Talk:Gheorghe Funar/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Photo essay 2 Political bias 3 External links 4 Romanians

[edit] Photo essay

I've put up a link to a photoessay at my personal website showing some of the changes Funar made. I don't want to unduly advertise my own work, but I don't know any other English-language resources that give this kind of visual history. If the community feels it's inappropriate, you are welcome to remove the link. CRCulver 07:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You bet your ass it's inappropriate. We don't appreciate foreigners like you referring to Avram Iancu, a national hero, as "someone famous for killing a lot of Hungarians". -Voievod 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Foreigners like me, eh? So only Romanians are allowed to edit articles about Romania? I'm sure that would just guarantee NPOV. :rolleyes: CRCulver 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No. What we don't appreciate is foreigners like you insulting our national heroes. How would you feel if I spoke ill of a great historical figure from your country, like Abraham Lincoln ? What if I would write slanderous libel about him and degrade his memory ? It would be unconcievably stupid, as Lincoln is a admirable historical figure, who accomplished much for his nation and his people. It is just as unconcievably stupid for you to refer to Avram Iancu as a man "whose most noteworthy achievement was killing many Hungarians". That is just typical ignorant bull that Westerners are so accustomed to believing about nations that they know so little about. So Iancu's legacy is limited to "killing many Hungarians" ? Then what can I say about the genocide of the Native Americans that your "founding fathers" organized ? Seems to me that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Look in the mirror, and stop running your mouth about a nation who's history you know so little about. -Voievod 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There would be no problem with you insulting Lincoln. In fact, many, many Americans have a bad feeling about Lincoln. His suspension of habeas corpus and his refusal to allow the South autonomy make him disliked by millions of American conservatives. You can also say bad things about our founding fathers, many Americans now believe that they were bloodthirsty Indian-killers. As for Iancu, he did kill a lot of Hungarians. That is indisputable, even those who greatly admire him can hardly argue with that. CRCulver 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And his legacy resumes to that ? Honestly, man. You heven't the damndest idea about the struggles of people like Iancu for the well-being of their nation. But then again, you don't seem to have much respect for Romania's historical figures, so I'll leave it at that. Wouldn't be surprised if you'd call me biased for mentionning the untold number of Romanians killed on the orders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Next think you'll say is that the Allied forces are notable for killing a lot of Germans... -Voievod 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with you mentioning Austro-Hungarian atrocities during their rule of Romania. After all, NPOV means that all sides of the story be represented. You seem to suggest that nothing bad can be said about historical figures, but in fact leaving out bad facts is POV. All important information about a person, good and bad, should be represented for a neutral portrayal. CRCulver 02:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth--and this is straying off-topic--I can't respect Avram Iancu as a noble hero or whatever. If he were noble, he would have fought for a Transylvania where Hungarians, Romanians, and Roma lived in peace and harmony, the languages of all three enjoying official status and representation. Instead, he fought to reduce the Hungarians to nothing, and entirely ignored the Roma. CRCulver 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A comment that bothered me was the one which stated that the increased number of Romanian flags in Cluj was "an affront to Hungarians". Excuse me ? If you hate the flag that much, than why don't you get the hell out of Romania ? Reminds me of how Quebec separatists are "offended" by the Canadian flag. If I decide to move to a foreign country, it would be completely illogical and quite ridiculous for me to feel offended by said country's flag. If I do feel offended by seeing flags everywhere, than it's not the country for me. Nobody forces them to stay in a country where they don't feel comfortable. If they want to leave, let them leave. But if they want to stay, how about they stop bitching all the time. The Finns are Sweden's most important ethnic group. You don't hear them whining, bitching and complaining about the Swedish flag. If they chose to live in Sweden because they feel more comfortable there, good for them. At least they have the common decency to respect the national symbols of the country they decided to live in. As I've said, nobody's forcing you to stay in a country where you don't feel well. But if you prefer to stay, don't start acting like you own the place. Can't stand seeing the Romanian flag in your city ? Pack your bags and move elsewhere, simple as that.

