Jump to content

Talk:Hungarians in Romania

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Romanization efforts

[edit]

Many hungarians are not even allowed to be called hungarians . This is often the case with celebrities, like olympic medalists: Zoltan Lunka etc Because of romanization there are many of unclear origin: Andrea Socaci — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.147.52 (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC) All my citations are removed, several times, from Reka Zsofia Lazar-Szabo! Why? She is a hungarian, without doubt. Réka is a hungarian name, as is Zsófia. She reads in hungarian for her son, ergo she is a hungarian speaker![reply]

Official status of Hungarian language

[edit]

What the heck the following phrase could mean?

"Political agreements have brought the gradual implementation of major advances in the official status of the Hungarian language in all localities where it is spoken by more than 20% of the population."

So dense a politispeak is inacceptable in encyclopedia. Tell it straight: does Hung lang have any officially recognized staus or not? If yes, then to what extent? If no, then what are these "major advances" exactly?

Basically, in places with more than 20% Hungarians, Hungarian language is official at the local level, so the interaction between the people and the local authorities can be done in either Romanian and Hungarian. However, the interaction between the same people and the central authorities is always in Romanian. (If I'm wrong, please correct me)
There was also some dispute on whether, when marrying, the couples were allowed to say "igen" instead of "da", but I'm not sure which were the results. bogdan 23:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bogdan is correct. Hungarian has officially-recognised status in all "territorial-administrative units" (i.e. localities) where Hungarians make up more than 20% of the population (this applies not only to Hungarians but all other ethnic groups). In these localities, the local government is obliged to offer services in Hungarian, including access to the public administration, education, justice system and bilingual signage. At national level, however, Romanian is the only official language, which means that any correspondence with the national government must be in Romanian (there is still some grey area in this). I wouldn't really call this official recognition at local level a "major advance", but it certainly has offered a comprehensive legal basis for the use of minority languages in Romania. Before the introduction of this law, minority languages were still used in education and public administration, but there was no official, unified law regarding their use. In a Wikipedia context, this means that for localities where a minority makes up more than 20% of the population, that language must be placed in the infobox alongside the Romanian name, and it must definitely be mentioned in the lead. I don't understand why there is opposition to this. Ronline ✉ 01:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I assumed you are wikipedians of professional level. I did not ask the question out of idle curiosity to make a small talk. Please update the article. This is a very serious issue. `'mikka (t) 03:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


the following i copy-pasted from talkpage of Oradea . bref, an ethnic minority citizen can employ his language in his relation with the administration in the localities where his minority forms 20% of the population, and besides the documents in ROmanian language he will receive a translation in his language. The documents preserved by the administration in that locality are written only in Romanian language. Hungarian language is not an official language in ROmania. Criztu 14:37, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look on this: http://www.cjbn.ro/legislatie/lege%20%20nr215%20pe%202001.doc. --fz22 15:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
perfect link thnx :

"ART. 90 (2) În unităţile administrativ-teritoriale în care cetăţenii aparţinând unei minorităţi naţionale au o pondere de peste 20% din numărul locuitorilor, în raporturile lor cu autorităţile administraţiei publice locale şi cu aparatul propriu de specialitate aceştia se pot adresa, oral sau în scris, şi în limba lor maternă şi vor primi răspunsul atât în limba română, cât şi în limba maternă.(in administrative-teritorial units where citizens belonging to an national minority form over 20% of the population, in their raports(relations) with public local administration authorities and their specialised apparatuses, are enabled to express, solicitate oraly or in writing in their maternal language also, and are enabled to a respons in both romanian and their language.)

