Talk:János Scheffler

Hungarian ethnicity

Even it may seem obvious for some, this information still needs a reliable source (the family name Scheffer could suggest a German origin) Transerd (talk) 23:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your source http://www.keresztenyszo.katolikhos.ro/archivum/2011/julius/1.html . Unfortunately I can't find the text about the ethnicity in the Google translation. Are you kind to show us the exact quote? Thanks in advance

The first sentence of the penultimate paragraph. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If you did this in the first place, the edit war would have been avoided Transerd (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian priest

This is a standard formula, see other articles: Zoltan Mesko (American football), Ioan Lupaș, Raed Arafat, Ana Cumpănaș, Iuliu Maniu, Hermann Oberth etc. Please don't modify it before consensus Transerd (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

He was not just Romanian priest. He was bishop of Szatmárnémeti, Hungary in 1942. He was bishop of Győr, Hungary from 8 of November, 1945. Fakirbakir (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As I also wrote in the edit tag, the version that you support was created yesterday, it did not have any consensus, so why shouldn't we modify it? The approach that you called the "standard formula" is very confusing here and should be avoided since it has the danger of misleading the reader. It does not matter if the word "Romanian" is linked to "Romania" and not to the "Romanian people", since 99.99% of the readers will not follow the link. There are, of course, many other articles which follow another "standard formula", for example: Sean Connery, Jackie Stewart, Yasser Arafat, Kris Peeters, Guy Vanhengel, Joan Miró, José Antonio Ardanza Garro, Edurne Pasaban, Eric Robinson, Quim Monzó etc. In our case, this "standard formula" is much more precise and I do not see your problem with it. Can you please elaborate? Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 14:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity in the lead

The stable version does not include ethnicity in the lead, you first inserted it here [1]. Stop re-inserting it without consensus

Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability" (Wikipedia:Opening_paragraph#Opening_paragraph) Transerd (talk) 14:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• So the current form is "a Austro-Hungarian". Congratulations. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

"Austro-Hungarian" refers to citizenship, its inclusion is according to guidelines Transerd (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by "stable version"?? It is a variant from yesterday which was critizied by many of us. It's not stable... On the other hand, my main aim was to avoid statements which are confusing. I could accept leaving out his ethnicity from the lead, thought there are tons of articles on Wikipedia which starts with this (so it is a common practice) and the link that you presented is just a general guideline, it does not contain strict rules. Even that guideline says that it can be included if it has importance, and since he was killed because of ethnic issues (deporting of German people), his ethicity (even his German-roots) is important. And what about, for example, articles like Avram Iancu or Adam František Kollár. Do you think that Avram Iancu should be presented as Austrian-born Austro-Hungarian lawyer? Or should his ethnicity be removed from the lead? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

PS: By the way, there was no such thing as "Austro-Hungarian citizenship". Everybody was either a citizen of Austria or a citizen of Hungary. Obviously, János Scheffler was a citizen of Hungary. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 15:22, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The ethnicity is mentioned in the second sentence of the second paragraph, I think this is enough. He was imprisoned for being a Catholic cleric, not for being a Hungarian. I agree about the "Austro-Hungarian" citizenship. I wanted to raise this issue too in the near future. Avram Iancu was a leader of the Romanian national movement, so his ethnicity is relevant Transerd (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

bishop of Satu Mare vs Szatmár

He was bishop of Szatmárnémeti. He was elected in 1942 therefore the town was Hungarian territory. We should use the "bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Szatmár (present-day Satu Mare)" form. Fakirbakir (talk) 17:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Everyone calm down

Gentlemen, can you please not lose your minds over a couple of turns of phrase in a short article on a bishop from 70 years ago? It's terribly immature. You're not re-fighting World War I here.

