Talk:Gheorghe Funar/Archive 1

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)

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: 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)
 * Praising a politician.
 * Providing negative propaganda about a politician.


 * 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? 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)
 * 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?)


 * 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)

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)