User talk:KIDB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• /Archive 1

[edit] Aranyosszéki székelyek száma:

Maybe the total number of Hungarians in the former Aranyosszék villages? It is quite a bit of work to count from the census data. I don't know however, if all of them consider themselves to be Székelys.--KIDB 16:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I estimate about a 10000-15000 Szeklers living in the former territory of Aranyosszék (examples for Hungarian villages: Torockó, Torockószentgyörgy, etc.). But (today) the whole territory has a Rumanian majority, who are mainly living in the region of Felvinc. Öcsi 08:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Union of Transylvania with Romania

Hi. The last sentence of the introduction, just before the table of content is:

Below the dates are indicated in both Julian, resp. Gregorian calendars, used at the time, which were 13 days apart. The current calendar is the Gregorian.

The problem is, that during WWI in Romania they still used the old calendar, and did not make a complete switch. Ironically, it was the union of Transylvania with Romania that forced to definitevely drop the old and combersom calendar. The only reason the two dates are present here is that many sourses give them that way. But, look, let's just think how to do it better. I have nothing against some other solution. Maybe, for example, to use the double dating only until 1 december 1918, and only to the events that refer directly to Romania. Now that you mentioned it, writting both styles for Transylvania is not very logical, I don't know why some sourses still do it.

This has nothing to do with orthodox. Even more, as far as I know the orthodox calendar in Romania is presented according to the Gregorian one. It is church business how to calculate the dates according to what it knows, it has nothing to do with the article.

December 1 minus 13 days is November 18. But only on the eastern side of carpathians that date would have been used. The assembly in Alba Iulia used only 1 december.

And in general, please don't see me as hostile in some way. I am very sorry if you had such impression. This is history, long passed history. We are not at war :) You have brought some good info to the article. I hope you will stay and help make it better. Take care, :Dc76 17:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you very much (sincerely) for your reply. In short I agree with you on 1,2,3, and disagree on 4. I will begin therefore with the most difficult, i.e. 4:

• The reason that Austria-Hungary desintegrated was that Czech, south Slav, Romanian, etc politicians from A-H made up or elected (aomtimes quite democratically) bodies that took the power and declared independence of territories inhabitted by those national groups. The causes are of course not only the internal situation of A-H, but also the pressure when the country was loosing the war. It would be interesting to talk about how much "constitutional" legitimacy these bodies and declarations had. For example, could Hungarian parliament simply disolve the union with A? C, s S and R were pointing the finger at the time, justifying themselves. In the end, the powers that won the war imposed on everyone to accept the Wilsonian principles of self-determination of national groups. I don't know whether these principles were accepted in a constitutionally legal way. But all commentors/historians on all sides start from the fact that they were accepted/imposed, and none of them goes back to argument that their acceptance might have been legally void. I simply don't know if it was legal or not, I don't know the pre-1918 Austrian law.
• The consequence was that once they were accepted (treaties in 1919-1920), then all the assemblies received legal recognition (of they acctions up to then, i.e. 1918-1919). So, Parliament of Transylvania, or Government of Transylvania is like Chechen separatist government which (to make the example) a year later would receive recognition from Russia of its declarations and practical actions for the previous year. Then it's more, if it were just the Romanians of Transylvania, then it would perhaps have been in the end called separatism, but there were alse the Slovaks, the Croatian, the Czechs, the Slovens, etc. It is very like the dissolution of USSR and Yugoslavia, except that in the later 2 cases we know better the legal side: everyone knew what is written in the constitions (although noone cared until it became so important).
• The (elected) assemblies were national, e.g. there were three assemblies in Transylvania: Romanian, Hungarian, German. Then the Romanian assembly (that was not just a gathering of dismayed peasants, which would have zero legal right, but elected just as the 1910 elections took place) itslef elects 2 bodies that it calls Parliament and Government. I would agree that in order to call them "of Transylvania", they would have to only fill 60% of places, and give 30% to Hungarians and 10% to Germans. But me and you can only write what happend and names that were used, I can not propose names or ways of action.
• A union was internationally recognized, not a military conquest. The R, Cz, Sl, Serb politicians that created self-proclaimed bodies under Entente protection in Paris, Rome, London, New York, were legally completely ignored. The bodies inside A-H were recognized (post-factum) as legal (by Entente, by Austria, by Hungary, by Germany, and even by the Soviet Russia). You can argue, that because the Romanian and German assemblies voted for, and the Hungarian one rejected this, then only 70% of teritorry should have gone to Romania, but in the end the size of H community in R became (1919) approx. 1.3 milion, while that of R community in H became 100,000. Maybe if I were a French diplomat in 1919 and you a Hungarian one arguing exactly this, I might have very well give in... But this is "if..."
• Practically, for the article, we can say the Government of Transylvania, as named and formed by the Romanian assembly on ... and make sure 1-2 sentences later we say about the Hungarian assembly.

