Talk:Csángós/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Estimates

"Estimates put the total number of Csángó people at around 70,000." - What estimates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreidude (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Most of the Romanian Roman Catholics of Bacău are Csango people that were assimilated through the ages. Now, you may consider it debatable whether Csango that no longer speak their Hungarian dialect are still Csango. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 16:59, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

This is indeed a good question. But bear in mind that most Csángós interpret their identity primarily in religious terms. In this sense, (virtually) all Catholics in Bacău would be Csángó (and most of them Romanian as well, both at the same time: identities need not be exclusive). But of course, there are surely Catholics of Csángó origin who are so assimilated that they feel they are simply Romanian. Questions concerning identities are always tricky, so I guess we cannot answer this question by producing a single magic number. Maybe we should give several numbers, as economists do with regard to Money_supply :) --Tamas 17:59, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I met a Csango some months ago. And she was cute! Hmm... this could be a novel pickup line: "I want to talk to you because I'm researching for a Wikipedia article" :-)

I didn't sense any strong accent when she was speaking, so she probably grew up in a community speaking much Romanian. Anyway, I really doubt she'll get back to her village and continue speaking her dialect. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 20:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Of course, this is quite typical for rapidly assimilating rural communities. Once people leave their village, they are quite unlikely to go back and stick to the old ways of their (grand)parents, including clothing, dialect etc. That's how traditional rural dialects are dying out all over Europe.

Actually, me too met a Romanian girl about a year ago from Méhkerék (Micherec), Hungary. And she too was cute! :) (I mean, really.) And she spoke Hungarian without any accent. Actually it only turned out that she was Romanian (or of Romanian origin) when she told me where she came from, and I happened to know that that particular village has had a Romanian population historically. So assimilation is really quick and probably irreversible in (linguistically) isolated small communities. Which is of course a pity from a cultural/ethnographical point of view.--Tamas 14:54, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Numbers, again

Hello, I am puzzled by some apparent inconsistencies in this article. So, first of all, Csango live "mostly in Bacau county", where they are 5,794 (by counting all Hungarian-speaking folks, not only the ones declaring themselves Csango). Then, you have the info about 60-70.000. So, where are the remaining Csango? It's a problem of consistency.

Second, I also feel that the "it is thought that" (by who?) of the 1521 recommendation cannot be simply translated into "estimates put the figures at". What's puzzling is that the 1521 recommendation is actually talking about people speaking csango (and not, as bogdan seemed to think, all people having csango ancestors).

May I suggest adding some explanation for puzzled readers? :) Dpotop 12:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that identity as such is almost an elusive concept, and all the more so for the Csángó. It is not easy to tell what makes one a Csángó. Is it religion, language, ethnic identification? Can you be a Csángó (in terms of religion, mother tongue) and feel that you are Romanian by ethnicity at the same time? (I think you can, but that's my private opinion, and most of my fellow Hungarians would have me stoned for it:) ) So the most we can do is to give data in terms of ethnic identification, religion and language use, and that's the end of it. There are some things that cannot be pinned down by scientific precision, and identity is one of them.--Tamas 13:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dpotop, is the Council of Europe not a good enough source for you? What kind of source would you actually accept?--Tamas 16:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good source, but the document itself does not give its sources, and it also presents the info as disputed. Also, the expression "it is thought that". Pretty weird for an official document, I write better prose every day. Two possibilities, from my point of view: (1) it's not something of great importance and they expedited it in 5 minutes, or (2) they had no source for the numbers, but someone wanted to put them there. :) Dpotop 16:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you think my addition is not ok, just cut and paste the text from the report.Dpotop 17:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I did dig a bit in the recommendation of the council of Europe. It seems that it is part of a larger working document, which the Romanian delegation rejected, and you also have the oppinion of the Romanian delegation (presented by someone called Prisacaru), and the list of the folks that adopted the document: [[1]] Dpotop 17:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I won't change it, it is sort of OK with me. To be precise, what the link in the article refers to is the recommendation itself which was adopted by the Council of Europe. What you refer to here are the working documents. The fact that the Romanian delegation disputed the recommendation and/or some of the working documents is quite understandable: no government likes to be criticized by international organisations.--Tamas 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholics of Moldavia

Are all the Catholics of Moldavia of Csango/Hungarian origins? I know that in the middle ages there were some non-Hungarian Catholics, like the bishopric of the Cumans and also some abbeys, but I don't don't whether they left any traces. bogdan 16:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is this an informative article or a propaganda place?

