DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

Wiki Article

Talk:Romania

Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net

Xem trên WikipediaBài ngẫu nhiên khác
Former good article nomineeRomania was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 28, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 14, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 21, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
November 15, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
November 22, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
September 26, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
February 14, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
October 9, 2010Peer reviewReviewed
August 12, 2014Peer reviewNot reviewed
October 14, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
March 20, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
May 24, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
February 20, 2025Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 9, 2011, May 9, 2012, May 9, 2013, May 9, 2014, May 10, 2015, May 10, 2016, and May 10, 2017.
Current status: Former good article nominee

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Establishment event: Treaty of Trianon

[edit]

Hi Tgeorgescu, Super Dromaeosaurus, Norden1990, Borsoka what do you think?

I see a brand new editor started instantly an edit war, [1] when I had 10 edits, I did not know the name of any Wiki rule, maybe a sockpuppet?

Here refered to this rule: WP:V https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability So he claims that Treaty of Trianon not a verified Romania country establishment event :D

Consistency between articles, History of Romania: "Most of the claimed territories were granted to the Old Kingdom of Romania, which was ratified in 1920 by the Treaty of Trianon that defined the new border between Hungary and Romania"

Trianon Treaty Day, even it became a national day, from article: "As a result, Transylvania, as well as parts of Banat, Crișana and Maramureș, were officially allocated to Romania." The user denies in the edig log that Treaty of Trianon would belong to Romania, and that is not an establishment event. How cannot be state borders an establishment event?

Hi Welcometothejungle007,

Country info box: establishment events: Treaty of Trianon "The treaty is famous primarily due to the territorial changes imposed on Hungary and recognition of its new international borders after the First World War", this is the official treaty signed by all participants, which established exact borders of Romania, recognized by international law. Great Union is also mentioned, it was a wartime event, when Romanian troops attacked WW1 capitulated disarmed Hungary, a one sided assembly which actually claimed more Hungarian lands what Romania got finally by Treaty of Trianon, morover it was a contra assembly by Hungarians. International borders were not decided by one sided assemblies, but by treaty which determined the exact borders, and shaped the new country, which was recognized by everybody.

https://countrystudies.us/romania/20.htm "Two postwar agreements that Romania signed, the Treaty of Saint-Germain with Austria and the Treaty of Trianon with Hungary, more than doubled Romania's size, adding Transylvania, Dobruja, Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, and part of the Banat to the Old Kingdom. The treaties also fulfilled the centuries-long Romanian dream of uniting all Romanians in a single country."' Perhap this is not an establishment event?

A: Should I claim your house as mine? B: Or should we make an official legal agreement by lawyer signing by both of us? Which would be the legal official establishment event of that house: A or B?

Why do you want remove this important event?


