Talk:Fântâna Albă massacre

small observation

ATTENTION ADMINISTRATORS-this entire thread is nothing but WP:FORUM violation and should be 'hatted' please ...

Looking at the last edits and reading the ethnicity of their authors (from their names and pages), one is put in face of an eternal truth: it is in face of real danger (like totalitarian ideologies and regimes) that people see how small are the divisions between them, and how these uncleared issues help the evel (e.g. totolitarianism) devide and hence weaken people. I always wanted to understand what was in the minds and souls of the Romanian sudents who in 1956 supported the Hungarian revolution, for which they were arrested, and some even executed. Now I understand, those students knew something the rest of us only now start to understand: there is no such thing as Hungarian cause or Romanian cause, to defend the truth everyone should rise. :Dc76\^talk 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

(ignoring nonsensical argument below), nicely put Dc76. :) I completely agree. :) K. Lásztocska 22:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

spreading lies will really help improve you image.Anonimu 22:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding us who promoted and promotes Hungarian-Romanian hatred. People do learn a lot from facing extremism and dictarure. They become better people. The existence of the people that promote extremism like you is a necessary evil. :Dc76\^talk 22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Should I put a link to WP:NPA in my signature?Anonimu 22:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not attacking you, but your promotion of an extremist idiology. I do accept your personal right to support it, but I has been always against promotting it. I think you understand very well. :Dc76\^talk 22:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I am also strongly against your promotion of 189th century nationalism and other "values" and "facts" supported mainly by the extreme right movements. So we're even.Anonimu 22:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean 19th century, buddy. Nationalism was almost unheard of until the French Revolution in the LATE 18th century. Nationalism isn't exclusively the property of the far-right, by the way. K. Lásztocska 22:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is. Just look at Ceausescu: a right extremist ruling over a socialist system.Anonimu 22:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Logical fallacy. The existence of far-right nationalists does not mean that everyone who considers themself a nationalist is far-right. I could expound on various philosophies of nationalism and patriotism and the good and bad variants thereof, but you would just deliberately ignore it. K. Lásztocska 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please, not the greek&romans shit. In modern politics nationalist є far-right.Anonimu 23:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

well, come to think of it, I have always felt a little out of my century...K. Lásztocska 23:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Opposing communism is an extreme right movement? That is exactly what Stalin wanted all along: who is not communist, is fascist. :Dc76\^talk 22:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The way you're doing it, yes.Anonimu 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You simply enjoy calling people that disagree with you fascist. I told you before, and I am telling you again: you lack some education. :Dc76\^talk 23:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed those classes that should have indoctrinated me into believing there's a general conspiracy against my nation/ethnicity/religion/race/(other unfair ways to divide people).Anonimu 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I fully echo the noble sentiments of Dc76 and K. Lastochka, and express my dismay (but not surprise) at the sheer inhumanity and brutal mindset displayed by the other party to this debate. I remind readers that to a Communist, anyone to the right of Nelson Rockefeller or Valéry Giscard d'Estaing is a fascist and a right-wing extremist, so we don't need to listen to such smears. Vojislav Koštunica, a nationalist, is not a fascist. Shinzo Abe, a nationalist, is not a fascist. I, a nationalist, am not a fascist: indeed, fascism is a movement of the left (as is its close ideological relative, Nazism or Nationalist Socialism) that attempts to co-opt rather than eviscerate business, and superimposes nationalism on a Marxist substructure, but in all other respects is a typical European socialist outgrowth of the industrial age. So please, spare us the nonsense. Biruitorul 00:41, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Not again that "fascism is socialism" sophistry. from the extreme right to the extreme left everybody considers fascism a far right ideology. for God's sake, even Mussolini, the one who imposed it on the world scene. thought that. stop making a fool of yourself.Anonimu 00:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. On a second thought, you're considering fascism a far right movement too. Everybody can see I've only talked about "right extremism" and "far right", however you accused me of considering people fascist. Hypocrite!Anonimu 01:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not "everybody". See John Ray's writings. Biruitorul 16:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

FASCISM RIGHT OR LEFT?

• Fascism right or left? It depends from what we mean for right. If the right means conservation in the economic and social structure, then fascism does not belong to right because made significative changes in the society. Actually Mussolini before founding fascism was a socialist not a conservative. On the other hand, if we mean right as nationalism then fascism was right. On my view Franco and Antonescu were conservative not fascist, but Nasser and Peron were fascist. --Deguef (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Fântâna Albă massacre (done by Russians against Romanians), Ip Massacre (done by Hungarians against Romanians) are one of the many reasons that I hate Russians and Hungarians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.120.204.213 (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dear Anon. By the Soviets, by the communists, not by the Russians. By specific Hungarian irredentists, not by Hungarians in general. There were many anti-Communist Russians. There were many non-irredentist Hungarians. I hope you don't hate them, too. Dc76\^talk 14:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

A French version needed

Tha Fantana Alba massacre as well as other massacres made by Soviet army in Eastern Europe are totally ignored in France. Somebody should take care of writing an article on this topic for French Wikipedia.--Deguef (talk) 16:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Number of victims

