User talk:Dahn/Archive 11

Wojciech Bobowski: copyright problem
Hi there,

There is a copyright problem with the section about Ufki's Psalter. It is almost identical with a paragraph in the booklet accompanying the Sacred Bridges CD. Do you know where you got the information from? --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry for assuming you added it ... I'll look into it some other time, but deleted the whole section for now. I ordered a Turkish book about the man and his Psalter, will try and add some info later. Thanks anyway. Best regards, Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I see now. I got you mixed up with someone else. Sorry for that. :-) --Benne ['bɛnə] (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Paşalîc
alleging that

the three month Ottoman occupation under Teodosie "seemed to be the first step in the creation of a Wallachian Pashaluk "

is very similar with alleging that

the five month personal union of Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldova under Mihai Viteazul seemed to be the first step in the creation of the national unitary state of Romania

Please, try to reflect about this.

--Vintila Barbu 08:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Islam in Romania
In the discussion about the German version I have the same problem. Somebody fight for the phrase that there is and never was any evidence or even any sign of trace of Muslim presence in Wallachia and Moldavia. His main argument are those capitulations, too, how can I counter it? --Roksanna 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Stephen the Great
As far as I know there was a treaty beteen Stephen and the Ottoman Empire, and the agreement stipulate that no mosc should be ever build in the nord of the Danube. Still this can be a urban legend due to the fact i have no reference. The fact is that in Romania there was no mosc at the north of the Danube(by my knowledge) till 1989.CristianChirita
 * Maybe this is true, maybe it is a legend, how can we find out? by the way, I think the no-mosque-policy abolished step by step already after the formal laws of 1879, when also Muslim got full civil rights (formally). --Roksanna 20:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.arhiepiscopiasucevei.ro/carti%20editate/FONDUL%20BISERICESC%20AL%20BUCOVINEI%20SI%20LICHIDAREA%20LUI.pdf#search=%22tratat%20romano%20otoman%20moschei%22 Abvoe is one document that say that no mosc or islamic prozelitism was allowed in Moldavia, but no reference is given.CristianChirita
 * But even this ruler of Moldavia did... --Roksanna 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also Mihnea Turcitul; still no mosc or prozelitism; They converted from political reasons, and were exceptions.CristianChirita


 * North of Danube a "miniature" mosc was buid in Bucharest around 1923 simbolizing the frienship with the turks, it was placed in Parcul Carol CristianChirita

At least I found a text by Karl Marx who mentioned those capitulations. --Roksanna 09:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Friendship? Because of the anti-bulgarian alliance 10 years before? Where Parcul Carol is situated? --Roksanna 16:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * you know, Tineretului metro station, Arenele Romane, Monumentul Eroului Necunoscut... here's a pic. bogdan 20:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I wish you would have a license free pic that I could include in the article. And can you find out what was the reasond for that suddenly re-discovered "friendship" in 1923. It was the 10years alliance or not? --Roksanna 22:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, I found this foto, at least you can see a small bit of that mosque... --Roksanna 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

But this whole problem becomes very interesting more and more in a strange way. I never heard about such a strong realized prohibition. Even in Constantinople a muslim community around their own mosque was established long before the Turks made Byzanz a vassall or conquered - already in the 8th century although the Byzantines were still heavily fighting with the Arab Muslims who sieged the capital. So it seems to be almost unbelievable that a weak principaute could control those anti-muslim settlemens really that strictly. Where, for example, those converted princes did pray (at least Friday they had to go the mosque even if they only want to pretend successfully being a muslim)? --Roksanna 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Every mulsim when he walk ouside the holy land can pray in a private way. It was common sense, we don't build churches at Mecca where is no orthodox community,so why to build mosc in a contry where is no muslim. Regarding the policy, Constantin Brâncoveanu has watching his four sons beheaded by the ottomans knowing that the salvation was to convert them to islam. One explanation is that the people in that time were educated only by the othodox church, and in the belief of the ortodox church to go to other religion is sin punished for eternity. Probablly the rule assured the ottomans that no popular revolt will occure. Because from economical point of view durring the ottomans compring with Autria or Russia the life of common people was easier. Making this compromise the ottomans used the grains and horses from Romania whithout having a grat army of occupation. Also the Romania (Moldova and Romanian coutry) was a heaven am means of controll for greeks from Fanar.

Turcitul
By the way, does anybody here know the year of birth and death of Mihnea Turcitul, not only time of reign? --Roksanna 23:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Years? --Roksanna 06:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Romare comments
''Ce faci dom'le? Tu ai scris pe Wikipedia despre generalitatiile partidului Romania Mare? Tie ti se pare ca aceste lucrui care au fost scrise, sunt adevarate? Daca da vino te rog si cu argumente care sa sustina credibilitatea tuturor acestor afirmatii cu privire la imaginea PRM? Daca nu (sa speram ca motorasele constiintei inca mai functioneaza) te rog lasa-i pe altii care cunosc problemele mai bine si nu fac afirmatii eronate.''
 * Dahn, with reference to the comment immediately above, I agree with YOU. One only has to have a look at a few issues of Romania Mare and Tricolorul to see that the party remains ant-Semitic, anti-Magyar, anti-Roma, homophobic, etc. Nothing erroneous in your prudent judgement in reverting edits that bordered on vandalism. Snoopdog1 13:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Moses, Gaster
Hi Dahn! Thank you for your attention, I edited what you asked me, please check and tell me if this is satisfied. Multumesc mult! By the way, I'm user:NorbertArthur. Regards, Mortzy 26 August 2006

Crisana
Please see this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crişana Do you know more about Partium and Crisana? The Crisana article claim that it is same area as Partium, but Crisana belonged to Eyalet of Tmesvar, not to Transylvania during Ottoman rule, thus how it can be considered a Partium then? PANONIAN  (talk)  21:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, see what is the problem: if, as Crisana article claims, "Crişana roughly corresponds to the historical region Partium", then why map of Crisana shown here do not correspond with the map of Partium shown here here ? Ok, they correspond partially, but their territories are rather different than similar. PANONIAN   (talk)  22:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Pahlen
I think this was Count Fyodor (or Fedor) Petrovich Pahlen (Федор Петрович Пален) (02.09.1780 - 08.01.1863), son of Petr Alekseevich Pahlen. According to http://www.genealogia.ee/genealogy-diplomat.htm (I can translate if needed) Пален фон дер, Федор Петрович (Митава 02.09.1780 — Петербург 08.01.1863) — барон, граф (1798 г.), действительный тайный советник, член Государственного Совета, Новороссийский генерал-губернатор. Посвятил себя дипломатической карьере. При Российских посольствах в Стокгольме, Париже и Лондоне граф Пален подготовил себя к дипломатической работе. Затем был посланником в Вашингтоне (1809 — 1811 гг.), в Рио-де-Жанейро (1811-1815 гг.) и в Мюнхене (1815 — 1822 гг.). Сын графа Петра Андреевича Палена. I believe Moldavia and Wallachia were parts of the Novorossia Gubernia there the guy was the governor. abakharev 00:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have put a short article about this guy - Fyodor Petrovich Pahlen. Any additional info is welcome abakharev 08:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Another language question
Could you please see my latest question at Talk:Taraful Haiducilor? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel | Talk 19:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Antonescu
New answer, FYI--Talk:Ion Antonescu. --Gutza T T+ 21:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade
It looks like your version is the current one; I'll watchlist it. - Jmabel | Talk 20:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bombing of Bucharest in World War II
Bună. Ştiu c-aveţi multe pe cap, dar vroiam să vă spun despre un articol la care se lucrează. See also here. Currently to do: create Bombing of Romania in World War II, with suitable re-wording and shifting around of content. Also, material from here on the 24-5 August bombing should be included, plus more background, as indicated in the talk page link.

I'm certainly not expecting you to do anything, but if you feel so inclined, please do, because I know you write well and diligently. Biruitorul 06:35, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request
You must state your case here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Mircea_Eliade

--Peter IBM 19:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Listen, kid. I have no reason to "state" a particular version or argue my case in front of someone who has engegd in deleting and manipulating the text of this article. You will carry that mediation alone, if at all, since any user vaguely familiar with WP rules will tell you not only that you are wrong, but that you ought to be banned (your quick familiarity with WP rules despite your Johnny-come-lately-ism also lead me to suspect that you are somebody's sockpuppet; given your record with uploding images that have been created by others as your own, doing it for pages of cities in Romania, I suspect that you are User:NorbertArthur, a close friend of user:Bonaparte). Your "mediation" request is a pathetic attempt at diversion, and I turn my back on all its sophistry. I also do not appreciate that you have come to this article after stalking me for having pointed out to you thst you were breaking several copyright legislations.
 * In other words, I will not engage in a dialogue with a vandal. I urge all people to simply revert your disgraceful edits. Dahn 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Back already? ;-) I'm pretty sure he's Bonaparte, it'll be taken care of soon... &mdash; Khoikhoi 20:46, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem! &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Moldoveanul ? Who is he? I suspect it's you. --Peter IBM 21:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Still pulling that Vadim-like idiotic tactic, Bonaparte? Dahn 21:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest bombing, cont'd.
First, regarding the planned resistance article: yes, I'd be fine with mentioning 1990 within the body of the last section. What I don't want happening, and what Anonimu seems to desire, is to give the impression that everything came to a halt when bullets hit the Ceauşescus' bodies. Clearly, there was a denouement to it all, and we should make sure the next months are touched upon, in the context of continuing resistance (which is likely what the protesters saw it as). Of course, we also do have to stop somewhere; Cristian Tudor Popescu said on TV recently that alegerea lui Traian Băsescu nu a fost un act de anti-comunism, ci de anti-corupţie, so for him the anti-Communist movement is still ongoing...

As for pre-December 30, 1947 material: once again, I agree that a "prehistory" section would be a good idea; we just shouldn't give the impression that resistance arose suddenly on the day the People's Republic was proclaimed, since things were definitely stirring before that time. Furthermore, although I don't know this for a fact, it's even possible that anti-Communist resistance took place between 23 August 1944 and 6 March 1945, not necessarily in the form of opposition to domestic Communists, since there was as of yet no Communist-controlled government, but in the form of anti-Soviet sabotage. That is, the "liberators" were probably not universally welcomed. But, as always, reliable sources are a must.

Now on to the bombing: I seem to have stumbled on a pretty broad topic. I've found eleven New York Times articles from 1944 referencing various bombings of Romania, including one of a Soviet bombing of Galaṭi. I also have five Internet sites that could be of use: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (on bombings of Bessarabia, then just being recaptured by the USSR, plus a sixth already mentioned (6. For now, that's all the information I have, and I will work on incorporating it as time permits.

By the way, and I mentioned this on Jmabel's talk page: the political context of the spring 1944 bombings is probably worth a mention, as a good portion of Romania's political leadership was seeking a way out of the war after Stalingrad–even Antonescu himself, to some extent. Could the bombings have had as their aim not only physical destruction, but also persuading anti-Fascist forces to step up efforts to switch sides? It's an intriguing possibility, as the switch did happen quite soon afterwards, and secret negotiations were also ramped up (eg, in the form of Ştirbey's mission to Cairo).

Mulţumesc pentru editări şi am să-ţi zic tu dacă aşa doreşti. Biruitorul 18:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)