Talk:Gheorghe Funar: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:30, 20 September 2006

Latest revision as of 23:03, 8 January 2025

(76 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|listas=Funar, Gheorghe|blp=yes|

I've put up a link to a photoessay at my personal website showing some of the changes Funar made. I don't want to unduly advertise my own work, but I don't know any other English-language resources that give this kind of visual history. If the community feels it's inappropriate, you are welcome to remove the link. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 07:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Romania|importance=}}

:You bet your ass it's inappropriate. We don't appreciate foreigners like you referring to Avram Iancu, a national hero, as "someone famous for killing a lot of Hungarians". -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

{{WikiProject Biography|politician-priority=low|politician-work-group=yes}}

}}

{{archives}}

==many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary==

:: Foreigners like me, eh? So only Romanians are allowed to edit articles about Romania? I'm sure ''that'' would just guarantee NPOV. :rolleyes: [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 01:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian" - I am simply wondering

* Why this sentence about how Hungarians were thinking about Transylvania before 1920 needs to be included in an article about a Romanian politican of the late 20th century? And if this is included, why is it missing from the article how Funar and the Greater Romania Party are thinking about [[Moldavia]] TODAY?

* Why is it surprising that many Hungarians thought Transylvania was integral part of Hungary until 1918 when Transylvania was in fact part of Hungary?

I think this article should be about Funar and should not be an attempt to convince readers how bad people Hungarians were before 1918. --[[User:KIDB|KIDB]] 07:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

:I agree with both of your points. Especially your second point shows the bias of this phrasing; indeed before 1918 Transylvania was an integral part of Hungary. Furtermore, the sentence "despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian" shows a simplistic approach to the souvereignty of the state. The idea that one ethnic group should dominate the state is not universal. The [[United States]], for example, are clearly a multi-ethnic society. This does not divert U.S. society, as there is a strongly developed, non-ethnic, national consciousness of belonging to an American nation. The same counts for [[Switzerland]], and more or less for former Yugoslavia, which was also multi-ethnic. Though Yugoslav nationalism ultimately did fail, there were, before the dissolution, a rather great number of people who identified themselves as [[Yugoslavs]], rather than belonging to an ethnic group. In fact there still are people identifying with this former state, see [[Yugoslavs]].

:::No. What we don't appreciate is foreigners like you insulting our national heroes. How would you feel if I spoke ill of a great historical figure from your country, like Abraham Lincoln ? What if I would write slanderous libel about him and degrade his memory ? It would be unconcievably stupid, as Lincoln is a admirable historical figure, who accomplished much for his nation and his people. It is just as unconcievably stupid for you to refer to Avram Iancu as a man "whose most noteworthy achievement was killing many Hungarians". That is just typical ignorant bull that Westerners are so accustomed to believing about nations that they know so little about. So Iancu's legacy is limited to "killing many Hungarians" ? Then what can I say about the genocide of the Native Americans that your "founding fathers" organized ? Seems to me that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Look in the mirror, and stop running your mouth about a nation who's history you know so little about. -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 02:28, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:My point is that you cannot say "Etnic group X is in a majority in area Y, THUS ethnic group X is automatically sovereign in area Y". Besides my previous point about multi-ethnic nations, this logic would be highly problematic. Former Yugoslavia illutrates this point; in the war there were numerous mini-states declared (for example the [[Republic of Serbian Krajina]] and the [[Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia]]) based on the fact that "ethnic group X" was in the majority there. In the end this proved to be an unworkable solution, for it had numerous administrative (such small states would not be able to govern themselves sufficiently) and logistic problems (those states usually were "scattered island" within former Yugoslavia), and most of all because the outcome of the question who was in the majority in an area was highly disputed between ethnic groups (not to speak of the problems this solution would give in Bosnia, where in most areas an ethnic majority doesn't even exist).

