User talk:Eliade/Archive 1

Treaty of Trianon

If you would be so kind as to say in what way the article needs improvement, I will see what I can do. The article's Talk page does no provide enough information, and I do not see the article as critically wrong. --Danielsavoiu 20:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria

There's been a lot of discussion regarding those Vlachs of ours (and the same of our Serbian neighbours and relatives), whether they're Romanians or not, and whether that thing they speak is Romanian or not. I don't care, actually — the world has long accepted that you are what you believe and declare you are. You may have originally been Albanian-speaking Roma, but like being Egyptians better, so that's what you are, we accept it. That's why we have Macedonians (and Moldavians, d'oh!). If our Vlachs like being Vlachs better than being Romanians, then that's what they are — they declare that way, live with it. We've got 10,566 Vlachs and 1,088 Romanians[1], then that's how it is. You like?

By the way, of these Vlachs many are actually of Vlach Roma origin (not ethnic Romanian, Vlach or whatever, just speaking a dialect of yours and came from Wallachia), as largely proven by their concentration in Varna Province, Razgrad Province and Shumen Province. The real Vlach guys live in Vidin Province, but mostly self-declare as Bulgarians (only 16 as Romanians and 155 as Vlachs), for example the people in Bregovo and the neighbouring villages speak Vlach and Bulgarian, and self-declare as ethnic Bulgarian (which most of them most likely are, but have adopted Vlach due to trade relations, proximity and coexistence). Todor →Bozhinov 20:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to discuss instead of reverting and trying to get me banned when I haven't done anything wrong, on the contrary? Let's discuss:

Why ever should Romania be mentioned to also join the EU together with Bulgaria, when this is irrelevant to the article, and the Romania article doesn't mention Bulgaria in the same way?
Why you're denying and disregarding 10,566 people's right to self-declare the way they like in a free country?

Also, in the future, make sure you've discussed first before trying to get other users banned just because you don't like them :) You may like to read WP:AGF, WP:DICK and WP:NPOV. Looking forward to your reply. Todor →Bozhinov 10:43, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's none of a compromise, it's a Romanian POV, considered that our Vlachs are in their majority not of Romanian ethnic origin. Vlachs is enough of a compromise in that case, and our census doesn't say "Romanians (Vlachs)" (like for example "Roma (Gypsy)"), but treats them as two separate groups. Because of that, your wording may be extremely misleading and is practically entirely incorrect, not to mention that self-determination thing yet again. Many articles about the Vlachs of Serbia may be like that, but as I said, our members of this Vlach group actually consider themselves Bulgarian (and speak Bulgarian besides Vlach). The majority of the people who signed under "Vlachs" in our last census are Ludari, or Vlach-speaking Roma, and live in other parts of the country.

Besides, why do you view my action as repulsive? I believe I'm acting in the spirit of good faith and neutrality. And I'm still waiting for your apology for trying to get me banned when I had done nothing wrong and you knew that. Todor →Bozhinov 13:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"you should know that vlachs are romanians" — this is so biased! Read above — our self-declared "Vlachs" are mostly Vlach-speaking Roma, not ethnic Romanians. Besides, the Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and so on are not Romanians, they're Vlachs (related, but not the same). Respect this. And stop adding this, when it's in fact nationalist POV, not supported by the census (as the official source), wrong and as misleading as God knows what. Now please either provide authoritative sourcing that our "Vlachs" are Romanians, and not two separate groups as our census plainly says, or remove this Romanian propaganda stuff that's largely irrelevant anyway. And remove the "together with Romania" EU joining thing yourself or add the same to the Romania article — it won't be fair otherwise. I won't add it, because I think it's irrelevant — both Bulgaria in the Romania article and Romania in the Bulgaria article. Todor →Bozhinov 13:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, easy! Mediation, dispute resolution, wow, wow, wow. By "our" Vlachs I mean the Vlachs in Bulgaria, I don't own them. They're "our" in that sense, and I don't say they're more "our" than "anyone else's", I was referrting to the territory they live in. I already told you that your "solution" is not a compromise, it's a POV. I haven't accused you of anything, and I ask you not to accuse me of accusing you (LOL!). And please don't threaten me with whatever further complication of this dispute, instead try to solve it and not try to make it look like a major thing. You can't resolve a dispute by threatening and no cooperation, and that's what you're doing.