OrionNimrod (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, OrionNimrod
Thanks for the reply. I'd like to clarify a few points:
On My Account:
I’ve been reading and using Wikipedia for years but only recently made an account myself to start editing. I read the 5 pillars and familiarised myself with the regulations, most of which I already knew beforehand. Therefore, I say per WP:FOC (Focus on Content) and WP:NEWBIE, Wikipedia decisions should be based on policy and sources, not an editor’s account age. Let’s please keep the discussion focused on article content.
On the Treaty of Trianon:
I do agree that the Treaty of Trianon had enormous legal significance in formalising Romania’s postwar borders. However, the infobox’s “establishment events” section isn’t intended to list every border treaty or legal document signed by a country — it's meant to reflect nationally recognised state-forming events.
In Romania, Great Union Day (December 1, 1918) is the national holiday celebrated as the foundational moment of the modern Romanian state. The Treaty of Trianon, while crucial internationally, is not celebrated or regarded as a founding event by Romanians themselves. Its role is already well-covered in the relevant history sections and Treaty of Trianon articles.
Per WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, we need to present events in proportion to their recognition in reliable sources and national context. Including Trianon here risks misrepresenting Romania’s own historical narrative, which centers on the 1918 unification.
Moving Forward:
If there's still disagreement, I'm happy to open an RFC so neutral editors can weigh in and help reach a consensus. That way we can resolve this collaboratively, in line with Wikipedia’s regulations.
Thank you. #welcometothejungle007# Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing Wiki knowledge, even RFC knowledge just with about 10 edits!!! Awsome!
So you claim that Treaty of Trianon is NOT an IMPORTANT establishment event which actually established exactly the Kingdom of Romania#Greater Romania which was a much bigger and a different state than WW1 Romanian state + national day Trianon Treaty Day = it seems celebrated, but this does not matter. Perhaps do you celebrate the other listed events? Wallachia 1330? Moldavia 1346? I do not think so. So we can remove all of them according to your logic. The country box is not about celebrations, but establishement facts, this is an English encyclopedia, and Treaty of Trianon is really a key establishment fact.
Many Wikipage alredy sourced that: Kingdom of Romania#Greater Romania "At the Paris Peace Conference, Romania received the territories of Transylvania, part of Banat and other territories from Hungary, as well as Bessarabia (Eastern Moldavia between Prut and Dniester rivers) and Bukovina. In the Treaty of Trianon, Hungary renounced in favor of Romania all the claims of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy over Transylvania.[12]" = Borders were decided by Paris Peace Conference, which established Greater Romania. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello everyone. My opinion is that, while I don't particularily care whether Trianon is featured on the infobox or not, I do find it a bit superfluous with the Great Union, as it not only encompasses Transylvania but also Bukovina and Bessarabia. After all, we're not including Saint-Germain-en-Laye 1919 that confirmed Bukovina's union with Romania or (unenforced) Paris 1920 that confirmed Bessarabia's. Welcometothejungle007 is right in that the Great Union is much more celebrated among Romanians than Trianon specifically, with the Trianon Treaty Day being a recent holiday approved in 2020. I believe it is appropriate to include important "establishment" events in the infobox of each country taking mainly into account the POV of the national historiography of said country and the relevance given to each event. So, if it's up to me, I would not include Trianon. Super Ψ Dro 22:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Super, I think this is an encyclopedia with important facts, and not the Great Union made the borders which became Greater Romania in 1920, but Trianon treaty established that X and Y and Z city became part of new Romania. Receiving important huge territories it cannot be less important than changing constitution. It should be here as state establishment event. 1859, 1877, 1881 also listed, however those also quite related. OrionNimrod (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly in the end do disagree with the inclusion of the Treaty of Trianon on the infobox. It was restored following Welcometothejungle007's ban. The Treaty of Trianon is not given nearly as much attention in Romanian historiography as the 1918 Great Union, the opposite to Hungarian historiography. The two events have sort of similar purposes at the infobox anyway, plus it also generates the question on why is Trianon but not Saint-Germain-en-Laye (1919, for Bukovina) or Paris (1920, for Bessarabia). The three treaties and what they formalised are already included within the Great Union, but Transylvania's case specifically is given a second event. OrionNimrod, I understand the huge presence and importance given to the treaty in Hungarian historiography, and for this reason I do find it normal that it is listed as an establishment event at the Hungary article, but I believe this might have led you to overstate its perceived relevance outside of Hungary. Super Ψ Dro 01:15, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Super, I understand that you know the home situation better than me. Just brainstorming. I just thought official treaties is a country establishment events, as this shaped the borders and not a one sided assembly. Or this Great Union even was a starting point of the events (1918-20), start end of 1918 ended in mid 1920? It was also a Hungarian-Romanian war after WW1 in 1918-19. Regarding the current Russian-Ukrainian war, IF any territory change, I suppose the end of the war treaty could be an establishment event, as you said Trianon was the establishment event in Hungarian state, a signed treaty after end of war between parties. And I feel contradictory in the timeline, because we talk about the same big territory which was part of Hungary, so how can be the establishment event in 1918 exactly the same territory (area was not decided or was different, or just a wish) which was finally decided and signed in 1920 and belonged to Hungary officially before the signature? We can talk about war details, or occupation, but for example at the time of Great Union 1 December, Romanian troops did not occupy most of those lands (Oradea and many others) which was wished to be part of Romania, and even they claimed in the Great Union much more area what officially was given by the signed Trianon treaty. I also would include the another treaties what you mentioned as this is an encyclopedia.
    But I accept that you know better your home situation. However, for me the most strange thing was not the infobox, but that this Trianon event was not at all mentioned in this country article itself. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These establishment events are subjective elements from Wikipedia, I don't think it makes sense to try establish a standard for all countries, instead we should review cases individually. In some historiographies some treaties are given great importance and in others this simply does not happen (e.g. the Slovakia article features the treaty in the infobox, as I assume it is seen as liberation by Slovaks, but it is not included at the Serbia article). The day the 1918 assembly in Transylvania met to vote unification with Romania is nothing less than Romania's national day, it is not comparable to the view of the Treaty of Trianon in the country, which is seen as simply formalising the situation on the ground. You say you would be willing to list the three treaties but this is definitively excessive, considering the Great Union is meant to cover all three events as a concept. Regarding the Russo-Ukrainian war case, we can't know but I doubt a treaty or agreement will be included in the infobox of either, if it is it will depend on the importance it is given in each country. Hopefully I am making my point understood: I think we should focus more on perceived (justified or not) than on real importance on the event in the country in particular.
We could bring some other editors into the discussion but I don't think it is necessary as I think some will simply confirm that the treaty itself is simply not given as much importance as events like the foundation of Wallachia and Moldavia in Romanian historiography. And if the treaty was not mentioned in the article itself, that was definitively inappropriate and should have been fixed (the treaty is mentioned at the article as I am writing this). Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Super I see your points. Btw I added the treaty in the article text recently, that is why you can see now.
(It is not the topic, but Hungarian dont think "liberation" of Slovaks by Trianon, because Czecoslovakia got full Hungarian populated regions (even Pozsony/Bratislava had 15% Slovaks in 1920, it was mostly German majority city during all of its history), from Hungary Czechoslovakia got 1,7 million Slovaks + 900 000 Hungarians + 200 000 Germans (58% Slovak - 42% non-Slovak) and even Benes wanted more and more Hungarian lands as "lliberation of Hungarians from Hungarians?", like Miskolc and big part of western Hungary to make a corridor to Yugoslavia, Czecoslovakia also got Transcarpatia with 0 Czech population and history or 0 Slovak population, just simple to make an ally blockade around Germany, and the Entente paid his new allies from the territory of Hungary. Yugoslavia also demanded much more Hungarian lands like Romania demanded much more lands until Tisza and full Banate. Regarding in the artifical state strange long Czechoslovakia, the number of Germans were much more than Slovaks and they were treated as second class citizens together with Hungarians. Many bad deeds against Hungarians "in that liberated area" still until today (Hungarians not did those things with Slovaks) like language laws, like Benes decrees: [2]), which is still active in 21st century EU [3], just some recent things [4] [5]. And the numbers tells everything, the number of Slovaks increased in Hungary before 1920, after the numbers of Hungarians decreased much hardcore.) OrionNimrod (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're not opposed anymore, so I've removed the treaty's entry at the infobox. Thanks for mentioning the treaty in the main article.
Yes, I am familiar with the general details of the situation you described. I meant strictly from the ethnic Slovak perspective. As some notes: (Hungarians not did those things with Slovaks) 19th-century Magyarization was real, and the ethnic composition of the Kingdom of Hungary did change by the start of the next century (by 10%, I believe), it is important to recognize its existence. This is not to whitewash though subsequent abuses against Hungarians, which should also be recognized, I think all of us (Romanians, Hungarians, Slovaks, etc.) should live peacefully as friendly neighbours and with full mutual rights for each other, because we are civilized unlike certain people at the east. By the way, as far as I know, Romania never claimed land officially beyond the 1916 Treaty of Bucharest [6] (or, at most, beyond this, but I don't know if it was officially claimed by the state), leaving for instance Debrecen out.
Anyway, thanks for this discussion. Have a nice day, Super Ψ Dro 20:45, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you regarding to be peacefully as friendly neighbours! We also know in Hungary that Habsburgs were many times behind to incite ethnic people each other, Romanians against Hungarians as divide and conquer strategy.
So I think anti-Hungarian hate things in Slovakia, Romania in 21st century cannot be justified because "magyarization" in 19th century. That "magyarization" was just some decades and not so effective (but numbers tells everything in Slovakia and in other areas Oradea#Demographics + Cluj-Napoca#Demographics etc), comparing UK, France, Russia or even Romania, in contrast: Austria-Hungary was far way more liberal country and treated better its minorities in the standard of that age. On 28 July 1849, the Hungarian Revolutionary Parliament proclaimed and enacted the first laws on ethnic and minority rights in Europe, an act acknowledging the rights of non-Hungarians to use their own language on local and minor administrative levels and to maintain their own schools. Hungarian money called the "Kossuth bankó" (Kossuth banknote), with inscriptions in Hungarian and the languages of the nationalities on it: German, Slovak, Croatian, and Romanian (Cyrillic at that time):File:Kossuth bankó.jpg. After the Kingdom of Hungary reached the Compromise with the Habsburg Dynasty in 1867, one of the first acts of its restored Parliament was to pass a Law on Nationalities (Act Number XLIV of 1868). It was a liberal piece of legislation and offered extensive language and cultural rights. A-H money also had more languages: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/AHK_1000_1902_obverse.jpg/1920px-AHK_1000_1902_obverse.jpg
I know Romanians refer usually to Lex Appony law as "huge suppress", which was in 1907 (so quite late) (it also increased the salary of teachers) asked that to know the state language as second language, it does not mean Romanians needed to learn as Hungarian in Romanian schools, just like we learn English today as second language. It is quite normal I think. Today in Romania, in Slovakia this is expected from local Hungarian to know the state languages. Because in Kingdom of Hungary the universities were Hungarian, so it was a handicap in high education if ethnic people did not know the language, carrier. In 1918, there were 2,043 Romanian schools for the approximately 2.8 million Romanians in Hungary. More than that the 7 million Romanians had in the Kingdom of Romania at that time. In contrast: Romanian education in 1900: who acquired Romanian nationality, the children were able to study only in Romanian schools, and they total ellimanted multiethnic Romania, what happened in Dobruja and against Csangos? Morover today for Hungarians in Romania much hardcore the education law compared with Lex Apponyi as Hungarians even need make exams in Romanian.
And propaganda everywhere. Černová massacre, Slovaks said in 1907 to European press "massacres by evil Hungrians", and actually Slovak policemen shoot Slovaks... Or Romanian politican, member of Hungarian parliament Vaida-Voevod said his hardcore anti Hungarian poem in Hungarian parliament "Law-breaking Asian scum, You’ve been a rogue people from the very start, Not even knowing from where you came, You’ve become its fierce and wicked devils. For ten cursed centuries you’ve been leeching, Like bloodthirsty bedbugs on this land. Oh, you thieving horde!...", of course Hungarian members were angry, he timed his provocation exactly the same time when many foreign press was present in Budapest, so that Europeans can see what "angry Hungarian politicians how behave against a Romanian politician"...
In contrast Romanians did not mention the positive thing regarding Hungarians, this is a Transylvanian journal [7] OrionNimrod (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note

[edit]

It’s been two days since the last comment, and no further input has been added — including from the other editors who were pinged earlier in the discussion apart from Super, thank you for your input. Based on the comment received, there appears to be a general lean toward not including the Treaty of Trianon in the infobox. The main reasons cited include its overlap with the Great Union (which is already listed), the limited role Trianon plays in Romania’s national historiography, and the infobox’s purpose of highlighting widely recognized state-forming events - not every single legally binding treaty. Unless strong new arguments are presented, I believe we can consider this issue settled for now. Thank you. #welcometothejungle007# Welcometothejungle007 (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"limited role"? :D it is a joke? (then why across internet I can see mass of Romanian users everywhere commenting "happy Trianon, Trianon best...") Treaty of Versailles, which made by the Great Powers after WW1 shaped the new country borders, not one sided war time assemblies, even claiming lands where were not occupying Romanian forces at the moment of claiming. If I claim "your house is mine now", it does not matter anything whitout your official signature, even if that signature is forced. Dont forget, Russian occupation in Ukraine is not recognized state borders, but end of the war a peace treaty will be an establishment event if changes happens. OrionNimrod (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:41, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typo "outsting" in Politics after 1989

[edit]

Please someone correct into "ousting" Zehlendorfer (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sha lalad 09:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]