Talk:Romanianization/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Romanian Germans emigrating to Germany

I cannot understand why the emigration of the Romanian Germans from Romania to West Germany during the Communist regime is mentioned in the article as an example of Romanianization. It has absolutely nothing to do with it. It would have been Romanianization if they had been forced to stay and become Romanians. But on the contrary, they left and became German Germans. Also, they were free to leave or to stay, and the ones who chose to leave did so because of economical reasons. Nothing else. Probably more than half of the Romanians themselves would have left the country in the 80's if they had been allowed to do so. I would therefore say that letting the Romanian Germans to go (if they wanted) was a strong positive discrimination and by no means Romanianization (or the result of it). Their interesting story should definitely be told somewhere in Wikipedia, but they just don't fit into this article.Alexrap 20:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is rightly called Romanianization because due to the insufferable conditions in Romania during the Ceausescu years, many autochtonic Germans had to leave their ancient homeland so old Saxon cities totally lost their German character. Using the term "positive discrimination" for the Ceausescu era is an example of political pornography Árpád 07:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

quite so, as persons applying for emigration were instantly laid off. and since in communist era all the business was state owned there was no posibility to get hired again, all this while the government was slowing the emigration process so it could take a few years.

also, since the german gov. actually paid ransom for them, the mentioning of "positive discrimination" is indeed a perversion. if everybody was let go whenever he pleased just for being german, why did so many of them end up in prison while being caught trying to cross the border into Yugoslavia?

Many Turks "had to" leave their ancient homeland in Romanian Dobruja in the 1930's. It's Ceausescu's fault too?

try passing illegaly the border from USA to mexico... you'll end in prison too, but there are no communists

which has to do exactly nothing with the original topic. point is, unless the ransom being paid, an ethnic german from Romania was not at all free to go as he pleased. proof why so many tried the border crossing. we're talking here about the "positive discrimination" nonsense, which is a n attempt to whitewash an a quite shameful practice.

Percentages

I honestly don't understand why people try to impose some incorrect percentages for the different ethnic groups in Transylvania. The data from the Censuses is available in Wikipedia (see History of Transylvania). Dahn just reverted my edits that were correcting the previous incorrect data. It is a fact that the even the biased Hungarian Census in 1910 recorded 31.6% Hungarians. So why do you want to increase even this Hungarian biased result? Also, Dahn thinks we should not cite data from 1869, but he cites data from 1910. The Treaty of Trianon was signed in 1920, so if we don't want to use historical data, then we should just use data from 1920 onwards. Alexrap 11:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Note that I had reverted the mention of an 1869 census using the same reasoning I previously used for reverting someone's bright idea of adding a reference to the Siculicidium. Dahn 12:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Why was the census of 1910 biased? It is well known that censuses in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy were much more accurate than in the Balcanic successor states. Árpád 07:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Forceful assimilation

I don't understand why the article only mentions urbanization as the single cause for changing the ethnic composition of Transylvanian cities. It is well-known (just as revealed in the recent Tismaneanu report) that the Romanian governments followed a direct policy of forced assimilation by moving Romanian populations from Moldva and Wallachia into Transylvanian cities and at the same time, it was impossible for a person of Hungarian nationality to get a job there. Also, the confiscation of Hungarian cultural property (like the Hungarian National Theatre and the university in Kolozsvár) should be emphasised Árpád 07:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction and wrong data in the section on Ukrainians

In this section it is first claimed that the mixed regions are not clear-cut, then there is only reference to Bukovina, a small province. That's a contradiction. It also contradicts the North-South divide of Bukovina along ethnic lines.

There is reference to "Austro-Hungary, which pursued somewhat balanced ethnic policies in Bukovina". This phrase is all wrong: not Austro-Hungary but Austria at the time; the fact that Bukovina was annexed by Austria in 1775 (through a murky procedure) from ethnic Romanian Moldova should be mentioned. The Romanian population decreased from 85% to 34% in between 1775-1910. This sounds hardly "balanced ethnic policy". In fact, it is the contrary. It should also be mentioned that northern Bukovina now belongs to Ukraine.

I proposed the following replacement of the paragraph in question (it was erased without any comment)

According to the 1930 census, Ukrainians made up 3.2% of the population of Romania. The main territory (today, split between Romania and Ukraine) historically populated by both Ukrainians and Romanians is Bukovina, the craddle of the medieval pricipality of Moldova, annexed by Austria in 1775. The Austrian policies encouraged a massive influx of immigrants such as Germans, Poles, Jews, Hungarians, but mostly Ruthenian (Ukrainians) from Galicia. According to Austrian census data, the weight of the Romanian population of Bukovina decreased from 85% to 34% between 1775-1900.

The next sentence "In 1918, following the collapse of the Austria-Hungary and Russian empires the control over the entire Bukovina fell under the Kingdom of Romania" is inaccurate. The Russian empire is irrelevant here since Bukovina never belonged to that empire. "the control fell under" is clumsy and obscures the fact that it reflected the desire of the majority of the population, except for the Ukraineans. I propose the historically factual version:

In 1918, following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian empire, the General Congress of Bukovina decided the union with the Kingdom of Romania. Icar 07:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

IMO, if you have a sources the information can be easily added. I haven't seen any in the content which was reverted. Without sources one can't tell the real improvmenets from vandalism. Daizus 07:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about my version here. After it ,there was an extensive change (since then, reverted by someone else) who had erased my contrib. Do you agree there is contradiction in this section? The Austrian census data is available in the Bukovina article. Is there anything controversial that would need to be supported in what I am claiming above? Icar 07:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You can reference the census data and some other informations with the same reference as there: Keith Hitchins. The Romanians 1774-1866. Oxford: Clarendon Press (1996), p. 226 which is also available on Google Books: [1]

But my advice: drop the reference to Medieval Moldova (IMO irrelevant), list only the immigrants you can back up with sources (KH or others if you have available); the 2nd paragraphs seems obvious to me if it's wikified, however try as much as you can do not use Wikipedia as a proper source and bring references if you can. Daizus 08:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please do not invoke the Medieval Principality of Moldavia as some sort of justification here. Someone else will invoke the times of Kievan Rus then. In the end it all does not matter as annexation remains the annexation and the annexing party always invokes some historical events to justify its action.

Also, the article mentioned about the Austrian ethnic policies being balanced in a sense that they gave no preferences to either Ukrainians or Romanians in any way. Yes, the encouraged the migration into the area but purely for the economic purposes and that most of the immigrants were Ukrainians speaks only that Ukrainians elsewhere were in poor economic shape and ready to move. Not a single reference exist about Austrians giving preferences to the Ukrainians in the area in school, government or religious policies.

Finally, please never ever call the non-vandalism edits by the V-word. It is a serious offense. Best, please reread WP:VAND. --Irpen 03:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

My edit is "Since 1775, Bukovina came under the control of Habsburg Empire (the previous version was "Austro-Hungarian control" similar with the version before it, but not factually correct, as you can see the Austro-Hungary monarchy emerged in 1867) which favored immigration of Jews, Ruthenians (Ukrainians) and others to develop the economy of the region. In 1774 Romanians made 85% of the population, while the Ruthenians (Ukrainians) only 10%. In 1848 Romanians made only 55% of the population, while the Ruthenians grew to 29%" which is covered by the given reference (K. Hitchins, p. 226). And as Khoikhoi repeatedly removed it, as Khoikhoi has not participated in any substantial way to this article nor in its talk page, I believe the word "vandalism" is appropriate per WP:VAND. I challenged Khoikhoi to express his opinion on the talk page, it's not the first time I face his behavior from him, so it's no longer a question of WP:AGF. The most decent explanation I can find for this behavior is the erasing of incovenient information. Daizus 05:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not second guess by trying to get into someone's head. WP:VAND is clear on what constitutes vandalism and what does not. Now, I added the ref to the Austrian policies to the EB's article. Here is a short extract for your info:

At the time of its annexation by Austria in 1774, the population, Orthodox in religion, was binational, with Ukrainians predominating in the north and Romanians in the south. The Habsburgs quickly proceeded to institute reforms similar to those in Galicia. Bukovina was joined to Galicia as a discrete district from 1787 to 1849, when it became a separate crownland, achieving full autonomy in 1861. In the 19th century, sizable Jewish and German communities came into being as a result of immigration. German was the province's official language; however, both Ukrainian and Romanian had currency in public life and, in certain disciplines, at the local university. Romanian-Ukrainian friction grew toward the end of the century over such issues as the Ukrainian attempts to gain parity in the Orthodox church administration, but it did not reach the level of hostility prevailing in Galicia.

I believe this settles the disagreement. --Irpen 07:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doens't. This is what Hitchins says (p. 226, as I mentioned above):

The court of Vienna kept Bukovina under a military government until 1786 in order to facilitate the transition from Moldavian to Austrian administration. It intended to integrate the new province into the empire as throughly as possible and thus showed little interest in preserving Moldavian institutions. [...] The administrative link with Galicia (my note: 1786-1849) had opened Bukovina to unprecedented ethnic diversity, especially to Jewish and Ruthenian immigration and, for a time, strong Polish and Roman catholic influences in education.

The population of Bukovina increased steadily, primarily through immigration, which Austrian authorities encouraged in order to develop the economy. In 1774 the estimated population was 75,000; in 1810 it was 198,000, and in 1848 378,000. The changes in the province's etnic composition were dramatic. In 1774 the Romanians constituted an overwhelming majority, roughly 64,000 to 8,000 Ruthenians and 3,000 others. By 1810 the Romanian share had fallen from 85% to 75% (150,000 to 48,000 non-Romanians), and in 1848 there were 209,000 Romanians (55%), 109,000 Ruthenians (29%) and 60,000 others (16%).

Actually from the growing of Ruthenians (Ukrainians), it's obviously it took place a massive immigration (a fact which is also stated clearly: "especially to Jewish and Ruthenian immigration". So please restore my edit and put your EB's POV in a different sentence if you believe it's relevant. Daizus 07:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's avoid "obviously" and stuff. Hitchins mentions the immigration and gives the numbers before and after. I integrated his direct quote into the article and the reader can now judge what's "obvious" and what's not. --Irpen 05:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The section got worse:

a) EB's material is given as fact (not to say about the slight OR and the weasel-wording "somewhat balanced"). Hitchins' material is "according to Hitchins". If you want NPOV then you quote EB on what it was sourced for, as you quoted Hitchins. If you want NPOV, if you afford to infer from EB's assessment "somewhat balanced" ethnic policies, then you can infer from Hitchins numbers an immigration of Ruthenians. I'd say the immigration of Ruthenians is much better documented in this case than the "somewhat balanced" ethnic policies (your excerpt fails to make a proper comparition between the situation of Romanians and the situation of Ruthenians). This is an unfair treatment of sources.

b) However, Hitchins gets his data from censuses and other sources as his footnotes and bibliography show, so it's not like he's creating a special interpretation. "According to Hitchins" is simply misleading when you quote numbers he didn't invent, but he got from other sources.

c) It's irrelevant to quote the entire paragraph. We must highlight the changes in population related to Ruthenians and Romanians, the ethnicities in question.

d) Hitchins is plainly mentioning immigration of Ruthenians and Jews ("The administrative link with Galicia had opened Bukovina to unprecedented ethnic diversity, especially to Jewish and Ruthenian immigration"), which you omitted to quote. I want the article mention this fact and if no reliable source can be quoted to assert the contrary (i.e. Ukrainians didn't immigrate), I don't want it relativized in any way. If this is mentioned "according to Hitchins" then all the other sourced claims must be written "according to (source)". Daizus 06:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with saying "according to..." for any disputed/controversial statement. If you look at Khojaly Massacre for example, you'll see things like that for almost every single sentence. Khoikhoi 06:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe Hitchin's data is accurate and added "according to" only to justify the insertion of an extended quote. I added the mention of the Ruthenian immigration as well. Also, wonton tagging of the entire section over the small issue is excessive and unhelpful. --Irpen 06:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a small issue, it is the very immigration of Ukrainians in the region which was not acknowledged and the minimization of the source saying so. Before I intervened in this section, it read that Ukrainians and Romanians shared the territory from immemorial times, obscuring the strong immigration of Ukrainians in the modern age. Now that Ukrainian immigration is a mentioned as fact (due to the invoked source), I'm ok with it, though the numbers are still presented as being Keith Hitchins's POV when they are not (only). I'll add however the mention on a footnote Kitchins uses, because it's census data involved and I believe it's more accurate to mention it that way, if we proceed to attribute the numbers.

Khoikhoi, on what grounds this statement is controversial? No reliable source contest it, only some editors, that's OR!. There's no other reliable source in this article to say "Ukrainians didn't mass immigrate in the region" or "Ukrainians were 40%/50%/80% of the population in the late 1700s". When such a source and claim would be present, I'll agree with you to say "According to <Source1> <Claim1> and according to <Source2> <Claim2>". Daizus 07:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And please stop bringing Austro-Hungary in discussion. It emerged in 1867, not in 1774 or earlier. Daizus 07:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I renounced to add the footnotes. Because maybe we can improve the article with more sources. Searching on Hitchins' ref, I've found this page.

However, I renamed "somewhat balanced ethnic policies" to "certain priviledges" (this is what EB actually says), and I dropped the insinuating description of Bukovina's ethnic map, the significance can be infered by each reader having the demographics data from Hitchins. Daizus 08:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The current version is acceptable to me. Thanks, --Irpen 22:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Târgu Mureş

Am I correct that Târgu Mureş was the capital of the Hungarian Autonomous Province? This article alludes to "the capital city of the former Hungarian Autonomous Province" without naming it. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. KIDB (84.206.8.34) 07:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Colonization by Austria of Hungarians in Bukovina

I got this info from [2]. I know that's not ideal procedure but it looks convincing. Icar 22:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Transylvania section

There is a blatantly false info in that section concerning the end of WWI. I had fixed this before; I will try again. Icar 20:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Transylvania (...) was occupied by the Romanian army, then the Romanian National Council (...) took the decision of unifying the province with Romania" is false. It becomes a lie once somebody reverts to it despite being informed about it. This is unfortunately User:Dahn, who has a history of reverting all my edits. Icar 12:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

That's right, Icar, keep mudslinging. Dahn 13:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, your version (first the Romanian armed occupation, then the Union Proclamation) is but a very cheap try of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Historical facts are very different from what you're trying to push: on 1st Dec the Romanian army didn't yet occupy but a part of Transylvania, so that the ALba Iulia Proclamation took not place under Romanian military occupation. Your wording:"Transylvania (...) was occupied by the Romanian army, then the Romanian National Council (...) took the decision of unifying the province with Romania" is a deliberate attempt to induce causality from military occupation to union proclamation. It is not the first time that you deliberately falsify information (I am ready to provide evidence). Wikipedia is not your private hunting domain. Why don't you read books to inform you ? BTW, why did you unwikify the link to Union of Transylvania with Romania ? Do you fear the reader would be offered more information exactly on facts you are trying to present in a distorted way ? I am not going to feed...one like you. However, if you don't reconsider the presentation of the chronology and persist making abusive inferences (occupation...then... proclamation) I'll take my time to make a case of it. --Vintilă Barbu 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the only thing that is relevant here: one version is imperfect, the other one is POV-pushing. I do not endorse the version I revert to as much as I resent the one I revert from. Why? For one, because it implies that the border was set by the Transylvanian Council, which is purely moronic. For two, because it implies that the border set by Romania was recognized by the Great Powers (when, in fact, Trianon saw Romania as an associate state, not an ally, and the border was set by a third party). Dahn 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Truth be told, the current version is POV pushing as well, because it suggests the Union decision from Alba Iulia was taken under Romanian military occupation and that minimize it suggesting it happened under the threat of armed forces from outside Transylvania. Daizus 22:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

As for the linked artilce, I don't have the time nor the willingness to begin pointing out what in it is blatantly wrong. Especially since I am liable to bump into your gang and the endless charade of how I'm breaking rules that you people invent on the spot. Dahn 22:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, BTW: why should I justify myself how did I come to this article... ?! How derisory !! --Vintilă Barbu 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

No, pal, I am merely asking you where you got the nerve to imply that I am stalking Icar on a page I watched for a year now, when you are the one coming to this page simply by following people around. That is what I am asking, but I frankly don't give a damn if you reply or not. Dahn 22:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all for your intervention. The version reverted to by User:Dahn is still POV (I am puzzled by the modification introduced by User:Khoikhoi but let us not talk about it). Why not present the facts in chronological order? User:Dahn has taken his time to explain to us his point of view. Since although he considered the previous (blatantly false) version to be "imperfect", he reverts others' versions, I think he should propose himself a version that he deems NPOV. Like this we can have a basis for the discussion. Icar 09:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No, i consider your version POV-pushing, and, since I was doing something else at the time, I did not notice that Vintila Barbu's was not a full revert. Just so you know. Dahn 10:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See also

Why not include all discriminations related to the Treaty of Trianon? Why did you delete Treaty of Trianon also?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Squash Racket (talk • contribs) 15:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Renamed this section to "See also" as it's more appropriate. I re-added the Wikilinks, since they seem appropriate. Those are neighboring countries, and each has done things just like "Romanianization", so it's appropriate and encyclopediac to include links there for people to read up on the similar past/present practices of neighboring countries. • Lawrence Cohen 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I do believe a better class of articles would have to include relevant concepts in the body of text, instead of listing them under "see alsos". This would help the reader understand how issues connect. Especially since, otherwise, the associations made serve to impose a POV (as mild as that POV may be, it is still a POV). Also, I cannot help but note that the definition of "neighboring countries" is whimsical: in what way is Slovakia a neighboring country of Romania? Not only that, but the links to Bukovina and Treaty of Trianon are already present in the text. Dahn 18:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

'See also' section is not about relevant concepts, but about relevant existing Wikipedia articles and these are obviously relevant articles, basically about disrimination policies related to the Treaty of Trianon. Listing many of them contributes to the section's NPOV, don't need to explain that, do I? By neighboring countries he possibly meant Slovakia-Hungary, Hungary-Romania, Romania-Serbia etc. See?

'See also' section is needed in Wikipedia, because it would be a bit strange to force these phrases somehow into the body of text just to avoid having them listed. And you should also find new references for that attempt. Squash Racket 19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you missed my point entirely. Above, you are explaining why you like that these concepts are listed there (there as well, and instead of in the text, one should add). This is not only POV (of the WP:ILIKEIT manner), it is also sloppy and redundant. I could make the same case about including just about any "-ization" concept there, but the relevant thing to do is to include the concepts where they belong, and present the reader with a sourced reasoning of why they are related. Just throwing random stuff in a section that is in fact a potentially endless game of verbal associations is not at all constructive. Dahn 19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning your last paragraph: we could all do without baseless assumptions. Try and focus on what I told you, not on what you think I'm "avoiding". "And you should also find new references for that attempt" - I don't think there is anything I "should" do, and I'm not married to this article as is. It is grossly undersourced, and, yes, a better article should be better sourced. And let me stress again: the more relevant terms are linked in the text, and the process everywhere is to reduce "see alsos" in the way I outlined above.

And, if you want to talk about "what is strange": it is terribly strange that someone can justify having related concepts listed in a way that does not allow proper sourcing, rely his or her claim on what he or she thinks "is related", instead of using sources to clarify why terms are relevant to this article and instead of making use of them in context. It is even more strange that you ask another user to source your claims (however obvious these may seem to you). Dahn 19:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop judging please the way you do (sloppy, redundant etc.). I've said enough I think. Even if you pull up sources and incorporate them in the article, internal and external links help a reader to easily see what Romanianization is about. Until the expressions are not in the article's body of text we don't have to worry about that? Squash Racket 19:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain it in simpler terms. If an editor decides to add articles to the list, from Americanization to Arabization, I presume you would revert his/her edits. Why? Because the connection between the terms would not be made obvious to the reader. Similarly, adding any other article to the "see also" list without an explanation will not clarify anything for any reader. If those terms are intimately connected with this article, then the connection ought to be explained in the text (and, for the third time: some are); if they are not, then they do not belong here at all.

Let's quote from the guideline:

The "See also" section provides an additional list of internal links to other articles in Wikipedia that are related to this one as a navigational aid. A See also section should not repeat links already present in the article, links that are only vaguely related to the topic, or link to pages that do not exist. Topics related to an article should be included within the text of the article. Topics that could not reasonably be made into article text probably do not belong in a see also section. A good practice is to treat subjects in a "see also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "see also" section deprecated and removed).

Now, I have a hard time understanding what your last sentence is all about, since it does not appear to be either an affirmation or a question. If it is an affirmation, what I have to answer is: what we should do is try and respect a rule of thumb, not invent one on the spot. If it is a question, then the answer is simple: no, we don't. If you cannot justify your edits, if you tell me that I should go looking for sources to tell me how these issues are related to one another because you decided they are, then your edits are not necessary, let alone not urgent.

And I don't believe I have "judged" anything: I have told you the basic truth that adding links several times is redundant, and that breaking with the Manual of Style is sloppy editing. Now that you've seen the guideline above, I suppose debating on this issue is over. Dahn 20:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

A good practice is to treat subjects in a "see also" section as topics that could be worked into the article (and then the "see also" section deprecated and removed)

Don't you think that proves my point 'See also' section based on NPOV common sense and not sources? Do you have that common sense when it comes to different forms of discrimination related to the Treaty of Trianon or not? Squash Racket 03:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Also thanks to the definition above provided by you I deleted links that have already been worked into the article, you were right on that one, I gotta admit it. Squash Racket 04:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I frankly don't see how. If you find no way of fitting them in the article (and you haven't clarified that you did), the guideline we both cite says you shouldn't have them there at all.

It may be that you don't master English or are writing in haste, but it seems that you are questioning my common sense in this post above. Your argument should not be to convince me that the links belong there, but to prove to anyone that they do - i.e., to clarify that they are, to paraphrase the guideline, more than vaguely related to the topic. Since this argument would have to rely on, say, sources comparing the term, and sentences formed on the basis of those sources, the best way to go would be to simply formulate sourced sentences that you then include in the text. If not, adding the links is just POV-pushing based on your priorities. Dahn 21:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The definition for 'See also' is under debate, but based on what I know its real version, these articles that help NPOV (and I don't 'like' them, before you come up with that) should be included to help the reader understand that this kind of discrimination happened all over the region, not just in Romania. So let's include them, I can't say anything better, based on common sense. Squash Racket 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the deal: can you compose a phrase, or two, or three grouping the terms and clarifying the connections between them (in a way that makes these "-ization" articles have more in common with each other than with others)? Can you then indicate that such is the argument made by at least one outside source? If the answer is no to both, then what you are doing here is disruptive. Dahn 17:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think that if the "context" needs to be established that needs to be done within the text of the article, if it doesn't have a place there it means that's not relevant, otherwise maybe there should be a category about those issues, I think that's the use of categories -- place similar events/issues in one group. -- AdrianTM 16:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)