User talk:Dpotop/Romanian history business

Let's start
Well, then, I suggest we start on two directions: 1. Choose one point in history and start there 2. Get a bit organized

For the point in history, I would propose the 1930 crowning of Carol as a king of Romania. I consider this to be the point where the quasi-democratic "Rotativa electorala" system specific to Romania started to be transformed into a non-representative system that ultimately resulted in a dictatorship and our first single party system (the royal dictatorship). The crowning was moreover non-constitutional... We should start with an in-depth presentation of the subject. I have vol. 2 of Stoenescu's "Istoria loviturilor de stat din Romania" (well, I don't have just this one, but this particular one happens to be with me in one of the many places I call "home", and where I came only 2 months ago :) ). Then, we shall start creating or updating the articles related with political personalities and events. I feel the cross-referencing will be done by itself. And be prepared to have many users shout on you (the subject is quite sensitive).

For the organization, there are several aspects I can think of:
 * 1) . the language: I would suggest working first in Romanian, and then transferring here the result. Thus, we should avoid many deadlocks early on the writing process (I would not like to live a second "Moldovan language" controversy). What do you think about it?
 * 2) . grouping articles: is there a way of creating groups of articles? I have no idea.
 * 3) . copies: Is there a way of creating read-only repositories? I've recently been traumatized by a revert conflict (I gave up, the conflict still continues), and I would not like to loose data I find. No copyright problem, just a problem of control over some local resources.

I agree with this topic. Sounds very interesting and I congratulate you for choosing such a topic.-Bonaparte

Partidul National Taranesc
Se pare ca nu exista un articol despre partidul care intre cele doua razboaie a fost asa de important. O sa creez un stub pe ro.wiki. OK. Eu am o carte tot asa interesanta de Vlad Georgescu. -Bonaparte

In EnWiki: National Peasants' Party. Please, bear in mind that Partidul Naţional Român is Romanian National Party, and not National Romanian Party. Dahn 12:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, but that's a pitiful stub. BTW, we should only include there info about the historic PNT, for the new one was definitely a cristian democratic party (and finally changed its name into PPCD). The original party was a fairly heterogenous construction. A national, regional party - PNR - wanted to continue to exist in the National Romanian State (which is weird). They tried, then realized that being a regional party is bad policy, so they allied with the PNT, which has a definite red-ish colour. My last affirmation may seem shocking, but you only need to read some of the speeches of Mihaache to see it. Actually, I tend to consider that PNT presented itself at the time as the protector of the working class. It realy was the actual "left" party in pre-WWII Romania. This is why the Social-Democrates never managed to do big scores, and this is why Communists were so angry with PNT leaders after the war (they were the closest thing to a competitor).Dpotop 13:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure the article is pitiful. What I meant was that any new info should be connected to that.
 * Then, in my view, we should add a disabiguation page, or something. There are light years between the PNT before 1947, and the post-1990 party whose main goal was "restitutio in integrum". Maybe the policy of the post-1990 PNT can be considered as a continuation of the regionalist policy of the Maniu group (whose main goal was to get power). A parallel could be drawn, in fact, between the way Maniu never accepted the constitution of 1923 and the way PNTCD did everything it could to get to power (in both cases, including street actions and recourse to international pressure, regardless of its origin).