:::: There would be no problem with you insulting Lincoln. In fact, many, ''many'' Americans have a bad feeling about Lincoln. His suspension of ''habeas corpus'' and his refusal to allow the South autonomy make him disliked by millions of American conservatives. You can also say bad things about our founding fathers, many Americans now believe that they were bloodthirsty Indian-killers. As for Iancu, he did kill a lot of Hungarians. That is indisputable, even those who greatly admire him can hardly argue with that. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 02:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:And within Romania this would imply that [[Harghita]] and [[Covasna]] would become independent countries (or become attached to Hungary), because Hungarians are the ethnic majority there. Certain areas within Harghita and Covasna with a Romanian majority would then secede from Harghita and Covasna to join Romania again, and certain areas with a Hungarian majority in other provinces would secede from those to join Harghita and Covasna, creating the "scattered islands" I was talking about earlier. I think everybody sees that this is a recipe for a civil war, and not a workable solution.

:::And his legacy resumes to that ? Honestly, man. You heven't the damndest idea about the struggles of people like Iancu for the well-being of their nation. But then again, you don't seem to have much respect for Romania's historical figures, so I'll leave it at that. Wouldn't be surprised if you'd call me biased for mentionning the untold number of Romanians killed on the orders of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Next think you'll say is that the Allied forces are notable for killing a lot of Germans... -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:I have a problem with the following bold-printed parts of the sentence: ''Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918), and the union of the region with Romania in 1918 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians '''who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary''''' (it was an integral part of Hungary before 1918), '''''despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian.''''' ("despite the fact" sort of says "it is silly to think Transylvania is a part of Hungary since Romanians are the ethnic majority there", well, that's not how it works exactly.)

:::: I'd have no problem with you mentioning Austro-Hungarian atrocities during their rule of Romania. After all, NPOV means that ''all'' sides of the story be represented. You seem to suggest that nothing bad can be said about historical figures, but in fact leaving out bad facts is POV. All important information about a person, good and bad, should be represented for a neutral portrayal. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 02:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:One last note, and I have learnt in these discussions that I have to state this very clearly in order to not be misinterpreted or misquoted by far-right nationalists of both sides: I am not saying that Transylvania or Harghita and Covasna should secede from Romania and join Hungary (in fact, I pointed out how unworkable this solution would be, but I know these people are very creative in letting me "say" the exact opposite of what I said and meant), I am not saying that Hungarians or any other indigenous ethnic group within Romania other than Romanians should be denied their ethnic and cultural rights (again, these people are very creative), in fact, I find that all indigenous ethnic groups within Romania should be able to peacefully coexist within one indivisible but multi-ethnic Romania. [[User:Maartenvdbent|Maartenvdbent]] 12:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: For what it's worth--and this is straying off-topic--I can't respect Avram Iancu as a noble hero or whatever. If he were noble, he would have fought for a Transylvania where Hungarians, Romanians, and Roma lived in peace and harmony, the languages of all three enjoying official status and representation. Instead, he fought to reduce the Hungarians to nothing, and entirely ignored the Roma. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 03:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

===Proposed rephrase===

:::A comment that bothered me was the one which stated that the increased number of Romanian flags in Cluj was "an affront to Hungarians". Excuse me ? If you hate the flag that much, than why don't you get the hell out of Romania ? Reminds me of how Quebec separatists are "offended" by the Canadian flag. If I decide to move to a foreign country, it would be completely illogical and quite ridiculous for me to feel offended by said country's flag. If I do feel offended by seeing flags everywhere, than it's not the country for me. Nobody forces them to stay in a country where they don't feel comfortable. If they want to leave, let them leave. But if they want to stay, how about they stop bitching all the time. The Finns are Sweden's most important ethnic group. You don't hear them whining, bitching and complaining about the Swedish flag. If they chose to live in Sweden because they feel more comfortable there, good for them. At least they have the common decency to respect the national symbols of the country they decided to live in. As I've said, nobody's forcing you to stay in a country where you don't feel well. But if you prefer to stay, don't start acting like you own the place. Can't stand seeing the Romanian flag in your city ? Pack your bags and move elsewhere, simple as that.

Paragraph now:

And I wonder how it would've been possible for Iancu to create a Transylvania where all three ethnic groups live in harmony, when there was so much animosity towards and from the Austro-Hungarian invaders that harmony would've been impossible between them and the Romanians. In many countries, multiculturalism is possible, without any form of assimilation or "melting pot". In Romania, multiculturalism just isn't possible for the time being at least, since old grudges and battles for linguistic supremacy won't end in a thousand years. Just ask the Romanians who had to leave their homes in Harghita back in the 1940's because the Hungarians broke their windows during the night and harassed them until they had to leave. They weren't shown much "tolerance", were they ?

