Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-17 Transylvania article

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mediation Cabal
2006-07-17 Transylvania article
Status	Closed
Requestor	Unknown
Mediator(s)	02barryc (talk · contribs)

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-07-17 Transylvania article 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-07-17 Transylvania article

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Criztu 13:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Transylvania article

Who's involved?

me User:Criztu and User:Dahn

What's going on?

i propose mentioning in the lead section of the article that 1). Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600. 2.) Romanians proclaimed union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania in 1918, and 3.)a NPOV formulation about Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary in relation with today Transylvania. user:Dahn reverts all this to 1.) no mention 2.) Transylvania was "awarded" to Romania by the Treaty of Trianon in 1920 and 3.) Another traditional division of Transylvania is the Hungarian administrative system - see administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary.

What would you like to change about that?

I want mention of points 1.) 2.) 3.) in a formulation that be objective and NPOV, either a formulation using Britannica Transylvania article lead section.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

I prefer total transparency. user:criztu

[edit] Mediator response

What is going on here is two persons having (as is often the case) conflicting ideas about how the NPOV for an article should look like. As I have absolutely no knowledge of the history of Transylvania, I cannot comment on the factual content of the article. What I have noticed is, as criztu said, Dahn is unilaterally reverting edits by others so they can conform to his views on the subject. If we are going to resolve this arguement, could both parties involved make an independent statement, preferably with references, so I can resolve this easily and reach a workable compromise. If there is nothing to back either statement up, then I am afraid that we are going to have to painfully pick our way through this. -Please present your arguements here, in the discussion box below. -02barryc 19:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, please keep it simple, I'm not great at reading pages upon pages of long historical texts. :) --02barryc 20:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this mediation still active or can I close it? --Ideogram 07:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No activity. Closing. --Ideogram 09:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

1. There was a kind of personal union under Michael the Brave. Transylvania was 'united' with many other states during history: with Poland under Lois I of Hungary, Austria under Matthias Corvinus ... etc. Please mention all or none. --fz22 15:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I have mentioned what i know. I know "Michael the Brave united Transylvania Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600". I invite you to mention other situations when Transylvania united with other states. Criztu 16:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

1. I have mentioned why this will be endlessly repetitive and ultimately irrelevant to a sectioned of the article that is supposed to remain succint (all brief and periodic changes in sovereignty are listed in the article's history section, not in the introductory section that we are actually discussing); to "all or none" I say NONE. In reality, Michael did not effectively unite the three countries, as Wallachia was placed under his son's leadership and as Transylvania did not suffer any change in its Estates of the realm-type administration (as Romanian sources from Bălcescu to Lucian Boia have made clear). If we are to call that "uniting", then I have to point out that the first person to "unite" the three countries under one rule was Suleiman the Magnificent, and the third to "unite" Moldavia with Wallachia was Sigismund III Vasa, who sent his Polish-Moldavian army all the way down to the Middle Danube after Mihai's death. Furthermore, Criztu's argument that this is relevant to Transylvania's history as part of Romania is rendered moot by the fact that Michael the Brave did not ever rule Romania! In fact, such arguments only reflect Romantic nationalism prevalent in most Romanian historiography, and are certainly not NPOV. I urge mediators to check Talk:Transylvania to get a glimpse into the "dispute"'s history and status, and I wish to point out that I am getting tired of repeating common sense arguments on several pages just because Criztu (the only person who seems to mind the current shape of the article) keeps avoiding the point. Dahn 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

2. It was awarded. That is the best possible term, as the quotations from the very treaty will point out - see Talk:Transylvania. The local decision to unite did not lead to any tangible and legal result - the decision taken on December 1, 1918 by the provisoral body were ignored by the Romanian gvt. itself, so their relevance to a succint overview of changes in sovereignty is zero. At the same time, the Trianon Treaty reflected the attitudes favoured by Romania's governing body, and the Paris Peace Conference was actually Trianon itself - the peace treaty with Hungary, by then an independent state. The Treaty clearly states that Hungary renounces all claims in favour of the Allies and Associates (namely, Romania). Anyone should be aware of the fact that Romania had lost the war and had unclear status as a winning power by that moment - so, Criztu's claim that its new borders had been awarded in 1916 (which would still have needed a bit more recognition to function as international norm), is of no relevance to the topic, and contraticts his own assessement of the 1st of December gesture. What we have is a proclamation of local Romanians in 1918, one which was ultimately denied merit by the factual military occupation by Romania's troops in the following months, and parallel negotiations in Paris (which were successful on principle, but were not detailed enough nor at all relevant to Transylvania's status - see chronology and succession of facts presented in the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 article: "The Paris Peace Conference of 1919 was a conference organized by the victors of World War I to negotiate the peace treaties between the Allied and Associated Powers and the defeated Central Powers. The conference opened on January 18, 1919 and lasted until January 21, 1920 with a few intervals" and "The following treaties were prepared at the Paris Peace Conference: (...) Hungary (Treaty of Trianon, June 4, 1920)"; for those who understand Romanian, also see Brătianu's own speech on the results of the Paris negotiatons here). The one thing that gave legitimacy to Romania's incorporation of Transylvania was the Treaty of Trianon. Dahn 19:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

