Talk:Hungarian–Romanian War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Rules for editing the article

To ensure a civilized and focused discussion that will contribute the article, I would like to add here a few rules:

1). Remain calm.

2). Keep a civilized tone.

3). Do NOT modify the article before reaching agreement among all editors here.

4). Try to have your modifications sustained by references.

5). Wait for at least one week after reaching agreement among several editors, before changing the on-line article (so as to give the others time to respond).

6). Read this Talk page before you start a new topic or make new edits to check if what you intent to do has not already been discussed.

7). Place your comments in the appropriate sections of the Talk page to allow a focused discussion.

Pleas feel free to add other sensible rules.Octavian8 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Result of the war

A war can end in victory or defeat. The end of the war cannot be decisive, as it represents the outcome of the war. A battle can end with a decisive victory in which case it decides the outcome of a war. The result of the Hungarian-Romanian war is a Romanian victory. One could say, for example, that the battle of the Tisza river was a decisive Romanian victory. Octavian8 (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Belligerents

The article covers in detail the fighting between the Romanians and the Hungarians. Additional conflicts like those in Bessarabia and Upper Hungary are mentioned only to the extent they've influenced the course of the main conflict (i.e., here between Romanians and Hungarians). We should write separate articles on those topics and cross reference them. Therefore, I will leave on the belligerents list only Hungary/Soviet Hungary and Romania.Octavian8 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

France

I am aware that France had a group of advisors in the Romanian army and they supplied some equipment, however, to my knowledge there were no French troops fighting against the Hungarians, hence France is not a belligerent. If anyone has referenced insight into this it would be a very welcomed addition. Until then I will delete France from the list of belligerents.Octavian8 (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Third belligerent

I have added the Hungarian counter-revolutionary government as a third belligerent, since they were also involved, with Miklos Horthy as war minister. However, I kind of hesitated as to which article would aptly describe it. So far, there is no specific article dedicated to the counter-revolutionary government of 1919 (nor is there one about the Bela Miklos government of 1944-1945, BTW) : so I thought that the generic Kingdom of Hungary article could be used. The Horthy regency had not been established at that time, so I think the "Kingdom" is fine enough for now, since they classified as "royal" troops. If anyone has a better idea, I'm open to all suggestions. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge the counter-revolutionary government had no troops fighting against the Reds. They were supplied with arms by the Romanians. This hardly makes them a belligerent. If you have other informations than me, please share them, preferably with references.Octavian8 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Soviet Slovakia

Again there nothing in the article about Slovakian reds fighting alongside the Hungarians. If anyone has information about this please mention it here first and we can think of a way of introducing it as well. Until then Soviet Slovakia is no belligerent. Also please let me mention this again: this article is about the Hungarian-Romanian war not about the Hungarian revolutionary wars. Additional conflicts like that with Czechoslovakia are mentioned only if they in some way influenced the Hungarian-Romanian war.Octavian8 (talk) 17:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian losses

Does anybody have an overview of the Hungarian losses in this war, to add this info in the infobox at the beginning of the article. I found nothing until now. Octavian8 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Prelude

How the war started - who did the Romanians fight

I am puzzled to see how simple and well documented facts could create such difficulties. The 1919 war was between HSR (i.e., Hungarian Soviet Republic) and Romania and was started, by the attack of the communist Hungarian army in 1919. Yes, the Romanian armies were in Transylvania from 1918 but, again, Hungary was a defeated country and, by signing the armistice, had to accept the victors’ decisions. The advance of the Romanian army in Transylvania was part these decisions and the Karolyi government complied with it. Only after Bela Kun and the communist party formed the HSR (to be noted that there was an other "white" Hungarian government at that time) the new organised Hungarian communist army began the conflict that is now called the "Hungarian-Romanian War".Tziganul (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The conflict had three phases and the fighting in the last two was done against HSR, this is clearly stated. I don't quite understand what do you mean with 'How the war started?' De jure Romania didn't even recognized the Kun government, therefore it could not declare war against a state they did not recognized. De facto, armed confrontation started as early as November 1918, when Romania reentered WWI. In the beginning (i.e. Phase I) the Romanian army advanced to the demarcation line that was a direct consequence of the armistice. Later advances however, in Phase II, were in agreement not with the armistice, but with the promises made by the Entente to Romania in 1916. Starting then (i.e. Phase II), the Hungarian armed opposition to the Romanian troops was organized by the reds after departure of the Karoli government. In the beginning of the section Phase I ther is alink to the wiki article about the union of Romania with Transylvania. There is its proper place and is pointless to mention it in the introduction. I fail to see what's unclear here, so i'll remove the tags again and i will reinstate the initial text in the introduction.

Octavian8 (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course I read the article. BTW, it is interesting to see that it has three phases, starting in 1918. The so called "Phase 1" should be actually called something like "Prelude". You have to know that there was no military confrontation between Hungary and Romania when the Romanian army crossed the Carpathian. The minor skirmishes involving irregular Hungarians cannot be considered as start of hostilities. That's a basic misunderstanding that comes from this article. The advances the Romanian army in Transylvania were acknowledged by the Hungarian government (Kiraly) and they were not considered casus beli under any circumstance. Actually, doing so it would have violated the armistice deal, and they didn’t do it. At least until Bela Kun took the power. Then the situation changed but at that time there were already TWO Hungarian governments.

BTW, the fact that Romania did not recognize the communist government has no significance, because, Romanian army was attacked they had to respond.

The fact that you disagree and don't see the significance it is sad but that should only be a reason to discuss the matter further. Please don't change the article until we don't came to a conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tziganul (talk • contribs) 20:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

First: I regret to see that the article I've written does not please you, but I will not change its structure as your arguments do not convince me. The Prelude deals with the situation in Romania in Hungary prior to the conflict and it makes sense to do it like this.

Second: I did not changed the article, but you did, so don't change it again before we settle the matter here. If you continue doing this you'll force me to ask to make it semi-protected at least.

Third: In Phase I Romania crossed its to date internationally recognized border, that's a hostile act and it's the first step towards the latter confrontations in Phases II and III. Thus, the article is neutral in that it just state facts and complete in that it gives you reason for what happens, and that's the way it should be. It draws no conclusions as you did above, it just state the facts as they were and is a fact that in November 1918, Romania send it troops over the Carpathians.

Fourth: There is no discussion here about the armistice between the Entente and Hungary as this is not the place for such things. There is just a hint to the consequences of this act for the course of events that interests us.

Last: I'll change in the Intro to its very first formulation, I hope that is satisfactory for everybody, but DO NOT TAG THE ARTICLE AGAIN before we all agree on the tags. Octavian8 (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed how these simple facts can be interpreted. But let's take it slowly:

1. The article probably was started by Octavian8 but now it is in the public domain. Hence it is not his any more, or not in the sense that it is his propriety, anyway we all have responsibility of the information and quality of the articles we contribute.

2. I expect that every Wikipedia contributor has to abide to reasonable standards of accuracy and honesty.

3. Romania was at war in with Austro-Hungary empire and not with Hungary (1916-1918). The empire disintegrated in 1918 and Hungary signed the armistice as successor of the former Austro-Hungary. However, the new Hungarian state borders were not, yet, recognised by the victors. The advance of the Romanian army in Transilvania was not a casus belli, in the sense that it could not have been interpreted, in any way, as a break of the armistice. The Romanian army movements were sanctioned by the Entente powers, notified to Karolyi that accepted them. I have provided the following documents to clarify the matter further.

• It is interesting to read the Horty's account of the events (Admiral Miklos Horty: Memoirs). He clearly states that: "The first to march into our country were the Czechs. In December, the Hungarian Government was informed by the military representatives of the Allies in Budapest that the claims of Masaryk(10) on Pozsony, the Slovak region, Kassa and Upper Hungary had been allowed. Simultaneously, the Rumanian minority of Transylvania declared their allegiance to Rumania, and Rumanian troops occupied the country as far as Kolozsvár(11), which was formally annexed to Rumania on December 27th. On the strength of the Belgrade Convention which Károlyi had signed, the Serbs entered the Banat and the Bácska, while Croatia joined the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. The Károlyi Government(12) supinely watched this vivisection of their country. They even forbade the troops to oppose the Rumanian advance. "
• Also, C. A. Macartney explains in his book Hungary: A Short History:"...a meeting of the Roumanians of Transylvania declared for union with the Regat, and a meeting of Slovaks, for union with the Czechs. The demarcation line drawn by Franchet d'Espérey allowed Serb and Roumanian troops to occupy all south and east Hungary, and immediately thereafter, Czech forces entered northern Hungary and occupied it up to a line which, in most of its extent, corresponded to the full claims of the Czecho-Slovak provisional government. The de facto dismemberment of Hungary was already near-complete, and was brought nearer in the next weeks, as the Roumanian troops edged their way westward."
  
• The Romanian historiography agrees in this point with Horty :): the Romanians were not at war with Hungary in the winter 1918-1919. The war was started by the reds attacks in 1919, only. To give you just one point to start your study, please read the article "Spicuiri din razboiul Romaniei cu Ungaria din anul 1919 (unfortunately in Romanian only; you have the link given in article, too))."
  

It is quite clear from the above that there was NO WAR BETWEEN Romania AND Hungary while Karolyi government lasted.

