This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Who has right to present Serbian Vlachs as Romanians?! They have their national name, culture, tradition - identity and they are recognized by the Serbian Constitution an Law as Vlachs (Vlasi). The other ethnic group in Serbia are Romanians. Iin Serbia everyone is free to declare whatever nationality it choose in census.
SERBIA - Census 2002:
Vlachs: 40.054
Romanians: 34.576
So, who gave right to itself to not respect these facts?! This is the act of basic rudeness!
VLACHS ARE VLACHS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.114.197 (talk) 23:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
If you're going to be working on that area, this is not bad. Also, they've recently started this, this (good for Romanian general election, 1937), this (the Romanian oil industry remains to be covered here), and so on. Also, this improved quite a bit, and while I wouldn't quite consider this a Good Article (the sources aren't that great, and the "history" section says not a word about the last 157 years), it's still better than what we have. - BiruitorulTalk 15:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, come on. We can't use another user-contributed wiki as a source, as good as it appears to be. And using sources by proxy just won't do - please tell me you're not actually considering it. Dahn (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I suppose (to take the Maramureş example) our alternatives are either to wait (possibly years and years) until you or I or someone else gets a hold of Filipaşcu and is motivated to adapt the content here, or take the pre-existing article (by the respected User:Alex:D) and use it to improve History_of_Maramureş#November_1918_-_March_1919, which I'm sure you'll agree is in need of improvement. It's not something I have planned for today or tomorrow, or perhaps ever (and I realise that for FAs at least, users are expected to have actually examined the sources themselves), but in the grand scheme of things, it seems we could do worse. - BiruitorulTalk 16:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure there are countless alternatives to that single source, especially since, while Filipaşcu is probably not an awful source, a book published by a leading far right venue in 1940 is bound to be crashing at full speed on the limit of WP:RS. In fact, it seems that Enciclopedia României is slowly turning into a venue for what shouldn't normally make it on wikipedia, and thrives on such sourcing (it could do worse, though). While I'm supposed to have ample "personal" reasons not to touch that project with a ten-foot pole, it's primarily that I don't think it would actually help much: it would be, all in all, faux sourcing; it would in any case be provisional, as you seem to agree, so in the end it would be for nothing; it would be single-sided. Also note that the glimpse into the book and the way the info is cited in that article are rather chaotic. Yes, we could do worse, but why not do better? Dahn (talk) 16:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
And concerning improvement of the History of Maramureş article: in its present state, I would grade it a 2. I think one would be hard pressed to find one section that doesn't need radical changes. Dahn (talk) 16:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
You're right, using a 1940 source is probably a bad idea. And trust me, I've considered and rejected translating other articles of theirs - IC Brătianu, for instance, while not all bad, lacks footnotes, which by 2009 isn't really acceptable here. So while I don't entirely reject the possibility of borrowing bits of their stuff, I do agree the quality often leaves something to be desired. - BiruitorulTalk 16:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
IMHO, there are two distinct things:
to read a source, whatever poor, in order to inform ourselves better of the subject
to write carefully and cite correctly with a qualitative references
Doing one does not mean we are not going to do the other. I was unable to find Filipascu's book, so I am glad when I have the opportunity to read what someone else wrote after reading that book. Obviously, we have to factor in Alex:D subjectivity, but I am sure we can agree to treat Alex:D as a good faith editor who can make mistakes but won't make them on purpose in order to deceive somebody.
As for dismissing everything based on fake insinuations that the author might be inspired at some point in life by "far right" ideas is non-sense, and I am tired to listen to that song. If we find that somewhere in the book there was something false put or purpose - it would be totally different, and we would thrown the book away, regardless who the author is. But, as long as we can believe the author to act in good faith (I've heard no arguments against that), let's stop ideological insinuations, can we, please.
You both know very well that while WP community has done a relatively good job removing far right-inspired sources, it has not done even 10% so to the far-left inspired sources. The works of authors that are known to have been communists are accepted without hesitation. But they shouldn't be. Soviet historiography works are put on a par with works of mainstream historians. And so on, examples can continue. Now, don't get me wrong: I don't want to see more for-right inspired sources (what has been achieved so far I consider good), but I would like to see the same applied to the other extreme.
Back to the article, I would like to repeat 2 things I said months before:
I compiled that article when I was new here, and tried to gather all possible info that I was able to find online (because of general luck of it). But afterwards, I gave up. I actually never read the article from start to end since then.
6 months later, i.e. one and a half years ago, I found a good and thorough source (Marian Tomi Maramuresul istoric in date). The amount of material in this book is immense, and could help create/improve several dosen articles (including biographies, articles of localities, of battles, of wars, etc) But somehow I got interested in other stuff, and did not (so far) find time to systematically re-write that article. I told about the book to both of you, and to Morosanul. So, we do have alternative sources to Filipascu (which doesn't mean we shouldn't find that one, too, eventually, and at least read it to see if there is something extra), the problem is that it is too much work. BTW, I have enough work off-wiki, too, in case it's not obvious. :) Dc76\talk 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Dc, my rambunctious friend, yet again you are not answering to arguments I posted, but to something else altogether. To clarify my point about the far right and how it comes into play here: the book in question is published by a far right publisher, at a time when the far right led a totalitarian regime. As you will probably note after reading my post, I don't even automatically believe that would disqualify the author of the book (though I have to wonder); what I have indicated is that using that source will probably not stand to scrutiny - it is a very accessible and understandable objection one would be compelled to raise. This is the sort of thing they don't care about on Enciclopedia, which only adds to the problems I see with that project - but that is another topic altogether. I did not comment on Alex:D's convictions or how I would relate to them, though this has once been tangled into a past debate about what was and is happening on rowiki. Now, I'm not about to get dragged into a lengthy debate about other types of sourcing endorsed or tolerated, and I don't see how they relate to my objections; unless those objections address my work here, unless you assume I am responsible for wikipedia as a whole, or unless they mean to say that two wrongs will make a right, I don't see how they fit in with my comments.
Also, my comment on article quality was in direct answer to Biruitorul's assessment. For better or worse, I meant to say that the article is objectively not up to standards, and, even if I were to see this as a fault, I am in no capacity to attribute it (and, frankly, neither do I care as much). Dahn (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
1) The article is written quite poorly, and the fault is mine, I didn't find time to come back to it. Thanks to Biruitorul, who cleansed it, the article is sort of a "4", not a "2" as it was before him taking drastic actions there. I don't mind if you blame me, because I am blaming myself for that. Biruitorul's too positive assessment I would take at least half as way to say "hi" - I was on a rather long wikibreak, and we haven't talked in months. 2) We are all editors, and as a community we are responsible to do a good job. otherwise, we should leave. Hence a tiny fraction of responsibility fails upon each of us, especially on the one who have been around for a while and know to distinguish A from B. We have a common responsibility to "fight" off all extremist ideologies that try to use WP as a propaganda tool, including all your beloved far-right groups and my beloved far-left groups, as well as extremist islamist and terrorist anarchists, etc, etc. One bad can not justify another. But one good can inspire to do another. 3) I don't have Filipascu's book, and I found better reference. But I would read Filipascu's book if I would have the occasion, even if it were written by osama visarionovich hitler, just to make sure I don't miss some important info (I can sourse it with other ref latter if needed). yet, I beg you not to forget one detail: extremist printing houses would love to publish quality since that raises their reputation. This you can not automatically conclude anything about the book before you read it. I didn't see it, so until i would, I will not dismiss it. Dc76\talk 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
1) Hey, let's not turn this into a self-criticism session. I got me the reputation of Trotskyist once, and I sure don't want project the Maoist now :). 2) Right on, and I'm sure my own record is good in that area. 3) Sure, read all you want - I can see the point of revisiting a succession of events to clarify what needs more sourcing. I have done that too in various ways, but not as a substitute for sourcing, and since we agree that is not the way to go... And, yes, I'm aware of the possibility that the book itself may be okay overall (as you will note from the posts above), but that is not the problem. Dahn (talk) 20:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I've read your discussion above, since I saw some incoming clicks on our site from this page. Your fears on Filipascu's history of Maramures are a bit too much. The book was reprinted in 1997 in Baia Mare and other reprints followed. I myself bought a copy in a bookstore in Sighet, which was reprinted in 2003. It says the book appeared with the help of Ministry of Culture - and that itself could be a fair guarantee. We used it because, as you may have noticed, the history of Maramures is not a mainstream subject, you can't find so many sources as you may wish. That's about it. Good luck!--Radufan (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your message. I did not know that the book was reprinted. It might be easier now to find a book printed in 1997 and reprinted in 2003 than one printed in 1942. I want to emphasize that when I wrote the first version of History of Maramures, it was 90% based on information I read on internet. Most were absolutely all right sources. The problem was not their reliability, but the fact that they only covered 1-2 aspects, not the entire period from prehistory till modern days.
