Talk:Hungarians in Romania/Archive 1

message: This article has been merged with another and should be deleted. freestylefrappe 01:05, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)
: According to the manual of style, this is the correct capitalization of the name. Bogdan | Talk 23:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

message: :1.History section.The article is in really bad shape,that's a fact.I myself am Romanian,the subject interests me a lot and I want to see some improvement on a bilateral romanian-hungarian wikipedian basis.I won't do any editing before making proper debate.So one step at the time,let's try and figure the whole thing out.The History segment starts only with the end of WW1 while the history of the Hungarian minority goes way back to 10-11th century.There we need some good sources and establish a few things: when did the magyar tribes occupy the territory,was there an invasion and if so who was actually invaded,what happened after.
:2.A proposal for a new section: "Relationship with Romanians" with description of what was the relationship between the two groups through the various periods of time,how has it been exploited by the communist countries,what "myths" and beliefs still exist today.
:3.Aknowledgment by involved wikipedians that for the past century much propaganda was made by both Hungary and Romania and that both countries have interpreted history suiting their political ends. Much of what is "official history" is unattendable and highly contradictory.Therefore simply stating our beliefs or history as we learnt it in school is simply not enough(both commnunist-run governemnts had clear propaganda policies,especially regarding education).I call for those who,like myself,got much of their basic education during the communist regime, to enquire into as many sources as possible before stating biased POVs.
--Radufan 17:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A very bold and ambitious plan you put forward, and I completely agree with you. Of course this would require lots of hard work and self-restraint from us: it's much easier to insert, delete, revert, re-revert using your high school memories than actually going to libraries, checking out books, reading them, citing them as sources etc. The trouble is, I'm quite lazy by birth:) and have many things on my hand right now, but I will try and get myself together and do some work of the more valuable kind along the lines you just proposed. Actually, there is one page which is surprisingly NPOV and well-written: the Origin of Romanians. That article is of course in many ways different from what we are working on here, but it could serve as an encouragement to us that it is possible to write a good page on the most controversial topics too.--Tamas 23:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Step by step

message: Historically, the middle-southern part of Mures county (including Targu Mures) used to belong to the Szekler region. Actually, Hungarians living their consider themselves Szeklers. Of course, other parts of Mures county, such as the north or Sighisoara, never belonged to the Szeklerland. Anyway, maybe it would be more accurate to say that the Szekler region comprises Covasna, Harghita and parts of Mures.--Tamas 20:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Szekler Region

message: Shouldn't we add this map?  It looks much better than the one in the article.--Tamas 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Wasn't this after 1945? I know there was a land reform in the 1920s but I thought this only affected private property.--Tamas 12:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungarian community properties confiscated

message: People, please tell me what the dispute is... I think the article is pretty accurate now. POV tag can be omitted I think. If not, tell me your disputes, so we can talk about it. This is going nowhere. Maartenvdbent 18:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As usual, disputes start with history. For instance, Hungarians would say they entered Transylvania in 896, because Gesta Hungarorum says so. But they refute the same chronicle when it says that the conquest of Transylvania was finished later, and that they encountered resistance from local rulers like Gelou and Menumorut. And yes, even the latter ruled in what is today known as Transylvania. Dpotop 10:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is greatly improved, I myself put it under dispute because at the beginning it was very hungarian POV. But now it seems ok to me. If any, minor disputes can take place over smaller details. And more info can in time be added. From my pov, I read it and the one thing,as a romanian,to have "bothered" me is that it doesn't state that the magyar tribes invaded romanian Transylvania;it doesn't clearly state that they invaded romanians. But I can live with that because the minority itself should be under focus here. Then a simple look into the history of the land where the administrative term "transylvania" was coined, would be enough to understand that it was for centuries inhabited by the Dacians, direct ancestors of romanians. So I will take the dispute off. --Radufan 14:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now, it's more NPOV. Dpotop 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are the disputes? 

