Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Ah, the Romanian village! The ox-cart; the stooped peasant woman in her headscarf; the cripple by the side of the old brick wall, straw jutting out of his mouth; the fast-growing cornstalks; the spires of the little church that ministers to the pure, simple faith of the country folk; the dirt roads; the pretty girls bearing water in pails... All a glorious vision - rural Romania, the golden, beating heart of the land, her breadbasket, her source of milk and meats, her very soul. But: even I, the strongest partisan of the countryside, know that there is a limit - namely, that not every village deserves its own article; indeed, most don't. If a village is eminently notable on its own, make the article - but I expect such instances to be exceedingly rare. Otherwise, don't go below the level of commune. No need to fill these redlinks. No need for articles like this one, which have about zero expansion potential and could perfectly well be folded into articles on the parent commune. No need for the village section in this template. I've outlined my vision; comments in dissent or in agreement are welcome. Biruitorul 02:34, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with Biruitorul, and I believe that this is the second time this issue is brought up here. What is currently happening is unruly and only serves to create of ridiculously small articles on ridiculously small topics, which, if expanded, would only be repeat or fork what belongs in the articles on communes.
Allow me to note another important thing: villages are informal subdivisions of communes, and have been so for decades. This effectively means that the the articles are equivalent to ones on quarters of a city... only these quarters are currently inhabited by merely hundreds and, in some unfortunate cases, tens of people, making their review according to WP:NOT feasible and desirable. In addition: aside from nobody being able to prove that both a village article and a commune article can reach FA-status without repeating each other, it seems that editors have a limited willingness to relate with their potential readers. I suggest those who think I'm wrong to picture that they need to find a particular information on a small area of Cambodia or Angola; would they want to have several small articles to look through, all of them assuming that the readers already know how one article relates to the other, or do they want a single, reasonably long coherent article that answers to most questions in one place? Because you can make a coherent article on a locality of 1,000 people if you don't decide to make ones about each of its individual hundreds...
As far as I can see, the only justification behind village articles is that "it's how they do it on rowiki". My fellow wikipedians: rowiki is mostly an example of how not to do things. Dahn 00:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
They are not informal, they are official subdivisions of communes, they have clear borders, but they don't have their own administration. But I agree that we should not start separate articles for them, unless we have enough material to write a reasonable-length article.
Tens of inhabitants? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of villages, most of them in isolated places, which are completely uninhabited. bogdan 12:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
An encyclopedia should provide information on various topics some readers may be interested in. Assuming that for some reason you run across the name of a village in a novel or otherwise and you want to know where it is, you try to find an atlas, a dictionary or some other source which can enlighten you. And that is why the solution of providing some information about that locality can be useful for the persons interested. This has nothing to do with the number of people requiring the information. Maybe I am not interested in some strange musical orchestra, or in some far-away football club or some other topic. However this does not entitle me to state that such articles should be removed. Sorry, presenting short articles, which in time may be extended, on various subjects is what an encyclopedia should do. Even if Mr. Dahn is not interested in romanian villages - he is entitled not to be - rowiki is definitely an example of HOW TO DO THINGS. And this example should be followed by other wikipedias. And if Biruitorul is not interested in ARghişu or some other village, maybe he should consider visiting these villages. He will be able to find out that they are do not have only ox carts and headscarves. What is required is more respect for these people who are living in these localities in which there are many things which are worth taking notice of. Why don't you change the topic and ask why any small bug may be included in the wikipedia, just because some scientist has assigned it a latin name. Dear friends, try to be more considerate for people even if you do not like their country. Afil 02:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Afil, I believe that the issue as it was brought up is about notability, not about who is "interested" in what. Creating separate articles on villages and communes is content forking. Additionally, the issue of "reading about villages in books" is inconsistent: redirects and disambiguation pages can quickly point to the communes, where the readers will find information on each and all village. The point as was evidenced by me, Biruitorul and Bogdan is not that the villages being small means they do not deserve to be mentioned, but that mentioning them separately creates tiny articles that cannot account for their independent existence. Dahn 06:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The "general-purpose" notability criterion of paper encyclopedia is due to paper limitations. There are no such limitations on wikipedia. OTOH, the force of wikipedia as I see it today is that it contains information that is notable for few people (often 2 or 3).
Personally, I don't consider the subject worthy of my effort and attention (like Biru and Bogdan, and Dahn). But other people care about it, and I don't see why we should block them. Biru, Bogdan, Dahn: you need not control or Romania-related articles. Let interested people write their own articles about aspects of this country you don't care about.
Oh, BTW: If you care about notability and fine-grained articles, I suggest you start by deleting all the articles on obscure songs 30 years old. They are all here, but I hope you don't delete them, because I really browse them from time to time. Dpotop 05:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Dptop, I don't know what you're answering to: I find none of the supposed "arguments" present in any post on this page. The issue, again, is not about "deleting" information, but about merging it into their obvious forks, where anyone could expand all they want. It is like merging non-singles and more obscure songs into their albums - mainly because having eternal and virtually identical stubs floating about is not a goal of wikipedia (and you'll find this is what is usually done).
As for the issue of me wanting to "control" wikipedia, I'll just ignore it as the straw man that it is. Dahn 06:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand very well your argument about keeping things simple. I would probably have done what Biruitorul proposed. BUT: these articles exist, they bother nobody (except, it seems, you), and there is no technical problem with them. Why do you spend time on it? (you=you, Biru, Bogdan). Dpotop 13:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but they do pose technical problems: aside from breaking with the guidelines, they create a problem of where to link from other articles, and, normally, nothing links from them (making them isolated and redundant except for the equally redundant templates). Dahn 13:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
When you judge articles "by importance" you only go on the path to an extreme position towards what you perceive as important/not important. On the Romanian Wikipedia there are already a couple of hundreds of articles about villages that are fairly large. The rest being mostly empty, is just a sign of other things that affect both the Romanian WIkipedia and other aspects of the romanian society, which I won't go into here. Maybe some fail to take into consideration the fact that libraries in Romania are full of monographies for most, or maybe all Romanian villages. As an example, the historian Ioan Hategan is now coordinating a project in Timisoara, to raise the awareness and better make public the 600+ monographic studies existing in libraries across the Banat, on the almost 300+ villages in the Timis county. Is there something to say about each village, may it now be almost uninhabited? Of course it is. By definition, each human settlement has something to say on its onw, and quite a lot, more than enough to have an article on its own. You need time to complete that task, it's not easy, with more than 12.000 villages in Romania. You guys, as Romanians, should better ask yourselves why is it that any similar project is highly praised in other instances, while, in your views, the same standard cannot be applied to settlements in Romania? And some other thing: go visit some romanian library once in a while, they are filled with works on romanian villages, ethnographic studies, etc. It's not a matter of communes and villages. The subject "village" is more important than the subject "commune". When writing about a commune you merely write about the village that is head of the commune (and whose name is the same). And you have to treat it as a distinct subject, otherwise you just go into a big mess. Good luck with your endeavors across the globe.--Radufan 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am fully aware of the possibilities of the subject, but I see no reason why one cannot add the relevant info on the villages to the articles on communes. With the system in place, one of the two articles is bound to be a stub (how much can one say about a commune that is not about its villages? how much can one say about a village that cannot be, as Biru put it, folded in the article on the commune?). All the info you cite as "possible" (and the possibility is still wishful thinking!) can be a section of the commune article, and its title can be a redirect. And where was it implied that the article on the commune would be about the leading village?
To summarize: all info made available on all villages in any commune can easily be introduced to the article on the respective commune. There is no issue of discrimination, so please don't turn into one. I for one would jump at the chance to find more sources about each tiny relevant detail, but not all tiny relevant details should make articles of their own. And, may I add, a "big mess" is what we have now, not what we would have otherwise. Dahn 17:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
First, you keep implying there's not much to say about villages, which is wrong, because there is enough to say, and that can pe proven if you just look at articles already written or go into a library and find sources. Second, this project of ours, which, unlike the english wikipedia, was done by just a handful of people, is the first ever online database of all settlements in Romania. That itself makes it a true success. 3. There is no Wikipedia rule which can block anyone from writting a separate article for a village in Romania or from anywhere, either on this Wikipedia or on the romanian one. And this only, makes this discussion futile. --Radufan 17:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
1. I keep implying that there isn't as much to say about villages as there is to say about their respective communes, and that saying much about both would actually be saying the same thing. This is what I mean by the word "redundant". 2. So? How does that address the issue of having all relevant info in one place? 3. Actually, the supposed lack of a ruling on this is exactly what validates this discussion, as an attempt to build consensus. As long as the proposal is to merge the info, not to delete it, I fail to see what you're about. In my opinion, the WP:NOT references to this project not being an indiscriminate collection of information may easily be brought up, and the notion that "one can write an article, therefore that article should exist" is untenable. Dahn 18:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Gentlemen, you are confusing the matter and talking about two different things. Villages are settlements. Communes are administrative units. Even if the center of a commune is a certain village which gives the name to the entire commune this does not make them the same entity. It is only the name which is the same. You can have the same name for a hill, mountain, river, commune and village. Wikipedia accepts disambiguizations.
Especially in Romania, the situation is not stable. Villages are declares centers of communes or are merged due to political preferences of the people in power. Take for instance the village of Veneţia. For a long time it was a commune. In 1946 there were protest movements against the rigging of elections. The center of the commune was moved to another village. There are many other stories on why communes are defined as they are today in Romania.
The information should not be the same in the articles for the communes and for the villages. The part regarding the administration is what should be dealt with in the articles of the communes. The specifics of each village should be presented in the article for the village. Just as you can have separate articles for mountains, rivers and villages having the same name, you could therefore have a separate article for the commune and for the village having the same name. Simply because they are, as said, different entities.
Dear Mr. Dahn, the problem of an encyclopedia is not about articles which can be written. Is is about users, and providing a service to users. We all have to understand that there are different users who try to find information in the encyclopedia. Taking into account the huge number of users, you will find that for any article, there are many users who are not interested in the article and just a few who have some interest in the topic. The art is to present the information in such a way that every user find the information. In this particular case, some users may be interested in the settlements, some in the administrative units. Give each of them what they need. Don't try to impose your view on all the users. Give people some breathing space. Accept diversity of approaches. We are not all the same, we do not have the same interests, we do not share the same ideas and that is what is great about the world. Afil 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Afil, you have not presented any point that would make it necessary to have separate articles for communes and villages. Furthermore, your approach presumes that the more impractical of the two options is "more useful" for the reader - this despite the fact that you have not addressed the issue of redundancy. On the other hand, please don't accuse me of imposing my views, because: the issue is up for discussion and the debate is transparent (for all the ludicrous allegations you made on other pages); there are at least two users who support "my version"; as we stand, a group of users have imposed their view on the matter, which is why we are having this here conversation.
You definition of what "should go" into articles on communes only enhances the problem, since, as I have said, you are effectively encouraging at least one article to remain a stub (since you are telling us that a commune article cannot list anything other than basic administrative info). In my version, as you will hopefully do me the service of noting, no article will remain a stub.
I would also like to point out that the issue of past administrative divisions and the way in which they grouped villages is a non sequitur. I think it is clear that we should prioritize present-day administrative units: not only is this the best criterion in addressing the reader's needs, but all info on past situations can be clarified in the actual article. If content is merged and redirects are created, I really don't see what the problem is.
The "give each of them what they need" argument is a manifest misinterpretation of wiki guidelines: we are not here to create alternative articles that would serve potential needs of potential readers, but to generate coherent content (centralize details, and not create new articles under any conceivable title because "we can"). See WP:NOT#GUIDE and Wikipedia:Content forking. Dahn 22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please let's proceed in a dispassionate manner and pay attention to policy, not emotion. This is not about who is the best Romanian, this is not an Oedipal rebellion against, and it is not a pretext for unleashing various character attacks. Rather, it should be a dry policy discussion. I repeat: "X is a village in Y commune, Z County, Romania" does not make for a good article. Indeed it's laughable. Now, I do concede that decent articles on villages exist: Alioş, Timiş is an example, as is Carani (which incidentally was created by me, but which I wouldn't object, indeed would encourage, being redirected to Sânandrei). I still don't get what the issue is: why not redirect to the parent commune? If there is a larger article to be written, we could theoretically countenance keeping the village separate. But as long as they're in the X-Y-Z form (as most are destined to remain), why clutter the project when redirects to commune articles will do the job nicely? Biruitorul 05:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

