User talk:Scott Moore

Hello Scott!

I noticed your new article on Tokaj. There is already an article on the topic under Tokaji, so you might want to put your information into that article and leave 'Tokaj' as a redirection to that page, to prevent duplication of information.

- Katherine Shaw 15:33, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Wine

Dear Scott, I am happy to see that you have contributed so much to the Tokaji article. I am also keen on wine (since being future wine-maker and son of a oenelogist). I am now launching a new project about the wines of my region, Eger. If you can, pls help me. If you don't have time to add new information, you can even check my English... :) Maybe we can use these experiences when the development of the Tokaj article will be done... Fifuszfc (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. I think that you already know that, but I can't stand telling you that concerning historical issues in Central and SE Europe never ever fully trust any piece of information without checking its source!

Transylvania during World Wars

hi there Scott. i think the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an uncontroversial source of information, not to make suggestion as who is to blame for what hapened in the past, or what did the kings from the past have in mind when they went to war. in WW1 and WW2 there were no "bad countries" and "good countries". If you know the basic history of Transylvania, you know that what defined it through the ages was its status as a Principality. If someone claims Transylvania to was "hungarian" or "romanian" it means he's making propaganda. If I say "Transylvania was under control of Hungary or under control of Romania", this is not propaganda. If Romania was under Turkish suzerainty in 1877, yet having a german Prince as ruler, does it mean Romania was "turkish" or "historic turkish teritory" ?

now being specific about the article Transylvania during the WW1:

• Russian successes, fear of Germany, Allied promises of teritory convinced Romania to join the Allied Powers [...] Confident of victory, Romanian troops crossed into Transylvania - this is propaganda. it suggest that Romania was a state greedy for teritory, coward in facing the enemy and fighting it only when it is weakened, fearfull of other countries, and taking thoughtless decisions.
  • Agreed, this needs to be changed Scott Moore 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should I explain to you that:

-Romania was ruled by a German King of Hohenzollern (reluctant to enter the war against its kin - House of Hohenzollern ruled Germany too) and there were some engagements(signed Contracts, just like there is today a Contract between Romania and Hungary) that Romania made with the Great Powers when it elected a German King (in fact, Carol Hohenzollern of Romania insisted for entering the WW1 on the side of Germany according to the Alliance Treaty between Romania and Germany, but the romanian political class didn't suported him on the grounds of Austria-Hungary beeing the aggressor) - Transylvania being under Habsburg control (i hope you won't say that Hungary controlled Transylvania, we know the Germans(Austrians/Habsburgs) were the masters of Austria-Hungary).

• • Your comments on the opposing positions of King Carol and the Romanian political class is very interesting. This information should certainly be included either in the Transylvania article or elsewhere in Wikipedia. However, I think the comment "Transylvania being under Habsburg control" is not correct and the "Germans (Austrians/Habsburgs) were the masters of Austria-Hungary" is certainly propagandistic. The events of 1848-1849 and the 'ausgleich' of 1867 show that this is incorrect. Scott Moore 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

we can say between 1867 and 1918 Hungary had an improved status within Austria-Hungary(Dual Monarchy), but if you consult the List_of_Hungarian_rulers you'll see that Hungary was ruled by the Habsburgs(austrians and germans are same to me, probably i'm wrong) beeing under Habsburg suzerainty(at least formaly). between 1867 and 1918, Transylvania was under Hungarian control(at least formaly). the following quote is from Kingdom_of_Hungary wikipedia article: "From 1526 to 1918, it[Hungary] was ruled by the Habsburgs" - i assure you I didn't contribute to this article :) -- Criztu 17:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Austria-Hungary was ruled by the Habsburgs. No, there were not masters of Austria-Hungary. Scott Moore 15:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, "masters" sounds POV, i meant technically, Hungary crowned a Habsburg as its king, but certainly the hungarian parliament would have removed him as soon as he wouldn't represent the hungarian interest, i think Criztu 15:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-Eastern Moldavia was under russian occupation since 1812(thus Russian successes meant Russian will continue to occupy E. Moldova) - in 1918, E. Moldova united with Romania too. after WW2 USSR reocupied E.Moldavia(in fact it stationed troops in Romania until 1958 and had control over Romanian economy, so you can consider Romania as a whole under Russian occupation after WW2)

-the simple fact that romanians were majoritary in Transylvania -should I tell you that John Hunyadi (father of Matthyas Corvin King of Hungary) was a Transylvanian vlach(son of vlach knjaz Voicu(Vajk)), knighted by Sigismund of Luxemburg Holly Roman Emperor, John Hunyadi being uncle and cousin of Vlad the Impaler of Wallachia and Mircea the Elder of Wallachia ?- meant that Romanians needed the Promise of the Allies they will allow the Unification of Romanians in a single state -in 1859 when Moldavia and Wallachia didn't receive the permission of Great Powers to unite, they both elected the same Alexandru Ioan Cuza as their rullers- and not "promise of teritory"

-how can one measure how confident of victory an army is, and what is the relevance for the History of Transylvania that the romanian troops were confident of victory in WW1 ?