I totally agree with your comments on the nature of it, but there's no need to have two different articles for historical PNT and post-1989. All of these comments, to which I agree completely (including the Left-wing attitude of the PT group and subsequent ones within the united Party) can be fitted on that page. A person wanting the info would get it all in one place. Nuance: there was also an essential difference between the PT and the PSD, in that the latter would favor an urban socialism, which was even less popular (urban "proletarians" were insignificant, at least compared with the peasant class, and the appeal of Marxism had waned, including inside Romanian Socialism-proper). The PT viewed itself as irreconcilably different from any form of Socialism, even if their messege was the most popular one on the left. They had the same attitude towards a Mussolini-solution (still percieved as "Socialist" in content in the 1920s). My point is that the PT itself was "original" (read: heterogenous), a trait even more so visible in their PNT alliance.Dahn 14:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems that Russian infiltration with "pre-bolshevic" and filo-russian propaganda was already present during the peasant revolt of 1907 (and those influences were certainly continued by the soviets). I agree with you when you say that plain Marxism had no chance in traditional peasant Romania, and was not the object of the PT. However, I think that we still need to look into the connections between Russian, then Soviet propaganda, and the origins of the ideology of the PT. Mind you, I am not trying to undermine the legitimity of the PT, they were among the first to even consider peasants, which were supposed to be the repository of the Romanian soul.
 * BTW, we should point somewhere in an article the conflict that existed (and still exists, but to a lesser point) in Romania between the official Romania and its true, majority face. This is, in my view, the fundamental source of weakness of the modern Romanian state, from its construction. Attempts to address the peasant majority problem were drawn (I hope I don't forget something) by PNT party members, by the legionnaires, but in the end it's the communists who reshaped the peasant village. They did it in a largely bad way, but peasants are now less excluded (and this is one of the two lighter points of communism, the other one being literacy).


 * You are not wrong on principle, but "pre-bolshevik" and filo-russian open a world of conflicting identities. Four objections:


 * I don't think "filo-Russian" is ever the case. Quite the contrary, the narodnik movement on this side was rather anaemic, and hostile to Imperial Russia despotism. This meant several things as well as time passed: the narodnik movement had less and less support as events unfolded. Although present in the PT and PNT, Constantin Stere had moved to mainstream political attitudes and was a staunch opposer of Russia, Soviet as well as Imperial. The rest had just imploded after the Bolshevik takeover.
 * "Bolshevism" - no, not really. What you deem "Pre-Bolshevik" was actually the origin of quite differnt movements, from Narodnik to socialist revolutionary. Some were suspicious of Marxism itself, all were opposed on principle to the Bolsheviks, all were at war with Lenin, most were evolutionary socialist (not revolutionary, since they had approved of February constitutionalism).
 * The relationship between PNT and Marxism is conflictual. The peasantry is condecended upon by Marx himself, and even by "revisionists" such as Karl Kautsky, and the PT was quick to note this. In fact, according to Madgearu, Marxism was the least attractive: although a viable critique of un-amended capitalism, it wanted to ensure that the urban worker is fed by a giant agricultural machine.
 * The roots of the PNT share almost nothing with the zone touched by the propaganda you mention. It is a Wallachian party, first and foremost. Also, the main cause leading to its creation was more recent, being connected to the last agricultural reform, as the peasants grew weary of the Liberal policy of industrialising and increasing fees for exports (cutting off the subsistance and purpose of small property). In their defence, it should be added that the Liberals were doing this through the means of an oligarchy that monoplised the chain of production and the credit system.Dahn 22:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What I previously said about the PNR was strictly semantical: I had to correct previous references to it as the National Romanian Party. The proper form should be "Romanian National". This since, in case you wish to start work on the article, you don't switch back to that form. Thanks.Dahn 14:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to start right now -- I'm travelling for business, and I still have some things to understand before being flamed by half the romanians of this forum. :) Of course, I need hard references I I am going to sustain such a heresy. :) Maybe I'll need you to back me.Dpotop 20:07, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Organization
Salut, ai vreo idee asupra intrebarilor organizatorice?Dpotop 22:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC) E bine cum te-ai gandit.-Bonaparte

