Talk:Second Vienna Award

Statistics

Appart form the natural population growth, the differences between the two censuses are due to some other complex reasons, like migration and assimilation of Jews or bilingual speakers. According to Hungarian registrations, 100 thousand Hungarian refugees had arrived in Hungary from South Transylvania by January 1941. Most of them sought refuge in the north, and almost as many persons arrived from Hungary in the reannexed territory as moved to the Trianon Hungary territory from South Transylvania. As a result of these migrations, North Transylvanian Hungarians increased by almost 100 thousand. In order to "compensate" for this, a great number of Romanians were obliged to leave North Transylvania.

The above text is copied from (Árpád E Varga, Erdély magyar népessége 1870-1995 között) and it is quite accurate. However, the phrase that follows is just an example of an unfortunate combination of bad English and incorrect information: Most of them was functionaries, who was called out from Old Romani after 1920. The name of the country is Romania, and they were functionaries, rather than was functionaries. And the information itself is incorrect.

I think that we could at least stick to the original text from (Árpád E Varga, Erdély magyar népessége 1870-1995 között), which does not contain this incorrect phrase. I will therefore remove it from the article. --Alexrap 30 November 2005

---

Oh, i'm sorry for the mistakes, everybody can make them:) But the information that most of the people who were forced to leave was Romanian functionaries from the Regat. If hungarians exiled the romanian workers and villagers, there would not be enough man to perform the labour.

Will you please quote some references for this statement. Even Hungarian historians and demographers recognised that between the two World Wars more people moved from Transylvania into the ‘’Old Regat’’, and not the opposite. To quote a Hungarian source that you seem to know very well (because you copy quite a lot from there), namely (Árpád E Varga, ‘’Erdély magyar népessége 1870-1995 között’’): ‘’ It can be seen that in 1930 only 68,650 persons born in the Transcarpathian region were living in Transylvania. […] On the other hand, in 1930 some 176,381 persons born in Transylvania were registered in the Transcarpathian region. Thus the migration balance for Transylvania was still negative in 1930 […]’’

Why do you copy something from a book and then in the middle you include a sentence that is not even true? What you are doing is both plagiarism and giving incorrect information. --Alexrap 30 November 2005

Afterwards

Saying that all the the population welcomed the Hungarian troops in September 1940 is a very incorrect statement. I thought that Wikipedia is the place where everyone should try to present only real facts. Also, if one wants to present an objective view on the event, then one should mention the Trǎznea and Ip atrocities, when mentioning the enthusiasm of the Hungarian population.

Therefore I think that the following text should replace the existing misleading one. It says both sides of the story in an objective way.

Generally, the ethnic Hungarian population welcomed the troops (as it is visible on the video) and regarded separation from Romania as liberation. The large ethnic Romanian community that found themselves under Hungarian Horthyst occupation had nothing to celebrate though, as in their minds this Second Vienna Award represented the return to the times of the long Hungarian occupation that denied them elementary human rights. Unfortunately, some pitiable events also happened, e.g. on 9th September in the village of Trǎznea (Hungarian: Ördögkút) firefight evolved between the Hungarian troops and the local villagers (125 Romanians and 2 Jews were killed) and on 13th-14th September 1940 in the village of Ip, 159 local villagers were killed by the Hungarian troops. The exact number of the casualties is disputed between some historians, but unfortunately the existence of such events cannot be disputed. --Alexrap 30 November 2005

---

I did not mention that all of the population welcomed the troops, but most of them. Saying that only the ethnic Hugnarians welcomed the entry is incorrect. The germans welcomed them too. And I have responsible sources that some Romanians also celebrated. And yes, you are right in some villages there were atrocities (I have read the Iron Guardist and some Orthodox priest agitated them)

Please let us know what ‘’responsible sources’’ do you have. And now, honestly, do you think that the Romanians (that by the way, were an absolute majority in the region) were really happy about having to endure a new Hungarian occupation? Most of the sources say that the Germans (who were only about 2.85% of the population) remained neutral as they did not want to upset the authorities. However, they were in very good relations with the Romanians as they were allied in 1848 and they expressed their approval of the 1918 Union with Romania. Also the Romanian constitution gave them several rights, as opposed to the Magyarisation process they had suffered before.