4. In 1919 Romania was at war against the Hungarian Soviet Republic, but at that time there was another competing, counter-revolutionary, Hungarian state. I hope that everybody sees the nuance here.

5. I consider the Octavian8's interpretations as a quite big distortion of the historical facts relative to the above detailed aspects.

Taking in consideration all of these arguments, listed above I am going to tag the article, and to restore the previous contentTziganul (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear tziganul, please spare me the formless rethoric. In the formulation I gave to the intro, it is said that the initial skirmishes evolved in a full fledged war when the Hungarian Soviet Republic appeared. This describes pretty well the entire article as it is, and not only phase III as the introduction you so stubbornly sustian does. If you want to start an article about only Phase III of the conflict, be my guest, it would be nice if you would link it here afterwards. Now about the tags, if you want to tag the article, first explain your problems in the Tags section of the discussion page and then tag it. This is the minimal -- and in my opinion obligatory -- courtesy that you can bring your fellow Wikipedians concerned about this article.Octavian8 (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Octavian8, you are still quite not fond of the historic facts. Not taking in consideration your offensive language ("please spare me the formless rethoric") that does not honour a wikipedian, you are still quite far from the historic facts as they are proved by the documents:

• "Romania crossed its to date internationally recognized border, that's a hostile act": at that time Hungary's borders were not recognized internationally. Hungary, part of former Austro-Hungary had to accept the Entente conditions.
• The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919 started[1] settled the western border of Greater Romania: That's false! Romania's borders were settled at Trianon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tziganul (talk • contribs) 09:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel offended, it was by no means my intention to offend you, but look here: "Romania crossed ITS to date internationally recognized border" if any state at any time crosses ITS to date internationally recognized border with the army, without invitation this IS a hostile act, if you don't understand this you are not quite found of logic -- no offence meant.

It is true that the borders of Greater Romania were de jure established at Trianon but de facto, the Romanians controlled at that time the territories they would get. So, I'll add de facto to the text, is this OK?Octavian8 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But you failed to mention the Union of Transylvania with Romania. Without it, Romanian army would have never entered Transylavania. Dc76\^talk 18:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the intro as it is right now. However, it is pure speculation if Romania would or wouldn't have entered Transylvania without the union, in the end, they did enter it in 1916.Octavian8 (talk) 19:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, that is the couse for Romania entering WWI. This time however, the troops came after they received official invitation. Dc76\^talk 22:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I also think it should be ok to add a few words that right after the war, in July 1920, the Romanian-Hunagrian border was established by the treaty of Trianon. Dc76\^talk 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

As about the border, it is very close to the border given in the United States of Greater Austria project. IMO, if Romanian Army wouldn't have entered Transylvania in December 1918-January 1919, there would have been the same western border, but perhaps also a Hungarian enclave in the Secuime. Dc76\^talk 02:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just saying that without the 1919 war, against HSR, the borders would have been the same. The pivotal element in breaking the Austro-Hungaria was the extraordinary eagerness of the people from empire to constitute their own states. If there would have been at least ONE minority wanting to continue the co-existence with Austrian or Hungarians, the outcome could have been different. But, as we know, even the Hungarians and Austrians did not want the empire any more. But that a discussion for an other history article, I think.--Tziganul (talk) 09:45, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

De jure & de facto

Again :) The Hungary's border were not "internationally recognized" therefore that was not a casus belli. At that time The French Army was in Transylvania and Hungary too, but then, what can be expected when the war is lost? Often, the victors' army enter the defeated state teritory. So that's not lack of my logic. Also, when the war ended, the Romanian Army initially retreated to the line along Theiss, later further east, but again, the war did not settled any borders, de facto or de jure. However, I don't mind if you came with any serious reference proving that. I have serious doubts you can because at Trianon that did not matter anyway. What I say is that even without war Romania would have get Transylvania. It is possible, actually, that they got even less than otherwise.--Tziganul (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, :) do you even know what 'de facto' means? Nobody talks here about any 'casus belli', what are you talking about? You try to suggest that when an army passes its border, uncovered by any previous agreement this is not a hostile act and you exemplify with the french?! They were the ALLIES of the Romanians and the ENEMIES of the Austro-Hungarians!!! You talk about victors and defeated but you ignore the hostilities that divided them into victors and defeated. If you come with any valid reference where it is said that Romania didn't established its de facto border in the war we are talking about, then I'll be ready to believe you. Furthermore, it is possible that Romania would have gotten these territories even without the war, but the war made this a certainty supported on the might of the Romanian army.Octavian8 (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Octavan8, you got to read any History book to find out that the new Romanian borders are the outcome of WWI and not the Romanian-HSR war. The so called HSR war was, actually, a reckless attack from the communist state. Do you suggest that the allies would have let Romania alone if the Hungarians would have been successful? I believe you try to exaggerate the importance of this conflict for Romania. It was important for Hungary, yes, because it ended the communist episode but, from the point of view of the new borders, it was completely irrelevant. Regardless of that, the Hungary was to be disarmed and accept the new borders.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tziganul (talk • contribs) 10:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you understand English Tziganu? and if so do you understand what de facto means? I'm puzzled about how you've managed to come to the conclusion that I 'exaggerate the importance of this conflict to Romania', so I won't even bother to comment on that, but try to understand this, at the end of the war Romania controlled more territories than it got at Trianon, this means that it controlled territories INCLUDING those it would get. It did that before Trianon, so at the moment Trianon established the new borders de jure, Romania controlled them de facto, what's so difficult to understand this? What is false in saying that the war established the borders of Greater Romania de facto, as long as after this conflict the Romanians were in control of all the territories they get de jure later at Trianon.

Be so nice and stop putting words into my mouth, where did I say that the Allies would have left Romania alone if the Hungarians had been successful? In the article it is even written that the Allies were about to attack together with the Romanians, had the Hungarians not attacked the first, but you didn't bother to read it all as it seems. Also quit patronizing me, I think I've read enough history books -- perhaps more than you.

Finally pretty please quit butchering this article, if you have something to add, that is supported by references, then by all means do so, but stop arguing with me about semantics, at least until you master enough vocabulary.Octavian8 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Phase I

Transylvania into the Kingdom of Hungary

By saying that the Romanian army reached the border of the old Principality of Transylvania, I choose a neutral formulation. One can also argue that it was after 1 December so it was in Romania already. The formulation is here purely geographical and I tried to avoid any political influences. By adding the link, everybody can read and judge for himself whether that was the Kingdom of Hungary, Romania, the Roman, Bulgarian, or whatever empire. This way we talk here only about the Hu-Ro war of 1919. Octavian8 (talk) 11:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Involvment of Bolschevik Russia

I have noticed that an editor warked on this section. I find the info very intersting, but it regretfully lacks refernces and is also in need of some editing with respect to the quality of the English language used. Pleas corrrect these aspects. RegardsOctavian8 (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreement in April 1919

Some editor added a phrase about Romania breaking an agreement by going over the demarcation line of the Vyx note and supported this claim by a cryptic citation. First I believe this should be explained in more detail. What agreement did Romania break? Who was part in this agreement? If by this is meant that Romania went over the demarcation line proposed to the Hungarians in the Vyx note and again by Smuts, but refused by them, which in turn lead to the Romanian attack that opened phase II of the conflict, than this is a redundant edit -- in the previous paragraph is already mentioned that the Romanians decided to go over the Vyx demarcation line for military reasons -- and I will delete it.

I am inclined to do so with the citation as well, though I am reluctant, as any meaningful citation is more than welcome, and even if the comment proves to be redundant, the citations are not. The citation should have: author, name of the book, edition, publisher, date and pages. If this is just a collection of texts by several authors, than include name of the authors that are cited, name of the book, publisher, volume and page, date. From the named citation I understand actually two citations:

• F. d'Esperey, Archives diplomatiques. Europe, (publisher?), vol. 47, April 1919, pp. 86
• G. Clemenceau, Archives diplomatiques. Europe, (publisher?), vol. 47, April 1919, pp. 83--84.

Octavian8 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

After a bit of research, I found out myself what is with this agreement and where did the citations came from. It seems that the editor that added them (Biszo on 10.02.2009 at 21:20), was either an ignorant or had bad intentions and was trying to confuse the reader.

The citations are taken from a hungarian site, from an article, otherwise pretty well written by Maria Ormos (http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/tria/tria11.htm). There the citations are supposed to support the idea that there were some differences between D'Esperey and Clemanceau with respect to the Romanian intentions to attack in April. They should also underline the fact that the Allies expected the Romanians to stop at the armistice line proposed in the Vyx note and not to advance up to Tisza.

There is no mentioning of any agreement between the Hungarians and any other party with regard to the maximal advances of the Romanian Army in the West. Therefore, I will modify the article accordingly.Octavian8 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Editing the article

The principle behind Wikipedia is to contribute knowledge to all of us. Therefore, adding new insight is welcomed and by way of consequence so is editing the article in this respect. However, to get valuable edits may sometimes be quite difficult.

This Talk page is thought to exchange information and agree upon changes to the article such that only valuable edits really make it in the online version. The Talk page is structured to mirror the sections of the article such that it is as easy as possible to see if changing the online version really matters.

