Talk:Hungarian–Romanian War/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

The full disarmament of the Hungarian army

I need a citation supporting this thesis, otherwise I will remove it from the text. By the terms of the armistice, the HU amry was to be reduced not fully disarmed. I found no reference to it being completely disbanded (i.e., what fully disarmed actually means). The disarmament of the rest of the Hungarian armed forces was part of the conditions of the armistice, therefore Karoly just fulfilled the armistice terms by ordering the disarmament of part of the army. He did not yielded to Wilson's principles in this respect. Octavian8 (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Károlyi was an idealist (and naive) and he believed in "world peace", so he ordered that all Hungarian troops must be immediately disarmed. Here is a short English reference: [3]. Here is a much longer Hungarian one: [4]. This latter one describes some of his motivations, e.g., that he was a real pacifist and his secretary of war, Béla Linder, said such things like "Nem kell hadsereg többé! Soha többé nem akarok katonát látni!" which means "We do not need an army! I do not want to see soldiers ever again!". Therefore, the current claim of the article about following Wilson's pacifism and disarming the entire Hungarian army is correct. Koertefa (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, now I understand what this is all about. It is very good that you have come up with this reference. It makes clear that his pacifism refers to WWI. He practically put AH out of the war. However, this is not about what happened after the November armistice that Karolyi negotiated in Belgrade. Meaning, that after the armistice, the Hungarian army still had eight divisions, as agreed in the terms of the armistice. It was not as if Hungary would have had no army whatsoever after the armistice. Octavian8 (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Collection of text propositions concerning the entire article

I have gathered the current propositions about all parts of the article which are under discussion in my sandbox. This list should be maintained (feel free to edit it) to help the discussion, because lately it started to become very confusing (as different text propositions were scattered around the Talk page). This should also help the newcomer to see what's going on. Therefore, an up-to-date list of propositions can be found here. PS: Please, keep this section as the last one. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Just put the facts right: some of my text propositions were about Phase I, not the Introduction. :Other than this I salute this move to have all text propositions for the entire article in one place, and I commend Koertefa for spending the time to link and organize the discussion on text propositions like this.

I will leave this as the last entry on the talk page, the rest will be structured in sections according to the article sections, as stated in the set of rules for editing this article], that are (and have been) in the beginning of this talk page. Our little extremist Racket is invited by this to report me on the Administrators' board for structuring the Talk page like this. Octavian8 (talk) 11:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the Phase I / Introduction mix-up, I have corrected this in the collection of proposals. I have also added links to some relevant past discussions (that are already archived) and a section on the previous propositions/discussions on the Aftermath section. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Confusion

I am glad that things are moving with some constructive conversation on both sides, but I believe all this threads are becoming to vast and confusing. I , as someone who participated at this discussion in it`s early stage can`t manage to find what is what anymore :). Maybe a more concise section should be opened and more concentrated and readable contributions (suggestions on how this problem could be solved) could push this problem toward a solution. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, I am trying hard to make this as readable as possible. My strategy is to keep the discussions on various sections of the article in their own sections (named after the article sections, as mentioned in the Rules on editing the article) such that we can discuss simultaneously on various things -- as it actually is currently the case. Right now we are having a hard time with this with Racket (user: Squash Racket), who besides manifesting himself in many of his posts here like an anti-Romanian extremist, is also very persistent in messing the talk page for a reason that for now at least eludes me. Octavian8 (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And my strategy is to keep the section that I started out of the hands of editor Octi (just above), who keeps messing up the talk page, keeps adding silly little section titles. In addition, she keeps messing up the indentation of sections to make it absolutely intransparent and making it look like there's hot discussion, when in fact she is talking to herself. Squash Racket (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

References of the article

If sections of the article don't have enough sources, the solution won't be Romanians throwing out what they don't like and keeping similarly unreferenced stuff that they do like.
I'm not against keeping only sentences with inline citations and thus recreating the whole article, but then we'll throw out ALL unreferenced data. Squash Racket (talk) 16:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

If this would be as you claim why did`t you reverted this edit [5]? Are you cherry-picking what to revert and what not? According to the Wikipedia:Citing sources , If a claim is doubtful and harmful, remove it from the article.. I just did that - and by the way I did`t saw this section until now. Also assuimg that someone is a sock of Iassi is considered a personal atack, who ever you think that might be. If you have any suspicions and evidence, simply submit an SPI report. If you are sticking to what you proposed here, why did`t you reverted to the previous version, but only me? Adrian (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I did revert it the moment you left the article alone, so stop the lying. It wasn't my fault that you interrupted me with your senseless revert + a message on my talk page (please bring up your issues rather here), but after that I DID revert the Hungarian editor's edit too.

I don't need to be polite with banned editor User:Iaaasi and his million socks and reverting him does not count as a revert. Period.

However, you've always been silent about the real personal attacks of User:Octavian8 on this talk page. Squash Racket (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Instead of quibbling I provided a brief summary with source.Fakirbakir (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, some source on another matter and removed what you thought it should be removed. Nice. Adrian (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

Downfall of Austria-Hungary

As correctly pointed out by Koertefa in his post from the section Causes of the war the collapse of the Austria Hungary was not due alone to it losing WWI. I think we should change the first phrase of the Introduction from In 1918 the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy collapsed as a result of losing World War I. to In 1918 the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy collapsed, its internal dissensions greatly amplified by its defeat in WWI . Octavian8 (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to this text? If this is not the case, I will edit the text accordingly in one week. Octavian8 (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What about: "In 1918 the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy collapsed, its internal dissensions were greatly amplified by losing World War I." KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Text propositions, so that newcomers can see them

I disagree with hiding the actual text propositions above, I think this should be the focus of the talk page. Those just joining in should be able to see the suggested new intro immediately, so I propose adding new versions of the lead here and starting new sections right above this one just for the sake of transparency and effectiveness. Anybody disagree?
Disclaimer: this is just a basis of the lead for now, it may be expanded/modified. So here it goes:

The Hungarian-Romanian War was fought from November 1918 until March 1920 with the main military operations ending in August 1919.

At the end of 1918 the collapse of Austria-Hungary led to the union of Transylvania with Romania, the Romanian army crossed the demarcation lines. The Bolsheviks took power in Hungary and wanted to make good on their promise to protect Hungary's borders withstanding the Entente's further demand of territorial concessions.

In the war's first phase, the Romanian Army advanced, against only light resistance, up to the Western Carpathian Mountains. In the second phase they overcame the Hungarian Red Army to reach the Tisza river. Finally, in the third phase, they defeated the Hungarian Army and occupied Budapest, ousting the communist regime of Béla Kun. The Entente's discontentment with the Romanian conduct during much of its conflict with Hungary was alleviated by getting rid of the Bolsheviks in the country.

That's it. I included a short outline of the war based on WP:LEAD. I think we should ditch exact calendar dates as both sides involved see other dates as important and they are too much detail for the lead. Squash Racket (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Read |this from the text above to see why your text is not according to WP:LEAD. Octavian8 (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that Squash Racket's suggestion is a quite good starting point. The end of WWI is missing from it (it might not be known to an average reader that WWI ended in 1918). I do not know whether we should talk about the three phases in the lead, but I am not against it either. It should probably also contain that the Romanian troops withdrew from Hungary in March 1920. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It can be modified as I carefully noted before posting and I expected you to come up with your own suggestion. The Romanian editors insisted on the current, pretty poor form of the lead, I think that's a clear improvement.