message: Thanks to the edits by Dpotop the article contains an overwhelming Romanian chauvinist POV. 
You changed quotes I added from the admired analysis of Benett Kovrig for the Council on Foreign Relations
For instance you changed this line from:
:The regime's favored authors were publishing virulent diatribes against the Magyars by the 1980's. Ethnic Romanians were encouraged to believe that all their troubles in past and present were due the presence of Hungarians in Transylvania .
into:
:The regime funded historical research, as well as other publications on the crimes perpetrated by the Hungarians agains the Romanians in Northern Transylvania during World War II. .
Well, that's not what the Council says. 
Furthermore, Funar was deleted out of the text, as was the Vatra movement. Dpotop deleted Funar with the comment:
:If you insist on talking about Funar, I'll add some lines about revisionist propaganda...
I do not insist on talking about Funar just to blame Romanians. It's part of the story, it is a fact, and acknoledged by all serious studies about this subject.
There are many other edits made by Dpotop that are clearly not true. The first sentence was rephrased so that it now looks like the Hungarians colonized Transylvania later on. You know also that it's not true.
Why can't you acknoledge that Hungarians were discriminated under the Ceausescu regime, as every serious scholar does? Come on now, get out of that Ceausescu myth, and put that nationalism away. Maartenvdbent 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Now it's even more POV

message: Dpotop changed again the sentence from the work of Benett Kovrig:
:The regime's favored authors were publishing virulent diatribes against the Magyars by the 1980's. Ethnic Romanians were encouraged to believe that all their troubles in past and present were due the presence of Hungarians in Transylvania .
into:
:The regime funded historical research, as well as other publications on the crimes perpetrated by the Hungarians agains the Romanians in Northern Transylvania during World War II. .
You realy want to call those Ceausescu supported works 'historical research'? Come on, you know that Ceausescu discriminated the minorities in a very rude way, but you still want to believe those researches? You keep saying that the Hungarians committed atrocities against the Romanian population, but you don't mention the atrocities committed by the Iron Guard (Romanian fascist organization).
:: Maybe you do not know, but the best way of discriminating is today to encourage the other part. What I said is correct: Ceausescu encouraged research on what happend in Northern Transylvania. Dpotop 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I consider that Ceausescu encouraged work nationalistic propaganda. You believe that. Don't you understand that he encouraged this "research" just to slander the Hungarian population. You are definately influenced by the minority policy of Ceausescu, and I don't like it. Maartenvdbent 21:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And you are definitely influenced by Magyar propaganda. :) But nevertheless we are not here to do "original research". It's Wikipedia policy not to do so. Dpotop 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Actually, your citation is false, because it reverts causality. See Second Vienna Award. Before the Award, there were more Romanians there than Hungarians. To get the figures you mentioned in 1941 a lot of ethnic cleansing and forced migration occured. Dpotop 19:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Diatribe or historical research

message: You told me to cite better sources, well that is really something to laugh about if it weren't so serious. I cited a well known source from the Council on Foreign Relations, Bennett Kovrig (more info here: , you can also download the introduction there and see how well it is written). Furthermore I rely on the Helsinki Watch: "Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Hungarians of Romania : February, 1989/a Helsinki Watch Report", also very reliable (for more info see: ). 
Further literature I used for my paper are:
Ludanyi, Andrew (ed.) (1994) The Hungarian minority’s situation in Ceausescu's Romania. New York: Columbia University Press. (part of the series Atlantic Studies on Society in Change, the series  Social Science Monographs, Boulder, Colorado, and the series East European Monographs, no. CCCLXXIII) 
Illyés, Elemér (1982) National Minorities in Romania: Change in Transylvania. New York: Columbia University Press. (somewhat less reliable, because of the time it was written in, therefor I decided not to cite from this work).
You cited a Cambridge University scholar, and that source is a very good source, I don't dispute that. What do you think, that I'm a Hungarian revisionist who tries to justify the Vienna Awards?
:: I think that I (as a Romanian) try to not use Romanian sources, as they may be seen as POV. You should try to use few Hungarian sources. Dpotop 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, and therefor I did not use Hungarian sources, except for the Ludanyi source (that is reliable, I can explain to you later). Helsinki Watch is an independent NGO, now known as Human Rights Watch. The Kovrig investigation was part of the research done by the Council on Foreign Relations, a well known US NGO. Maartenvdbent 20:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concerning the serious of Kovrig, read Second Vienna Award and you will see why I say that causality was inverted. Dpotop 19:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Better sources???

