Talk:Brașov

First synagogue
Was the first synagogue really the one erected in 1901? I have found on other sites that the orthodox synagogue dates from 1877.Eugen Ivan 10:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two synagogues in the city, the ones you have remembered.--Alex:Dan 14:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Pictures added by GDP
User:GDP has recently added pictures which scream copyvio, and he has tagged them as his own creations. Dahn 01:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

POV
The history section of the article currently has a strong pro-Romanian POV (Daco-Romanian continuity) and is unreferenced. I am planning to copyedit and make the article more neutral in the next week or so. Olessi 17:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

194.105.21.41's latest edit
You're right, Dahn - surprisingly, this guy came up with a NPOV edit and I reverted it - my bad. I hope he'll stick only to neutral edits from now on. Mentatus 14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling
It should be brașov not braşov. Please fix this. The ş is not a romanian character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.93.48 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Night Busses
I live in the city and believe me there are no more night busses so i'll edit out that part in transportation. 89.123.247.241 (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ceauşescu's goal was to eliminate all of the traditional Romanian architecture and replace it with concrete communist buildings.
apart from bucharest,there hasn't been any massive deliberate destruction of XIXth century or older urban architecture with the intent of replacing it with concrete blocks or other housing projects. moreover the old city centers where promoted as tourist destination in the brochures of the time both for the local and foreign market..the newer parts are usually built alongside the old frame of the cities.examples range from larger cities like Cluj-napoca,Sibiu,Constantza to smaller urban areas like Sighisoara.so despite being the exception brasov falls into the other development projects that we're the general rule during Ceausescu's regime.if no one comes with a reliable source for that statement i suggest removing it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.48.49 (talk) 03:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
You are using a wrong etymology You deleted etymologies proposed by Saxons and by Romanian Etymological Dictionary by Al. Cioranescu, even though it was referenced correctly Also, FYI phonological rules of the language make impossible linguistically the Turkic Barasu etymology for the name Brașov You strongly support it. Yet, your etymology is not proper referenced Blurall (talk) 03:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, the text you're adding relies on fringe or primary sources, in most cases serving original research. As a side note, some of those references you "cite" are unretrievable when you don't provide the edition, page number etc. (see WP:CITE). Nothing in that is referenced "correctly", Blurall: you picked the info from the dexonline resource, which is itself a wiki of sorts (it does not have editorial control, it is user-contributed, and it does not have a clear affiliation with the actual academic dictionary - see WP:RS in general for that); anything cited through such sources is itself dubious. As long as the etymologies you consider "correct" are cited in such atrocious and misleading manner, the info based on them does not exist as far as the article is concerned - and this before even considering the info itself is fringe or unreliable (as most is). I trust you see my point.
 * And, incidentally, let me introduce you to another cornerstone of wikipedia editing: WP:NPOV. Your convictions about what is "correct" are themselves not up for debate, not should they come to matter for this article. Dahn (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Etymology as with Sextil Puscariu
I added a quote and not a conviction. I am not sure why you are so hostile to other etymoloy since nobody provided until now a correct etymology. I asked a linguist about it Until its clarification, I provide to you a point of view that you might consider, or not S. Puscariu in his book Puşcariu, Sextil (1977) Braşovul de altădată. Cluj-Napoca: Ed. Dacia. OCLC 3446164. wrote
 * "But, from person name Bratoslav we have another hypocoristic form, "Brasa", that is the basis of the name Brasov, as N. Drãganu supposed it"

As a reminder, N. Draganu proposed a Slavonic person name. See also wikipedia in French. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bra%C5%9Fov for what Draganu proposed and Germans Philippi and Kisch eventualy Une interprétation de F. Philippi en 1874 explique que le nom vient de l'ancienne cité Brasovia sur la Tempe, détruite par Corvin. En 1928, G. Treiber et E. Jekelius utilisent cette hypothèse pour expliquer qu'en slave le mot baras, qui veut dire « cité » ou « vérité », est à l'origine de Brasov. They do not mention extincted pecheneg language I personal, do not know what etmology is correct Yet, your material is about a Romanian beautiful city. The etymological aspects shouldn't be so long so that people would miss to see why else it is a beautiful city

