Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive1, Archive2, Archive3, Archive4, Archive5

Contents 1 Photos again 2 A tiny but intriguing Romanian diaspora 3 Duble standarde la Wikipedia 4 Siege of Pleven 5 Religious education 6 Education in Romania 6.1 Looking for Education budget figures 6.2 New intro 7 Romanian National Vanguard 8 Cutie comune 9 Leonard Orban 10 Photos sought 10.1 Bucharest 10.2 Sibiu area 10.3 People 11 Women and petroleum 11.1 • 12 Greier's ban 13 Missed anniversary 14 Nice article on militant atheism

[edit] Photos again

[This is an abbreviated version of a section now on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive5]
Photos still needing identification:

Once again, I'm trying to ID some photos I took in Bucharest. I'll start out with two of them. These are in the Lipscani district. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Making progress, so let's try a couple more. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lipscani 2.jpg		& this maybe 100 metres southeast of the corner of Calea Victoriei and Regina Elisabeta (give or take). But I can't remember in what street; pretty sure I was on the south side of an east-west street, looking at the north side. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Still unanswered - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:MTR Ceramic 4.jpg		Amphora? - Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Still unanswered - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A tiny but intriguing Romanian diaspora

Talk:Val d'Aran#Romanians: the Val d'Aran is a small, Gascon-speaking region mainly on the north side of the Pyrenees, but within the borders of Catalonia, Spain. Apparently, there are several hundred Romanians living there. - Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The most Romanians in Spain are in the Castellón Province, 40-80,000, of which around 20,000 live in the capital, Castellón de la Plana. (figures taken from random sites/newspaper articles) bogdan 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But legally there are only 28,000, of which 15,000 in the capital (9.1% of its population). [1] bogdan 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duble standarde la Wikipedia

Am observat că Greier tocmai a luat o blocare de 2 săptămîni pe baza unui raport 3RR făcut de Jmabel, după ce pe exact aceeaşi încălcare se făcuse raport 3RR şi de Khoikhoi. Probabil îşi merită pedeapsa, dacă a încălcat regula.

Ceea ce mă miră pe mine este dublul standard aplicat de Wikipedia. Pe articole legate de Transnistria am avut de a face cu edit wariorul User:William Mauco (colaborator la ziarul on-line "Tiraspol Times" vezi sfîrşitul articolului), la care numai eu am numărat 6 (şase) cazuri diferite de încălcare a 3RR, la care am şi făcut raport. Nu a fost blocat niciodată. În două cazuri a fost "atenţionat" [2], [3], odată s-a respins raportul că n-am indicat "Previous version" [4], al 4-lea caz pur şi simplu nu s-a răspuns [5], iar la ultimele două cazuri care au fost ieri un admin rus (nu întîmplător rus) a blocat articolele respective la care se încălcase 3RR dar nu şi pe userul vinovat [6], [7]

Semnalez acest caz de dublu standard (de fapt de lipsă a oricăror standarde) în care un utilizator primeşte 2 săptămîni pentru încălcarea 3RR iar altul încalcă regula de 6 (şase) ori fără să fie blocat nici măcar odată. Eu însumi am ajuns să încalc odată 3RR din cauza respectivului edit warior, nu m-aş mira să primesc vreo două săptămîni suspendare.--MariusM 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation (thanks to User:Biruitorul)

I've noticed that Greier has just received a two-week block for a 3RR report made by Jmabel, after Khoikhoi too had made a 3RR report for the exact same violation. He probably deserves his punishment, if he violated the rule.

What surprises me is the double standard applied at Wikipedia. On articles related to Transnistria I've had to deal with edit warrior User:William Mauco (a correspondent for the on-line newspaper Tiraspol Times see the end of the article), for whom I alone counted 6 different cases of 3RR violations, which I reported. He was never blocked. He was "warned" twice [8], [9]; once, the report was rejected because I did not indicate a "Previous version" [10]; I simply received no reply in the fourth case [11], and in the last two cases, which took place yesterday, a Russian admin (not coincidentally Russian) protected the repsective articles on which the 3RR had been violated but did not also block the guilty user [12], [13].

I am calling attention to this double standard (in fact to the lack of any standards) in which one user receives two weeks for violating the 3RR while another violates the rule six times without even being blocked once. I myself have violated the 3RR once because of said edit warrior; it would not surprise me to receive a block of about two weeks.

Weird. Surprising, even. William Mauco should doubtless have been blocked. Yes, admins can be very inconsistent about this.

