Talk:Hungarians in Romania/Archive 1

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)

Step by step

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There's need of hard work but we have time. We shouldn't rush and do everything at once. Every aspect should be carefully analysed.That is in time,of course.I myself can't do alone a historian's work:)Here's some idea for how the article should look like(based on other better articles I saw on wikipedia) First the statment we have now,then a "background" section with only specific historic elemnts focused on the group,(start with the origins,when and how did they end up on the present day territory- you can add refference to controversy history or directly to Hungarians' history) and a link: "for more see History of Transylvania". An interesting thing to find would be whether the hungarian minority is on the whole of the nomadic tribes descent or others come from present day territory of Hungary(when did they come,what regions of Hungary did they come from,where there any colonisation,etc.).Another important aspect is Religion.We should make a section devoted to religion and how they brought catholicism to Romanians as well,and more.(ideas welcomed). Another section should be about cultural heritage of hungarians, traditions,etc. There's a lot more to do.I will propose more later on:) --Radufan 12:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comprised entirely of Hungarian

Although the Transylvanian region was once comprised entirely of Hungarians, only 20 percent now consider themselves of Hungarian descent.

Nope. Not true. (or at least not NPOV :-) Bogdan | Talk 23:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

20 percent is the official percentage from the Unrecognized Peoples and Nations Organization and several Hungarian sites. So... if this is not neutral POV then is the percentage greater or smaller and where did you get these statistics? freestylefrappe 00:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

The 'only 20 percent now' bit is probably correct, the 'once comprised entirely of Hungarians' bit is nonsense.--Tamas 18:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Interestingly, I saw something referring to a 1910 census of Temesvar which said that it was made up of about 43% Germans, 30-somthing percent Magyars, and the remaining 25-30% made up of an assortment of other ethnicities. I'll have to find a reference for that. Boldi.

Szekler Region

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)

Map

Shouldn't we add this map? [1] It looks much better than the one in the article.--Tamas 18:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian community properties confiscated

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)[reply]

Strange edits

I just wanted to point out that some edits in this article are made by Romanians, who do not know much about the real bad situation of Hungarians from Romania, or (and this is the wors case), they know, but they want to mask the reality with boisterous Romanian nationalistic propaganda. Erdelyiek 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look Erdelyiek, I'm Hungarian too, but some of the claims that you added were un-cited. It would really help if you cite your sources. --Khoikhoi 23:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection, it looks like you did cite your sources for some of the facts. Sorry about that. However, where does it say that that the Hungarians were a majority in Transylvania until the early 18th century? --Khoikhoi 23:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a highly disputed issue and since there is hardly any consensus, saying it like that is POV. bogdan 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it's POV, then Erdelyiek's edits should be reverted. --Khoikhoi 23:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the Austrians occupied Transylvania in 1713, they had make a quick census. Thus, I referenced here a neutral source. Erdelyiek 23:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, most Hungarians were living in the cities and could be counted easily, while the Romanians, shepherds or farmers living in small isolated places up in the mountains, were easier to miss.

BTW, which were the figures for 1713? bogdan 00:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Year	Total	Romanians	Hungarians	Germans
1713	860,000	34%	47%	19.0%
1850	1,823,222	57.2%	26.8%	10.5%

According to Hungarian Government's Office for Hungarian Minorities abroad (here):

Period	Romanian	Hungarian	Saxon
1720	49.6%	37.2%	12.4%
1786	58.0%	29.4%	11.6%

--Radufan 12:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know (I can't corroborate this with any data) Hungarians used to be the majority in Transylvania up until the period when the Turks occupied much of the Kingdom of Hungary (~1550-1690). During that time, some regions were completely depopulated because of continouos warfare, looting etc. going on. As a result, many regions that were traditionally Hungarian (the lower valley of the Mures, central Bihor, Mezőség (I don't know the Romanian name sorry) etc.) were repopulated by Romanians. Censuses are of course not always completely reliable, but most historians I read agree that the shift towards a Romanian majority occured somewhere around 1700.--Tamas 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and Romanians immigrated from the Balkans in the nice area that was void before the Magyar tribes came. And, of course, Romanians were more resistant to war/famine/etc. than the Magyars, hence their increasing numbers. Hence, Hungary should be again what it once was. :)

It seems to me that Romanians take care here not to push "Greater Romania" positions here, but maybe the Hungarians should not exaggerate, either.Dpotop 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if we're getting into "historic" stuff, are there estimates for the number of "original magyars" that immigrated into the Pannonian plain? (this is a genuine question). I'm interested, if possible, in several estimates, not only the "Greater Hungary" one. Dpotop 15:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dpotop, please try to read more carefully what I write. I did not say there were no Romanians in Transylvania before 1550: it would have been quite foolish of me, of course there were Romanians in Transylvania prior to 1550, quite a lot of them. What I said is that after the Turkish period, their numbers and proportion increased, partly as a result of immigration. I don't care about who arrived where first, but if we want to establish a historic timeline of the demographic makeup of Transylvania, then we have to go into such questions.--Tamas 18:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "Hungarians used to be the majority in Transylvania up until the period when the Turks occupied...". This statement, at best, is unprovable, and highly illogical. Why would the Ottoman suzerainty make the Hungarian ethnic element in Transylvania dwindle, given that Romanians were still discriminated? I feel you are putting too much emphasis on statements from "nationalistic history" books such as the one of Raffay Ernő (that is considered irredentist bullshit in Romania). Please, consider that Romanians, too, have produced many history books on the subject, some of them on "nationalistic history", and we can very easily deadlock this article if you do not make an effort to filter your data. The article started with a Hungarian POV, and then tilted even more. And don't push it too hard with your "historically oppressed Hungarian" stance. Historically, it's the romanians (a majority in Transylvania) that were not recognized political rights until they took them in 1918. And there is also the occupation of Northern Transylvania, when the Hungarian minority did very nasty things. And there is also the problem of the Romanian minority in Harghita and Covasna, which is really dwindling. Now there's ethnic cleansing if I ever saw one.Dpotop 20:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So: I hope you see this article also concentrates Romanian frustrations, not only Hungarian ones. Also, I hope you see we also make an effort. Please, filter out from your data nationalistic bullshit, and we may stand a chance of actually reaching a consensus. Dpotop 20:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dpotop, I have the impression that you are confusing me with some other Hungarian guys. It was not me who quoted Raffay here. In fact, I never quote him because I know he is a divisive figure and has been involved in far-right politics. As a matter of fact, I never read any book of his. I simply did some copyediting and moved a quote to where belongs. I never ever questioned the fact that Romanians were discriminated against in pre-1920 Transylvania: yes, they were, if you have a look at my edits at Magyarization, I actually quoted a Hungarian historian there about how the number of minority-language schools was drastically reduced btw 1880 and 1910.