Below is a set of rules that I believe make sense for everybody who desires to contribute to this article. Please abide to them. I will revert any changes that do not follow these rules and I would like to ask all responsible editors of this article to do the same; although I will check regularly on this article, I can't be on the net 24/7. I hope we can all enjoy our hobby here :-). Best regards.Octavian8 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Phase II

Upper Hungary/Slovakia

The original title of the section was "The Hungarian attack in Czechoslovakia". An editor changed the title to "The Hungarian attack on Czechoslovaks in Upper Hungary" and also added some material in the section that I personally thought it was valuable. As nobody challenged the title and I thought it to be descriptive for the section, the title remained like this until now, when another editor (this time only with an IP address) replaced Upper Hungary with Slovakia.

I am aware that there are some delicate issues between Hungarians and Slovaks as there are also delicate issues between Hungarians and Romanians or Hungarians and Serbs. I believe that the solution in such cases is to simply stick to the facts. I propose, as a compromise solution, to return to the original title. In the end, Upper Hungary is mentioned like this in the section with a hint that it is currently in Slovakia.

Before changing the article anymore, please discuss first your issues here. Octavian8 (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The boundaries of the country were established in 1920 after the Treaty of Trianon. Therefore the HSR fought "de jure" in Upper Hungary, Kingdom of Hungary against the Czechoslovak forces. "The full boundaries of the country and the organization of its government was finally established in the Czechoslovak Constitution of 1920. Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk had been recognized by WWI Allies as the leader of the Provisional Czechoslovak Government, and in 1920 he was elected the country's first president. "Baxter9 (talk)

De facto, Czechoslovakia existed since 1918. De jure you can also say that the attack was in Austria-Hungary, also de jure HSR didn't exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.69.103.190 (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundant edits

I would like to ask those editing this article (particularly the user Baxter9) to quit making redundant edits. I have no problems with edits contributing to the article, as long as they are made at the proper place and are not redundant.

In the section 'Prelude', there is a link to the article Romania in WWI, therefore I fail to see how a recap of the beginning of the Romanian involvement in WWI ads something to this article. Also, within the article there is detailed data about the strength of the Hungarian Red Army troops facing the Romanians, to say that was a small fighting force is misleading, even if it may be true for the first weeks after the reds took power.

In the section 'The Hungarian attack on Czechoslovaks in Upper Hungary', col. Stromfeld is already mentioned as the military leader of the Hungarian Army and it is also made clear that the advances of the Hungarian army were impressive. It is pointless to underline this by repetition.

The aftermath of the Hungarian attack into Czechoslovakia is discussed for technical reasons in the section 'Phase III' (in the beginning). There are mentioned and discussed both the promises and the pressures the Council put on Kun. It is therefore pointless to state these facts in the end of section 'The Hungarian attack on Czechoslovaks in Upper Hungary'.

The date I have for the Hungarian-Czechoslovak armistice is 23rd of June, not the 1st of July, and it is accordingly mentioned. If someone has other sources saying something else, please, discuss them first here in the talk page. Once we reach an understanding, we can make changes accordingly. Octavian8 (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"On August 27, 1916, Romania declared war on Austria-Hungary. Confident of victory, Romanian troops crossed into Transylvania. Their campaign stalled, however, and German and Austro-Hungarian forces counterattacked, drove the Romanian army and thousands of refugees back over the Carpathian passes, deep into Romania and conquered the south of the country (Wallachia) by the end of 1916 and in December occupied Bucharest." Readded.

"In 1918, after the communists took power in Russia and signed a separate peace in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk with the Central Powers, Romania was left alone on the Entente's Eastern Front, a task that surpassed its possibilities by far. Therefore, it sued for peace, and reached an understanding with the Central Powers in May 1918 in the Treaty of Bucharest. Alexandru Marghiloman, signed the Treaty of Bucharest with the Central Powers on May 7, 1918. However, this treaty was never signed by King Ferdinand, and on 10 November 1918, taking advantage of the precarious situation of the Central Powers, Romania reentered the war on the side of the Entente with the same objectives as in 1916. King Ferdinand called for the mobilization of the Romanian army and ordered it to attack over the Carpathian mountains into Transylvania." If there is a link to the article Romania in WWIIs, why is this mentioned? Do we nedd this here? Yes, like the text what you removed. Baxter9 (talk) 23:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the Prelude is to give a snapshot of the situation in Romania and Hungary in 1918. The events you describe, that took place in the begining of the Romanian involvement in WWI, are per se not related to that. They are also incomplete, as you forget to mention the Bulgarians attacking Romania from the South and forcing the Romanians to take troops from the Transylvanian front to deal with them. To make the link to 1918, you would have then to mention also the later Romanian victories in Marasti, Marasesti and Oituz as well as the tensed realtions with the russian allies. Than to be consistent you would have to also make a short description of the events involving Austria-Hungary in WWI... This is NOT the place for such things. I'll revert this edit. Octavian8 (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Dear user:Bizso, dude, I thought you are nolonger interested in this article, so why vandalizing it? I understand your frustration, but perhaps it would be better to discharge it into sports rather than wasting my time and yours with these type of stupid jokes.Octavian8 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Movie reference

There is a scene at the end of the "Capitaine Conan" film where the Hungarian are trying to cross the Dniester defended by French troops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.142.126 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Rules for editing the article

To ensure a civilized and focused discussion that will contribute the article, I would like to add here a few rules:

1). Remain calm.

2). Keep a civilized tone.

3). Do NOT modify the article before reaching agreement among all editors here.

4). Try to have your modifications sustained by references.

5). Wait for at least one week after reaching agreement among several editors, before changing the on-line article (so as to give the others time to respond)

6). Read this Talk page before you start a new topic or make new edits to check if what you intent to do has not already been discussed.

7). Place your comments in the appropriate sections of the Talk page to allow a focused discussion.

Pleas feel free to add other sensible rules.Octavian8 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. See: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. This is even true for the "official" rules of Wikipedia, but those "rules" above are not even official ones. So don't worry about them and feel free to improve or maintain the article. Koertefa (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Which rule do you mean? If you mean the rule about NOT modifying the article before reaching agreement, this is a very sensible rule meant to avoid revert wars and you can be sure that I will enforce it. Should this prove to be impossible, I will ask for full protection for the page until a civilized discussion makes its way back on this Talk page.Octavian8 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You should not enforce any rule, especially if its your own creation. I see your set of "rules" as gaming the system, in order to maintain your control over the contents. This is unacceptable as well as threatening with full protection. I would like to remind you that nobody owns articles. Koertefa (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the face of revert wars and editors that cry good faith but do not act by it, I see this to be the sole solution. Look on my constructor page and compare the original version with this one to see that I am not against modifying the article, as long as it is made in a meaningful way. It mesmerizes me why you and your likes can't understand that in order to cooperate we need to agree, and modifying the article before agreement is not only very uncivilized but also leads to fight rather than cooperation. The Talk page is here precisely for this reason, to promote cooperation and thus improve Wikipedia. And about protection, I will ask it if this revert war continues.Octavian8 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer to User:Koertefa on renaming this section: In this section there are arguments pro and contra these rules, so it is a choice of rather poor logic to call the entire section "Against the rules". Furthermore, I believe your quarrel is only with the rule that stay against you editing the article at your will, or you have something against being polite, remaining calm, etc.? Therefore I will reinstate the original title of this section. Octavian8 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I only want to improve the article with making some statements more precise (so they cease being POVs). It is you who do not want to make any compromises. Editors do not need your permission before editing the article, your are abusing the concept of consensus. If somebody edits the article in a way that is unacceptable for you, then you should modify it in a minimal way such that it becomes acceptable for you, as well, instead of deleting the whole contribution and pointing to you own "rules for editing the article". I am absolutely not against reaching agreements and making consensuses, but I am against your total control over the article, namely, that you want to decide what can be included and what cannot. You do not own this article. Koertefa (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I will not compromise from rules that allow us to move forward on improving this article. The main thing about discussing edits on this page first, is that it allows us to avoid a revert war - that is waisted time for everybody. Furthermore not every edit is valuable, by discussing them first we make sure that only valuable edits that reach a consensus among editors are taken over in the online article. At this current moment you are desperately trying to impose your view on the article that I believe to be false. The solution is to discuss it here and making use of logic and argument to reach a compromise. A compromise includes accepting that ones opinion previous to the discussion was wrong! Again I have no problem with edits that are meaningful, compare the original version of the article with this one to convince yourself. I have a problem with people trying to butcher this article and so step over a lot of work and dedication invested here by me and other editors.Octavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your "rules" have only one purpose: to maintain your total control over the article. They actually prevent the article from improving. And who should decide which edits are "valuable"? You? Moreover, it is quite strange that you do not keep yourself to your own "rules": you did not reach an agreement here before you have inserted this [1]. I guess that: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"... Koertefa (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe these are the rules of any well-behaved person. For the last time, I agree to meaningful modification of the article, a comparison between this version and the original one shows this easily. With respect to me not keeping my rules, this is a rather poor exercise in 'rhetoric' from your part. I did not modify the text, just added a reference and a link. This should show you that I react to meaningful suggestions, Fakirbakir asked for a citation. Because the description of the group around Horthy leads to a categorization I accept this and provided the citation. I was unable to provide a citation for the Archduke Joseph, that's why I left the tag there. If no-one finds a citation I will modify the text to avoid categorization, e.g., to something like using faction instead of nationalistic group. However, this is becoming childish, if you try to criticize my actions is OK, trying to defame me in a cheap manner - remembering on a playground spat rather - is another thing. It may be that I will stop answering to you and report your actions as well.Octavian8 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can "agree to meaningful modification", then please, tell us your problem, for example, with the first sentence in the version that you keep deleting blindly. Why is it not "meaningful"? By the way: in order to make a consensus, first you should precisely identify your problem, which you clearly failed to do so, no matter how many times I keep asking you to tell us your exact problem with the modified variant. Your problem may just be that you did not approve that modification. Koertefa (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Before pointing the finger at me, why don't you apply your own logic to you? To be more precise: in order to make a consensus, first you should precisely identify your problem, which you clearly failed to do so, no matter how many times I keep asking you to tell us your exact problem with the original(my note) variant. Then I could easily continue,Your problem may just be that you did not approve the original version (my note).Octavian8 (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am adding a new rule, about posting comments in the respective sections to be able to keep the discussion focused.Octavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion among editors