If you keep the redirects, then it's technically OK for me. Thus, searches can be conducted correctly, and links can be properly made (even on the commune page). And when someone wants to expand the article, he/she/it just has to remove the redirect and place content there. Dpotop 07:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
BUT: who is going to merge all these articles? Dpotop 07:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Btw: this is what is bound to happen to most village articles in the present state (notice that I played no part in this). Dahn 13:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Should I understand that you care so much about that article that you are going to merge it into its commune, or maybe work on it? Great. Dpotop 14:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Once it is clear that this is the way to go, I'm going to do my best to merge all such articles I come across, and I'll do the same for many other existing articles. It'll not be the first tedious job I'd be doing here, and I'm sure we all know there are other users who have spent a lot of time sorting out these issues, and to whom all credit is due. Dahn 14:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Biruitorul gave good examples of Alioş, Timiş and Carani villages which have good articles. Dahn gave an example of the village Tohanul Nou with a bad article. However, in future is posible that somebody will expand the stub about Tohanul Nou and it will become also a good article. This is how wikipedia works. As we are not a paper wikipedia which need to reduce its volume do to printing costs, content forking is not a big issue. Also, we should keep in mind that administrative limits of communes can change, former villages can receive status of commune. I support having separate articles on villages.--MariusM 20:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to point out the main problem. Let's say that we all agree that articles could be expanded etc. But in what way would such an expansion of an article on a village be independent from the article on the commune? In other words, could the two articles be read as significantly different texts, and still remain separate articles that do not parasite each other? The one solution proposed above was that articles on communes function as mere lists of villages, which is both contrary to guidelines and absurd on all other counts. I'll use the Alioş example as a relevant illustration: aside from the fact that the text is desperately undersourced and the text is astonishingly POVed, much of it is unencyclopedic trivia on virtually anonymous people. In the meantime, the article on its commune, Maşloc, is going nowhere. The simple proposal is to fit all info on all of Maşloc's villages into the article on Maşloc - there is no need for more than sections and redirects, and I saw nobody even trying to be convincing about why this should not be the case. Just how big do you expect these articles to be, and just what do you want to fill them with? In normal circumstances, an article on a commune would become a decent one (GA, FA) with info on all villages plus ultra; there is simply no chance that an article on a village would become a GA or an FA without scrapping the chances of that happening for the respective commune article.

Another supposed reason brought up above in defense of the "keep them separate" point was that villages may change commune with time. I'll leave aside the point that, at this moment, the possibility seems rather remote, and focus on one obvious question: so what? When confronted with such a change, one would have to operate them in articles pertaining to the respective commune and village. How is that different from operating changes in articles pertaining to two communes? Let's also add that there is a major possibility of Ilfov County disappearing in the future, as well as one that several localities nearby Bucharest will merge into single units (or even into Bucharest). This would not prevent anyone from the headache of moving info around and rephrasing it, and neither would any such change, no matter what the system adopted.

I will also insist on the status of villages, especially since, elsewhere, someone made the argument that "we have articles on villages in other countries". I'm afraid the latter notion is untenable: what we have is articles on the smallest self-administrating units of each country, which Romanian villages are not. A Romanian village is a the equivalent of a commune quarter, which makes it have unparalleled status and border on zero relevancy for this project as a whole.

I for one do not see any reason for any detail on any village to remain outside the commune article, now and forever. The only thing that this causes is immense problems in linking - in an article on a person, should we say that person was from a village, or from a commune? if various articles detail events relevant for communes, should we start looking at what happened in each village, and should we link as such? do the templates serve any purpose if they are not able to detail the links between villages and communes (thus leaving the reader clueless)?

Now, will anyone answer these questions (preferably, without getting emotional)? Dahn 01:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I presume the lack of answers means that it's acknowledged I'm right, in which case the next step is to call for outside opinions and propose turning the merger into a geographical convention on wiki. I can only repeat that what we have now is chaos. I'll leave more time for comments here, and then ask for third-party editors to provide their input. Dahn 19:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Silence doesn't necesarily mean agreement, just we don't want to repeat same arguments. My opinion remain that you overestimate the problem of content forking. Small villages can become important for a certain point of view. For example, the new Romanian Patriach was born in a village that (almost) nobody cared about previously. This can be a situation when people will search the Wikipedia article for the village. How is the situation for other countries in Wikipedia?--MariusM 14:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, I asked for answers to specific questions, not for agreement. The issue about the Romanian patriarch is a false dilemma: the man was born in a village, which is part of a commune (and was part of a commune at the time he was born). Indicating the commune in the article and creating redirects from the villages to the respective communes, which is what is being proposed, means that anyone would be able to find info on that village in two or three clicks (the "three clicks" option is reserved for villages of the same name, when one would have to go through disambiguation first, and this only if he or she starts his or her search by typing the village name - which is somewhat unlikely).
As indicated, the other countries have articles on the smallest administrative units and nothing below that line (except landmarks - and there's nothing preventing you gentlemen from creating articles on notable landmarks). I know of a few articles on frazioni, but you will note that even these have an administrative structure of their own. Dahn 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Only one comment to the "red links" problem: I created an article about a very small Hungarian village in Austria, Siget in der Wart. It is not an independent administrative unit and has a population of only 270 people. And there is enough material to write an article about it, even a better one that I wrote. I don't understand why some of you think that small Romanian villages are not interesting enough to do the same. Zello 13:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Sintetizez discuţiile pe acest subiect: Nu există actualmente nici o regulă care să interzică crearea unor articole separate pentru fiecare sat. Prin această discuţie s-a propus crearea unei astfel de reguli la satele româneşti, respectiv să existe doar articole despre comune, iar articolele satelor componente să fie redirecţionări către articolele comunelor.