Second, I want to emphasize that it seems nobody but me (from those around here) acquired Tomi's book. I am not saying this book is super-super, but I wish all Romanian regions and counties would have something half like that. So, comparatively to other regions, Maramures's history is as mainstream a subject as it gets. :) The good part is Tomi doesn't do much sophisticated analysis. He goes year by year and just says what is known, with reference to hundreds of sources, often does direct citations from those sources. Which is just great for the purpose of compiling into encyclopedia articles, because 1) we don't have to search any archive, and 2) you can immediately see what is his comment and what is fact, so a priori there can be no question of subjectivity. (Anyway his comments are usually "As far as I've seen, a says this, b says this, but noone mentions about this, so i suppose this could be explained because of this".) As far is it is written and I understand, Tomi had full access to Filipascu's book.
The only problem is that the book is over 200 pages, and while it's leisure to read it, it's not a leisure to systematically add info from it to WP. Because I am interested in other subjects first of all (Moldova) and because I have to think in what article to put each information. I definitively don't want to repeat something 3 times, and would write in two different articles only the most essential info. Fortunately, Morosanul came several months ago, and organized a bit the main articles related to Maramures (and he did that transparently, with our inputs taken into full consideration). Unfortunately, there are also secondary articles that need good (thoughtful) organization, such as articles of localities, biographies, articles about military events, etc. And if I am going to write something in one of those articles, there is no point in repeating that in the article History of Maramureş, it's just enough to give a link. I guess this makes clear the kind of things we are facing here, and why we are slow.
My conclusion: both Filipascu's and Tomi's books could serve as a bases for the skeletons of articles, and now we know for sure that both can be fully trusted. I can work from one (in WP), you can work from another (in ER), and we can obviously compare the results, edit based on the other, etc. You are more than welcome to edit in WP as well, obviously. I won't edit in ER, because I don't have enough time, and I hate to promise something and not deliver (I already do that a lot.) Eventually I will get hold of Filipascu's book, too. Dc76\talk 22:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Since you have in the past taken part in related discussions, this comes as a notification that the Centralized discussion page set up to decide on a comprehensive naming convention about Macedonia-related naming practices is now inviting comments on a number of competing proposals from the community. Please register your opinions on the RfC subpages 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.
Personally I don't see any significant difference between part of and governed by, so I am with your latest variant. Alæxis¿question? 22:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I will withdraw the CfD if you agree to re-nominate the category that needs renaming after the article is moved (or at least let me know that the article was moved so I can nominate it). Deal? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Deal. We can move now Category:Bender to Category:Bender, Moldova. Once the discussion for the article Bendery move is finished, if the article would be moved as I proposed, then it will be fine. If it would remain where it is now, I here undertake to move the two categories to contain the letter "y". Alternatively, we can do nothing now, and re-name the categories as needed when the article discussion is finished. Anyway, I promise to get back to you once the article move discussion is over. Dc76\talk 02:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds great. I've withdrawn the category discussion for now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
All right. Then I will wait for the discussion to conclude and perform actions only after that. Anyway, Category:Bender needs to be moved, not recreated under a different name Category:Bender, Moldova, hence an admin has to do this (I can only create categories, I can not erase them, and once I had to go to CfD for two stupid misspellings...) You will hear from me in due time. Dc76\talk 03:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Recensamantul din Transnistria
Salut! Ma intereseaza in mod deosebit datele amanuntite ale recensamantului din Transnistria. Am vazut ca ai avut acces la unele date si as dori sa stiu daca cunosti mai multe despre acest subiect. Mi-ar fi de mare folos pentru a completa harta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harta_etnica_a_Republicii_Moldova_-_2004.jpg. Pe de alta parte am vazut ca lucrezi totusi cu niste aproximari pentru suburbiile Tighinei. Am vazut pe undeva datele exacte.
Cele Bune!Colinspancev (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Din nou Transnistria
Multumesc pentru mesaj. Daca imi dai o adresa de e-mail pot sa iti trimit datele exacte ale recensamantului din Transnistria, in cifre absolute pe raioane si pe rural/urban. Astia au publicat datele pt absolut toate nationalitatile care sunt vreo 20-30. In plus exista si datele exacte pt Proteaigalovca si Gasca. Cele bune.Colinspancev (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Orthodox Catholic Church
Dintr-un punct de vedere ortodox, singura Biserica Catolica este Biserica crestinilor Ortodocsi. In trecut, deobicei Biserica (Ortodoxa) era numita Catolica (este si azi defapt, dar nu prea des, dar oficial este in continuare), iar teologia ei Ortodoxa, din acest motiv membri Biserici Catolice (adica Ortodoxe) erau numiti ortodocsi (pentru ca urmau credinta ortodoxa), dar termenul de "Biserica Ortodoxa" e mai recent. Ti-as recomanda inafar de ce e aratat pe pagina de discutie de la acel articol, sa citesti si acest articol destul de scurt (dar explica niste lucruri despre cuvantul "Catolic"). Te rog sa te gandesti mai atent la aceasta problema. Cody7777777 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Multumesc ca ai citit acel articol. Presupun, ca prin arabi a vrut sa zica islamisti, dar oricum e o greseala care trebuia evitata. Nu am vrut zic ca Biserica in frunte cu papa din Roma, nu are dreptul sa aiba un articol pe wiki, care sa contina "Catholic Church", vroiam sa subliniez punctul de vedere ortodox in legatura cu acest titlu. Ideea, e ca sunt niste reguli pe wiki, care ar trebui aplicate in articole, eu din cate vad regulile sustin pentru articolul numit acuma "Eastern Orthodox Church" o schimbare in "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" sau "Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern)" deoarece e mai oficial, si mai putin "ambiguos" in engleza in legatura cu non-chalcedonienii (sau miafizitii/monofizitii, care in engleza isi spun deobicei "Orthodox Church"). (In legatura cu redenumirea recenta a articolului "Roman Catholic Church" in pur si simplu "Catholic Church", dupa parerea mea a fost realizata contrar regulilor de pe wikipedia, ar fi trebuit sa puna macar ceva in paranteze, dar prea putini s-au opus in aceea discutie.) Dar desigur, in caz de mai pariticipi in dezbatere poti sprijini orice optiune doresti. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Exact asta eu n-am inteles si cred ca si ceilalti la asta s-au inpotmolit. Exista un punct de vedere ortodox aspura folosirii acestui cuvant de catre romano-catolici? Daca da, cel putin ar trebui sa gasim o refereinta la asa ceva din gura vreunuia din Partiarhi, ca sa nu mai spunem ca ar trebui sa fie scris sus si tare. Daca Bisericile Ortodoxe nu spun asta raspicat, inseamna ca nu au nimic impotriva faptului ca Biserica condusa de Papa sa se numeasca Biserica Catolica.
