Talk:Gheorghe Funar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Archives

Archive I

[edit] many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary

"many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian" - I am simply wondering

• Why this sentence about how Hungarians were thinking about Transylvania before 1920 needs to be included in an article about a Romanian politican of the late 20th century? And if this is included, why is it missing from the article how Funar and the Greater Romania Party are thinking about Moldavia TODAY?
• Why is it surprising that many Hungarians thought Transylvania was integral part of Hungary until 1918 when Transylvania was in fact part of Hungary?

I think this article should be about Funar and should not be an attempt to convince readers how bad people Hungarians were before 1918. --KIDB 07:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points. Especially your second point shows the bias of this phrasing; indeed before 1918 Transylvania was an integral part of Hungary. Furtermore, the sentence "despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian" shows a simplistic approach to the souvereignty of the state. The idea that one ethnic group should dominate the state is not universal. The United States, for example, are clearly a multi-ethnic society. This does not divert U.S. society, as there is a strongly developed, non-ethnic, national consciousness of belonging to an American nation. The same counts for Switzerland, and more or less for former Yugoslavia, which was also multi-ethnic. Though Yugoslav nationalism ultimately did fail, there were, before the dissolution, a rather great number of people who identified themselves as Yugoslavs, rather than belonging to an ethnic group. In fact there still are people identifying with this former state, see Yugoslavs.

My point is that you cannot say "Etnic group X is in a majority in area Y, THUS ethnic group X is automatically sovereign in area Y". Besides my previous point about multi-ethnic nations, this logic would be highly problematic. Former Yugoslavia illutrates this point; in the war there were numerous mini-states declared (for example the Republic of Serbian Krajina and the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia) based on the fact that "ethnic group X" was in the majority there. In the end this proved to be an unworkable solution, for it had numerous administrative (such small states would not be able to govern themselves sufficiently) and logistic problems (those states usually were "scattered island" within former Yugoslavia), and most of all because the outcome of the question who was in the majority in an area was highly disputed between ethnic groups (not to speak of the problems this solution would give in Bosnia, where in most areas an ethnic majority doesn't even exist).

And within Romania this would imply that Harghita and Covasna would become independent countries (or become attached to Hungary), because Hungarians are the ethnic majority there. Certain areas within Harghita and Covasna with a Romanian majority would then secede from Harghita and Covasna to join Romania again, and certain areas with a Hungarian majority in other provinces would secede from those to join Harghita and Covasna, creating the "scattered islands" I was talking about earlier. I think everybody sees that this is a recipe for a civil war, and not a workable solution.

I have a problem with the following bold-printed parts of the sentence: Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918), and the union of the region with Romania in 1918 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary (it was an integral part of Hungary before 1918), despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian. ("despite the fact" sort of says "it is silly to think Transylvania is a part of Hungary since Romanians are the ethnic majority there", well, that's not how it works exactly.)

One last note, and I have learnt in these discussions that I have to state this very clearly in order to not be misinterpreted or misquoted by far-right nationalists of both sides: I am not saying that Transylvania or Harghita and Covasna should secede from Romania and join Hungary (in fact, I pointed out how unworkable this solution would be, but I know these people are very creative in letting me "say" the exact opposite of what I said and meant), I am not saying that Hungarians or any other indigenous ethnic group within Romania other than Romanians should be denied their ethnic and cultural rights (again, these people are very creative), in fact, I find that all indigenous ethnic groups within Romania should be able to peacefully coexist within one indivisible but multi-ethnic Romania. Maartenvdbent 12:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed rephrase

Paragraph now:

He became well-known for his very strong nationalist stance in favor of ethnic Romanians in Cluj-Napoca, which is a multi-ethnic city with an ethnic Romanian majority (79.39%) and a significant ethnic Hungarian population (18.96%). Other ethnic groups include 0.95% Roma and 0.23% Germans. Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918), and the union of the region with Romania in 1918 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian.

Proposed rephrasing:

He became well-known for his very strong nationalist stance in favor of ethnic Romanians in Cluj-Napoca, which is a multi-ethnic city with an ethnic Romanian majority (79.39%) and a significant ethnic Hungarian population (18.96%). Other ethnic groups include 0.95% Roma and 0.23% Germans. Cluj-Napoca is considered to be the capital city of Transylvania, a historical region within Romania with historic ties to both Hungary and Romania.

Still not the best version I think, since two times "historic" doesn't sound good, but I haven't found a better solution yet. Still, what I find important in the rephrasing is:

• Say that Cluj-Napoca is considered to be the capital city of Transylvania. In the version now used Transylvania is not introduced, many people who do not know much about the subject will find the sudden mention of Transylvania very strange
• Say that Transylvania has both historic ties with Romania and Hungary, and leave it with that. This is not the article to exactly point out those historic ties, people who want to know more about these ties should take a look at Transylvania. Maartenvdbent 13:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, I think this change would improve the article. However, as a Hungarian, I don't want to be involved in a possible edit war over a nationalist Romanian politician - this is why I did not edit the article. I hope there will be Romanian editors who support your suggestion. (Romanian friends, if you want my help regarding Csurka István and his friends, please don't hesitate to contact me.) --KIDB 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand your hesitation to edit the article. I am also hesitant to edit before there is a consensus over the rephrasing, since these issues - like you said - tend to end up in an edit war all too often. Maarten 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the rephrasing was needed and, in my opinion, the proposed one seems reasonable. The previous text was most certainly the result of various consecutive additions to an irrelevant (in the context of this article) phrase. As a general rule, keeping things simple and relevant is always a good thing. Alexrap 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The integrity of the article

This article looks like is written from the perspective of somebody who wants to prosecute mayor Funar. I saw my self obliged to remove the parts where the author alleges that mayor Funar was involved in a Ponzi type scheme. Wikipedia is not a platform where you can throw your personal beliefs or opinions and present them as facts. Mayor Funar was NEVER convicted by a Romanian or European court by any wrongdoing in the Caritas affair.

Moreover, the author seems to handpick certain facts in order to lead the reader to the conclusion that mayor's Funar only merit as mayor is as a "Romanian protector". It can be considered very biased to write a section in Wikipedia about somebody's 12 year mayorship and only mention a couple of aspects related to his nationalistic views.I proposed this article be fully re-written.

ej 13:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)