User talk:Dahn/Archive 34

At last!
Oh joy! Oh rapture! Here it is! I welcome improvements. So far I've only put it in the Islam article, as a test, but assuming it looks OK, I'll roll it out to the others as well. Biruitorul 19:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The Călinescu news is very intriguing, and I'm ready to wait for whatever you may bring forth. But I agree: it's much nicer to start work with all the sources than to discover new and important ones after you finish an article (that happened to me with the Jiu miners' strike, when JN decided to publish a big series on it just days after I'd written my article, but I have yet to incorporate or even review the new material). The subject of Hinduism in Romania is both of interest to me and largely mysterious as well. However, I should note that the thought of writing an article on the transcendental meditation affair has occurred to me in the past; we can certainly start with a sub-section and go from there, as there are several articles about that online.
 * I note we still lack a "Romanian atheists" category. Once that is created, I wonder who should go in there, particularly from among the Communists. Today's Chinese Communist Party requires all 70 million members to be atheists, but on the other hand, lower-level members of the Lithuanian nomenklatura were known to celebrate Catholic holidays in their homes in the 1970s and '80s. If these are two extremes, where did the PCR fit? I assume all party activists were atheists, but what about party members? My suspicion is not all of them abandoned religious profession (particularly the many who joined out of convenience), but it's something worth looking into, and deciding whom to include. (Wurmbrand reports Pătrăşcanu had a conversion shortly before his execution, but he too can probably be safely included.) For non-Communists, let's be careful about deciding who was and who was not one: for instance the featured article on Chekhov (who made several atheist-like statements) places him in the category "Russian Orthodox Christians", but not in "Russian atheists" as well. Biruitorul 07:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pionier sockpuppet catch
Good catch, thank you! -- Avi 14:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Rozvan
Who are the "all other" sources who claim Rozvan was Hungarian? The fact that he wrote in Hungarian is not a proof of Hungarian origin; his family had ties with a Hungarian poet - don't remember exactly who but was written in the book I saw, he was born in a town with a Hungarian lingvistic enviroment at that time, this can explain his usage of hungarian language. I admit I didn't read very much on this subject. Considering all the details given in Rozvan's biography (he was one of the few communist leaders having a book about him printed in Ceauşescu's period) I would believe that indeed he was not of Hungarian origin. I will try to come later with exact refferences.--MariusM 22:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * M-am uitat la articolul Salonta şi mi-am amintit poetul ungur cu care familia Rozvan a fost în relaţii strînse: Janos Arany.--MariusM 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:Romania
For example how do I get to upload this picture w/o having to bug the one who produced it?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 00:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Oltenia
De ce insisti sa adaugi afirmatia aceasta? E clar ca limitele judetelor actuale nu respecta limitele regiunilor istorice (exceptie face doar cazul Dobrogei). Daca in articol este specificat faptul ca limita rasariteana a acestei regiuni istorice este raul Olt, de ce trebuie sa specificam pana unde se intind judetele Olt si Valcea? Si cum ramane cu judetul Mehedinti? Si cum ramane cu celelalte regiuni istorice? In capitolul "Geography" sunt specificate deja limitele acestei regiuni. Astept raspuns. --Olahus 11:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In legatura cu articolul Oltenia accept propunerea ta doar daca sunt aduse surse in acest sens. Surse care sa demonstreze faptul ca aceasta regiune istorica se intinde si la est de raul Olt. Desigur, termenul "Oltenia" are mai multe intelesuri, iar in aceasta pagina de dezambiguizare am tinut sa le enumar pe toate aceastea. In cazul regiunii istorice, lucrurile sunt limpede: regiunea se intinde pana la Olt, iar cine nu este de acord cu afirmatia aceasta, este invitat sa aduca surse. Altfel riscam sa imbicsim articolul cu interpretari personale (si nu de putine ori ridicole) a fiecarui utilizator.

