User talk:Venatoreng

Welcome!

Hello, Venatoreng, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

"revisionist"?
What the heck was the meaning of that flame you posted on my talk page? I didn't even write the sentences you find offensive. Why pick on me? K. Lásztocska 17:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cioroianu
Hi. Yes, well, it would have to be presented from a source, as are all direct quotes. I wanted to add it myself, and looked for sources mentioning it, but did not find anything. Dahn 17:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Second Vienna Award
Salut, Venator. I took a brief look at the article: it needs some copyediting, as there are a lot of politically loaded and slanted terms sprinkled throughout the article. It's little stuff like saying Romania was "compelled to cede" Northern Transylvania, the territorial gains "did not satiate Hungarian public opinion"--we can surely get the same facts across without using such value-laden terminology. There are also problematic sections like "The award took place not so much to do justice, as to win Hungary for German war aims. Similarly to the Treaty of Trianon, it granted a multiethnic area to another country, caused massive migration of populations from both sides, and sundered old socioeconomic units." Well, no matter what country you're from, that's not so much an objective historical fact as it is an opinion about the historical event. So in answer to your question, I don't think the placement of the NPOV template is unjustified, but it shouldn't be too hard to get the article to a better and more neutral state, then we can take the ugly template off. Best, K. Lásztocska 22:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean--we Easterners can spend weeks fighting over one politically sensitive word choice. Sometimes I think it would be better if we were all still just stuck under Habsburg rule together. ;-) (kidding!) Anyway, I'm working on trying to NPOV-ize the first part and put it in context--probably won't be a definitive final version, but I hope it will at least be better. K. Lásztocska 23:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to try to put a piece of Eastern European history into a purely Western European context, if that's what you mean...Hungarian political attitudes in the interwar period (resentment and bitterness from Trianon) has as much to do with the Vienna Awards as did the Germans' political and military strategies for anything. It's all connected, East and West... and I'm pretty sure the East doesn't have an exclusive claim to incorrigible idiots, by the way. :) K. Lásztocska 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * East and West have always been connected in some way or another, when you look at the whole scope of European history. Anyway though, enough of that--I just finished a first attempt at a rewrite of the beginning of the article, see what you think. K. Lásztocska 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually, I think "many ethnic Hungarians" works fine--after all, the main point of the article is not the demographics of pre- and post-Trianon Hungary; indeed Trianon and its consequences are only "setting the stage" for the main point, the Vienna Awards. As for Bukovina and Bessarabia--I didn't get to that section yet, I'll look at it and the rest of the article later. I'm glad you think I made such significant improvements already, and thanks for bringing the article to my attention. K. Lásztocska 00:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Venatoreng. I certainly agree with your approach, and I like where this is going (especially the above discussion, which seems to be very productive). Allow me to note that there is a possibility of going beyond a European context (and I do agree that this is what should be emphasized, in more ways than one). I had the article on my watchlist once, but I have removed it because I could not cope with all the POV I noticed on both sides.

Indeed, the article should focus on facts, and provide the interpretations without favoring any (while dismissing the extremist hogwash that both sides have produced before and since). This is bound to be especially hard in this article, but I do believe it is feasible. As a side note, I feel I should point out that the Germans were undecided about the issue until (probably) the very last moment, and that an important part was played by the fact that Italy decided to abandon its attempts to back Romanian fascists (after it began looking like a lost cause), and instead gave their endorsement to the fascist regime. Similarly, Romania herself was in a, shall we say, embarrassing position - demanding guarantees from allies she had discarded willingly, and being completely isolated because of wanting to have the cake and eat it too. And let's note that, no matter how justified in doing so, Romania had no problem accepting a Nazi deal in the following years. A lot of this is a personal perspective, but I believe it is, all in all, a good summary.

I'm not sure you're hinting at it yourself, but I think all the rhetoric about historical rights on either side does not belong in the article, and can be replaced with a foray into history that does not reach back to the 12th century. That simply serves no purpose, and all of it can be replaced with a link to history of Transylvania (itself in desperate need of common sense).

Unfortunately, I'm all tied up in a project I've been dreaming about for long, and I'm only halfway through it (see my sandbox). But I'll get back to you on that, and I'm sure that your collaboration with K will yield a much better article by the time I revisit it.

Btw, K: as some Romanian Transylvanians politicians bitterly noted even as late as when they were talking over the United States of Greater Austria, the main problem is that we guys over in Miticăland were not part of Kakania. Therefore, I allow myself to amend your "if we were all still just stuck under Habsburg rule together" - you see, we voted Hohenzollern. :) Dahn 01:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Romania article
Hi! You seem to have a lot of requests for this article. I believe it would be far more productive if you would go ahead and make those edits yourself. I have edited the article heavily over the past month and I got tired of hearing ppl reaquesting and not helping at all. Please go ahead and at least expand the sections that are marked with the expand tag, such as Culture. Thank you! Nergaal131.215.40.124 10:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hungarian revisionism
Re: don't know, there's dispute resolution but I've never used. There's also a way to ask for a third opinion (I think it's listed in dispute resolution page. Good luck. man with one red shoe 20:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. ''Do not remove properly sourced information. If you wish to change it, create a discussion on the talk page of the article. Right now consensus is against you, you want the article changed? Convince them otherwise.'' —  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 07:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Ardealul, Pamant Romanesc
Nu cred ca e o idee buna sa pui o sursa nationalista/politica langa alte surse academice. Romano-Dacis (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh...
Sorry, Venator: I was not at all active when you sent those two posts my way. As we stand, I can't get involved there at all, particularly because the last time I did nothing came out of it in the perennial war between the two sides. A minor note: while it is indeed plausible that the Hunyadis' ancestors where what we came to term Romanians, when one was a regent and the other a king of Hungary that becomes relevant only as evidence that ethnicity was much of a non-sequitur for people belonging to the aristocracy of whatever medieval polity (and notoriously so in the Hungarian model). Maybe I'll look into it later. Dahn (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Hi there VENATORENG, VASCO from Portugal here,

Regarding Helmuth Duckadam, please have a read at my input in his talkpage (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helmuth_Duckadam#Duckadam.27s_height) and the WP:FOOTY discussion i have started (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Helmuth_Duckadam). In regard with the latter, if you could find reliable references regarding his supposed incident with the secret police, even in Romanian, it would be very cool.

I completely understand your point of view, let's try and work together to improve the player's article overall. Attentively, happy weekend - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Romania
--Codrin.B (talk) 05:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)