Talk:Tatarbunary Uprising

Untitled
The reason why I have moved the section on the tatarbunary uprising from Tatarbunary to a new article is because the section was left untouched and ignored for quite a while. Perhaps now, it will come to the attention of a greater number of people who can develop it further.Dapiks 00:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * More people will come when you link this page from larger history arictes. `'mikkanarxi 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well what other articles can I link it to?Dapiks 00:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have linked it to Romanian Communist Party (in fact, I had a red link with an alternative title for a while - now I just redirected the red link to here). Dahn 03:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Committee
Now that a particular user has endulged his whim, can we possibly know what that article has to with the Tatarbunary incident? This especially since linking to the newly-created revolutionary committee would imply that Red Army participation was granted (and I'm willing to bet that the very same user will tell us "there is more to the story")... I mean, really, what's wrong with him? Dahn 05:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yoy probably cannot read what you all write. Quoting: "Andrey Kulishnikov, a Soviet political commissar known under the pseudonym of Nenin". Also, have you ever heard about the export of revolution? And what was Red Army doing everywhere around Russia in these years? `'mikkanarxi 16:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then, by all means.I thought it was controversial, given the implications... (but I'll guess you'll be protesting against those much later, when you actually ponder them). Dahn 18:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No I will not (I think I know what you mean, but you better talk clearly). If some sick brains think that I am a Sovietic KGB spy, that's their problem. But I thought you are smarter than that. `'mikkanarxi 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mikka, I never would imply such a thing. My view was based on the opinions you expressed, which I simply observe and engage in a dialogue with. You will note that I have tried to to balance the info provided, and have not indicated as a given that the Red Army itself had a will to intervene, just that it was alleged to have one. Dahn 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Btw, in case you want to start an export of revolution article as well, I suggest you include info on it in World revolution. Dahn 18:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no desire to get into wrangle with maoists, anarchists and Trotskists that seem to be busy with the whole "communism" project. Once I tried to fix some nonsense in their exploits, and their response was even more hateful than Romanian. `'mikkanarxi 19:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you should engage in editing either: just that, in case you were to start an article on revolution export, it could never be an autonomous one in regard to the one on World revolution (now, I still wonder about the revolutionary committee one and its own autonomy, but whatever). As for the "hateful", don't let me bring up the page where you implied that we were all "racists", even though I and others had not supported the nationalist Ro POV (which, in itself, is not racist); that was the first response I got from you. I'm sure you are a very decent person, and I'm sorry for various pokes when it seemed to me that you were avoiding the point; I cannot, however, believe that you are or strive to be a neutral editor, no matter what your opinions are. Dahn 19:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "neutral editor": No one is "neutral". People from all over the globe have different education and indoctrination, sometimes we even are not aware of. Some things cannot be formulated in a neutral way without presenting two or more opposing opinions simultaneoulsy. There is no absolute truth in politics. In history, one thing is raw description of events, other thing is opinions expressed by observers and participants. For some strange reason, I have this neutrality problem only with Moldova. I used to edit numerous other articles on heated topics (now I am getting rid of them in my watchlist). I was in some controversy with Poles, Ukrainians, Russians. But only Romanians expressed such an aggressive hatred and rejection towards my edits. This is utterly ridiculous and hardly may be explained by my bias, considering that I have absolutely no connections or interests in Moldova, with the exception of moldovan wines and reversal of trolls who used to replace the "Moldovans" article with a redirect to "Romanians" (this is when I was first engaged in editing of moldova-related articles) and who are still in favor of some Romanian admins. `'mikkanarxi 22:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What I have said is that I do not believe you have strived, in the recent past at least, to present a neutral version of the events. This may well be because so many Romanian users also do not strive to be neutral - and you probably know what I have brought upon myself for opposing that behaviour. It was a test on my patience to see that, in several cases, you have snapped at me - or at Romanian users collectively - calling me/us "nationalist(s)" and some other, even more problematic names.
 * Myself, I have tried to stick to the facts themselves, and have attempted to distinguish between what could be said and what could not about the topics involving Bessarabia. Just as the nationalist Romanian version is currently paralogical - as it fails to note the fact that people do not declare themselves Romanian (for whatever reasons this may be) - so are several implications of Moldovenism (aside from the language, where Occam's razor can and should be easily applied, the theory about direct and "more legitimate" conections between Moldova and Moldavia than between Moldavia and Romania relies on faulty logic - this deserves a larger debate,in which one could and should also consider the fact that assuming Romanian identity in Bessarabia after 1812 was always undisputably incomplete, while the variations of the proces created various paradoxes).
 * Personally, I do not support the reunification with Moldova, and would even probably vote against it if it ever came to be proposed (I'd rather have my country spend its energies someplace else than in irredenta). With that in mind, I can only try and give an accurate picture of events in history - based on accurate sources. I could not, for example, accept that a certain user, whose edits you seemed to back in the same way you accused some Romanian users of backing the Corsican monarch (I will remain neutral on this particular issue), after I had researched the text of the Paris Convention to tell him how they voted in 1859 and what it meant in the standards of the time, told me that he did not trust me no matter what I said; the same user also implied that the Chişinău Coucil in 1918 was dominated by the boyars in the detriment of indentured peasants - although the former class collapsed before 1900 and the peasantry was always free inside Bessarabia, and although the elctions were, to my knowledge, as democratic as the ones for the soviets... We have about 200 years of various cliches and propaganda examples on both sides to surpass in dealing with such issues, and we'd best step out of our boxes if we want to contribute something relevant.
 * I try and remain aware of what my biases may be. I have also tried to control them, and have attempted not to edit them into pages. This is why I have been accused of being a variety of things, from "anti-Romanian" (which amuses me) to "caviar left" (coming from the national communist camp, and partly true - although I do not enjoy that high a standard of living, I'm what they call the "revisionist") to "nationalist" (which infuriates me, especially since I do not take the national concept for granted, and find all its paradigms and avatars to be ultimately illogical). Dahn 23:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

MASSR
Is it noteworthy that the MASSR was established not one month later? Biruitorul 05:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I mentioned it in the second paragraph. Dahn 05:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Always read the article beforehand... Thank you. Biruitorul 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No prob. Dahn 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

max goldstein
anonimu i found goldstein in every book. his name was written down by the komintern itself. ioan scurtu cites archive of rom.comm.party. so it is not dubios. also i found that his death was either late 1924 or 1925 (not 1922). i think he was part of the rebelion as the conditions in the prisons were very "flexible" either by low security or corupt officials so he could in some way to contribute to the rebelion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometeu (talk • contribs) 19:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ion Oprea cites this: National Archives of the US Department of State Washington R.G. 59, State Decimal File (1910-1929), boxes 99.52 A – 9973, 99.55 (vezi si cotidianul din 25 nov. 1993), Ioan Scurtu: ANIC, fond arh.CC al PCR, 50, dos. 1598, f.9-11. about the "flexible" conditions in prison i can also give citations. anonimul, search kalifarski on the web and you will see the results. i consider this probl solved.Prometeu (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * anonimu, i don't understand wat you are sayng :) goldstein was nominated as leader, i didn't say if he participated or not. actually i really don't know how he participated. he was also nominated as regional leader in one of the 5 zones.Prometeu (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)