Aceasta e o scrisoare din anul 1848 [1] compusa de patriarhi rasariteni, este un raspuns la o scrisoare trimisa de papa de la Roma din aceea vreme, in care patriarhii folosesc titlul "Biserica Catolica" e folosit doar pentru "Biserica Ortodoxa" (termenul "Biserica Catolica" e folosit de mai multe ori pentru Ortodoxie decat "Biserica Ortodoxa"), in schimb Biserica in frunte cu papa de la Roma, e nuimta pur si simplu "Biserica Romana" (realizez totusi ca documentul e cam vechi, in prezent cel putin aparent numai pare sa se opuna folosiri lui de Vatican, dar asta nu inseamna ca am renuntat noi la acest titlu, e titlul traditional folosit in Sinoadelor Ecumenice, si e folosit de multi din Sfinti Parinti). Un alt document important "Confesiunea Patriarhului Ortodox Dositheus din Ierusalim" foloseste doar pentru "Biserica Ortodoxa" titlul "Biserica Catolica", titlul "Biserica Ortodoxa" nu apare in confesiune, in schimb termenul Ortodox e folosit pentru cuvintele "Religie Ortodoxa", "Credinta Ortodoxa" sau "Credinciosii Ortodocsi".
E intradevar mai oficial? Daca cineva spune "Biserica Ortodoxa Catolica de Est", tu recunosti ca e vorba despre tine? Eu nu. Poate nu stiu eu destul teologie... ca doar na, sunt amator.
Nu, asta articolele ne-calcedonienilor se muta la Oriental Ortodox Church. Nu mutam noi Orthodox Church pentru ei. Asa mai poate veni unul si inventa inca nu stiu ce denumire. Biserica este si prin asta ortodoxa (traditionala) ca nu se inchina dupa cum bate vantul. Cuvantul "Eastern" este deja un compromis nejustificat (d.p.m.d.v.) facut pentru unii vorbitori de engleza, si anume pentru cei ignoranti. In nicio limba dominata de ortodocsi n-o sa-l gasesti ca adjectiv.
Totusi "Eastern" apare si in documente Ortodoxe, spre exemplu in Catehismul Sfantului Filaret din Moscova, este folosit chiar "Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church". Nu neaparat ca mi-ar place mie titlul "Eastern" asa mult (si realizez ca nu e folosit prea mult in prezent de ortodocsi), dar prefer sa adaug "Catolic" decat sa scot "Eastern", filozoful rus ortodox Aleksey Khomyakov, a subliniat importanta titlului Catolic pentru Ortodoxie prin secolul 19, zicand "The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth—The titles "Orthodox" and "Eastern" merely temporary" (textul mai intreg se poate gasi aici[13], probabil el explica mai bine importanta acestui titlu si concept), cuvintele sale sunt poate par umpic socante, dar subliniaza importanta acestui titlu pentru Ortodoxie, zicand ca titlurile "Eastern" si "Orthodox" sunt doar temporare. Motivul pentru care termenul "Catolic" nu prea mai e folosit de ortodocsi in prezent asa des este pentru ca cei din occident il folosesc prea mult, dar nu ar trebui renuntam la numele "Catolic" pentru ca mai e folosit si de altcineva, din moment ce Biserica Ortodoxa e Biserica originala, nu poate renunta la acest titlu traditional (e folosit in canoanele Sinoadelor Ecumenice, si era folosit de Sfinti Parinti destul de des) pentru ca cineva (cei din occident) vrea sa-l uzurpe, defapt pana pe la inceputul secolului 20, termenul "Catolic" era inca destul de folosit de ortodocsi (si autori occidentali stiau asta, oficial este si azi in continuare un titlu important. Intr-o carte mai recenta a teologului ortodox John Meyendorff, el subliniaza importanta acestui titlu si concept de "Catolic" pentru Ortodoxie, in aceasta carte, in alta carte spune ca Biserica ortodoxa sustine ca e singura "Biserica Catolica" (deci asta ii exclude pe cei de la Vatican). (Inca ceva, Wikipedia nu poate decide cine merita titlul "Catolic" sau "Ortodox", deoarece are o regula a punctului de vedere neutru, si regulile din wiki cer folosirea de "dezambiguari" cand e nevoie, desigur miafizitii sau ne-calcedonieni sunt eretici, dar nu putem sa le negam dreptul lor pe wiki, de a folosi titlul "Ortodox" (probabil ca nici lor nu le place "Oriental"), la fel nici ei, nici cei din Vatican, nu ne pot nega drepturile sa folosim titlurile "Ortodox" sau "Catolic".) Cody7777777 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
A pune in paranteze la cea mai numeroasa boiserica este deja prea mult. Unica alternativa era sa ramana la Roman Catholic Church. Eu nu inteleg un lucru: unde sunt acele voci din lumea reala (de exemplu clerici si teologi ortodocsi) care sa se opuna?
Ma referisem sa puna "Catholic Church (in communion with Rome)" sau "Catholic Church (Roman)" (ca un compromis intre cele 2 variante "Roman Catholic Church" si "Catholic Church"), era vorba de o dezbatere aici, (dar erau prea putini cei care au s-au opus schimbarii numelui articolului, in simplu "Catholic Church").
Daca am fost prea neclar, in anumite privinte, te rog sa-mi spui, voi incerca sa clarific in acel caz. Desigur, e alegerea ta ce susti, nu ma deranjeaza, Biserica Ortodoxa va fi adevarata Biserica Catolica indiferent daca are Wikipedia un articol cu numele asta sau nu. Cody7777777 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
In legatura cu dezbaterea anterioara, realizez ca trebuia sa-ti spun mai devreme, si probabil ca sti deja, "Catholic" e folosit de ortodocsi si in Creez in limba greaca si in limba engleza (si probabil si in alte limbi occidentale), dar in limbile influentate de slavona, inclusiv limba română, este folosit termenul "Soborniceasca", dar el este sinonim cu termenul "Catolic". Regret ca nu ti-am zis mai devreme (daca era nevoie cel putin), dar dezbaterile acelea au fost cam obositoare. In caz de te intereseaza, a fost realizata recent (anul acesta) o marturisire de credinta impotriva ecumenismului, in varianta tradusa in engleza din greaca, este folosit termenul "Catholic" doar cand se refera la Ortodoxie, este si o versiune in română a textului, dar sunt folositi termenii "Soborniceasca" si "universala". Cody7777777 (talk) 07:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Deoarece in discutia noastra anterioara ai vorbit despre pacat, mi-ar face placere sa mentionez urmatorul articol (care mie mi s-a parut interesant si dupa parerea mea explica destul de bine diferentele despre pacat intre ortodocsi si occidentali) daca ai timp sa-l citesti (in caz de nu-l cunosti deja) sper sa-ti placa. (Si nici eu nu cred ca a folosi "Soborniceasca" (pe care il folosesc si eu) reprezinta un pacat, deoarece nu cred ca majoritatea celor care-l folosesc o fac cu intenti neortodoxe (iar conform Ortodoxiei, judecata care o vom primi de la Dumnezeu va fi dupa inimile noastre), dar totusi cred ca e cam trist ca ne-a facut sa cam cedam occidentalilor titlul "Catolic" (care inseamna acelasi lucru), si cred ca ar trebui sa incercam sa evitam aceasta. In legatura cu anti-ecumenismul, regretabil sunt si persoane care se comporta cum ai spus, dar eu din cate stiu majoritatea anti-ecumenistilor spun doar ca e o singura Biserica Adevarata a lui Hristos, pe care in prezent o numim mai des Biserica Ortodoxa.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Voi incerca daca pot, sa ma ocup si de acele articole (si au intr-adevar nevoie de imbunatatiri), dar regretabil in ultima perioada, nu prea mai am mult timp sa editez prea mult pe wikipedia. (Dar oricum, mersi ca mi-ai spus despre ele.) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note
I read your comment here and wanted to say thanks. All of it was just that exasperating. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Map of the Kingdom of Romania
Hi! My map of Romania depicts the administrative situation as of 1930 (the year of the single inter-war census carried in Romania). The county borders of Iasi, Botosani and Balti as you describe them are those of 1937-38.
Well, there were numerous administrative reforms in the 1920s and 30s. I think (I`ll try to check this) that some villages on the left bank of the Pruth were part of Dorohoi, Botosani and Iasi counties in the 1920s as well. The only years for which I can draw accurate maps are 1930 (thanks to these ethnic maps: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1930_Romanian_census) and 1937.
Thanks for your suggestions! The ethnic data for towns and districts (I think district is a better translation for plasa) was supplied to me by Olahus. You should contact him if you want his .pdf documents sooner, as I don`t have my personal laptop with me right now.
