Talk:Avram Iancu

More atention on Avram Iancu's writings, please !

Avram Iancu made some important contributions to the European political ethos. He envisaged a European union of democratic governed nations, with open frontiers and national states acting as equal partners. His descriptions of that dreamed Europe are strangely similar with the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty. If anyone have access to his writings, please give a link to them. Thanks ! Transsylvanian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian (talk • contribs) 09:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A lot of Avram Iancu's "deeds" are not present in the English Avram Iancu page! Why not? Please check out the Hungarian Avram Iancu page->He was also a mass-murderer killed several times more than 2000 un-armed civilians. This is something that is also part of the Avram Iancu story.

If you would like me to translate the Hungarian Wiki page, I would gladly do it. Please send your request to munka.racz@gmail.com.

thnx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.21.23.220 (talk) 09:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me point you to: WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:ATTR and WP:POV. Dahn (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

To keep the neutrality I will look for neutral sources about the "deeds" of Avram Iancu and his men.

"On the wall, right to the entrance of the fortress of Nagyenyed, a small plaque remembers the 800 slaughtered innocent Hungarians who are buried under this plaque. " link->http://historicaltextarchive.com/hungary/nagyeny.html

or another one, its not hard to find the truth about Avram Iancu, but only if someone wants to see the truth: "Rumanians led by Avram Iancu killed 3000 Hungarians, men, women and.."

link->http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dunay3/dunay3.pdf

Time and name of towns with the number of victims: 1848. október 12. Kisenyed (Sangatin) 140 1848. október Magyarigen (Ighiu) 176 families 1848. október Asszonynépe (Asinip)  ? 1848. október Boklya (Bochia) 30 1848. október Borosbocsárd (Bucerdea Vinoasa) 73 1848. október Bugyfalva (Budesti)  ? 1848. október Csáklya (Cetea)  ? 1848. október Forrószeg (Forosig)  ? 1848. október Mikeszásza (Micasasa)  ? (almost everyone) 1848. október Zám (Zam)  ? 1848. október 20. körül Balázsfalva (Blaj) térsége 400 1848. október Alvinc (Vintu de Jos) 2 peace seeking diplomats 1848. október Sárd (Sard) környéke 3000 1848. október Algyógy (Geoagiu) 85 1848. október 24. Ompolygyepüi (Presaca Ampoiului) 700 Hungarians from Zalatna 1848. november 13. Felvinc (Unirea) 200 1849. január 8. Nagyenyed (Aiud) 800 1849. január 18. Marosnagylak (Noslac), Hari (Heria), Marosdécse (Decea), Inakfalva (Inoc), Felvinc (Unirea) (100?) 1849. január Marosújvár (Ocna Mures) 90 1848. december 14. Kővárhosszúfalu (Satulung), Bácsfalva (Bacea), Türkös (?), Alsócsernáton (Cernat), Tatrang (Tarlungeni), Zajzon (Zizin), Pürkerec (Purcareni)  ? Gerendkeresztúr (Grindeni) 200 1848. október 28. Borosbenedek (Benic) The entire town 1848. október Székelykocsárd (Lunca Muresului) 60 1848. Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia)  ? 1848. október Naszód (Nasaud)  ? 1848. október Borbánd (Barabanţ)  ? 1848. október 25. Between Kőrösbánya (Baia de Cris) and Cebe (Tebea) the entire Brady family 1848. október Radnót (Iernut) Almost the entire Hungarian population of the nearby villages 1849. május Abrudbánya (Abrud) 1000 1849. május Bucsesd (Buces) 200