Argumente în favoarea acestei reguli:

  • Articolele despre sate sînt doar cioturi, n-are nici un rost să facem asemenea articole.
  • Toate informaţiile din articolele despre sate pot fi concentrate în articolele despre comune.
  • Cei care caută informaţii mai lesne le vor găsi dacă aceste informaţii sînt concentrate pe unităţile administrative oficiale, care sînt comunele.
  • Prin existenţa articolelor separate pentru comune şi pentru sate, se realizează repetarea inutilă a unor informaţii (content forking).

Argumente împotriva acestei reguli:

  • Fiecare sat are caracteristicile sale aparte care pot diferi de ale altor sate din aceeaşi comună şi merită un articol independent.
  • Limitele comunelor s-au schimbat de-a lungul timpului şi se mai pot schimba în viitor, unitatea de locuire umană naturală este satul, comuna este doar o suprastructură administrativă schimbătoare.
  • Nu întotdeauna cel care caută un sat ştie comuna de care acesta aparţine.

Părerea proprie: cred că fiecare sat poate fi subiectul unei cărţi întregi, nu doar a unui articol la Wikipedia, cu condiţia să existe omul care să scrie despre acest subiect. De multe ori ne lipseşte la Wikipedia acest om, dar cu timpul poate va apărea. Deci aş înclina pentru păstrarea articolelor separate despre sate. Nu văd rostul introducerii unei reguli noi la Wikipedia, în special a unei reguli care să se refere doar la satele din România, nu şi la cele din alte ţări. Avem regula de notabilitate (pe care orice sat o îndeplineşte), nu avem nevoie de alte reguli.

Informaţii care se pot găsi în articolele despre sate şi care nu sînt content forking cu articolele despre comune:

  • Data înfiinţării satului sau data primei menţionări documentare
  • Populaţia şi structura ei pe grupe de vîrstă, sex, etnii, religii
  • Localizarea geografică în cadrul comunei
  • Instituţii care există în sat sau lipsa acestora (şcoală, dispensar medical, biserici)
  • Cum se ajunge în satul respectiv, starea drumurilor (nu e obligatoriu să ajungi în sat doar prin centrul de comună)
  • Turism, posibilităţi de cazare, locuri de vizitat
  • Istorie - dacă e ceva notabil legat de satul respectiv (nu generalităţi)

Articolele despre comune vor da datele pentru întreaga comună, iar în articolele despre sate avem amănuntele corespunzătoare. Putem avea şi content forking (de pildă personalităţile eventual născute într-un sat le menţionăm şi la comuna respectivă), dar mie asta nu mi se pare o tragedie prea mare.--MariusM 19:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Anti-Romanian massacres in north Transylvania, 1940-1944

User:Dahn and his Hungarian friends started this AfD for the article mentioned above. Certainly, the article is badly written, but the style can be improved. Dpotop 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out that it was I who started the AfD on this article, after Tagishsimon mentioned it on WP:EEUROPE, and I only informed those active there about it (I wanted to avoid canvassing and hoped to also avoid an endless but useless flamewar between Hungarian and Romanian users). KissL 08:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
To clarify further, and hopefully put an end to Dpotop's charade: the first message I left on User:K. Lastochka's talk page makes a reference to the article itself. It was the first-ever message I left there (I previously had an edit to revert Bonaparte), and the diff will show that it was posted at 10:45, on 27 August 2007. I cannot begin to tell if it was a result of this, but User:KIDB added two tags to the article, none of which was an AfD notice (20:42, 27 August 2007). I was not even aware of the unrelated discussion involving KissL on WP:EEUROPE; in any case, he placed the AfD tag at 15:29, on 28 August 2007 - more than one full day after my personal discussion with Lastochka. I myself voted there at 15:39, 28 August 2007. In the meantime, me and Lastochka had a conversation about various topics, with the article in question only coming up once. This, as you may see, took place at 01:18, 30 August 2007, which is two days and five hours after Lastochka's vote to delete the article in question (20:45, 28 August 2007). Dahn 09:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that we have an article on the Ethnic clashes of Târgu Mureş, I presume that deleting the aforementioned article is not justified, is it. Also, it seems that Dahn informed his friends about the AfD, but did not care to post a note here. Dpotop 07:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In a related article, take a look at how the war criminal Albert Wass is whitewashed. I mean, people try to present Antonescu as an angel, too, but in Romania it doesn't really work. Why should we accept it for anti-Romanian criminals? Dpotop 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I objected to the article for several reasons, one of which is that it is a content fork (of this, this, this and several other articles; I do believe this exact point was made by Biruitorul). 2. The article is an attack page, pure and simple. 3. Have the decency to look into your claims: I informed "my Hungarian friends" about the article, at a time when there was no AfD, as you will plainly see from comparing the dates in the links. I expect you to withdraw the latter claim pronto, and, on the AfD page, I will link to both this instance of canvassing your renewed personal attacks. Dahn 07:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I must agree with Dahn and I will also add that the title for the article is nonsensical. Anti-Romanian massacres sounds as if someone was against (anti) the massacres. The "Anti" has no place there. The subject, however, is worthy of cover and if it isn't already covered, then perhaps some of the material could be included into the "Anti-Romanian discrimination" article. Off-topic: Dahn, your userpage still looks like it's suffering from radiation. How about you change the colours to navy blue? Have you no sense of taste? --Thus Spake Anittas 07:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Anittas, I see that this is really bugging you, and therefore make the solemn promise that I will redesign my page to something that reflects my sense of taste. Which will, of course, mean that it is going to be the most beautiful userpage on wiki :). Dahn 07:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The colours should correspond with the colours of your "goodies" and most specifically, the butterfly. It's the same with clothes: you don't wear red shirt and yellow pants. I will await your changes. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks much better now. :) --Thus Spake Anittas 11:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Many Romanian monasteries were added recently to the list in this article. It seems to me that Romania is now overrepresented with so many examples, and the reader can't find out which ones are really significant which are only locally important. I suggest to remove the surplus examples and only keep the four most important ones. There is a List of religious buildings in Romania article which should be expanded or - even better - split into a monasteries and a cathedrals list. Serbs did the same with their List of Serb Orthodox monasteries. What dou you think? Somebody with more knowledge in the topic should take a look. Zello 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably beyond Neamţ can be deleted. I agree a separate monasteries page, or using the existing List of religious buildings in Romania, would be a good idea. Cathedrals are given here but I suppose could be duplicated there. Biruitorul 03:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I created a List of Romanian Orthodox monasteries article with moving and cutting the religious buildings list. Zello 13:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi, I would like to ask the Romanian users to pay attention to the contributions of new user, User: Ardeal. He began deleting bilingual names in Transylvanian localities breaking the compromise reached on Odorheiu Secuiesc talk page by many Romanian and Hungarian users. He also changes the bilingual infoboxes to make Hungarian names as small and non-visible as possible. Although I can live with the later I think he should at least start a discussion before implementing such a change. My personal opinion is that it's a mean and pathetic gesture. Zello 01:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's probabaly Bonaparte. --Thus Spake Anittas 05:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Possible. But the various edits are not bad, for the most part. Dpotop 13:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Marghita were Romanians and Hungarian live in appr. equal numbers the bilingual lead was deleted again (in the other case I was mistaken with numbers). Is this right? Ardeal also declared that he wont recognize our former compromise on his talk page. What do you think about his new infobox version? Zello 23:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think "revert", and request for comment for editing against consensus. But then again, i think why bother with socks? So I think you should go with checkuser. Dahn 23:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Userbox proposal

What do you all think of this box? I think Romanians here are generally quite good about avoiding nationalist POV-pushing/edit-warring (the main culprits seemingly being two large Slavic nations to the north and east), but it can't hurt, can it? Anyway, it's still in development, so feel free to improve, and put it on your userpages if you like the idea.

Peace dove.png This user seeks to promote peace and harmony among Central and Eastern European Wikipedians. Map East Europe.svg

Biruitorul 04:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I had just planned to add it to my own page (because, yes, I am your devout stalker). But I was wondering: it seems that the box means to say that you/we promote understanding between the Central and eastern Europeans as to separate groups (and I suppose it is not limited to the two sets, but also addresses relations withing the two sets); also, the map is nice, but ends somewhere where the box does not. Dahn 04:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad you got that off your chest -- I too have some people I shadow, as you may have noticed. Yes, there are bugs with the box. I thought of putting just "Eastern European" but the concept of Central Europe has gained ground in recent years. This map might be better in the area it covers except it's just a little outdated. Well, I'm sure these issues will be ironed out within a couple of days by our technical and grammatical wizards, and it will probably spread to the Albanians and the East Germans by Wednesday. Biruitorul 06:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Vasile Luca

There is a dispute concerning the names of certain communist activists who acted in Romania during part of their career. I started a Request for comment here, please state your opinion. Icar 09:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Liceul Jean Monnet

I'd like to make an article on "Liceul Jean Monnet", but I don't really know what I should call this article. Here are some variants I thought of:

  • Liceul Jean Monnet
  • "Jean Monnet" School (Bucharest, Romania)
  • "Jean Monnet" High School (Bucharest, Romania)
  • "Jean Monnet" Lycaeum (Bucharest, Romania)