To summarize (it's a pity you don't seem to understand):

The Vlachs of Serbia live in the east of the country, bordering northwestern Bulgaria. They're an ethnic group cognate to Romanians, but are not Romanians and largely do not declare as such. They speak Vlach (Romanian).
The same group also lives in northwestern Bulgaria. Its number there is uncertain, because most members prefer to declare as Bulgarians (only 16 as Romanians and 155 as Vlachs in that area: Vidin Province). These are not the Vlachs that are a significant minority in our census (and in the demographics section of the Bulgaria article), since it relies on census data (like all articles). Respect their right to self-determination.
The self-declared "Vlachs" of Bulgaria mostly live in Varna Province, Razgrad Province, Veliko Tarnovo Province and Shumen Province, thus in the northeast and central north. They speak a dialect of Romanian (or Vlach) and, I can assume from the area they inhabit and their numbers all over the country, are mostly Roma (Ludari). This is of little importance, however, because they choose to declare as "Vlachs" and we should respect that.
From 2. and 3. we can conclude that these "Vlachs" are not cognate to Romanians. They come from Romania and speak Romanian/Vlach, but are ethnic Roma (влашки цигани). Thus, referring to them as Romanians and clarifying the ethnonym Vlach as "Romanian" would be wrong (and, from 3., against the way they've chosen to refer to themselves in the census).
The 2001 Bulgarian census ([2]) lists two separate groups, "Vlachs" (10,566) and "Romanians" (1,088), unlike the single group "Roma (Gypsy)". Thus we can conclude that, while the terms "Roma" and "Gypsy" are interchangeable in that case, "Vlachs" and "Romanians" are not. Thus, clarifying "Vlachs" as "Romanians" is wrong according to the census too, noting the other reasons it's wrong from 4.

Now please provide a thorough and clear response telling me which one of these precisely you don't understand or disagree with. Thanks! Todor →Bozhinov 14:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reponse was not satisfying. You failed to defend your position and you're obviously refusing to even read my arguments. I was willing to discuss, but you don't seem to understand even the most thorough and clear of explanations, and you're insiting on a very nationalist and biased position while calling it a "compromise". I'll revert your harmful additions now, and will not tolerate any such ill-grounded edits to this or any other article in the future. Todor →Bozhinov 15:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never said I "understood", on the contrary (see just above). I was just removing ungrounded nationalist POV additions because they're misleading and incorrect. It was up to you to provide considerable references that our two separate groups of Vlachs and Romanians are the same group and prove my arguments (the points above) wrong. You failed to ground this addition within a certain period of time (and showed no willingness to do so in the future), so I removed it — as plain as that. You have to understand that such controversial edits have to be perfectly referenced with serious sources and as neutral as possible, and your "compromise" (actually very biased and not neutral at all) is not. Todor →Bozhinov 10:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I say a hundred times that what you're calling a compromise is a nationalist POV that is incorrect and misleading, and not grounded at all? Such additions are removed on sight! Live with it. What you're suggesting is not a compromise, you haven't shifted from your initial edit to the page, so stop calling it like that — it has nothing to do with the word "compromise". I'm not being impulsive — actually, you're not doing anything to reason this addition (and I have provided considerable evidence and argumentation that summarizes why this "compromise" is actually inappropriate, incorrect, misleading and biased; in short, a bad decision). So, instead of threatening me, either prove me wrong, point by point, or live with it. File an RfC, there's nothing wrong with that, but it won't help you, since you've got no argumentation. I'd be more than happy to make other people familiar with my reasoning against your edits, because I believe it's clear, thorough and convincing. Todor →Bozhinov 11:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then go ahead and write a notice at RfC regarding the article (what's "RfC against me" supposed to mean?). We may seem to need it. Todor →Bozhinov 12:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha, low tolerance towards minorities! My, that made me laugh out loud! I like minorities, but you're inventing a Romanian minority in the town I've been born and still live — and such a minority does not exist. When will you understand that inserting absolutely imaginary content (like, Vlachs in Bulgaria being Romanians or a Romanian minority living in Pleven) is totally against the principles of Wikipedia? When you make controversial edits, you're supposed to first discuss and then provide perfect sourcing, and if everyone agrees, then edit. Now you're trying to provoke me with imaginary tales. Would you like to know how many Romanians live in the whole of Pleven Province? 14![3] Is that the minority you're talking about?