FWIW, the reason I reported Greier rather than block him myself is that I was involved in the dispute. Except in cases of outright vandalism, I don't use my administrative blocking powers in situations I'm involved in.

You might want to call people's attention to this on the Administrators' notice board rather than just here. If there is a pattern of someone repeatedly violating 3RR and never being blocked, that is a problem, and admins should be made aware of it. - Jmabel | Talk 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you an admin (I really don't know)? Then, instead of saying "Weird. Surprising, even.", why don't you apply the rules? Indeed, you are not involved in the dispute there. Dpotop 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am an admin. If you look at the record, you will see that I rarely block anyone other than blatant vandals and the occasional sockpuppet. I've also very occasionally permablocked an inappropriate user name. But (unlike some admins) I don't block people working in areas where I am involved, unless the case is really blatant vandalism, etc. As I just said, that is why I simply reported Greier and let someone else decide what to do about it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Siege of Pleven

Undocumented material about abuse of prisoners on both sides was added to Siege of Pleven. See Talk:Siege of Pleven#Abuse of prisoners. I know very little about this, and would appreciate if someone more knowledgable would weigh in. - Jmabel | Talk 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

More, similar problematic stuff; renamed it as Siege of Pleven#Abuse of prisoners and other matters. Would someone knowledgable please take a look? - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Religious education

Would someone please have a look at Religious_education_in_Romania#Post-communist_developments? I did some copy edits; I have no clear idea what to do with the last paragraph. I am extremely skeptical of the claim (next to last paragraph) that "the number of people without any belief… is very low, under 0.1%." That would mean less than 23,000 atheists and agnostics in the entire country. Since I know there are about that many atheists and agnostics in the (not terribly large) city where I live in the (very churchgoing) United States, I find this almost impossible to believe, and there is no citation. At the very least, if conflates belief with background and practice: surely not everyone who was baptized is a believer. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be reworded to reflect the actual census results, which are #6 here; those results do show just 23105 of 21,698,181 (.10648%) being atheist or without a religion. Biruitorul 06:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Romania is rather odd in the field of religious identification, in that a significant amount of people identify with a given religion (usually the Orthodox Church) for cultural rather than religious reasons. Surveys conducted show that less than a third of the population actually attends church weekly, with a significant amount of people only attending church at main events such as Christmas and Easter. Additionally, according to polls, significantly more than 0.1% of the population don't believe in God (though Eurobarometer does say that more than 90% of Romanians believe in a divinity, one of the highest rates in Europe). However, for some reason (cultural/nationalistic), there seems to be a tendency for these people to still declare themselves as "Romanian Orthodox", particularly in formal surveys such as the census. This may be because, unfortunately, the word "atheist" or "no religion" still has a negative connotation in Romania, so you tend get responses like "I'm Christian but... [I don't believe in God and I never go to church]." In fact, some friends of mine, both of whom self-identify as atheists (but who declared Romanian Orthodox on the census) recently had their child baptised in church because "copilul nu poate să fie păgân". o_O. Ronline ✉ 08:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your discourse is a bit (but just a tiny bit) biased towards atheism. I think there is one main figure in what you cited: "90% of Romanians believe in a divinity" which is probably true, as I seldom met actual atheists and true agnostics. Given this figure, I don't see why you cannot adhere to a church according to tradition. First of all, the orthodox moral and way of life is specifically Romanian. You probably know that Catholicism and protestant/reformed/other christian churches correspond to other ways of life. The art is closer to me, the music, too, and the priest understands my problem, which allows me to concentrate on my belief. I don't see why I should randomly choose my church (as you seem to suggest). There may also be atheist nationalists, but they are part of the 10% of people that do not believe. Dpotop 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As to your friends, the "pagan" argument is funny. I'd say they boast a bit atheism, but still fear something immaterial when it comes to important moments in life. I've seen it a lot, too. Aren't there many older people coming back to the church? Dpotop 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that Romania is one of the more religious countries in Europe (along with Poland, Greece, Ireland and Italy). Despite this, there is still is a significant atheist minority that often masks itself as "Orthodox" when it comes to some form of formal identification. I'm not suggesting that people should randomly choose their church, but rather that they only affirm a certain religion if they actually believe in it. I don't see the point of declaring that you're Romanian Orthodox when you don't believe in God, don't follow biblical morals or never go to church, and yet a lot of Romanians do just that. There's nothing wrong with affirming an atheist identity, and I really don't see the point of maintaining an Orthodox identity just as a "token gesture". As to the baptising children and the like: I don't think it's so much to do with an actual "fear of God", but rather a socially-ingrained custom. Once again, I don't see the point of doing something that you don't believe in just for the sake of tradition. This includes baptising, church weddings or religious funerals. Indeed, in recent years there seems to have been an Orthodox resurgence, with more people affirming a Christian identity, etc. Personally, I think it's counterproductive to Romania's progress in terms of civil liberties and tolerance ("Romania for all"), since the Romanian Orthodox Church - not necessarily individual believers, but the church leadership and clergy - is profoundly anti-progressive. Ronline ✉ 10:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe the Orthodox Church has all the rights to be active as a conservative force. I believe this conservatism is much needed, given the willingness of all our post-1990 governments to satisfy any western requirement, regardless of the Romanian public oppinion. Mind you, democracy means "majority rules, without harming the minority", but also "the minority accepts the decisions of the majority", and the whole contract is ruled by common sense and law.