Edits of user Octavian8/Baxter9

Mr. Octavian8 reverting edits which say that the Romanian army reached the border of Hungary and instead he added "the old border of the Transylvanian Proncipality".[2][3] At that time Transylvania was part of Hungary, the principality was dissolved in 1711 (as an independent country) and later in 1867. Accept this fact. Your edits (the old border and principality replying for a non existing country) are redundant, not accurate and misleading.

I try to say that the Romanian army advanced only up to the Western Carpathians, which is the border the old Principality of Transylvania shared with Hungary before 1867. In 1914, to talk only about the situation before WWI, the borders of Hungary were on the Eastern and Central Carpathians, and included Transylvania. I just removed 'then in the Kingdom of Hungary' and placed a link over the 'old Principality of Transylvania' pointing to the 'History of Transylvania' so that everybody can see that 'de jure' at that moment in time Transylvania was part of Hungary, even if 'de facto' the majority of the population in Transylvania spoke already for a union with Romania. What is redundant, inaccurate and misleading here? What edits are you talking about?Octavian8 (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The W. Carpathians did not constitute the border of the principality, because the Partium was also the part of it Dont try to hide the fact that the hungarins did not joined Romania.[4] The population of Transylvania in 1910 was 53.8% Romanian 31.6% Hungarian 10.7% German. Baxter9 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Even if we believe the 1910 census, that besides other flaws overemphasises the number of Hungarians over others in Transylvania, the Romanians form an absolute majority (>50%) and together with the Germans, that supported the unification with Romania they form almost (>64%) a two thirds majority. The W.Carpathians constituted in part the border of the old Principality of Transylvania. The South-West part of the border lies on the W. Carpathians.Octavian8 (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Octavian8/Koertefa

Dear Octavian8, please, stop editing my comments: do not move them to other sections, especially, to sections far away from the place I inserted them, since it puts them out of context. You have done this to my comment in which I state that I only agree on keeping (temporarily) your (biased) version of the text if we keep a "neutrality of the article is disputed" tag in the article while the discussion is not settled. You have hidden it to a section called "Tags". You do not only want to control the contents of the article, but also the contents of this talk page, which is unacceptable. Koertefa (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Koertefa, I am beginning to think you are a bit paranoid. The section headings are to focus and organize the discussion, not to hide your comments. If I wanted to censor you I would have deleted your comments completely. So post in the corresponding sections and I will not relocate your comments.Octavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S.: Now I think I begin to understand your problems with the Prelude, you consider that if the information about who voted for what is not in the Prelude, is hidden from the reader... no further commentOctavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It does not really matter if you understand it or not, the important is that the very first statement of the lead is imprecise and confusing according to several editors. There were several modifications of that sentence, in order to make it more precise (and I could agree with almost all variants except yours), but you simply keep deleting any other versions without explaining your problem with them. Isn't it strange? Can you pinpoint what is your problem, for example, with my version? Thanks. Koertefa (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Understanding is the first step towards cooperation, I think understanding is very important. With respect to the lead, I beg to differ. I think it is a very good abstract for the article. You, on the other side just try to modify the text such as to underline how 'alone' was Hungary then and how much it suffered... Do you try to awake pity and thus sympathy for Hungary and its lost cause among the readers? Remember that here everything is about facts and not bias.

How many times to repeat it to you, it is written on the top of this very page, so I don't understand what you don't understand... I will delete everything that is not first discussed and agreed here. Furthermore consider this as a last warning with respective to your disruptive edits, before requesting protection for this page. Do you want your modifications to remain in the online article, propose them here first, and when we agree on them they will go on the online version.Octavian8 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

And please, stop vandalizing the article by removing sources and stop moving my comments around, these actions of yours are not acceptable in Wikipedia. Koertefa (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

This is funny, YOU are acting as a vandal by trying to impose modifications instead of agreeing to them and you accuse me of vandalism... If someone vandalizes here, this is you.Octavian8 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Then, how do you call the repeated removal of several sources? Koertefa (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear user Koertefa:

• You constantly accuse me of owning the article, yet not once have discussed one of your edits before actually editing, which is everything that I ask of you.
• You make edits without reading the article (actually without knowing what you do) and then when you find out that the information you want to add is already there, you come up with strange accusations that I (and the rest of the editors contributing until now) try to 'hide' information in the article.
• You try to defame me by accusing me of inconsistence with the rules of editing the article, only because I have added one reference and a link to sustain the categorization of the group around Horthy as a far-right nationalistic.
• You consistently oppose cooperation. By your own admission you are not interested that I (or other editors) understand your actions, which would be the first step towards cooperation.

The logical conclusion is that you try to impose your own biased view on the events described in this article, going over the head of other editors (established or not). This is not the behavior of a Wikipedian. You have been warned. Octavian8 (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It is strange that you accused me of defaming you in the very same comment in which you tried to defame me by misinterpreting what I said. I was only referring to you (Octavian8), not others, and only in the context of the very first sentence of the lead when I said that it was not important if you still not understand the problem with it, since it was highlighted several times in the appropriate section of the Talk page. If my views are "biased", then you should point out your problems with them (instead of removing sourced claims recklessly), then we can discuss and (hopefully) reach an agreement. You do not even take the time of explaining your problems, you just delete everything that was not previously certified by you as a "meaningful contribution". Koertefa (talk) 06:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I have nothing to add to what I have already said, all your points have been already addressed by me in this section, or on this talk page. Octavian8 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war in autumn 2011 - protection request

Since the time I have written this article a few years ago, there had been several edit campaigns, that in the end benefited the article greatly (please compare the original version from my personal page with the current version). However, the edit campaign that started a few weeks ago has in the mean time transformed in a edit/revert war, where some editors started insulting me directly (see the message from user Norden1990 on my Talk page, as well as his comments concerning my person in the comment to some reverts he effectuated). In the beginning of the war, user Norden1990 rudely (without discussion or any hints on his action) renamed the article from "The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919" to "The Allied intervention in Hungary" and then to "1919 Hungarian-Romanian war", once I tried undoing his deeds. This is why there is a request (and discussion) for renaming the article as well - actually is a request for returning to the original name.

• While previous edit campaigns had to do with adding information, this one is mainly about semantics. I will try to summarize them shortly:
  • User Koertefa constantly adds references to who voted for what in the prelude, and when I pointed him that this information was already in the article, he accused me of hiding (sic) information in the article.
  • There is an obsession among editors Koertefa, Norden1990 and Fakirbakir with the looting of Hungary. In the article there was already mentioned that the Romanians took extensive booty from Hungary together with details about what was taken. They insist however on naming this looting - which I can understand - and of adding such important information as that the Romanians took the telephones from some administrative building in Budapest - which I can't understand. They also want contemporary images showing Romanian soldiers feeding the population of Budapest to be removed, seeing here only propaganda - in contrast to the story about the telephones.
  • The only edit that has the potential of benefiting the article is about the Serbian involvement. To my knowledge, the Serbians stayed out of the Hungarian - Romanian war because the French pressured them into it. If there are serious studies demonstrating the impact of the Serbian involvement in the Hungarian-Romanian war I would be thrilled to have a section dedicated to this topic in the article.
• Most important all these editors constantly edit the article without agreeing first on the text with other editors interested in the article, as for example me. Instead of talking and cooperating and agreeing on the talk page, they accuse me of owning the article and go along with the edits, but not once have they stopped to discuss the changes before committing them - because, I believe, they are convinced I will not agree, however, this is THEIR assumption, never have they bothered to try verifying it.
• I thought a few days ago we finally reached an understanding (after week-long discussions and various warnings), but I am off Wikipedia for a few days and all the edits are back again.
• I am committed to the idea of Wikipedia that means that in general only balanced articles on hot topics survive long enough to have an impact. I see this article as a good opportunity to ease this old Hungarian-Romanian feud by understanding each other. However while users like Baxter and Renard seem to share my thoughts, others like Norden1990 seem to be just extremists, bothered only with ensuring that their hatred and frustrations make it to the next generations.
• I can't be online 24/7 to guard the article and at the same time try to reason with editors that reject my efforts from the start.