message: You keep saying that Romanians are highly discriminated in Székleyföld. I don't think that is true. Speaking Hungarian in public in Ceausescu's Romania was impossible without fear of police intimidation. Orthodox churches in dominat size and architecture were built in Szekler villages scarcely populated by Romanians. Pupils received barely education in their mother tongue and were indoctrinated with their Daco-Roman origin. To be short, the Szeklers were widely discriminated in Ceausescu's Romania. I don't think you can support the notion that the Romanians were discriminated in Ceausescu's Romania, for it were the minorities who were blamed for all problems.
I don't deny that there can be some problems in Székelyföld, but I think they are marginal when compared to the Hungarian minority's situation in Hungary. The Hungarian minority's situation was far worse.
:: My Romanian friends told me they had to choose between Magyarizing and leaving the area. :) However, this info is not in the article, for I have no sources, so le's cease discussion. Dpotop 19:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discrimination of Romanians in Székelyföld???

message: You are of course correct that the Romanians were not part of the Three Nations in the Feudal Age. But that 'nation' was not the nation as we refer to today. It represented the nobility. Saxons had their autonomy in their seats (Stuhl) in Transylvania. Saxons residing out of the Stuhl area were also not part of the Three nations. Szeklers had their seats (Szék) in Transylvania, but also these Szeklers were not privileged outside the jurisdiction of their autonomous region. Saxons and Szeklers got rewarded this position because of their work to defend the border of the Kingdom.
Hungarian peasants were also not part of the Three Nations, only the nobility was. I agree that the position of Romanians was worse because they had no representation in the Transylvanian Diet and rights at all. Their religion was tolerated but considered not-received (Catholicism and Protestantism were received religions). That is a bad thing. But you must compare it with other states at that time. It was the time of the Roman Catholic inquisite, protestants were prosecuted. That's one of the reasons for the Dutch revolt. Actually, Transylvania was alongside with the United Provinces, one of the few states where toleration of all religions existed (I say tolerated, that means that people of other religions were not prosecuted, total freedom of religion is a very recent phenomenon).
There was no such thing as a forced assimilation (magyarisation) of the Romanian population at that time. Romanians that assimilated in that time dis that without any compulsion. That might be hard to believe in these nationalist-revival times, but it is true (and not only in Hungary, but througout Europe). National counciousness didn't exist at that time, that was a produce of the intellectual elite in the nineteenth century. I suppose you know that nationality is considered an Imagined Community? 
:Quote: The elites of the non-Hungarian peoples of Hungary initially identified themselves with the Hungarian elite, spontaneously and without compulsion. Voluntary assimilation proceeded without a hitch as long as it relied on the prestige and authority of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary or was promoted later, in the l9th century, by the spontaneous forces of urbanization and industrialization. Hungarian minority's situation... (1994) 
You said the notion that forced assimilation (magyarisation) only began in the 19th century was false. I suggest you read some literature on this, because this is acknoledged in every literature that I read.
:::  I suggest you read what I replied to KIDB. It's about noblemen and priests. Dpotop 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanians not one of the three nations

