User talk:Dahn/Archive 14

Neutralitate la ro.wp
Bună ziua şi iertaţi-mă că nu scriu în engleză. Am observat mesajul pe care i l-aţi lăsat lui Danutz aici şi aş dori să vă rog, dacă aveţi timp şi răbdare, să mă lămuriţi într-o chestiune. Spuneţi că „pe ro:wiki nu există nici măcar un vag demers către neutralitate în probleme de genul ăsta”. În mod clar vă înşelaţi, demersuri există, eu fiind numai unul dintre cei care luptă pentru respectarea politicii Wikipedia la ro.wp. Dar puteţi preciza la care anume articole vă referiţi cînd spuneţi asta? Acele articole, dacă într-adevăr încalcă politica PDVN, trebuie într-o primă fază marcate ca atare şi apoi corectate. Vă asigur că intervenţia dumneavoastră în sprijinul neutralităţii, contrar convingerii pe care se pare că o aveţi, nu va fi ignorată.

Mai spuneţi şi că „ro:wiki va fi, pentru mult, mult timp, sub oricare din standardele cerute de en:wiki”. Despre care standarde vorbiţi? În ultimul an lucrurile s-au schimbat radical, ro.wp nu mai este jungla care era, dar desigur nu ne-am apropiat încă de nivelul de calitate de la en.wp, deci aş dori să-mi spuneţi în ce privinţe credeţi că lucrurile lasă de dorit.

În final un comentariu-invitaţie: Wikipedia în română se dezvoltă numai în măsura în care persoanele competente se hotărăsc să contribuie acolo. Din păcate mulţi români preferă să contribuie la en.wp, probabil fiindcă asta le dă sentimentul succesului imediat. O ştiu din experienţă, deci vă înţeleg atitudinea, dar v-aş propune să reconsideraţi decizia de a nu participa la ro.wp.

Toate cele bune! — Adi Japan   ☎  04:40, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Da mă întreb ai citit vreodată vreun articol controversat în ro.wiki? Vezi Limba moldovenească, Limba română ş.a. care ar trebui să fie controversate. --Danutz

Despre format. Scopul comun: promovarea limbii române. Cum de corpurile din format nu cooperează? Româna este o limbă oficială a Uniunii Latine, pentru că România şi Moldova sunt membrele românofone ale Uniunii. Activităţile educative din cele trei ţări sunt (România, Moldova şi Serbia) sunt coordonate de Ministerele respective ale educaţiei şi Institutul Cultural Român, respectiv Institutul Limbii Române. --Danutz


 * Cred că trebe să ai puternice sentimente anti-româneşti de eşti aşa sigur de ce zici? Te-or fi bătut părinţii când erai mic. Oricum, formatul este schimbat spre bucuria ta (deşi mă îndoiesc că te vei bucura) cu un punct de vedere complet oficial dar sincer care mie mi se pare mult mai naţionalist. Uită-te şi tu pe el. --Danutz


 * Transnistria is officialy part of Moldova and is not subject to international law. So there is no need to insert Transnistria, as we have Moldova. --Danutz

But clearly when you say states in a template you imply they are international recognised. As for organisations the Latin Union is the single organisation that has Romanian as an official language in its statute. (EU will have that also from 2007) By teritory I meant a region or an autonomy. --Danutz


 * Apropos de ce mi-ai scris pe ro.wiki. Îmi place să fac vrăjeală de oamenii care mi se par mai distruşi, scuză-mă dar cred că e dreptul meu să râd de cine vreau. Acumă să nu crezi că vorbeam serios când am scris afirmaţia aia, era pur şi simplu o glumă. Apropos, "a template that list places where Romanian (or Moldovan) are official". Asta clarifică şi faptul dovedid oficial prin legea privind uzul oficial limbilor pe teritoriul Republicii Moldova care spune că româna şi moldoveneasca sunt identice. --Danutz

O, ce să zic. Să-mi arăţi şi mie legea să o pot citi. Eu nu mă mir cum am ajuns admin pe ro.wiki pentru că ceea ce scriu în paginile de discuţie nu are nici o legătură cu ceea ce se găseşte în articole. Da ne este recomandat să nu facem atacuri personale, dar nu cred că te-am băgat şi te-am scos din tot felul de locuri. Şi încă ceva: nu suntem prieteni, am mai spus aici la en.wiki la cineva, ar fi culmea să fim prieteni fără să ne fi văzut vreodată la faţă. Nu îmi fac prieteni pe internet. Suntem doar colaboratori la acelaşi proiect. --Danutz

But I'm not curios of your edits. I just said I was joking usualy I also put smileys (but mostly you'd find that out from the tone of the message). It's not I really mean that, because I simply don't know, and neither I want. But it is obvious that I don't like you at all. I was just saying that because that user exagerated with insults and I think it is enough saying that once. Otherwise, lets not get to long with this discussion, I have also other things to do. --Danutz


 * Hi, Dahn! I've taken care of the rogue redirect that Bonaparte had added on ro.wiki on your IP page to your en.wiki username (i.e. I've deleted it, because I think it's up to you to do that if you want, or if you want to create an account). --Vlad|-> 11:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Template:Romanian speaking states
We also have Iranian-speaking nations, Baltic-speaking nations, Turkic-speaking nations, Finno-Ugric-speaking nations, Slavic-speaking nations and Finno-Ugric states. If we delete Romanian speaking states then one must be consistent and delete/put these up for tfd as well. --Bob 14:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between languages and language families...compare the number of total languages in the world to the number of language families. &mdash; Khoikhoi 00:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Islam in Romania
Yes, it's pretty obvious. However, I'm not so sure if it's necessary to add a sockpuppet tag to his userpage. Note that sockpuppetry in itself is not against policy, but as soon as the sockpuppet is used abusively (i.e. to evade 3RR or blocks), that's when it stops being ok. Note that Vintila hasn't edited since the 8th, so there isn't really anything wrong with what he's doing. Despite this, however, he's probably going to end up getting the page protected again... &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Constitution Party (disambiguation)
I assume you're in the process of creating this, since you moved the disamb. from the article itself? &mdash; ChristTrekker 14:22, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem... I'd suggest repointing the redir for Constitutional Party at your Constitution Party (disambiguation) as well.  Of course, make sure the main article is included in the disamb.  &#9786; &mdash; ChristTrekker 14:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Jews in Romania
Hello Dahn! No, I dont impliy that Jews are a species. That would be ridicilous. As I did unterstand it, the concept of Ecology includes human populations and how they interact with their environment. But if you think this would be derogative I have no objetion to the use of the second link which I also considered, as you can see in my edit summary. --VirtualDelight 18:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dahn! Thank you for your reply. No apology necessery. It shure is good to consider such a possible misinterpretiation verry carefully. And in general I like sarcasm. I'm happy to learn how to work on the wiki by this, happy editing! --VirtualDelight 19:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey there
Yup, and got quite annoyed at seeng my large reply to it go down the bit-drain. I'll write a new one later today, promise! :-) --Illythr 23:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, done! As for magic, 'twas you who worked it. Apparently, you somehow managed to insert an infinite number of eol symbols in there somehow. All I did was copy-paste the text into Notepad, killing all those weird formatting symbols, and re-pasted in back again.
 * For another interesting magic trick, open a new text file with the Notepad, type or c/p this:

Bush hid the facts Save, close, open again. Voila! :-) --Illythr 18:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, it does the same for

Bill fed the goats
 * (probably an unpleasant event from mr. Clinton's life :-D) as well as almost any "hhhh hhh hhh hhhhh" type letter-break combination, but I guess that's the part of the greater conspiracy to drive any intrepid researchers crazy... ;-) --Illythr 19:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

At last, my reply
At last here is my reply, which you asked for on May 6th. Looking back at my comments now I am somewhat embarrassed about my too sharp and sometimes unfair comments. Reviewing your comments now they seem true and just to me. I was a bit blind for that back then, because of the problems I had with some Romanian wikipedians at the time. I guess I thought that nearly all Romanians had some degree of anti-Hungarian sentiment (I know, it’s very silly to think that way).

I totally agree with you that there are two communist Romanias, one without and one with the control of Ceausescu. The latter was truly nationalist, whereas the former treated minorities rather good. Off course the former also suffered from the communist assumption that they had extinguished nationalist feelings. Communists just ignored national feelings and ethnicity as “not relevant” and “created by the bourgeoise” (we’ve seen in the 90’s that the communists were wrong with this, nationalism is still relevant to many people). But minorities were given many rights concerning their language and culture. Even the Csángó were educated in Hungarian, something they never were before, because they always lived outside the Hungarian Kingdom. I think these rights given by the (semi-)communist government of Petru Groza are unprecedented in the communist block.

Ceausescu – totally against the ideologies of Marx, Stalin and Lenin – put emphasis on nationalism, and presented the Hungarians as some kind of enemies of the state, historical interlopers in a proces of Daco-Romanian continuity. Bennett Kovrig summarized it in this way, which may be a bit exaggerated regarding the indoctrination, but captures the overall atmosphere of the time I think:


 * ''The official nationalist ideology revived and accentuated the nation-building myths of the prewar period. Thus the ethnic Romanian nation and its state were represented as an organic unity; the Magyars were depicted as historical interlopers in the process of Daco-Romanian continuity, as the fundamentally alien oppressors of Romanian Transylvania in the past, and as unassimilable, crypto-revisionist threat to the integrity and cohesion of contemporary Romania. The Magyars’ claim to cultural autonomy implied that a distinction could be drawn between cultural and civic allegiance, but Romania’s rulers emphatically rejected the civic form of nationalism in favor of the essentially xenophobic dogma of organic Romanian nationhood. By the early 1980’s, the regime’s favoured authors were publishing virulent diatribes against the Magyars.


 * Thus ethnic Romanians were encouraged to believe that all their troubles, past and present, were due to the presence of Magyars. The latter, on the other hand, were too conscious of their history and too rooted to a community to accept the status of unwanted, second-class citizens. To be sure, cordiality was not wholly absent in daily contact between Transylvania’s Magyars and ethnic Romanians; and the autochthonous Romanians were generally less hostile than those transplanted from Moldavia and Walachia. But the fact is that the nationalistic propaganda struck a responsive chord among the mass of Romanians. The few active Magyar dissidents soon lost hope of conciliating the latter or the rulers; their efforts were aimed more to raise minority spirits and alert public opinions.

Luckily all that is gone. Romania is a democratic state today recognizing and giving rights to minorities. It seems, however, that some people continue to be inspired by the nationalist ideologies of Ceausescu, which explains the pretty widespread (though rather minor) support of parties like the Greater Romania Party.

Those people tend to believe in the myth that Romanians were always discriminated by the Hungarian rulers. It is definitely true about the 19th century (see magyarization), when the Hungarians gained power after the revolution of 1848 and the Ausgleich of 1867, but in the middle ages and renaissance there was no such thing as a "national identity". Nation-states are a modern creation in the eyes of historian, despite the fact that nationalists stress the antiquity of the nation, as if the nation-state had always existed (Benedict Anderson calls this in his famous Imagined communities one of the paradoxes of nationalism). This is also the problem in the Transylvania, you cannot compare the nation-state of today with the "dysastic realm"-state of the middle ages and the Renaissance. States were ruled by kings who justified their rule as given by God, their realms had nothing to do with ethnic borders (look at the realms of Charlemagne and of the Hungarian Kingdom of Mattias Corvinus). Hungarians, Saxons and Romanians didn't exist at the time as they exist now, there were just Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox serfs. Standardized languages didn't exist either, so the germans of Transylvania couldn't understand someone from Berlin speaking an entirely different dialect, and the same thing goes for Hungarians and Romanians in Transylvania. Books were written in the "sacred language", Latin. There was no sense of a national community. Land didn't belong to the people living on it, but to the King and lower noblemen, to which it was given by God. Nationalist Romanians tend to point at the fact that the Unio Trium Nationum didn't include Romanians. In fact it did not include Hungarian serfs either, it consisted only of the Hungarian nobility, the Saxons and the Szeklers (the latter two had such a major status because of their work in the past for defending the border of the Hungarian kingdom). It is true that Romanian noblemen were also not included and that the Orthodox faith was not considered a "received" faith. All that is bad off course, but you cannot say that all this was part of a policy to "magyarize" the Romanian serfs. They didn't even know what that would mean and if they knew they wouldn't be interested as it would serve no purpose. They may have been interested in converting the Romanians to the Catholic c.q. Protestant faith, but that had nothing to do with transforming their nationality. Conclusion is that you cannot compare this situation with the magyarization of the 19th century and the romanianization of the 20th century because national identities didn't exist at that time (I think you agree with all this, but I just want it to be said one time).

Both Romanians and Hungarians were both discriminated over time, but I think that by now things have changed for good in Romania. Despite some activities by people who are inspired by the hate speach of Ceausescu against minorities (such as Corneliu Vadim Tudor and Gheorghe Funar), ethnic relations are much better compared to 20 years ago. I guess the fact that Romanians and Hungarians always lived together in a multicultural Transylvania explains that things never realy escalated in Romania as it did in Yugoslavia. I'm glad to see that the indoctrination of Ceausescu apparently doesn't inspire that much Romanians nowadays (it seems that especially Transylvanian Romanians regard Hungarians as very valuable for their country, is it true that most of the backing for the Greater Romania Party comes from other parts of the country?). I hope that stories by the BBC like this one and this one, both from 2002, now definately belong to the past, and that a Romania that is proud of its rich multicultural background joins the European Union in 2007. I hope the Union will give you a warm welcome.

Kind Regards, Maartenvdbent 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Just to put things in the right place, at one point you said that I put in a reference to a work written by Erno Raffay in Hungarian minority in Romania, well, I didn't. That source was already in the article when I began editing it. I have never read something written by Erno Raffay, and I don't know who this man is, but I guess you're right when you say that he is a nationalist or revisionist who needs to be ignored. Maartenvdbent 00:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Sadoveanu et al.
First, let me convey my delayed thanks for your expansion of the Tămădău Affair article. Second, let me point out that in the Romanian article on Sadoveanu, most of which is taken verbatim from Călinescu, it reads, "Nicolae Iorga va numi anul 1904 'anul Sadoveanu'." Presumably, then, Iorga said it; furthermore, we should probably find a better translation for the phrase: "Sadoveanu's year", "the year of Sadoveanu", etc. "Sadoveanu year" strikes me as odd. Biruitorul 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I also only have the anthology, so I'll wait for you to incorporate your more extensive material. Meanwhile, I did make the change from Călinescu to Iorga; hopefully we can come up with a proper citation. Biruitorul 00:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, what do you think of this article's title? Biruitorul 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've given it a couple of links for now. I do wish people on other Wikipedias would cite sources, which they rarely seem to do. I'll get in touch with the ro.wiki author and see what he has to say. I agree, though, there is much more to be said. Biruitorul 02:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, one final point for now: have a look at the Romanian language article. What do you think of the addition of the Latin Union as an official-language site for Romanian? For my own part, as per the Official language article, which states that such a status is conferred by "a state, or other legally-defined territory", I think mention of the Latin Union from the green sidebar should be removed. I especially think this should be done because no other Romance language has Latin Union under its "official in" section, and because the Latin Union is already mentioned twice within the article. If we followed this precedent of listing international organisations under the "official in" heading, the list for (eg) English would be very long indeed.


 * I cut it and put a version of my message to you on the talk page. We'll see how this goes over; thank you for your promised support. Biruitorul 03:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Bassolino
I added the article for Antonio Bassolino. As usual, help needed for coypediting of my poor English. Ciao and good work!!! --Attilios 21:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh oh. I've no idea of what are both ASAP and CAUR... sorry. I was never interested in specific Fascist era history. But ask if you've other curiosities! Ciao!

Charles King's book, "The Moldovans"
Charles King's book, "The Moldovans", (published by Hoover Press), has a lengthy and well-researched history section which is fully sourced + politically neutral. He doles out blame to both Russians and Romanians at various times in history.

I have made two edits in the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova (unfortunately, forgot to login and my edits were registered as 212.56.194.252 ).

The book have many facts, for example, for any section of the page about Moldova, we can add exact figures, e.g. how many families were deported, etc.

Charles King also writes that in 1980s the propaganda was back to Romania, but in 1994 president Mircea Snegur began to encourage historicians and linguists to remove any bond with Romania, a new constitution was adopted where the language was called back Moldova.

The main idea of the book is the following: "the Moldovans have long been the object of intense nation-building projects, designed either to convince them of their separateness from the Romanians, or to convince them their purported separateness as a fiction of Russian propaganda."

Yes, the revisions by 212.56.194.252 dated 3 October 2006 look like a pamphlet, but you can rephrase them keeping the main sence intact.

You can put back the following paragraph, without deleting the previous text in the Moldova page. Could you? Thank you in advance.

The idea of the Moldovans as a distinct nation, in the normal sense of the term, is today problematic. There is a separate sense of identity among the Moldovans. Apart from the three decades of Greater Romania, from 1918 to 1940, the inhabitants of postcommunist Romania and post-Soviet Moldva have spent most of the last two centuries apart, under separate legal, administrative, political and religious system. Unlike the other constituents of the Soviet Union, Moldva was the only union republic those majority population was culturally bound to a nation-state across the border and therefore the potential object of irredentism, a situation that simply replayed within the socialist camp and older confrontation between the Romanian kingdom and the Russian empire. For this reason, the Moldovans have long been the object of intense nation-building projects, designed either to convince them of their separateness from the Romanians, or when under Romanian rule, to convince them their purported separateness as a fiction of Russian propaganda.

Thank you in advance!!

--Maxim Masiutin 07:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Refs
Can you elaborate on what is the problem with this revision? On my computer the one done by Halibutt looks much better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you have any problems with references in articles like Katyn massacre, Tadeusz Hołówko or Jogaila?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I am done, but I still think we should use the updated refs Halibutt has done.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Moldova & King
Currently, wikipedia pages about Moldova express the point of view that were popular in 1980s and was supported by the countries interested in the dissolution of the USSR (NATO-countries) and the local politicians who took power. There are many alternative points of view, which did exist before 1985 (Soviet point of view) and after 1994 (point of view by Moldova's authorities). These points of view are oppressed by wikipedia editors, who support only the point of view of 1985-1994. Here is the three proofs of this:

1. The change of alphabet to Cyrillic without explanation of preceding use of Cyrillic in the Principality of Moldova, Bessarabia and Transnistria. When I've added sentences about preceding use of Cyrillic, my edits were reverted. When I've deleted the sentences about the alphabet at all from the Moldova page (because they did exist in the separate "History of Moldova" article, you did also revert my changes. Please practice what you preach if you say that "all detail needs to go first on the pages dealing with specific topics". Too much attention is given to the "Soviet harsh de-nationalization policy" in the Moldova page while many important historic events are omitted. Looks like a propaganda, not as an encyclopedic article.

2. When victims are mentioned, the light is only shed to Moldovans deported or repressed for their national origin or intellectual ability ("Romanian elites"). This is also propaganda. Please note that King explicitly states that the national origin was not the primary issue. He writes that the main issue was economical (whether the people had sufficient private property) ("kulaks"), their attitude towards collectivization, affairs during WWII, etc. He also writes that repressions were during Stalin's rule, and after Stalin's death the victims were rehabilitated (who left alife). Also, the lack of information about Jewish victims (how many of them were killed or repressed by Romanian army and Romanian police during WWII, or during "pogroms") enforces the statement that the articles of Moldova are propaganda.

3. The nation-building projects, as described by King, are not fully covered. Currently, only 1940s and 1980s are covered, but not 1990s (when Mircea Snegur put course towards separateness from Romania, this course is now supported by Vladimir Voronin). Also, nation-building efforts by Russian empire and Kingdom of Romania are also not covered at all.

As a conclusion, this support of one point of view by Wikipedia editors are killing my motivation to resolve the three problems that I've mentioned above. I anticipate that my edits will be again rolled back. For example, you could have edited my modifications without abandoning them entirely, as thought they were vandalism.

How should we proceed to resolve the 3 problems hat I have described?