Here the source is Hungarian->http://epa.oszk.hu/01300/01343/00072/pdf/20080125-22077.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipqe (talk • contribs) 10:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC) Edipqe (talk) 10:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have seen all of the references are from the pens of Romanians, so this is POV?? :) lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edipqe (talk • contribs) 11:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We don't seem to understand each other. If you want to cite the account, you do so from the source (not from other parts of wikipedia), you do so by attributing the claim to whomever makes it ("according to..."), you do so by employing neutral language, and you preferably do so by adding it in some logical place in the article (not just anywhere). You should also consider doing so in English, not in some hybrid language. Not that it adds any relevancy, but claiming that "ethnicity is bias" is a very slippery and frankly absurd slope - the source used is competent and mainstream, which is what matters here. As for your source, I think more detail is needed on its reliability - who is the author? who is the publisher? under what circumstances does the publisher allow authors to contribute? That kind of stuff. Otherwise, I assure you that I have no qualms about including even partisan claims about what Iancu supposedly did to the civilian population, nor do I think the article, once developed further, should exclude any other controversies involving this historical figure. But I am against editing as a form of territorial pissing, against feverishly writing stuff that has little connection to the WP:MOS, and against stating those partisan claims (on both sides!) as fact - in this case, just because they made it on the Hungarian wikipedia (much like the inanities regularly stated on the Romanian wikipedia do not become validated by nonchalance). You dig? Dahn (talk) 11:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The first source, btw, has no reliability whatsoever. Who is Mr. Du Nay? What sort of publisher is the "Matthias Corvinus Publishing House"? The only scholarly mention I was yet able to find is here (p.36-37), where it is discussed as a biased source on the Hungarian side (compared with biased Romanian sources). It may be widely used by various internet venues, but it seems utterly obscure and highly partisan. Dahn (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I dig it :)

So I need to find third party sources, that can be trusted. Is it ok if I find it in Hungarian? Or it has to be in English, from a non-Hungarian author etc. Thank you for helping, and keeping me neutral. Its hard to stay neutral in things like this. --Edipqe (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course they can be Hungarian (and in Hungarian) - provided they meet the criteria outlined by WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 12:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me also point out that I have personally removed claims about "ethnic cleansing" made about Bem (in the Bem article). Although Bem's regime was admittedly violent (and, presumably, so was Iancu's - though I'd wager not with the same effect), the argument about ethnic cleansing was not only exaggerated and suspiciously avant la lettre, it could only be traced down to "sources" of little or no reliability - very much resembling at least one of the two Hungarian sources you linked to above. Dahn (talk) 12:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If I find written (preferably books), that say Avram I. did this and that here and here. Than the A. I. section could have a chapter, containing a different point of view, containing the point of view of non-Rumanian authors. This way the dear Wiki reader could get the needed information about a person from several point of views. Than the reader could decide what he\she wants to believe in. As there is always two sides of a coin, and there always will be. I think (if the sources are reliable) the Wiki moderatours should not decide which side of the coin is true->this should be left for the readers. I know how Rumanians think of Bem and Kossuth, and I dont have a problem with it, as from the other side of the coin, parts of the things they say could be true. Its clear to see if I would like to find bad things about the Hungarian heroes of '48 I could not find any in a Hungarian library, but If i would start looking around in a Rumanian or Slovakian library things would be over done.

This is what I would like to see (if I find reliable sources) here in the A. I. section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Csango

Here Wiki has both sides of the coin, and Its up to the dear reader to decide which is true. If I find sources can this be done here too? --Edipqe (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually frowns on creating separate sections depending on POV - it makes articles look like pages from a forum. The info should be attributed to its author, but it should preferably be structured in the text, in accordance with chronological criteria, or in a more tactful separate section focusing on certain aspects. The reader should form his or her own opinion on debated issues, but the articles should not be schizophrenic unless there is really no other way to reflect a debate. Again, if the above is the best that can be done for sourcing, the info doesn't belong here at all. From several points of view, the Csangos article you mention is a failure. I for one especially resent the notion that there is a significantly different POV that can be branded "Romanian" - particularly since the only source for the Csangos being "Moldavian Catholics" is traced back to a horrible, idiotic and marginal website that does not reflect anything but extremist partisanship; I don't have time to get tangled into that, but all sections meant to reflect the "Romanian sources" are a cheap trick by some POV pusher, and it's weird that Hungarian editors fell for it - much of the same can be said about some of the Hungarian sources used there, but at least they reflect a mainstream opinion.