message: You state that the Hungarian minority's organizations are clearly separatist. That is a ridiculous notion. Hungary and Romania signed a bilateral treaty in which Hungary renounced all claims on Transylvania and respected the current borders. I strictly condemn all separatist movements. But the UDMR is not separarist, they respect the Romanian state. They might plead for autonomy of Transylvania and/or Székleyföld, and I think that should be a good thing to do. Still Hungarian is not an official language of Romania or Transylvania. Hungarian could very well become one of the two (Romanian and Hungarian) or three (Romanian, Hungarian, German) languages of Transylvania. I would applaud such a movement.
:: We will do that when Turkish will be official in Germany or the Netherlands, or Spanish in the US. Anyway, wa have smaller minorities than those mentioned above. Until then, Hungarian can be used in education at every level, and in local administration, and in justice. Dpotop 20:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You cannot compare the Turkish population in Germany with the Hungarian population of present-day Romania since the latter represents an autochtonous minority (which is still discriminated in several aspects). Switzerland or South Tirol is a much better model to describe the situation in Transylvania. Árpád 03:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UDMR seperatist

message: You totally misinterpreted my quote on my previous text:
:Quote: Rather than enumerating historical arguments and counter-arguments, it would be mole beneficial to inquire into a possible way out of the present situation in which Hungarian-Romanian relations have become dangerously mired. Even at the level of personal contacts, relations have been poisoned to the extent that current social, political, and economic relations reflect it in Central and Eastern Europe. The best sons and daughters of both peoples need to be made aware that many more historical circumstances argue for their peaceful coexistence than for their relentless animosity. And last, but not least, their present condition is not preordained and irreversible. Examples of possible reconciliation can be found in the recent past of Western Europe, e.g., the normalization of Franco-German relations. For this to take place, however, every Hungarian and Romanian possessing a sense of responsibility must understand that this is not feasible without mutual and concerted efforts and particularly not without a lot of patience and mutual toleration. The Hungarian Situation in Ceausescu's Romania (1994).
You react with a notion of "Stupid Hungarian NGO's" and "Sometimes I am angry and I wish Romania treats Hungarians the same way Hungarians have treated Romanians and Germans (by almost completely assimilating them)". That is just exactly what I mean. I didn't mean politics (and I think the authors didn't either), but just human-to-human relations. All your comments have an air of mistrust and dislike towards Hungarians. I hope that from both sides the interethnic relations will become better in the coming decades. Maartenvdbent 19:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I do agree with this paragraph you quoted. But not with the propaganda that accompanies it. As concerns your excerpts of myself, I answered earlier, no need to repeat them uncessantly. Dpotop 20:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What I mean with that wise lesson from "The Hungarian Minority's Stituation"

message: I reverted the sentence that Dpotop rephrased twice (see above). Originally it read:
:The regime's favored authors were publishing virulent diatribes against the Magyars by the 1980's. Ethnic Romanians were encouraged to believe that all their troubles in past and present were due the presence of Hungarians in Transylvania .
It was rephrased into:
:The regime funded historical research, as well as other publications on the crimes perpetrated by the Hungarians agains the Romanians in Northern Transylvania during World War II. .
That is definately not what the author says.
If you revert this sentence again I consider that vandalism. If you do revert I will consider opting for a ban. Maartenvdbent 19:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then ban me, if you can, my "democratic" friend. Saying that "Ethnic Romanians were encouraged to believe that all their troubles in past and present were due the presence of Hungarians in Transylvania" is plain false and quite dumb. What happened is only that some books were published (one of the authors being Ion Lancranjan) containing memories about the crimes perpetrated in Ip, Treznea, and other places. Those things happened, you know. Dpotop 20:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes my friend and you deny it, despite very clear reports by the Helsinki Watch and Council on Foreign Relations. I almost literally quoted Kovrig here, and it is true, acknowledge that please. Everybody should agree that the Ceausescu regime encouraged blaming evrything on minorities, you kind of acknowledged that too earlier. Maartenvdbent 20:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not your friend and actually hate your ethnic hate posts. Without your stupid posts I may have never needed to edit this article this extensively, and left the Hungarian editors alone. Dpotop 23:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You said you are my democratic friend and I thought friendship comes from two sides. It's a pity you think that I am an ethnic hater. I just want to create an NPOV article about this situation. How have you come to think that I am an ethnic hater. I have never blamed the ethnic Romanians for discriminating the minorities, it is only done by the governments! Ans yes, the Romanian people were encouraged to believe that all their problems were due to the presence of Hungarians. Please read the reports by the Helsinki Watch and that report by Bennett Kovrig. Maartenvdbent 14:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I did not post the 1.6 million hungarians in the article, can you please tell me where that is mentioned? In 1992 there were 1.6 million. Maartenvdbent 13:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted sentence change