Do you think that the parts "Scientific Conferences about the Csango issue", "Assimilation - A False Problem", "Popolation" are informative? I think that they are only propaganda... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mauriziotani (talk • contribs) 21:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I do not believe that such paranoid extreme right-wing drivel as presented in the quotes before the reversion has any other purpose than to confuse anyone who looks at that block of nonsense. Try to stay objective. I myself believe that the version I reverted the article to has its own tendencies towards Hungarian nationalism, yet I don't have the time or inclination to start digging up great "truths" about the Csangos. Nevertheless, this is an acceptable wiki type version that can be refined by those who have the constraint NOT to insert the appropriate chapters of "Chauvinist Xenofobia: A Guide to National Purity".

I'll be back to see whether this ignites into a flame war, but I'm sad to say I will not participate (I had my share of those on irc long ago and it's not that interesting for me anymore).

My personal opinion is that whoever put that block of quotes in (I'm not so good at this wiki stuff, so I'm not sure who it was) never intended for anyone to read it, but only wanted to stifle any other point of view than his own. I don't think that's fair.

Nu fiti nesimtiti. Nu asa se conving oamenii. Ai o opinie, foarte bine, sa dai cu parerea, dar o enciclopedie trebuie sa contina ambele puncte de vedere, si trebuie sa fie un text DENOTATIV in loc de una tendentioasa, aproape literara, deci CONOTATIVA, care favorizeaza un punct de vedere peste celalalt. Ganditi-va la asta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petyo84 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Number

To state as Csango population all Roman-catholics from 1992 in Moldova looks like OR. --Alex:Dan (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Controversial as it is (only hungarian POV), that is a source... Thank you. --Alex:Dan (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation about the Roman Catholics in Moldova

At the end of the 14 century, under the rule of Alexandru cel Bun, the Poles established a Roman Catholic Bishopric in Bacau. It was a political move of the Moldavians dukes, in order to strenghten the alliance with the catholic states of Poland and Hungary. Therefore the origin of the roman - catholic population of Moldova stems from the local Romanian polulation who converted to roman - catholicism.

During the next centuries, catholic Szekler economic migrants, fearing the huge feudal taxation or political persecutions in the Kingdom of Hungary, settled in the area and where welcomed by the local catholic population.

Actually, the catholic population in Moldova is abb. 200.000 of which less than 2000 are the Hungarian-speaking descendents of the Szekler refugees (Csangos).

Taking profit from the fact that most of the people don't have information about the Bacau Bishopric and the early catholic proselitism among the local people, the Hungarian nationalists are claiming that ALL the catholics in Moldavia are the descendents of the Szekler refugees. That is the stake of the on-going debate and the explanation of the inconsistency of the demographic data in the Hungarian sources. user:Transsylvanian

Are u sure? in the 14th century the Kingdom of Poland was not in Moldavia's vicinity ... there was no Moldavia either. :)) don't forget the personal union with Hungary under Angevin kings + the Duchy of Halych was anexed to Hungary

The Poles started to interfere in the Csango's religious problems right after the Battle of Mohacs, and in the period of reformation in Transylvania.

Speaking about the Kingdom of Poland and the Papacy before any reflection on the Kingdom of Hungary ... damned funny ...

it is also comic speaking about Romanian speaking csangos stems from the local Romanian polulation who converted to roman - catholicism. But why do they call themselfs just Romanians? they adopted the Szekely Csangos self denomination for what reason? --fz22 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1- Moldavia was established in 1353, by Dragoş, the Vlach Knyaz of Maramureş, so Moldavia DID existed in the 14th century. Later, Bogdan de Cuhea another Vlach voivode from Maramureş who had fallen out with the Hungarian king, crossed the Carpathians in 1359, took control of Moldavia, and succeeded in removing Moldavia from Hungarian control.The frontier of Poland reached Moldavia during the reign of Casimir III the Great (Polish: Kazimierz Wielki; April 30, 1310 – November 5, 1370), King of Poland (1333-70). Alexandru cel Bun, prince of Moldova (1400-1432) married the Polish princess Rymgajla (daughter of Kęstutis and sister of Vytautas the Great of Lithuania) and Rymgajla established the Bishopry in Bacau.

2- The Bishopry of Bacau was ALWAYS administred from Poland, since the very beginning, not since Mohacs (1526). Hungarian interference was not welcomed in Moldavia, because of the tentatives of Hungary to conqurer the country.

