Talk:Magyar Autonomous Region

Capital
Am I correct that Târgu Mureş was the capital? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was, check my map in the article as well as the map from the external link. PANONIAN  (talk)  01:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Requested move
Magyar Autonomous Region → Hungarian Autonomous Region — This entity is known in the literature as Hungarian Autonomous Region, Hungarian Autonomous Province, Magyar Autonomous Region and Magyar Autonomous Province. I have no strong objection to any of these, but I slightly prefer the first:
 * It was indeed a region, not a province; see Regions of the RPR for details.
 * We prefer "Hungarian" over "Magyar" (Hungarian people, Hungarian language, etc). Also, "Hungarian Autonomous Region" is used by leading scholars Barbara Jelavich, Vladimir Tismăneanu and Dennis Deletant, as well as in other recent works. Biruitorul Talk 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

(Note: I couldn't get the links to work above, but my supporting evidence is here:, , , , ) - Biruitorul Talk 19:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there were no objections, I've moved the page. Jafeluv (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Other "supporting evidences" (this is an interesting term, not to say funny :-)) for Magyar Autonomous Region:

Constitutions of nations, Volume 3 By Amos J. Peaslee This one should be enough! (But, there may also be hundreds of pieces of evidence).

Yours, (Rgvis (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

I added third opinion to open this discussion. It is obviously so visible that the official name is "Magyar Autonomous Region" (Constitution of the Romania from 24 September 1952).

The name in Romanian is "Regiunea Autonomă Maghiară" and not "Regiunea Autonomă Ungară" (Hungarian Autonomous Region).

This dispute is completely artificial. (Rgvis (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Rgvis, please review WP:PSTS. The question is not what the 1952 Constitution of Romania calls this entity, but what reliable sources do. And as I've shown, a preponderance of English-language works written by recognised scholars in the last 20 years call it the "Hungarian Autonomous Region". That's the common name, and that's the one we should use. - Biruitorul Talk 19:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul,

Thank you for your answer.

The most "Reliable source" is the "Constitution"!

Anyway, if you like, you have here other "supporting evidences" (by other recognised scholars in the last 12 years):
 * Encyclopedia Britannica: Székely;
 * The East European economy in context: communism and transition, 1997;
 * Mondialisation, citoyenneté et multiculturalisme (in English), 2000;
 * Nationalism and territory: constructing group identity in Southeastern Europe, 2000;
 * Aspects of independent Romania's economic history with particular reference to transition for EU accession, 2007;
 * The prospects for liberal nationalism in post-Leninist states, 2007.

Yours, (Rgvis (talk) 20:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Rgvis, I repeat my call for you to actually read WP:PSTS - "Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources... All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." So no, the wording of the Constitution is not of interest to us. Regarding your sources: yes, some scholars use "Magyar". But given we prefer "Hungarian" here (e.g. Hungarian people, Hungarian language), and given the use of "Hungarian" by first-rate scholars such as Deletant, Jelavich and Tismăneanu, as well as others (153 hits for "Hungarian Autonomous Region" in works since 1990; 91 hits for "Magyar Autonomous Region"), we should use that terminology too. - Biruitorul Talk 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Biruitorul,

I think you make a confusion here, we do not talk about an original research. It is about an official and recognized name for an official administrative teritorial unit. Believe me, I now the rules, I am a contributor for many years. It would be so easy for me to say: "My call for you is to read WP:PLACE" ... et cetera.

When you say "We prefer Hungarian", what do you mean by "We"? Is it Wikipedia a private organization? Or do you mean something else? You say: "the wording of the Constitution is not of interest to us". What does it mean "to us"? Pardon me? I am sure this is not the Wikipedia Politics!

On the other hand, you say: "first-rate scholars such as Deletant, Jelavich and Tismăneanu"! So, you mean the others are second-rate scholars? Or third-rate, perhaps? Probably, Amos J. Peaslee, David Turnock, Sabrina P. Ramet, Mikhaël Elbaz, Denise Helly are the n-rate scholars, right?

Very, very strange opinions for an impartial and honest contributor (this is how we would like to consider ourselves, right?)!!

From the very beginning (february 2005), for 4.5 years, this page was named wrong as a "Province". And, if you google it you get many results with this name (as "Province") which it does not prove that is correct. I have observed that you, "Biruitorul", had the first revision in August 2006 and you did not notice the fundamental difference between a "Region"and a "Province". How come? Should I assume that you are not familiar with this particular academic subject of history?