If anything, Funar's modifications to the city of Cluj were not anti-Hungarian but pro-Romanian. If a mayor of a city in Hungary would put Hungarian flags everywhere, you wouldn't hear a lot of people making a big fuss. A big fuss was made in Cluj because a minority was apparently being "oppressed", boo-hoo. Suck it up. -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 20:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

''He became well-known for his very strong nationalist stance in favor of ethnic [[Romanians]] in [[Cluj-Napoca]], which is a multi-ethnic city with an ethnic [[Romanians|Romanian]] majority (79.39%) and a significant ethnic [[Hungarians|Hungarian]] population (18.96%). Other ethnic groups include 0.95% [[Roma people|Roma]] and 0.23% [[ethnic German|Germans]]. [[Transylvania]] was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918), and the union of the region with Romania in 1918 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian.''

Your complaint makes no sense. The Hungarians in Cluj offended by the flag are not immigrants who "moved to" Romania. Their ancestors have lived there for hundreds of years, possibly even before the arrival of the Vlachs according to current scholarship. They simply want to continue to feel at home, not feel as if they are being forced off of it but directive from Bucharest. The Romanian flag for many Hungarians shows the folly of Trianon: absorbing Hungarian territories into already existant, hostile, ethnicly based countries instead of creating new, multiethnic countries. The Romanian flag means "This is a place only ethnic Romanians are welcome." Also, I'd ask how you can claim that Funar was not anti-Hungarian when he put up the infamous banner outside the consulate and heavily reduced the public use of the Hungarian language. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 20:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed rephrasing:

I could write entire paragraphs about the questionable and suspicious information provided by this so-called "current scholarship", but it would once again go off-topic from the issue at hand.

As far as "the folly of Trianon" is concerned, let's see what ''possible'' alternative you could suggest, what with your "evolved" and "egalitarian" way of thinking. According to you, we should've just rolled over and let the enemy take our land, as if nothing happened. Doesn't surprise me much, regarding how you don't seem to care even about the national interests of your ''own'' country, having indirectly suggested that you would've been in favour of the secession of Southern states. This typical defeatist, "laissez-faire" attitude is synonymous with white flag politics, who seek to avoid any and all type of conflict, even if their nation's own interests are at stake. Those "Hungarian territories" were never Hungarian in the first place. Absorbed by the Austro-Hungarian empire, they were taken by force and "made" Hungarian. The same way that Alsace-Lorraine was "made" German. What do you mean by creating a "new multiethnic country" ? Are you suggesting that Transylvania should've become a country in and of itself, instead of reuniting with its rightful motherland ? Surely you jest, oh great one ! Once again, an instance of extreme left-wing balderdash which advocates sacrificing one's own national interests in favour of someone else's interests. Intolerable rubbish.

The essence of nationalism is putting your country's own interests first, and caring about others later. If Romania would not have had a healthy dose of nationalism when dealing with the various anti-Romanian forces, it could've kissed Transylvania goodbye. -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

''He became well-known for his very strong nationalist stance in favor of ethnic [[Romanians]] in [[Cluj-Napoca]], which is a multi-ethnic city with an ethnic [[Romanians|Romanian]] majority (79.39%) and a significant ethnic [[Hungarians|Hungarian]] population (18.96%). Other ethnic groups include 0.95% [[Roma people|Roma]] and 0.23% [[ethnic German|Germans]]. Cluj-Napoca is considered to be the capital city of [[Transylvania]], a [[Historical regions of Romania|historical region within Romania]] with historic ties to both [[Hungary]] and [[Romania]].''

:Excuse me, you see the Hungarians as the enemy??? Well, that would explain your reaction here, but that should in my opinion not be the way we talk about these issues...