And I wonder how it would've been possible for Iancu to create a Transylvania where all three ethnic groups live in harmony, when there was so much animosity towards and from the Austro-Hungarian invaders that harmony would've been impossible between them and the Romanians. In many countries, multiculturalism is possible, without any form of assimilation or "melting pot". In Romania, multiculturalism just isn't possible for the time being at least, since old grudges and battles for linguistic supremacy won't end in a thousand years. Just ask the Romanians who had to leave their homes in Harghita back in the 1940's because the Hungarians broke their windows during the night and harassed them until they had to leave. They weren't shown much "tolerance", were they ? If anything, Funar's modifications to the city of Cluj were not anti-Hungarian but pro-Romanian. If a mayor of a city in Hungary would put Hungarian flags everywhere, you wouldn't hear a lot of people making a big fuss. A big fuss was made in Cluj because a minority was apparently being "oppressed", boo-hoo. Suck it up. -Voievod 20:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint makes no sense. The Hungarians in Cluj offended by the flag are not immigrants who "moved to" Romania. Their ancestors have lived there for hundreds of years, possibly even before the arrival of the Vlachs according to current scholarship. They simply want to continue to feel at home, not feel as if they are being forced off of it but directive from Bucharest. The Romanian flag for many Hungarians shows the folly of Trianon: absorbing Hungarian territories into already existant, hostile, ethnicly based countries instead of creating new, multiethnic countries. The Romanian flag means "This is a place only ethnic Romanians are welcome." Also, I'd ask how you can claim that Funar was not anti-Hungarian when he put up the infamous banner outside the consulate and heavily reduced the public use of the Hungarian language. CRCulver 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I could write entire paragraphs about the questionable and suspicious information provided by this so-called "current scholarship", but it would once again go off-topic from the issue at hand. As far as "the folly of Trianon" is concerned, let's see what possible alternative you could suggest, what with your "evolved" and "egalitarian" way of thinking. According to you, we should've just rolled over and let the enemy take our land, as if nothing happened. Doesn't surprise me much, regarding how you don't seem to care even about the national interests of your own country, having indirectly suggested that you would've been in favour of the secession of Southern states. This typical defeatist, "laissez-faire" attitude is synonymous with white flag politics, who seek to avoid any and all type of conflict, even if their nation's own interests are at stake. Those "Hungarian territories" were never Hungarian in the first place. Absorbed by the Austro-Hungarian empire, they were taken by force and "made" Hungarian. The same way that Alsace-Lorraine was "made" German. What do you mean by creating a "new multiethnic country" ? Are you suggesting that Transylvania should've become a country in and of itself, instead of reuniting with its rightful motherland ? Surely you jest, oh great one ! Once again, an instance of extreme left-wing balderdash which advocates sacrificing one's own national interests in favour of someone else's interests. Intolerable rubbish. The essence of nationalism is putting your country's own interests first, and caring about others later. If Romania would not have had a healthy dose of nationalism when dealing with the various anti-Romanian forces, it could've kissed Transylvania goodbye. -Voievod 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, you see the Hungarians as the enemy??? Well, that would explain your reaction here, but that should in my opinion not be the way we talk about these issues...

You should read some historical studies, for your notion that the Hungarian territories were absorbed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire is clearly not true. Transylvania was conquered alongside the rest of the Pannonian basin by the Magyars in 896, long before the Habsburg princes became king of Hungary (in fact, there was no Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1867). After the Magyar defeat in the Battle of Mohacs (1526), Hungary was split up in three: the remainder of Hungary that didn't become part of the Ottoman Empire (that came to be ruled by the Habsburgers who claimed the Hungarian throne), Occupied Hungary, and Principality of Transylvania, that gained autonomy from the Ottoman Empire and was governed by Prince John Zápolya... The rest you probably know (conquest by Habsburg - Ausgleich)...

You see that Hungarian claims to Transylvania are just as valid as the Romanian ones. The fact that Romanians comprised a majority of 53,8% in 1920 is an important factor when discussing the status of Transylvania, but it doesn't mean that the Magyars (32%) and the Saxons can be forgotten.

Romania as Transylvania's "rightful motherland", as you put it, is clearly Romanian POV, many Hungarians find that Hungary is Transylvania's rightful motherland, and both opinions can be justified by historical and demographic facts.

Some kind of autonomy for Transylvania would have been good I think, and still would do a great job in uniting all ethnic groups of Transylvania.

Your notions on "nations's own interest" and "sacrificing one's own national interests in favour of someone else's interests" make me think that you consider "the nation" as an entity that is somewhat sacred and under constant threat, and therefore should be defended by all possible means. Have you heard of Anderson's notion that the nation is in fact an Imagined Community? Maybe you should read that famous book by him... Maartenvdbent 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Political bias

I've reverted the last edits to the last version by Bogdangiusca. Obviously POV, using words like "extremely mationalist" and "an affront to the Hungarian community" have no place in an encyclopedia article whose role is to inform readers about said person, nothing more. If you have strong opinions about a politician, write them on your own website. Wikipedia can not be used for:

• Praising a politician.
• Providing negative propaganda about a politician.

If you want to do those things, it is your right, just not here. It's not up to you to judge whether Funar's municipal modifications were "anti-Hungarian" or whatnot, since I can sure as hell list a whole list of anti-Romanian actions that the UDMR has done in its history. -Voievod 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted back. External links do not have to be NPOV, they just have to be relevant. In fact, the point of external links in controversial articles is to give both sides of the story through reference to world opinion. Furthermore, many of the items you deleted were simple facts, without any POV one way or the other. Along with restoring this information, I've added one citation (to BBC News). More to come. CRCulver 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In a show of good faith, I've removed what were inflammatory wordings that didn't create encyclopedic tone. However, one can hardly argue with calling Funar a nationalist; he himself (and his party affiliation) claims that. I have also sectioned it so that it is easier for people to add information about other aspects of Funar, so that the article isn't just about his mayorship of Cluj. CRCulver 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CRCulver, it ain't negative propaganda, it's just the truth. Maartenvdbent 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. When ethnic squabbles are the issue, everything said about politicians is just a matter of opinion. Some would say that Funar was a xenophobe, others would say he was a patriot. Some would say that Pim Fortuyn was a militant for women's rights, others would say that he was a right-wing populist and a racist. Methinks the second description is more accurate. -Voievod 20:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you confuse Pim Fortuyn with Ayaan Hirsi Ali... Pim Fortuyn was not notable on his opinion towards women's rights. I agree with your notion that he was a populist (and, to make things clear, I was not a supporter of his politics), but the description racist is not proveable and I think not appropriate (I can explain to you later why I think this). Funar is I think clearly a nationalist and anti-Magyar. How would you explain his policy of eliminating magyar symbols like street names and signs. Why would he change the inscription of the statue of Mattias Corvinus other that from an anti-Magyar stance? Why did he everything possible to obstruct the already belated opening of a Hungarian consulate in Cluj? And why did he stage a mock burial of the Hungarian-Romanian treaty? I think we can conclude that he is a nationalist and an anti-Magyar person. Last of all, why that distinction between xenophobe and patriot, why not both? I think he is both a Romanian patriot and a xenophobe... Maartenvdbent 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between a nationalist and an ultranationalist. Funar was clearly a nationalist, and I see nothing wrong with that. Corneliu Vadim Tudor is an ultranationalist, as is his PRM party. However, even though Funar made the brainless move of transferring from the PUNR to the PRM, his positions were still more pragmatic than those of the raving Vadim. And is Fortuyn was not racist, than by the same logic, Funar was not xenophobic. If Funar could be considered anti-Magyar, than Fortuyn can be considered anti-Muslim. -Voievod 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with that?