• • Agreed, lets remove this statement Scott Moore 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Romania surrendered to the Central Powers in May 1918. However, the resulting Treaty of Bucharest never completed ratification in Romania and was denounced in October 1918 by the Romanian government, which then re-entered the war on the Allied side - again propaganda. it suggests that Romania is a lousy fighter, quick to surrender when left alone, deceptive, shifty, and tricky when it comes to committing to a Treaty, and easily breaking his word as soon as the "tides turns against its enemies"
  • I don't see how you can read all of this into the statement. Actually I didn't think the lack of ratification of the Treaty was relevant, but this was something you introduced to the article. Scott Moore 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well, Transylvania decided to Unite with Romania in 1918. it took 2(two) years to complete ratification. should Transylvania have decided to unite to let say Poland in the mean time, all those two years of unification process and treaties and signed documents and papers would have been in vain. so you see, the Peace Treaty between Romania and Central Powers actually means negociations for a Peace Treaty ... if you buy a house but lack All Necessary Documents to be recognised as the Owner, the house is not yours. if you claim that you married someone 6 months ago, and now that you split-up you demand half of your partner's belongings, but lack All Necessary Documents proving you had a Legal Contract(Marital Agreement) with your ex-partner, you can't claim anything. so is the surrender of Romania to Central Powers - claiming Romania surrendered is one thing, the lack of All Necessary Documents certifying this surrender/peace treaty makes all claims useless. -- Criztu 18:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should I explain to you that:

-Romania negotiated a Peace Treaty with the Central Powers in may 1918, not a resulting Treaty nor a Surrender Treaty. as a result of the German-Allied armistice in november 1918, the Romanian-German Peace Treaty was declared void.

• • Fine, we can call it Peace Treaty and say this it was declard void because of....However, we need to explain why a Peace Treaty was signed. Scott Moore 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

we can't call it other that Romania and Central Powers called it in the original documents - a Peace Treaty . a Peace Treaty is not signed but ratified. I explained to you my view on the ratification process on State matters

• By mid-1918 the tide of the war had turned against the Central Powers and Austria-Hungary began to disintegrate. Many of the various ethnic groups living inside Austria-Hungary proclaimed their independence during September and October 1918, and it became politically expedient for the allied victors to break up the empire into various national components in accordance with Woodrow Wilson's 14 points - propaganda. it suggests that Austria-Hungary would have won, shouldn't the "tides" have "turned against" it. that only the evil intervention (or conspiracy) of Great Powers favoured those minor "ethnic groups" to claim the status of "nations".
  • Yes, I think we should take out mention of the allied victors aims (because Britain, France and the US all had differing aims) and of Woodrow Wilson's 14 points (because the various "nations" within Austria-Hungary had fought for self-determination since long before Wilson became US president). Maybe we can write something along the lines of "some/most of the major ethnic groups/nations in Austria-Hungary took advantage of the..situation following the end of the war/signing of the armistice...to put into practise their long-held aims of self-determination/independence."

I don't intend on beeing specific on Transylvania history. for me it is suffice to say following the disintegration of Austria-Hungary as a result of WW1, the National Council or Romanians living in Transylvania proclaimed at Alba Iulia (Gyula Fehervar) the Union of Transylvania with Romania in december 1918, aproved by the National Councils of Saxons and Schwabs. I think Wikipedia is a basic source of info for the average citizen, not an expert source of info for professional historians. I beeing only a history enthusiast. However, the events outside of Transylvania influenced its path, so mentioning the other nations declaring their Independence from the Empire and the Woodrow Wilson principles of Self Determination is a good thing.

I think the term Nation and Nationalism were used in 1918. if you find a document from 1918 speaking of "the Ethnic Council of Czechs proclaim Independence from Austria-Hungary" or "the Austrian Ethnic Council declares Austria a republic independent from Austria-Hungary Empire" then be my guest to use ethnic groups instead of nations

You illustrate my point very well. Nation was used in 1918. Now it is 2004 and ethnic group is the term generally used in English (and also in Wikipedia: see ethnic group and ethnicity. The titles of the bodies from 1918 should, of course, not be changed; hence the "National Council of Romanians" should be used. Scott Moore 15:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

again, let's use nations, ethnic groups of today are not the nations of 1918 living inside Habsburg Empire, you know that, otherwise we should refer to the hungarians and austrians as ethnic groups living inside Habsburg Empire in 1918, wich is innapropriate Criztu 15:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

nations in Austria-Hungary took advantage of the..situation following the end of the war to put into practise their long-held aims of self-determination/independence - wrong. for example Bucovina(Bukovina) was under Habsburgs(Austria-Hungary) since 1775. no so long-held aims. Austrians and Hungarians themselves declared independence from Habsburg(Austria-Hungary) Empire... are you suggesting that Hungarians and Austrians took advantage from the end of the war/disintegration of the Habsburg Empire ? . are you suggesting that only the end of WW1 allowed the Romanians from Transylvania to put into practice their long-held aims of self-determination/independence ? then perhaps you don't know that in 1600 Wallachia, Moldova and Transylvania united in a single state under Mivai Viteazul, but this guy was assassinated in 1601 by Basta, a Habsburg officer. -- Criztu 17:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are you asking these questions? Read again what I wrote: "some/many nations in Austria-Hungary". Perhaps you don't know that before Mihai Viteazul "united" Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldova, Stephen Bathory (Stefan Batory) had already "united" it with Poland. Scott Moore 15:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

this is why: nations in Austria-Hungary took advantage of the..situation following the end of the war to put into practise their long-held aims of self-determination/independence - romanians had already put their aims into practice, they've already been independent and self-determinated, so it wasn't WW1 that "made it possible", the formulation suggests that until WW1 the romanians have never acted in order to gain independence and self-determination, but only "aimed", wich doesn't satisfy a romanian like me :) ... i don't know about others, but Transylvania had already experienced independence from Habsburg Empire Criztu 15:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-sure, Ernest Hemingway would've said "the tides turned against Austria-Hungary", but this is not a fiction novell. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia in July 1914, and in november 1918 it signed the Armistice with the Triple Entente and WW1 ends. there were so many measurable factors that led to the disintegration of Austria-Hungary, it was as unavoidable as the independence of India from the British Empire.

