Talk:Romanianization

Târgu Mureş

Am I correct that Târgu Mureş was the capital of the Hungarian Autonomous Province? This article alludes to "the capital city of the former Hungarian Autonomous Province" without naming it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. KIDB (84.206.8.34) 07:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Colonization by Austria of Hungarians in Bukovina

I got this info from [1]. I know that's not ideal procedure but it looks convincing. Icar 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Transylvania section

There is a blatantly false info in that section concerning the end of WWI. I had fixed this before; I will try again. Icar 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Transylvania (...) was occupied by the Romanian army, then the Romanian National Council (...) took the decision of unifying the province with Romania" is false. It becomes a lie once somebody reverts to it despite being informed about it. This is unfortunately User:Dahn, who has a history of reverting all my edits. Icar 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Icar, keep mudslinging. Dahn 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, your version (first the Romanian armed occupation, then the Union Proclamation) is but a very cheap try of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Historical facts are very different from what you're trying to push: on 1st Dec the Romanian army didn't yet occupy but a part of Transylvania, so that the ALba Iulia Proclamation took not place under Romanian military occupation. Your wording:"Transylvania (...) was occupied by the Romanian army, then the Romanian National Council (...) took the decision of unifying the province with Romania" is a deliberate attempt to induce causality from military occupation to union proclamation. It is not the first time that you deliberately falsify information (I am ready to provide evidence). Wikipedia is not your private hunting domain. Why don't you read books to inform you ? BTW, why did you unwikify the link to Union of Transylvania with Romania ? Do you fear the reader would be offered more information exactly on facts you are trying to present in a distorted way ? I am not going to feed...one like you. However, if you don't reconsider the presentation of the chronology and persist making abusive inferences (occupation...then... proclamation) I'll take my time to make a case of it. --Vintilă Barbu 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the only thing that is relevant here: one version is imperfect, the other one is POV-pushing. I do not endorse the version I revert to as much as I resent the one I revert from. Why? For one, because it implies that the border was set by the Transylvanian Council, which is purely moronic. For two, because it implies that the border set by Romania was recognized by the Great Powers (when, in fact, Trianon saw Romania as an associate state, not an ally, and the border was set by a third party). Dahn 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, the current version is POV pushing as well, because it suggests the Union decision from Alba Iulia was taken under Romanian military occupation and that minimize it suggesting it happened under the threat of armed forces from outside Transylvania. Daizus 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the linked artilce, I don't have the time nor the willingness to begin pointing out what in it is blatantly wrong. Especially since I am liable to bump into your gang and the endless charade of how I'm breaking rules that you people invent on the spot. Dahn 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW: why should I justify myself how did I come to this article... ?! How derisory !! --Vintilă Barbu 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, pal, I am merely asking you where you got the nerve to imply that I am stalking Icar on a page I watched for a year now, when you are the one coming to this page simply by following people around. That is what I am asking, but I frankly don't give a damn if you reply or not. Dahn 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your intervention. The version reverted to by User:Dahn is still POV (I am puzzled by the modification introduced by User:Khoikhoi but let us not talk about it). Why not present the facts in chronological order? User:Dahn has taken his time to explain to us his point of view. Since although he considered the previous (blatantly false) version to be "imperfect", he reverts others' versions, I think he should propose himself a version that he deems NPOV. Like this we can have a basis for the discussion. Icar 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, i consider your version POV-pushing, and, since I was doing something else at the time, I did not notice that Vintila Barbu's was not a full revert. Just so you know. Dahn 10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See also

Why not include all discriminations related to the Treaty of Trianon? Why did you delete Treaty of Trianon also?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squash Racket (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Renamed this section to "See also" as it's more appropriate. I re-added the Wikilinks, since they seem appropriate. Those are neighboring countries, and each has done things just like "Romanianization", so it's appropriate and encyclopediac to include links there for people to read up on the similar past/present practices of neighboring countries. • Lawrence Cohen 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I do believe a better class of articles would have to include relevant concepts in the body of text, instead of listing them under "see alsos". This would help the reader understand how issues connect. Especially since, otherwise, the associations made serve to impose a POV (as mild as that POV may be, it is still a POV). Also, I cannot help but note that the definition of "neighboring countries" is whimsical: in what way is Slovakia a neighboring country of Romania? Not only that, but the links to Bukovina and Treaty of Trianon are already present in the text. Dahn 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

'See also' section is not about relevant concepts, but about relevant existing Wikipedia articles and these are obviously relevant articles, basically about disrimination policies related to the Treaty of Trianon. Listing many of them contributes to the section's NPOV, don't need to explain that, do I? By neighboring countries he possibly meant Slovakia-Hungary, Hungary-Romania, Romania-Serbia etc. See?