And again, you are very naïve if you really think that the Romanians were happy about the Second Vienna Award.

---

Can you tell my what is horthysm? I have never heard about a political concept like this. "denied them elementary human rights"? And do you know what did the Romanian government since Trianon? A large number of Romanian was moved to Transylvania to increase the percentage of the Romanians. The Hungarian government never deployed the population. Yes there was strong Hungarian influence. And do you know that Romanian government what rights gave to Hungarians? The number of the casualties is disputed between the historicans. So don't mention any concrete datas, becuse they aren't certified. If you are so ebullient write about the war crimes what are commited by the Soviet and Romanian army in 1944-45 in Northern Transylvania. I'm interested can you write detachedly.

Faithfully: HunTomy

HunTomy could you please bring proofs that dispute what Alexrap is saying. And, oh, stop changing the percentages for August 1940. Things changed slightly since 1930. Algos 21:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

denied them elementary human rights means that the Romanians (although a majority in Transylvania) were not represented in the Parliament. However, the Hungarians (a minority) were represented in the Romanian Parliament after 1920. The fact that a large number of Romanians was moved to Transylvania soon after Trianon is incorrect, and I have also referred you to some Hungarian sources that had to recognise the exact opposite. So please, try to inform yourself and to present real facts.

The exact number of the casualties might be disputed. However it is important to know an estimation of them. I have put one estimation, you are free to put another well documented estimation if you like. And don’t forget at least about Ip, as well, when mentioning about Trǎznea. Although there were some more cases.

The Second Vienna Award took place in 1940, and not 1944-45. So please keep these pages relevant to this subject. We can have a debate about 1944-45 somewhere else. --Alexrap 30 November 2005

If you were the first one to write about something on Wikipedia, it does not give you the right to misinform people. Let’s try to keep this encyclopaedia a place where people can find correct information. And please when you copy something, don’t add your own thoughts in the middle of the text, unless what you say is well documented. Also, if you read something from a book, try not to write the exact opposite in here. Last, but no least, please find a calculator and work out what percentages do 968,371 and 1,304,898 represent out of 2,609,007. It is very annoying to see that you keep modifying the percentages. It is not difficult to work them out. If you do not want to believe us, please work them out yourself. --Alexrap 30 November 2005

If you modify it please let me know why, not just change it without a word.

  Steve 2006 06 16

I changed some lines as you can see in the article. I think that's how it is impartial and that is the most close to the truth. If I red it through before, it had the taste that the evil hungarians went in and massacred the innocent romainian population. That's rubbish. If we write down why was the decision sad for the romanions, lets say why was it good for the hungarinas. It is not disputable that there was romanization before the award as it is not discussable that there was magyarization before Trianon. And it is true that many hungarians moved into transilvania after the award, but it is also true that many moved out after trianon becouse they didn't want to live under romanian rule. Thats the same with the other side after the award. It is also true that many romanian moved into transilvania after trianon to dicrease the proportion of hungarians and to promote the assimilation, as hungarians were moved in after the award to decrease the proportion of the romanians on the parts were the romanians had the majority of the reannexed territories. So as I see that's the impartial way.

                         Steve

Modifying (without even logging in) a version of the article that was discussed in here for a long time, by adding incorrect bits of information written in a bad English is not in the Wikipedia spirit. You just modified the text without any discussion and then you want everyone to ask for your opinion before changing it. This is very funny, to say the least. Also, plese leave the discussions on this page in chronological order and sign your comments (using 4 tildes). Alexrap 13:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok so I logged in now so I do it in the proper way. At first I think we could add some additional information about Treznea and Ip in my opinion, and I would add the massacres of Csíkszentdomokos (Sândominic) and Szárazajta (Aita Seacă) as well. I think these should be mentioned as well, if we mention Ip and Treznea. So that's what I will modify now. I think the informations are correct. I found the additional text about Trezna under the title Trezna massacre on Wikipedia, about Ip and Sândominic and Aita Seacă on the site: http://udvardy.adatbank.transindex.ro and in a book which can be downloaded from: http://www.korunk.org/konyvek/letoltkonyvek/ablakajelenre.pdf You will find these informations in Romanian as well on the web hopefully.

