Talk:Kingdom of Romania

message: This article expresses nationalistic views with scarce historical information taken out of its context. The ethnic maps are debatable as number of modern and contemporary studies beg to differ. Esp referring to the ethnic composition if Dobruja and all lands south of Danube. 
Please correct.
Also prince Carol I in a famous letter sent as a response to the annexing of Besarabia by Russia, in exchange for which his state receives Dobrija, himself describes a very different ethnic compostion of Dobrija. His attempt to refuse annexing Dobruja based on the fact that it is not inhabited by Romanians is well documented.
Please either elaborate and correct or add the popular historical point of view as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.149.173 (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Nationalistic views expressed

message: Vasile recently cut the bulk of Romania during World War II, saying "pre war at pre war article". I don't necessarily agree—I think it is very hard to get any comprehension of Romania during World War II unless one looks at most of the reign of Carol II—but I won't argue. I've moved the material to Kingdom of Romania and added a  tag here; the material needs to be integrated. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "The full cumulative fury of nearly a century of Romanian antisemitism" asserts the final report, c.1, p.53 
I still think the current article "Kingdom of Romania" is totally messed. There was a "little" Romania and a "greater" Romania. --Vasile 17:19, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do I understand that you are saying to split it at 1918? I'd have no problem with that, as long as you want to do the legwork, including looking at all the "what links here" stuff & fixing it accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I presume that "kingdom of Romania" was intended to be the "capitalist" history of Romania. As it is now, it includes three different constitutional regimes (1859-1918, 1919-1938;1944-1947, and 1938-1944). There are very large periods of time in modern history. I don't suggest a split of the article, but a frame of the article. Maybe somebody would suggest a better title. --Vasile 13:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material needing integration 

message: Some of the images overlap with the text in Firefox. Perhaps someone knows how to fix this? Thanks. Typos 23:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try resizing the window. Dmaftei 00:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and Text Overlap 

message: Kingdom of Romania "between 13 March 1881 and 30 December 1947" .Xx236 (talk) 08:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing WWII section 

message: Currently, the article states "By the Treaty of Versailles, Romania agreed to grant citizenship to the former citizens of Russian and Austro-Hungarian empires living in the new Romanian territories". This is quite dubious, since the Treaty of Versailles was between Germany and the Allied Powers, not between Austria-Hungary and the Allies. I guess it was guaranteed by the Treaty of Trianon... KœrteFa {ταλκ} 12:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty of Versailles 

message: There is map from 1917 with the caption "Territories inhabited by Romanian population". This caption is a bit misleading, since many of the dark brown territories had significant populations from other ethnic groups. I refined the caption as: "Territories with significant, but not necessarily majority, Romanian population (1917)", but it was reverted twice. Dear Tarabostes, please read this discussion, which shows why this kind of map and the caption is misleading (i.e., my main problem with the map is that it uses the same color for areas with 10% Romanian population and for areas where it was over 90%), and explain what's your problem with the suggested new caption. Thank you, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This ethnic map was designed respecting the usual rules (in each area it is represented the population which is most numerous, so the Romanians are not 10% in any sector. The lowest percentage is ~ 33% in Banat area. No additional specification is needed, because this is how ethnic maps are always made Tarabostes (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comment, but no, this is not how ethic maps are always made. Serious ethic maps use color coding, scales, etc. And no, the lowest percentage is not ~ 33%, since, for example, the map colors Timișoara, as well, where even in 1920 there were 16.047 Romanians out of 86.850 townsfolk (so they constituted about 18.47%). Therefore, the best would be to remove this misleading map (there are other better maps in the article which demonstrate the distribution of Romanians in that time), but the minimum is to refine its caption. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 13:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is made by a reliable author, and it is nowhere mentioned that the Romanians where >50% or something. The legend of the map is explanatory enough. The map on Austria-Hungary page does not have such comments as "areas with significant population" Tarabostes (talk) 13:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have doubts whether the authors were experts. The map looks rather like a propaganda picture than a serious work (especially if we take into account that it was made during WWI). It is indeed misleading, since, for example, Timișoara had 32.097 Germans and 27.189 Hungarians vs the 16.047 Romanians (in 1920), still this map colors the town with dark brown (i.e., the color of territories with Romanian inhabitants), even though it also presents territories inhabited by Germans and Hungarians (dark and light orange). An obvious solution would have been to use mixed colors or scales, etc., but no, this map used the same color for Timișoara as it did, e.g., for Bucharest. That's quite dubious. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

text: P.S.: I am open to suggestions how to make the caption of the map more precise, if we keep it at all, since it is such a misleading work. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 17:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Since this is a misleading, imprecise map, I suggest removing it and replacing it with a better one. For example, the article already features an ethnic map for Transylvania (1890) which is more precise, uses color coding, etc. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 18:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map from 1917 

message: An anonymous editor introduced the title King of the Romanians into this article without any explanation in the edit summaries. Given that the various articles on individual monarchs describe each of them as a King of Romania, I have undone these edits.
The expression Regele Românilor appeared on coins during the monarchy, and so it must have been an official title, but it does not appear to be in general use in Romania, except perhaps among supporters of the exiled King. I do not find it in Romanian WP, where there is an article titled Regele României, which translates as The King of Romania. The expression King of the Romanians does not seem to have achieved the same degree of use as, say, King of the Belgians, which may have inspired it.
On balance, I feel it is better to stay with the expression King of Romania. LynwoodF (talk) 12:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of King 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20161219231851/http://www.uaic.ro/en/university-2/university/timeline/ to https://www.uaic.ro/en/university-2/university/timeline/
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) 19:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone please go to the List of Prime Ministers of Romania and modify the entry of Gheorghe Argeșanu? It shows him as part of the FRN, but there is no evidence - here or on the Romanian Wiki - that this was ever the case. He should be described accurately, as a military government, with the khaki color instead of the grey FRN one, like Antonescu or Averescu. I've tried to do it myself, but the list's format is extremely confusing to me, I don't quite get how it works, so if someone could please address this inaccuracy, I'd be grateful. Prefectul (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prime Minister Argeșanu 