Also allow me to express a personal doubt about the accuracy of the sources. For one, even the numbers you mention, as reliable as they may theoretically be, don't necessarily point to ethnic cleansing. Secondly: the Hungarian revolutionaries seem not to have been bothered by these numbers when they went out of their way to make Iancu agree to a ceasefire. Thirdly: Iancu had his sizable share of Hungarian admirers, who commended him as a gallant fighter and regretted that a compromise could not have been reached/could not be reached sooner. Fourthly: presuming the Hungarian authorities were not in a position to prosecute Iancu before the Ausgleich (just in case the theory according to which Romanians shared control of Transylvania in the 1850s and 1860s is to be taken for granted), they still had a couple of years to reach him, at a time when he was anything but in favor with the Austrians; they didn't. Dahn (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If Iancu would have been sent to jail, or if he would have been sentenced to death, the same would have happened (or worse) like it was with Buteanu..I believe this is a good reason why the Hungarians did not hunt him down. After '48, or even after the Ausgleich Hungarians learnt that it's not good to mess with minorities. Can you give me reference to those Hungarians who have admired him? Maybe there is something I can find in Hungarian to go after, if this is true it could be included in the A. I. section. Also when the Russians were at one side of the Kingdom, and the Austrians on the other, anything could have been swallowed by the Hungarians (even the death of children and women),because as I sad it was a bad situation. One day you have forces matching (and out numbering in willingnes) your foe, the other day, you are outnumbered at least 2 to 1 (worst-> on two fronts) --Edipqe (talk) 14:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

We are getting sidetracked and speculative here, but I hope my main point came across (still, allow me to squeeze in this: the argument that Hungarian officials were more lenient after 1867 is in contradiction to just about any assessment of their policies from any quotable source). The Hungarians who spoke favorably of Iancu (Kossuth included) are cited by Maior in various places - when I eventually revisit this article to add citations (it was written at a time when the quality standards were less demanding, and right now I'm focusing on a proven Romanian mass murderer and many other articles), I'll also add more detail on this. Dahn (talk) 14:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

About Kossuth admireing Iancu I did not find anithing on google. I found a book that I will try to get, that the Hungarians use as one reference for the chart I showed you (death toll-date-name of town)..If I get the book than I can have a look what sources the author have used :) This would help a lot to get one step towards clearing things.

This is one of the 3 sources the Hungarian Wiki uses->http://www.regikonyvek.hu/image.php?id=15415 Title is something like this: The full list of cruel anti-Hungarian deeds in Erdély (Transylvania). But I feel that the sources that the author used are not correct->Checked all the books of this publisher, and 30-50% of them are made for Hungarists or Left winged (Jew hating) people...not something that smells reliable :) --Edipqe (talk) 15:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ps.: If the findings of my search will be that there is no hard evidence of the ethnic cleansings than I will fight to remove this from the Hungarian Wiki section of Iancu. --Edipqe (talk) 16:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Edipqe, your objectivity is admirable. While I am not an expert of Modern History, my feeling is that while a certain Hungarian vs. Romanian conflict may be identified in the 1848 events in Transylvania little evidence can be gathered to argue ethnic cleansing one way or the other. The first main difference of opinions between Hungarian revolutionary leaders and Iancu concerned a purely social aspect: serfdom (or rather its abolition). This is understandable when you look at their respective backgrounds. As things evolved it was obvious that Kossuth's national but also nationalist ideals were incompatible with Iancu's. However, turning Iancu into an avant la lettre Hungarian hater (in a racial, ethnical sense) is dubious. His most long-lasting relationship for instance was with a girl named Johanna (Háni) Farkas, daughter of a certain Tamás Farkas, who reportedly saved his life. Further more, Iancu's entire campaign was clearly following tactical and strategic military goals, he was not rampaging mindlessly through Hungarian villages (and by that I am not saying that non-combatants went unharmed on one side ore the other). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Beautifully put. Dahn (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I still don't understand, if there are sources about murders connected to him, what is what stops at least a "he was accused by ..." paragraph? Nearly every historical person has a part about controversies, why make this an exception? I think a contemporary historical text is reliably enough that it merits an inclusion, at least because he is regarded as not so innocent by a lot of people, and the article seems to present him as a national hero. I'm not denying he was seen as a national hero by most of the Romanians, but why is this article presenting exclusively one side? The lack of Hungarian ninja-editors who put regularly back the sections regularly deleted by Romanian ninja-editors even if they are well sourced? I think the best for these articles would be that only neutral persons should edit it, because, as I've seen, most of articles like this depend on the number of free time people have for editwarring. The problem is, we find a solid proof like the links mentioned above, but some ultra nationalists always come in and delete everything without explanation. I mean, it's not a problem if they find mistakes in the sources and make corrections, but the regular cleansing of the articles makes it very hard to maintain NOPV, and even decrease the reliability of the history section of Wikipedia. (this is one of the main causes that I only find Wikipedia reliably in the scientific articles. If it's about history, there are always people who think they help their nation's causes by trying to alter history) --131.188.3.20 (talk) 18:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Avram Iancu was "impervious to bullets" and benefited from "ninja training" ? Are we sure that this is 100% true ? If so, can anyone document Avram Iancu's years in ninja school ? Maybe post a copy of his ninja graduation diploma ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.207.19 (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Recomment: Seriously, this article needs some real dusting and scraping. Do you thinks these statements are appropriate and represent historic fact ? - Avram Iancu had "stunningly beautiful eyes"; - "he started wandering through the Apuseni villages, playing a pipe and occasionally saying "wibble."" ; - But there are some who say that Iancu never died, but was borne over the water to Avalon on a samite-covered bark by four queens, from whence he shall come again in the hour of Romania's greatest need. Please, let's get this right ! I'm no historian, but I'm sure that there is somebody here who can do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.207.19 (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a case of simple vandalism which went unnoticed. Such edits are revertible on sight, and the users who proliferate them in articles usually end up blocked. You are right to be outraged, but, alas, this sort of misbehaving happens all the time on wikipedia... Dahn (talk) 05:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Kossuth's sincereness"

