Talk:Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureș

POV

This interpretation of events is extremely POV. I am not an expert on the topic but as far as I know the line of events is comparable to that of the muneriads, and the action on part of Hungarians which triggered the violent backlash was a peaceful demonstration for language rights. Please someone more knowledgeable join in the discussion.--Tamas 15:49, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not more knowledgeable, but I agree that this article includes only some POV, instead of including information on what happened. Bogdan | Talk 16:06, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A Romanian -- Mihaila Cofariu -- was beaten and it appears that at first it was thought that he was Hungarian, which sparked the clashes. I can't find many references on the internet. Bogdan | Talk 16:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

the original entry contained only the "mainstream Romanian" POV, I added the "ethnic Hungarian" POV. Actually I have a book compiled by ethnic Hungarians on the issue but I don't think it would be accepted as an unbiased source here because of the circumstances. --Tamas 18:28, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

lynchings committed by ethnic Romanian civilians against ethnic Romanian officials

• (There have indeed been some lynchings of repressive communist-area policemen perpetrated by ethnic Hungarians, but such events of revenge against abusive officials of the fallen dictatorship were widespread at that time all over Romania and had no ethnic motivation, as most of these lynchings were committed by ethnic Romanian civilians against ethnic Romanian officials.) ... whadda' ? -- Criztu 10:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, many members of Securitate were lynched by civilian mobs during in the chaotic days of the revolution. In Targu Secuiesc, a certain Ioan Aurel Agache, well-known for his sadistic and abusive behaviour, was lynched in a similar way. He was Romanian, most of the inhabitants of the town and consequently most of his murderers were ethnic Hungarians. Of course, the whole thing had nothing to do with ethnicity, but the whole incident was misinterpreted in the media creating the impression that 'Hungarians were killing Romanian officials'. Such false news created the atmosphere which led to the riots in Targu Mures.

If you wish, we can delete the last half-sentence (, as most of these lynchings were committed by ethnic Romanian civilians against ethnic Romanian officials.)--Tamas 16:09, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Criztu, I know my wording was clumsy but I think the point I wanted to make is valid: the lynchings probably had no ethnic motivation whatsoever. If you agree with this, please help me reword the relevant section and don't just remove it as "blabla". If you do not, please tell me (and other Wikipedians) why. --Tamas 16:23, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

i don't know and am not interested in who wrote that such events of revenge against abusive officials of the fallen dictatorship were widespread at that time all over Romania but without backup, such affirmation is harmful -- Criztu 17:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In January 1990, then Interim President Ion Iliescu declared a general amnesty (Law 3/1990, Article 1) for the participants of lynchings during the revolution. I think this is proof enough that there had been many such lynchings in the country. Otherwise, there would have been no need for a general amnesty, I guess. See also Romania: Moving toward NATO and the EU. A Briefing of the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, page 28-29 (section Anti-Hungarian Bias in the Judicial System)--Tamas 12:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Tamas, you can assume anything you want based on what you read, but if you want to put it in the wikipedia, then you have to bring evidence.

• the HRW doesn't say anything of "widespread lynchings" after the fall of communism, or that the discrimination of 13 hungarian convicts (that lynched 3 romanian policemen in december 1989) had triggered the ethnic clashes of TgMures in march 1990, so why are you relating the december 1989 events with the march 1990 ethnic clashes ?
• the pdf link also talks about those 13 hungarians convicted for killing 3 romanian policemen in Harghita and Covasna in december 1989, 7 of them released in 1994, and two of them commiting suicide after 2 years.

how are these informations related to the TgMures ethinc clashes, and how can you conclude "widespread lynchings comitted by romanians against former abbusive officials" ??? -- Criztu 18:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are right. Actually, it was not me who first mentioned the lynchings here. When I first came across this entry, I found the sentence about ethnic Hungarians attacking Romanian symbols and institutions already there. But that was all, without any specifics. I thought, maybe naively, that this refered to the lynchings. (I do not know about any other event that can be interpreted as an attack on Romanian symbols and institutions by Hungarians.) So I tried to elaborate on this issue, and that's how I got caught up in this whole lynching thing. I was quite surprised to find, me too, that HRW says nothing about the lynchings.

Now, on the basis of the HRW report, I would be quite happy to delete the whole stuff about the lynchings, as they have really nothing to do with the clashes. But then what do we do with this sentence: "The prevalent opinion in the Romanian public is that they were triggered by direct attacks of ethnic Hungarians against Romanian institutions, symbols, statues and policemen"? Should we simply add on the basis of HRW that these rumours were unsubstantiated? Or should we delete the whole sentence as unsubstantiated? What do you propose?

I guess the whole entry needs a serious rewrite on the basis of the HRW report and maybe other sources as well. I am afraid I can't do it right now as I'm in the middle of the exam period, and anyhow, I do not speak Romanian. Could you do it?

(Just one minor thing: although it turned out to be irrelevant here, I do maintain that there were widespread lynchings during the revolution. I base this on the fact that in January 1990, Interim President Ion Iliescu thought it necessary to declare a general amnesty (Law 3/1990, Article 1). 'Widespread' is maybe too strong a word, what I wanted to say is that such incidents were not limited to Hungarian-speaking areas. But anyway, I admit this question is really irrelevant here.)--Tamas 20:46, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Hungarian and Romanian revisionists

I deleted the reference to "Hatvannégy Vármegye Ifjúsági Mozgalom, abbreviated: HVIM; Romanian: Mişcarea Tinerilor din cele 64 de Comitate), a virulent revisionist and irredentist Hungarian organization." because they had no role in the events whatsoever. Anyway, this organisation is insignificant, not supported by most Hungarians. One more point: if we want to compare revisionist, xeniphobic, or anti-semitic organisations in the two countries, there is the example of the Greater Romania Party with significant electorial support in the Romanian Parliament. --KIDB 09:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC) + links:

• [6] - (romanian) Romanian Deputy Chamber discussions about HVIM
• [7] - (english) article about a neo-nasist manifestation in Hungary, held by four organizations including HVIM

Please use the correct translation: Great Romania Party (Partidul România Mare). It is not Greater, is Great - and that is because Romania is a Great country - come and see! ;) The incorrect form Greater might lead to incorrect ideeas. I have seen that translation a lot, even on Radio Free Europe and it is not the party's official translation - I wonder who did it ? :) This party has no irredentist tendencies and no teritorial intentions regarding Hungary. I do not like this party, but I had to specify the truth about it. This party's nationalistic message is only about protecting ourselfs from the Hungarian irredentism. If organizations like HVIM and websites like hungarian-history (dot) hu and others wouldn't exist this party would have also no reason to exist. Peace! :) -Paul- 15:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC) , Romania

• I did not say they are revisionist towards Hungary they only would like to have Moldova :-)
• I agree, Romania is a great place.
• You didn't comment on the anti-semitic behaviour of the party...
• I know they would like to "protect" Romanians from Hungarians, this is always the first step towards xenophobia... --KIDB 16:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you deleting the text. I believe it is meaningful to mention the affiliations of the persons involved. I will rv your change. I suggest you rephrase the content, if you find it offensive, but the information should remain there. Dpotop 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In this case please try to be balanced and present similar Romanian organisations. Preferably in another article. --KIDB 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I see you immediately reverted everithing. Please take your time and read it carefully. I deleted only the text above, everything else was only rearranged to be more balanced. --KIDB 10:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to ask NEUTRAL editors to visit [8] to see my proposed text, immediately reverted by User:Dpotop

+Dear Friend, please do not confuse me with KissL in your edits.--KIDB 10:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do it. It bothered me that the modif was done even before I had time to add the following two items which I consider essential to my argument (<5 minutes).Dpotop 10:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I read your version. And I still believe we should discuss a bit. First of all, I believe that you should leave the text added in the section "Human Rights Watch...". I already told you (actually, it's below this line) why "coverage" would not do it. Finally, extremists of both sides must be identified in the context, hence the affiliations. You can probably reduce the amount of text about them, but the data should remain. And of course, you can add data, too. Dpotop 10:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

It would be a good idea to invite neutral editors here. And sorry for the confusion. Do you know if I can change it? Dpotop 10:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

With respect to your change of "involvement" into "coverage". First of all, "coverage" is also a form of involvement. Second, I would agree with the term "coverage" if it is accompanied by the term "biased", or "allegedly biased".Dpotop 10:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, if you have proof concerning the affiliation of romanians implied in the events to the Greater Romania party, please mention it. It may advance the process of determining the real responsibilities.Dpotop 10:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Western media was not involved in the events, they were only involved only in effecting international public opinion after the events. And I am afraid this public opinion is your main concern, not the balanced and neutral design of the article. --KIDB 10:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you chose as main reference for this article a press release of "Human Rights Watch". I consider that it is fair, and therefore I had no objections to letting it where you put it. However, I believe that that press release does not represent correctly the situation, but just a part of it. Another user added some text that, in my view, balances the message. You cannot place the full blame for the events on the Romanian government. There were hungarian extremists, too. It's documented, and I believe that mentioning affiliations is meaningful. So: Yes, all the info we have (you and me) comes from public oppinion, and we need to work with it. However, I do not intend to push here the public image of Romania, and you should not try to push the public image of the Hungarian minority of Romania. What we should try to do is reach something that is NPOV, with the information we have. Dpotop 10:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that mentioning a small Hungarian extremist group, which had no role in the events is a good way to comment on a report of an international organisation.
My text you immediately reverted also included a Hungarian victim, but left every information on another Romanian victim unchanged. After your edit, the text has become a Romanian POW.--KIDB 11:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for deleting the info about the hungarian victim. Could you add it again? Dpotop 11:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll put the victims' paragraph back and delete sentences from other places where the text in the new paragraph comes from - simple replacement of texts within the article. Please follow my edits with the History menu point.
But the other paragraph trying to explain the Human Rights Watch World Report should also be more balanced, also the reference to the irrelevant extremist organisation should be deleted, or placed into another article dealing with extremist groups. --KIDB 12:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that now is the moment to get more people involved if we want to change the text. We probably reached the point where we both are equally unhappy with the text. :) Thanks for adding the new section. Dpotop 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I am also looking forward to other editors' comments.--KIDB 12:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Now I have got the information: the HVM organisation was founded in 2001. No connection whatsoever to the 1990 events. I have the feelnig that -Paul- would like to suggest that the ethnic clashes were initiated by Hungarian extremists - which is no true. I will delete the sentence on HVM and the links. --KIDB 13:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The guy who founded and leads HVM (a completely ridiculous group by the way) was probably about eight years old when the events took place. The fact that Mr Cseresznyes joined this organization more than a decade after the events is completely irrelevant.--Tamas 20:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Another thing: I don't think the fact Mr Cofariu was mistaken for a Hungarian compromised HRW's report. After all, it is accepted by everyone that dozens of Hungarians and Romanians were beaten up. The report describes this general situation. There were dozens of 'real' Hungarian victims whose cases were widely publicized (e.g. Andras Suto). It is enough to refer to this confusion about Mr Cofariu once in the article, and the short sentence in the victims section is perfectly enough. --Tamas 21:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

