Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Romanian massacres in north Transylvania, 1940-1944


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Delete. This article is irredeamably POV and nationalistic. Spartaz Humbug!

Anti-Romanian massacres in north Transylvania, 1940-1944

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unsalvageable nationalist rant, written in an essay style, with countless factually incorrect claims and next to no references. Delete. KissL 15:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Whatever info can be salvaged (and, prima facie, there's none) can go into already existing articles, such as Northern Transylvania, History of Transylvania, and Second Vienna Award, instead of filling in POV forks. There is not one wikipedia norm which is respected by this article: it is ungrammatical, misspelled, redundant, biased, jingoistic, convoluted, incoherent, unsubstantiated and ridiculous. Dahn 15:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is an accurate translation (by me) into English of the Romanian version of this same article. You can compare and see for yourself. I have seen many pages in wikipedia that differ in different languages, in both size and content, and are not accurate translations, as this one is. Besides translating, I added the background info section as a context for English speakers who do not know anything about Romania. I believed that making an existing article available in a different language, English, specifically, is something valuable in wikipedia, because it makes information available to those who do not speak the original language in which an article was written, There is nothing nationalist, unsubstantiated, incoherent or ridiculous about this article. I won't even mention the false accusation/deletion pretext of "grammatical errors", as according to wikipedia deletion policy, you do not delete a page because it is missing a comma, you add it or talk about it in the discussion page.  John the Historian 16:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That recommendation about writing separate articles is contrary to several wikipedia guidelines, and what goes on other wikipedias is in no way relevant here.
 * If it is not clear, I'll say it again: the info is partly valid, but it is not written well, not placed well, and not referenced well (heck, it is not referenced at all). It is also redundant to other articles, and the sequence of events it groups together was selected whimsically. Furthermore, more than half of the article is a rant about historical events not connected in any logical way to 1940-1944, already discussed in other articles, and written in such a way that they read like your personal manifesto. Dahn 16:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. For heaven's sake. Astonishingly biased in tone, severely unencyclopedic in scope and style (it reads more like an attack page than a history article) and not really all that salvageable, either. I'm sure these events are mentioned in other articles, as well they should be, but let us beware of WP:POVFORK. K. Lásztocska 20:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The phrase "The neutrality of this article is disputed" is a major understatement. The article goes out of it's way (and perhaps serves the purpose of) to regularly assert the magnificence and beauty of Transylvania, and all parts that do not do this serve to explain the evil ways of the bloodthirsty Hungarians. And as far as the factual information is concerned, there are appropriate places for all of it, in separate, existing articles. Calgary 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. An eminently encyclopedic subject, about which I look forward to either an article or sections in other articles, as Hungary's depredations in occupied Transylvania were both real and severe. However, we do need inline notes, proper spelling and grammar, elimination of terms like "bestial" (even if we'd use those terms in private, they don't belong in an impartial encyclopedia, where one must show, not tell), conversion into prose, perhaps even the Hungarian side of the story, if that's readily available. In short, put some work into this, and I'd be glad to support something more in line with Wikipedia policies, which this is far from being. Biruitorul 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is simply unsalvageable. It is clearly written from a biased perspective. Seems to be notable material, but the text itself seems fairly unsalvageable. Smashville 02:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment There are other articles describing The Holocaust, the Rape of Belgium, the Nanking Massacre, the atrocities in various world wars and conflicts such as the My Lai Massacre in Vietnam. Those are examples of how to write such an article as this. When civilians are murdered in a massive and organized way by troops, the description inevitably paints the killers in a bad light. No real "balance" is possible in which the victims share half the blame, but statements can be referenced and the article made NPOV. This article lists mass murders and has a list of references at the end. In-line referencing would be a minimum requirement in such a case. The terms such as "bestial" are stilted and more factual descriptors could be used. I do not see why there could not be a proper and NPOV article about the events described, based on the references cited, if they are in fact reliable sources. We are placed in the familiar predicament of judging the accuracy of non-English sources which might or might not have been written to further nationalistic purposes. There are English language sources for all the other atrocities I mentioned, besides the non-English histories, and having a couple of them from trusted publishing houses goes a long way to convince English language Wikipedia editors of the validity of the claims. Edison 04:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to comment Actually, it gets more complicated. For one, at least four sources are actually one - Mr. Raoul Şorban, who was not necessarily wrong, but who was not a historian and made no efforts to assess things neutrally. What most of Şorban's essays and articles speak of is Hungarian massacres against Jews.