Only English
I don't want to edit on ro wiki. I getr far to annoyed at having to correct composite words that have â in the middle (a subânchiria instead of a subînchiria) and proeminent and ever-present commas between noun and verb phrases. So, I'll stick with veryifing the info in there and writing as much here. Also, where I went ahead of the Romanian version - such as in the article for Petru Cercel, that has no equivalent on there, I added a Romanian langage version, so as to have the link established in the future. If anyone wants to translate these, fine. Also, en wiki has its immediate advantage: if you want to check out something about a foreign connection that you stumble upon, you have both the confirmation and the exact link immediately after checking with a user from there that is on en wiki. And let's not forget: editing in English first has the advantage that translating En to Ro is more accesible than Ro to En, so perhaps the number of bad articles is reduced. Dahn 12:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed, diacritics are a mess. However, my feeling is that editing 20th century history (which is where I'd like to put my main effort) will get us really fast onto disputed ground. Therefore, having first a Romanian version before submitting t to the world may be a way to avoid conflicts like that of Moldovan language... I hated that! Also, is linking from RO to EN.wiki allowed? If yes, then we should start by first linking all that exists on both wikis, and then create a TODO list for what needs translation. This could be published. Dpotop 13:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * However, all contributions, like that you propose, are needed. BTW, we should do some categorization. Do you know how to do it? If yes, we could start discussing a nice category structure, and then apply it to existing articles. Dpotop 13:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"is linking from RO to EN.wiki allowed?"
 * I meant I specify that the artidcle is available in Romanian (under category, you type ro: and the naDahn 14:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Category schemes
Does any of you know how to use wikipedia categories? If not, I'm starting to learn.Dpotop 13:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

National Liberal Party
Necessary article on both RO and EN wikipedias. The en version only has a "Romanian liberalism" article.Dpotop 13:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

RO: Liberalii au continuat, în schimb, să joace un important rol politic, reprezentând în practică cel mai puternic partid politic al perioadei interbelice. Ei au condus neîntrerupt din 1914 şi până în 1919 (cu o scurtă întrerupere între martie-noiembrie 1918), când, asemenea altor partide liberale europene, au pierdut alegerile organizate de ei pe baza votului universal. După o scurtă perioadă de organizare şi de extindere în teritoriile nou alipite, liberalii s-au reîntors la putere, cârmuind cu autoritate între 1922-1928 (cu o întrerupere între martie 1926 şi iunie 1927) şi 1933-1937. Perioada 1922-1926 a fost probabil epoca celor mai mari succese liberale, guvernul lui I.I.C.Bratianu rezolvând cu pricepere problemele dificile ale organizarii noului stat întregit, ale unificării celor 4 regiuni, atât din punct de vedere administrativ cât şi cel legislativ; au fost de asemenea anii refacerii economice şi ai aplicării reformelor; s-a adoptat o nouă constituţie. Se poate socoti că, în 1926, Partidul Liberal se află în culmea puterii şi influenţei sale, încheindu-şi o misiune istorică începută în 1848. După 1930, deşi încă partid de guvernământ, rolul liberalilor va scădea însă treptat, lipsit rând pe rând de conducători, morţi în 1927 (I.I.C. Brătianu), 1930 (Vintilă Brătianu), 1933 (I.G. Duca).

-- Bonaparte  talk  17:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Na, ca m-am inselat. Pe Ro.wiki exista minunatia. Cred ca prima oara am avut probleme cu diacriticele. Vorba lui Dahn, s-ar putea sa avem probleme. Ar trebui create pagini de redirectie fara diacritice.
 * Bonaparte, bine scris. Va trebui sa pui toata informatia in articolul existent [] (o buna parte lipseste). Pe curand. Dpotop 20:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Am pus, mai am inca de scris la el, dar pas cu pas. Bonaparte  talk  20:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Diacritice
Am propus pe "Sfatul batranilor" [] o chestie, vedeti si voi (ar ajuta cititorul enorm). Dar, Bonaparte, te rog sa nu te lansezi in polemici. Suntem noi pe ro.wiki si vrem numai sa ne facem prieteni. Deocamdata eu zic sa asteptam raspunsurile utilizatorilor ro.wiki experimentati. Ma mir ca nu s-au gandit deja la asta.Dpotop 20:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nici o problema. Numai la *moldovan language ma lansez impotriva minciunilor. Ai incredere.-- Bonaparte  talk  17:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)