Unless you're ready to provide serious evidence, authoritative sources and great referencing, I'm not willing to discuss with you — it has proven to be fruitless. An RfC would be better — let's have a third party suggest a solution. Todor →Bozhinov 12:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is hilarious! :) Y'know, those 252 Vlach (Roma) and 14 Romanians, there's more students in an elementary school in my town! Why would we force them to declare as something else? We fear we might be taken over by the hordes of 252 Vlach Roma and 14 Romanians? Where are your real statistics, I'm curious? I mean, you can say they're 5 times more, but how can you source that? Even if there are 1000 Vlach Roma and 75 Romanians in Pleven Province, as your joke suggests, there's five times more people in my village than that! :) Now, I'm enjoying your jokes, but if I want to contribute to Wikipedia, I have to find time for some serious things, I mean, it can't be all fun and funny stories, right? So let's stop kidding. Todor →Bozhinov 14:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hu. names

The question is what other name competes with it in English terminology. The answer is none. Such objections are irrelevant, as long as those are the names of the articles. Let's stick to a common pattern, lest we flood this in irrelevancy. Dahn 16:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the region does not even have a name in Romanian. I had tried to list all the regions which, however they are defined, form part of Transylvania - to aid the reader in understanding what they are to the rest (which is quality encyclopedia information). As for the rest of the regions, they rarely, if ever, go by the Romanian name in English texts (that is why the articles have that as their title). Somebody has proposed differentiating between ethnographic regions and other in the Geography section - I find it to be a good idea, but until the collaboration proposed on the article's talk page goes anywhere relevant, this is the best way to list them. Hope you see my point. Dahn 17:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia

The data in List of cities in Bulgaria is from March 2006. The data in the article is from June 2006. Also, there may be a difference of which data precisely is used — permanent address in the city or permanent and present address both in the city.

By the way, I have the feeling that you're, for some reason, trying to edit every article I've recently edited. Don't do that, it's unpleasant and some may even consider it Wikipedia:Harassment (I don't, but it's still unpleasant). Todor →Bozhinov

It's common practice to review a user's recent edits when you're suspicious they may be biased. This is completely different from what you're doing — deliberately editing articles that I have edited too or that have some relevance to me (my native town), not because you feel you have to, but just for the sake of it.

This is not estimated data. It's the most recent calculations used by the Bulgarian government, and this data precisely is used everywhere in Wikipedia, both in English and Bulgarian. It reflects the current demographic state way better than the 2001 census. Todor →Bozhinov 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are everywhere. Here is the most recent table from the website of the Head Direction of Residential Registration and Administrative Service of Bulgaria. Todor →Bozhinov 17:03, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarians in Romania

I see what you're saying. Could you provide a newer source? —Khoikhoi 17:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but could you show me the part where it says Hungarians account 16% of Transylvania's population? —Khoikhoi 17:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, I guess I understand now. :) Have the 4% of Hungarians that disappeared in the past 15 years gone to Hungary? —Khoikhoi 17:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, they stopped having as much children, because it is difficult to afford a large number of them? —Khoikhoi 17:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I learn something new every day... —Khoikhoi 17:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My great-grandfather is from Transylvania actually (Sălaj County), so I do know a little bit. I was curious, do you think current trends will continue for the Hungarians of Romania? —Khoikhoi 18:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everbody is going to be happy? But don't Hungarians in Romania face discrimination, similar to minorities in other countries?