 * Of paper sources used, not one is detailed - we aren't told to what measure they were applied and how they agree with the text. At least four of them are very dubious in nature. One is the books whose title is Urmaşii lui Attila (which translates as "The Descendants of Attila" - !), and is published by Editura Miracol, whose main features include books about the Orthodox identity, parapsychology and aliens having visited Earth. Another is a book published in 1985, which I actually have at home: it comes from a time when Communist Romania adopted an anti-Hungarian stance; the book mixes the real with the unreal, and all the "beautiful Transylvania" to "bestial Hungarians" verbiage is one of its prominent features. The third one was published by Vatra Românească - a "cultural foundation" and political party who was ultra-nationalist in tone, and who is seen as having played a part in instigating the ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş; its author, Milton G. Lehrer, seems to have no credentials. Another one is the GID group release - the website, of no reliability of value whatsoever, publishes all sort of jingoistic material.
 * Of the reliable sources, several also appear to have been misused. I for one would really like to know where Mr. Hitchins makes mention of the events discussed in the article. One article is presented a source twice - once for what it is, a second time for what it says! One other reliable article, the one by Mr. Totok, discusses how a Hungarian poet named Albert Wass instigated a group of Hungarian soldiers to kill two Romanian men and two Jewish women.
 * As one may see from the above, this article fails WP:OR and WP:RS, and fails them by much.
 * This also means that the article gives a distorted perspective on things: just how many massacres are we talking about? I note that stubs for the two documented and significant killings already exist: Ip massacre and Treznea massacre. Adding an umbrella article is a likely smoke screen - Romanians may have been killed in small numbers throughout years on end (I note that the article we're discussing also counts arrests as "massacres"), but that does not at all validate a separate article. Whatever can be referenced outside of the main events can easily fit into one of the existing articles. Dahn 09:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article belongs to the group of freaky creatures like the Anti-Romanian discrimination one. We started a couple of months ago to get rid of these and deleted the Anti-Hungarian discrimination article. If we do not continue this favourable process, there will be new articles appearing about what Romanian soldiers did in Transylvania and Hungary in 1919, and in 1945. Are you guys sure they were simply distributing Christmas presents to Hungarian children? --KIDB 14:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Translation of "Masacre antiromâneşti în Transilvania de Nord, 1940-1944", and probably could be sourced better. Massacres are notable, even if they don't happen here.  65.207.127.12 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I will point out again that the two documented massacres already have articles, and there are other articles where additional info should go - which makes this article a POV fork. The concern is about using reliable sources to document significant events. Also, where is "here"? Because I live in the "there". I should also emphasize that citing rowiki existence is not truly relevant: at the risk of repeating myself, rowiki has, to say the least, severe problems with neutrality and reliability - I understand that this article, as it is, is actually a translation of that one (I don't have the patience to discover to what measure). Dahn 01:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The actions of sockpuppets on this AfD saps any credibility the article might have. It would be helpful if John & the socks could understand that we do not object to a well cited article on the subject, but we do object - especially to the tone - of the current article. Their failure to grasp the distinction between these two positions is unhelpful. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * Tagish, I did not ask anyone to comment for me, and I signed my comments or wrote them while logged in. As I said, the article is an accurate translation. This will be my last edit ever on wikipedia, it was a waste of my time.John the Historian 02:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the article is a translation seems irrelevant at this point. If the Romanian Wikipedia does not have any problem with the article, so be it, but keep in mind that this is the English Wikipedia, and as it stands the article has some very clearly illustrated problems/conflicts with policy, which is why it is under deletion discussion on the English WIkipedia. Calgary 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To Gladys/John/Alftort: I do believe it should be clear to you by now that I spoke of Totok's text as one of the very few (two? three?) reliable sources you used for this article - and I insist that you used all of them without citing any. I also indicated that you misquoted it, since it speaks of the murder of four people, of whom two were