3- As I already explained, the roman - catholic population of Moldavia are and where always Romanian. The Hungarian - speaking Csangos arrived much RECENTLY and thery are a SMALL PORTION of the Romano - Catholics in Moldavia. Of course they call themself Csangos:)). To not be confused with the 4,317 persons which declared themselves Hungarians at the census of 2002, in Bacau County; those ones are generally located in the large cities and arrived there during the communist regime.

4- Hungarian extremist and / or semidocts are having the tendency to MAKE THE "CONFUSION" between the entire roman-catholic community (250.000) and the Csango group (according to the census of 2002, 796 declared themselves Csángó). This is the perpetual problem of extremists, claiming large numbers getting deceived if they do not found large numbers in reality and therefore...criyng for discrimination!

I was a direct participant at the 2002 census and I do not make statements without a solid knowledge of the situation.

Best regards, user: Transsylvanian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Transsylvanian (talk • contribs) 13:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Puzzling numbers

This is generally a nice article, nevertheless, there are some puzzling figures: so there are 240000 catholics in Moldavia and 43% live in settlements where hungarian is still spoken. OK so if two guys speak hungarian in New York does this make New York a 'settlement where hungarian is still spoken ?' If you look a bit more closely, then you see that 43% of 250000 is around 100000 people, just a bit more than the 70000 csango-speaking catholics of the Council of Europe, which by the census are some 6000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.22.251 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Census number

By the way, the actual census number of Csangos is a bit smaller - 1370, from the official census site. Biruitorul ^Talk 06:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Recently deleted referenced material

Rezistenta deleted this paragraph from a report of the Council of Europe:

For centuries, the self-identity of the Csangos was based on the Roman Catholic religion and the Hungarian language spoken in the family. It is generally accepted by serious scholars (Hungarian but also Romanian) that the Csangos have a Hungarian origin and that they arrived in Moldavia from the west. Some Romanian authors claim that the Csangos are in fact “magyarised” Romanians from Transylvania. This theory has also to be dismissed: it is not conceivable that these “Romanians” could persist in using a “foreign” language after centuries of living in Romania surrounded by Romanian speaking Romanians. Whatever can be argued about the language of the Csangos there is no doubt that this is a form of Hungarian which belongs to the Finno-Ugrian family.

He also deleted a reference from JSTOR, and this paragraph from the website of the The Association of the Csango Hungarians of Moldova:

In 2008 members of the European Parliament have sent in a petition to the European Commission on the obstruction of the Hungarian language education and the intimidation of Csango-Hungarian pupils in Nagypatak (Valea Mare, Moldova, Romania). As a feedback on the petition of László Tőkés MEP, the leader of the High Commission on Minority Affairs responded: in a written notice they would warn Romania to secure mother tongue education for the Csango Hungarians of Moldova.

I also couldn't find these sentences:

The Council of Europe has also expressed concerns that despite the provisions of the Romanian law on education and the repeated requests from parents there is no teaching of Csángó language in the Csángó villages, as a consequence, very few Csángós are able to write in their mother tongue. The document also discussed that the Csángós make no political demands, but merely want to be recognised as a distinct culture and demand education and church services in the Csángó language.

I don't mind if he adds new, referenced information, but he keeps deleting well-referenced paragraphs from the article. Some explanation wouldn't hurt. Squash Racket (talk) 15:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

For the same reason you have deleted the the following referenced text :

The situation of Csango community may be understood by taking into consideration the results of 2002 census. 1769 persons declared themselves Csango. Most of them live in Bacau County, Romania, and belong to the Roman Catholic Church. During the last years, some statements identified all Catholics in Bacau County (119.618 persons according to 2002 census) as Csango. This identification is rejected by most of them, who did identify themselves as Romanians Rezistenta (talk) 13:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

NO, YOU deleted the stuff I added, I just don't want to deal with your disruptive edits every time, that's why I made a simple revert. Please add new information without deleting the material and references added by me. Thank you again. Squash Racket (talk) 14:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Csangos are not related to Szeklers or Hungarians (the article refers to both minority groups as Hungarians)

Phylogeographic analyses revealed effects of genetic isolation within the Csángó population, which is, in its genetic structure, clearly different from the Székely population. Reference

I've found nothing at this link, please be more specific. Squash Racket (talk) 14:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I cited from that article on the bottom of the text you can find that specific paragraph Rezistenta (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article DOES NOT question the ethnicity (Hungarian) of the Csángó people:

The ethnic groups of the Hungarian minority that settled in Romania show differences in dialects, customs and religious affiliations. In this study entire mtDNA control region sequences from 360 individuals of Hungarian ethnicity from two populations (the Csángó and the Székely), settled in the historical region of Transylvania in

Squash Racket (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The article DOES NOT question this, it only says they are not related, take it as you want Rezistenta (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And how are they hungarian if the genetic studies prove they aren't ? Not mentioning their language, their appearence and customs which are clearly romanian and not hungarian or related Rezistenta (talk) 15:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This article refers to both groups as ethnic Hungarians, it only deals with the genetic relations between the Csángó and the Székely population. Squash Racket (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

How could they be ethnic hungarians if they aren't genetically hungarians and if their language, appearence and customs are not hungarian and furthermore they don't want to be hungarian... ?

Every single source says they speak a dialect of Hungarian, the Csángó language. Because of Romanianization (remember the Ceausescu era?) and obstruction of the Hungarian language also referred to in the reference you deleted (with a 2008(!) warning to Romania) it's understandable they have been forced to use the local Romanian language. Squash Racket (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They forgot their origin in 20 years of Romanianization? There is no such thing and even if there was, people don't forget their identity this fast, on the other part the procedure of Magyarisation was very often used within the Austro-Hungarian Empire to transform romanians, slovakians, serbs and other minorities into hungarians, do you deny this ? Rezistenta (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The process of Magyarization did not convert anybody to a specific old dialect of Hungarian. The Treaty of Trianon happened quite long ago, Ceausescu just put more pressure on Hungarians living in Romania. They know who they are, the website added by you denies their very existence. Squash Racket (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The very existance of whom ? Romanian Catholics from Moldova ? Rezistenta (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Magyarisation didn't happened yesterday it was a process used since ancient and medieval times by the Hungarian Empire Rezistenta (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The existence of the Csángó people, which is a bit strange from their alleged own association, don't you think?
What you said about Magyarization is called Original research. Squash Racket (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes because Csango is a newly invented name from year 1780, those people are claiming they are Romanians of catholic faith, or maybe you are refering to 1500 csangos of which only 300 said they're hungarian ?Rezistenta (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Without a third party you will say what you want as long as you want. Would you go into mediation? We wasted enough time. Squash Racket (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Lazlo Tokes is not accepted as a source on wikipedia (and was never added that way)

We don't accept irredentists and extremists over here Rezistenta (talk) 14:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• László Tőkés is NOT an irredentist or extremist
• He is NOT a source for anything I added.

Thank you. Squash Racket (talk) 14:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is, he is often labelled as such, we don't accept such references over here Rezistenta (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I only deleted the text where he was the subject of the refence not the other stuff Rezistenta (talk) 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You deleted "stuff" about members of the European Parliament, where he was mentioned. Squash Racket (talk) 14:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Being member of European Parliament doesn't make him less irredentist and extremist Rezistenta (talk) 14:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Five members of the European Parliament are mentioned in the article, not just him. Squash Racket (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

He is the initiator and the president of the respective politcal party, would you like to begin inserting Vadim Tudor and Gheorhge Funar as reference in hungarian related topics ? Rezistenta (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you please keep talk page formula, so we can see who said what?
His political party is NOT extremist, the other members mentioned are NOT members of the party he is in. And the article says Romania was warned to respect the rights of this ethnic Hungarian minority. You also deleted that. The European Commission is also extremist? Squash Racket (talk) 15:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the European organizations were caught in the traps smartly built by the Hungarian propagandistic system and, without previously starting a scientific research of the problem, they rushed to endorse documents to “save” the supposed minority. This was the way to reach the 1521 Recommendation that mentions the “Csangos” and their “Csango” language, considering them of a certain Hungarian origin and, only at the end of the document, there is made the proposal of “researching and cataloguing the linguistic and traditional elements” for these.The Association of 265.000 ethnic Romanians of Catholic Faith in Moldova

The 250.000 ethnic Romanian Catholics who don't want to be Hungarian are saying that is due to hungarian lobby, propaganda system etc Rezistenta (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If the European organizations warned Romania to stop the obstruction of the Hungarian language, then that tells more than your Original research. You are citing a source in Romanian, would you please present a source in English? You always insist on having English sources, this time you delete/falsify them. Squash Racket (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's english language not romanian, I will paste the text to you if that's necessarly, do you want that ? original research refers to something written by editors without having support and I am citing the ofifial Association of the 250.000 Romanian Catholics from Moldova...Rezistenta (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In English I only found that opening propaganda site. Is there something at least partially convincing? Squash Racket (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I cited the relevant part which is directly answering to your question. That "propaganda site" is the Authorised and the Official Voice of the Association of 250.000 Romanian Catholics from Moldova...and the more convincing argument is the 2002 census and the demand of those people to be romanians and not hungarians Rezistenta (talk) 16:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That "authorized" and "official" fake voice of the Csangos denies their very existence and fails to mention Romania was warned in 2008 by the European Commission regarding the obstruction of the Hungarian language among the Csángó people. Squash Racket (talk) 16:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

The content of this article is cleary very much disputed, and our friend Squash Racked doesnt't want to present the other point of view , he is hiding and deleting to opposite arguments instead is pushing the hungarian POV and has modified the article without using Talk Page . Before you continue I'll remind you that you have to reach consensus in order to modify a controversed article. Here we will try to do that Rezistenta (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Here you can find the view of The Association of 250.000 Romanian Catholics from Moldova "Dumitru Mărtinaş"

FOR THE RECORD: I added my comment here on the 29 September that Rezistenta did not answer for two days, so in fact it was Rezistenta who did not use the talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Our friend Rezistenta among others:

• deleted this paragraph (earlier modified by a Romanian administrator to make it neutral):

  traditionally Csango, a dialect of Hungarian; most speak Romanian

  instead, he inserted this:

  traditionally 910 persons have Romanian as mother tongue, 307 of them having Hungarian as their native tongue.

• deleted the estimated population number of 260000 and the reference, the Council of Europe
• inserted the Romanian name of that ethnic Hungarian group at the top of the infobox, though even the English language derives the name from the Hungarian
• deleted this paragraph, because he didn't like it:

  In 2008 members of the European Parliament have sent in a petition to the European Commission on the obstruction of the Hungarian language education and the intimidation of Csango-Hungarian pupils in Nagypatak (Valea Mare, Moldova, Romania). As a feedback on the petition of László Tőkés MEP, the leader of the High Commission on Minority Affairs responded: in a written notice they would warn Romania to secure mother tongue education for the Csango Hungarians of Moldova.

• completely falsified that paragraph from the Council of Europe:

  For centuries, the self-identity of the Csangos was based on the Roman Catholic religion and the Hungarian language spoken in the family. It is generally accepted by serious scholars (Hungarian but also Romanian) that the Csangos have a Hungarian origin and that they arrived in Moldavia from the west. Some Romanian authors claim that the Csangos are in fact “magyarised” Romanians from Transylvania. This theory has also to be dismissed: it is not conceivable that these “Romanians” could persist in using a “foreign” language after centuries of living in Romania surrounded by Romanian speaking Romanians. Whatever can be argued about the language of the Csangos there is no doubt that this is a form of Hungarian which belongs to the Finno-Ugrian family.

Squash Racket (talk) 15:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

another attempt of only pushing the hungarian pov.. ok so there is someone who is claiming that some Csangos speak a hungarian dialect (this is presented in the text) but there is also the opposite part having the evidence the reality and 2002 Census which sustains there are only 300 persons of this type being a very little minority in comparison to the others, do you want to falsify the reality ?Rezistenta (talk) 15:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What's the relevance of you citing these lines, is it hard to understand that your lines with the opposite view are not compatible, they are based on nothing, they are words in wind which defy the reality Rezistenta (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You haven't answered a single issue in my comment above. Squash Racket (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I did, the lines added by you and presented as Universal Truth are not compatible with Wikipedia NPOV policy and not compatible with the point of view of the Association of 250.000 Catholic Romanians from Moldova Rezistenta (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Let the Council of Europe overwrite that fake website:

For centuries, the self-identity of the Csangos was based on the Roman Catholic religion and the Hungarian language spoken in the family. It is generally accepted by serious scholars (Hungarian but also Romanian) that the Csangos have a Hungarian origin and that they arrived in Moldavia from the west. Some Romanian authors claim that the Csangos are in fact “magyarised” Romanians from Transylvania. This theory has also to be dismissed: it is not conceivable that these “Romanians” could persist in using a “foreign” language after centuries of living in Romania surrounded by Romanian speaking Romanians. Whatever can be argued about the language of the Csangos there is no doubt that this is a form of Hungarian which belongs to the Finno-Ugrian family.