• • I agree, this is a very bad formulation. The fact was that the Central Powers were losing the war. But I want to explain briefly in the article why Austria-Hungary began to disintegrate 'at this point in history'. I'm aware of the fact that it was unavoidable, and of the various reasons why this was so. But why did it break up in 1918 and not earlier (or later)? Scott Moore 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

the Habsburg(Austria-Hungary) Empire was a construction. it started to grow in ~1600, and expanded until ~1848, since then it started to disintegrate. 1918 was only the Completion of Ratification of the Disintegration of the Habsburg Empire if I may :) -- Criztu 17:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-Czechoslovakia declared independence from Austria_Hungary. it wasn't "an ethnic group", but a whole nation living inside the borders of the Empire.

• • I disagree here. "Czechoslovakia" was not a nation, but two (the Czechs and the Slovaks) which agreed to form a common state. Maybe the word "nation" is better than "ethnic group" in this context, but I avoided it because of potential problems over the political baggage of the word "nation". The problem is who decides what is and is not a "nation". The Hungarians regarded the Croats as a "nation" because they used to have their own feudal state, but didn't regard the Slovaks as a "nation". Obviously, you are well aware of the concept of "three historical nations" of Transylvania ie the Romanians specifically excluded. Then there is the term 'natio hungarica' which certainly is not the same as "ethnic Hungarians" and has an entirely different meaning (it refers to all of the nobles within the feudal kingdom of Hungary). Also there are the Jews and Roma (who many people would certainly contend were and are "nations"). At least as defined in the two Wikipedia articles, "ethnic group" is a more precise concept than "nation" ("A nation is an imagined community of people created by a national ideology, also known as nationalism, to which certain norms and behavior are usually attributed"; "The idea of a nation remains somewhat vague".)

i am aware of Czechs and Slovaks being two nations :) . You don't have to be worried about the term nation used in the context of 1918 era. I think it is called Age of Nationalism by the historians. about the Roma ethnics i will give you an example: you call the Germans as Germans. yet they call themselves Deutscher ... why do you "offend" them by calling them Germans ? ... you can call the Gypsies as Gypsies, you won't offend them. it's true that some groups of interests are making propaganda in calling the Gypsies(ciganyok/ţigani/zigeuners) as Roma/Rroma, but in the long run, Tsigan will prevail, as it is not propaganda. -- Criztu 17:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criztu, you are wrong; read the article on Roma (people). Also, you should be consistent in your own arguments if you want to convince me (or any other Wikipedian) about your points. You have referred me many times to official documents and titles, but now you use the term Gypsy, which is certainly not used in official documents (eg of the EU and the UN) nor in official bodies such as the Roma Minority Self-Government in Hungary. Scott Moore 15:55, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scott Moore, please search "Gypsy" in Wikipedia, and don't try to proove me wrong, i wasn't doing "right or wrong" games :) Criztu 16:39, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

-it wasn't the allied victors that broke-up the empire. It collapsed as a result of WW1. The Austria-Hungary was an impossible state in the absence of a huge army to contain the natural tendency towards independence of the population that was conquered by the Empire. British empire collapsed, USSR empire collapsed, French empire collapsed. the Austrians declared themselves a republic at the end of WW1, and were considered equal to the czechs and romanians, nations previously subjects of the Austria-Hungary empire. not ethnic groups

• In November, the Romanian National Central Council, which represented all the Romanians of Transylvania, notified the Budapest government that it had assumed control of twenty-three Transylvanian counties and parts of three others - as you can see, in 1918 it was all about Nation, not ethnicity. the Hungarian nation proclaimed its independence from the Austria-Hungary empire too. in december 1918, the National Councils of the Saxons and the Schwabs in Transylvania and Banat aprove the union of Transylvania and Banat with Romania(reigned by Hohenzollerns)

I hope you see I ain't making propaganda here, i don't claim "hungarians were bad and romanians were good"

oh, and we'll have to discuss sooner or later, the Gelu Glad and Menumorut in Transylvania and the magyar arrival, all I can say for now is that the nephew of Man Maroth(Menumorut in romanian) of Biharia was Taksony, who got to rule Hungary in 955, and his son Geza was father of Voicu(Vajk) the first King of Hungary in 1001 (the Great Schism in 1054 made Hungary a catholic state) -- Criztu 19:41, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