Blurall (talk) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC) and Blurall (talk) 10:07, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Dahn, I added here (on this discussion page, and not in the article!!) that article from French wikipedia since you said how reliable it is wikipedia comparing with other sources that I indicated. I do not want to mislead anyone. I just wanted to inform, and Al Cioranescu dictionary is a reliable source. And, do not offend me by saying... "(where I suppose the info was also added by you)" ....about that article. You imply some wrong doing Please verify properly that article's editing history. It appears it is from 2007. By the way, it is a bad translation. It appears like a "Google" translation Blurall (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have stated that I see no reason for even discussing what they (whoever) wrote on French wikipedia. If you did not add it and the citation is incomplete, you also don't know if it's verifiable, not can you speculate about what else it may or may not back. Incidentally, them "not mentioning" a certain etymology is no "proof" of them rejecting it, as relevant of irrelevant as that is to the topic; it is purely and simply a fallacy. Dahn (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

other names
Modern wiki pages must contain Other names section Readder (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Same old song. RashersTierney (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Historic fact or communist/nationalistic post ww2 propaganda?
"Once Brașov became a German colony, Romanians were denied several privileges by the new German settlers. They were no longer recognized as citizens of the city, and as such they were no longer able to continue to practice their crafts and operate their businesses." Just to clarify this: Kronstadt was not a "German colony". Kronstadt was a town founded by German settlers (hence I guess they didn't call it "Brasov") invited by Hungarian kings in order to (re)populate devastated regions. That's quite a difference to a colony, isn't it? At that time Transylvania was subdivided on a very small scale into regions which had their own rules and quite different social structures. Just have a look a the architecture in Transylvania - those regional characteristics of that time are easily visible even today. So it is not exactly true that the "descendants of romans and dacians" were "no longer recognized as citizens of the city". The simple reality is: The city belonged to those who built it - say the German settlers. (By the way: According to the Hungarian version of history there were almost none of your "descendants of romans and dacians" in Transilvania at that time at all...). You may also want to review the definition of a colony. You may find out that "In politics and history, a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a state." If you had learned at least a little bit of history before posting such a crap on Wikipedia you may have noticed that the Transylvanian Saxons were subordinates of the Hungarian king, and not the Holy Roman Emperor (or whatever you might consider "Germany" at that time). Also, the statistics you mention in the article are from a time long after the Transylvanian Saxons lost their regional autonomy and Romanians took the chance to migrate into their cities. Even more pathetic is your statemt: "Romanians were denied several privileges by the new German settlers". As already mentioned: At that time the German settlers had their own territory. The majority of the "Romanian population" (the Romanian nation wasn't yet "invented", but anyway ...) were serfs on the lands of the Hungarian nobility. Those who ranked higher in society melted away into the "Hungarian" aristocracy. So the German settlers could not deny the "Romanians" any privileges because they lived in clearly separated territories/societies. They simply weren't the rulers of the "Romanian" serfs. (It really seems you haven't got any clue about the society of that time at all.) After ww2 borders in eastern Europe tended to shift westwards. Some governments tried to find an historic justification for that. So they started to fake history. In nowadays Europe there is no discussion about adjusting borders and hence no need for such type of prpaganda. So please stop this Ceausescu-style pseudo-historic shit here on Wikipedia. Thanks. (Of course you may try to find some internationally accepted sources for your version of history. If you fail to - and I'm quite sure you will - then I will most certainly delete your nationalistic/propagandistic statements.)
 * Makes sense. There is still some Ceaucescu nostalgia in parts of the population, although he ruined the country with his bizarre politics. Even today descendants of the German settlers consider themselves Romanians with Saxon ancestry and mother tongue. The majority were bought out by West Germany in the eighties. Only few returned after the fall of the communist regime, although the Romanian govt. invited them back. Ontologix (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Real estate growth?
"Significant growth in real estate prices continues, along with other major Romanian cities, as investor sentiment remains high, given the large foreign direct investment influx, recent accession to the European Union and forthcoming airport. Like most of Romania and Poland, cities like Brașov are predicted to exhibit strong growth for many years to come. Many foreign investors are sourcing their own land, or engaging local firms to create holiday or investment property."

