User talk:Dahn/Archive 12

The Third or the Fifth?

Dahn: I have a new article up, Mircea Ciobanul. According to the Romanian Wikipedia article, he was Mircea III, but according to the French article, he was Mircea V. Counting the Mirceas here, he does appear to have been fifth. What's your view on the matter? Also, do yoy think I left all the titles (vornic, postelnic, etc.) in the right format, or should they be left untranslated, or removed altogether? Thank you for your input. Biruitorul 05:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very welcome revisions. I suppose we could write Mircea (V) Ciobanul, but no solution is perfect, so we might as well take it on a case-by-case basis. Biruitorul 18:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not Entirely Sure

Dahn,

1. "Do point out your reasons on the talk page (and tell me how you think the section you removed should be reformulated, if it should be present at all)"

• I'm not sure I like keeping the section I removed at all. This does not mean that facts, or information you included in it can't be presented elsewhere. The problem with the section was that in effect the criticism it produces is of your own formulation (however good that formulation may be). It is what would be considered original research from a Humanities perspective. It isn't "bad" in anyway, nor is it necessarily wrong, but I can't endorse that kind of presentation in an encyclopedia entry--and Wikipedia explicitly does not endorse it.

2. "do address the issue of what the IP keeps doing when moving stuff relevant to Eliade's pre-Guardist nationalism to the section about 'controversy'"

• I think this is a tricky issue. I'm not sure what you want me to "address" here. Please elaborate.

3. "and do express a view on the mention of Ornea being Jewish as equivalent to the mention of Sebastian being one. Please."

• Please elaborate on this. I'm not exactly sure what this is about. In general someone's ethnic/religious identity isn't an issue nor should it be. If it relates to the circumstances (for instnace someone was persecuted because he/she was X) then it should be presented, but it shouldn't be used to discredit or to verfiy someone's statements. I'll gladly speak up on that issue if the IP is trying to claim that Ornea and/or Sebastian's ethnic/religious identities are problematic--what they say may be judged but what they are should NOT.PelleSmith 13:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're sad; very sad.Boulle 01:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frontul Renaşterii Naţionale

National Renaissance Front. A bit more on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed up further (again, on my user talk page). I've done about what I can on this. Pretty strong case for "National Renaissance Front" unless there is a counter-argument. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvania 2

I guess I understand, doesn't really make much of a difference either way. I can tell you for a fact that my great-grandparents certainly didn't see it this way, but I of course trust you on this. BTW, have you noticed the History of Transylvania page? I don't see a single reference in the entire article, plus it really needs to be cross-checked with the main Transylvania article. By checking the history of the page, you will find that one of your "friends" have worked on it considerably... Just wanted to let you know. La revedere. —Khoikhoi 05:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, thanks for the explanation. As for History of Transylvania, I see what you mean. BTW, out of curiosity, what specific topic is your cup of ceai? You seem to have an incredible knowledge on almost every Romania-related topic out there. —Khoikhoi 04:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian capital market

Could you have a look at the external links in Romanian capital market? The one that claims to be "official" doesn't look in any sense official to me; I can't really tell whether either belongs, and in any case they should be captioned to explain what they actually are. I'm sure I could work this out, but I suspect that you, as a native speaker, could do so much more rapidly. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Moldovans

Aren't such lists alphabetical? If not, are these chronological?

And shouldn't Ion Muşuc have a place in that list?

Regards, --landroni 14:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am raspuns aici. --landroni 14:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am raspuns din nou. --landroni 11:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Sacrilege Act mediation

Hi, I’m the volunteer mediator working on this request for mediation. Please participate in the discussion so we can resolve this issue. There's also a new section for discussion on the article's talk page. If you need to reach me, leave a note on my talk page. Thanks, and have a great day! Tsetna 18:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu

Salut. I find the following passages from Vladimir Tismăneanu's Stalinism for All Seasons to be quite intriguing. Do you think they can/should be worked into the article on him? (This is rather a long copyrighted extract so once you read it (and potentially use it), feel free to erase what is written below.)

pg. 75: "Although certainly more sophisticated than his peers, Pătrăşcanu was a disciplined 'soldier of the party,' ready to follow Soviet instructions without question. After the war, faced with infinitely more complex issues and aware of the cynicism of the Soviet attitude toward Romania, Pătrăşcanu tried to articulate a more balanced view of the country's social history, albeit one still imbued with Leninist-Stalinist clichés. Privately, however, he expressed reservations about the Moscow show trials and the condescending behavior of the Soviet 'comrades.' Actually, if Pătrăşcanu's close friend Belu Zilber is correct, Pătrăşcanu had read Koestler's Darkness at Noon and thus understood the technique of extorting confessions in the name of ultimate party interests. Much in his behavior, including his readiness to engage in a cat-and-mouse game with Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej (Pătrăşcanu being the mouse) is reminiscent of Bukharin's series of recantations and letters of submission to Stalin after the beginning of the Great Purge."

pg. 114: "...it seems that some of his remarks during the armistice discussions were interpreted by the Russians as an indication of 'nationalist arrogance.' He was also a member of the Romanian delegation to the 1946 Peace Conference in Paris, where it seems that he read Arthur Koestler's anti-Stalinist novel Darkness at Noon."

[...]"For Gheorghiu-Dej and his intimates, Pătrăşcanu was never one of theirs. They disliked his aloofness, lack of interest in party intrigues, and refusal to take advantage of special perks and privileges. Add to this Gheorghiu-Dej's discontentment over Pătrăşcanu's popularity among intellectuals and students."

[...]"In 1946, in the midst of the electoral campaign, Gheorghiu-Dej attacked Pătrăşcanu for a speech he had made to Romanian students in the city of Cluj, in Transylvania, following ethnic incidents there. Pătrăşcanu had simply tried to emphasize the RCP's commitment to Romanian patriotic values, but his speech was distorted by Gheorghiu-Dej and invoked against him in the general secretary's report on 'chauvinistic and revisionist currents' to the central committee plenum in November 1946." Biruitorul 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you liked the Vermeersch article and I appreciate your edits to it. So far, both of my self-noms have made it to DYK, so maybe it's not that difficult to get featured. Anyway, a ton of articles on French political figures still await translation, so good luck in making it to the main page. I also translated Augustin Malroux a few days ago, so you can look that over too if you wish.

I only know of one English-language edition of Tismăneanu; here is all the information you need: Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism, by Vladimir Tismăneanu; ISBN 0-52-023747-1, University of California Press, 2003. It's on Google Books, so if you want more excerpts, you can do some searching there. Biruitorul 17:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greeks in Romania

I got your point and i knew from the very beginning for whom the sentence Non-ethnic Greeks having immigrated from Greece was about. however, the 'see also' section has the internal link Aromanians, in general, and not a possible link Aromanians in Romania. this way it seems that the Aromanians in Greece are not ethnic Greeks. and this is what the reader will think. remember that we are not talking here about origins, and u correctly mentioned this on my talk page as well. btw, those Aromanians who immigratted from Greece, left under special agreement by the then dictatoric greek government and the then dictatoric romanian government, so, it was not much of their choice... Would it be so difficult for u to leave the links as they are, without that sentence? let the reader redirect to the respective article and draw his/her own conclusions. you would actually have little to contribute: u do not know how much i can contribute... Have a nice day u too. Hectorian 11:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is, if that's what u want to believe. Hectorian 11:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. so, Macedonians also does not redirect to Greeks, but this does not mean that they are not Greeks. no, what (at least me) want to say is that the Aromanians are not only of Greek descent, but that they are as greek as any other greek sub-group. in addition, i would like u to tell me when did the aromanians start using greek as well, i mean when they begun being bilingual? no matter how much u'll search, u'll never find any reference of the aromanians been monolingual in aromanian. no matter how deep in time i have searched my family origins (cause i am an Aromanian myself) i have not found a point when an ancestor of mine was speaking only aromanian... The inclusion of the words "non-ethnic Greeks" in that section (when there is no reason to) can be seen as nothing else than 'provocative' (and allow me the usage of this word)... it is another form of the view 'aromanians are not greeks' in an article about 'greeks in romania', so the outcome is 'romanians in greece, who were not ethnic greeks, and immigratted to romania'. My point is that since the article is about 'Greeks in Romania' and since Aromanians have common things with both Greeks and Romanians (genetically, ethnically, culturally, linguistically, historically, etc etc), it is better to leave the section without any sentence that would be POVish.

I think that an article about 'aromanians in romania' would be very interesting, and although i admit it would prove to be hard to deal with conflicting POVs, i am optimistic that it would be good. we'll see about that in the future...

I was not talking about 1913... i was talking about 1925. from the respective article: In 1925, 47 years after Dobrogea was incorporated into Romania, King Carol II of Romania gave the Aromanians land and privilleges to settle in this region, in order to achieve relative majority of vlach-speakers in a region formelly inhabited mostly by Bulgarians, which resulted in a significant migration of Aromanians into Romania. Today, the 25% of the population of the region are descendants of Greek Aromanian immigrants (especially from Thessaly and Central Macedonia). (maybe it was me the author of that paragraph, i can't remember well, however, if it was me, i had provided sources in the talk page-having in mind revert- and edit-wars in that article, i am sure i was asked to do so). u make it appear as if it was just aromanians' choice to immigrate to romania... as if the privilleges given to them by the romanian king had nothing to do with it... and as if the 'just torn apart from war' greece with 1,5 million refugees could promise them a better future... i think we both can think clear and we can understand why they immigratted... it is pure logic to say that noone leaves his place on his own will, unless he has something better to do somewhere else. and i consider your comment especially since these people remained in Romania and did not protest against it after the conditions changed as autosarcastic, considering the communist past of romania...

Lastly, it is not a minority view that Aromanians in Greece are ethnic-Greeks. it is the view of all the Aromanian assosiations and of all the Aromanians here. so, calling us 'non-ethnic Greeks' is indeed POV. Regards Hectorian 14:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that the sentence Non-ethnic Greeks having immigrated from Greece in the beginning of that section is POVish. i do not suggest to say Other ethnic Greeks having immigrated from Greece, cause this would be the Greek POV... but the way it is now is the Romanian POV: it implies that Aromanians in Greece are not ethnic Greeks. think about it... if u will not change it, i will (or maybe add something like the vast majority of Aromanians, being ethnic Greeks, remaned in Greece, though, that would be a counterbalance to the current sentence). btw, i will not be saying something untrue, will i?

i was not talking about dictatorhip in the strict modern meaning of the word (and i should not had bolded it)... i was referring to the Interwar period, when most countries of europe (including greece and romania) were under authocratic regimes (no matter elected or not). sorry, i did not make myself clear on that (afterall, greece was not under dictatoric rule either that time...). Regards Hectorian 15:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Ethnic groups in Greece who were subject to immigration in Romania or ... who partly immigratted in Romania are fair enough. pick the one u prefer (yours is better i think). as for the "majority in Greece" and if one can safely say that they have magically become Greek by default, i think u are talking according to the Romanian POV:). the Greek POV is that there was no "magic" in it, since we have been Greeks forever:). I know quite many things about Romanian history, and during the past 24 hours i learnt some more... But, please, don't play with maths... 1925+22 years still... there was a WWII, territorial disputes and nationalism, the 1929 economic collapse (that affected Europe as well)... it was not 'years of freedom' as we (sort of) live now... About Greece in the interwar period, there were 2 dictatorships, 1 rebellion, 2 wars, 3 changes of system of government (democracy to monarchy, monarchy to democracy and backwards again), 3 kings, 1 president, regents, and i can't count how many PMs and governments... what i want to say is that there had never been a reasonable period of time without authocratic governing. maybe that's the word i should had used at first place. If u are talking about pressure of Greece to ethnic minorities in the past, u are right. if u are talking about the present, Greece presses noone... In fact, the Aromanians themselves rejected an EU plan that aimed for them to be recognised as an ethnic minority... and it could not had happened differently, since even the current President of Greece (is) and an ex Ecumenical Patriarch (was) Aromanians. In addition, Greece has not been pressed for such issues by the EU, but Romania was, if i am not wrong (although i am not in the position to judge Romanian behavour towards its minorities). i did not understand your last comment about Ceauşescu:/. waiting for a reply as well. Hectorian 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dahn. and 'optomuini' ('goodmorning' in aromanian, i am not sure if it sounds similar in romanian). been able to come to a compromise is the only outcome of a good and reasonable dialogue... i wish it could happen in all articles... I guess u are right about Aromanians who reject the 'greek label' in Romania, but honestly, i have not met someone in my life in Greece;). there must be some, but someone will have to try really hard to find them... not that greece has any special law not allowing them to express something like that, but just because they are too few. i know and i have come across Romanian users who were pushing the Romanian POV about Aromanians, and in the talk pages i had to push mine POV as a counterbalance... however, i tried not to do this in the articles. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a manifest! and we have to try for NPOV. so, that's something in common;)