1.Magyar Autonomous Region - is an English term used since the first translation into English (see Amos J. Peaslee);

2.Magyar Autonomous Region - was an official administrative division bearing an official name, given by an official document, with an official translation as Magyar Autonomous Region. The name page for Cluj is Cluj-Napoca. Why? Because this is the official name. If we search on Google or Yahoo we will observe that the most common name used is Cluj, but that does not mean we have to change the name page in Cluj. Cluj-Napoca is the official name given by an official document. Wikipedia does care about official documents!

3.This name is being used by many historians or scholars or journalists, or whatever. For (once again?) instance, recently (January 2009), the Romanian English-language newspaper Nine O' Clock, published an article called Regions or Counties? where anyone can notice that the term used is ... Magyar Autonomous Region.

4.We cannot use an official name as we would like it. Wikipedia is a valuable tool as long as it is seen as a credible and accurate source of information!

Yours, (Rgvis (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Magyar Autonomous Region. 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/20070928063604/http://www.infopolitic.ro/imagini/documente/1133864495_Constitutia%20RPR%201952.pdf to http://www.infopolitic.ro/imagini/documente/1133864495_Constitutia%20RPR%201952.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) 04:51, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality
Hi Super Dromaeosaurus ,

I can agree with the user edit. Wikipedia should be neutral. It can be "occupation" by the Romanian view but if was "liberation" by the view of Hungarians and local Hungarians (there are plenty movies about the flower rains of the locals who welcomed the Hungarian army in the Hungarian majority settlements). Morover that region belonged 1000 years to Hungary and only 20 years for Romania at that time, so it is strange the previous owner (1000 is 50 times more year than 20) how can be only "occupier" as derogation, especially in Hungarian populated regions of Transylvania? Hungary "occupied" the Hungarian populated regions in 1940 which was part of Hungary 1000 years long before 1920? I do not see the neutrality language and neutral POV regarding the circumstances, so the "rule" is the perfect fact word.

I also see the double standard. Romania attacked Hungary twice in 1916 and in 1918 to occupy big Hungarian lands until the Tisza river (which areas did not belong to the country of Romania before as in the Hungarian case in 1940): Romania in World War I Proclamation by Romanian king before the attack: "In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Rumania from the Tisza to the Black Sea, and to prosper in peace in accordance with our customs and our hopes and dreams.". The 1918 Romanian attack was when Hungary already capitulated 1 weeks earlier, this is a breach of international law attacking a capitulated country. So Romania made a bloody wars to accomplish the territorial change, while in 1940 Hungary did not attack Romania, it was just negotiations present by all parties and Romania signed it. Contrast with the Treaty of Trianon, the Hungarian party was not at all invited to participate in the peace talk, when the decision was made, the Hungarians were forced to sign the dictate (that is why it called "dictate of Trianon" in Hungary ), the Hungarian diplomats was accompanied by guards. It was really not "a bilateral agreement", and I did not see anywhere that this would call in Wiki as "Romanian occupation", especially the Hungarian majority regions, for example Oradea had almost full Hungarian population in 1920 and only 10km from today's Hungarian-Romanian border, it was cleary not a "bilateral agreement" that city became part of Romania. In the Second Vienna Award Romanian party participated on the negotiations, while Hungarian party was not allowed to participate in the Trianon negotiations, the Vienna Award just reverted partly the Trianon one. The Romanian party signed the treaty, it was more "bilateral agreement" than the Trianon one. Which international law was breached? Also Romanian and Soviets troops attacked the region in 1944, it became again part of Romania by not a peaceful way, and Stalin is similar bad as Hitler. In the contemporary maps I can see North Transylvania as integral part of Hungary, not an occupied region. It is less well known that in 1947, at the Paris peace talks, the Western Allies were willing to seek a compromise regarding Transylvania. But the Soviet Union vetoed it. Perhaps because Stalin annexed Bessarabia from Romania, and in order to swallow this frog, Transylvania was out of the question.