"For example on 9 September in the village of Treznea (Hungarian: Ördögkút), Hungarian troops marching forward were fired at by inhabitants, allegedly incited by the local Romanian orthodox priest. As a retaliation, the Hungarian army started firing at will on the locals, killing many of them and partially destroying the Orthodox church. The death toll:87 Romanians and 6 Jews were killed. On 13-14 September 1940 in the village of Ip (Hungarian: Szilágyipp), Romanian rebellions threw a grenade among the marching Hungarian troops, consequently 4 soldier died. In the reprisal 159 local villagers were killed by the Hungarian troops. In 1940 in Aita Seacă (Hungarian: Szárazajta)on 26.September.1944 the marching Romanian Maniu-gardists killed 13 innocent Hungarian inhabitants. In Sândominic (Hungarian: Csíkszentdomokos)11 innocent Hungarian inhabitants (9 male and 2 female) were executed becouse the Romanian troops found guns in their houses. Hungarians were massacred in Unirea (Hungarian: Felvinc) as well. The exact number of the casualties is disputed between some historians, but unfortunately the existence of such events cannot be disputed."

If I am wrong in something please write it down.

I have several other questions: 1.Why didn't you leave the part where I wrote about the opression of the Hungarians after the Fist World War, and about the Romanization. I think if Magyarization is mentioned, we should mention this as well. 2.Keith Hitchins's opinion is his opinion you cannot say that that was the situatuin. I'm quite sure that there are some experts who think the Award was good sollution. That's why I say you should modify the introduction of that part like: "Historian Keith Hitchins summarizes his opinion in his book"

Sorry for "braking the rules" but I didn't find how to log in before. (Zsakos 16:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) (the former Steve) 20.06.2006

Several points:

1) The information you added about Treznea is incorrect. The alegation that some inhabitants fired against the Hungarian army is nothing but pure fiction. Unfortunately I don't speak Hungarian, so I cannot have a look on the links you gave. For "the other side of the story", you might want to have a look on these books: P. Ţurlea, Ip si Trãznea, Atrocitãti maghiare si Actiune diplomaticã, Ed. Enciclopedică, Bucureşti 1996; Gh.I. Bodea, V.T. Suciu, I Puscas, Administratia militara horthysta in nord-vestul Romaniei, Ed. Dacia, 1988.

2) Treznea is 4km off the road Zalau-Cluj, the main route of the Hungarian Army after the Award. On the day of the massacre, a Hungarian Military Force made a detour from their route in order to enter Treznea. This detour cannot be justified as a routine occupation manoeuvre. When trying to understand the motivation of this detour, most evidence points towards the local noble Ferenc Bay who lost a large part of his estates to peasants in 1920s. It is no coincidence that most of the people killed were Romanian peasants living on his land. The outcome of this detour was that many civilians of all ages were killed. There are absolutely no facts indicating that the Hungarian soldiers were in any way attacked by any locals. There is a paper published in an International referred Journal on this matter: Rethinking History, Volume 6, Number 1, 1 April 2002, pp. 35-55.

3) The information you added is not only incorrect, but also strikingly biased. Please compare: As a retaliation, the Hungarian army started firing at will on the locals, killing many of them and partially destroying the Orthodox church... In the reprisal 159 local villagers were killed by the Hungarian troops. with the marching Romanian Maniu-gardists killed 13 innocent Hungarian inhabitants. The Romanians are always guilty (just because), while the Hungarians are always innocent.

4) I dont undersand the meaning of the sentence: In 1940 in Aita Seacă (Hungarian: Szárazajta)on 26.September.1944 the marching Romanian Maniu-gardists killed 13 innocent Hungarian inhabitants. Is it one sentence or two? Is it about 1940 or 1944?

