User talk:Dahn/Archive 21

Regulamentul and templates

[COPIED]
Hi. Greier has unilaterally replaced the History of Romania template, deleting Regulamentul Organic (and has created a but-ugly succession box in the process). Dahn 13:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[END COPIED]

Sorry, I'm not going there. Whenever I tangle with Greier, I get a stream of abuse about how as a non-Romanian I have no right to touch Romania-related topics. I have complained about this several times, first to him (with no effect), then in a few other contexts, but no one seems to be willing to confront him in any effective way or to sanction him. So, for the preservation of my own calm, I simply avoid articles where he has done his territorial pissing. I have removed several articles from my watchlist on this basis: it seems the simplest way for me to deal with this. I've raised the issue on WP:AN/I within the last month to no effect, I plan to wait at least a few more weeks before doing so again. I considered simply stopping working on Romanian topics entirely, but given my knowledge in the area, that seems excessive, though I still haven't ruled it out if his persistent pattern of abuse continues and is tolerated.

BTW, it's "butt-ugly".

Also, BTW, I think he is entirely wrong to remove Regulamentul Organic from the template. I suggest that you bring it up on the Romanian Wikipedians' notice board, which is the most likely place to build a consensus. - Jmabel | Talk 17:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(replied to your latest on my user talk page) - Jmabel | Talk 18:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On November 29, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ion Caramitru, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

bananabucket mistakenly gave me the "praise tag" for this one. Obviously it should be yours. I'll also pass on his remark, "It certainly is helping to spoil us for choice and creates higher standards on the front page." - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Romania article

In the first paragraph of Demographics of Romania, I presume that the reference to two theories is intended to be whether or not there was Latin continuity north of the Danube; there is no question that the Romans conquered the Dacians. I'm hitting you up on this because you seem to be knowledgable and even-handed on this sort of thing. I think the following would be more accurate, but I'm hesitant to make the edit without some discussion first, and I know that if I do this on the article talk page I'll "draw flies". Here's my proposed edit (bold is added, strikethrough is, of course, delete):

About 89.5% of the people of Romania are ethnic Romanians, a group that — in contrast to its Slavic or Hungarian neighbors — traces itself to Latin-speaking Romans~~, who according to one theory, in the second and third centuries A.D. conquered and settled among the ancient Dacians, a Thracian people~~. As a result, the Romanian language, although containing words of Slavic, Turkish, and other origins, is a Romance language related to, among others, Italian, Spanish, French and Portuguese. One theory is that the Romanians are descendants of the Romans and of the ancient Dacians, a Thracian people, and that they have continuity in the same geographic location going back to Roman times. The Dacians lived in approximately the same territories as today's Romanians, were conquered by the Romans, and were part of the Empire in the second and third centuries A.D. Another theory maintains the origins of the Romanians can be traced to the migration of Romanic peoples from former Roman provinces south of the Danube in the Balkans; there are, today, about half a million remaining speakers of Romance languages in Eastern Europe south of the Danube, mainly Aromanians.

Thoughts? - Jmabel | Talk 07:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Krashovan language

Yes that's absolutely fine Dahn. Mine was a little exhausting for the eyes after it went out but I hope you can see how I simply wanted to clarify the status. Thanks for your help in providing details. Evlekis 13:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lists

Hi Dahn. I understand that you prefer to reference these people in their articles but unfortunately they do not (and might never) have articles at the moment. In general, I don't think its a safe route to assume some people are Jewish because their names are attached to Jewish studies or websites about Romanian Jews. Though its usually correct in assuming someone is Jewish based solely on their surname, I wouldn't endorse this method because theres no way of knowing how far back this surname goes. In general, we shouldn't be adding names to a list we are not 100% sure about. Agreed? 141.213.212.16 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I commented out the names I couldn't find explicit sources for. Some are connected to a Romanian Jewish websites but no where on the website does it list the figure as being Jewish or even really hint at it. Another personality has a degree in Judaic studies but thats like saying that all people with French History majors are French. I'm sure there are sources in Romanian you can find that I can't. 141.213.212.16 23:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the talk page is fine. You only have to do it for the entries that don't have sources that can be easily found. Most of those I commented out. 141.213.212.16 23:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to rush to find them, but in general, make sure the sources say pretty obviously that the personality is Jewish and not simply connected to Judaism in some way. Often this is how mistakes are made and there have been a few before on the List of Romanians. Happy editing. 141.213.212.16 23:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to be confident of the entries I don't think there's much to worry about. It's just that names are so frequently put without sources and so many errors comes about that are ignored, I feel its safer to add a name with a reference immediately. Nonetheless, you know much more about Romanian Jews than I do, so I probably shouldn't intervene. Like I said, just make sure the references speak for themselves when you do source them. Later. 141.213.212.16 23:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

check your sources and do not edit on basis of your desires

When Romanian sources tell that a ruler has been prince of Muntenia, I believe rather that than your notion that he had been ruler of the entire Valachia. Most of 17th and 18th century rulers did not hold Oltenia. Alvac 23:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: cease moves which are against Naming Conventions

You have recently today moved plenty of pages to names which are contradictory to what is instructed at Naming Conventions for rulers. Cease those moves immediately. This warning must not be erased, it is for maintenance and administration of sanctions. To erase this warning is regarded as vandalism. ObRoy 00:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a monarchical ruler is elected or hereditary, means no difference in naming. And, your talks "with other Romanian editors" seem to be something that you have possibly formed an own naming habít which however is totally against the Naming Conventions agreed for rulers. I have regularly participated in multi-national editorial talks (as opposed your one-nation-talks) about those naming rules and their basis. I have earlier seen and warned for example some Serbian editors for similar conduct against proper naming. It seems that nationalism tends to grow very obstinate editors to come here. In other words, you are making disruption to Wikipedia when you "enforce" your own Romanian naming habit. I repeat: cease moving articles against our proper naming conventions. If you are not happy with NC for rulers now agreed, go talk and try to change them. Do not continue your own arbitrary naming scheme. This is last warning: next I'll ask you to be blocked. ObRoy 00:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to mingle into your Romanian noticeboard. Such consensus is not going to alter the written naming conventions that are universal here in English Wikipedia. I do not want to become a participant in your insider struggles, but to remain neutral regarding those. Anyone is entitled to move articles to nanmes that conform with the written Naming Conventions, whereas to move any page AGAINST the rule is always controversial. I am going to "enforce" the general naming convention, and therefore I am checking your moves in the future. You have been warned. If I find any more moves where you go against the Naming Convention for rulers, the consequences will be as warned. ObRoy 00:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blind reverts, stalking

It seems that your working habit is to revert blindly. That's not what we understand with "collaborative improvements" here. May I also assume that your blind reverts to articles where I have been working, are a result of you stalking me, because of warnings I gave you in another thing. ObRoy 01:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your habit seems, if I may say so, to be: stalk to article, perceive "there's something I do not like"; then revert everything. Only if the earlier contributor makes the labor of reverting your blind revert, you start thinking how to improve the actual content. There are now several examples of you doing in accordance with that pattern. Are you not ashamed at all? And, how about you skip the blind revert stage of your pattern, and before doing something, you actually first think how to improve what exists. I know, thinking may be a difficult and onerous thing to some hotheads, but I trust you would not like to look like a hothead, would you? ObRoy 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suţu

Yes, let's hope so - things aren't looking so bad, but I'll probably just miss the cut, barring a further influx of positives. And sorry about that; I was going by the master list. Biruitorul 02:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some very curious happenings indeed. I will be watching those articles though it would also make sense to watch the entire edit histories of those two, at least temporarily.

I too have been coming across some interesting stuff. Someone recently asked me how bishops were selected in the early Romanian church, and I noticed that our article on the Romanian Orthodox Church is so weak that it doesn't even say how they're picked today (and instead it leads us to believe that the only controversy in the church's 1700-year history has to do with someone called Ilie Stănescu - no mention of the Iron Guard, for instance). However, I did come across a couple of interesting articles on church-state relations; the second even mentions Regulamentul Organic. Biruitorul 03:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Rost is, other than what it declares itself to be ("a cultural, religious, political" magazine, but if there's something more nefarious about it, do tell), but the article itself is written by a professor at a state university in Galaţi and at least at first glance seems well-balanced (maybe he couldn't find anyone else to publish him). The forum post is presumably copied from a book and is also reasonably well-written, though I wish I knew what book it was. If there were a wealth of online information on this theme, I might have pointed out other sources, but it doesn't look as though there is; sometimes we need to make do with what we have at hand. Biruitorul 05:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, clearly there is a bias (though the Rost author is fairly even-handed about the Guard, despite the prominent green shading of the magazine he writes in), and you are right that I should be looking at more books. As for the Mason hypothesis, I lend it a little credence, but it's probably not falsifiable and thus we couldn't include such notions here. Biruitorul 05:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start with link #2: the lack of a source and anti-Masonic innuendo are indeed rather fatal flaws, but my searches were not exhaustive - it's what came up. The links you provide vis-á-vis Rost are somewhat disturbing but they do deny neo-Legionnaire links here. I'll try to clarify the matter by sending them an e-mail asking their opinion on the Paulescu matter and if they approve of the link from miscarea.com. Biruitorul 05:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did send the "Sir, are you a Legionnaire" e-mail; we'll see if and how they reply. I agree that subtle links probably exist, but it's all rather vague for now; with Becali approaching 40% in the polls, who knows how that may change (hopefully Steaua will incur a few losses and bring down his popularity a little before the elections). You note that Rost is "nationalist in discourse" - I agree, but I sometimes wish Romania had a richer nationalist, religious non-Iron Guard tradition to draw upon; "nationalist" shouldn't automatically mean "extremist fanatic". To put it in a Serbian context, there's a big difference between Vojislav Šešelj and Vuk Drašković - I have no use for the former but I greatly admire the latter. Unfortunately, in Romania, when you get a Drašković-like figure in the form of Vosganian, who, despite having written in Rost is by all accounts not an extremist, the live wire of Legionnaire connections is set off, curtailing the possibility of advancement in "respectable" politics.

Interesting discussion on the Jewish - Communist connection. I don't think it's something that can be dismissed out of hand but neither should one attach inflated importance to it. On the one hand, both in Russia and in Romania, the early Communist parties did have lots of Jewish leaders and members. On the other hand, these were probably all atheists, so their hatred of the anciens régimes may have been rooted in the persecution they suffered at their rulers' hands, but clearly they were not directed by religious Jewish authorities. Plus, in Romania the PCR drew ethnic minorities in general (like Gentiles Luca, Maurer, Köblös, Rakovsky), as it appealed to disaffected outsiders, not to mention ethnic Romanians Cristescu, Pîrvulescu, Apostol, Dej, Ceauşescu, etc. In Russia there were altogether too many 'exceptions' to the Jewish 'rule' - Lenin was only a quarter Jewish, and then there were Stalin, Beria, Molotov, Bukharin, Khrushchev, Kirov, Lunacharsky, Dzerzhinsky, etc. And, since Jews are smart, you tend to find them in the top echelons of many philosophical currents - anarchism, neoconservatism, objectivism, etc. (even Mussolini's Fascist Party contained Jews until he banished them), but Jewish intellectuals who are not actually religious thinkers (like rabbis) tend to be rather secular (Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, Irving Kristol, Ludwig von Mises, etc). Most important is the fact that if Communism was a way for Jews to gain control, it failed pretty badly: in the USSR Stalin was pretty much in total control by about 1929 (though Andropov, much later, was allegedly Jewish) and in Romania Jews had quite little influence by the mid-1950s. The story is probably similar in other countries. Also, to my knowledge, no Jews have ever held positions of power in the most populous Communist country, China.

Sadly, I haven't got a citation with me, but I recall from Tismăneanu's Stalinism... book that his father, Leonte Ciungul Tismăneanu (he lost an arm in Spain), was originally Tismineţki but was made to change his name in the late 1940s to sound more Romanian (indeed he has an article you know where). Reading his book, though, I was surprised at how anti-communist he sounded, given his parents' deep involvement in the Party, so I think he's in an eminent position to write the report he's preparing. Biruitorul 07:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gorikovo

There is no such suburb of Moscow, or even a village in the vicinity. Can't it be Gorki where Lenin spent his last years? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already tried... alas, your premoninitions seem to be correct. There is nothing in ru.net about it. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucreţiu

This looks like it might contain a couple of interesting nuggets - like the fact that his wife got an eight-year sentence in exchange for testifying against him. For reference purposes, this would be where it came from (specifically Morminte fără cruce vol. II) - and eventually, for use in various planned articles, there's a lot more valuable material in those books. Biruitorul 15:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Tătărescu would make a good choice, but I have a couple of suggestions:

Personally, I think a serious encyclopedia can do with sparing use of images, but FAC voters probably think otherwise, so do put those pictures in if you can.
Too many orange links. There are three solutions to this: a. write full-fledged articles for (nearly) all of them; b. write stubs for (nearly) all of them; c. do nothing. A. is our ultimate goal, but since something is better than nothing and we want to have it featured before 2010, b. shouldn't take too long to accomplish.
I know a lot of this depends on what materials are available, and that 1934-47 were the pivotal years of his life, but more "colour" would be good. We don't have too much on his first 48 and last 10 years of life. Who were his parents and what did they do? What education did he receive? How did he spend WWI? What, if anything, did he have to say as a young man in 1907? Was he married and did he have children? Why did he die? More interestingly, why was he not arrested - or was he? I hope this helps.

Rost replied! Some excerpts:

"Vedeti acolo [pe site] propaganda legionara? Vedeti acolo asumarea trecutului/ideologiei/doctrinei legionare? Vedeti acolo link-uri spre vreun site legionar? Nu. Atunci, nu exista dileme in aceasta privinta.

"Sigur ca tratam subiecte de istorie recenta, care, inevitabil, includ si episoade legionare sau cu legionari. Nu putem scoate din istorie o miscare, cu toate ale sale, doar pentru ca asa vor unii sa ne dea istoria reformata in timpul comunismului. Sigur ca anumite principii si valori pe care le impartasim, la o prima vedere ar putea parea legionare, dar numai pentru ignoranti, grabiti sau rau-voitori. Pentru ca, in fapt, acele valori si principii care, in parte, au fost impartasite si de miscarea legionara, nu sint nici inventate de legionari, nici nu sint monopolul lor exclusiv. Asa cum nu sint monopol legionar nici credinta crestina, nici patriotismul, nici ideea de jertfa. Ele au fost toate in structura acestui neam, dar si al altora, au fost promovate si urmate si de alte miscari/ partide, inclusiv de marele partid conservator din sec XIX, sau de Junimea, sau de gindirism - care a fost in multe momente pe alta pozitie fata de legionarism - etc.

"W. Totok, care crede ca sintem criptolegionari, s-a bazat pe doua chestiuni simple si de-asemenea insuficiente: faptul ca il aveam presedinte de onoare pe Pr. Calciu si faptul ca am dedicat mai multe numere unor personalitati (Eliade, Noica...) care in tineretea lor au avut si un amestec in miscarea legionara. Va dati seama cita buna-credinta, cit discernamint si cita cultura zace intr-un ins care ne eticheteaza pe baza acestor doua observatii.

"Nu avem nici un parteneriat cu proprietarii site-ului respectiv [miscarea], dar nu putem decit sa le multumim daca ne fac cunoscut site-ul. Mai ales ca, din cite vedem, site-ul lor este onorabil, nu are nimic pornografic sau prostesc." Biruitorul 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Averescu does have more of an FA feel to it, but again, it's low on images and high on orange links - which I myself don't see as problematic, I just don't know how voters will react. To put it in perspective, the FAs of the last week have 1,3,3,6,3,3 and 4 orange links; Averescu has some 33 separate ones. They also have 8,6,9,6,5,8 and 10 images/charts/maps; Averescu has 2. An article should succeed or fail on its textual content first and foremost, though, and there it succeeds nicely.

Oh, I wasn't planning on using Rost, as there are better sources available. I see the law as harmful - they should be able to debate their ideas to whatever extent they please, rather than having to play this game of just staying within its bounds. Biruitorul 03:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I'm just glad that debates over the Iron Guard, its legacy and meaning are flourishing. After discussion about them was stifled for well over 40 years, it's important that these issues be fully fleshed out (and now in particular, as there are still some living former members of the Guard). Whatever else one says about the Guard, one can't deny that it was a big deal, and burying histories of that sort only tends to make them more enticing. If Rost is guilty of using selective facts, let the debate happen: let the real facts speak for themselves in the clear light of day. I think everyone will be better off in that case. (This is especially true because some 65 years have passed since the events in question took place, so it's unlikely we'd see street battles between Communists and the far right. That's different from Spain, where a full-fledged debate on what happened between 1936 and 1975 would probably be more damaging, as Francoism disappeared much more recently and tensions that developed during his rule still simmer beneath the surface in the minds of supporters and opponents. I don't think Romanian society risks that kind of polarisation because from 1944 onward, most people, high-ranking party members and anti-communist resisters excepted, had much more similar experiences as a whole than in Spain - everyone suffered and gained equally.) Biruitorul 04:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On December 5, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iorgu Iordan, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks again Dahn. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi and thanks, BInguyen. However, I have a concern: I was not active at the time you indicated that the article on Iorgu Iordan was featured on the main page, so I cannot tell if it was actually featured on the main page, but I could find in the archive. When I looked through the history of Next Update, I noticed that it had been removed at some point (together with other articles). I'm not writing this out of vanity and, in case you had chosen to have it removed, I would have simply lived with it; I am, however, wondering if the template was not the victim of vandalism or a misunderstanding (and investigation of this may be helpful in assessing the "anyone can edit Next Update" project). Dahn 18:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Dahn, it was there - see this]. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whooopsies - I've added it now. Thanks for noticing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Cantemir

May I ask why you have removed the Category:People of the Ottoman Empire link from Cantemir who was born as a vassal of the OE, because of this lived for 23 years in the capital of the OE, produced many acclaimed works on the OE, some written originally in the official language of the OE, and is regarded as one of the most famous Phanariots? Especially since his category among Russians is allowed to stand and is derived from a much smaller portion of his life? Regards, --Free smyrnan 09:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding cleared up. Thanks. --Free smyrnan 09:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

At Talk:History of the Jews in Romania#This text is a big lie !

Dahn, you didn't exactly attack User:Daos, but you did insult him. I notice that he is a brand new user. Assuming that he is not a recreation of a banned user, this does become a matter of not biting the newbies. And if you think he is a recreation of a banned user, this is probably not the best way to do something about it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dahn I'm confused

Not sure what happened there. Let me fix it ... unless you have already. Thanks for telling me.PelleSmith 13:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]