According to WP:LEAD we should talk about the war itself as most of the article deals with it. Squash Racket (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And for the the reasons I have stated previously I completely disagree with the first phrase in the second paragraph. The rest is just a rephrasing of what we already have, and the addition of the "Outline of the war" subsection from the Introduction to the Lead. I have in principle no problem with leaving exact dates out, but I find Racket's reason for this even more funny than his previous posts. For him even a date suspicious, as 1.12.1918 was the only exact date in the Lead... 1 December 1918 should be erased from the calendar isn't it? aren't we a little extremist?... however, I still assume good faith, and forget this and the quotation marks around union (when referring to the union of Transylvania with RO) and the "incapitalization" (i.e., absence of a capital letter) of some words related to Romania. Octavian8 (talk) 10:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Finally about the placing of new sections, transparency and effectiveness (where Racket strikes again with his logic): if I have problems with other sections of the article than the Lead, why should I place my comments above the text proposition for the Lead? Wait, consider this also: in doing so, I am "hiding" my comments on the Talk page... :-O so it may be that someone like Racket, but interested in these other issues, will get angry with this... Still on the positive side I am pleased to see that Racket got the hang of sections, in a few more posts he will also learn to use them effectively and then hopefully will also learn that Intro and Lead are two different sections of the article he is discussing... for the sake of clarity. Racket you are a quick learner, please don't get angry with me. P.S.: Thank you for making me laugh. ;-) Octavian8 (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I intended this section exclusively for new text propositions for the lead, but Octavian8 messed it up as usual. I'm curious regarding the opinions of other editors than her. So here is the text again:
The Hungarian-Romanian War was fought from November 1918 until March 1920 with the main military operations ending in August 1919.

At the end of 1918 the collapse of Austria-Hungary led to the union of Transylvania with Romania, the Romanian army crossed the demarcation lines. The Bolsheviks took power in Hungary and wanted to make good on their promise to protect Hungary's borders withstanding the Entente's further demand of territorial concessions.

In the war's first phase, the Romanian Army advanced, against only light resistance, up to the Western Carpathian Mountains. In the second phase they overcame the Hungarian Red Army to reach the Tisza river. Finally, in the third phase, they defeated the Hungarian Army and occupied Budapest, ousting the communist regime of Béla Kun. The Entente's discontentment with the Romanian conduct during much of its conflict with Hungary was alleviated by getting rid of the Bolsheviks in the country. Squash Racket (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I support these alterations. It is a good idea to mention 'phases' because of the composition of sections.Fakirbakir (talk) 08:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion regarding this proposition

And if we are to construct the Lead for the uniformed reader, that does not read the Introduction nor the article, my

• text propositions

have a lot more context: ending WWI, who won, how did it came to a union declaration in 1918 (turmoil and national aspirations), besides mentioning the collapse of AH in the proper context, i.e., as a fact and not as a cause. They also are less puzzling, as they don't mention the demarcation lines. But I think Racket believes that the uninformed reader that has no idea when WWI took place must know that the demarcation lines were crossed. Furthermore, one could eventually argue that crossing the demarcation line from spring 1919 led to war, not that from 1918, as Racket inadvertently suggests. Octavian8 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

This is just a reminder for Racket: all text propositions are now at the end of the talk page in the section Collection of text propositions concerning the entire article. There is no need for you to keep vandalizing this talk page. Please follow the Rules for editing the article. These will be enforced. Octavian8 (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

To what I've said above, I would like to add that the sole virtue of Racket's text proposition is that it introduces the thesis about the collpase of the AH that led to the union declaration. As I have pointed out before, this is a Hungarian speculation and even more, it is Hungarian POV. This makes me belive that there are some Hungarian editors that try to introduce Hungarian propaganda over the back door of the article under the justifiable pretext of making a Lead addressed to the uninformed user.

Well lads, this is NOT going to happen! The way I see it, until now we have all agreed to mentioning the end of WWI. OK, this will get in. Other than this, we could either add AH's collapse and the repressive magyarization as facts (supported by citations) and without interpretations, or leave the text as it is, meaning neutral and fact-based.Octavian8 (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

(Late reminder for Octi answering his usual late insertion of text into an earlier comment of hers, one of many ways she keeps messing up this talk page: misusing the vandalism accusation ALONE can get you blocked. Squash Racket (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC))

Without the collapse of Austria-Hungary, Hungary wouldn't have lost any territory. We can mention WWI, but that's a minor detail only, I don't understand why you keep repeating yourself just to mess up the talk page. Besides, your version does not include the outline of the war, although it should per WP:LEAD, it doesn't say a thing about Romania's conduct and the Entente's being displeased with it, although a chunk of the article deals with this. You mention the fulfilment of national aspirations, although the whole war was about this not really being true in all cases.

Plus, the collapse of Austria-Hungary is the direct precondition that led to the loss of territory and thus the war. Your version is way too unclear for a newcomer to understand.

If User:Octavian8 keeps messing up this section, I'll keep adding the version for others than her to see and comment. We've already heard her answer, now I need other opinions.

The Hungarian-Romanian War was fought from November 1918 until March 1920 with the main military operations ending in August 1919.

At the end of 1918, the final year of WWI, the collapse of Austria-Hungary led to the union of Transylvania with Romania, the Romanian army crossed the demarcation lines. The Bolsheviks took power in Hungary and wanted to make good on their promise to protect Hungary's borders withstanding the Entente's further demand of territorial concessions.

In the war's first phase, the Romanian Army advanced, against only light resistance, up to the Western Carpathian Mountains. In the second phase they overcame the Hungarian Red Army to reach the Tisza river. Finally, in the third phase, they defeated the Hungarian Army and occupied Budapest, ousting the communist regime of Béla Kun. The Entente's discontentment with the Romanian conduct during much of its conflict with Hungary was alleviated by getting rid of the Bolsheviks in the country. Squash Racket (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC

Racket you seem to have a hard time understanding things. Get this through your head:

• Your text is in a large part just a plagiarism of the next section of the article.
• Your text introduces Hungarian bias.
• Your text is confusing for readers with little-to-no knowledge of the topic.
• For all these reasons, it is a bad text, that is not suited to as basis for any discussion pertaining a new text for the Lead.
• The fact the some other Hungarian editors agree with you means NOTHING in a dispute involving a Hungarian and a Romanian side (I emphasize this as I am aware from our previous discussions with your problems with logic).
• The content dispute is not over so STOP editing the page before achieving agreement here.
• The article can very well get protected again if you don't stop your disruptive editing.

Stop messing the Talk page around. Koertefa gathered all text propositions in a section at the end of the article, your sections makes now even less sense than before! Octavian8 (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Octi, you seem to have a hard time understanding things. Get this through your head:

• the lead can not plagiarize anything, it's a summary, that's why we call it the lead
• my text is neutral
• your text is incomprehensible, mine has short, easy-to-understand lines
• for all these reasons and because it enjoys majority support currently, my text remains (I emphasize this as I am aware from our previous discussions with your problems with logic)
• Stop messing the talk page around including messing up the indentation again and again just for the sake of disruption.
• This section was started by me and I did NOT allow you to move it around. Your disruption makes now even less sense than before. Squash Racket (talk) 18:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a new proposition regarding the lead, see: Talk:Hungarian–Romanian_war_of_1919#Text_propositions or User:Koertefa/sandbox#Proposition_3. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

New text propositions can be found here: Talk:Hungarian–Romanian_war_of_1919#Downfall_of_Austria-Hungary and Talk:Hungarian–Romanian_war_of_1919#Causes_for_the_union_declaration. In general, see: User:Koertefa/sandbox. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Phase I

Causes for the union declaration

Currently the text reads: On December 1st, 1918, the Romanian ethnics of Transylvania proclaimed the union with Romania... as we are discussing right now the causes of the war and the way we should reflect them in the lead, I believe that the lead should state just the most important facts, and even if the union had to do with the cause of the war, the causes for the union are to much for the lead, however, we can add them in the body of the text, for example like this:
On December 1st, 1918, the Romanians, as the majority ethnic group, alienated by a history of forceful assimilation at the hands of the Hungarian authorities , took advantage of the dissolution of Austria-Hungary to proclaim the union of Transylvania with Romania...