5) This article is about the Second Vienna Award and its afterwards. 1944 events does not fit into this article, but since you mentioned

Aita Seaca, you might want to kave a look on http://www.gid-romania.com/IndexSections.asp?SectionID=4&SID=227

6) To answer your 2 questions: This is not the place to talk about Magyarisation/Romanianisation. There are other pages on Wikipedia on these two things. And I have no objection is saying that it is Keith Hitchins' opinion, althought I think that this is already clear enough in the article as the text is a citation from his book, which of course contains his opinions on the matter. -- Alexrap 14:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

1) and 2): I cannot accept what you wrote here since I couldn't find any sources on the internet which confirms it. Please tell me a site in English. You cannot say that it is rubbish that the Romanians started the shootout since you weren't there so you cannot now it for sure, and I found only sources which confirmed this. I couldn't find this estimate about 263 victims. I found only about 150.

I already gave you a reference in English. As I said, there is a scientific research article on this matter in an international referred journal, namely Rethinking History. You can find the journal at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rrhi or http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/13642529.asp . The article on Treznea can be found in Volume 6, Number 1, 1 April 2002, pp. 35-55. Direct links to it: http://journalsonline.tandf.co.uk/(a0xrok55izbwts55ifoznn55)/app/home/issue.asp?referrer=parent&backto=journal,15,21;linkingpublicationresults,1:104727,1 or http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rrhi/2002/00000006/00000001;jsessionid=7e32hafkld7y.henrietta . This is a journal where every article is reviewed by international reviewers and not an internet site where anyone can write anything (s)he wants.

3) Please tell me why is it incorrect. The sources what I found are not nationalist they used absolutely correct informations, and in the book I wrote about contains accounts of a witness, who confirmes everything about Aita Seaca. But probably you can find a lot of sources in English reinforcing it. Maybe Romanian sources say something else, but that's the same in the case of Ip and the Hungarian historians. But I dindn't say that the Romanian victims weren't innocent. Most of them were of course. I will correct this.

The site that I provided you on Aita Seaca contains also inforation based on eye witnesses accounts.

4) and this as well.

5) Unfortunately I cannot speak Romanian so I could not read your link about Aita Seaca. But I think that those events has a lot to do with the award and exspecially with the dissolvation of it. These have to be mantioned as well.

First of all, my information on Aita Seaca presents a version which is totally different to what you have written. Both versions will have to be presented in a Wikipedia article. However, as I said, presenting 1944 events in the article about the Second Vienna Award is not a very good idea. It will make the article very long and difficult to read. Give me a logical reason on having them in this article?

• I would basically agree that this doesn't belong here. On the other hand, I could imagine a category or such bringing together all articles that bear on Transylvania during World War II, so that these can easily be accessed. As for translation, I can attest that the Grupul Independent pentru Democratie article says roughly what it is claimed to say. The relevant passage begins "Din documentele de arhiva rezulta ca, pe 4 septembrie, militari români izolati, aflati în retragere dezorganizata, au fost interceptati de etnici maghiari din Aita Seaca, luati ostateci, torturati si omorâti" ("From the documents in the archive it results that, on September 4, isolated Romanian soldiers in the process of a disorganized retreat were intercepted by ethnic Magyars from Aita Seaca, taken hostage, tortured, and murdered.") If more extensive translation of the passage is needed, I will be glad to provide it, but it sounds like things have moved on from here. - Jmabel | Talk 22:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

6) Then this is not a place to talk about the opression of the Romanians, and that they couldn't get the basic rights either. There are other places for this as well.

(Zsakos 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

The only reference to this issue was given when explaining why the Romanian population did not celebrate the Award. It was just one necessary sentence that was introduced in this article when HunTomy tried to impose a version saying that all the population welcomed the Hungarian troups. Which is of course, nonsense. Alexrap 09:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

So it is not needed any more. It doesn't have anything to do with the award. Less then Aita Seaca right?

I will delete the quote as well since it doesn't give any plus information on the matter since all the information can be found in the statistics. All the plus it sais that the award was a wrong decision. As I said this is a personal opinion this is not a place to decide if it was wronmg or if it was good. There are historians who say it was ok and some who say it was bad. So in brief it has nothing to do here.

