Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc

For you all

This was my post on the talk page of user Ronline, but I will copy this here just in case that any of you come to similar idea about names in Serbia-related articles like user Ronline did. PANONIAN 12:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw the discussion of Romanian and Hungarian users about names of the places in Romania and the conclusions of that discussion are wrong even for places in Romania not to mention attempt for imposing this solution to places in other countries. The main question here is whether reason for such usage of names is scientific or political. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion of political ideas no matter if such idea in this case is irredentism or minority rights. Purpose of Wikipedia is a scientific one and from scientific point of view, the reader of Wikipedia indeed should have information about varios names of such places, but you people (Hungarian and Romanian users from Talk:Odorheiu Secuiesc) turned the question of where such names should be written into the pure political question and that is not good direction into which Wikipedia should develop, not to mention that your "compromise" (or what ever) is against Wikipedia naming conventions. In another words, since Wikipedia is a scientific encyclopaedia written in English language, names used here are those that are used in English. I can give you concrete examples of the whole problem: let just pick any random article, for example Bogojevo. So, it is village in Serbia with Hungarian majority and Hungarian name for the village is there if somebody (from scientific point of view) would like to know this name. Now the question is whether we should writte there bolded "Bogojevo or Gombos" instead just bolded "Bogojevo". Usage of more than one bolded name here is justified if such names are used in English, but it is not case here. For geographical purposes, English language use only official names used in these countries (i.e. if alternative English (but not non-English) names for such places do not exist). In the case of Bogojevo, it is very well illustrated here: http://www.fallingrain.com/world/YI/2/Bogojevo.html You can see that only official name that is commonly used in English is listed here in the beginning, while all other non-official, non-English names are listed below, but not in the same place where official name is listed. Also, if you try google search, you will see that Hungarian name Gombos is indeed not widely used in English and that it could mainly be found in Hungarian-language websites: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=bogojevo+gombos&btnG=Search Furthermore, the first sentences of the articles should be brief and should not contain too much data of low importance that would only confuse readers. In another words, I do not see scientific reasons (if there is any please say which one that might be) for usage of non-English non-official names bolded in the first sentence. Also, Wikipedia is not obligated to follow any official policy of any state including policy of usage of minority languages - such state policies are made with only purpose to help to members of such minority to preserve their language and culture within the country, but that still does not mean that English language use names in their languages for geographical purposes and that such names should be written in Wikipedia in the first sentences or in the infoboxes (unless you want to turn a scientific question into political one, which is, as I said, not appropriate on this non-political web site). For example, I see a scientific justification that we writte Hungarian names in the infoboxes of Senta or of Palić because such names are used by majority of local inhabitants, and therefore it is likely that readers of English Wikipedia would saw such names in other web-sites, books, etc, so this information indeed could be useful for them, but I do not see a point of writting Romanian or Hungarian name in the infobox of Bela Crkva because such names could not be of any use to Eglish readers (of course if somebody still want to know such names, there is a "Name" section in the article where he can found them, and that is quite enough from the scientific point of view). Regarding usage of bolded Serbian names in the first sentences of Sviniţa, Pojejena and Socol, that is equally wrong as this what I previously spoke about, but since I do not have time to work any more on the articles about Sviniţa, Pojejena and Socol it is your chooice what you will do with these articles, but I want to ensure high quality of the articles about places in Serbia and therefore usage of Wikipedia for political naming purposes (instead for scientific ones) cannot be acceptable. And just one more illustration how ridiculous whole question is: if we start to writte non-English names bolded in the first sentences of the articles, we would also have to use Serbian Cyrillic for such purposes and therefore, we would not have "Bogojevo or Gombos", but we would in fact have "Богојево or Bogojevo or Gombos" and that would be nothing but stupidity. This also illustrate how wrong usage of bolded Serbian names for Sviniţa, Pojejena and Socol really is when you do not use Serbian Cyrillic (and Cyrillic is a primary Serbian script). PANONIAN

