User:02barryc/medtable

• not at all a union, not even a personal union per se (given that Mihai did not rule all the lands himself)
• did not bring any change into the legal system in Transylvania
• if mentioned at all by contemporary sources, it is only as a brief and largely ineffectual episode (no interprataion of the texts will ever justify assertions such as "union", "political awareness", "freedom of Romanians", "political ideal")
• its status symbol relies on sophistry and POV natonalism of the kind that is not shared by many (and most modern-day) Romanian analyses
• mention in the lead would imply Romanian jingoism, as there are many, longer and much more relevant events in Transylvania's history that would also need mention through way of consequence (getting all of them in there would clog up the text and add redundancy to both a section and an article on the region's history)
• it is adequately presented, with adequate commentary, on relevant pages, and certainly does not belong in the lead

Comment on the links provided by Criztu: they are all vague comments of facts, and mention is made of documents that don't seem to be quotable (the largest text still says "a document" without specifying how and under which formula); the British texts appear to be directly and undiscriminately quoting Romanian nationalist POV. Gentlemen, I have given you the sources, not the perspectives on sources. I am not asking for removal of text: I am asking for uncertain-at-best things not to be casually dropped into a brief leading section as if they were the unquestionable truth. Future work should further evidence these problems in detail, but, as it is, the articles are either schematic or messy; pushovers such as the one Criztu is attempting here will only make this harder to accomplish. Dahn 10:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Edit Section

• Michael the Brave united Transylvania Moldavia and Wallachia under his authority in 1600.

28 October 1599, Michael defeats the armies of Prince Andrew Bathory, and on 1 November 1599 Michael receives the keys of Alba Iulia. 11 February 1600, treaty between Michael the Brave and Emperor Rudolph II recognizing Michael the Brave as prince of Transylvania. November 1599, the Ottoman Empire recognizes Michael as prince of Transylvania. 27 May 1600, Michael entitles himself Ruler of Transylvania Moldavia and Wallachia.

Columbia encyclopedia

Britannica encyclopedia

Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Romanian national institute for R&D in informatics

Dolj County site Edit Section

• the assertion itself is not untrue; what is untrue is the fact that it brought about Romania's rule over Transylvania; what did bring about Romania's rule over Transylvania was the Treaty of Trianon, as the text currently makes clear
• its relevance was rejected by the Romanian government of the times, and it only surfaced as a "meaningful gesture" in context after the actual decision from above became unfashionable (namely, in
  Communist Romania
  )
• Criztu fails to note that "Romanians taking control of the administration" is not at all equal to "Romania taking control of the administration"; the matter of sovereignty did not at all reside there, and all knots were tied after Trianon, not before
• it is adequately presented, with adequate commentary, on relevant pages, and certainly does not belong in the lead Edit Section

• 1 December 1918, Romanians from Transylvania proclaimed Union of Transylvania with Kingdom of Romania.

At the end of War World I, romanians from Transylvania took control of the administrative apparatus in Transylvania, and the Romanian National Party deputies representing the romanians in Transylvania gathered at Alba Iulia where proclaimed Union with Romania.

Britannica encyclopedia

Columbia encyclopedia

Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Romanian National Institute for R&D in informatics

Romanian Ministry of Defence Edit Section

• the very idea that the mention would be flattering the Hungarian community is illogical (since mention is not made of the Hungarian community, but of an administrative system which was created under the Kings of Hungary)
• the system was endorsed by the local ruling class for centuries on end, and was adopted by rules other than Hungarian (including Transylvania's existance as an independent polity - which should be relevant in itself)
• the destination page, as is, is for the Kingdom of Hungary; whoever reads into this irredentism or some other chimera uses sophistry
• the mention is included alongside other traditional divisions, and is perfectly useful as information for people who want to see the way Transylvania was administrated in the past) Edit Section

Transylvania Lead Section explains that Transylvania at its maximum extent encompassed other historical regions too; and that the notion of a region of Transylvania also encompasses other historical regions that are not part of Transylvania proper.

The formulation Another traditional division is the Hungarian administrative system i consider to be a

While Historical Regions that are associated with Transylvania proper might be a recognizable thing of the present, the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Hungary are not a recognizable thing of the present, and have the same relevance for the lead section of Transylvania as the Administrative divisions of the Kingdom of Romania have, none.

• Administrative divisions of Kgdom of Hungary are not a Tradition of the Transyvlania Historical Region of Romania. They are at most a Tradition of the Hungarian State. Edit Section