Local (and global) real estate has crashed, along with investor sentiment. The whole paragraph reads like a veiled advertisement for the real estate sector as a whole, with the author just waxing optimistic. No sources for "strong growth for many years to come" whatsoever. In light of the current real estate, financial and economic slump, this bit can safely head for the shredder. MordechaiBV (talk) 19:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Bran Castle are - not - in Brasov. I have been both places. Bran Castle are in Bran, many, many miles far away from Brasov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buskerudalge (talk • contribs) 11:05, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Brașov. 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 tag to http://www.recensamantromania.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/sR_TAB_3.xlsx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060214164729/http://www.apd.ro:80/map/files/presa%20locala%20monitorizata.pdf to http://www.apd.ro/map/files/presa%20locala%20monitorizata.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brașov. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150204022525/http://www.brasovpress.ro/2012/02/16/brasovul-s-a-infritit-cu-orasul-linz-austria/ to http://www.brasovpress.ro/2012/02/16/brasovul-s-a-infritit-cu-orasul-linz-austria/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apd.ro/map/files/presa%20locala%20monitorizata.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Affiliations box
I propose restoring the following, with reasons below:

Austria-Hungary 1867–1918 (de jure Hungary until 1920) 🇷🇴 Romania 1920–present (de facto from 1918)

In the interests of efficiency, the results of this survey will apply to other cities in Romania, adapted to each city’s particular history.


 * 1) The Romanian Army entered Brașov on December 7, 1918, at which point the (Saxon) mayor pledged loyalty to Romania. Meanwhile, the Austro-Hungarian Army had left, and the authority of the state that it represented melted away.


 * 2) The union of all Transylvania with Romania was proclaimed on December 1, 1918. No, this was no mere symbolic act. Not only was it backed by the force of a large occupying army, but the very next day, its delegates created a Directing Council with the full civilian powers of a government. In other words, the Union, for all intents and purposes, marked Transylvania’s incorporation into Romania.


 * Brașov itself had a National Council as of November, exercising authority on a local level. This body included Romanians, Germans and indeed Hungarians.


 * 3) For too long, we have stood silently by as mentions of the Union have been systematically stripped out of articles, under the ahistorical fiction that nothing changed in Transylvania’s legal or political status until June 4, 1920. For too long, we have said nothing while a basic fact known to all is covered up — namely that Transylvania became, in effect, part of Romania on December 1, 1918. For too long, we have watched article after article pretend that Transylvania belonged to Hungary until June 4, 1920 — despite the fact that Hungary could not even control its own capital during that interval, much less distant outposts of its former holdings.