The thing you wrote about Trezna is not the generally accepted opinion. If you write like this it seems that it is, only the stupid Hungarian experts deny it. I suggest to write only the clear facts here and we can go more into the matter somewhere else (for instance under the title "trezna massaacre") the same with Ip. I will write only the necessary and generally accepted informations here. I will write down some information about Aita Seaca and the other mantioned places since they are direct consequences of the repeal of the award.

(Zsakos 10:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

Please stop Huntommy! (Zsakos 17:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC))

I will summarize my point as blunt as I possibly can:

• the Hitchins quote is valid. Reference it as an opinion if you will (nobody claimed it was not), but note it was based on facts and constitutes an assessement. I suggest it ought to be kept in the text.
• I admit that I do not have information on killings of Hungarians other than from Hungarian sources! The latter extend the claim to cover, at most, around hundreds of people, without breaking it down into figures, and without bringing proof of planned executions or even repressions. If this article is to make reference to every incident on that scale ("this guy " and "that guy" had "this and that done to them"), and not just Ip and Trăznea, we'd never see the end of it.
• The "Maniu-Guards" are an idiotic invention of the Soviets, in my informed opinion. No Romanian sources, not even communist ones, make mention of them; neither does any foreign onlooker with any crediantials. They are familiar to me only from a Hungarian site in English which is otherwise a load of revisionist crapola. I have informed myself on the topic as much as I could, and found out that it constituted a rumor started by Soviet agents, who turned Maniu's attempt to organize his party in Transylvania before a Soviet occupation (an attempt to present them with a fait accompli) into a "Fascist instigation". This was not only slandering the main figure of democracy in Romania (and the main opponent of Ion Antonescu), it was also a gross lie from a more factual perspective: in the late 1920s, Maniu was negotiating a revison of Trianon with the Hungarians; he had also been the one to oppose traditional centralism, and had opposed Bucharest for not seeming willing to accept extended rights for minorities (see the Peasants' Party (Romania), where I translated from some sources. Dahn 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

To Zsakos:

I am sure we can still have a decent discussion without having to revert the article several times. Honestly, I cannot see why do you insist in putting some biased information about 1944 events in an article about the Second Vienna Award. Initially this article only made reference to some major massacres that happened in the autumn of 1940 when the Hungarian Army entered the Northern Transylvania. If you insist in having a more complete list, we can add: Mihai Bravu (1940, 20 Romanian peasants killed by the Hungarian troups), Ciumarna (1940, 11), Almaşul Mare (1940, 13), Zalău (1940, 7), Treznea (1940, 87), Salonta (1940, 1), Sântion (1940, 2), Ip (1940, 157). And if you insist in having 1944 massacres as well, then we should also add: Aita Seacă (1944, 57 Romanians killed by the Hungarian troups), Iara (1944, 98), Moisei (1944, 42).

Also, what I wrote about Treznea is a very objective view of the events. If you can have a look on the reference I gave you (twice up to now), then you will see that the article is written in a totally non-biased way, presenting only facts and incriminating the Romanian comunist regime of trying to mistify those events. Alexrap 09:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot write this week since I have to travel away, but could you tell me where did you find thos allaged massacres about 1944? Exspecially about Aita Seaca? It is quite insulting to deny that Hungarians were massacred in Aita Seaca and other places. I think it would be insulting for you if I said that there were no Romanian victims in Trezena since Hungarians were killed there as well. I don't say that since it is not true, but as I see here on the Wikipedia everything looks like that the Hungarians were the bad guys, and only the Romanians had to suffer. Thats bullshit. Thats why I came here on this site as couse I found and still find it extremely biased what is pritty understandable since it was wrote only by Romanians. It is very anti Hungarian and you now that but it is ok for you like this since you are Romanians. Thats why HunTommy wanted to modify it, but sometimes he has too radical opinions I can agree. The article says eveything what bad can be said about the Hungarians, it has an absolutely unnecessary quote judging the award, asserting that it it was a wrong decision. Who are you to decide it? It was bad for you, good for us. As I wrote before all the useable information of the quote can be found in the statistics part. There is no need for this.About Aita Seacă and the others ok I will not put it here I will put it somewhere else where it is more relevant. But I am quite sure that it will be revised soon since only the Romanian opinion is acceptable here. I am a bit fed up with Wikipedia. Next week I will come back to the discussion. And why dou you keep putting back the part "that denied them ethnic minority rights usual in modern societies"? I thought we could agree at least on this that it is unnecessary. Right? At least it seemed like in the former discussions. I delete it now. I know that you will revise it again, but at least I tried... (Zsakos 08:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC))

