User talk:Dahn/Archive 13

Banat
Well, I have better idea: instead to include localities into counties, we can create new category named "Places in Banat", as well as other subcategories like "History of Banat", "Geography of Banat", etc. What you say about this? PANONIAN  (talk)  23:48, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is problem here. Places in Vojvodina are categorized by the one of the 3 regions where they are located: "Banat", "Bačka", and "Syrmia". The 7 administrative districts in Vojvodina do not correspond fully with these three regions. One place could be part of North Banat District, but in the same time it could be located in Bačka (for example Senta). You can see that Senta is placed into "Bačka" category because it is geographically in Bačka, but it belong to North Banat District. You basically suggest that we remove Senta from "Bačka" category and place it into "North Banat District" category. I mean, this kind of change will not affect only places in Banat, but places in entire Vojvodina and I do not think that it would be good solution to change geographical categorization with administrative one here because people in Vojvodina rather identify themselves with geographical regions than with administrative districts. Can we find some compromise/middle solution here? For example, we should not create subcategories like "History of Banat" or "Geography of Banat", but we definitelly should create subcategory "Places in Banat", so all the places from Serbian Banat should be moved to that category, while places from Romanian Banat could be in two categories: 1. "Places in Banat" category and 2. Category of the county in which they are located. Is that ok? PANONIAN   (talk)  00:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I have idea: places of Romanian and Hungarian Banat could be moved to county categories, while places of Serbian Banat could be moved to new subcategory named "Places in Serbian Banat". Agree? PANONIAN   (talk)  00:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, sorry, but you must understand that administrative districts of Serbia are not same as counties in Romania. In Romania people might identify themselves with the county in which they live, but in Serbia these districts do not mean anything. Peeople in Serbia do not care in which district they live, but only in which region: Banat, Bačka, Syrmia, Mačva, Šumadija, Sandžak, Timočka Krajina, etc, etc. I strongly oppose replacing geographical categories with administrative ones in the case of Serbia. Regarding Banat, it would be bad idea that places from Romanian and Hungarian Banat are moved into counties categories and that in the same time places from Serbian Banat are left in the main Banat category. Ok, I hope, we agreed what to do with places in Romanian and Hungarian Banat, so I think the only problem is what to do with places in Serbian Banat. You should be also aware of this: there was recently some discussion that all places from category "Cities, towns and villages in Serbia" are moved into 3 subcategories: "Cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina", "Cities, towns and villages in Central Serbia" and "Cities, towns and villages in Kosovo". The moving of places into these subcategories already started. However, if we create category "Places in Serbian Banat", it would be created only to correspond with other geographical categories in Serbia (Bačka, Šumadija, Mačva, etc), not with mentioned Serbian categories for places. I also do not see a problem that one place is located in both, category "Cities, towns and villages in Vojvodina" and category "Places in Serbian Banat". If the place is located in both regions, then there is no problem to be in both categories. And I do not suggest that we should create categories "Places in Romanian Banat" and "Places in Hungarian Banat" (that could be arranged as you suggested). I simply do not see other compromise solution instead that we arrange places in Romanian and Hungarian Banat same as you arranged Transylvania, but to arrange places in Serbian Banat to correspond with other categories related to Serbia. As I said, geographical regions are much more important than administrative ones in Serbia and that is a reality which should be also reflected in Wikipedia. Do you have any other compromise solution what we should do with places in Serbian Banat? PANONIAN   (talk)  01:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will try to explain, as I said there was a discussion that "Cities, towns and villages in Serbia" is split into 3 subcategories, so all the places will be located in one of these three subcategories, but they also will remain within geographical categories. For example, see how it is done for Kraljevo. It is placed into two categories: "Cities, towns and villages in Central Serbia" and "Šumadija". No matter that entire Šumadija is part of Central Serbia, this category is important because some people would like to see here only places in their own Šumadija region and they do not care for other places in Central Serbia. Therefore, the subcategory "Places in Serbian Banat" would play the same role as category "Banat" play now for the places in Seebian Banat. I mean, we could leave these places in main "Banat" category, but that would not achieve the goal you introduced here - to leave only important geographical and historical articles into main Banat category, would it? PANONIAN   (talk)  01:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In another words, in the case of Serbia we already have double categories for places: one is administrative reflecting position in one of the 3 main administrative divisions (Vojvodina, Central Serbia and Kosovo), and another is geographical, reflecting position in geographical region. These two categorizations are not same and category "Places in Serbian Banat" would not correspond with place categories based on administrative regions. PANONIAN   (talk)  01:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I just created new subcategory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Places_in_Serbian_Banat I placed it only into "Banat" category and not into administrative categories for places is Serbia because, as I said, they are not the same. People in Serbia have very strong regional identity (sometimes it is so strong that they even dislike people from other regions), so that is a reason why these geographical categories should exist besides administrative ones. Whether for example the city of Vršac is placed into category "Banat" or into category "Places in Serbian Banat" is quite same in this case. So, since I at the present moment do not have time to move all these places to new subcategory, and if you want to clean Banat category fast, you also can move places of Serbian Banat from main "Banat" category to "Places in Serbian Banat" subcategory (of course, if you have free time for this). PANONIAN   (talk)  02:36, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Political parties in Europe
Hi. Wouldn't you say that creating a Category:Political parties by country in Europe instead of just "in Europe", and functioning as a subcategory of Category:Political parties by country, would have been a better solution? Dahn 20:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC) I had always meant this to be a sub-cat of Political Parties by Country. If you think it should be Category:Political parties by country in Europe then fill free to rename it, only wait till I'm through filling it out a bit.--Dudeman5685 20:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

List of Romanian Foreign Ministers
Thanks a lot for expanding the Ploughmen's Front article and clarifying the political parties one. In the article on Romanian FMs, what I did is to go to the Romanian version and add in the dates. However, one or both of the lists seems corrupt in places, so where there were no dates (as near the end), or where the confusion was too great (as in parts of the Principality and Kingdom periods), I left just the years. If by any chance you can sort out the mess better than I can, I'd appreciate it; but if you can't, I certainly don't blame you. Biruitorul 07:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Caves Lavra
Bunǎ Ziuǎ!

I noticed you changed 'Kiev Caves Lavra' to 'Kiev Monastery of the Caves'. I presume you realise that a Lavra is a specific type of Byantine monastery?InfernoXV 21:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - the appropriate changes have been made! InfernoXV 23:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Malaxa
I present to you some material on him which may contradict the current article.

In 1962, Richard Nixon was running for Governor of California. One article from that time has the following relevant information:

Nixon Is Accused of Aid to Ex-Nazi, New York Times, October 7, 1962 (reporting events of October 6):

"Representative John F. Shelley, Democrat of California, has said that former Vice President Richard M. Nixon used his 'position and prestige' to help a Rumanian 'who was a leading Nazi, later a Communist collaborator, always a scoundrel, always an enemy of Americanism' get into the United States". [...Nixon's press secretary accused Shelley of conducting] "a coast-to-coast campaign of smear". "Mr. Shelley took the floor in the House of Representatives yesterday to charge that Nicolae Malaxa 'found sanctuary in the United States thanks to the special favors accorded him' by Mr. Nixon and by former Attorney General William P. Rogers, both Republicans". "Mr. Malaxa of 1158 Fifth Avenue, Manhattan was ... not available for comment. "Mr. Shelley described Mr. Malaxa as a former Rumanian munitions maker and 'one of the most sinister figures to have made his way through the maze of both Nazi and Communist dictatorships during the Hitler and Stalin regimes'". "Mr. Shelley said Malaxa had been a financial backer of the Rumanian Iron Guard, a storm trooper outfit. He said Mr. Malaxa had 'outwitted his vicious accomplices and finally arrived in this hemisphere with several million dollars'". "Mr. Malaxa came here in 1946 with a Rumanian trade delegation, and sought permanent residence in 1948, Mr. Shelley said. He added that Mr. Nixon, in 1952, then a Senator, was reported to have sought legislative action permitting Mr. Malaxa to enter the country. "But Mr. Shelley conceded he could find no such legislation bearing Mr. Nixon's name". [...]"During the Korean war, Mr. Shelley said, Mr. Malaxa organized a company known as the Western Tube Corporation, which was to build a plant in Mr. Nixon's home town of Whittier, Calif., to make tubes for oil drilling. "Mr. Shelley said the company had applied for admission of Mr. Malaxa on the ground that he was needed to supervise affairs of the company. "Mr. Malaxa was admitted from Canada in 1953. Western Tube never built a plant, Mr. Shelley said. "[Herbert G. Klein, Mr. Nixon's aide,] said Mr. Nixon and Mr. Knowland had 'signed a routine letter asking that the merits of the Western Tube Corporation be examined".

And another:

Nixon-Malaxa Link Denied by Attorney, New York Times, October 10, 1962 (reporting events of October 9):

"Nicolae Malaxa's attorney said tonight the Government had investigated three times and found false accusations that the 69-year-old Rumanian had Nazi and later Communist connections in his native land. "The attorney, Jack Wasserman, said [the charges] had been 'thoroughly investigated and disproved' at hearings on Mr. Malaxa's immigration status in 1951, in 1955 and again in 1958. "Mr. Malaxa now lives in New York. He has not applied for citizenship".

So, according to the Times, he was born ca. 1893 and had not applied for citizenship as of three years before his death. This may be worth looking into. Biruitorul 05:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right–the Times birthdate is probably not trustworthy. I think you can keep the work "facist" because the Times seems to have conflated the Iron Guard with the NSDAP–he wasn't an actual Nazi, though, but clearly seemed to have Iron Guard ties. Anyway, these may be of interest, because it gets more complicated (it looks like there was a cover-up):

Nixon Helped Rich Nazi Stay in U.S., by Jack Anderson, Washington Post, November 16, 1979

[Note: this newspaper was instrumental in bringing down Nixon, so they do have a strongly anti-Nixon tone]

"Another black chapter in Richard Nixon's history has been hidden in secret government files for nearly three decades. As a California senator in 1951, Nixon eagerly assisted one of Europe's most notorious and wealthy Nazi collaborators to remain in the United States and keep the fortune he reaped from the suffering of his countrymen during World War II. "The mysterious Nazi was a fabulously rich Romanian industrialist named Nicolae Malaxa, whose far-flung financial empire provided tanks and guns to the vicious Iron Guard, noted for its persecution of the Jews and maintaining Hitler's reign of terror in Romania [??]". "[Malaxa] fled to the United States in September 1946 and remained here until his death in New Jersey in 1965. "Malaxa's flight to America was aided dishonorably by a host of high-ranking U.S. government officials, diplomats and Wall Street lawyers, many of whom went to work for Malaxa, although they knew about his fascist, money-grubbing background. "To their shame, immigration bosses schemed to allow Malaxa to stay in the United States, even after being briefed by the Central Intelligence Agency on his unsavory background, according to the secret files. [...]"The documents reveal that when Nixon was a senator, he was unduly concerned about Malaxa's financial progress. In 1951, for example, the urged the Defense Department to permit the Western Tube Co. to build a plant in California to manufacture seamless tubing for oil wells. Western Tube's treasurer was none other than Malaxa, and the vice president of the company was an old Nixon friend. "When the Romanian Nazi found himself in danger of being banned from reentry into the United States after visiting Canada, Nixon lobbied hard for Malaxa's cause".

Malaxa Wins Permanent Home in U.S., Washington Post, September 9, 1958

"Nicholas Malaxa, 73-year-old [seems they got the date right here] millionaire refugee accused of abetting both Communists and Nazis in Romania, won final permission to reside permanently in the United States. "The ruling upheld a Board of Immigration Appeals decision. The Board had reversed a deportation order handed down by an Immigration Service special inquiry officer in December, 1957. "Malaxa, as head of a vast steel empire and board chairman of the Ford Motor Company of Romania, was the richest man in that country. "He was sent to this country on an economic mission by King Michael in 1946. [...]"The Reds subsequently confiscated Malaxa's properties and expatriated Malaxa and his son, Constantin. They and his wife have been living in New York. "In 1952, a House Immigration Subcommittee said Malaxa's expensive gifts to Romanian Communist officials had raised questions as to whether he was a collaborationist. "However, former Assistant Secretary of State Adolf A. Berle Jr. told the House group the gifts were 'blackmail' Malaxa paid to get his wife and son out of the country. Included were a Cadillac and jewelry to former Romanian Foreign Minister Ana Pauker, a leading Red at the time. "Malaxa also has been accused of collaborating with the Nazi regime in Germany and establishing close relationships with German industrialists".

Romania's 'Ford' Wins Conditional Reentry to U.S., Washington Post, December 17, 1955

"The Immigration Service has announced that Nicolai Malaxa, noted Romanian industrialist and inventor, was conditionally readmitted to this country yesterday at Miami, Fla. He arrived there by plane from Argentina. The service said Malaxa, 72 [??], once known as 'the Henry Ford of Romania', was placed on parole. While he was on a trip to Argentina, the Immigration Services revoked his United States reentry permit [,but that decision was overturned]".

Carol Lunches with Michael's Girl Friend, Pretty Commoner, Washington Post, July 1, 1939

"A dark, beautiful girl dined at the royal palace today with the father of her best friend. "She was the slender Lulu Malaxa, daughter of 'the Krupp of Rumania'. The father was King Carol. The best friend is Crown Prince Mihai, who is spending a month in Florence, Italy, visiting his mother. [...]"Her father, of Greek origin, heads Rumania's biggest heavy industries and war material works".

Rumania Tries Arms Maker in Guard Revolt, Washington Post, January 29, 1941

"The Rumanian government put M. [??] Malaxa, wealthy munitions manufacturer, on trial today [1/28] on charges that he furnished the tanks, arms and munitions which the Iron Guard used in its abortive revolution last week. "Government prosecutors said Malaxa, detained in the police barracks, permitted the rebels to convert his stone mansion into a citadel during the revolt. The home virtually was wrecked by artillery before the rebels capitulated".

Nazis Get Steel Works, New York Times, February 22, 1941

"The Melaxa [sic] steel and munitions works of Rumania, recently expropriated by that government, was reported today [2/21] to be passing into German control. "Advices from Bucharest said that the Hermann Goering Iron Works had taken half the shares, the other half remaining in Rumania's possession. All business and technical management is to be by Germans. The Melaxa works nearly monopolized the manufacture of arms, munitions and locomotives for Rumania".

Rumanians Lose Citizenship, New York Times, October 6, 1948

The Official Gazette published today [10/5] a decree revoking the Rumanian citizenship of Nicolae Malaxa, Rumania's biggest manufacturer, and Constantin Malaxa, his son".

Finally, in response to charges that he was a Communist, we find a letter defending him written by none other than Nicolae Rădescu:

Malaxa Record Cited, by Nicolae Rădescu, New York Times, November 1, 1952

"He was never a Communist, not affiliated to the Communists, either while in Rumania or abroad".

I hope some of this proves useful. Biruitorul 06:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for working in those additions. The article certainly is more comprehensive than it was a day ago! I hadn't thought of M. meaning Mister, but that makes sense now. And indeed, the National Legionary State seemed to be conflated with Hitlerism to the point of them being indistinguishable (they had similarities, to be sure, but were distinct). Two minor substantive points, though: (1) is it worth mentioning he was the wealthiest man in Romania at one point, as per Malaxa Wins Permanent Home...? (2) I think Nazis Get Steel Works indicates that his factories were forcibly taken from him and handed over to the Germans, so he didn't actually place them in German hands himself. If you concur, then do make that change. Other than that, though, I appreciate your work on this. Biruitorul 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fair enough–it seems like we (you and I) still don't have the full picture on Malaxa, and in the absence of more thorough documentation of what exactly happened to his industries in 1941, we can leave it like that. I also found, through the SSDI, when his son lived, so I'll put in those years. Biruitorul 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Constantin, and for that matter Lulu (I wonder what became of her) seems destined for obscurity, though we are told a bit about his family here, and about an alleged secret contribution his father made to Nixon, though that seems sketchy if he died in 1965, but this source says 1972. I've dug up a bit more on Nicolae, though: first, see the Romanian version, which also has a photo we might use. Then, this article goes into considerable depth on his pre-US years, including his parents' names and a little family history. It might be worth including, but I'm quite busy at the moment. Biruitorul 23:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote against deletion of article Heaven of Transnistria
Together with EvilAlex (a guy from Transnistria) I created an article regarding Transnistria's separatist propaganda Heaven of Transnistria. It was nominated for deletion. Please help to keep this article, voting against deletion. Enough was deleted from Transnistria article itself, Wikipedia is full with Tiraspol's propaganda, let's have at least an article that explain this propaganda--

Reply
No problem, thanks for the response. That's pretty interesting—whatever your interests are, you're definately improving Wikipedia. :) &mdash; Khoikhoi 06:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Blaga
You are correct. :-) I was just looking for admins who are online right now... &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Danutz is not him—he's an admin on the Romanian Wikipedia. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because he normally edits under his IP which is removed. Based on how far back Danutz's contributions go, I doubt he's a sock of Bonny. &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the IP, it is not to see by everyone. I'm not a sockpuppet, but I don't see why you assume I should list an interwiki link to my account here as I don't use it very often, and I usualy contribuite only in ro.wiki, and sometimes in de, es or pt. As you speak Romanian you should agree to the template, but your problem: the countries are still Romanian-speaking even if you don't want it so. I just created a template similar to the Romanian one. Da de ce nu-i convine nu ştiu... Poate de prea multe impresii, probabil din acelaaşi motive pentru care nici nu contribui la ro.wiki. Scuză-mă dacă te-am insultat scriindu-ţi şi în română, da mi-e lene să mă chinui să mai şi traduc dacă tot înţelegi. Cred că ii tare grea viaţa. --Danutz

BTW, you might consider listing the template on templates for deletion. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:11, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'd prefer if you could be the nom, because I personally think you'd be able to give better reasons. Simply click here and add the following:


 * Romanian speaking states


 * This way you don't have view the template at all. If you still don't want to do it, let me know. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, that's never happened to me before. You might try directing your question towards Village pump (technical). The people that are able to change these things are probably the developers. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah. What browser do you have by the way? &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * But why? ;-) &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, well I guess that's a good reason. See you around. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)