In legatura cu Ardealul, doar nationalistii unguri si romani il vad in forma pe care tu insisti sa o pastrezi. Pentru nationalistii unguri, incepand cu 1920, "Erdely" inseamna teritoriul cedat la Trianon Romaniei, pentru nationalistii romani "Ardeal" inseamna una din cele 3 provincii istorice pomenite in sloganurile maghioarofobe strigate in 1990 la Tg. Mures ("Moldova, Ardealul si Tara Romaneasca") - de parca Romania s-ar constitui doar din 3 provincii istorice!!!. Nostim este si faptul ca in articolul despre Ardeal, afirmatia "The historical regions of Crişana and Maramureş (see also Partium), and the Romanian section of the Banat, marked in dark yellow, are also considered part of Transylvania today" este precedata prompt de un "citation needed" - este deci o afirmatie lipsita de surse!!! --Olahus 14:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Teoctist
Salut. Sunt in articolul despre patriarhul teoctist niste acuzati nefondate cum ca ar fi fost homosexual si legionar, pe care eu le-am sters, si tu le-ai pus la loc. Ceeace se spune la sectiune de controverse sunt neadevarate si jicnitoare. Raportul la care face referire este era facatura a comunistilor ca sa denigreze personalitatea patriarhului si ca sa fie folosit ca santaj, asa cum faceau adesea comunistii, in special cu detinutii politici. NU ca si cum erau niste adevaruri. Este neadevarat si dureros ce scrie la acea sectiune. Patriarhul nu a fost homosexual, nici legionar iar treaba cu sinagoga e aiurea. Nici comunitatea evreiasca nu accepta aceasta dezinformare. De parca el nu avea altceva de facut decat sa devasteze sinagogi. Ar trebui sa se vada dincolo de aparente, pentru a intelege personalitatea celui care a fost Patriarhul nostru. Arthasfleo 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Caragiale
Do you know if any of Caragiale's works have been translated into English? He sounds like a writer I'd enjoy tremendously... K. Lásztocska 22:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

All over the map
First, I agree that we need to proceed cautiously with the atheism category, but I'd say that as long as a couple of definite inclusions exist (Take Ionescu, the Paukers), let's go ahead one of these days. One also wonders about a "Romanian agnostics" category, though that's even murkier in some respects. Second, see this - by the way, adding 31 ancestors doesn't change the fact that the French have an FA on him, or that the article skips over, for instance, the first three decades of his life. So it seems the bacillus is spreading. In general, only a certain type of user edits royalty-related articles, and I'm not one of them, but some sort of a mediation case to cover this topic might be in order. Still, I don't have the time or energy for that right now. Third, while doing investigations for my very intriguing foray to the CAR, I came across reference to the interesting (interesting) CAR-Romania relationship of the 1960s, which made me lament not only the wretched state of the Ceauşescu article, but also the fact that it just touches on what I think is one of his more interesting personae, that is, Ceauşescu the statesman, the world leader, the mediator, the international mover and shaker. Anyway, definitely a place we can look to expand. Biruitorul 05:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Cyrillic
Dear Dahn

I don't know if you can help me :)) In the example given in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Romanian-kirilitza-tatal-nostru.jpg the oblique case "-ilor" is written with a "ѡ" (дато́рничилѡрь). Is the use of "ѡ" here normal for late Romanian Cyrillic, or just an exception? I know that in early texts "-ilor" is written "-илор(ь)". Regards http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.240.145 10:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Dahn, did you see my question? Regards http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.240.145 14:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * O yes, that would be lovely!!! I'm sure you will be able to find it out by by checking with the Bible of 1820. With that information I'll be able to continue with Romian lemmas like http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/munte. Thanx in advance!!! Mulţumesc!!! http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.240.145 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In the meantime I could find a Rumanian grammar book dating 1836: http://books.google.com/books?id=ffMIAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=walachisch&as_brr=1&hl=de. They use "ѡ" there :))

Regards http://af.wiktionary.org/wiki/Gebruiker:Manie --84.114.240.145 (talk) 17:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ion Cârja
Dear Dahn

I changed back some of the changes you made in the article on Ion Cârja. It was the Romanian authorities who did not allow him to return to the US, not the US authorities. He did not work for the federal Department of Health, but for the New York City Department of Social Welfare (it might have a different name now).

The same goes for the change you made about his book in the Canalul Dunarea-Marea Neagra article. He wrote the book between 1973-1974, but it was first published in Romania in 1996 (he published it in the US before he died). Mycomp 14:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eremia Grigorescu
Hello Dahn, I just created the Eremia Grigorescu article, so you might want to have a look on it! Any ideas and contribs are welcome! Cheers, --Eurocopter tigre 14:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

To Anittas
No, the uprising started because Cuza's reforms failed, and most peasants had to make a living by working for the landowners. The leaseholders, Jewish or non-Jewish, were forced to occupy a niche in a system that denied them virtually everything, including citizenship, and that refused to accept economic change. In doing so, leaseholders allowed Romania's agrarian economy not o crash - they made estates lucrative by not being able to ask for much in return for their services (because they had nowhere else to go). The National Liberals, especially in Moldavia, did all in their power to maintain the discrimination, and their only "solution" to the problem was to prevent Jews from residing in rural areas. Among the Conservatives and the far left, antisemitism was not uncommon, but the only politicians who resented discrimination and wished to move on came from among the Conservatives and the socialists. Inside the Liberal camp, aside from the Moldavian pressure groups and the politicians who feared that losing their vote meant sinking into obscurity, the silent majority had nothing explicit to say on the matter. The difference was however sharp: consider that, in 1848, the Wallachian liberal groups had emancipated the Jews, whereas the main Moldavian liberal figures (Kogălniceanu, Hasdeu, Ionescu, Sturdza, Alecsandri etc) were notoriously anti-Jewish. There were several processes to keep in mind: on one hand, the early 1900s conflict between the younger and older Liberals (led, respectively, by Brătianu Jr. and Sturdza), which saw the former rally the dissident socialists and embark on something new - as a collateral, this eventually brought Jewish integration not only in Romania, but also inside the National Liberal Party; on the other, that the 1907 repression was engineered by the united front of National Liberals, who recalled a Conservative "boyar" cabinet.

In respect to the revolt, I can only repeat: its antisemitic nature has been fully documented, and, yes, attributed to the peasant's failure to identify their real problems (not surprisingly so). Orthodox prejudice played a part, as well as the fact that the one prominent party who would once in a while put on the act of favoring land reform (i.e.: the National Liberals) also claimed that Jews and foreigners were responsible for anything and everything.

Concerning the term "boyar": it is not usable for anything after Cuza's reforms, even though it surfaced in polemics (to which the wiki article you cite may be tributary, and this will have to be amended).

Feel free not to buy any of this, Anittas, but don't expect any of you arguments to be taken for serious when you refuse to acknowledge the most basic of facts. And, again, I "bring up" antisemitism not because it is my hobby, but because it was one of the main characteristic of Romanian political life and happens to be relevant to what you felt like bringing up. Dahn 19:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you when you say that the gov. is (partially) responsible for the uprise, but I refuse to believe that the peasants decided to uprise because there were Jews involved. Even if some of them were antisemitic, their main concern was their living; and it seems that the uprising started because a Jew refused to sign a contract with the peasants. That Jew could have been a Greek, a French, or a or a Hittite. The fact is that the peasants rebelled not because they didn't want to work for a Jew, but because they felt their living was under threat; and they were already working under hard conditions. The peasants wanted the Jew to sign the contract, not to dissapear from the face of the world. This uprising is somehow similar to the mining uprising throughout history: in UK, France, etc. Perhaps that antisemitic propaganda helped things develop more quickly and more serious, but that was not the main factor, even if there are documents showing antisemitic ideas spreading through the rebel camp. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What I have said is that the causes, real or not, resided in the economic conditions, and that the violence manifested itself mostly as antisemitic and xenophobic violence. The instigation was attributed by several sources to people with antisemitic views - this is something the government was not responsible for, and the party who came in power to repress the uprising was only so by proxy. I've never said that they rebelled "because they did not want to work for a Jew", but that their violent anger was largely aimed at Jews, and often "justified" by their adversaries being Jews. This may exclude the original spark, though your argument is not convincing, but fails to account for all the other incidents in the spree, which took on the aspects of a pogrom.
 * And let's not forget where we started from: regionalism and "anti-boyarism". You have still failed to account for either being factors in the revolt. Dahn 21:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On KL's talkpage, you wrote: "If you want to take credit for one of the grandest antisemitic upsurges, you might as well present the Iaşi pogrom as a liberation (not to say that Wallachia didn't partake in this murderous spree" I would like to know how many Jews were killed in the uprising, because they were Jews. That is, Jews that were not leasers. I know that Wallachian peasants would also start an uprising. Did they also target Jews? The Iasi progrom, which was ordered by a Muntenian, was something completely different. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I made it quite clear there. If not, I'll gladly repeat my point here: if you feel that the 1907 revolt/repression can be attributed to regional divisions, you might just as well start presenting the other pogroms in your part of the land as "anti-Wallachian protests". That is because the revolt was antisemitic for a large part, while it was not at all relevant for any "Wallachian-Moldavian conflict" (it wasn't even especially relevant for the landowner-peasant conflict).
 * While it matters who ordered the pogrom, it doesn't matter what he was from a regional point of view. Especially considering that the Iaşi riff-raff was up to their necks in murders once the orders came - like the Bucharest riff-raff was on the day of the Rebellion. On the other hand, for various reasons, pogroms and other antisemitic actions in Moldavia were much more widespread over on "your side", and "your side" was the main electoral basis for all the antisemitic movements this country ever produced (with the possible exception of Vaida-Voievod's). People have sought an objective cause for this in the larger percentage of Jews in Moldavia - but, to me, this is partly like saying that Jews cause trouble wherever they go. In fact, it seems to me that the causes have to do, at least in part, with Moldavia's lagging behind and refusing to go through the shock of economic changes until the last moment - many of its inhabitants turned to an antisemitism that was not just xenophobic, but also Luddite. Dahn 23:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I never meant to say that the uprise started due to regional divisions. If my words were interpreted in such way, then I'm sorry. I only wanted to take a jab at the Muntenians for slaughtering Moldavians in cold blood. I, too, have been thinking about the antisemitism that existed in Moldavia. From what I know, problems started with the massive immigration of Jews from Poland. I know that in the era of Stephen--and before him, under Roman I, Jews were respected. Roman granted Jews military pardon (they could not be recruited) in exchange for them paying higher taxes. This was Moldavia's so-called golden era; after its fall (which we can thank the treacherous Muntenians and the imperialistic Ottomans for), things just went to hell. Poor people will always look for something or someone to blame and Jews were an easy target for that. I have also read some descriptions, written by foreign sources (one such source was English), which said that Jews discriminated towards lower classes Moldavians. Well, all higher classes did that to lower classes, but for a minority to do that, is not such a good idea. Of course, none of this could ever justify anything which transpired and I think that scholars don't want to make mention of these events, which could help explain the development of antisemitism in Moldavia, due to fear of being accused of antisemitism. Perhaps now you will understand why I don't really want to focus on anything subsequent to 1504. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all: the government what repressed the uprising was presided by the leader of the Liberals in Moldavia. Secondly: the revolt happened in Wallachia as well. So, as you may see, the jab missed its target.
 * The arrival of Jews also occurred in Wallachia, where, due to causes I outlined before, it was not received as a shock. Granted, the migration happened in lesser numbers, but that is also because Wallachia had opened up to immigration a long time before, and its economic niches were pretty full. On the other hand, let us note that arrival in both countries required reception, which should make the subsequent developments not only absurd, but also hypocritical. Furthermore, Wallachia's decision to emancipate Jews came smack-bang at the climax of Jewish immigration, whereas the Moldavian lobby prevented Jewish integration until the 1920s...
 * Let's also note that, while Jews were generally placed in positions that had just been made available by an expanding economy (from the few bankers to the many leaseholders and innkeepers), they were not actually "taking" anything from anyone. It was rather the other way, especially since they were in a cul-de-sac country (meaning that there was no place to go from here). In the end, they did not ask for privileges, they asked for rights - the next wave of antisemitic agitation came after Jews were no longer prevented from attending universities. I'll let you guess what city that happened in.
 * I don't buy that "discrimination of the lower classes" notion. First of all, because no community does things as a whole. Second of all, most Jews were not part of anything but the lower class (largely thanks to the extortion policies enforced by the political class). Even if this were the case: I do believe there is a definitive difference between discriminating as an individual, on your own turf, and discriminating as a state, by employing an entire repressive system which claims to represent the Romanian people as a whole.
 * As I was saying: Moldavia never had another golden era because many of its inhabitants were too busy trying to re-create Stephen's. And let me add: for a golden era, Stephen's years make a pretty fragile case. Dahn 16:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I find your discussion pretty cool. I'd just like to comment on "no community does things as a whole", which I think needs nuancing. Here's how I understand the situation of that time:
 * More or less specialized diasporae did exist. Not only Jews, but also medieval Italians (more precisely, lombards, etc.), Armenians, etc.
 * Of course the Elders of Sion did not exist, but while coming to Romania Jews did follow their specializations (finance, medicine) and fully colonized certain economic niches.
 * The level of economic disparity between peasants and administrators in Moldova was inacceptable. A revolt was unavoidable.
 * Now, given that 90% of the hated ones were Jews, how could you avoid antisemitism? Or, in a dual manner: Is that real antisemitism, or class struggle with classes divided along ethnic lines?
 * This does not excuse anyone, but it helps understanding. Dpotop 16:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, but:
 * Law prevented all non-Christians from enjoying full status as subjects. initially, this extended to Armenians and even Catholics, until Europe decided to put a stop to it. I think it is telling that, when the Congress of Paris pushed this resolution on Romania, Romanians did everything in their power so that recognition would not extend to Jews - the "solution" was not to discard religion in awarding legal standing (as was asked), but to admit that Catholics, Lutherans, Armenians etc were Christian as well. This idiocy served to further alienate Romania inside Europe, and we came to deal with it again at Berlin, but Romania still wouldn't budge. Again, i do think this is telling.
 * Even in the medieval world, there was no absolute requirement for a group to be practicing a particular trade, so even there arguing that someone did wrong by not becoming a doctor or a chimney-sweeper is pretty sinister. Jews who came to Moldavia had all sorts of specializations, or even none at all. Very few of them were physicians, but many of those physicians were outstanding in their trade (it's a similar issue for bankers and whatnot). The majority were not even leaseholders, but small urban traders, inn-keepers, craftsmen etc., and the majority lived in the cities, especially since, from time to time, officials reinforced abusive legislation that prevented them from settling in the countryside (interestingly, the PNL revived and upheld this medieval law).
 * The niches they were occupying were left open by Moldavia's backwardness (let's call a spade a spade), and it was a similar deal in Bessarabia. As said, Wallachia had those niches well-fitted by then, and mainly with foreigners (whose activities, btw, were not usually the target of any similar scapegoating). In Wallachia and some parts of Moldavia, for example, many of the leaseholders were Greeks - but, and this is telling, the 1907 revolt did not have any particularly anti-Greek message. Add to this that the niches held by the Jews were not actually in direct contact with the peasants, and were not "stealing revenue" from anybody - as Carp once observed, the Jews were basically annoying locals because they worked harder and for less (mainly because they had to). As for the leaseholders: they feeding coal into a burner that kept alive both an agricultural economy and the lifestyle of landowners (be they liberal or conservative). In normal countries, I would picture one does not reproach someone the revenue they gained as a result of offer and demand, let alone attempt to lynch them over it. Still, if one should feel like doing it, perhaps we should look into what the landowners were making (including, again, the landowners who agitated against Jews in order to, as we say, "show them the cat"). That said, I am not convinced that leaseholders were making much money, though many peasants were living on the verge of starvation. To argue that the two situations are related is quite pretentious, and rather like blaming people who gather firewood for deforestation - the causes for Romania's agricultural fiascoes have little to do with how landowners chose to delegate, and much more with endemic problems and, at times, with the sheer stupidity of some peasants.
 * Let's not go into the class struggle theorem, particularly when at least one of the protagonists was not actually a class. Aside from the discrepancies I mentioned, there are testimonies of antisemitism in the strictest of senses being at work during 1907, in what was a very political fashion. When one of the parties in power actually professed it, and when that party spewed its populist messages directly at the plebs in the countryside, that is not in the least surprising. Dahn 17:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Romanian bridgehead
Thank you for formatting the reference, Dahn -- you beat me to it! Eugen Ivan 04:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Romanian Task Force
Hi Dahn, i'm trying to create the Romanian Military History task force on the Military History WikiProject, and I need some volunteers which will be the future members of the task force. The RO task force will be most probably created after this Polish task force model. Would you be interested in this? I'm sure that the Romanian history deserves it! --Eurocopter tigre 19:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's ok, you'll be usefull even if you wouldn't be active all the time (as we have only 3 confirmed members until now, 4 including you :D). So, I think you're welcome to join and your help is needed!
 * Regarding Eremia Grigorescu, I was very surprised realising that such an article didn't exist on wiki, before I created it. So, any help is again always welcome! --Eurocopter tigre 20:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course, i'll do it now, although I removed false info this morning from it. --Eurocopter tigre 20:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It has just been created and lot of help would be needed! here's the link - WikiProject Military history/Romanian military history task force. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 16:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexandru Averescu
Alexandru Averescu, an article in which you highly contributed, is currently under A-class review. You might want to have a look at its entry and leave comments or reply to other's comments. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 21:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome!
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, offline publication, article improvement contests, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a variety of guidelines for article structure and content, template use, categorization, and other issues that you may find useful.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Eurocopter tigre 16:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A good fight
Thank you for your further input on the royalty issue - but we're up against a lot, and note they've been using it on horses lately too! I've put up another rousing message on the Helen page, but who knows if anyone will listen? Maybe the WP:NOT talk page will yield better results, as its readers are outsiders to the royalty circle. Biruitorul 06:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Blessed Ceferino Giménez Malla
Blessed Ceferino Giménez Malla - could you check it, please? रोमानीछाय —Preceding comment was added at 03:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Protochronism
An article that you have been involved in editing, Protochronism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.

Thanks, as usual
Thanks for the pointer Dahn. I wasn't looking at punctuation (irresponsibly) but modifying the language. The devil is in the details, indeed. Mea culpa.

I still owe you material on Eliade. No time, as yet, to read through the 3 tomes, but will do so, if I can untangle myself from futile controversies elsewhere. regards Nishidani 10:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

ro.wiki
thank you for the kind words. I do agree on the fact that ro.wiki needs to be sanitized but that takes above all numbers. The policies exist and I have managed to keep 2 or 3 articles relatively clean with occasional help from other contributors and/or admins. Before taking this as far up as Jimbo himself maybe some of you guys could lend a hand from time to time. Ro.wiki is pretty much a mirror of Ro itself. It is ... emerging...Plinul cel tanar 14:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Re on images, etc
1. I like the chart you made, and I quite agree on the Ahnentafels' probable origin here. I think once a few other good supporters are gathered up, we can initiate a removal process, but still, it's disheartening that articles containing them are now being promoted as FAs. (See also, on an unrelated note, this insipid discussion. Having that article there is bad enough, but I truly never understood having Napoleon Bonaparte (the name under which he is universally known) as "Napoleon I of France".)

2. I only recently noticed the arduous work you've been doing on Commons and in the future will check there before uploading. (Still, I could more easily deal with this if I were an administrator, yet another argument for promoting me - not that you needed one!)

3. I had not seen that discussion, and it's disappointing, as I do look up to a few of those fellows. I thought my standing here transferred there automatically, but I guess not. I also thought small deviations from the party line would not automatically render one "anti-Romanian", but I suppose the concept of pluralism has not yet fully penetrated there. Oh, well. Biruitorul 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and yes, any four of the kings, plus many of the voievods, would make for great articles in proper form. What I meant to imply is that "x was the son of y and fifth cousin of g type royalty articles don't amuse me very much, but if they're fully-fleshed treatments of important historical figures, then by all means I'd like to contribute and see more of that here. Also, can I ask your view of some of the suggestions I made here? In particular, I think "Occupation of Romania (1940-1944)" is a problematic title (you know full well the battles that have raged regarding that word), so if you can find a more neutral formula to describe the German military presence (assuming, and this is not automatic, that this deserves a separate article), please do so. Biruitorul 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * A canvass for a reply? How rude! But you will have a full answer soon enough. Biruitorul 12:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought of that too. There aren't all that many Mormons in Romania (thankfully), but enough material has been written on them and they do have enough of a presence (~2000 people) to justify an article. The only reason I held back from inclusion in the template is that it might encourage creation of articles on religions that have a truly absurdly small presence in Romania, and wished to wait until the actual article was written. Still, if you wish to place it in the template, by all means do so, as we both agree the article should exist and the subject is notable.
 * On a somewhat related note: Iraqis in Romania? Not an entirely insignificant group (I remember them demonstrating in support of the three journalist hostages), but still (but a more meaningful article on Arabs in Romania could emerge). What about the Uzbeks? Vietnamese? 8602 people declared "altă etnie" in 2002, but one wonders precisely what criteria would make one of those blocs notable enough for an article. From a historic point of view, I think the French in Romania are much more interesting and would deserve being written about. Biruitorul 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)