(the above comment belongs to Octavian8) Why are the November 1918 – March 1919 events described as the first phase of the war, when no armed clash occurred in that period? I would rather call them "Events that lead to the war", cause the proper war began in the spring of 1919 AksamitSK (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at the subsection "Outline of the warOctavian8 (talk) 07:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Octavian8, if we should spare you with the story of "alienated Hungarians", then why don't you spare us with the "alienated Romanians"? By the way, the first citation only talks about assimilation, which is a normal process, and it does not mention forcefulness. The second citation writes that "forceful assimilation demoralized the ruling nation". Anyway, I do not deny that there were Magyarization (as there have been Romanianization, Serbianisation, Slovakization, etc), but it was not the main cause why the Romanians of Transylvania proclaimed their union with the KoR. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could have spared each other this and left the text of the article as it was. But if we are to make modifications, then we should make them such that not only the HU POV comes out. Read this posts to see what the current modification campaign (exclusively by Hungarian editors) really means if we conduct the modifications according to your wishes. If you want to introduce Hungarian bias in the article, than say so from the start... don't hide it before desire to improve things. Octavian8 (talk) 10:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Something else, I strongly contest the view that assimilation in a few decades (as written in the first citation) is a "normal" thing. As for the second source, it says among others that:

• Under this regime (m.n., Dual Monarchy after 1967) the Magyar aristocracy and lesser nobility were allowed to establish a dynamic central government within the Kingdom of Hungary in place of the earlier decentralized comitat system of local aristocratic administrative autonomy, but they used this to pursue aggressive and increasingly repressive "Magyarization" (cultural assimilation) of their Slovak, Ruthenian, Croatian and Romanian subjects. ]

So you have here also "repressive", which is a synonym of oppressive, in clear text (apropos our earlier discussions). Your citation (the citation you are referring to in your post) describes the negative effects of this course of action (i.e., Magyarization) on the Hungarians themselves. It lets you understand why such policies segregated them completely from the other nationalities and practically pushed the whole system on a path of conflict, that in this case ended with the collapse of Great Hungary. More clearly, it supports my view that Hungarian policies alienated the Romanians to the point they could not conceive a future together with their oppressors, hence their attempt to unite their lands with Romania. Octavian8 (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I see the discussion is rather stalling on this "hot" topic. I try to revive it, in this sense, please notice that I do not imply that the Magyarization led to the union declaration, I just state that there was such as thing like Magyarization that tensed the relations between the Romanians and Hungarians in Transylvania, the ultimate expression of this tense relationship being the war we are discussing here. Octavian8 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What about: "On December 1st, 1918, the Transylvanian Romanians, as the majority ethnic group, who were previously subject to Magyarization, took advantage of the dissolution of Austria-Hungary to proclaim the union of Transylvania with Romania. [...]" KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought that we agreed we wouldn't even mention this date. I'd call this "summary" childish at best. Squash Racket (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not get you. This proposal is for the section "Phase I: November 1918 – March 1919", not for the lead. It is not a summary. Why shouldn't we mention the date? And what did you mean by "childish"? Why is it so? Magyarization happened, it is a historical fact. It also contributed to the fact that the Transylvanian Romanians proclaimed their union with Romania. It is a historical fact, as well, that Romanians were the largest ethnic group of Transylvania. Why should we hide these? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... OK, we can mention it in that paragraph. However, it would be necessary to clarify how far we should go back in time to search for causes. It was the Hungarians who let the Romanians settle in Transylvania during the Turkish wars, that's when they became a majority there. So I'd cut out the Magyarization thing and explain the demographical issues separately, not thrown into a sentence like that. Squash Racket (talk) 12:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead (section titles later and unilaterally added by User:Octavian8)

The "union" of Transylvania with Romania isn't even vaguely neutral or acceptable. Without referring to Austria-Hungary and World War I the lead is misleading to uninvolved readers who just want to understand the basic cause of the war.
It was Hungary's territorial and population loss that caused the conflict, not the ethnic romanians' decision to join Romania. So stop joking around. Squash Racket (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Racket I don't get it how did you come to the idea that I am joking around... Furthermore I fail to understand how come that the term "union" is neither neutral nor acceptable, when is a pretty precise description of what happened. It is the very cause for what you call Hungary's territorial and population loss that in turn lead to Hungary trying to retake Transylvania, the province that left Hungary by the decision of the majority of the population living there.

The situation in both HU and RO including references to AH is discussed in the Introduction starting with the very first row of this section. Please read this section, it is just beneath the Lead.

The text you want to modify was already discussed at length here: [[6]]. Read this, I believe it covers also your opinion. Also, AGAIN, please read the Talk page (including archives) before making edits or starting new discussions. The chances are good that your issues have already been addressed.

Finally please refrain from editing the article before agreeing on the Talk page as I and other editors will revert all such edits. Please read the rules on editing the article and stick to them. These rules will be enforced. Octavian8 (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I am very curios why Squash Racket keep writing the union of Romania with Transylvania with apostrophes? Why is it "union" and not union? Was Transylvania under Hungarian "control" or control? Does this apostrophes use goes both ways or only when talking about non-Hungarian stuff? Is it something fictional or untrue? As for this artificial problem, I agree with Octavian8. I don`t think that we should discuss what is neutral or not "like this". I suggest to stop joking indeed and leave the article as it was. Adrian (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is joking around, in some sense all of you are right. (1) It is a historical fact that there was an assembly in 1918 where the delegates of ethnic Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed the union of Transylvania with the Kingdom of Romania. It is no need to put the word union between apostrophes. Interpreting this event or investigating whether they had legal basis to do so does not really matter for this abstract. The union was proclaimed and precisely that is what that sentence states, nothing more, nothing less. (2) This article discusses a very sensitive topic, so fundamental modifications should be initiated on the Talk page. There were indeed many discussions about the lead, the last one was mainly between Octavian8 and me. We did not finished it (we abandoned that part of the discussion since at that time we were more interested in the Aftermath section, which we analysed extensively and agreed on the variant which is currently in the article). Still, we could settle some issues regarding the lead, too, for example, that "looting" of Budapest should not be mentioned there (because it is also a matter of interpretation). On the other hand, (3) I also understand Squash Racket. It would definitely help an average reader (who do not know much about the historical situation of 1918-19) if the lead would state that the whole event took place after WWI and the collapse of Austria-Hungary gave the opportunity to proclaim this union. Since the majority of readers only read the lead, it is not enough if this is discussed in the Introduction: the most important facts should also be stated in the lead. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:42, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, I disagree with the argumentation that a majority of readers that land here read only the lead. I believe that most readers that get to see this article looked for such information on purpose and will definitely not stop reading after the lead. In the end this is not some newspaper article about some topic of current interest, but an article about a topic that rises a keen interest but only among a rather small category of history-passionates. Such persons do not just read the lead and leave.

This being said, assuming we want to modify it, what is important and what is not? Why is the collapse of AH more important than Romania entering/reentering WWI or the Buftea peace agreement or the reasons why the Hungarian reds came to power and resorted to force in comparison to the previous Hungarian government that did not? My point being that in such a case we should simply make the whole Introduction the Lead and this will not be the lead anymore. A lead is an abstract, neutral and containing only the most essential parts, in our case: belligerents, causes and aftermath. This is precisely the way it is right now. Cheers, Octavian8 (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Octavian8, I also disagree with you :-) in the question that only a rather small group of history-passionates would end up on this article. They will probably read it through, but there are many other readers who simply follow links from other articles, because they need some basic information about the topic. I think that the majority of the readers are like this and they will only read the lead, since they do not care about the rest (cf., "TL;DR" ~ "Too long; didn't read"). Of course, you are right that "A lead is an abstract, neutral and containing only the most essential parts", the question is what causes are that relevant to be included in the lead. The collapse of Austria-Hungary after WWI seems at least as important as the proclamation of the union. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Koertefa, I think you did not read my second post :-) (just a few post down the way, it now even has an own subsection). I basically reviewed my opinion on the readers and proposed some modifications. I would agree to adding the end of WWI, and eventually something about the Central Powers loosing it, but to mention AH's collapse, why? Still I am interested in your opinion on where to stop with the Lead and begin with the Introduction (see also my post beginning with @Koertefa). Octavian8 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Octavian8, I have read them. I will try to answer the arguments below (at the end of the page). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an article about a war, not Romania's history in general.
The cause of the war was:

• Hungary's impending territorial and population loss and Hungarians' grief about that.
• NOT Transylvania's union with romania, which was a positive thing from the ethnic Romanian point of view (the other side of the coin), but obviously wasn't the cause of this war. Period.