I`m not a constant user, so I don`t know if I can be of much help if I join the WikiProject Moldova. Today is the first time I logged in after a 7 week period of inactivity.
Now I have a question for you. I`m trying to find an accurate administrative map of Romania from the 1941-1944 period and I`ve searched the entire British Library for about three weeks with no luck. I came across the data of the 1941 census at town and district level for the whole country (excepting Transnistria), but I couldn`t find a detailed administrative map to represent the census results.
Do you know if there is any administrative map from the wartime period left? Anywhere...?
I gained access to the Library of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest and I indend to pay it a visit this week. Do you think I`ll find something there?
I'd like to propose a voluntary moratorium on commenting on others peoples !votes in bilateral relations AfDs. At this point, I don't think there's anything to be gained from such comments--obviously no one is convincing anyone--meanwhile, the acrimony rises and uninvolved editors are discouraged from weighing in. See this masterpiece for a prime example. So how about we just don't comment on each others' votes? This moratorium would not cover general comments, i.e. those which aren't indented under and/or in response to a specific !vote (e.g. [14]), but these should be kept to an absolute minimum. I intend invite all of the "usual suspects" to join this moratorium. I've missed someone, please invite them. Please discuss, and ideally note whether you intend to abide by this here. Thanks. YilloslimeTC 17:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Reference needed
In this edit from 11 July you added a reference named "Semino2000", but forgot to specify the content of this reference. Could you please fix this? Debresser (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Your request for a third opinion has been edited to comply with Wikipedia:Third opinion#How to list a dispute. If your entry as originally worded (diff1diff3) contained information vital to an understanding of the dispute, please add those details to the article talk page where the dispute exists. Thanks. — Athaenara ✉ 06:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Third opinion That's all right, no problem, 95%+ of that is already in the talk page of the article. It is my first time filing a formal request for 3O, and I did not know all details. Thank you, though, for dropping a message on my talk page, that was very kind you. Dc76\talk 06:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You are very welcome. I forwarded your reply here because I don't like discussions to be fragmented across several namespaces. — Athaenara ✉ 06:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
about adding diff1 and diff3: it's ok, it's ok. don't worry. I can take care of that. :) Dc76\talk 06:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Smirnov
Hi, thx for the message, i meant, Smirnov lived in Ukraine for a long time, i do not know that means he is a "Ukrainian politician"?? You are probably right, i do not object when you take it out. National leader, i think he is a national leader, there is not international recognized state, that is true, nation, who knows if it is a nation, that is more vague. Does it make sense? Sorry when i do not explain well, and it is not a big deal for me when you want to revert. Thx! RetroS1monetalk 03:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
OK, thx, i am agreeing. RetroS1monetalk 12:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Romanian politics
Hi, I'm just creating some stubs on Romanian politics [15], [16]. Please take a look, if you're interested and have some time (I don't speak Romanian, so I don't know much about such topics myself, really :)). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog(woof!) 14:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
The Russian person must not challenge and introduce the Russians ideas in the Moldova's website. --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 14:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Can be organized a comission of persons who are not Russians and only them to edit Moldova's website? That website is full of Russian ideology. --Ghimpu Moldova 1 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
No, that is not how WP works. Everybody can edit. Nonsense is eventually purged. I would suggest:
1) ensure that you do want to spend time editing WP. If you are only here for 1-2 days, we are wasting our time.
2) ensure you will not be banned. Right now your past incivility leads you straight to being banned. You have used incivil expressions and right now you said you stand by them. WP policy dictates you should be banned. It is only a matter of time (hours) until you will be, unless you sincerely apologize. Noone but you can help yourself in this situation.
3) "Russian ideology" is a very vague, imprecise, and ultimately wrong expression. Do you mean "Soviet propaganda"? That's a totally different thing. If there is something you don't like, it does not mean automatically that that thing is incorrect. Assume good faith.
4) If you indeed find things that you consider untruthful in several articles, why don't you make a list of them here: User:Ghimpu Moldova 1/Sandbox. Ask for second (third, etc) opinion from other people. If the issues indeed stand, propose changes in the talk pages of respective articles. As a new user, if you are indeed a new user and not a recurring one, you should try to avoid making substantial content changes that change the sense of some articles. Correct obvious mistakes of non-content nature (like spelling). Work on some 1-2 articles that are currently stubs and develop them. After you gain more experience over the course of several weeks, only then consider editing other articles.
5) Finally, it is very important to get along with people around you, even if you disagree with them.
P.S. are you Ghimpu? Are you Moldova 1? if not, why did you choose such a name, is it something that characterizes you personally and sets you apart from other editors? Consider changing it. However, don't create several accounts, since that is called sockpuppetry and all of them would be banned (it is straightforward WP policy).
First of all, please don't worry about the "under construction" notice. I usually edit several pages simultaneously, so I am using this "underconstruction" trick to deter overzealous newpage patrollers eager to delete unfinished stubs while I am busy with something else. You are free to delete this tag and expand the article yourselves: my main goal was to bring attention to the subject, with minimal effort, since I am not an expert on the subject. So I am glad that immediately interested people exist, and I can move on to other missing topics.
As for your question "whether we really need two separate articles", which articles you are talking about? There are four in question: Sighet prison, Sighet Museum, Memorial of the Victims of Communism and International Centre for Studies into Communism (I've seen other translations of the title [17], please make redirects when the page will be ready). The referenced home page says "The Museum, which is often confused with the Memorial, is the creation of the Centre for Studies into Communism", so I think it is good to have separate articles for all of them. wikipedia is not paper. - Altenmann >t 22:51, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I have a different goal in wikipedia: while some people want to write good articles, or featured articles or simply amass huge numbers of edits by running AWB 24/7, my goal to bring completely missing pieces of info into wikipedia (with references, so that people have a starting point to read more). At the same time I understand your position and suggest to keep two articles: Sighet prison, which will be about the past, and Memorial of the Victims of Communism, about the present, since this is an umbrella for the remaining two. - Altenmann >t 23:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You confused Bonny enough to make him apologise - for the first time in many years! You probably deserve a medal just for that. --Illythr (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, he sure passes the duck test - an aggressive and rude Romanian nationalist focusing on Romania and Moldova (this kind of thing) who prefers wholesale reverts to talking, and when he does talk, then it's all these silly insults. Note that this is not necessarily the same person (he'd probably have to be totally nuts to do the same thing over and over for 3,5 years) - I noticed at least three distinct personalities in the past with this one probably being his masterpiece (managed to rally a group of sympathetic Romanian users to start an RFC against Dahn before our one-eyed expert (Khoikhoi) got him). The acknowledged Bonny experts are Khoikhoi (by far), Bogdangiusca and Future Perfect at Sunrise. However, they all seem indisposed at the moment. --Illythr (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Huh, how did you gather all that data on the guys? As for ArbComm - the scary thing is that something like this has almost happened on ruwiki a year ago. Well, except for the Jimbo Wales part, hehe. --Illythr (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Well...
I would urge you to re-read my post on Anonimu's page and revisit what I was objecting to there - that would spare us both the efforts of getting sidetracked into various other discussions. In short, no, I'm not and was not "boiling over" (even if the memory of the incident does irritate me somewhat), and am telling you as calmly as I can: if person x is presented with an option to specify his/her ethnicity and s/he answers one thing but means another, that person is an idiot. If you construct, as you did, a scenario in which thousands are presented with that choice, and thousands reply the same way, then thousands are idiots or, at best, insane. Occam's razor yadda-yadda, that is by definition unlikely, nay, absurd; so you either have to find another argument (as you did, apparently) or admit to that, per your own argument, idiocy is endemic in Moldova. As Socrates put it: "you yourself have argued it".