The reason why the number of Hungarians would dwindle under the Ottoman wars is quite simple: Hungarians tended to live in the valleys and plains, Romanians in the hills, and it was in the valleys and plains that marauding armies marched, and, well, marauded. But OK, let us not make any statement about the ethnic makeup of Transylvania before the 1700s in the article unless any of us can marshal any reliable printed sources on this issue. After all, this article is not about the medieval demographics of Transylvania. Sorry if I offended you, I did not mean to.--Tamas 22:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite debatable.Hungarians did tend to live in the valleys and not in the mountains,but so did Romanians.In fact the great majority of Romanias did live in valleys and plains.The fact that mountains were only inhabited by Romanians is a different matter.As for the war case it's still not convinceable.Since Romanians had virtually no political voice it is not difficult to guess they were the great bulk of the transylvanian army.In fact that might be an argument for dwindling Romanian population(therefore greater hungarian percentage).So Hungarian population did dwindle,but Romanian population could only have dwindled even more. Though it seems logic I have yet to back it with some source material.Will try and do just that:) --Radufan 22:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that? The bulk of the Transylvanian army was most likely Hungarian. It's much easier to gather the people from the cities that people living in less accesible places.

BTW, it's interesting to note that the mountain toponyms are overwelmingly Romanian -- out of the names of the highest 30 mountain peaks of Romania, 27 appear to be Romanian (or of ancient origin that followed some Romanian sound-changes), 3 appear to be Hungarian (Ineu, Farcău, Ciucaş), none Slavic. This is opposed to the plains where in some places up to a quarter of the toponyms are Slavic. bogdan 22:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious (genuinly). How does this data corroborate with the current structure of Romanian vocabulary? I mean, given that many slavs were our ancestors, isn't it "normal" to have slavic toponyms? Of course, in easily-accessible places, where they could get as migrants. :) Dpotop 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, the main focus of this article is not medieval demographics. (This is sheer speculation on my part as well, but I wouldn't give weapons into the hands of the oppressed, who knows they might turn against you with them:) This scenario actually happened in Hungarian history (Gyorgy Dozsa)). Good luck with the sources!--Tamas 22:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. It currently lacks information on their traditions, culture, religions etc. bogdan 22:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Tamas, and sorry for the previous critique. It was quite harsh, but I felt we were getting on thin ice. This "history" section is anyway too large compared to the other. It's just an expression of our nationalistic fears (yours and ours). And we were both raised to follow this stance. :) Dpotop 09:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute

The beginning of the article already leaves great space for a neutrality dispute."The Hungarian Minority of Romania makes up approximately 20 percent of the population of Transylvania" is obviously stated as to emphasise the greater percentage in Transylvania other than the following" and 6.6 percent of the total population". If it's Hungarian Minority of Romania the logical statement is that: The Hungarian Minority of Romania makes up 6.6 percent of the population. The fact that it is concentrated in Transylvania should then be explained and follow. This is how you'll find any description of a minority on wikipedia. Then more follows: "and one of the largest minorities in Europe". Though nobody denies these statements the framing is obviously subjective and should be revised. Plenty of other such examples are to be found in the article.--Radufan 10:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you have a point here. I tried to rephrase the intro a bit, that's all I had the time for at the moment. I am slowly getting tired and fed up with all these Romanian-Hungarian ethnic relations articles: this one here, Romanization, Magyarization etc. All of them could safely get the neutrality dispute tag, the cleanup tag, the cite your sources tag. No matter how much you work on them, there's always a paranoid from one or the other side who starts writing bullshit into it, and then all hell breaks lose. Maybe in fifty years time, our kids and grandkids will be able to work together less emotionally and more sensibly.

Unfortunately, you also have a point here. I also believe it will take a lot of editing to get this article straight and you shouldn't be individually affected. The whole romanian-hungarian relationship needs a lot of debating. So if you are dealing with these articles nevermind them having their neutrality disputed. Lack of neutrality is negative but the dispute itself is quite positive. --Radufan 11:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I think this tiring process is necessary if we're to finally end this romanian-hungarian dispute. It's obvious both hungarians and romanians are nationalistic, but here we are supposed to me more tolerant and open to discussion.Dpotop 15:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's really worrying that this dispute is going on. Hungarians should be our best neighbours, and in many ways they already are. As a Transylvanian Romanian, it worries me that there is a degree of dispute and distrust from both sides. On to the article - what particular statements lack neutrality? Where is the problem?

