population section that states where the figures in the table have been obtained. You may have a good argument that an official tax list is a kind of census; I would like to hear it, because I don't personally mind which population was in the majority in those times. But the figures should be seperated off in some way from the censuses table, with explaination about where they are derived and/or footnote references to works in English. Such a discussion requires *greater* detail in its presentation, not the blurring of details by mixing up figures that have different origins and meanings. Best wishes. Frankieparley (talk) 12:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the tacit comment about the ethnic populations in the Middle Ages being ordered by size, as this has been disputed in recent discussions. I've added the Roma, who I'm sure must have been present in large numbers. This article was recently POV tagged by User:Nergaal. Was your concern the argument over population, Nergaal? Or was it something else? Please let us know what you recommend for the POV tag to be removed. Frankieparley (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Frankieparley, thanks for your comment. I am sorry for my short explanations, but I have been very busy recently in real life and my main concern was to readd information that was removed by user Alexrap. That is true that before 1850 there was no official census per nomine in Transylvania but we have official tax lists that trace back to the 16th century. These lists iclude the number of all tax payers etc. Due to the fact that only serfs payed tax and with rare exceptions all ethnic Romanians were serfs, we can say that the percentage of Hungarians were even higher that these tax lists show, because among Hungarians the rate of nobility (and they did not pay tax) was relatively high, in some region 15-20%. At the momet I am too busy to translate the sources I added, but appreciate any help in this field. --Koppany (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks User:Koppany, this is interesting history, and is worth presenting on Wikipedia, though I fear this argument never ends! I think you can introduce your pre-1850 statistics in the Historical Population section, but in a different table and with an explaination; then they can be discussed. We still have the POV tag; my revision was removed, but I am not an expert in these matters so I don't know what to do next. I'll wait a while to see what happens. Incidentally, I've been looking for a history book about Transylvania, but I have not yet found one published by an impartial author; though there's a new version coming out in 2010: [2]. Cheers! --Frankieparley (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was me who reverted to the initial version (before the changes of Koppany). And I do agree with you (as I stated in the revert log): The current data in the table is consistent, coming only from official census (BTW, what is the correct plural form for census, there's none on m-w.com). Moreover, the paragraph of text clearly states what kind of data it's about. Of course, if you have data for the 1700's from reliable sources, you should put it here, but separately (not in the same table), and with an explanation of what it represents. If it's a tax list, then I presume it does not include lots of people (the ones that were too poor to be taxed, for instance). You should say something about it, too. I would have done it, but I can't read Hungarian. Dpotop (talk) 09:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dpotop, yes, I agree with all of what you say. These tax figures can be presented, but differently, and with explainations and warnings that they are not showing the same information as census figures. I can't read Hungarian either, and only some Romanian. --Frankieparley (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Transylvania proper" means nothing

Or, to be more precise, there is no clear definition of what it means. The only solution I think is to choose some historical reference and refer to the "Principality of Transylvania in year 1500", for instance. The current situation is not OK. Dpotop (talk) 10:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It means the properly so called Transylvania ... which was a geographic and less political unit...--fz22 (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No Romanians in the 8th century?!?

Ethnolinguistic groups in central-eastern Europe 8th century

This image was placed in the top of the Middle Ages chapter. I wonder about its reliability since I think represents the outcome of the Rosler theory (because it actually confirm the absence of the ethnic Romanians from Transylvania in the 8th century), which of course is disputed. Should be presented here or not, since it represents only one point of view? Aleodor (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I made the map. I am not sure who placed it here. It was made primarily to illustrate the Slavic tribes in eastern Europe, c. 8th century. It is not designed to have a stance on the 'Romanian Origins" issue. Nevertheless, all the named tribes in the map are based on historic sources and is a good illustration of the political situation affecting (future) Romanian lands at the said time (ie Avar & Bulgar rule, surrounding Slavic tribes, etc). I can well place Vlachs somewhere in Transylvania, Moldavia, or wherever, however, it might be anachronistic given that no source mentioned them at that time Hxseek (talk) 07:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, imho, writing or not writing in Romanians there is automatically a stance. Although, the mainstream hisotians' view (view, not definitive proof) is that Romanians were there (from as north as Maramures to as south-east as outer curvature Carpathians to as south-west as Banat touching Danube, i.e. only about 1/2 of the modern territory of Romania, excluding all plains). I would suggest to add the name in brackets: (Romanians). This way it would be clear that the map does not take a stand on any side.

Second, I would like to specifically mention one particular good thing about the map: it places correctly Ulichians (Dniester-Siret area) and Tiverians (Southern Bug area), unlike many other instances on WP. Unfortunately many people wrote about these 2 tribes on WP, and did not know properly what they talk about, thus more often they simply interchanged them. There exists numerous evidence that Romanians (specifically the ones east of the Carpathians) have borrowed very specific Ulichian customs (some claim that the Ulichians were in fact culturally and lingustically assimilated into Romanians, in the process adapting numerous Ulichian traditions), and no evidence about links with Tiverians. Dc76\^talk 08:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For example this map is wrong: Ulichians and Tiverians are interchanged. It's a small detail in the big picture, of course, but the accumulation of such small detials is what makes a map eventually questionable or qualitative. Dc76\^talk 08:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Ha. I made that map also ! Yes, Romanian historiographers have given a lot of attention to the 'contrubution' of SLavs to the formation of Romanian ethnos, ranging from those who saw Slavs as a crucial 'third element' to those who try to minimize the impact of 'savage' Slavs upon the 'refined' Roman heritage of the Vlachs. Apart from the biological, of course there is orthodoxy and ruling structure which made its way via Bulgaria. I can have a dabble and see what map I can come up with for theorize places of origins for Vlachs in the Balkans. Hxseek (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Others

