Talk:Embassy of the United States, Budapest

Neutrality
Austro-Hungarian troops entered Romania first and looted treasures. This section explicitly says Romanian troops attempted to confiscate treasures from Transylvania, which was Romanian territory. Therefore it would in fact be a returning of their own looted treasures however Romanian actions are framed only negatively. Romanian troops did loot many objects they had nothing to do with but the current article is missing context, it had happened to Romania before and many saw it as revenge.

The only sources cited in the Statue of Harry Hill Bandholtz section are from Erdélyi Napló ("Transylvanian Newspaper"), Hungarian website that does not mention Romania one single time among its recent articles and which features articles such as these  which literally includes "let's love Hungary again" in the title and a Greater Hungary map. Also an article like this which for some reason is equating Ukraine's poor minority rights for its Hungarian minority with Ceaușescu's treatment of minorities during Romania's communist regime even though Ukraine's Romanian minority also suffers from poor rights. The title is provokative: "Ceaușescu's ghost hovers over Ukraine".

This is a completely biased media outlet and I do not trust that it is reporting things objectively. If a delicate subject like this between two peoples with a long history of feuds is to be discussed, we require academic reliable sources from multiple authors. Not "Transylvanian Newspaper". Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for surfacing this issue. I'm the author of the article. I was just translating what had been in the Hungarian article, and am not familiar with the events described so I don't really have a stance. I've made an attempt to use more neutral language in that section. In my opinion, the section should not really weigh in on the merits of the individual being commemorated (positive or negative), but should instead state facts around the creation and the existance of the monument, especially as it relates to Hungarian–United States relations. With such a scope, it may not take Romanian perspectives into account but all the section is really trying to do is state simply that the statue is there, who the subject is, and why it is there. – Kjerish (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts, the section is indeed much better. I've added some context from the Romanian source so that it is understood that Romanians did not want to mindlessly loot throughout Hungary, museums at least. I've tried to keep it short and WP:DUE. I've removed the POV tag because I'm satisfied with the current version. Do you agree with my changes?
 * By the way, initially I'd have wanted the removal of Erdélyi Napló, however since the Romanian source also uses some loaded language and that part of the section has been rewritten I think it's fair now. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 10:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I made some minor changes to the way it was worded but I think it looks good. I also removed the inline citation notice because that seems to be fixed now too – Kjerish (talk) 16:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * , I am actually confused by your recent edits. As far as I know Romania received no reparations from Hungary and the cited source does not mention the word "reparations" either. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This was in reference to the section Hungarian–Romanian War which I thought was an accurate phrase for that period of time but I could be wrong. Kjerish (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reverted that part of the sentence since it is not supported by the cited source. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)