Talk:Northern Transylvania

[Untitled]
I tried to fix some bias in this article, but it still may not be actually NPOV. Please help make it neutral. Adam78 01:26, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can't point to a specific reason, don't put the non-NPOV tag. bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 04:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * is the part of Transylvania which belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary from 896 century until 1920

this may be suggesting that this is the only part of Transylvania which belonged to Hungary bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 04:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You are unquestionably right in the latter, I'm sorry. I'm fixing it now. --Adam78 09:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

As some people on Wikipedia already pointed out, it is incorrect to claim that various regions of Central Europe were part of Hungary for so long. Just see the Wikipedia article about Transylvania for details about this subject: after 1526 Transylvania was semi-independent state under Ottoman sovereignty. The ruling class of Transylvania were ethnic Hungarians, but that doesn’t mean that region was part of Hungary in that time!!! Transylvania has become part of Hungary in 1867. User:Quetzal00

This is correct, Transylvania was from the early 16th century not part of Ottoman occupied Hungary, or indeed Royal Hungary. Transylvania was in fact the only independent region of Hungary, governed by Hungarian princes. --Pali 20:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

NPOV?
I've cleaned this up enough that I felt comfortable removing the cleanup tag, but I'm not confident enough to immediately remove the NNPOV tag without at least asking for a second opinion.--Pastafarian Nights 08:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits
Rgvis,

it has nothing to do with general acceptance, it is a regular issue in which the terms are clear, what you tried to suggest with your sources, is fairly represented in the article (occupational admnistration takeover), however sovereignity did not change, it was suggested it should return to Romania but has to be confirmed by the peace treaties (1947). Indeed the article you linked there is sourced when the Hungary signed - 20 January 1945 - that they withdraw from those territories.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2021 (UTC))
 * For now, I will not continue to dispute the date, but the discussion remains open, as long as the argument with the Armistice from January 1945 does not bring any new aspect to the issue (the text does nothing but confirm what has already been established in September 1944). So far, the article does not refer to any source that explicitly indicates that period as 1940-1945. (Rgvis (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC))
 * No, in 1944 the provisions were set to be decided in the peace treaties, while in 1945 Hungary signed to retreat behind the 1937 borders and also removing such laws from her legislation which would conclude the opposite.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
 * For this situation, the main statement of the September 1944 Armistice is as follows: "The Allied Governments regard the decision of the Vienna award regarding Transylvania as null and void"; that is why all referenced sources interpret that Hungary held Northern Transylvania until 1944 (and not 1945). I will wait for sources regarding your interpretation. (Rgvis (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2021 (UTC))
 * The Allied Govenrments had no authority to make decision over a sovereign state's territory, especially what they regard or do not regard is not decisive regarding this question (especially, when the state was not involved). Also, "held" is not this, it refers to military affairs, presence. Administrational questions are as well different issues.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2021 (UTC))