• Transerd, around 1800, a group of German Catholics settled in the area around Satu Mare. They retained their German surnames and to some extent other traditions, but largely adopted the Hungarian language. Scheffler very probably belongs to that community. So does the current bishop, who also has a Hungarian first name and a German surname, Jenő Schönberger. If you didn't know that before, you just learned something new.
• Fakirbakir, for one, what source says he was appointed bishop of Győr? Someone introduced that without citing for it. Anyway, even if he served at Győr for a few months, it's highly improbable he readopted Hungarian citizenship at the time.
• Fakirbakir, we know Satu Mare was in Hungary for the first two years of Scheffler's episcopate, but the sources don't seem to place much emphasis on that, and neither should we. After all, we have Northern Transylvania, Second Vienna Award, Satu Mare, Roman Catholic Diocese of Satu Mare and other articles where that history is detailed. The only reason this would be really relevant would be if he did something unusual during that time - like his fellow Romanian Roman Catholic bishop Áron Márton, who spoke out loudly against the deportation of Jews from the Kolozsvár Ghetto being carried out by the Hungarian authorities. Otherwise you just burden the article with extraneous material.
• Koertefa, I'm afraid your alarmism about a simple expression like [[Austro-Hungarian]]-born [[Romania]]n is misplaced. There is nothing "confusing" about naming the state where a subject was born and what citizenship he later acquired. There is no "danger" to a hypothetical reader, and your assertion about what "99.99% of the readers" will or will not do is pure speculation. What sort of "danger" do you mean, anyway? Do you honestly think someone will read that and think he was born an "ethnic Austro-Hungarian" and later decided to become an ethnic Romanian?
• Koertefa is correct that there was no Austro-Hungarian citizenship. However, it was in effect a single state, as well as a somewhat special case. Perhaps this is unsatisfactory, but what I think would be the best approach is if someone was born between 1867 and 1918 within the current borders of Austria or Hungary he is simply "Austrian" or "Hungarian", whereas if born outside those borders, he is "Austro-Hungarian-born" Romanian, Czechoslovak, Yugoslav, Polish or Italian. That way, we emphasize both his origins as an imperial subject and his later adherence to one of the states that emerged from the empire.
• And again, Fakirbakir, it would be helpful not to fixate on this, especially as he was also bishop after 1944 in Romania. If you really want, how about "bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Satu Mare (Szatmárnémeti)"?

So once again, everyone please try and keep some perspective here. This is not that complex or interesting a problem to require such agonizing. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he never lost his Hungarian citizenship. Think about it. He could not have been bishop of Szatmár (1942) and bishop of Győr without Hungarian citizenship (1945). About bishopric of Győr: biography of Scheffler Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I do not understand your reasoning about the use of historical names. Why can not we use the "Szatmár" expression? Its name was Szatmár and not Satu Mare (in 1942). Why should not we emphasize that it was a Hungarian episcopate in that time? Why do you want to hide historical facts? Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Biruitorul for your reply. But I am interested in your opinion about one more issue. In the light of the statement Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability (Wikipedia:Opening_paragraph#Opening_paragraph), what do you think about the inclusion of the ethnicity in the lead, proposed by User:Norden1990? Transerd (talk) 19:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul, we are calm, we are just discussing over content-related and presentational issues, and we have different opinions. There is nothing war-like in this. On the contrary, that's what Talk Pages are for. Like everyone else, you are, of course, also welcome to express your opinion about these issues.

• Even if you think that the expression "[[Austro-Hungarian]]-born [[Romania]]n" looks OK to you, it does look confusing to many of us, so we should not use it. There is a variant which is fully neutral and precise, i.e., " Hungarian-born Catholic priest in Romania and Hungary". What's your problem with it?

• As it was noted earlier, there was no "Austrio-Hungarian citizenship" and we should not pretend that there was. Austria-Hungary was not one state, it was the personal union of states, the Kingdom of Hungary (KoH) was a well-defined country. Therefore, if somebody was born before 1920 in the territory of KoH, we can only call him a citizen of Hungary (KoH).