What do you think? OrionNimrod (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello there,
 * I'm the person responsible for the big edit that put the "occupation" word and the entire paragraph in which this word was used in the article.
 * I've actually realised the biased wording that I used back then and I wouldn't call it "occupation" today. I do think "rule" is way more fitting and would prefer this word to replace "occupation" myself. Thank you! Brat Forelli🦊  17:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, I think we should abide by the standard of international law like we do today for Crimea, Donbas, Palestine or Nagorno-Karabakh. The Second Vienna Award was a breach of international law according to the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties. The November 1918 Romanian invasion was too, this being the reason why I've seen the use of Hungarian place names for Transylvanian cities up until their takeover by Romania, though it was later affirmed by international law through Trianon. The Second Vienna Award was later declared null, plus the context is that it took place under Nazi pressure.
 * That being said I reverted the edit mostly to oppose the nationalistic and inappropriate edit summary by the user who changed it . I don't think too strongly about the wording itself. I've changed it to "takeover". "Rule" I think would not make as much grammatical sense. However if you still prefer to use "rule" instead of "takeover" feel free to change it, I will not oppose it. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi,
 * Thanks for the changing!
 * I think present hot situations are actual politic and not comparable to older history.
 * "The Second Vienna Award was a breach of international law according to the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties" Could you show me the sources about this?
 * Still I do not understand how a future event in 1947 could erase the past what actually happened in 1940. If a future treaty nullify and revert of the decision of a signed previous treaty is does not mean that treaty did not exist. If you have a job contract with a company and later if you cancel the contract it does not mean that you never was an employee of that company just because you cancelled it.
 * "plus the context is that it took place under Nazi pressure." (actually it was business by Ribbentrop and Ciano not by Hitler) Contrast the Trianon treaty was by real military pressure (Romanian occupation of Budapest, Serb-French occupation, Czechoslovak attack...), Hungarian party was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, forced to sign, etc... much hardcore pressure than Romania got by the Germans in 1940.
 * I see you edited this article Alexandrina Cernov "Alexandrina Cernov was born on 24 November 1943 in Hotin, Romania (now Khotyn, Ukraine)" Hotin, Bessarabia was attached to the Soviet Union by Stalin from Romania, but by Hitler help Romania retook that region, then after WW2 Romania lost again by Stalin. Which means the region was part of Romania by Hitler support in 1943, I do not see that it would be "Romanian occupation" however it was not a bilateral treaty like the Vienna Award when Romania got it because it was a hardcore war time.
 * Just I stay on my example, Oradea, that city is important in the Hungarian culture and history (Hungarian kings also buried there) that city had almost full Hungarian population in 1920 and only 10km from today's borders and belonged 1000 years to Hungary then that city became part of Romania in 1920, and only 20 years later in 1940 the Second Vienna Award (peacefully treaty, no war) attached back to Hungary, do you think it is proper to stay that Hungary "occupied" the Hungarians and the almost full Hungarian majority city which belonged earlier to Hungary? From the Hungarian view it was liberation. That is why I suggested the neutral wording and not presenting the Hungarian&Romanian point of view if the context is not about to presenting that. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So while I disagree with the example you gave (more like the way you gave it) about Khotyn since Romania was restoring its territorial integrity (broken through the unlawful Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact), I realised my logic that we should say the Second Vienna Award was illegitimate because it was later declared null would go against this since the 1940 Romanian-Soviet border was recognised by the 1947 Paris peace treaties. So I agree that maybe it is unnecessary to call it an occupation. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:05, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding! Sorry if the way was not a proper, I wanted provide just examples. From Hungarian perspective the Vienna Award is same to restore the territorial integrity as the case of Romania with Bessarabia. “History is written by the victors” So Romania lost Bessarabia by the German-Soviet pact, and the loss remained the same after 1947, however earlier it was made also by the Germans not only by the Soviets as in the case of the Vienna Awards. If a new border change treaty happens in the future it does not mean the previous border change treaty was not valid or illegal in the past (whitout the existence and outcome of WW2, 1947 treaty would be not exist). Should we say Romania ruled Bessarabia "illegal" because today it is not part of Romania because of a new treaty? Should we say Hungary ruled 1000 years long "illegal" Burgenland because it became part of Austria by a treaty in 1920? Should we say Austria ruled South Tirol "illegal" because it is part of Italy now by a treaty? I do not think. The history is full of wars, treaties, agreements various opposing results. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Super Dromaeosaurus, I know we finished this, just I found a better example: if a husband has a wife then they have a marriage treaty, if 10 years later they divorce, then later this new divorce treaty declare null the previous marrige, I think nobody think that because of the "new treaty = null marriage" the husband "illegal made sex (abused)" with his former wife before the divorce. OrionNimrod (talk) 10:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a really solid argument, and I am personally convinced. While I'm not Super Dromaeosaurus, I'm the one who wrote "occupation" there in the first place, so I will be changing it now. Thank you both! Brat Forelli🦊  11:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)