Still not the best version I think, since two times "historic" doesn't sound good, but I haven't found a better solution yet. Still, what I find important in the rephrasing is:

:You should read some historical studies, for your notion that the Hungarian territories were absorbed by the Austro-Hungarian Empire is clearly not true. Transylvania was conquered alongside the rest of the Pannonian basin by the Magyars in 896, long before the Habsburg princes became king of Hungary (in fact, there was no Austro-Hungarian Empire until 1867). After the Magyar defeat in the [[Battle of Mohacs]] (1526), Hungary was split up in three: the remainder of Hungary that didn't become part of the [[Ottoman Empire]] (that came to be ruled by the Habsburgers who claimed the Hungarian throne), Occupied Hungary, and [[History_of_Transylvania#Transylvania_as_an_independent_principality|Principality of Transylvania]], that gained autonomy from the Ottoman Empire and was governed by Prince [[John Zápolya]]... The rest you probably know (conquest by Habsburg - [[Ausgleich]])...

* Say that Cluj-Napoca is considered to be the capital city of Transylvania. In the version now used Transylvania is not introduced, many people who do not know much about the subject will find the sudden mention of Transylvania very strange

:You see that Hungarian claims to Transylvania are just as valid as the Romanian ones. The fact that Romanians comprised a majority of 53,8% in 1920 is an important factor when discussing the status of Transylvania, but it doesn't mean that the Magyars (32%) and the Saxons can be forgotten.

* Say that Transylvania has both historic ties with Romania and Hungary, and leave it with that. This is not the article to exactly point out those historic ties, people who want to know more about these ties should take a look at [[Transylvania]]. [[User:Maartenvdbent|Maartenvdbent]] 13:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

::I basically agree with you, I think this change would improve the article. However, as a Hungarian, I don't want to be involved in a possible edit war over a nationalist Romanian politician - this is why I did not edit the article. I hope there will be Romanian editors who support your suggestion. (Romanian friends, if you want my help regarding Csurka István and his friends, please don't hesitate to contact me.) --[[User:KIDB|KIDB]] 14:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:Romania as Transylvania's "rightful motherland", as you put it, is clearly Romanian POV, many Hungarians find that Hungary is Transylvania's rightful motherland, and both opinions can be justified by historical and demographic facts.

:::I understand your hesitation to edit the article. I am also hesitant to edit before there is a consensus over the rephrasing, since these issues - like you said - tend to end up in an edit war all too often. [[User:Maartenvdbent|Maarten]] 19:28, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:Some kind of autonomy for Transylvania would have been good I think, and still would do a great job in uniting all ethnic groups of Transylvania.

:::: I agree that the rephrasing was needed and, in my opinion, the proposed one seems reasonable. The previous text was most certainly the result of various consecutive additions to an irrelevant (in the context of this article) phrase. As a general rule, keeping things simple and relevant is always a good thing. [[User:Alexrap|Alexrap]] 14:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

:Your notions on "nations's own interest" and "sacrificing one's own national interests in favour of someone else's interests" make me think that you consider "the nation" as an entity that is somewhat sacred and under constant threat, and therefore should be defended by all possible means. Have you heard of Anderson's notion that the nation is in fact an [[Imagined Community]]? Maybe you should read that famous book by him... [[User:Maartenvdbent|Maartenvdbent]] 02:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

==The integrity of the article==

==Political bias==

This article looks like is written from the perspective of somebody who wants to prosecute mayor Funar. I saw my self obliged to remove the parts where the author alleges that mayor Funar was involved in a Ponzi type scheme. Wikipedia is not a platform where you can throw your personal beliefs or opinions and present them as facts. Mayor Funar was NEVER convicted by a Romanian or European court by any wrongdoing in the Caritas affair.

I've reverted the last edits to the last version by Bogdangiusca. Obviously POV, using words like "extremely mationalist" and "an affront to the Hungarian community" have no place in an encyclopedia article whose role is to inform readers about said person, nothing more. If you have strong opinions about a politician, write them on your own website. Wikipedia can not be used for:

*Praising a politician.

*Providing negative propaganda about a politician.

If you want to do those things, it is your right, just not here. It's not up to you to judge whether Funar's municipal modifications were "anti-Hungarian" or whatnot, since I can sure as hell list a whole list of anti-Romanian actions that the UDMR has done in its history. -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the author seems to handpick certain facts in order to lead the reader to the conclusion that mayor's Funar only merit as mayor is as a "Romanian protector". It can be considered very biased to write a section in Wikipedia about somebody's 12 year mayorship and only mention a couple of aspects related to his nationalistic views.I proposed this article be fully re-written.