User:KIDB, when you said you are going to involve other editors, I presumed you were considering neutral ones. However, I feel that User:Tamas cannot be considered neutral on this issue. He is Hungarian, so now we are two Romanians vs. two Hungarians. Let's not transform this in a revert war. If you feel like it, we can start an arbitration procedure. Civilized one. Dpotop 09:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

As to why I think the deleted text is important, my reasons are the same as before. The guy was and still is an extremist. And I believe this is meaningful when presenting what happened. It was not "just a hungarian" outraged by the actions of the Romanian government or by the Romanian nationalists. Now, I agree when you talk about Romanian extremists (although I do not like it). Please accept the true portrait of your extremists, for you do have some, too. Dpotop 09:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

And finally: Nowadays an event is as much what it really was and what the media presents it. Therefore, media coverage is important. Again, you may not agree with this, but it is my oppinion.

I am sorry if you think that this article should become a list of extremist persons, from the two sides, who committed criminal acts during the clashes. I am not going to collect a list of Romanians who stormed the offices of the UDMR, and beaten the people trapped there, including the president of the organisation. The emphasis should be on a pure account of the two days, preferably written by independent international organisations, and on the possible reasons behind the clashes. If, instead of this, we create two long lists of cruelties and criminals of the Romanian and Hungarian communities, the reader will think that people living in the area are dangerous and wild natives with big knifes under their coats, ready to kill passing-by peaceful people.
The inclusion of the HVM by -Paul- shows, I think, an intention to prove that Hungarian extremists were behind the clashes. If you think, extremist organisations were involved, Vatra Romaneasca had a bit more more influence on the events... If you do a little research on them with Google, you will find a couple of pieces of interesting information about their role. And if you think the international opinion is solely based on a video tape, you underestimate quite a lot of people and international organisations. This HVM reference is funny, if you positively wish to keep it, I will include its date of funding :-) --KIDB 10:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with you that emphasis should be on a pure account of the two days, preferably written by independent international organisations, and on the possible reasons behind the clashes. The problem is that there is only one such report, and I feel that report is biased by the media coverage that surrounded the event (it was released shortly after the events, without a real investigation of the causes). I do not know exactly what Paul wanted to say. What I would like to have in this article is clear statement that extremists of both ethnies were heavily involved, and that the direct responsibility, while mainly directed to the Romanian government (which did not manage to ensure public order) is not that clear-cut. Nothing more. If we agree on this, we should be able to find a mutually-agreed formulation.Dpotop 13:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you read Romanian? If yes, here is the position of what I would call a pro-magyar romanian newspaper: [9]. The idea is that the Targu Mures events are not an isolated event, they are just the paroxistic burst in a long history of ethnic tension (a tension that still exists). There is guilt on both sides which goes far in the history, and these events cannot be seen independently. Dpotop 13:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry I don't understand Romanian but if you consider it to be an independent source, please feel free to summarise it in a couple of sentences and include it in the article. --KIDB 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Romanian is Indo-European, anyway, I tried to read it. Does this paragraph mean that only one Romanian but 8 Hungarians were put in jail by the Romanian authorities? This would explain why the UDMR protested and Cseresznyés was let free by the president later. "In evenimentele din martie 1990 au murit cinci oameni, doi romani si trei maghiari. 278 de persoane au fost ranite. O biserica ortodoxa din judet a fost incendiata, iar sediile locale ale partidelor politice au fost vandalizate. 30 de persoane au fost trimise in judecata, iar alte 21 au cunoscut arestul preventiv, in cursul urmaririi penale. Printre cei inchisi au fost 12 tigani, opt maghiari si un roman. Pe 20 martie 2005, toate faptele s-au prescris." --KIDB 16:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Translation: "During the march 1990 events 5 people died: two romanians and three magyars. 278 people were injured. One orthodox church (romanian, n. trad.) was burned, and the the local organizations of the political parties were vandalized. 30 people were indicted, and another 21 were jailed for some time. Among those indicted there were 12 gypsies (sic!), 8 magyars, and one romanian. On March 20, 2005, all related crimes were prescribed (n. trad.: an amnesty was probably granted, it's weird to have crimes prescribed after 15 years)". Dpotop 18:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dpotop, KIDB did not invite me to joined the discussion, this page is on my watchlist as I have worked quite a bit on it. As far as HVM and Cseresznyes is concerned, you say that Mr Cseresznyes was and is an extremist. How do you know he was an extremist in 1990? All you know is that in 2005, 15 years on, he joined an extremist organization. This doesn't prove he was an extremist in 1990. --Tamas 17:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In all, I think there is way too much in this article about the personal stories of Mr Cofariu and Mr Cseresznyes. Three lines about each would be more than enough. There were many other victims and perpetrators who could be singled out, so it's no use spending half of the article on these two guys. --Tamas 17:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

After all these "talks" I begin wondering if this subject (i mean the Tg. Mures clashes) is really a subject for an Encyclopaedia... I feel I have to reply to some questions. There were a lot of questions about why I have added the extra content and about its relevancy. I thought the facts were not presented in enough detail. And especially the confusion regarding that videotape which indeed contributed to a not-so-correct public opinion. After all, first impresion matters, they say. And it is relevant to show the connections and the affiliations (past or present) of the hungarians invovled, in order to show that they were not so "innocent". There was no HVIM in 1990 but the irredentism has been there for a lot more time. On the other hand, no Romanian will easily forget that during the Austro-Hungarian occupation the Romanian majority in Transilvanya was repressed and this leads to a certain sensiblitiy or irascibility, especially when some hungarian extremists have the bad habbit of celebrating "black" events or persons who commited ethnocide or war crimes against Romanians. -Paul- 13:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I had too the impression that your intention was to show that 1. This Cseresznyés is an extremist Hungarian beating innocent Romanians, and 2. The UDMR supports this person. (Certainly, you are sure the UDMR's protest was not based on the fact that mostly Hungarians were sentenced to jail by the Romanian authorities and Romanians beating eg. Sütő András were never found or sentenced) 3. Consequently the UDMR and most Hungarians are bad guys and extremists and this was the main reason behind the clashes. This is why you want to draw attention to the insignificant HVIM instead of talking about eg. Vatra Romaneasca... --KIDB 14:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You got the main ideea. By the way, I have never heard of Vatra Romaneasca. Regarding Mr. Andras, if the person who injured him was not sent to trial, I am sure this is because that person wasn't identified. -Paul- 13:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

You are honest, I like this. If you haven't heard of vatra romaneasca, you must be young, but certainly below 30. Do a Google search with the following words: "vatra romaneasca tirgu mures 1990". --KIDB 14:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Name

Can we at least establish: is Cofariu's first name properly Mihai or Mihăilă? I realize they are variants on the same name. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

In most sources he is called Mihăilă Cofariu --KIDB 16:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Videotape

As far as I know the film was taken by an Irish TV Channel. The sentence originating from the Romanian myth "The tape was misleadingly broadcast by Hungarian television, pretending to depict the ethnic Magyars being beaten by the Romanian majority ..." is again propaganda against Hungarians. --KIDB 12:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody commented, I will remove the misleading information. + Critics of the report can also not prove that this international NGO was influenced by this videotape. They gained information from local sources, not from this video. The report shows a detailed account of the clashes and is not about the single event recorded on the tape. --KIDB 08:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The MITH witch is mentioned above has a real fact: the first television airing the tape was DunaTV, including the comments, and most of the Western TV channels had only redistributed the tape from DunaTV, including the comments made by DunaTV as a real/correct description of the events(it was aired in 21August at the evening news - if I remember correctly) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.207.101.112 (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

HVIM links

Dear Dpotop, HVIM has absolutely nothing to do with the events of 1990. It was founded more than a decade later. So it is completely unjustified to have a links about it on this page. It creates the false impression that this organization had a hand in the events of 1990, which is impossible, as it did not even exist. By adding more and more irrelevant stuff to this article, all we will achieve is that the article itself becomes useless, which is surely not good for Wikipedia.--Tamas 12:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Tamas, I mentioned that the reason for my revert was anonymous edit. While such edits are quite acceptable in general, I feel that disputed ones should carry identification. I won't revert your change.Dpotop 17:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

New link

This seems to be a neutral study on the events, I suggest to be included in the External links paragraph. Forget the title and read directly the description of the actual events in February-March 1990 (from page 14). It is quite obvious from this that the local police and central government did a very bad job. --KIDB 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I,ve just opened it, and (of course) I stumbled on the title. Don't like it in relation with this article. The events of Targu Mures are certainly the product of both nationalisms. Dpotop 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Second note. I do not consider impartial a presentation that does not include the causes of the Romanian demonstrations (school separatism, push for ethnic self-determination, etc.). Without saying that the causes justify the events, I believe that any correct presentation of the events must include this part. Dpotop 09:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just read the first 16 pages of this document (that is, until page 11, using its own numbering), and it looks very much like a mild version of "Bad Romania" pro-hungarian propaganda. I suggest several other Romanians read this, and then we can start a discussion. I did not read the account of the Targu Mures events, yet. However, the source is not impartial. Actually, I find it outrageous. Dpotop 09:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I begin to find you outrageous. What's wrong with the title? Resurgent Romanion Nationalism is exactly what happened in Romania after the 1990 changes, as in many other eastblock states (Yugolsavia for instance). That is generally accepted by scholars. I get very worried about the interethnic relations in Romania after reading talk pages of Romania-Magyar subjects. Maartenvdbent 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"That is generally accepted by scholars" Really? By whose scholars? If we may talk about the nationalism resurrection, we rather should talk about the Hungarians in Romania tendencies towards separatism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.65.78 (talk) 14:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

EYE WITNESS

I'm an eye witness and I can confirm what is written in the Human Rights Watch World Report for 1990. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zmiklos (talk • contribs) 23 Feb 2006.

