Jump to content

Talk:Satu Mare

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wrong demographics ?

[edit]

First of all, what is the point of the (most likely fabricated or misinterpreted) history of demographics since 1880? I don't see a history of demographics since 1880 in the wikipedia article for other multiethinc cities (for example Bruxelles).

Secondly, I've tried to find the "source of the source" (http://varga.adatbank.transindex.ro/?pg=3&action=etnik&id=2125), because I just doubt those figures are right (in 1880, 7.9% Romanians and 83,1% Hungarians). I've found this paper, an English translation of an article by the same cited Árpád E. Varga: http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/erdang.htm. Quoting from the article: "[regarding the Hungarian-ethinity population in Satu Mare, in 1880 and 1910] Similar data are available in Kolozs/Cluj county (1.7 times higher with the proportion increasing from 33.2 to 38.9 per cent); in Szatmár/Satu Mare and Ugocsa/Ugocea (where the proportion increased from 44.4 to 55.1 per cent);" So, in 1880 there were 44.4% Hungarians in Satu Mare and in 1910 there were 55.1%. I remind you this information comes from Árpád Varga E., who is supposed to be the source of the demographics table in the current article - which contains strikingly different numbers. Since both seem to be of Hungarian origin, I can't say which is correct, but my link points to a published article whcich could be verified (Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995, Original title: "Erdély magyar népessége 1870-1995 között", Published in Magyar Kisebbség 3-4, 1998 (New series IV), pp. 331-407., Translation by Tamás Sályi , Linguistic editing by Rachel Orbell , Published by Teleki László Foundation. Budapest, March 1999, Editors Nándor Bárdi, László Diószegi, András Gyertyánfy) , while the source of the table in the current article is just a set of tables which supposedly have as primer source the work of Árpád E. Varga (but could as well be a misinterpretation, sinche the source is not really mentioned - at least I don't see it - but I don't read hungarian). -Paul- (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemingly nobody seems to reply about the wrong data. Please see full text I was mentioning, below:

In terms of Hungarian native speakers, between 1880 and 1910 the population gain above their natural growth in the region was between 180 and 200 thousand, while Romanian losses were between 130 and 150 thousand, depending on whether we take the birth rate figures of the last decade as retrospectively relevant, or calculate with the more balanced earlier figures for nationality growth. The Romanian losses were mostly due to emigration, which increased dramatically in the 1980s, especially in southern counties of historical Transylvania and became a mass movement at the beginning of the twentieth century. Hungarian population gains, on the other hand, included a migration surplus. However, the exact value of this cannot be determined, since we are unable to give a balance of internal population exchanges between administrative units with respect to the present borders. Nevertheless, the attraction of certain central points giving rise to migration among regions is well known. In Krassó-Szörény/Caraş-Severin and Hunyad/Hunedoara counties, where natural population growth was originally low, mining areas and rapidly developing industrial centres attracted Hungarians from a distance. Thus, in three decades their number multiplied between 4.7 and 4.2 times. The proportion of Hungarians therefore increased from 1.9 per cent to 7.2 per cent, and from 5.1 to 15.5 per cent for the two areas respectively. A massive increase can be seen in certain areas of Temes/Timiş and Torontál counties (the number of Hungarians increased 2.5 times, their proportion growing from 8 per cent to 16.6 per cent). In Arad county, where the increase in proportions was average, the number of Hungarians also grew rapidly (the figure in 1910 is 1.8 times higher than in 1880, with their proportion rising from 22.3 per cent to 29 per cent). Similar data are available in Kolozs/Cluj county (1.7 times higher with the proportion increasing from 33.2 to 38.9 per cent); in Szatmár/Satu Mare and Ugocsa/Ugocea (where the proportion increased from 44.4 to 55.1 per cent); and in the Bihar (Bihor) area, where the proportion of Hungarians rose from 39.8 to 44.4 per cent in spite of the high birth rate among local Romanians. The rise in the number of Hungarian native speakers in Máramaros/Maramureş also deserves attention: the number of Hungarian native speakers here increased 2.1 times over thirty years, and the proportion grew by 5 per cent to reach 19.4 per cent in 1910. At the same time, the serious local economic and social crisis in Szeklerland is well demonstrated by the fact that here, in the smaller language area of the eastern periphery of the country, in Csík, Háromszék and Udvarhely counties, the population increase among Hungarians fell far behind even the Transylvanian average because of losses resulting from migration.