also, I hope you understand I don't accuse you of propaganda, i just explained to you that formulating the article in that way there will allways be a romanian contributor protesting. while a formulation like following the signing of the Alliance Treaty with the Triple Entente, Romania entered the WW1 on august 1916 and started the military offensive in Transylvania no sane romanian could protest against it. I being a romanian myself, have some difficulties to see where could propaganda reside in such a sentence, so I invite you to explain to me if you find such propaganda in this formulation. Regards -- Criztu 20:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• No, your formulation seems very neutral to me (OK, the English could be better, but let's tidy that up later). But I think we need to explain the background to the Alliance Treaty (and maybe also include your above comments relating to why Romania didn't enter on the side of the Central Powers at the beginning of the war). Scott Moore 12:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

negotiations

Criztu, thank you very much for your response above. Let me say, first of all, that I agree with most of your points. I can now understand that some of the text I took from certain sources could be regarded as partial and therefore should (and can) be changed. So let me propose that we work together to produce a better version of the text, and then when we have finished this process, we can replace the current text in the article. I've included some comments immediately below each of your above points. Scott Moore 11:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

i'll present you my formulation on Transylvania during World Wars paragraph asap. I hope it won't take us 6 months to ratify the paragraphs(wich anyway will be challenged by others too), or in the end to declair it void and denounce it :) -- Criztu 17:29, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it seems that we are not going to agree on very much. So I suggest (and here I mean "present an idea" and nothing else) that we take out anything not directly related to Transylvania. For example (my comments in brackets):

i'll have to delay my reformulation on Transylvania durin World wars until 3rd january 2005. i won't edit that page until we agree Criztu 16:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On 27th August 1916, Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary and invaded Transylvania (with an army of 500,000 soldiers - so it was a massive invasion). An Austro-Hungarian counter offensive began the following month, driving the Romanian army back into Romania by mid-October.

now let's think of D Day in Normandy 1944. was it an invasion ? was it an invasion of German land ? was it an invasion of French land under German control ? or was it a new front opened ? ... let's be very careful with the use of this word invasion Criztu 16:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, D Day was an invasion and is described as such by thousands of British and American sources. For example, see: http://search.eb.com/normandy/ Also the term "invasion of Iraq" or "Iraq invasion" is used in thousands of sources. You see, in English, invasion does not necessarily carry a negative connotation, and has no implications about the purpose of the move. So "Hitler invades Czechoslovakia" and "D Day invasion" are both used even though one is regarded as negative (for the purpose of acquiring territory), the other as positive (for the purpose of liberating France). Scott Moore 14:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

what i say is invasion will be interpreted by the reader depending on the manner the article is written. Romania invaded Austria-Hungary with the purpose to free Romanian land(Transylvania) from Austria-Hungary control is 180 degrees opposite to Romania invaded Austria-Hungary with the purpose to occupy Hungarian land(Transylvania) from Austria-Hungary. while Romania started(initiated) military operations(opened a new front) in Transylvania, against Austria-Hungary we are neutral, i think ... the most NPOV would be to quote from the Alliance Treaty between Romania and Triple Entente where it's stated(from Entente POV) the role of Romania, i think that role was similar to the americans(or french troops of general De Gaule) invading Normandy in order to deliver the french from the 3rd Reich Criztu 18:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In October 1918, the leaders of Transylvania's National Party met and drafted a resolution invoking the right of self-determination, and proclaimed the unification of Transylvania with Romania. In November, the Romanian National Central Council, which represented all the Romanians of Transylvania, notified the Budapest government that it had assumed control of twenty-three Transylvanian counties and parts of three others. (We should also mention the fact that the Romanian army entered Transylvania during this month). A mass assembly on 1st of December 1918 in Alba Iulia passed a resolution calling for unification of all Romanians in a single state.

we should mention Romanian Army entered Transylvania up to river Mures, as agreed with the Entente at Versailles after the armistice of Belgrade november 1918(i have to check wich document mentioned the role of romanian army in Transylvania in november 1918, i think their presence had the role of preserving order inside Transylvania ... just like after WW2 the americans stationed troops in France and Germany) Criztu 16:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Treaty of Versailles, ratified on 10th January 1920, recognised Transylvania as belonging to Romania. The Treaties of St. Germain (ratified when???) and Trianon (ratified when???) further elaborated the status of Transylvania and defined the new border between the states of Hungary and Romania. Scott Moore 16:10, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

recognised Transylvania as belonging to Romania. - certainly this will not satisfy hungarians. let's look at United States of America: they are kind of Provinces that United. they are autonomous within USA. they don't belong to USA. I think Transylvania united with Romania(Wallachia+Moldavia) means Transylvania can decide to split anytime, it's its right, while Transylvania belongs to Romania would mean that if Transylvania decides to join Hungary someday, it would have been "stolen from Romania", as it belonged to Romania. you know that Transylvania had autonomous status within Romania until 1960es. tho' today Romania declares it self as a single statal entity(Stat Unitar/Unitary State). BUT since ROmania will enter EU in 2007, some efforts are made into reorganising Romania by Regions ... i hope i'm not confusing you Criztu 16:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is another issue of semantics. "Belong" has several meanings. You seem to be referring to the meaning of "have in one's possession; own". But another meaning is "be a part of". So "California belongs to the USA" is correct (as in the meaning "true"). Yet another meaning is "be a member of a group or club". So "Hungary belongs to NATO" is correct (and doesn't mean that NATO owns Hungary!). In the context we are looking at here, one of the key differences between "belong to" and "unite" is not the meaning but the temporal aspect; "to belong to" is a continuous state so "recognised Transylvania as belonging to Romania" means that at that point in time Transylvania was part of (the Kingdom of) Romania and has no reference to how Transylvania got to that state. "To unite with" is an action so "recognised that Transylvania united with Romania" means that at some point in the past Transylvania had combined or joined with Romania and may even imply that Transylvania+Romania forms a whole. "Belonging" could imply that Transylvania can freely leave Romania if it so chooses and join Hungary (the club analogy), whereas "unite" could imply that if Transylvania were to leave Romania if would "break" the union or "divide" the whole. Of course, there are other possible implications, so it is simply not possible to choose one word rather than another on this basis.