3. They are traditional, in the sense that Transylvania's status itself is traditional (i.e.: no longer reflected in law, just in cultural legacies). Criztu presents it as a weasel term, but that would require some proof of me having a hidden agenda. My reason for using the term is obvious: in its tradition, Transylvania was a political entity - per se, that tradition is not Hungarian more than it is Afghan; it is just that we happen to feature the relavant info about what Transylvania's territory has been comprising under the "Kingdom of Hungary" header. In fact, the counties existed throughout the time Hungary-proper was an Ottoman province; the Kingdom existed nominally, and the countries factually, throughout Habsburg rule (with only brief interruptions), and the counties reflected a local tradition connected with the region's Estates; even Michael the Brave himself sanctioned the existence of those precise counties under his rule. Compared with that, Romania's administration (which is certainly not "Romanian tradition" in the sense of "tradition of the Romanians", but certainly is "of the Romanian state") has gone through four major and conflicting administrative reforms. Add to this that, lest for two brief moments in 1848 and 1918 (which should be detailed in the History section), ethnic Romanians did not truly have "their own administrative tradition", and that even the brief moments of ethnic Romanian administration have not at all been reflected in Romania's administration over Transylvania (which effectively began in 1920). Also note that the quoted fragment makes clear use of the word "ANOTHER", which should prevent all possible misuse. Dahn 20:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to the first attempt at mediation: I have to point out that Criztu is the one who made unilateral changes in the text, and that there is no one but him yet contesting the text from that perspective. In fact, what we are talking about (and I have asked mediators to look into it), is, with one exception, not the actual relevance of historical facts (in theory, they are all presented in the History section of Transylvania and further detailed in the History of Transylvania article), but the very succint introductory paragraph and what it should mention without stirring controversy and casually dropping disputed facts which deserve a more intricate presentation in other sections of the very same article. To the allegation that I would have a POV, I have to ask: a)if true, what would be "my POV"'s relevance to what goes into an introductory paragraph; b)since Criztu basically argues that the present introductory paragraph goes against the Romanian perspective, how can he argue against the fact that I and him have the same nationality and ethnicity (as do most of the sources that back me up, as mentioned above). Dahn 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Also note that Criztu's belief that he is using Britannica for a guide falls into clear contradiction with what Brtiannica's text is actually saying. I have to warn mediators to mind sophistry: they can see that the Britannica text quoted on Talk:Transylvania#Britannica does not feature any of the proposed changes in text, except a mention of the 1918 proclamation that is, in fact, irrelevant (no, not because "I say so", but because it contradicts the text of the Trianon Treaty and factual developments inside Romania that I have researched and referenced for articles such as Alexandru Averescu and Ion I. C. Brătianu - instead of me and everybody else not objecting to the text itself having to account for the same thing over and over again, I urge mediators to make note of the fact that most sources used there are Romanian ones, either written by professional historians or by the persons involved themselves). Dahn 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, sorry Dahn if I came over as rather biased. Let me just clarify the nature of the mediation: The controversy in the article is coming from the introductory paragraph - Criztu is trying to add controversial and specularatory topics to a generalisation to the article - which by the nature of NPOV should be sidelined and marginalised to smaller paragraphs in the main text, whilst you are trying to keep it in the mainstream. Is this correct? --02barryc 10:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for considering the full picture, and sorry for the rather messy structuring of information I provided here and on the article talk page. If any of my arguments are unclear or need detailing, please ask me to clarify and I will comply.