It is a bias to make a labeling like "Kossuth's sincereness", that is not even present in the given source (http://epa.oszk.hu/00400/00463/00005/pdf/152_katus.pdf).

Neutrality should be kept.

Please provide here on this talk page the sentences from the pdf that you report to. Radezic (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Sincerity. 98.67.2.49 (talk) 14:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Massacres against the Hungarians

Through 1848 and 1849, the Hungarians in Transylvania became exposed to the oppositions and repressions of Romanians and Transylvanian Saxons. The Romanian massacres were a revenge for the Szekely offensive over the Romanian communities.

On 18 October 1848, Romanians attacked and murdered the inhabitants of the village of Sângătin (Kisenyed), located near to Hermannstadt (Sibiu). Another important event of the 1848–1849 conflict was massacre at Nagyenyed (today Aiud) (8–9 January 1849). During the event, Romanians massacred around 600 people in the town. Additionally, the troops of Transylvanian Romanians organized by Avram Iancu, who were supporting the Austrian Emperor, fought the organized Hungarian forces from Zalatna (today Zlatna) and Körösbánya (Baia de Criş).

During the fight of Zlatna (Zalatna), in October 1848 about 640 citizens of the town were killed including the teachers, priests, doctors and merchants of the town. Thirteen thousand gold and twenty thousand silver coins were robbed from the town's treasury. The massacre was incited and led by a local Romanian lawyer called Petru Dobra. Thirty Hungarians were killed in Boklya. About 200 Hungarians were killed in Gerendkeresztúr (Grindeni) and some 90 beaten to death near Marosújvár (Ocna Mureş).

Massacres with Hungarian victims occurred in the following places:

Date	Location	Hungarian victims
12 October 1848	Kisenyed (Sângătin)	140
8–9 January 1849	Nagyenyed (Aiud)	600
October 1848	Magyarigen (Ighiu)	200
24 October 1848	Ompolygyepüi (Presaca Ampoiului) railway station	700
January 1849	Marosújvár (Ocna Mureş)	90
1848	Gyulafehérvár (Alba Iulia)	unknown
October 1848	Naszód (Năsăud)	unknown
October 1848	Zalatna (Zlatna)	640
October 1848	Borbánd (Bărăbanţ)	unknown

This number contains only the recorded victims. The real number could be much more, if we take in consideration those many hundreds who did not died because of massacres, but during of their imprisonment and dragging with force to Naszód, Hátszeg, or Monorfalva by the Romanians in the autumn of 1848, or those who disappeared. So the exact number of the Hungarian victims is hard to be shown. The Habsburgs in 1850 made a census of the victims, but it was not in their interest to show the real number of the losing side's civilian victims. Their recordings were almost exclusively about the numbers of the Romanians and Saxons killed by the Hungarians and neglected the Hungarian victims. Because of the impossibility to make immediately after the events an organised census showing the number of the Hungarian victims, an exact number is hard to tell, because in the events many archives disappeared, and in many the organised Hungarian life ceased. This is why there are no sources about these places. The sources which can be researched are: the churches recordings, memories, some contemporary articles in the Hungarian newspapers, researches made after the events (Szilágyi Farkas: Alsó Fehér vármegye 1848-49-ben. In. Alsó Fehér vármegye monmográfiája III. 1. rész, Nagyenyed 1898, Dálnoky Incze József: Irtóháború 1848 és 1849-ben in manuscript), etc.