here the link to the Treaty of Trianon 1920 http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/tri1.htm ... it actually doesn't say any words like "Transylvania belongs to Romania" or "Transylvania uniting with Romania", all i could find was The proportion and nature of the financial obligations of Hungary which Roumania will have to assume on account of the territory placed under her sovereignty will be determined in accordance with Article 186, Part IX (Financial Clauses) of the present Treaty. - so perhaps the most NPOV would be to say Transylvania was placed under Romanian sovereignty, anyone contesting that will have to contest the Trianon Treaty ... what do you think ? Criztu 18:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re EU entry, Romania will have to form new administrative regions conforming with EU standards in order to distribute structural funds. However, these regions will be smaller in scale than Transylvania (e.g Hungary with a population of only 10 million, has 7 EU regions). Scott Moore 15:28, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, perhaps you know that Transylvania is a general term comprising Ardeal/Erdely+Banat+Maramure/Maramoros+Crisana/Koros, Transylvania proper is only Ardeal/Erdely Criztu 18:05, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Negotiations Begin

Hi there Scott Moore, it's january, let's reformulate the Transylvania between 1918-1944 article, are you ready ? I'll present you my PoV, please present your PoV on the issues. I opened the same topic on Transylvania's talk page -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These are the "sensible" parts in the article section as I see them :

• However Russian successes in 1916, Allied promises of territory (including Transylvania), and fear of Germany convinced Romania to join the Allied.

let's not speculate what convinced Romania to join the Allies, rather let's say Romania joined the Allies in 1916 signing the Treaty of Versailles, however, if we're to speculate on what "convinced" Romania to join the Allies, then it was the Promise of Allies that they will recognise Romania's sovereignty over Transylvania and N. Bukovina -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Confident of victory, Romanian troops crossed into Transylvania.

let's not speculate how confident of victory were the romanian troops. And I'd rather say Romania begun the military offensive in Transylvania, resulting in a new front for the Central Powers -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• An Austro-German counter offensive began the following month, driving the Romanian army back into Romania by mid-October and eventually leading to the capture of Bucharest.

let's say that the Germans begun a counter offensive against Romania from Bulgaria, "driving the romanian army back into Romania" sounds like "the beasts were driven back to their cage" -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Following the Russian-German Peace Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918, Romania surrendered to the Central Powers in May 1918. -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

let's use the original title of the treaty, which was the Peace Treaty between Germany and Romania, not "romania surrendered to the central powers" -- Criztu 12:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• By mid-1918 the tide of the war had turned against the Central Powers and the Austro-Hungarian empire began to disintegrate.

no tide of war here, simply the Central Powers begun loosing the war -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Many of the various ethnic groups living inside Austria-Hungary proclaimed their independence during September and October 1918, and it became politically expedient for the allied victors to break up the empire into various national components in accordance with Woodrow Wilson's 14 points.

Austria-Hungary was a Multi-national_state, and in 1918 all nations (not "many of the various ethnic groups") living inside it declared independence, including the austrians and hungarians -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• The leaders of Transylvania's National Party met and drafted a resolution invoking the right of self-determination of Transylvania's Romanian people, and proclaimed the unification of Transylvania with Romania.

invoking the right of self-determination, expressed in Woodrow Wilson's 14 points, which applies for all people, not only for "Transylvania's Romanian people" -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• During the war between Romania and the Soviet Republic of Hungary, the latter initially halted the Romanian advance in the East, but in July the Romanian army broke through Hungarian lines and marched into Budapest, putting an end to the Hungarian Communist Revolution and the Hungarian Soviet Republic.

Although Romania's rights over Transylvania were recognised by the Treaty of Versailles, the romanian army was stationed on Mures according to the same Treaty. In february 1919 a Neutral Zone between Romania and Hungary was established by the Powers of Versailles, to avoid conflict. Hungary (under Bela Kun) refused to withdraw the Hungarian Army accordingly, and generally mobilised its army. Bela Kun had an agreement with Lenin by which the Soviet Union would military support Hungary against Romania (the Soviet Union didn't recognise the Union of Bessarabia with Romania) and the Hungarian Army built up east of Theiss. On 15/16 april Hungary attacked Romania, the romanian counteroffensive halted on Theiss river until July 1919, when the hungarian army attacked again across Theiss. On 30 july Romanian Army begun the counteroffensive and on 3rd August 1919 marched into Budapest, parts of Hungarian Army evacuated succesfuly west of Danube. Budapest was under Romanian control, Bela Kun fled to Austria and from there to Soviet Union. Romania supported Miklos Horthy against Bela Kun, and between october 1919 and march 1920 withdrew from Hungary... so i see the following formulation : Soviet Republic of Bela Kun attacked Romania in april 1919, the romanian counter offensive led to the occupation of Budapest by the Romanian Army, the hungarian bolshevik/communist government disintegrated, the Romanian Army withdrew from Hungary between October 1919 and March 1920 -- Criztu 11:55, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Miniatures