The lead shouldn't and won't mislead readers about the true cause of the war. In its current form the lead still doesn't reflect the truth enough, so this is only a tweak for now. Squash Racket (talk) 17:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

With this approach we can`t achieve anything. Maybe a little good faith and constructive comments middle ground can be found. PS: Romania with capital R, like you wrote Transylvania. Adrian (talk) 18:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Adrian, please assume good faith, it was obviously just a typo (few lines earlier Squash Racket wrote Romania with capital R). Moreover, he provided an argument supporting his concept, so it is worth a consideration. I hope that argumentation is the right approach that can lead to achievements. I agree with Squash Racket in the question that the collapse of Austria-Hungary should be included in the lead. There were other causes, as well, for example that the Romanian army violated the demarcation lines set at the armistice after WWI, but these all can be traced back to the end of WWI and the collapse of Austria-Hungary, which provided an opportunity for the Romanians of Transylvania to proclaim union with Romania. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 03:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith. This kind of "errors" is not the first one. If he genuinely mistyped once, or even twice I would`t say anything, but this approach and obviously bad faith isn`t something we should really ignore. In every his comment in this section, he did`t even once mistyped words Hungary, Transylvania, Austria-Hungary, but when talking about the other side it is "union", romania, romanians. Also note that almost all his comments contain somewhat problematic approach. Suggesting that I am assuming bad faith without some analysis why I am correcting Squash Racket comments is irresponsible.Adrian (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I also believe Racket has some sort of a complex with respect to Romanians, but what is worse for us here is that he seems to have problems with people not sharing his views. From the way he writes until now you can see that he is not here to argue his point of view and hold a discussion (implying a readiness to compromise and understanding that no one holds the absolute true), but he is here to impose his view and simply let the others know that they are wrong... and period. Actually this "period" thing rather annoyed me as it can be seen from my answer to his post :-). Octavian8 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

@Koertefa: AH's collapse is in the first sentence of the Introduction. Please answer my post from above and in particular think about this: the Bolsheviks started the war in true, Karoly's government, that came immediately after AH's collapse did not. Furthermore, why not play the game further like this: why not include Ferdinand's assassination (which is a reason as good as any of the other reasons for WWI) in the lead, because it led to WWI, and WWI led to AH's collapse that led to HU-RO war of 1919! My point: the war had pretty complex causes, too much for a lead, conversely most of them are in the Introduction. The cause of the war is related to the union of Transylvania with RO, the events that led to the possibility or necessity (if you consider only that the Magyarization policies of the AH's government under HU influence completely alienated the Romanians of Transylvania) of this union are too much for a lead, in particular for a lead on the Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919. Octavian8 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Complete the info in the lead

Back to our lead, I think there are two issues here:

• 1)Should we enlarge the lead and tell more about the reasons for the war? The answer here is clearly NO, as this is too complex for the lead. There is enough on reasons in the Introduction, if we believe more insight is needed, there is the place to add it.
• 2)Should we complete the lead such that even the least informed readers getting here and reading only the lead (which, as mentioned before I believe is a very unlikely combination) get to learn something? I still believe the combination is hardly possible, but not impossible, and considering that this is a free encyclopedia perhaps we should really try to have something in the lead for this type of readers.

With respect to the second issue, assuming the audience we are targeting now has only limited historical knowledge and does not know that WWI ended in 1918 -- so they have no idea what this little war among middle powers is -- we should try to get them on board by linking the article in the lead to some piece of knowledge they have. Assuming they know a WWI took place (and I don't think we could go lower than this), this would amount to setting the time frame of the HU-RO war more precisely in a phrase like: The seeds of the Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919 were planted when the union of Transylvania with Romania was proclaimed, on December 1, 1918, soon after the end of WWI. One more thing about reasons. The introduction gives a geo-political analysis of the situation before the starting of the war, however, the motivations of the Romanians of Transylvania wanting to leave Hungary and unite with Romania are not considered. Should we add something about this, or is the place for this the article about the union of Transylvania with Romania? Octavian8 (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose of the intended modifications

Before discussing further I think we should clarify what we try to do. The way I see this:

• Our intention is to extend the lead such that an informed user reading only the lead would get a good idea about what is this all about
• Our intention is not to transform the introduction into the lead.
• Our intention is to concentrate on facts, not on interpretations.
• Our intention is not to suggest the reader any interpretation.

Octavian8 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but who will decide which are the "facts"? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

We, by talking to each-other and looking for citations. Octavian8 (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Text propositions

Here a new proposition: The seeds of the Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919 were planted when the union of Transylvania with Romania was proclaimed, on December 1, 1918, in the turmoil that surrounded the end of WWI. In late March 1919, the new Bolshevik Hungarian government, attempted to retake Transylvania by force commencing the war..Octavian8 (talk) 11:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

And another one this time with a mention of the collapse of AH:The seeds of the Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919 were planted when the union of Transylvania with Romania was proclaimed, on December 1, 1918, in the turmoil that surrounded the defeat of the Central Powers in WWI. In late March 1919, a Bolshevik government came to power in the new Hungarian state that appeared after the collapse of Austria-Hungary, and attempted to reinstate Hungarian control over Transylvania by force, commencing the war.Octavian8 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

A refinement of the text above with even more context: The seeds of the Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919 were planted when the union of Transylvania with Romania was proclaimed, on December 1, 1918, in the turmoil that surrounded the defeat of the Central Powers in WWI and the fulfillment of national aspirations of nations in the central and eastern Europe. In late March 1919, a Bolshevik government came to power in the new Hungarian state that appeared after the collapse of Austria-Hungary shortly after it loosing the war, and attempted to reinstate Hungarian control over Transylvania by force, commencing the war. Octavian8 (talk) 07:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

In addition to the end of WWI, this "turmoil" was also mainly because of the collapse of AH. Why do you want to hide it? KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to hide anything. The collapse of the AH is in there. I just don't agree to: "AH collapase => turmoil". I would rather say: "internal turmoil => AH collapse" and "internal turmoil + loosing WWI => AH collapse in 1918". Look at my posts on this topic. Octavian8 (talk) 08:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

By also using parts from previous text propositions, I made mine:

The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919 was mainly fought between the Hungarian Soviet Republic and the Kingdom of Romania. The seeds of the war were planted when the union of Transylvania with Romania was proclaimed in December 1918, after the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed due to the defeat of the Central Powers in World War I. In March 1919 a Bolshevik government came to power in Hungary and promised reinstating control over the territories of the former Kingdom of Hungary. The Entente, especially France, did not want to have a Bolshevik government and put diplomatic pressure on Hungary as well as allowed the neighboring countries to intervene. The Romanians wanted to ensure the success of their territorial demands in the coming Peace Conference and to help the national aspirations of the Transylvanian Romanians. The crown council in Bucharest decided in favor of an attack and in April 1919 the Romanians launched a powerful offensive along the entire Hungarian-Romanian demarcation line which was set according to the Belgrade Armistice of 1918. During the war the Hungarian Red Army also fought against troops from Czechoslovakia, though not simultaneously with the Romanians, and Serbian forces occupied Hungary up to Pécs. The war ended in August 1919 with the destruction of the Hungarian Soviet Republic and the Romanian occupation of parts of Hungary, including its capital Budapest. After excessive requisitioning, the Romanian troops withdrew from Hungary in March 1920.

Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 11:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I have made some minor update in my above proposition corrections, today. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't support this one. The current lead keeps it short rather than trying go into details, but ending up with half truths. Much of what and how the Romanians were doing happened against the will of the Entente. Squash Racket (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. We can include a statement like "The Entente was discontented with the Romanian conduct during much of its conflict with Hungary" if you prefer. I think that this lead is more concise and more informative than the current one. There is no need to write about the phases of the war, but it would be better to provide some background information so even an uninformed reader can grasp this historical event. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd continue in a new section at the bottom of this page, few people will read this. So much about the talk page structure...

I think the lead needs to summarize, that's too much info on the causes and background for a beginner to understand and as I said with half truths in it. I'd keep the lead as it is and insert info like that into the main text.

The lead is the whole article in a nutshell, so we need to summarize the war itself too according to WP:LEAD. Squash Racket (talk) 12:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Views of some involved editors

Squash Racket: The true cause of the war, WP:LEAD

Partial copy&paste from above:
This is an article about a war, not Romania's history in general.
The cause of the war was:

• Hungary's impending territorial and population loss and Hungarians' grief about that.
• NOT Transylvania's union with romania, which was a positive thing from the ethnic Romanian point of view (the other side of the coin), but obviously wasn't the cause of this war. Period.
  

So again: I hope it's pretty clear that it wasn't the joyful event for the Romanians that caused the war, but the grief of the Hungarians. You are mentioning the "union" (that happened against the will of both Hungary and Transylvanian Hungarians) without providing any help for an uninvolved reader to understand why this conflict erupted.

WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

Squash Racket (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead as it is now fills this description perfectly. It is you with your biased "emotion"-based interpretations -- which is actually funny, if you weren't that serious about -- that try to make it less concise. Just get back to facts and logic if you want some sort of discussion.Octavian8 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

My answer from above, posted here for clarity: So let's recap: B (Hungary's loss) =>(implies) C (war) and A (union with Romania) => B (Hungary's loss) but by Racket's particular logic, A <>(does not imply) C, well as opposed to this logic I think A (union with Romania) => C (war). In words: if Hungary's loss was the cause for the war (to which I can subscribe), then the cause for Hungary's loss was the union of Transylvania with Romania, ergo, the union led to war. So dear Racket you should go reflect on your logic. Your argument is flawed. "Period." Racket's special own logic apart, I agree that the lead shouldn't and in its current form won't mislead readers. Octavian8 (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don`t understand, what does Hungarians from Hungary have to ask about the Union ? Hungarians from Transylvania yes of course, but from Hungary ??? It is ridiculous. By the way, I saw that again you wrote Romania (with small r) and the Union with apostrophes. With this kind of approach I am really questioning your POV and neutrality here. What "grief are you talking about? Austria-Hungary was a multi-ethnic state, it has no sense what you are talking about - Hungarians morn about territories inhabited (majority) Romanians, Serbians, Croatians, Slovakians? And for the Union voted all ethnic groups(Germans, Poles, Slovakians) except the Hungarians.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "patch" if somebody still griefs about some events that happened almost 100 years ago therefore changing the lead has no encyclopedic reasons. In this form, it completely confirms with the WP:LEAD. I would understand your proposal but the very next section starts with the information you are referring to and explains everything therefore there is no way that some reader could be in some sort of counfusion. Adrian (talk) 17:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with User:Squash Racket's opinion. I think his lead reflects the neutral point of view better. User Iadrian yu, you know the Hungarian opinion well about Hungarian grief. It is unnecessary to explain that (e.g. ethnic Hungarian mass under alien rule....). We are talking about rightfulness. If we leave the previous lead the layman reader will feel that the article has a sneaky intention to patronize the Romanian viewpoint.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

And I disagree with his opinion as pointed in my previous posts. The lead has absolutely nothing with grief or joy. It just states facts. This discussion if we are to hold it reasonably should rely on logic. Feelings are something we will never agree on.Octavian8 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised that you agree with somebody who ( and you now ) makes changes according to grief and rightfulness ???? Is this really a criteria for making changes to an encyclopedia ??? I thought that we make changes according to facts(sources)? I think by this latest change, this article isn`t balanced anymore. It is leaning toward the Hungarian POV. Adrian (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If the page is neutral we do not have to think about rightfulness. However if we leave the previous lead it will have a secondary message about rightfulness (toward the Romanians)..... It might be Romanian POV.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we are mistaking wikipedia for some kind of blog. I don`t really care for the grief or rightfulness, I only care about facts, and the facts are that the collapse of the Austria-Hungary was`t directly involved with this war and what came with it.Adrian (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ex: World War I was caused by the murder of Franc Ferninand, right? Do you see this info in the lead World War I ? Adrian (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fakirbakir: Legal aspects

What are you talking about? Until Treaty of Trianon the First Hungarian Republic or the Communist government (even if the government was not internationally recognized)'officially' possessed the rights in connection with territory of Kingdom of Hungary, however in the reality, of course, they could not validate those. This is fact. Until 04/06/1920 Transylvania was Hungarian territory 'officially'...... The proclamation about Union was an interesting thing in 1918 but that meant nothing 'officially'. Hungary did not want to lose Transylvania because it belonged to its territory and because of its own people etc. The collapse of Austria-Hungary led to treaties of Versailles and the HU-RO War was just a 'secondary episode' in this process. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

He is talking about my post from above, if you want to participate in a discussion have the decency to read all posts. Please include in your lecture the first post of Koertefa in this section, in particular about the legal basis for the union and its relevance for this article. Other than this, the legal basis for the union resides in Wilson's fourteen points. Which was already discussed in this Talk page, so read the previous discussion as well. Octavian8 (talk) 14:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There was no legal basis to alienate 3 million Hungarians (Treaty of Trianon). It is ridiculous to refer to Wilson's fourteen points (45% was non-Romanian in Transylvania). Just think about the "rightfulness" and Wilson's principles in connection with ethnic Hungarians who were stranded 'abroad'.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead of this article is not the place for such considerations, a discussion on this topic would lead to nothing new, and you forget that the Germans supported the Romanians' decision but still this argument has no place here. Furthermore, talking about feelings, why do you think the Romanians were so eager to leave Hungary? We could as well say that the Magyarization policies and harassment of the Romanian population by the Hungarian authorities (including, e.g., overconscription during WWI by comparison to the Hungarian population) alienated the Romanians to such an extent that the only solution was the separation of the territories inhabited by them in majority from the oppressing Hungarian state. This situation was further exacerbated by an entire history of abuse on the Romanians of Transylvania at the hands of various Hungarian-dominated administrations... should I continue? Do you get my point? Octavian8 (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Did anybody ask the Hungarians about their future, rights or autonomy in 1920? No... There were nice promises as minority rights or protection from discrimination etc. in the treaties, however Romanians did the same thing, just as Hungarians did before. Please spare me any more of Wilson's principles....Fakirbakir (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed as long as you spare me with the alienated Hungarians and the legal basis of the union of Transylvania with Romania. Octavian8 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Octavian8: Facts, no interpretations, no suggestions

My point of view:

(i) I agree that we need a modification of the lead to make it more clear for the uninformed user in the sense from my post from the beginning of this subsection.

(ii) I think that, as currently stated in the lead, the war is related to the proclaimed union of Transylvania with Romania.

(iii) I disagree to any suggestion that the collapse of the AH was the cause of the union declaration of the Romanian national assembly in Alba-Iulia. The cause of the union declaration (that until now has no reference in any part of the text of the article) is represented by the oppressive policies of the AH (but mainly Hungarian) authorities with respect to the Romanians of Transylvania sort of forced these to seek union with Romania (irrespective of the intentions of the KoR to take Transylvania by force).

(iv) I disagree that the collapse of AH was the cause for the war (other than the cause for the union that in turn led to the war).