'See also' section is needed in Wikipedia, because it would be a bit strange to force these phrases somehow into the body of text just to avoid having them listed. And you should also find new references for that attempt. Squash Racket 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you missed my point entirely. Above, you are explaining why you like that these concepts are listed there (there as well, and instead of in the text, one should add). This is not only POV (of the WP:ILIKEIT manner), it is also sloppy and redundant. I could make the same case about including just about any "-ization" concept there, but the relevant thing to do is to include the concepts where they belong, and present the reader with a sourced reasoning of why they are related. Just throwing random stuff in a section that is in fact a potentially endless game of verbal associations is not at all constructive. Dahn 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your last paragraph: we could all do without baseless assumptions. Try and focus on what I told you, not on what you think I'm "avoiding". "And you should also find new references for that attempt" - I don't think there is anything I "should" do, and I'm not married to this article as is. It is grossly undersourced, and, yes, a better article should be better sourced. And let me stress again: the more relevant terms are linked in the text, and the process everywhere is to reduce "see alsos" in the way I outlined above.

And, if you want to talk about "what is strange": it is terribly strange that someone can justify having related concepts listed in a way that does not allow proper sourcing, rely his or her claim on what he or she thinks "is related", instead of using sources to clarify why terms are relevant to this article and instead of making use of them in context. It is even more strange that you ask another user to source your claims (however obvious these may seem to you). Dahn 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop judging please the way you do (sloppy, redundant etc.). I've said enough I think. Even if you pull up sources and incorporate them in the article, internal and external links help a reader to easily see what Romanianization is about. Until the expressions are not in the article's body of text we don't have to worry about that? Squash Racket 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain it in simpler terms. If an editor decides to add articles to the list, from Americanization to Arabization, I presume you would revert his/her edits. Why? Because the connection between the terms would not be made obvious to the reader. Similarly, adding any other article to the "see also" list without an explanation will not clarify anything for any reader. If those terms are intimately connected with this article, then the connection ought to be explained in the text (and, for the third time: some are); if they are not, then they do not belong here at all.

Let's quote from the guideline:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid. A See also section should not repeat links already present in the article, links that are only vaguely related to the topic, or link to pages that do not exist. Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section. A good practice is to treat subjects in a "see also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "see also" section deprecated and removed).

Now, I have a hard time understanding what your last sentence is all about, since it does not appear to be either an affirmation or a question. If it is an affirmation, what I have to answer is: what we should do is try and respect a rule of thumb, not invent one on the spot. If it is a question, then the answer is simple: no, we don't. If you cannot justify your edits, if you tell me that I should go looking for sources to tell me how these issues are related to one another because you decided they are, then your edits are not necessary, let alone not urgent.

And I don't believe I have "judged" anything: I have told you the basic truth that adding links several times is redundant, and that breaking with the Manual of Style is sloppy editing. Now that you've seen the guideline above, I suppose debating on this issue is over. Dahn 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A good practice is to treat subjects in a "see also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "see also" section deprecated and removed)

Don't you think that proves my point 'See also' section based on NPOV common sense and not sources? Do you have that common sense when it comes to different forms of discrimination related to the Treaty of Trianon or not? Squash Racket 03:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also thanks to the definition above provided by you I deleted links that have already been worked into the article, you were right on that one, I gotta admit it. Squash Racket 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I frankly don't see how. If you find no way of fitting them in the article (and you haven't clarified that you did), the guideline we both cite says you shouldn't have them there at all.

It may be that you don't master English or are writing in haste, but it seems that you are questioning my common sense in this post above. Your argument should not be to convince me that the links belong there, but to prove to anyone that they do - i.e., to clarify that they are, to paraphrase the guideline, more than vaguely related to the topic. Since this argument would have to rely on, say, sources comparing the term, and sentences formed on the basis of those sources, the best way to go would be to simply formulate sourced sentences that you then include in the text. If not, adding the links is just POV-pushing based on your priorities. Dahn 21:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition for 'See also' is under debate, but based on what I know its real version, these articles that help NPOV (and I don't 'like' them, before you come up with that) should be included to help the reader understand that this kind of discrimination happened all over the region, not just in Romania. So let's include them, I can't say anything better, based on common sense. Squash Racket 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the deal: can you compose a phrase, or two, or three grouping the terms and clarifying the connections between them (in a way that makes these "-ization" articles have more in common with each other than with others)? Can you then indicate that such is the argument made by at least one outside source? If the answer is no to both, then what you are doing here is disruptive. Dahn 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that if the "context" needs to be established that needs to be done within the text of the article, if it doesn't have a place there it means that's not relevant, otherwise maybe there should be a category about those issues, I think that's the use of categories -- place similar events/issues in one group. -- AdrianTM 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

Although there are remaining controversial aspects, and some parts need to be more fully sourced, I don't see any outstanding cleanup issues in this article. Accordingly, I made a few copy edits and removed the "cleanup needed" template. If cleanup work is needed, please feel free to put the template back and specify here what's required. Thanks. --Reuben (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)