Please understand that this is an abstract point, and does not address other issues related to the census. I am only mentioning them below because you insist on discussing them, but I will note again that they do not address either of the points we discussed in our original confrontation, on Anonimu's talk page or, if I recall correctly, ever before. I could be persuaded that Voronin's authorities went out of their way in a trage spuza - although I think you and I know that "anecdotic evidence" such as how they supposedly posed the question don't make the cut here. I also know that this kind of evidence can only hope to persuade me personally, by appealing to what I would find likely, based inconclusive evidence - in other words, making me feel that you're right. Dc, for all that I know, you may be right - but, even if I were 100% convinced that you are, I would not participate in transforming this argument into reality. Because it's not reality: it's a theory, a biased theory, and I have the responsibility and intellectual honesty not to present a biased claim for a fact. The most that can and should be achieved here is a citation of reliable, non-partisan sources that question the Moldovan census results (not unionist blogorama, not personal deductions about what happened there or elsewhere) - citing them with what they say would get whatever is reasonable in the objection across, but please accept that, now and in the projected future, this is as much as is likely to ever happen. Until a change in the situation, the census stays the basic reality, and that's that. If the regime really changes and the census changes, and even in the unlikely situation that it is itself accused of falsifying statistical data, that theoretical newer census will become the new reality.
One more note: it's reasonable to assume that the Voronin census artificially enhanced the number of people who declared themselves Moldovan. It is however absurd to imply that the numbers of people who would have otherwise declared themselves/been recorded as Romanian is really that much higher than were recorded. I will also add that I find attempts at reconstructing an ethnographic situation beyond a present people's will as misguided and counterproductive, and ultimately as artificial as the "Moldovenization" process. I don't see how it comes into the discussion that the people are uneducated. If Moldovan is what they want to be, that's what they are, no matter how uneducated. Not only is the basic and majoritarian component of any national identity composed of the least educated (not just football hooligans, mind you - consider that the Bible of nationalisms is folklore, and folklore is by definition uneducated, in the neutral sense), but I don't see anybody who supports Romanian patriotism going out of his/her way to subtract the troglodyte mass from the total number of Romanians. But hey: all ethnic identity is a construct, and constructs change as people do.
One of the other things you did that irritated me was to tell Anonimu that I learned a lesson from the "Moldovans as idiots" example. Rest assured, I didn't: there was no lesson to learn. Contrary to what you may think, I'm neither annoyed nor made cautious by ad hominems, and find statements such as "my point was to show you etc." rather sanctimonious. What does annoy me is that these musings come slam-bang willy-nilly in the middle of conversations about abstract things, and make it impossible to keep that conversation tight and together. And I need to point out that your last post basically admits to have willingly misinterpreted my original statement for an ulterior purpose. As you have done me the honor of noting, I'm a decent person, and I think you'll agree that I have ever wronged any of my fellow editors, you included, on purpose. But you admit to have wronged me on purpose, and are unapologetic about this simple fact. I will not hold that against you (it's ultimately your business), but I felt the need to object when I happened to notice that you kept misrepresenting the matter.
Lastly: please, can we stop discussing my mood or my personality? While I have made friends editing wikipedia, I don't go on wikipedia so as to make friends. I don't feel I should be held responsible for stuff that's not explicitly asked from me by wikipedia itself, and, no matter what, I ultimately don't. Really. Also: I'm actually not that moody, and I think people who think I am or could be tend to project themselves into others. And I particularly don't like discussing perceptions of the mood I may have been in at a certain time, because these discussions can't possibly lead anywhere and they demand from one person to expose himself/herself to a sort of scrutiny that is not legitimate, not reciprocal, not especially mature, and not really what we're supposed to be doing here.
Now, may we move on? Dahn (talk) 00:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
A somewhat related point was raised by, of all people, Gheorghe Funar the other day: "[Funar] a spus că nu este vorba de Ţinutul Secuiesc, ci de 'Ţinutul Unguresc', în condiţiile în care 'la recensământul din 2002 s-au declarat secui doar 284 de persoane. Cum poţi face o ţară cu 284 de secui?', s-a întrebat Funar". Now, while we shouldn't take Funar's words at face value (something ro.wiki does), it does raise an interesting question. At Székely, we are content to assume that all who declared as Hungarian in Harghita, Covasna and Mureş counties are Székely, while all self-declared Hungarians outside those counties are not Székely. While this may be true in the majority of cases, it's not absolute, given that plenty of internal migration has occurred in Romania for decades. (One real-life example is Csaba Sógor, born in Arad and presumably not a Székely, but resident in Harghita County since 1988, and thus counted as a Székely by us.) - BiruitorulTalk 22:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Funar's observation is as intelligent as saying that an Flanders is not be land of the Flemish people, but a land of the Dutch, or, even better, than autonomous Quebec is a land of the French. I think the only people who ever argued that the the Székely are anything more than a somewhat distinct regional subgroup of the Hungarians are some Romanian drones that the Securitate left behind. And the 284 people are either the supposed margin of error Dc would have us believe exists in the Moldovan case; or the category I have called "idiots" in the same analogy; or the creative "problem solving" of some biased Romanian census takers; or, at most, the exact number of people who internalized that Székely =/= Hungarians. Sógor's problem is interesting, but it's more on the level of Craiova's Titu Maiorescu being Transylvanian or Creangă's strong Transylvanian roots, and a practical illustrations of the limits in any such ethnic and/or regional definitions. I also could point out that it gets even trickier with Vasile Luca. Incidentally: it used to be that the Székely were slightly distinct because they were majority Catholic and "from that area" (in those vague post-medieval terms), whereas the others were majority and rampantly Protestant even when ruled upon by a cardinal. The real distinction was mostly political, and (I was reading somewhere about this a long time ago) this could have perhaps turned into a form of Székely nationalism under any other circumstances, but didn't. It's what happened with the Croats, for instance, but here it stopped at the same level as Greek-Catholic Romanians. And we're left to make "sense" of it all :). Dahn (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
While I ponder my reply to your earlier post (sorry for that delay - I keep getting tangled in more urgent stuff), lemme say: sorry, I had no idea. Note, it was not a reproach, not did I mean to sound didactic; the thing is that it's one of three greens used on the map (why three? întreabă-mă să te-ntreb), and distinguishing somehow was probably needed for the regular reader. The problem I'm still facing is that there is an even darker green in there, so I don't really know if I've got it sorted.
So you actually see more blue than I do? And then, if I were to pour some yellow over it, it's all one hue? I never know that. I just heard of guys who couldn't tell blue apart from another blue that everyone else could see, and, I think, they had trouble distinguishing some blues from grays. (And don't worry, I'm not reaching for my torch and pitchfork. Not just yet.) Dahn (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Look at this. The Lipovans are in teal. I think "light" and "dark" green are good descriptors for the Ukrainians and Hungarians. But we need an alt text! "A commanding look of beauty with deep-set eyes..." - BiruitorulTalk 18:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
"Teal" - there you go, that's where the blue comes into play! (Do you two gentlemen share this condition, or do I have one in a class of its own?)
Believe me, I'd just love the alt text for that one: "Hungarians are in green, Ukrainians are in green, Lipovans are in teal, all of which colors could be familiar to you if you went blind after the age of three, and none of which are relevant if you can't see, but we don't want you to feel excluded. We figured the best way for you not too feel excluded is for us to list all the details that you'll be missing. Oh, the Lipovans are a small and not especially commanding dot to the right, inside a zone that is not of the same color etc. etc." Dahn (talk) 01:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I get back to you, say, tomorrow. I was really scrapped for time these past days, and, on the top of it, had connection problems - I'm running behind with a few tasks and I promised myself I'd attend to at least some of them before I look over your proposals and answer you queries. I know I must have really worn out your patience, so please excuse me this one extravagance. Dahn (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks, Roger Daviestalk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Nicholas U. Mayall
Hello,
I'm requesting peer review on astronomer Nicholas U. Mayall in the hopes of making it a Good Article. Please provide your feedback. Thanks.
Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators, Roger Daviestalk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee recently passed a motion to open a case to investigate allegations surrounding a private Eastern European mailing list. The contents of the motion can be viewed here.
You have been named as one of the parties to this case at the request of the Arbitration Committee, here. Please take note of the explanations given in italics at the top of that section; if you have any further questions about the list of parties, please feel free to contact me on my talk page.
