Wikipedia

Talk:Csángós/Archive 2

< Talk:Csángós
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Kunok Kipcsak in topic Elemente de antropologie și caracteristici temperamentale
Archive 1Archive 2

Anthem

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

"Organization for the European Minorities" is the just the website, made by a few guys in their spare time, nothing more. It's not a reliable source.

It's not an official organization, nor a notable international organization. I can make a website and call it the "International Organization for Minorities", but that doesn't make it a reliable source.

Also, who wrote the anthem and who made it the anthem of the Csangos? Is it the anthem that the Csango organizations approved or just some anthem made up by Hungarian nationalists?

And even if it were their anthem, it should not be included in this article because it's likely copyrighted.

bogdan (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if the anthem is notable, an article about it could be created, which could be linked from this article. I don't see a point in having the full anthem here. Other articles on ethnicities don't have their full texts of the anthems. bogdan (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Organisation for European Minorities site is ok, but it isn't a reliable source on its own. You're right about the anthem though, it isn't typical for an ethnicity/nationality to have the anthem on their page. If it is notable enough, and used enough it should have its own page, like e.g. Bro gozh ma zadoù. That page can be linked from this one. - Francis Tyers · 22:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Why create a new page for this? It is good enough here. Or Romanian editors dont like to see it? First it was not reliable, and now....
From what I read, it seems that the "anthem" is just a poem written by a nationalist in 19th century. It has no official value or anything, it's just a poem. We don't include random poetry in Wikipedia articles. bogdan (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just added a Székely cultural and literary magazine that published it with the title "Csángó Himnusz" (Csángó Anthem) and a book from the Hungarian Electronic Library that besides calling it an anthem compares it to the Hungarian and the Székely ones. BTW I don't understand why is that such a shock...
"written by a nationalist": the Romanian anthem was written by an internationalist cosmopolitan? (Starting line: "Wake up, Romanian, from your deadly sleep...") Squash Racket (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

All national anthems are written by nationalists - nationalism is somewhat the obvious reson for writing a national anthem. The statement by Bogdan is therefore both true and irrelevant, and does not serve as justification for removing it. It is difficult to copyright an anthem, because people are actively encouraged to learn and sing it. However, anthems are rarely written out in their entirety on Wiki pages, and this might be justification for removing it or moving it. For example, the Szekely page has a link to the Szekely anthem. This might be a more appropriate way to deal with the anthem issue.

The anti-Hungarian bias of some comments here is not in line with the Wikipedia ideals of neutrality. If your own nationalism causes you to Hate Hungarians, then perhaps you should not edit Wikipedia pages that about issues involving Hungarians. Rsalisb5 (talk) 12:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I think some questions should be answered:

  • Who and for which purpose created this song?
  • How much acceptance does have this song on the Csango population?

Only inf this questions are cleared we can keep this poem in the article. --Olahus (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article fails to even mention some of the major works on the subject and is based on all sorts of studies and websites rather than on sound scientific research - published on major studies. One such work is: Dumitru Mărtinaş, Originea ceangăilor din Moldova, Editura Ştiinţifică şi Enciclopedică, Bucureşti, 1985 . Unfortunately the best sources cand be found in libraries and not online. I hope wikipedians interested on this subject would do so much to actually consult established works. The article would look much much different if it were based on serious sources. --89.44.43.59 (talk) 13:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The view that the Csango dialect is a variety of Hungarian was common and accepted until the 1980s, the appearance of the so called “Mărtinaş-theory”. The above mentioned "book was completed in 1963, but its publication proved unsuccessful, as the proofreaders considered it a dilettante piece of work. The ideologies of the book promoting the Romanian origin of the Csangos only became timely in the period of the Romanian nationalistic communist dictatorship, and it was published in the fiercest period of the communist dictatorship, six years after the death of the author in 1979, so that the manuscript originally counting approximately 100 pages was rewritten and extended with further 60 pages by the historians of the Ceaşescu-dictatorship, V. M. Ungureanu and Ion Coja." (cf. Vilmos Tanczos, Gabor Vincze) For more details on the topic and an extensive SCIENTIFIC bibliography based on long-term research see: http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/tanczos/tanczos.pdf Sztunde5 (talk) 12:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


Mucha mentira

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Ni en broma no puedes decir que en Moldavia hay 260.000 csongos. Todos los catolicos de Moldavia son csongos? Hay una importante etnia polaca en el norte, hay muchas famillas mescladas que tienes hijos bautizados catolicos, hay gente de Italia por aqui y de otro paises catolicos. Yo soy de religion catolica pero solo el padre de mi pedre era catolico y hablaba rumano. Este articulo de wikipedia es propaganda hungara y un gran mentira. --Bogdan29roman (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I have investigated your claim that the article alleges the Csango population of Moldavia is 260,000, and find it to be false for both the current edit and for numerous previous versions of this page. The number 260,000 appears as a maximum estimate made in a Council of Europe report. The wiki article does not make an assumption that this is the correct estimate, and in fact mentions both the lowest Council of Europe estimate alongside their final estimate of 60-70,000 Csango in their entirity (again, not making reference to all living in Moldavia), as well as examining a number of other estimates, self-identifications and census data from other sources, including official Romanian census data. The article makes no claim that the estimates of Roman Catholics in Moldavia refer exclusively to Csangos, and merely includes it as a reference point before going on to give a specific qualifier concerning the lesser percentage who come from Hungarian-speaking households, which in fact reinforces your own personal viewpoint. This section should remain as written, and additional certified data added to it as it becomes available. Ethdhelwen (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of Hungarians and Romanians via Demographics