BTW do the Csangos know about that website? It seems to openly deny their very existence... And you're calling László Tőkés an extremist? Squash Racket (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You should really stop believing your country propaganda, I invite you in Moldova to see what's the reality over there, that site represents the voice of 99% people of Catholic Faith in Moldova labelled by some hungarian extremists as csangos, to answer to your question, yes they know because they are the organisation Rezistenta (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Council of Europe is a reliable source, the one added by you is NOT. That's the bottomline. Squash Racket (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The council of europe represents also the opposite point of view, as a matter of fact the Council of Europe gives a directly link to that website in their raport.. and the 2002 romanian census it is a very reliable source, bottom line Rezistenta (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Council of Europe says

It is generally accepted by serious scholars (Hungarian but also Romanian) that the Csangos have a Hungarian origin and that they arrived in Moldavia from the west

Yes it mentions the other theory as a rejected one. Squash Racket (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, some of those lines are not compatible with the true situation, how could they be hungarian if the people themselves are saying they're not ? I think this answer was given to you upper in the page, I don't think Romania is more powerfull and has more lobby and relations then Hungary..is it ? Rezistenta (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is Rezistenta's opinion and a weak propaganda website are facing the report of the Council of Europe.
This obviously won't work without a third party. are you ready to go into mediation about this? Squash Racket (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Of Course. Rezistenta (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thing: this seems to be the real website of the Csángó people, this site really represents them. You may compare the two and decide for yourself. Squash Racket (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

From Council of Europe Report :

The Association of Hungarian Csangos is the main representative of the persons who consider themselves as Csango or Hungarian Csangos. The Association is part of the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania and identifies itself as "the representative of Hungarians east of Carpathian Mountains" (website www.csango.ro) (this means that organization represents the 1700 Csangos)

The Catholics who identify themselves as Romanians are represented by the Association of Roman Catholics in Moldova "Dumitru Martinas" (website www.asrocatolic.ro) Rezistenta (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And this article is about the Csángó people, not all Romanian Roman Catholics (some of whom are Romanian converts, you realize that?), the report says:

Csango associations, such as the Association of Csango-Hungarians in Moldavia (ACHM), should be officially recognised and included in the list of the Council for National Minorities. Particular attention should be paid to the correct registration of the Csango minority at the next official census;

So this seems to be their official association (we are talking about Csángó people). Squash Racket (talk) 17:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

If we are talking only about the 1700 people who declared themselves as Csango then yes Rezistenta (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The census is not right (just see the few hundred Székelys instead of hundreds of thousands), how many of these people could have said "Hungarian" or "Romanian" instead of Csángó?
Where is the association you are referring to included in the report of the Council? I could only find references to the Association of Hungarian Csangos of Moldavia. Squash Racket (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
According to the questionable Romanian census there are 150 Székelys in Romania while their estimated number is around 665,000! Squash Racket (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

According to 2002 census there are 1,400.000 hungarians in Romania my friend, what are you talking about ? Most of the Szeklers identified themselves as hungarians that's why. Eu council mentions this site here www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities/2. framework convention (monitoring)/2. monitoring mechanism/5. comments by the states concerned/2. second cycle/PDF 2nd Com Romania en.pdf Rezistenta (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Hungarians, my friend, not Székelys! The census recorded 150 Székely people instead of 665,000, because Székelys simply said they were Hungarians. That's why the census number on Csángó people is questionable, don't you think?

More from the report:

Those who still speak Csango or consider it their mother tongue have been declining as a proportion of the population. Although not everybody agrees on this number it is thought that between 60,000 and 70,000 persons speak the csango language.

Squash Racket (talk) 18:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In the questionary of the census you had to check the following options : Romanian, Hungarian, Szekely, RRoma etc. 99 % of those who you are calling szeklers declared themlseves hungarians, capisci ? are you telling me that beside the 1.4 milion hungarians there are another 600.000 people who are in fact Szeklers ? =)))) Rezistenta (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph defies and contradict the reality based on nothing (due to lobby?), the website found in that raport explains better the situation Rezistenta (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Will you ever understand this? If only 150 Székelys are mentioned as Székelys (the rest as Hungarians), why do you trust the same census on the number of Csángó people? The Csángós most probably also said they were Hungarians (or Romanians, e.g. through mixed marriages etc.), so the census data is as worthless as in the case of the Székelys. Based on the census you'll never know the actual number of Székelys, so how could you trust the same census on the number of Csángó people? Clear now? Squash Racket (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph tries to talk about reality, the census numbers are wrong to put it simply, will you read the reasoning finally? Squash Racket (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is beyond this universe. The census represents what people declared, is that hard ? Only you could question the vericidity of a census based on their self-declaring option, if the Romanian Catholics would have wanted to be hungarians they would have had declared "Hungarians", ok ? Rezistenta (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Numbers from the 2002 Romanian National Census are wrong ? that's OR Rezistenta (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Numbers from the 2002 Romanian census are definitely wrong in the case of Székelys (150 is NOT even close to around 665,000, you see that?), but still you think it's a basis for an estimation of the number of Csángó people. You don't seem to understand this, I don't know how to explain it to you even better than that.