Ronline ✉ 10:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ronline, the dispute is (I think) over. As to the reasons, you should look at versions of the article about two days old. Now, we've worked it out.Dpotop 13:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to take into consideration a broader and more realistic perspective. The dispute will go on for a long time and it can't be otherwise. It is a by-product of history and propaganda. I don't see why you worry as long as it takes place in a civilised way. This sort of controversy, in itself is a source of education for both sides; it's by no means a conflict,if that's what you see. We have two different approaches to history on the same events and we now find ourselves in a common forum and we have to somehow write it together. I find that fantastic! As for the article,it already got some good improvements by the time I got it disputed over neutrality. But here's some example of biased interpretation: "The Hungarians had no representatives at the vote, as they refused to accept the legitimacy of such a vote" which I believe should be changed to "Hungarians refused to accept the legitimacy of the vote and therefore had no representatives". Well it makes quite a difference to state that they had no representation before stating why. That puts the event into perspective of people highly discriminated. It should follow logically that they refused legitimacy (might be for hopes for autonomy or reuniting with Hungary) and therefore had no voice in the vote. Having the right to vote and not vote is not the same with not voting because you don't have the right.--Radufan 11:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, do you think the vote was in fact legitimate? Hungary was reduced to 29% of its original size. After Trianon there lived many many Hongarians in the neighbouring countries, with a great size of the Magyar population living outside Hungary. Some border corrections were justifiable, but this was definitely too much. Transylvania was awarded to Romania because the Western powers decided to do so in 1916, Alba Iula hasn't got much to do with that. And in fact, such a vote is not legitimate. A congregation of men is not sovereign, that situation would be weird. In that opinion a Szekler congregation could declare independence in Székelyföld if the right people congregate. But I think you understand that such an action must be supported by the sovereign body, the Romanian Parliament. The Hungarian Party did not consent the Alba Iula agreements, and as such it was an illegal action. Only with the signing of the Treaty of Trianon in 1920 between the Allies and Hungary did Hungary really award Transylvania to Romania. 24.132.205.110 13:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct, anonymous user. Hopes for autonomy or reuniting with Hungary were not what was going on, because legally speaking Transylvania was still part of Hungary at that time. After Alba Iula the Romanian army occupied Transylvania, and that status was affirmed by the allies in the Trianon Treaty. Not before 1920 Transylvania was part of Romania. Maartenvdbent 16:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, so the notion of "national self-determination" means nothing to you. The fact that the Romanians were a majority there is not important, and gives the assembly no legitimacy. Right? And the fact that the Germans also supported the union is not important, either. And, for that matter, de-colonization was certainly a bad thing, and fighting for independence is bad. And, of course, the Netherlands should still be a part of the Habsburg empire. They had no legitimacy in declaring independence. Dpotop 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, maybe Romania should give independence to the Harghita and Covasna counties (where Hungarians are a majority). And then, push for anti-discrimination laws in this new country (for the Romanian minority there is really discriminated today), just like some western countries push Romania today to take "minority protection" measures they wouldn't grant their minorities. Dpotop 10:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)~[reply]

I heard of the notion "national self-determination" and of course I find too that Transylvania should acknoledge the equality of Romanians. It definately can be justified that Transylvania belongs to Romania, true. But that national self determiniation also counts for the Hungarians, who made op 31% of the population in 1910. Indeed only counting on the aims of the majority is very dangerous. Never heard of the notion "Tyranny of the majority"? Harghita and Covasna independent is ridiculous, can you only think in terms of independence? Never heard of (varying degrees of) autonomy? Thinking in terms of nation-states with only one nation and few respect for minority autonomy and rights is going back to 1850 to me. Maartenvdbent 15:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the disputes?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Now, it's more NPOV. Dpotop 15:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's even more POV

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 (Kovrig 2000, pp. 48–50).

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. (Kovrig 2000, pp. 48–50).

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)[reply]

My point-of-view on the situation of the Hungarian minorities in Transylvania

I feel the need to express my opinion on the situation, since things are getting out of hand here.

1. Transylvania substitutes the heart of the historical existence of both Magyars and Romanians.

Magyars? I thought that the Pannonian plain is their "cradle". And, anyway, we are not here to express magyar or romanian emotions, but to expose facts. Dpotop 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Only in the nineteenth century a policy of forced assimilation (magyarisation) of the Romanians came to be implemented by the Austro-Hungarian empire. In previous centuries the Romanians were not part of the Union of the Three Nations of Transylvania (Hungarian nobles, Szeklers, Saxons), but neither were the Hungarian peasants. Romanians were mainly semi-nomadic peasants, and as such not in an ideal position to gain political power in a feudal system.

This is false. Unio trium nationum completely denied all romanians any right in the political establishment of Transylvania. Dpotop 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: A policy of forced assimilation in Hungary can be said to have been pursued only from the end of the l9th century. We do not wish to detract from the responsibility of earlier narrow-minded Hungarian governments for having nourished prejudice against the minorities at the turn of this century, but, at the same time, we should also emphasize another historical fact: the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was a liberal state characterized by party pluralism, freedom of the press, a developed network of corporate and ecclesiastical, as well as cultural and economic institutions, which were also widely utilized by the minorities. This is why the legal status and effective position of the minorities at that time can in no way be compared to the situation of minorities living under emergent dictatorships and the totalitarian systems of the twentieth century. (The Hungarian Situation in Ceausescu's Romania (1994))

I wonder who is this "Kovrig Bennett". For one, where does he take his sources? The stupid data you cited (1300000 hungarians in Northern Transylvania in 1940) is clearly idiot, because at the time this was the whole number of Hungarians in Romania, or almost the whole. It goes beyond the wildest hungarian estimations I had previously seen. Dpotop 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you find better sources. I cited a nice book, from a well-known scholar, published by Cambridge Univ. Press.

3. The best option after WWI was to create an independent Transylvania, based on the equality of all ethnic people rather than one.

Really? And who decides this? I say maybe the Romanians and the Saxons (Germans) there actually had the right to decide, for they formed a large majority of the population. Dpotop 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4. The Trianon Award was already concluded by the allies in 1916 as an award for joining the allies.

5. The Treaty of Trianon was a wrongful treaty, like the whole Treaty of Versailles was. Border corrections after WWI can be justified off course, but this was definately too much. See for instance this map [2], even after years of migrations to Hungary the Magyars still encompass a majority in Hungary-neighbouring municipalities.