Jews. Wass was found guilty of instigating these murders, and one note in the source says that he was also indicted for the murder of other people. I'm not about to minimize that in its context, but it fails to substantiate any of the abhorrent claims you make in the article or here. Seasoning spread-eagle propaganda from the Ceauşescu era and the present-day far right current with reliable texts such as Totok's will certainly not make the article valid or intelligent. It is also evidence of WP:SYNTH. Not to mention your avoidance of all other issues, which I do believe is telling. Dahn 13:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. You have an article on the June 1990 Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş. So why not having an article about the murders of Romanians by Hungarians in the wake of the Second Vienna Award. It's not by hiding information that wikipedia will become encyclopedic.  To User:Biruitorul: If you don't like the wording of an article, you don't need to delete it to please Dahn. You can delete text from it (reducing it to a stub), or actually rewrite it. Dpotop 15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you inform yourself on the fact that articles already exist for what can be sourced and is encyclopedic. In case they are hard to come by: Ip massacre and Treznea massacre (also note that, unlike the POV dissertation we're discussing here, and in tune with Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş, these articles discuss events and sequences of events). Dahn 15:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm open to that solution as well. However, I must point out that my vote was made for my own reasons and not to please anybody in particular. Like I said, I think hiding the information is wrong, but so is presenting it before it's ready, and clearly this article is not up to 2007 standards. Of course that alone is not reason for deletion, but remember that we do have a perfectly acceptable place where to put the information: Northern Transylvania, with additional articles for more significant massacres. My problem is that this wasn't done cu creier (judiciously), but rather that the inexperienced creator jumped into creating the article without larger considerations of where it would fit in the encyclopedia. It's like putting a bright red softcover book on a shelf full of dull green ones. In short: the overall history of the events can be discussed elsewhere, in context, and does not (from what I can tell) require a separate article. Biruitorul 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment Most of the article (except the background section) could be salvaged, as long as the peacock terms are removed and the acts are rightly attributed to the extremist organizations and the far right hungarian leadership, and not to the hungarian nation. It has the same references and reference style as the article about Ip, but i don't see anybody deleting that. Also, in my opinion, the article about Anti-Romanian discrimination is in a much worser state (if you exclude the background section, of course), but its Afd brought no result. Probably the Romanian and Hungarian users here should work together to create a common article about the excesses of the Hungarian and Romanian regimes in WW2 Transylvania. (the Corvinus library has a lot of material about the latter)Anonimu 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I kind of agree. Moreover, if you consider the Corvinus library as acceptable scholarship, then I presume the books of Lancranjan are acceptable, too. Dpotop 06:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Corvinus Library is an excellent resource, one of the best on the internet (until the Wiki surpasses it, of course!). What is so "unacceptable" about it? K. Lásztocska 13:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. But then, why is its tone so similar to the article whose deletion you ask? For instance, it has a nice full section with "scholarly works" on the Atrocities committed against Hungarians. Well, if this is scholarship, I presume the books of Ion Lancranjan on the Hungarian massacres of Northern Transylvania also qualify as scholarship. PS: here is an example of such "scholarship" as the Corvinus library proposes: Dpotop 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Karen, if you expect other nations not to be nationalistic, don't be nationalistic yourself. In particular, don't expect others to accept Corvinus library as more than a nationalistic rant, on par with Vadim Tudor's. Dpotop 13:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that every piece of writing in there was brilliant and everlasting, I said it's a good resource. It's a little uneven with regards to tone, I will grant you that, but also remember that the Corvinus Library is a library, not an encyclopedia--slightly different standards of NPOV apply. The material in the library is written by many different people, by the way, so you can't discredit the entire collection based on a few perhaps-overstated opinions of some of the authors (or maybe just facts you don't like, I dunno.) K. Lásztocska 13:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC) (PS did you call me "Karen"? That's not my name...)