References

Avram Iancu - Mass murderer of innocent Hungarians

How can it be that Cluj/Kolozsvár airport has been named after a mass murderer of innocent Hungarians? This is absolutely unacceptable, but nevertheless has been allowed by the Chauvinist Romanian officials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.201.254 (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

What language is "prefecturi"?

Hi, I'm working on a copy/edit with wp:Typo_Team/moss and I'm attempting to add the {lang} tag to the word 'prefecturi', but I need to know the original language (or at least its code). Thanks kindly. Elfabet (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Azure94,

please understand this has nothing to do with an NPOV issue or how any group may see anything, etc. Transylvania again became integral part of Hungary since 10 June 1848, so it could not be "captured" later, also the previous edits show the lack of necessary knowledge of the contemporary situation, etc. Only after the fall of the Hungarian revolution, Franz Joseph reverted back to the earlier situation, then Transylvania became again part of the Austrian Empire.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2020 (UTC))

Since we talk about a civil war, I don't see the word "liberated" as neutral. It is weird to say that a region was liberated from the Romanian people who was living in it. I understand that the union was still formally legal, but the Austrian authorities obviously were not recognizing it anymore. Also, I can't find the original text, because the referred source is not well formatted (the title of the book is missing). 86.120.215.65 (talk) 08:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Civil war is only a certain viewpoint of some groups, this sentence refer to the battle between Hungary (and allies) and the Austrian Empire (and allies), that is far beyond of this. If you read the section properly Legion took part in joint military actions with Austrian forces, it is clear that is not about solely liberations from local/native Romanians. About recognition, the Austrian Empire officialy changed recognition after the end of the revolution, not before - belligerent parties usually do not even recognize much of each other, as Hungary also did not recognize the new king (but only their history with Ferdinand) -, they recognition failed only to Kossuth's state, because the Hasburgs have already been de-throned (and since, the Austrian recognition was not even necessary, etc., but Franz Joseph rejected the idea that Habsburg Kings may not ever will have hereditary rights on the Hungarian Crown), but not what happened before.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC))

Definition of to liberate: "to set (someone) free from imprisonment, slavery, or oppression", I don't think this is the best word. The phrase "civil war" is used by The Hungarian Academy of Sciences. I rephrased the text in a way that I find more neutral. I hope you don't see any problems in the current version. 86.123.99.140 (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

That means, you will replace in all military historiy related the word "liberation", that is often used in such context? I did not say there was no civil war, but there was as well more then that. Well, some little work still needed.(KIENGIR (talk))

From the Hungarians' point of view, it is a liberation. But as long as the local Romanians and Saxons rejected the incorporation of Transylvania into Hungary, I find the new version more neutral. 86.120.223.18 (talk) 21:44, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

We should not confuse the Hungarians' point of view the contemporary status quo's adherence. It is irrelevant what Hungarians, local Romanians or Saxons considered. If anyland is fighting on her sovereign territory, liberation is used in the context of enemy forces. In a context of foreign territories, of course there are debates if the Soviet union "liberated" or "occupied" i.e. in 1945, but here this is not the case.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC))

This debate seems to lead nowhere. Anyway, we should base the text on reliable sources. "Dragomir 1968" seems to refer to a republished book from 1924. 86.120.223.18 (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but not from my behalf, since my argumentation is correct, and this discussion barely touched the source.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2020 (UTC))

I looked into the article history. In 2016, when the phrase and the source were added for the first time the utilized word was "conquered ", and in 2019 it was simply changed to "liberated". Both variants are equally subjective, so I think we should stick to the neutral one ("regained control"). 86.120.222.91 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, that's the technical part of the issue, you don't have to emphasize the xth time what you consider neutral or not, my argumentation was about the general validity of using some expressions in some circumstances, that would satisfy here, again, it is not an NPOV issue.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2020 (UTC))