User:Grettoonist/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Project 1: Socialism in Italy sidebar proposal[edit]

Project 2: Socialism in France sidebar proposal[edit]

Project 3: Austria–Romania relations rewrite[edit]

Austria-Romania relations
Map indicating locations of Austria and Romania

Austria

Romania

Austria–Romania relations are the bilateral foreign relations between the Republic of Austria and Romania, which have been largely determined and limited by the global political environment. Romania has an embassy in Vienna (as well as a branch of the Romanian Cultural Institute) and six honorary consulates in Eisenstadt, Linz, Salzburg, Graz, Klagenfurt am Wörthersee and Sankt Pölten-Niederösterreich. Austria has an embassy in Bucharest (and established a cultural forum in Bucharest in 1999) and two honorary consulates. Both countries are full members of the European Union (EU) and Council of Europe, as well as the Central European Initiative and Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Historically, both countries have fluctuated in relations, including Austro-Hungarian support of Romanian independence, conflict during World War I and alliance during World War II. More recently, Austrian and Romanian foreign policy has been friendlier, valuing high levels of cooperation, with Austria supporting Romanian admission into the EU. However, relations have recently worsened, with Austria opposing Romanian membership in the Schengen Area, resulting in the withdrawal of Romania's ambassador to Austria from Vienna. Economic relations have also been strained with Romanian companies, universities and entrepreneurs boycotting Austria, and branches of Austrian banks facing anti-Austrian inscriptions.

History[edit]

Background[edit]

Prior to the establishment of Romania as an independent state, the Austrian House of Habsburg had controlled Romanian territory and historical regions throughout European history, including the Banat of Temeswar in the Treaty of Passarowitz in 1718, and Transylvania after the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, until the unification of the region with the Kingdom of Romania in the aftermath of World War I. It was in this time under Habsburg rule that the Romanian community experienced nationalist cultural and ideological movements like the Transylvanian School. In the aftermath of the Russo-Turkish War, in which the United Principalities fought with Russia to secure independence from the Ottoman Empire, Austria-Hungary played a key role in the Congress of Berlin, which formally recognised Romanian independence. Afterwards, Austria-Hungary became the first country to establish foreign relations with Romania on September 22, 1878.

World War I and conflict[edit]

Romanian prisoners of war passing by an Austro-Hungarian howitzer during the Central Powers' counteroffensive in 1916
Austro-Hungarian prisoners of war in Romania in 1918

In the decades leading up to World War I, Austria-Hungary signed the Triple Alliance in 1882 with Germany and Italy, which Carol I of Romania wished to join out of fear of Russian expansion and the competing claims on Bessarabia. Romania secretly joined the alliance on October 18, 1883, pledging with Austria-Hungary to help each other in the event of a Russian, Serbian or Bulgarian attack. Nonetheless, there were ongoing territorial disputes regarding Transylvania's status and its community's rights. The Balkan Wars, which resulted in Romania annexing the southern part of Dobruja from the Ottoman Empire and achieving the status of regional power in the Treaty of Bucharest in 1913. Their aspirations of expanding to regions with significant Romanian populations, as desired by Carol and Ferdinand I, conflicted with Austria-Hungary's strong opposition to other nations' expansion in the area.

After the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, World War I broke out in Europe. Romania initially declared neutrality, reasoning that Austria-Hungary started it and they had no obligation to intervene, despite their efforts to invoke a casus foederis linked to the Triple Alliance. To ensure neutrality, Austria-Hungary granted territorial concessions to Romania, as encouraged by Germany. Carol desired entering the war on the side of the Central Powers, which included Austria-Hungary, in contrast to the Romanian public and political parties preferring the Triple Entente on the side of the United Kingdom, France and Russia. Ferdinand, who succeeded the throne upon Carol's death in October 1914, also favoured this, and in August 1916, Romania signed the Treaty of Bucharest with the Entente Powers, facilitating their entry into the war on the Allied side in return for territorial promises in Austria-Hungary, of whom they declared on August 27, suspending relations between the two countries.

In the Eastern Front, the Romanian campaign resulted in Austro-Hungarian forces, alongside Ottoman and Bulgarian forces, occupying a significant portion of Romanian territory from Romania's entry until December 1917. Fighting in the region included Transylvania, part of Austria-Hungary, which was included in the 1916 treaty for Romania. When Romania was surrounded by the Central Powers, Austria-Hungary helped isolate Romania out of the war with the treaty of Bucharest in May 1918 and ceasing the Carpathian Mountains. However, as the war turned in the Allies' favour in 1918, Romania renounced the treaty in November, contributing to Austro-Hungarian defeat in the war. With the 1918 treaty nullified, Romania was free to unite Bukovina and Transylvania into its territory with the creation of Greater Romania. Meanwhile, Austria-Hungary was dissolved and the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye cemented the new Republic of Austria. The aftermath of World War I and new geopolitical dynamics redefined relations for the two countries going into the interwar period.

Interwar period[edit]

One of the main territorial treaties which was an example of border changes influencing future relations was the Treaty of Trianon in 1920, of which both Romania and Austria were beneficiaries, with Transylvania being fully and formally transferred to Romania, and Austria receiving most of Burgenland from western Hungary. Both countries were members of the League of Nations, which reflected efforts for diplomatic initiatives, and both experienced economic challenges pertaining to World War I reparations for Austria, and the impact of the Great Depression. Foreshadowing their military alliance during World War II, both countries were also the subject of fascist movements: austrofascism in Austria under the Fatherland Front beginning in 1934, and the National Christian Party and later Iron Guard in Romania. On March 12, 1938, Nazi Germany annexed Austria, once again ending bilateral relations.

Following World War II[edit]

President of Austria Rudolf Kirchschläger on an official state visit to Romania in 1978, meeting with President Nicolae Ceaușescu.

The defeat of the Axis powers in World War II, which had included both Romania and Austria through Germany, once again transformed the geopolitical dynamics of their relations, as Romania was under Soviet occupation beginning in 1944 and Austria was made independent by the Allied powers and divided into occupation zones, which included the Soviet Union, allowing them to exert influence on both nations, Romania more so as King Michael I was forced to abdicate the throne with the Romanian People's Republic being established in 1947. Austria's occupation and policy of neutrality allowed it to maintain relations with Eastern Bloc countries under Soviet influence like Romania, as a Western power in the Cold War. This was in contrast to relations with West Germany, a Western Bloc and NATO ally which was divided with East Germany. The 1955 Austrian State Treaty meant that continued Soviet forces' presence in Romania ceased to exist, yet Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, general secretary of the Romanian Communist Party announced their continued presence on the justification of foreign soldiers stationed in West Germany. This showed the significance of Austria's neutrality, politically aligned with the West but not in a military alliance, with the ability to maintain good relations across both blocs of the Cold War, which Germany was no longer able to accomplish in contrast to close German–Romanian relations during World War II.

Project 4: Marxist–Leninist state leaders template major revision[edit]

Original template with added colours

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

  • {{Grettoonist|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
  • {{Grettoonist|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.


New template with expanded leadership across party and legislature

This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a navbox, sidebar, or table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.

To change this template's initial visibility, the |state= parameter may be used:

  • {{Grettoonist|state=collapsed}} will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.
  • {{Grettoonist|state=expanded}} will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.

Project 5: Dictators multiple image for lead section[edit]

Version 1: Fascist, Marxist–Leninist and military dictators[edit]

Notes: This stays close to the original collage in terms of examples of images, but framed by common ideological or occupational framework. Fascist dictators (Mussolini, Hitler, Franco), Marxist–Leninist dictators (Stalin, Mao, Ceaușescu), military dictators (Pinochet, Amin, Suharto). It is indisputable that these figures belong in these categories, even if Augusto Pinochet and his ideology can be considered fascist as well, it is clear-cut that he was a military dictator, but Mussolini and Hitler were not only not senior military figures, nor did they rule through the military, but they were undeniably fascists. The downside to this version is that these categories may not be as accepted as those in the dictatorship article, where the specific types section list those found in version 2; absolute monarchies were mainly left out of the article, and therefore the same goes for the multiple image.

Version 2: One-party, personalist and military dictators[edit]

Notes: Deviating slightly, we could instead focus on the categorial types of dictatorship and how their rulers fit in. One-party dictators (Mussolini, Stalin, Mao), personalist dictators (Hitler, Franco, Kim), military dictators (Pinochet, Amin, Suharto). It also features all of the dictators from the original collage. The downside to this version is that the categorisation is up for interpretation. For example, Adolf Hitler was also a one-party dictator, serving as Führer of the Nazi Party. So while closer to the collage than version 1, the former is still more concrete in terms of framing via ideology: Adolf Hitler can only be described as a fascist dictator, in direct contrast to Marxism–Leninism and having no senior military background which would constitute Nazi Germany as a military dictatorship.

Verdict: These versions have been linked to in the talk page for Dictator, where it was pointed out the significance of not supplanting information through the infobox, which the multiple image de facto serves as. I have my disputes over this, where I could argue in a counter-reply that the multiple image shouldn't be treated as an infobox in the explicit sense, that nine examples across multiple fields strikes a good balance between not being too unnecessarily lengthy or not having enough information to justify its existence. And how mainly, this opens up ways to incorporate these examples (not just those mentioned, but others which succinctly showcase the range of such examples) into the article, which would give the multiple image more legitimacy as summarising, which fits into MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However, this wouldn't be the best way to deliver such a dispute, and I would need time to figure out how to phrase it in a convincing way, though it has now been a week since the response to the new section I have created on the talk page. And given that my schedule has been quite filled up and I don't feel too strongly about this project, it is to be put indefinitely on halt instead of pursuing it further.

– February 12, 2024, 23:35 (UTC) –

Project 6: "Template:Anarchism US" sidebar and footer proposal[edit]

Project 7: Timeline of Trumpism section in said article[edit]

Background[edit]

The following is a timeline of events related to the evolution of Trumpism prior to Trump's 2016 presidential candidacy:

Timeline[edit]

The following is a timeline of Trumpism as a movement:

References[edit]