The above text can be seen on this page: http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/erdang.htm , Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995, Original title: "Erdély magyar népessége 1870-1995 között", Published in Magyar Kisebbség 3-4, 1998 (New series IV), pp. 331-407, Translation by Tamás Sályi, Linguistic editing by Rachel Orbell, Published by Teleki László Foundation. Budapest, March 1999

The text clearly states that in Szatmár/Satu Mare, the proportion of Hungarians was 44.4 in 1880 and 55.1% in 1910. Unfortunately the other digits cannot be verified. The strangest thing is that the author is the same as the indicated (and unverifiable) source of the table. The initial table lists as source a website which actually does not lists its source and could be very well fabricated data. I am removing the table and inserting the only verifiable information according to the text above. -Paul- (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My dear rumanian history-falsifier-wannabe friend. Those numbers are for the county by the same name (Szatmár), not for the city. So the 1880 numbers are 44% in Szatmár County and 83% for Szatmár(németi). The city had Hungarian majority while the rural areas had Romanian majority. 85.67.116.223 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

"and started to enjoy a prosperous life between the two world wars"

The truth is, Szatmarnemeti (Satu Mare) became a neglected city, hundred miles away from the new capital.


"The WWII was a catastrophic event in the life of Satu Mare as it was included in the area that fascist Germany took away from Romania and placed under the control of fascist Hungary (after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact)."

In 1940 Szatmarnemeti's (Satu Mare) population was over 90% hungarian. As such the change was actually a welcomed event. Sadly, things got worse during March 1944 when the germans invaded the city and sealed the town's jewish population fate.

Hungarian interpretation vs Romanian interpretation

[edit]

===I've ask you firmly to not remove the two different interpretation!!!=== Who's in charge here?!?!?

I'm saying: In 1919 Satu Mare was conquered by the romanian army.
the proof: april 1919, Aurel Lazar's official notice: "the romanian royal army have conquered and took possesion of municipal Satu Mare and county Satu Mare therefore these parts will be attached to the Kingdom of Romania"
The WWII part is completly misleading and untrue, it is the projecton of the former communist Romania history approach into our present days

--fz22 06:43, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


i'm going to edit this page. here is what i'll remove:

Common Romanian interpretation: - useless

Common Hungarian interpretation: - useless

After the Treaty of Trianon of 1920, Szatmarnémeti (Satu Mare) became - after 1918 Satu Mare became - criztu interpretation

The area was finally occupied by the Romanian 4th.army - the area was recovered, not occupied. -- Criztu 28 June 2005 13:13 (UTC)

Don't do that. After almost a hundred year there are many different point of views related the history of this part of Europe. 1918 did mean nothing in the city daily life ... Nevertheless it was the last year of the WWI, the collapse of the dual monarchy ... that's all... The city was occupied by the romanian forces in april 1919. In Kolozsvar/Cluj even indemntity was taken ...

indeed, 1919. but not occupied. the consequent Trianon Treaty recognised ROmania's sovereignty meaning it wasn't occupation, but legal -- Criztu 09:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How fast you are ;) So, I'm not familiar with international law but we all know the history is written by the winner, and the Trianon "bandit-treaty" (as it is called by hungarians) did nothing but subsequently approved the status of that time. Many other hungarian cities were occupied (even Budapest in august 1919) and the hungarians could blame themselves (pers. opinion: and the most stupid prime minister of all times: Karolyi, and the red Bela Kun) leting all this happens. (just think on the turkish national defense againts Entente forces) This isn't unusual in our present day history, either. Do something than make it legal ... --fz22 12:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
then we have Hungarian Interpretation and Rest of The Nations that signed the Trianon and Paris Treaties Interpretation. BUT, "occupation of a territory" reffers to the situation when an army or state takes control of a teritory illegaly. You'll have to demonstrate that Romania took control of Satu Mare illegaly. Otherwise, the word "occupation of Satu Mare by Romania" even in "Hungarian version" is provocative -- Criztu 12:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Provocative or not this is another way of seeing things happens 85 years ago. We both know how the romanian army reach the gates of Zion ... sorry Satu Mare ;), but the keyword is when: in 19 April 1919. And the Treaty of Trianon was signed a year later in June 1920 ... I'm just saying that this takeover was made by force, one army made an attempt to keep the teritory the other one wanted to conquer ... This is quite simple. This act of conquest became an act of so called liberation after 4 June 1920.
Our knowledge of the realities of thos times is limited to what we read. I read that there was a treaty undergoing in 1918 in order to settle the matter of Transylvania, and that the Bolshevics attacked ROmania and Romania protected what considered to be its territory. recognised as such by the Treaty of Trianon. Your POV is no better or worse than my Pov, then what should be the criteria for the wording of the article ? since UN states that Satu Mare is Romania sovereign, then Romania couldnt be in the illegal situation of occupying Satu Mare, unless you can bring an official document of the Parliament of Hungary stating that Satu Mare is a teritory of Hungary occupied by Romania and it declares the Treaty of Paris void. This will be the "Hungarian interpretation" that i recognise as Hungarian interpretation -- Criztu 14:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My grandfather was 14 year old when he saw the "glorious" romanian army, crossing the Eastern Carpathian Mountains. And he also have heard from his father what he said when the most stupid hungarian prime minister of all times and his ministry of "defense" declared: "I don't want to see soldier anymore" ... the hungarian army numbered around 1.5 million was almost intact, ... wasn't defetead but drawn back from the Italian and southern front lines ... smashed up by the bolshevics afterwards.