Your assessement is only partly correct. It still needs to consider two essential points:

1. I would not describe my undertaking as "marginalization" or not even as "sidelining". I believe that controversial points deserve a full and accurate explanation in what is clearly the place to do it - other sections of the article (I will not, of course, say the same about speculatory ones). If the introductory paragraph is to remain objective, it should only include certain and relevant information (and not, for example, the fact that Transylvania changed masters five times a decade for most of the 17th century - all of that can be detailed, and not marginalised to smaller paragraphs, in the main body of text, which should itself be succint, given that we have a huge, both topical and chronological article for detailing even further, i.e. History of Transylvania). The mention of what is relevant "to Romanians" is, as I have attempted to prove, both paralogical and irrelevant as a construction sheet for the article's introduction (since the article does not and should not list "what is relevant for Hungarians" or "what is relevant for Papuans", but, simply, what is relevant for the topic itself).
2. Doing Criztu a favor, I have to add that his last point is not subject to the same criteria. In this instance, he argued that I have POVed the article by stating that Transylvania's counties, listed as they should be under "Kingdom of Hungary counties" (since that is what they primordially were), are a relevant part of the region's tradition. I have explained my use of the word both here and on Talk:Transylvania#traditional division of Transylvania; note that Criztu has been editing in his POV on other pages connected with this issue, and did so against the arguments of all users that he encountered (see Talk:Harghita/Vote, see Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board#Articles about Romania related articles convention/manual of style). Dahn 12:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

first of all, before making any edits to the article, i opened a discussion topic on Transylvania talkpage, presenting my POV on Transylvania. I invited anybody to comment. After a few days and answers, i proceeded with editing the main article. As Wikipedia:Lead section says, "The lead section should provide a clear and concise introduction to an article's topic, establishing context, and defining the terms [...]should provide an overview, or executive summary, of the main points the article will make, summarizing the primary reasons the subject matter is interesting or notable, and including a mention of its notable controversies". Criztu 16:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So i edited the lead section accordingly:

a)"Transylvania is a historical region of Romania".

b)"Transylvania was a principality, and a province of the kingdom of Hungary and of the Habsburg Empire"

c)"Transylvania was brought by Michael the Brave under his authority alongside Wallachia and Moldavia for a brief year in 1600"

d)"The Romanians living in Transylvania proclaimed union with Romania in 1918, ratified in the treaty of Trianon 1920"

e)i moved "another traditional division of Transylvania is the Hungarian system (see administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary" from the lead section from the paragraph listing the traditional regions that are or were parts of Transylvania, to the section "Transylvania in the middle ages" where it was delt with Transylvania as part of kgdom of Hungary.

the a) defines Transylvania as it is today, a teritory of Romania; b) defines the main characteristic of Transylvania, that of a former political entity in the sphere of influence of kgdom of Hungary and Habsburgs; c) presents defines another characteristic of Transylvania, that of a teritory in contact with other teritories of Romania throughout history d) presents the most important moment of Transylvania, that of becoming a teritory of ROmania, formulated in a NPOV way. It is a fact that Romanians proclaimed union in 1918 December 1 at Alba Iulia, and the Romanian national day is celebrated on December 1 at Alba Iulia. From my information, Hungary connects the moment that Transylvania became part of Romania with Trianon 1920. The controversy of when did Transylvania become part of Romania is presented in the lead section, as Wikipedia: Lead section states it should be presented, reflecting both sides, in a NPOV way. I didnt formulate "Transylvania united with ROmania in 1918", and i didnt formulate "Transylvania was awarded to Romania in 1920.

the formulation before i edited point e) i consider an information put in the Lead section with the only intention of underlining "how traditionaly Hungarian is Transylvania". Criztu 16:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

a)does not contradict the current formulation.

b)idem.

c)irrelevant to a succint mention of sovereignties and absurd phraseology; "throughout history" is in blatant contradiction with [the otherwise nonsensical] "brief year", and someone should mention to Criztu that a history of contacts and common policies was usually initiated by Transylvania's rulers, not the other way (check out the love affair between George II Rákóczi and Wallachia's Matei Basarab - if we are to mention all such episodes in the lead, we'd never see the end of it); if this is meant to illustrate "contact", then let Criztu interpret the fact that Michael the Brave was ousted from Moldavia by Moldavians and their Polish allies.

