User talk:KIDB/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, KIDB/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Anti-Romanian discrimination

The anti-Romanian article seems to me to be less directed against he Hungarians and more directed against the Russians. Try to read in between the lines. Constantzeanu 20:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think any article should be directed against any nation. --KIDB 08:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Image copyrights

Please read carefully wikipedia:Copyrights and wikipedia:Image copyright tags.You cannot place tags arbitrarily, without proof and source. Copyrights is a very serious issue. If you will not follow the rules, the images you uploaded will be deleted soon. mikka (t) 19:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Saxon/Székely Chairs or Seats

Sorry, my English is not perfect. As you know, Saxons and Székelys were organised into little independent territorial units (of similar size of a Swiss canton). These units were called "szék", which in English means chair or seat. In the Transylvaian Saxons article, "chairs" is used in one sentence: "During the reign of the King Charles I of Hungary (probably 1325-1329), the Saxons were organized in the Saxon Chairs." I was just wondering if CHAIRS or SEATS is more appropriate to describe these territorial units.
The reason I am asking this is that I would like to type in the list of the five major Székely Seats/Chairs, when I will have time in the next couple of days. --KIDB 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I finally saw what you were driving at when I looked at Sălişte. In English we refer to the "Seven seats of Saxondom" in Transylvania. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Petru Groza

Whatever do you mean? Hitler and Mussolini imposed something on Romania. Romania, AN ALLY of the UK up to that moment, lost its territory through dirty arbitration. The gesture was condemned by the Peace of Paris, which means you are denying the very purpose of the international treaty (unless they all don't matter to you ever since Trianon); the Treaty of Paris also makes the Romanian nationalists' requests in Bessarabia unteneble (so you can see, I am not an ardent and biased nationalist). You cannot possibly be right about this one. I have to say Northern Transylvania was occupied by Hungary. Under the definition of international law, and under logic. Now, let me think about it. You might be right, and then Sudetenland was not occupied by Germany, nor was Bohemia-Moravia, hell, nor was Austria or Alsatia. Please, for the love of it, do not consider that this is a biased speech. I am known on Wiki for my balanced views, and I've consistently upheld criticism of any nationalism. The word "occupiers", if indeed offensive, is less so than a "reevaluation" of Nazi international politics. Even for a POV, it's sinister. Plus, you are implying that all Hungarians should agree with Horthy and/or Szalasi. More sinister still. Dahn 15:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I assume "occupation" is the usual way to describe these events in Romania. Many people (mostly Hungarians) would, however, not agree with this expression. They would say that the occupation happened in 1919 and in 1944. I don't really wish to enter into a debate about this because the issue is too complicated to be expressed with only a word "occupation" or "liberation". There are the ethnic issues, the long common history of the two nations, the European powers always using us against each other to reach their own goals, etc. All these issues will hopefully go to the waste bin of the history with Romania joining the EU and the borders disappearing.
I just would like to advise not to use expressions that are debated by the other side. --KIDB 15:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my reasons for rv. Again, not because I have an agenda, but precisely because I do not. I was expecting that you tell I'm wrong because etc., not that there'll be people who do not agree with me. I knew that already. So? I'm willing to be 2/3 of them are Nazis or otherwise biased. Note that I did not oppose occupation and liberation, as I'm not about to speak of "glorious missions of the Romanian soldiers" (in fact, I think most of the 1940s have been disgraceful for both of our countries, in between Horia Sima and Ion Antonescu, in between Horthy and Szalasi). However, any condoning of the Hungarian authorities in Northern Transylvania (i.e. the region that was defined by Hitler's touch and pencil) is as good as condoning Romanian administrators in Transnistria. They both showed their skill at ethnic cleansing (wether directed at Romanians or Ukrainians) and genocide (the Jews). Occupation NOT according to "Romania being stepped over", not on the Romania vs. Hungary provincial, parochial, level. Occupation in the same way as the Nazi occupation of Czechoslovakia. Occupation as defined by the Treaty of Paris. Dahn 15:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a major difference between CZ being overrun by Nazi troops and North Transylvania returned by a treaty to Hungary (however disputed the treaty is). You should not say it is "occupation in the same way". There is also a similar difference between the Paris and Trianon Treaties and the Vienna Accord: The Paris and Trianon Treaties were signed with an already occupied Hungary, with foreign (incl. Romanian) soldiers on Hungarian soil and starving and intimidated population.
You say that Hitler gave North Transylvania to Hungary. Do you feel better if you say this? I don't feel satisfied telling you sentences like "Stalin gave the region back to Romania". --KIDB 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Return". Do you also agree to the "return" of Alsatia, Silesia, Prussia to Germany? Do you go on pages for Italy criticizing them for overruning of Tyrol? Do you campaign for your country to have Fiume, Burgenland, Vojvodina, all of Slovakia and (let us not forget) CROATIA? If Horthy was bent on "gaining back things" (which, you should now, justifies nothing in itself), if he was so determined to get back territories which rightfully belonged to Hungary, then what was His Serene Highness doing in Subcarpathic Ukraine?