oh, and ... hehe, I'm very glad you're interested in miniature figures, I am a big fan of Total War PC game series, and planning on buying an army of dacians from Wargamesfoundry :) -- Criztu 11:30, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I used to be a miniatures wargamer (started maybe when I was 14 years old), with a small collection of English Civil War figures. Then when I began roleplaying (at age 16) I focused on painting fantasy miniatures (mainly Citadel and later Mithril Miniatures). I started painting Mithril Miniatures again a couple of years ago, but unfortunately I don't have time for this at the moment. The Wargames Foundry figures look great - in the style of the old Citadel Miniatures but they look even better quality. I thought about buying some myself (particularly the Vikings), but wanted to select individual figures rather than buying whole packs. Also, I took a look at the Old Glory 'Vampire Wars' range which included "Transylvanian Mob" figures. Unfortunately they've mixed things up a bit (they have given some Hungarian names to their "Evil Cossack" figures) Scott Moore 12:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I found your legolas pic recently and, as part of the wikipedia image tagging project, I marked it as yours and listed that you release it into the public domain for copyright purposes. If this is inaccurate, please feel free to correct it. --InShaneee 16:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Transylvania: Austrian Rule and the Austro-Hungarian Empire

Criztu, as you'll see I did some further research into the events 1848-49 and added some additional content to the article (using as sources, the Romania study from the US Library of Congress, as well the Ohio University Website on the 1848 revolutions [1]). However, then I checked another source I have in hard copy (Istvan Deak, Lawful Revolution: Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians 1848-1849) and found that what I had written was incomplete and missing some important points. Before I correct the article itself, I'll give the points below and allow you make comments on them or add your own points:

• I wrote "...enact a comprehensive legislative program of reforms that included provision for the union of Transylvania and Hungary". Of course, now I realise that this seems to imply that the union of Transylvania and Hungary was a "reform". I need to distinguish between the "liberal" reforms of the Hungarian Diet, and the separate issue of the union (which can be described as part of the "nationalist" agenda of the revolution).
• Related to the above, Deak states that the Romanians of Transylvania initially welcomed the revolution believing that they would benefit from the liberal reforms. However the (largely) Hungarian nobility of Transylvania opposed many of the reforms which might have benefited the (largely) Romanian peasants. The Saxons were worried about the idea of union from the start, fearing the loss of their traditional privileges. Thus by the time that the noble representatives of the Transylvanian Diet pushed through the vote for union, the "nations" had become polarised with the Romanians and most of the Saxons (the deputies from Brasov voted for union) opposed to union.
• Mention should be made of the composition of the Diet, of course not strictly defined by nationality/ethnic group but rather with representatives from the nobility and the towns. Of the former the Hungarians were dominant, though Romanian land owners were also present. The latter were mainly (but not exclusively) Saxons. Thus the Romanians had some representation (also the Uniate Bishop), but clearly their grievance was that this was not proportionate to their numbers (a small absolute majority of the total population of Transylvania).
• Russian intervention was, in fact, not decisive in ending the revolution. Probably the Hungarians would have lost anyway, but the Austrians didn't realise this, hence they eventually and very reluctantly called on the tsar for aid. However, the Russians did play a bigger role in Transylvania.
• In Transylvania much of the military success (during the first few months) of the Hungarians was due to the Polish General Józef Zachariasz Bem. An article by Jolanta Pekacz states "in November 1848 he took command of the Hungarian army in Transylvania and Banat, and within four months ousted Austrian troops from Transylvania; later several times spectacularly defeated Russian troops. Admired by his soldiers, he was named "father Bem" attempted to win support of peasants in Transylvania, both Hungarian and Rumanian, for the revolutionary idea and to mitigate the conflicts between the Magyars and a Romanian minority in Transylvania. At the end of the revolution nominated by Lajos Kossuth commander-in-chief of the Hungarian army; at the end of July 1849 defeated in the battle at Segesvar and on August 9 at Temesvar, which finally sealed the fate of the Hungarian revolution."

• On a different subject, there is little in the article on the Uniate (Greek Catholic) church in Transylvania. Bishop Ion Inochentie Micu-Klein was already mentioned, but I'll expand on this.

• On yet another subject, from a paper by Dániel Fehér of the School of Slavonic and East European Studies, University College London: "It would be a mistake to believe that all Romanians of Transylvania were serfs or shepherds. Peasants formed an overwhelming majority of 90%, approximately a quarter of them was free, the rest serfs and labourers. There existed a kind of smaller nobility or gentry, called boiers, and a small number of artisans. The only town where Romanians formed the largest ethnic group was Brasov. Further important social groups were the clergy (about 2250 in 1848), the school teachers (some 300) and soldiers of the frontier regiments, some of them in higher ranks. The social relations varied in the three parts of the principality. In the counties, the higher and middle nobility owned most of the land. The landlords made efforts to control all profitable economic activities and tax the peasants on every possible occasion. More prosperous was the land of the Szekels, based on free peasant production. The tax paying small nobles made up more than the half of the population here. In the Saxon territories the autochthonous population adapted a harsh treatment against the ‘immigrant’ Romanians, whose land holdings became reduced in case of overpopulation." Scott Moore 15:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I won't challenge the article about this era - Transylvania under Austrian Ruleas I saw you reformulated it. I'll challenge the Transylvania as part of the Hungarian Kingdom, but not for now.