  1. ^ Mason, Lililana (2018). Uncivil Agreement. University of Chicago Press. Archived from the original on 18 October 2018. Retrieved 9 October 2020.
  2. ^ Rosenfeld, Sam (2017). The Polarizers. University of Chicago Press. Archived from the original on 15 November 2018. Retrieved 9 October 2020.
  3. ^ Chapman, Dan (November 9, 2016). "Newt Gingrich role in Trump cabinet?". ajc. Archived from the original on November 14, 2016. Retrieved November 15, 2016.
  4. ^ Mifflin, Lawrie (October 7, 1996). "At the new Fox News Channel, the buzzword is fairness, separating news from bias". The New York Times. Archived from the original on December 11, 2019. Retrieved May 4, 2010.
  5. ^ Jamieson, Kathleen Hall; Cappella, Joseph N. (February 4, 2010). Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19539-860-1. Archived from the original on June 12, 2020. Retrieved May 11, 2018. We do this to illustrate the ways Fox News, Limbaugh, and the print and web editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal play both offense and defense in service of conservative objectives. As these case studies will suggest, the big three reinforce each other's conservative messages in ways that distinguish them from the other major broadcast media, CBS News, NBC News, ABC News, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and major print outlets such as the Washington Post and New York Times.
  6. ^ Grossman, Matt; Hopkins, David A. (October 13, 2016). Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. p. 175. ISBN 978-0-19062-660-0. Archived from the original on May 18, 2020. Retrieved May 11, 2018.
  7. ^ Kludt, Tom (February 28, 2018). "Fox News has avoided talking about Jared Kushner's security clearance". CNN Money. Archived from the original on April 3, 2019. Retrieved February 28, 2018. The network claims a uniquely powerful role in the pro-Trump echo chamber, setting the agenda for both the president and his millions of supporters. In this vein, Trump is rarely cast in an unfavorable light and the so called 'mainstream media' draws little praise. Bad news, like the one surrounding Kushner, routinely gets glossed over.
  8. ^ "Trump says he will explore Reform bid for White House". The Philadelphia Inquirer. October 8, 1999. Retrieved October 10, 2019. "I will be forming a presidential exploratory committee ... effective, I believe, tomorrow," Trump told CNN's Larry King Live.
  9. ^ "The Donald ducks out on presidential run, blames party fighting". Deseret News. February 14, 2000. Retrieved July 28, 2011.
  10. ^ "Pants on Fire: Donald Trump says people who went to school with Obama never saw him". PolitiFact. February 14, 2011. Archived from the original on March 28, 2012. Retrieved March 21, 2012.
  11. ^ Marr, Kendra (March 17, 2011). "Donald Trump, birther?". Politico. Archived from the original on March 20, 2011. Retrieved March 17, 2011.
  12. ^ "Donald Trump, Whoopi Goldberg, Spar Over Obama on 'The View'". The Wall Street Journal. March 24, 2011. Archived from the original on April 27, 2011. Retrieved March 25, 2011.
  13. ^ Cheney, Kyle (March 4, 2016). "Trump kills GOP autopsy". POLITICO. Retrieved July 6, 2022.
  14. ^ Smith, David (June 15, 2019). "Trump has a new favourite news network – and it's more rightwing than Fox". The Guardian. Archived from the original on October 15, 2019. Retrieved December 17, 2019.
  15. ^ McCormick, Andrew (May 27, 2020). "One America News was desperate for Trump's approval. Here's how it got it". Columbia Journalism Review. Archived from the original on October 19, 2020. Retrieved October 9, 2020.
  16. ^ Edmondson, Catie (June 28, 2022). "In Illinois, MAGA Congresswoman Rallies to Oust Her G.O.P. Colleague". The New York Times. Retrieved November 24, 2022. Ms. Miller is a member of the far-right Freedom Caucus who has adopted Mr. Trump's grievance-infused manner of speaking and once spoke approvingly of Adolf Hitler.
  17. ^ Jordan Fabian, Trump threatens to 'fight' Freedom Caucus in midterms, The Hill (March 30, 2017).
  18. ^ Swan, Jonathan (July 28, 2021). "Trump allies blame conservative leader for failed Texas endorsement". Axios. the Freedom Caucus – a group of ultra-conservative House Republicans who are fervently pro-Trump.
  19. ^ "Full text: Donald Trump announces a presidential bid". The Washington Post. June 16, 2015.
  20. ^ Allen, Mike; Schreckinger, Ben; Karni, Annie (September 3, 2015). "Trump calls GOP's bluff, The front-runner says he was promised nothing in return for signing the loyalty pledge". Politico. Retrieved September 14, 2015.
  21. ^ Grim, Ryan; Velencia, Janie (March 15, 2016). "The Stop Trump Movement Got New Life In Ohio". HuffPost. Archived from the original on March 16, 2016. Retrieved March 28, 2021.
  22. ^ Hohmann, James (March 16, 2016). "The Daily 202: The Stop Trump movement's last realistic hope is now a contested convention in Cleveland". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 17, 2016. Retrieved March 17, 2016.
  23. ^ Martin, Jonathan; Healy, Patrick (May 3, 2016). "Donald Trump All but Clinches G.O.P. Race With Indiana Win; Ted Cruz Quits". The New York Times.