Are there naming conventions for this sort of thing? I took a look at Lycée Louis le Grand and tend to follow the example. Dpotop 10:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

A while ago, we decided that the quotation marks used in Romanian look silly in English, so Jean Monnet High School (Bucharest) seems best to me, with appropriate redirects. Also, I see no need for "Bucharest, Romania", as Bucharest is well-known enough not to need further clarification. Biruitorul 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

New source

I have found this report on the alleged CIA prisons of Romania [1]. A bit vague, but stamped by the parlimentary assembly of the Council of Europe. A regarder aussi, la notice en bas de la premiere page. Dpotop 14:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, KIDB, for the pertinent remark. Dpotop 13:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Here and here are the reactions of Wolfgang Kreissl-Doerfler, Franco Frattini, and others to Dick Marty's allegations. Based on such reactions, I say let's reserve judgment for now. In the meantime, one thing is clear: ever since the September 11, 2001 attacks, Romania has played an important role in the War on Terrorism. This will attract criticism from some sources, of course—but that comes with the territory. Keep in mind the old proverb: cîinii latră, caravana trece (the dogs bark, but the caravan rolls on). Turgidson 12:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


For those interested, there is a new on-line Romanian-Hungarian dictionary here. --KIDB 06:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, it really works, and is able to infer missing diacritics. I bookmarked it. Dpotop 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom takes a weird decision on Transnistria

So, there's Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria, and the proposed decision, with voting and all Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria/Proposed_decision and I believe it's not right, but I don't know what I can do. The idea is that they are inflicting equal punishments to:

  1. The guys that have been proven guilty of astroturfing, media manipulation, and extensive sockpuppeteering, and
  2. The Romanian editors that fought them. Of course they got blocked from time to time for it, but that's all, and after all, normal when you think that they managed to uncover those manipulators.

What bothered me more is that this outcome may have been due to MariusM and EvilAlex (the Romanian guys) having little support from the Romanian side, while the pro-Transnistrians... Take a look here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Transnistria. You have Alex Bakharev, Irpen, etc. Guys that function normally when facing normal opposition, but which I have seen favouring one side. Guess which one. So: What can we do at this stage? I tried to leave a note on the arbitration page. Dpotop 07:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deletion

There is a proposal to delete Anti-Romanian discrimination article. Your opinions are welcomed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Romanian discrimination. --R O A M A T A A | msg  13:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


This is to inform you that one of the users has removed certain articles from the Transylvania category to other, mostly recently created categries. The removed pages include Székely Land, or Decree of Turda but other articles, like Tara Motilor, or Union of Transylvania with Romania were not moved. I wonder if you agree with these changes. (I placed a similar note on the Hu notice board) --KIDB 06:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you be more specific, and give at least one example? Or maybe the username? Dpotop 07:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
The examples are above, but here are some links for you:
From the (Removed links because the content of the category chenged since --KIDB 16:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)) Transylvania Category Székely Land was removed to the Geography of Transylvania Subcategory, Dacia to the History_of_Transylvania Subcategory while Tara Motilor and Bursenland remained in the main category.
The Revolt of Horea, Cloşca and Crişan in the main category, while Siculicidium moved to the History subcat.
I do not understand the system behind these changes. Also, according to Wikipedia policies, categories should be used so that readers can easily find articles they are not aware of. If we hide some of the articles in subcategories, this aim is not reached. --KIDB 08:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no oppinion, for now, but the change in Szekely Land was done by User:PANONIAN here [2]. Dpotop 11:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Now Panonian has moved other Transylvanian pages too, not only those of Hungarian relevance. It is up to the Romanian users now if they like the new category system, I don't want to interfere.--KIDB 12:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
KIDB, as far as i can see, he is being rational and consistent, moving everything in the category to "History of Transylvania", which is a subcat of Transylvania (I am not so sure about the "Geography" category, but what the hey). It is generally a good practice to subcategorize a large category, and this seems like a good subset to have. I also think that, given the precedents, "Kingdom of Hungary" is a good subset for "History of Hungary". I don't have time to check whether these categories are indeed streamlined, but I'm sure Panonian has an eye for detail. Dahn 12:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I also noted the split of "Transylvania" into "History of Transylvania" and "Geography of Transylvania". Sounds logical to me. I've followed suit in a couple of places, though I've been a bit reluctant to do more while this discussion is ongoing. The migration to the new (sub)cats is well underway, though not yet complete. Should we proceed to completion, or wait for more comments and possible alternatives? Turgidson 14:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


Anyone interested in updating Portal:Moldova and Noticeboard of the wikipedians from or interested in Moldova is more than welcome to join. If you can help by screening through all WP articles, and add those (even remotely) related to Moldova Noticeboard of the wikipedians from or interested in Moldova#New articles, that would be a major help.:Dc76 18:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't like some of the stuff on that portal. People may start to believe that only Moldova can claim Stephen the Great and for being the successor to the principality of Moldavia. That portal doesn't have to be in a Dahn-style, so it wouldn't hurt to make the Romanian link to the country a bit more obvious. How about mentioning that the Moldovans belong to the Romanian branch? Use CIA and Encyclopedia Britannica as sources, if you-know-who starts making trouble. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Addentum: the Moldovan noticeboard was created by Node. Enough said on that one. The Moldovan portal was created by a Russian who admits that Moldovan (the language) is Romanian, but who is against a reunion with Romania. Honestly, I got nothing against the guy, and yet... --Thus Spake Anittas 19:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, please come and help, you are more than welcome! Noone will mind you helping! How about adding in the portal a link to the Romanian language, maybe even the begining of a whole article or at least a "did you know"? There can be tons of such ideas, please come and help. I do not agree that putting Stephen the Great there is suggesting Moldova is being the only successor. But if you want to mention that more explicitely somewhere, again I see no problem with it if you come help fixing it.
I have no idea who's node, and that noticeboard was not bad because of who created it, but because it was defunct! I tried to enlarge its scope now: "Wikipedians from or interested in Moldova". Any Englishman, American, German or Russian interested in Moldova is welcome. Obviously any Romanian is also welcome. The reason is I'd like to organize in categories the articles related to Moldova (something that unfortunately is still missing) - while this noticeboard has a much larger scope - people would simply ignore if I'd only place a notice here. E.g. I don't know how many localities of Moldova have articles, and if I don't find where to search for that, I can imagine the average newbe.
You are talking either about Zserghei or Serhio, but for the last 8 months I have not met anyone of them, so it appears they don't care about it. Anyway, if they are interested - they are welcome too. As for the union, frankly speaking I don't think it will depend very much of what several users decide here, so let's be more pragmatic and focus on what we can do on WP, which btw I don't think would hinder it, but rather help through information. Dahn is also welcome, although I'm sure he'll be busy every day he'll see you around, and vice versa :-) :Dc76 20:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2007 Cannes Film Festival

See Cristian Mungiu and 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days. Maybe you can help out, as they are likely to attract some attention AdamSmithee 21:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is fantastic news!! I think Romanian cinema and art is finally starting to take off. Ronline 07:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I saw it. Mungiu is Moldavian from Iasi. :) Moldavians--the true Romanians. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Traian Basescu

Obviously, the edit of this article would be controversial, but can we, please, decide which version is to stay during the discussion process? see here :Dc76 19:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions (again)

There is a move amongst the Hungarians toward writing an official guideline on naming conventions in Transylvania based on the compromise reached at Odorheiu Secuiesc/Székelyudvarhely. Discussion is ongoing on the Hungarian noticeboard; your input, opinions and assistance would be greatly appreciated. K. Lásztocska 17:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If this is about more localities in Romania, please put your proposal here. --Roamataa 17:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, it's about writing a general set of official rules for naming conventions in Transylvania, like I said. There are about eleventy jillion gigabytes of argument/discussion about this and related issues on the Hungarian noticeboard, I'm not going to bother copy-pasting the whole mess here. K. Lásztocska 17:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nothing to copy-paste. If you want to propose something about naming conventions in Transylvania=Romania please state your proposal here. --Roamataa 18:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No need to. Both the proposal as was presented and the fact that the discussion is one click away make would make a discussion here redundant and counter-productive. Dahn 18:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Multumesc, Dahn. ;-) K. Lásztocska 18:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
So where should i click? Anonimu 18:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You see that long line of links to the right of this screen? It says "Hungarian" there somewhere (you follow the alphabet, and it gets you there - currently, it is between "Greek" and "Icelandic"). If this gives you problems for whatever reasons, you try clicking here. I think this qualifies as one click away. Dahn 18:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
You mean the english alphabet? Hey, thanks... you're a real friend.Anonimu 18:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It's the least I can do for science. Dahn 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Aahhh... If you could also explain to Anonimu why English is written as English and not english in English, and that I is I and not i, that would be a giant leap for mankind.  :) Turgidson 22:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Transylvania update

I hope I don't get blasted for canvassing, but there's a vote now underway to move Odorheiu Secuiesc to its Hungarian name. Your input would be appreciated. Biruitorul 21:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Applying the naming conventions to Transylvanian settlemens

I realised that the naming of Transylvanian settlements where Hungarians are in majority, doesn't follow the naming conventions. According to the conventions, "In absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used" the current local name is Hungarian in these towns and villages and the language is locally official, because more than 20% of the inhabitants are Hungarians. I suggested on the Hungarian Wikipedians' notice board and, as a test, on the Odorheiu Secuiesc/Székelyudvarhely page that these articles are renamed according to the conventions, as it happened in the case of South Tyrol settlements. Looking forward to reading your comments on these pages. --KIDB 20:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a contentious issue to me, to say the least. To get the ball rolling, how about we start with an obvious Google search: 2,070,000 hits for "Odorheiu Secuiesc", 673,000 hits for "Székelyudvarhely". Hmmmm.... — Turgidson 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Be careful with Google. If you rely only on this, I will go and at once move the Csíkmadaras, Nyárádszentimre, Ditró, Nyárádszereda articles because there are more Google hits for them in Hungarian. --KIDB 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Of course I don't just rely on Google — I just wanted to say something quick before everyone else jumped in (surely, with better arguments)! But even on this narrow issue of Google hits, I feel pretty confident that, with a careful analysis of data, one will find more hits for the Romanian name than for the name in any other language for almost any locality in Romania (a rather obvious statement, yes?) By the way, any serious analysis would have to account for variations in spelling (and maybe even declension). Eg, "Odorheiul Secuiesc" gets an additional 69,600 hits, "Odorheiului Secuiesc" 591 hits, etc. Turgidson 21:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
South Tyrol is an autonomous region, Szekelyfold is not. In South Tyrol, German is an official language with equal rights with Italian, in Transylvania, Romanian is the only official language (see the Romanian Constitution). While in the Hungarian towns and villages, Hungarian is used for some purposes in administration (in addition to Romanian), it is not an official language. bogdan 21:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
You are right in a sense but Wikipedia is not governed by national legislations. The naming convention applies and the present practice is not in line with the convention. If you do not agree with the convention, you should suggest a chenge to it. Have a nice week-end --KIDB 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't say anything about a practice, but about the current local name. The current local name is covered by the local legislation, even if you like it or not. Daizus 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I had that discussion already in some pages; the current local name is the Romanian one, as it was pointed above. The 20% threshold simply allows multilingual signs, it doesn't provide an alternate official local name.
Moreover, routinely Transylvanian settlements are displayed in several languages also in other pages but their own article, because Hungarian (and seldom German) editors do not understand these settlements have only one official name. Their own article page should be the only place where more names are used, in all the other context it should be used the name according to NC: current name in current events, corresponding historical names (in the perspective of scholarship, not of primary sources, we won't have Castrum Clus for 13th century Cluj) in historical contexts. Daizus 21:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The 20% threshold does not only allow multilingual signs, but also amounts to an official recognition of the language in question. It includes rights such as education, justice, access to public administration, etc. For most purposes, Hungarian is equal to Romanian in areas where Hungarian language speakers make up more than 20% of the population. Ronline 01:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
The "official recognition" is a weasel word, as the Hungarian is not an official language. The rights you mention are balanced by obligations: e.g. while Hungarian can be used in local administration every official act must be written (also) in Romanian language (the reverse is not true). There are rights to allow them to use their maternal language, not rights to allow them to redefine the administrative and legislative environment they live in. They are not autonomous. The languages are not equal. Please provide excerpts from Romanian legislation to support your claims. Daizus 10:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
check it out. Daizus 10:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
It may be official recognition, but that doesn't make it an official language (which would perhaps justify a page move). Biruitorul 04:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

First, as has been pointed out, Romanian is the only official language in Romania, so the issue is moot. Second, you mentioned the 20% threshold - should we rename Satu Mare (58% Ro, 40% Hu)? Third, we have appropriate redirects and mention other names in-text, so there is no need for a move. Biruitorul 23:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I must say I full agree with Biruitorul here, and with some other points raised against above. We would and shoul be having this discussion were the towns in question to acquire or be part of a region that would acquire a degree of devolution somewhat similar to South Tyrol. Dahn 23:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe KIDB's interpretation is not correct. Settlements in Romania have an English name - the official name in the Romanian language is used also in English sources. Let me cite from the convention: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name..." And: "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name." This discussion is unnecessary because it was (hopefully) caused just by misunderstanding. Tankred 01:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I would have expected more respect for an important native minority culture in your country. May I repeat: according to the Wiki Naming Conventions, the current local name should be used. The current local name in these settlements is Hungarian, as it has been for the last 800-900 years. If there are more than one names for a place and it is hard to decide which is the better (eg. in the case of Székelyudvarhely cca. 3% of the inhabitants call the place Odorheiu Secuiesc :-) ) the naming convention gives the example of South Tyrol, where the issue was decided using data on local language useage.
To those who explained why minorities in Romania have less rights than Germans in South Tyrol, I suggest to describe it in detail in the Romania and in the Hungarian minority in Romania articles.
I wait for another couple of days for possible comments.--KIDB 15:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
To draw up my own summary: the rule cited clearly says, per Tankred, "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local official name", so all measures proposed by KIDB are not applied for their extent and purpose. I take offense with the implication that, as a person who replied above, I do not have "enough respect" for this and that culture. Not only because it means to be inflammatory, but because it is an old straw man - every time such an issue is discussed, Romanian contributors are depicted as un-European and primitive. To set the record straight: even if all of us or none of us were un-European and primitive, the issue is actually about what our state's authorities are and do, not about whether we like it or not; furthermore, depicting the state authorities as un-European and primitive based on a legislation that seems to work the very same way in France or Greece or Ireland is risque and rather annoying - don't let an interpretation of facts replace facts. As one of the persons who actually see nothing wrong in decentralizing Romania, I have to point out that I am aware my attitude might not the be paragon of solutions, and that, although I see it as one of the best solutions, it does not mean that those who oppose me are necessarily uncouth or not ready "for the 21st century".
When we get rid of this kind of static, we notice that the main purpose of wikipedia is not to generate facts, but to record them. Creating a utopia based on a very selective reading of norms is absurd.
One final note: despite what KIDB assumes, articles are not to be created on the basis of comparisons made by whatever editor between two situations. It would be utterly ridiculous to launch into a comparison between the Szekely Land and South Tyrol for the sake of seeing how Romania does not comply with what KIDB (or Dahn, or whomever) considers to be unfair (especially when places like South Tyrol are still the exception to the rule). Dahn 15:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Though it might look redundant, perhaps rephrasing works in making people get the idea: current local name is the official Romanian name. This ends the discussion. The respect for minorities translates in allowing them to express themselves in their own language and their own culture, not in renaming cities. Those cities are under Romanian administration which works with only one official language. What's so hard to understand? Do you believe the medieval documents calling Köln Colonia were showing disrespect to the majoritarian German population?
Slightly different story. I am not sure Latins :-) forced German intellectuals to use their language. --KIDB 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
The parallel with South Tyrol is a red herring as in South Tyrol several official languages are recognized, whereas in Romania there's only one official language. When the day will come for Romanian administration to work with several co-official languages or for some territories to become autonomous and proclaim a different official language, be my guest and rename all the Romanian cities in the Wikiepedia according to that reality. But it is not so, therefore you have no case.
And last but not least, I must concur with Dahn in pointing out the insinuating insults you're addressing to Romanian wikipedians, blackmailing them with that image of "primitive anti-multiculturalists". This certainly won't make your case, on contray, it will weaken it! Daizus 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I would agree with Dahn and Daizus here. I don't think it's particularly helpful that you're equivalising not renaming these articles with "disrespect for an important native minority culture". The vast majority of arguments here have not been personal opinions - I don't think anyone has presented a chauvinistic argument as to why the articles should remain under the Romanian name. No one has said "we're not moving them because this is Romania and we don't respect Hungarians". While I don't agree with Biruitorul's reading of the minority rights law, and I would support a further discussion regarding how we can better facilitate Hungarian names at Wikipedia, I don't believe anyone here has so far shown anti-Hungarian attitudes. You have cited the example of South Tyrol, but then there is also the example of, say, Breton towns in France or, why not, Russian-majority towns in Estonia. Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying any of those examples are good or that they should act as our model at hand, but rather that the South Tyrol model is just one of many. I am all for giving further rights to the Hungarian minority in Romania. I would be very happy when I see that Romanian government ministries publish their websites in Hungarian as well, when Hungarian MPs can make their oath in Hungarian, when we will see an elected Szekely government and a Szekely assembly. I think the Hungarian minority deserves all of that. But, I think you'll agree with me that even from an EU perspective, minority rights are pretty decent in Romania. Ronline 08:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if anybody feels offended, I was simply disappointed that most reactions were negative. I don't remember writing things like "un-European and primitive". And anything I wrote didn't apply to everybody, of course. I have not been a supporter of Hungarian autonomy in Romania because I thought we don't need this in EU countries and it is useless in a globalising economy. But the arguments of those who couldn't say more than "Romanian is the only official language in Romania" convinced me that autonomy is essential for the survival of the native Hungarian language and traditions in Transylvania. As for the naming convention issue - I am still not convinced that Wikipedia should follow the legislation in Bucharest (except for certain copyright issues). Without Ceausescu's decisions there would be a Hungarian Autonomous Region now in Székely Land and we wouldn't have this discussion at all. Thank you for your patience, I won't bother you any more with this issue on this notice board. --KIDB 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But without the Communists, there would have been no Hungarian Autonomous Region, and we can go like this all the way to year 900 and even vefore to say "Oh, but without XXX...". Very un-historic in approach. Dpotop 07:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
This is a straw man. Hungarian language can be used. Hungarian culture can be expressed. They just doesn't provide official names i.e., in Wikipedia language, current local names. Daizus 20:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
I was merely quoting Article 13 of the Constitution: "In Romania, the official language is Romanian." I wasn't trying to create my own facts, just stating them as they are. Biruitorul 21:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Article suggestion

I suggest the creation of an article on Mihail Roller. From what I heard, the guy did a lot of stupid things, but somehow allowed Romanian historical science to survive. I was reminded of him by an article in today's Jurnalul National. Cheers. Dpotop 11:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's coming, eventually. Meanwhile, may I suggest we either make more use of the to-do list at the top of the page, or replace it with a new scheme that will get regular updates? Biruitorul 16:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot there exists one... :) I don't know if many editors read it. Dpotop 18:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and I thank you for attracting my attention to the very interesting JN piece. I don't think many read that, and I was simply pointing out a wider problem. But Roller definitely is on my agenda, and this article will help. Biruitorul 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Articel on Calin Popescu-Tariceanu

The article as it is now is in poor shape and could use some attention, including on NPOV and grammar. Given current developments, would be good if this were a more comprehensive and NPOV article. Have made some improvements, but a group effort would make for a better piece. MIsterMan 21:54, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Article on Leonard Orban...

was passed as a Good Article. --Michkalas 09:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Hristos a înviat din morţi
Cu moartea pe moarte călcând
Şi celor din mormânturi
Viaţă dăruindu-le. Biruitorul 06:10, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Adevarat a inviat. Dpotop 19:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Assuming the new cabinet gets confirmed and the Alliance dissolves, we should plan on updating the article on the Alliance (easy) and setting up a more permanent model for the cabinet article and articles on previous cabinets (more challenging). My proposal for the latter is this: for now, let's transfer the content of the current article to "First Popescu-Tăriceanu Cabinet" and, if it's approved by Parliament, include the incoming cabinet at Romanian Cabinet. I've been proposing more permanent solutions for months, but they haven't drawn much interest. Maybe now that the government is, in fact, changing, they will. Biruitorul 04:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, my belief was that it is best for the reader to have cabinet makeups attached to the articles on PMs, per how they did for French PMs. A lot of content forking was accomplished on pages relating to Romanian ministers/ministries (for example, I cannot see why Prime Minister of Romania should be a separate article from the list of PMs), and when I tried to do something about it, I got a rather rude and illogical response from another user, so I became a little jaded. Dahn 10:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Another possible solution, and I guess I'm being unorthodox here. is to simply not create separate articles on cabinets, but to create a series of templates that we attach to all members of cabinets: "first Popescu-Tăriceanu cabinet" etc. Incidentally, the Rompres site gives us enough data to at least map these out down to Sănătescu, and I have a source on the National Legionary cabinets (plus, having looked through info I patched up when contributing text in various articles, I say we could eventually come up with complete lists of interwar cabinets, and even pre-WWI ones). I'm not saying we should do it now, since it is a lot of work, but we could start something. Dahn 10:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the French model could work (though like I've said, I find the Australian model more aesthetically pleasing). Given the size of the undertaking, I think maybe we should adopt the French model now and move toward the Australian one as information becomes available. A few days ago I actually was looking at a book that had every minister and every Romanian government from Barbu Catargiu through maybe Radu Vasile listed (it was quite thick). If I get a hold of it again I'll try to transcribe some information from it. Biruitorul 17:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Awright, dude! Dahn 19:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Dahn and I have reached a tentative agreement on a way forward. The goal is to take this list and convert it into templates here, which will then be inserted in the appropriate articles. For now, put in full dates only if multiple cabinets held office in one year. Figuring out who belonged to what party is difficult, so maybe start with the older cabinets, when there were no real parties. If each of us does one a day, we'll be done quite soon. Biruitorul 16:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've transferred a number of those into templates, see Template:Ciorbea Cabinet, Template:Stolojan Cabinet, Template:Isărescu Cabinet, Template:Vasile Cabinet, Template:First Tăriceanu Cabinet and Template:Second Tăriceanu Cabinet. Ronline 09:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

"incident" or "massacre"?

A modest suggestion (stolen from Biruitorul) to re-open debate on Talk:Fântâna Albă incident--there is good reason to rename the article back to "Fântâna Albă massacre" (at least in my opinion), but serious discussion and consensus will be absolutely required before attempting anything so controversial. Come share your thoughts....K. Lásztocska 04:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC) (Hungarians can post here, right?) :)

Now that the title issue has been resolved (I hope), there is a storm brewing about sources. Romanian speakers are needed! [3] K. Lásztocska 13:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Border_history_of_Romania

You may be interested in this AfD on an article that needs some explaining, and maybe better maps. Dpotop 10:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

History of Cluj-Napoca

Anyone knows what happened to the article History of Cluj-Napoca? I saw the announcement last night on here, made a bit of an edit to it, and added a category to go with it, Category:History of Cluj-Napoca. But today the article is gone, with no explanation! This is a pity, and also quite strange -- never saw something like this happen before. Turgidson 13:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It was a copyright violation, copy-pasted from another website. Bonaparte has been doing this kind of thing for some time... bogdan 16:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation -- sorry, I had no idea. Unfortunately, this puts a damper on things: how does one know when to start editing an article? I invested some time in this (not much, but still), and I think there was one more editor who put some work into it. The subject matter was quite legitimate (I still think we need an article on the history of Cluj), and one cannot be expected to vet each and every article before starting editing it, can one? I'll be more careful in the future when to start working on an article -- I'm afraid this experience may have a chilling effect. Turgidson 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Isn't there some possibility you can revive the deleted version and sandbox it for further improvements? It could still be stored somewhere (sysops can delete a text forever, presumably they can also revive it). On the other hand, the cause for deletion seems rather solid. Dahn 17:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have a copy, but it's not a big deal, I can reconstitute the text I added (it had to do with the People's Tribunal in Cluj, just after WWII), if and when the article is revived on a solid basis. At least, the Category:History of Cluj-Napoca survived, and I'll take that as the silver lining to the story. Turgidson 17:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It was not a copyright violation. The text was that from the history paragraph in Cluj-Napoca article. The point was to create a main article about and to just summarize that part in Cluj-Napoca article. And in time to develop on a solid base the history of Cluj-Napoca article. It happened that I edited the Cluj-Napoca article, mainly on the economy and administration paragraph and someone deleted all my edits too without any explanation. And now I really have no wish to start over again. --Roamataa 18:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Look, I don't quite know what the procedures are in cases such as these, but I'd suggest for the future at least, to give some consideration to good-faith editors who worked on an article that (for some reason or other) is slated for the chopping block. Eg, a notice on the talk page that the article is to be deleted, with a short explanation why, plus perhaps a backup copy of changes made by said editor, would go a long way towards making such an experience less stressful. And, by the way, why then delete the article on the History of Cluj-Napoca (which had at least potential to be improved, plus already had some extra work put into it), but keep Population of Cluj-Napoca (added by the same person at more-or-less the same time), which article does not seem to have much of a redeeming value? Turgidson 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have not mentioned the Population of Cluj-Napoca - now it's deleted too. For History of Cluj-Napoca I started a deletion review here. --Roamataa 19:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok now. I have the article back on User:Roamataa/History of Cluj-Napoca. --Roamataa 19:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Now it's back again - History of Cluj-Napoca. Please feel free to edit it. --Roamataa 19:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Great! Thanks to everyone who contributed in solving this situation. Good to see that good will and cool heads work out in the end. Turgidson 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Applying the naming convention

Hello. I am sorry to spam this forum, I am trying to reach the most prolific editors of the articles related to Central Europe. As you have probably already realized, there is a naming convention regulating the use of geographic names in English Wikipedia. If you have not yet had chance to read it, you can find it at WP:NCGN. We all have already done a very good job in applying some parts of the convention, such as inclusion of all the relevant names either in the lead or in a separate “Names” section of the main article. However, the use of geographic names in the historical context is still very inconsistent and sometimes flagrantly violating the convention. That is why I would like to encourage everyone to familiarize with and to apply WP:NCGN. Here is the relevant part of the convention:

“The same name as in title should be used consistently throughout the article. Exceptions are allowed only if there is a widely accepted historic English name for a specific historical context.”

Let us take an example: There is an article about a town called Kremnica. Unless we are able to prove that a different name is widely accepted in the English-speaking world (this is the case of Constantinople and Istanbul, for instance), all articles in Wikipedia should use the word “Kremnica” while referring to that town.

WP:NCGN also lists evidence required to identify a “widely accepted English name”: especially consensus among main English-language encyclopedias published after 1993, Google Scholar and Google Books hits when searched over English language articles and books where the corresponding location is mentioned in relation to the period in question, and consensus among other standard histories and scientific studies (such as Cambridge Histories) written in English.

As to the rules of discussion, WP:NCGN states:

“If there is a dispute regarding the naming convention in the contents of the article, to prevent revert wars the name from the title of the relevant article should be used in all occurrences until a consensus is reached on the relevant talk page(s). If the dispute is affecting more than one article, it should be discussed on the talk page of the main article about the place in question”

I would like to start applying the aforementioned parts of the convention in the articles on my watchlist. I advertise the convention here to insure that my edits will not trigger revert wars caused by misunderstanding or ignorance of the convention. One of the aims of WP:NCGN is to reduce nationalist edit warring and I am confident we can achieve this goal if we all follow the actual convention.

Tankred 01:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Easter contributions

For those interested in religion and/or tradition, Easter may be a period for improving the quality of articles related to the Romanian Orthodox Church. Starting from a small source I found (and wanted to add) this morning I discovered that the articles describing the various metropolies of the Romanian Orthodox Church either don't exist, or are a mess. On, the articles exist, contain a lot of raw material, but are badly written.

Let's start by translating and correcting the articles related to the 6 metropolitanates and 10 archbishoprics, and maybe correct what's on This morning, I created Metropolis of Bessarabia. Note that writing the text migt be difficult: There are historical intricacies. It took me some time to decide how to write those few lines. Dpotop 08:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, I think the proper title of such an article is "Metropolitan bishopric of...". It is certainly not "Metropolis". Dahn 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
False. See here: [4] [5].
The use is explained here: Metropolis#Etymology_and_modern_usage.
BTW, even the Romanian Orthodox Metropolis of Western Europe uses the term. See here: [6] .Dpotop 07:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as you will see from the links you provided, the term was used in Latin for such a diocese. All the links you provided for "Metropolis" have one particularity - they are all for the Greek Orthodox Church. Searches for other branches of Orthodoxy give surprisingly scarce results (including for Romanian sites). The common terms are metropolitan see or metropolitan bishopric or, as you will see from the article on Metropolitan bishop and, say, here, metropolia. In every instance, wikipedia articles of this sort tend to be about the office, not about the institution, so an even better title would be "Metropolitan of...". Dahn 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW, how does one wikify an article? I once read that it's not good to do it by hand. But how do I enter the new associations in a bot? Dpotop 09:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard of a bot to wikify an article, and I think it is logically impossible for one to even exist. In fact, the MoS clearly asks contributors to wikify articles. Dahn 18:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Saying "logically impossible" means you don't have imagination and/or computers knowledge. One simple way to do wikifying with a bot is to post wikify requests in some list and some bot doing the job. Frankly, I have no idea. But you are uncivil and patronizing. Dpotop 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As concerns bots, I presume they are at least in charge of maintaining wikify links, because I was once asked (by an admin) not to delete them by hand. Dpotop 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
If you want to be constructive, explain how the thing is done, don't patronize me. Dpotop 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The thing is done when you do it. Just like using diacritics and adding categories, which I still don't see you using in articles. A bot doing such things would be, I repeat, impossible (or, if possible, prone to continuous errors and a waste of resources). As for explaining, I'm pretty sure that I have explained these things to you several times by now, and I'm pretty sure that, having spend as much time as you did on this project, you could have at least read the Manual of Style. Dahn 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis of Bessarabia and ro:Mitropolia Basarabiei

I'm advancing on these articles (mostly on the version, which has more information), but I'm having a technical problem:

  • I would like to ask for the deletion of Orthodox Church of Bessarabia and its equivalent, but I don't know how to do it. The idea is that no reference to such an organization exists outside Wikipedia (you can check using Google). The organization the articles refer to is the Metropolis of Bessarabia, for which an article already exists. Thus, the content of the former articles should be dumped in the second, according to the language.

I need help. Dpotop 13:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought. In case you are right about the move, why not just redirect the Orthodox Church of Bessarabia article (rather large) to the Metropolis of Bessarabia (puny stub), add the info that is not found in the latter to the former, and change nomenclature accordingly? On second thought: redirect both to Metropolitan of Bessarabia or Metropolia of Bessarabia or something. Because it seems to me that you spend a lot of time and energy on content forking. Dahn 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I did. The actual link was done by an anon editor, and the result is OK for me. Thanks for the suggestion, anyway. Dpotop 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Can you be more specific on your "Content forking" remark? I don't see myself doing it. Dpotop 15:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
As long as there were two articles with the same purpose and topic, the newer one was by definition a fork. I remember we discussed this over at least one similar move you made in the past - but I'm not saying that to rub salt on wounds, just to ask you not to do it in the future. Dahn 15:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hm. I simply started editing on a non-existent article title, and realized its content existed under a wrong name. Am I supposed to know the content of all to figure out that what I want is a move from a totally different name? Dpotop 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What you are actually supposed to do is, per what wikipedia specifically recommends, look before you leap. You are not to required to know "the content of all" (and I cannot see how you came to that conclusion in the first place), you are however required to look around in articles where the one you want to add is likely to be mentioned, or to take into consideration alternative names and run a search on wiki, before you start a fork that will potentially waste everyone's time. Dahn 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What I just said before is that I did look around. Dpotop 16:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
"I simply started editing on a non-existent article title, and realized its content existed under a wrong name." To me, this doesn't look at all like you looked around. Dahn 16:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
BTW: The article "Autonomous Orthodox Church of Bessarabia" does exists also on the french, finn, and some other wikipedias. So, the person(s) who put in the wrong info made a thorough job, which may mislead other editors. Dpotop 15:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No more contests for now, but...

Now that I’ve piloted a couple of ways to write articles, I think I’ve found a better solution. Why don’t we pick an article from, translate it (using the division into sections we used for Tâmpa), and when it’s done, pick a new one, and so on? The only question is who does the picking. If no one else is interested, I’ll do it. Otherwise, we can rotate among volunteers. Anyway, does the general idea appeal to you? There aren’t a ton of high-quality articles on, but there are some, and it's steadily improving.

Since I assume my proposal won't be hugely controversial, let's jump right in. My pick is ro:Julius Popper. He already has a short biography, so let's work at Julius Popper/Translation, and move that to the "Julius Popper" spot once it's done, presumably erasing the English text.

1. Images.
2. Introduction and early years.
3. Travels.
4. In Tierra del Fuego.
5. Expedition, up to "creşterea ovinelor".
6. Expedition, up to "focuri de armă".
7. Expedition, rest.
8. Money, up to "AU.864-AG 132".
9. Money, rest.
10. Postage stamps.
11. End of the expedition, up to "revocarea sa din funcţie".
12. End of the expedition, rest.
13. Traces.
14. Death, footnotes, links, categories.

Biruitorul 21:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanian general election, 1946

Hi. Just to let you know that I've nominated Romanian general election, 1946 for featured article status, at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Romanian general election, 1946. The article is excellent: well-referenced, detailed and well-structured. Ronline 07:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanian ministers

I'm not sure about this source's reliability, but can be used at least as a guide:[7] Daizus 15:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Speaking of which (but referring to an earlier time frame), in the article on C. A. Rosetti, it is mentioned that he served as temporary PM from July 15 to July 16, 1866. C. A. Rosetti is then listed in the Category:Prime Ministers of Romania, but not on the corresponding infobox. How to handle this, consistently? Turgidson 16:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi guys, I have a big complaint about our fellow editor User:Dahn.

  • He reverts all my changes by labeling them "vandalism".
  • He calls friends of his to revert articles where he is alone agains all the other editors like here.
  • He insists on calling Soviet agents (even NKVD generals who did not speak any Romanian) "Romanian activists". When the agents had double citizenship, he goes to edit wars to have "Romanian" written first. He would rather hide the true non-Romanian name of these people and their role in the Soviet occupation. He is also keen on whitewashing Radio Moskow's newswriters, by justifying somehow their fight (basically supporting their propaganda). He says "let the people have the name they chose for themselves" which is terribly ironic for foreign agents who were paid as coordinators of the occupation forces and who changed their name (at least for the Romanian public) as part of their job description. (Icar 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Please give your input. Thanks. (Icar 14:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

I reported him [8]. Please give your input. Thanks. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, User:HIZKIAH was banned by User:Khoikhoi, an admin known to side with User:Dahn. The reason they gave was that HIZKIAH was a sockpuppet of Bonaparte, but I cannot find any place where this is documented. Anyways, the complaint filed by User:HIZKIAH is no longer active [9] but I filed a new one [10] where I invite you for input. Icar 14:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Contest announcement, Round 2!

Greetings, fellow Romanians! I am pleased to announce round 1 of what will hopefully prove an enduring Hungarian-Romanian positive rivalry on Wikipedia. The rules of the contest are as follows:

1. Participants are to translate ro:Tâmpa into English (at Tâmpa, Braşov). You may add supplementary material.
2. Starting Saturday, March 17 at 08:00, Wikipedia time, you may nominate the resulting article for DYK. The team whose article gets DYKed first is the winner.
3. If the Romanians lose, all Romanians who significantly contributed to the article must write, for one week, atop their user pages: "This user supports the cession of Transylvania to Hungary". If the Hungarians lose, all Hungarians who significantly contributed to the article must write, for one week, atop their user pages: "Long live the Treaty of Trianon!" (In the event of a tie, both teams win.)