 * Sorry for the "Karen".
 * As concerns the Corvinus library: Given the current status of Wikipedia, the only way I would accept works from the CL is with a "nationalistic" disclaimer. I consider that the collection of the library is clearly assembled for nationalistic propaganda purposes. I will consider the same until some Romanian nationalistic text enters it. At that moment, we could say that the CL is a collection of nationalistic propaganda of both Romanians and Hungarians. Dpotop 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see more commentary here than there is content in the article. If you people really want to help this article conform to guidelines, as you say, this talk would be on the article's discussion page and all of you would have edited it for NPOV etc. But the fact that most of you nominate it for deletion shows your real intent -not to fix, just to delete. I see that "bestial crime" is not the proper way to describe the burning alive of a 5 year old girl. Also, the fact that the original author listed many references at the bottom counts as no references. I see the exact dossier that details all of Albert Wass' crimes is referenced here, but this is not accepted as a reference. I made NPOV edits to see if you still delete it now, I'm just curious.Prâslea 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim that the POV is gone is bewildering, and leaves one wondering if you have any idea of how wikipedia works (for one, you changed "bestiality" to "lack of humanity"...). 3. The problem of POV is just one of the ones up for discussion - the article is redundant to others, it is mostly sourced from unreliable sources, the claims are not directly cited from the sources, at least some sources listed do not seem to have played a part in any section of the text (either directly or indirectly). The article is an example of original research (in both its original and English copy). Dahn 07:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that POV issues are gone, I said I made some edits to conform to NPOV. Anonimu, looking at the article, I see it specifically names the Hungarian army under Horthy's leadership, and various extermist organizations - nowhere does it attribute anything to the Hungarian nation as a whole. Edison, requiring that everything has an English source is like saying "if it is not written in English by English people, therefore it did not happen" and "if you don't speak English, therefore you don't exist". These fall under the categories of arrogance and discrimination, and will be duly noted. K. Lásztocska, you say "slightly different standards of NPOV apply" to a library. That is interesting! Such slightly different standards should be applied to articles that are translations. There should be a wiki tag "This article is an exact translation for the benefit of English speakers and thus may not conform to all enwiki guidelines."Prâslea 14:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding my comment about the "slightly different standards of NPOV": It is my experience that opinion and commentary are more often found in books and essays than in encyclopedias. In a published book it's generally understood that the author will have his own personal take on events; in an encyclopedia (especially one like this) we must be much more vigilant about presenting only facts without any sort of personal slant. K. Lásztocska 14:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Dpotop has engaged in canvassing on the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Dahn 07:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I posted the link on the Romanian noticeboard, because that's what the noticeboard is made for. This AfD should have been advertised on both Romanian and Hungarian noticeboards in the first place. Dpotop 13:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dpotop's first post on the noticeboard seems entirely within the bounds of WP:CANVASS: Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and are generally considered disruptive. If there are other venues for messages alerting potentially interested editors to inspect the article and its AfD, then I would encourage such postings - as I have myself made to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Europe. Dpotop's second and third posts are perhaps less helpful, though not beyond the pale. I'd urge all participants to remain calm or seek to attain calmness. --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * Tagishsimon: your initiative is excellent, but the good place to post Romania- and Romanians-related stuff is the long-standing Romanian_Wikipedians'_notice_board. To understand why, compare its participants list with that of the new "Wiki project Romania".  Dpotop 13:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Tagishsimon, as far as I can tell, both your notices came as a result of the article existing, not of it being posted for deletion. Dpotop's announcement came not only after the AfD was started, but also at a time when most votes were being in favor of "delete", with a clear reference to the vote. Dahn 13:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed. But AfD often serves as a lever to improve the quality of articles. Alerting those who may be interested in the article or its AfD debate is not, from a good faith perspective (and IMO) canvassing. I continue to think that the more eyes we have on this article and its AfD, the better, and I would encourage neutral postings on other relevant noticeboards, if such exist. -Tagishsimon (talk) 13:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as KissL put it here, not posting it on the Hungarian noticeboard was done precisely as a means to avoid the flamewar. I agree with that approach, precisely because that could have only matched the ilikeits with the idontlikeits, leaving us in the same