(iv)A) I think that from a practical perspective, what made the union possible as soon as 1918 was the defeat of the Central Powers in WWI. The collapse of AH happened also at the end of WWI and that's it. Even more, Austria, (if not Hungary) was ready to give the other nationalities in his possessions large autonomy rights and in the case of the Polish possessions even complete independence. AH sought for armistice terms under Wilsons fourteen points, that included selfdetermination rights for every nation in AH. The point is that even if AH would have continued to exist after the end of WWI the Romanians of Transylvania would still have declared union with Romania sooner rather than later, encouraged by the new evolutions in AH, and a war (at least with Hungary) would still have been probable. We could only speculate if the Germans would have still supported the Romanians should AH still exist.

(iv)B) For other reasons see my answer to Koertefa from the section Causes of the war.

(v) I think that mentioning the end of WWI is necessary in the lead.

(vi) I could agree to mentioning also the result of WWI, as in the defeat of the Central Powers, but as fact, not interpretation (see my text propositions).Octavian8 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but the way I understand what Racket tries to do here (despite him citing WP:LEAD incessantly), is to tell in the Lead a story along these lines: Once upon a time there was a nice state called AH, that got into troubles loosing a WW. Some bad people got advantage of this and broke some parts from one of the countries forming AH and took them away. Now, this country, Hungary, being pretty upset about the this started a war to get back those parts. I wouldn't call this unbiased or, such that Racket understands as well, this is not according to

WP:LEAD:

The lead should normally contain no more than four paragraphs, be carefully sourced as appropriate, and be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view to invite a reading of the full article.

Now let me tell you why this is not neutral (or for Racket "inneutral" ;-)). This story is not neutral, because it does not tell that this bad people, the Romanians, were still the majority ethnic group in Transylvania, despite rigged censuses, a few decades of forceful assimilation, and a few centuries of oppression (as in being discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity), all at the hands of Hungarians. As such, they did everything possible to get rid of their oppressors, including taking the lands they inhabited (and have always inhabited) in a majority and living for their brothers in the KoR. Now all of a sudden, the bad people are the Hungarians.
This is very old issue and very sensitive. When I wrote the article I tried to stay out of it as much as possible. This is why, I try to concentrate on and state facts. Please understand that we can't go this way. The article will become a battlefield with endless edits and reedits if we let this happen. I still believe we can all agree on: facts, no interpretations, no suggestions. Regards, Octavian8 (talk) 23:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Article protection

Things moved pretty fast in this direction, but considering the insistence with which Racket and Fakirbakir were editing the article, I salute the move. We have two weeks to talk about it. Let's do so. I've made a text proposition and gave you some arguments that I consider make sense in the section "Complete the info in the lead". Please try to stick to facts. Octavian8 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First of all, it was "patriotic war", a Hungarian "patriotic war". I can not see this in the lead. The Romanian forces were invaders (It does not count whether the military occupation was rightful or illegitimate). The lead should mention the collapse of Austria-Hungary because everything what happened in this war arose from the ending of WW1.....Fakirbakir (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, so we should mention the ending of WWI, not AH's collapse. As I see we are both of the same opinion. As for "patriotic", the war was as "patriotic" if not more for the Romanians as well, but let's stick to facts. Octavian8 (talk) 12:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to thank the admin that protected the page for doing so. It seems that we have a lot to do here. We have difficulties even to agreeing how to discuss, as it can be seen from the edits on the talk page by user: Squash Racket that had a problem with sections and more recently has problems with sections named by other people than him. For example he first argued against sections sustainnig that sections mess up the "timeline", and then after getting a grasp of how sections can help he started to spawn new sections, consistently reverting my attempts to organize the discussion accorinding to the part of the article that is under discussion. Octavian8 (talk) 11:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Causes of the war

I gather my answers here, in order to keep the discussion concise and, hopefully, focused. Fakirbakir: I agree with you in several questions, e.g., that the collapse of Austria-Hungary should be mentioned in the lead, but there is no need to discuss the emotional side of the war. We should focus on the facts, on the main events and try to be neutral, even though each of us may have different feelings associated with the post WWI events. The main question at the moment is: whether the collapse of Austria-Hungary (AH) should be included in the lead. I think that Octavian8 went in the right direction when he started to investigate the casual flow of the events. I am glad that there is a chance to refine, extend the lead so that even the least informed readers could get a better grasp of the war. Octavian8's argument that if we include the collapse of AH, then we could also include other events, e.g., Ferdinand's assassination, doesn't seem right. Namely: that event was not that crucial, even without the assassination, they would have found another pretense for WWI. An important cause is that there was a WWI which was won by the Entente. But, in itself it would not have been enough for the Hungarian-Romanian (HR) war. The collapse of AH was also vital. Without this collapse, the Romanians of Transylvania would not have proclaimed their union with the Kingdom of Romania (KoR), the Bolsheviks would not have taken control in Hungary, etc. Therefore, the causal relations among the main events were as follows:

• Firstly, (W) WWI ending with the victory of Entente & (I) Internal causes => (C) Collapse of AH => (T) The national assembly in 1918 at which the union of Transylvania and KoR was proclaimed => (R) The Romanian army crosses the demarcation lines;
• Secondly, (C) Collapse of AH => (P) Peace conference about the new borders => (H) Hungary's fear of loosing too much territories;
• Thirdly, (C) Collapse of AH => (A) Aster Revolution in Hungary & (R) => (B) The Bolsheviks take over and promise defending Hungary's borders;
• Finally: (R) & (H) & (B) => Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919.

Therefore, the collapse of AH (event C) was one of the main driving forces that lead to the war, it was cruicial for those preconditions that finally resulted in the war (namely, event (C) was needed for events (R), (H) and (B) which led to the war). KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

My point with Ferdinand's assassination was that if we start like this (i.e., including more and more causes) we could as well go to Adam and Eve, as they created mankind and mankind wages war, not that this was the reason for WWI (even if he was the pretext).

• I fully agree to mentioning the end of WWI.
• I agree to (I) => (C), loosing WWI just make the whole thing happen sooner (good that you talk about (I), we should also modify the first sentence in the Intro, where (I) is not even mentioned). However, if we go that way, we should as well add why did the Romanians held a gathering and proclaimed the union in the first place, like Magyarisation (M) and (&) oppression (O) => (T) and I believe that even without (C), sooner or later (M) & (O) => (T').
• I disagree that (T) => (R) , because Romania entered the war in 1916 to get Transylvania and it did so in 1918 again. So with or without the national assembly in Alba-Iulia, KoR would have done all it could to get control of Transylvania and advance in my opinion at least to the Tisza river.
• I disagree to (C) => (P), I think the (W) => (P). AH and Hungary could have fought as separate entities further. It was not (C) that led to (W) and conversely, (W) just sped up (C).
• Furthermore, wasn't that (A) => (C) ?

So as you see, (C) was not that crucial. Also, (R) (the Romanians crossing the demarcation line in spring 1919) happened by a decision of the Entente. I believe that your point is made on (R"), which is the refusal of the Romanians to leave the Tisza line in summer 1919, even if asked so by the Entente, which prompted the Hunagrian bolsheviks to attack the Romanians because they were not in line with Entente demands. Therefore, (R) ~(not)=> Hu-Ro war of 1919.

I would say that (M)&(O)&(W)&(H)&(D)=> Hu-Ro war of 1919, where (D) = Hungary's desire to keep the "Holy Kingdom of St. Stephen" intact -- that has nothing to do with AH's collapse. (B) is just a stroke of faith, any new Hungarian government would have had to try to get back Transylvania, to justify itself within the eyes of the Hungarians. It happened that this new Hungarian government was bolshevik. The bolsheviks played the nationalistic card to make themselves pleased and accepted among the Hungarian people that I doubt were bolsheviks by vocation.

So, again, the causes of this war are too complex to fit the lead and as you see, open to interpretations. Assuming we write for the completely uniformed reader that reads only the lead and leaves, the best we could was what I've proposed in my post from the section Complete the info in the lead. Octavian8 (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. For a newcomer to understand that this is important:

After the Entente military representative demanded more territorial concessions from Hungary, Béla Kun attempted to fulfill his promise to restore Hungary's borders.