message: Nobody encouraged Romanians to think that all problems are due to minorities. Not even the extremists like Vadim. And not Ceausescu. We have shortcomings of our own (such as corruption), for which foreigners are not to blame. Ceausescu clearly discriminated minorities, which is bad, and promoted all sorts of research that would show how bad these minorities had been at different times in the past. This, you can write. But saying that "Ethnic Romanians were encouraged to believe that all their troubles in past and present were due the presence of Hungarians in Transylvania" is a blatant lie. Or, to be precise, is a piece of propaganda. When used in a history article, it becomes a lie. Dpotop 14:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I know already that you believe that it's a lie, you said that before. But I think, and with me probably all scholars, for I put that information from a wide range of studies, that what you believe is incorrect. For NPOVs sake I have changed it from an in-line assertion/statement to a literary quotation from the text. Maartenvdbent 15:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, what I dislike in your source is the fact that it's quite clearly propaganda. There is truth, but mixed with exaggerated, non-historic conclusions that would better fit a pamphlet, as well as false information. For instance, of the two paragraphs that you cited, I disagree with only two (the one cited before, which is absurd, and the one with "the favored authors of the regime"). The problem with the second one is that it carries no actual information (what is a "favoured author of the regime"?), and does not carry the essential information, that most of this work has been carried out by historians. Dpotop 16:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Anyway, it's good you chose to clearly show the source of this prose, and not simply present it as truth. Dpotop 16:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for that. I dispute that it is propaganda. Again, why should an NGO like the Council on Foreign Relations publish propaganda? For the resource, see: . Maartenvdbent 16:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blaming all problems on minorities 

message: My POV issue is resolved now. Does anyone else still have a dispute? Otherwise the tag can be omitted I think. Maartenvdbent 15:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, in my oppinion the article is still POV, because the source you cited in large quantities is POV. I suggest the POV is be maintained until new sources are added and the position is balanced. Dpotop 12:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please indicate which statements of the text are disputed by you? Are there many of them? --KIDB 14:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you read my comments on the source. You keep saying that it is propaganda. Again, it's from the Council on Foreign Relations, a United States NGO. Why should they publish propaganda. Why should that be POV? And why don't you put your sources in the text, that are less POV in your opinion. I think I know, because there are none. Every respectable scholar acknowledges the statements of Kovrig. It's a very decent and proper research. Maartenvdbent 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a few more changes to clarify things and to make the article more balanced. Now I think the tag can be removed. Maybe, in a later stage, some more information about the present situation could be included (eg. policemen don't speak in Hungarian in the Hungarian areas, but there is a recent initiative by the government to open new posts for ethcnic Hungarian policemen, or the issue of the Hungarian university, or the Székely autonomy, the act on ethnic minirities' rights being obstructed, etc.  --KIDB 15:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV resolved?

message: I changed (without fully reverting) the section on the period between the two world wars. The previous phrasing suggests that Transylvania was lost to the Romanian army only, whereas the important process is the political one. Dpotop 12:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but before Béla Kun tried to "re-capture" the lost territories, it was occupied by Romanian-French military forces in the first place.--KIDB 13:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not an expert in the matter, but were there any french troops on the eastern front? I'm sure you are not counting Berthelot when you say "Romanian-French military". There's a difference between a military mission and fighting troops. Dpotop 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I corrected accordingly --KIDB 12:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes