User talk:Dahn/Archive 5

Phanariotes

hi dahn. i think that maybe the section "starting point"should be renamed to make clear that it refers to a period of romanian history. what about "phanariote rule/period in Romania"? tell me what you think. best--Greece666 18:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ok. for the time being, im afraid i cannot contribute seriously since im away from home (and my library). as soon as i return (beginning or middle of July) i think i can contribute to the "greek side" of the article- theres a huge bibliography anyway.

• "I'd rather wait for the opportunity of a radical change than make minor changes that may just as well become futile." Agreed
• "Also, when article is divided (if ever)": im not sure this is necessary, it just needs more info.

in any case i ll tell you more when i ll be able to contribute seriously (and my intention is to discuss any changes to the article before doing them). best--Greece666 18:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, im back to athens and until i leave again (july 14) i have some time to ameliorate the phanariotes article. id like to discuss with you the following points:

• Introduction- there should be a reference regarding the conquest of constantinople and the end of byzantine aristocracy. a reference to the coming of merchants from the aegean sea(especially Chios) and minor asia to constantinople.is also necessary(some of these points are discussed in the starting point).
• starting point: more should be written about the pre-1711 period. sthg should be said about panayotis nicousios the first phanariot to become a dragoman of the Porte. We should discuss the role of phanariots as dragomans of the porte and of the fleet.
• Negative perception: various historians especially of the left have criticized the phanariots in greece as well. i think i could add sthg on the issue.
• positive aspects: same as above.

How do you prefer to proceed? we can for instance examine one paragraph per day or begin reworking the text alltogether. best--Greece666 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi, do you think I should AfD this article? It's nothing but a picture gallery. —Khoikhoi 00:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border history of Romania. —Khoikhoi 00:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Thanks for the message, lots of hugs and kisses to you too! --KIDB 09:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary

Hi,

In 1843 the Diet declared Hungarian (Magyar) to be the official language of administration, replacing Latin.

Web Results (Google) 1,710,000 for Latin the official language of the Kingdom of Hungary. (0.48 seconds)

regards, Ms-pater

Latin - official language - Kingdom of Hungary - in Medieval Ages  :-))))

Hi Dahn,

it is here shomething information for You:

Latin, as the lingua franca in Europe, had a dominant role in Hungarian governmental, economic and cultural life. Moreover, during the Middle Ages and centuries thereafter, Latinalsoserved as the lingua patriae. It wasonly in 1844 that Hungarian became the official national language. From the 10th century on, Latin was used in official communication: the earliest charters and laws were all written in Latin. The first significant Hungarian poet, Janus Pannonius, who lived in the 15th century, wrote all his poems in Latin...

origin :))

http://www.google.com/search?as_qdr=all&q=Latin+the+official+language+of+the+Kingdom+of+Hungary&btnG=Keres%C3%A9s

regards, Ms-pater

Just a small remark..

• 1,250,000 hits for http://www.google.com/search?as_qdr=all&q=Latin+the+official+language+of+the+Kingdom+of+Hungary&btnG=Keres%C3%A9s
• 2,010,000 hits for http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=Latin+the+official+language+of+the+Romania

regards, GDP

Segesvár

My bad, my Transylvanian roots got the best of me. ;) —Khoikhoi 16:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad-hoc assemblies

Salut, Dahn. Coud you, please, give us some details on the Ad-hoc electoral process on the page Talk:Moldovans#Stupid argument? I got caught in a discussion, but don't have enough sources with me to be completely sure about what I'm saying. The dispute concerns the existence of some form of democracy in the constitution of the Ad-hoc assemblies. Therefore, this concerns the legitimacy of the choice free Moldovans took at the time to unite with Wallachians. I think it's an important point, regardless of this dispute (and I'm astonished I can't find data on it on the net, it looks like the Romanian historians are overlooking it). Thanks, Dpotop 05:14, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As usual, very insightful. Can you point me to some recent biliography on the subject? Especially the indiference of the Romanian establishment is probably a bit more nuanced, given that even Bratianu was a "reformed" red, and that the liberal finance was for a long time in the hands of Carada (a true red, that refused to met Carol I). Am I very mistaken in saying that these reds financed Stere? I think we must not minimize the influence these (former) reds played in Romania. Like now, Romanian politics are very much the result of a fight between liberal and conservative political currents, with some taking advantage on the other at times. You mentioned Cuza as a poster child for the "red" liberal policies, and I'd say Carol I is the symbol of conservatism. Dpotop 10:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is interesting, and I read Boia (this book and "Romania, tara de frontiera a Europei"). I'll therefore make a digression about him: His books are briliant, but like everybody he is inclined to expressing his ideas. In one of the books (I don't recall which one because they all have the same cover and cover more or less the same ideas) he even states that he exposes **his** view of Romania. This probably means he felt compelled to say it.

I would say Boia is more interested by Transylvania. When he "demythizes" virtually all Old Kingdom events and figures, he feels less compelled to do so with, e.g. Avram Iancu or the Greek Catholic church. :) That's OK, too, but it makes him less interesting from an Eastern-oriented perspective.

This said, I do agree with you that the Romania of that time was clearly oriented towards the west, and willing to leave Bessarabia very much behind. A bit like today. Even in 1941, the "recovered" Bessarabia was not quickly reintegrated to Romania, but remained a guvernorate. And before that Bessarabians were quite disconsidered. I didn't fully understand the roots of this ill-treatment and discrimination (this is why I keep digging). Dpotop 14:15, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the only important difference I see between the situation of Transylvanians and that of Bessarabians is that Hungarians actually discriminated on an ethinc basis, whereas the less densely populated Russia always did it in less obvious ways. This was true for Imperial Russia and for the Soviets. However, I would assume Moldovans are now starting to realize that nobody is forcing them anymore. Thus, the actual opposition I see to union on the long term is the arrogance of some Romanians. Sad to say, Transylvanians are among the worse. I agree with you that their union was "un mariage d'interet", but they still believe they are somehow superior... Dpotop 19:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voivode/Hospodar

I deserve a better explanation. :) Dpotop 12:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did not understand: wny not "princes"? Dpotop 17:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Communism-related articles for Italy

Hi! Just translated some articles from Italian Wikipedia. An incomplete list include:

• Partito di Unità Proletaria
• Franco Giordano
• Mario Capanna

Give them a check if you've time, as usual my English needs copyediting. Let me know and thanks! user:Attilios

Mikka

Hello. I consider (for the first time) opening a RFC on Mikka. I'm not hasting into it: It's been more than 6 months now that I saw him push people, and I belive that the discourse of Anittas and Bonaparte has degenerated also as a consequence of the irrationality of the Moldovan-related conflict (I saw it coming some 6 months ago, this is why I tend to be less critical of them). I also believe that the conflict over Moldovan issues would have been over now without Mikka's support to the most extreme oppinions of Node_ue (a negociated position would have been in place otherwise, I believe).

To be concrete: I fully agree with your position on the Moldovan talk page. Mikka assumed a position of arbiter, which is not specified by the wikipedia rules, and also not justified by his knowledge and POV on the conflict. I would propose you continue your attempt to discuss rationally with Mikka. If this does not work (which, I presume, is predictable right now) would you support a RFC? It's my first, do not imagine I would do this on everyone. Dpotop 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, we could start with the Mediation Cabal. It's more civil, and Mikka has shown in the past that he respects authority. Dpotop 19:07, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. In fact, I was not asking you to support my position on the content of that article, but on the conduct of Mikka (especially as an admin). This does not imply a support to TSOD or Constantzeanu. Dpotop 20:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proletarian Unity Party

Hi! Hmmm... it was dubious for me also. I think that the affiliates of those currents left the party after the disappointing results of the election, when the Communist-Socialist forces missed to ally to defeat Democrazia Cristiana. Thanks for help. Ciao!!! user:Attilios

I think they were dissatisfied by the party's behaviour towards the elections. Not sure. I was just born in the period, eh eh. user:Attilios

Dahn please make me understand why is so much need to debate since everybody knows that Moldovans are Romanians. Like it was said, the two terms are not exclusive. It's true that I did't pay too much attention to all debate because one can easily get lost in all that text, you know? But I noticed one thing, they keep avoiding your questions. I mean you were telling spade a spade. --Brasoveanul 06:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transylvanian Memorandum

Could you please see my comment/question at Talk:Transylvanian Memorandum? The passage I cannot understand was apparently yours. - Jmabel | Talk 22:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldavian Articles

Dahn, several times you have stated that the articles on Moldavia should be joined. I came to the same conclusion while looking through them. More than one article cover the same information which makes it extremely difficult for a reader to follow. I propose merging Principality of Moldavia, Moldavia (historical region), and Moldova (Romanian region). I am thinking that Moldavia should remain mainly a disambiguation page, whereas the articles should all be concentrated into Moldavia (historical region). Another important task is dividing the article History of Moldova into two section, the main part that discusses the principality before the union with Wallachia and the other describing the fate of Bessarabia. Thus one section would go into the Moldavia history section, whereas the other would stay in the Moldova history section with a link to the former. Do you think this makes sense? TSO1D 21:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Dahn your template should work fine for History of Moldova. TSO1D 21:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Polish monarchs

Hello Dahn, I wanted to thank you for your contributions to the discussion at List of Polish monarchs. You obviously have an appreciation for the nuances and difficulties related to the naming of Polish monarchs in English. I took part in a number of similar discussions a while back, and they went about as well as this one. Hopefully we'll be able to straighten all of this out. Appleseed (Talk) 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