Now the other 3 issues, are simple:

• is confusing to use both calendars I brought the simultaneous isage of both calendars to minimum. If other editors agree to remove from the remaining few dates, consider me also agree.
• even if you bring just info, unsoursed, and/or observation (like the one about calendar), or copyeditting to the article, at least from me you will be always welcome. Crucial info that raises objections, that I believe that people would object and eventually remove if not soursed. By sometimes maybe others will find the reference for your info. Anyway, do as you feel like doing.
• December 1 is national day for ethnic Romanians - no, at least formally, it is the national day for all Romanian citizens, and many ethnic Hungarians nowadays don't feel anyway offended by it. The same goes about March 15. So what if H and R 1848's instead of collaborating in the end clashed? So what that in 1990 there was ethnic conflict (organized by the former communists to justify the emergence of SRI with the old Securitate officers)? I believe that for the few R that are in H, 15 March is their holiday as well.
• The same time, the occupation of Transylvania and of East Hungary meant that millions of Hungarians were cut from their motherland, who did not wish to be Romanian citizens at all. With some explanation or rewording (so it does not suggest that Transylvanian Romanians have occupied Transylvania), I think that can be a good sentence to put in the article in comments about the historic event.
• The text should not suggest that the unification happened because Romanians at the Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) meeting simply decided so. Huge ethnic Hungarian and mixed territories were occupied too. Romanian assembly only represented the teritorries (120 electoral districts) that were majority Romanian inhabitted. Purely Hungarian areas were not represented in the Romanian assembly, but in the Hungarian one.
• It should be clear that Romania wanted to occupy these territories - people and coutries might want a lot, but that can not legally happen just because someone wants. But yes, I agree that we should elaborate more in the first section on how R regarded the belonging of T to A-H, and not only the 1916 treaty, but also the diplomacy of the end of 19th century. That's why I said "please, don't go". We want to eventually add more info to this article (our daily life permitting), so your input will be more then welcome.
• the Entente powers wanted to reward Romania for their 1916 efforts and that France wanted Hungary, a potential ally to Germany, to become as weak, as possible after the war - I wouldn't push too much on reward, since France made sure R got very hard for signing a separate peace in May 1918. But wanting Germany, and Austria, Hungary along, as week as possible - that I don't mind saying at all. I would even put it in bold. Let them remember that they have their good share for indirectly bringing people like Hitler to power.:Dc76 18:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi. You changed The government of Transylvania sends a delegation to Ethnic Romanians of Transylvania send a delegation, and then again to The Directory Council of Transylvania, elected by ethnic Romanians, sends a delegation. You see, you yourself realize the correct formulation. Of course, I would have protested to the second (on the same tokken I understand your protest to the first), and of course noone is objecting to the third. If we all realize (which I think we already, at least partially, did) that on the other side are logical and intelligent persons who do not wish wrong to the other ones, perhaps we can leave the emotions aside at least in 99% of cases, and produce a good informative article. About your suggestions to the name, I suggest to wait for more oppinions, at least from the other main contributors, so that we don't move it back and forth. :Dc76 13:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi KIDB, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 09:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)