Their poor conditions obliged many Romanian families to cross into Wallachia and Moldavia searching for better lives - only this sentence seems speculative, as the flow of population couldn't posibly have been measured in those times, and it seems to me it suggests that "yet again, Transylvania didn't had that much romanians in it, since many romanians went to Wallachia and Moldavia". but i won't challenge this sentence either. -- Criztu 17:38, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To-do List

Rakoczi rebellion

Need to add to this text based on online source: "An anti-Habsburg rebellion broke out in 1703 led by Francis II Rákóczi. Rákóczi soon gained control over much of Hungary and in 1704 was elected Prince of Transylvania by the Diet. Rákóczi secured the support of King Louis XIV of France, who sent subsidies and troops. However, after suffering severe defeats, the Hungarians negotiated the Peace of Szatmar with the Austrians in 1711. Rákóczi refused to accept the treaty and fled abroad."

Micu-Klein

Summary based on the following texts:

"In 1711, having suppressed an eight-year rebellion of Hungarian nobles and serfs, the empire consolidated its hold on Transylvania, and within several decades the Uniate Church proved a seminal force in the rise of Romanian nationalism. Uniate clergymen had influence in Vienna; and Uniate priests schooled in Rome and Vienna acquainted the Romanians with Western ideas, wrote histories tracing their Daco-Roman origins, adapted the Latin alphabet to the Romanian language, and published Romanian grammars and prayer books. The Uniate Church's seat at Blaj, in southern Transylvania, became a center of Romanian culture.

The Romanians' struggle for equality in Transylvania found its first formidable advocate in a Uniate bishop, Inocentiu Micu Klein, who, with imperial backing, became a baron and a member of the Transylvanian Diet. From 1729 to 1744 Klein submitted petitions to Vienna on the Romanians' behalf and stubbornly took the floor of Transylvania's Diet to declare that Romanians were the inferiors of no other Transylvanian people, that they contributed more taxes and soldiers to the state than any of Transylvania's "nations," and that only enmity and outdated privileges caused their political exclusion and economic exploitation. Klein fought to gain Uniate clergymen the same rights as Catholic priests, reduce feudal obligations, restore expropriated land to Romanian peasants, and bar feudal lords from depriving Romanian children of an education. The bishop's words fell on deaf ears in Vienna; and Hungarian, German, and Szekler deputies, jealously clinging to their noble privileges, openly mocked the bishop and snarled that the Romanians were to the Transylvanian body politic what "moths are to clothing." Klein eventually fled to Rome where his appeals to the pope proved fruitless. He died in a Roman monastery in 1768. Klein's struggle, however, stirred both Uniate and Orthodox Romanians to demand equal standing. In 1762 an imperial decree established an organization for Transylvania's Orthodox community, but the empire still denied Orthodoxy equality even with the Uniate Church."

"The first warrior emerged with a Greek Catholic bishop. Micu-Klein achieved the grade of a baron, and has been allowed to participate in the diet from 1732 on. He developed the main devices of Romanian emancipation and its arguments. The Uniate Church became the institutional framework. The ideology of Daco-Romanian continuity was bound to create a national identification. The demand of public representation drew the political course of the nationalist movement. Micu-Klein’s Romanian grammar school and priest seminary in Blaj became the stronghold of the national intelligentsia. The Church Union allowed educating the Romanian elite in Vienna. His last political move, before falling in disfavour, was the convocation of a synod in 1744. Due to the participation of layman and orthodox priests this meeting is regarded as the first – and, till 1848 the only – national convict."

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Petición de ayuda

Saludos. Siento no poder expresarme con corrección en tu idioma, pero me dirigo a ti, porque no sé a quien recurrir y sé que dominas en gran medida el español. Soy un antiguo contribuyente de la Wikipedia en español, que hace alrededor de un año volvió a ella. Se encontró entonces con que la Wikipedia en español estaba dominada por administradores que violaban sistemáticamente las normas de wikipedia, como la de la neutralidad y la de no borrar informacion útil. Me he rebelado contra su censura, y he reivindicado el sentido original de las normas. Uno de mis contertulios en mi página de discusión y que ha renunciado a participar en la wikipedia hispana resume así la situación que se vive en la enciclopedia en español:

Una vez que me convertí en escritor y no sólo en lector comencé a descubrir la realidad que esconde este proyecto. Ediciones honestas que buscaban enseñar a quienes quisieran aprender fueron eliminadas inmediatamente. Mis intentos de diálogo se vieron contestados por insultos y acusaciones injustos y por la extendida costumbre de recuperar la versión "oficial", es decir, la de eliminar todo incluyendo la corrección de errores ortográficos. Sólo he sido capaz de conseguir algún avance tras interminables discusiones, mediante la búsqueda de docenas de referencias a revistas, periódicos o documentos oficiales capaces de demostrar la insensatez de las críticas absurdas que con frecuencia se hacen y, principalmente, recuperando una y otra vez los datos que se intentan ocultar. Es decir, la cantidad de esfuerzo que hay que hacer es inmensa.