• How would you explain his policy of eliminating magyar symbols like street names and signs.
• Why would he change the inscription of the statue of Mattias Corvinus other that from an anti-Magyar stance?
• Why did he everything possible to obstruct the already belated opening of a Hungarian consulate in Cluj?
• And why did he stage a mock burial of the Hungarian-Romanian treaty?
• (and why that silly Romanian flag painting et cetera?)

He disrespected and discriminated minorities. I don't know how discrimination is seen in Canada or Romania, but in the Netherlands it violates with article 1 of the constitution. Maartenvdbent 02:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

If it truly does violate article 1 of your constitution, than Fortuyn and Hirsi Ali should've been fined for hate speech a long time ago. I don't mean to throw the blame into the other guy's yard, but any ethnic frictions that still exist within Romania are nothing compared to the blatant degree of racism, xenophobia and prejudice in the Netherlands right now. Although the PRM is the most extremist party in Romania, at least it never vouched for the deportation of all foreigners from the country. And last time I checked, there hasn't been a single Romanian politician who attacked the prophet of a minority's religion and called him "a perverted man". So before you have the good will to point out what's wrong with another person's country, look at yours first. -Voievod 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... This makes me kind of mad. You don´t want to see the truth, would you. Pim Fortuyn nor Hirsi Ali called for deportations. Fortuyn only wanted to stop immigration for awhile so that Dutch politics could concentrate on the integration issue, which was denied for a long time. Dutch society was highly segregated resulting in a "us vs. them" situation. He blamed this for a great part on the Islam, not having modernized in the past. He felt that the Islam was a threat to society (maybe because he was gay and some Muslims are hostile to gays (Dutch Imams placed gays beneath pigs)) and wanted to modernize Islam before taking new immigrants.

To make thing clear, I don't either support the ideas of Hirsi Ali or Fortuyn, but your accusations are far beyond the truth. I agree that Fortuyn may be more controversial than Hirsi Ali.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali advocates the right of women in the Islam, and advocates freedom of speech.

Hirsi Ali stated that she was wrong by so expicitly stating that "Muhammed is, seen by our western standards a perverse man" (she referred particularly to the marriage between Muhammed, who was 52 years old, and Aisha, who was nine years old, according to the Hadith). But she still agrees with this opinion. (I myself, as a cultural anthropology student, find it not very wise to say this about such a front man of another religion).

Hirsi Ali is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 and was awarded the Reader's Digest European of the Year award. She was awarded the Denmark's Liberal Party’s Freedom Prize "for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women" and the Democracy Prize of the Liberal Party of Sweden "for her courageous work for democracy, human rights and women's rights." According to Time Magazine she was amongst the 100 Most Influential Persons of the World in 2005.

Both are critics of Islam, but NEVER denied Islamists any rights. They want to modernize Islam. They are critics of a culture, not of an ethnicity or race. Funar is not a critic of Hungarian culture, he just hates Hungarians (I don't know why), as you can see in my summary of his actions above. Those actions have nothing to do with the aim of "modernizing Hungarian culture" (it isn't needed either, because Hungarian values are the same as the Western values and the same as Romania's, respecting freedom of speech, democracy, women's rights, gay rights, etc.). They just portray his hatred towards Hungarians. Maartenvdbent 10:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Upon further investigation of the article, I have come to the conclusion that its general tone is now appropriate and no longer seems to contain bias. I have removed the NPOV and Innapropriate Tone tags as a result. -Voievod 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh my... This makes me kind of mad. You don´t want to see the truth, would you.

Yikes...The last thing I'd want is an angry Dutchman on my case ! X-D -- Voievod 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

CRCulver, I am not sure I agree with your statement (External links do not have to be NPOV), but I hope we can both agree that they should be at least decent. Saying that Avram Iancu's most noteworthy achievement was killing many Hungarians is, if not offending, clearly false. And it obviously reduces to almost nothing the quality of a possible useful site.

I certainly don't think it is appropriate to have in wikipedia a link to a page written in a very biased manner. And to illustrate what I mean by very biased manner, I cite from your website:

• Later the site was defaced by an archaeological dig, merely a pretext for getting rid of the statue. It found nothing of note and remains a large gaping hole in a once-stately square. Getting rid of the statue was NEVER an issue, as it is an important landmark for our city. It is part of our history and both Romanians and Hungarians from Cluj are proud of it.
• Funar erected an absurd, guillotine-like monument to ‘victims of Hungarian oppression’. You put ‘victims of Hungarian oppression’ in quotation marks. It speaks for itself... do you really believe that there was no such thing?
• Glorifying a man whose most noteworthy achievement was killing many Hungarians, the statue is said to have been enormously expensive. I already told you what this statement does to the quality of the website... And to make it even clearer, you add an absurd not-cited speculation.

Also, on this discussion page you insist that the Hungarians in Cluj are offended by the flag and you also sympathize with that. But you don't accept that there were victims of the Hungarian opression (that actually meant killings and tortures, not some flags in the town square). Nice double standard. And you also add: Their ancestors have lived there for hundreds of years, possibly even before the arrival of the Vlachs according to current scholarship. You probably mean scholars, but in any case it is false. According to the large majority of the historians things are pretty clear. They are however irrelevant, as both Romanians and Hungarians were there for enough time to make that land their home.

It's not my job to open your eyes, you can of course keep your own ignorant beliefs. But don't try to impose them to the others. I hope you don't mind my suggestion to revise your website to a more decent version. After that, the link is of course very welcome into this article. Alexrap 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As there was no answer in 10 days, I will remove the external link. I stress again that the link could be useful if some modifications are incorporated into it, but, as it is at the moment, it is inappropriate. Alexrap 13:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the material on there is wrong. If Avram Iancu's biggest achievement wasn't killing Hungarians, then what was it? Why is he shown with a sword on the statue in Cluj (right in front of the cathedral of a quite anti-Hungarian diocese)? As for Funar's plan to get rid of the statue with the dig, this was well-documented in the press. He wanted it gone. As for Hungarian treatment of ethnic Romanians, that was then, done by a generation that is long dead, whereas it is actual living contemporary Romanians that are trying to erase the Hungarian history (and any sign of Roma presence, but that awaits another essay) from the city. For what it's worth, most of my ethnic Romanian friends in Cluj agree fully with the essay. And in fact, it was inspired by a multimedia artwork (created by ethnic Romanians) that was presented at the house of culture near the synagogue in June 2005, which showed the same general images I do as signs that Cluj has some problems. CRCulver 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, CRCulver! I add something on the discussion page, you totally ignore it for 10 DAYS, I change the article after seeing that nobody objected to my comments, after just 10 MINUTES you change the article and after that you add something on the discussion page.

Now about your comments:

* None of the material on there is wrong... It's good to know there are some people on our Planet who can make all things right.

* Avram Iancu biggest achievement was fighting for social and national rights for the large majority of the people of Transylvania. Unfortunately the 1948 Hungarian revolution totally ignored the most elementary national rights for minorities (which were actually large majorities in some areas). There were several attempts of the Romanian leaders to contact Lajos Kossuth and to unite under some common aims. Unfortunately Kossuth did not seem open to any concession on this matter and from that point on, the Romanian and Hungarian 1948 ideals in Transylvania did not converge anymore. Avram Iancu's army fought against another ARMY (and not civilians, as you try to convince people). The fights took place in the Apuseni Mountains, which were always almost entirely inhabited by Romanians (no Hungarian civilians to be killed). So the only Hungarians his army killed were solders from general Bem's army, more specifically commander Hatvany's troops. Which were actually a lot more developed from a military point of view than Avram Iancu's army. It is therefore extremely false to say that his main achievement was killing Hungarians. It is also insulting.

* I still don't understand if you admit that there were victims of the Hungarian oppression. On your so-called essay you let the impression that you do not admit it (very offending attitude, to say the least). In here instead, you admit it, but you say it is irrelevant as it was done by a generation that is long dead. Could you please try to at least look consistent in your judgements. And may I also remind you that the large majority of the monuments anywhere in the world are about things done/lived by generations that are long dead.

* Getting rid of Matthias Corvinus' statue was never an issue. No matter what the newspapers said, try to ask people in Cluj if they want the statue gone and you will not get even 1% affirmative answers. Everyone loves that statue and it is a positive sign of the Hungarian-Romanian friendship.

* For your own information, the diggings found something of note, so saying that they didn't find anything is again false.

* I hope that you are aware that I certainly don't believe that most of your Romanian friends fully agree with your so-called essay.

In conclusion, as I said before, that external link could be valuable and useful for this article, but it needs some serious modifications in its text (especially when referring to Avram Iancu and to the victims of the Hungarian oppression). Alexrap 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I missed your original post because it was buried. My watchlist does have hundreds of items, it happens. Now, I never said that Iancu killed civilians, so I don't know why you read that in. And as for Iancu "fighting for rights", that's really naive idealism. Over the past quarter-century, through works like Zinn's A People's History, Americans have finally started waking up to the fact that our founding fathers were a bunch of racists and an oppressive bourgeosie whose political mechinations were more for the enrichment of themselves and their peers than to promote liberty. It's a pity Romanians still subscribe to fancy national myths. And no, the dig found nothing of value, the press widely reported the disappointment of archaeologists and the bafflement of the public as to why the hole was left there so long (though thankfully it's being filled in now). The photoessay will not change, for it is written in a travelogue, and one obviously doesn't change those afterward. And as for my friends agreeing with me, what do you expect me to do, have them come here and write a few words? That's meatpuppeting, which is of dubious legitimacy on Talk pages. Also, with regards to Hungarian oppression, certainly any ruling power treats its citizenry in an unfair fashion, and that was true in Transylvania just as much as anywhere else. However, my fiancée's family and fellow villagers always talk about how the Hungarians were overall a positive force for Transylvania, and thanks are owed to them for not letting Transylvania become :shudder: the south. So, I don't think that Funar's insistence on burning ire towards the modern Hungarians for the (overinflated) actions of their ancestors is a productive view. CRCulver 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, I'll ask some friends if that multimedia presentation on Cluj's ethnic problems is available online, and if it is, then I'll just switch my link with it. It was an impressive piece of work. CRCulver 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

* I am not an expert in American history but I don't get your point when comparing Avram Iancu with the American founding fathers. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. But if you are looking for something to compare along those lines, you might as well look at the ruling authorities at the time in Transylvania. And Avram Iancu fought exactly against their racism. He did not want any privileges for Romanians, he only wanted equal rights for the large majority of Transylvanians who were considered third class citizens at the time. Calling this "naive idealism" only shows your total lack of understanding and superficial attitude towards this issue.

