Talk:Hungarian–Romanian War

Editing the article
The principle behind Wikipedia is to contribute knowledge to all of us. Therefore, adding new insight is welcomed and by way of consequence so is editing the article in this respect. However, to get valuable edits may sometimes be quite difficult.

This Talk page is thought to exchange information and agree upon changes to the article such that only valuable edits really make it in the online version. The Talk page is structured to mirror the sections of the article such that it is as easy as possible to see if changing the online version really matters.

Below is a set of rules that I believe make sense for everybody who desires to contribute to this article. Please abide to them. I will revert any changes that do not follow these rules and I would like to ask all responsible editors of this article to do the same; although I will check regularly on this article, I can't be on the net 24/7. I hope we can all enjoy our hobby here :-). Best regards.Octavian8 (talk)

Rules for editing the article
To ensure a civilized and focused discussion that will contribute the article, I would like to add here a few rules:
 * 1). Remain calm.
 * 2). Keep a civilized tone.
 * 3). Do NOT modify the article before reaching agreement among all editors here.
 * 4). Try to have your modifications sustained by references.
 * 5). Wait for at least one week after reaching agreement among several editors, before changing the on-line article (so as to give the others time to respond).
 * 6). Read this Talk page (including the Archives) before you start a new topic or make new edits to check if what you intent to do has not already been discussed.
 * 7). Place your comments in the appropriate sections of the Talk page (i.e., mirroring the articles' sections) to allow a focused discussion.

Pleas feel free to add other sensible rules.Octavian8 (talk)

Comments
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. See: Ignore_all_rules. This is even true for the "official" rules of Wikipedia, but those "rules" above are not even official ones. So don't worry about them and feel free to improve or maintain the article. Koertefa (talk)
 * Which rule do you mean? If you mean the rule about NOT modifying the article before reaching agreement, this is a very sensible rule meant to avoid revert wars and you can be sure that I will enforce it. Should this prove to be impossible, I will ask for full protection for the page until a civilized discussion makes its way back on this Talk page.Octavian8 (talk)


 * You should not enforce any rule, especially if its your own creation. I see your set of "rules" as gaming the system, in order to maintain your control over the contents. This is unacceptable as well as threatening with full protection. I would like to remind you that nobody owns articles. Koertefa (talk)


 * In the face of revert wars and editors that cry good faith but do not act by it, I see this to be the sole solution. Look on my constructor page and compare the original version with this one to see that I am not against modifying the article, as long as it is made in a meaningful way. It mesmerizes me why you and your likes can't understand that in order to cooperate we need to agree, and modifying the article before agreement is not only very uncivilized but also leads to fight rather than cooperation. The Talk page is here precisely for this reason, to promote cooperation and thus improve Wikipedia. And about protection, I will ask it if this revert war continues.Octavian8 (talk)


 * Answer to User:Koertefa on renaming this section: In this section there are arguments pro and contra these rules, so it is a choice of rather poor logic to call the entire section "Against the rules". Furthermore, I believe your quarrel is only with the rule that stay against you editing the article at your will, or you have something against being polite, remaining calm, etc.? Therefore I will reinstate the original title of this section. Octavian8 (talk)
 * I only want to improve the article with making some statements more precise (so they cease being POVs). It is you who do not want to make any compromises. Editors do not need your permission before editing the article, your are abusing the concept of consensus. If somebody edits the article in a way that is unacceptable for you, then you should modify it in a minimal way such that it becomes acceptable for you, as well, instead of deleting the whole contribution and pointing to you own "rules for editing the article". I am absolutely not against reaching agreements and making consensuses, but I am against your total control over the article, namely, that you want to decide what can be included and what cannot. You do not own this article. Koertefa (talk)
 * I will not compromise from rules that allow us to move forward on improving this article. The main thing about discussing edits on this page first, is that it allows us to avoid a revert war - that is waisted time for everybody. Furthermore not every edit is valuable, by discussing them first we make sure that only valuable edits that reach a consensus among editors are taken over in the online article. At this current moment you are desperately trying to impose your view on the article that I believe to be false. The solution is to discuss it here and making use of logic and argument to reach a compromise. A compromise includes accepting that ones opinion previous to the discussion was wrong! Again I have no problem with edits that are meaningful, compare the original version of the article with this one to convince yourself. I have a problem with people trying to butcher this article and so step over a lot of work and dedication invested here by me and other editors.Octavian8 (talk)


