User talk:Dahn/Archive 28

Woo!

Yes, I have been. I've been collecting sources and reading research for around 6 months now. You can see a list at User:Francis Tyers/Research. I was considering calling it "Balkan Federation", but I think your article title, "Balkan federalism" is better. If you want any of the sources I have photocopying or emailing, let me know -- some of them are hard to come accross (particularly Stavrianos' work). - Francis Tyers · 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, all material would be gratefully received! I'm currently in the gathering phase, but I'd love any suggestions. I have been wondering how to split up the article, as with the amount of material I have it could get quite large rapidly. Please feel free to edit my Research page. - Francis Tyers · 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the photo, could you email me so I can send you the rest of that stuff? - Francis Tyers · 09:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, actually I just realised that I wasn't watching that page. I'll check them now. NP about the email. - Francis Tyers · 11:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism

I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gheorghe Tătărescu GA on hold

GA on hold — Notes left on talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Check it. Khoi khoi 08:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labour movement

Good start; I'll see what I can add. I have a feeling the PSDR and your new PS article will come in handy.
On an unrelated note, do you happen to know how Gheorghe Gheorgiu-Dej's corpse was disposed of? In the article on him, we claim he was buried, but I noted in the Cremation in Romania article that he was cremated. Admittedly, I don't have a citation for the latter, so I don't mind removing it. But do you know for sure that he was interred - is there a citation to that effect? Because at least as far as I know, inside the Mausoleum there were urns, not coffins. Biruitorul 02:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - it's certainly something we had a burning need for. (And the Encyclopedia of Cremation has articles on lots of countries, but I kind of like the idea of Romania being the only country with such an article; also our oil industry, when we get around to that.) Of course, the Cioroianu check can wait for later. Also, if he's of interest to you, I've redone Nicolae Labiş. Probably needs sections, citations, etc., which either one of us can put in. Anyway, I must be off, but I'll see you soon, perhaps with some more thoughts on the labour piece (though the ideas you outlined a few days ago are a rather solid jumping-off point). Biruitorul 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I took your suggestions into account. He probably was some sort of communist - certainly on the left, and in fact one of my sources reads, "Asasinat politic, ca Foriş sau Pătrăşcanu. Ca pe un marxist care... gândeşte. Cel mai periculos! Automat deviaţionist." So if you add the category, it's fine; if we wait for more confirmation, that's also fine. And yes, he's probably coming soon - but as long as it's just cn tags and not wholesale cuts, I can usually deal with that - in fact they're good to have, up to a point. Pe curând. Biruitorul 04:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's problematic. I've e-mailed Cioroianu; we'll see if he replies. Meanwhile: the "Ulyanov to Koba" reference hit me just a bit late; I suppose this one is "Comandantul către Căpitan" - a message Sima could have written even after 1938, for, as Marta Petreu writes, "[Legionnaires had] the idea that the nation included both the dead and the living, that the nation's heroes provided assistance from 'beyond' to those who invoked them. This element of doctrine involved an authentic mystique of the idea of dying for one's nation, for a Legionnaire killed in the line of duty instantly became the hero who could continue to support the undertakings of living Legionnaires". By the way, have you come across her book, Un trecut deocheat? It does have some interesting material in it.

I was also thinking (yet a new article idea!) about that Jurnalul series on relations with Italy. Following this model, we could spawn a whole set of articles on "Romanian-X" relations. At least with the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, North Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain and various Eastern European countries. Did I miss any? Uruguay? Burkina Faso?

As for the dismissal: we should get our Cabinet page in order before the elections (at the latest under two years away (which I guess is forever in wiki-time)): we don't want to be caught off guard when a new cabinet comes in.

Oh, and it looks like we could use some of this. Biruitorul 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the site; usually people put, oh, maybe an e-mail address on their sites, but not him (it took a little searching to find).

You're right that that sort of article can be excess, though I suggested it since we do have the source on Italy. But now that I think about it, an article on "Russian-Romanian relations" would probably duplicate a lot of what we already have. (Ah, and there was one country I forgot: Israel. Indeed the whole issue of post-WWII emigration to Israel could be better explored in at least three articles (PCR, History of the Jews..., and Ana Pauker), so a fourth probably won't be needed (we can mention Ceauşescu's Middle East mediation attempts elsewhere too.)

As for the political party question: I think the standard is to mention only the party someone belonged to while in office. For instance Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, a fact mentioned in the article but not in the infobox. Bob Rae is now a Liberal, but the only major office he has held has been as an NDP member, so that's what is mentioned there. For Winston Churchill it says "Conservative and Liberal", because while he was a Conservative as PM, he held ministerial office as a Liberal earlier on. So, in sum, for Iliescu let's not say PCR & PDSR/PSD; for Stolojan let's not say PNL & PLD, unless he becomes PM again. Biruitorul 00:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And it's official: Paul Goma uses Wikipedia. Great title, anyway. Biruitorul 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. By the way, are we limiting the Labor movement article mainly to cities, factories and mines? If we're to discuss the working peasantry (ţărănimea muncitoare) as well, then this new article might have some relevance. Biruitorul 19:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harta Olteniei

Poti sa-mi explici de ce ai inlocuit harta care reprezenta Oltenia cu o harta care reprezinta Regiunea de dezvoltare Sud-Vest? In articol este vorba de regiunea istorica Oltenia, situata intre M-tii Carpati, Dunare si raul Olt. Astept o reactie din partea ta, altfel repun harta anterioara. --Olahus 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, cred ca trebuie scoasa harta din articolul Oltenia si repusa harta mea. In cazul articolului Oltenia, in ciuda unei dispute cu utilizatorul Adrian Corvin (vezi si contributiile lui Adrian Corvin), am demonstrat cu surse care sunt limitele reale a regiunii istorice Oltenia, precum si faptul ca multe alte adaugiri in articol aduse de Adrian Corvin sunt pure aberatii. Vezi lista de surse (eu sunt Olahus2).

Cred ca Adrian Corvin apare si sub "alte denumiri" in wikipedia romaneasca: 86.122.146.18

... sau drept Eneas, care, chipurile, este 100% de acord cu tot ce scrie Adrian Corvin, vezi si contributiile sale.

Mai apare si sub denumirea de Adrian Tunaru in aceasta discutie in care insista ca Orsova s-ar afla in Oltenia:

Sau in wikipedia in limba angleza este olteanul nervos din aceasta discutie:

Nu exclud ca ar fi si persoana care apare cu aceste ip-uri:

In fine, cine stie ...

...sau utilizatorul 172.191.196.29 cu aceasta modificare magistrala ...

Am o mare banuiala ca este vorba de aceasi persoana. Acelasi mod obraznic si arogant de a se adresa celorlalti utilizatori, dar cu pretentia ca celalti sa i se adreseze respectuos. Aceasi obsesie grandomana de a prezenta Oltenia intr-o dimensiunea pe care nu a detinut-o vreodata. Aceasi tactica de a anula permanenet modificarile altor utilizatori in speranta ca utilizatorul respectiv se va plictisi candva si va abandona, plin de sila, discutia (asa cum ai abandonat tu discutia in ianuarie 2006 (vezi aici jos de tot) sau eu in noiembrie 2006). --Olahus 07:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friends of the Soviet Union

Hi,

Do you have any new info regarding the international affiliations of FSU? On [1] it gives the impression that Friends of the Soviet Union was a transnational organization with its secretariat in Berlin. The question is, was this one monolithic structure or were organizations in different countries affiliates to an international network? --Soman 09:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was sort of a similar issue in the International Red Aid article. Based on that IRA and FSU were children of the same era, it would certainly lead to the assumption that there was an international organization with national branches in several countries. Somehow its difficult to find sources regarding this, since most national communist historians focuses mainly on the relation between their national CP and the local FSU. --Soman 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [2]. Thus FSU was an international organization, and Friends of the Soviet Union should be converted from a disamb page to an article on the international organization. --Soman 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the speech itself is mainly rhetoric, with little article value. The point is that a world congress of the FSU was held on certain dates. See also [3]. Briefly, it states that an organization called FSU was founded in 1927, and a German section was founded in 1928. Thus the puzzle is sort of cleared out, 1) there was an international organization headquartered in Berlin and 2) it had national sections. --Soman 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't have enough time right now to rewrite Friends of the Soviet Union adequately. Once that opportunity would emerge then I'll try to rewrite it, brief introduction about the FSU at international level and 3-10 sentences about each of the different national sections (with, the the cases where separate articles already exists, links to those article). If you could summarize the Amicii URSS in 3-10 sentences, it would be great. --Soman 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Polonization#About_European_powers

What do you think? I am neutral on this, but perhaps you will have some interesting insight...?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Party of Romania

On 24 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Socialist Party of Romania, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

I think I'm on pretty solid ground here, but your input would be appreciated. I know it's only a stub, but the dispute strikes me as tendentious. Biruitorul 07:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - thank you for your well-considered proposal. As I said, either variant could work: keep the present title and explain that it was not a de jure occupation through 1958 but has been called one, or change it and explain that it has been called an occupation for the entire period.

On the peasantry issue: that's what I figured - stay mainly with the cities (which, as late as the 1940s, made up only ~20% of the population, a fact that had broad implications in several areas).

Anyway, illegitimi non carborundum. Biruitorul 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. By the way, one more thought occurred to me: we could have a "Collectivization in Romania" article, no? Not only is there a good precedent for it, but it seems a large enough topic to merit its own article and not be folded into another. (But I guess the interwar land reforms could fit in the Greater Romania article.) Biruitorul 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Siegfried: AfD nomination

A tag has been placed on Matt Siegfried, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Orange Mike 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grigore Iunian

On 29 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grigore Iunian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 06:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi Dahn/Archive 28, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, K issL 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Sure, I'm willing to adapt and adjust the way I use references to the system that's most covenient to everyone. I'm still groping to find what's best (and/or standard) -- when a page is already developed, I go with what's there, of course. But when I start from scratch, I tend to use what's fastest, to get things started, with the thought that one can always go back and change to a better system if need be. But I guess that could prove difficult to do, once the page gets too complicated? So OK, please just let me know the pages you think should be revised, and I'll see what I can do. Perhaps not immediately, since I'm also writing a couple of papers and a book at the same time in real life, on totally different subjects (with completely different quotation systems!), plus a few other things, but I'll give it a shot. Cheers. Turgidson 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no problemo. But really, I haven't done anything to the July Theses article, except for adding a few random wikilinks -- all credit (and whatever little blame!) -- for developing such an interesting article is due to Biruitorul. I thought youu were talking about other articles. At any rate, please do take a look at the talk page on Bodnăraş, there is a little related discussion there on how to quote things. I think it would be good to unify and synthesize these so-far disjointed discussions in a more accessible page (but where?), and try to come up with some useful guidelines for quotations. I'm willing to help if needed. Turgidson 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was that all about with Anonimu? Anyway, thank you for cleaning it up. Biruitorul 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. Frankly, I never understood why the mere mention of Tismăneanu triggers such a panic in some people, but anyway. As for the Barbu issue, that's from Deletant, 182: "The former [Principele] is a thinly disguised allegory of the Dej regime, set in the Romanian principalities during the Phanariot era (1711-1821). The prince (Dej) is portrayed as an instrument of a foreign will that has little sympathy for the interests of his subjects. The allusions to the Stalinist period are so thick as to include a project to build a canal which claims the lives of many of those involved in its construction." Biruitorul 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I wouldn't be defending Antonescu, but Anonimu tends to elicit rather hyperbolic rhetoric from my part. On that theme, though: I was looking through Istoria României în date (fascinating) and came across this tidbit on p. 451:
2-5 martie 1941. Plebiscitul organizat pentru aprobarea politicii generalului Ion Antonescu dă 99,9% răspunsuri afirmative şi 0,1% răspunsuri negative.
The question is, since elections and referenda are usually considered notable, do we create an article for this one, and for Carol II's similar referendum on the 1938 Constitution? Biruitorul 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite lousy, as I've complained about before. Biruitorul 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they use Take Ionescu to represent "conservatism", and of course Iorga is out for his rather ambivalent attitude to Christianity, as is Maniu for being a Greek Catholic. Then again, I do wonder how devoted Codreanu was, as he seemed to be turning into a (more) reasonable politician; with his death the Guard had to start over in building political experience, and it shows - I'm amazed at just how bad a politician Sima was. We don't know how Codreanu would have acted in power (at least while sharing power), but it seems he was a little more adept by 1938. Biruitorul 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, incidentally, speaking of sainthood: Codreanu has actually been proposed for sainthood. I'm told it's unlikely to succeed, though, as the BOR hasn't canonised anyone who killed in cold blood (which he did, although he probably received absolution for it). Dumitru Stăniloae also suggested Moţa and Marin for sainthood, but nothing has come of that either. Biruitorul 21:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for Moţa and Marin there is Rost (...), citing Stăniloae speaking in the last year of his life (though not directly proposing sainthood in this passage, I see): "Jertfa acestor doi băieţi viteji are semnificaţia unei ofrande aduse lui Dumnezeu de poporul român(…) Această faptă de jertfă supremă pentru creştinism a lui Ion Moţa şi Vasile Marin a meritat să fie cinstită – destul de târziu, la trei ani de la înlăturarea comunismului – printr-un parastas prin care să se pomenească sufletele celor doi martiri ai Crucii şi să se atragă atenţia poporului nostru asupra semnificaţiei majore a acestei jertfe".

About Codreanu, I asked a priest if he'd been proposed, and he said yes, but didn't say who did it. I will see if there's a reliable source, or maybe ask him for more details. I too asked the priest about Ştefan (Mihai isn't a saint, to my knowledge, though Brâncoveanu is). He told me the answer was no: Ştefan killed in battle (ostensibly for religious purposes), and probably had people executed, but didn't commit murder plain and simple. Biruitorul 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Orthodox Church isn't a legalistic church, so Codreanu could theoretically be made a saint, and there's no hard and fast rule - just guidelines and precedents. The reasons for Ştefan's sainthood are summarized here: basically, he fought the Turks, built churches and monasteries, and was popular. I think the important thing, though, is that Codreanu's murders had no justification (except the one he made up himself), while the killing done by Ştefan in battle was done (at least in theory) for the good of the Church, and was not overly excessive. Other killing he did could be justified by the special powers he had given his status as a ruler (see Romans 13:3-4: Dregătorii nu sunt de temut pentru o faptă bună, ci pentru una rea. Vrei dar să nu-ţi fie frică de stăpânire? Fă binele, şi vei avea laudă de la ea. El este slujitorul lui Dumnezeu pentru binele tău. Dar, dacă faci răul, teme-te, căci nu degeaba poartă sabia. El este în slujba lui Dumnezeu, ca să-L răzbune şi să pedepsească pe cel ce face rău.) Biruitorul 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. By the way, I was looking at Iorga's biography and struck by this sentence: "In recent years, apologists for the Iron Guard have claimed..." First, it uses the word "recent", which always triggers a reaction from me, as it means little. Second, it's uncited. Might we be able to do anything about this? Biruitorul 23:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I was thinking too - let's do more at once. Meanwhile, do note that Gigi is taking heat from the Church as well. Biruitorul 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means. Template:Tăriceanu Cabinet already exists, so do we move that to "First Tăriceanu Cabinet"? But yes, I don't object. I do think one of the two models (FR/AU) gives more occasion for presenting minutiae (cabinet shuffles, exact dates, etc.), but I quite like the template idea too. Biruitorul 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like what I see so far, and what you say sounds quite reasonable. One small suggestion, though: full dates. See this page for what I mean. Actually that whole page could be a workable model: cabinets, dates and changes are listed, and then the templates at the bottom (with redlinks in anticipation of articles, though I don't think those will be needed for Romania). And incidentally, while most German articles on cabinets are just lists, this one is an actual article, so for particularly significant cabinets, like Antonescu I or Groza I, we can also create real articles (assmuning they wouldn't just be forks).

Anyway, I'm glad they're now online, and this looks like an exciting project to complete in the coming months. (And we'll also get around to fixing the many problems with the Prime Ministers. Examples of what I mean: in the Ion Brătianu article, we're told he started his second term on July 24; in the main list, August 5 (clearly a calendar issue). Gheorghe Manu's article claims he was a PM, but he isn't on the list. Etc.) I'll try my hand at a couple when I get a chance. Biruitorul 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is and there isn't: some of those dates (September 14, 1940, March 6, 1945, December 26, 1989, etc) carry a lot of weight. Plus in a year with many cabinets (1918 had 5, for instance), it's good to know the dates at a glance. I don't insist, but I don't think it would hurt to have dates.

And hey, since when are we excluding the Groza Cabinet minutes!? I think even as raw text, they'd fly through FAC. Biruitorul 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it was just a joke. OK, so let's say we add dates in special cases only for now, and see how that works out. Biruitorul 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it promises to be quite difficult. I also noticed they skipped the Communist period. I've made a first feeble attempt with Catargiu. I assumed all ministers were Conservatives. (Incidentally, not to sidetrack you, but in the infobox on Catargiu's article he is listed as a Conservative, but the link points to a party founded in 1880, though he was killed in 1862...). Biruitorul 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what you mean. We may be typical lethargic Romanians, but at least we know what needs to be done - eventually, at some (far) later date...
There's a strong precedent (Category:Members of the Cabinet of Canada) for categories by cabinet, so I'm fine with the idea. By the way... Biruitorul 06:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you :) but I haven't done so much work, just small pieces here and there. Not as much as you and several other editors. Mvelam 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 4 April, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chronicle of Huru, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ákos

No problem. Here's my source for the diacritics by the way. Also check out this, this, and this. I'll try to correct the other names. Actually, I'm pretty sure "Laszlo Borbely" is incorrect: I can say for certain that the correct seplling is László, but I'm not sure about the surname. It might be "Borbély", but I'd have to look into it. Hajdu Gábor apparently has two articles about him on the Romanian Wikipedia: Menyhért Hajdu Gabor and Menyhért Gábor Hajdu. "Gábor" is probably his first name (or given name), as it translates to "Gabriel" in English. However, it might be his surname, I'm not sure. Khoi khoi 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also sometimes useful to try the Hungarian Google. "Béla" is a common Hungarian given name, see Béla Bartók. It means "white". Khoi khoi 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the only reason I said that is because I knew someone with the last name "Gabor", but you never know what goes on at Ellis Island. Usually, Hungarian given names stay the same. Khoi khoi 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I like polenta. :-) I always thought the Italians made it better though... Khoi khoi 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your comments. BTW, the anon you've been reverting on Romanians is you-know-who (I've blocked the IPs as open proxies). Khoi khoi 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr...not quite... Remember that Arthur's IP addresses always start with "66". Khoi khoi 04:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]