(4) Autorităţile administraţiei publice locale vor asigura inscripţionarea denumirii localităţilor şi a instituţiilor publice de sub autoritatea lor, precum şi afişarea anunţurilor de interes public şi în limba maternă a cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţii respective, în condiţiile prevăzute la alin. (2). (local public administration authorities will provide inscriptions for the names of localities and public institutions under their authority, and display public interests announcements in the native language of the citizens of the respective ethnic minority in conditions stated at point (2))

(5) Actele oficiale se întocmesc în mod obligatoriu în limba română (official documents are made in romanian language , mandatory requirement) Criztu 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atrocities

[edit]

A note regarding atrocities: I think the article should address atrocities committed against Hungarians in the Southern Transylvanian territory remaining in Romania and the fact that in most cases in Northern Transylvania, the incoming Hungarian troops were attacked first by guerillas. The Hungarian government in Northern Transylvania had an official policy of appeasing minorities just as it was attested by Horthy's speech upon entry to Kolozsvár. An important reference to this period is the documentary novel by Albert Wass: Jönnek (They are coming).Árpád 06:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...documentary novel by Albert Wass...:)))

Yes, he wrote a novel which reads like a documentary, detailing for example that the retreating Romanian troops were trying to vandalize and steal everything, even the nails from the walls. Another novel of his describing the same period is "Give me back my mountains" which exists in English translation, as well. Árpád 03:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have never read Albert Wass, I have only heard that he was a biased writer. It does not neccessary mean that, he wrote simply untruth. I am sure there are documents about nasty happenings on the other side as well. Such a conflict between two nations surely cause atrocities in both side.
People who have suffered are inherently biased, however it is not true that he was anti-Romanians (many of his novels have Romanian heros, like the "Funtineli boszorkány", the "Witch at Funtinel".
Yes, AFAIK, during WWII, there were atrocities on both sides: the Hungarian Army killing Romanian civilians (Treznea massacre and Ip massacre) and a Romanian guerilla group killing Hungarian civilians. (Sumanele Negre, we really need an article about this) bogdan 18:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However, it would be important to point out that in the Ip and Treznea (Szilágyipp and Ördögkút) case, the Hungarian regular army troops were attacked by Iron Guardists first. Before the territorial exchange, the Romanian party pledged to collect all weapons from the population in order to prevent any irregular armed action. Looks like they have overlooked this particular area.
How many casualties did the hungarian army suffered at the hands of this romanian attackers ? At any rate taking it onto the defenseless civilian population makes this a massacre nevertheless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.19.63 (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The challenge here, is how to write a neutral article! Therefore mutual actknowledgement of atrocities would be just enough. I would fear to go into details, it would just provoke sentiments. kuko 08:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that some of the so called atrocities described by Wass ,and many others, might be prone to alteration and fabrication, since the Hungarian leadership at the time was involved in heavy propaganda against Romanians , this of course having happened throughout modern history. But of course there are two sides to the story. It's really difficult to state facts since history in this case has clearly been written by the winning(controlling) side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Denblau (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

These links are are not only biased (I wouldn't mind that), but also factually inaccurate.

The first one appears to be about Ceauşescu's rule, but it appears to be rather sensationalist. "OMG! GENOCIDE!"-style. If Ceauşescu's rule was a genocide for the Hungarian people, then it was a genocide against the Romanian people, too.

The second book has some good history parts, but again is overreacting over the "atrocities" (it has a chapter on the "Romanian atrocities" after 1989). bogdan 22:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about these links, they shouldn't be in the artcle. Maartenvdbent 14:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minority day

[edit]

I am interested in minority days, for example:

What are the celebrated days of other minorities, Hungarian minority, Ukrainian, Bulgarian, Turkish and etc? Why and how these days are celebrated? --82.207.121.0 10:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The minority situation after 1990

[edit]

The part of the minority situation after 1990 is extremely biased. I added a segment at the end of the section in order to balance out the objectivity of the article. Some of the main points like the fact that Romania adhered to all minority laws required by the European Union were not present before.In fact one of the requirements for the Romanian accession to EU was the protection of minorities' rights. Moreover, Romania was cited as an example twice by the Clinton administration as an example of what a country can do in order to protect minorities.