d)untrue; I caution mediators to the POV of "the most important moment of Transylvania", and have also cited proof that this was not the actual source of the region's incorporation into Romania. "From my information, Hungary connects the moment that Transylvania became part of Romania with Trianon 1920." - and? does that mean that it is untrue? ("A makes claim X. There is something objectionable about A. Therefore claim X is false.") Let us note again that the very same information is backed by Romanian historians and by the political figures involved themselves: I have provided references in the articles I mentioned above. I have challenged Criztu to point out just how the Directory Council's decision was reflected by Romanian laws or international treaties: he was not able to do that so far, and on Talk:Transylvania#Britannica only offered his POV on what the Trianon Treaty text is supposed to be read as (as opposed to what everyone will read into it). Again, I fail to see anything derogatory in the term "awarded" (after all, Romania had entered the war based on the promise that, upon winning, she was to receive such and such region); furthermore, it should be obvious to anyone that the term should not have to aim at not being derogatory, but at being true.

e)thus obscuring the mention and ignoring the fact that, just as other divisions also mentioned in the first line of the text, it is an integral part of Transylvania's makeup. Moving it there also obscures the obvious fact that, in respect to Transylvania, such were the administrative divisions first present inside the Hungarian Kingdom (from the 12th to the 16th century), then, as the very same units, inside independent Transylvania (16th-17th centuries), then used throughout most of Habsburg rule and overlordship (17th/18th-20th centuries). "i consider an information put in the Lead section with the only intention of underlining "how traditionaly Hungarian is Transylvania"" is a statement that blatantly ignores the reasons I have made clear 17 times by now, accuses me of having a pro-Hungarian POV while obscuring what I myself have cited as being my reasons, and is, ultimately, irrational (appealing to the shape rather than the fundament - see straw man). Dahn 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, let us note that one of the guidelines interpreted by Criztu is spuriously rendered and interpreted: he takes "including a mention of its notable controversies" to mean "I am allowed to mention all controversial topics as if they were not controversial". I feel it is my duty to point out that what he defines as "a controversial topic" is, in fact, a dispute in which I present proof and Criztu dismisses it based on his own asumptions. In such circumstances, there are no "both sides": if I go and edit out of an article stuff that does not confirm with my own interpretations, especially if I were to admit that I am dealing with most things regarding the topic for the first time in my life, I do not turn into "one of the two sides". Furthermore, what would be controversial about Michael the Brave belongs in the article about him, and, at most, in the History section and article, and certainly not on the lead for Transylvania - what would happen if I start questioning aspects of William the Conqueror's life and career in the lead on England? (let alone the fact that the lead for the England article is as succint as schematic as Transylvania's is - check out any other possible polity, and you'll see it is the same). Dahn 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

---

i will further explain my motives for having point

c) Michael the Brave brings Transylvania and Wallachia and Moldavia together in 1600. Since Transylvania is a historical province of ROmania, it has to be explained from the very beginning why and how did Transylvania became part of Romania. it is most relevant to mention the efforts of Michael the Brave to unite the territory of Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600. This indicates an interest of the romanian politics in bringing Transylvania together with Wallachia and Moldavia since at least 1600. Without mention of Michael the Brave and of ROmanians living in Transylvania, and the connection between Transylvania and Wallachia and Moldavia in the lead paragraph, one could interpret that Transylvania was a Hungarian province for 1000 years, that was suddenly "awarded" to Romania in 1920. Criztu 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

and point d) Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed Union with kgdom of Romania in 1918 . It informes about the existence of ROmanians in Transylvania in 1918, and their aspirations to a union with the Romanian national state rather then a MultiNational Austro-Hungarian Empire. deleting this information arguing their Proclamation had no legal effect is in my opinnion POV. The act of the romanian people living in Transylvania proclaiming their option for union with Romania is a significant moment in the history of Transylvania in itself, it is right of nations to self-determination, even if Trianon does not refer to it. Criztu 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