* I will also subscribe to the idea that Hungarians had a positive influence on Transylvania, as a region. They just had a very negative attitude towards the majority of its population, i.e. the Romanians. Fortunately this sort of racism is now long gone, but this doesn't mean that one can put ‘victims of Hungarian oppression’ in quotation marks. Just as one cannot put victims of the Holocaust in quotation marks.

* The archaeologists said more than once that they found very interesting things on that site. But archaeology is not a "cool" activity for everyone and of course that not finding 100 kg of gold in there was a disappointment for the press. It is however true that the hole shouldn't have been left in there for so long. And I totally agree with that.

* It is not shameful to admit when you are wrong and it is a virtue to correct your own mistakes. Reasons like the photoessay will not change, for it is written in a travelogue, and one obviously doesn't change those afterward only shows a lack of flexibility. Evolution is part of human nature! Shall we all understand that you are not after the truth, but you just want to advertise your first and WRONG impressions from a travelogue using Wikipedia?

* I suggest you keep your travelogue for yourself, create another page using its good photographs, but changing its unacceptable text, and then put it as an external link for this article. Alexrap 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

No reply in 5 days. I will therefore remove the external link until it will be changed to a decent version. Alexrap 10:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Both Hungarians and Romanians were actively discriminated in Transylvania. Romanians were so in the 19th century, 1848 onwards, when nationalism spread in Europe. Hungarians were discriminated during Ceausescu's regime.

I guess you do believe that magyarization has taken place, so I don't have to tell you anything about that. Also for me and any serious scholar this is the obvious truth.

I hope you also do agree that romanianization has taken place under the Ceausescu regime, just like all serious researchers do (there are numerous reports about this, notably by the OSCE and Helsinki Watch).

So both groups were discriminated by each other in history. I think both Hungarians and Romanians would like to put an end to all this and would like to live together with respect for each other's culture and language. Still some Hungarians feel attracted to Hungarian nationalism and a Greater Hungary, and some Romanians feel attracted to Romanian nationalism and a Greater Romania.

Gheorghe Funar is just such a person. Look at his burial of the frienship treaty between Hungary and Romania. Any mayor in my home country painting benches, garbage bins and pavements in red, white and blue, would be seen as a nationalist geek.

And look at his party, the Greater Romania Party is clearly xenophobic and strongly nationalist. Just a small excerpt fro the wikipedia entry on its founder, "Tribunul" Corneliu Vadim Tudor:

"Time magazine described [the party] as "a crude mixture of anti-Semitism, racism and nostalgia for the good old days of communism." To this, one ought to add ultra-Nationalism, anti-Magyarism, anti-Roma sentiment, and homophobia."

I don't know whether you only disagree with the depiction of Avram in the photo-essay or that you find the rest of the text also inappropriate (you seem rather moderate to me, so I guess it's the first one). I don't know very much about Avram Iancu, but he just seems an ordinary 19th century nationalist frontman (I mean this in a positive way) and I agree that the wording in the photo essay is too strong by saying that his "most noteworthy achievement was killing many Hungarians". But it is just a minor mistake in a pretty good photo essay I think, and deleting the link seems a bit over-the-top to me. Maybe we could just add a remark, like "the opinion of the traveller doesn't have to be the obvious truth"? Maartenvdbent 15:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Maartenvdbent, it certainly seems you didn't read what I wrote above. Magyarisation/Romanianisation has absolutely nothing to do with the external link. Also, I have removed the link only after long discussions (first time after 10 days of no reply and the second time after 5 days of no reply). Other people have instead a rather non-fair-play attitude. But let aside these issues, if you read my contributions to this discussion page I am sure that you understand the following points:

I didn't make any comment on the content of the article. This implies that I had nothing against it.

I mentioned at least 3 times that the photographs from the external link are good and useful and that, and I am citing myself now, the external link itself could be valuable and useful for this article, but it needs some serious modifications in its text.

The only thing I am against is the text from the external link which is, to say the very least, unacceptable. And to give you just some examples, although I have already done this before:

* when referring to Avram Iancu: Glorifying a man whose most noteworthy achievement was killing many Hungarians. I have explained above that this is an absolutely non-sense. And it is also offending.

* having 'victims of Hungarian oppression' in quotation marks, implying that there was no such thing. It is almost like putting victims of the Holocaust in quotation marks... Not quantitatively similar, but certainly qualitatively similar.

* His twelve-year term as mayor was marked by the installment of anti-Hungarian sentiment in the city’s parks and open spaces This is a bit exaggerating. Painting things in red-yellow-blue might be both ugly (from an artistic point of view) and stupidly-show-off nationalistic, but why anti-Hungarian? Not anything pro-Romanian is anti-Hungarian, just like not everything pro-Hungarian is anti-Romanian. Honestly, you don't think that saying that in the city's parks and open spaces an anti-Hungarian sentiment was installed is a bit too much? And put this into perspective with the line where victims of Hungarian oppression is in quotation marks. Can you honestly say that this is not cheap double-standard?