Considering all these I have asked the article to be protected in the version before the edits of the last two weeks. Once either this happens or the edits stop, we can get back to talking. Until then I will respond to no posts anymore, and will concentrate on just holding the original (as before the revert war started) version of the article online. Octavian8 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself. User Octavian8 just simply ignores the sources. See: [5]Fakirbakir (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that the article has been protected, we can start Talking. See the corresponding sections on the Talk page.Octavian8 (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User Octavian8 just desperately tries to maintain his total control over the article. His rhetoric that we should start talking is a bluff, since there were continuous talks in parallel with the edits. In order to maintain his POV, he deletes every sourced contribution, often without pointing out his problem with them, hiding under statements such as "there was no consensus reached before the edit". His behavior and "rules" do not allow the improvement of the article. Koertefa (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I will not answer your accusations as I already did it on several occasions, even in my post above. However, I am starting to believe that your intention is not talking and cooperating to improve this article, as you have been offered countless times the opportunity to talk here (on the Talk page) and I have written numerous posts answering you. You just try to impose your distorted view of an historical event here and you get angry and frustrated because I won't let you ruin my and others work.Octavian8 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have, I am and I will continue to offer you the possibility to argue why you think the article needs improvement and where it should be improved here on this Talk page. This is the meaning of the Talk page, so that we can talk about modifications and agree upon them before committing them, but please come with something new, the looting issue is almost solved, and the prelude is very good as it is, without you making it POV. Now, this is the last time I am answering your baseless accusations about me owning the article. If you continue with this I will begin with stopping answering you and then will get to other steps as well if you don't understand it.Octavian8 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing Hungarian viewpoint

I think the Hungarian point of view is missing from this article. It demonstrates the Romanian viewpoint. It has to be fixed. I am going to improve page of Allied Intervention of Hungary (I proposed another name there 'Interventions in Hungary (1918-20)') and I would like to use that as a 'summary page'. User:Have mörser, will travel wrote me that he/she started to develop the page of Czech -Hungarian war of 1919.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

So besides naming war reparations looting (an issue that is being addressed right now) and mentioning that Serbia also invaded Hungarian territory (that by the way can be seen in the maps posted in the article, even if it is not mentioned in writing -- and I would even agree to mentioning it as it can be seen in the corresponding section on this Talk page), what else is the Hungarian viewpoint that is missing? Octavian8 (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge and move proposals

Merge proposal in 2010

The subject seems pretty much the same as Hungarian Revolutionary War. This is confirmed when you compare the various interwikis in each article. JJ Georges (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the Hungarian Revolutionary War should simply be replaced by a link to this article. All theses under scrutiny in there are discussed in a far more balanced manner in this article as well.Octavian8 (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Just thinking : since the article also addresses the war with Czechoslovakia, maybe it could have a broader title than just Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919. Does anybody have an idea ? What about just Hungarian War of 1919 ? JJ Georges (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I would rather suggest that the conflict with Czechoslovakia gets its own article, where it is discussed in more detail than the subsection here. Then we can have a page named "Hungarian Border Wars" or something like that where to give a short overview and link the two respective articles. This article is pretty much dedicated to the Romania-Hungarian War. As I said it covers in more detail the events that the article Hungarian Revolutionary War, but the war with Czechoslovakia is briefly mentioned here only for completeness purposes. Again, I think it deserves an own article.Octavian8 (talk) 13:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

"we can have a page named "Hungarian Border Wars" or something like that" - I held the opinion that any such page must have an historiographical established name. Otherwise we'll end up with a plethora of such spuriously named articles (e.g. the previously deleted fictious Eastern Hungarian Kingdom). Just my tow cents. Cheers! ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

"Hungarian Border wars" with Hungary vs Czecholsovakia AND Hungary vs Romania as subsections is a good idea, but I agree that a historically established name should be used. But the point is, IS there only an established name in english ? JJ Georges (talk) 13:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if there is such a thing as an established english name for this. Perhaps some hungarian editors may help here.Octavian8 (talk) 14:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe something like War in Hungary (1919) (but on the other hand, the war also took place in Slovakia) or Hungaria War (1919) ?? Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See also Talk:Allied_Intervention_in_Hungary. Octavian8 (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the article in 2011

Moving the article without prior consultations with established editors is rude and counterproductive. Please refrain from doing this. Otherwise I will ask this article to be protected until disputes are settled.Octavian8 (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving the article to '1919 Allied intervention in Hungary

This is a nonsense and it has already been discussed in the section 'Belligerents' mainly. I will just summarize here: this article is about the Hungarian-Romanian conflict. Other conflict involving/pertaining to bolshevik Hungary should have their own articles. They are just briefly mentioned here only to the extent they have influenced the Hungarian-Romanian conflict. Furthermore the term 'Allied intervention' is misleading as the influence of Entente members other than Romania was minimal at best.Octavian8 (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The expression of 'Allied intervention' is proven by reliable sources.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

There was no such thing as an allied intervention in Hungary. Romania and Czechoslovakia were not allied. Considering that just because Romania was a member of the Entente, this amounts to an Entente intervention in Hungary is preposterous.Octavian8 (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Czechoslovak legions were officially part of the Triple Entente in 1918. Please stop your POV-s.[6]Fakirbakir (talk) 16:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Czechoslovak Legions were not the Czechoslovak state and part of them were at the time of the bolshevik Hungary wars in Russia. Furthermore, the source sustains that by this Balfour declaration (that I can't find in original text -- actually there seem to be a lot of Balfour declarations see Balfour Declaration of 1917) the legions were recognized as 'an official part of the Triple Entente (military) forces'. So, even this source does not sustain that Czechoslovakia was part of the Entente. It is also not clear which soldiers from those legions declared as part of Entente's military forces were involved in the fighting against bolshevik Hungary. So sorry, but to say that the Entente intervened in Hungary only because some Czechoslovak units (of which strength) that is not clear that were involved into the fighting against Hungary were considered by the British in some 'Balfour Declaration' as 'official part of the Triple Entente forces' - whatever this should be meaning - is still preposterous. P.S.:see also Talk:Allied_Intervention_in_HungaryOctavian8 (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Following such a line of thought, that considers Czechoslovakia part of the Entente only because some Czechoslovak troops fought as part of the Entente military forces leads to such absurdities like saying that Russia was a member of the Axis in 1944/1945, because Vlasov's army was part of the Axis armed forces.Octavian8 (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The title Allied intervention in Hungary is an absurdity in itself... (from section Integrating article - as main matter)Octavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Absurdity in itself". Sorry, but it is just your personal opinion. Bolshevik Hungary covers only 100 days. We talk about military movements in 1919-20. It is much bigger period.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had this, as long as there was no alliance among those fighting Hungary at that time you can't talk about an Allied intervention! Well, you will have to be more precise here, our entire discussion is about conflicts involving Hungary in 1919, where the 'hot' armed phase of the conflict took place during the time the bolsheviks had power in Hungary. I don't understand what military movements in 1920 are you talking about other than the retreat of the Romanian occupation troops.Octavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919 → Hungarian War of 1919 – Relisted Alpha Quadrant ^talk 18:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The name of the article is incorrect in my opinion. The Hungarian Revolutionary War is redirected here. The page has to deal with both "Hungarian-Czechoslovak war" and "Hungarian-Romanian war". The new name is an established English name.[7]Fakirbakir (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

1919 Hungarian–Romanian War → Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919 – This was the original name of the article until a few hours ago when user Norden1990 moved the page without establishing any consensus on the Talk page and without going by the rules of editing the article. These rules were clearly mentioned in the Talk section of the article. Octavian8 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

(There were two simultaneous move requests, which I have merged. Participants, please make clear what title you are supporting for the article.) Ucucha (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919 was the original name until yesterday when some user (Norden1990) moved it in a rude manner, without bothering to start a discussion on the Talk page. I think we should first relocate the article to its old name and then discuss about a new one.Octavian8 (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing one occurrence in one book to say your proposed title is widely used the is a very flimsy argument. Happens a lot on Wikipedia though. I'll look into the usage myself though before making further comments. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Strong oppose. In fact there is exactly one book that uses it. [8]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:07, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Renaming to Hungarian War of 1919

• For: I vote for changing the tile to "Hungarian War of 1919" after which its contents should be refined, for example, with more information on the Czechoslovakian aspect of the war and on the involvement of Serbia and France. Koertefa (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Against: I vote against, I believe that the war with Czechoslovakia is important enough to have its own article (the involvement of France is small enough to get short overview; to this extent is already covered here). This would also make understanding the whole topic easier than a mammoth article with everything in it.Octavian8 (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: I am sorry for the drastic step, but I may have called so only the attention for the incorrectness of the title. I think cannot be separated the 1919 events in Hungary because those happened at the same time (Romanian, Czechoslovakian attack, French intervention etc.) and are linked to each other. Furthermore where is the Bandholtz chapter? He prevented with his riding-whip the Romanian soldiers from looting the Transylvanian collection of the Hungarian National Museum on 5 October 1919. In my opinion we should added this symbolic event into the article's "Aftermath" section as well as the other plunderings, robberies by Romanians. There is a statue of General Bandholtz in front of the US Embassy in Budapest. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The "Bandholtz" story lacks sufficient reliable sources ("yet the information has not been corroborated by any other source"). The major himself did not mentioned this story in his autobiography. I don't think there would be a problem mentioning the story if it can be backed by reliable, independent, Western sources. The extensive looting of the Romanian army is already mentioned in the Aftermath section. --Mircea87 (talk) 09:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It is out of the scope to start mentioning here all individual deeds of various participants to the events. However, feel free to make a separate article on this topic if you think is that important. Furthermore I don't understand why should the title be incorrect. It states that the article is dealing only with the Hungarian-Romania war and not with the rest of the conflicts Hungary was involved then, and it does just this.Octavian8 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Against: Oppose to Hungarian War of 1919 It is an unutilised term A single source uses it: [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by ??? (talk • contribs)