I'm not quite sure what the issue has been with the lede. Both sources cited speak to 2,000-3,000 total attempting to cross the border (another source cited later is quoted at 2,500-3,000). Some 200 died immediately from gunfire. More were dragged through the forest, killed, and buried in mass graves. More were tortured and killed by the NKVD and buried in mass graves. Neither of those two sources indicated total victims. I trust warring parties find my rendition a sufficiently accurate representation of sources to cease hostilities. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:29, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The source is very clear:

"Un număr exact al persoanelor ucise în acel mascaru nu poate fi dat, unele date arată că nu mai mult de 44 de persoane au murit încercând să treacă graniţa, dar alte documente ale martorilor locali spun că între 200 şi 2000 de victime în care s-a tras cu mitraliere sau care au fost sfâşiate de săbii sau chiar aruncate de vii în gropile comune."

in English:

"An exact number of people killed in the massacre cannot be established; some data point out that no more than 44 people died while attempting to cross the border, but others document of the local witnesses talk about between 200 and 2000 victims that were shot at, teared up by swords, or buried alive in mass graves".

Why are you deliberately misrepresenting the source? I think your aversion towards anything Soviet it's preventing you from thinking clear, so please abstain from such edits that can easily be classified as tendentious editing. Anonimu (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you tone down your rhetoric. Can you say anything anywhere without insulting editors or claiming anyone you disagree with is psychologically afflicted with blinding anti-Soviet rage? Your attack dog tactics grow wearisome. Regarding the lede:

1. based on all sources, it's 2,000 or 2,500 to 3,000 (perhaps a bit more) total attempting to cross the border
2. per the source you quote, "some data" is not very helpful (the 48), is not in keeping with eyewitness accounts, which start at 200, a number which is also quoted in other sources; furthermore, per the very source you quote, regarding research by professor Aurelian Căruntu:
   • ..."cifrelor dintr-un document al Serviciului Special de Informaţii, depistat de mine la Arhivelor Naţionale din Bucureşti, unde sunt menţionaţi 200 de morţi şi 500 de răniţi. La aceştia trebuie adăugate sutele de persoane care au fost condamnate şi deportate în urma evenimentelor menţionate." that is,
   • ..."figures in a document of the Special Intelligence Service, which I found at the National Archives in Bucharest, where 200 dead and 500 wounded are listed. To these must be added hundreds of people who were convicted and deported after the events mentioned."

So, the most reliable number, and sourced to either eyewitnesses or to the National Archives—and appearing in multiple sources—is 200 dead initially. The 2,000 upper limit on the dead is speculative at best (numbers "shot at"); there is no specific upper limit on victims other than the implication they were all killed, and so I felt it was better to leave any upper bound out of the lede, only to indicate that subsequent to the initial event, there were additional victims not killed in the initial massacre.

You may believe your edit is more precise. However, my content, regarding the numbers and presentation of the situation, is the more accurate account and the most representative of consensus among sources. I'll thank you to not accuse me of deliberately misrepresenting sources, tendentious editing, blah, blah, blah. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The number of people who tried to cross the border is not equivalent with the number who died, as you formulation implied. "Some data" is as helpful as "some eyewitnesses," no reason to give precedence to any. Thus I've decided to present both positions. The professor talks about 200 deaths, 500 wounded, and hundreds deported, i.e. basically 200 deaths (not only initially, as you state). Also, the claim that all the 2,000 or 3,000 mentioned in the source as attempting to cross the border are implied to have been killed by the Soviets is just your speculation, not supported by the source (the subtitles in bold are specifically ambiguous, as the source is, after all, a commercial newspaper that has to draw readers by sensationalistic phrases).Anonimu (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Umm, it's your formulation that equates the upper level of those who died with the lower level of who attempted to cross (2,000). The 200 deaths are at the initial killing, there is no other way to read the sources. I categorically did not imply all were killed, I avoided any upper number on the total killed so as to avoid that topic given there was no reasonable basis given for the 2,000 perhaps killed in the source you prefer. You are contending I lobbied for the exact opposite of what I stated; you're the one who wants the source with the huge upper casualty number, not me. Odd, considering I'm supposedly the one who is the anti-Soviet anti-Christ. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Romanian population decline

I find an unwanted oversimplification in the following passage:

As a result of emigration and killings, the Romanian population of Chernivtsi region dropped by more than 75,000 between the Romanian 1930 census and the first Soviet census of 1959.

The most evident reason of "Romanian population" decline in the censuses is that many people simply identified themselves "Moldovans", "Ukrainians" or "Russians" rather than Romanians. Voluntarily or not. This is a common demography trend for any country. Whatever the Western scholar has noted. Happy edits, Ukrained (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that is the case here (that Romanians were merely renamed). It is well-documented that Soviet records called Romanians in Moldova "Moldovans", while in Ukraine they called Romanians "Romanians." What the numbers mean in both censuses is consistent, that is, there was a true drop in Romanian population. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)