Well... I lived those events and there are some things witch are "kept quiet" by "scholars". I'll share my view as my previous "eye witness". Starting with the fact that 1989 was one year of changes in Romania and for Hungarian minority was a "historical chance" to regain the autonomy and why not the independence from Romania. I don't want to insist in debating animosities between Romanian and Hungarians, as this subject may cover hundred of pages, but I only want to notice some events prior to 20th March: a) December '89 on Hargita/Covasna/Mures has leaded to victims, but only Romanian officers were killed during the "'89 revolution" (please note that the police-MILITIA of that time- was formed also from Hungarian ethnic people but none of them was badly injured) b) the increase nationalistic rhetoric of Hungarian extremists in the first months of year 1990 has raised fears in the Romanian majority - just read the newspapers c) forced separation of the classes in the schools - to explain : at that moment, you had the choice to follow Hungarian classes or Romanian ones in the school - classes were your primary language was Romanian or Hungarian - and suddenly in January, at the beginning of the second semester - all Hungarian people has refused to attempt to any other class in Romanian, even if they decided to go to Romanian classes. I really doubt that one 15 year kid has such great patriotism in his blood, at that age, to take such actions by themselves! In order to calm the situation, in all schools/high-schools were created separated classes even there was no low to approve this!(In my vision it's like America '60 segregation' - the law was created years after!) d) Social separation of the Hungarians from Romanians: friends, colleagues have become separated, as Hungarian decided to tied up the links between them and to refuse to speak anymore Romanian language - for a Latin based language speaker, Hungarian language is difficult to learn so many Romanians know only some basics of it f) preparations for the events of 20th march - in some state owned factories, some extremist has started manufacturing hand weapons(knives, swords axes,metallic balls, etc)(I have this information from some family friends and this info were disclosed prior to events - I can detail if necessary). Also the fact that in 21th March when the army has virtually blocked/isolated the city, on most of the entries in the cities hand weapons were confiscated form "participants"(even firearms)- for example at the exit to Corunca(toward Brasov), one army track was filled of hand weapons confiscated in only 5 hours e) the number of Hungarian ethnics participants to this events(3:1) has denoted also some high degree of preparation. The involvement of medical staff in supporting only one side(Hungarian) can be put also on discussion(ambulances carrying stones, weapons,etc...) There are more "preparing" events - the Journals/newspapers published at that time, specially the ones from Targu Mures and doesn't matter the language, can give you the idea of suspicions and worries between Romanian and Hungarians at that time! I leave the scholars to analyze and debate them. You may check the corresponding article in Romanian version of Wikipedia for more details of those events. For the start of the events I blame the Hungarians, as I witnessed personally the "trigger" : everything started from a pharmacy on witch the manager(Hungarian ethnic) has decided to replace the Romanian words for Pharmacy painted on the windows, with Hungarian Ones. This has generated the street people protests(Romanian of course) and on top of it some Hungarian extremist has displayed also a big map(hand drawn) of the Great Hungary. This was the moment when everything went to madness!!! Now, after so many years, I see all those events only as one failed attempt or bad managed attempt of Hungarian minority to gain some rights. All the rights(except ethnic autonomy) were granted over the time to all minorities in Romania, not only to Hungarians. Considering the law, Romania has the most permissive minorities laws in Easter Europe(Hungary is far beyond us, if we consider strictly Romanian minority). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmtro (talk • contribs) 11:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE READ THIS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.30.130 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Eye whithess", you state a lot of opinions. In what way is it fact? You claim that you've whitnessed romanians protesting against a hungarian pharmacy sign - which is, I might add a freedom of expression from the pharmacist side, but fail to recall the fact that these ethnic romanians were drunk and also that an ethnic romanian driver drove his car into the crowd and the fact that the romanian media than claimed the driver being ethnic hungarian. You also state that romanian minority laws are one of the most permissive in Europe - clearly you haven't got an idea about minority laws in Europe. In Sweden the lapp minority (the original ethnic group in their area, much like the szekler minority in Transsylvania) has its own parliment, own rights; lapps are 0,5% of the swedish population (there are a 6,5% hungarian minority in Romania). Even the 5000 people of roma are "national minority", wheres the 1,3 million hungarians in Romania is not. In Hungary the 8000 romanians are also "national minority", they have their own autonomic council. In Finland, the swedish minority has an own brigade in the finnish army. The authonomy of szeklers has been promised to them in Alba lulia in 1918, in the very document, that is the judical base of the romanian claim for Transsylvania (since the treaty of Trianon was signed by the Kingdom of Hungary, and the Kingdom of Romania and those countries are no longer exist, the treaty is also non in void), the szekler minority just want romanian legislation to honour the promise of thier forefathers.

The "Romanian" Trabant driver was actually Nagy Samuel, a Hungarian ethnic. This has been proved and doccumented. This is again, the way hungarians like to "turn" the facts in their favor.

Maybe the swedish minority in Finlad has its own brigade, but to whom do they pledge allegiance? To Finlald, or Sweden? -Paul- (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just by looking at a map the claim of "szekler independence" can be dismissed; it would be an "island - state" within romania, just like West Berlin. Not a scenario the Szekler minority wishes.

"eye whitness" claims that; "...the police-MILITIA of that time- was formed also from Hungarian ethnic people but none of them was badly injured." So how many high ranking, or even low ranking officers were ethnic Hungarians? The likely explanation why none of them was badly injured, is that they were so hard to find. It is in the interest of romanian leadership to keep hungarians out from armed personel affiliations. How many hungarian police officers are there in the counties that have 75% ethnic hungarian majority?

It gets better; "the increase nationalistic rhetoric of Hungarian extremists in the first months of year 1990 has raised fears in the Romanian majority - just read the newspapers". Yes, I did, and the involvment of Vatra Românească is in no way debated by mr "Eye whitness". The meeting in Alba lulia, where Vatra Românească agitated the romanians with chauvinistic ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.58.124.81 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, there is no trace in your argumentation about the ethnic flooding Targu Mures was subjected to; how ethnic romanians are moved in in order to shift the ethnic balance. Neighter the number of hungarians were forced to leave the area. Since 1990 some 400,000 hungarians have moved from Transsylvania, hungarians are beaten by ethnic romanians every week, just for speaking hungarian!

This "Eye Whitness" report is eihter false or at least biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.3.30.130 (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Name of the article and various things

Hi, should this article be moved to Ethnic clashes in Târgu Mureş? I think this is more the English convention. Also, there are still some POV issues, and slight issues with language which I will attempt to fix... ethnics on its own tends to have a pejorative usage in English (well, at least English English). - FrancisTyers 18:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the clashes were indeed "ethnic clashes". The only acceptable replacement I could see is "magyar-romanian clashes" or "romanian-magyar clashes", but then there is the problem of which one comes first. :) Dpotop 18:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I mean in for of ;) The ethnics part refers to a part of the text that said "Hungarian ethnics". - FrancisTyers 19:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Questionable cut

The following sentence was cut April 10, 2006 by FrancisTyers (talk · contribs) with the unrevealing summary "some fixes": "One of the perpetrators, ethnic Hungarian Pal Cseresznyes, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years in prison, but was released in 1996 by Romanian president Emil Constantinescu, as an act of reconciliation." - Jmabel | Talk 20:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, I removed that during some other edits. I should probably have done it separately, or left a more revealing edit summary. Basically I can't remember why I removed it now, feel free to re-add it. - FrancisTyers 22:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

"…leading to several severe injuries and casualties": injuries are casualties. What do you mean to say here? - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!!! I totally agree.... [User talk:Csabap|Talk]] 23:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

So what do you mean to say? "…leading to several severe injuries"? "…leading to several severe injuries and deaths"? - Jmabel | Talk 04:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fz22, we'll stick to the chronological order then, when listing the emblematic victims. Alexrap 14:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

So be it. BTW Cofariu was a simple marionette ... It was not even proven that he was beaten on that famous Irish TV record. He wasn't an ethnic Hungarian either, i know, however Cofariu's evidence could be false considering his "selective" memory from the Cseresznyes process ...--fz22 20:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course he wasn't Hungarian. Hungarians were only those who belived that it was their duty to try to kill him. In any case, I will try to ignore what you just wrote as it is simply ridiculous and offending. I would just add that unless one wants to move and live on Mars, such a defiant attitude is not at all helpful. Alexrap 09:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Hungarians were only those who belived that it was their duty to try to kill him" - nice. --KIDB 10:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Totally Disputed" tag

A "totallydisputed" tag has been inserted at the beginning of this article (by user Fz22). To me, the article is pretty NPOV, but if some people think it is not, then we could probably improve it by having a discussion in here. Alexrap 14:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Percentages

Hello, where did you take the 46% Romanian and 51% Hungarian figures? Which census? Dpotop 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that the census of 1992 is meant, because that is the most relevant census in regard to the clashes. But I don't know for sure. It must be rather easy to look up those census data though. Maarten 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I found these figures on the Romanian Wikipedia ro:Târgu Mureş for the 1992 census:

După etnie locuitorii se împart în 75 851 români, 84 492 maghiari, 558 germani, 3 259 romi, 156 evrei, 128 alte etnii.