 * That ends today. As of today, we start bringing back mention of the Union. To be sure, in the spirit of neutrality and accuracy, we mention that the final, formal transfer of sovereignty took a year and a half to accomplish, but the facade of mystification crumbles today. - Biruitorul Talk 06:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support as proposer. - Biruitorul Talk 06:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Support, specially the de jure and de facto ideas. Although we have to be aware that only the historic Transylvania and southern Maramureș were included in the 1 December 1918 union (even if union was declared with other regions too). Banat was occupied by the Serbs while Crișana still had some degree of Hungarian control until some time after. If we add something similar in Sighetu Marmației, we should see if it was under Czechoslovak control at some point, since I know that both countries exchanged some territories around 1919 or 1920 (and the city bordered the country, so it wouldn't be too surprising).
 * By the way, I think we need an article about the Great Union. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Support - covering both de facto and de jure aspects in the "historical affiliations" box with regard to the control of a city or territory provides a better overview of the history of the respective place. There's no need to hide our head in the sand because there's no bias when it comes to facts. Mentatus (talk) 16:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fully Support. Indeed, this has long been a vexing issue, both on this page and in other related ones. The proposed solution is fair and elegant; it accurately reflects the historical record, and provides a blueprint on how to move forward. Turgidson (talk) 17:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because this little chart should not enter into so much excessive details, we have safe dates of de jure transfers, should not mention de facto issues, which would overly complicate them. I understand for Romanians it is a sensitive issue (as for Hungarians as well), but it is not true that the event would have been removed with under the ahistorical fiction (btw. here the proclamation of the union is mentioned, but Treaty of Trianon is not), however fallacious assertions and urban legends have been amended in connection with that (changes of legal sovereignty not to be confused with imposed one-way military administration, etc.). It is a fact when Transylvania's status changed, officially and internationally, outside this area, many times happened in history that foreign interventions, one-sided proclamations, imposed administrations happened, but neutrality means that we do not confuse/conflate them with other issues. Seeing this points, 1, it is irrelevant which mayor pledged allegiance, since the mayor has not legal autorithy to decide over the sovereignty of a state's territory, 2, symbolic in a way that it had no legalty, neither the Consiliul Dirigent had any legal ground in the territory of Hungary, btw. as well with other entities/countries it has been set change of sovereignty will be conluded by the Peace Treaties (I would add, for instance when Vojvodina made similar proclamation, the body included only 1 (!) Hungarian and 6 (!) German delegates, though they would represent 50% of the population, while there was 578 (!!!) Serbian delegates representing 33% of the population...a great democratic championship vs. a plebistcite, c'mon...the inclusion of Hungarians into some temporal bodies still are not decisive in this question). Hence 3, the statement about that Transylvania belonged to Hungary until June 4, 1920 would be a "pretension" is even erroneus and contradictive, since legal sovereignty does not equal with de facto control of territories, hence it cannot be even a pretension, and even Biruitorul acknowledges in the end when the legal tranfer happenend, so I see all this issue from his behalf overly emotional, and I think he a bit overreacts this issue (overly stress pattern on events which have zero connection to international legal affairs). Excuse me for being long, but since he never really liked the approach from the "other side" to this issue and especially we had many discussions about this, I had to clarify this. E.g. the Armistice of Belgrade is as well outlined this, and regardless i.e. Kingdom of SHS acted as they did, about sovereignty the question was clear, similarly to the Romanian issue. The thing that mostly they concentrate/educe on the magic Transylvania, although it was about 26 counties of Hungary, beyond that, and neither case the Peace Treaties result would comply with the expectations, and just because some overlapped with them, it does not mean legal sovereignty changed earlier. As well as others outlined, it's irrelevant, if the Serbs or Hungarians which territories occupied/controlled, it has been a mess in all Europe, rapidly changing situations, filled with many unrecognized proclamations (Ukraianian states, etc.). Thus the Romanian fellow editors should not think Hungarian fellow editors wishes to crumble one of the most important event for Romanians in their history, but we stand for accurate and fair content, and this is not different with any other countries. This little chart is for a short overview, I a bit surprised it triggered this. What will happen the some Ottoman occupations, or Austrian things, which have been as well not de jure? Should we fill everywhere these complicated issues? It has a fair part in the article's body, but I doubt the overview chartbox should be loaded with it.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC))
 * To be honest, what you say makes sense. But since a discussion has started, I think we can also bring up another problem. Shouldn't we show Austria-Hungary instead of Hungary after 1867? Why is Hungary shown separately? Super   Ψ   Dro  22:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Because Austria-Hungary ceased to exist around 1 November 1918. - Biruitorul Talk 22:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Super, as we experienced/discussed with some intermediary edits regarding the charts at several articles, we may condense the content. Austria-Hungary is just optional, and may be replaced with Kingdom of Hungary (1000-1918; 1918-1920) to cover the 1867-1920 timeline as I did, and then we don't need to list 3 Hungarian states in between. I chose the most accuarate and wise, compact solutions, given the frame of the chart for simplicity.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Still, Hungary wasn't an independent country at the times of Austria-Hungary. That's what I meant. We can still not cover the Democratic and Soviet republics and just mention the kingdom after 1918 anyway, regardless of whether we use the de iure and de facto proposals or not. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Super, about independece please see my answer to Lupishor below. Regarding the rest, you may have a point, however if we restrict to time intervall coverage, that would be satisfying as well.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC))


