Talk:Coronini

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Coronini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.carasseverin.insse.ro/phpfiles/Comunicat%20-%20DATE%20PROVIZORII%20RPL%202011%20Caras-Severin.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120320124003/http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/ to http://recensamant.referinte.transindex.ro/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321152817/http://www.plural-magazine.com:80/ to http://www.plural-magazine.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Obsession???

Please specify, what you refer the in the edit log:

- 1. "I see the old obsession has resurfaced"

and why you emphasize that:

- 2. "unfortunately, this time, the stable version is tightly backed by reliable sources"

Wrong/inaccurate information were corrected and specified, since the Hungarian name could not be in case "Szentlázló" but at least "Szentlászló", on the other hand "historical Hungarian" is very not likely to be "Zenthlázlówára", but "Szentlászlóvára", if we would refer of correct naming and pronunciation of the Hungarian language. So if the historical recorded versions are referred - following Latin phonetics-, exactly those recorded forms are reffering to the contemporary conditions, so if you say this version are supported by reliable sources, I want to see the exact inline citations about this.

On the other cases, still I don't understand your problem, since Banat did not unite with Romania in 1918, the inaccurate phrase is on that false pattern that you know very well (by the Treaty of Trianon it became part of Romania in 1920), and it is still not obvious what reliable sources you are reffering since I did not alter any tightly sourced content that can be judged unambigously, so please provide also inline citations if I would be wrong.

However, it is interesting you use the phrase "unfortunately", would that mean to support something willingly/unwillingly that is not totally correct, or I am wrong? We should struggle in case any source to represent truthful and accurate content in Wikipedia, I hope your goal is not again to open unnecessary conflicts, however, I don't wish to do any prejudications, but I have an experience with you, and your wordage in the edit log about "obsession" remind me some of the earlier cases, and remember you sweared you will avoid me. So please enlight me what is the situation right now? Thank you(KIENGIR (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2017 (UTC))

• I backed off a single page, which was in any event poorly sourced, because I had better things to do than engage with your endless, meaningless diatribes. I never said I would sit idly by as you degraded well-written articles.

• 1) The part about Szentlázló etc. is attested by three reliable sources. Your replacement text is attested by none. Do review WP:NOR for that.

• 2) I know your pet project is to deny the significance of the union of Transylvania (and the Banat) with Romania, but that stops right here, right now. It's a basic fact, attested by dozens of sources, including the ones cited in the article. If you don't like it, feel free to start your own, alternate history encyclopedia.

• 3) Alternative names for Oraviţa (and Plzeň, and Golubac, and so on) can be found by clicking the respective link. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• I did not have any diatribe, on the contrary, in the edit log you started again to introduce and abusive speech. I did not degrade any article and please restrain yourself telling things that are not true.

• 1) Ok, no problem, I will add a source and also let the current content.

• 2) I don't have any "pet project" and I do not deny any "significance of the union of Transylvania (and the Banat) with Romania", since such anyway did not exist in a way as you say, and the wordage is wrong and misleading. The Romanian National assembly declared the union of Transylvania with Romania, but it did not have a legal result, as well well such wordage like an entity - i.e. Transylvaia or Banat - would have united is also false, since such also did not exist. It was a one-way declaration, i.e. if a leader of Transylvania/Banat who would bear the official support in a legal way representing all the people, than we could have spoken about this. Considering Banat especially, both Serbs and Romanians put an enormous lobby until 1920 how large part they would like to demand and get in the end, finally the region was didived between Hungary, SHS and Romania, in 1920. But we have discussed this and you were informed, so it is heavily unprofessional and amazing you state some like a "it's a basic fact", about the sources I have just say one thing, also dozens of sources attest an other "union" that have been never carried out, but also Romanians understood that historical accuracy is more important than to push something that was not happened in fact. You forgot to show me the exact inline citations about this, so please go on. Making such statement that I could "to start your own, alternate history encyclopedia" is ridiculous, since not I am the one who is pushing an "alternate history" on the contrary. I don't understand you, instead of peaceful collaboration you are making trouble on such things that should not be a problem anymore. If it is so much important for you to mention the declaration, it can be worked out.