Again citing WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.

Keep that in mind. Squash Racket (talk) 15:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

On emotional reactions, timelines, sections and facts

You should keep this in mind as well, and spare me with Hungarian emotions, or bring the Romanian emotions into play also and in doing so finally understand that this has nothing to do with emotions. As for "After the Entente military representative demanded more territorial concessions from Hungary, Béla Kun attempted to fulfill his promise to restore Hungary's borders.", why not take the entire Phase II and put it in the lead. Kun would have tried to get back Transylvania by all means, irrespective of the role played by the Entente. Again, any new Hungarian government would have done this at a certain point. Octavian8 (talk) 11:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing a guideline or a rule has little to do with emotional reactions unlike your comments.

Please add your text proposition here, don't insert it above messing up the timeline of the earlier discussions and making the thread intransparent for those just joining in. The text of the lead should be in line with WP:LEAD or I'll cite it until you finally read it and understand it.

I'm waiting for User:Koertefa to come up with a proper intro. If he does not, I'll add my proposition. Squash Racket (talk) 15:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

About WP:LEAD cite whatever you want, as long as you understand what you are citing... For the last time, the LEAD the way it is right now fits this definition pretty well, still, we could improve the fit, this is what we do here right now, in this discussion (except for a few posts related to you), do you understand?

About "...timeline of earlier discussions...", have you ever heard about the concept of sections? They are supposed to organize and structure a discussion/explanation beyond the limitations of a line, such that a better understanding of the topic is ensured for everybody.

Stop renaming the subsection with the link WP:LEAD in the title "True causes of the war", because that subsection is just about your bias and your awkward view of the events. The causes of the war are discussed in the subsection "Causes of the war", i.e., this very subsection.

Please get back to discussing the LEAD of the article, this is the last time I am answering you if you don't write something that really has to do with the LEAD. You already have a subsection of your own, the one you are constantly renaming, you can add there your thoughts that have nothing to do with the discussion on improving the LEAD of this article. I will move there any of your posts that have nothing to do with the named discussion.

Look forward to any text propositions for the LEAD, as long as they help us reach a consensus. You mention the "intro" in your text, which means INTRODUCTION, another section of the article you are discussing here. However, I think you were just a bit "emotionally" stressed and forgot that we talk about the LEAD ;-). Octavian8 (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

The lead is definitely not according to WP:LEAD, do you understand? I probably have to cite it again later, because you still don't read it and get it.

The section is named by the one who has the first comment there and in this case it is not you, but me. Regardless of what you answered, the title is based on the first comment I made and my original intention and you started deviating it into your strange approach. I hope you understand.

You are not allowed to move others' comments to anywhere here. Period. Believe me, if it was allowed, I'd remove around 80% of what you've written here so far...

"Intro" and "lead" are interchangeably used on WP, you are just a bit too "emotionally" stressed to realize that basic fact. Squash Racket (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I hope you got at least the part about sections and subsections, which has to do with a thread being "intransparent"... :-))

For your convenience let me cite you from your very first post in the subsection in question: "...it wasn't the joyful event for the Romanians that caused the war, but the grief of the Hungarians" hmm... you must have used "joy" and "grief" "interchangeably" for something that is no emotion... and not the true cause of the war, and despite your eloquence I did not realize this "basic fact". I am truly sorry I misunderstood you, please accept my apologies...

I know I said I will not answer to your gibberish anymore, but I could not help it, you are too funny. Period. However I promise you this is the last time.Octavian8 (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about your usual gibberish and distortion anymore, but if you touch any of my comments or keep on unilaterally changing/refactoring the talk page giving a little too many section titles based on your own emotions, I will do it as well of course according to my taste. Period. Squash Racket (talk) 16:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

At least you seem to have learned something about sections, even if your attitude reminds me of a little kid. So, I'm happy for you, you can thank me later. Period, over and out. Oops I broke my promise...:-( put me on the Administrator's board for this. Octavian8 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I learned that even having no sections at all is better than a Romanian editor messing up the whole talk page again and again with her idiotic titles and indentation. Squash Racket (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Squash Racket is right: despite the initial emotionally motivated discussion, his posts in this section focused on the facts. Moreover, nobody should move other editors' comments around, that is strictly against the rules of Wikipedia. Altering the timeline also makes it very hard to follow the discussion, so it should be avoided; try to place comments at the end of the discussion. Changing the original section head is a borderline. Furthermore: we should not let ourselves provoked and shouldn't provoke others (cf., "do not feed the trolls"). Decrying each other or the other's comments is a receipt for disaster. Everybody's ideas (including Adrian, Octavian8, Fakirbakir, and Squash Racket) are welcome; and the more editor participates in the discussion, the better. Cheers, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 07:21, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, this about the focus on facts of Racket in his last few posts, where >80% of what he wrote was about something else, is your opinion, I beg to differ. Before jumping to the rescue of Racket did you check to see what have I moved around? About sections, a discussion is pointless if it can't be followed. I think most people here understand the advantages of sections. Sections gather topics under one headline. A timeline should be followed on each topic of the discussion, and this discussion, as you can easily see from the sections I introduced, has several topics. About the original section title it was Racket who first changed it, as I first introduced the sections in this "linear timeline" mess. Perhaps next time you should check the facts before posting. And this post of yours, other than defending your buddy Racket has no relevance to the discussion, but I am answering you nevertheless because I rather trust you are someone that can be talked to, as you have demonstrated in our previous lengthy discussions, which by share size takes precedence over your current attempt at convincing me otherwise in this last post of yours. Still, I share your opinion about provocations. This being said, I have posted a lot of other things as well that have a lot to do with the article, I look forward to hearing your ideas on those. Cheers, Octavian8 (talk) 07:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S.: I have just improved the relevance of this little chat with the help of a subsection title ;-). Octavian8 (talk) 08:40, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You obviously overreacted this. Full stop. ;-) KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

You may be right, but this Racket guy is very "special" in his attitude, and when you see such a person, you must make fun of him so he doesn't think his attitude is right. Period. ;-)Octavian8 (talk) 09:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I answer Octavian8's arguments here, in order to keep the timeline. First of all, I am happy that he fully agrees to include the end of WWI in the lead. As far as I see, no editors are against this, so the lead should be definitely extended with the end of WWI. Of course, the precise formulation of the lead is still not decided, since we are currently discussing whether the collapse of AH should also be mentioned. Regarding the causal-flow:

• I do not understand separating the "oppression" and the so-called Magyarization (this latter, by the way, was also pushed administratively, but much of it was a direct result of urbanization and industrialization). Magyarization was the main form of actions that some Romanians felt as "oppression". This, however, was not the main issue that lead to the national assembly of the Romanians. Major factors were that the Romanians became the largest ethnic group in Transylvania and the strong nationalist tendencies in that time. These nationalist movements were also supported by the Entente which was interested in the disintegration of AH. With a strong Austria-Hungary (AH), the national assembly would not have taken place. Only the collapse of AH gave an opportunity for such a radical act.
• About the Romanian army violating the demarcation lines: even though Romania entered WWI to get Transylvania, WWI was over in that time, there was an armistice in place, so the main reason for violating the armistice was that the Romanians of Transylvania proclaimed their union with KoR.
• Also, the main reason why a large part of the peace conference was about radically new borders (and not only about small adjustments besides the war reparations) was precisely the collapse of AH.
• It is simply wrong to think that Hungary's desire was to keep the "Holy Kingdom of St. Stephen" intact. Even the leader of the Hungarian delegation who signed the Treaty of Trianon, Albert Apponyi, believed in the self-determination of the nations. He did not want to keep the borders intact, all he wanted to have fair borders that respect the ethnic composition of the areas at that time. Unfortunately, he could not achieve this.
• I also disagree with the claim that any new Hungarian government would have tried to get back Transylvania. It is just a speculation. Another government might have tried to secure the areas where ethnic Hungarians were the majority, but not necessarily the whole Transylvania.