 * Your "rules" have only one purpose: to maintain your total control over the article. They actually prevent the article from improving. And who should decide which edits are "valuable"? You? Moreover, it is quite strange that you do not keep yourself to your own "rules": you did not reach an agreement here before you have inserted this . I guess that: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"... Koertefa (talk)
 * I believe these are the rules of any well-behaved person. For the last time, I agree to meaningful modification of the article, a comparison between this version and the original one shows this easily. With respect to me not keeping my rules, this is a rather poor exercise in 'rhetoric' from your part. I did not modify the text, just added a reference and a link. This should show you that I react to meaningful suggestions, Fakirbakir asked for a citation. Because the description of the group around Horthy leads to a categorization I accept this and provided the citation. I was unable to provide a citation for the Archduke Joseph, that's why I left the tag there. If no-one finds a citation I will modify the text to avoid categorization, e.g., to something like using faction instead of nationalistic group. However, this is becoming childish, if you try to criticize my actions is OK, trying to defame me in a cheap manner - remembering on a playground spat rather - is another thing. It may be that I will stop answering to you and report your actions as well.Octavian8 (talk)
 * If you can "agree to meaningful modification", then please, tell us your problem, for example, with the first sentence in the version that you keep deleting blindly. Why is it not "meaningful"? By the way: in order to make a consensus, first you should precisely identify your problem, which you clearly failed to do so, no matter how many times I keep asking you to tell us your exact problem with the modified variant. Your problem may just be that you did not approve that modification. Koertefa (talk)
 * Before pointing the finger at me, why don't you apply your own logic to you? To be more precise: in order to make a consensus, first you should precisely identify your problem, which you clearly failed to do so, no matter how many times I keep asking you to tell us your exact problem with the original(my note) variant. Then I could easily continue,Your problem may just be that you did not approve the original version (my note).Octavian8 (talk)
 * I am adding a new rule, about posting comments in the respective sections to be able to keep the discussion focused.Octavian8 (talk)