ej 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, could someone else please review the recent changes to the paragraph beginning "Even though Romania adhered...", and the next paragraph, and see whether these are advisable? Biruitorul Talk 23:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I don't get it (as an'ethnic' Romanian I will acknoweledge my bias in advance)to my knowledge the Hungarian minorities in Romania weren't as persecuted as some may claim. I lived in the town of Timisoara (until the age of 16 ca. 1984 - during Ceausescu's socialist regime) and recall the statistics of the time boasting that the ethnic Hungarians were in fact being afforded more theatres per capita in the West of Romania than they are in Hungary itself. Yet in this article we hear so much about cultural oppression... What oppression ? they had schools in their native Hungarian financed by Ceausescu's socialist regime. I would like to see how my local government would react here in Australia if I approached it and demanded funding for Romanian High Schools and Universities under the shield of 'ethnic minority'. I think my local government representative would tell me to go spinning as the claim is unconstitutional. And that's in a rich country !

Another thing I don't quite get.. I mean someone correct me if my understanding of history is wrong ... but am I to believe that the Magyars have landed in Transylvania and the place was VACANT ??? !!! in AD 1000 ? before and after they admittedly pilliged every country in their way ? The Magyars were nomads, by definition migrating people... herdsmen chasing pastures... see below extract (not mine) ...

It feels to me, from this article as well as other literature on the topic that some Hungarian minorities in Transylvania are leading a life of protest aimed against Romanians. That they have no real intention to assimilate with the Romanian population or be of any real benefit to the country they chose to live in. I really do not feel that Romania owes these people anything... least of all Transylvania...am I the only one seeing it this way ?


Arrival in Pannonia and Magyar Raids, 895-970


The Proto-Magyars were a Finno-Ugric people living in the steppes of the lower Volga region; in around 880/890 seven Magyar tribes, joined by the non-Magyar Kabar (believed to be aTurkic federation of three tribes), split from the Khazar Khanate, becoming a tribal federation of their own. Under High Prince Almos, they soon dominated the steppe of Etelköz, between lower Volga and the Carpathians, until the lower Danube. In 895, pressed out of Etelköz by the Pechenegs, they moved into the Carpathian Basin, the old center of the Avar Khanate, at first occupying only the plains to the east of the Danube. Here they grazed their herds, well-protected by the Carpathian mountains. From here they launched raids into central Europe - into Italy in 898, in 902 into Moravia, in 915 and 933 deep into the Empire, in 924 into Aquitaine, in 928 to Rome, in 934 into Bulgaria, in 942 even across the Alps and Pyrenees into Andalusia, in 954 into Flanders. The tribal federation was strong under the rule of Almos (858-895) and Arpad (895-907); when a Magyar peace offer was rejected by the Empire, Magyars proceeded to occupy Pannonia (the plains to the west of the Danube, c.900). Italic text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.17.201 (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]

"Historical background"

[edit]

Most of the assertions reflect the "proto-chronist" Hungarian POV.