Actually, the only area in what is today Transylvania where Romanians were not a majority (by 1910 census) was what you call "Szekelyfold" (the Harghita and Covasna counties, as well as half of Mures). This area is still Magyar today. The other main change is the ethnic composition of cities. They were largely Magyar and Saxon before WW1, and a long time after. But given that Romanians were no more oppressed and magyarized, the cities inevitably came to reflect the ethnic composition of the region (Romanian majority).Dpotop 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6. The Hungarian minority, but also all other minorities had a really bad time in Ceausescu reigned Romania. I plead for the recognition of this by the Romanian people. It's not you who committed the atrocities, but it is the Ceausescu regime. Please, do acknoledge this, for this is the only way things can get better in the future. See how well postwar Germany did, they acknoledge their mistakes. I know it's hard, but it is necessary.

As I stated in the article (I you cared to read my modifications), Hungarians, Jews, Germans had a really bad time during Ceausescu. I acknowledge it, for I had jewish family friends that were compelled to emigrate. This was ugly, I agree. But this is a history article. About facts. So I am saying here that minorities were discriminated, but I cannot start to make official apologies. This is the job of the Romanian president, not mine. Here: You have my apology. Now, you make apologies to me for the crimes of the Horthyst. And we leave our respective governments to handle official issues.

7. In the wake of the 89/90 changes the whole of Eastern Europe was undergoing an revival of nationalism. The Vatra movement is a fine example of this.

Yes, and the UDMR is a fine example of this, too. In my view, Romania has some African-like political parties that should not exist in Europe. Among them UDMR, PUNR, PRM. So, if you cite one, you cite the other. Also, you mentioned that PUNR is a spin-off of VR. Just cite one of them, please, for we don't have place here to cite all Hungarian and Romanian nationalist and extremist organizations. If not, let's cite all nationalist/revisionist parties and ONGs there.

8. Fur clearance sake: I do NOT provoke a "reunification" of Transylvania with Hungary. States that now exist are stable units, and splitting them apart will cause a desatablization of the region. That is also the policy of the United Nations and the EU. The European Union has shifted her emphasis from nationality and ethnicity to regionality. States are encouraged to create autonomous regions if there exists a significant minority (See for instance the EU's reluctance to create an independant Kosovo, and the prohibition to organize a independence referendum in Montenegro before 2006, for stability's sake). I think it is wise to do so with Transylvania and/or Székelyföld.

You could not provoke any reunification, anyway. Romanians form a large majority in Transylvania and will fight any such try. The problem is making "nationalist history" is still very fashionable among both Hungarians and Romanians. And I believe you took your info from such a source. Dpotop 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to end with a wise lesson from The Hungarian Situation in Ceausescu's Romania (1994):

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.

There was not much anymosity in Romania, compared to other places. For one, the Romanian government was wise enough not to adopt nationalist stances. But it must fight these stupid tries of revisionist Hungarian ONGs and parties that affect the image of Romania while Romania has probably the most permissive minority laws in Europe. Sometimes I am angry and I wish Romania treats Hungarians the same way Hungarians have treated Romanians and Germans (by almost completely assimilating them).Dpotop 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magyarization in the 19th century and Romaniazation in the 20th have stirred up interethnic relations. It will take a while for things to get normal again, but I do sincerely hope that in the future Romanians and Hungarians can live hapily together in a multi-ethnic Transylvania/Romania.

Maartenvdbent 21:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is "normal"? If "normal" means Unio Trium Nationum (what existed before the 19th century), then forget about it. If Hungarians want to learn and have justice in Hungarian in Romania, this is ok. The laws are there, and they are implemented. If Hungarians want to discriminate the Romanian minority in Szekelyfold (which happens today), it's not normal, and should cease. Dpotop 09:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am glad to read that you are ready to allow Hungarians to study in their mother tongue. You are a very generous person. I suppose, you also support the idea that a 1,5 million strong etchnic group (almost the size of Slovenia) should have at least one university funded by the Romanian Governemnt. They don't pay less tax than ethnic Romanians, you can be sure.

My single problem with the Hungarian minority is that it behaves in feudal way, in the sense where it refuses all integration in the Romanian political system. While members in the governing coalition from 1996 on, top Hungarian leaders overtly state that they do not represent the interests of the Romanian state, but only those of Hungarians (when sent abroad as official representatives). I believe that the cause of Hungarians would be much simpler to defend if the position of Magyars was not so clearly separatist. :)

2. I think, it was a criminal act by the Ceausescu-regime to convince generations of Romanians (including you) that several hundreds of thousands of ethnic Hungarians should be held responsible today, in the 20-21th centuries, just because a couple of thousand Magyar landlords did not introduce democratic rights for Romanian and Hungarian peasants in the feudalist period... Romanian and Hungarian commons did not oppress each other so please don't say their relation can't return to normality.

You distort what I said. The discrimination was that Romanian landlords had to change their language and religion (and become Hungarian) to remain landlords. And that (Romanian) Orthodox priests had less rights than Catholic and Protestant ones. This is discrimination even by 15th century standards. But nobody is blaming this on current Hungarians. It's just the way history is written. It's truth, don't distort it. Dpotop 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3. Re: Your other sentence about Magyars discriminating against Romanians in Székelyföld - really funny. Now I am sure you have never been to Székelyföld... Maybe as a tourist, and you were astonished at people speaking in a strange foreign language on the streets of towns of the Romanian Nation State (a trace of 19th century in your Constitution). --KIDB 14:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had University colleagues from there. Not funny at all. And nice to see you still believe yourselves supperior. Dpotop 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answers. Now I got closer to understand your way of thinking. I suggest you to be more open towards other nations. Please try to understand them. And please do not revert work of independent editors, their contributions are very important in debated topics like this. --KIDB 16:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like reverts. Mine was a simple rollback of a wholesale revert done by Maartenvdbent (I hope I got his name right). :) Actually, I seek cooperation and NPOV. But take a look, for instance, at the figures I edited out concerning the number of Magyars in Northern Transylvania in 1940. I edited out the figure 1300000. Given that censuses of the time put around 1400000 Hungarians in the entire Transylvania, it seems to weird. Dpotop 18:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You rephrased my citations from the Bennett Kovrig work, so that the citation is corrupt, and you made some other changes to the text that put the text I added in a complete different context. I didn't have the patience to work through all of your changes to see whether some of them were true or not and simply reverted all. Those figures are right if you base upon the Magyar census of 1941, and that makes some sense (see Second Vienna Award) because many Magyars (200.000) migrated to North Transylvania and many Jews identified themselves as Magyars instead of Jews in that days. My name is indeed Maartenvdbent, fully Maarten van der Bent; van der is usually shortened to v.d. in the Netherlands. Maartenvdbent 19:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement I replaced is the following:

"In 1940, the joint German/Italian Second Vienna Award gave Northern Transylvania to Hungary, which held it until 1944. The territory encompassed a slight Hungarian majority of 1,343,000 Magyars and 1,069,000 Romanians (Kovrig 2000: 38)."

This is exactly why I say Kovrig (or your transcription of Kovrig) is a fraud, because it mixes the year 1940 with a census from 1941 (after a huge ethnic cleansing described in Second Vienna Award). The previous text gives the impresion that the data was true before the Award, which is false. Even Hungarian estimates for 1940 give a higher number of Romanians than Hungarians.Dpotop 22:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the disputes, part 2.

So, can you, please, point out what are the factual disputes, and what are the formulation disputes?Dpotop 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh come on, you reverted virtually every change I made to the article and you are asking what the disputes are? Maartenvdbent 19:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your contribs actually are. I just took the article and edited it. You reverted it wholesale, without discussing. And I can support my changes with facts. Now, if you don't agree, let's see what the disputed points are. But specifically, not wholesale. Dpotop 20:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, you just reverted my edits in a nasty way, by rephrasing sentences and downgrading the tone of the article. Now it just looks like the Magyar situation wasn't so bad after all. You know that is not true. I quoted a very reliable source, and that information should be back in the article.

I must say that your recent comments are very shocking to me. Not only do you find that Romanians are the persons who are discriminated in Romania nowadays (which I find disputeable), but you consider Laszlo Tokes an extremist and you sometimes wish that the Romanians had assimilated the Hungarian population completely. I consider that chauvinist propaganda and begin to find you not very capable of editing this article. I'm sorry, but you have gone too far. My patience is at an end. Maartenvdbent 20:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what NPOV is about? It's about credible data and few value comments. Your text is all about good and bad, with few true facts. And threats and hard qualifications on talk pages. So what will you do when your patience ends?

Now, the political discourse of Laszlo Tokes is rather extreme if you compare it with that of Frunda. Maybe you don't know, but extremism is defined w.r.t. main-stream. Compared to this mainstream, it is difficult to find a Romanian Hungarian that is more active in the autonomist direction. I explained what I meant by the second remark earlier. I only expressed by frustration concerning the fact that Romania is pushed to implement minority laws noone else has in Europe. Dpotop 23:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is a lie. Every other country with such a national linguistic minority has such laws. Extremism is not defined in relation to mainstream, that would mean that the democratic underground movement in Germany in WWII would be defined as extremist, and Hitler not. Maartenvdbent 15:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reaction

Diatribe or historical research

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 (Kovrig 2000, pp. 48–50).

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. (Kovrig 2000, pp. 48–50).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Quote: The Second Vienna Award of 30 August 1940 which returned Northern Transylvania and the Szekler Region (43,000 square kilometres with a 2.5 million population, including 1 million Romanians) to Hungary, and the events which followed left indelible marks in the memory of Transylvania’s Romanian, Hungarian and German population. Later, Romanian nationalism tried to this day to manipulate the Romanian masses through the one-sided and distorted description of those wartime events.' (Government Office for Hungarian Minorities Abroad)

I think this is true. The article puts too much emphasis on the atrocities committed by Hungarians against Romanians (which I do not deny), but doesn’t even mention the atrocities committed by the Romanian fascists, the Iron Guard in South Transylvania. It also doesn’t mention that the minorities in fascist Hungary possessed some rights, and that the Jews in Hungary held a much better position in Hungary than in Romania or Slovakia (Kovrig 2000: 39). Only after 1944, when Hitler occupied ‘obstructive’ Hungary Jews were deported. Because of Hungary’s obstructiveness Raoul Wallenberg managed to save thousands of Jewish lives.

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)[reply]

Better sources???

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: [3], 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: [4]).

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) ISBN 0880332700

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Discrimination of Romanians in Székelyföld???

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)[reply]

Romanians not one of the three nations

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)[reply]

Still Magyar discrimination in Romania?

In 1999 Bennett Kovrig wrote:

At the same time, Romanian political life remains marked by a pervasive mistrust and dislike of the Magyars. The postcommunist governments have shown little capacity to manage economic transition and thereby to foster the prosperity that would win them popular support. Thus, as in the communist era, the temptation remains great to exploit majority nationalism as a legitimizing device. Transylvania's Magyars expected democratization to quickly produce a legal order that would eliminate discrimination and satisfy their needs and demands. They were bound to be disappointed, for institutions are easier to change than ingrained political cultures, and pluralism can unleash negative as well as positive tendencies (...) Only recently has a Romanian scholar ventured to question some aspects of his nation's historical myth. In Romania, as in Slovakia and rump Yugoslavia, the Magyar minority suffers from the host state's difficulty in assimilating the conventions of a truly democratic polity.

I guess the situation has improved a lot in the 7 years that passed already. Romania is economically booming, so a bad guy isn't needed for popular support. Béla Marké is vice prime minister of Romania and of Szekler origin. Furthermore, Romania will be joining the EU in 2007.