By adding these numbers, I came to a total population of 164.444 people. 84.492/164.444 = 51,38% Hungarians, 75.851/164.444 = 46,12% Romanians, so the data seems correct. I cannot provide a reference other than the Romanian Wikipedia, since I can't read Romanian, but there seems no reason to doubt the data. Can someone from Romania put in a reference to the official census data? Maarten 23:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these are the 1992 data. Have a look at the page history, first I suggested to write only that the town had mixed Romanian-Hungarian population, because 1) We don't have data from 1990, 2) Ratios significantly changed between 1992 and 2002 - today Romanians are in majority. This is too complicated to be explained in the lead section, I think. I still think that this simple "mixed" expression could be used, maybe with a footnote with the exact data from 1992 and 2002. --KIDB 08:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I found it. You are right. But we should cite it. Unfortunately, I can't find the site with the official 1992 census data. But there's a not-yet-updated page in Romanian on the Targu Mures city web site. http://www.tirgumures.ro/social.php Dpotop 09:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to a footnote with census details and a reference to the census website. Maarten 15:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Organized by the govt.

Actually I would say that is a great number of romanian people that believe that the entire hate campaign on both sides was planned and executed by the Romanian govt. in order to justify the founding of SRI (Romanian Security Service) after the disbanding of the dreaded Securitate.

A strong enough reason was needed to convince the romanian population of the need for such an institution that would directly inherit the arsenal and modus operandi of the recently outlawed Securitate. So, naturally the "Hungarians want to take away Transylvania" was chosen. Instigators and media were used in the same manner as in the Mineriade in Bucuresti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandruromania (talk • contribs) 09:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Some more details

You can't discuss the events on March 1990 without considering some facts which happened before.

Only little more than 3 months have passed since the December '98 revolution and what happened during those three months in the area is key to the events in March 1990. Those were times of great unrest and the tension between Romanians and Hungarians was steadily increasing. TVR (Romanian national television) correspondent in that area was Dan Suciu (apparently with his colleague of Hungarian ethnicity, Dominik Füzesi). Dan Suciu wrote in his diary the events between December 1989 – April 1990 and fragments of his diary have been published and commented in several newspapers and journals (in Romanian).

Some details in his diary might shed more light to the tension buildup from January to March. Romanian symbols have been removed or profaned (from text signs to national hero statues such as Nicolae Bălcescu or Avram Iancu) throughout Transylvania, there were various declarations (of Hungarian ethnic politicians, and even of the Hungarian ambassador taking about the Hungarian "population" in Transylvania) and then there was the request of the Hungarian ethnics to segregate the public education system on ethic bases. The tension reached a peak on March 15th, when in some areas the Hungarian ethics started celebrating Hungary's national day with Hungary's flags and national anthem. Traveling from Miercurea Ciuc to Ciumani, Suciu reports seeing hundreds of Hungarian flags on houses, all looking identically in size and aspect. On March 16th, a pharmacy seller refuses to sell to a Romanian speaker and a crowd of Romanians starts gathering and protesting. During the same evening, a car is driven directly into a group of Romanians protesters, injuring 14. The driver runs, but his car was set on fire. On March 17th, Dan Suciu and Adrian Popescu, a Reuters photo reporter, ask the local police about the above incident. They find out the author was Hungarian ethnic Nagy Samuel who apologizes, saying he was drank. They also find out there was another car who was chasing Romanians.

Also, an interesting fact - one day before the main events, Irish journalist Gary Honeyford came to Grand Hotel and insisting for a room with street view. Dan Suciu obtained a copy of the hotel records for that day. http://www.ziaristionline.ro/2011/03/20/dorin-suciu-ziaristul-care-a-documentat-masacrul-romanilor-de-la-targu-mures-post-scriptum-la-o-manipulare-maghiara/

Some links with Dan Suciu's diary pages: http://www.napocanews.ro/2010/03/corespondentul-tvr-dorin-suciu-despre-revolutie-si-incidentele-din-martie-1990-de-la-tg-mures.html http://www.napocanews.ro/2010/03/razboaiele-de-imagine-anti-romania-dorin-suciu-despre-%E2%80%9Epogromul%E2%80%9D-de-la-targu-mures-%E2%80%9Cadevarul%E2%80%9D-propaga-minciuna-prin-gurile-unor-borbely-pirvulescu-haller-si-szobot.html http://adevarul.ro/news/eveniment/exclusiv-culisele-manipularii-conflictului-romano-maghiar-20-martie-1990-1_50ad49937c42d5a663924d61/index.html http://www.ziaristionline.ro/2011/03/20/dorin-suciu-ziaristul-care-a-documentat-masacrul-romanilor-de-la-targu-mures-post-scriptum-la-o-manipulare-maghiara/ http://jurnalul.ro/stire-special/post-scriptum-la-o-manipulare-539245.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jJDqbeDZ3c http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/rusii-nu-sunt-interesati-de-nabucco-889590.html

During the past 24 years, almost every year but especially close to March 15th (the Hungary's National day) the Hungarian ethnics or the szekely provoke and incite to ethinc tension. 2010: Bilingual city signpost for Miercurea Ciuc is vandalized, with the Romanian text coverd with szekely script: http://tanasadan.blogspot.ro/2010/09/sovinii-secui-lovesc-din-nou-inscriptia.html

March 2011: Avram Iancu (puppet impersonating him) was hanged by a Hungarian extremist. Several Democratic Union of Hungarians (UDMR) leaders take an oath of allegiance to Hungary. http://www.gandul.info/reportaj/ziua-maghiarilor-un-extremist-l-a-spanzurat-pe-avram-iancu-la-miercurea-ciuc-mai-multi-lideri-udmr-au-depus-juramantul-de-credinta-fata-de-ungaria-video-8063485 http://www.antena3.ro/romania/papusa-ce-il-reprezinta-pe-avram-iancu-spanzurata-la-mircurea-ciuc-120663.html

Mai 2012: Avram Iancu Memorial House set fire with Molotov cocktails. http://a1.ro/news/social/video-targu-mures-casa-memoriala-avram-iancu-incendiata.html

2013: A Romanian girl received a death threat and racist injuries because she was wearing at school a head band in Romania's flag colors, on Hungary's national day. Also other journalists receive death threats via Facebook because show their support. http://www.dantanasa.ro/2013/03/24/sponsor-of-hockey-club-makes-death-threat-to-jurnalist-and-15-years-old-pupil/

Just because you make your voice lauder, doesn't mean it makes you any more right. :) -Paul- (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that you enumerated a lot of sources, that means you can improve this article. Please do so before placing any tags. Placing a NPOV tag and leaving it has no sense. Adrian (talk) 09:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The sense of the NPOV tag would have been to show that the article lacks a NPOV... ? Nevertheless you're right about the fact that the article needs improvement. Unfortunately my time is rather limited. -Paul- (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but if you put that tag, you should do something, "walking by, and putting a tag" doesn`t do anything really. Anybody can remove it since there is no discussion and a pointed out problem in the article. If you believe this article should be improved and you have the references please do so. Adrian (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You are, of course, welcome to improve the article, but be sure to cite reliable sources. Since it is a very sensitive topic, it would be good to mainly cite international sources, as Romanian and Hungarian ones might not be neutral... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: Additionally, I do not see how some of the links Paul provided (talking about events in 2010 and 2013) are connected to this article which reports about an event in 1990. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the kind of events I was talking about:

http://adevarul.ro/news/societate/linsarea-maiorului-aurel-agache-1_50ad810c7c42d5a663966068/index.html http://adevarul.ro/news/societate/femeia--invins-iadul-1_50ad715b7c42d5a663953dcb/index.html http://adevarul.ro/news/societate/o-zi-viata-unui-criminal-revolutie-1_50ad7c287c42d5a663960a11/index.html There were casualties amongst "Militia" in other areas of the country, but they were shot (usually by snipers or plain clothed aggressors): http://www.dantanasa.ro/2012/12/24/dionise-aurel-agache-cum-a-fost-ucis-tatal-meu-decembrie-negru-o-tragedie-romaneasca-din-targu-secuiesc-de-la-revolutia-din-1989/ Only in the areas with a large Hungarian minority (or a "minority majority") they were usually beaten to death: Liviu Cheuchişan, beaten to death in front of his wife and two kids; linching of Aurel Agache in Târgu Secuiesc (Kézdivásárhely / Szekler Neumarkt) are just two examples. -Paul- (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Improve this short article based on the German version?