To simplify the process, let me divide the article into a few rough sections so people can sign up to do it:
√1. Images and image captions. Turgidson 04:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
√2. Introduction and species.
√3. Etymology. Biruitorul 01:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
4. History, to XVth century.
5. History, to 1849.
√6. History, to 1892.Dahn 09:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
√7. History, rest. Just the tunnel stories from there. Turgidson 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
√8. Stories. Turgidson 03:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
9. Bibliography, links, categories, template.

Go to it! Biruitorul 01:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I presume I'm out of this contest, because I would never, ever, write this on top of my page. Dpotop 07:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, but first, maybe we can win, and second - even though I disagree equally strongly with that statement - it's a joke, OK? No one will know you did it one week later. It won't take away from your status as a Romanian patriot. Biruitorul 12:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my point is that this subject (Transylvania belonging to Romania) is not negociable, and therefore it cannot be decided by a game. Moreover, making jokes may not be the best solution, yet, given the current political situation, which is still tensed (the tensions are not yet restricted to extremist minorities). Dpotop 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Of course, this position is only mine. (BTW: An acceptable prize would have been the choice of an article, and the exclusive editing rights for one week or so.) Dpotop 13:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're free to start your own contest. Also, as far as I know, neither of us is employed by the Romanian government, so we have zero power to "negotiate" anything. It's just a way to get an article written. Maybe a rather stupid way, but that's not the issue; the issue is getting the article written. Biruitorul 13:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Is "Coicoi" an insult ?

Recently User:Dpotop has been blocked for transliterating Khoikhoi into Coicoi in a post. The reason given for the block was: “coicoi (Romanian for testicles)”. It was User:Dahn who complained about that. Since this is a specific issue of Romanian language, I am asking my fellow native Romanians if they feel that transliterating Khoikhoi into Coicoi can be considered as an insult ? (For obvious reasons I am asking both parts involved User:Dpotop and User:Dahn to kindly abstain from input.) Thank you. --Vintilă Barbu 08:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have been offended, even if it was meant as an insult--which I don't think it was. There's nothing more we can do about this, except debate and cry. You guys need to understand that Wiki is ran by an Anglo-Saxon elite with an American and British culture. The Brits are now a very sensitive people—at least the politically correct elite, which are the one's running things around; while Americans...well, need I say more? I would suggest the contributors to stop cooperating with Dahn, if they think that would solve their problems; but of course it won't, because Dahn may try to involve himself in anything that he may find suitable. Also, most of the Ro admins—the same admins that we supported and trusted, either take his side or at best stay neutral. --Thus Spake Anittas 08:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Masquerading this as "a transliteration" is phantasmagoric. I personally complained about nothing, I just pointed it out at a time when Dpotop was lecturing me on what is and what is not against wiki etiquette. I'm sorry if this indeed makes you "debate and cry", and I'm sorry this discussion is spuriously dragged into "what the Brits are like/what Americans are like/what Romanians are like" territory. FYI, Anittas and Vintila Barbu, I have a right to get involved in anything I want over here, and I have a right not to be insulted with calls for isolation for not playing ball with the guys. The theory about how you're "disappointed" in Ro admins who will not take your side is in itself relevant, and it would be funny were its effects not so disruptive.

You have already had the verdict of two admins, both of whom consider the extended debate about Khoikhoi "badgering". I myself am getting tired of seeing posts aimed at specific users posted on this page and its talk: even if you have to theorize about what should be done to me or another contributor, I'm pretty sure you can do it on your own talk pages. Dahn 09:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just as you have the right to do what you do, we have the right (I believe) to discuss these issues in a place where all are gathered. And we are of the opinion that it is you who are being disruptive. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the point is about what those who enforce regulations may find disruptive, not about what you or I do. Dahn 10:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I am sad to hear that you have been "insulted with calls for isolation". I don’t think that there is any need for such calls. --Vintilă Barbu 16:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Then why spew them? Dahn 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for Dpotop and the others who support his cause, I'll have to agree with Dahn on this one. „Transliterating” Khoikhoi's name in that particular way was obviously intended to be at least funny, if not insulting. One can always try and find lawyerly excuses for Dpotop, but it won't fly. Whether his prank justifies a 48-hour block is debatable; I'd say the admin went too far. — AdiJapan  11:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it's well known how the Khoikhoi's nickname has been the source of jokes (e.g. all the anon edits here and here, especially this and this). Nevertheless, it was inappropriate to block without a prior warning and I can't help suspecting that this was the result of a behind the scenes arrangement.--Domitius 12:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I share your evaluation about how that block could materialise – through emailing. Following some of your edits on Romanian topics I might have misjudged you, but I am glad to see that you are independent in your judgement. Very happy about that, --Vintilă Barbu 16:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree undoubtedly that "Coicoi" is an insult. There would be no rational justification for writing the name like that, other than to insult the user. Since Romanian is written in the Latin alphabet, there is never a need for "transliteration" and Romanians generally tend to not "localise" names anyway. Childish jabs at people's names should not be tolerated on Wikipedia. And, not only is it a personal attack, but it is extremely disrespectful to these people. As to the block - the block should be lifted immediately because no explanation was given on the talk page, and no warning. Yes, it's a technicality, but if you're going to enforce policy by giving maximum bans for an offence, then at least follow policy yourself. Zero tolerance gives way to zero tolerance. Lift the block and let's get on with our business. Flag of Europe.svgFlag of Romania.svg Ronline 13:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Tismaneanu and his role on Wikipedia

Some users have noticed that Vladimir Tismăneanu is ubiquitous on WP when it comes to the history of Romanian communism. Unfortunately, the man is not even trained as a historian. He worked in political sciences for over 35 years, which is very respectable per se, only that some 15 of them were in the service of the communist regime in Romania. I can attribute his presence as a source on WP only to his own anonymous contributions, otherwise nobody would take his writings seriously. It seems that his Master thesis, later expanded in a PhD, was higly inflamatory (calling for a violent communist revolution, which is a core trotzkist belief). These original contributions to communist doctrine were published in 1980, at the height of Ceausescu's communist dictatorship. I am calling for more cautious using of Tismaneanu as a source. Icar 12:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Most citations of Tismaneanu are due to User:Dahn, a self-avowed trotzkist sympathiser. Icar 13:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Am I supposed to bother answering to this malicious and illogical rant? Also, not that it is any of this person's business, and not that it means anything to the issue of using a reliable award-winning source, but my actual point about Trotskyism is provided on the same page. Tolle, lege. Dahn 14:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we go: User:Dahn states that Trotzkists were "not entirely moronic". He "can respect Trotskyism on some level, I can even sympathize with some form of Luxemburgism". Also he deems that "it takes intelligence to be a Trotskyist". Now the problem is that the source he is pushing (Tismaneanu, the so-called "reliable award-winning source") for history articles is not a historian, but a Trozkist who defected to the West and became a political scientist. Is this "award-winning source" really reliable? Is User:Dahn really able to give a dispassionate account of the articles he modifies? I offer just a few examples where we have a problem: Can we call "Romanian" the following fellas:

  • Alexandru Nicolschi, NKVD general, born Boris Grünberg in Russia, of Jewish parents, who spoke broken Romanian all his life. One of the most ferocious agents of the Soviet occupation, leader of "Brigada Mobila", the embrio of the Securitate.
  • Gheorghe Pintilie, in reality Timofei (or Panteleimon) Bodnarenko, ethnic Ukrainean born in Russia, spoke only basic Romanian, NKVD general, first leader of the Securitate, who beat Foriş (the former PCR leader) to death with a crowbar.
  • Vasile Luca, in reality Hungarian-born László Luka, who declared himself to be Jewish, activated in different national branches of the communist party, member of the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR, responsible for the Fantana Alba massacre.

Are these people really "Romanian communists"? This is how User:Dahn insists on calling them. ALL other editors involved asked him to stop this game, but instead he simply calls his friends (one admin User:Khoikhoi and others) who revert with no comment. Dialogue is lost on him (maybe that's what Trotzkist logic is about).

  • Paul Goma. here User:Dahn refuses to accept what ALL other editors tell him: that the references already included in the article say exactly what he tries desperately to hide by reverting. His version is a patent lie in light of the sources. Icar 07:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I better not touch this discussion even with a ten foot pole, although I was involved in some way or another in the editing of all 3 articles you mention. But I cannot resist saying this: although I completely disagree with Trotskyism, both in theory and in practice, I must agree with Dahn that there have been some very intelligent Trotskyites over time, though perhaps my opinion is colored by the fact that the ones I've actually read are all ex-Trotskyists. The names that come first to mind are James Burnham, Irving Kristol, and Christopher Hitchens. Take a look, and you'll see we're talking a different class altogether than Pantiuşa hitting Foriş over the head with a rangă! — Turgidson 15:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Additionally: the notion that VT is "a Trotskyist" and all speculations about his credentials is purely inflammatory and disruptive. Dahn 15:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Judet template

No Old Church Slavonic article on Romanian Wikipedia

Why is that? hmmmm......