As for California, I'm talking about the state. You see, every state has it's own flag (see Flags of the U.S. states). You'll often see things like this at places. Hablo un poco de Español (I speak a little Spanish). The main problems are with illegal immigrants from Mexico who work on the farms and don't really know that much English. The issue with them is that they didn't come here legally. However, I saw someone ask one of them on TV once why he did it, and he said "because the gringos [white people] are too lazy to do the work". That is actually partially true. The key is not building a huge wall on the border, as they can still dig under. The key is re-building Mexico's economy, so people want to go work there instead of here. I personally don't care about illegal immigrants. If they want to come here, but they're too poor, let them come!

About integration, it depends. Some people find it easy, while for most it is difficult. Usually, based on history, it takes about a generation or two. —Khoikhoi 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magyars

Aside from what hidden nationalistic motives anyone may have, the general practice of Rounding numbers is to round upwards, not downwards. --Stacey Doljack Borsody 19:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgaria re

Nu stiu ce respingi: formularea "Romanians (Vlachs)"? Mi se pare suficient de coerenta, totusi: nu stiu care sunt intentiile cui a scris-o asa, dar ea poate fi usor citita, paradoxal, in sensul argumentuli tau. "Romani (Vlahi)" acopera si acele exemple (putine? multe?) de oameni care nu se declara romani; insa, in sensul argumentului tau, se poate presupune si o relatie intrinseca intre toti romanii si toti "vlahii" (ceea ce, in principiu, este la fel de discutabil - vezi deputatul Canacheu, care refuza sa mai spuna ca Aromanii sunt "un fel de romani", preferend "vorbitori de limba romanica din Balcani"; nota: nu inseamna ca sunt de acord cu Canacheu, inseamna ca problematica in sine mi se pare irelevanta). Deci, din punctul meu de vedere, formularea este neutra. Sigur, asta nu inseamna neaparat ca Todor este neutru: desi il respect, mi se pare ca greseste in mai multe cazuri. Dahn 14:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ma uit, si vad "Romanians (Vlachs)". Formularea este neutra, mai ales ca ea cuprinde chiar si punctul tau de vedere. Totodata, dpdv academic, nu mi se pare exclusa nici versiunea lui Todor despre cum stau lucrurile. Dahn 14:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am citit argumentele lui Todor de aici, si mi se pare ca este justificat un "and/or Vlachs", sau chiar o separare completa. Daca oamenii se declara astfel, inseamna ca asta ar trebui sa scrie: compromisul pe care l-am facut si pentru Moldovans si Moldova. Nu pot spune ca stiu cata dreptate are Todor (presupun ca e de buna-credinta); daca sursa conflictului este in "cum ar trebui sa interpretam datele", si nu in "cum sunt datele reale", atunci sunt 1000% de acord cu Todor. Dahn 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asta e un sofism. Vorbim de cei care s-au declarat. Dahn 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vlahi sunt cei care se declara Vlahi - compromisul logic, asa cum l-am aplicat si la Moldovans. Din nou, eu nu vad o tragedie in "Romanians (Vlachs)", dar daca asta trebuie sa fie formularea, ati putea pune o nota de subsol care sa clarifice. Dahn 15:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cred ca cel mai bun si neutru termen ar fi "reestablish rule". Deocamdata, articolele din seria aia sunt bombardate de greseli, incepand cu cele de exprimare. Dahn 15:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your message re Bulgaria

You're welcome, I will keep an eye on it. --Guinnog 15:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only see the U.S.S.R. being changed to USSR, and you getting into trouble for 3rr. Which do you mean? --Guinnog 16:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed you'd deleted your case from the 3rr page [4]. While an underrstandable thing to do, this was unwise and more likely to make the situation worse than better. Did you in fact violate 3rr? If not you have nothing to worry about. --Guinnog 16:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link-ul

Pentru ca nu este un articol aici. - FrancisTyers · 16:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC) WOW. Who are you? --Eliade 16:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ma stii, si te stiu ;) - FrancisTyers · 16:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!!! :)) - FrancisTyers · 16:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Private discussion

What's the problem with this anyway? Not aware of it being forbidden or anything. And what is "request for comment against you" supposed to mean? Confusing terminology? Todor →Bozhinov 16:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]