• I did not say just that Hitler gave the region of Northern Tr. to Hungary, I said that he created it, He basically took out a pencil and encircled some areas. So, he was giving back to Hungary the region he had though of ... just then?! Don't tell me I'm wrong: as you know, the leaders of Hungary kept on pressuring the Nazis to give them all, which should indicate that they did not consider the region to be the same as the ideal one. So, no "return" there. (To be fair, Antonescu did the even more disgusting thing of engaging all energies Romania had in trying to please Hitler so he'd get the Hungarian occupation out. As if.) Yes, Stalin gave it back (together with all the United Nations). But if this constitute a sordid detail, than take a look through books such as Nagy-Talavera's. You'll find that Stalinism had always been sympathetic to a Great Hungary and deeply opposed to a Greater Romania. In the 1930s, while backing any revisionist scheme, Stalin made it official dogma that Romania was an imperialist leadership over many oppresed nationalities. The Stalinist plan would not have favored Romania. And then, something miraculous happened... While Romania had switched sides the moments Soviet soldiers stepped on Moldavian soil, the Russians had to fight for every street of Budapest because of some imbecile named Szalasi. The plan before early 1945 had three options: Tr,. to Hungary; Tr. independent; Tr. as part of the Soviet Union (a federative republic or an autonomous one for the Ukraine). So yeah, tell me about Stalin giving things (plus, in pure terms, it's like saying "Stalin gave Poland Silesia" without mentioning that Stalin took all its Eastern fifth or so).

• BTW Nice work on glossing over the ethnic cleansing and Holocaust.Dahn 17:17, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I am the right person to discuss the issues you mention here. I just would suggest you to consider that there are a couple of million people who would not agree with your expression used in the Petru Groza article... Of course there are another couple of millions who would agree. Now it is up to you to decide if you keep the text this way or try to find an expression less offensive than "Hungarian occupiers". --KIDB 17:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I was saying all of this because I want to change it something less offensive. Then perhaps I can go to articles about the Soviet War in Afghanistan and change the word "invasion". Then for sure to Yugoslavia, where I could change the Ustaśe seccesion to something a little more positive, like "divorce". Then I could try my hand at softening harsh statements about the Holocaust: after all, Nazis too have feelings. Dahn 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

We might even agree on the original cession of Tr. I do not underestimate the contribution of Romanian military presence in 1918. Presence? Sorry. It too was occupation. BUT: Trianon was not the result of occupation. It was the result of Wilsonian principles. I, personally, do not think that these are to be held as undeniable truths, and all principles behind a border change show their huge logical holes in confrontation: be it the Romanian "ethnical majority" or the Hungarian "cultural dominance". But Wilsonian principles, as holey as they might have been, were at work regardless of military activities. Frankly, Hungary had nothing else to expect from the principles that still regulate international justice. To deny them is to deny the entire construction of modernity. Sorry, but you got the wrong end of the stick on that. Dahn 17:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be a nice person but the problem is that you are arguing with statements I have never said... Try to imagine I am not the grandchild of Ferenc Szálasi :-) Believe me, I am somebody else. --KIDB 18:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Szeklerland

Szerintem várjuk meg, amíg javul a HU tartalom és a forma. Ha megy a román, érdemes lenne elolvasni a ro:Regiunea Autonomă Maghiară és ro:Ţinutul Secuiesc cikkeket is, ahol beírtam néhány pontosítást (remélem még ott vannak). Erdelyiek 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Szia KIDB! Thank you for asking my opinion, but I cannot help with this, I know much less than I should about Székelys. Vay 23:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's wait until a more comprehensive paragraph is ready on the Hu site. --KIDB 10:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The burial map

Please read the discussion about that map. --Vasile 17:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did read it. You seem not to have read carefully what the author wrote there. --KIDB 17:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Motorway

Szia! Kicsit módosítottam a cikken most, hogy benne legyen a horvát határ is. A "towards Lake Balaton" önmagában azért nem volt jó, mert nem volt benne, hogy honnan megy a Balaton felé, az angol wiki meg nagyrészt külföldieknek készül, akiknek gőzük nincs a magyar úthálózatról. Szóval csak tartalmi javítás akart lenni, az angolod szerintem tökéletes. Itt az angolban is megírod az autópályák cikkeit? (jó lenne.) Alensha 17:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Ha lesz rá időm, lehet, hogy visszatérek rá egy-két hét múlva, de ha megnézed, a magyar cikkeket is csak elindítottam, aztán jöttek mások és örömmel folytatták... --KIDB 07:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop

I, and I suppose you too, find User:Dpotop very frustrating. He kind of reverts my edits constantly, refrasing citations I make from an reliable source (Council on Foreign Relations).

He thinks he cites good sources and that my sources are crap, now tell me, what do you find more reliable, Helsinki Watch and the Council on Foreign Relations or that Romanian bullshit of his.