: I've reverted back. External links do not have to be NPOV, they just have to be relevant. In fact, the point of external links in controversial articles is to give both sides of the story through reference to world opinion. Furthermore, many of the items you deleted were simple facts, without any POV one way or the other. Along with restoring this information, I've added one citation (to BBC News). More to come. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 01:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

ej 13:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

: In a show of good faith, I've removed what were inflammatory wordings that didn't create encyclopedic tone. However, one can hardly argue with calling Funar a nationalist; he himself (and his party affiliation) claims that. I have also sectioned it so that it is easier for people to add information about other aspects of Funar, so that the article isn't just about his mayorship of Cluj. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 01:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:I am not entirely sure if Gheorghe Funar would have escaped prosecution and sentencing given an independent and fair justice system. But that is not even the point. Important is, that no matter how objectively one may want to value or judge his work as mayor, it is much more difficult to find some good in what he has done, compared to what he could have done during those 12 years. (One should read unbiased international articles, written after he left office, or simply local ones - somehow they all agree on that.)

:: I agree with CRCulver, it ain't negative propaganda, it's just the truth. [[User:Maartenvdbent|Maartenvdbent]] 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:Initially I wanted to suggest the deletion of this article. However, Funar really was mayor for 12 years, it is our past, and we all should learn to live with it. Therefore, my suggestion is to leave it as is.

:::Yes and no. When ethnic squabbles are the issue, everything said about politicians is just a matter of opinion. Some would say that Funar was a xenophobe, others would say he was a patriot. Some would say that Pim Fortuyn was a militant for women's rights, others would say that he was a right-wing populist and a racist. Methinks the second description is more accurate. -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 20:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

:voxnemo 14:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

:::: I think you confuse [[Pim Fortuyn]] with [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]]... Pim Fortuyn was not notable on his opinion towards women's rights. I agree with your notion that he was a populist (and, to make things clear, I was not a supporter of his politics), but the description racist is not proveable and I think not appropriate (I can explain to you later why I think this). Funar is I think clearly a nationalist and anti-Magyar. How would you explain his policy of eliminating magyar symbols like street names and signs. Why would he change the inscription of the statue of Mattias Corvinus other that from an anti-Magyar stance? Why did he everything possible to obstruct the already belated opening of a Hungarian consulate in Cluj? And why did he stage a mock burial of the Hungarian-Romanian treaty? I think we can conclude that he is a nationalist and an anti-Magyar person. Last of all, why that distinction between xenophobe and patriot, why not both? I think he is both a Romanian patriot and a xenophobe... [[User:Maartenvdbent|Maartenvdbent]] 20:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think in the bibliography one should mention the book written by Rogers Brubaker et al.: Nationalist Politics and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town". Princeton and Oxford, 2006, {{ISBN|0-691-12834-0}}. It is indeed about Cluj during the Funar era ant the Hungarian-Romanian relationships during this period. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/85.182.127.173|85.182.127.173]] ([[User talk:85.182.127.173|talk]]) 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

There is a difference between a nationalist and an ultranationalist. Funar was clearly a nationalist, and I see nothing wrong with that. Corneliu Vadim Tudor is an ultranationalist, as is his PRM party. However, even though Funar made the brainless move of transferring from the PUNR to the PRM, his positions were still more pragmatic than those of the raving Vadim.

And is Fortuyn was not racist, than by the same logic, Funar was not xenophobic. If Funar could be considered anti-Magyar, than Fortuyn can be considered anti-Muslim. -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 20:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Nothing wrong with that?

* How would you explain his policy of eliminating magyar symbols like street names and signs.

* Why would he change the inscription of the statue of Mattias Corvinus other that from an anti-Magyar stance?

* Why did he everything possible to obstruct the already belated opening of a Hungarian consulate in Cluj?

* And why did he stage a mock burial of the Hungarian-Romanian treaty?

* (and why that silly Romanian flag painting et cetera?)