The first military convention which made mention of demarcation lines was accepted and signed in Belgrade on November 13, 1918, by the delegates of the Karolyi government and representatives of General D'Esperey. This new Convention among others prescribed a line of demarcation which ran across the whole of south and east Hungary from Beszterce in Eastern Transylvania, southward to the Maros River, west along the Maros through Szabadka. Baja, and Pecs to the Mur River. Though Allied troops were to occupy the region south and east of this line, Hungarian administration was to continue to operate. After November 13, 1918, however, the region was occupied by Serbian and Rumanian troops (Hungary had expected this area to be occupied by troops of the Great Powers). This action greatly alarmed Hungary in view of the territorial claims of Serbia and Romania to the area and the fact that the Hungarian administration was immediately deposed.

pls add info on the situation. I only object to formulations like "Satu mare was cut off from its ethnic kinsmen in Hungary" when it is known that Romanian ethnics from Transylvania were equally cut off from their kinsmen in Romania during the Kgdom of Hungary, with a difference: the romanians were prohibited from living in the cities of the Kgdom of Hungary. Also, using sentence "Romania conquered teritory that is now part of Romania" is provocative. Whats wrong with "Satu Mare became part of Romania" ? -- Criztu 07:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That formulation is OK to me. That's another reason having two POW ... According to the census of 1910 Satu Mare had a population of 45,000, out of which 94.5% were Magyars. Etnic borders in general have nothing to do with countries borders. Doesn't matter if the HU-Ro border is near Predeal or Satu Mare, the etnic boundary in 1920 was east of Satu Mare, Carei, Oradea. Just take a look over an etnic map. Romanian colonies -Ianculesti, Lucãceni, Marna Nouã, Horea, Scãrisoara Nouã- were planted near the Ro-Hu border after 1920. (The peoples living in that regions called them even today colonies! They were settled from the Maramures, Salaj, Apuseni region). A clear policy by Romania to change the etnic composition of those areas.
The romanians were prohibited from living in cities?? Nonsense... just an urban legend. --fz22 06:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting discussion, gentlemen. Fz22 is right, the ethnic boundary was east of Satu Mare - I don't intend to be offensive, but - deep in your heart - don't you admit, Criztu, that it (I mean this new border) was not the optimum solution? You are right in stating that Romanians in Transylvania had the right of self-determination - but why on Earth these poor guys in Satu Mare were not given the same rights? They were "cut off" - and if railways, etc were a bit far west, then say, Debrecen would have been cut off as well. It is history now, but I think the POV of Fz22 is justified here. Vay 04:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Self determination? You're kiding me. Maybe you don't know, but there was so called Romanian Memorandum adressed to the Entente's representitives about the etnic composition of the teritories claimed by Romanians. These areas were as folow: historical Transilvania, Satu Mare, Bihor, Arad, Csanad, Maramures, Ugocsa, Bekes counties. The Banat region was not included in accordance of the agenda prescribed by the committee. Banat was a separate "game" played with the Serbians. In 1910 there were 2,346,478 Romanians, 2,012,090 Magyars and 322,383 Germans out of a total of 4,854,397. Sorry to say that, but the Romanian delegation members simply falsified these datas to be more suitable for their purpose. Thus they got 1,664,986 Magyars, 295,133 Germans and of course 2,519,215 Romanians. Ordinary arithmetics ... So much for the self determination--fz22 06:40, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]


