Talk:Vienna Award

The reasons for the title of this article

This imposed title is a bad title. Before the "award" there was an "arbitration" (or "diktat") that had the "award" as a result. --Vasile 00:35, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Protocol concerning the Arbitral Award establishing the Czechoslovak

• http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/woja/woja19.htm#cim1

Second Vienna Award

Do I understand correctly that HunTomy and Juro have agreed to move details out of here and to Second Vienna Award? If so, fine with me. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Extremist vandalism of anon 81.182.108.116& 81.182.20.159

This extremist vandal who comes from Hungary, Szombathely. He was warned to stop. Otherwise he will be blocked. User:Bonaparte

Comparative census numbers

Nationality/ language	1930 Romanian census		1941 Hungarian census
	Nationality	Language	Nationality	Language
Hungarian	912,500	1,007,200	1,380,500	1,344,000
Romanian	1,176,900	1,165,800	1,029,000	1,068,700
German	68,300	59,700	44,600	47,300
Jewish/Yiddish	138,800	99,600	47,400	48,500
Other	96,800	61,000	76,600	69,600

I think something like the above might be better for allowing the numbers to be compared than the prose currently in the article. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:12, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

My opinion is that the prose should be taken out FROM HERE, because it is also found in the Second Vienna Award article. I wrote this "prose" some 2-3 weeks ago, HERE, but then Juro moved it to the Second Vienna Award article - which i think it was a good thing, as this page is intended to be just a short introduction, and the two sections were becoming disproportionated in length and detail. Then last week Bonaparte reverted some edits of HunTomy and by doing this he also reverted Juro's edit and thus we arrived to the present situation. On the other way, I do not see at all the reason for having just a table here, for the sake of clarity - it is very confusing to have the data without any explanation. I suggest then to revert the page to Juro's edit on 20:45, 27 November 2005. And maybe the table could go into the Second Vienna Award article, to replace the phrase which ennumerates the data from the two censuses. Algos 14:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. The table and prose should be moved to Second Vienna A. and commented properly. There is no reason to discuss the same numbers twice in two articles. Jmabel is good at these things and knows Romanian history, so I invite him to do so, if nobody else will do so. Juro 17:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

As I'd remarked earlier, I'm perfectly glad to cut the discussion of the Second Vienna Award to a couple of sentences here and handle it at Second Vienna Award. Since both articles are protected right now, I can't proceed on this. So are we basically in agreement, though, that this sea of numbers is better understood from a table, and better off at Second Vienna Award? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Protected

The article is now protected. Please engage in a constructive dialog to describe the controvery around this subject in a manner that is consistent with Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View. When you have arrived to consensus on how to proceed, make a request to unprotect at WP:RFPP ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 18:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I even see what is disputed here. There seems to be something close to consensus to cut the section on the Second Vienna Award down to a couple of sentences, and to handle the matter at Second Vienna Award (which is itself protected at the moment, but which, in any event, seems to contain all of this). Unless someone objects in the next 48 hours, I plan to unprotect this article and simply cut that part down to a 2-sentence summary and a link. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Since HunTomy (the "revertor", who actually has brought us into this situation) does not react here and has not expressed his consent, I recommend to re-protect this article immediately after you have done that to prevent further edit wars and thereby save all of us further wasting of time. Juro 02:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I support Juro's proposal. Please do so Joe. -- Bonaparte talk 11:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

If no one has objected within the 48 hours, or if HunTomy explicitly agrees, please ping me on my talk page and I will deal with this next time I log on. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

"Arbitrals" --- Should be "Dictate"

Searching Google for "'Viennese Arbitrals' -wikipedia" gives all of 14 distinct pages, and most of those appear to be just Wikipedia mirrors that failed to credit Wikipedia. So... is there any citation for any citable source using this name? I'd really like to drop it from the list at the start of the article, because as it stands it seems to me that we are endorsing a neologism. - Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

YES, Wikipedia endorses a neologism without any discussion and on totally unlegal grounds. Award has the english meaning of a prize, recompensation for a positive deed. We speak here of a territorial gain obtained under the mediation of two dictators: Hitler and Mussolini. Its name in history is "Diktat", and it has the clear message that it was a decision forced by two dictators during the war, without a base in international law. Playing with words in this context is utterly irresponsible, since Wikipedia helps spread the impression that there is a legality behind this decision, other than the one of power, or even worse, it spreads the concept that all war decisions are likely controversed - no matter if it is a legal treaty of peace signed in consistence with existence international law, or something like the Ribentrop-Molotov peace, or the Vienna Diktat.

There is no trace of discussion, how this neologism entered Wikipedia. Even worse, I know people who say "Vienna Award is a proper denomination, you can find it in Wikipedia!", and thus endorse exactly the error I mentioned above. But Joe M. asks why Wiki is endorsing the word. Is there anyone repsonsible here, or should I just replace Award by Diktat, in order to have a reaction and engage a discussion? This is not my preferate way to act, but if within a week I see no discussion, I will think of something in that direction, based on historical sources.PredaMi (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

A short search in Google Books shows, that this is not the case. A huge number of renown historians who published their books in renown publishing houses used the term long before Wikipedia existed. Just try a little search and see for yourself:

• "Second Vienna Award" has 12.800 hits in Google Books
• "Second Vienna Arbitrage" has only two hits in Google Books
• "Second Vienna Dictate" has only three hits in Google Books

The term "Vienna dictate" hence is in deed also known in academic historical literature, but is less often used. Interestingly almost all hits in Google Books with "dictate" refer to the Transylvanian case between Hungary and Romania, while the First Vienna Award between Hungary and Slowakia ist not called like that, although there is no real difference in the two cases (both were as plausible with ethnic self-determination, or as unjust and extorted, depending on the point of view of the involved sides). There is no doubt, that the Second Vienna Award was an extortion or dictate towards the Romanian side, but still, the juridic term "Vienna Award" ist far more often used in literature. --El bes (talk) 18:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)