A while back, I started writing the German article about these clashes. I used this and the Hungarian article as a base and did own searches as well that led to more sources and more details. As you can see, I also provided a couple of images more (which is never a bad thing). As I don't speak Romanian, I couldn't come up with Romanian sources, just kept those that were already given. If there is desire for this, I could provide a translation that could be used to improve the English version. I mean, in no ways will the reader get an idea what was actually going on there back then. Watch a youtube video with original material and you'll see what I mean. If we would update the English article, it could lead to a further improvement of the German article as well as more Romanian input could be used. In any case, I'd like to recommend Kincses' book Black Spring which is also translated to English as well as Király's blog. I'm curious to see your opinions about my suggestion.SüsüASárkány (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Any improvement is more than welcome, of course supported by valid (reliable) sources. There doesn`t have to be Romanian sources, you can use the data you have and insert it into the article. I would recommend to avoid Hungarian and Romanian sources in this matter, since both can be very POV as User:Koertefa suggested([10]) in the section above. Only when you use sources in other language (than English) you could be precise where the data is (on what page and what language is it on) and anyone who wishes to check this data, he can always use google translate. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point and I am glad that you give higher priority to the correctness of the content than to information having a source but is obviously false. Still, I think that sources being not of Hungarian or Romanian origin are rare and even if there are, they tend to be cursory (lack of details, sloppy interpretation). I wonder if we could collect some information and then see on what both sides could agree on. If both sides agree, I suppose it couldn't be any more neutral. This ways, I didn't think about directly editing the article, but instead provide some information to talk about, then decide what to take. I could imagine to work paragraph-wise, so we could work step-by-step. Also, I could provide the entire translation here, but that would require quite some space on the monitor... I also have to say that sourcing could be better for the German article. We have 32 sources, but a lot of them are contemporary articles from newspapers lousily credited (taken from the Hungarian article). So, let me know what you guys think about this.SüsüASárkány (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This is a very sensitive topic, so the article should be carefully edited, in order to avoid POV pushings and edit wars. I would keep the article brief and stick to the bare facts (which all sides can agree on). I am not entirely against using local reports (Romanian/Hungarian), but I would prefer using international sources as they tend to be more neutral. Of course, anybody can edit the article straight away, but it would be nice to propose major modifications here first, since this would allow other editors to comment (and would help to avoid edit wars, etc.). Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I see your point, but I doubt this policy will lead to improvements to the article. I have to say that the article as is doesn't give much information. I mean, after reading the article users will know that there were clashes, that some people were killed and quite a lot were injured, but that's it. Nobody will learn what actually happened. The article doesn't even mention why the clashes occurred. No word about ethnic Hungarians expected more rights for the use of the Hungarian rights from the Romanian revolution (foreigners might not even know about the historic context). No word either about the incidents at the pharmacy that actually turned the situation violent. Nor is there proper information that and how people were caught in the UDMR headquarter. Nor is there a description about the events of march 20 (including the context of Cofariu being beaten). Important names like Iliescu, Kincses, Judea, Király or Tőkés aren't mentioned not even a single time. And the article is built up on actually only one or two sources being 20 years old (Human Rights Watch report), so the info is quite old. Look, I respect the work being done here and I support the point of view that this topic is worth an article here, but the current articles - considering the few information it gives - could be deleted without loosing much. I mean, people will rather think this was some kind of pub brawl, which is pretty much in contrast of the records you could see on youtube. Now, restricting the article on "independent" sources only won't lead to more details - westerns simply don't care about this event as most of them aren't even able to estimate properly what was going on (due to the lack of information again...). Well, at least I added two pictures to the article giving the incident some faces. Maybe we could also introduce a page that explains the different meanings of "Black March" (Anonymus also had one and there seems to be a book about Hitler youth having an article on Wikipedia already.SüsüASárkány (talk) 09:42, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Request

I respectfully ask all the editors to stop adding unsourced material Raysdiet (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

http://poli.hu/erdely/varo_vasar.htm and http://www.erdelyweb.hu/mvhely/kronika/13szazad.html look like WP:SPS Raysdiet (talk) 21:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I can`t read any of this because I don`t know Hungarian that much. Please explain why do you think this sources are self-published and provide some evidence for it. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Because they seem to be some ordinary sites. Rob.HUN has to provide more information about the authors of the texts Raysdiet (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The first one (poli.hu) is a website of a high school, the material seems like an educational text, thus that one may be treated reliable in my opinion. On the other hand, the second one is a personal website, it should not be used on WP. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Personally I don't think that the website of a high school is reliable enough. I also used Google Translate and I was not able find the expression "cultural center". Another source is needed for the text "no ethnic Romanians were put to trial" Raysdiet (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The official page of some institution (school in this case) is reliable enough. The problem is if the data isn`t there. User:Koertefa can you please check this sources if there is this data there? Adrian (talk) 11:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I propose to write something likw "the most populous city of Székely Land" instead of "one of the historical and cultural centers of Székely Land" Raysdiet (talk) 12:21, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I don`t agree with this info in the lead, maybe in the history section or something. Székely Land exists today as a ethnographic region, Transylvania as a geographical region. In the lead I suggest using the official locations and regions. Adrian (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Since this article is about an ethnically influnced event in one of the centers of Székely Land and Székely Land is a region with ethnic Hungarian majority in Romania, it is justified to mention it in the lead. --Rob.HUN (talk) 14:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The source (poli.hu) states that "A város a vidék kulturális és ipari központja", which translates to "The town is a cultural and industrial center of the region". Whether the region is "Székely Land" is not specified, so it only partially supports the claim which was added by the IP editor. On the other hand, the source also states that the town was one of the "Székely seats". In my opinion, we should probably (also) cite other sources (since the website of a high school may not be the best source). I suggest, we should include the information that the town is a regional cultural center, which is very important for the Hungarian minority of Romania, e.g., [11]. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Shall we start then the article with: "Târgu Mureş (Hungarian: Marosvásárhely) is a cultural center of Transylvania, Romania, with an ethnically mixed population"? This version looks ok to me Raysdiet (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

As long as we also state that the town is an important cultural and political center for the Hungarians in Transylvania. This addition is relevant, since there are many regional cultural centers in Romania, but only some of them are important for the Hungarian minority. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with either version presented here. So the final version would like something like "Târgu Mureş (Hungarian: Marosvásárhely) is a cultural and political center for the Hungarian minoruty in Romania, with an ethnically mixed population". Adrian (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

PS: Since the town indeed lies in the Székely Land, and the clashes were caused by ethnic hatred, this information seems also relevant, and therefore should probably be mentioned in the lead. For this article, it looks also significant that the town was the administrative center of the Hungarian Autonomous Region within Romania in the 1950s-60s, as a background information. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree this information is relevant, just not for the lead section. In the lead section we add the locations that are still valid in present time. Szekely land doesn`t even exist as a geographical region therefore I don`t think that can be used as a designation for the location in the lead.Adrian (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point and that's fine with me. Then, we should mention Szekely Land and the Hungarian Autonomous Region in a section about the background of the event. I just noticed that such section does not exist, but then let's create one. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, a background section would be good information to this article. Adrian (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

"[...]is a cultural and political center for the Hungarian minority[...]" - I don't support this version. What do you mean by "political center"? Do you have any source for this? And why to mention that is a cultural center only for the Hungarian minority? Raysdiet (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Political because the Hungarian minority has political life too. I thought that the source states this info too? It is a center for both Romanians and Hungarians but I believe it is one of the few cultural centers in Romania for the Hungarian minority. Adrian (talk) 22:11, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

The only quote I can see here is "The town is a cultural and industrial center of the region", nothing about politics.

"It is a center for both Romanians and Hungarians" - exactly, if we mention the Hungarians, we should not ommit the Romanians Raysdiet (talk) 05:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The town is a political center for the Hungarian minotiry, as well, since for example the Democratic Union of Hungarians (UDMR) has important offices there and, as I wrote, earlier it was the administrative center of the Hungarian Autonomous Region within Romania. The source above (this one [12]) clearly states that the town "has remained an important cultural and political center for Hungarians in Transylvania". Since every town is a cultural center, it is quite obvious that it is a cultural center for Romanians, as well. What is not obvious for a non-informed reader that it is an important (cultural, political, etc.) center for the Hungarian minority, too. Nevertheless, if Iaa...er...Raysdiet insists, we can mention that the town is a cultural/political center for Romanians, as well (though I see this info self-evident). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

OK then, but let's not mention that in the first sentece. I propose the following version:

Târgu Mureş (Hungarian: Marosvásárhely) is a Romanian town, with an ethnically mixed population that was almost equally distributed between Romanians and Hungarians after the fall of the communist regime in December 1989. Located in Székely Land, it is an important cultural and political center for the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. In March 1990, short-lived, but violent clashes occurred there between the two ethnic groups in the town, involving ethnic Romanians from neighboring villages, too Raysdiet (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, looks fine. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't look fine at all. There are Hungarians living in Satu Mare, Oradea, Arad, Timisora etc., important cities of Transylvania hundreds of kilometers away from Targu Mures. Targu Mures besides being an important city for all the Hungarians living in Transylvania, it is and has been first and foremost a cultural and historical center of Székely Land. --Rob.HUN (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your complains. Koertefa agreed with my version. Târgu Mureş is the Romanian city with the highest number on Hungarian inhabitants and Székely Land is mentioned in my version Raysdiet (talk) 13:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

If you think it's basically the same as the existing version, why is it so important for you to have it changed and not to refer to Targu Mures as a center a Székely Land? Is it in connection with e. g. the discrimination and oppression against the Hunagarian Medical Faculty there? --Rob.HUN (talk) 14:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

What the fuck has the Hungarian Medical Faculty to do with this? In my opinion the fact that the town has an ethnically mixed population is the most important and has to be specified first Raysdiet (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

On my part I am willing to consider accepting any of your versions of the lead which contain at the beginning of the lead the statement of the fact that "Targu Mures (Marosvásárhely)/The town is a (/one of the) cultural and historical center(s) of Székely Land". Since

1. this article is about an ethnically influnced event in Targu Mures and

2. Targu Mures is and has been one of the centers of Székely Land and

3. Székely Land is a distinct cultural, historical region in Romania and

4. the ethnic composition of Székely Land has always been different from that of the rest of Romania,

it is relevant and thus justified to mention that "Targu Mures (Marosvásárhely)/The town is a (/one of the) cultural and historical center(s) of Székely Land" at the beginning of the lead along with the other localizations. --Rob.HUN (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with starting the article like this, because it is not neutral. It offers only the Hungarian perspective. Both ethnicities should be mentioned in the first sentence. However the score is 2 -1 for my version. If Iadrian yu, the othe rcommenter, agrees with me there will be a 3-1 majority Raysdiet (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement "Targu Mures (Marosvásárhely)/The town is a (/one of the) cultural and historical center(s) of Székely Land" does not mention Hungarians. And please, don't drag along a Little Entente of yours instead of valid arguments. KœrteFa reacted before I presented my arguments. --Rob.HUN (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Raysdiet's proposal is correct, I support it. --Norden1990 (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you think it's better than the existing version? What is wrong with the statement, that Targu Mures is "one of the historical and cultural centers of Székely Land" in your opinion? --Rob.HUN (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Norden, I admit that I did not expect your support Raysdiet (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but please avoid the "What the f*ck" phrase, we should stay in civilized context. Anyway I don't understand this debate. Dear Rob.HUN, what is your proposal accurately? --Norden1990 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