WWII question: as you can see for you the city was recovered, but occupied for me. As a matter of fact let me remind you the city was part of the Hungarian Kingdom for over 700 year, 260 was under habsburg occupation and 22 year under Romanian rule ... Thinking we are in 1944. Thank's a million.--fz22 07:01, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Treaty of Trianon recognised the sovereignty of Romania over Satu Mare. Signed by Hungary. Signed by Romania, signed by France, Germany, etc.
agree with you
The Vienna Award placed Satu Mare under Hungary's control. Not signed by Romania (actualy not sure if ROmania didnt sign). Signed by Germany and Hungary and Italy.
Of course she signed it. Romania (threaten by Hungary) was who asking Axis power to be their adjudicator.
The Paris Treaty rendered the Vienna Award void. Signed by Hungary, signed by Romania, France, Germany etc.
Sure, but an international threaty is not only meant to settle the new/former borders ... The citizenship question, recompansation are also included into a treaty.
You can consider Wikipedia an encyclopedia that holds the truth that the UN and other International legal bodies are trying to hide and things like that. But I consider Wikipedia a reflection of what UN and International legal bodies currently consider as legal Treaties. That Satu Mare was not occupied but "became part of Romania" in 1919, and that Romania didn't occupy Satu Mare after WW2, but recovered it -- Criztu 12:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Until a new international treaty will render the Paris Treaty void, the situation is "Romania recovered Satu Mare at the end of WW2 -- Criztu 09:31, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
see my answer above--fz22 12:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

anti romanian actions

[edit]

What anti-romanian action are you talking about? Add sources please otherwise I'll delete that line

Mayor's name

[edit]

I've corrected to hungarian orthography ... His name was change from Gyula to Iuliu involuntary, like many others name during Ceausescu era ... Emanuil Gojdu's name was also changed to Gozsdu Mano, but nobody in Romania use this form ...

See http://www.satu-mare.ro/persoane/ilyes.html.en. In the english version of the mayor's office website, it's Iuliu. :D --Mihai -talk 18:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One question and the only two possible answers for it: Which country belongs now this town? if that country is Hungary then the Hungarian interpretation should be the valid one. If it's Romania then the Romanian interpretation should remain on wikipedia.

The previous phrase has no meaning. The rule for names is to use that one which the person and the media uses. Just google for "Gyula Ilyes" (excuse my Hungarian), you will find there's almost no mention of it.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   19:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Hungarians put their family name first, so you should be searching for "Ilyes Gyula", but yes, there are fewer results than for "Iuliu Ilyes". bogdan 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the mayor is Iuliu Ilyes, not Gyula Ilyes. The website of the city gives the name Iuliu Ilyes in the Romanian, German and English versions (I haven't checked Hungarian). Thus, Gyula Ilyes is incorrect in the infobox. Ronline ✉ 02:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Populatian

[edit]

"The population of Satu Mare is 160,421"

The population of Satu Mare is aprox. 120000 not 160000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.143.47 (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History section (It is forbidden to mention the unification of Transylvania with Romania?)

[edit]

About this edit [1]: What is the problem about mentioning facts (Unification of Transylvania with Romania) ? I qutoe: This is a not a neutral but a specifically ethnic related POV. Would it have become without the Romanian military invasion of Transylvania in 1918? - This is an encyclopedia not a "scenario checker" (What would be if it this would`t happen). We should write facts only, not how some of us see this event. Adrian (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's much ambiguity over what happened: Transylvanian Romanians voted to join the Kingdom of Romania, which promptly sent in troops and began setting up an administrative apparatus — in December 1918. These are the facts on the ground, acknowledged, I might add, by the Allies, who set up a line of demarcation between Transylvania and Hungary — in November 1918. In no way did Hungary control Transylvania beyond this date. De facto, it became Romanian in 1918. De jure, all doubt ended at Trianon in 1920, but there was never any question of Hungary holding sway until that time. Indeed, let us not forget that during the previous year, Romania controlled much of Hungary! Given this, our articles should speak of Transylvanian localities as having joined Romania in 1918, not 1920. - Biruitorul Talk 17:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t think that the year is the main problem but it seems to be mentioning the unification of Transylvania with Romania (as I said in the tittle of this section).Adrian (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. Szatmárnémeti / Satu Mare had been controlled by Hungarian forces until March 1919 and Hungarian troops gave it up as a result of the Romanian miltary offensive in spring 1919. This is the fact related to this specific town. 2. It is ironic to think that a then predominantly Hungarian populated town 10 km of the current Hungarian border became part of Romania due to the declaration of the december 1 demonstration and not as a result of the Romanian military offensive approved by the Paris Peace Conference. Its is also hardly believable that Romanian troops invaded Transylvania as a result of the said resolution. In 1916, no such decision had been passed.... 3. I think that neither Romanian national legends, nor Hungarian ones should replace facts and we need not insert national POV here. Rokarudi