 * 1) It’s three words of text. I assure you that even a simple infobox will not become overwhelmed by such “excessive details”.
 * 2) The inhabitants of Transylvania voted in the November 1919 election. They sent around 280 deputies to parliament — in Bucharest, not Budapest. They formed a government — of Romania, not Hungary. 17 of those deputies were German; 8 were Hungarian. Another nail in the coffin of your crumbling “the Union was irrelevant!” argument.
 * 3) We have a wall of text going on about Vojvodina, Serbs, 15th century occupations, emotionalism and what not. We have no coherent objection, however, which is why, once this discussion closes, the proposal will prevail. — Biruitorul Talk 22:35, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Biruitorul,
 * 1) you have to see if the period an issue would not touch this Hungarian-Romanian affair, the issue would not even emerge. I just pinpointed, if we would generalize this, it will get outside of the RO-HU area as well, which may complicate the things.
 * 2) And how many such events happened and in the end had not any implicit/explicit affirmation later (as I referred some examples). If the there is not any election in 1919, or not even the Alba Iulia assembly would have been organized, Romania would still get large territories from Hungary. Again, we have to separate emotional feelings attached to an event, and the legal issues which concluded the result (and yes, regarding this it was irrelevant, and this has nothing to with any crumbling argument of mine, and there are no coffins or nails regarding this)
 * 3) Probably, but careful with any attempt of generalization, since the situation is not identical and/or even more complex by other instances, which would need their own scrutiny.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2021 (UTC))


 * Support – Hungary was part of Austria-Hungary, not an independent country, so it totally makes sense to show it as Biruitorul proposes, with the small-text mention that it was de jure part of Hungary until 1920. Simply stating that it was "part of Hungary" since 1867 is wrong. I don't find the the information in brackets to be "excessive". Also, I notice that it's been proposed to change the four eras of Romania's modern history to simply "Romania". While this does remove information about Romania's state form, I do think it could be a better idea, as the different state forms are described in the article's text anyway, in case the reader is interested in them. Lupishor (talk) 11:50, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lupishor, your summartization flaws. Hungary was nominally an independent country, as Austria-Hungary was a Monarchy of two separate states, however shared some common institutions, which operated outside the internal state affairs. It was part of Hungary since 1867, an integral part of it (and not an other state). Unfortunately in this area still many does not have a safe knowledge, however, these common fallacies are widespread in the Central and Eastern European history, especially between 19th-20th century.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC))