He's definately busy trying to put his nationalist crap on wikipedia. I'm thinking about a ban.Maartenvdbent 15:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your valuable comments on Transylvania-related topics. I have indeed encountered Dpotop earlier in debated HU-RO issues and did not find his (or her) behaviour always correct. I have had a look at your earlier contributions and I see you were not involved with RO-HU articles earlier. In these topics you have to be prepared to be reverted or deleted by extremists (from either side), even if your edits are based on independent and reliable sources.

The trouble about banning is that if you start a banning procedure, there will be extremists helping him. Also, Hungarian editors will be not glad to be involved because they do not wish to seem anti-Romanian.

I think there must be other ways to protect neutrality in these articles, like building inter-ethnic groups (Romanian+Hungarian+Other independent). Maybe starting a notice board for non-extremists who are willing to work for the objectivity of Transylvania-related topics. I don't know because I am not too experienced in Wikipedia editing.

However, if you positively feel your contributions are continously reverted in an unjustified manner, and you think I can help in any way, please do not hesitate to contact me. --KIDB 16:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification and support. I will just try to explain my points again on the talk page, but sometimes I get mad about those reverts. I must say it makes me very sad that some people just don't wan't to acknoledge their state's nationalistic past. It worries me about Romania's future in the EU, for such a nationalistic sentiment does not seem to be fruitful in co-operation with European nations. I hope and think that most Romanians are not that nationalistic as some users are here on wikipedia. Thanks again. Kind regard from a (frustrated) Dutchman, Maartenvdbent 16:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Maartenvdbent and KIDB, you are truly surreal. You are the ones to have posted endless POVs on several pages. KIDB, we had a debate about such things: you could not form a single statement to contradict me, and you form a cabal insted of taking it out in the open. I am really disappointed in such behaviour. I am the first to admit that numerous pages contain Romanian POV, and I have been the first one to get rid of it. Besides sophistry, do you have anything in your favor? Expressions of my attitude towards Romanian nationalism (just so that you do not assume, yet again, that I'm some sort of hick) can be found in such places as here, here, here, and here. I'm sure you'll also remember this one, KIDB. Two wrongs don't make a right. I appeal to your reason. Dahn 01:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dahn, thanks for proving your objectivity, however, the trouble is not with you but with Dpotop - as you can see it from the title of this paragraph. Altough I haven't studied your contributions in detail, as far as I can recall you are much more objective than some other Romanians. Your friend Dpotop (If I can spell his name properly :-)) however deletes things I would consider to be truth. One example: "The new regime's objective became to effectively Romanianize Transylvania in a social-political fashion. The regime's goal was to create a Romanian middle and upper class that would assume power in all fields." - Romania was so effective that the upper- and middle class in Transylvania has really become ethnic Romanian by today. If you enter any kind office building in Cluj today, they will hardly speak any Hungarian (maybe except for the Consulate of the Republic of Hungary).

Or another example being the Ethnic clashes of Targu Mures, where he pushes the story of Mihaela Cofaroiu, a villager beaten by Hungarians, when there where many deaths on the other side... --KIDB 14:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I cannot account for all the pages, nor do I assume that all contributions are POV. On the matter of the ethnic clashes in Targu Mures, I agree that the violence of both ethnic sides should be depicted. You may be right about the casualties' number, and I will back you up on this if proof is neutral. Checking out Maartenvdbent's edits (and also answering to your query on one of the topics) on the Hungarian minority in Romania issue, I couldn't help but notice the sheer absurdity of some claims and depictions. He cites a book which holds a minority view, and one that glosses over the sheer realities of Romanian politics at the time (or is not at all aware of them):

