User talk:Dahn/Archive 8

Transylvania

hi dahn. as i stated in the discussion page, the lead paragraph i thing has to briefly go through all significant moments of Transylvania. saying "Transylvania was principality, then province of the Hungarian kgdom, of the Habsburg Empire, vassal to the Ottoman Empire, one year under authority of wallachian ruler Michael the Brave, then back to Habsburgs and Hungary, then proclaimed union by Romanian council of Transylvania in 1918 ratified by Treaty of Trianon in 1920" shouldnt be NPOV or anything wrong with it.

How do you see the lead paragraph of Transylvania ? should there be mentioned only Kgdom of Hungary and Habsburgs ? should the formulation be "was conquered by.." or "was given to.." ? I want to have a lead paragraph of Transylvania that would be balanced. perhaps using Britannica as a guide would be a solution ?

There has to be a balanced way of writing the lead paragraph of Transylvania. I am prepared to discuss the matter on Transylvania talk page until everything is sorted out.

I hope u dont see "romanians proclaimed union with Romania" an insignificant moment in the history of Transylvania, and I dont think anyone would support formulations like "Transylvania was given to Romania" on wikipedia. I invite u present your reasons to such formulations. Criztu 10:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical regions for counties

Hi. Yes, I would agree to also including the historical region that each county is in, in the infobox, alongside the development regions. I think this information is useful, particularly from a cultural-historical perspective. Ronline ✉ 06:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm borrowing the banner in your user page about the "English/American wikipedia". If you don't mind. ;-) --RiseRover|^talk 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sindicalista

Hi, do you have any specific info on the (re-)founding date of Partido Sindicalista. I think that [1] is quite trustwrothy on this. --Soman 15:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Far right leagues

Hello Dahn! I saw you noticed this new article, I'm about finished with it, maybe you'd like to review it for grammar and clarity. I created the corresponding categories, and replaced in some articles concerning specific leagues (Jeunesses Patriotes, etc.) the category "far right parties" by this new one (the difference between a league and a party is quite consequent, mainly based on anti-parliamentarism). I haven't touched too much yet to the "Fascist French parties" category, but it seem some of the articles included under this latter category should rather go under "far right leagues". We should distinguish, on one hand, leagues and parties (I see for example that de la Rocque's Parti Social Français redirects to the Croix-de-Feu, which is an obvious mistake — separate articles must be created, as in the fr:Parti social français); on the other hand, this category "fascist French parties" adress the discussions on "French fascism". Let me tell you first of all that I am not a patriotic proponent of the absence of fascism in France, which is the view upheld by most French historians. However, they do make a point, IMO, when they state that as fascism is by definition a "mass movement", Sternhell's arguments are interesting but limited to the intellectual origins of them. All the debate thus focuses on these far right leagues, some of whom clearly adopted the Fascist paraphernalia and rituals. French historians thus argue that 1/this was only exterior appearance not reflected on their political programs 2/they were not as popular as in Germany or Italy. I personnaly think that this is only arguing about numbers (when does a league becomes "popular"? In fact, they were quite popular, and de la Rocque was certainly a main political figure — but they argue that de la Rocque, because of his legalist respect during the February 6, 1934 riots, wasn't fascist. I'm not sure that's enough to justify their surprising conclusion that "fascism never really managed to make a break-through in France"...) Now that I've more or less exposed my personal opinion, I'm sure you will agree when I think that we should think about how to organize these three categories, Category:Far right leagues (by definition reserved to France now, but I left the matter opened), Category:French fascist parties (actually, only real political parties should be included here, not leagues — the discussion on French fascism probably also concerns the fact that, notwithstanding Vichy, fascism didn't ever take power in France, and thus these fascist movements — leagues — never got the occasion to turn into massive political parties, as did both Italian fascism & the NSDAP; this leads to the paradoxal conclusion that there has been no fascism in France because fascism never turned into a massive political state-party, based on the postulate that far right leagues can only be superficially identified to fascism because of their lack of mass support; I'm not sure if you're following, but in other terms, French authors qualify fascism as a mass victory, and since fascism obviously didn't attain this mass victory, they cheerfully conclude to the absence of fascism in France — although IMO some of these far right leagues were important enough and linked to fascism in more than symbolic ways - fundings from Mussolini, etc., which leads to the conclusion that French fascism was certainly important enough...) I got to quit, my keyboard is melting away!!!! The main problem still are: Francisme is included as fascist party although it's a league, as the Faisceau. Should we create a Category:Fascist leagues? I don't know, because this bypass the debate on French fascism, although it doesn't counter my POV. Cheers, I got a little carried away writing that...! Tazmaniacs 15:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

And it goes on & on... Tazmaniacs 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Filed

I have asked for abrbitration involving User:Intangible. See [here]. Please post any comments you desire to add.--Cberlet 20:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Radicals

Hi! I've created a Category:Radical parties, maybe you'd like to include some parties in it. Tazmaniacs 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oltenians line up to feed the Warrior of Light

Ropot de aplauze, pâine coaptă în ţăst, peşte prăjit şi friptură pentru Becali Apostolos Margaritis 09:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Getae