I agree with this last edit, Zsakos. The statement did not make it clear what it was referring to, and tended to make all possible Hungarian governments between 1867 and 1945 seem like they had the same goal and the same approach. "Usual in modern societies" also clashes with the fact that they were only selectively "usual" in Romania itself (as the Ukrainians can tell you). Dahn 09:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

- The content of this page is by no means a Romanian biased one. It was debated for a long time by both Hungarian and Romanian users.

- You can find information about the 1940-1944 massacres in the book Fătu, M., Muşat, M., Teroarea horthysto-fascistă în nord-vestul României (septembrie 1940 - octombrie 1944), Ed. Politică, Bucureşti, 1985.

- You cannot deny that after the Award, the Hungarian Media was flooded with xenophobic messages and that (probably subsequently) the attitude of the Hungarian troops was not a very nice one, to say the least. This article mentioned only two of the 1940 massacres, but we both know that there were many more, most of them not even recorded. I would recommend you to start reading some not biased literature. It is in our interest to have an objective understanding of the past and to look together into the future. How do you think that adding some 1944 information makes this article better? For the record, even in Aita Seaca there were more Romanians killed than Hungarians. And we both know that during our common history there were a lot more Romanians being killed because of their faith/ethnicity. What is the point of starting this contest of "who was the meanest"?

- The part saying "that denied them ethnic minority rights usual in modern societies" was an euphemism introduced by a Hungarian user and I belive it is written in the best possible way from a Hungarian point of view. Do you deny the fact itself or just its place into this article?

- The quote you don't seem to like represents the independent opinion of someone knowledgeable on the Modern History of Eastern Europe and not my opinion. Alexrap 14:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

As I see the discussion page it was only discussed by Romanians, HunTommy who cannot modify anything, and me. And it is biased. We could talk a lot about the attitude of the Romanian troops occupying Hungary as well, I have some first hand informations about it from both of my grandmothers and many other old relatives who I talked to. If they could rape someone they did it at least that was the case in their village. Or you can read about that Hungary didn't have to pay compensation to Romania becouse after the First World War the Romanian army pillaged Hungary so much. I just wrote this down to make you aware that the Romanian army was not a "nice one" as well to say the least, and to see the sins of the Romanian army. As for the massacres in Romania I didn't deny those. I don't know why do you keep writing this. But you keep denying the massacres of the Romanian troops. I don't know about any anti-Romanian movements in the Medival ages and later so I dont understand your statement about Romanian victims throught the history. I would gladely read an article in English about your version of Aita Seaca. And I don't know why do you think that I read biased informations only. Probably the articles which are not anti.Hungarian are biased for you. You have no idea what kind of books do I read becouse I didn't share this information with you as I remember so please dont tell me things like:"I would recommend you to start reading some not biased literature. " At first yau say that the Hungarians were extremely brutal army than you talk about the Romanian victims and than you say: What is the point of starting this contest of "who was the meanest" Thats a bit contravertial dont you think? I dont deny that after 1867 there was a movement so called Magyarization. But it has nothing to do here in an article about the Vienna Award as I said on this page hundred times. Or if you insist on keeping it here we can write about the Romanization movement in the interwar period in Transilvania. The magyrization finished more than twenty year before hte award so we can write about the treatment of Hungarian minorities in Romainia twenty year after the award. That was not nice as well as we both know. So in brief this part has nothing to do here. And please tell me which parts of your quote say plus information about the award. It is totally unnecessary and biased. (Zsakos 09:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC))

Actually, I think that an article on the Romanian occupation(s) of Hungary would really be interested. I know only few things about it, and I'm willing to learn and contribute. But these facts do not relate directly to this article. This is about the Hungarian occupation of Northern Transylvania. As for the compensations after WWI: I presume that the huge territorial change was for something in Hungary not having to pay compensations. Dpotop 09:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is no point in making this discussion page longer than it needs to be. However, to hopefully clearify some things:

- I see that you still say thay this article is a Romanian biased one. I certainly don't agree with this statement, as the article present facts, comments from both sides and independent opinions on the award. There are paragraphs in this article written by Hungarian users (including HunTomy). And I honestly believe that my contributions to this article have been objective and non biased. Regardless of the national background, one should be able to have an objective view.