• 3) Aha, until know you did not have any problem with contemporary alternate naming, I am surprised.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC))

@Dahn:,

Well then please help me to resolve these issues - as I saw you added these information -, let's start with the names. My first question is, the exact quote of the Hungarian names are from the first two Romanian sources, or from the last Hungarian one (I wish to see the exact quote)? My concern is if the names are referred as the spoken language, than it is not likely to be written in Latin phonetics, or if older names are written in Latin phonetics, than the diacritics are not usual. Check these two sources i.e. (that you may not critize): [1] (hit p. 48. and check), and here [2] (hit p. 150 and check). Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC))

The name appears here (searchable text, feel free to locate it). I do not necessarily oppose adding other variants that are attested, but I see no reason to remove an attested variant on your whim. Dahn (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear @Dahn:, if you carefully checked, in my latest addition I did not remove any attested variant. In the source you presented above I've only found Zenthlázlówára, but nothing about the form Szentlázló.

So we have two options, 1; you help me to trace in which source is about "Szentlázló" and we go on, or 2; we delete it and next to the attested variant if you agree the next would be added: "those time recorded as castrum Zenthlazlowara (1430), castrum Zenthlazlo (1460)" in accorance to the newly presented sources.

On the other issue, I'd use another wordage, since what you introduced raise still some inaccuracies, considering the complex and complicated situation in those times. I understand the declaration of the union for Romanians is a important and celebrated event in a national day, including Bessarabia's case that was a bit different and was proclaimed in an other time. One of the problem is the declaration of the union included a much more larger territory what finally was assigned to Romania, and it was a symbolic event made not by plebiscite or by the legal representants of all the inhabitants, as well the Treaty of Trianon did not confirm this declaration. That event was the expression of the wish of the Romanian people - and with this the expression of their expectations regarding the decision on the final arrangement. On the other hand, different and changing demarcation lines were set in temporary conditions, and more parties even harming their rights in occupation used various methods to lobby, dominate and influence the ongoing outcome of this final decision (these goes to Serbs, Hungarians, Romanians, etc.). However, both Hungary and Romania was a subject with their classic borders until the decision. Regarding the Banat, the Serb-Romanian claims, disputes were also harsh and were not finally set until the end of the peace treaty, so such wordage like "de facto union" I consider problematic and inaccurate.

Thus, my proposal would be easier to be correct:

"The village and the rest of Banat following the declaration of the union upon the end of World War, by the Treaty of Trianon became part of Romania."

and respectively, the other sentence in question:

"Known successively as Lászlóvára and Pescari, the locality was in turn part of the Habsburg domains, the Austrian Empire, Austria-Hungary and following the 1918 declaration of the union, by the Treaty of Trianon, Romania."(KIENGIR (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC))

One thing for now: the article linking the union is not about the declaration, but about the whole union process up to Trianon. Please no more filibustering on this issue: the area was controlled by Romania (a process that had its many ifs and buts, all of them irrelevant to who actally controlled the place), and was recognized as part of Romania by Trianon. Was there any other state actually in control of Coronini between 1918 and 1920? No? Then that's that, no more psedoargument about who was right and how this is the "Romanians' viewpoint". (Incidentally: sorry to have to point out, but in addition to being POV, your proposals are ungrammatical.) Dahn (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dahn:, well, if you speak about "union process", it would be a bit different, but still the linking and the allusion goes to the same root, in such way every country could use such terms in the process she'll expect to get a territory from another country, the term "union" in general holds if both entities agreed on this, considering the other distractions I've earlier mentioned. I don't understand you, not I am filibustering regarding this. "Controlling" an area has not any connection to "union", like so all military occupation events of another country could be interpreted like that, it is dangerous. Actually, even if we would check precisely the Serbian and Romanian military engagament in the current place, it would not change anything of the earlier mentioned. I don't agree my proposal would be a POV, it is precisely and sharply accurate and correct - since the sentence not necessarily should contain any reference to the declaration if we just investigate the area was part of which country, or by what event, it's there because Romanians consider it relevant (mostly affected by it's inaccurate interpretation); thus we can also ignore any reference and just list the countries consecutively, or if we also wish to present the events, then we should be accuarate, since not because of the declaration became the area part of Romania, but the treaty). As you see, in my proposal I tried to fulfill and satisfy all viewpoints, and if they are ungrammatical, than please feel free to correct/improve/rephrase and present them, I am sure both of us may create something feasible.(KIENGIR (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC))