place. Dahn 14:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do think that this article could be deleted if all articles on "ethnic victimization" are deleted. If not, then it must exist, like all the "anti-X massacre" articles and "scholarship". It's a question of fairness. Dpotop 14:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As concerns KissL not posting the AfD on the Hungarian noticeboard, I think he behaved as bad as you, with the exception that he knew what the result of the vote would be (given that only "picked" editors were invited to take a look, such as Karen). Dpotop 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This article is being considered for deletion because of its unencyclopedic tone and its reduncancy, not the subject matter (which, as has been said, is historical fact and therefore eminently encyclopedic.) No, it is not a question of "fairness", it's a question of quality and high standards. And stop calling me Karen, that is not my name. I do not care to reveal my real name, so please call me KL or Lastochka. K. Lásztocska 14:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a look at the article: The list of citations is OK, it's just that they must be linked in the text. An online source could be a book by Radu Theodoru, which seems to be the primary source. Now, the only thing to do is some formatting. Dpotop 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are not "okay". The two or three reliable sources used are evidence of WP:SYNTH: nothing in Totok or Hitchins validates the topic itself. The rest are highly dubious.
 * The report issued by the Wiesel Commission lists Radu Theodoru as one of the most vocal Holocaust negationists in Romania (here and here). This is an opinion shared by historian Michael Shafir, who stresses that Theodoru's credentials are that he is a novelist and a former aviator (here, here and here). Sociologist and politologist George Voicu also assesses Theodoru as an ideologist of negationism, and draws a parallel between him and the far right politician Corneliu Vadim Tudor (here). Raluca Moldovan, a Romanian academic and researcher of negationism, referrs to him in much the same manner (here). For additional detail on his contributions, see here, here and here. Alongside his books on this subject (which is titled "Attila's Successors"), he has one titled "Was There or Wasn't There a Holocaust in Romania?". The publisher for both his books, as indicated above, has no reliability whatsoever.
 * I have already shown the nature of the other sources in one of my comments above.
 * Furthermore, there being sources adds nothing to the fact that this article's existence isn't validated by secondary literature (as opposed to the individual articles already existing). Dahn 15:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination and remind the author that Wikipedia is not a political soapbox. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ghirla. Also note that this masterpiece is obviously started by a single purpose account with an ax to grind. Do I smell a very familiar user? --Irpen 19:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you refer to the Iaşi wikipedian who started Anti-Romanian discrimination? --Ghirla-трёп- 19:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure, based on editing style, that it is User:Irismeister. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Has he been known to take interest in Romania-related articles? The Iasi wikipedian is of course User:Bonaparte. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Irismeister was Romanian. K. Lásztocska 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is a translation by me. It is not my writing style. I did not write it, I translated it for the benefit of the english speaking community. As long as there are people like User:Theresa knott deleting other people's votes, comments or contributions, and blocking other people, simply because they decided to add a comment and created an account for doing so, even though I did not ask anyone to comment for me, wikipedia can never be a correct unbiased store of information. This discussion here is about deleting information, not about improving an article to meet any guideline. The intent is to delete, not improve. And I verified that indeed in Romanian literature, including newspaper articles, the term "crime bestiale" is used, which correctly translates as "bestial crimes", and specifically refers to raping the women, then shooting the men and women, and burying men, women and children - some of the children alive, this according to witnesses that hid and managed to flee. This is what happened in many instances. How exactly do you encyclopedically talk about such a bestial crime and not call it a bestial crime, really now? Either not talk about it at all, which is not exactly encyclopedic, or else what? Why is bestial crime not a term that correctly describes these atrocities? What term would you like instead? Or is it that you just don't want this information on the english wikipedia? This artice in the Gardianul nationwide Romanian newspaper, from September 1, 2007, clearly mentions the crime bestiale also mentioned in the wikipedia article you want to delete. So again I ask, how would you correctly write about these in wikipedia so that you don't delete it? Or is it something you cannot write about on en wiki because it is simply censored? John the Historian 03:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please explain this edit where you edit the text of one of your sockpuppets. I'd be interested to hear your explanation. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 03:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There are 3 statements, 2 of which are from surviving victims, and the 3rd from a legal medicine doctor, at the bottom of the newspaper article I mentioned above. The article is in Romanian, as are the statements of the victims. I translated the 3 statements here for you to read - in the victim's own words - not the words of an editor or author or whatever other biased person:

1. "About 2 am I saw how the Jews were taken to the side of the hill with the lamplight. I heard much noise and cries among the Jews. About half an hour after the Jews arrived up there, I heard machine gun shots. I was scared and hid my wife and children and hid in the corn fields about 200 meters from the place where they were shooting. It was night and I could not see anything, but I heard the cries and screams of the victims. A cry of a young man could be heard more than the others. After this one stopped too, the gun shots stopped also." Statement by Ioan Moceanu, Camarasu village, Cluj province, Romania, who was one of the witnesses to give a statement for the investigation.

2. "...everything we lived through, seen, felt and heard in those four years of orgy can not compare to what we've seen at Sarmasu village. I touched the 126 lifeless bodies... I saw children of 5, 3 and 1 years of age, untouched by bullets, who have been thrown into the mass grave and buried alive. I saw husband and wife hugging each other in their last hug, and I saw a father holding his 1 year old child in his arms..." Statement by dr Matatias Carp, president of Federation of Unions of Jewish Communities in Romania, official delegate as member of the investigation committee for the massacre of Sarmasu village and for the unearthing of the victims.

3. "The first layer of lifeless bodies was almost entirely only children. There were some very little ones, maybe 2 or 3 years old. The oldest were no more than 15 years old. For some it was possible to see where the bullets that killed them entered their bodies, for others their tissues were crushed (probably with the gun - newspaper editor's note) and for one of them both legs were crushed. But there were children for whom, even looking with much care, no exterior sign of what caused the death could be found. So it is thought that these were buried alive..." Statement by dr Emil Mora, legal medicine doctor, who participated at the unearthing of the victims.

Translation into english by me. John the Historian 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you answer my question above please? Why are you tidying up the edits of one of your osockpuppet accounts? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Aside from the fact that the above message by John the Historian is avoiding the point, let us note that both the article he cites and his own comment mention a Hungarian massacre against Jews. What does this have to add to the subject matter here? Dahn 11:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Gladys3000 is someone I happen to know who is not a wikipedian and who created that account to comment on my article. A different computer was used, and it is a different person, however, I can not prove this, because the IP that I use is shared by several dozens of computers. It doesn't matter. As I said, I did not ask anyone to comment for me. If you don't believe me then just block my IP and delete the article and that's it. I don't think I will add any other articles to wikipedia anyway, after this experience. John the Historian 04:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So she stumbled apon this debate all by herself? What do you take us for fools? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You are making assumptions. I did show the article but I did not ask for intervention. John the Historian 04:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Laughs! She is your meatpuppet, and therefore doesn't get a vote. What about the others? I'm particlualy concerned about Alfort. Did you show him the article? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 04:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know Alfort or anyone else who commented here. John the Historian 04:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why was Dahn allowed to tell others about this discussion though? I only told one person, while he posted it to a forum. John the Historian 04:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We have noticeboards for a reason...K. Lásztocska 04:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * John the Historian: I did not post anything on any forum, and I did not even post it on a noticeboard. the person to have publicized this vote in this way is, I do believe, one of the guys who voted in your favor. Dahn 10:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. Should the ro wiki article be nominated for deletion, or is it sufficiently different? If so, shouldn't we try to translate it better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In short: it should be deleted as well. All the unreliable material is to be found there as well. I have many times stressed that rowiki has major flaws, especially after seeing how fringe (racist, antisemitic, ultra-nationalist, inflammatory, conspiracy theory-like etc.) material survives there unscathed for months on end. The same point was made by several users there (who, when asking for higher standards or neutrality, tend to be bullied by editors and, in some cases, administrators). This is not to say that most admins there aren't doing their job properly - it just means that the rowiki project is, alas, a mess. Dahn 20:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some major articles in Romanian Wikipedia have untagged and obviously unfree images surviving since 2004. It's a pity there is no mechanism to monitor how Wikipedia standards are implemented in minor wikipedias and, if the key principles are not taken into account, to take measures to implement them by force. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We cannot delete stuff from the romanian wiki here. You'd have to start a deletion debate on that wiki. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record: I don't contribute to rowiki, and I'm not going to ask for the article's deletion. I'm saying that most of the issues about the purpose, tone, style, manner, and sources of the enwiki article were evidenced here would also ideally apply to that article. Dahn 20:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Dahn and Lastochka unless the article can be sourced to the recognizable reliable sources, we really do not need fringe historians pushed into the Wiki Alex Bakharev 00:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Wow, this is one of the more ugly battles I have ever seen (even though I have not seen many). There are a lot of personal attacks going on here and tempers are obviously flared. After reading most of the comments here I would like to point out that most articles are not directly translated accross wikipedias. If a topic is important enough to the people on one wikipedia, then they will write an article about that thing. I personally think that this topic is a little interesting and deserves its own english article. I do not, however, think that it should be directly translated from the romanian wiki. Translating things is notoriously difficult and sometimes it is impossible to express a word in one language in another. If John the Historian(or anyone else) wants an article about the subject I am all for it. I think that the whole reason for the deletion nomination is because of the way in which it is written. As I have expressed the reason it is written the way it is is because it was directly translated. I believe it would be possible to rewrite the article so that it was originally in english and just used the romanian facts. I do not know anything about proper sourcing and as such I personally couldn't care less how it was sourced. There are a lot of articles that are very hard to source. Overall I say keep the article under the condition that it is rewritten in a way that sounds as though it was originally in english.-- Kyle ( talk ) 04:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Three points: articles already exist, and they can be expanded; the major problem is with the sources used (meaning that the article is not validated by reliable literature, and that the few reliable sources who do not actually validate the topic are manipulated and placed alongside material of the most questionable nature); the article seems to not be an exact translation (not that it would matter), as its author keeps adding material without any specified source. The problem is not at all one of awkward English (though that adds to it), but one of failure to comply with any other wikipedia guideline. Dahn 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Addition. You wrote: "I personally couldn't care less how it was sourced". The problem is that the article exists on the basis of deeply unreliable and unprofessional sources, and that, in addition, it claims to be validated by other sources who actually validate nothing. This is in breach of WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH - including the manner in which this article was generated (i.e .: its selection of a topic), and including its version on Romanian wiki. In fact, in this very discussion, you may see its author using sources that speak of Hungarian authorities murdering Jews to "reference" the supposed killings of Romanians (this article). This aside from the article being a content fork. Dahn 12:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite it in respect with wikipedia rules. If there is something wrong with this article, it can be restructured and improved, there's no need to completely delete it. R O   A M A  T  A A  |  msg   09:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I do believe I have raised same very relevant and objective issues of reliability. Care to include them in your assessment? Dahn 10:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Manipulative comment. As you noted some posts ago, the article is about killing Jews and Romanians, not Jews alone. Dpotop 12:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Refrain from personal attacks. 2. I never "noted" such a thing: in fact, I pointed out precisely that the article's author had proceeded to the same amalgamation of sources to make a source "speak" about stuff it did not speak about. 3. Neither the title or the subject of the article make it clear that this is about anti-Jewish massacres. 4. The anti-Jewish massacres committed by Hungary are way more extended than what the article would have us know, and are part of a thing called the Holocaust. That is, contrary to what one of the sources used for the article would have us "know", a documented fact. Including isolated killings of Romanian in this process is evidence of chauvinist joyriding. Dahn 12:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * New sources on the Moisei massacre, where 29 Romanians were killed. Romanians were specifically targeted, so forget about saying that this was only part of the Holocaust. Dpotop 14:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.maramuresmuzeu.ro/ro/moisei.htm
 * http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/site/pp.asp?c=gvKVLcMVIuG&b=395185
 * The second link, in particular, is in English, is reputable, and details the Hungarian excesses against Romanians. In note 56, the author states that:
 *  Hungarian excesses in Transylvania after 23 Aug. 1944 are little known outside the area. Besides the relatively well-known massacre in Moisei (in Maramures) in October 1944, there is a long list of atrocities committed in the villages around Sarmas, Turda, Beius, and Arad. These actions were directed almost exclusively against Romanians, both POWs and civilians.