- It is good that we agree at least with one thing: all armies are bad. And yes, I had grandparents as well and I have heard many stories from the Hungarian occupation period in Northern Transylvania.

- My comment on your biased contributions was based on your actions: you changed the text about the Treznea and Ip massacres such that the 93 and 159 villagers, respectively, were those that started the fights and then you added some information about 1944 events where 13, 11 or some innocent Hungarians were killed for no reasons. Although we have international refered accounts about Treznea, you denied them, changed them and added some non-refered sentences about 1944 events written in a non Wiki style. This is why I said that What is the point of starting this contest of "who was the meanest"? And I see nothing controversial in what I have written.

- Again, it is not my quote. It wasn't even me the one that added this quote into the article. However it is true that I believe it is a good one. From what I know (I might be wrong and you can probably tell me more about it), there were more people in Hungary unhappy about the Award than those satisfied.

- Anyway, we already made this discussion much longer than needed. I will take some summer break as well, so Have a good summer everyone! Alexrap 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"there were more people in Hungary unhappy about the Award than those satisfied" Come on! Don't be ridiculous!

Again propaganda movie

This is not the place for propaganda movies. Next time I will report a file vandalism against the irredentist annon. He was warned once and if he will not stop he will be blocked. Bonaparte talk & contribs 13:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I will support you. Juro 23:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm disputing that is a propaganda movie, i think it's only a documentary film. It is very valuable and rare. If it was a propagana movie, we should demonstate it anyway. This article is for who are interested in the story of the Second Vienna award. And i think this video is useful for them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.182.19.90 (talk • contribs) 10 Dec 2005

I'm missing context. What film is being talked about here? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

About this: http://www.hvim.hu/turulvideo/keletfele.avi

That is a typical fascist propaganda film Joe. -- Bonaparte talk 16:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

At three-quarters of a gigabyte, non-streaming, I'm not downloading it to find out. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

User:HunTomy added the movie again in the article. It was already discussed in here that this movie is not appropriate and therefore I will remove it. -- Alexrap 13:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen this movie yet, I'll try to check it. All state supported movies of the age sound like propaganda for our ears (including the American ones). I must agree however that the website, which consists the movie, is a neo-nazi-like one. Despite that fact, if this movie is an original from the 40's, then it can be seen as a source. -- kelenbp 14:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That is not a neo-nazi page. Only irredentist. That's not the same.

Protected

The article is now protected. Please engage in a constructive dialog to describe the controvery around this subject in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. When you have arrived to consensus on how to proceed, make a request to unprotect at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. -- Bonaparte talk 18:14, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Table

Is there anyone who would object to my replacing the rather difficult-to-read prose around population currently in the article with a brief sentence or two and the table currently at Talk:Vienna Awards? I think it is much easier for a reader to compare these numbers in table form. If we have consensus on that, I will make the edit as uncontroversial; if I hear no objection within 24 hours I will assume it to be so. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I have now done this. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Issues

Could someone please give (as neutrally as possible) a summary of what is currently disputed that is requiring protection here? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If neither side will explain what they are disagreeing over, I feel I have no choice but to unprotect the page. I will allow another 24 hours before I do so. - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say that the main problem with this article is that it was reverted too many times by HunTomy, who seems to refuse any argument against his POVs. He was presented with several arguments against specific inaccuracies within the text he tries to impose for this article. I will shortly list some examples of his ignorance:

- In the Award section: there is an estimation of the population living in Northern Transylvania in 1940. This estimation is based on the 1930 Census. HunTomy changes the percentages represented by the different ethnic groups, although anyone with a simple calculator could work out what percentages do 968,371 and 1,304,898 represent out of 2,609,007. To me, it is very strange to see that he really believes that he will get away with changing the percentage, but keeping the data.