Romania back in the first half of the 20th century, may was the most democratic state in the Balkans, but we have to acknowledge that 'democracy' at that time was much different than today. if one of the democratic and elected rulers of any state at that time, was ruling a country nowadays, he would be called 'dictator' or, at best, there would be a serious 'lack of democracy'. but for those times, they were the 'modernists', the 'chosen by the people'... as for Romania and the land of Dobruja, i can't see it as 'offensive to the Bulgarians'... the Bulgarians did the same in the lands they conquered during the Balkan War I and later during WWII... Greeks as well... it was a common practice. (in modern means, an unacceptable behaviour, though). Honestly, i have never heard of taxing the Greek Aromanians for speaking Aromanian... i mean, never heard of a special law applied only to them. they are/were taxed just like the other Greeks. and i am sure that my grandmother would had told me when i was asking her such things. not that such totalitarian things may have not happened for others here, but i doubt if it happened to us. and about the schools, yes i know that... Greece had been closing the Romanian schools. but not Aromanian schools... perhaps, if some Aromanians standardised the idiom and its syntax, grammar, possible aromanian schools would had been closed as well. but it would not had been the same... i mean that the closing of the romanian schools would be a fascistic action if there were Romanians in Greece. but for the case of Aromanians, i tend to believe that such schools should not had been founded at first place... btw, i have heard stories that in those schools children did not only learn a similar language, but they were taught that they are in fact... Romanians. it's like establishing Italian schools in Romania and teaching the pupils that they are Italians! i bet that even today the Romanian government would close such schools, since it would be an act against the state and nation. so, i do not see this greek policy as an evil one (things differ if the schools were aromanian, of course). i also know that Greece had not been an example of tolerance towards minorites either. and i am not talking about the Turks, who btw, were in heaven compared to the fate of the greeks in Turkey! i think that the worst thing Greece has done was about the slavophones in Macedonia... because, just cause most of them supported the communists during the Civil War, they were equalised with the slavs, having in mind that virtually all slavs were under communist rule during the Cold War. and this resulted to the many political refugees from Greece to the eastern european countries during that time... and also the case of the cham albanians, who were deported from greece for collaborating with the Axis. although we think that greece had every right to expell them, in modern ethics this would be a 'bitchy' action... about the Megali Idea, this was irrentism totally against the Ottoman empire... i will not say if for that time this was good or bad, explainable or not, i will just say that it was different.

Sometimes i see people, especially here in wikipedia, criticising Greece for saying it is 98% homogenous, and that it has no ethnic minorities... i consider it a lack of knowledge from their side. Greece was no homogenous at all in the beginning of the 20th century, but it was in its end. actions shaped by wars and population transfers... The Muslims and the Slavophones (who were not ethnic Greeks) were exchanged with Greeks from Turkey and Bulgaria respectively. the Albanians left the country after WWII as i said before. those Aromanians who for the one or the other reason were not ethnic Greeks, immigratted in Romania. Virtually every ethnic (not linguistic) minority disappeared... That's why i insisted about that phrase on the article in the first place. Ciao;) Hectorian 07:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

See: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 14# Orthodox Christian categories. IZAK 17:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian diplomats

Hello, he worked for a number of legations. There was nothing specifically Russian about him. I can't find his name recorded in the annals of Russian diplomacy. He might just as well worked as a cook in a Russian embassy. If I had worked in a Russian legation for a month, it wouldn't make me a "Russian diplomat" for life, don't you agree? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vino la pagina de discutii Transnistria