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Looking back at the historical Roman Catholic population of Moldavia and the demographics of the Hungarians of Romania, based on ethnicity as opposed to language, one can get a glimpse of the true number of Hungarian or Szekely Csangos vs the ethnic Romanians. Given that the number of Hungarians in Romania in 1930 was roughly akin to the 2002 population (1,425,507 Hungarians in Romania in 1930 vs 1,431,807 Hungarians in Romania in 2002), and assuming that all approx 110,000 Catholics in 1930 were Hungarians or a primarily Hungarian background, isn't it safe to say that some 110,000 of the Catholics are Hungarians, while the remaining roughly 130,000 are Romanians who converted to Catholicism? That further goes almost hand-in-hand with the statement that 43% of the Catholic population lives in traditionally Hungarian speaking areas, as 43% of 240,000 is 103,200. Just something for thought given the correlation between the 'projection' and current data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prussia1231 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

PROTESTO CONTRA LA MANIPULACION

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Segun los censos de 2002 en Modavia el numero de catolicos no alcanzaba 260.000, en la region noroeste habian 236,564[1] (csangos, polacos unos 2600, alemanes 2300) mas en las otras dos provincias sudicas de Moldavia habian 7000[2] [3]catolicos rezultan 243.000 catolicos en Moldavia. No podemos generalizar que todos los catolicos son csongos por propia volontad, como no podemos decir que todos los gitanos son negros, ladrones etc, ademas no podemos asimilar a los polacos, italianos, alemanes y rumanos.

  • Hi. I have just investigated a similar complaint made further up this Talk page, and have to tell you that, if, as it appears, these are official links to the 2002 census, the simplest thing for you to have done is to amend the figures in the article, provide your links and citations, and help to improve the article. I shall investigate your links and do the amendments myself for you where they prove appropriate.
    • Hi again. I have investigated further, and find that the article does not, and has not, stated that the 2002 census found 260,000 Catholics in Moldavia. It states quite clearly the figure of 239,938. Having investigated your source from the Romainian census, I believe that this figure was a combination of those that identified as Roman Catholic, with those identifying themselves as Greco-Catholic.

I am amending the article to use the figure of 236,564 from the 2002 census, unless someone with greater understanding but no personal stake in this ethnic dispute can shed light on the position of Greco-Catholics. However, I am disturbed that two members of the public have headed Talk items with 'Lies' and 'Manipulation', but have not gone to the trouble to improve the article to address their allegations, which turned out to be exaggerated and misrepresented the Wikipedia article in several respects. Ethdhelwen (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?regiune_id=1&judet_id=0&localitate_id=0
  2. ^ http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?regiune_id=503&judet_id=700&localitate_id=0
  3. ^ http://www.edrc.ro/recensamant.jsp?regiune_id=503&judet_id=810&localitate_id=0

Dubious Addition

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There was a recent dubious addition [1] by an anonymous user (IPv6). Its content does not seem to follow WP:NPOV (it looks like a personal opinion) and the given source also does not seem to be reliable, as it is a simple website (cf., WP:Sources). Hence, this addition should be removed. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:42, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I made some edits per WP:BOLD, if there are any objections regarding them I am open to discuss them and reach a consensus. 79.117.180.81 (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My view is that the poem you deleted warrants a place in the article. However, as you say, it is in no way official, and should not be labelled "Csango anthem". Maproom (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
User:Maproom why do you think it should stay? Do we have any proof that Csango people acknoledge this poem written by Incze János Petrás in the 19th century as a part of their heritage, that they feel represented by it? Maybe adding it to Wikisource and linking it in External links section would be better. 79.117.180.81 (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
The anthem which you deleted was supported by four references (one of them now defunct). I think it should be restored, but with the title changed from "The Csango anthem) to "A Csango anthem". But I would be interested to hear the views of anyone who is able to read those Hungarian-language references.
I have already restored the statistics you deleted, for self-declared Romanians living on Moldavia. Ok, not all Hungarians are Csangos; but most Hungarians living in Moldavia are. And the figures are correctly described as for "Hungarians". Maproom (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
"but most Hungarians living in Moldavia are" - what is this assertion based on?
Also, the estimation of 260,000 Csangos looks unrealistic, considering thhat less than 10k declared themselves Hungarians and Csangos are a Hungarian subgroup. 79.117.180.81 (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Csangos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Csangos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Csangos. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:15, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Csangos. 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) 04:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Elemente de antropologie și caracteristici temperamentale

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

În articolul din limba română s-a introdus un capitol cu titlul de mai sus. În text se menționează:

Conform preotului Iosif Petru Pal, bărbatul ceangău este bine format, voinic, înalt de la 1,60 cm la 1,80 cm în general și are de la 0,80-0,90 grosimea toracică, capul lunguieț, rar rotund, fruntea mai mult lată, fața potrivită, părul castaniu sau blond, mai ales pe Valea Siretului din fostul județ Roman. Femeia are o statură mai mică decât cea a bărbatului, aproximativ de la 1,55 la 1,68 cm înălțimea, părul castaniu sau blond, fața mai roșcovană în județul Bacău și mai blondă în județul Roman. Au o fire blândă și potolită, sunt supuși, răbdători.

Sursa este din 1941 și pare desprinsă din perioada nazismului când rasa ariană trebuia să aibe anumite caracteristici. Considerați relevant să se facă astfel de mențiuni într-un articol serios de pe Wikipedia? Aș prefera răspunsuri de la cei care nu sunt nici români, nici unguri.84.232.197.190 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, if you don't wish to have answer preferably from Romanians or Hungarians, it would be useful to have you inquiry in English. However, the issue should be primarily discussed in the Romanian WP, here you may get advices/opinions that won't be binding there.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2019 (UTC))
WP:DENY, the user was warned many times at Romanian WP to stop trolling.--Kunok Kipcsak (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Csángós/Archive_2&oldid=1146376273"