message: ,what you write in the edit log may be interpreted arbitary. This article encompasses the timeline between 1881-1947, during this timeline the territory of Romania and form of state varied much (as did i.e. Hungary's between since 1000 up today, but yes, as you say it does not mean any instance would be another country, predecessors and successors are not decided on that matter, it is dependent on what Wikipedia articles we have from a current timeline about that country (and remember the examples I draw your attention by our earlier discussions, with Ukrainian SSR, or Yugoslavia, all combinations are linked, etc.). Here what may have bother you is the current article's beginning and finishing date in encircling that National Legionary State (tough not a unique case, the case with UKR's or YUG's entities may be much more complicated and interlaced), but still it is a legitim state article for a current timline, that's why per a long partise in many other pages in WP, it would quite odd not to follow here...(KIENGIR (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: My "problem" is not really that the legionary state is "encircled" by the kingdom, but that the legionary state was just a government in the kingdom for a while. In the "historical events" section it "fits" more as an "event" or "period" of the kingdom, and not as a separate entity which preceded or succeeded it. --Havsjö (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , this is what I say, not a separate entity, but having different borders as interwar Kingdom of Romanian, or the Socialist Republic of Romania, or in case if not regarding other examples, the change of the type of government does not necessarily imply being not separate or vice versa, the question is if we have a state/country status WP article for it. The case is not different like Kingdom of Hungary, Kingdom of Yugoslavia or Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, in the latter i.e. Kingdom of Romania is both predecessor and successor i.e., fairly. As the case here, in a way the opposite is, it is encircled, hence we may only put as predecessor, but the approach and the logic is not different.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would liken it more to that of the Hungarian Government of National Unity or Greek 4th of August Regime, which are just governments in the ("modern") Kingdom of Hungary and Kingdom of Greece. They are also not predecessors/successors, but just period of rule in the same country. Like, okay, the "German Reich" is the "same entity" for Weimar/Nazi Germany, but thats large break between them. This is just a "new government" and the government type and leader of these period are listed in the countries infobox (such as Antonescu, and "fascist dictatorship 40-41" on this page) as they are not "breaks" from the country, just a period in it (not "in it" as "encircled"/"stop and then start", but rather as "part of it".). --Havsjö (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , On that you are right the main description is talking about a government regime, but the article looks like devoted to a state, if see the infobox...anyway, territorial changes should count as large breaks, the the whole argumentation holds until there would not be (state) articles thet would i.e. would be devoted to Romania between 1881-1920, or 1920-1940, 1940-1945/47.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dont really understand what u mean tbh. It is all the same entity of "Kingdom of Romania" between 1881 and 1947, with its waxing and waning borders, and with clear "breaks" before and after this with the United Principalities and Peoples Republic. The legionary state was created partly as a response to borders changes, but its not a "new entity" just because it has a different shape? Antonescu-controlled Romania with the same borders but without the legionary state continues after it ended in 1941 and is covered only by the "Kingdom" article, and that again had different borders later on. Is there a "large break" because the kingdom gained territory after WW1 too? The territory gain/loss is not the dictator of becoming a "new entity". The "legionary state" is just a government within the Kingdom of Romania, just as the aforementioned Hungarian and Greek cases, or even Fascist Italy, which is just a (albeit large) "period" of the Kingdom of Italy, not a "new entity" as the subsequent republic or preceding un-unified Italy which can be seen listed. Other examples are the "Beiyang government" and "Nationalist government" of the same entity Republic of China. What can be seen in the "main country" articles/infoboxes (ex. Kingdom of Italy/Greece/Hungary/Romania) is that they encompass the "period" articles (ex. legionary state/beiyang government) in themselves, listing the leaders, government types, and events of these period as part of themselves. "Real" predecessors/successors (ex. peoples republic of romania, republic of italy) are not included "inside" them in this way as they are the "next step" before/afterwards, not just a government of the "unchanged" country. --Havsjö (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: this is exactly what I say. Depends on what kind of articles we have on the concerning country. As I said, we I have no problem to accept National Legionary State is curently an article about a government, though the title and the infobox is exactly state/country like and it has predecessors and successors as well as countries/states (so you really understood what I mean and why...).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well then I understand :)) --Havsjö (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: It's pretty offensive to describe people as "unnecessary" or "surplus". I suspect a mistranslation here. Should this say they were unemployed, that their families were unable to feed them, or what? From whose perspective and in what sense were they "unnecessary" or "surplus"? Hairy Dude (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "unnecessary surplus" population 

message: As a result, it has very little on the history of Romania in the period, mostly discussing its territorial extent during the period, and nationalist claims. It's unclear where to find a more detailed discussion of Interwar Romania. 138.88.18.245 (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Interwar Romania" see more link redirects to [[Greater Romania]] 

message: The timeline should be compiled into a file or a picture since it is very long and unpleasant to read. FizzoXD (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the timeline 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: While not that important, Id like to point out Hungary's borders in the 1939 Infobox map are substantially off. 2001:48F8:4028:1C23:455D:20B5:8BA3:79CF (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1939 Map