• the agrarian reform was not carried out against Hungarians specifically. It was in tune with land policy inside the Romanian Kingdom. To my knowledge, losses were compensated on principle. On principle! because injusticies may be argued eternally (as they can for any land reform, and in the same way Hungary preserved an obsolete land property regime throughout the 19th century),
• all liberties were guaranteed to Hungarians under the 1923 Constitution. They had all rights, including ethnic representation. The latter was a luxury compared to Romanian legal tradition: consider that Jews had gone from a position as second-class citizens to voting their own representatives in Parliament - in the space of three years! Such rights were not sitting well with the monopolizing Liberal Party (the main advocate of ethnocentrism), but they were demanded by the Romanian National Party and the Romanian Social Democrats in the former Austria-Hungary - who did not want to make Transylvania lose status and Romanians earn the hostility of minorities. The RNP formed the government in 1930! Sure, the Liberals meant to carry on the ethnocentric and highly centralizing regime, but they were met with opposition from Romanians. In that context, the new administration (which did not at all exclude Hungarians on principle) and overall elite reflected ethnical realities - and became what they were never allowed to be under Hungarian rule.
• when arguing for such things, you should note that Romania did not have wealth as a prerequisite for voting rights! Hungary had kept to them, so as to give artificially high representation for Hungarians! Now, I ask you, even if Romanian legislators were malevolent, does awarding basic democratic rights mean a policy of repression? As to the "creation of a Romanian upper and middle class", I beg of you to tell me how a government can give birth to social division (especially two as autonomous as these). Also, pray tell where one could've found a Romanian "aristocracy" to "replace" the Hungarian one? Do you know of any Romanian graf? The few Romanian noblemen (who did not own domains!) were entitled by the Austrians and Austro-Hungarians. And, if by upper class you don't mean to say aristocracy, then do you suppose the government handed money to some of the population so that they would become industialists? The fact is, man, that most industrialists in Tr. were already Romanians, because the Hungarians did not need to take the chance into ventures, as they relied on owning land. Actually, they did this throughout the Hungarian Kingdom - another reason why Austria agreed to the Ausgleich, so it didn't have to deal with the exceptionally backward, agricultural, Hungarian economy. Most social mutations happened in Tr. in the latter decades of the 19th century, when Romanian credit institutions were founded, and many Romanians went away to America and returned with assets. Look into it: you'll find the number of old domains lost and bought by Romanian credit cooperatives in that period was truly staggering.
• the administration had its many flaws and some merits with the nature of the state and the hegemony of the Liberals. Its main flaw was argued to be corruption, as well as instability (a new government meant the change of the whole administrative structure). There is no visible bias towards the Hungarians - and the initial moment of that is Tr. was the need to replace the pre-1920 structure. Because: many of it did not speak, nor wished to learn, Romanian; many had acted against the Romanian state (for good or wrong), as the administrative structure of the Hungarian Soviet Republic (remember! that, not Austria-Hungary, was the state replaced).
• language rights were not provided in the Romanian framework. For any ethnicity. Nor were they in France up until the 1990s! Nor are they still in many places that we don't call oppressive. And, mind you, they had been completely repressed in Hungary (as you noted).
• no form of Romanian nationalism was especially active against Hungarians (unlike the common violence against the Jews). Ethnic relations were tense (because of actions on both sides), but the Magyar position came as a surprise to most Romanians in 1940. Let's take this extreme case: the Iron Guard maintained suspicion of Hungarians as a whole, but it also was very close to the Hungarian antisemites (it had to deal with this split in its personality); they toured Tr. to incite to violence, but, to my knowledge, it was only directed at the Jews (Jewish-Hungarians, if you will - ALTHOUGH, not all were Hungarian, and the later participation in the Holocaust should make the distinction clear in retrospect). After the Vienna deal, the Iron Guard formed the government of a smaller Romania - and lined the country with Germany, which was Hungary's ally, as well as the instigator of the Awards.
• the numbers on that page don't appear to be remotely close to accurate. Raffay Ernő is a nationalist (as you point out on the talk page for the article), and huge majority of Western historians agree on completely differnt numbers (I'm sure some Hungarians do as well). If you do see things my way on this matter, KIDB, please act against Hungarian contributors who do not.
• the citing of an extremist and (as of yet, if anything) minority of a minority group as a representative of Hungarians over the Romániai Magyar Demokrata Szövetség (which is, and has long been, part of the governing coalition in Romania!) is, simply put, utter bullshit.

Please, take this into consideration. I don't agree with much of what Dpotop's views, but I was concerned about a possible ban. Not only because I think it would be unfair (his views are not remotely extreme - I referenced a talk I had over his supposed bias: see his full attitude), but also because it would leave Maartenvdbent and some Hungarian contributors (who also contributed crap to the pages in dispute) thinking they are somehow right. Thank you for your patience. Dahn 20:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting, KIDB. When are you going to operate changes in the articles? Dahn 07:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian minority in Romania, Romanianization, and wherever else POV about post-Trianon appears (I would especially be interested in an explanation of why "declaring a nation-state" is repressive - let me point out that the concept doesn't even imply ethnocentrism as such). Dahn 09:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It has been two months now. I see no reply, and I don't see you telling it to the POV contributors in Hungary. Oh, yeah, you're not biased. Dahn 14:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

you either get fed up and leave the country, or you chose to assimilate so that your children have a better life.

Friend, am I to read that you consider the mix marriages etc. to be state-induced and decreasing the "blood purity"? Really, the implications of this are quite grotesque.

Yes, because you are not familiar with Hungarian sources. There were a lot of Hungarians leaving Southern Transylvania after the Vienna Awards, many of them went to refugee camps in the North, or in other parts of Hungary. And there were massacres committed by Romanian troops in 1944-45. Neither Romanians, nor Hungarians were saints.

You make a fine point. I believe, however, that we can agree on the fact that Hungary had accepted a policy of population exchanges after it obtained a seetlement of the question from the Volkisch Nazi leadership (considering the preceeding stand, one would have expected Romania to go with Volkisch). I will never say that Romania is "a country of saints" (at the very least because that would be of no relevance), but Hungary had accepted a principle which counts as ethnic cleansing. Furthermore, Hungary continued this policy in the following years (which Romania had no "need" to do, considering that it had stripped itself of what had come to be accepted as "ethnicity problems" in the language of the times). About the Romanian massacres in 1944: I admit I have not heard of them. If you can point out a legible and non-biased source, and if you can argue that they were part of a larger framework (and not isolated, if despicable, incidents), I would like to see it.

Béla Kun’s government was not replaced by Romanians in Transylvania, because Romania took military control over Transylvania already in December 1918 – January 1919. The communists came into power in Budapest in March 1919 on the ruins of a country, that lost a war and most of its territories, also with a starving population. I also would doubt that Romania selflessly occupied Budapest to free Hungarians from communism. They simply occupied Budapest to be in a better negotiating position for the peace talks.

You are right about the chronology. I have also always agreed with the point you make about the Romanian occupation of Budapest, and, apparently, so did the Entente - although Trianon and (for a large part, despite Mr. Bratianu's efforts to make it seem as if Romania had won the war) Wilsonian principles, not the occupation, were what sanctioned the new borders. As I have said before, this is crying over spilled milk.

About linguistic realities: I wonder how many Germans are living in Alsace. I am sure they are less than 1,5 million, like the Hungarians in Transylvania. This is almost the size of Slovenia. And you say this community does not deserve independent universities?

I have never implied that. I support multi-lingualism in teaching. However: if a gvt applies a policy that differs from that (be it France's or Romania's), I could never imply that the said gvt is an oppressor for this sole reason. As I have said: Romania has blended ethno-nationalism into the French model (which is not pre-disposed to it). However, neither it or the source model aimed their policies as restricting access to other ethnicities, and both deserve to be judged by the standard of their times. The inter-war was not multi-cultural in most parts of the world (and pre-war had not been multi-cultural in Hungary, ahem), but that does not make it "driven by nationalism". It just makes it "French-type centralism" - condemn the policy for being awkward, if you must, but do not imply it was ethnic cleansing.

I don’t think it is valid to compare Hungarians with Saxons in this matter. It is like telling somebody with one leg that he is lucky, he could be without legs as well (sorry for this).

I have never used the point to indicate such a notion, so please don't take it out of context.

By the way, Saxons: Romania is responsible for all ethnic groups in Transylvania since the Romanian Government controls the territory.

Yes, it is. Did I show myself to be "in favor" of Ceausescu's policies? Nay: I had said that they are contemptible and irresponsable, and even show the limitations of the French model as claimed to be in use by Romania.

Especially for Saxons because they voted for the union with Romania in 1918!

I fail to see how this adds to the matter.

Oh, wait a minute, KIDB. People voted for the union? Then how come you tell me that Romania went into Budapest and got its share? If any, what is the relevance of Hungary "having ceded" Transylvania to what I admit was an occupier, when people actually up and voted a year before? Tidbit of Romanian history, KIDB: the Alba-Iulia Assembly and others (in Transylvania as well as Bessarabia) were not granted legal status by the Liberal gvt, since Bratianu wanted it to seem as if Romania took its own. He thus aimed to preserve the status-quo of Romanian bureaucracy, much to the chagrin of the entrepreneurial and rather multi-cultural Romanian Transylvanian National Party. Here is your dilemma , KIDB: if you imply that Alba-Iulia does have status (as most Romanians unwittingly claim), you agree with Transylvania having left Hungary on its own (hence, your point about "Romanians having blackmailed Hungary in 1919" is of no relevance); if you reject that it did have legal status, you actually agree with Mr. Bratianu that Romania could have done whatever it wanted (since the Wilsonian policeman was out of Europe by then). Again, Romania subsequently wanted very little, and few that would have offended the legitimate standard of the time. Dahn 20:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that Saxons had an 800-year history, starting in the Kingdom of Hungary, they were later governed by Transylvanian Princes, etc., and after this long period only 80 years of Romanian rule followed and this ethnic group disappeared from Transylvania. You are not in the position to say that only the Saxons and foreign powers are to be blamed.

I had not "blamed foreign powers". I had said that, despite there being no official anti-German policy (as there had been an anti-Hungarian one in the 1980s), the Saxon pop. dissappeared. Without it being less condemnable that way, I have to point out that this was because of the Ceausescu regime's love of money, rather than hatred of Saxons (much like the parallel situation with the remaining Romanian Jews, also sold to Israel). In fact, this is even more despicable, because it indicates innate hypocrisy. Let me stress this: the community did not dissappear over 80 years, but rather over 15 (late 1970s to 1989). Added to this is the previous will to "resettle" ethnic Germans into the Reich - I'm not sure what it meant in Transylvania itself, but, overall, Romania was a place of migration to Germany for various communities. I had used this point to stress that even the most brutal policies in Romania have not been spared of nuances. Again, my aim was not to condone anything that has happened.

“the Orthodox were specifically banned for setteling in the citadels” I have read this earlier from Bogdan. This also seems to be a sort of “Anti-Romanian discrimination”-like stuff which should be further clarified. I don’t say that Saxons never discriminated against Orthodoxs, but we should be careful with statements. You should establish A) in which towns B) in which historical period C) who were banned. I read about Hungarians not allowed into Saxon cities, and I suppose that even Saxon peasants were not always allowed to settle behind city walls. If you only generally say “Orthodox were specifically banned” this supports people like Tudor or Funar.

It happened in every single Transylvanian town, and ‘’especially’’ in Saxons ones. It was medieval logic, not modern nationalism at work. Any simple investigation into Transylvanian history tells you that the Orthodox were not officially recognized as a religion, and that they were the bulk of the serf population (i.e.: not city-dwellers, unless you know of urban serfs having existed). This is a point on which all Catholics and Protestants agreed, and it was a policy enforced by the Transylvanian Principality, continued after the Austrian Empire took over. Think about your own historiography: is it not true that Hungarian sources deplore the double (religious and anti-Hungarian) policies of the Austrians (up to 1867)? Well, there you go: Romanian-speakers were only allowed civic rights if they converted to the Greek form of Catholicism, and this is when the one-sided love affair between Romanians and Germans started. "One-sided" because the Empire and Saxons were perpetually weary of the Russian influence, and thought that the Orthodox or even Greek-Catholics were easily persuaded by the Russians (which they were not, in fact - but Romanians there were clumsy advocates of their own cause). Think about 1848: why did the Austrians accept massive concessions to the Romanians when Kossuth decided to break away, but then they clamped down to a centralist and German gvt after they re-took control of Transylvania? It is because they assumed the Romanians had welcomed the Russians, and balancing the risk of giving in to some Hungarian demands with the perceived threat of losing Tr. to Russia made them accept the Ausgleich (that, and the fact that Hungary's economy was not suited to modern goals, so it was better to take distance). Orthodox people were only given partial recognition around 1848, and the community further antagonized the Austrians around the 1850s (at the Sibou Diet), when they asked for more than Vienna was willing to give. Then came the Hungarian half of Austria-Hungary, with its own highly inventive policies of discrimination - which did a lot to curb the previous loyalism of Romanian communities, and oriented them towards a union with Romania (although, even after that, there was an Aurel Popovici. I like to stress that these realities are not recogized by either Funar or Tudor, who will resent the fact that the "Romanian option" was for the longest part loyal to the Empire, and not looking over the Carpathians to the "brethren".

Some would say this policy was aimed at creating an autonomous province for Hungarians (with no real concessions except for the free use of Hungarian language in a 90% Hungarian region) so that Hungarians outside this have less reason to lobby for their rights. “You revisionist Hungarians got your Autonomous Province, what more you want!?” In Cluj, Magyars were still 50% of the population in the 1950s. And communists knew something very important: cities with industry are economically, and thus, politically much more important, than the mostly rural Székely Land. The power is there where the GDP is created. And the most important Transylvanian city, that used to be Hungarian, has become 80% Romanian by today.

Please, get my point once and for all. "Communist Romania" was in fact "two Communist Romanias" (1948 to 1965 and 1965 to 1989, with noted subperiods). Of these, only the latter decade of the last phase was noted for its nationalism. This point is consistent with the avowed policies of Ceausescu to "eliminate the pro-Soviet communists" (including the chief of the Securitate, who was executed), and his massive work to replace topical Marxism with his own horrid (and, sadly, horridly popular) version of Romanian ethno-centrism (which was, nonetheless, imposed in stages - for example, Romania never stopped publishing newspapers in several languages). Your assessment of "there being no serious concessions made to the autonomous region" hides the fact that the 1950s did not harbour a liberal regime. What other concessions did you expect from a version of Stalinism? Self-government was nothing but symbolic, because pluralism could not be tolarated and because the communist state claimed to have "solved the ethnical issues" just because it claimed to. At the moment, there was a party hegemony, and that party included high-ranking cadres of all nationalities - but never forget that they were cadres. Ceausescu substituted much of the party hegemony with ethnical hegemony, and purged the party of its facade pluralism, while expanding the party to reflect "ethnical realities" (because most Romanians were not communists, and because many believed the party itself to be "anti-national"). Your "GDP" remark needs to be read in the same framework: do not mix classical Marxist theory (of there being a class identity over the ethnical one - which allowed for turning Romania "myopic" to previous allegiances) with Ceausescu's goal to "Romanianize" the GDp in what was already a state-controlled economy. God, KIDB, I simply cannot believe that I am explaining such notions to an inhabitant of an Eastern Bloc country! Basically, concessions were simply not made to both Romanians and Hungarians beyond the facade level, and this because this was a dictatorship (leading to the arguable paradox that Hungarians in, let's say, Covasna have had more rights before the 1950s than in their autonomy thereafter). This is not to indicate that granting autonomy did not go against all possible precedent, and that it was not meant as a castigation of the previous regime (reason why the nationalist Ceausescu cancelled it altogether). The Szekely land was not "spared" because it was "poor", but because it qualified for autonomy according to many principles (in this case, according to Stalinist principles). How "real" was the autonomy of the Tatar ASSR? We can agree that it was not "real", but does this mean that it was being "exploited by Russians" (as you say the Magyar AR was "by Romanians"), or indeed by the party-machine (which also exploited all of the non-autonomous part)?! Also, if a Soviet leader was to switch to Russian nationalism instead of Soviet (or proletarian) identity, wouldn't you expect him to cancel an autonomy even if that autonomy is relatively artificial?!

You also forget that centralization brings a different reality: the new gvt (communist or not) will not be "mindful of regional priorities", but of what it considers to be "country-wide ones". Again, KIDB, I do not approve of this logic, but I do not see it as "criminal" on its own. That is why a city changes its population figures: it openes itself to Romania as a whole, and it is awarded no special regime. Before Ceausescu, this meant that industrialization and urbanization were being carried for the country as a whole. "Cluj increased its population, and the figures changed", you say. Well, lookey at Bucharest or most other towns wherever in Romania. For Chrissake, Bucharest tripled its population. Progressively under Ceausescu, this was doubled (but not replaced) by an anti-Hungarian policy. As I have said, anti-Hungarianism actually failed in accordance with its own goals, since the Hungarian population in Romania has endured in figures that do not show a significant decrease between the late 1970s and 1989 (I suppose the decrease would have been major if Hungary had turned capitalist earlier and had started paying Ceausescu cash for head of Hungarian sent over to Hungary). Even the OSCE report made reference to a country-wide policy: if Ceausescu added the goal of making sure that a rural Hungarian culture would forever be debilitated in Transylvania, the "village systematization program" actually left even deeper scars in Wallachia (the creation of the Ilfov agricultural sector to feed a planned expansion of Bucharest; the demolition of villages, monuments and small holdings in the countryside and on the outskirts of the cities and towns; the planned and virtually complete elimination of private property; the Hunger circuses with the subordination of the countryside to the agricultural demands of the cities etc). If I have not been clear enough, let me state it again: this does not mean that many of these policies were not specifically aimed at certain groups, most of all Hungarians.

It is a shame indeed, what happened to Jews. Neither Hungarians, nor Romanians are innocent in this matter. Yes, many Jews considered themselves Hungarian in the Monarchy, I don’t know, how they declared themselves in the Romanian censuses in the 1930s. Probably, many of them, still as Hungarian. The holocaust was, however, not the “most important reason” for the decreasing numbers of Hungarians, have a look at the census data in eg. Cluj, the difference between 1930 and 1956 is not at all significant.

First of all, Romanians could never be blamed for a decrease in Jewish population for Northern Transylvania (which is what we were talking about)! About the numbers: 120,000 Jews from the region were killed. Assuming that most of them had been counted by many as Hungarians, they add up significantly to the perceived decrease in numbers. Nota bene: they add to the general decrease in numbers, which was enforced by the causes I had made clear on Maartenvdbent's page. If you contest these, show me the Hungarian Transylvanian expellees or the Hungarian Transylvanians that were killed in order to account for "the major decrease" (no, not quotes from Mr. Raffai).

Allow me to note: you talk of an official "colonization policy" (or thereabouts), and then tell me that not only you suddenly trust the Romanian census, you in fact believe that a drop in figures between 1930something and 1956 is insignificant (!) Which is it it, KIDB: that people "dissappear", or that people "stay put"?! Let me note that "1930something to 1956" includes World War II. Dahn 20:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, if you are annoyed, because he was simply a truthful man, refusing to collaborate with the Securitate. He was supported by both Hungarians and Romanians, in one of the most developed and tolerant cities of Romania – and this sparked the revolution. Still, Maartenvdbent was right, saying that Tőkés cannot be compared to Funar, because this was his main point.

Do me the favor of not misquoting me. I had not said that I am annoyed by Mr. Tokes' stance (since I am not a Funar-like idiot), I had said that I do not find accurate explanation for: 1. the claim that it was this stance which brought about the Revolution (although I do not deny his merit, it may interest you to know that many people who came to his support and then carried the events of their shoulders had quite distinct oppinions about the matter, and some prominent ones have even turned far right Romanian nationalists - including Lorin Fortuna -, a fact which does not add merits of Romanian nationalism, but rather points out to a conjectural alliance of forces against an extremely poor quality of life); 2. the fact that Tokes did not make his entire agenda clear (which has led him to support radical and subjective ideas which are frowned upon by the UDMR, and ultimately to his divorce with the latter). Now, if you are indeed prone to introduce a climate of objectivity, do me the favour of placing referencess to the National Council of Hungarians were they belong in the articles. Indications that they "represent the Hungarian community", as well as quoting their idea(l)s, could only be supported by a group of people who have spent their entire lives in Hungary.

Oh, and of course Mr. Tokes cannot be compared with Funar or Tudor on the level were the former uses a fork and is aware of indoor plumbing; but Dpotop was dead on target when he thus indicated that oppinions expessed nowadays by Mr. Tokes have the same kind of public and the same validity as those of Funar or Tudor. You may disagree with this, but you still cannot possibly prove that Tokes speaks for Hungarians and/or realities in Transylvania.

By now you would have been able to see that I am not a supporter of a certain cause or interested in becoming your adversary, KIDB. What say we start the part were you begin making changes to eliminate the flagrant POV on many of the pages in question? Dahn 19:22, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Dahn has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk pages. Happy editing!

Including planned, or would-be events in Wikipedia

Dear Joe, I have reverted the following paragraph by User:VinceB in the Hungarian minority article, because I considered this to be too actual and I was afraid that would cause a heated debate:
A peaceful assembly is under organization in Odorheiu Secuiesc by the Szekely National Council, backed up by the Hungarian National Council in Romania, and some hungarians in Hungary too, to protest peacefully for the autonomity of Székelyföld wich will be held on 15th March 2006
(Me and another Hungarian user reverted some other edits of User:VinceB too, because he tried to include false data about the number of Székelys (1,4 million).) Now I am not too certain if my last action can be fully justified. What do you think, should Wikipedia deal with events just folding out, or it is better to wait until we can look at them from a safe distance? --KIDB 07:37, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it really varies, and there is no firm rule. Certainly we cover upcoming elections, and we would write about plans for a major international conference. But both of those are things that we are pretty certain would still be relevant in a year. I don't think it's a matter of whether the event is very current (by the way, "actual" does not have this meaning in English); what matters is whether the event is of encyclopedic importance. This one doesn't sound likely to be. - Jmabel | Talk 16:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There is something to "look forward" to, apparently, which implies a need for caution as to new info added in the coming days, IMO. Apparently, my bewildering country's legislative system has disturbingly biased provisions in regard to the freedoms of assembly and opinion, which has given way to official threats that participants voicing "anti-state" rhetoric will be prosecuted, with the risk of jail sentences (of course, the common Holocaust denial publicly displayed by many Romanian nationalists is also prosecutable, but no action was taken against one AFAIK). The issue may get very complicated in the next weeks, so I would propose a short waiting period. Dahn 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Coat of Arms Kingdom of Hungary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Coat of Arms Kingdom of Hungary.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Motorway Hungary.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rory096 23:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that Hungary releases its works into the public domain? Most countries do not. --Rory096 07:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

All creative content (like pictures and images) is copyrighted by default, and people or governments have to license it or release it into the public domain to make it freely available. --Rory096 07:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not that there would be a prohibition against using an image, but there has to be a law RELEASING it into the public domain (which doesn't just mean having it on their website, they have to legally release it for anyone to use for any purpose) --Rory096 17:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The Copyright Act of 1976, section 102. --Rory096 06:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian Copyright Act No. 76 of 1999, too, for that matter. --Rory096 07:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Legislative texts, not images. --Rory096 07:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hungary with Turky in Europe.jpg

You have provided information about the image as per above, but have not tagged it with a image copyright tag.

For now I presume, in good faith, that the author has given you permission to re-license the image under the GFDL and tagged as such. Please re-tag the image accordingly, and feel free to change the license if the presumption on my part is not true for your case. Thanks! - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:16, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for some sources

Szia! Would you be able to help me provide sources for these claims? I found one for the 1910 Census, but the others need to have reliable references. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Theuy can't be referenced. They're bullshit, mostly. Dahn 00:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your message but I don't know too much about Temesvár. --KIDB 06:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I just checked the history of the page, and it turns out it was Fz22 who added it. I'll ask him. —Khoikhoi 00:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Komárno

There is a vote in the Komárno article, together with an edit war and a fine deadlock. I'm banned from editing the article but it needs new peoples' opinion. Zello 12:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Magyars: Genetics

"I would be interested in reading results of real scientific studies"

You might want to take a look at this long argument (and eventual references therein):

[1]

Image:Székely village.jpg

Hello, KIDB. I see you have removed the {{imagewatermark}} tag from Image:Székely village.jpg, saying that the image does not have a watermark. What is the shield in the upper right corner of the image? Keep in mind that by the Wikipedia image use policy, user-created images may not contain any kind of copyright notice or credits in the image itself. Therefore, if the shield in the upper right corner is any kind of identification that you are the creator, then it qualifies as a watermark, and the {{imagewatermark}} tag is justified. Please explain the meaning of the shield. If you have any questions, let me know. —Bkell (talk) 07:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining that the shield represents Háromszék. I think the image would be better without this shield, however. If you would like to illustrate the shield of Háromszék, perhaps you could make a separate image for the shield, and include that in the Háromszék article. —Bkell (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

manifesto

I am sorry, but GRAND SZÉKELY ASSEMBLY Székelyudvarhely, March 15, 2006 whether it is in a separate article or part of Székely is simply not Wikipedia material. It should be placed on a completely separate website. Then add a note about the declaration, not the text of it to the Székely article and by all means add a link to the text of the declaration. (OK, I realise you did not create it.) -- RHaworth 07:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a simple web link is better at this stage. I found the link so I have no objection to deleting the article. --KIDB 08:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. -- RHaworth 08:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hungary

Do you mind if I copy everything over to Talk:Hungary? It would be better to discuss things there... KissL 14:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Magyar

[copied from Talk:Székely]

By the way, Magyar is an easy language to learn for Indo-European languages speakers, why don't you try it? :-) --KIDB 14:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[end copied]

Surely you jest? What little Hungarian I've ever been able to learn has been either isolated words or whole phrases; I've never even been able to tease out the grammar, despite being generally counted as "good with languages". I only know one Anglo who ever got quickly up to speed on a Finno-Ugric language: I have a friend who learned Finnish, but she is downright prodigious on her language abilities. In my experience (though this is probably less true as '89 recedes), Americans who spend time in Budapest more often come back with improved German than much Hungarian. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)