 * Hungary and Austria had a common monarch and the same foreign affairs and defense policies. The fact that Austria and Hungary had separate internal policies doesn't have much to do. US states can also make many of their own laws, but they are still part of the same country. After all, if Hungary and Austria were separate countries, what was Austria-Hungary then? An alliance? Super   Ψ   Dro  14:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I like the comparison between Austria-Hungary and the US: even though not totally relevant to the global discussion, it makes a good point in the local context of this sub-discussion. It also bring to mind this modest proposal of Aurel Popovici from 1906. Maybe the powers that be shoulda listened to him? :-) Turgidson (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Do we say that England, Scotland etc. are independent countries? No, they might be countries, but are still part of the UK. You can't say that Austria and Hungary were separate entities. Never heard anyone do so. Lupishor (talk) 16:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * They are, in fact, the (not independent) countries of the United Kingdom — which is itself a sovereign state. - Biruitorul Talk 19:29, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Super, it has since any subject of the Austrian state was alien to Hungary and vica versa, the was no common citizenship, but even dual citizenship was banned, even in the embassy you were immediately separated by Austrian and Hungarian affairs, etc. Those few common instutions were set as a level coordination of the two states who shared a common monarch, but nothing else, so it was not just about solely "internal policies", that why it was a Monarchy. Yes, it may be called as a higher degree of alliance of common agreement, per the compromise. Turgidson, yes the so-called dungeon of nations could be made similar with the US, but still it was not identical with it. However, you may have a point if Popovici saw in advance that something has to be changed, at least he considered about an autonomous Székely Land :-). Lupishor, your comparisons are not really professional, the case of the UK was still not identical (Biruitorul correctly described the situation), given the fact how the English dominated each components, etc. Just because you never heard anyone do so, just justifies what I pinpointed in my previous answer to you, they were separate entities in fact, you may like/agree or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 15:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
 * What Biruitorul did was pretty much confirming what I said; I literally said they're countries, but not independent and part of the UK instead. Austria and Hungary were only separate entities within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, not on an international level. For example, when people speak about World War 1, they always refer to "Austria-Hungary", not "Austria and Hungary". Not sure why you're so obsessed with this point; other users have disagreed with it anyway and I don't think this will change anytime soon. Lupishor (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * To consider that Hungary and Austria were in an alliance is simply untrue. This may have been the case technically, but they were still part of the same country, Austria-Hungary, no matter what their internal system was like. For example, if we were to add one of these boxes to a city inside an autonomous region, we would not say that the city is part of that region without mentioning the country, even if the latter did not have control over that region. Something that I also want to mention is that it has been said against the de iure and de facto suggestions that it was better to avoid these terms so that they did not spread to other articles. I think this is not what we should aim for, it could in fact be a positive and useful change. Let's imagine that one of these boxes was added to Stepanakert (capital of Artsakh/Nagorno-Karabakh). What could we add to keep the Armenians and Azerbaijanis happy? We cannot say that Stepanakert simply is since the 1990s of Artsakh because Azerbaijanis would not agree with this and it would be legally untrue. We can't say either that it has been part of Azerbaijan since a century ago because the Armenians would not agree to this and Azerbaijan has not had control over the city for around three decades (although this might end soon). It can also be useful in the context of military occupations of cities/regions by other countries. That is why I do not see any need to avoid de iure and de facto terms. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * As a refresher—just in case one is needed—these terms (which of course go back to the Romans) are explained here: de jure and de facto. Would it be an overkill to link those terms like this? Turgidson (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Lupishor, if you did not understand well, the case of the UK and AH is NOT identical, neither by legal affairs, constitution or parlamentiary, or even citizenship level, hence the comparison is just may be superficial. International level, and monarchical ties of two states does not contradict what I said, internationally if you wanted to deal with Hungary, you dealt with Hungary, not Austria-Hungary, just see what I said about the embassy, immediate redirect, the few joint common institutions did not change is which have been a level of coordination. What you again don't understand, this is not a vote, historical facts are not dependent on how many users agree with me in this discussion about it. How the Monarchy has been referred, is less relevant it had countless names and references, Anglo-Saxons even erronously believed that Austro-Hungarian citizenship exist, this shows how seriously this issue is understood. Super, Austria-Hungary was not a country, but a monarchy of two countries (aliens to each other no cross-pass, as I explained). If you wished to have i.e. Hungarian citizenship or do anything with Hungary, or even any affairs with the Hungarian border, there was no Austrian involvement, since it could not even be. I agree that is was more then just a simple alliance, but since it was unique on it's time, these issues are not dependent on what labels we try to assert to grasp it. Super, excuse me if the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict I don't analyze now in this context, would be much more complex we are discussing, however I did not understand what you tried to express in this sentence "For example, if we were to add one of these boxes to a city inside an autonomous region...", could you demonstrate it with an easier, European example? Thank You(KIENGIR (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Even if the internal structure of Austria-Hungary was very divided and the Austrian one differed from the Hungarian one, that does not mean that Transylvania was only part of Hungary. Austria and Hungary were not separate independent countries, and to say that they were is wrong. I doubt that many other editors would agree with marking Hungary instead of Austria-Hungary. They could have had completely different laws of citizenship, border control or other things, but they were still part of the same country, Austria-Hungary. Regarding that sentence I said, I was going to use Pristina (Kosovan capital) as an example and say that the Serbs would not be happy if they were not mentioned as the current owners of the city and that the Kosovars would not be happy with putting Serbia as its current owner and therefore we would have to use de iure and de facto terms in case a similar box was used in the article, but one is already used and Serbia is not mentioned as its current owner, so it is not a very good example. Super   Ψ   Dro  12:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Super,