• I agree with Fakirbakir, since he was elected in 1942, we should use the formula "Roman Catholic Diocese of Szatmár (now Satu Mare)". It is totally irrelevant whether he did or not did anything special in the first years.

These questions are interesting and our discussion does not look like agonizing to me. Ciao, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 19:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Koertefa. There was no such a thing as "Austrian-Hungarian citizenship". Another thing. Previously, I mixed the the name of "Szatmár" with the name of "Szatmárnémeti" (town). He was bishop of Szatmár. We need to fix it up in the article when we are able to edit it. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the Keresztény Szó artile, Scheffler said about himslef in 1926 that "I am a German-origin, ethnic Hungarian, Romanian citizen, and above all, I am a Catholic". I think inclusion of his nationality is important to the lead sentence. "Hungarian-born cleric in Romania and Hungay" is an acceptable version for all parties. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The page was protected for edit-warring. That in itself indicates a very unusual thing was going on. Granted, no one was using insults or making wild accusations, but the edit-warring was bad enough. I hope it stops when the page is unprotected.

Fakirbakir, if you add material, like you did about Győr, please, please cite for it. As of now, the next footnote after the Győr information leads to the Adevărul article, which of course says nothing about Győr. Again, please cite.

And look, we generally have poor information about citizenship and shouldn't veer too much into speculation. We know, with basically complete certainty, that he was a Hungarian citizen up to 1918 (or thereabouts) and a Romanian one after that. He may have retained Hungarian citizenship, he may have regained it in 1940. (Come to think of it, it's probable that everyone in Northern Transylvania was given Hungarian citizenship in 1940.) But his chief allegiances (I mean in terms of his passport, not his sentiments) were to Hungary and then to Romania, although I suppose you could call him an "Austro-Hungarian born Romanian and Hungarian cleric", even if that sounds a bit absurd.

Transerd, I very much think (and the MOS says as much) that ethnicity should be reserved for the body of the article, usually its first line. That tends to be standard and is not exactly a burden on the reader, assuming he looks beyond the lead.

Ah, but Koertefa, if we're going to go down the route of mentioning both names of the diocese, let us not forget that Satu Mare reverted to Romania in 1944, several years before Scheffler's arrest. So it's not just "now Satu Mare" - it's been that way since his time as bishop.

No one is pretending that citizenship of Austria-Hungary existed. But let's also not pretend that Austria-Hungary did not exist. It did exist, and someone being born there is relevant. Do you see all these people? That category has the name it does for a reason.

Even putting aside the notion that "many of us" find "[[Austro-Hungarian]]-born [[Romania]]n" to be "confusing" (a proposition for which you have no evidence), what exactly is the confusion? Born in Austria-Hungary, later a citizen of Romania. What other possible interpretation exists?

As for "Hungarian-born Catholic priest in Romania and Hungary". First, "cleric", since a bishop is more than a priest. Second, how would the links work? "Hungarian-born Catholic cleric in Romania and Hungary"? This is not absolutely objectionable, but I see no particular reason to drop the "Austria-Hungary", while the "in Romania" formulation is a bit ambiguous, since it need not imply citizenship. Gerald Patrick O'Hara was also a "Catholic cleric in Romania" - but a citizen of the United States. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Taking into account that Biruitorul shares my view regarding the place of the mention about ethnicity, I respectfully ask Norden1990 to stop his unnilateral attempts of including that information into the lead. We can formulate the first sentence in the Life section with "An ethnic Hungarian, he was born in 1887 [...]" to highlight the ethnicity a little more Transerd (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't apologize because I tell my proposal. If the majority of the editors does not agree with me then they vote down and that's it. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No one accused you for making the proposal and adding the ethnicity in the lead in the first place (WP:BEBOLD). My objection was that you insisted on it when you saw that there was no consensus Transerd (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lets see the facts. The most important thing is that he openly avowed himself Hungarian. He was of German origin. He served as bishop in Hungary and Romania as well. He had both Hungarian and Romanian citizenships in his life. Regardless of his origin we have to count him as an ethnic Hungarian because of his statement. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Brief answers to Biruitorul:

• For me, the text "Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian cleric" can describe somebody who was born in Austria-Hungary, but was in fact ethnic Romanian. The confusion comes from the fact that citizens of Romania and ethnic Romanians can be both called "Romanians". However, this confusion can be easily avoided with the "Hungarian born... in Romania and..." variant (or a refined version of that).
• Mentioning only Austria-Hungary in the lead is not a good solution, since if we only mention citizenship, then he was a citizen of Hungary alone when he was born. If you insist, we can try to find a way to mention A-H in the lead, too, but it might be too much info for the lead. In my opinion, it should be enough to talk about Austria-Hungary in the first section (but I am not that picky about that).
• Regarding the diocese question: you are right, he was a bishop of Satu Mare (after 1944), as well, so the word "now" should be removed. It should be written as "Roman Catholic Diocese of Szatmár (Satu Mare)".
• Regarding the word "cleric": for Catholics, "priest" is the better term, it is more much widely used [2] vs [3], and a bishop is also a priest.
• The links could even work as you suggested (so we may link "Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen" article), even though I prefer Fakirbakir's suggestion, since he openly called himself ethnic Hungarian (with German roots).
• You are right that the formula "in Romania" does not necessarily imply citizenship, but why is that important? There are many articles like Anton Bernolák, Adam František Kollár, Ľudovít Štúr where the info that they were citizens of the Kingdom of Hungary is not present at all, only that they lived in KoH. I do not think that this would be a serious issue, since this article explicitly states "citizen of Romania" in the second paragraph. But, I am open to any suggestion: how could we state in the lead that he was later a citizen of Romania without potenially confusing ethnicity with citizenship?

Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 20:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not think we should even mention citizenship. What is sure he had Hungarian citizenship until 1920. After that he had Romanian citizenship until 1940. He was chosen to be bishop of Szatmár as a Hungarian citizen (1942 diocese of Szatmár was part of Hungary). After the World War 2 he stayed in Romania. So it is confusing a bit. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

You know, there is nothing magical about the date of 4 June 1920, at least in this context. In November 1919, Romania held an election for the Parliament at Bucharest and it was won by former Austro-Hungarians who obviously were citizens by then. Eight Hungarians from Transylvania were also elected at that election, again citizens, seven months before Trianon. Satu Mare was taken by the Romanian Army in April 1919, and it is very likely that Scheffler took his citizenship oath soon after. Anyway, it's not as if he held ten citizenships; this is not such a complex issue. How about "Hungarian and Romanian"? - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's interesting, but the claim that he might take an oath in 1919 looks like a speculation. I doubt that he did. The problem with your suggestion is exactly that same as before: it allows the confusion of ethnicity and citizenship. Here is my suggestion for the lead:

János Scheffler (German: Johann Scheffler; October 29, 1887 – December 6, 1952) was a Hungarian Catholic priest. He was born and served in Transylvania, and hence he became a Romanian citizen after the dissolution of Austria-Hungary. He was elected as the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Szatmár (Satu Mare) in 1942 and he was also the appointed bishop of Győr. He was executed by the Communist Government of Romania, because of which he was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in 2011.

I am flexible with respect to the question of links. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Kálmánd is not in Transylvania Transerd (talk) 17:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You are right, that sentence should be changed. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Koertefa, no matter how many times you repeat it, the notion that Romanian can be confused for Romanian is simply not tenable. We have links for a reason, and we have rules about when to note citizenship and when to note ethnicity, also for a reason.

