This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Romania-
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Serbia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Serbia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SerbiaWikipedia:WikiProject SerbiaTemplate:WikiProject SerbiaSerbia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
A fact from Banat Republic appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 26 July 2018 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that an army commander in the Banat Republic of 1918 claimed it could raise 40,000 troops against the
French Danube Army, but in reality it had less than 4,000?
(Warning: Lame joke follows:) If they did issue stamps, I bet they used to call them "cimbre". :-)
bogdan 19:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)reply
Edit war
Hey guys, stop editwarring please. I try to find a compromised version. Maybe it will be acceptable for both of you. --
Koppany 17:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree. We cannot use info from alternate history sites here. Such sites are examples of user-created science fiction, while we trying to have serious encyclopedia with accurate facts. That flag have no place here.
PANONIAN 17:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)reply
Red flag
I have removed the red flag. There is no source for it. --
MateoKatanaCRO (
talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Before someone comes up with the argument: "The MSZDP local chapter organized the effort to create both the People's Council and subsequent Republican government, beginning with the large rally that had previously been announced in Timișoara's Liberty Square. The participants flew socialist red flags.", I just wanted to add that this is maybe true, but there is no word about an official state flag. --
MateoKatanaCRO (
talk) 14:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There is no reason to assume that it wasn't true, particularly under
WP:TRUTH: the fact is clearly specified in the quoted source. We also do generally use informal flags in infoboxes where no formal flag existed or no one bothered to introduce one (as
here or
here); in this case, red flags carried at the proclamation of the republic are quite clearly a symbol associated with the republic.
Dahn (
talk) 14:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
PetrusdictusA is edit warring to remove the flag
File:Proposed flag of Banat.svg from the section "
Later echoes". The flag is sourced in the File page at Commons. Furthermore, the flag and its use is discussed in the text of this article, supported by another source (currently note 162), in which there even is a picture of the flag in use at a politcal rally in 2014. The removal of the flag from the article and the rather clueless attempt to have the flag removed even from Commons seems to based entirely on
WP:JDLI. The flag has now been reinserted by
Super Dromaeosaurus. The flag should not be removed again unless supported by a consensus in this talk page. --
T*U (
talk) 13:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Indeed. I don't know what's going on with this part of the article but it has been very turbulent lately.
SuperΨDro 13:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Ok, I get it, now both flags are equally sourced. Let's not remove any of them ok? Thank you.--
PetrusdictusA (
talk) 11:11, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
PetrusdictusA: Can you please explain where in your "source" it is shown that this flag is accepted by or used by any organisation or even anyone except Mr Stepanescu-Vlaicu. Can you please also give some kind of foundation for the qualifications of Mr Stepanescu-Vlaicu, who seems to be conspiciously hard to find out anything about in a
Google search. Also, could you give a source for claims like became more and more popular and usually displayed by the conservative branch of this movement. In short, this looks like just so much
WP:OR. --
T*U (
talk) 11:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
In the article it clearly shows it has won the 2018 survey held by both flags on facebook. The other flag is not being used either by anyone else except the Banat League, a private group of people. And as the article says Mr Stepanescu-Vlaicu is a heraldrist whilst members of the Banat League are not. So I'm sorry, but either both or none. And if Ziua de Vest, a prestigious newspaper publishes it, it means that people use it, as also the main page promoting it, BANAT, had more than 7000 followers last time I've checked.You are doing a lot of harm to our culture continuously denying our sourced historical flag, but allowing the far-right style version. This is a very sensible issue for us.The sources for both flags are of the same level: newspaper articles. Both sources are prestigious newspaper articles. Nothing more, nor less. If you call that unreliable, then both need to go. If not, then both need to stay. --
PetrusdictusA (
talk) 17:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
@
PetrusdictusA: User
Mentatus gave you good advice earlier today about learning what "reliable sources" means in Wikipedia. I see that there are quite a few more things about Wikipedia you will need to learn, but let us start with sources. There is a significant difference between the two newspaper pieces that mention the two flags. The article
here regarding the green and white flag is an example of news reporting, written by someone connected to the newspaper (journalist or similar), presumably approved by the editor or someone else with that auhority to be in the voice of the newspaper. It even has a photo showing the flag used in a political rally in November 2014. The newspaper piece
here about your preferred flag is not news reporting, but an opinion piece, written by someone not connected to the newspaper, a person with av specific interest of "presenting their case", since the writer Mr Stepanescu-Vlaicu is also the person behind the suggested flag design. According to
WP:RS, content from a well-established news organisastion (like a newspaper) is generally considered reliable for stating a fact if it is news reporting, not if is just an opinion piece. You can read more about this at
WP:NEWSORG. Adding to this, the piece by Mr Stepanescu-Vlaicu does not really state that this is a flag in use, it is more a pamflet for promoting the flag. It does not really matter if Mr Stepanescu-Vlaicu is a heraldist or not, since our interest does not really lie in who made the design, but more in whether the flag really exists in actual use, but I notice that his qualifications are only attested by his own words, and that it is extremely difficult to find anything useful about him in a google search.
Regarding other things you really should learn about Wikipedia, I will suggest that you read
WP:CONSENSUS and
WP:EDITWAR about how to deal with differences of opinion (and how not). I will also ask you to study
WP:OR and
WP:SYNTH about original research and synthesis.
I see that you now are indefinitely blocked at Commons. Your "solution" to that seems to be to create a new account and combine it with logged-out IP-editing here at English Wiki. That is a really, really bad idea. Please read
WP:SOCK about such misuse of accounts. --
T*U (
talk) 23:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)reply
POV-pushing, WP:FRINGE, WP:COI, vandalism etc.
GoliardusMagister: It emerges from your pattern of edits that you are the one and the same as
PetrusdictusA, who has been indefinitely blocked from editing. It also emerges that you are personally invested in pushing a flag invented and persistently promoted by a one-person show (
WP:FRINGE,
WP:PSTS), namely the exact person you are "referencing" in you edits -- which brings up the issue of
WP:COI. You have now also proceeded to simply remove (
WP:VANDAL) sourced info from this article, while also quietly adding your edits with said problems. What is more, the fact you push for this in a detail in an article on an altogether different topic, which brings up
WP:COAT. I suggest you please stop and reflect, as continuing to edit in this manner may result in a ban on this account, and any other account you create in the future. You will be able to pick up the details regarding the likely consequences of such behavior from the opening paragraphs of
WP:SOCK.
Dahn (
talk) 12:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)reply