My proposal is keeping the existing version as it is. Raysdiet wants to remove the statement that Targu Mures is "one of the historical and cultural centers of Székely Land" which I think is factual, relevant and important: Since

1. this article is about an ethnically influnced event in Targu Mures and

2. Targu Mures is and has been one of the centers of Székely Land and

3. Székely Land is a distinct cultural and historical region in Romania and

4. the ethnic composition of Székely Land has always been different from that of the rest of Romania, (the root cause of the events),

it is relevant and thus justified to mention that Targu Mures is "one of the historical and cultural centers of Székely Land" at the beginning of the lead section, after the other localizations of Targu Mures (Transylvania, Romania). I don't see any objective reasons (bias, lack of relevance etc.) for removing this statement from the lead section.--Rob.HUN (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Rob.Hun. I have been asked to present my opinion here. Relevant talk about this happened here. I have many arguments against your conclusion. Szekely land can`t be presented as a location in the lead because in the lead we use valid designations for the location. I have talked with user User:Koertefa to create a section which will present all backround information related to this article, (Szekely land, Hungarian autonomous region). However I will answer your points as well:

• 1) So ? Is Targu Mures 'today in the Szekely land? Does Szekely land exist under any kind of organization as a political structure? Region? Province? No, today, Szekely land is an ethno-cultural region in eastern Transylvania and as a designation for the location would be false. It would be like ex: Targu Mures a city in Romania and a cultural center of Kingdom of Hungary? How can it be a designation of something that doesn`t exist? Please check the article Miercurea Ciuc where several users made a consensus about the mention of the Szekely land and what does it represent today (note that this consensus is for the articles about places in Romania, this is an article about an event - that is the focus of this article).
• 2) I don`t believe this is a valid argument because this article is not about Szekely land nor the city of Targu Mures. Also this info would be useful but again, not in the lead (please see point 1 for clarification).
• 3) Of course, but it is not even a geographical region like Transylvania. You must understand that today, Szekely land is a special cultural area and not a designation for some location.
• 4) I don`t understand what does this have to do with anything? You have places in Romania with almost 100% of Szekely population and I still don`t understand where is your argument here?

Conclusion: In your points you have not enumerated not a single argument why would your proposal be valid. Nobody is saying that Targu Mures was not important in history for the Szekely Land but today this kind of info is not for the lead. I still think that the best solution is to create a new section and write all the history behind it(as you stated "the root cause of the events"). Adrian (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I am fine with Rob.HUN's version, too, but it seems that other editors (Adrian, Raysdiet) have issues with it, hence, we should aim for a consensus. I can agree with a version similar to Raysdiet's, since it contains the information that "it is an important cultural and political center for the Hungarian minority in Transylvania.". This is the information which is crucial and which should be immediately there in the lead, in my opinion. Raysdiet version even contains Székely Land, though, as Adrian mentioned, in that time it was neither an administrative unit nor a geographical region (it was/still is more like a historical/cultural region). As I wrote to Adrian, it is also fine with me, if we keep the lead concise and only mention Székely Land and the Hungarian Autonomous Region (which had Târgu Mureş / Marosvásárhely as its administrative center in the 1950s-60s) in a later section about the background of the event. Talking about Székely Land is important for presenting the background of the event, therefore it should be surely mentioned in the article, but not necessarily in the very first sentence. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

According to your logic Adrian, regions like Crișana and the Banat don't exist either. I agree, that the causes should be worked out in a separate section. However the statement "one of the hstrorical and cultural centers of Székely Land" in itself, as it is in the lead section, simply sums up that

2. Targu Mures is and has been one of the centers of Székely Land and

3. Székely Land is a distinct region in Romania (which is a relevant circumstance of the events)

thus the statement gives the events and Targu Mures their precise context and connection without bloating the lead section with details. Isn't that what the lead section is for? I think it is relevant and important to have the connection of Targu Mures and Székely Land stated: Targu Mures would not be a major center for the Hungarian population if it wasn't a center of Székely Land. --Rob.HUN (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

After having slept on it, I am willing to accept Raysdiet's proposal. I don't see any reason for having to change the existing version of the lead, and that makes me somewhat wary, but if Raysdiet insists on reframing the lead, I am willing to accept his proposed version as a sign of good will and trust instead of suspicion and distrust. --Rob.HUN (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You still don`t get it, Crișana and Banat are even today geographical regions, like Transylvania and those designations are valid as a location. How can you say for example that : Budapest is located in the Kingdom of Hungary when Kingdom of Hungary doesn`t exist as any kind of region nor political entity anymore? Kingdom of Hungary is way more important than Szekely land and it is not mentioned in the lead because it is not a valid designation. Szekely land isn`t any of this things, and it never was a geographical region. It was an autonomous region(or other political entity in history) that doesn`t exist anymore. Adrian (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"You still don`t get it, Crișana and Banat are even today geographical regions, like Transylvania and those designations are valid as a location." - in Romania Szekely Land is seen as a non-existing (or self-proclaimed) political unit, not as the name of a region. The widely used expression is "aşa-zisul Ţinut Secuiesc" ("the so called Szekely Land"). I propose to use this expression in this article too Raysdiet (talk) 06:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Widely used by whom? The "so called" addition is derogatory and fully not neutral, so it cannot be used per WP:NPOV. The term "Székely Land" must be used without any (positive or negative) labels. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Widely used by whom?" For example by the Romanian press (see [13] and [14] (the latter is the genitive form)). "So-called" is not necessary a pejorative / derogatory expression. It is also "used to show that something or someone is usually called a particular name". E.g. "so-called 'mad cow disease'" It is used in many en.wikipedia articles. By your logic, wiki editors have a distaste for the "the so-called Higgs particle" or "the so-called Hierarchy problem", "the so-called primordial elements" or for "the so-called 1968 Prague Spring" Raysdiet (talk) 07:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I quote from Wiktionary [15] regarding the phrase "so called": "So named; called by such a name, with a very strong connotation that the item is not worthy of that name". Or, see the free dictionary [16]: "incorrectly or falsely termed". Or Cambridge online dictionary: "used to show that you think a word that is used to describe someone or something is not suitable or not correct.". And so on. Of course, there are some situations in which it can be used in a neutral way (meaning "popularly known"), but since it has a strong negative connotation (and I think the media who use it know this, too), it is simply not acceptable in this sensitive article. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope I explained it, so let`s keep it simple. Political structures that doesn`t exist anymore can`t be used as a valid designation for a location. Simple as that. Adrian (talk) 11:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

To reach a consensus, I will respect Adrian's objection and support a version without this designation. Szekely Land is anyway mentioned in Târgu Mureş article (one click away) Raysdiet (talk) 11:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I hope I was also clear: it is fine with me if we only talk about Székely Land in a section about the background of *this* article, as we agreed with Adrian, but it is not acceptable to use dubious labels (such as "so called"), even in the background section. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

? I have seen that there was something about this but it was not so clear to me. Of course, no "So called" or to put Szekely land with "" because that is derogatory in my opinion. Adrian (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Consensus with whom? I accepted your proposed version @ Rob.HUN (talk) 06:10, 8 June 2013 (UTC), in consensus with Koertefa and Nordeen. Now you are trying to change your mind. I object to not including Székely Land in the lead as you proposed. --Rob.HUN (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Adrian, your argument is invalid. It is not stated that Székely Land is to be understood as political structure (administrative region) in Romania. The Székely Land article to which the reader can follow the link does not state it either, that Székely Land is currently an administrative entity of Romania. I have not stated it either. You are trying to argue with something no one said. --Rob.HUN (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If you use it in the lead that is how it is going to be understood. In the lead, we use only valid designations, not historical ones. Also take a look at all articles (places) that once were a part of Kingdom of Hungary. Does any of them state in the lead that it is "located" in the Kingdom of Hungary? Budapest? Subotica? Turda? At Budapest, the Capital , Kingdom of Hungary is mentioned in the History section for the first time and you want to put an historical autonomous political structure as a location in another country??? And Kingdom of Hungary was way more important than some autonomous political structure.Adrian (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"that is how it is going to be understood". Or not. I'd like to remind you that I accepted Raysdiet's version together with Koertefa and Nordeen, not to mention Székely Land in the first sentence together with Transylvania and Romania. This clearly dissociates Székely Land from the previous two and thus eliminates mistaking Székely Land for an administrative region. Furthermore it's not only a historical region. It's a cultural, ethnic and linguistic region existing in the same geographical location since its inception. Since this article is about an ethnic conlict (that started out as a pogrom) it is relevant to have Székely Land mentioned in the lead. --Rob.HUN (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I`d rather avoid that choice and follow all other examples on wikipedia where historical political structures are not mentioned in the lead, or even worst as a "location". Please note that Szekely land is not a historical region either. And I would like for you to acknowledge my arguments, not to skip them and continue to push your POV without any arguments so far. Here are the historical regions in Romania - Historical regions of Romania. It is only a cultural area, nothing more. Adrian (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Historical regions (or historical countries) are delimitations of geographic areas for studying and analysing social development of period-specific cultures without any reference to contemporary political, economic or social organisations." Székely Land is an ethnically, linguistically and thus culturally distinctive region in Romania. --Rob.HUN (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That accusation of pushing POV is rather hypocritical on your part. Your arguments having been rfuted you resort to such attacks. --Rob.HUN (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

If the concern about a possibility of misunderstanding the political status of Székely Land is the genuine and sincere cause of Adrian's and Raysdiet's objectian, here is the most explicit version imaginable:

• "Târgu Mureş (Hungarian: Marosvásárhely) is a town in Transylvania, Romania, one of the centers of the historical, cultural and ethnic region of Székely Land[1] [2]. The town has an ethnically mixed population that was almost equally distributed between Romanians and Hungarians after the fall of the communist regime in December 1989.[n 1] [3]" That should make it more than clear to anyone who reads this article. --Rob.HUN (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Does Budapest has some of this "info" in the lead concerning the Kingdom of Hungary? No. Therefore, please follow the examples and common sense. It cannot be located in some place that doesn`t exist anymore. First I thought that you misunderstood this problem but now I can only categorize this attempt to mention Szekely lans as POV pushing. None of the articles on wikipedia have in their location some political entity that doesn`t exist any more as a location, according to that, Targu Mures will not either. While we are at this kind of thinking, should we add places that were important in the lead for the Ottoman Empire? Roman Empire? Serbian Empire? Byzantine Empire? Or even worst, the lower political structures? Serbian Vojvodina? Banat Republic? Magyar Autonomous Region? [[17]]? I will not waste my words anymore because it is clearly that you wish to mention Szekely land as a location against common sense.Adrian (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Does Budapest has some of this "info" in the lead concerning the Kingdom of Hungary? No.'" It does: Hungary. Wether kingdom or republic, it's only a question government types. The term "Kingdom of Hungary" in itsel refers to a legal entity. You are playing with words. --Rob.HUN (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That accusation of pushing POV is rather hypocritical on your part. Your arguments having been rfuted you resort to such attacks.--Rob.HUN (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hungary and Hungary are 2 totally different things, from political structure all the way to the ethnic structure. Hungary is an existing state and a valid location, the other one isn`t. Please enlighten me, present where in the article Budapest, in the lead is stated Kingdom of Hungary as any kind of location or any mention at all? See it as you will, but if you have any reasonable arguments to dismiss my point, please present where in the lead are the words Kingdom of Hungary??? Adrian (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If there is going to be a consensus, maybe there should be a section enumerating common sense versions of the lead and decide on one of them. This thread is to complicated to read all and follow(I personally don`t even know who agrees on what) and a new section with the proposals would be great. Adrian (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, this source[18] uses Szeklerland and Szekely region as synonyms (Szeklerland/Szekely region). Moreover it also states that Tirgu Mures is the Szekler capital. I think it will be falsification of history if anybody wants to maintain that Szekely region does not exist. It does not have to be "official" administrative division. A region can be also ethnographic, cultural etc.... I think I do not need to explain it too much. Even the Americans use "Szekely region" expression. "The Szekely Land is one of the most beautiful and richest regions in Transylvania." [19], or "The Hungarian character of certain regions of Transylvania, including the Szekely Land. is being destroyed by forced mass resettlements of Rumanians from the original Rumanian provinces of Moldavia and Wallachia into Transylvania."[20]. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The first source you presented does not refer to Szekely land as a region. It clearly states: The Szekler Homeland: The Szekler homeland lies in eastern Transylvania, forming a part of Transylvanian Basin...etc - no Szekely "region". The second source can be easily categorize as a fringe theory because it states Szekely "region" as a subdivision of the Transylvania region which is false. Also the author is the "United States. Embassy (Romania), United States. International Trade Administration" - Trade administration, it is mentioned as a region by the trade administration? For some area to be a region it has to have clear borders, geographical or political. What are the borders of the Szekely land "region"?

Please present a source published by scholars about this subject.

The only partially valid source I can see is the third one, and that is not rock solid because it is again published by the United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance. Subcommittee on International Trade - an organization for trading, not geography or history. I agree that Szekely land today is a cultural area, but nothing more and as such it would be false to use it as a designation for a location in the lead. Please check the examples I have provided in my previous comment. Szekely land is worth mentioning only because it`s political past, but that is history and as such it should not be present in the lead. If we go there, should be say that Targu Mures was a important city in Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) as well? Or maybe add Kingdom of Hungary as well? Add all history in the lead? After all, this article is about Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureș - not about Szekely land. Adrian (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) was a political entity, Székely Land has always been more than just a political entity. --Rob.HUN (talk) 07:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

So now Székely Land is more important than Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711)? Ok. Let`s say you are right. Please explain why? You state that "Székely Land has always been more than just a political entity" - can you please elaborate? Transylvania was a semi-indepentent state, populated by Hungarians as well - ruled by Hungarians, it had a higher political influence and significance in history. It is a region with clear borders, geographical borders. Please explain your claim about Szekely land. Adrian (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Also please bare in mind that other articles on wikipedia does not have this kind of information in the lead. Historical facts are reserved for the history section. According to the practice on wikipedia, this kind of info is not recommended for the lead. Also the current Targu Mures article does not contain this info in the lead, why should this article do? Adrian (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Székely Land while being a historical region and a former political and administrative/legal entity, is a distinctive ethnic, lingustic and cultural region. Your suggesting it otherwise is a denial of the facts and and a clear sign of animosity and ethnic hatered towards the autochton Hungarian population in Romania. --Rob.HUN (talk) 05:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You can say it a hundred times, make it bold and 64 font size it still would not be a valid fact. I am guided by facts and sources - not by feelings, and those things states that this are the historical regions in Romania - Historical regions of Romania. I don`t see Szekely land anywhere, nor do I see at the Budapest article Kingdom of Hungary where you stated that I have played on words. Beside this topic (that Szekely land is not a region, but a cultural area) this is also against wikipedia practice for the lead. None of the articles present their political areas that existed in history, some of them present geographical regions (like Transylvania in this case) but that`s it. Even if by you this would be a some kind of "region" it still isn`t a geographical region and it can`t serve as a valid location. Adrian (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Adrian, these words "area" and "region" are synonyms in English. ( region, area, country, place, part, land, quarter, division, section, sector, district, territory, zone, province, patch, turf etc. ) . Meaning of "cultural region" is exactly the same as meaning of "cultural area".Fakirbakir (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

They may be similar in common usage but as a geographical term it is different. An area is simply a territory, a place. A region has it`s borders, geographical or political, but it has borders. As such (because it is exactly defined what territory a region is), it can be used as a designation for a location. Area doesn`t. Adrian (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Casualties: no ethnic Romanian perpetrators?

I propose renaming 'The casualties' section 'Casualties'. There has been a dispute over the "but no ethnic Romanians were put to trial" part. I couldn't find any references for ethnic Romanians ever having been convicted or at least brought to trial in connection with the events. Since it was an ethnic conflict with victims on both sides it is important to take note of the legal consequences - or lack of - on both sides as well. I also propose mentioning the three Hungarian dead first on basis of the higher count. --Rob.HUN (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this seems fine to me. As for the ethnic Romanians, I propose putting a "citation needed" tag and if a reference doesn`t appear in for example 2 weeks remove that data.Adrian (talk) 11:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this procedure. The text was added by Rob.HUN, and he is the one who should provide the source now. If he hasn't got any, that part should be removed immediately. If he was not able to find a source that something is false, it does not mean that it is true. By his logic, I can add the imaginary text "Hungarian protesters were members of a neo-Nazi organization", and then I will keep it in the article for 2 weeks Raysdiet (talk) 06:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Since this is a sensitive topic, if a statement is likely to be challenged by other editors, it should only be added if there are proper sources. Otherwise, provided that there are sources, I agree that this fact should be mentioned. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"now"? Since you are Romanian and me no speak Romanian, how about you help me find sources on the prosecuted ethnic Romanian perpetrators you suggest to exist, please! I couldn't find any sources in the Internetional and Hungarian media. Do you think they were put to trial in secret? Do you think a double standard based on ethnicity was applied in reporting the court cases? --Rob.HUN (talk) 10:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any source (e.g., book, or newpaper article) which mentions this fact (not necessarily in Romanian), i.e., that no ethnic Romanians were put to trial? If yes, we can include this in the article; if no, it may look WP:OR and should be better left out. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find any on the Web so far. "No reports of ethnic Romanians having been convicted in connection with the clashes have surfaced ever since." could be added. --Rob.HUN (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Meanwhile, for a list of those arrested and sentenced (none of whom has a Romanian name) see Helsinki Watch......"[21]; 14 persons sentenced and convicted under Legislative Decree No. 153/1970, 12 were Roma and the two others were Magyars..."[22] Fakirbakir (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a conflict with another information from the article: two ethnic Hungarians (Pál Cseresznyés and Ernő Barabás) and seven Roma were convicted Raysdiet (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"According to this source 2+7 according to that source 2+12." Fakirbakir (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, there are contradictory data, we must look for more sources Raysdiet (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The question here is about the ethnic Romaninan perpetrators. Neither sorces list any ethnic Romanians being convicted. That is the relevant information here. --Rob.HUN (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"none of whom has a Romanian name" is not the same with "none of them was an ethnic Romanian" Raysdiet (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

But the second source is quite accurate (only Romas and Magyars were convicted) Fakirbakir (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

That is a clear statement about the ethnicity and it is a third party scholarly work. --Rob.HUN (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The article claims that "violence broke out between ethnic Hungarians and Romanians", but 7 / 14 Roma were convincted. Some information are missing here, because it seems that 3 ethnicities were involved, not only two. Also I think it is biased to say that "no ethnic Romanians was convicted". That would imply that some ethnic Romanians were guily but they were not punished. It is enough to say that X Magyars and Y Roma were convincted. Raysdiet (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The Romas got into the conflict later. They were not present when it broke out. --Rob.HUN (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Any source? Raysdiet (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

"Any source?" Are you suggesting Raysdiet, that the Romanina court prosecuted and convicted Roma people on false charges in show trials? --Rob.HUN (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

It is a fact the Roma joined to the Hungarians in the attack against the Romanians. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

We should look for a source regarding the actions of Roma too Raysdiet (talk) 21:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the role of Roma people should also be discussed in the article. Since, we have a source (Helsinki Watch) which emphasizes that none of those who were arrested or sentenced had Romanian names, we can mentioned this, as well, together with the information that 7/14 Romas and 2 Hungarians were sentenced. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 23:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Full protected

...for one week to stop edit-warring. If the dispute cannot be resolved here within a day or two, please invoke WP:Dispute resolution. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

András Sütő

Much of the text referring him ("the Hungarian writer András Sütő was seriously beaten when ethnic Romanians attacked the offices of the Democratic Union of Hungarians (UDMR). With several bones broken and his eyes injured he was carried to the Bucharest Military Hospital, then, later, by a military aircraft to Budapest, Hungary,") cannot be found in the provided source, namely http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/04/AR2006100402032.html which only affirms "In March 1990, Mr. Suto was nearly beaten to death and lost an eye during clashes between Romanians and ethnic Hungarians in the Romanian city of Tirgu Mures after Ceausescu was ousted in December 1989." Raysdiet (talk) 07:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you tried searching for a more detailed source? Or are you just trying to question every detail? Are you a neutral editor on Wikipedia or one motivated by ethnic hatered towards the autochton Hungarian population in Romania? --Rob.HUN (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Here is a detailed description of the events by András Sütő himself: http://www.bbc.co.uk/hungarian/news/story/2005/03/050321_sutoandrashung.shtml. --Rob.HUN (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Please offer the exact quote + translation of the targeted text from Hungarian language text. But a third party source would be better Raysdiet (talk) 08:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Source

Some facts about the events here[23]. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:56, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"intoxicated Romanians"? This is a highly biased opinion. Did this lady who wrote the book measure their alchoolemy? Also the text written by you " Romanian villagers despatched by coach and train arrived to the city and savagely attacked the headquarter of the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania." uses subjective epithets. Raysdiet (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The entire "Events" section is based on the one reference by "this lady" by all definitions of the word, this is POV! And something else, the hungarians should thank Iliescu that he stopped the trains with romanians leaving for Targu Mures from Bucharest, Iasi, Craiova, Cluj, or Constanta... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.41.111 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

"national day of the Hungarian state"

I was wondering how does a Romanian understand this expression: 1. as a national celebration of the Hungarian state 2. as a national celebration recognized by the Hungarian state.--Rob.HUN (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

??? I understand for what it is, if it is a celebration of the Hungarian state(Hungary) - then that is what it is. Adrian (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps there is a misconception: March 15th is not about celebrating the Hungarian state. March 15th is the celebration of the 1848 Revolution a symbol of attaining Freedom and Independence in general:

1. for Hungary as a country from Austria and

2. in Hungary for all: the abolition of serfdom was accepted by the national assembly shortly before the outbrake of the revolution and signed by the Austrian Emperor under pressure of the revolution.

The celebration of the Hungarian state (the celebration of founding the Hungarian state) is Augustt 20th, the day of King Saint Stephen.

The law on national holidays lists three national holidays (nemzeti ünnep) (March 15th - 1848, August 20th - 1000, October 23rd - 1956) and this law designates August 20th as state holiday (állami ünnep).--Rob.HUN (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

References

The Events

Raysdiet created a new section, The Events and heavily expanded it with Romaninan media reports. Since the role of the media is highly controversial in this event, please provide third party/scholarly sources when adding information. --Rob.HUN (talk) 09:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "third party sources", Rob.HUN? Non-Romanian and non-Hungarian sources? This is an absurd request. Where do you think the so-called "neutral" sources have their information from? Either from a Romanian source, either from a Hungarian source, because there were no neutral witnesses. Anamaria Dutceac is also Romanian. Don't forget that the Western media was misinformed by Hungarian reporters Ethnic_clashes_of_Târgu_Mureș#Western_media_involvement Raysdiet (talk) 09:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Raysdiet, you know well the source is perfect. You should find other sources and contribute more instead of reckless reverting. I know it is the easiest way, but it is time to do something more useful in connection with this subject. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourced material

A well sourced material was removed without any proper discussion.[24] "Because I do not like it" opinion can not be proper reasoning. If somebody does not agree with the content he or she will have to improve the article and find other sources for the sake of factual accuracy instead of thoughtless reverting. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If an admin does decide to intervene, it should also be noted that associated with the on-going edit warring, the article appears to have been the target of recent sock puppetry - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rob.HUN. RashersTierney (talk) 11:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible that sock maters are also involved... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, you are the one who added material without proper discussion [25]. Some complains regarding your source are at Talk:Ethnic_clashes_of_Târgu_Mureș#Source Raysdiet (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Rob.HUN also removed my well sourced material without any proper discussion [26] Raysdiet (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

User Raysdiet, I do not get it. I usually contribute first ("I add new material"), and later, if somebody has a problem with it I will discuss it at talk page. First step "contribution", second step "discussion". It would be quite interesting to discuss everything first at talk page without any new contribution in the article...Even if you had thought the content is biased you should not have deleted it, because it is well sourced.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree that this material is referenced to a reliable source and should be reinstated. Will allow a short period for rebuttal before doing so (article protection permitting). RashersTierney (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, your text presents Romanians in a very bad light, as "drunk savages" (your own words), while Hungarians are presented as innocent people who were only trying to peacefully celebrate. I tried to add sourced text as a counterbalance and when Rob.HUN removed my text, I removed yours. Either both contributions stay for now, or none of them. Raysdiet (talk) 07:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I simply wanted to avoid COPYVIO and used "drunk" instead of "intoxicated" and "savagely" instead of "violently". The facts are sometimes uncomfortable things. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Did this lady who wrote the book measure their alchoolemy? How was concluded that they were drunk? I think this is a personal interpretation. Also, I would prefer the original epithet "violently" instead of "intoxicated"

On the other hand, I am requesting your opinion regarding Rob.HuN action of removing my sourced textRaysdiet (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

He should not have removed it, however I do not know if www.napocanews.ro is a reliable source.Fakirbakir (talk) 12:34, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Fakirbakir's additions were well-sourced and contained new information. I support their addition. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The text from http://www.napocanews.ro/ is written by the journalist Dorin Suciu , correspondent of the Romanian Television in December 1989 and March 1990 in Targu Mures Raysdiet (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Admin comments This article has been temporarily protected to prevent future edit warring. Raysdiet, keep in mind that you reverted material 4 times yesterday, crossing the WP:3RR bright line, and you rightly could've been blocked by admin Drmies instead of protecting the article. Rob.HUN, 3 reverts is a bright line, but you also could've been blocked for edit warring as well despite only doing exactly 3 reverts yourself. Everyone: The process is WP:BRD: Bold addition, revert controversial material, discuss change to come to a new consensus.--v/r - TP 14:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Time out

Can we please decide how we want this article changed and not simply wait for the protection to expire and the whole edit warring nonsense to begin again. Please say what you want changed, why, and with WP:RSs to back up your proposed change. RashersTierney (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The lead was such a mess so I tried to improve this article and contributed new relevant information.[27] I agree this subject is a sensitive issue but it will be not my fault if the scholars use words like "intoxicated" or "violent".Fakirbakir (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Moreover, we should also mention the role of the Roma people. We know that there were three ethnic groups in the attack and the Roma joined to the Hungarians against Romanians. I have already found two sources about latter prosecutions (you can find them here [28]) and they equally state that only the Roma and the Hungarians were prosecuted (7 or 14 Roma and 2 Hungarians were arrested or sentenced).Fakirbakir (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

In its report 'Since the Revolution - Human Rights in Romania' - March 1991, p15, Helsinki Watch reported on the ethnic background of those arrested and prosecuted, It stated that "The Prosecutor's Office in Tirgu Mures conducted an investigation into the events intended less to get at the truth than to make a few individuals scapegoats for the violence. Helsinki Watch interviewed the Chief Prosecutor for the County of Mures who reported that 31 people were investigated in connection with the events; two were ethnic Romanian, five were ethnic Hungarian and 24 were of Gypsy origin." and "In addition to the 31 mentioned above, between 14 and 18 Gypsies were tried and convicted of various offenses such as possession of weapons and disturbance of the peace. These Gypsies were tried under Decree 153 which was first published on April 13, 1970, and which was directed against those who were "parasites" of the socialist order. After the December 1989 revolution, Decree 153 was identified as an extremely abusive tool of the Ceausescu regime. " RashersTierney (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand what you want to demonstrate with this quote. Do you suggest adding it to the article? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:22, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps just the first sentence. It can also be used as a source for the ethnic background of those arrested and prosecuted. RashersTierney (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

"Scholary work"

What does exactly a scholary work mean in this context? It is just about being an objective observer of the events. Are there people specialized in being witnesses? Hh2013 (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

What does scholarly work mean? Well, in this case the author (Anamaria Dutceac Segesten) is a researcher, has a PhD in a related field, works at a prestigious university, and published her book with an academic publisher (thus, it was very likely peer-reviewed, etc). Last but not least, she is neither Hungarian nor Romanian. These make her much more reliable than those newspaper articles and tv reports we could cite from Romania or Hungary. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 22:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Anamaria Dutceac Segesten was born in Romania (she wrote articles in Romanian - http://www.acum.tv/articol/10804/). Her specialization (http://www.sol.lu.se/en/person/AnamariaDutceacSegesten) could make her a reliable analyst of the social causes / political situation, but all what she does in the referred text is narrating the events. For narrating the events with accuracy, the main needed attribute is to be a witness, not to have a PhD in Comparative Politics and International Relations. The Romanian television correspondent, which was present in the middle of the action, is more reliable in my opinion. I maintain my position that "intoxicated" is an epithet possibly given without arguments (I doubt that someone measured the alcoholemy of those people). If keeping it, I propose to explicitly attribute the epithet (something like "...described by Anamaria Dutceac Segesten as being "intoxicated"") Hh2013 (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureș. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071016205129/http://www.evz.ro/article.php?artid=193872 to http://www.evz.ro/article.php?artid=193872

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) 13:52, 1 December 2017 (UTC)