I am not sure about the situation of the minorities in Romania nowadays, because ther are few publications on the recent development, except for the publications by the Government Office for Hungarian Minorities Abroad. Your notion, however, that Romania probably has "the most permissive minority laws in Europe" is obviously not true. As KIDB said correctly, the Romanian constitution still declares Romania a nation-state, i.e. a state with one nation. I agree that language and education rights are well ensured, but Hungarians and other minorities are not mentioned, but the first article still mistakenly declares the Romanian state as a nation-state.

Given that 89.5% of the population is Romanian, I believe Romania is a "nation state". Which, I maintain, grants more right to its ethnic minorities than many non-nation states. Dpotop 19:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dpotop! The Republic of Hungary has a 92.3% ethnic Hungarian population (CIA world factbook 2006), but the constitution www.mkab.hu/en/enpage5.htm does not refer to Hungary as a "nation-state". Please think about it why. I reckon, the "nation state" is a truly anachronistic concept. It utterly alienates minorities from the state. Therefore it is destructive and should be avoided.kuko 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. In how many languages can one study in the Netherlands (where you have 19% minorities)? In Romania one Magyar pupil can have his entire cursus in Magyar (in Szekelyfold, for instance).Dpotop 20:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No state is a true nation state, and because of that the term nation state in the constitutional sense has been abondoned. What is wrong by stating that Romania is a democratic state, and not mentioning 'nation state' at all. 89.5% of the pop. is romanian, yes. But the Hungarian minority comprises 1.6 million, and has lost of historical and cultural ties with Transylvania. That is undermined by this notion. Maartenvdbent 20:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did not answer me. In how many languages can one study in the Netherlands (where you have 19% minorities)? In Romania one Magyar pupil can have his entire cursus in Magyar (in Szekelyfold, for instance). Can turks learn in turk in the Netherlands or in Germany? There are 1700000 of them in Germany, and they tend to live in compact communities.

And forget about this "nation state" nonsense. In practice, Romania gives "a lot" of actual rights to minorities. Dpotop 23:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dpotop, I think we should clearly differentiate (as all serious scholars do) between ethnic groups such as those mentioned by you, consisting of recent immigrants and historical minority groups such as the Hungarians of Romania. The main criteria for making this distinction would be that the latter (the Hungarians of Romania), were already living at their present places at the moment when the political entity called Romania was created. Therefore, they request to be considered one of several ethnic groups that contributed to the formation of what we call Romania today, instead of second-class citizens, as they are considered by todays constitution.

Second: you state several times that Romania has very minority-friendly laws, unparalleled by other European countries. I can give you the example of Finland, where I live right now. Finland has a minority of about 5% Swedish-speaking people, largely concentrated in a small region. Not only that these people can learn in Swedish, and the official language in these autonomous regions is Swedish, but the whole country has two official languages, Finnish and Swedish, and Swedish language is taught to the WHOLE population at all levels of education (even in regions with no Swedish minority whatsoever). Practically everyone knows swedish, and most of the road-signs, product descriptions, etc. are bilingual over the whole country. I don't say that we can have this, because we don't have the democratic traditions of the nordic countries. But at least stop lying that Romania has the most permissive laws for minorities.

One last comment: of course that Finland does not provide similar rights to the Turkish, Chinese, etc. immigrant populations. If they decide to come to Finland, they should conform, remember that Hungarians did not decide to move to Romania...

 --Steve balogh 23:01, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UDMR seperatist

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Transylvania cradle for both Magyars and Romanians

I said in the explanation of my point-of-view:

Transylvania substitutes the heart of the historical existence of both Magyars and Romanians.

You reacted:

Magyars? I thought that the Pannonian plain is their "cradle". And, anyway, we are not here to express magyar or romanian emotions, but to expose facts.

First of all, I said that this was my POV. On the talk page you can put your POV, that's what it's made for.

Transylvania is part of the Pannonian Plain as you know.

You got it wrong, again. Take a look at Pannonian plain, and you will see that "Transylvania" is actually the Transylvanian plateau, which geographically is not part of the plain. Moreover, you probably don't know, but the name "Transylvania" comes from Latin. And it means "Beyond the forests". It's a name given by the Hungarians. From the place where Hungarians went to in the beginning, Transylvania was a different thing than the plain. Dpotop 20:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, this is what the Dutch call "mierenneuken". Quote: "The Transylvanian Plateau and the Lučenec-Košice Depression (both parts of the Carpathians) and some other lowlands are sometimes also included in the Pannonian Plain in non-geomorphological or older divisions." Transylvania is in the eyes of the Magyars part of the plain and is bordered by the Transylvanian Alps and the Carpaths. Furthermore, the Transylvanian Plateau does not comprise the whole of Transylvania. If you mierenneuk I mierenneuk too.

You are wrong about the name Transylvania. Transylvania was the name Romans gave that area. Hungarians call it Erdély, meaning roughly the same (translated Latin). Romanians named it Ardeal after the Hungarian toponym or Transylvania, after Latin. Maartenvdbent 20:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your Dutch word means, but you certainly have problems. Take a look at Historical names of Transylvania and you'll see what I'm talking about. You don't have a clue.Dpotop 23:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This notion (that it is the heart of historical existence of both people) is of course of huge importance. Romanian and Hungarian claims to Transylvania can be justified. That is very very important when discussing this item. It means that in Transylvanian politics you have to anticipate on both people's demands (or maybe three people's demands, there are still some Saxons left).

Pervasive mistrust of Hungarians

I come to believe that you still feel a pervasive mistrust towards Hungarians. I think that that is a remainder of Ceausescu indoctrination.

You said for example:

Sometimes I am angry and I wish Romania treats Hungarians the same way Hungarians have treated Romanians and Germans (by almost completely assimilating them).

Apart from the fact that Romanian policy did exactly the same thing in the twentieth century, I cannot understand that you really have that feeling that you wish that Hungarians and Germans would completely assimilate in the majority. Why can't you celebrate cultural diversity?Furthermore, don't you understand that Magyars can think the same? Maybe they are angry too, because they were assimilated by Romanian policy.

Actually, I tried to explain my exasperation towardssuch comments. Romanians are considered to be bad guys, while Romania is one of the few conutries with significant surviving minorities. Dpotop 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore you compared the UDMR with PNUR/Vatra as both nationalistic movements. I find that very shocking. UDMR is a democratic movemnet just pleading for minority rights. Vatra is a nationalist organization which organizes hurting campaign against Hungarians. Georghe Funar is a xenophobist and was the leader of PNUR. What he did in Cluj was ridiculous, or do you think he was right with that silly painting (among others) of his.

UDMR and PUNR are just as democratic and nationalistic. Gheorghe Funar and Laszlo Tokes both hold extremist speeches, a.s.o. Dpotop 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT??? You consider Tokes an extremist? Oh my goodness, the one that sparked the revolution in his plead for religious rights. He stood up for the opressed. Funar was a nationalist who tried to push down the (legitimate) pleas for magyar cultural rights. If you seriously compare Tokes with Funar you are definately not the one who should write on this article. Maartenvdbent 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I think that the Germans (and Jews) found the Romaniazation of Ceausescu somewhat more threatening than the Magyarization of the 19th century. They didn't leave Transylvania massively in the 70s and 80s because they found Transylvania silly. It was caused by the Ceausescu minority policies.

Well, most Romanians regret that Germans left Romania. Germans are very well considered in Romania, and I believe that the appeal of Germany (a developed country) was important in their exode. But I know next to nothing about it. However, after 1989 I know of no anti-german manifestation whatsoever. Jews were clearly discriminated by Ceausescu, as I already said. Mind you, however, there only few left in Hungary-administered Northern Transylvania. More survived in Romania, despite the anti-semitic laws. Dpotop 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should read about the position of the Jews in Horthy Hungary. For instance, take a look at Raoul Wallenberg.

The source of that piece was not Kovrig

You mistakenly thought that the following citation was from the work of Kovrig:

Quote: A policy of forced assimilation in Hungary can be said to have been pursued only from the end of the l9th century. We do not wish to detract from the responsibility of earlier narrow-minded Hungarian governments for having nourished prejudice against the minorities at the turn of this century, but, at the same time, we should also emphasize another historical fact: the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was a liberal state characterized by party pluralism, freedom of the press, a developed network of corporate and ecclesiastical, as well as cultural and economic institutions, which were also widely utilized by the minorities. This is why the legal status and effective position of the minorities at that time can in no way be compared to the situation of minorities living under emergent dictatorships and the totalitarian systems of the twentieth century. (The Hungarian Situation in Ceausescu's Romania (1994))

I still think it's true. The minority's situation in a liberal state is far better than in a totalitarian regime.

What's a "liberal state"? You mean a democracy? Dpotop 20:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)~[reply]

No, that's something different. You should read something about it if you don't know what a liberal state is. I suggest On Democracy by Robert Dahl. ISBN 0300084552

What I mean with that wise lesson from "The Hungarian Minority's Stituation"

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reverted sentence change

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 (Kovrig 2000, pp. 48–50).

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. (Kovrig 2000, pp. 48–50).

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

maartenvdbent, where did u get 1.6 million magyars in romania from. In 2002 there were 1,415,000 in transilvania, and 1,430,000 in all of romania. And by now, 2006 i would have to say that they are probably closer to 1,350,000 in transilvania due to natural decrease, assimilation to the majority of the population, and immigration. Please use sources when referencing your numbers. Your numbers are very misleading, so in the future please use actual sources such as the 2002 census.

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)[reply]

Blaming all problems on minorities

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [5]. Maartenvdbent 16:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV resolved?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

for 'neutrality and factual accuracy' removal

I found the 2002 census, corrected the numbers, the history part is good too, see Hungary's history. Alll the other things, put in the article has references and links. I suggest, to remove this banner. --VinceB 14:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some minor changes to the article. I think that the tag should also be removed. It would be great if someone would write about the Szekely autonomy movement.

Ronline ✉ 07:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think everybody but one person agrees with the removal of the tag. Dpotop maintains his claim that my source is pro-Magyar propaganda (which I find a strong accusation for a United States NGO like the Council on Foreign Relations). I can prove that the opinions of the Council on Foreign Relations are NOT PROPAGANDA, because other sources like:

Ludanyi, Andrew (ed) (1994) The Hungarian minority’s situation in Ceausescu's Romania. New York: Columbia University Press.

say EXACTLY THE SAME. I have tried to explain it to Dpotop, but he just would not listen. He first kept reverting my edits and corrupting the quotes... Now he insists on keeping the tags on. I suggest we just omit the tags ourselves (quite legitimate, because I put them on myself); I get a bit tired of talking to extremists. Maartenvdbent 13:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to delete the tags (legitimate since I put them on myself). If Dpotop still disputes this article as POV he has to put them on again and explain his disputes here. Maartenvdbent 13:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I read your discution list, and I have something to comment here. The problems of this article seem to come from a LACK OF ENOUGH INDEPENDENT SOURCES. The Council of Foreign Relations is clearly a very good source, but some of the things they stipulate are simply too horrific to trust even for a common sense man. For example, the saying "Ethnic Romanians were encouraged to believe that all their troubles in past and present were due the presence of Hungarians in Transylvania". Commme on people, HAVE SOME SENSE! Romanians were never taught that Hungarians are responsible for ALL their problems. Even in time of Ceausescu distorted reality, Romanian learned at school to be nice to their neighbours. The official discourse was in fact that Romania was so pure that never attacked her neighbours :-)) Unbeliveble, but true. It is true, they teached us that we were mistreated by Hungarians and Turks and other nations, but never said that all our problems come from this. Be sure this is a main reason why Transylvania is not a Kosovo-like region. In terms of Nationalistic doctrination, we had a more responsible leadership, possibly even more responsible than Hungarians have (I have to point here that I saw quite a few Greater Hungary maps in classrooms in Hungary, for a Romanian leadership to do that to other nations, it would seem horrenduous. Maybe we have some nationalistic monkeys but they have not reached mainstream, like in Hungary). It is very easy for Hungarian scholars to invoke "independent" POV that really make hungarian propaganda. Let's not forget that while the Hungarian Nationalistic heroes like Kossuth spent their exile in the West, propagating the Hungarian POV, our main nationalistic leaders were regularly beaten, arrested and impoverished by the hungaro-austrian imperial agreement. Well, the hero of a nation is the tirant of another. So, as a conclusion, I would say that more sources should be cited, and we should not make declaration like: "C'mon, how can you say that The Council of Foreign Relations can go wrong!". Of course it can, it is not God. And let's not forget that it is mostly funded by Uncle Sam, whose record of fairness is at best debatable. I reccomend you should base your article more on european union research and NGO's, because they will probably have more balance. BTW, I so much hate the ideea of nations!