Hi Dahn,

I was thinking about starting an article about anti-Hungarianism, but what do you think the best title for it would be? Anti-Magyarism, Anti-Hungarian sentiment, or what? We seem to have an "anti-" article for almost every ethnic group, except Hungarians! Also note the following images: [1] [2] —Khoikhoi 19:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first pic means nothing. The strip on the plaque means that you are exiting the village. greier 19:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, the second pictures have more meaning however.... —Khoikhoi 19:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a google test, you get 15,400 hits for anti Hungarian and 1,470 for anti Magyar. Note though that you get 2,170,000 hits for Hungarians and only 319,000 for Magyars, and yet Wikipedia has the article at Magyars for some strange reason. --Tēlex 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because "Hungarian", especially in Historic times, also meant "of the Kingdom of Hungary". There was a distinction between "general nation" and "particular nation" (see Council of Constance). greier 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Romanian, the name for Romanians from Transylvania is "Ungurean" (meaning "of Hungary") as opposed to "Ungur" (meaning "Hungarian" - people ) and "Unguresc" (meaning "Hungarian" - adjective/adverbe) greier 19:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, it would just be a stub for now. Which image? This website has a whole bunch of them. No, they didn't call it "anti-Hungarianism". I'll just go for Anti-Hungarian sentiment for now. —Khoikhoi 20:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. As for the Tisza river, lol, I have no idea. It seems a bit out of place. Maybe the people who poured the cyanide were burning Hungarian flags! —Khoikhoi 20:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History question

I have another question to you. Some guy pointed me to this [3] document. Given that two of the authors are Russian, I don't find it weird that the "Historical Background" starts with: "In earliest recorded history, from the 10th to 12th centuries, the Eastern parts of the Carpato-Dniesterian lands belonged the Kievian state." What I want to know is how much truth hides behind this phrase. What "Eastern parts of the Carpato-Dniesterian lands" are they talking of? Please, reply on my talk page. Dpotop 07:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fostul anonim inregistrat intre timp.

Eu sunt anonimul care a facut remarca aia pe pagina de discutie de la articolul cu Vlad Tepes legat de sarpe.De curiozitate unde ai gasit chestia aia cum ca drac insemna sarpe in romana veche. Multumesc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DArhengel (talk • contribs) .

Revert

Sorry to bother you, but some Hungarian guy made me finish my revert stock for today on Second Vienna Award. Could you do it (maybe by adding something new :) )? Dpotop 17:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Matthias

Ah, I see what you're saying. But even if he was of Vlach ancestry, he was still Hungarian, and he probably spoke Hungarian natively, right? I just think that the Hungarian and Latin names have more relevance than the Romanian one. As for the anon, yes, he/she should've explained themselves, but I was in a similar situation once when I reported a user to WP:AIV, and was shot down with the explanation, "this is just a content dispute". Keep in mind that you're only immune from the 3RR for obvious vandalism, such as this. I think your case is somewhat borderline, different people might say different things, but of course one's going to know about it, right? ;) —Khoikhoi 22:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, how about this? Romanian exaggerations? You mean by users here at Wikipedia? —Khoikhoi 01:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying. Alright, peace. —Khoikhoi 02:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hunyadi

Fine, although I don't think it should be a subcategory (a super-category, maybe). I think it's a fact that not all of their soldiers were Hungarian. --Tēlex 19:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Hungarian has many meanings (as long as Greier agrees - he seems to be the main dissenting voice here). --Tēlex 19:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: In order to not start an edit war: Hunyadi was an hungarian soldier from the point of view of the maghiars, and is considered by the english speakers romanians a Romanian military leader, there are divergents point of views, I belive that you can find in any romanian enciclopedia Hunyadi as a romanian military leader, and in every maghiar enciclopedia Hunyadi as hungarian soldier. The wikipedia is not the place for any original work and the both categories from my point of view are true.CristianChirita 19:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2

What do you know about this? I`ve cited that part from Peace Theories and the Balkan War by Norman Angell, where he quotes Alexandru Xenopol. I`ve knew before about the Karaulaghi, so that`s not what I`m wondering of. I`m wondering because there is the mention of "Bazarambam", pretty strange when talking about the middle of the 13th century. Is this the same Basarab, or an error of Rashid-ad-din, or an error of Xenopol? greier 20:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moldoveni

Presupun ca iti dai seama acum ca situatia e mai complicata decat parea atunci cand mi-ai spus ca "uite cate am facut de cand am venit". Cred ca pur si simplu acest Node_ue a fost ocupat cu temele la scoala. De aceea a fost situatia asa de linistita. Insa problema nu e numai Node_ue, ci si faptul ca alti editori, de exempu Mikkalai, il folosesc pentru a promova idei pe care ei insisi nu le-ar promova. Vezi si tu ce se intampla acum pe meta: o gramada de rusi care nu stiu absolut nimic despre problema (in afara, bineinteles, de faptul ca romanii sunt imperialisti) au votat. De fiecare data e asa. Asa a fost si pe wikipedia-l. Sincer, inchiderea provizorie a mo.wiki a fost o reusita. Enfin, daca ai vreo idee care sa ne ajute sa avansam, conteaza pe mine. Dpotop 07:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]