c)"one could interpret that Transylvania was a Hungarian province for 1000 years, that was suddenly "awarded" to Romania in 1920." - I do not see where anyone would get that it was a "Hungarian province" for 1,000 years, given that the lead clearly states that the place did not belong only to Hungary for those 1,000 years! Furthermore, here you get Criztu's wishful thoinking about what "Romania" means: it is Criztu's own interpretation that Michael had conquered Transylvania because of the Romanians inhabiting it (most sources that are not completely biased question that, and it is a pattern of behaviour that, given the time, would have to have been invented and first applied by Michael the Brave - while, in fact, it belongs to post-Johann Gottfried Herder nationalism). Basically, the region was suddenly awarded to Romania in 1920. Of course, "[t]his indicates an interest of the romanian politics in bringing Transylvania together with Wallachia and Moldavia since at least 1600" makes no sense: what about the interest of not doing so?! I mean, of those 1,000 years, only one saw a brief episode not of union, but of "what could be argued to have been, at best, a personal union"; the medieval political class in, for one, Moldavia has, as I have said before, clearly pointed to its goals and objectives by chasing Michael out of Moldavia and occupying Wallachia's capital together with its good friend the Poles; the medieval political class in Transylvania was anything but Romanian at the time - since the Orthodox were not allowed nor had the means to engage in politics, and since this system, of course, went unchallenged by Michael, the prince never had to deal with or care about "Romanian" sentiment in 1600s Transylvania; the 18th century chronicler Ion Neculce does not even bother mentioning Michael in his review of what was important in Moldavia from Stephen the Great to Ştefăniţă Lupu (O samă de cuvinte presents Ieremia Movilă's rule without any sort of detail about "this other guy", then jumps to the 1620s - these are paragraphs XVIII-XIX); just as well, Letopiseţul Cantacuzinesc, a chronicle which we have on wikisource[1], does not say anything about a political union of any kind, but instead uses the highly relevant "Deci dobândi Mihai-vodă 2 ţări: Ardealul şi Ţara Rumânească. Şi în Ţara Muntenească trimise domn pre fie-său, Nicolae-vodă şi să aşăzară domni fiiul şi tatăl în 2 ţări, domnind ei ţările întru toată veseliia." ("So Michael-voivode got himself two countries [prior to his expedition in Moldavia]: Transylvania and Wallachia. And in Wallachia he placed as ruler his son, Nicolae-voivode [Nicolae Pătraşcu] and father and son ruled the two countries in merryment.").

Again, let us not use highly questionable info in the header. Dahn 07:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

d)"It informes about the existence of ROmanians in Transylvania in 1918" - note that the lead as it is does not inform about the existence of any ethnicity in Transylvania, either preferentially or, indeed, at all (of course, the mention of Hungarian suzerainty is, obviously, not connected to the ethnic background - as was also the case in Slovakia, as was also the case in Croatia).

"deleting this information arguing their Proclamation had no legal effect is in my opinnion POV" - let me formulate that fully for those reading this "deleting this information proving that their Proclamation had no legal effect - which is was ought to be relevant for change in sovereignty, when the latter is granted by international treaties - is, because Criztu says so, POV". I have asked Criztu to present the relevance to the first paragraph of the text (and not the information's deletion from the main body of text), given that the obvious criterion for listing ought to be changes in sovereignty (objective, brief, and relevant information for the reader with no knowledge of the subject), and especially since, besides facts being disputable, the gesture itself has had no legal consequence. Also note that Criztu has switched from arguing the fact that the event did have legal consequences to arguing that it had none, but it was nonetheless "important" (to?).

Again, let us not use highly questionable info in the header. Dahn 07:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

---

So, is this page watched and are the points made by both sides being evaluated? Dahn 08:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is, just I have been away - and the fact that there is a lot of text to trawl through - it gets very easy to get confused. You would do me a great favour if you could sum it all up succintly in the table below: --BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 21:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania Dispute - Please place your arguements in the appropriate box - Edit entire table