He disrespected and discriminated minorities. I don't know how discrimination is seen in Canada or Romania, but in the Netherlands it violates with article 1 of the constitution. [[User:Maartenvdbent|Maartenvdbent]] 02:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

::If it truly does violate article 1 of your constitution, than Fortuyn and Hirsi Ali should've been fined for hate speech a long time ago. I don't mean to throw the blame into the other guy's yard, but any ethnic frictions that still exist within Romania are ''nothing'' compared to the blatant degree of racism, xenophobia and prejudice in the Netherlands right now. Although the PRM is the most extremist party in Romania, at least it never vouched for the deportation of all foreigners from the country. And last time I checked, there hasn't been a single Romanian politician who attacked the prophet of a minority's religion and called him "a perverted man". So before you have the good will to point out what's wrong with another person's country, look at yours first. -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 18:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I have just modified one external link on [[Gheorghe Funar]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=805447855 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

:::Oh my... This makes me kind of mad. You don´t want to see the truth, would you. [[Pim Fortuyn]] nor Hirsi Ali called for deportations. Fortuyn only wanted to stop immigration for awhile so that Dutch politics could concentrate on the integration issue, which was denied for a long time. Dutch society was highly segregated resulting in a "us vs. them" situation. He blamed this for a great part on the Islam, not having modernized in the past. He felt that the Islam was a threat to society (maybe because he was gay and some Muslims are hostile to gays (Dutch Imams placed gays beneath pigs)) and wanted to modernize Islam before taking new immigrants.

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081205144834/http://www.realitatea.net/rezultatele-alegerilor-locale-din-principalele-orase-ale-tarii_292922.html to http://www.realitatea.net/rezultatele-alegerilor-locale-din-principalele-orase-ale-tarii_292922.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

:::To make thing clear, I don't either support the ideas of Hirsi Ali or Fortuyn, but your accusations are far beyond the truth. I agree that Fortuyn may be more controversial than Hirsi Ali.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

:::[[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]] advocates the right of women in the Islam, and advocates freedom of speech.

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 13:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

:::Hirsi Ali stated that she was wrong by so expicitly stating that "Muhammed is, seen by our western standards a perverse man" (she referred particularly to the marriage between Muhammed, who was 52 years old, and Aisha, who was nine years old, according to the Hadith). But she still agrees with this opinion. (I myself, as a cultural anthropology student, find it not very wise to say this about such a front man of another religion).

:::[[Hirsi Ali]] is nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 and was awarded the [[Reader's Digest]] [[European of the Year]] award. She was awarded the Denmark's Liberal Party’s Freedom Prize "for her work to further freedom of speech and the rights of women" and the Democracy Prize of the Liberal Party of Sweden "for her courageous work for democracy, human rights and women's rights." According to Time Magazine she was amongst the 100 Most Influential Persons of the World in 2005.

:::Both are critics of Islam, but NEVER denied Islamists any rights. They want to modernize Islam. They are critics of a culture, not of an ethnicity or race. Funar is not a critic of Hungarian culture, he just hates Hungarians (I don't know why), as you can see in my summary of his actions above. Those actions have nothing to do with the aim of "modernizing Hungarian culture" (it isn't needed either, because Hungarian values are the same as the Western values and the same as Romania's, respecting freedom of speech, democracy, women's rights, gay rights, etc.). They just portray his hatred towards Hungarians. [[User:Maartenvdbent|Maartenvdbent]] 10:49, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

:Upon further investigation of the article, I have come to the conclusion that its general tone is now appropriate and no longer seems to contain bias. I have removed the NPOV and Innapropriate Tone tags as a result. -[[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 23:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

::''Oh my... This makes me kind of mad. You don´t want to see the truth, would you.''

::Yikes...The last thing I'd want is an angry Dutchman on my case ! X-D -- [[User:Voievod|Voievod]] 19:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

==External links==

CRCulver, I am not sure I agree with your statement (''External links do not have to be NPOV''), but I hope we can both agree that they should be at least decent. Saying that Avram Iancu's ''most noteworthy achievement was killing many Hungarians'' is, if not offending, clearly false. And it obviously reduces to almost nothing the quality of a possible useful site.