The Committee has explicitly requested that evidence be presented within one week of the case opening; ie. by September 25. Evidence can be presented on the evidence subpage of the case; please ensure that you follow the Committee instructions regarding the responsible and appropriate submission of evidence, as set out in the motion linked previously, should you choose to present evidence.
Please further note that, due to the exceptional nature of this case (insofar as it centers on the alleged contents of a private mailing list), the Committee has decided that the normal workshop format will not be used. The notice near the top of the cases' workshop page provides a detailed explanation of how it will be used in this case.
For the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 06:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You happen to be the second member, and I just wanted to say, welcome. Irbisgreif (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Donduşeni
Personally, I prefer Donduşeni, Donduşeni, so I think we should move the article. If you'll give me a little time, I'll create articles for every commune in Donduşeni raion, and then we can work from there. - BiruitorulTalk 03:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for all the attention you've been giving to geography. I think it works well this way: I start the articles with the right titles, and you expand with precious data. With Cantemir district now complete, 17 raions are done, 15 left. - BiruitorulTalk 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree the ro.wiki lists are not fully accurate, but they're rather convenient, and it's better to have articles on 98% of communes and go over our mistakes later than to have articles on 2% of communes, which is what we had at the beginning of the summer. At least that's my opinion. - BiruitorulTalk 22:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this the one the end of controversy? In Brussels on September 29, Filat became the first Moldovan leader in a decade to publicly announce abroad that his language is "Romanian." --Disraelly (talk) 11:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Not yet - wait till they change the Constitution. So far, it's just his personal statement. --Illythr (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's a change in the tide. Until now, the government said the Constitution is correct, and the Declaration of Independence and the State Language Law isn't. Now they would say the Declaration of Independence and the State Language Law are correct, and the Constitution isn't. Price you pay for being run by people without minimal mathematical education, or those that read too much dialectic Marxism (=questions and answers that explain how to say A one time, non-A the other time, and get mixed up in one's brain to the extent that one doesn't observe how ridiculous one is). Welcome to Nostalgieland. But, Illythr is right, don't rush. Dc76\talk 15:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
*shrugs* Politics is like that since the dawn of time. I'm sure they'll amend it within a few months, unless they go for reconciliation with the Communists, which seems rather unlikely right now. --Illythr (talk) 18:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
That's why we should follow linguists not by politicians in the matters pertaining to languages. But hey... next time you have a pain instead of asking a doctor try to get medical advise from a politician :D man with one red shoe 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
To amend the Constitution a parliamentary majority of two thirds is required. So it's not going to happen anytime soon. 89.41.95.14 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I thought just a majority vote was needed. Politicians - so, seen anyone of Frederick I's caliber in the Moldovan parliament lately? Reconciliation - with the largest party in the parliament. No reconciliation of some sort - no working parliament. --Illythr (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
No, not like him, unfortunately. Gheorghe Ghimpu was, but his brother is a total disaster. "Reconciliation - with the largest party in the parliament." Is there such a party or just the impression of it? (mirroring Lenin's "est' takaya partya") Well, 53 MPs can pretty much do anything except voting the President and changing the Constitution. Hence my question about 8 (respectively 15) Communists that might be quite ready to jump the boat. The best score that Communists ever had was 50.5% Now 51.5% were clearly anti-Communist, a whole 15%-16% difference from April's results. If you were in Moldova, you did feel the paradigm shift: haven't you met many people that in April voted for Communists and in July for one of the 4 liberal parties because they were shocked to see what Communists were capable of (Stalinism). It is payback for traditional Communist assumption that Moldovans are idiots and can be manipulated into anything. Too much hatred towards the people that supported on their backs the government abuse since 1940 would have counter-reaction. They should have known it was coming to them. You cannot perpetuate hatred to everything Moldovan and Romanian without having eventually to deal with the consequences. Fear of consequences could drive 15 Communists in the other boat? Maybe, maybe not. What do you think? Dc76\talk 23:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Err, Stalinism? Hatred to everything Moldovan? Traditional Communist assumption? Whoa. o_O
The difference between the two elections was made by Lupu's Democratic party, which has taken a large chunk of PCRM's electorate. An interesting turnabout, that seems to have been genuine, after all. --Illythr (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
You forget the people. Didn't you see them every day? Didn't you see how their talk changed so drastically over the course of several months? Lupu only was wise to capitalize on that. But he wouldn't have had success without the mood of the country changed.
"Hatred to everything Moldovan?" Yes, half the Russophones look at you as fascist when you tell them you speak Romanian, and reply only in Russian. If that is not irredentism, then what it is? And how do they call Moldovans when among themselves? "Byki". Is that not hatred? Politically impregnated hatred over years. (The other half, on the other hand, already speak quite well Romanian and generally are reliable and civilized people. A few Moldovans are mankurts, as well.) Don't you remember how in April Vorinin and Co started again on the discourse of nationalism and ethnic tension, how they threatened there will be ethnic problems? They wanted muddy ethnic waters, but there is some justice in the world, and they lost. The whole thing turned against them.
"Stalinism": When was there political violence? During Stalin's time. I don't remember political violence during Hrustchev and Brezhnev's times. (At any rate it was hidden from public view.) In November 1989 Voronin was afraid to send troops against the people. He fought later it was coward of him that he didn't, but the present has shown what would have happened if he did - it would have been worse for him. Why do people have to die to have political change, why don't some can just accept defeat and move on? The answer is straightforward: Stalinism. Or Che Gevarism, if you want.
Communism was traditionally anti-nationalities. National self-identification was regarded as one of the key things to overcome. They wanted national self-identification to become a thing of the past. Also, communists see nationalism in every country that opposes their ideology. Very easy strategy: just call nationalist everyone who dislikes your ideology. I believe already the Wikipedia articles dealing with this ideology describe this to some extent. In a normal society, every one is proud of his ethnic group, and everyone is eager to learn more about the neighbor's culture. Only totalitarian regimes vue this as a zero- (or negative-) sum game. Culture has been at the forefront of humanity, not ideology. In the atmosphere of culture you have people who contribute to technological advancement, not in an ideological one. Remember how the communists opposed genetics, relativity, quantum mechanics? (By the way, Nazis also opposed them.) Dc76\talk 01:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. I will move it to my talk page. We can continue there. Dc76\talk 01:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
nation, people, ethnicity, citizenship
please read the article Nation: "A nation is a body of people who share a real or imagined common history, culture, language or ethnic origin" more definitions, legal and dictionary definitions "Nation - A distinct group or race of people that share history, traditions and culture."
Romanians are a nation, Hungarians are a nation, Germans are a nation. hungarians and germans living in Romania are citizens of Romania, romanians and germans living in Hungary are citizens of Hungary. romanians and hungarians living in Germany are citizens of Germany. Romanians and Hungarians and Germans are also Ethnic groups when they leave in other countries. they are also people.