1) You are talking about Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919. As Biruitorul said in November 1918 this city after this union was controlled by Romanian forces, what happened afterwards can be written in the history section, but not censoring a part of the Romanian history(unification).
2) What offensive do you think? It is not our to think but to state facts.
3) But this is not any POV, it is just a fact: In 1918, as a result of the Union of Transylvania with Romania, Satu Mare ceased to be part of Austria-Hungary - fact. Don`t mix the war in 1919.
4) By this, you are saying that the unification of Transylvania with Romania never happened(that it was a part of some sort of offensive attack)? Or that it is not worth mentioned? Or it should`t be mentioned? But I guess it is important to say for a village(Chibed) that never had more than 3000 inhabitants to say in detail what administrative part in the Kingdom of Hungary was ? Don`t you think that you are cenzuring a part of the Romanian history that this city also took part in? Adrian (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Szatmárnémeti was controlled by Hungarian forces (Székely division) until the 2.) Romanian offensive started on 15th April 1919. Biruitorul was wrong at this point, so your statement is simply false. I do not understand why you again push an invalid argument instead of checking your facts. The Romanian-Hungarian war of 1919, although not an inappropriate one, is also a Romanian POV expression, as from the Hungarian POV, the country faced intervention of Romanian, Czech, Serbian and French forces at the same time and, Hungarians refer to it as the Romanian or eastern front as part of the intervention of the entente. The "unification" of Transylvania with Romania happened from the Romanian Point of View, but did not happen from the Hungarian Point of View, the latter considering the change in control as occcupation or annexation. As neutral point of view should be implemented, the expression 'unification' is not appropriate here, especially when replacing town specific data. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 08:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC) I suggest improving this section by (1) stating the specific facts regarding the town-spcific events of the process of the change in control and (2) by giving a background which uses encyclopaedic expressions that reflect both Hungarian and Romanian concept as to how the change of souvereinty over Transylvania happened. In this frame even the rocess of unification as one part of the picture may be mentioned. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 08:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Can you please prove this ? That this city was under Hungarian controle untul 15th April 1919 , because we have Union of Transylvania with Romania that states otherwise. About your personal POV (declaring it as the general Hungarian) is irrelevant here, this official event that was recognized in Hungary also (this was the cause of 1919 war) was as the unification not "unification" as some Hungarians might think therefore your arguments here are invalid. If you can`t prove that this city was under Hungarian control until 1919 I will change this in the article according to the events in world and Romanian hisotry. If some users don`t recognize this unification it doesn`t mean that it did`t happen or that it is invalid - NPOV Adrian (talk) 08:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is unbelievable, for example, if I say that I don`t recognize the Great Hungary and say that is the official Romanian POV (because it is my personal and therefore it must be the official too, and I of course can`t be wrong) then in every instance where we mention this "entity" we must delete it, and find a "compromise" that states some other event, just to avoid mentioning this real state(Kingdom of Hungary) ??? Sorry, but your comment has no sense and again you can`t maintain a NPOV in Romanian-Hungarian matters. Adrian (talk) 08:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As to the frontline on 15/16 April, 1919, see File:Hungarian-Romanian War.de.png that is indicated in the Hungarian-Romanian War article. It will present no difficulty to find that Satu Mare was east of the frontline on 15/16 April, 1919. What is questioned by me is not that Transylvania became part of Romania, but that the process should be refererred to by the term "unification" in a context where others than Romanian readers are given information as the term unification is the Romanian perception of two-sided issue. Whether Kosovo was liberated or occupied, gained independence or seceded is a question of point of view, so we have to be careful in choosing the right term. The term unification also implies what is only valid from the Romanian point of view and this is the problem here. By the way, do you seriously believe that once the Declaration of 1st December, 1918 was declared by the Romanian participants at the mass meeting, and all of a sudden Transylvania became part of Romania? Unification declared, unification made?.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 11:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Let`s state the facts.

  • 1) Austria-Hungary dissolved on October 31, 1918 following military defeat in the First World War.
  • 2) After that the Union of Transylvania with Romania happened, December 1 [O.S. November 18] 1918 by the assembly of the delegates of ethnic Romanians held in Alba Iulia. Where we can see that from this date Transylvania (Satu Mare included) became a part of Romania. About this union there isn`t the "other side". This union as such was recognized and a new border between Romania and Hungary was established. If you take it like that as I said, Romanians don`t recognize the Hungarian rule in Transylvania so we should delete everything about that and to achieve some "compromise" where we can avoid some important facts.
  • 3) As a Hungarian response to this unification the Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919 happened.

Now, according to the time line and history this sentence is a fact In 1918, as a result of the Union of Transylvania with Romania, Satu Mare ceased to be part of Austria-Hungary and should be present in the article. I don`t see any problem here, except that you are bothered with this part of Romania`s history (the unification) and personally think that this never happened. Unification was made when the majority of representatives from various Transylvanian cities/places voted for the unification. Adrian (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC) We have this time line as a proof for this, can you please prove otherwise? Adrian (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference not valid

[edit]

Since you choose to ignore the time-line per assume good faith I will not revert these "changes" yet. About this [2] the reference has 3 problems for now:

  • 1) It seems to be like a ghost web page that I can create in 5 min and write some stuff and claim it as a source.
  • 2) The author you claim to be is Béla Köpeczi who seems to be like a credible person but on this web page there is no sign of him but instead it is written by Zoltán Szász who is some unknown person.
  • 3) It is a pro-Hungarian web page where information can`t be trusted.

