User talk:Dahn/Archive 23

Hey man!
How's stuff? :-)

Shouldn't the thing read ...because they assume that English language wiki means "British/American wiki"? Just a thought. --Illythr 21:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just that this really is the English wiki...


 * 'S no problem, man, I know how this is. :-)
 * Also, I think that it probably shoud read "Where me does the magic", no? Like this. :-) Cheers, me go sleep now. --Illythr 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Question
Dahn, could you please let me know what you think of this edit? I think saying "absolute majority" will mislead readers, making it seem like Hungarians and others were 5% or something. Khoikhoi 22:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! If he reverts again, could you make a comment on the talk page? Khoikhoi 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Check this and this out. I guess I'm a funny guy after all. ;-) Khoikhoi 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought of leaving a message on your discussion page to ask why did you revert my edits (well explained on the discussion page of the article) without saying why. But just by coming here, I got the answer: it is because Khoi asked you to. We are not kids, so please have a look on the discussion page and then revert your last edits yourself. Alexrap 12:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, could you please check out the comments at Talk:Gheorghe Funar? Thanks, Khoikhoi 19:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:
No problem. Yes, I did manage to get him involved and interested, but no other family members so far. Have you made any similar attempts? Nice "meeting" you too. You're right, this is odd. My suggestion: try Yahoo mail; it's very reliable.

Just now I'm still heavily involved in other (real-life) matters, but I'll try my hand at Ioanid within a few days, unless you have nothing else to do, in which case I certainly don't mind you doing it..

Regarding that list: I tend to side with you. Maybe Păunescu did have some dissident writings, but he was still a thorough promoter of the Party, in addition to being a member. Wurmbrand also counts, if only as a pre-1944 member, which shows he had a real commitment to Communism at one point. Biruitorul 05:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Hi! I just want to say Merry Christmas to you! Have a nice holiday time. If you don't observe this event then I hope you don't mind this greeting. :) - Darwinek 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

XMAS gift
Lots of good intentions flying around, but not much in the way of useful stuff. Here is a nice template I found to organize your ever-growing collections of awards :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Category:Fascists & cat: Anti-communists
Hi Dahn, just wanted to let you know I made 2 changes at this category which you may disagree with.
 * I really think that Anti-communist should be used for individual people explicitly espousing anti-communist arguments etc. not as a generic categorization of groups of people which may have held a general politics which opposed communism. We would otherwise have to add this category to all the other political philosophies which are "opposed" to communism. Then we'd have to do the same for all the "Anti-fascist" philosophies...then the "Anti-democratic" etc.


 * I also changed "Politicians by political orientation" to "People by political orientation" so it reflects all its constituent members -- which is what the typical user is expecting under a general heading like "Fascists", just as the category "Republicans" should not be just politicians of the U.S. Republican Party (or even just Republican politicians).

BTW, I saw your reasoned arguments re the list of Romanian communists and why/how people should be included -- the distinction between "believers" in a system and those who might just adapt to its demands after it gains power holds true in more than the communist regieme examples. --RCEberwein | Talk 04:19, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

DYK!
Thank you for your contributions!!  Nish kid 64  23:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
I certainly would have given you more timely greetings, but there was a chance of your being an outright atheist. However, since you are merely "not really observant" - like a high proportion of Romanians (who still celebrate Christmas) - I am now offering you unreserved Christmas greetings, as well as wishing you a happy new year and congratulating you on the Constantinescu article. Thank you for your compliments on Bărăgan - almost all just a ro.wiki translation - more work is needed there. Two simultaneous Romania-related DYK articles: a first?

Good luck on solving your connection issues.

If I can direct your attention to a couple of articles: first, I (or we) have added some names to the List of Transylvanians, but like the List of Romanians, the criteria on that seem a little problematic. Any ideas as to a tighter standard? Second, University Politehnica of Bucharest?? The old title definitely seemed better, plus (of course) he didn't fix any redirects or the template after making the move. Third, if you care to wade into another dispute involving Anonimu: on Danube-Black Sea Canal, when he asks for "verification", what exactly might he want? Judt is a fairly reliable historian, from what I know. Biruitorul 04:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your work on the Canal article - you've done great work there. Let me just make a couple of points. First, did you read that it was inspired by the Gulag in a general sense, or did you come across any reference to the White Sea-Baltic Canal? I believe that was in fact its genesis, though I don't have a ready reference. Second, I think Socor would be a good basis for taking the article in a new direction - namely, one could talk a little more about conditions, but moreover, a list of each of the dozen or so sites (Năvodari, Poarta Albă, etc.) would be appropriate, I think. It's still a little vague on specifics. I will try to take on this task, if you think it's a good idea. Biruitorul 08:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Regulamentul Organic
Hi and Merry Christmas! Are you aware that Regulamentul Organic has been nominated in WP:FAC? There is an ongoing review there with remarks and suggestions there about the article you've worked on. I think you should voice yourself!--Yannismarou 17:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Lena Constante, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions!  Nish kid 64  21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Rakovsky
Excellent work! I have a pd photograph of Racovschi standing with Trotsky in a book I recent bought. I will endeavour to upload it and include it. PS. Would you ever consider being nominated for adminship? - Francis Tyers · 12:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

You wish to know what relevancy all of that vision about territories....
Hi Simply, the actual page states that : In 1947 Bessarabia, northern Bukovina, and Transnistria were incorporated as the Moldavian SSR into the Soviet Union, and the previous Soviet administrative divisions and Russian placenames were reinstated.

Not true, the Moldavaian SSR did not comprise any region of Bucovina, did not include the entire former gubernia of Basarabia and did not comprise the entire former Moldovaian Autonomous Sovietic Socialist Republic. Logically, missing northern Bucovina, the Moldavian region of Herţa passed to Ukraine (impossible, otherwise). Missing southern Basarabia, the Island of the Serpents passed also to Ukraine (highly unlikely, otherwise).

That is about it.
 * I know what you theorize about. I don't know what point it had in the text about Moldova. I still don't. Dahn 10:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The Lupu affair
Hello. I notice that you disagreed with the insertion of a reference to an article by Corvin Lupu. Since the reference wasn't essential, my point isn't either, but I think it is nonetheless important. I don't believe I have a conflict of interest here - I just wish to make my opinion known. 1. The tone you used sruck me as odd. Rather than saying, in essence, "don't quote Lupu or else I'll no longer 'enjoy collaborating with you'", how about, simply, "I don't think quoting Lupu is such a good idea"? After all, it is perfectly possible to write about Romanian history here without collaborating with you - just as it is possible to do so without collaborating with me, or Bogdan, or Dpotop, or Anonimu, or anyone else. No one is indispensable. As things stand, you've now alienated him, though he didn't say so openly. Especially with Jmabel's departure, we need all the contributors we can get. 2. Personally, I found Lupu's article to be very informative and thought-provoking. Furthermore, not only is he a department head at a prestigious university, but the paper also has an implicit Western imprimatur - something I know to be important to you - as it was presented at a Finnish conference. 3. When it comes to the subject of the Holocaust in Romania, it is especially important to remain mindful of the dictum, "Unquestioned answers are far more dangerous than unanswered questions." Lupu is asking just the right questions, albeit in flawed English: "What has been started to circulate after 1990 regarding the supposed holocaust brought about by the Romanians, from some points of view, a series of figures and events being exaggerated, in an unspeakable way that has to be rectified, it’s clear mystification of the contemporary history, which seriously compromises the Jews, officials and unofficials, who make accusing statements, after more than 60 years from the events and after years and years of thanking us for the opposite of what they declare today." He's not making definitive pronouncements, but suggesting that the record needs to be re-examined. Paul Goma puts it more eloquently: "400.000. Cine-cum-când a numărat morţii? Pe ce documente s-a rezemat? Cum s-a ajuns la această cifră? Şi de ce abia de la 1 iulie 1991 a fost anunţată"? To me these are very reasonable questions, and contrast sharply with the shrill, almost Stalinist ones posed by 22: "cum are de gând Universitatea sibiană să trateze acest caz? Şi ce părere are Ministerul Educaţiei? Dar oare Federaţia Comunităţilor Evreieşti va avea vreo reacţie?" When someone's opponent implicitly demands that he be put in prison for statements - speech - he has made, he is clearly desperate - either at losing the argument, or at not having certain truths revealed, of having a light shined on received orthodoxies. The fact is that none of us has a monopoly on historical truth - not you, or I, or 22, or Lupu, or, indeed, the Wiesel Commission. It's perfectly possible that this last one was wrong, and that it acted from less than impartial motives (someone should follow the money and see where that leads). Do I deny that some large number of Romanian Jews were killed in WWII? No, but at the same time, I question the official figures, I question the motivation of those claiming the figures, I decry the one-sidedness of their presentation (ie, killing is killing, but it happened in a far different ethical context in Transnistria than at Auschwitz), and I bemoan the unjustified loss of national prestige that has taken place due to these new claims - to quote Lupu, "În ceea ce mă priveşte, recunosc că sunt nostalgic după ceea ce se numeşte demnitate naţională. De aceea, spun adevăruri care-i supără pe vinovaţii de acuzele nedrepte pe care le formulează împotriva poporului român. Nu se poate accepta orice! (...) Ni se ia demnitatea naţională. Ni se fură istoria." Why the sudden shift in 1991? Why the relative silence until then, indeed the praise for Antonescu freely offered by Jews? Why the high survival rate of Romanian Jews? Where is the documentary proof for the official numbers? Why no mention of the Bolshevik sympathies of many (not all) Romanian Jews and their anti-Romanian sabotage? Some may not like these questions, but I will continue to ask them. Some may consider the Wiesel report to be impervious Truth, but no: it too is subject to questioning. Theoretically, I could accept its findings, but the tenacity with which its defenders guard its findings, their anti-Romanian outlook, their unwillingness to engage good-faith debaters, their readiness to use the cudgel of the law and of accusations of anti-Semitism to silence dissent and censor opposing views - all these point to the notion that they are not telling the entire truth. And furthermore, the forceful suppression of opposing views is quite foolish, as it only breeds resentment, fostering the notion that these are fictions propagated by outsiders in order to humiliate Romania; Antonescu's high ranking in Mari Români is only one indication of this backlash. If the Commission's findings are accurate, the manner in which a people should be reconciled with dark episodes in its past is surely not through threats - Romania's EU bid was in jeopardy, and that was probably the real reason why the government (but not the people as a whole) so readily accepted its findings. Biruitorul 23:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)