Please tell me, in your mind the gap between the census number of a few thousand and the estimated maximum number of 260000 (Council of Europe report) is Hungarian propaganda? That is your version of the story? Even you added a number of about 120000 in the infobox. Squash Racket (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm citing report itself:

Their number ranges, depending on the definition, from as many as 260,000 (which corresponds roughly to the Catholic population in the area), even if more than two thirds of them cannot speak the language, to as few as a couple of tens of thousands (based on the fact that in the last official census only less than 3,000 persons declared themselves as Csangos).

Do you understand that sentence? Squash Racket (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude you don't seem to acknowledge the reality over here, the Szeklers felt and declared hungarians, ok ? Catholics from Moldova who felt hungarians declared hungarians (in number of 4317)...All others don't want to be hungarians, ok? Rezistenta (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You gave that source 100 times... I have already told you that their conclusions are based on nothing (most probable due to hungarian lobby) and that the link found in that EU Raport actually gives proofs when speaking of the situation of the catholics in Moldova Rezistenta (talk) 19:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So you finally start to understand the little problem with the Romanian census and the minorities... The source is reliable (report of the Council of Europe), your comment is Original research. And the deletion of referenced material which an editor doesn't like and/or understand is unacceptable. Squash Racket (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What? who said that? The Romanian census has problems only in your mind, I think you've read your own reply not mine Rezistenta (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Romanian census can be thrown out of the window if you would like to know the real number of Székelys. The situation is similar with the Csángó people. If the Council of Europe says there are around 60000-70000 speakers of Csángó, a few hundred or a thousand seems to be just plain wrong. That's the bottomline. Squash Racket (talk) 19:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like with that Census if this make you feel better but the reality remains.

Number of people in Bacau County who declared Hungarians 4317. Reference

Number of people in Bacau County who declared Csangos 796. Reference

Number of people in Bacau County of Catholic Faith 119,618. Reference

Supposing the Csangos are Hungarian it means in total there are 5113 hungarians in that County, the other catholic people are romanians Rezistenta (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

You can repeat the census numbers again, if that makes you feel better the reality is something else as shown above. The census numbers and the estimated numbers should be both presented in the article. just like at other similar articles. Squash Racket (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

And you can repeat that line as you as you want.If the estimated numbers should be presented in this article then also the controversies about their origin should be presented in this article, isn't it ? Rezistenta (talk) 19:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The controversies regarding the census numbers should be presented too, I hope you still remember the 150 Székelys (according to the Romanian census) and the Székelys' actual number... Squash Racket (talk) 19:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you tired of repeating this over and over again ? The situation is not even far, a szekler or a csango who feels hungarian would never declare himself romanian, the szeklers identified as hungarians not as romanians Rezistenta (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The census number of minorities is not usable, that is all we know. Squash Racket (talk) 19:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then there aren't any hungarians in Romania because I say so. Now I understand that you hungarians are not trying to find out the truth because you already know it, and despite this you're trying to falsify and distort it Rezistenta (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That seems a bit offtopic:

• no Hungarians in Romania, because Rez. says so...
• Hungarians are not trying to find the truth, because they already know it...
• though Hungarians are not trying to find out the truth (they know it), they falsify and distort it...