This page is not credible and if you really want to introduce this you need to find a valid reference. Adrian (talk) 11:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your comments are wrong again. Please, go to the main page of the referenced book and you will see that:

  • 1) The 'ghost web page that you can create in 5 min' belong to the Hungarian Electronic Library which is a on-line section of Országos Széchenyi Könyvtár (National Széchényi Library) being the largest Hungarian public library established by count Ferenc Széchényi in 1802.
  • 2.) The book is the English version of the 3 volume Erdély Története, one of the most comprehensive handbooks on this subject. Academician Béla Köpeczi was the chief editor while Zoltán Szász wrote the chapter on 1918-1919. He may be unknown for you, otherwise he is renowned historian, see his activity here: [3]. The reference shows only the page where the concrete piece of information can be found.
  • 3.) As per 1.

Rokarudi--Rokarudi 12:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not questioning this facility but the connection of this web page with the library. Sorry but Zoltán Szász can`t be taken seriosly and this page about him in Hungarian doesn`t mean anything to a non-Hungarian reader, but Ok. Then I have links1;2;3 that states that Transylvania and Crisana also unified with Romania On the 18th of November 1918 which means that Satu Mare from that date became a part of Romania exactly as the sentence said In 1918, as a result of the Union of Transylvania with Romania, Satu Mare ceased to be part of Austria-Hungary and became part of Romania. as it should be re-introduced to the article as it was. Adrian (talk) 18:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have to distinguish betweeen promises, declarations, actual control and international recognition. Transylvania was promised for Romania by the Entente for its entering the war in 1916. Romania confirmed its borders with Austria-Hungary in the Bucharest Treaty. (promises) The Romanians of Transylvania declared their intention to join Romania, while Hungarians to preserve the territorial integrity of Hungary. The Romanian government declared Transylvania to belong to Romania, while the Hungarian government insisted on that the territorial integrity of Hungary is not given up (declarations). The Romanian army - step by step - got the area concerned under his control between December 1918 and April 1919. (actual control), Treaty of Trianon - (international recognition). I understand that in the perception of many Romanians, a Romanian territory simply joins Romania, so it must be the result of unification and not that of military occupation or decision of great powers but this is an encyclopedia, so we are looking for a neutral POV to the extent it is possible in such issues. Internationally, the territory became part of Romania in 1920, while the actual control was acquired when Romanian army occupied it, for the satisfaction of Romanian population. The intentions of the national communities of Transylvania was an important political factor not directly decisive. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 21:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My contributions

[edit]

About this [4] , reference talks about Satu Mare, as a city with a village name(and talking about Satu Maru - Big village), I thought that is enought to support it`s name translation. Adrian (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References should support the entirety of the text that precedes them. The Adevărul source does indeed support what you say it does, and I commend you for adding it. My point was that we as yet have no source for the Romanian name being changed in 1925. At some point in the future, one should be found and added. - Biruitorul Talk 18:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other names

[edit]

A good Wiki page contains Other names section Readder (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To Bogdangiusca

[edit]

Please stop undo-ing my edit. I've thoroughly explained everything back in 2009 in the "wrong demographics" section above. Nobody cared to correct the wrong info till 2013 !? And now I am not allowed to do it? -Paul- (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And what about this source [5]? It states, for example, that in 1880 only 5% of the population was Romanian and 88.8% Hungarian. If the table to be refined, it should be done based on other reliable sources, such as the one I have just cited. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your source, Keortefa, it seems interesting but I've noticed that the 1930 census data are wrong. They do not match the official census data which are available. I wouldn't want to generalize, but many some Hungarian sources tend to distort the actual data (that doesn't mean all of them). This one might be the "distorting" type because the cesus of december 1930 is well-recorded.