El gran problema es que las causas de la situación son muy profundas. Por ejemplo, es verdad que hay artículos larguísimos que describen cómo aplicar la política de neutralidad pero no hay ningún sitio donde se establezca breve y claramente qué es lo que no se puede hacer. Así es absurdo que se permita eliminar una edición completamente recuperando la versión anterior sin dar ninguna explicación. Si yo añado algo como "el 12 de marzo Aznar dijo que se estaban siguiendo dos líneas de investigación" cualquiera lo eliminará inmediatamente sin dar ningún motivo. Si lo vuelves a añadir y preguntas en la página de discusión por qué lo han borrado, que lo que has escrito es verdad, que se miren los periódicos que tienen edición digital accesible de ese día y todo eso el resultado es que te lo vuelven a quitar. Y no puedes hacer nada salvo volver a recuperarlo hasta que tú o ellos se cansen. Y es absurdo que esto sea así, porque la política de no neutralidad se resume en dos puntos: sólo se pueden incluir (1) hechos objetivos o (2) teorías existentes descritas indicando que son teorías. Si alguien elimina una contribución que no es puro vandalismo debería justificar que lo ha hecho porque no es ni un hecho objetivo ni una teoría existente. Si no se está eliminando el esfuerzo de una persona que ha querido participar en la Wikipedia lo que desincentiva dicha participación cuando se debería fomentar ya que en realidad se trata de generar un enciclopedia seria.

Yo no quiero rendirme. Y no he dejado de debatir con esos administradores. En mi página personal, he escrito un ensayo donde denunció las practicas que se cometen en la wikipedia hispana. Lo puedes leer en [[2]]

Temporalmente he conseguido algunas mejoras, consiguiendo, por ejemplo, que algunos usen la página de discusión antes de borrar lo que no les gusta o no concuerda con su ideas. Ayer estaba añadiendo información al artículo del 11-M y acababa de discutir con un administrador que quería borrar el artículo dedicado a Leonor de Borbón Ortiz, primogénita de los Príncipes de Asturias, Felipe de Borbón y Letizia Ortiz, y segunda en la línea sucesoria de la Corona española. Este administrador decía que en la wikipedia no debía haber artículos sobre la recién nacida (cuando otras wikipedias lo tienen). Puedes leerlo en Discusión:Leonor de Borbón Ortiz. Ahora no puedo escribir en la wikipedia hispana, porque otro administrador, llamado FAR, que se declara amigo del administrador con que discutía, me han bloqueado la IP, tachándome de vándalo. No me dejan ni el derecho a réplica. ¿Puedes ayudarme, por favor? ¿Con quién debo hablar para solucionar esta situación?

Usuario:Visitante, 12:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC).

I Blocked him because he did vandalic editions in another article. I even unknow he was in that discussion (although I have just read it, and he wrote offensive words) And be care, here, we think he is a troll.--es:Usuario:FAR

Historical names of Transylvania

Hi. I had earlier added citation tags for some fragments in there, and I noticed that, when you added text (good work, btw), you dropped the fragment (which was formulated absurdly - I had read into it that Germans would have taken it Siebenburgen from a "traditional Latin name"...) and changed it into something logical. However, you have left the tag hanging, and it now sits just after the mention ogf what the seven cities where. Does this mean you ask for a citation on the names of the seven cities, or to something else, or that you forgot to remove the tag? Thanks. Dahn 11:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm asking for a citation - not specifically on the names of the seven cities, but for the theory that the name Siebenburgen refers to these cities. I have made the assumption that this theory is the most widely-held, but some citations are needed. Scott Moore 11:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But I think the tag would be less confusing if you place it after "names" or "cities", or if you remove the indenting in front of the cities' names, make it one flowing phrase and add the tag to the end of it. As such, it's confusing. Thanks. Dahn 12:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, who is the (Popa, 1996) reference given in the Siebenburg section? It's not given below... Dahn 12:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Klaus Popa. The source (in translation) is: [3] I don't know how reliable this source is - I would prefer to reference only published works, but my understanding of German is very limited and I can't determine whether Ein Abriss siebenbürgisch-sächsischer Geschichte only appears on that Website or whether it has actually been published. Scott Moore 12:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't doubting the source (I know zero German). I had just noticed that it is not listed under references or external links, so a reader will not know what it is all about. Purely techical. Will you add it to the links/references, please? Many thanks. Dahn 12:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Scott, I don't know what you wanted to link to. Please provide the link: Popa is mentioned, but Popa's work is not or no longer provided as a reference at the bottom of the page. Will you fix this? Dahn 13:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I'm not sure that I understand you. I don't see a problem when I view the Historical Names of Transylvania page. The Popa reference is at the bottom, with a link to the Web page with the text 'An Outline of Transilvanian-Saxon History Scott Moore 15:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't know why I hadn't noticed. Dahn 15:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Etymology of Ardeal/Erdély

I don't remember if I added anything regarding Transylvania's etymology, especially about Erdő-Ardó. But I've found something useful here: [[4]]. to be honest it was new to me that there is a connection between Ardo, Erdő. Regards --fz22 19:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC) HEY STUPID>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ROMANIA HAVE 2000 yers hystory-DACIA,http://www.euratlas.com/big/big0100.htm, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.127.9.2 (talk) 07:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Legolas Takes Aim at Helm's Deep.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Legolas Takes Aim at Helm's Deep.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)