În 17 septembrie va fi referendum în Transnistria legat de independenţa regiunii. Cu această ocazie probabil multă lume va căuta pe Wikipedia informaţii despre Transnistria. Am încercat să adaug în articol nişte informaţii legate de acest referendum, anume:

- faptul că mai multe organizaţii antiseparatiste au lansat un apel la boicotare, considerînd referendumul "farsă"

- faptul că din 46 de ţări membre ale Consiliului Europei, 45 sînt împotriva recunoaşterii referendumului, numai RUsia are altă părere

- faptul că datele Comisiei Electorale Centrale din Tiraspol au fost schimbate în mod ciudat, anume numărul total de alegători s-a micşorat cu 7% faţă de 2005, ceea ce ridică suspiciuni asupra unei încercări de creştere artificială a prezenţei la vot prin raportarea unui număr mai mic de alegători înregistraţi.

Totdeauna am dat lincurile care dovedesc cele scrise de mine, n-am născocit nimic din burtă.

Userul Willian Mauco, care pare fan Tiraspol, mereu mi-a şters adăugirile. (vezi istoria paginii)

Puteţi vedea la pagina de discuţii Transnistria ce argumente a adus. Anume: ăia care cer boicotarea referendumului din Transnistria sînt foşti KGB-işti, că aşa zice o organizaţie rusească de analiză (a dat un linc pentru asta). Întîi a spus că respectivii nici nu sînt din Transnistria, ci doar din Basarabia, dar i-am dovedit că unii dintre semnatarii apelului la boicot sînt transnistreni. Am fost împăciuitor, i-am zis că n-are decît să adauge părerea organizaţiei ruseşti că antiseparatiştii sînt foşti KGBişti, că n-are decît să-i considere pe cei care vor boicotarea referendumului drept băieţi răi, dar faptul în sine, că s-a cerut boicotarea referendumului, trebuie menţionat. Degeaba, mereu mi s-au şters adăugirile - pentru celelalte 2 fapte nici n-a adus argumente.

A mai fost o adăugire care a şters-o, despre arestarea a 4 persoane din Transnistria care sînt împotriva separatismului (între timp li s-a dat drumul). În cazul ăsta am renunţat eu să mai insist pentru includerea informaţiei în articol (deşi informaţia e incontestabilă), tocmai fiindcă n-am vrut să mă cert prea mult.

În perioada asta cînd agenţiile de ştiri vor menţiona referendumul de la Tiraspol, se va citi articolul Transnistria în Wikipedia poate mai mult decît într-un an întreg. De aia acum e nevoie să existe în articol informaţii despre contestarea corectitudinii referendumului. Nu cer să se menţioneze ca adevăr absolut faptul că referendumul e incorect, ci doar că există unii (OSCE, 45 din 46 ţări ale Consiliului Europei, unele organizaţii din zonă şi din Basarabia) care consideră asta. Vă cer de aceea sprijinul ca să interveniţi pe pagina de discuţii Transnistria pentru a susţine rămînerea informaţiei în pagină şi să repuneţi informaţia atunci cînd Mauco o şterge (eu nu pot să verific chiar 24 de ore din 24). Evitaţi atacurile suburbane, păstraţi ton civilizat. mulţumesc.

Who is William Mauco Here is an article about a Wikipedia celebrity, William Mauco, and his relations with the International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty (ICDISS), an organisation "which seems to be a front organisation for a Kremlin-backed rogue statelet called Transdniestria" (quote from the article) http://0.bypass-filter.com/index.php?q=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZGx1Y2FzLmJsb2dzcG90LmNvbS8yMDA2LzA4L2dvdGNoYS0yLmh0bWw%3D

Edward Lucas wrote about Mauco: "The other lead is William Mauco. He has an extensive record of posting intelligent and fairly neutral entries on Wikipedia, not only about TD but about other unrecognised statelets. Crucially, these predate ICDISS's birthday of January 2006. And he also claims to have been at their conference in Mexico City in April of this year. I have written to him asking to get in touch, and had a friendly email in reply. I am planning to follow up this research in an article in European Voice at the end of August, so watch this space!"