Of course, the causes of the war were very complex, but there were some key driving factors, such as the end of WWI and the collapse of Austria-Hungary. Without mentioning these, the lead is quite misleading. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: I will answer the other arguments and investigate the suggested text variants later, in a few days. Meanwhile, you might get comments from other editors, as well. I hope that they will remain, despite the previous heated discussions. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:45, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I have already answered to most of this in various posts nicely referenced in sections in this article. In short:

• In going over the Mures river, the Romanian army violated no demarcation line, as it acted on the request of the Entente, that cleared things with the Hungarians, as you see there was no fighting then. Going over the western Carpathians was also with Entente backing, the Entente request for this led to Kun's taking power. Going over the line of the three cities during the fight that erupted as a consequence of Kun trying to hold the western Carpathian line was against the Entente's will. The only thing HU can complain about here (until the RO army crossed the cities' line) is that the Entente was dictating new armistice terms to Hungary, after dictating their first terms back in 1918.
• The peace conference was about Wilsons' points, to which AH asked terms before collapsing.
• Appony was just one men put in front as the best choice of getting some understanding from the Entente. Please tell me you do not think his was the mainstream opinion in the HU political class of those times (or society for that matter).
• The Romanians have always been the majority ethnic group of Transylvania (read this post of mine also... just to keep the timeline). Still, discussing about this has no place here, neither does your nice-talking Magyarization. I know it is difficult to grasp for Hungarians that their malevolent actions with respect to various other nations in their "Great Hungary" also led to the national awakening of these nations and in the end to the breakup of this "Great Hungary", I understand you, I hope you also understand me when I tell you to please spare me this.
• Again, the collapse of the AH gave an opportunity for the union declaration in 1918 (and not later). The oppression (in particular after 1867) of the Romanians would have led sooner or later to such a declaration nevertheless. The accent is on gave the opportunity, not that it led to it. Furthermore, if AH would have still existed, under pressure from the victorious Entente it would have granted rights to other nationalities in the empire, and I think you agree that in our case the result would have been the same (see my posts on this).

The collapse of AH was a factor, but not a cause of HU-RO war. Ending WWI is the key factor, as it led to AH's collapse in 1918 (and not later). Octavian8 (talk) 08:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead

I have no problem with Racket learning about sections, but this talk page is about the entire article, so please when you add new discussion topics order them with respect to the sections of the article so we know what we are talking about. Racket's text proposition for example, is only for the LEAD, not for the entire article. Octavian8 (talk) 09:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Who was the initiator of the Romanian advance into communist Hungary?

According to the article: "The Romanian delegation at the Peace Conference in Paris requested that the Romanian Army be allowed to oust the Hungarian communists from power.", but according to MTA [7] "France, being short of military resources, wanted the Czechs and Romanians to declare war on Hungary" AksamitSK (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the Romanians initiated the war by crossing the demarcation lines with the question being whether they acted in accordance with the Entente or not.

The text continues like that: Organized in the field by General Franchet d'Esperey, the military operation against the Hungarian Republic of Councils was hampered by the Belgrade government's refusal to participate and by the Czechs' unpreparedness. The Romanians, on the other hand, wanted to ensure the success of their territorial demands by maximizing the extent of military occupation; (...) on April 10, the crown council in Bucharest decided in favour of an attack. Squash Racket (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I think we should all agree that based on that Hungarian Academy of Sciences source we should correct the article. Squash Racket (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read also other things than Hungarian sites, like for example this article, where you can find out who was the initiator of the war in sections:

• Phase I: Following a Romanian request, the Allied Command in the East under the leadership of the French general Franchet d'Espèrey allowed the Romanian Army to advance up to the line of the Western Carpathians.
• Phase II: Hence, the South African General Smuts was sent to Budapest on April 4 with a proposition for the Kun government to abide by the conditions previously presented to Károlyi. This action of the Allies also amounted to recognizing Communist Hungary. In exchange for fulfilling the conditions in the Vix Note, the Allied powers would lift the blockade of Hungary and adopt a benevolent attitude towards it in the question of the territories it had to yield to Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. Kun however asked that the Romanian Army be ordered back to the line of the Mureş river, and the discussions stalled....Once the discussions with Kun stalled, the Romanian Army was ordered by the Romanian government to take action and force the Hungarian authorities to comply with the Allied council decision on February 28 concerning the new demarcation line....Aware of the Romanian preparations, the Hungarians fortified the mountain passes in their possession and launched a preemptive attack on the night between April 15 and 16. The attack was stopped with the help of the reserve formations and the Romanians defensive lines held. Between April 16 and 18, the Romanians started their own offensive, forcing the mountain passes after heavy fighting.

Octavian8 (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source. In short. The reference brought by the Slovak editor is. Squash Racket (talk) 17:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Citing this very Wikipedia article to support that this Wikipedia article is correct sounds a bit strange (self-referencing). The book cited by AksamitSK says [8]:

"[...] France, being short of military resources, wanted the Czechs and Romanians to declare war on Hungary, and its belligerent attitude prevailed over England's more accommodating policy. Organized in the field by General Franchet d'Esperey, the military operation against the Hungarian Republic of Councils was hampered by the Belgrade government's refusal to participate and by the Czechs' unpreparedness. The Romanians, on the other hand, wanted to ensure the success of their territorial demands by maximizing the extent of military occupation; their longer-term objective was to forestall a link-up between the Hungarian and Russian soviet republics and the spread of communism in the Danubian Basin; on April 10, the crown council in Bucharest decided in favour of an attack. On April 15, the Romanians launched a powerful offensive along the entire Hungarian–Romanian demarcation line. [...]"

According to this, it is quite clear who started the war and the current text of this Wikipedia article is misleading. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It has to be corrected. It is pretty straightforward. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I also think that it has to be corrected. Moreover, the lead should also reflect this. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 10:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaving the similarities of this to the thesis about the Entente intervention in Hungary, the text you cite is similar to what is in the article (which is supported by other citations), just that in there it says that the Hungarians beat the Romanians with the attack, not that the Romanians wouldn't have attacked otherwise. So we could add this as reference, but why modify the text? Or do you want to write explicitly that the reluctance of the Hungarians to comply with the requests of the Entente led to war. Octavian8 (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC) P.S.: @Koertefa you either don't know what self-referencing means, or you didn't read my post or you forgot that we are here in the Talk page of the Wikipedia article about the HU-RO war of 1919.Octavian8 (talk) 09:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

(Maybe) interesting article

http://www.hungarianhistory.com/lib/tria/tria11.htm AksamitSK (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a very good article, Maria Ormos is an expert. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Redirects

Romanian–Hungarian War, 1919 Romanian–Hungarian War, Romanian–Hungarian War of 1919, Romanian-Hungarian War, 1919 Romanian-Hungarian War, Romanian-Hungarian War of 1919, Hungarian–Romanian War, Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919, 1919 Hungarian–Romanian War, Hungarian-Romanian War, Hungarian-Romanian War of 1919, 1919 Hungarian-Romanian War should redirect here -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

 Done Charles Essie (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Hungarian–Romanian war of 1919 → Hungarian–Romanian War – I can't think of any other war in history that uses the name "Hungarian–Romanian War", plus, that title already redirects here. Charles Essie (talk) 21:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose that so far nobody has bothered to support because it seemed like an obvious thing to do, so I'll be the first. No such user (talk) 07:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

In the subsection "Reparations or looting?" in the section "Aftermath" I noticed a completely unnecessary use of biased language to an otherwise relatively balanced and objective article.

"This pledged the relationships between the Hungarian population and the occupation army, which otherwise started well, the Hungarians being satisfied to get rid of the Bolshevik yoke."

Aside from the fact that the Hungarian communist party wasn't bolshevist, using language like "getting rid of the joke" is highly biased and has no place in an encyclopedia, or in any serious article in general.

Unless the usage of this ridiculous term is motivated, I will take myself the freedom to edit it. --86.127.155.233 (talk) 08:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)