User talk:Dahn/Archive 3

Hungarians in Romania
Hello Dahn,

You seem to have a lot of problems with the citations from the article by Bennett Kovrig "Partioned nation: Hungarian minorities in Central Europe" in The new European diasporas: national minorities and conflict in Eastern Europe by Michael Mandelbaum (ed.). Well I think you have to be a bit more careful by saying that all these citations are untrue. The research is conducted under the auspices of the Council on Foreign Relations and is published by the Council on Foreign Relations Press. Don't you think it is highly unlikely that the most important foreign policy think tank of the United States publishes minority propaganda? Furthermore, I've found the same opinions regarding the Hungarian minority status in Romania in the Helsinki Watch Report Destroying Ethnic Identity: The Hungarians of Romania. Or do you think that Helsinki Watch also publishes Hungarian propaganda?

You stated somewhere that I am on their side because I am Frisian, well, that's kind of funny. My parents are both non-Frisians (actually from the provinces Drenthe and Overijssel) and moved to Friesland because my father got a job there. That is why I'm not very good in speaking Frisian. But I have nothing against Frisians, in fact I love cultural diversity. That's the reason why I began studying cultural anthropology, and that's why I'm interested in issues related to ethnicity and culture...

Tip: read this article, also by a cultural anthropologist:

Kind Regards,

Maartenvdbent 18:02, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know exactly what you are trying to say in your reply to me. Do you mean to say that the discrimination of Hungarians wasn't that bad after all? How come that the Magyar community in Romania slinked from 31% to less than 20% nowadays? And how come all the cities that were predominantly Magyar in 1920 (sometimes 90%) have a Romanian majority nowadays (take for instance Targu Mures, Cluj or Oradea)? You mention Raffai Erno, well I've never read a single book of him, and I didn't add that on the article.


 * What I and most westerners would like to see I think is that both the Magyar and Romanian peoples (and Saxon) come to see that Transylvania is the "cradle of civilization" for both peoples and that they have to live together and give each other the same rights. Either Romanians or Magyars who say that Transylvania is "ours" make me angry inside.


 * For the facts I'll stay with the experts; there are a lot of publications in the "East European Monographs" series from the Columbia University concerning Transylvanian inter-ethnic relations... Maartenvdbent 14:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to add something to my previous statements, as this issue keeps bothering me. First of all I would like to say that I understand your Romanian feelings and sentiments towards Transylvania. But I would like to stress the Hungarian side of this issue also. Transylvania has a long Hungarian history. It was part of the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian Basin (which includes Transylvania in this sense) of 896 A.D. (some sources say that it was conquested some years later - on the other side there is archaeological evidence that a Magyar tribe settled in Transylvania two centuries before the conquest). After the Battle of Mohács (1526) Transylvania became a semi-independant autonomous principality under formal Ottoman rule. Because the other two parts of the Hungarian Kingdom were under full Ottoman and Habsburg rule, the Transylvanian principality is seen as the sole continuation of the Hungarian Kingdom by many Hungarians (I know about Michael the Brave, but left him out because this is a summary; Michael reigned only one year over Transylvania).


 * Summarized: the Hungarians, just like the Romanians, see Transylvania as the 'cradle of their civilization'. Transylvanian society is multicultural in its very beginnings, no Ceausescu or Horthy can do anything about that! You must find a way to live peacefully together, because there is no other way!


 * Let me now explain why I became so pissed off with Dpotop. First of all he began to revert some of my edits, although my edits were supported by references and his not. Then he started to corrupt a quotation from a reference so that the sentence said something that was completely the opposite of what the reference said! (as the discussion on the talk page became rather heated at this moment and because I found these corruptions rather severe, I began considering opting for a ban, an action which I now regret). It took a sort of warning by a sysop to stop Dpotop from corrupting the quotation.


 * From then the talk page discussion began to heat up. Dpotop said he found Laszlo Tokes (yes indeed, the man that sparked the Romanian revolution of 1989) an extremist, just as extreme as Gheorghe Funar. I find this a sick comparison. Tokes had a legitimate goal; the social and political equality of the Magyar population by giving them the right to education in the Hungarian tongue and the right to use Hungarian in public life. Funar had not a legitimate goal, he just anticipated to the rather xenophobic attitude that existed in some parts of the population (sparked by the Ceausescu indoctrination perhaps?), saying that the UDMR wanted to secede Transylvania from Romania and attach it to Hungary (definately not true, and also impossible because of a friendship treaty between Hungary and Romania). Some politicians call UDMR a terrorist organization even today, but in fact it is one of the moderatest parties in Romanian politics today (maybe that's why it has been part of the coalition government so often).


 * To make thing very clear: I am NOT a revisionist and I would very strongly oppose any attempts to secede Transylvania from Romania (but if we were back in 1920 and I had to govern the Trianon award I had preferred a less radical award (although I support the award in general), the Oradea and Satu Mare regions were only given to Romania because of tactical reasons, they are not part of historical Transylvania and had a clear Magyar majority in 1920 and to some extend even today).


 * The whole Trianon awards was a bit too much, just like the whole Treaty of Versailles was a failure (generally accepted in Western politics today). Reducing Hungary to just 29% of its original size and leaving several millions of Hungarians outside the new borders creates the same atmosphere as in interwar Germany. In Germany the treaty contributed to the rise of the Nazi party, in Hungary it lead to the rise of revisionist politics and eventually the Vienna Award.


 * Just one thing. I am not pro-Magyar or something like that, but in this case the Hungarians are the ones that have to struggle for their rights. A century ago it were the Romanians. If the situation of a century ago still remained today I would have clearly supported the Romanians in their struggle for rights. Maartenvdbent 10:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dahn, I read your comments on Maartenvdbent’s talk page. First of all, I would like stress that I consider your contributions very valuable to Wikipedia, because you try to be balanced (at least in most cases). I also agree with many of your points you made in your comments to Maartenvdbent (or earlier to me). I must tell you, however, that your arguments are not always based on pure facts. Arguments should not be based on disputable foundations, because, even if you are right in conclusions, the power of your statements will be lost. Some examples of yours, and some (not always scientific) comments of mine: I'm sorry about my speculations about your possible bias, but I'd say they are on par with your assumption that all people opposing the minority view of Hungarian contributors are barbaric and uneducated (your words: "I hope and think that most Romanians are not that nationalistic as some users are here on wikipedia").
 * I think his comment was not directed at you, but others (like Dpotop)

''So, you actually believe that "discrimination" leads to a decrease in numbers? How would that be? Does a state discriminate against someone "to death"?''
 * Of course not. This is very simple. If you are called bozgor by others, if the policeman questions you why you are using the Hungarian language instead of Romanian (Ceausescu-period), if you are considered to be the grandson of nasty ancient Hungarian landlords, even if your ancestors were peasants, if your national historic monuments are painted with Romanian national colours (Funar), you either get fed up and leave the country, or you chose to assimilate so that your children have a better life.

''In fact (without me following a nationalist agenda), a ethnic cleansing, with violence and all the rest, has been attempted by the Hung. gvt. in 1940-44 (the massive exodus of ethnic Romanians, as well as the incidence of massacres of ethnic Romanians by the Hungarian gendarmerie - all well documented, but otherwise besides the point). Nothing to match that has ever been pinned on any Romanian government by any respectable source.''
 * 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.

 ... the reform was much less than the one promised and attempted by Bela Kun's Bolshevik gvt., which the Romanians had replaced (in Transylvania and, yes, in Budapest).
 * 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.

''The universities, now. Most of the universities in Alsace switched from German to French. This is not a "laudable" gesture, but let me remind you that the state enforced an educational policy - in accordance with national (not "nationalist") needs, as subjective as this may be. In fact, in Alsace this did not reflect linguistic realities as it did in Transylvania.''
 * 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?

''More to the point. Let me first point out that going from 31% to under 20% over a period of 80 years! is not spectacular in itself. The Saxon population has gone through a much more important decline afaik, and this without noted discrimination (and rather the resettling policies of Nazi Germany and, of course, the opportunity seen by the Ceausescu regime in virtually selling them of to the German Federal Republic in exchange for foreign currency).''
 * 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). By the way, Saxons: Romania is responsible for all ethnic groups in Transylvania since the Romanian Government controls the territory. Especially for Saxons because they voted for the union with Romania in 1918! 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.

1919: the Romanian state taking control saw the departure of a non-Romanian speaking, hostile, and Bolshevisized Hungarian administration.
 * See my comment above about Béla Kun. Some of your sources might not be precise.

''Consider the plight of the massively Saxon towns, which never had either a significant Hungarian or Romanian community prior to 1918. This happened although the law made no discrimination against Hungarians, while the Orthodox were specifically banned for setteling in the citadels. Which is why Greek-Catholicism proved attractive for some ethnic Romanians, who were thus allowed to settle on the outskirts (and helped bring along the economical revolution I had mentioned).''
 * “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.

''...This is what leads to the paradox I had mentioned in a previous reply: it directed a, for instance, Moldavian influx of workers into Cluj etc., while creating an autonomous Hungarian region! Anybody who would interpret that to mean a policy of ethnic cleansing either has major problems understanding the Eastern Bloc or is desperately trying to make anything coming from over the Carpathians look bad.''
 * 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.

''...probably the most important reason. Before 1940, most Transylvanian (Northern Transylvanian) Jews declared themselves Hungarian (even KIDB has admitted to it). Something has happened since then: it is called "the Holocaust", and leaders of Hungary sure did not seem to care that they were Hungarian in all but religion (or, in their terms, "race"). Surely, Romania might have done the same had it had the, for lack of a better word, "opportunity" - just look at what it did to its own in Moldavia and Bessarabia. But such was not the case.''
 * 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.

''To quickly mention the issue of Lazlo Tokes. I find it annoying that people keep assuming the outburst in Timisoara was started because of Hungarian rights.''
 * 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.--KIDB 10:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Fabio Mussi== ==

A new entry for members of PCI. Let me know if you need help and a summary translation from the Italian Wikipedia. See you soon.Attilios 22:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Very good. Thanks.Attilios

Category:Mexican Revolution people
As the creator of this category – thanks! – would you be inclined to vote against renaming it "People of the Mexican Revolution"? I realise it's a slightly longer name, but the benefits I see in this format are (a) it puts "People", the category's subjects, at the head of the name; and (b) it doesn't treat the noun-phrase "Mexican Revolution" as if it were an adjective. I realise the second of these may seem pedantic/nit-picky, but I'm thinking of the significant number of people who visit the English Wikipedia whose first language isn't a variety of English (or English is a language they are learning). Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Regards, David Kernow 01:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ''No, not at all. I realized what you were doing, and I contributed this - although I had noticed the "People of the..." pattern, I wrote it down the wrong way out of habit. By the way, you did a great job on categorizing them that way. Dahn 02:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and acknowledgment. I know a few folks are keen to preserve the "X people" format and I know a couple of reasons why, so I only enquire about those categories my interest leads me to or I happen to come by. I'll make Category:Mexican Revolution people a redirect to Category:People of the Mexican Revolution once I've populated the latter, or do you think I ought to put it before WP:CfD? Regards, David 02:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * ''I think redirect is the best solution. By the way: how do you do that? I know the procedure for articles, but not for cats. Dahn 02:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Categoryredirect is the template, as used here. I have to log off now; thanks again. David 02:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Democrats of the Left
Of course, it was an error, as Giuliano Amato was not listed in the already existing category. Deleted my error, of course. Attilios

WP:CIVIL
Hi Dahn. I notice your edits at Talk:Early Modern Romania. Just one thing - please remember to always be WP:CIVIL in your correspondence to other users. I find that threats such as "one more adjective out of your keyboard, and you'll be going down Bonaparte's road" and "why they still don't delete your contributions on sight, I don't know" are uncalled for, even if they are directed to a user that you may feel is counterproductive. Additionally, they don't contribute anything to solving the dispute regarding that article. Although Greier created the Early Modern Romania article, a lot of it was indeed transferred from other articles. I think he genuinely feels that you may not be understanding his point of view and/or are simply dismissing him. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 13:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Gura Humorului
Thank you for the quick feedback and correction on the page. Eugen Ivan 22:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Massimo Cacciari
Hi! Added this article about a former PCI member. Give him a check if you've time. See you soon and thanks.Attilios 11:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Confederazione Italiana Sindacati Lavoratori
Hi Dahn. I see you created this article. I was thinking of moving it to the English title. Italian Confederation of Workers’ Trade Unions. Any objections? --Bookandcoffee 09:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)