Also the current table contains wrong data for 1930. What should we do about this? Here is the real data: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ro/a/a0/Satmar1930pop1-1.jpg So the table contains this info: 1930 - 53,010 total population, with Romanians 28.9% and Hungarians 57.1%, while the offical data is Municipality (=city) of Satu Mare: total - 51495, Romanians 16251 (=31,6%) and 21916 (=42,6% rounded up!). To me, it seems yet again that the some Hungarian-ethnicity editors have a "not-so-well-hidden" agenda of messing with history and population data on all the wikis (believe me, I know what I'm talking). Now who is going to correct the table? The table citation is a website which actually contains only tables and doesn't indicate any source. How can we check the other data? Should the table remain there? -Paul- (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you at least read my source? The current source is just a website which mentions as source the author, but doesn't mention any source. This data is unverifiable, while my data is from a clear source (and hungarian too). -Paul- (talk) 09:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, if you claim that the (referenced) data is wrong, then bring the correct data with a different reference, not remove what we have. bogdan (talk) 18:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. I've already brought the correct data in the Wrong Demographics section above (above means scroll up!) [6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Satu_Mare#Wrong_demographics_.3F

Here it is again: Seemingly nobody seems to reply about the wrong data. Please see full text I was mentioning, below:

In terms of Hungarian native speakers, between 1880 and 1910 the population gain above their natural growth in the region was between 180 and 200 thousand, while Romanian losses were between 130 and 150 thousand, depending on whether we take the birth rate figures of the last decade as retrospectively relevant, or calculate with the more balanced earlier figures for nationality growth. The Romanian losses were mostly due to emigration, which increased dramatically in the 1980s, especially in southern counties of historical Transylvania and became a mass movement at the beginning of the twentieth century. Hungarian population gains, on the other hand, included a migration surplus. However, the exact value of this cannot be determined, since we are unable to give a balance of internal population exchanges between administrative units with respect to the present borders. Nevertheless, the attraction of certain central points giving rise to migration among regions is well known. In Krassó-Szörény/Caraş-Severin and Hunyad/Hunedoara counties, where natural population growth was originally low, mining areas and rapidly developing industrial centres attracted Hungarians from a distance. Thus, in three decades their number multiplied between 4.7 and 4.2 times. The proportion of Hungarians therefore increased from 1.9 per cent to 7.2 per cent, and from 5.1 to 15.5 per cent for the two areas respectively. A massive increase can be seen in certain areas of Temes/Timiş and Torontál counties (the number of Hungarians increased 2.5 times, their proportion growing from 8 per cent to 16.6 per cent). In Arad county, where the increase in proportions was average, the number of Hungarians also grew rapidly (the figure in 1910 is 1.8 times higher than in 1880, with their proportion rising from 22.3 per cent to 29 per cent). Similar data are available in Kolozs/Cluj county (1.7 times higher with the proportion increasing from 33.2 to 38.9 per cent); in Szatmár/Satu Mare and Ugocsa/Ugocea (where the proportion increased from 44.4 to 55.1 per cent); and in the Bihar (Bihor) area, where the proportion of Hungarians rose from 39.8 to 44.4 per cent in spite of the high birth rate among local Romanians. The rise in the number of Hungarian native speakers in Máramaros/Maramureş also deserves attention: the number of Hungarian native speakers here increased 2.1 times over thirty years, and the proportion grew by 5 per cent to reach 19.4 per cent in 1910. At the same time, the serious local economic and social crisis in Szeklerland is well demonstrated by the fact that here, in the smaller language area of the eastern periphery of the country, in Csík, Háromszék and Udvarhely counties, the population increase among Hungarians fell far behind even the Transylvanian average because of losses resulting from migration.

The above text can be seen on this page: http://www.kia.hu/konyvtar/erdely/erdang.htm , Hungarians in Transylvania between 1870 and 1995, Original title: "Erdély magyar népessége 1870-1995 között", Published in Magyar Kisebbség 3-4, 1998 (New series IV), pp. 331-407, Translation by Tamás Sályi, Linguistic editing by Rachel Orbell, Published by Teleki László Foundation. Budapest, March 1999

The text clearly states that in Szatmár/Satu Mare, the proportion of Hungarians was 44.4 in 1880 and 55.1% in 1910. Unfortunately the other digits cannot be verified. The strangest thing is that the author is the same as the indicated (and unverifiable) source of the table. The initial table lists as source a website which actually does not lists its source and could be very well fabricated data. I am removing the table and inserting the only verifiable information according to the text above. -Paul- (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must stand corrected - my reference, in that paragraph, is about Satu Mare county, not city. I will correct the information in the article and I think it should remain there because it is interesting to notice that, although the proportion of Romanian speaking population in the city of Satu Mare was of 7,95 and 6,3% in 1880 and 1910 respectively, the Romanian population in the area (the whole county) was in a quite larger percentage, of 44.4% in 1880 and 55.1% in 1910. -Paul- (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am messing Romanians and Hungarians the other way I know - I've corrected in the article too. The 44.4% in 1880 and 55.1% are Hungarian speakers in the county. -Paul- (talk) 10:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics based on nationality or language?