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current wording and no reason to change it, there are just your POV sensitivities, which you try to pass for a relevant issue as as somehow "the Hungarian POV". That part of the Banat became Romanian by virtue of a Romanian takeover, which actually preceded the union declaration by a few days, which I think was never challenged by the Serbs (who, I believe, went only as far east as Timișoara) -- if you know of any other administration in Coronini, do state the source and add it (or I will gladly add the info myself if presented with that). The partition of the Banat on the current borders was a fact already in 1919, when Romania for instance had parliamentary elections in all Banat constituencies. The article you keep spuriously depicting as being just about the declaration of union describes, or at least should describe one it is properly written, the whole process. The process also included the creation of a Directing Council for Transylvania, which had in it Banat representatives. These are all facts, and your claim to "NPOV" is in blatant ignorance of the facts. Please, stop wasting my time with this nonsense. Dahn (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dahn:, I don't agree with you as well the accusations of "POV sensitivities", or "the Hungarian POV". I professionally described the situation that has no connection to any "POV" or "Hungarian" something, read back if it is not clear. About Serbian-Romanian affairs you may find a great number of sources, especially the Peace Conference reports, affairs and negotiations, anyway not any Serb challenge would change anything that I presented, on the other hand, not any military takeover has any connection to "union", as I explained above, as well it has no connection to what administration is introduced even temporarily, even if the state acted as like so (elections, etc.). There is not any "spurious" depicting in my proposal, it is describing the legal situation without any emotion or whatsoever. Even the establishment of the Directing Council for Transylvania has not any connection what I have stated, since the occupying state introduced these institutions. All in all, the facts you stated here does not contradict or disprove the legal matters I have presented, and I have to seriously refuse I would have a "blatant ignorance" of facts, on the contrary. It seems you don't like the situation about this and you list some other matters - that I've already known of course - that with you try to emphasize the action of the Romanian state in the occupied territories, but not this is the root of the discussion, this has no decisive power, just the legal matters, and that is the Treaty of Trianon. Such remarks like "Please, stop wasting my time with this nonsense" from an expreienced editor like you with a huge number of barnstars and appreciation is disapponting. Please note this case has only connection to already happened history that we cannot influence back in time. I have no problem if you mention the declaration of the union, as well what happened during the military occupation, but please do not support any confusion that the territory - Banat or other territories in question - would become part of Romania by "union", but by the Treaty, 1920. That's all.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC))

I will ask yo again: is there any proof that any other state but Romania was in control of Coronini after December 1918? Produce it. As for the legal situation: it was somewhat murky what borders Romania had at the time, but it is quite clear that it administered the territory de facto, de jure from 1920, and the current text spells this outright, without making any of the claims you fantasize about and infer. If you keep writing just random nonsense and not addressing the point, I will stop reading altogether. It takes up to 5 minutes to go through each rambling reply of yours, only to find new ways in which you dodge the point. Go on start an RfC or whatever, but the part where it is you negotiating with and presenting your theories to me is over. Dahn (talk) 23:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

As a final note: do pick up and read out the guide on WP:TRUTH and our core policy on WP:SOAPBOX. You seem to be ignorant of them as well, or perhaps happy that nobody has confronted you with them thus far. Dahn (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, @Dahn:, then I try to be as short as possible:

- As I told, the question is about not who controlled the territory (this is not necessarily under debate)

- Ok, but then please put also the other affected text such kind of modification at least.