I certainly don't think it is appropriate to have in wikipedia a link to a page written in a very biased manner. And to illustrate what I mean by very biased manner, I cite from your website:

* ''Later the site was defaced by an archaeological dig, merely a pretext for getting rid of the statue. It found nothing of note and remains a large gaping hole in a once-stately square.'' Getting rid of the statue was NEVER an issue, as it is an important landmark for our city. It is part of our history and both Romanians and Hungarians from Cluj are proud of it.

* ''Funar erected an absurd, guillotine-like monument to ‘victims of Hungarian oppression’. '' You put ‘victims of Hungarian oppression’ in quotation marks. It speaks for itself... do you really believe that there was no such thing?

* '' Glorifying a man whose most noteworthy achievement was killing many Hungarians, the statue is said to have been enormously expensive.'' I already told you what this statement does to the quality of the website... And to make it even clearer, you add an absurd not-cited speculation.

Also, on this discussion page you insist that ''the Hungarians in Cluj are offended by the flag'' and you also sympathize with that. But you don't accept that there were victims of the Hungarian opression (that actually meant killings and tortures, not some flags in the town square). Nice double standard. And you also add: ''Their ancestors have lived there for hundreds of years, possibly even before the arrival of the Vlachs according to current scholarship''. You probably mean scholars, but in any case it is false. According to the large majority of the historians things are pretty clear. They are however irrelevant, as both Romanians and Hungarians were there for enough time to make that land their home.

It's not my job to open your eyes, you can of course keep your own ignorant beliefs. But don't try to impose them to the others. I hope you don't mind my suggestion to revise your website to a more decent version. After that, the link is of course very welcome into this article. [[User:Alexrap|Alexrap]] 11:14, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

: As there was no answer in 10 days, I will remove the external link. I stress again that the link could be useful if some modifications are incorporated into it, but, as it is at the moment, it is inappropriate. [[User:Alexrap|Alexrap]] 13:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:: None of the material on there is wrong. If Avram Iancu's biggest achievement wasn't killing Hungarians, then what was it? Why is he shown with a sword on the statue in Cluj (right in front of the cathedral of a quite anti-Hungarian diocese)? As for Funar's plan to get rid of the statue with the dig, this was well-documented in the press. He wanted it gone. As for Hungarian treatment of ethnic Romanians, that was then, done by a generation that is long dead, whereas it is actual living contemporary Romanians that are trying to erase the Hungarian history (and any sign of Roma presence, but that awaits another essay) from the city. For what it's worth, most of my ethnic Romanian friends in Cluj agree fully with the essay. And in fact, it was inspired by a multimedia artwork (created by ethnic Romanians) that was presented at the house of culture near the synagogue in June 2005, which showed the same general images I do as signs that Cluj has some problems. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 13:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

::: Nice one, CRCulver! I add something on the discussion page, you totally ignore it for 10 DAYS, I change the article after seeing that nobody objected to my comments, after just 10 MINUTES you change the article and after that you add something on the discussion page.

::: Now about your comments:

::: * ''None of the material on there is wrong''... It's good to know there are some people on our Planet who can make all things right.

::: * Avram Iancu biggest achievement was fighting for social and national rights for the large majority of the people of Transylvania. Unfortunately the 1948 Hungarian revolution totally ignored the most elementary national rights for minorities (which were actually large majorities in some areas). There were several attempts of the Romanian leaders to contact Lajos Kossuth and to unite under some common aims. Unfortunately Kossuth did not seem open to any concession on this matter and from that point on, the Romanian and Hungarian 1948 ideals in Transylvania did not converge anymore. Avram Iancu's army fought against another ARMY (and not civilians, as you try to convince people). The fights took place in the Apuseni Mountains, which were always almost entirely inhabited by Romanians (no Hungarian civilians to be killed). So the only Hungarians his army killed were solders from general Bem's army, more specifically commander Hatvany's troops. Which were actually a lot more developed from a military point of view than Avram Iancu's army. It is therefore extremely false to say that his main achievement was killing Hungarians. It is also insulting.