 * no, in this you are wrong. Transylvania just and only was part of Hungary, zero connection to Austria (as any part of the Hungarian side, I explained clearly, by all means alien). Nominally, they were separate countries, and had monarchic ties with with few common affairs. E.g. as well, Nikola Tesla had to resign allegiance to Austria when arriving to America, similarly Franz Liszt has been a Hungarian citizen, etc. The redundancy question of depicting Hungary or AH is another issue (preference to latter is often endorsed by the mistaken belief or the dislike that some territories solely were Hungary's own sovereign). The Kosovo example is not akin, since the current state of sovereignty is disputed, while the issue we are talking is clear-cut and not disputed.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC))
 * Yes, but Transylvania can be considered as disputed between 1918 and 1920, that comment was made regarding the de iure and de facto part. The truth is that I don't believe that Austria truly had nothing at all to do in Hungarian lands, especially when there were German minorities there, although it is true that I know little about how Austria-Hungary worked. I'd like to hear the opinion of other editors regarding the showing Austria-Hungary or just Hungary part. We could maybe start a RfC as this issue affects several other more pages.  Super   Ψ   Dro  15:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, about the AH issue, it's complex, but this not something in the blurry past, we have all evidence on these issues overall. Austrians did not care much like i.e. later Nazi Germany would about ethnic Germans, national-ethnical policies as well was a complete sovereign question of Hungary, see the Transylvanian Memorandum, i.e. Romanians thought maybe the Monarch would care, without reading was put to Hungary to care about. Or see Johnny Weismuller, or his official birth records, etc., they did not care about Magyarization or anything, since they they knew the old, rebellistic Hungarians cannot be tamed, never succeed, as they sovereignty has been important in more hundreds years of battle and always refused to be subdued.
 * No, it cannot be considered disputed in an international level. Romania, as part of the Allies, had to concur Allied protocols (even if she breached it at more points), regardless the fact that many proclamations, trials, assemblies, effort were made in order to justify claims in front of the peace conference (like Serbian-Romanian "battle" over Banat, but I cold mention SHS-Austrian, or German-Polish issues,etc.), lobbying, besides this everyone knew when sovereingty questions will be settled. Those who had possibility, indiscriminately tried to take advantages on the situation, like a race over time to defend the best position when the decisions came. So here, de facto could only show the presence of occupation.
 * I don't stress over it, I don't think we need an RFC, useless, since here I assume the majority will support AH, which I have no problem, since I said it is redundant, however sometimes with the other version we may save space, if the timeline coverage is easier and spare some entries, as explained above, but nevertheless would be more accurate. May depend on taste, context, it is not different in other places. Interesting, this whole issue would not even emerge if in the Timisoara article a trial chart is not put, which is symbolic, as this issue's subject. Too much fuss on little things, however at least, we have a contructive discussion, and you are a valuabe member of our community, whom with constructive discussion may be made, so it is beneficiary for all of us.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC))
 * After the 1918 union, Romania claimed Transylvania as its own, and there was no pro-Hungarian government that had any authority over the region. Transylvania remained legally Hungarian, but Hungary did not control the region, it didn't control some parts of it even shortly before the union. It is like the case of Crimea (most of the conflict does not have much to do with Transylvania, but if we look at the basic part, I think it can be a good example): it is still legally Ukrainian but it is Russia that controls the region, and I am sure that no one would doubt that Crimea is a disputed territory. Romania did indeed break several points that it wasn't supposed to do, but that doesn't change that the region would still be considered as contested even if Romania wasn't limited by those points. Russia broke many international laws too by annexing Crimea anyway. In the case of this city, if Romania had never crossed the demarcation line of the Armistice of Belgrade, Brașov would still have been a disputed city: legally Hungarian (de jure) but under Romanian control (de facto). And I can say the same as you did in the end, it's good to know that most of the time, at least as far as I know, these Hungarian-Romanian clashes on Wikipedia don't end in endless edit wars but rather on dialogue. Super   Ψ   Dro  00:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not exactly, large parts of the claimed territories had no Romanian presence/control/occupation at all, as well in the 1919 events it became less, however after the fall of Hungarian Soviet Republic some Romanian Army components even reached Győr. The Crimea example would be one level better, but still not really adequate, since a plebiscite was made, however internationally everything is disputed, and yes, in internation legal terms no recognition (this is similar), however we should not forget, WWI case the rules have been prelimiary set and signed between the Central-Entente (while the UKR-RU case is a mutual conflict), and regardless of Romania's own imposed actions, these were binding (practically were told, in case "you don't retreat from Hungary and continue this policy, the recognition of Bessarabia could be in danger", etc.). So the catch is that legal dispute could not happen, so de facto/de jure may only be here reduced to the presence or non-presence of the sovereign owner. Yes, dialogue is needed since overall Hungarians and Romanians conduct less dialogues, not a surprise they don't understand each other and the consequence may be contentious assertions, implications, etc. It seems at least here, the participants (more or less) became enough mature to rely on dialogue, rather than put oil on the fire.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC))


