User talk:Dahn

• See archive 1
• See archive 2
• See archive 3
• See archive 4
• See archive 5

This user declares his annoyance at browsing through articles initiated by US or UK users which fail to mention that the theme has to do with one of the two countries (arguably because they assume that English language wiki means "English/American wiki").

Annitas / Moldova

I've received a rather long and substantive (citations, etc.) email from Anittas about Moldova, which he would like me to pass on to you. You apparently choose not to receive email; he's blocked, so he cannot place the material here or on the relevant talk page.

I'm reachable by email. Could you please do one of the following:

1. Email me your email address with permission to pass it on to Anittas.
2. Email me your email address so I can forward this, but without permission to pass your email address to Anittas.
3. Tell me on my user talk page to just copy the material here.
4. Let me know by any of these means that you don't care what Anittas has to say, and that I should stop trying to convey messages from him to you.

-- Jmabel | Talk 22:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, here 'tis:

[Begin copied from Anittas email]

Dahn has his Wiki email notification off, so I would like you to give him this message from me. Thx.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldavia&curid=46007&diff=60734230&oldid=60511981

My message: It is not false. Moldavia reached the Dniester under Petru I. It's just not certain whether it did so from the north, south, or both.

Moldavia in the 11th-14th Centuries, Spinei Victor, 1986 Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania.

Page 218 [The unequivocal mention of the supremacy of the voivode of Moldavia "from the mountains to the sea" is found in the well known act of Roman I dated on March 30, 1392. ... Certain reasons exist to consider that the boundaries of Moldavia had been established along the Black Sea coast under Roman I as attested by documents of 1392 and 1393 but only if this title had been recalled in the documents of the following years. As this is not the case, it may be assumed that the documents of Romani Musat actually reflect a continuation of the voivodes sovereignty up to the sea coast before being recorded by the diplomatic acts of the court.]

Anittas: It is also possible that for a brief period of time, southern Moldavia, which would reach to Dniestr, reigned as a seperate state from northern Moldavia.

Page 219.

I find that particularly speculative (Certain reasons exist to consider), and part of a political program which was not even shared by all Romanian sources (Stefanescu makes no mention of it). If it was indeed so, we may never know for sure. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[The political statute of Moldavia is closely connected with the attributions of Constantin at Cetatea Alba, where he had contacted the Genoese envoys. Careful examination of the seals attached to the act of hommage of January 6, 1395 revealed a Greek inscription on the seal of Costea Viteazul - unique in old Moldavian sphragistics -- attesting to the influence of a chancellery within the area of Byzantine civilization. This chancellery was certainly that of Cetatea Alba, suggesting Costea's connection with the great port at the Dniester estuary and offers arguments for his identification with his homonym mentioned in a Greek inscription fixed in 1399 on a tower of Cetatea Alba and also with Constantin.]

I tried to stick with what other articles point out about Moldavian rule in the area. At best, this says [it] offers arguments and creates a theory around that argument. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Anittas: in fact, Moldavia also controlled for a very short period of time, Little Podolia, along with Pokutia.

Reference it. I'm not an expert on the matter, and I have nothing against including that in the text. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your new edits to Moldavia are confusing me. I don't see what you're adding to the article; you're just moving thigs around, in numerous edits.

Well, I'm quite done now. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Some passages look very confusing, such as this one:

[Three decades later, in 1353, Dragos, mentioned as a Knyaz in Maramures, was sent by Louis I to establish a line of defense against the Golden Horde forces on the Siret River. This expedition resulted in a polity vassal to Hungary, centered aroun Baia, and initially and briefly named Bogdania.]

The name of Bogdania was placed during the reign of Bogdan I, not Dragos.

Right - I think I succombed to my own edits :). Will rephrase. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think that it was only foreigners which called it like that.

I don't see what the problem is here. The only mentions of it in that time are foreign. If you have problem with this, why did you leave it in the text originally? Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be worthy to mention that the Pope called Moldavia also for Vlachia and that in diplomacy, the Moldavian rulers often named their country for Moldo-Wlachia.

Indicating what? I don't feel like coaching wikipedia readers, and I'm not sure anyone could possibly speculate as to what reasons the pope had for doing that (I mean, it could just as well be because they were both vassals of Hungary). Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It's strange that you won't mention that both Dragos and Bogdan were Vlachs. Why did you remove that passage?

I think such problems are being dealt with by the main articles provided for each section, and other mentions are being made in the text. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Moldavia lost Pokutia when Alexandru cel Bun was crowned as prince. That was the condition that the Poles forced on him, if he wanted to reign Moldavia. The region was regained by Stefan in the 1497-1498 campaign and was then lost in the Obertyn battle.

That was the missing piece of the puzzle, then. Will add. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

As it looks now, the article is a mess. I think it was a mistake to merge several different articles into one.

Ah.. yeah. The original articles, of course, were all top class, right? Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

You created a new article about the Moldavian army using my material and my sources.

And? Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that was necesary, as the article looks somehow incomplete, but for the record, the first mestioning of a Moldavian military fleet, that I know of, is in 1476 when Stefan sends Alexander Gabras together with 300 Moldavians to Mangup-Kale to defend the city; but that was just a transport navy.

You yourself give reason for not including this reference (transport navy, troops on vessels that may just as well have been contracted, etc.). Besides, that is what the link provided gives as first reference. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And this passage:

[A deep crisis was to follow Alexandru’s long reign, with his successors battling each other in a succession of wars that divided the country until the murder of Bogdan II and the ascension of Petru Aron in 1451.]

Actually, the crises intensified when Aron came to power, because Stefan involved both Hunyadi and Dracula in the conflict. The latter helped Stefan, but did so by taking a risk - as he wanted to avoid a conflict with the Ottomans. Stefan would get into conflict with both Poland and Hungary, and eventually invade Transylvania, because of Aron.

Yes, read the passage further on. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This one makes no sense:

[Under Stephen the Great, who took the throne with help from Kazimierz IV of Poland in 1457, the state reached its most glorious period]

It was Dracula who helped him with 7,000 horsemen. Poland would recognize whoever was stronger and loyal, etc.

This was to indicate that, between Hungary and Poland, Stephen got close to the latter. The whole section puts this into perspective. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, I say that the article is a mess and I don't see you doing much to improve it.

Yes, you're right. I remove POV and questionable data, I create a flow in information, I add info about 400 years of history which were not even dealt with, I move this beyond provincial obsessions about "Romanianness", and I am the one debasing the article... Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

And instead of making hundreds of minor edits in a matter of minutes, better make one edit. It can be done.

I have already answered to this criticism. Dahn 22:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[End copied from Anittas email]

- Jmabel | Talk 22:09, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

More from Anittas

Here's his reply; would you please consider giving him your email address, so I'm not constantly called on to play intermediary? I realize you'd like to keep the correspondence public. You can just tell him you'll feel free to post anything he sends: you can paste it here as easily as I can.

Or you can communicate on his talk page, the one place he can edit while blocked. - Jmabel | Talk 08:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[Begin copied text from Anittas' email] Thanks Joe, here is my follow-up to him:

It is Roman I himself who claimed to have ruled the land "from the mountains to the sea." See my previous message to you where it says the date in which the act was signed. He did not specify which sea, but assuming that it's not the Red Sea, but the Black Sea, it could only have been around Cetatea Alba. The text which I gave you quotes Roman. Unless Roman lied, I think we should trust his words; but in either case, Roman, as well as the author of the book, are two credible sources. One can speculate things in an article, if there are sources. Therefore, I ask you to add the fragment where Roman claims to have ruled to the sea, implying Cetatea Alba. Iorga also quotes Roman in Istoria lui ªtefan cel Mare, 1904 (new edition 1966), Bucharest p. 23: "...Roman indrazni, calcind drepturile muntene asupra apelor de la miazazi, sa-si zica domn "din munte in mare."

Reference about Podolia:

Moldavia in the 11th-14th Centuries, Spinei Victor, 1986 Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Romania, p. 219

[Suggestive of the extension of Moldavia's dominance under Petru Musat is a passage in the Russian chronicles concerning the events of 1386, when Basil, son of the Moskow knez Dimitrie Donskoj, fled from the Horde "in the country of Podolia to the greater Vlachs of voivode Petru."]

...

P. 220

[From these texts it would appear that the voivode of Moldavia controlled Podolia]

...

[Even if the voivode of Suceava actually exercised his dominance over Little Podolia, it was short-lived. According to Russo-Lithuanian chronicles, after the death of his brothers, knez Feodor Koriatovich advanced with the Lithuanian army in Podolia and subjected it to Lithuania.]

...