Another observation concerns the distincion between Tokes and Vadim (or Funar) as far-right extremists. As far as I know, and I heard them both talking openly about it, both Tokes and Vadim try to make historic and other types of claims for whole Transylvania the only difference is that one is "working" (and in fact destroying) for Hungary and the other does the same for Romania. I only accept that maybe there is a difference of finesse between them, particularly because one is a catolic priest with more sense in his head, while Vadim is just a scourge of society, whose electoral basin are noneducated manipulated poeople and a very few far-right activists. But concerning the political message it is the same thing, just opposite. Note that UDMR for example is well behaved, it is not conducting nationalistic policies, it is has been sofar a well behaved ethnic Hungarian pathy.

I haven't read your commnt fully, but I'd like to add this thing first. I did not say that CFR can't make mistakes. But Dpotop said it was propaganda, and that's something it clearly isn't. In his opinion I had to find BETTER sources. He wanted the CFR quotes to be deleted out of the text. I agree that some more sources need to be added, for instance:

Ludanyi, Andrew (ed) (1994) The Hungarian minority’s situation in Ceausescu's Romania. New York: Columbia University Press.

But I haven't got time yet. I must say that all studies available at my university (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam) all have the same opinion as CFR and Ludanyi. I will collect them some time soon. Maartenvdbent 00:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,thanks for reply. Please, concentrate on a European POV. They must have some studies about the hungarian minority. Also I invite people to write about life and tradition. The page is so full of history, but lacks the "human perspective". For example, there is a great Hungarian festival of stuffed cabbage, or the regular horse-driven chariots competitions organized by the Szekely. There are artistic festivals also, like one festival of happenings or alternative art. Hungarians have a few theaters all over Transylvania. In Babes-Bolyai University, arround 30-40% from all courses are in Hungarian, the rest being held in Romanian and German or English. If we started speaking about history, we should start speaking about great people also. A significant part of the Hungarian personalities were Transylvanians. Most of these people were good friends and supporters of Romanians and Saxons in Transylvania, and some of them found support and refuge in those nations if they were sometimes shunned out of political reasons. Most Transylvanians have no problem living and working side by side, and are good friends to each other. Hungarians are highly respected by Romanians, who appreciate their seriosity and willingness to work hard. There are quite a lot of mixed marriages, most of the people here share blood and relatives from both nations. I myself worked side by side with all these nations in Transylvania, and I can tell you they are really great people. We alyays lived togheter peacefully, it is the reason why Transylvania is such a diverse land. By trying ONLY to accentuate the stance that Hungarians were oppressed, which of course it was true in a National Comunism Dictature under Ceausescu or in the antebellic Iron Guard years and should be mentioned as such, the site misses the point: it should be about the Hungarians in Transilvania, not only about a specific moment in time.

If a normal Transylvanian from any nationalistic background reads the site, it is Hungarian propaganda for him, not because it is not true (well, except that ALL citation from CFR) but becouse it concentrates too much on only one topic: how wrong went the Romanian autorities from 1918 until 16 years ago. People all over the world will read this and belive this is the only mark hungarians left in Transylvania: that of an oppressed minority, that once ruled with glory, and now it scattered and dispossesed. IT IS NOT TRUE.

And, BTW, Ludanyi is a Hungarian name ;-). So, you have an US NGO and a Hungarian who is possibly already full of hungarian propaganda. Belive me, it is far from enough. If you want to concentrate on the Romanian persecutions of Hungarians in the past century, I suggest you should make a separate article, that can be linked to this one.

I get a bit tired of saying the same thing all time. I added some sources, bacause the article TOTALLY LAKED ANY SOURCES. I added a fine source that is widely admired, and wanted to add some more to the text, but I got to busy talking on this page because some people reverted my edits. That Ludanyi source is pretty admired too [6], and published by the Columbia University Press. I have another source by Golean Traian. Furthermore there are the reports by Helsinki Watch that say more or less the same: "Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Hungarians of Romania." [7]. You have to believe in conspiracy theories if you want to maintain the claim that what is said in the article is not true. I know you Transylvanian people can get a bit tired of that constant talk about who discriminated who and when, but I think it's necessary to document it properly for history's sake. Take a look at this quote (from Ludanyi, you'll see it is a good source):

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.' Ludanyi, Andrew: The Hungarian Situation in Ceausescu's Romania (1994).

You are correct that Transylvania can be a multiethnic region where all people/ethnic groups/nations live together without problems, like it has been in the past. magyarization and romanianization have poisoned interethnic relations. Maartenvdbent 19:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, Maarten. I agree with your citation that the Romanian-Hungarian relations must be solved much in the same way the French-German ones are solved. So: how many schools in France teach Alsatian? How many French universities give courses in Alsatian? And I mean "courses in Alsatian", not "courses of Alsatian". Dpotop 12:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

France is definitely not a positive model for the treatment of minorities (especially if we compare the assimilation of Bretons, Occitans to the liberal policies of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy). I assume you are calling for the complete assimilation of the Hungarian minority in present-day Romania. 81.182.208.131 03:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I corrected accordingly --KIDB 12:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]