[3] I did this rv, b/c in my humble opinion, we are not allowed, when citing, to change the meaning of sentences. It is ok (f it is a verbatim citation, even that is not ok) if we interchange "x's y" to "y of x", etc, because such things do not change the meaning, not a single bit. About the scholar's work, I don't know how he did it, I am not a historian and i am not familiar with his work, but I assume his professional reputation is at stake when signing scholarly work. He never said he used the data from some census in or around 1600. He might have used other ways to arrive at his conclusion. He never mentions that his sources are Romanian. On the contrary, what kind of Romanian sources in 1600 could have given him such information? Most probably, he is more familiar than we are with History of Transylvania in 1600. I doubt he would have written things made up, I believe he had knowledge of 16th and 17th century Kingdom of Hungary including probably from Hungarian sources at the time (what else?). If you read more form the book, you will notice that the author is very unkind to Romanians, criticizes their Romantic nationalism very harshly; I don't expect him to have a pro-Romanian POV. The sentence represents the scholarly understanding of one scholar, and is directly attributable and traceable to that scholar. Nothing more and nothing less. Dc76\^talk 21:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There weren't census about ethnic groups in Transylvania before the 19th century, but it is well-known that the mention of "60% ratio" before the 1700s era is a Romanian practice. According to Hungarian historians, the Romanians or their old original ancestors the so-called "Vlachs" appeared in Transylvania after the Mongol genocides (1241-1242) and they became majority around the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century.

Here is a book: Transylvania - The Roots of Ethnic Conflict

Table of contents http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/

1. The Multiethnic Character of the Hungarian Kingdom in the Later Middle Ages: http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy05.htm

2. RUMANIANS, VLACHS OR WALLACHIANS http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/transy/transy06.htm

The medieval and early modern section of the article seems balanced objective until the mention of the "60 percent" sentence. This is very hurtful for an English Wiki article if it contains biased (national) viewponts (the Romanian or the Hungarian viewpoints) about ethnical ratios. Therefore: Please, don't refer to ethnical ratios and percentages (Saxon Romanian and Hungarian etc...) about Transylvanian poplution until the 19th century. Thanks --Celebration1981 (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you blaming me for this? Blame the scholar that wrote that book. If you want, let's add According to ..., ... But why do you jump to the conclusion that that scholar has used "Romanian practice"? For an author who just pages apart dismantles everything about Romanian romantic nationalism to use the very "Romanian practice" that he so sharply criticized? This is not a national viewpoint, or biased, as you call it. It is simply a scholarly consideration.

There are also a number of other inconsistences in what you say:

1. The first available census is from 1740s, not 19th century
2. Vlach= Romance people from Eastern Europe. In the context of Transylvania, Romanians=Vlachs. Vlacks are not the "old original ancestors" of Romanians. In Transylvania, they are the Romanians.
3. The book/website you provide claims that the roots of ethnic conflict in Transylvania lie at least at the beginning of 16th century. But what kind of ethnic conflict before the raise of romantic nationalism in early 19th century? It is 300 years difference! When someone makes such a gross mistake (to talk about ethnicity in 16th century), it is very difficult to believe stronger claims.
4. The scholarly work I used perhaps regards as Romanian everyone who speaks the Romanian language as native. That is something one can do in 1600, and in 1200, and in 200, one can use available data to put forward an idea about how many poeple spoke a language in a region. But in the 16th centruy, there were no ethnicities. People did not associate any nation-state concept with their language. Moreover, most people did not even know to properly write in their own language. Another possibility to estimate the numbers, is to use religious affiliation, since it is known that Romanians were Orthodox at the time, while Hungarians were Catholic, later also Protestant. But it is not the language they cared then, but the social conditions. They did ont have any national consciousness b/c of their language. The religion, too, did not mean anything, b/c according to the religion, they were living in the "Eastern Roman Empire", which politically was long since defunct. :)
5. The book/website you give doesn't seem to me (maybe I am mistaken, pls correct me) to be attributable to some (or several) scholar(s). A scholarly work is a secondary source, a webpage is a tertiary one. Secondary sources are the most valued in WP. While it perhaps does present the Hungarian viewpoint, the scholarly work I cited from does not represent any, let alone the Romanian one. I am sure one can find Romanian "sources" claiming 90% of Transylvania were Romaians, including the Szekely, but that wouldn't be anywhere close to a scholarly source. That would be rubbish.
6. I do understand that some Hungarian historians conclude that "Romanians appeared in Transylvania after the Mongol genocides (1241-1242) and they became majority around the end of the 17th and the beginning of the 18th century." But you don't expect someone to believe that when neutral scolarly sources say otherwise, do you? Moreover, as far as I know, the Hungarian/Romanian divergences are about the Origin of Romanians, namely where the group formed its unity: south or north of Danube. But I did not know the number of Romanians or Hungarians was important. Is that something that Hungarians historians disagree with Romanian ones, or Hungarians who love history disagree with Romanians who love history? We have to attribute everything to scholars, not to our own personal opinions. We can only edit for English and clarity. Dc76\^talk 13:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)