  • E.g. in historiography it is not attested that the vague territory called Atelkuzu (Magyarized Etelköz "between rivers") coincided with the territory of Moldova or that some areas of it were included in Atelkuzu. Atelkuzu was rather a territory between the rivers Don and Dnepr or Dnepr and Dnestr. Even the oldest Hungarian medieval chroniclers point out that the 9th c. Hungarians (led by dissident Khazars called Kavars) moved out of a territory close to... Kiev/Kiiv.
  • "A Roman Catholic Hungarian community was settled in Moldavia during and after the period, on the Siret and Trotuş valleys (see also Cotnari);" The first Roman-Catholic initiative in this respect was that of... Vatican: the bishopric for the Cumans, who ruled in Moldova (esp. in the southern regions of it) and who emigrated around 1238 fearing the approaching Mongolian armies of prince Batu); the bishopric of Milcovia, a.k.a. in Latin "de Multo" (in Hungarian, "a milkói püspökség"). Letters by the Pope in Rome to the Hungarian kings say that the aim of that initiative were the Cumans as well as the "schismatici Walati" ("schismatic", i.e. Greek-Orthodox, Vlachs, i.e. Romanians), so, not because of a significant number of Hungarian-speaking colonists. But in the article, this important bishopric isn't mentioned! The emergence of the so-called Chango population is of a much later period, and its kind of Hungarian is that of a population barely assimilated somewhere in Transylvania; the language is by no means an ancient Hungarian (as some of today's proto-chronist commentators insist on propagating). There was a Hungarian minority in the middle ages, even some nobility at the "vayvode"'s court, but the probability that Changos are the continuation of that (unassimilated!) Hungarians tends to nil.
  • Hence some changes in this and other respects. - Ralsog Iref (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ralsog Iref's arguments have merit but let's wait for a response in the form of citations. I move to insert a few "citation needed" marks for the moment and will remove the paragraph after a while. Also, expressions found in this paragraph (i.e. "might have been", "might have vanished") are weak without supporting evidence - certainly not in line with the otherwise clean editing aspect of this article.Kyry101 (talk) 05:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-read both CFHB and CSHB versions of Constantine Porphyrogenitus (C.P.) "De Administrando Imperio" (main literary source for the Atelkuzu location) and added as citation. Still don't understand why C.P. would choose to describe the area so convoluted: instead of Dnieper, Siret, Bug he goes Dnieper, Dniester, Bug then (jumps to) Prut and Siret. Anyway, his description locates part of Atelkuzu in Romanian region of Moldavia and Moldavia proper - as assumed in the article.Kyry101 (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In keeping with the changes by Euqauhaneuqolt (who is probably the same as 89.133.42.243), I padded his "summarized" background with some of the info from before his edits. Also, some other changes (references, Wiki links, and so on). hope we agree on having a talk here first before major changes are done again. Kyry101 (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magyars vs. Hungarians

[edit]

Why do (ethnic) Hungarians called Magyars? Is it to make the Hungarian connection ambiguous? I suggest exchanging all occurences of "Magyar" to "Hungarian" (or "ethnic Hungarian", where necessary). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.83.59 (talk) 02:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, much time passed, but I think you are right, so I changed those to Hungarian, to avoid confusion and misleading. Qorilla (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Language differences

[edit]

I'm no expert but there is only a minor reference to the language differences between Hungarian nationals and Transylvanian Hungarians. Can anyone explain the differences? My girlfriend has been accused of speaking like an old person by hungarians e.g. Transylvanians learn an older more traditional form of hungarian. Maybe someone can fill us in on the the technical details.--Chrisjwowen (talk) 16:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's mostly about pronunciation. However, if you go further east, the Székely and the Csángó Hungarians may also use strange words for the ears of those who live in Hungary. In Hungary, young people tend to change their accent to that of the television and media, which is the dialect of the capital, Budapest (which originates from a western, Transdanubian dialect if I'm not mistaken). Maybe this is not so strong in the detached areas, and possibly they retain their dialect more. I'm not sure about that as I live in small Hungary. Qorilla (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian Population and Names

[edit]

I have corrected the various (minor) discrepancies between the actual number of the Hungarian population as mentioned in the official census of 2002 and the numbers present in the articles. I have also replaced a broken link with two other functional ones offering the data of the official 2002 census conducted in Romania. Since the Hungarian population is below 1% in the Bacau County and Bucharest I am considering removing those from the population table, as in previous versions. Another important aspect was the removal of the Hungarian names used for the Counties of Romania, since the Counties were created in 1968 and have only one official name, the Romanian one. Amon Koth (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Hungarians in Romania

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Hungarians in Romania's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "books.google.com":

Reference named "Britannica":

  • From Transylvania: "Transylvania". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. 2008. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  • From History of Transylvania: Transylvania. (2009). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved July 7, 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/603323/Transylvania

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checked and corrected the references. Kyry101 (talk) 04:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maps

[edit]

The article as it stands looks like overcrowded with the maps. I'd personally keep the first 3 ones, as more detailed. It's not exactly helpful to collect all of the images like the case is, so some should be removed. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 11:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Hungarians in Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hungarians in Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hungarians_in_Romania&oldid=1207669572"