I was just making that a point that if this model is to be applied to Hungarian-majority (or >20%) localities in Romania, it should also be applied to 1) other localities in Romania which have non-Romanian majorities, such as Sviniţa and 2) localities in other countries with minority-majorities. However, my concern is not so much with the dual-boldening compromise, but rather with the infobox. At Vojvodinan localities, only the Serbian name tends to be listed in the infobox, while the minority-language names are relegated to a separate "Name" section. I believe that this is not a particularly good model, considering how Romanian and Hungarian localities deal with the same problem. Ronline ✉ 12:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually Vojvodina is an easier issue because both Romanian and Hungarian are official languages there. My only concern is that I don't wish to be involved in edit wars... --KIDB 14:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

In Vojvodina, Romanian and Hungarian languages are official, but not Romanian and Hungarian names of the places. Just see my answer to Ronline about this: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Ronline#Answer Regarding models, as I already said, purpose of Wikipedia is to collect and present knowledge and therefore since article named List of Hungarian exonyms in Vojvodina exist it is clear that such article could satisfy the need of English readers to know such names (I already suggested to user Ronline to writte similar article about Romanian names). As a supplement to this, most of the articles about places in Vojvodina have Hungarian, Romanian and other names written either in the first sentence either in the "Name" section (some also have them in the infoboxes), but model of two (or more) bolded names in the first sentence does not have scientific justification and it is also VERY UGLY. PANONIAN 15:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Then again, the dual-bolded name is used in other places, such as South Tyrolean articles. I fail to see how Romanian and Hungarian places names are not official in Vojvodina. According to the law, all official languages in Vojvodina are equal in status. For example, Romanian and Serbian are equal. An official publication in Romanian lists the name as "Marcovăţ", while an official publication in Serbian lists the name as "Markovac". That Romanian place name (Marcovăţ) thus becomes the official place name of the town in Romanian, which is an official language of Vojvodina with equal standing to Serbian. This case also applies to Hungarian, Slovak, etc. Why is the Serbian name given precedence, then? More pertinently, even if the Serbian name is given precedence, how is it that the Romanian name is not official? I welcome your proposal about creating a list of Romanian exonyms, but this discussion is not about that: it's specifically about adding Romanian/Hungarian/other-official-language names in Vojvodinian localities where these languages are officially-recognised. Ronline ✉ 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

But I already explained to you: South Tyrol is indeed an area with two official places names for each place, but in Vojvodina (and Serbia as a whole) only Serbian names of the places are official, while names of the places in minority languages are only for "internal use within those languages", but are not used in official publications of the Serbian or Vojvodinian governments (Opposite to this, as user Zello explained on Talk:Lórév, Hungarian government in its publications use both (Hungarian and Serbian) names for this Serb-populated village in Hungary). In fact, since in Vojvodina 6 languages are official, it would not be technically possible to make names from all 6 languages official. Therefore, such equality of languages is rather something that is just in paper, while other official papers in fact deny such equality. Anyway, if we would want to implement such equality then we would have to writte names in all 6 languages for each place of Vojvodina and that is either impossible (because we do not know all these names) either very hard to do. In another words, if we writte only Romanian name together with Serbian that would be too discriminating for Slovaks or Rusyns because their languages are equal to Romanian. However, I only speak about possibility of using those names in the case that they are official, however, as I said, these names are not official because they are not used in official Serbian-language publications - we should not mix two very different things: "official usage of languages" and "official usage of place names". As I already showed to you, official usage of minority languages does not obligate local authorities in Novi Sad to have road signs in these languages: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Image:Welcome_to_Novi_Sad.JPG PANONIAN 08:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Now this issue started to be a political one, since everywhere the Romanian names tend to be replaced with the Hungarian one. At Mezőség the Romanian names were not even specified (and anyway the right name of Câmpia Transilvaniei should be Transylvania Plain or something like this). --Roamataa 18:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

"Now" you are talking about an article created in 2005. Please try to discuss your suggestions on the talk page of that article. --KIDB 19:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

One way to prevent this is to move the article title to the English name, as per Szekely Land. Ronline ✉ 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Székely Land is a translation of Székelyföld. But only the "föld" (=land) was translated and not the whole term. There is no English expression for Mezőség, maybe a rough translation (in brackets) could be included. --KIDB 11:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