[That the Podolian territories are mentioned to be in the sphere of Moldavia's interests is validated by the fact that at the attack of Witold in 1393 against the possessions of Feodor Koriatovich, the soldiers sent by Roman I strengthened the garrisons of the Podolia's strongholds.]

Anittas: again, it is not certain under which conditions Roman and later, Petru, controlled the land. However, a Russian source claims that he did just that, and we could add that as an uncertainty.

About the name:

The Pope was not the only one who called the land of Moldo-vlachia. Byzantine and Moldavia's own voivodes did this also, in the beginning. This indicates that they were aware of their connection to Wallachia, as people. Not politically. Isn't that a significant thing to mention? Poland always called Moldavia for Wallachia and Wallachia (Tara Rumuneasca) for Bessarabia, but we don't have to include that.

I did not say that Moldavia was originally named Bogdania. Where did you read this? In the article started by me, I wrote that the Ottomans called Moldavia for Bogdania or Bogdan. They also had another name for it -- Kara-Bogdan.

As for the etymology of the name of the river, thus also for the country, is supposed to come from a boyar named Allexandro Moldaowicz who served the Galician knez George Iurij. We find his name in a document from 1334. There are no concrete proof, but it's a theory that could be added to the rest.

About Dragos and Bogdan: you should say that they were Vlachs. I checked the articles and it seems that in the Dragos article, it is not mentioned that he was Vlach. Someone most have removed that passage. Anyway, they were Vlachs as Louis's own chronicle calls them that, as well as other documents. There's no secret in that.

About Stefan: again, Stefan was not helped by Poland in any shape to seize the throne of Moldavia. He swore allegiance to Poland as vassal and counted on their assistance, but Poland did nothing to help him. After several negotiations, I believe they agreed to expell Aron; the latter taking refuge in Transylvania. You should formulate the text better, or better yet remove the whole passage, which is incorrect.

About Olaha: you removed my sentence that mentioned this voivode. I can't understand why you did this. Here is where I had mentioned him:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_Moldavia&oldid=58376010#Prior_to_its_foundation

He was mentioned as a Ruthenian duke, but his name clearly shows that he was either ethnically Vlach, or had Vlach roots.

If you wonder more, you can post your questions on my talkpage. It's simpler this way than using Joe as a proxy. [End copied text from Anittas' email]

Italian elections

Hi! I've created the general elections articles for Italy from 1953 to 1992. Some of them have also a short description of the results. Can you give a check to them? Also, if you've time, the 1994 is missing... too complicate for me!! Ciao and thanks!! --Attilios 09:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Then why not help me remove them from Szekely and Moldovans? 72.144.114.25 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

And I agree, religion and historical separation are really the key difference between Serbs and Croats. However, they've been separated enough to create a historical separation of gene flow. This is very different from say ...Moldovans and Romanians. 72.144.114.25 18:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

They don't serve a purpose. They end up repeating the say numbers. This is bad. 72.144.114.25 18:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but race exists. There's scientific data to back it up. Whether you "believe" it doesn't exist is really your opinion and should be separate from the encyclopedia. An ethnic group is defined by their genetic and cultural similarity. 72.144.114.25 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You do understand that by including a infobox we end up creating the notion that these people are not included in the census as "Croats" etc.. We end up repeating numbers. I'm just trying to prevent that from happening. 72.144.114.25 18:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Look. There are a group of main Slavic ethnic groups, and then there are a few smaller one (Sorbs, for example). But a lot of the main Slavic ethnic groups sometimes identify themselves by the region they live in. For example, if I was a Romanian like yourself but I lived in a small town in Transylvania, I may identify myself as "Transylvanian." I could do this for numerous reasons:

• a cultural tie to the region
• a lineage in the region
• a dialect in my small town or region

but all in all, I'm still part of the Romanian ethnos - so in the census I would count as a Romanian. If we add an infobox to the sub-groups like "Transylvanian" (for example) then we end up repeating numbers in the Romanian infobox, and giving off the notion that Transylvanians aren't Romanian at all. 72.144.114.25 19:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Команда русских дровосеков прорубила окна в Европу!

Окна оказались мелкими и какими-то мягкими на ощупь. Провинившихся в недочётах хромоножек посадили на кол... Первый в мире полупроводник появился в России! Это был Иван Сусанин... (Need a translation - drop me a message, I'll try my best :) ) Pre-1915 Russian: Oh, no you don't think it'd be that easy, do you? Russian underwent some significant grammatical and syntactical changes, like the removal of the letter "Ъ" (looks slightly different) during the last 90 years. Also, while Adriatikus might eventually elaborate a bot that'll pick the *right* synonyms in his EnSyn:wiki, you will have to invent all the Russian neologisms of the last 90 years by yourself in your (t)ruЪ:. Still, your task will be somewhat simpler, with "only" some 92000 articles to work with. Good luck to you too, with all those Large Hadron Colliders, Microsoft Windows and semiconductors! A word of advice: English borrowings were at the time a no-no - use Greek and French instead. :-P

As for Quenya - I'd really like to learn that one, along with Gaelic, but my current knowledge (about 3 words) prevents me from being a serious contributor to que:wiki, alas. --Illythr 17:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Eye to eye

Ah, I think i see your point. Well, as far as I know, aside from some neologisms, the difference between CyrMo and Ro is mostly in the script. From my unqualified POV they're pretty much the same. I'm kind of surprised (well, not really) with the viciousness of all many of those unionists who demand the wiki's closure. If not for certain reasonable voices among them, I'd consider it some kind of flashmob. Look at the closuse propusals for other wikis - barely any activity and most of it is "collateral" - voters from the Moldovan proposal "being consistent".

---

As for the languages, I believe that the point where two dialects of the same language grow sufficiently apart as to warrant them the status of different languages is very subjective and, usually, politically influenced. That being said, I only oppose the closure of the mo:wiki because I remember the moaning I heard from people having to relearn their own language back in those years and that the switch never happened in Transnistria - they still learn it in schools. To sum it up, I don't care about the language or script or official positions of any kind, only that there are people (mostly in Transnistria now), who know only in the Cyrillic script version. As I said before, a translit tool on the ro:wiki would be enough for me to stop arguing, as I think it will help those people read Wikipedia in their mother tongue - Romanian, whatever its official designations may be.

---

Now, to the other stuff: ...I feel my blood boil - that's my feelings exactly. Ever since I had the unfortunate experience of being on the receiving end of the Moldovan nationalism/unionism, I've come to hate the general sentiment (but, surprisingly, not the whole people). Most of all I hate Moldovan/Romanian nationalism - because I've seen it for what it is, Russian - because such afflictions of kin hurt the most, and Jewish - because *they* should know the consequences better than all others. Hence, you don't have to justify or defend yourself before me. In fact, it was your actions, as well as TSO1D's, Bogdanguishka's (occasionally) and DPotop's (sometimes) (plus a few others I've seen only sporadically), that greatly improved my opinion on the Romanian group of Wikipedians (I happened to bump into our Corsican acquaintance and his sock theatre initially, believing them all to be different people).

PS: Checked mail?
PPS: Hm, I see a little kangaroo court is already set up for me in the discussion. I guess I'll have to see it through for continuity's sake. --Illythr 13:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and I almost finished replying to it, too, but then got distracted again. I'll expand it tomorr... later today with some of the nice stuff you asked instead (it's too much to translate entirely, but I'll try to pick out the more amusing things).

And sent! --Illythr 21:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you get it? --Illythr 21:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Phanariotes

I ve sent you a message some days ago under the title phanariotes, but i think you didnt notice it.i copy it here: " Hi again, im back to athens and until i leave again (july 14) i have some time to ameliorate the phanariotes article. id like to discuss with you the following points:

• Introduction- there should be a reference regarding the conquest of constantinople and the end of byzantine aristocracy. a reference to the coming of merchants from the aegean sea(especially Chios) and minor asia to constantinople.is also necessary(some of these points are discussed in the starting point).
• starting point: more should be written about the pre-1711 period. sthg should be said about panayotis nicousios the first phanariot to become a dragoman of the Porte. We should discuss the role of phanariots as dragomans of the porte and of the fleet.
• Negative perception: various historians especially of the left have criticized the phanariots in greece as well. i think i could add sthg on the issue.
• positive aspects: same as above.

How do you prefer to proceed? we can for instance examine one paragraph per day or begin reworking the text alltogether. best--Greece666 15:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)"--Greece666 00:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

communist vs socialist

The generic classification of socialism is Category:Socialism, not Category:Socialist parties in France, which should not be used as a generic classification. Maybe it is better if a category Category:Socialism in France is added, so both Category:Socialist parties in France and Category:Communist parties in France can inherit from that category. Intangible 20:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Category:Socialism in France will not be a clutter category, since it is limited to France and multiple categories can inherit from it. Communist parties are not socialist parties, since communist and socialist are not used here as generic nouns, but as adjectives. Nationalism is an ideology, like liberalism and conservatism, so I am not sure what you should have against this. Actually, I might try for a removal all French Left/Right categories, which seem obstinately used for "just the French situation." Where should Category:French liberal parties inherit from in your world? Intangible 21:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

How can the "far right" categorization be objective, when you say that "left-wing" and "right-wing" are not objective categorizations? Can a Category:Far left political parties in France objectively be defined? If "left-wing" or "right-wing" categorizations are impossible, how can Category:French liberal parties ever inherit from such categories?

It's useless to call monarchial or Gaullist parties nationalist, because these are different doctrines, and the respective parties are foremost royalist or Gaullist. The FN might more appropriately be called just a political party, since it also functions as a catch-all party, which might even more so be a characterisation of that party, instead of its nationalism. Intangible 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you say that "Nationalism itself is catch-all," I wonder what kind of qualitative definition of "far right" you use. Gaullism does not fit in because it is a doctrine in itself. If there is no difference between nationalism and Gaullism / monarchism, why use the latter two terms? Political parties should be described by their foremost doctrine. Intangible 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple: Gaullism is a proper noun here, and nationalism not, it's a generic term. Intangible 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Gaullism cannot be a subcat of Category:French nationalist parties, since in this case nationalism is not used as a generic term. Intangible 22:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Because each member of the category Communist parties in France is foremostly communist, for example. The same can be said for every other categorization. Intangible 22:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Well back to my earlier comment then, what is a "far right" party? What is a "left-wing" party? A "right-wing"? Intangible 22:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

So start a category Boulangisme then. Intangible 22:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Then your category "far right" includes heterogeneous members, and is thus not a category at all! Intangible 22:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

But one is talking about political parties here, not the history of France or activist movements, paramilitaries, etc. Every political party has an ideology. If one cannot decide upon the foremost ideology of a political party, then maybe no such ascription should be given at all! Intangible 23:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I cannot see how "far right" is an ideology. Maybe this is strange French 'language' quirk, but this is not the French Wikipedia. Your definition of nationalism defies the nationalism article. Intangible 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Left/right

Thanks for warning me! I've also asked for deletion of Category:French liberal parties. Tazmaniacs 11:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

He's also asked to delete The Right (France), which he seems to consider less notable than the totally unknown royalist Rassemblement démocrate... Tazmaniacs 14:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine names: suggested moratorium

On Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors I've suggested a limited moratorium because I don't think the current discussion is leading to, or can lead to, consensus. I hope you'll vote, for or against! Best wishes Andrew Dalby 13:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Propose arbitration to block Intangible

If interested, leave comments here.--Cberlet 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Boulanger

Hi Dahn,

(you wrote: I was thinking: aren't all Suicides by firearm by definition "deaths by firearm"? Thus, wasn't that category duplication? Is there some special reason for keeping both?

I may be wrong here, but I feel it's important to be able to call up a list of all deaths by firearm in one separate list; this would include executions, accidents, etc. The 'Suicides by firearm' Category lists only those. Please let me know what you think about this.

Good to be in touch with you again.

Be healthy,

Michael David 15:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dahn,

Your point is well made about the size and vagueness of a general Category such as Deaths by firearm. However, I am looking at it from a researcher’s POV. If I were trying to make a case against handguns being in the possession of, say, private citizens - to strengthen my case I would want to view a list of all persons who died from a firearm. I would want to be able to call up & print such a single list (no matter how large it is); then, if I wanted to view a list of just those persons who committed suicide by using a firearm, I would want to be able to do the same.

Let me try, using another Category as an example: “Category: Accidental deaths” for instance. This covers a multitude of ways a person can die accidently, e.g., firearm, drowning, falls, the list goes on. If I doing a study of accidental deaths, without the major Category, I would have to call up each type of accidental death individually, instead of having one list that includes all persons. I guess I’m just being lazy, but it does make sense to me.

I’m doing some preliminary research right now on suicide. I am working from the Wiki List of Suicides. I am going to each Article and learning the details of the person’s suicide. This is the type of master list I’m talking about when it comes to Firearm deaths, where the researcher could work from one master list.

Michael David 17:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dahn,

Actually, nothing is set in stone with me about this. As the research plays out, I'll see what works best.

It was good talking with you again. Hope you are happy & healthy.

Talk with you later,

Michael David 21:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania

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

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

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

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

Historical regions for counties

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

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

Sindicalista

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

Far right leagues

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

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

Arbitration Request Filed

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

Radicals

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

Oltenians line up to feed the Warrior of Light

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

Getae

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

1907 Peasants' Revolt

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

History of the Jews in Romania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transylvania mediation

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

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

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

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

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

Morometii

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

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

Edit summary

Hi Dahn,

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

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

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

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

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

Pantazi was to save Ilinca's honour

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

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

kid mccoy

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

De ce?

Poate ca Sorin Cerin nu este chiar atat de necunoscut in calitate de scriitor.De ce trebuie neaparat sa facem totul pentru a da la o parte un alt roman?In pagina romana de wikipedia mai scrie cate ceva si despre cartile scrise,nu numai despre acel incident,pe care l-ai amintit.Oare nu ar fi mai bine sa aflam critici despre opera sa?Georgina

Romanii il considera pe Becali drept cel mai sincer politician

vezi text Apostolos Margaritis 14:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Mezőség

I don't think that Mezőség is very used in English...--Eliade 16:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So, you're saying that hungarian name of word is more used in English than the romanian one. That's odd since it's about a romanian region, mostly populated by romanians and nobody heard of it with this name Mezőség. Perhaps you did before and you're customed with. However the romanian name should be preserved first, lest we'll get into irrelevance too much.. --Eliade 16:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Krashovans

I would appreciate if you present your argument for Krashovans being a distinct ethnic group on TALK:Krashovani before reverting. Thanks. 72.144.150.20 18:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

...Where? 72.144.150.20 18:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria

Ce spui Dan e corect să avem Vlahi (Români) în articolul Bulgaria? Sunt decis să pornesc un RfC împotriva lui Todor dacă nu acceptă formularea folosită şi în alte articole cu privire la Vlahi.--Eliade 13:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Şi mie mi se pare corectă doar că unii vor să facă ceva de genul: Vlahi şi Români. Uită-te pe articolul Bulgaria. Cred că tu rapid tranşezi o problemă.--Eliade 14:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Acum e aşa. Dar a fost 3R înainte, plus suntem 3 români acolo, eu, Bogdan, şi încă cineva. Acum e bine, dar am impresia că nu va sta mult aşa Dan. --Eliade 14:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Tocmai aici e problema. Nu toţi s-au declarat după cum chiar Todor spune. Deci? :) --Eliade 14:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dacă 50% dintre Vlahi s-au declarat români şi ceilalţi Vlahi unde este problema? Nu e voie să avem formularea Romanians (Vlachs)? --Eliade 15:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Sacrilege Act

Hello Dahn! I wondered if you had some time to check out the Anti-Sacrilege Act article I created. An editor (who mostly contributes on Charlemagne and related feudalism aspect) insists on taking out the sentence "The Ultras were elected under restricted census suffrage (100,000 Frenchmen at the time had the right to vote)." I wrote the article based on an historian's article and took that from him, because I agree with that historian (Jeanneney) that it is an important fact to know in order to understand the context of the vote of this law (qualified by Jeanneney as "anachronistic", it was never applied and repealed in 1830) and of the overrepresentation of the Ultras in both Chambers. Our editor here doesn't seems to understand that the Ultras were overrepresented; rather, he explictly stated his POV by describing the Encyclopédie as a "pamphlet". I finally convinced him to make a standard Rfc instead of edit-warring, but I'll appreciate it if you checked it out... Cheers! (ps: by the way, I've got a friend from abroad travelling right now in Romania, I might meet him there later, is there any relatively unknown places - well, which I won't find on my own - which are really worth seeing (or getting drunk in, but I assume that isn't really a problem :)? I enjoy travelling a lot, but I have much less tolerance for the hordes of tourists which invade beaches and nice cities in August each year, if you see what I mean... Tazmaniacs 15:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replies on both points! Concerning the sacrilege, two things should be underscored I think. First, the user wants to point out it was the same before & after. I'm not 100% sure of that (although I am sure that there was census suffrage before & after, I don't know if the electoral laws were exactly the same. I suspect that they weren't, but should go looking for sources before). I'll just copy Jeanneney's comment here:

"Nous sommes en janvier 1825. La mort de Louis XVIII et l'avènement de son frère Charles X portent l'espoir de réaction d'une droite contre-révolutionnaire qu'un suffrage étroitement censitaire (100 000 Français environ ont alors le droit de vote) a installée à la Chambre des députés et que des nominations successives ont assurée à la Chambre des pairs. On va pouvoir, enfin, faire litière des prudences du monarque antérieur et marquer une rupture radicale par rapport à l'héritage exécré des Lumières" (I'll leave it in French, tell me if you have any questions on it).

So he points out that what has changed is the death of Louis XVIII, seen as too moderate by the Ultras, elected some years before. Our editor here seems to think (or want us to believe) that the Ultras just had been elected. Wrong: they were in power for most of this time (the comte de Villèle, leader of the Ultras, was in charge of government for seven or eight years, if my memory's correct). The peers of the Chamber of Peers were not elected, but appointed (thus the problem to your proposal). Anyway, maybe "After the death of Louis XVIII — seen as too moderate by the Ultras, whom had been elected under restricted census suffrage in 1824 (100,000 Frenchmen had the right to vote) — and the accession of his brother Charles X, Villèle's ultra-royalist government decided to seize the opportunity to present again the law project, alleging an increase in the stealing of sacred vases." would be better. But I doubt our editor will accept this reference either to census suffrage or to 100,000 Frenchmen. And if you talk about census suffrage, than I believe numbers are useful. The problem, I think, is that editor claims it is POV talking about that, while I pretend that one can't understand why the Ultras were there in the first place if he doesn't get that they were these restricted electoral laws. My POV is of course supported by Jeanneney (who is the director of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, and the article is taken from L'Histoire magazine, a broad public, mainstream, history magazine...). This is no leftist opinion, but rather a moderate, republican POV! And this editor tries to make this historical statement a POV, leftist atheist point; but again, if he considers the Encyclopédie as a "pamphlet", I see why he considers Jeanneney to be a far-left historian! Sorry to bother you with this point, and I will certainly heed your advice concerning Romania! Tazmaniacs 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Je viens de changer l'article conformément à ce que je t'ai mis. Je pense que juste un petit message sur la page discussion de l'article permettra peut-être de dissuader l'autre d'effacer ca (j'ai aussi ajouté dans l'introduction: "by the Villèle, ultra-royalist gov", ce que j'imagine qu'il va virer en prétendant qu'il s'agit d'une opinion (sic)). Je viens d'envoyer ton conseil à propos de la Roumanie à mon pote, qui se trouve apparemment en ce moment à Salzbourg (véritable musée Mozart dont il essaie de partir le plus tôt possible - tout comme moi probablement, il est en auto-stop...), mais qui se dirige vers là-bas. A propos du français, pas du tout! j'ai au contraire trouvé que tu l'écrivais très bien, je suis seulement retourné à l'anglais parce qu'on est sur le English Wikipedia et que je ne veux pas t'imposer le français par chauvinisme!... Si tu préfères le français, je serai tout à fait heureux de continuer avec toi dans cette langue (parlant moi-même d'autres langues, je suis bien conscient de l'importance de la pratique, ce qui est d'ailleurs une des raisons de ma présence ici; même si ça me vaut parfois de me faire insulter en tant qu' analphabète (cf. Riom Trial :)!). PS: par contre, ça m'oblige à vérifier que "je parle bien la France" (sic), ce qui n'est pas toujours le cas! :) Tazmaniacs 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bulgaria 2

DA. DA. Eşti drăguţ Dan. Din nou, nici eu nu văd nici o tragedie în "Romanians (Vlachs)", dar să accepte ăştia odată :). Astia vor: Romanians, Vlachs. (nu e nasol cu virgulă?) --Eliade 15:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hungary

What exactly is the difference between "deliberate" and "eliberate" in this context? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hungary&diff=66865936&oldid=66707581 Mersi!--Eliade 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC against User:TodorBozhinov

Hello! I started an RfC against User:TodorBozhinov, you should come and help me, since you were involved in the dispute http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TodorBozhinov Cheers, --Eliade 19:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cel mai iubit dintre pamânteni

Salut Dahn! Am scris un ciot la "Cel mai iubit..." (accesibil de la Marin Preda, dar nu-l gǎsesc în cǎutare simplǎ... Poţi sǎ te uiţi un pic? Merci,

--dio 13:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)