Dahn	Critzu
POV: "Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600" | NPOV: "Michael the Brave united Transylvania with Wallachia and Moldavia in 1600"
not at all a union, not even a personal union per se (given that Mihai did not rule all the lands himself) did not bring any change into the legal system in Transylvania if mentioned at all by contemporary sources, it is only as a brief and largely ineffectual episode (no interprataion of the texts will ever justify assertions such as "union", "political awareness", "freedom of Romanians", "political ideal") its status symbol relies on sophistry and POV natonalism of the kind that is not shared by many (and most modern-day) Romanian analyses mention in the lead would imply Romanian jingoism, as there are many, longer and much more relevant events in Transylvania's history that would also need mention through way of consequence (getting all of them in there would clog up the text and add redundancy to both a section and an article on the region's history) it is adequately presented, with adequate commentary, on relevant pages, and certainly does not belong in the lead Comment on the links provided by Criztu: they are all vague comments of facts, and mention is made of documents that don't seem to be quotable (the largest text still says "a document" without specifying how and under which formula); the British texts appear to be directly and undiscriminately quoting Romanian nationalist POV. Gentlemen, I have given you the sources, not the perspectives on sources. I am not asking for removal of text: I am asking for uncertain-at-best things not to be casually dropped into a brief leading section as if they were the unquestionable truth. Future work should further evidence these problems in detail, but, as it is, the articles are either schematic or messy; pushovers such as the one Criztu is attempting here will only make this harder to accomplish. Dahn 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Edit Section	Michael the Brave united Transylvania Moldavia and Wallachia under his authority in 1600. 28 October 1599, Michael defeats the armies of Prince Andrew Bathory, and on 1 November 1599 Michael receives the keys of Alba Iulia. 11 February 1600, treaty between Michael the Brave and Emperor Rudolph II recognizing Michael the Brave as prince of Transylvania. November 1599, the Ottoman Empire recognizes Michael as prince of Transylvania. 27 May 1600, Michael entitles himself Ruler of Transylvania Moldavia and Wallachia. Columbia encyclopedia Britannica encyclopedia Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Romanian national institute for R&D in informatics Dolj County site Edit Section
POV: "Romanians proclaimed union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania in 1918" | NPOV: "Romanians proclaimed union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania in 1918"
the assertion itself is not untrue; what is untrue is the fact that it brought about Romania's rule over Transylvania; what did bring about Romania's rule over Transylvania was the Treaty of Trianon, as the text currently makes clear its relevance was rejected by the Romanian government of the times, and it only surfaced as a "meaningful gesture" in context after the actual decision from above became unfashionable (namely, in Communist Romania) Criztu fails to note that "Romanians taking control of the administration" is not at all equal to "Romania taking control of the administration"; the matter of sovereignty did not at all reside there, and all knots were tied after Trianon, not before it is adequately presented, with adequate commentary, on relevant pages, and certainly does not belong in the lead Edit Section	1 December 1918, Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed Union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania. At the end of War World I, romanians from Transylvania took control of the administrative apparatus in Transylvania, and the Romanian National Party deputies representing the romanians in Transylvania gathered at Alba Iulia where proclaimed Union with Romania. Britannica encyclopedia Columbia encyclopedia Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Romanian National Institute for R&D in informatics Romanian Ministry of Defence Edit Section
POV: "Another traditional division of Transylvania is the Hungarian administrative system"
the very idea that the mention would be flattering the Hungarian community is illogical (since mention is not made of the Hungarian community, but of an administrative system which was created under the Kings of Hungary) the system was endorsed by the local ruling class for centuries on end, and was adopted by rules other than Hungarian (including Transylvania's existance as an independent polity - which should be relevant in itself) the destination page, as is, is for the Kingdom of Hungary; whoever reads into this irredentism or some other chimera uses sophistry the mention is included alongside other traditional divisions, and is perfectly useful as information for people who want to see the way Transylvania was administrated in the past) Edit Section	Transylvania Lead Section explains that Transylvania at its maximum extent encompassed other historical regions too; and that the notion of a region of Transylvania also encompasses other historical regions that are not part of Transylvania proper. The formulation Another traditional division is the Hungarian administrative system i consider to be a weasel term (Historical Regions associated with Transylvania are not Traditional divisions of Transylvania, I have never heard of such thing as Traditional divisions of a historical region). Transylvania was adminstratively divided according to Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary during the time it was under administration of Hungary, and that is a matter of the Hungarian State, and belongs to the History of Transylvania as a province or part of the Kingdom of Hungary. While Historical Regions that are associated with Transylvania proper might be a recognizable thing of the present, the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary are not a recognizable thing of the present, and have the same relevance for the lead section of Transylvania as the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Romania have, none. Administrative divisions of Kgdom of Hungary are not a Tradition of the Transyvlania Historical Region of Romania. They are at most a Tradition of the Hungarian State. Edit Section
POV: "Another traditional division of Transylvania is the Hungarian administrative system"
1. The name is not exactly Transylvania, is it? 2. The name is in Latin because the goddamn chronicle is written in Latin, as the court language in the Hungarian Kingdom. 3. The chronicle is written in 1200, more than 200 years after the region was conquered by Magyars, and reference in retrospect a time when a "Transylvania", if that is indeed what the text means, would have had plenty of time to emerge. 4. If this initiative by Criztu is aimed at getting this info in the lead, I fail to see how the hell he can portray it as relevant enough, especially when mention is made of the name in the sections just a couple of lines further down. Dahn 09:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Edit Section	I also intend on stating it clear that the first mention of a Transylvania (Ultrasilvania) was in Gesta Hungarorum, where Gelou was defeated and his state subdued by the magyars during the 9th century Edit Section