That's indeed a typical example of assuming bad faith and seeing a great conspiration where nothing exists. The editor who created this article probably simply didn't know the Romanian names of these settlements because he used a Hungarian book as his source. Nobody protested when you added the Romanian names yet you present now the case as a national grievance. Indeed you not only added R names but deleted H ones which is not a friendly gesture in the case of villages with significant Hungarian population and contradicts the agreement here. Is it really such a huge problem to tolerate two names next to each other? Zello 20:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Really? I see the links of the settlements were to the Romanian names, but the name of the link were to the hungarian ones (practicaly the user knew both the ro and the hu names) like this - Szék. So what are you saying? He/she "simply didn't know the Romanian names"? Poor of him/her. But what about you? I see here that you too don't know the english and romanian names, but only the h ones (it's not Band, Mureş but Mezőbánd]], the ro name it's not good enough for you). And you are the one who blame other people because they cannot tolerate? And when (s)he+you knew that the name was Câmpia Transilvaniei and Mezőség was so complicate to call it Transylvania Plain? (remember I don't say to call it Câmpia Transilvaniei, but a neutral English name). Maybe next time when you'll answer, could you please verify what's about and not just drop with mud in other assuming bad faith? And please don't give me lessons of tolerance when you don't tolerate the Romanian names.

Now about the dance - of course is has to be called Mezőség and this is the name it should remain (my opinion anyway). But the region should be called in English as per Ronline. --Roamataa 18:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Show me one edit where I deleted a Romanian name?! I'm not the same person who wrote the original article so I'm not responsible for the quality of the original article, and KIBD is not responsible for the quality of the original article. I have only corrected the spelling mistakes of the Hungarian names. On the other hand you deleted the Hungarian names. You visioned a Hungarian conspiration digging up an old article written 2 years ago and tried to present here as a national grievance. Stop making false accusations against me. Zello 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you are enforcing a policy were the Romanian names are not allowed and not displayed so don't tell any other stories. And let's not forget that your primary objective was to change the Romanian name of Odorheiu Secuiesc (and other places) with the Hungarian one. Why do you mind if the place is called in Romanian? This is the official English name. Why don't you like the Romanian names? --Roamataa 14:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

STOP, please. No more personal attacks, and try to remain civil. If you are continuing like this, this discussion will become endless, and you will probably never get a compromise. --Eurocopter tigre 20:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent numbers: demographics

There is an error in the demographics section: 35359 of 36948 is 95.6993%, not 96.7% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.233.16.240 (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wandering Szekler

In the history section I made the following modification (bold): ... (The Wandering Szekler) was interpreted in the Romanian press as being the portrait of writer and poet Albert Wass, a WWII war criminal <reference added>. The Hungarians dispute his status as a war criminal and seek his rehabilitation.

User Rokarudi reverted to the previous version: ...(The Wandering Szekler) was interpreted in the Romanian press as being the portrait of writer and poet Albert Wass whom Romanians ussually regard a war criminal, which ususally disputed by Hungarians.

with the following explanation: This is not Wass Albert biography.

Not only he removed a sourced claim (Albert Wass is also considered a war criminal by the "Elie Wiesel” National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania), he replaced it with the previous poor quality, POV biased, orthographically incorrect version. Additionally, when viewing the article (length wise), the difference between the two versions consists only of several characters. Is this kind of behavior appropriate for Wikipedia? Amon Koth (talk) 18:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Reposting Rokarudi's answer from another unrelated section: As to Albert Wass. his person is controversial, but this is not the articles to expose controversy, unless your point is that Hungarians erected a statue for a war criminal, denounced as such even by Jewish organizations. Anachnu mevinim tov m'od l'an ata rotse lavo. Kind regards