[edit]

The "Historical population of Satu Mare" table contains some questionable data. I have managed to identify the source of error: the census for some of the years including 1930 were recorded based on both "native language" and nationality. The a and n letters after the years (1930a and 1930n) in the cited source mean Anyanyelv and Nemzetiség (language vs nationality), concepts also explained in the abstract of this article [7]. Nevertheless, the contributor who inserted the table decided to handpick the most convenient set of data- that based of declared native language, instead of declared nationality. Amost 10'000 (ten thousand) Romanians declared Romanian nationality of Hungarian language (possible result of the half a century of Magyarization): year total romanian hungarian 1930a 53010 15372 30380 / by language 1930n 53010 17679 21940 /by nationality -Paul- (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency in climate section?

[edit]

In the Climate section, there is this sentence: "As the city is in the far north of the country, winter is much colder than the national average, with an average temperature of −17 °C (1 °F), lower than values recorded in other cities in western Romania like Oradea (−15 °C (5 °F)) or Timișoara (−17 °C (1 °F))."

The section then says Satu Mare's climate has a Cfb classification, which appears to rule out a winter average temperature of −17 °C (because the coldest month in a location with Cfb climate is not supposed to have an average less than −3 °C). The climate table also confirms this, with winter average low temperatures well above −17 °C.

I note that the source does mention the temperature −17 °C, but for the above reason, it seems implausible that this is the average winter temperature.

It therefore looks like there is a self-contradiction in this section - can someone figure out how it gets resolved? 67.87.19.22 (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Satu Mare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Gara Ferastrau"?

[edit]

First of all, the name of the railway station has been changed decades ago to "Satu Mare Sud". Second, the station's name was never "Ferastrau". It was "Ferestrau". I'm aware that in the current Romanian language the right form for "saw" is "ferastrau" but this is not about the language, we're talking about a name. A very old one.

Names don't follow rules. If one's I.D. holds the name "Adholph", that's his name regardless of any rule.

Near the station there is still a street called Strada Garii Ferestrau.

The name was used because next to the station there was a big lumber mill with a steam powered saw. In fact, the large volume of the wood handled by the lumber mill was the reason why a railway station was built there.Srelu (talk) 23:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Satu Mare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Satu Mare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Satu Mare. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Economy section: Arcandor

[edit]

This needs upating. Arcandor went bankrupt some years ago. I've no idea what happened to its facilities in this city. Boscaswell talk 10:19, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does Satu Mare lie in the Maramures region?

[edit]

Hello!

I'm confused about this matter, so I thought I'd start a discussion. There is a number of maps depicting the Maramures region in both Maramures and Satu Mare counties, like these: 1, 2, 3. However, others show a separate region in the area, called "Satmar" or "Satu Mare": 4, 5, 6.

Obviously, neither of these maps can be considered a source which provides the answer. But those different looking maps can be misleading and confusing, so I thought we'd discuss this. On the Maramureș article, the region, as depicted on the map, does not include the Satu Mare area. If we presume that the historical Maramures is based on the Hungarian Máramaros County, then Satu Mare is also not included, having been part of the Szatmár county.

So, if Satu Mare is not part of Maramures, but also not of Crisana, what is it then? Romania is traditionally divided in its 9 subregions; every part of the country is also part of one of said regions. You do hear the expression "Banat, Crisana and Maramures", but not "Banat, Crisana, Satmar and Maramures". Any opinions? Lupishor (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of the opinion. For me, Maramureș is just what the Hungarian county covered, and Satu Mare is in Crișana. But some will say that it is part of Maramureș and others will say that it is part of Sătmar. I would avoid using Sătmar as a separate region from Crișana but we probably shouldn't chose between Crișana and Maramureș, but just say Satu Mare may be considered part of both regions. Super Ψ Dro 22:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the Crișana article, the region's northern border is the Someș river, which goes through Satu Mare. Thus, about half of the city is, indeed, in Crișana. But what about the other half? If you consider Maramureș to be only made up of the Hungarian county's land, then it means that there still is a piece of territory between Crișana and Maramureș. Lupishor (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If we took that river as the border of Crișana, I would include the other half of Satu Mare in Maramureș. It is better to avoid using Sătmar as a separate region from both. Although it's still a Crișanan city to me. I always though of Crișana as everything between the Carpathians and the border with Hungary (or the Tisza) that isn't Transylvania, Banat or Maramureș. The fact that there are no sources discussing something like this leaves this issue to the users' interpretation. I would use "Satu Mare [...] may br included in the regions of Crișana, Maramureș, or both" in the lead and "Crișana/Maramureș" in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 09:11, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Satu_Mare&oldid=1201921675"