Hi Dahn, I'm having quite a problem with Greier at Getae. Since the article was utterly unsourced, I added material basing myself on some reading of the Romanian historian L. Boia. Obviously this ruined Greier's agenda and so he's reverting much I inserted even if it's sourced. Could you give a look at the article and give me your opinion? I would like to hear your opinion regarding the modifications I made, and of eventual doubts regarding these. Thanks in advance for anything you can do.--Aldux 15:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

1907 Peasants' Revolt

Could you have a look at this edit? Looks dubious to me, but I'm not at all expert on this. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Romania

Hi, Jmabel. I recently added a lot of stuff to the article and reviewed some outdated info. The body of text has become quite large, and there are presumably a number of things to add. I think you added and reviewed the info about the Holocaust, or, in any case, are qualified to do it, so I wish to ask you something: could you help make it more succint? Not by much, and certainly not removal of valuable info - just condensing the text a bit so it is not redundant. I have added a "Main article: Romania during World War II", and, as it is, the text in the two articles is basically the same. Many thanks. Keep in touch. Dahn 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, could you please update the links for documents issued by the Wiesel Commission? The Holocaust Museum seems to have moved them or lost them. Dahn 20:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, we seem to go over the same ground with variations in History of the Jews in Romania, Romania during World War II, Ion Antonescu, and, for all I know, elsewhere. I think we should centralize the material to one article; the question is which. I'm not sure if Romania during World War II is the best place either; I hesitate to call it The Holocaust in Romania because there is more to the story than that (in particular, the remarkably high survival rate of Bucharest's Jews). Maybe Romania and the Jews during World War II? I'll bring the question to Wikipedia:WikiProject Jewish history. - Jmabel | Talk 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've written to the Holocaust Museum; at worst, there may be no remaining online copy of the report, but since it is a published paper document, we can still readily cite it. - Jmabel | Talk 07:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a copy of the document: http://yad-vashem.org.il/about_yad/what_new/data_whats_new/pdf/english/EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY.pdf bogdan 10:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dahn 10:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect! - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Per your comment about the Roma, maybe the only workable title is The Holocaust in Romania. - Jmabel | Talk 18:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania mediation

Unfortunately, I am going to be taking a wikibreak soon and will not be able to continue the mediation any further. My attempts to get another mediator to take over have failed, and you may have to find some one else to finish it. However, I can make these remarks on the topic abstractedly:

1. You must always cite references, and if somebody opposes your verified view on the matter, and they cannot back it up, then their claims are dissmissable.
2. To give an accurate, NPOV, you must give both sides of the coin - contraversial views must be included somewhere.
3. And most importantly, the head section is a summary and should not go into great detail on subjects - it should say what is widely accepted and no mention should be made on trivial ans specualatory subjects.

Hope that helps you. --BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 15:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm intrigued you took things that way - I meant them in a neutral sort of way. A) If you are citing references, then there's no problems, B) Good, you're making a NPOV and C)According to WP:LEAD: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" - therefore, if it's not essential to the main body of history, ignore it from the header, put it in in more detail later on in the article. Sorry for any confusion - just wishing to state a few neutral facts on the subject to (hopefully) clean things up. Again, hope these are helpful. --BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 00:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Since I was going on a wikibreak - you seemed the only person interested still in the case, so I notified you. Will pass the message on to Critzu. --BarryC _(talk) ^Uncyc 02:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Morometii

Multumesc pentru îmbunatatirile de la Morometii! Credeti ca ati putea insera o imagine din film pentru a ilustra mai bine articolul? As vrea apoi sa scriu despre Craii de la Curtea Veche. Nu am gasit o versiune în engleza a romanului. --dio 09:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Am vazut articolul despre Rebengiuc si imaginea care îl ilustreaza este din filmul lui Puiu. Numele filmului a fost tradus prin "Coffe and cigarettes", or eu stiu un film american ce poarta acest nume! Fiilmul regizorului român parca se intitula "Cartusul de Kent", nu-i asa? Poate ar fi buna o rectificare, care sa îndeparteze confuzia... --dio 12:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hi Dahn,

Was this referring to me or Greier? —Khoikhoi 19:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I figured. :p —Khoikhoi 19:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could you care to comment here? This guy wants to bring back a conflict that started over a year ago! —Khoikhoi 19:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Allright, thanks man. What my concern is that he might be relatively successful in his efforts dispite the fact that he has very little support. Oh well. —Khoikhoi 20:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, what ever happened to your self-restraint? —Khoikhoi 20:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Pantazi was to save Ilinca's honour

Thank you for "Craii..."'s improval (you are mastering this language!).

I only modified the final part of the plot, as I was wrong about whom Pîrgu sold Ilinca's hand, and especially I missed the tragic end of the story, as she dies... A few weeks ago I saw (again) the film on TVRi and a lot of memories pushed me back in my Bucharest passing through. --dio 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

kid mccoy

I was wondering if you could help me.I'm trying to find a movie,and I only know that it deals with the life of Kid McCoy - his boxing career, his trip to Africa to fight B.Doherty and so on. I guess the movie was made sometime in the 80s.Does this ring a bell?I'm really desperate.