Let us analyze the revert you made: [1]. You just removed the source I provided and that is all. You removed a source. This is unbelievable. The source was backing up a statement. And the accusations you made above are not only false but they cannot even be considered a decent pretext for your revert. I have never said or even remotely implied that the "Wandering Szekler" actually is the statue of the war criminal Wass Albert. The source I provided only augments the controversy regarding the statue and underlines why there is a controversy regarding it (i.e the statue and not the war criminal). If your revisionist attitude continues you will be reported; consider this a fair warning. And next time please try to post your messages in the right section. P.S. What do you mean by we? Amon Koth (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I cannot ignore the fact that your numerous additions to the article in defense of Wass do not respect your previous declaration: This is not Wass Albert biography. And the source you provided [2] not only reeks of anti-Romanian Greater Hungary rhetoric but does not offer a source for its claims (U.S. Department of Justice found no basis in the accusations leveled at Albert Wass). The oraganization even states: The American Hungarian Federation does not necessarily endorse the content or opinions expressed by its individual members and member organizations. I am pretty sure it cannot be considered NPOV or even reliable for that matter. It is truly a rare occasion when one offers such a ridiculous source for supporting ones affirmations. Reading from the page I have no doubt that the greatest danger to human freedom is not North Korea communist or Iran's Islamic fundamentalist government but the Romanian government (a part of which UDMR was (and still is) for the most part of the last two decades). Amon Koth (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rokarudi please stop with this nonsense. Your source [3] is extremely biased and there is even a disclaimer on the bottom of the page which confirms its unreliability (which I mentioned in the comment above) : The American Hungarian Federation does not necessarily endorse the content or opinions expressed by its individual members and member organizations. It does not even provide any sources for its statements and abounds in anti-Romanian Greater Hungary propaganda. I don't want an edit war with you, neither do I want to report you, however you leave me no choice. Consider this my second and final warning. Amon Koth (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest to stop with this and stop inserting this ridiculous [4] anti-Romanian, unreliable WP:SOURCE, "greater Hungary" rhetoric source.Adrian (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it really important to mention the contradictsions around Albert Wass here? If the involved parties think so, please keep in mind the following: WP:RS, WP:NPOV: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered;, and "Every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is independent of the subject being covered, and can provide a critical but fair evaluation of the subject." (WP:THIRDPARTY) The "Institutul Naţional pentru Studierea Holocaustului din România Elie Wiesel" is a Romanian institution (i.e Romanian source, established via Governmental Decision no. 902 of August 4, 2005), therefore it's not a neutral source it only reflects the POV of the Romanian side. (WP:POV) Furthermore, they took this information from a Romanian newspaper(Statuia unui criminal de razboi in centrul Odorheiului [Statue of a war criminal in the center of Odorhei] published in the Ziua daily newspaper on February 15, 2006). However, the "American Hungarian Federation website" is a non-neutral source as well, since it reflects only the Hungarian POV. To keep this article neutral, both point of views should be mentioned. The following POV text should be changed:

This gave rise to controversy, as one of the sculptures (The Wandering Szekler) was interpreted in the Romanian press as being the portrait of writer and poet Albert Wass, a WWII war criminal [4] whom many Hungarians consider wrongly accused and seek his rehabilitation.

to the neutral:

This gave rise to controversy, as one of the sculptures (The Wandering Szekler) was interpreted in the Romanian press as being the portrait of writer and poet Albert Wass. According to the “Elie Wiesel” National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania, Albert Wass was a WWII war criminal. Hungarians consider Wass wrongly accused and seek his rehabilitation, and according to the American Hungarian Federation the background checks performed by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services as well the U.S. Department of Justice found no basis in the accusations leveled by Romanian authorities.

--B@xter⁹ 20:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ps.: Is there any source which proves that the "Wandering Szekler" portrays Albert Wass?--B@xter⁹ 20:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1. I do not consider mentioning the contradictions as necessary. A short explanation however wouldn't be such a bad idea.
2. Th Elie Wiesel is a National Institute and this was mentioned in the edit I made. I did not claim nor imply otherwise. Since the official site has an English language version available, anyone can read the various info detailing its foundation, purpose etc. The "Elie Wiesel" National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania is a valid and reliable source on par with similar European institutes. The information you provided was only a click away.
3. In the article WP:POV there is a certain statement made by a certain individual: The reliability of the person giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves. This issue has more to do with the reliability of the sources sustaining the conflicting POV. The link Rokarudi provided [5] contains biased and incorrect information:
   1. The map in the upper left hand corner showing a 2004 year Hungary on a background of a Greater Hungary has overestimated the number of Hungarians living in the neighboring countries by several hundreds of thousands:
      1. in Romania the 2004 map shows 1,700,000 Hungarians yet the 2002 Romanian census recorded 1.431.807 Hungarians.
      2. in Slovakia the 2004 map shows 600,000 Hungarians yet the 2001 Slovakian census recorded 520,528 Hungarians.
      3. in Ukraine the 2004 map shows 200,000 Hungarians yet the 2001 Ukrainian census recorded 156,600 Hungarians.

      Overall the Hungarian minority in neighboring countries is overestimated by at least 400,000 individuals, in the circumstances that as of 2004 (the year on the map in question) the results of the previously mentioned censuses are not only freely available but are also reliable.

   2. In the SHORT HISTORICAL BACKGROUND section it mentions: Transylvania was a part of or culturally attached to Hungary for over a millennium until the peace treaty concluding the First World War, when without a plebiscite, the region was assigned to Romania. The previous statement is false and very misguiding. This kind of declarations I would expect from Hungarian extremists and not from a Hungarian organization/federation wishing to claim any decency and/or reliability.
   3. There is a disclaimer on the bottom of the page stating The American Hungarian Federation does not necessarily endorse the content or opinions expressed by its individual members and member organizations. Since the organization itself makes such a statement how can a reasonable individual present said content as a source?

   There are other examples on the page that can be used to prove its unreliability and extremist nature including but not limited to: unsourced dubious statements (Hungarians live under harsh persecution in the new states created by the treaty. The Helsinki Watch Committee called Romanian efforts to "purify" Transylvania as "Cultural Genocide."; Hungarians today are the one of the largest minorities in Europe and face oppression and violence), redrawing the border(s) scenarios, the constant demonizing of the Treaty of Trianon and the Romanian Government (the Big Brother itself, no less) the victimization (taken to extreme) of the hapless, innocent Hungarian nation etc. The site has an extremist, revisionist character. I find it highly inappropriate and offensive to compare the source Rokarudi provided with the one I offered. If you believe your comparison is valid I suggest we take this issue to the Reliable sources Noticeboard. This should easily be resolved.

4. B@xter, I kindly suggest you reconsider your accusation, because if the Elie Wiesel Institute cannot be considered NPOV due to its association with the Government of Romania then every statement on Wikipedia that is based entirely or in part on sources associated with the present or any of the historical governments of Hungary will have the same non-NPOV label. As such there would be tens of thousands of articles where only the Hungarian POV is expressed. This easily expands to all governments irrespective of time, ethnicity etc.
5. To provide some clarity on the matter, the newspaper Ziua first mentioned the possibility that the statue of the Wandering Szekler is that of the war criminal Wass Albert. The Elie Wiesel Institute issued the following Press communiqué [6]:

   The “Elie Wiesel” National Institute for the Study of Holocaust in Romania expresses its deep concern regarding the exhibition in public institutions and places of statues of Wass Albert, war criminal condemned contumaciously in 1946.

   From the article Statuia unui criminal de razboi in centrul Odorheiului (Statue of a war criminal in the center of Odorhei) published in the Ziua daily newspaper on February 15, 2006, it emerges that the bust of Wass Albert is exhibited in the memorial park of the city of Odorheiul Secuiesc, in the school courtyard of Lunca Muresului (Mures county) and in the courtyard of the Catholic Church of Reghin.

   As the exhibition of statues depicting war criminals – through its symbols or message – deeply affects the education in the spirit of democracy, tolerance and peace among citizens, regardless of race, ethnicity or religious beliefs, and keeping in mind the provisions of the ordinance no. 31/2002 prohibiting the organizations and symbols with fascist, racist or xenophobic character, along with promoting the cult of persons guilty of crimes against peace and humanity, we ask the competent institutions of the state to take actions according to the present legislation.

6. When it comes to WWII fascist heroes and antisemitism, unfortunately, neither Romania nor Hungary fail to disappoint. Wass Albert is not considered a war criminal only by the Romanian Government or the Elie Wiesel Institute as some would have it. There are other non governmental Holocaust related organization that consider him as such. Wass Albert has achieved quite a popularity as a writer in Hungary nowadays and his troubled past is easily discarded because when having to choose between good Hungarian and war criminal most Hungarians chose the first option, unfortunately. Plus, I do not believe his descendants would prove willing to accept the war criminal label even if there was no doubt as all.
7. I consider it impossible to prove beyond any doubt that the Wandering Szekler actually portrays Albert Wass. If those who commissioned the sculpture hold it doesn't, the resemblance remains a matter of speculation. And I really doubt anyone from the Szekely community will admit such a faux pas anyway. Thus, the controversy continues indefinitely.
8. Your solution cannot be considered NPOV because Albert Wass was no ordinary man. His crimes are documented and he is considered a war criminal not only by the Romanian Government, but by other Holocaust organizations which have nothing to do with the said government. Also, at the time of his trial the USA legislation considered a trial in absentia as unconstitutional. I am willing to consider something along the lines This gave rise to controversy, as one of the sculptures (The Wandering Szekler) was interpreted in the Romanian press as being the portrait of writer and poet Albert Wass, a condemned WWII war criminal (references) whom many Hungarians consider wrongly accused and seek his rehabilitation (references).Amon Koth (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

German name

The section General guidelines from WP:PLACE states:

Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, i.e., (Armenian name1, Belarusian name2, Czech name3). or (ar: name1, be: name2, cs: name3). As an exception to alphabetical order, the local official name should be listed before other alternate names if it differs from a widely accepted English name.

From what I have gathered the German name does not appear in at least 10% of sources in the English language and there was no documented sizable German historical population. The German name is present in the lead more from good faith than anything else. Now either the German name is removed completely or (by maintaining the good faith) it continues to be present in the lead but listed in alphabetical order as per the guidelines mentioned above since neither Hungarian nor German are official languages.Amon Koth (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As the town has and always had a Hungarian population, and never had a German or even Romanian population, the Hungarian name should come first. This was always the case and consesus. As to Albert Wass. his person is controversial, but this is not the articles to expose controversy, unless your point is that Hungarians erected a statue for a war criminal, denounced as such even by Jewish organizations. Anachnu mevinim tov m'od l'an ata rotse lavo. Kind regards: Rokarudi --Rokarudi 19:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The town had and has a Hungarian majority. Your equivalent to my previous statement is too ethnically-charged. The Romanian (11.29% in 1930) and German populations although small, were present nevertheless. Reading most of this discussion page I saw no consensus that explicitly overrode the [WP:PLACE] guideline. Please provide a link to the consensus you mentioned. On a side note , it is interesting to note how much this issue bothers you. I am very sorry G(erman) is, alphabetically, before H(ungarian). Cheers! Amon Koth (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

If military and police personal is considered local population, you may be right as to 1930. The consensus on this page was overrode by Mjroots decision here and you were a party to the discussion as a voting support for Iadrian yu at that time. If Germans are or were more than 10%, genaral rules are applicable, if not, german name can appear, but after the Hungarian name. I understand that your intention is to put German, ( or if exist Armenian, Belarus and all kind of names preceding H into the text). You are always very strict on naming polcies when they seem useful to supress Hungarian names, so feel free to comply with them now, too. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 17:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop complaining about the "decision" of Mjroots? All you do are disruptive biased editing. Please reconsider your approach to Wikipedia. As it can be easily checked[7], Mjroots did`t "overrode" anything, he just confirmed the WP:PLACE that is often disrespected by biased users(WP:STICK stop whining about this already). Please learn to write comments, proper indentation so we it can be easily read. Not that Hungarian names are suppressed (as proven before that you see this as a fight for the survival of the Szekely minority) but when forced like you always like to do then problems appear because after standard policy, German goes in front of the Hungarian one (alphabetic order). If you don`t have any arguments to support moving the Hungarian name in front of the German (except that you don`t like it) I would kindly suggest to stop with this. Adrian (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Rokarudi your link goes nowhere. I will assume good faith however and provide the result of the consensus myself: [8]. As can be clearly seen there is no mention in the closing section of anything concerning other or German names. Now I am very sorry the consensus reached there is bothering you this much, but when making an unreasonable request you should have in mind its possible rejection.
2. It was never my intention to make the Hungarian names appear least important than they are: there are hundreds of localities where such a change could easily be justified. Yet I have not made them nor do I intend to. Your political indoctrination has mislead you. However, I am very content to see this is such an issue to you, and that Hungarian related topics are a little above the rest, in your opinion.
3. I have encountered quite a large number of Hungarian extremists who consider the entire Romanian population of the Harghita and Covasna counties to be nothing more than "military and police personal", so I am not surprise that you sing in the same chorus. Amon Koth (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Adrian, please read my statements from the first paragraph (above). Even tough Rokarudi has failed yet again to sustain his POV I suggest we assume good faith on this matter. His disruptive behavior is very clear and I don't believe it will do him any good in the long run. Amon Koth (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2010

I have re-ordered the names, WP:PLACE could not be more clear on this: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages, Wladthemlat (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be like that, but as we all can see, this is not the first case of ignoring the rules by User:Rokarudi. Adrian (talk) 21:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

German name 2

As explained per WP:PLACE Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages,. Could you please explain why are you reverting and please provide a valid reason for moving the German name (after the Hungarian one), having in mind that G is in front of letter H. Adrian (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Székelyudvarhely was never inhabited by Germans and definitely not mentioned as Odorhelln is more than 10% of English sources. As a courtesy for German people, Hungarians had never objection to use it. The only problem is that your purpose is to weaken prominence of the Hungarian name. More than that Hungarian is locally co-official or qausi co-official while the German has no preferential status locally. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 11:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Szekelysomething? Please use official names.. The problem is that you see Wiki as a battleground for the "survivor" of the Szekely people. Wiki is not here to represent the "importance" of something to some ethnic group. I repeat so you can finally understand, Hungarian is not official or co-offical. The official status of the Hungarian language is equal with any other, German too. Present that special rule that states your POV. Don`t forget that you are acting again against the WP:PLACE for personal reasons. Adrian (talk) 11:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

From a previous discussion:

---

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.". My opinion is that Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name) (Umumu (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

If there is more than one foreign language (non-Romanian) name, the order should be by size of minority, so if there's a large German minority than Hungarian, then the German name should come first, and vice versa. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

So this time Rokarudi is right (TheYellowSockPuppet (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC))Thanks Rokarudi--Rokarudi 07:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That is all that was needed, a valid reason, wiki rule and a conversation(which Rokarudi avoided and so keen to say something now, but when having a chance to state his arguments all that he does is edit warring(or "mud" throwing)- a behavior of a disruptive user) so I could be informed of such a possibility. I have read the WP:PLACE where it stated clear the alphabetical order that regulates this clearly as User:Wladthemlat said it too. I guess Hungarian name could be in front of the German one, just not under Saxon name since we state languages in the lead not dialects of various languages. Ex: We write Hungarian not Szekely language(a dialect of Hungarian language).Adrian (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Iadrian, I see you are one of those engeneers who always wished they became lawyers. You always have a paragraph in your pocket (WP:this or that) as the uppermost valid argument. Under WP:name ( or under 'our rules', to quote a classical editor) German is not to be indicated, but I have no objection, and never had, to insert one unless the goal is to put the German name in front of the Hungarian one for places inhabited by 95% Hungarians, and 0 to 0.0001% Germans. Dialects in German language is not the same thing as dialacts in Hungarian. Difference between German dialects can be as big as between Catalan and Spanish etc. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 09:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No thanks :-), I don`t like lawyers. I read a lot of Wikipedia policies(and cite them) for the obvious reasons, to avoid any disputes and to maintain as much as possible the NPOV. Ok. When I am talking with anyone, I express Wiki policy and not my personal opinion , which is the most NPOV. I guess Saxon is good too then. Please use official names, beside the Hungarian minority, anybody else can`t dream that "Székelyudvarhely" is in fact Odorheiu Secuiesc. Adrian (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's where your biggest mistake lies (apart from the personal attacks). The alphabetical ordering in WP:PLACE is there for a reason, to avoid disputes about which group and language should be more privileged than others. German name should be here as it has been one of the official names for quite some time. The ordering is obvious and indisputable, % of Hungarian population plays no role in it, it should be alphabetical and WP:PLACE confirms it. Please don't invent your own rules and try to focus on more productive editing. Wladthemlat (talk) 09:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wladthemlat, please read at least the first subsection of this section before making legal stetments and you will surely see that your interpretation is mistaken. German was never an official name for Székelyudvarhely, even the Josephinische_Landaufnahme [9] shows it as Udvarhely, so your argument here is not very strong. Until 1876, Transylvania was based on ethnic and local autonomies which was undoubtedly a mistake to abandon. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 10:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I really can't argue about the German name's inclusion, if this is correct it probably should be removed, that's up to another discussion. What stays is the point about the name ordering, also WP:NCGN confirms that German should go first as a matter of neutrality and avoidance of lengthy discussions as this one. By the way, Catalan is a language of its own, not a dialect. Wladthemlat (talk) 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

German name should be present, why not? But in this case after the Hungarian name. I quote Rokarudi "Until 1876, Transylvania was based on ethnic and local autonomies which was undoubtedly a mistake to abandon. " - please refrain from this kind of statements since there are more than 7 million of Romanians(and other minorities except Hungarians(Szekely)) that live in Transylvania(and the rest of the country and EU, and this is a democracy) that think different. Try to keep your political opinions at bay when you are editing and everything should be fine. Adrian (talk) 11:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I simply do not understand you, am I not writing clear enough? Although a lot can be said about the present as well, I wrote about the administrative reform in 1876 made by the Hungarian government and not the internal politics of 2010 in Romania. I personally support self-governance, knowing the fact that this will only be possible to achive through dialogue with Romanian people. If we continue in this tone, this will be a shallow discussion.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think that autonomies will ever be needed or reached in Romania having in mind that every minority, including Hungarian one, has all the right one minority needs according to Western Europe, in not , even more. This is the official position of everybody except for a part of the Hungarian minority that demands territorial division(and not minority rights). Don`t get me wrong, but it can be seen from an airplane that you have revisionist ideas about ex-Trianon territories. I mean who wears a black ribbon [10] for 90-th anniversary of the Treaty of Trianon ? It is clear that you have strong feelings about related subjects that influences your editing NPOV. Adrian (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

---

From the Romanian Constitution: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/dic/site.page?den=act2_2&par1=1#t1c0s0a13 "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.". My opinion is that Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name) (Umumu (talk) 09:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

If there is more than one foreign language (non-Romanian) name, the order should be by size of minority, so if there's a large German minority than Hungarian, then the German name should come first, and vice versa. Mjroots (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Wladthemlat I think that German name should be after the Hungarian one in this case after the info provided by an Administrator Mjroots that has experience in this kind of conflicts. Example: According to the population(if some place have significant) population of Turks we should put it in from of the Arab name. Does WP:PLACE or some other policy say something about this? Adrian (talk) 12:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that Wladthemlat should consider that if Romanian and Hungarian editors, those who usually take care of this article, agree on a specific issue, there is no need for an artificial dispute as a compensating action for any frustration suffered at Cernová Tragedy discussion. As the numbner of Slovakian editors is less than those of Hungarians, the same pattern applies as with Hungarians being less number than Romanians. So, alone even if Wladthemlat should be right, he will never win a dispute. BUT, this is not a reason for edit warring at another topic. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 13:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you always trying to move the attention to an unrelated issue? The policies and guidelines are clear, should you want to change the order, at least point to a relevant guideline/policy that supports your view and do not edit war without substance (not to mention edit summaries) Wladthemlat (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)