Talk:Albert Wass

Albert Wass and WWII war crimes

Nothing about his implication (at least as a controversy) in WWII war crimes from Northern Transylvania? (I've read in some newspaper and magazine articles about incriminating documents from the archive of US Holocaust Memorial Museum). AFAIK he was trialed and sentenced to death for war crimes but he escaped (I don't know the circumstances). Some years ago the Hungarian politicans from Romania asked for his rehabilitation (and among other things they also requested the former sentence to death to be declared null). Daizus 17:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Plus, the article in the current form reads as incoherent. It is claimed a rehabilitation but the editors so far haven't mentioned why. Daizus 17:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I also noted those discrepancies. I just found out about the subject, just tried to wikify a bit the page, fixed some of the redlinks (going even to the length of adding the village of Răscruci, Cluj), added categories, etc, plus fixed the {fact} tag, which sounded very much needed. For the substance, though, more effort is needed. I don't have the necessary references, but I'm willing to look into it. At any rate, this seems like an article that needs quite a bit more work to it -- much of the infom seems POV to me, but I just don't know enough to say that for sure. At the very least, I agree, the way it is presented, whole paragraphs sound rather incoherent. How to proceed? Turgidson 17:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The best thing is if one can get those references to USHMM archives. I've found almost no material in English, just the echoes in Romanian press. One good article for instance is here: http://www.observatorcultural.ro/informatiiarticol.phtml?xid=9147&print=true I've found several others detailing various perspectives on Albert Wass involvement but these are historical events and we need better sources than newspapers.

I've found this article as I was looking for Wiki articles on war-crimes in Northern Transylvania. I've found the pages of Ip (a stub) and Treznea massacres, but otherwise the subject is almost untouched here in Wikipedia. Daizus 18:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I found a detailed study of the Wass family, published in 2005 -- I put the link in the article (there were absolutely no references before!). There is some interesting information there, some of which I plan to add. Also, a brief guide surrounding the controversy; apparently, there is a big dispute here, involving Romania, Hungary, and even the United States -- none of which is clearly explained in the article as of now. It would take a while to sort through all these competing claims and counter-claims, but I think it would be worthwhile to explain first what originated the dispute (certain events from WWII), and how the case proceeded. Otherwise, as you said abovem the whole thing is incoherent. Turgidson 18:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I added some of the material from the Kovács biography. I'll take a break now -- there is that much time I can devote to this story. Just a quick question: how to deal with those place names? I found them listed in Hungarian in Kovács' book, but I wanted to put wikilinks to current place names. That was not so easy to do, since one has to first translate, and then look for the names in en.wiki, where there are still big gaps when it comes to village names, at least in Cluj County. I did best I could, but maybe someone else can double-check, and maybe even start relevant stubs? Finally (and in a different vein), I think there may be a need for a separate article on Wass' son, Huba Wass de Czege, who looks to be an important general and military theoretician of the U.S. Army. I put in some quick mention about that, but it may be better to have a separate article on that. Turgidson 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I think we can leave those villages with two names here - the page for Taga is a stub and no Hungarian alternative is there, the other are missing. And we have to keep the Hungarian names as the reference itself makes use of them (that is a problem of mostly Hungarian authors - to use pre-Trianon names). Daizus 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the alternate name is perfectly reasonable even by Romanian law, and it is relevant not only because they are the names that many of the inhabitants use, but also because the events described form part of the history of the region, some of which is very much the history of the neighboring country as well. The reader might find sources in Hungarian, which are just as important in this case as sources in Romanian are, and knowing the alternate names of localities has important information value if the reader is not to be confused. And information is, after all, what an encyclopedia is about. Obviously, if only the Hungarian names were given, that would be unacceptable. (The Aquincum analogy is extremely weak. The Roman empire fell a millennium and a half ago, remember? And I can assure you, there's no Latin-speaking population in the area has been using that name ever since.) I completely agree though that the article needs much more information on Wass's activity during World War II, the killings he and his father were convicted of as being involved in, and indeed his writings and the world view reflected therein. There is no mention in the article at all of the controversy involving the depictions of Jewish characters in his novels, for example. (I have read several of his novels, but unfortunately, I don't have the copies with me. I will try to do some research, but when I tried the same thing a few years ago, when I read those novels, there was very little out there. I speak Hungarian but not Romanian, so any help from a Romanian speaker would be appreciated.) Arankine 21:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian names

I have no problem with Hungarian alternate names in Transylvania when they are supposed to show something (an etymology or added because the settlement doesn't have a proper article to clarify the multiple names it may have in several languages: Romanian, Hungarian, German etc.). But adding Hungarian alternates to a city in today's Romania about events happening in today's Romania is inacceptable to me.