• Strong oppose. In fact there is exactly one book that uses it. [10]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Keeping the original title The Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919

• Against: As I proposed above, the original name of the page is incorrect.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• For: This article deals primarily with the hostilities between the Kingdom of Romania and the Hungarian Soviet Republic during 1919. For other topics of interest during that period, there should be other proper articles. This article cannot incorporate all aspects. Mr. Norden1990, please stop with the nonsense accusations such as "On the other hand this article is a typical product of Romanian chauvinism". Assume good faith. You've already renamed the article twice before a consensus was reached. --Mircea87 (talk) 22:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Please, read the merge proposal section. They decided to merge other articles, subjects with this theme. After that they wanted a renaming process as well.Fakirbakir (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Against: As Fakirbakir pointed out, separating the Hungarian-Romanian conflict from the other struggles of Hungary after WWI is unfortunate. The Hungarian army fought against troops from Czechoslovakia, as well, and Serbian forces also violated the demarcation line [11]. Moreover, France was highly involved, too [12], though mostly by putting diplomatic pressure on Béla Kun and his government. These issues are very strongly related, so treating them separately is not preferable. Even if this separate Hungarian-Romanian war article remains, the involvement of other countries should be clearly stated in the lead. Koertefa (talk) 09:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

...the involvement of other countries should be clearly stated in the lead. You must be joking, if you read the contents of the article that are on the top of the page you see that the conflict with Czechoslovakia is mentioned (but only to the extent it influenced the Hungarian-Romanian war)! If you know much about the Hungarian-Czechoslovakian conflict, then write an article about it and let us know also, perhaps we can contribute as well.Octavian8 (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I was not joking, I am going to add a sentence about that in the lead. Koertefa (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

And I am going to revert this, as I am going to revert all changes made before agreeing here first.Octavian8 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• For: A separate article should be developed for the Hungarian situation in 1919. This article does not claim to represent the whole situation of the post-war Hungarian state, merely the Hungarian-Romanian hostilities. The new article should have separate chapters with the civil war, Hungarian-Czechoslovak war, Hungarian-Romanian war, Allied intervention and so on. In my view, the Hungarian-Romanian war chapter should redirect here (with a brief description). --Mircea87 (talk) 11:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need a new article? We already have Hungarian Soviet Republic... (SamiraJ (talk) 11:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC))

That article doesn't cover the whole post WWI crisis of Hungary, it's only a part of it. Koertefa (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Then why changing this article that doesn't even claim to cover the entire crisis, but only the Hungarian-Romanian conflict? Octavian8 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• For: Dear users that support a renaming/merging of this article, please read this Talk page where you are posting and see that a discussion in this sense has already taken place. The sole difference being that no one was that rude then as to rename any article before reaching agreement here (as user Norden1990 just did yesterday). AGAIN: This article covers only the Hungarian-Romanian conflict in detail! Other conflicts involving bolshevik Hungary or the Soviet Union are mentioned only to the extent (i.e., small) they have influenced the Hungarian-Romanian war. I believe that rather than merging this article that is in itself well contained, we should write new ones covering the other conflicts bolshevik Hungary was involved into and either make a category with wars involving bolshevik Hungary or make a short integrating article with references to the other ones, or, as SamiraJ pointed it out make the references in the Hungarian Soviet Republic article (where by the way this article is already referenced).Octavian8 (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Against: I think there is a misunderstanding. Again. The Hungarian Revolutionary War is redirected here. Everybody agreed with this in the past. We need to rename the article in this case because it seems this article is main page of the Hungarian war of 1919. It is simple.

OR we should not treat this article as 'main page' or 'summary' page in reference to theme of Hungarian war of 1919. We should delete the redundant parts of the article and concentrate to the Hungarian-Romanian related plots. The page of Hungarian Revolutionary War should have to exist as main article in connection with Hungarian war of 1919, because of the French, Czech, Slovak etc. connections.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

OR we should leave this article the way it is, discussing only about the Hungarian-Romanian war, and write separate articles for the wars bolshevik Hungary conducted against Czechoslovakia and -- if someone can gather enough material -- for the (almost non-existent) Serb and respectively French involvement. Octavian8 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• For: It is a non-sense to rename this article, which obviously treats exclusively the Hungarian-Romanian War, just because Hungarian Revolutionary War is redirected here. Why don't you redirect Hungarian Revolutionary War to Hungarian Soviet Republic instead? On the other side, the term Hungarian Revolutionary War is ambiguous. As far as I see, it is used especially in relation with 1848 events: [13] (SamiraJ (talk) 07:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

The main problem is not the redirection, but the issue that the parallel conflicts of Hungary and Romania / Czechoslovakia / Serbia / France should not be treated separately, since all of them had strong influences on each other. For example, the current lead of the article intimates that the Hungarian-Romanian part of the conflict was an independent event, but it was not. Koertefa (talk) 07:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The relation between these parallel conflicts should be presented in the article Hungarian Soviet Republic

On the other hand, please provide a source for this affirmation: "Serbian forces also violated the demarcation lines" (SamiraJ (talk) 08:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

I already did in my comment in this section, but here it is: [14] Koertefa (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Koertefa. He proved his point.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How important was this involvement? How many divisions were involved? What about casualties? If you have all this, then write a new article about it.Octavian8 (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: According to this section [15] Hungary attacked Czechoslovakia, not vice-versa. In addition I can't find any source that describes in detail a Yugoslav(Serb) - Hungarian military conflict in 1919

I've also redirected Hungarian Revolutionary War to Hungarian Revolution of 1848, as all the sources use the term to describe the 1848 events(SamiraJ (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC))

This redirection is unjustified. There were 1, a social democratic revolution in 1918 2, and another 'counter' revolution (in 1919) in Hungary. You mix the 20th and 19th centuries. Maybe the title is wrong, but the content is about 1919...Fakirbakir (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. I don't know if the is the best title, but it's unambiguous and certainly "Romanian-Hungarian War" [16] [17] appears more often in books than the alternative proposed in the section above. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

• • By the way, "Hungarian-Romanian War" has about the same number hits, [18] so I suppose there's no point in just reversing the order of the countries names. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion

I think the discussion has stalled. The conclusion is that there will be several articles covering the events in Hungary in 1919-1920. The Hungarian-Romanian war was just one such event. I would like to ask an admin. to reinstate the old title of the article.Octavian8 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the merge tag as it's clearly not something likely to gain consensus. See [19]. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have removed it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Integrating article - as main matter

Two editors (Koertefa and Fakirbakir) desperately try to introduce an article named Allied Intervention in Hungary (a title that is an absurdity in itself, see also the Talk page of that article and the comments from above - section Moving the article to '1919 Allied intervention in Hungary) as the main matter of this article. I could accept an article discussing the wars of bolshevik Hungary as an integrating article dedicated to the military operations involving the Hungarian red army (rather than the more general article about the Hungarian Soviet Republic), however, I fail to see how could that article be the main matter for this one. Actually this article should be the main matter of the section on the Hungarian-Romanian conflict of the named integrating article. Otherwise we interpret the word main in two completely different ways and I would be curious to learn the other interpretation. I have no problem linking that article here in the section "See also". Octavian8 (talk) 11:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

"Absurdity in itself". Sorry, but it is just your personal opinion. Bolshevik Hungary covers only 100 days. We talk about military movements in 1919-20. It is much bigger period.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I thought we had this, as long as there was no alliance among those fighting Hungary at that time you can't talk about an Allied intervention! Well, you will have to be more precise here, our entire discussion is about conflicts involving Hungary in 1919, where the 'hot' armed phase of the conflict took place during the time the bolsheviks had power in Hungary. I don't understand what military movements in 1920 are you talking about other than the retreat of the Romanian occupation troops. However, please comment on the main matter issue here and issues about what you call Allied intervention in Hungary in the corresponding section. Octavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

"Bolshevik Hungary covers only 100 days". And its wars lasted just as long. Go figure! Have mörser, will travel (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Even if we only consider the Hungarian-Romanian part of the conflict, its 3 phases took place between November 1918 and August 1919, while the Romanian troops only left in March 1920. According to my calculations, it is more than 100 days... Koertefa (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing the article

The principle behind Wikipedia is to contribute knowledge to all of us. Therefore, adding new insight is welcomed and by way of consequence so is editing the article in this respect. However, to get valuable edits may sometimes be quite difficult.

This Talk page is thought to exchange information and agree upon changes to the article such that only valuable edits really make it in the online version. The Talk page is structured to mirror the sections of the article such that it is as easy as possible to see if changing the online version really matters.

Below is a set of rules that I believe make sense for everybody who desires to contribute to this article. Please abide to them. I will revert any changes that do not follow these rules and I would like to ask all responsible editors of this article to do the same; although I will check regularly on this article, I can't be on the net 24/7. I hope we can all enjoy our hobby here :-). Best regards.Octavian8 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Rules for editing the article

To ensure a civilized and focused discussion that will contribute the article, I would like to add here a few rules:

1). Remain calm.

2). Keep a civilized tone.

3). Do NOT modify the article before reaching agreement among all editors here.

4). Try to have your modifications sustained by references.

5). Wait for at least one week after reaching agreement among several editors, before changing the on-line article (so as to give the others time to respond).

6). Read this Talk page (including the Archives) before you start a new topic or make new edits to check if what you intent to do has not already been discussed.

7). Place your comments in the appropriate sections of the Talk page (i.e., mirroring the articles' sections) to allow a focused discussion.

Pleas feel free to add other sensible rules.Octavian8 (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. See: Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules. This is even true for the "official" rules of Wikipedia, but those "rules" above are not even official ones. So don't worry about them and feel free to improve or maintain the article. Koertefa (talk) 08:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Which rule do you mean? If you mean the rule about NOT modifying the article before reaching agreement, this is a very sensible rule meant to avoid revert wars and you can be sure that I will enforce it. Should this prove to be impossible, I will ask for full protection for the page until a civilized discussion makes its way back on this Talk page.Octavian8 (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You should not enforce any rule, especially if its your own creation. I see your set of "rules" as gaming the system, in order to maintain your control over the contents. This is unacceptable as well as threatening with full protection. I would like to remind you that nobody owns articles. Koertefa (talk) 07:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

In the face of revert wars and editors that cry good faith but do not act by it, I see this to be the sole solution. Look on my constructor page and compare the original version with this one to see that I am not against modifying the article, as long as it is made in a meaningful way. It mesmerizes me why you and your likes can't understand that in order to cooperate we need to agree, and modifying the article before agreement is not only very uncivilized but also leads to fight rather than cooperation. The Talk page is here precisely for this reason, to promote cooperation and thus improve Wikipedia. And about protection, I will ask it if this revert war continues.Octavian8 (talk) 15:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Answer to User:Koertefa on renaming this section: In this section there are arguments pro and contra these rules, so it is a choice of rather poor logic to call the entire section "Against the rules". Furthermore, I believe your quarrel is only with the rule that stay against you editing the article at your will, or you have something against being polite, remaining calm, etc.? Therefore I will reinstate the original title of this section. Octavian8 (talk) 11:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I only want to improve the article with making some statements more precise (so they cease being POVs). It is you who do not want to make any compromises. Editors do not need your permission before editing the article, your are abusing the concept of consensus. If somebody edits the article in a way that is unacceptable for you, then you should modify it in a minimal way such that it becomes acceptable for you, as well, instead of deleting the whole contribution and pointing to you own "rules for editing the article". I am absolutely not against reaching agreements and making consensuses, but I am against your total control over the article, namely, that you want to decide what can be included and what cannot. You do not own this article. Koertefa (talk) 05:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I will not compromise from rules that allow us to move forward on improving this article. The main thing about discussing edits on this page first, is that it allows us to avoid a revert war - that is waisted time for everybody. Furthermore not every edit is valuable, by discussing them first we make sure that only valuable edits that reach a consensus among editors are taken over in the online article. At this current moment you are desperately trying to impose your view on the article that I believe to be false. The solution is to discuss it here and making use of logic and argument to reach a compromise. A compromise includes accepting that ones opinion previous to the discussion was wrong! Again I have no problem with edits that are meaningful, compare the original version of the article with this one to convince yourself. I have a problem with people trying to butcher this article and so step over a lot of work and dedication invested here by me and other editors.Octavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Your "rules" have only one purpose: to maintain your total control over the article. They actually prevent the article from improving. And who should decide which edits are "valuable"? You? Moreover, it is quite strange that you do not keep yourself to your own "rules": you did not reach an agreement here before you have inserted this [20]. I guess that: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"... Koertefa (talk) 11:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe these are the rules of any well-behaved person. For the last time, I agree to meaningful modification of the article, a comparison between this version and the original one shows this easily. With respect to me not keeping my rules, this is a rather poor exercise in 'rhetoric' from your part. I did not modify the text, just added a reference and a link. This should show you that I react to meaningful suggestions, Fakirbakir asked for a citation. Because the description of the group around Horthy leads to a categorization I accept this and provided the citation. I was unable to provide a citation for the Archduke Joseph, that's why I left the tag there. If no-one finds a citation I will modify the text to avoid categorization, e.g., to something like using faction instead of nationalistic group. However, this is becoming childish, if you try to criticize my actions is OK, trying to defame me in a cheap manner - remembering on a playground spat rather - is another thing. It may be that I will stop answering to you and report your actions as well.Octavian8 (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If you can "agree to meaningful modification", then please, tell us your problem, for example, with the first sentence in the version that you keep deleting blindly. Why is it not "meaningful"? By the way: in order to make a consensus, first you should precisely identify your problem, which you clearly failed to do so, no matter how many times I keep asking you to tell us your exact problem with the modified variant. Your problem may just be that you did not approve that modification. Koertefa (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Before pointing the finger at me, why don't you apply your own logic to you? To be more precise: in order to make a consensus, first you should precisely identify your problem, which you clearly failed to do so, no matter how many times I keep asking you to tell us your exact problem with the original(my note) variant. Then I could easily continue,Your problem may just be that you did not approve the original version (my note).Octavian8 (talk) 08:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I am adding a new rule, about posting comments in the respective sections to be able to keep the discussion focused.Octavian8 (talk) 14:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war in autumn 2011 - protection request

Since the time I have written this article a few years ago, there had been several edit campaigns, that in the end benefited the article greatly (please compare the original version from my personal page with the current version). However, the edit campaign that started a few weeks ago has in the mean time transformed in a edit/revert war, where some editors started insulting me directly (see the message from user Norden1990 on my Talk page, as well as his comments concerning my person in the comment to some reverts he effectuated). In the beginning of the war, user Norden1990 rudely (without discussion or any hints on his action) renamed the article from "The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919" to "The Allied intervention in Hungary" and then to "1919 Hungarian-Romanian war", once I tried undoing his deeds. This is why there is a request (and discussion) for renaming the article as well - actually is a request for returning to the original name.

• While previous edit campaigns had to do with adding information, this one is mainly about semantics. I will try to summarize them shortly:
  • User Koertefa constantly adds references to who voted for what in the prelude, and when I pointed him that this information was already in the article, he accused me of hiding (sic) information in the article.
  • There is an obsession among editors Koertefa, Norden1990 and Fakirbakir with the looting of Hungary. In the article there was already mentioned that the Romanians took extensive booty from Hungary together with details about what was taken. They insist however on naming this looting - which I can understand - and of adding such important information as that the Romanians took the telephones from some administrative building in Budapest - which I can't understand. They also want contemporary images showing Romanian soldiers feeding the population of Budapest to be removed, seeing here only propaganda - in contrast to the story about the telephones.
  • The only edit that has the potential of benefiting the article is about the Serbian involvement. To my knowledge, the Serbians stayed out of the Hungarian - Romanian war because the French pressured them into it. If there are serious studies demonstrating the impact of the Serbian involvement in the Hungarian-Romanian war I would be thrilled to have a section dedicated to this topic in the article.
• Most important all these editors constantly edit the article without agreeing first on the text with other editors interested in the article, as for example me. Instead of talking and cooperating and agreeing on the talk page, they accuse me of owning the article and go along with the edits, but not once have they stopped to discuss the changes before committing them - because, I believe, they are convinced I will not agree, however, this is THEIR assumption, never have they bothered to try verifying it.
• I thought a few days ago we finally reached an understanding (after week-long discussions and various warnings), but I am off Wikipedia for a few days and all the edits are back again.
• I am committed to the idea of Wikipedia that means that in general only balanced articles on hot topics survive long enough to have an impact. I see this article as a good opportunity to ease this old Hungarian-Romanian feud by understanding each other. However while users like Baxter and Renard seem to share my thoughts, others like Norden1990 seem to be just extremists, bothered only with ensuring that their hatred and frustrations make it to the next generations.
• I can't be online 24/7 to guard the article and at the same time try to reason with editors that reject my efforts from the start.