- Such impolite/improper/invalid epithets like "fantasizing", "random nonsense", etc. I have to refuse (you would not be able to prove such), since I all the time concentrated on the point, it is not my fault I had to explain again and again more detailed since your presentation of some other circumstances that have not any direct connection what I've demonstrated. Talk page is for discussion, I am sorry the time and some possible dislike towards me and the topic makes you to plan to quit, and I don't plan right now any Rfc, but I believe in negotiation, consensus and a friendly collaboration, although I feel a cumulating stress in you, unfortunately.

- I am aware that Wikipedia has not any connection to the truth, but I struggle for valid and precise content, as I saw many examples - as well once from your fellow editor - when he was wisely rephrasing even the source was inaccurate or lazy. I have no business with WP:SOAPBOX and I don't understand what would refer "as well" in your sentence.

- My final note - however, I will never refuse any discussion with you in an impolite way - "de facto united" phrase may be feasible in some cases - carefully phrasing in case who, when, how - but mentioning the de jure situation cannot be ignored.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC))

I undersantd KIENGIR's concerns. Kosovo is nowadays de facto independent and internationally recognized by the majority of countries, but we still have the explanatory Template:Kosovo-note included in articles like Pristina. I propose a non-controversial text like: "following Banat's post-WW1's union, Romania", or something similar. 123Steller (talk) 06:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Kosovo (or Crimea) refers to an ongoing unsolved dispute. Whatever was disputed about the status of Transylvania, in that framework, ended in 1919 when all sides agreed, by the highest of international treaties, to recognize that the part of Banat which included Coronini was Romanian territory -- by then, it was already administered by Romania. Kowtowing to supposed sensitivities about how for a few months Romanian rule was effective but not fully recognized is excessive special pleading, feeding into one user's filibstering. By that token, neither this nor this would exist, as there were no successor states to recognize them and be themselves recognized, and we wold have to be mindful about fictional Austrian or Hungarian or Russian or Ukrainian sensitivities in describing them as actual polities which actually held territory. In fact, given that very special reasoning, we should bracket out the existence of either a Hungarian Soviet Republic or this thing, and speak of them only as fictional things that happened in Austro-Hungarian territory, careful to mention that only Trianon settled things.

I will ask again the question which the one user who wastes or time here with non-issues keeps dodging: was there any polity other than Romania that held Coronini at any point from December 1918 to June 1920?

And no, this is not an issue of "Romanian POV", as the user keeps insinuating and asserting by repetition; it is an issue of common sense and basic standards. Dahn (talk) 09:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Romanian troops entered Banat in 1919. But regardless of the years issue. the current text says, as I noticed now, that (the whole) Banat united with Romania in 1918, which is not true. The Resolution voted by the Alba-Iulia National Assembly proclaimed the union of the whole of Banat with the Kingdom of Romania, but Romania never gained control of the entire province. 123Steller (talk) 10:09, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I would not object to any change that would reflect that concern, feel free to tweak. And if you have any data on who and what controlled Coronini before the Romanian arrival, feel free to add that as well. My objection is to blanket changes for the sake of non-existing concerns, not to adding any valid information to the text and rephrasing accordingly. I would regard as an improvement and stand by any addition of properly sourced info that would show precisely all the regimes that Coronini was under, but I do not believe we should accept a rephrasing of various parts of the text because "yeah but we dont know for sure, other parts of the Banat etc." Dahn (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A Romanian-language article about Banat at the end of WW1 is here. After the armistice on the Balkan Front signed on November 13, 1918, Serbian and French troops took control of Banat. I understand that the Romanian administration was installed in the summer of 1919. 123Steller (talk) 14:39, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It's of course an uncitable article, being from a wiki, but what I have specifically asked is about Coronini, not about Banat loosely defined. We need a precise information to add to the article, specifically referring to Coronini or at least showing in some way where Coronini was included at what time. I will also look for it myself, but please see my concern. Dahn (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The "framework" all sides agreed on the future status of Transylvania was not in 1919, but 1920. The Hungarian Soviet Republic is not an example/counter-example in the scope of the debate necessarily, since in 1918 only Austria-Hungary was dissoluted, not Hungary (AH was anyway a joint monarchy of two separate states, this monarchical joint of kingdom was released), and only the type of the state "kingdom", "republic", "communist" etc. changed, the subject remained with the same borders, that should not be mixed with rapidly changing temporary demarcation lines (many not even kept by some foreign military). I did not waste anyone's time, I don't keep doging with "non-issuses", and the at least fourth time I emphasize the issue is NOT who controlled the territory, but if we list consecutively the official state belongings from the earliest times, the we have to be precise, since "part of" refers to legal matters. "Blanket changes for the sake of non-existing concerns" was not the case here. @123Steller:, thank you for your understanding and reinforcement, I know you are also among those editors who tries to be as much accurate as possible.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC))