Romanians have their own culture, traditions, history, origin
Hungarians have their own culture traditions history origin
Germans have their etc etc
Jews have their etc
Hutzuls have their etc
Hutzuls, Jews, Germans, Szeklers etc. do not have a common origin, culture, history, etc. with the Romanians, thus they are not same nation. Criztu (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this what I think it is? :-) An independent question: what is the name of Norica Nicolai's niece? I have been told many times in real life (by a very intelligent individual) that I get some things (for example the meaning of some jokes or the meaning of some social events) slower... :-) Dc76\talk 06:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's an interesting set of categories: States and territories by year of establishment. Is is being used for counties, so we should apply it to Romania too. But it's somewhat complicated. Every current county except for a few in Muntenia has existed since 1968, but of course many of them were actually founded long before (also the Counties of Moldova, and even some of the raions date to 1940; Orhei County would be in Category:States and territories established in the 15th century, right?). Additionally, what about Transylvania? If you look here and here, you'll see that many of the county borders were preserved, with only the names translated. But then I note that Kolozs County already has Category:States and territories established in the 15th century and Category:1920 disestablishments (itself a controversial date, given this), so maybe we should consider the Romanian Cluj County a distinct entity, established in 1925. (In 1919, Consiliul Dirigent divided Transylvania into 23 counties, but Cluj was not one of them.) The Communist Romanian regions should be much easier, since no one heard of those before 1950 or after 1968. A complex topic, and one to think more about (along with writing better histories of these counties, eventually). - BiruitorulTalk 23:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Update: until we determine what to do about the earlier founding dates, this seems a neat solution: an entity can have two or more dates of establishment. So for now, I think every county except Giurgiu, Călăraşi and possibly Ilfov can have the Category:States and territories established in 1968. - BiruitorulTalk 16:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Re:Names of Categories
Um, I took a look at Category:Centuries by country, and the format is indeed "Time in country" pretty much everywhere (random sample). So, scratch that comment :). While I maintain that those titles sound un-natural to me, I don't intend to put a massive 2000+ category structure in a CFR. Consistency is more important than "correctness". Not a big deal, anyway. No such user (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
As I've said before, as I have discussed on countless talk pages, the article is about the definition of Moldovans as an ethnic group, as controversial as that is (and I note that the version Anonimu reverted to does not say they were an ethnic group per se). I cannot for the love of me be expected to discuss the same things over and over again. Now, the amphibology there attempted to validate the absurd claim that "Moldovans" (sic, the English word in an English context) refers to a regional identity) - which, aside from being a sophistic construct in terms of logic, would also be an ignoratio elenchi. What's more, wikipedia does not and should not generally have separate articles on purely regional identities (i.e. adjectives such as New Englander). The only reason that the version reverted to by Anonimu (and validated by transparent consensus) had been replaced before is the persistent POV-pushing and even obtuseness of some Romanian editors. Not only did this push a fringe interpretation (one could say, an interpretation concocted by wikipedia users) to the forefront of the article, based on absolutely no sources stating this clearly, but it carried the ridiculous risk of validating the idiotic Moldovenist bluff according to which all inhabitants of Romanian Moldavia are oppressed Moldovans. This was one of the articles were the back-and-forth had made me seasick and led me to take a break from even viewing it, but I'm glad someone (be it Anonimu) sorted the Gordian knot. Dahn (talk) 15:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Chill, dude. For the record, I did not say I wasn't moody (we all are), but that I'm not as moody as you seem to to imagine. Not that it begins to matter here: I have no axes to grind, I simply snooped around or looked over on my watchlist and came/came back to those issues. As for not talking about it, please follow all of my argument. I told you that: a) I have been discussing this on talk pages, a long time ago (incidentally, these arguments were never reviewed by those who pushed back the amphibology, who did not talk about it, who silently pushed back that version, and who claimed consensus when all others had lost patience to follow up on that - after that stage is where your own edits came in, as far as I recall); b) on principle, with or without that history, I can't possibly be expected to end up debating every nook and cranny of an article (I could do much "worse"; for example, I could, to use an expression Biruitorul uses, "torch" such articles to the bare minimum, since all things beyond that are dubious); c) while I have said I can't be expected to discuss the same things for ever, note that I have still explained myself in the post above; d) I don't think there's something in my rationale which you actually find questionable, and I suppose that you were reverting Anonimu's version because, well, it was Anonimu's - that is unfair and not constructive. Dahn (talk) 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
a) If you reall mean those things, how do you imagine I could possibly answer them? Now let me note the baselessness of your core idea: you begin by saying that I should edit an entire article, top to bottom (because that's what you say you do), and then tell me that I should expect no informal guarantee that I'm not doing it for nothing. And that's just part of the problem: Dc, you know full well I(as everyone does by now) that I edit painstakingly and massively, and that I take my time doing it; I can't however edit everything with the same investment of time and energy - and, yes, I will focus the bulk on my energy on subjects that interest me. Now, I could start looking into what the sources have to say on a subject such as Moldovans, which is not outside the scope of my interest (though it is to the margin of my interest); I could go into carefully studying sources that I have never or rarely read before, and which deal with this subject; I could take it da capo, remove the infuriatingly speculative and misleading info that populates the article and replaced it with neutral and responsible content (not to mention stuff that complies with the basic requirements of WP:MOS). Just how much do you think it would take me? And, given that my few edits on that article were repeatedly and silently reverted by the users who added the speculation I mentioned, why would I bother with this instead of at least performing necessary surgery by removing a clear case of original research in the lead of the article. Again, the key word here is responsibility: you and I have a responsibility to the readers not to present them with propaganda within content that is supposed to be stable and encyclopedic. I understand that, you understand that, Anonimu understands that, all of us but a few obtuse Romanian users seem to understand that. So what sensibility is at stake here?
b) Really? Because it seems that the one edit where I removed one claim is what sparked this debate.
c) Yet the moment I edited one thing in an article you asked me to explain myself.
d) The rationale I mentioned was the rationale on the basis of which I edited the article. Dahn (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Then I assure you I'll do my best to revisit the article(s) in question once I have more time to go through the exercises I mentioned. Dahn (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Lucian Croitoru
Hi. I have looked at the disputed lead paragraph for Lucian Croitoru and I think the problem might be that you and Anti-Nationalist are both making valid points. You are right that his precise version is too focussed on current events, which should be covered in the main text, but I think that some mention ought to be made of the controversial circumstances of the nomination. I might suggest something along the lines of:
I would contest that this is both neutral, concise and summarises the key information, which is covered in more depth later on. I shall post this on the article's talk page. What do you think? I hope that this is in some way helpful. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I have now posted on the article's talk page. I have altered my suggested lead a little and clarified my thoughts, but it is broadly the same. Let me know if I can be of any further help. Rje (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Good luck to all of you working on the article. I don't think you're that far apart really. It's easy to lose perspective on these issues - in three or four days Croitoru will either be Prime Minister or he won't and this whole debate will be history. Kind of why I like the idea of trimming out all the current events stuff from the lead. Let me know if I can help in the future. Rje (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Aurescu and Funeriu I can see; the others don't seem that notable, but maybe. (And anyway, I usually need some sort of CV before I can start a biography - and I see Mediafax has posted those.) I also think that, if his cabinet is voted down, we don't need the list of proposed members (it looks rather jarring, and probably goes into an excess level of detail), but again, I'm taking a hands-off approach until the vote happens. Also, hasn't Lucian Blaga been dead for 48 years?
Meanwhile: the other election. As for Croitoru, he's either making an empty boast or his arithmetic has failed him (something not unprecedented, though Joe Clark was no economist) (or he knows something we don't) when he says his government will pass through Parliament, given that parties representing 61% of the vote have declared they will oppose him. - BiruitorulTalk 17:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I'am sorry, but see for the polish article: Bitwa pod Koźminem. The army of Stephen be composed of 18 thousand moldavian, and 10 thousand ottoman, tatar wallachian soldier. Doncseczznánje 05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I accord reluctantly my e-mail, but i don't think, thath was not contest to Wallachian and Ottoman contingent, as Stephen was the vassal of ottoman sultan, and the campaign of John Albert together war againts the Ottomans. And to top it all the Polish army on the large side, while the Moldavian is small. Into the battle Vaslui Stephen also was have to szekler, polish and hungarian enhancements. Doncseczznánje 12:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Needless to say, unreferenced pl.wiki articles do not constitute reliable sources. You'll need to do better, Doncsecz, and familiarize yourself with policies you appear not to have read in your 882-day Wikipedia career. - BiruitorulTalk 15:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Bánát
Salut Dc76,
Unfortunately, the reason why you got reverted the recent changes of an Ip editor is still very unclear for me. Would you try to make flame on the moot article's talk page to scatter the dark clouds of my mind's obscure?--Nmate (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
What is your problem with this [18]?--Nmate (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
"At the dissolution of Austria-Hungary, the delegates of the Romanian and German communities voted for union with Romania, the delegates of the Serbian community voted for union with Serbia, while the Hungarian minority remained loyal to the government in Budapest."