 * Now that this was settled, shouldn't we apply the new changes to other articles too? Super   Ψ   Dro  11:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course. We can go right ahead. Sibiu has a very similar history. Oradea, on the other hand, was controlled by the Hungarian Communists until the Romanians were asked in (by the Hungarian mayor) in April 1919. So we proceed on a case by case basis. - Biruitorul Talk 13:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I changed the boxes at Sibiu, Oradea and Cluj-Napoca. Is there any other Transylvanian city with these boxes in their articles? Super   Ψ   Dro  13:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Timișoara. Some complicated history there, with France and Serbia. - Biruitorul Talk 01:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed, I think. I don't think France ever had direct control over the region. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:40, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Affiliations box, round 2
In my view, it’s not especially relevant that Brașov and other cities in Transylvania were governed under four successive Romanian regimes. The salient information is that they were part of Romania. Therefore, I would simply write “Romania (1920-)” or, for Northern Transylvania, “Kingdom of Romania (1920-1940)”, and then “Romania (1945-).” Thoughts? - Biruitorul Talk 01:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think if we are precise, why not to list all the successive Romanian states? More tidy, anyway at some cities it may be useful, since there should be a transition from Kingdom of Romania to the present-day one.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC))
 * There’s only been a single Romanian state since 1862. It has had multiple names, constitutions, regimes, has been under foreign occupation. But there’s been a basic state continuity, and we have a general agreement for my proposal — see also here. - Biruitorul Talk 22:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that all Romanian editors agreed to this (or did not oppose it at least). Super   Ψ   Dro  09:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * My only qualification is that there should be a note (as there is one now, in this subsection) that the city was named for 10 years (1950–1960) after Joseph Stalin, and was the capital of Stalin Region. Quite astounding that such a name change could have happened (especially in such a major city, with such a rich and varied history), but it did, and the relevant decree was signed by Constantin Ion Parhon. Maybe more space should be devoted in the article to this naming change than the two lines it currently has (bunched together with the name "Stephanopolis", which sounds perhaps like an interesting tidbit, but it's not something I ever heard of)? Turgidson (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * PS: OK, I went ahead and added a tidbit to that effect. Turgidson (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Biruitorul,
 * you may misundertand something, the subject was not if there would be single or non-single state, etc., we have successive articles with timelines, which is not different by other countries. I don't know a user talk diff how would imply a general agreement or exactly what you refer with that, btw. my concern is your solution here had a mistake as I said and later relalized, since the flagicon links to present-day Romania, not Kingdom of Romania. How would you solve this if you prefer a shortened version?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC))