Jump to content

Talk:Alba Iulia

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

Alternative names

[edit]

I advice you to consider the origin of Alba Lulia from Albanian language. From the image you could depict the shape of a flower which in Albanian language is called Lule/Lulia. Plus the Latins named Alba and Albania is obvious. It is best to drop the 'nationalist/racist' standing and get some facts strait. Albanian language is the oldest language in Europe and it was a taboo for political reason. Now many new research has been published and will be translated bringing the truth out. The truth that for some of you could be shocking. I suggest start reading the books of Petro Zheji. --BenWeb13 (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
      • In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several [[#Names|alternative names]])". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
      • Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".

(WP:PLACE)

No other language except Romanian has any official / special status, there is no local official name different from the widely accepted English name. So we can not talk about an exception. 79.117.179.85 (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Anon, Please read our relevant guideline (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#General guidelines point 2). It clearly states that relevant foreign names which were used by a group of people which used to inhabit the place are permitted to be added. Hungarian and German citizens had a preeminent role in the development of Alba Iulia. Accordingly, the German and Hungarian names should be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but you really don't understand or you just pretend that because you dislike the rule ? Have you entirely and carefully read the guideline? I reproduced above the rule that I turned to account. There at least three alternate names and there is something notable about the names themselves, so the conditions for moving them to the Names section (that immediately follows the lead), are fulfilled. Please note that once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. 79.117.179.85 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anon, please read more carefully the guidelines you cited above. It is only an alternative approach. Please take into account that the German and Hungarian names of the towns were used for several hundred of years, therefore they are important for the history of the town. Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is only an option, but once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line so I respectfully ask you to stop reinserting them into the first phrase. I did not deny the importance of alternative and I did not remove them from the article; I only changed their positioning as per the guideline above 79.117.179.85 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anon, you might have not realized, but I oppose the alternative solution. I prefer the more widely accepted approach. Borsoka (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As we may be subjective (I am Romanian and you are Hungarian), I've asked for a neutral opinion Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements 79.117.179.85 (talk) 14:31, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not understand why do you think that this is driven by nationality. This is a debate about the proper application of a community rule in a specific case. Borsoka (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can find no other logical reason for insisting to keep the Hungarian name in the lead in spite of the recommendation of not moving it back to the first sentence 79.117.179.85 (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the German and Latin names? I would also add them to the lead. I have not realised yet that I am a half Hungarian, half German, half Latin 1,5 person. Borsoka (talk) 14:48, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because they can't be dissociated. There are only 2 possibilities: all of them or none of them. I don't understand the summary of this edit. Why should so many information about etymology be presented in the lead, if there is already a Names section? 79.117.179.85 (talk) 15:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anon, there are always many possibilities. In this specific case, the German, Hungarian and Latin names are those historically relevant names which should be added in accordance with the main rule in the relevant WP policy. For instance, Alba Iulia was never part of the Ottoman Empire and no significant Ottoman population lived there, consequently the Ottoman Turkish name can be deleted from the lead. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Borsoka, the Turkish name is not that relevant to be included in the lead (e.g., English sources does not use it, the town was never part of the Ottoman Empire, it never had significant minorities which used that name, etc.). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: The info "The modern Romanian name, which is only used from the late 18th century, is derrived from the medieval Latin translation of the town's Hungarian name—Gyulafehérvár ("Gyula's White Castle")" would indeed need a reference. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Koertefa, please read my last version again: it did not contain the above statement. It only stated that "Alba Iulia" was the medieval Latin translation of the Hungarian Gyulafehérvár ("Gyula White Castle") name; this piece of information is well sourced in the article. [Otherwise the "Alba" translation for the Hungarian town name "Fehérvár" ("White Castle") used to be quite common: Alba Regia (=Székesfehérvár / "Royal White Castle") or Alba Bulgarica (=Nándorfehérvár / "Bulgars' White Castle"). The medieval Latin translation of the Hungarian name of the town was borrowed by scholars of the Transylvanian School. They attempted to re-Latinize the Romanian language and thought that Alba Iulia had been the ancient name of the town which was connected to the Iulius dynasty. For the time being, I could not cite reliable sources to substantiate this last three statements, but I read this info in academic works.] Borsoka (talk) 17:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Borsoka, please read my comment again: I did not claim that it was you who wrote that statement. I was only referring to the sentence [1] Iaaasi had deleted. We are in agreement with respect to the other issues. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(A little off-topic) Assuming that Romanians used Slavic toponyms in the Middle Ages, how did Hungarian historians conclude that the population that lived in the area with Slavic toponyms was pure Slavic and not Romanian speaking a Slavicized/de-Latinized language? 79.117.178.29 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. The case of the de-Latinized Romanians who used words of Slavic/Turkish/Hungarian/German origin when naming most of the rivers in Romania is highly off-topic. Borsoka (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The relatively close relationship between Slavs and the Romanians is attested by the fact that in the case of localities with Hungarian as well as Slavic names, the Romanians generally adapted the Slavic variant (e.g. [Gyula]fehérvár — Bălgrad, Őregyház — Straja). The Romanian choice of a Slavic name for Gyulafehérvár suggests, however, that when this Transylvanian capital was founded, upon Roman ruins, in the 10th century, the Slavs may have been present, but the Romanians were not; otherwise, the Romanian name of Gyulafehérvár would have been Cetatea Albă."[2] Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is evident that Iaaasi, a banned user is a provocateur, The best solution that his chauvinistic suggestions remain unanswered. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will not comment the sock-puppetry accusation. If my suggestion is chauvinistic, it means that the guideline itself is chauvinistic, because I precisely respected a wiki directive. 79.117.183.29 (talk) 05:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that names widely used for the place in English or by its inhabitants should be listed at the start of the lead, not placed in a later section. See, for instance, Bratislava. A section on historical names can follow later, as in Wrocław. Maproom (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Maproom And when is this guideline (Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.) applicable then, if in this case it isn't? 79.117.183.29 (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence which you have cited starts with the word *alternatively*, so it should be applied in cases when the interested editors agree on that approach. It's not a mandatory law that must be applied in all cases when its conditions are met. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And what's in your opinion the meaning of the phrase Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line.? 79.117.176.209 (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Anon, you might have not had a chance to experience that our community's work is based on consensus, not on unilateral acts. Therefore, none of us is entitled to force other editors to accept the alleged consequences of his/her own unilateral act. The German, Hungarian and Latin names of the towns are well-known historical names which were used for several centuries by masses of the locals, therefore they cannot be listed along with other alternative names. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion declined

[edit]

A third opinion was requested at WP:3O. However, discussions involving more than two editors are not appropriate for 3O, and I count four editors involved here. If one or more of you still feel there's a need for outside assistance in resolving this disagreement, try the dispute resolution noticeboard. —Darkwind (talk)

955

[edit]

Where is that date come from? Which written source mentions this date? Unfortunately I do not have access to Gyorffy's source. Also, which source mentions the 10th-century name of the town ("Civitatem Albam in Ereel" or "Gyula dux Civitatem Albam in Ereel...invenerat ") -even if the date is inaccurate-? It was a Byzantine source or Anonymus? Fakirbakir (talk) 08:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what is TURKIA (when writing about first bishop of Turkia)

[edit]

From HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA Edited by LÁSZLÓ MAKKAI and ANDRÁS MÓCSY Volume I. From the Beginnings to 1606, Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York 2001, (The Land of the Gyulas,page I-394):

'Turkia's settlement area' included the valleys of the rivers Temes (Timesos), Maros (Muresis), Körös (Krisos), and Tutis (Béga?); this region was bounded on the west by the Tisza, and in the south, next to the Bulgars, by the Istros (Danube) River. The report is confirmed by toponyms.

It is Transylvania. Even Curta wrote: 'Shortly thereafter, he established the first bishop of Transylvania, (Curta, Transilvania around AD 1000) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.89.228 (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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) 11:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Some of the images on this article are phenomenal and really ought to be nominated for Featured Images. I am under constraint and hope someone can actually start the nominations. 171.116.188.202 (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Alba Iulia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 21:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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) 14:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mircea Hava listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mircea Hava. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Zerach (talk) 01:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alba_Iulia&oldid=1241724461"