Considering all these I have asked the article to be protected in the version before the edits of the last two weeks. Once either this happens or the edits stop, we can get back to talking. Until then I will respond to no posts anymore, and will concentrate on just holding the original (as before the revert war started) version of the article online. Octavian8 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to repeat myself. User Octavian8 just simply ignores the sources. See: [21]Fakirbakir (talk) 19:39, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Now that the article has been protected, we can start Talking. See the corresponding sections on the Talk page.Octavian8 (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

User Octavian8 just desperately tries to maintain his total control over the article. His rhetoric that we should start talking is a bluff, since there were continuous talks in parallel with the edits. In order to maintain his POV, he deletes every sourced contribution, often without pointing out his problem with them, hiding under statements such as "there was no consensus reached before the edit". His behavior and "rules" do not allow the improvement of the article. Koertefa (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I will not answer your accusations as I already did it on several occasions, even in my post above. However, I am starting to believe that your intention is not talking and cooperating to improve this article, as you have been offered countless times the opportunity to talk here (on the Talk page) and I have written numerous posts answering you. You just try to impose your distorted view of an historical event here and you get angry and frustrated because I won't let you ruin my and others work.Octavian8 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I have, I am and I will continue to offer you the possibility to argue why you think the article needs improvement and where it should be improved here on this Talk page. This is the meaning of the Talk page, so that we can talk about modifications and agree upon them before committing them, but please come with something new, the looting issue is almost solved, and the prelude is very good as it is, without you making it POV. Now, this is the last time I am answering your baseless accusations about me owning the article. If you continue with this I will begin with stopping answering you and then will get to other steps as well if you don't understand it.Octavian8 (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Tags

Before you tag the article, please have the decency to discuss your issues here. Octavian8 (talk) 12:47, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased

The Romanian POV just strikes out from this article and its tone is extremely slanted towards "Romanian interpretations". What's more, it contains tons of weasel words, biased assertions with no supporting inline citations whatsoever. It cannot be considered neutral, by no means; which is a pre-requisite for all articles on Wikipedia. Also, it is almost entirely devoid of the Hungarian coverage of events, although this has been improved a tiny bit recently by other editors. It would appear that it will take several years and thousands of edits to balance out all the defects.
It could rather be submitted for an essay competition, though...(perhaps in Romania)
--Bizso (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your past interest in my article, however in the future if you want to have a civil discussion, please refrain from using aggressive formulations. If you think that the article is biased - which I don't think, but I understand some Hungarians thinking like this - start pointing out precisely where do you see this bias, then we can talk about this. This is far better than throwing around with general allegations and attempting to degrade the article -- btw. you call it essay, I call it history.

Perhaps you didn't know, but literature on the subject is very scarce in Romanian and almost inexistent in English. At least for the Romanian side this can be explained by the fact that between 1945 and 1989 Romania, as well as Hungary were brotherly communist states, hence discussing the subject of a Romanian army overthrowing an incipient communist regime in Hungary was very delicate and not touched. For the English reader, this subject didn't even existed before 1989 and regretfully, one can say it continues to do so after. The article I've written is an attempt to change this.

I am very interested to see a 'Hungarian coverage of events', because the way you put it, this seems to be completely contradictory to what I have written, or perhaps is just you being risen to think like this... The article cannot be considered neutral by you and you can be easily disregarded considering the number of English readers on this Earth. This being said, if you want to stop throwing with frustration at me or this article and want to help improving it so that it fits also your views, you are more than welcome, just bare in mind that is not only your opinion that counts and you are by no means a judge of impartiality.

Finally, thank you for your suggestion about the essay competition, I thought about this and found your idea pretty foolish. If in reality you didn't meant it like this and just tried to be sarcastic, I do not appreciate this type of sarcasm, and it may well be that I'll stop waisting my time with you and simply ignore you.Octavian8 (talk) 13:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• de-weaseling should be very easy
• inline citations can be obtained by adding tags after particular sentences
• the article is about a war. it should be possible to talk at length about it without ever giving interpretations.
• WP is well known for achieving in days and a dosen edits what originally might seem years and thousand of edits.

I am not really an editor of this article. In fact, it has been quite a while since I last read it. I took just now a sub-section at random, and did some minor copyedit. But I did not find any serious issues in that subsection. Do you see that subsection as problematic as well? Dc76\^talk 22:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I'm sorry, actually I wrote a page to describe the very obvious Romanian POV and very unbalanced tone, use of words, of this "essay". I also gave some examples that this "essay" is factually wrong at many points. This can be submitted for 9th grade history class at high school...

But I realized that I could argue about this over days with you, and I'm just wasting my life with this. So do whatever you want. See Ya. --Bizso (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dude, you've just proven my fears right :(.Octavian8 (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed

This is about the tag placed in September 2011 bu user Koertefa. Dear Koertefa, first read the beginning of this section. Second, this is the place to start a discussion about tags, not the section on the Rules, so I've took the liberty of placing your comment here.Octavian8 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I only agree on keeping (temporarily) your (biased) version of the text until we reach an agreement if we warn the readers about these discussions with the neutrality of the article is disputed template as long as we do not reach agreement in all of the disputed claims... Koertefa (talk) 10:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I am happy you agree on something but against my best intentions, I fail to see your problem. I said before in the section Transylvania or Romanian Transylvanians I don't see your standpoint that I should approach. You put a neutrality disputed tag only because the information you are looking for is not in the prelude, but in the Section Phase I? This is a bit odd, don't you think? I will remove the tag until you come with something worth having a tag. Furthermore you have a problem with the entire article or with some precise section? Please specify what is your problem.Octavian8 (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I quite clearly stated what is a POV in the lead, so please do not remove the tag until we reach an agreement. And there are several other POVs that we should also discuss, for example, the role of the Transylvanian Saxons or the lack of mentioning of the Romanian looting or the lack of mentioning the parallel fights/conflicts of post WWI Hungary in the lead, etc. Koertefa (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not put tags unless they are justified. As mentioned several times by me, the article covers who voted for what in the correct section from a chronological perspective. Try to understand this!

• It is meaningless to state in the Prelude/Lead who voted for what (see also section Prelude of this Talk page!!). In the Prelude, there is a link to an article called Union of Transylvania with Romania dedicated to this topic. If you want to discuss about the role of the Saxons, do it there.
• If by looting you mean the booty taken by the victorious Romanians and the harsh terms of the armistice the defeated Hungary had to accept, this is covered in two sections. The war booty in the sense of captured military equipment is discussed at the end of Phase III. The economical booty, is discussed in the section Aftermath. Again the Prelude is not the place to discuss booty/looting.
• What parallel fights are you talking about. There were parallel conflicts, yes, but the Hungarian red army never fought on two fronts at the same time. The lead is a short snapshot of the article, the conflict with Czechoslovakia is discussed - as much as needed in the context of the Hungarian-Romanian war - in the corresponding section. The pressure put by the Entente on both warring parties is mentioned several times throughout the article in the proper chronological order.

Just read the article before commenting. And REMEMBER, the fact that these are not mentioned in the Prelude/Lead does NOT mean that we try to cover it by hiding them in the article (as you mentioned in one of your posts - see Section Discussion among editors). It is just that a well structured - and thus easy to understand - article has to sections and subsection to tell the story and does not have to tell everything in the lead other than the big picture.Octavian8 (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, you will never admit the POV nature of some of your own sentences. If a consensus would be needed before putting a POV template to an article, then no article ever had that template.... Koertefa (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Please specify which sentences do you mean. P.S. see section Prelude for the discussion pertaining to the lead - please post in the appropriate sections in the futureOctavian8 (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

The discussion here stalled since more than two weeks. I will leave the tag for a few more days then I will remove it if no new post appears in this section. Octavian8 (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The tag should not be removed, yet. The discussion is stalled only in this section, but it continues in others, for example, about looting. Therefore, I still dispute the neutrality of the current article, but I hope we will reach consensuses with respect to the lead, the introduction and the aftermath, and the result will be an improved, more neutral article. Koertefa (talk) 04:15, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag

If nobody explains precisely what is unbalanced in the article, I will remove the tag. If you think the article is unbalanced, please point out the sections you are concerned about, and describe here, in the talk page, ways in which you think this could be improved.Octavian8 (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, but please allow some time for people to bring issues up. Don't remeove the tags tomorrow. Allow at least a week or two. At least. Another thing I would like to mention with tagging articles: Unless the issues do refer to the entire article, it is much better to tag particular sections. That helps improving the parts that need improvement. Sometimes, there are excellent sections next to poor ones. Dc76\^talk 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed.Octavian8 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is, however, still full of Romanian nationalist propaganda. 72.83.171.2 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

To say that Bessarabia is an old Romanian land is not propaganda, is just history. Bessarabia was part of Moldavia since its foundation. Moldavia is one of the precursor states of Romania. Hence, to say Bessarabia is an old Romanian land is similar to say Oltenia - as part of Wallachia - is an old Romanian land.Octavian8 (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

I will remove this tag if nobody explains precisely, with respect to this article, what cleanup should be done.Octavian8 (talk) 21:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed.Octavian8 (talk) 13:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

References tags

The references tags with regard to additional references and references in third party publications are covered by the infobox about English sources. Therefore, I've removed these tags as well.Octavian8 (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

A selection of most Wikipedia tags (courtesy of IP 143.167.xxx.xxx)

---

{{Peacock}}

Y

{{unbalanced}}

Y

{{Too few opinions}}

Y

{{Essay-like}}

Y

{{Weasel}}

Y

{{histinfo}}

Y

{{Disputed}}

Y

{{misleading}}

Y

{{Refimprove}}

Y

{{Primary sources}}

Y

{{More footnotes}}

Y

{{pagenumbers}}

Y

{{Copyedit}}

Y

{{Cleanup}}

Y (14/14)

---

The list is incomplete, you forget that this article is somehow responsible for the subprime crisis as well.... We should also add here, that this article should not be read by frustrated people. :)Octavian8 (talk) 14:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)