Who were those Germans? Because Transylvania is big enough. It is O.K. that Transylvanian Saxons have supported the union with Romania. But did Danube Swabians also represent themselves in the German community when this voting was being held?--Nmate (talk) 10:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
O.K. I no longer see problem with the artile's current version.--Nmate (talk) 15:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
If am still editing Wikipedia around November-December, I'll make sure to work on that article. Thanks for the request, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Meh, I think the "era" sounds kinda pompous. The cat should probably be just "Moldovan SSR", (Northern Bukovina and Budjak articles could be assigned to an "Ukrainian SSR" cat). --Illythr (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but both Georgian era and Edwardian era are both 1) established terms and 2) have same-named primary articles about them. The corresponding primary articles in our case are Moldavian SSR and Ukrainian SSR. Hmm. On the other discussion - of course, you can respond whenever you want, I'm not waiting or anything. --Illythr (talk) 01:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Ukrainian SSR - for the regions that became part of Ukraine, obviously. I see you have a large discussion regarding the cats with Dahn, so I guess I'll leave you to it. My belief is that regional history categories should refer to the relevant region/state as much as possible and to abstract notions like "Communism" or "Soviet" as little as possible. But since I'm too lazy to cuddle with the cats, I think I'll just stand over there and watch you work. :-P
Points - oh, no, those would be the new ones regarding the stuff a few sections above. I'm just sorta too lazy to write them for now. --Illythr (talk) 02:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me answer your points one by one (the non-speculative ones):
Dc, the categories you cite are flawed analogies. For the "Georgian era", Illythr makes good sense - it refers to a specific and singular concept. For the "occupations" - not that the category is questionable (though it's subcats are, because they duplicate content), but the simple fact that it exists is no guarantee of anything; what's more, your precious subcat is not about the occupation, but about some mysterious "Soviet era" (dare I assume it's because you esnted to reflect your notion that the occupation ended in 1991? again, we don't structure categories around POVs, but avoid POVing as much as possible). For the "Maritime history of Romania", I don't even think you know what you meant - not only is it replicated by an entire category tree, but it clearly refers to articles with a common subject.
After WW2, Bukovina and Bessrabia were only linked (not symbolically, but factually) by the fact that they were both in the Soviet Union - the category you created advertises Romania irredenta after 1945, follows its history throughout the Soviet era; it follows a Romanian historiographic POV, which may be justified in theory, but is not how we categorize. In contrast to that, "Moldavian SSR" is not POV, because the entity undeniably existed - the category formed around it would not favor any POV. You revert back to a logic we discussed elsewhere, and again imply that a number of articles straddling a divide is equivalent to a "need" for separate categorizing; Dc, not only is that rationale paralogical, but we already have (thanks to you) separate category trees. You have an article on, say, resistance in both the MSSR and Bukovina. Per the precedents, per logic itself: include it in the MSSR subcat, in the History of Bukovina cat, and in something to do with the history of Soviet Ukraine (if it does or doesn't exist). Incidentally, by creating a cat for "Soviet era" and then one for the MSSR, you effectively duplicated your own system...
Dc, avoiding yet again the claims you make about how others "gang up" on you (seriously, it's getting old), the idea is that us, all of us users who will ever deal with the subjects or even have to sift through them, will have to deal with a confusing category tree. That's what I meant. And this, frankly, is a problem, and is a practical problem for the entire project. Dahn (talk) 14:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, where to start, my good man? For one, we're going into this again where you divide my every sentence and comment separately on every word, sometimes without preserving the point I was making. It's already too detailed and wrapped up in all sorts of arguments, so you'll excuse if I don't go answering to every single assertion; but it may turn out I already did and you went past it.
1) I did not call your words "speculative" (?!), I called your theory "speculative" - as in "a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)". The only two ways in which I could see that being taken personally are: that you expect me to applaud your every judgment call, regardless of what factual problems I see with them; that you have read the word through its Romanian meaning (as in a face speculă). Again, take your time to actually read what I say, and please stop reacting to my words like we're supposed to be sharing the last can of tuna out in the wilderness.
2) the "Georgian era" is indeed like the "Phanariote era" (though, please, please consider that we already have Category:Phanariotes, and that there was a Phanariote era not just in Romania), but that means that it groups together articles related by a cultural and social, rather than political, phenomenon. Using the poetic "Soviet era" to describe what can and has already been condensed into and around hard political facts, which have a hard political reality reflected in the category tree (it's not "Soviet era" anything in there, other than your category, but it's all structured around the political entity/entities), is favoring the imprecise where the precise exists. And this, again, is just one of the objections I and Illythr have raised to it (objections which are likely to be raised by others).
3) The portion of the category tree, as questionable as it is, does not address that fact, but generally the topical phenomenons of 1940 (again, the ambiguity you seem to endorse about the occupation lasting down to 1991 is not a fact, but an interpretation - it may be solid, just as it may not, but it is not the universal cold fact). The name of the category refers to anything between (at least) 1940 and 1991, which is, as I mention, already dealt with by the other categories. If you wanted it for that, it's duplicate. If you wanted it for something more topical, it's confusing. In both cases, it is redundant.
4) Not creating that category would in no way divide the subject, since the subject area is not defined by the category. Not every subject or subject area can have its own category, and there's, again, nothing preventing the articles from popping up in several categories. For the "in particular the state got a different name", I refer you to the "United Principalities" issue above, mutatis mutandis.
5) I find it hard to believe that you really didn't get my comment about what is mysterious and why, as I find it unlikely that you would read the reply in its context and then produce that interpretation. It's not the "Soviet era" that is mysterious, Dc, it's the name of the category in relation to others, as related to our regular users and the most clear-cut form of categorizing. If you really want an explanation about what is mysterious about that, the answer to that was provided by none other than you: the ultimately non-essential and nitpicking distinction between the Moldavian SSR in 1940/1945-1989 and the constitutional regime in 1989-1991, as well as any other such detail. Again: not every nuance needs its own category. And let me add that you would claim it's anomalous for us to have the same category for the Moldavian SSR and the two years at the end of it, but don't have a problem with creating a common category for Bessarabia and Bukovina after neither was officially known under that name, and when the two regions no longer shared the same political reality (in fact, it appears to be the only such category designed for both regions together...). And, let me add, this while you agree (and I don't dispute that) to transporting modern designations into the distant past (forget Romania, but how about Transnistria in the 14th century?). The categorizing is not supposed to be perfect, it's supposed to be rational and useful.
6) Dc, I don't speculate about your intention for creating the category, as you do about my intention for contesting it. Your speech about my supposedly faulty comparisons again builds on just a couple of words I have uttered, again misreads/misinterprets them, and again flows past the point. Here's the deal: after 1940, there was nothing substantial uniting Bessarabia and Bukovina with one another. Nothing beyond the symbolism of some concepts, and that symbolism belongs to a side of the dispute - the unionist side, however right or wrong it may be. I mean, sure, they had a political reality in common, but they also shared it with Armenia and Yakutia - nothing to pick them out as a pair other than that symbolism. That is what I meant by them being only united by the fact that they are "Romanian irredenta" (honi soit qui mal y pense, for better or worse); otherwise, it's like creating Category:Armenia and Birobidzhan in the Soviet era or Category:Ireland and Botswana in the British era. That subcat you created, in addition to its many other problems, wittingly or unwittingly favors a POV, and is random by wikipedia standards. And since it overlaps significantly (80%? 90%?) with at least one other category, whatever other articles you have been planning, the result is, in fact, duplication. You dig?
"Va urez sa nu patiti asa ceva, dar Dumnezeu e martor, la fel de bine astfel de lucruri se pot intoarce impotriva oricui. Daca D-ra incercati sa le ignorati, este alegerea D-ra. Eu insa va spun, ca nu voi avea ipocrizia sa le ignor daca se vor intampla altora." First of all, please drop the polite pronoun, it makes me feel strange after so much time (unless you're doing it as a statement of renewed coldness, in which case I regret but respect that choice). Secondly, I'm sorry you see things that way: my interest is in improving content and preventing mistakes (including things done on the spur of it). I don't "gang up" with anybody, I don't view anything in this as a personal crusade (my only request and expectation from you is that you improve your editing style at some point, including in creating cats, precisely so that we can avoid these tiresome and divisive debates, which I assure you could be avoided). Dahn (talk) 23:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Doncseczznánje 05:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)