Edit war in autumn 2011 - protection request
Since the time I have written this article a few years ago, there had been several edit campaigns, that in the end benefited the article greatly (please compare the original version from my personal page with the current version). However, the edit campaign that started a few weeks ago has in the mean time transformed in a edit/revert war, where some editors started insulting me directly (see the message from user Norden1990 on my Talk page, as well as his comments concerning my person in the comment to some reverts he effectuated). In the beginning of the war, user Norden1990 rudely (without discussion or any hints on his action) renamed the article from "The Hungarian-Romanian war of 1919" to "The Allied intervention in Hungary" and then to "1919 Hungarian-Romanian war", once I tried undoing his deeds. This is why there is a request (and discussion) for renaming the article as well - actually is a request for returning to the original name. Considering all these I have asked the article to be protected in the version before the edits of the last two weeks. Once either this happens or the edits stop, we can get back to talking. Until then I will respond to no posts anymore, and will concentrate on just holding the original (as before the revert war started) version of the article online. Octavian8 (talk)
 * While previous edit campaigns had to do with adding information, this one is mainly about semantics. I will try to summarize them shortly:
 * User Koertefa constantly adds references to who voted for what in the prelude, and when I pointed him that this information was already in the article, he accused me of hiding (sic) information in the article.
 * There is an obsession among editors Koertefa, Norden1990 and Fakirbakir with the looting of Hungary. In the article there was already mentioned that the Romanians took extensive booty from Hungary together with details about what was taken. They insist however on naming this looting - which I can understand - and of adding such important information as that the Romanians took the telephones from some administrative building in Budapest - which I can't understand. They also want contemporary images showing Romanian soldiers feeding the population of Budapest to be removed, seeing here only propaganda - in contrast to the story about the telephones.
 * The only edit that has the potential of benefiting the article is about the Serbian involvement. To my knowledge, the Serbians stayed out of the Hungarian - Romanian war because the French pressured them into it. If there are serious studies demonstrating the impact of the Serbian involvement in the Hungarian-Romanian war I would be thrilled to have a section dedicated to this topic in the article.
 * Most important all these editors constantly edit the article without agreeing first on the text with other editors interested in the article, as for example me. Instead of talking and cooperating and agreeing on the talk page, they accuse me of owning the article and go along with the edits, but not once have they stopped to discuss the changes before committing them - because, I believe, they are convinced I will not agree, however, this is THEIR assumption, never have they bothered to try verifying it.
 * I thought a few days ago we finally reached an understanding (after week-long discussions and various warnings), but I am off Wikipedia for a few days and all the edits are back again.
 * I am committed to the idea of Wikipedia that means that in general only balanced articles on hot topics survive long enough to have an impact. I see this article as a good opportunity to ease this old Hungarian-Romanian feud by understanding each other. However while users like Baxter and Renard seem to share my thoughts, others like Norden1990 seem to be just extremists, bothered only with ensuring that their hatred and frustrations make it to the next generations.
 * I can't be online 24/7 to guard the article and at the same time try to reason with editors that reject my efforts from the start.
 * I have to repeat myself. User Octavian8 just simply ignores the sources. See: Fakirbakir (talk)
 * Now that the article has been protected, we can start Talking. See the corresponding sections on the Talk page.Octavian8 (talk)
 * User Octavian8 just desperately tries to maintain his total control over the article. His rhetoric that we should start talking is a bluff, since there were continuous talks in parallel with the edits. In order to maintain his POV, he deletes every sourced contribution, often without pointing out his problem with them, hiding under statements such as "there was no consensus reached before the edit". His behavior and "rules" do not allow the improvement of the article. Koertefa (talk)
 * I will not answer your accusations as I already did it on several occasions, even in my post above. However, I am starting to believe that your intention is not talking and cooperating to improve this article, as you have been offered countless times the opportunity to talk here (on the Talk page) and I have written numerous posts answering you. You just try to impose your distorted view of an historical event here and you get angry and frustrated because I won't let you ruin my and others work.Octavian8 (talk)
 * I have, I am and I will continue to offer you the possibility to argue why you think the article needs improvement and where it should be improved here on this Talk page. This is the meaning of the Talk page, so that we can talk about modifications and agree upon them before committing them, but please come with something new, the looting issue is almost solved, and the prelude is very good as it is, without you making it POV. Now, this is the last time I am answering your baseless accusations about me owning the article. If you continue with this I will begin with stopping answering you and then will get to other steps as well if you don't understand it.Octavian8 (talk)

Romanian army signed the armistice before Imperial Russia
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armistice_between_Russia_and_the_Central_Powers Despite of this, Alin2808 try to stress the false idea that Romania signed armistice after the Russians, which is a simple chronology and simple fact, thus can not be part of rational discussion.--Longsars (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * At no point in time have I said that "Romania signed the armistice after the Russians". I said the Armistice of Focșani was signed after the Russian ceasefire agreements, not armistice, it's ceasefire agreements. Those are two different things!
 * Take a look at both articles:

Full Russian armistice (not just small part of the front signed by lower rank Russian officers) was born later than the Romanian. Despite Romanian army was not in numerical inferiority in the actual battles, it suffered 33% KIA ratio (oe of the highest ratio if not the highest among WW1 armies), which was more than enough reason to sign that armistice.--Longsars (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Armistice between Russia and the Central Powers article, Ceasefires section: "The Bolsheviks came to power with the slogan "Bread and Peace". On 26 November [O.S. 13 November] 1917 three Russian emissaries under a white flag entered the German lines to arrange for negotiations which they agreed would be held at the headquarters of the Central Powers Armies at Brest-Litovsk. A local ceasefire agreement was reached at Soly on 4 December [O.S. 21 November] between the Russians and Germans on the Eastern Front (Russia's "Western Front"). It superseded any local ceasefires or truces already agreed to—without specifying what these were—and was to be in effect from 6–17 December... A fuller ceasefire encompassing all the Central Powers was signed at Brest-Litovsk on 5 December [O.S. 22 November], the day after the agreement with Germany at Soly. This ceasefire came into effect a day later 7 December [O.S. 24 November], but expired on the same date as the local agreement of 4 December."
 * Armistice of Focșani article, Truce section: "After the October Revolution of 1917, Russia fell into civil war, and the Russian government began withdrawing its troops from Romania. On 4 and 5 December 1917, the Russians signed two ceasefire agreements with the Central Powers, followed later (on 15 December) by a full armistice... The resulting truce was signed on 9 December 1917 in Focșani on the Siret River, which was the site of the main Romanian defensive line." Alin2808 (talk) 15:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And at no point have I talked about the armistice, "A fuller ceasefire encompassing all the Central Powers was signed at Brest-Litovsk on 5 December" read this again, "encompassing all the Central Powers", not just a "small part of the front".
 * "Despite Romanian army was not in numerical inferiority..." relevance? "it suffered 33% KIA ratio (oe of the highest ratio if not the highest among WW1 armies)" source? and again, relevance?
 * "was more than enough reason to sign that armistice" unsourced claim, refuted by actual sources, see the respective article. Alin2808 (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I#Personnel_and_casualties Can you seee the record high KIA ratio of Romanian army? It is itself enough to sign an armistice. (Let's don't forget, that KIA did not inlude POWs and MIA neither the number of casualities) It means Romanian army was literally on the respiratory machine of Russians --Longsars (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * No reliable source, check WP:RS. Assuming things without any source is WP:OR and it is not allowed on wikipedia. "It means Romanian army was literally on the respiratory machine of Russians" yet another claim with no source attached, as it reads it's a personal claim. Alin2808 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, all sources are reliable for the Romanian KIA in the above mentioned Wiki article. Tucker, Spencer C (1999). The European Powers in the First World War: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland. p. 172. ISBN 978-0-8153-3351-7.

--Longsars (talk) 06:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * That's not what I was asking for, don't act like you don't know. "It is itself enough to sign an armistice." and "It means Romanian army was literally on the respiratory machine of Russians" are the ones with no source. Alin2808 (talk) 12:50, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

And what please does "was literally on the respiratory machine of Russians" mean? I am afraid it makes no sense to me.Spinney Hill (talk) 07:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Being on respiratory machine of somebody is a phrase. Romanian army was on the respiratory machine of Russian army means, that it had not remain enough power to stand on its own leg anymore. --Longsars (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Never heard that phrase before. Do you mean "retain" rather than "remain?" Spinney Hill (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

So, @Longsars, have you found the source regarding your claims or you still have no source? In the latter case, I'll go ahead and re-add what you removed before. Alin2808 (talk) 19:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, the Romanian armistice date is earlier than the date of the Russian aristice.--Longsars (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And you still don't get it. Do I need to repeat myself? Alin2808 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

There was only Soviet "moral support" for Hungary
Soviets did not send any soldiers to Hungarian territory, neither they could send weapons to the Hungarian Red Army... It falsely suggest for the readers, that there was a real Soviet military support on Hungarian territory. (which did not exist)--Longsars (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Did not send solders or weapons perhaps, but they did send money (if I remember correctly). And still, "moral support" counts as support, not once in the article it is suggested that the Soviet Army got directly involved. Alin2808 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Why don't you mention the Serbo-French army or Czechoslovak army as allies of Romanians
It not a real reasoning (or irrational) that the Czech and franco-Serb occupation also have their own separated articles... the short info-box has to mention them. Czechoslovak and Franco-Serb occupations happened at the very same time as Romanian occupation in the territory of Hungary.--Longsars (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * you have to reach consensus for that also that isn't part of the war, literally no battle got czechoslovak or yuogoslav support, this has already been discussed and it has been decided to not put it. D.M.T. (talk) 18:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, the infobox does not have to mention them, this article is about the Romanian-Hungarian war, where there were no Czech, French or Serbian troops. They had their own fronts, which have their own articles. If you so want to link to those, then you can do so in the "see also" section. Alin2808 (talk) 18:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, this should be pretty obvious Wikiacc1985 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * yes, this should be pretty obvious Wikiacc1985 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

