Talk:Union of Transylvania with Romania

Structure of the article
Mentatus suggested on my talk page the following structure, with which I also agree:
 * the events that led to the Union of Transylvania with Romania, including but not limitted to the situation of Romanians of Transylvania in 1870-1918, the couses of Romania entering WWI on the cide of Entente, and a short history of the war beteeen 1916 and 1917 with reference to the main article Romanian Campaign (World War I)
 * the Alba-Iulia Assembly and the resolution addoted their. Move the paragraphs from Union Day (Romania) here.
 * the war between Romanian and the Hungarian Soviet Republic (1919)
 * the Romanian constitution of 1923 (not extensively, b/c it desearves a separate article), and the crowning of King Ferdinand and Queen Mary in Alba-Iulia
 * a short reference to the Second Vienna Award and the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947

For 3 we need bibliography and photos (from free domain). One of the best books in the field is ni "În apărarea Romaniei Mari" by Dumitru Preda, Vasile Alexandrescu and Costică Prodan (Bucureşti, 1994), but we don't have it yet at our disposal, b/c we are not located in Romania at present.

I make some changes now to this article, namely I will devide it into the 5 parts with the following titles:
 * Causes and leading events
 * The Assembly of Alba-Iulia
 * The aftermath and the war between Romania and the Hungarian Soviet Republic
 * The organization of Transylvania in the Kingdom of Romania
 * Second Vienna Award and the Paris Piece Treaty
 * The last two sections would be about 1/2, resp. of 1/3 of the size of each of the first three. Approximately, obviously. :Dc76 20:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I suggest that the Union Day, including the 1st December Declaration is dealt with in a separate article. It was only one event from a long process, however important it was. One paragraph is enough in this article, with reference to the main "Great Union", or "Union Day" article. --KIDB 18:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to say that present section 2 should become a separate article, Union Day (Romania), and be an article in the category national holidays, while the rest of the sections to remain here as an article in the category history? Or do you mean to rename (back) this article Union Day (Romania), let it be in both categories, and with this title leave only one paragraph? (But then 4 out of 5 sections of Union Day (Romania) article would be just history, is that all right?) Since personally I can not figure out which way is better, I am asking more people to give below their oppinion. :Dc76 18:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Any of them. Presently the first paragraphs are not coherent, eg. sentences like "Previously, in 1866, the national holiday of Romania was set to be on May 10, which had a double..." have no connection to the title of the article. --KIDB 20:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion from the former article Union Day (Romania), which was merged into here
The WWI poster The WWI poster has no reason being there. It is about Romania's war entry, a good two years before. Also, the event marked is about Transylvania's union with Romania - it was the date of Transylvanians attending an Alba Iulia gathering, where they expressed their wishes to be part of Romania. (As such, the choice for the event was quite a misnomer, since the gathering itself did not provoke Transylvania's union per se, nor were its demands respected by the succeding Romanian governments - such as the request that the region be given full authonomy inside the Kingdom.) There is a nuanced connection with Bessarabia and Bukovina: Transylvania was the last of the three to join, and since this is thought to have happened following Dec. 1st, the date was extended to mean the "fulfilling of Romania's unity". Note: southern Dobruja IS NOT part of that arangement - it was an integral part of the kingdom since late 1913. I will get to reviewing the page at a later date. Dahn 23:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with Dahn. Is anyone against removing the poster from this article? (Btw, I inserted the image into the Ferdinand I of Romania article some time ago, I guess it belongs there more than here). Mentatus 14:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cine cu cine s-a unit Cine v-a invatat istorie fratilor, astia de ati scris ca Regatul Romaniei s-a unit cu Transilvania, Basarabia, Bucovina si Dobrogea? Pai Regatul se uneste cu provinciile sau provinciile se unesc cu Regatul? Si cand s-a unit Dobrogea cu Romania (sau Romania cu Dobrogea, dupa cum ati scris)? Dobrogea de Sud a fost ocupata de Romania in al doilea razboi balcanic (1913) si deci n-a fost nici o unire a Dobrogei in 1918. The Vindictive 15:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Union_Day_%28Romania%29"

A few remarks
Hi, I still think it is confusing to use both calendars. When I first looked at the article, I thought eg. that the break-trough of the French army took 13 days (October 24 / November 6,).
 * 1) 2 I do not really want to get involved in editing this article because I do not have time to search for sources. When completing the text plese keep in mind: December 1 is national day for ethnic Romanians and I believe it is a great thing that Romanians were united in one state. The same time, the occupation of Transylvania and of East Hungary meant that millions of Hungarians were cut from their motherland, who did not wish to be Romanian citizens at all.
 * 2) 3 The text should not suggest that the unification happened because Romanians at the Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) meeting simply decided so. Huge ethnic Hungarian and mixed territories were occupied too. It should be clear that Romania wanted to occupy these territories and the Entente powers wanted to reward Romania for their 1916 efforts and that France wanted Hungary, a potential ally to Germany, to become as weak, as possible after the war.
 * 3) 4 Please refrain from using expressions like "Parliament of Transylvania, or "Government of Transylvania", because these simply did not exist. --KIDB 12:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

1 - December 1 is national day for ethnic Romanians of course but first of all it is the National Day of the Romanian state !

2 - The was not an "occupation of Transylvania" but an UNION decided by an DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Assembly at Alba Iulia, according to the voting polls from the entire Transsylvania. The lists with the votes of the population from the entire province are still stored in Alba Iulia and are available for study. In fact the Alba Iulia Assembly did functioned as a Parliament with democratic elected representatives, even that this situation was provisional.

3 - Indeed, The Union did cut more than one million Hungarians but not "millions of Hungarians from their motherland". In Transsylvania existed only 1,6 million Hungarians and Hungarian-speaking Jews and Germans (please see the Hungarian Census - 1910). The Jews and the Germans approved the Union vote of Alba Iulia. The papers of approval are also on public display at the "Union Museum" in Alba Iulia.