* Later the site was defaced by an archaeological dig, merely a pretext for getting rid of the statue. Again an exaggeration. Nobody would accept it, both Romanians and Hungarians adore that statue.

* It found nothing of note when referring to the archaeological site. This is also exaggerated. If you talk to any archaeologist and tell him that they found some 3rd century Roman walls, gates and streets, I am sure they will not agree that this is nothing of note. However, as I already said, I agree that the hole shouldn't have been left in there for so long.

I believe that the above points are more than enough to prove that the text from that external link is inappropriate for Wikipedia. I suggested to CRCulver to either change the text or create another page with some more decent text and put the link to the new page. Until then, the link should be removed. As always, I will wait for your opinions before removing the link... Alexrap 14:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you think you can delete the link when people don't reply to your comments within 5 days or so every time you comment here. That's not how things work here, only when there's consensus about removing a link you can remove it. I must say I'm pretty stunned by you saying that the magyarization of Transylvania in the 19th century is "qualitatively similar" to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was genocide, the practice of deliberately killing a people, whereas the magyarization was forced assimilation (it was definately NOT the policy of the rulers to kill all Romanians in Transylvania). And if the magyarization of the 19th century is "qualitatively similar" to the Holocaust, what about the romanianization of Ceausescu in the 20th century. I thought we agreed that both Hungarian and Romanian rulers have misused their power to discriminate each other. So do you think that the romanianization is also "qualitatively similar" to the Holocaust? Maartenvdbent 01:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Maartenvdbent, I am sorry you deliberately misunderstand me. Of course the comparison was an exaggeration. The similarity I was talking about is the following: in both cases some citizens were considered inferior because of their ethnicity. And this was an unfortunate fact in both cases. But of course there is a HUGE difference. And this is the result of the discrimination. In terms of this, nothing ever compares to the Holocaust and I totally agree with that. I strongly accuse all the authorities involved in the Holocaust, including the Romanian ones, which although had somehow protected the Romanian Jews (the majority of which had survived the war), were directly responsible for the death of thousands of Jews in Bessarabia. I hope this clears things up.

What do you want me to do if the issues I raised here on several occasions were totally ignored? Sometimes I get an answer in a few minutes and some other times there is no answer in 10 days. No answer implies an approval, especially when it is clear that the comments were read (as the reply comes within minutes of changing the article). How can we have a dialog like this?

But please try to comment on the issues that I raised. This is the only way that will allow us to have a dialog and to reach a consensus. Ignoring my comments and deliberately misunderstanding a clear exaggeration will not help. Alexrap 17:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I must have misinterpreted your comment, I'm sorry for that (but it was not a deliberate misinterpretation). I see you have some serious issues with the text and I respect that, so I guess the link should be deleted. I think we should search for another, less controversial link, as I don't think this text should do without one. Maartenvdbent 18:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The BBC link is rather good I think, it would do with that I guess. A pity that it doesn't show photographs though. Maartenvdbent 10:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The BBC link I think is appropriate and I have nothing against it. I will remove the other one, as agreed. Also, I guess that it could be a good idea if CRCulver wants to include some of his photographs directly into the article. Alexrap 09:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanians

Saying "absolute majority" will confuse readers into thinking that Hungarians & others were a tiny minority in Transylvania. This is false, and I don't see anything wrong with just saying "majority". Khoikhoi 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Second that. Dahn 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Khoikhoi, but this is just hilarious. It was not me the one who invented the term of absolute majority. This term is used everywhere when it refers to a percentage higher than 50%. Which is exactly the case with the Romanian population in Transylvania. The lowest percentage ever, according to all Hungarian Censuses, recorded in 1910 after long years of Magyarisation, was still higher than 50%,namely 53.7%. Otherwise, the percentage was at least 60%. I find it extremely funny that you are so concerned that some readers might be confused if we use the correct term. And you propose instead to use one less accurate. Well, it is exactly this less accurate term the one that might confuse people. I am surprised you cannot understand this.

Also, you try to confuse people by imposing the statement saying that Transylvania was always part of Hungary before 1918. This is false. Please read the article about the History of Transylvania. Alexrap 22:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I caught the edit history on this one, and was a bit intrigued, as I appreciate when people elaborate on more technical terms in Wikipedia articles, but wondered how this would be handled. I see now it refers to the edit war, not to an explanation added. "Absolute majority" is a specific term in American English at least, and it is used correctly in the sentence--American voters encounter this in every school bond election that involves greater than an absolute majority, and in many other areas.

In the case of many areas of Afghanistan for instance, there are some areas with an absolute majority of Pashtuns or Tajiks, and many areas with no absolute majority, but a simply majority, meaning the highest percentage, but not over 50%, of one or the other or another ethnic group. And, a quick check of Wikipedia shows it is an Americanism, maybe why others are not familiar--when in doubt look it up before edit warring via edit summaries can be a good rule. See Absolute majority and Simple majority.

As it appears to be an Americanism, my suggestion is that "over 50%" be used instead, unless it translates from the Romanian. I don't know if this term is used in Romania. However, if that is the case, either Romania or Hungary, it can be used and explained in the text. If not, then over 50% would be preferable to using an Americanism in an article about another country on a world-wide encyclopedia, imo, but possibly there is policy. Please discuss this instead of edit warring.

