User talk:Dahn/Archive 20

World Jewry
According to the Jews by country list (a fine piece of work in its own right), most articles follow a non grammatical thread such as 'British Jews', 'American Jews' etc. Due to the bad grammar, I propose World Jewry be adopted to replace it as the category for Jewish Population. The World Jewish Population Survey of 2002 (cited here) talks of "world Jewry", so we can't be too far wrong when using that term in reference to this issue; Jewish Population. In fact it comes up in nearly every survey on Jewish Population. Google it. Chavatshimshon 23:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

RE
It certainly is a very well covered area. I am wanting to make these changes after nearly three years of having noticed it, I've not been much of an editor until now. Put it this way, the term is definitely no a good encyclopedic title. I ask you reconsider your view from a vantage point. I am not belittling the longstanding editors grammatical abilities. Clearly the way things work here on wikipedia permits these blind spots... meaning the way things start is the way things continue and issues such as this stark point aren't even obvious anymore. Think about this, other ethnic groups on wikipedia are reffered to as 'people/s' such as 'Roma people', which just wouldn't work here; ' 'Jewish People' just wouldn't sound right, so why do we have the current titles we have now? The answer to that: JewWatch which caused a backlash and Jewish people thus leads to Jew, where as Roma People does not lead to gypsy. World Jewry is the most common term outside of wikipedia to describe jewish population content. Chavatshimshon 23:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Two points
1. Some cleanup has been done on Northern Maramureş, but when you have a chance, you may wish to give it a look too. See in particular the areas with my comments.

2. I wonder about this edit: clearly it's a delicate matter, and the previous edit had given it too Romanian a slant. But is it fine where it is now, or has it gone a bit too far in the other direction? I like giving foreign-language equivalents but they do break up the flow of the text. Maybe some of the uncited claims are worth keeping on the talk page, where I'm thinking of moving them. Biruitorul 06:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem; thank you. I agree that the Ukraine articles are in disarray and from what I have found, the 1907 historiography is indeed generally polemical more than factual. Yes, Memoria is slipping, and no, you don't owe me research: you do what you can when you can, for what you do you do very well; I am patient (and willing to contribute myself, time permitting; I look forward to Anonimu's tags all over the page, though). Meanwhile, serial killers are easier to write about...
 * By the way, do you agree that this template is a little odd? I think it's based on the notion of each current state having its own sub-group in America, but that presents two flaws. First, what about states or ethnicities that are defunct in Europe? Ruthenian-Americans spring to mind. Or for instance a Belarusian SSR inhabitant who immigrated in the 1970s might very well identify more as a Soviet or as a Russian than as a Belarusian, while the descendants of one who immigrated from present-day Belarus in the 19th century might not even have heard much about Belarus, so weak was the concept of Belarus at the time. But what I'm really interested in is that orange link for "Moldovan American". In Moldova, a Moldovan identity that encompasses Russians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians and Gagauz (not forgetting the Transnistrians, who are de jure part of Moldova) is probably fairly tenuous. I imagine that it falls apart completely when they come to America, with Russian Moldovans integrating into the Russian community, Romanian Moldovans into the Romanian community, etc. So the probability of that developing into a viable article is quite slim, unless it contains some minimal facts like "Since 1991, x number of people have immigrated from Moldova to the US". Biruitorul 22:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Karagöz / caraghios
Certainly worth a mention in the Romanian Wikipedia. I'm not sure many English-speakers would care. - Jmabel | Talk 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

New article
Hey Dahn, I finially decided to create the Istro-Romanians article today (mostly split-off from Istro-Romanian language). If you would like to contribute, that would be great. Thanks, Khoikhoi 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem. BTW, would you be interested in commenting here? Khoikhoi 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Turnu Măgurele
Regarding your reverts : I am sorry, but the chemical factory in Turnu has closed recently. This is the actual information, as it has reached the it:Turnu Măgurele article, too. What is it that makes you refrain from seeing the real developments at Turnu keeping to outdated informations? Btw: If my use of the english language was wrong to some extent, just feel free to correct me. --Highpriority 22:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fugi de dracu, dai de tas'su...
Ai perfectǎ dreptate. Ulterior am realizat ṣi eu situaţia, dar era prea târziu. A force d'éviter la "recherche originale" on finit par adopter "mot à mot" (!). Mulţumesc ! (cum o sǎ mǎ formalizez, Doamne fereṣte!) Noroc, --Vintila Barbu 10:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrei Pleşu
Could you have a look at Talk:Andrei Pleşu and see if you can make more sense of the paragraph in question than I can? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Stanisław Koniecpolski
I am planing to add inline citations to this old FA of mine, perhaps you'd be interested in looking over parts that have to do with his southern campaigns. Would you have any idea what's the local name of pl:Sasowy Róg - a town (?) near Ştefăneşti in Moldovia at Prut River, where at least two battles took place (1612, 1633)? PS. I just translated Khan Temir from pl wiki, I am sure it can use a copyedit.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure your copyedits will be very helpful. Btw, I hope you don't mind me asking you that (out of pure curiosity): are you Romanian?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've blocked the anon for personal attacks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you :) As for PRA, I agree the imbedded links need to be transformed into proper refs first - I am hoping sb else will do it saving me the work :> But we managed to write a good article on a very obscure topic, and I believe it can make GA with only a little effort.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Avoid
09:57, 23 November 2006 Dahn (Talk | contribs) (that is not a proper citation (it should be a quote, should indicate an edition, and should not be split into two sentences if they are both a single opinion); please don't create yourself sockpuppets)

I do not like note to see like this one. Do not make false accusations about me!!!--GiorgioOrsini 13:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The IP in question just "happened" to edit the same pages as you, and only those, and "incidentally" agreed with you on every topic... Come now. Dahn 14:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes I am simply forgetting to login. To contribute anomymously - is quite legal. By the way, my IP address is 192.***.*.** and the one you see is the proxy server IP address. So, even if you see that IP address - do not assume that is always me. Your remark above is equally offensive and primitive as the previous one. --GiorgioOrsini 15:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

two important questions: 1) yes or no; 2) choose between two self-excluding options
Dear Dahn, I do not wish to bother you any longer, but I must bring to your attention 2 things from my last reply on Talk:Romanians.

Dahn,

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:
 * Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)


 * Dc76 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I made two very constructive propositions. 1) You rebuffed the picture without any argument, although other users as you see from the talk page, support it. 2) You did not give any counter-proposition, so as to try reaching a consensus for the article. Please choose:
 * you want to reach a consensus for the number of Romanians, and would bring a counter-proposition
 * you either are not interested in this article any longer, or are interested but do not wish to reach a consensus
 * Dc76 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the first, I only wish you to know if you stand by your words "stupid", "morons", and "they're cretins, all 3 million of them"? Yes or no?

Regarding the second, I only wish to know which if the two self-excluding options you choose. If it's the first, I would like a counter-proposition, if it's the second, I would understand you don't object that the page be unblocked, and at least in theory would not vandalize what me, Khoikhoi, and dosens of other agree on.

Thank you.:Dc76 20:26, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't coach me. You may note that I have said, to stress a point, that, in the unlikely event that millions of people did not understand a simple question and replied against their own theory - which is the issue you present, they would have to be stupid. I don't care if they are stupid, I just use Occam's Razor against such absurd notions. If you want to trip me at all costs, I suggest you at least find yourself an intelligent argument.
 * You made not one "constructive" proposal. Nothing on that page is anything but an obscure theory that you entertain for an equally obscure reasons. All your theories about my supposed reasons constitute trolling.
 * Your end of the conversion is, IMO, a debacle. In case you feel like replying here, I ask you not to: I shall not be answering, and shall simply revert it. I'm already beginning to think that people who have said you are somebody's sockpuppet are right, so you have it on the record that I am not at all interested in continuing this "exchange". Bye. Dahn 20:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Bonaparte is impersonating you again... Khoikhoi 06:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I just blocked Mortzy as a NorbertArthur sock, but he claims here that he is "the owner of an another 15 usernames". Do you know of any others? Khoikhoi 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, Wikipedia makes snitches out of all of us. :p He's easy to notice though. Boogie down, Khoikhoi 03:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Graphics over substance
Would you please see my remark at Talk:Sibiu? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 23:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Changes
I have operated major changes in the Nicoleta Onel article. Is it better now? And besides, it's not self-promotion, it's just the biography of a gymnast who had been through many difficult times in her life.

A few points
First, Rîmaru. Most of your edits were on target and I appreciate the help. I also agree more citations would be useful. As for the spelling, I have to say I weighed the matter carefully. To begin with, there is no iron-clad rule that article titles must reflect the subject's personal usage: see for instance Confucius, Mencius, Plato and Columbus, who never used those forms, or Shakespeare, who was probably indifferent between that variant and Shakspere, Shakspear, Shakespere, Shakspere, Shaksper, Shaxper, or Shake-speare (his contemporaries used all of these). Based on these precedents, it would seem Wikipedia prefers the most common current usage (but not always; Lavrenti Beria is much more common than our Lavrentiy). Also, since he was born in 1946, his name probably appears as Râmaru on his birth certificate. Anyway, if we are to restrict our discussion to Romanians who lived a significant part of their adult lives between 1949 and 1993 and have the â/î sound in their names, the set of people under consideration shrinks dramatically. Constantin Pârvulescu is the other one who comes to mind. If we look at current usage, it's a mixed bag: Monitorul de Sibiu and Jurnalul Naţional prefer Rîmaru; Ziarul, Adevărul de Vaslui, Gardianul and Ziua like Râmaru. I think it's best to leave it as is for now and get an expert opinion eventually.

Second, I just noticed that this is a total disaster. I'm almost inclined to simply blank most of it, but I will certainly try to repair it and your input would be appreciated if you have some time.

Third, do you happen to have any information on the author Laurenţiu Fulga (1916-1984)? I admit that I'd like to see an article on him mostly because his wife was my grandmother's sister, but aside from that, it seems remarkable to what an extent he has been forgotten (he did meet with some success in his lifetime). There's almost nothing on him on the Internet, but if you do have anything, maybe in a biographical dictionary, I would like at least a stub. If need be, though, I will ask his daughter for more details.

Finally, I see that slowly and in rather rudimentary form, previous Romanian governments' compositions are being uploaded to ro.wiki. This is good, as eventually we'll use this to achieve a more stable account of Romania's governments, à la Australia or at least the Netherlands (much better on nl.wiki). Biruitorul 07:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your vote, Dahn. I greatly appreciate it. Biruitorul 21:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you and don't worry about the lateness. Se pare că pierd (pentru nişte motive puţin aiurea), but life goes on. Your replies to my points are quite comprehensive, so I won't reply further except to thank you for looking up Fulga (who also wrote E noapte şi e frig, seniori, if that calls anything to mind). I will eventually ask my aunt for more details.
 * Let me also raise a couple of additional points. First, about the Armenians. On the one hand, quaint though they appear in old books, I suppose I see the folly in including sentences like those in the ro.wiki article. On the other hand, we have some of those ourselves: we find that Mansi "are short, they have high cheekbones and slit eyes and their eyes and hair are dark..." and that Inuit have "dolichocephalic (elongated) heads, stout bodies and tan skin". Especially in the absence of a photograph, I see nothing wrong with descriptions that encompass most of an ethnic group (where that's possible). The key is to stick with accurate descriptions (with appropriate qualifiers) and not to draw more wide-ranging conclusions from them.
 * This is a minor matter but I'll ask you to take a look at the article Sofia Rotaru. The first paragraph is somewhat troubling to me. Our friend Mr. Norbert simply changed "Moldavian" to "Romanian" but that tactic was, for better or worse, rejected. However, I thought "Moldavian" referred specifically to Romanian Moldova and not to the Republic of Moldova. Of course, being from Ukraine, she is neither (curious how so many "Moldavians" appeared there after the 1940s), but anyway, should "Moldavian" become "Moldovan" there? And under "ethnic Moldovan family", should I link to "Romanians of Chernivtsi Oblast", given that the "Moldovans" living there are also discussed in that article?
 * Also minor: in the articles on the ţinuturi, say Ţinutul Jiu, why do we have the sentence "The list below just helps drawing the map"? Might not "The following counties were absorbed into the new ţinut" sound better? The present version sounds rather odd. I suppose I'll ask Bogdan too, as he was the original author.
 * When you get a chance, do have a look at Tatars of Romania. First, I wonder about the sentence "They are the main factor of Islam in Romania", as there are more Turks in Romania. Second, I'm thinking of mentioning that article and/or Crimean Tatars in Romania in the main article Tatars. Where do you think would be the best location to do that?
 * Finally, I found an interesting line on p. 127 of Paris 1919, Margaret MacMillan, Random House, 2003; writing on Ionel Brătianu's demand for the entire Banat on January 31, 1919 before the victorious Western powers, the author notes: "Rumania had been promised the Banat in the secret clauses of the Treaty of Bucharest of 1916 with which the allies had enticed Rumania into the war". That's an intriguing detail, and I hope to find a copy of the treaty so we can do more work there. The whole chapter on Romania in this book is quite interesting and I could eventually use it in a section on Romania's participation at the conference. In fact I think our coverage on 1916-9 is spotty at the moment: nothing on the Battle of Mărăşti, conditions in occupied Bucharest, politics in the new capital of Iaşi; relatively incomplete coverage of the somewhat complex processes that brought Bessarabia and Transylvania into Romania, etc. One day... Biruitorul 04:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

CfD templates cleanup
Hi, Jc. Since you have renounced your request for discussion over "Communists" categories et al., could you please assist in cleaning up CfD templates? Thank you. Dahn 21:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to CfD:
 * "Once you have submitted a category here, no further action is necessary on your part. If the nomination is supported, helpful administrators and editors will log the result, and ensure that the change is populated to all affected pages."

I believe that they have a process for it. However, I think there may be a miscommunication somewhere that I'm starting to understand now. In the meantime, if you wish to remove them, please feel free. - jc37 07:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well in this case, I was one of those "helpful editors" : ) - Hope you're having a great day : ) - jc37 19:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Years in poetry
Yup. But if he gets somewhere with this we can always merge. You might want to put your remark on his user talk page rather than mine; I'm already aware of the pitfalls of what he's doing. - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Andrei Condrescu, people born in Romania, and Romanian Jews
Do you see anyone having been born in Romania and of Jewish ancestry to be a Romanian despite their linguistic and ethnic backgrounds? For example, Elie Wiesel, who was born in Transylvania, of Hungarian ancestry and to my knowledge, not much of a connection to Romania; would you still consider him to be born a Romanian?

I'm asking because I don't think that simply "being born in Romania" would be a valid qualification for lists of Romanians and Romanian Jews. If, for example, the person grew to prominance in Romania enough for many outsiders to consider him Romanian, that would be valid, like Andre Condrescu. But if a figure is simply born in a territory that is then Romanian, but he or she is never considered a "Romanian by birth," would you still categorize him or her as such?

You recently added Gyorgy Ligeti to list of Romanian Jews, despite him very clearly being a Hungarian Jew. There are an enormous amount of famous Hungarians who were born in Transylvania, would they all be valid additions to a list of Romanians? And why is Radu Alexandru so obviously a Romanian Jew that he doesn't have to be sourced as one? I admit, I am ignorant of the personality in question but I'm assuming many others are too. The closest source I could find is this one which gives him a very Jewish-sounding surname, Feldman. 141.213.212.42 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I'm just weary of eventually categorizing every Transylvanian-born person as Romanian, but given that you only put Romanian citizens, that makes more sense to me. 141.213.212.42 13:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Like I said, I'm ignorant about Alexandru, so although for culturally-informed Romanians it might be really obvious that he is a Romanian Jew, most "average" users would not know. Since he doesn't have an article, the only way to source him was on his page. 141.213.212.42 13:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I see. I only looked him up without the middle initial, which gives a much wider range of search results. Thanks for the response. 141.213.212.42 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed this when I was making the remark below. Can I assume that "Andre Condrescu" is Andrei Codrescu? Besides the views of outsiders, I would think the fact that he always identifies himself as either Transylvanian or Romanian (never Hungarian), that his name ends in "-escu", and that even though he lives in Louisiana he is a regular contributor to Dilema Veche would count for quite a bit in terms of national identity. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)