- In the Award section: He adds a phrase saying that some demographers believe that the 1930 census overestimated the number of Romanians, without providing any reference to this statement. Also, he deletes a citation from a Hungarian source that recognises the exact opposite, namely that the 1930 census met international statistical requirements in every respect.

- In the Statistics section: He copied a text from (Árpád E Varga, Erdély magyar népessége 1870-1995 között), which is quite accurate. However, he included within this text the following phrase: Most of them was functionaries, who was called out from Old Romani after 1920. This is just an unfortunate combination of bad English, incorrect information and lack of respect for the author of the text. You cannot copy something and then simply include within the text some phrase of your own that also contradicts the original text. I gave him a reference on the discussion page, but he seems to ignore it. In the same book, the author A.E. Varga says: It can be seen that in 1930 only 68,650 persons born in the Transcarpathian region were living in Transylvania. [...] On the other hand, in 1930 some 176,381 persons born in Transylvania were registered in the Transcarpathian region. Thus the migration balance for Transylvania was still negative in 1930. This is what the author says, but HunTomy, adds within the original text a phrase that says the exact opposite.

No, no, and no. The text from Varga was MY contribution, not HunTomy's. HunTomy only added the phrase "Most of them was functionaries, who was called out from Old Romani after 1920." Algos 11:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Algos, I didn't know it was you. In this case, what HunTomy did is even worse. --Alex 13 December 2005, 16:51 (GMT)

- In the Afterwards section: HunTomy keeps adding the link for a film, that, to say the least, is clearly not in the Wikipedia spirit.

- In the Afterwards section: HunTomy refuses to accept that the large Romanian community did not welcome the Hungarian occupation troops. Also he deletes the information about the Ip and Traznea atrocities.

- There are some other simple grammar errors that HunTomy keeps making, as he just reverts the content of the article: at the result, instead of as a result, Miklos Horthy attend the entry, instead of attended the entry etc.

Overall, probably the most annoying thing is that HunTomy refuses any discussion and reverts the article to a form that contains many inaccuracies and presents the events in a very one-sided POV manner. --Alex 12 December 2005, 14:34 (GMT)

As you probably know, we try not to protect articles longterm, so the protection is going to come off soon, one way or the other. Vienna Awards, which was also a subject of the same fight, has been unprotected for about 20 hours, and has not been edited in that time. Given that, I'm really inclined to unprotect this soon. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't like protected pages in Wikipedia, so I hope this page is not protected for long. However, I also hope, that the vandalism stops. --Alex 13 December 2005, 10:34 (GMT)

Well, here goes. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Odd paragraph cut

I've cut this rather strange paragraph. There may be a point here, and I have no problem seeing this re-added with decent writing and a citation, but this is simply not appropriately written to be part of the article, and was totally uncited.

Treznea massacre was not a single exemple. During the Hungarian occupation this kind of "incidents" where taged as "firefights" between the heavily armed Hungarian Army, the Hungarian local iregulars and the local civilian Romanian and Jewish population. In fact, there is no prove that during the "firefights" the civilian Romanians and Jews used any weapon at all ! In fact, these massacres "produced" more than 1000 Romanians and 200 Jews (most of them women and children) victims and no Hungarian victim.

-- Jmabel | Talk 09:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Incomprehensible sentence

"The Hungarian delegation submitted notable territorial claims while the Romanians were disposed for only an inconspicuous territorial allowance conflated significant changing of the population." Incomprehensible. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It means that Hungarians would have been happy to gain all Transilvania, but the Romanians were willing to give only a specific border area, with a population exchange.--Alex:Dan 12:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I jut ran up against that exact same sentence--I was doing some more copyedit and then I saw that and was left scratching my head in bewilderment. Thanks for the "translation", Alex Dan. K. Lásztocska 13:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don´t know what´s up with this article, but can´t we just present the facts ? I mean, it´s not a fictional event. --Venatoreng 21:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)