4 - Overall, The Union was indeed democratically disagreed by the local Hungarian population (almost a quarter of Transsylvania's population) and was democratically agreed by the rest.

5 - Of course, we can make in wikipedia our POV, but the existing documents are the real proves. I recommend you a trip to Alba Iulia.


 * The issue of Old Style and New Style dates is discussed in-depth in that article, so there is no real need to revisit it here -- it's something well understood. In fact, there is a template that deals specifically with such pairs of dates, and the template is widely used by wikipedia.  So I suggest simply using that template, which by the way provides a link to the page where detailed explanations are given.  To see how that looks, I changed a couple of dates to this format -- see what you think. Turgidson 15:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Secret treaty
Hello!

To the "Causes and leading events": According to the secret treaty: if romania makes a peace treaty with the central powers before the war ends (which happened after bucharest was conquered) romania will not get the offered territories. Someone should write this into the article too. Bye!


 * Sourse it, and of course it's ok. The legitimacy of the Union is not in the secret treaty, but in the elected assemblies. The treaty was merely a commitment of two countries to behave in a certain way in the foreign policy. :Dc76 20:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree.Baxter9 13:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Unirii
The many Bulevardul Unirii, Piaţa Unirii found in Romanian streets, do they honour this union or another? If so, it could be mentioned adding one of the photos in Commons. --Error (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * These names refer to the process. 2 and 26 January 1859 is the "small union", i.e. the principalities of Moldavia and Romania made the modern Romania, or the so-called "old kingdom", 9 April, 28 November and 1 December is when Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania joined, the so-called "big-union", making what is called "integrated Romania" or "great Romania" ("greater Romania" in some translations). 1 December 1918 was the biggest in size and the last one, logically ending a process that galvanized the intelighentsia and then the political class for the duration of one century prior to that. "Union" was a national ideal in 19th century, and central places are generally named after ideals or events related to/symbolizing ideals. "Union" from "Union smth" also (but this is generally a minority opinion) means the "spirit of unity among people". :Dc76\talk 14:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Does it make sense to have two articles?
I suggest the editors of this article to think about it: to restore the previously existing article Union Day (Romania), to move there the last 4 paragraphs from the intro and to expand it in relation to the celebration of the day, with a photo or two of military parades, or of related festivities. In short to focus that article on the National Day of Romania, and this one about the historic event.:Dc76\talk 13:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Here are some precedents for such a solution:


 * Storming of the Bastille, for the event, and Bastille Day, for the French national holiday.
 * United States Declaration of Independence, for the event, and Independence Day (United States), for the American national holiday.
 * I could go on, but the trend seems pretty clear. By the way, I just added Category:National days to the article, but that of course would logically go to the article on the National Day, if it gets off the ground.  Turgidson (talk) 23:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good idea. --KIDB (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems no objections. Unfortunately, i must apologize, I am quite busy these days, and I hate when I create new articles or modify title in a rush... If noone of you will do it, I look into it after new year.:Dc76\talk 13:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I added the template, and also one for further references (only 3, and 2 are romenian government sources). Hope someone will take the time to do the job, and that before opening a new article, authors check if there are already similar pages...--Desyman44 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, note that the discussion above was in 2007 to separate the article into two: one for the historic event, and the other for Romania's national day. Thank you very much for providing more sources. As for the Union Day article, I believe it should be expanded with the traditions and customs that exist when the National Day is celebrated, while the reference to historic events is here. This article is part of Category:History of Romania. That article is in Category:National days and Category:Romanian society. It should be removed from the history category. Dc76\talk 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Trianon
Excuse me but wasn't Transylvania assigned to Romania in the Treaty of Trianon in June 1920? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizso (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it wasn't. It proclaimed union with Romania on 1 december 1918. By the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, Hungary recognized that union. Dc76\talk 22:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hungary did not recognise Trianon Diktat, it was forced to sign it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.56.70.117 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Map of Romanians in Transylvania prior to Trianon
I think we really need a new and more detailed map. The map here shows Romanian majority and Romanian minority--a gross simplification of the actual population situtation. It seems that a large, contiguous, and overwhelming block of Romanians inhabited centra Transylvania, when actual population numbers and locations are not the case. I think even the Red Map would be a huge improvement. InFairness (talk) 04:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean this map 1 ? And to replace it with this one 2 ? Adrian (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

File:1dec1918.jpg nominated for deletion
See Possibly_unfree_files/2014_June_20 Avpop (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Union of Transylvania with Romania. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20110608152320/http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/rezo_eng.htm to http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/rezo_eng.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080306041545/http://www.cimec.ro:80/Istorie/Unire/law_eng.htm to http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/law_eng.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091205045028/http://www.1decembrie.ro:80/ to http://www.1decembrie.ro
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071022185521/http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=127 to http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=127
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130629234907/http://www.cimec.ro:80/istorie/unire/inainte.htm to http://www.cimec.ro/Istorie/Unire/inainte.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20051125085330/http://www.lumeam.ro:80/nr9_2004/trecutul_de_langa_noi.html to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr9_2004/trecutul_de_langa_noi.html
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070927050150/http://www.mtaki.hu/docs/kisebbsegi_lethelyzetek/szarka_laszlo_kisebbs_lethelyzetek_i_2_trianon_kenyszerkisebbsegek.pdf to http://www.mtaki.hu/docs/kisebbsegi_lethelyzetek/szarka_laszlo_kisebbs_lethelyzetek_i_2_trianon_kenyszerkisebbsegek.pdf
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070929202201/http://www.mbk.org/php/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=484 to http://www.mbk.org/php/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=484

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) 19:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)