 * This is further proof of this article not being ultra-nationalistic propaganda (in spirit, if not in style). Dpotop 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then either add an article on that particular massacre or direct all the info to the Northern Transylvania page. This is what several users on both sides proposed here, as a means to replace the unencyclopedic POV mess we have to deal with. Dahn 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Albert Wass was condemned for instigating the killing of 2 Jewish women and 2 Romanian men. The Romanians were not killed for helping the Jews. While part of the Holocaust, this murder is not only part of the Holocaust.Dpotop 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But: it does not a massacre make and it is bound to have coverage on the article on Wass. Dahn 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment, this AfD should point out why this specifical article should be deleted or not. I've read the article Anatomy of a Massacre (on Wiesenthal Museum Site) and to me it seems a serious article and anyway the Simon Wiesenthal Museum is a reputable source. I don't see on every article regarding localities like Sărmaşu, Turda, Beiuş, Arad or other places notes about the massacres that took place there. But now this article, even it's based on facts that to me seems to have a part of truth, must be deleted. I see that it doesn't matter the article himself, but all this deletion issue tend to be just a political issue. If there are sources and these events are true this information should not be hidden, but rewriten in the proper way. R O   A M  A  T  A A  |  msg   16:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Read above. Dahn 16:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see why Northern Transylvania should hide, under a neutral name, the information about these massacres. I also don't see why we should scatter in 100 articles information that clearly belongs together. The anti-Romanianism of Hungarian authorities and some Hungarian civilians at that time is something well-established. It was politically organized, and even had its own propaganda. Why do you refuse to accept that Hungarian anti-Romaniansm was a fact in those years (Just like Romanian or Hungarian anti-semitism)? Dpotop 17:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't understand you. From my POV, the interesting part would be to find sources and compare RO and HU POVs on events such as the killings of Aita Seaca, where the scenario is far more complex, involving both Hungarians and Romanians (Maniu guards). But, please, answer the previous item first. Dpotop 17:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have said: all massacres could have, at least in theory, articles of their own, linked from Northern Transylvania (I fail to see what the latter article would be, if not an overview of everything going on in the region at that time). The issue about what I "refuse to accept" is a straw man: not only did I never make that point or imply that I abide by that view, but it also your argument conflates policy with actual killings. If structuring is to be done properly, this article would be exposed for all its redundancy. Of the hundreds of incidents you cite, only a small number are of encyclopedic nature - the summary of others, if they are documented, can fit into already existing articles. Dahn 18:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You probably did not understand: My point is that we need an article on a well-established historical fact: The anti-Romanian propaganda and actions of that period. The article on Northern Transylvania has a different subject. Certainly related, but different nonetheless (a region where several things happened at the same time, including the Holocaust, but also the anti-Romanian attacks). The articles on separate hate actions do not convey the big picture, just details. Now, you may think the name of the article discussed here is not the good one. If not, please choose another. Dpotop 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.