French and Serbian armies crossed the northern borderland of Belgrade (the pre-WW1 border) and end up at Szeged and Pécs. The so-called "Czechoslovak" army (which consisted 90% of Czechs) crossed the south-Eastern Czech borderland and occupied whole upper Hungary. It miselad the readers that it did not effect the Hungarian-Romanian war, and shows as it would been just a single war, come out from the blue skies.--Longsars (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The Hungarian-Romanian war was a separate war. There was no coordination between the Romanian, Serb and Czech troops. Alin2808 (talk) 19:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * there have been several wars, but the occupation of hungarian territory by yugoslav troops had no fights and it was irrelevant to the hun-rom war. This has already been discussed the previous years. D.M.T. (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

So according to your logic, during WW2, the nazi German occupation of Western half of Poland did not effected the situation of the Soviet Polish war? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland The combined territory of the Serbo-French and Czechoslovak occupied zone was bigger than the Romanian.--Longsars (talk) 19:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * And your point is? By occupying Hungarian territory it somehow helped the Romanian troops in their fighting? What you're trying to say is that the Hungarians sent significant numbers of troops on those fronts?
 * And the comparison with the WW2 Soviet invasion is poor, as in the case of the Hungarian-Romanian war, there was no agreement about a course of action from all sides. Alin2808 (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * i agree Wikiacc1985 (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * the occupation from the romanian side came after battles mostly up to tisza river, the yugoslav troops had no fights. 2001:B07:6469:985D:5EF:421A:6FCE:7DC1 (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hungary lost manpower territory resources industry during the Serbo-French and Czech occupation. Even such an infrastructurally socially backward country was able to go close to the Tisza river without fight under the pacifist liberal Károlyi government. Romania was so poor and backward place like third world, where majority couldn't read and write (extreme low literacy ratio) which had no serious urbanization, and did not have real industry and European level infrastructure. See the Maddison project about pre-WW1 Europe : https://www.rug.nl/ggdc/historicaldevelopment/maddison/releases/maddison-project-database-2020  --Longsars (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Romania was so poor and backward place like third world..." So this Romania that you're talking about managed to defeat Germany and Austria-Hungary during the summer campaign of 1917 despite all this that you are saying, hmmm? Good logic there mate. Alin2808 (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is irrelevant to this section of the talk page, keep it civil both of you. D.M.T. (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, already mentioned WP:NOTFORUM and recommended a good book for reading. Why can't we just end this pointless discussion already? As it seems like we're just going around in circles. Alin2808 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Romania lost 70% of its territory and capital city after 3 months of fight, and suffered incredible high 33% KIA ratio, one of the highest in WW1, despite Romanians had not numerical inferiority in that battles. Romanian soldiers fell like paper solders.--Longsars (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I recommend reading "The Romanian Battlefront in World War I" by Glenn E. Torrey
 * With that you may go now, and remember WP:NOTFORUM Alin2808 (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The numbers are speaking: I recommend to see the KIA ratio of Romanian army: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I#Personnel_and_casualties
 * KIA Killed in action, or military fatalities. 33% is shocking high. Longsars (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 1. Irrelevant.
 * 2. The casualties are all estimates, if you were to look at other sources you'll find different numbers.
 * Conclusion, go read a book. Alin2808 (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, you will not see other numbers. Longsars (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wars and Population" by Boris Urlanis: page 64 and page 85
 * But still, it is irrelevant. And we are already straying too much from the discussion. Alin2808 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wiki doesn't use old cold-war era books, if there are other newer publications. Newer publications support the 33% KIA. Longsars (talk) 07:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses whatever sources are available. And what "newer publications" use those numbers?
 * Also, to repeat, how is this relevant to the discussion? Alin2808 (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia uses whatever sources are available." Only if the only existing topic specific related books are so rare, that we had no other option just to use the old books. But this is not the case with WW1 topics. So Cold-War era books are a bit backward/unreliable in this sense. Longsars (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, enough with this. If you want to continue the discussion about the casualties I left you a message on your talk page, we can continue there, as this is going off-topic. If you have any comments to make regarding the subject of "Why don't you mention the Serbo-French army or Czechoslovak army as allies of Romanians" then continue here. Alin2808 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)