I am in doubt on how to refer Cluj-Napoca at the time when Albert Wass graduated. Sometimes people use the old names (e.g. Aquincum instead of Budapest in Roman times), sometimes they do not (e.g. no one talks of al-Qurtubah, only of Cordoba). Daizus 21:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how it is inacceptable. This is an article about a Hungarian person. Odorheiu Secuiesc is 96.7% Hungarian, and I am sure that him, and virtually all of the inhabitants of the city used the Hungarian name. Khoikhoi 21:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Odorheiu Secuiesc is in Romania today and the official name of the city is Odorheiu Secuiesc and not otherwise. The Romanian legislation allows them to have dual tags in the city, not to change the name of the city. Daizus 21:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No one is changing the name of the city, we're just stating the Hungarian name right beside it. Khoikhoi 21:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

And thus promoting the Hungarian name in a non-Hungarian environment (English Wikipedia), even though the city has an official name. Daizus 21:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

English Wikipedia does not mean "England/United States Wikipedia". It makes sense to give the name that the city's inhabitants use. Khoikhoi 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to give the name in English language and following the naming conventions. The article on Odorheiu Secuiesc gives the name in other languages (relevant for the inhabitants of the city or for its history) for those curious on that. As for the inhabitants, they can call it however they want, the country they are living in and whose laws they must obey enforces another different name, a name they must learn if they want to find it on maps or to ask for a train ticket or anything. Daizus 21:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to see there is a dispute about these naming conventions, I would hope there is some clear rule about all this by now. But, after reading the arguments pro and con on both sides, and pondering the issue based on what I think is merely common sense, I must say I tend to agree with User:Daizus on this. Indeed, I see the reason to use both names in instances where it pertains to long-ago historical events (when perhaps the locality had a different name), or when the quote one is using refers to the name of a locality in a different language (I've done precisely that in my own edits). But I do not see the justification for using alternate names for localities when there is a unique name assigned to such a locality in en.wikipedia, and when that unique name coincides with the legal designation in the country in question, especially when referring to current events (as of 2006, in the instance under dispute). Now, if I understand the argument made by User:Khoikhoi, he proposes an exception to this rule, which seems pretty well accepted, both as a matter of international Law, and as a matter of Wikipedia policy (please do correct me if I'm wrong), based on the percentage of people in a given locality that speak a different language from the official language of said country. While I do see some some plausibility to this sort of argument, it doesn't seem convinging enough to me -- if nothing else, it opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities. To make up an (admittedly artificial) example, if all of a sudden New Orleans were to have a French-speaking majority population, should we refer to the city as New Orleans (La Nouvelle-Orléans)? And, would that majority have to be 50.1%, or 99%, or some other pre-defined percentage in between (which one?), for such an exception to established rules to take effect at wikipedia? Please do give some more thought to the issue, and let's try to establish some general rules, rules that ideally should be established a priori, not a posteriori, on a case-by-case basis. Thanks. Turgidson 05:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a rather problematic matter. Albert Wass was hungarian, and most of the places in question still have a majority of hungarian inhabitants. Also, he was a writer famous for his post-Trianon novels, and this makes it even more problematic.

In my view, both hungarian and romanian names should be used. And since Albert Wass used the hungarian names (also in his novels!), he was hungarian, and at the times he lived, those places belonged to Hungary, I suggest writing the hungarian names first, and then the romanian names in brackets. ( Daizus is right, if people "want to find it on maps or to ask for a train ticket" they need to know the romanian version of the names.) To use the Aquincum example: if we are talking about the Roman empire, we will surely use the Aquincum name, and put Budapest in brackets.

Turgidson, this is a totally different place, so the New Orleans example is not correct. Technically, these places now belong to Romania, but the people living there are hungarians in all aspects. As Daizus wrote, the country they are living in and whose laws they must obey enforces another different name, and another language and culture. This leads to constant problems and an always boiling situation.

Also, those places had hungarian names for about a thousand years. (So it is not like calling New Orleans all of a sudden La Nouvelle-Orléans.)

In this situation, I think the only solution that could bring peace is to use both names. And - since we are talking about a hungarian person - we should use the hungarian names first, then the romanian ones.

Thank You!

Peter 157.181.161.14 18:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit conflict was about recent events in places now in Romania, under Romanian administration (the section called "Rehabilitation attempts"). There are not connected in anyway with Albert Wass' nationality or how those places were named at the times when he lived (by all means, I agree to keep information he was born in Kolozsvár (Romanian: Cluj-Napoca)), nor all the places involved have a majority of Hungarian inhabitants (check Reghin), nor the history of all those places' was especially connected with Hungarians (Szászrégen - you know what that means, no?). To continue your Aquincum example, however if you talk about modern Budapest on other Wiki pages, you don't put Aquincum in brackets. And to finish up, WP:NCGN states: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name.". Daizus 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

As for "enforcement", I merely addressed an official name for a location (city). Under Romanian legislation, if those Hungarians are a sizeable minority(!) they have priviledges - like dual names for locations on all the public signs, education in their mother tongue, etc.. So the "boiling situation" is a not justified concern. Daizus 08:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No Daizus, it's not true. I think you are a ULTRA NATIONALIST (more than 50% of Romanian people are ULTRA NATIONALIST, see PRM and PNG parties!!!) Category:Aagrippa

"I have no problem with Hungarian alternate names in Transylvania when they are supposed to show something" -- wake up, the Hungarians are not trying to steal Transylvania (this is only told you by the politicians), we are just referring to an OLD TRADITION, which is not going to die, sorry! I am respecting Romanian people, so I expect Romanians to respect Hungarian names, so I will revert names of the cities when the time it was not Romania, sorry! Wass was born in Hungary, even if this is not anymore Hungary, you have to respect this. Wass, by the way, was never ultranationalist, rather, he is criticising Hungarians the same way as any other ethics (Saxon, Roma, etc). So before you modify "because you read it in some newspaper" please read one of his books, then you will understand he was not revisionist, he was just longing for his homeland, Transylvania. If you do not respect us, you do not belong to EU! Abdulka (talk) 07:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsupported claims

I know he wrote this; "Due to pressure from my family, I had to marry my cousin in 1935 (...) this was the only way to avoid bankruptcy of the family lands" after his divorce, but I have a never published love poems book written to her wife from 1931. So lets separate the his private life on wikipwdia from his writings. Also he was mostly brought up by his father not by his grandfather, whom he used to visit occasionally. I know this from my father, who also grown up the same place, and his grandfather was the same Bela Wass who treated all his grandchildren the same way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.138.97.90 (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

There is a rather dubious claim towards the end of the article about A.W. receiving an iron cross medal. Why would a Hungarian be presented a German military decoration?? Especially if it is true that he used to work for a distinctly anti-Reich journal (Ellenzék)? The latter fact, however, is dubious in itself, see [1] (in Hungarian) for instance.

I recommend removing both of these claims, unless there is more evidence shown that A.W.'s own autobiography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.221.108 (talk) 07:17, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, could you copy the sentence where this subject is discussed? Somebody who don`t speak Hungarian can`t understand a thing in that reference :). Adrian (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. I apologize. The relevant part reads:

"Ad 1. My father, the late Szabó Endre, who was in fact a staff member of the editorial at Ellenzék in those years, took over the Sunday Literary Column from Tamási Áron. From his stories, I grew to know everyone from the editorial, yet he never once mentioned A.W. My mother happened to be a typist at Ellenzék from the end of 1942. She and my father got married in January, 1943. My mother is still alive, she keenly remembers every single associate of Ellenzék, but she never even heard A.W.'s name."

"Ad 2. The book "Erdélyi hírlapok és folyóiratok 1940-1989 (szerk.: Kuszálik Péter, Bp. 1996)" (Transylvanian newspapers and journals 1940-1989 (ed: Kuszálik Péter, Bp. 1996)), lists all associates of the journal between 1940 and 1944 under "Ellenzék": Ed. in chief: Zathureczky Gyula (1941. márc. 14.-1944. szept. 7.); Végh József (1944. szept. 9.- szept.?); Associates (according to OMSÉ 1943): Bakos Aladár, Gredinár Aurél, Incze Lajos, Kéki Béla, Márton Emma, Mátrai János, Nagy Kálmán, Szabó Endre (my father), Szabó István (my uncle), Végh József. Where is A.W.?"

"Ad 3. The aforementioned Kuszálik Péter, an outstanding bibliographer double-checked the relevant documents by my request. The result: Albert Wass was not a member of the Hungarian Chamber of Press (Magyar Sajtókamara); he does not appear in either the 1942, or the 1943 yearbook. [...]"

"Ad 4. K.P. personally inquired by Nagy Elek, one of the perhaps last witnesses of those times, who was an intimate friend to my father Szabó Endre and an associate of Keleti Újság of Cluj (Kolozsvár) in the 40's, and today is known by the name Méhes György and is a well-known, Kossuth-prize laureate writer in Budapest. He has also no recollection of A.W. being a member of the editorial at Ellenzék."

"Ad 5. Hungary came under German occupation on March 19, 1944 -- as is well known. Antedating this event (the appearance of the Gestapo at the offices of Ellenzék in July 1943) is but the mandatory icing on A.W's cake."

Again: this is also from a weekly paper -- however serious the references are. Therefore I am only claiming that the statements I listed are dubious and therefore should be considered as such. Perhaps indicate this much on the main page.

And there is no explanation to the iron-cross claim either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.221.108 (talk) 23:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there is nothing about the Iron cross. Well you could do one of the following:

1) According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Source#Anything_challenged_or_likely_to_be_challenged - WP:SOURCE , I quote "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. ", therefore you could simply remove this info from the article.

2) You could add one of the tags:

2.1) Citation needed tag - requesting reference for this statement -

2.2) Clarification needed - , to specify the source

I hope I helped. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 05:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Albert Wass. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160820014103/http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/rumania.htm to http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/rumania.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223153817/http://www.curentul.ro/index.php/Actualitate/Ambasada-Ungara-ataca-la-baioneta-ziarul-Curentul.html to http://www.curentul.ro/index.php/Actualitate/Ambasada-Ungara-ataca-la-baioneta-ziarul-Curentul.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020070916/http://www.gardianul.ro/index.php?pag=nw to http://www.gardianul.ro/index.php?pag=nw&id=114363&catid=11&p=scriitorul-albert-wass-ramane-condamnat-la-moarte-si-prin-decizia-inaltei-curti.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081223153843/http://www.curentul.ro/index.php/Actualitate/Statul-maghiar-interpelat-pentru-sustinerea-unui-criminal-de-razboi.html to http://www.curentul.ro/index.php/Actualitate/Statul-maghiar-interpelat-pentru-sustinerea-unui-criminal-de-razboi.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 02:51, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

War criminal in lede

I believe that as per WP:SPADE, "war criminal" should be added to the first paragraph. Wass has been convicted in the court of law for war crimes, attempts to rehabilitate him have failed spectacularly (hardly a surprise seeing as his best defense was that he's a victim of a "zionist conspiracy" - YIKES!!!), and all relevant sources in his home country refer to him as a war criminal. There is no reason why he shouldn't be referred to as such in wikivoice. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop adding poorly sourced, unencyclopedic and mostly irrelevant material to this article. This is not an Hungarian vs Romanian thing, and the fact that you insist on treating it as such implies that you're not qualified to improve the article, or expand it in a way that is consistent with site rules. Your claim that the conviction was based on false testimonies is not consistent with the rest of the article, and is not supported by any reliable sources. Your insistence on describing the romanian authorities as "communist nationalists" is completely irrelevant. Your characterization of the request to extradite Albert Wass as "Ceusescu's petition", is unencyclopedic. Wass's comments and his claims about assassination attempts have zero relevance to his conviction, and are attributed entirely to a single, low quality source. You explicitly stated that you wish to counter a percieved Romanian POV with an Hungarian POV, which goes against site policy.

I am not interested in getting caught up in an edit war, so I will ask you nicely to self revert. If you want to make changes to the article, or believe that it's non neutral, take it to the talk page of tha article, or one of the relevant WikiProject talk pages. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, several assassination attempts of a person is not irrevelant regarding the life of a person. The Romanian POV already in the article. I added many Hungarian sources regarding him and his life, it is not my problem if you do not like Hungarian sources regarding a Hungarian person. He also several times wrote and spoke about the assassination attempts, not need to deny what he said in an article what is about the current person. Wass in the sourced content emphasized that the Romanian national-communist regime does not like him for political reasons. Which is very well know that the communists made many history falsifications, also do not need to introduce the Stalinist Soviet Union or North Korea. Example: The national-communist Romanian government celebrated the 2050th!!! anniversary of Romanian state in 1980 in North Korea style :D This fake map was made in 1980 by the national-communist Romania: Title: "Romania 800-1300", [55] we can see half of the Kingdom of Hungary until Tisza river is part of this Romania state in the map, which is clearly a distortion of Hungarian history if we google international history maps: International history maps do not know about those Romanian state in that huge area between 800-1300:1, 2, 3 First Romanian states, Wallachia was established in 1330 and Moldavia in 1345: 4. The existence of that example fake map (there are many more) testify the purpose of the national-communist regime. Wass has in Hungary many statues, he lived in the USA for 40 years in a limelight (University Professor in Florida), and he was not caught by U.S. and Hungarian authorities, also U.S. authorities refused the communist claims.

"You explicitly stated that you wish to counter a perceived Romanian POV with a Hungarian POV, which goes against site policy." I did not know that presenting Hungarian POV regarding a Hungarian person or presenting the own POV by Wass about in his own article would be forbid... Actually I worked together with many normal Romanian wiki users (not anonym like you), who are really like to present Romanian and Hungarian POV in the articles to balance them and show more opinions to make it neutral. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by high quality reliable sources, and maintains a neutral point of view. What you seem to be striving for is WP:FALSEBALANCE. The article is about Albert Wass, not the "romanian national-communist regime", so nothing you say about it, or your country's history is relevant to the topic in any way. And just because a person makes claims that there have been multiple attempts on his life, doesn't necessarily mean that such claims have merit, or that they should be included in an encyclopedia article, especially not in a section that is about a criminal conviction for war crimes.

I will say this again. If you believe that the article is pushing a "Romanian POV", there is a place where you can raise your concerns and discuss them with other users. Instead you counter what you claim is POV, with poorly sourced information presented in the form of an unencyclopedic polemic with the purpose of discrediting the character of the autorities that convicted him. If there are high quality sources presenting real arguments that the conviction was unjust, feel free to present those arguments, citing those sources. Asserting that the romanian authorities were "national communists", or describing the official extradition request as "Ceausescu's petition" are not real arguments, and do NOT belong in an encyclopedia. Neither does this long history lesson that is even less relevant to the topic. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Strange that you know wiki rules but you have anonym user...perhaps a banned sockpuppet? WP:FALSEBALANCE "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view" According to that rule, all significant POV showed, POV by Wass Albert was also published in the article what is about himself, do you want to forbid to show content from the writer in his article what is about him and content from his family? Also many other Hungarian sources was sourced regarding the same subject. Here, in the marked source, an U.S journal, Wass said the Romanian communist regime harrassed him [2]. Hungarian sources claim that the national communist Securitate and Caucescu wanted to assassinate him, it is really relate to his life, even himself claimed this several times: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Is7J67NTs Funny that for you is poor source what the writer claim himself about his own life and every other sources who write the same about his life. But we could remove the sources from the communist Romanian People's Tribunals, this Stalinist court is not reliable, but because it is fact what that court made a verdict we can present in the article. It is fact the national-communist regime ruled Romania between 1960-1989, so we cannot name it different the romanian authorities from that time, it was not "royal" Romanian authorities , like German Nazi authorities, British Royal authorities, Federal U.S authorities, etc also mentioned in many articles. When you removed the content, first you said "unsourced", when I added sources you say "poor sources" :) I bet for you all sources will poor which mention the assassination attempts even the sources from the own person from Wass :) I can say you all books, sources which deal his life mention the assassination attempts, because it is related to his life, it is not an acne on his foot. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I want to assume good faith, so I'm going to ignore your very serious, but ultimately completely baseless accusation. I would advise you to refrain from similar accusations, especially since you're just making an ad-hominem argument.

Your insistence on emphasizing the form of governance, dominant political ideology in romania at the time, or the person of the head of state seems to imply that you don't understand how extradition works, and neither do your sources, which makes them worthless. A formal extradition request is made by a sovereign jurisdiction (in this case Romania, not the "National communists" and not Ceusescu as you claim, but the romanian state as a subject of international law), towards another soveraign jurisdiction (in this case the United States of America, and not Jimmy Carter, or the Democratic Party). To say nothing of the fact that the case has been reexamined and the verdict has been upheld a little over a decade ago, making these assertions completely moot, unless you're trying to argue that romania is still under "national-communist" control, or that Ceusescu is still president, in which case, this is not the article you should be wasting your time on.

Finally, it doesn't matter how many times he claimed he's been targeted for assassination. His claims are anecdotal, and not supported by evidence, to say nothing about the fact that his insistence on being targeted by a "zionist-romanian conspiracy" not only ruins his credibility, but is a straight up antisemitic conspiracy theory, and has no place on wikipedia. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 09:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

It was already on the page "zionist-romanian conspiracy", not my script, but this content is the sourced U.S document. Not my invention, seems Wass claimed this himself. In other articles the deed of the Nazi German authorities also emphasized, and the Communist Soviet things as well. It is related to his life that he claimed the assassination attempts, because this is fact that he claimed this if you like it or not, if you beleive or not, he claimed that. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Just because he claimed it doesn't mean it's appropriate to include in in an encyclopedia, unless there's a plurality of scholarly sources that grant relevance to the fact that he made such claims, and frame the claims appropriately. The intention here is to use his claims as statements of fact to balance out some percieved narrative in the section on his conviction, which is NOT how wikipedia operates, despite your insistance to ignore this fact. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. That article you linked about the Romanian People's Tribunal doesn't support your claims that the court was unjust or illegitimate, nor does it make any attempts to muddy the waters with vague allusions to political ideology. It objectively sticks with the facts that reliable secondary sources provide. You should probably study it to see what a REAL encyclopedia article looks like. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The article mentions the verdict of the Romanian People's Tribunal, because this is fact it happens. We are not here to analyse this in the article. However if other sources are referring to this verdict we could mention what they wrote about this. Wass claimed the assassination attempts against him, this is fact also. Does not matter if you like or not what he said, he said this. Plenty sources biography provided (one example among many https://www.libri.hu/konyv/turcsany_peter.wass-albert-elete.html, in the biggest Hungarian bookstore https://www.google.com/search?q=libri&client=opera&hs=Trg&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwikwIDglYH_AhVJs6QKHVF5DYIQ_AUoBHoECAIQBg&biw=1920&bih=931&dpr=1), even documentary movie from his life. I see you want to forbid that the Hungarian POV presented regarding the life of a Hungarian person, and you want to allow only the Romanian POV regarding him. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

A lot of books can be bought in a bookstore, that alone doesn't make them reliable or scholarly. Also, I started this topic on your talk page to discuss your editing and it's disruptive nature, not to discuss the article itself. Moving the topic to this talk page was not helpful. 46.97.170.151 (talk) 08:55, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

That is the purpose of the existence of the talk page to talk about the current article. You started to remove contents while I added sourced contents. Albert Wass himself and his family claimed several times personally in many of his interviews and wrote these things, and the bibliography books, etc about his life mention this also. It is not my problem if you feel it is distruptive to mention these things regarding his life and forbid to mention what Wass claimed in his own article. You know many historical events, massacres, wars, hate, etc are distruptive and many bad deeds from many historical persons are distruptive, but it does not mean it is forbid to mention them in the related contents. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)