It doesn't matter what year it was, the point is that in 1920 it was solved, so insisting on presenting it a a murkier issue is your personal soapbox, as your special pleading for Hungary (which was unrecognized as a democratic republic, and downright denied existence as a Soviet republic -- if you were to apply your criteria above, we should all be pretending like those states did not exist, and always mention everywhere that they did no exist in your sentimental reality). Anyway, the point is made, I am sure 123teller has understood it and how it is simply an issue an methodology.

If we want to be exact, which I am all for, what is needed is to simply retrieve and specify info on who controlled Coronini when, and the wording would naturally reflect that, without inferences. Say "between... and... the Serbs..." or "was administered by a committee of..." or "was taken by the Romanian army on..." etc. Surely there is an account of this somewhere, and surely no one would object to a fact-based narrative about the locality itself, instead of theories about how, because Lugoj was held by the Serbs, then surely Coronini was too. Why are not doing that, instead of filibstering? Dahn (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

It matters in what year what happened, there are a lot of mistakes anyway regarding such issues. I don't have any "personal soapbox" or "sentimental reality", you should soon avoid this type of personalization, you know, comment on content, not on editors. No, my argumentation does not have any logical fallacy, since my criteria holds for valid transitions of state borders, respectively, not for recognized or non-recognized state forms/governments of a state and not such any conclusion is possible that we should pretend thats something would not exist. The fifth time I indicate that you move on the line of the actual, de facto control, administer etc. that is not identical with the legal it was part of a country issue. Again, not I am the one who made any "filibustering", normally it should not excalate any big issue regarding this. There are two options, if you wish - it seems until know from your behalf - to have a lower (= more detailed abstaction level) degree of a list that not just concerns on state belongings, but list also every de facto takeover/occupation/military administration etc. than your wish could be fulfilled, accordingly. BTW, in any case, the "Habsburg Domain"="Habsburg Mornarchy" was not even a country if we go into so much into the details, but an unofficial appellation to the lands, countries, etc. having Habsburg Kings, thus then the medieval situation could be also extracted, especially after 1526 more Hungarian states and/or Ottoman entities are candidate.(KIENGIR (talk) 23:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC))

Okay, Austria-Hungary was not an actual country, and the Hungarian Democratic Republic merely seceded and was a legal successor of the Arpad kingdom. This is the type of fantasy that has been feeding the faux concern and faux controversy above, and on other pages where KIENGIR has been pushing his agenda. Back on point: it really is a (small but intriguing) issue who and what owned Coronini between Alba Ilia and Trianon. I welcome any productive input. Dahn (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

@Dahn:, excuse me I did not necessarily "push my agenda", I fixed accuracy also in other pages. Fantasy? I can take only responsibility what I have said, and there is not any fantasy in it. Again personalities...pfff. It is so simple to check i.e. the Treaty and the suject's within, respectively. However, I salute the quality and quantity of your current edits.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:24, 13 April 2017 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Coronini. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.apmcs.ro/Arii%20protejate.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824144002/http://www.apmcs.ro/ to http://www.apmcs.ro/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)