::: * I still don't understand if you admit that there were victims of the Hungarian oppression. On your so-called essay you let the impression that you do not admit it (very offending attitude, to say the least). In here instead, you admit it, but you say it is irrelevant as it was done by a generation that is long dead. Could you please try to at least look consistent in your judgements. And may I also remind you that the large majority of the monuments anywhere in the world are about things done/lived by generations that are long dead.

::: * Getting rid of Matthias Corvinus' statue was never an issue. No matter what the newspapers said, try to ask people in Cluj if they want the statue gone and you will not get even 1% affirmative answers. Everyone loves that statue and it is a positive sign of the Hungarian-Romanian friendship.

::: * For your own information, the diggings found something of note, so saying that they didn't find anything is again false.

::: * I hope that you are aware that I certainly don't believe that most of your Romanian friends fully agree with your so-called essay.

::: In conclusion, as I said before, that external link could be valuable and useful for this article, but it needs some serious modifications in its text (especially when referring to Avram Iancu and to the victims of the Hungarian oppression). [[User:Alexrap|Alexrap]] 15:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: I missed your original post because it was buried. My watchlist does have hundreds of items, it happens. Now, I never said that Iancu killed civilians, so I don't know why you read that in. And as for Iancu "fighting for rights", that's really naive idealism. Over the past quarter-century, through works like Zinn's ''A People's History'', Americans have finally started waking up to the fact that our founding fathers were a bunch of racists and an oppressive bourgeosie whose political mechinations were more for the enrichment of themselves and their peers than to promote liberty. It's a pity Romanians still subscribe to fancy national myths. And no, the dig found nothing of value, the press widely reported the disappointment of archaeologists and the bafflement of the public as to why the hole was left there so long (though thankfully it's being filled in now). The photoessay will not change, for it is written in a travelogue, and one obviously doesn't change those afterward. And as for my friends agreeing with me, what do you expect me to do, have them come here and write a few words? That's meatpuppeting, which is of dubious legitimacy on Talk pages. Also, with regards to Hungarian oppression, certainly any ruling power treats its citizenry in an unfair fashion, and that was true in Transylvania just as much as anywhere else. However, my fiancée's family and fellow villagers always talk about how the Hungarians were overall a positive force for Transylvania, and thanks are owed to them for not letting Transylvania become :shudder: the south. So, I don't think that Funar's insistence on burning ire towards the modern Hungarians for the (overinflated) actions of their ancestors is a productive view. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 16:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:::: FWIW, I'll ask some friends if that multimedia presentation on Cluj's ethnic problems is available online, and if it is, then I'll just switch my link with it. It was an impressive piece of work. [[User:Crculver|CRCulver]] 16:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

::::: * I am not an expert in American history but I don't get your point when comparing Avram Iancu with the American founding fathers. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other. But if you are looking for something to compare along those lines, you might as well look at the ruling authorities at the time in Transylvania. And Avram Iancu fought exactly against their racism. He did not want any privileges for Romanians, he only wanted equal rights for the large majority of Transylvanians who were considered third class citizens at the time. Calling this "naive idealism" only shows your total lack of understanding and superficial attitude towards this issue.

::::: * I will also subscribe to the idea that Hungarians had a positive influence on Transylvania, as a region. They just had a very negative attitude towards the majority of its population, i.e. the Romanians. Fortunately this sort of racism is now long gone, but this doesn't mean that one can put ‘victims of Hungarian oppression’ in quotation marks. Just as one cannot put victims of the Holocaust in quotation marks.

::::: * The archaeologists said more than once that they found very interesting things on that site. But archaeology is not a "cool" activity for everyone and of course that not finding 100 kg of gold in there was a disappointment for the press. It is however true that the hole shouldn't have been left in there for so long. And I totally agree with that.

::::: * It is not shameful to admit when you are wrong and it is a virtue to correct your own mistakes. Reasons like ''the photoessay will not change, for it is written in a travelogue, and one obviously doesn't change those afterward'' only shows a lack of flexibility. Evolution is part of human nature! Shall we all understand there you are not after the truth, but you just want to advertise your first and WRONG impressions from a travelogue using Wikipedia?

::::: * I suggest you keep your travelogue for yourself, create another page using its good photographs, but changing its unacceptable text, and then put it as an external link for this article. [[User:Alexrap|Alexrap]] 11:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)