Comment on the article's issues please. Squash Racket (talk) 20:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

My first comment is based on your logic, I know it doesn't make much sense, Rezistenta (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

There are only 5000 hungarians in Bacau County according to themselves. End of story Rezistenta (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably it's time to remind you of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, also your previous comment was an attack on Hungarians in general and that is against Wikipedia policies.
You are allowed to repeat the census numbers again, the Council of Europe reported about at least tens of thousands of Csángó people. Squash Racket (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Probably not, where are my atacks on the hungarians ? You are disconsidering the Romanian people by saying "The Romanian census can be thrown out of the window" and I am the one who made atacks ? I know very well wikipedia policies, my comments are very civil. Council of Europe raport claims are based on nothing, the link found in that raport explain the situaton with actual proofs.. how long you will keep it this way ?Rezistenta (talk)

Here is your attack on Hungarians:

Ok then there aren't any hungarians in Romania because I say so. Now I understand that you hungarians are not trying to find out the truth because you already know it, and despite this you're trying to falsify and distort it Rezistenta (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The Romanian census is a bunch of papers, NOT people. Please don't make false accusations as you did offwiki to an administrator last time. Thank you.

The Council of Europe report is based on research. When they estimate, they indicate that in the report. Squash Racket (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The papers are made by people, nice try to hide the indirect atack you have made towards the romanian people

That raport is based on nothing, they didn't specified how did they reached to this number, only words without any bases Rezistenta (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Repeat: you can't make attacks on people, not on papers. Nobody criticised those people who made the census, the result is still useless when it comes to minorities as it was shown above.

Repeat: don't make false accusations as you did last time please.

The pdf file you cite uses the census number. Is that any better? Squash Racket (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Romanian census can be thrown on the window" , the papers are written by people, this a clearly indirect atack, don't search for excuses Rezistenta (talk)

I know the Eu Council are using the numbers from the official censuses, they can't permit to defy the reality . If you want to continue this issue we will continue tomorrow, Good NightRezistenta (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't suggest to throw people out of the window, but an — in this case — useless document. So I don't need to "search for excuses".
The census numbers are admittedly far from reality in the case of Székely people, so the Romanian census is unreliable regarding minorities. Squash Racket (talk) 21:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Rezistenta's edit

Some explanation wouldn't hurt for that edit. The issues mentioned above are not addressed, Rez. among others:

• deleted this paragraph (earlier modified by a Romanian administrator to make it neutral):

  traditionally Csango, a dialect of Hungarian; most speak Romanian

  instead, he inserted this:

  traditionally 910 persons have Romanian as mother tongue, 307 of them having Hungarian as their native tongue.

• deleted the estimated population number of 260000 and the reference, the Council of Europe
• inserted the Romanian name of that ethnic Hungarian group at the top of the infobox, though even the English language derives the name from the Hungarian; proposal: add only the English spelling there (Csangos) as the infobox does not ask for native name
• deleted this paragraph, because he didn't like it:

  In 2008 members of the European Parliament have sent in a petition to the European Commission on the obstruction of the Hungarian language education and the intimidation of Csango-Hungarian pupils in Nagypatak (Valea Mare, Moldova, Romania). As a feedback on the petition of László Tőkés MEP, the leader of the High Commission on Minority Affairs responded: in a written notice they would warn Romania to secure mother tongue education for the Csango Hungarians of Moldova.

• completely falsified that paragraph from the Council of Europe:

  For centuries, the self-identity of the Csangos was based on the Roman Catholic religion and the Hungarian language spoken in the family. It is generally accepted by serious scholars (Hungarian but also Romanian) that the Csangos have a Hungarian origin and that they arrived in Moldavia from the west. Some Romanian authors claim that the Csangos are in fact “magyarised” Romanians from Transylvania. This theory has also to be dismissed: it is not conceivable that these “Romanians” could persist in using a “foreign” language after centuries of living in Romania surrounded by Romanian speaking Romanians. Whatever can be argued about the language of the Csangos there is no doubt that this is a form of Hungarian which belongs to the Finno-Ugrian family.

Squash Racket (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. This dispute was listed nearly three weeks ago and seems to be beyond the scope of the WP:3O project. I therefore posted a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Csangos, asking that volunteers from that project help out here. (Please post replies or questions here, if any, rather than on my talk page. Thank you.) — Athaenara ✉ 05:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

These are very deep waters. I'll take up the request on WT:ETHNIC, but it will take a long time to unravel. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The main reason behind this dispute were facts that seemed to contradict each other in what the Council of Europe report stated. There was no distinction made between what the Romanian government and what the Council of Europe said in that report. Now everything is listed in a transparent structure. The reliability of some of the references should be checked though. Squash Racket (talk) 06:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

References

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Csángós/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Interesting read, woth discussing both sides. But one thing: could a REAL Csango come on this page and write down what they think they are. That would only be fair. Having other people tell you what you are probably doesn't feel good...

Last edited at 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 14:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)