KP Botany 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

KP Botany, I appreciate you trying to understand and solve the problem. Absolute majority is used in Britain as well, so it's not necessarily an Americanism. And it is certainly used in both Romania and Hungary. Everywhere in the world it means "more than 50%". I put a more elaborate explanation on my last edit, but Khoi reverted it immediately with no explanation. I will edit it again, this time leaving no room for any missunderstanding. And I hope both [User:Khoikhoi|Khoi]] and Dahn will at least do the effort of explaining something, before just reverting the edits.

I also explained the other thing. I don't understand why Khoi is trying to let the reader understand that Transylvania was always part of Hungary, before 1918. It is not true. I repeat, please read the article about the History of Transylvania. Alexrap 21:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Then, if it is a translation of an international term, and it is the term used in Romania, it should be fine, and I see you added the correct information to help non-native speakers of English. Thank you. KP Botany 21:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I still stand by my words. "Absolute majority" is POV-pushing, and will confuse readers. Khoikhoi 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi, can you explain to us how can the last version that you edited be POV-pushing and confuse readers? This version was saying:

...the union of the region with Romania in 1920 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that according to all Hungarian censuses, the absolute majority (over 50%) of the Transylvanian population has always been ethnic Romanian. In 1920 for example the ethnic Romanians were 57.3% and the ethnic Hungarians 25.5% of the total Transylvanian population.

I had only put facts in there, and I had even given an explanation for the readers that don't know what an absolute majority is. I still haven't met anyone though. What is confusing is your version, which might let the reader believe that the Romanian majority was a narrow one, something like 30%, which was absolutely not the case.

And what about the other modification? You seem to keep the silence about that, but impose it all the time. Have you checked the History of Transylvania?

Hopefully you will revert yourself, because, for the time being, your actions and their motivation are, as I said, quite hilarious... :-) Anyway, since it will soon be Christmas, Merry Christmas to everyone! Alexrap 13:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one cannot begin to fathom why that entire fragment is part of this article. It can be replaced with a link to one of the many articles that make the matters clear ad nauseam (try History of Transylvania). This is not the place for even the semblance of a polemic on this matter, as it simply redundant.

That aside, transporting the issue that far back is in itself the product of theoretical approaches, and not that of crude facts. I admit that I hadn't read the section through when I reverted, and thought that it referred to the population of Cluj (which would have made some semblance of sense in an article on Funar) - in that context, it was an exaggeration. In any context, it is superfluous.

This does not look like a proper article on a person. It looks like a collection of POVs and overblown irrelevancies. Dahn 20:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Laying apart the question of whether it belongs in the article, which I have not even read: to express this concept, why not simply say "majority"? "Absolute" adds nothing. - Jmabel | Talk 07:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Absolute" does add something, that's why it is used. If there is a group of 3 and one is in the majority, it may have 40%, and the other 30% each, but if one in a group of 3 is an absolute majority, it has, by definition, over 50%. This means, in a political situation, where a majority wins, any group holding an "absolute majority" has a serious advantage. This also shows that in countries where nationality is in dispute, precisely which ethnic group has a possible political advantage when there are more than 2, or which ethnic group has the largest presence in the country. If there are 3 ethnic groups and one is an absolute majority, it show the others make up a total of less than 50% of the country. It is a specific term that means something precise, and is used exactly for that precision. There is no need to waffle precise meaning out of a statement. KP Botany 17:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolute majority it's not confusing at all. It meens the same thing for any person (In Hungary, Romania, US and anyplace). Anyway there were included the exact numbers (which cannot be confusing at all). The phrase used by Alexrap it's clear and it don't want to say anything wrong about the Hungarians in Romania. This edit war is childish and the article shoul remain to last Alexrap edit, which is very clear. There is a POV, but not from Alexrap. Please revert the article to the correct version.--Roamataa 12:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year to everyone! From all the contributions on this technical matter, it seems like an absolute majority :-) of the users expressing an opinion here agree with my version. Even Dahn admitted that he reverted the edits without reading the text. Anyway, I guess we should either stick to the version agreed on this discussion page, or remove the phrase in discussion. My edits were only intended as a correction of a quite POV statement included in that phrase. If people still want that phrase in the article, then the corrections are needed. If not, we just remove the phrase.Alexrap 20:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year.If you want to cite me properly,please make note of the fact that the entire section this debate is about is in complete disregard of wikipedia guidelines. Simply put: it should not be there at all, and could be replaced with a single NPOV line and a link to History of Transylvania. Dahn 22:32, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to cite you at all, I just expressed my opinion. If people want that phrase in the article, then it should contain my corrections, that were reverted (including by yourself) for no logical reason. If I had removed that phrase from the beginning, I am sure that it would have been restored as well. The only good thing about this childish edit war is that some people finally read the text. Alexrap 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't cite me, then kindly refer from attributing me stuff in the future. Dahn 13:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. This is what you said: I admit that I hadn't read the section through when I reverted, and thought that it referred to the population of Cluj. And this is what I said: Even Dahn admitted that he reverted the edits without reading the text. Nothing else made any kind of reference to yourself. All the rest was just my opinion (quite clearly expressed if you just kindly read what I wrote). I feel like I'm wasting my time trying to explain something to people that revert/reply without spending any time to read what has been said before... Alexrap 14:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexrap, I think you fail to see the real problem behind all this. Your version reads like this:

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 1920 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that according to all Hungarian censuses, the absolute majority (over 50%) of the Transylvanian population has always been ethnic Romanian. In 1920 for example the ethnic Romanians were 57.3% and the ethnic Hungarians 25.5% of the total Transylvanian population.