Of course we have no record at hand about whether he took an oath of citizenship in 1919 or 1920 or 1935, but the most plausible possibility is that he took it soon after Satu Mare came under Romanian control. Those who didn't most often emigrated to Hungary, and we know he stayed put. So he most likely acquired Romanian citizenship prior to Trianon. We shouldn't speculate too far, but assuming he became a Romanian citizen is not a great leap of imagination.

I find several problematic features in your proposed wording, but let's just note that he was not executed - an execution implies a judicial sentence of death carried out by a legally prescribed method (gunshot, in 1950s Romania). He was killed in custody. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I do not get your argument: why is the confusion that Romanian means both ethnic Romanian and citizen of Romania not tenable? It is very obvious and hence that formulation is not acceptable. Regarding "execution" or "killed in custody": the latter one is indeed more precise. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 21:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith regarding your message above, even though it stretches credulity to think someone who has been editing Wikipedia for around a year and a half still does not grasp this.

This encyclopedia is not a work of print. If we were writing a paper book, we might indeed face a confusion between Romanian and Romanian. But here, we have something called links, links that point toward different targets. Romanian and Romanian may be identical, but Romanian and Romanian are not. One leads to the state, the other to the dominant ethnic group in that state. By linking to the first term, we simply affirm the wholly uncontroversial fact that the subject was, probably from his early 30s until the time of his death at the hands of said state, its citizen. Should any reader face confusion, he has merely to click the link to solve that confusion. Moreover, we have an explicit statement from the subject as to his ethnicity (Hungarian with German shading, let us say), thus allowing us to state that fact in the body of the article.

In essentially analogous fashion (I say "essentially" because this subject was born under Romanian sovereignty), we label György Frunda a "Romanian politician" because that is, in fact, what he is. He is, of course, also an ethnic Hungarian, a fact no one disputes. A fact, indeed, that is noted in the body. But likewise, should someone be under the impression that "György" is a common name among Romanian ethnics, and should he be unwilling to read beyond the first sentence of the article, the link, the all-important link, is there to clue him into the fact that "Romanian" is being used in a purely civic, not an ethnic, sense.

It all comes down to links, a basic principle of this encyclopedia. Raising this issue of "possible confusion" and dismissing a perfectly standard formulation as "not acceptable" is not taking us very far. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, I also assume good faith when I answer your comment. The role of the links is to deepen the user's understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. They are not intended to clarify mistakable words, especially if both of the possible meanings make perfect sense. I quote from WP:LINKS: "'do not make a reader be forced to use that link to understand the sentence". An article should be understandable even without links (for example, when it is printed out). The sentences in the article should not be ambiguous without actually clicking on the links. It is very dubious if sentences can have very different meanings depending on where the links take us, hence these sentences should be avoided. All the best, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 16:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

a list of what to do in the article

• He did not came from a farmer family. It was a poor cotter (agricultural labourers) family.
• "Szatmár" instead of Szatmárnémeti
• He had been bishop of Győr for less than a year. BUT it is a bit confusing. He was elected to be bishop of Győr by Pope Pius XII on the 8 of November, 1945. Andrea Cassulo announced it in Romania on the 9 of April 1946. However, after that, he chose to stay in diocese of Satu Mare. So, He resigned???? How should we interpret it? Here is a quote in Hungarian [4]:

1945. november 8-án XII. Piusz pápa kinevezi a győri egyházmegye püspökévé a vértanúhalált halt Apor Vilmos győri püspök helyére. Andrea Cassulo bukaresti nuncius 1946. április 9-én közli kinevezését. Kijelentette, hogy aláveti magát a pápa akaratának, ha áthelyezése a Szentatya kifejezett óhaja. Kérte azonban, hogy a nehéz helyzetre való tekintettel maradhasson szeretett egyházmegyéjében. A Szentszék elfogadta a kérelmét.

I think the proper formula "appointed bishop of Győr", and it also should be added that "he was not installed because he preferred to stay in his Diocese of Szatmár". Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The next bishop in Győr (Karl Kalman Papp) was in charge from May 3, 1946. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)