This sentence (and especially the words "despite the fact") could be read by some as a denial of cultural claims of Hungarians to Transylvania, just because they are not in a majority. I'm not accusing you of sharing that opinion, but I recommend in these sensitive issues to put this statement differently.

Actually I'm against summing up historical compositions of Transylvania in this article. You could easily point to History of Transylvania for that. Let this article be about Funar and his policies, and not about the precise ethnic composition of Transylvania. Maartenvdbent 14:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This sentence is directly related to who Funar is, and belongs in the article to put his natiolism in its historical context. You can't just say someone is an ethnic nationalist in a region involving ethnic strife and identities, especially a politician who is outspoken on these issues, and gain a complete article without discussing issues of nationalism and ethnicity in the article. The issue brought up by Khoikhoi was simply the phrase "absolute majority." Changing this phrase or not does nothing to address the overall question of whether a discussion of nationality and ethnicity belongs in an article about a person who takes a strong ethnicity-based nationalistic stance. Let's try instead to work on getting the overall phrase neutral and accurate, while allowing it to put this politician in an historical context.

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 1920 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary although Hungarian censuses of the era show that the absolute majority (over 50%) of the Transylvanian population has always been ethnic Romanian. In 1920 for example the ethnic Romanians were 57.3% and the ethnic Hungarians 25.5% of the total Transylvanian population.

The "although" ties the two sentences together for the general reader. This is in fact what is being said and shown, that Hungary considers Transylvania an integral part of Hungary, although the Transylvanian population has always had a Romanian absolute majority. It also ties Hungarians into the region in a way that reading articles about Funar probably won't. So, rather than being biased against Hungarians or for Romanians, it is showing that although a minority, Hungarians have always lived in the region, the issue is not new, and Hungary has more than a regional or land grab tie to the region ("an integral part of Transylvania). A general reader with no background should be able to read this article and place Funar in an historical context, the reader who wants more can go to the main article, but this article does not stand alone without this information.

I would like to see more sources for this article, and references. KP Botany 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a general reader with no notion of the background on this issue should be able to read the article, but I think the current text suffice:

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 a large 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.

There's is no need to come up with historical census data, saying that Romanians were the majority is enough I think. The previous version read like the result of an edit war: biased Hungarians put data in (for instance, the time Transylvania was under Hungarian rule) that supports their arguments and biased Romanians put data in (census data) dat supports their arguments. That results in a badly written article, consisting of almost nothing more than argument attacks of both parties against each other.

I agree that there have to be more sources for this article, but they are hard to find (in the internet). Maartenvdbent 16:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Just found another potential source, again from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1645077.stm

I'm going to suggest we use "although" instead of "despite the fact" as more neutral and in an attempt to reach consensus. In addition, "despite the fact" is more colloquial, not necessarily a phrase to be using in an encyclopedia article in English. Wikipedia should strive for a higher standard, and "although" is a better word choice for the flow of language, for meaning, for neutrality. Ultimately, historical census data or discussions of historical census data need to be added as sources for this article. I do have a couple of textbooks that discuss this that I glanced in when this issue first arose and will consider adding one of them, or someone else can find something similar. KP Botany 16:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It is true that the existing version was probably the result of different modifications and this led to something both incorrect and irrelevant to the article. I think that the phrase could be removed (as suggested by other users). However, if we choose to keep the phrase, then there are 2 things that should be corrected:

1) The version Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918) implies that Transylvania had always been part of Hungary, and between 1867 and 1918 was part of Austria-Hungary. This is false, as I said several time before. The correct version should read: Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire) between 1867 and 1918

2) The part 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 is POV inducing. I don't understand why if it is so legitimate for Hungarians to have claims on Transylvania, it is not legitimate for one to say that Romanians have always been an absolute majority? If we only say majority, the reader might think that there were 34% Romanians, 33% Hungarians, 30% Germans and 3% others. And the reality is a lot different.

Things are quite clear for me: Transylvania has a valuable Hungarian minority that for a series of wrong reasons (Romanians loosing access to nobility in 1366, Romanians excluded from social/political rights etc) controlled the region for a number of years. Of course it wasn't the fault of the current Hungarian inhabitants of Transylvania and of course we should do everything now not to discriminate anyone. It was just the way things happened. But we shouldn't try to re-establish that sort of feudal system, where the absolute majority of the population is only used for labour by a minority and is not given any kind of rights. Not in the 21st century! And therefore, why should this article try to legitimate the Hungarian claims on Transylvania? If someone insists on saying that many Hungarians still see Transylvania as an integral part of Hungary, then it is common sense that we should also give the context of that interesting claim. And the context is that Romanians have always been an absolute majority. And the reader is in this way given the chance to qualify for himself how legitimate this claim is.

As of the BBC article, I have nothing against it. Feel free to add it into the article.Alexrap 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article has been written, that the inscription "Hungariae Mathias Rex" was changed bei Funar into "Mathias Rex". I got an old foto (from 1974)were I could see that already then there stood only "Mathias Rex". Are you sure, that any time there has been the inscription "Hungariae"?Hatto1 10:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That inscription was changed after WW2. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  11:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)