As concerns the progress of Romania, I have to note that tolerance, as you understand it (GBLT, etc.) has never been discussed by Romanians. It was imposed. And while no discussion will exist, you cannot expect true tolerance, because the actual social contract has not been negociated. Dpotop 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Orthodox Church has any right to be conservative as long as this hurts people. When cancer sufferers die because stem cell research is opposed by the church, people suffer. When gay people are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, and are physically-assaulted with the support of the church, people suffer because of the church's conservatism. When other religions are socially-persecuted because of the Orthodox Church's opposition, people suffer. As long as these people will continue being hurt, I, as a humanist, can't support what the Church stands for and can't regard it as a valid force in Romanian society. As to Romania's government: while Romanian governments are rather progressive, I don't think they have been progressive enough for there to be a need for a conservative counterbalance. As to democracy, the idea is not that "the minority accepts the decisions of the majority" but rather that everyone is represented and can affirm themselves, including minorities. I agree that in many ways tolerance has been imposed externally, but this is not particularly relevant - democracy is also not a Romanian invention, neither is our current justice system. In an open society, foreign ideas should be accepted if they have merit. And tolerance is in any case better than Orthodox-patriarchal social norms. Ronline ✉ 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. You reject negociation as long as it hurts what you call "minority rights". Do you understand that this is not democracy, but something more related to the enlightened monarchies of the past centuries? For my part, I say that any decision applied in Romania must be discussed and accepted by a majority. This is why, for instance, I am for participative democracy. Because I feel the current representative paradigm has practically insulates citizens from debate.

BTW, I saw below that you mentioned the abortion ban and systematization, but not cooperativization (doesn't sound English, but still...). Is this intentional, or you just forgot it. I have my oppinion on the subject, but I'd like to have your oppinion first. Dpotop 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Orthodox Church has every right to be conservative as long as this hurts people who deserve to be hurt for some transgression they have committed. The church is not against adult stem cell research, which is where the really useful medical advances are being made. I'd like to see a citation on the church supporting the beating of homosexuals. As for discrimination against them: the church has nothing at all against people attracted to the same sex; its problem is with those who have sex with others of the same sex. As long as they don't have sex or do it (within marriage) with people of the opposite sex, no problem. The church encourages the persecution of other religions because there is only one way to Christ (the Orthodox Church), so it is doing this out of love and for people's own good, that they may achieve eternal salvation. I have no idea what "progressive" means in this context, but I'm assuming it means "left-wing", in which case I disagree, given the active participation of many Romanian government ministers in the Communist party (one of the most left-wing parties in existence). There are two variations on democracy: majoritarian and consensus. You favour the latter; I, the former; you may disagree with that, but it doesn't mean I'm less democratic, just a different sort of democrat (remember, Gerhard Schröder has called Vladimir Putin a "flawless democrat", so the term is open to abuse). Ah, but there is a difference between how tolerance came to Romania and how democracy did. There was no 1989-style revolution to bring tolerance to Romania. There have been no referenda on approving tolerance, no elections centred around tolerance. It has been imposed from above by a maniacal European Commissiion and mindlessly accepted by the madmen who have governed Romania since the madman who once governed it was shot. Anyway, you are correct that democracy too is a foreign invention, which is why I favour a unique path (o cale unică) for Romania. The seduction of Becalism remains strong; after Steaua's defeats, Ferentari was a very shrewd move indeed. And no, as I see it, tolerance is not better than Orthodox-patriarchal social norms, although it all depends on your definition of tolerance. I'm a pretty tolerant fellow myself, and I think partriarchal social norms are too (what's wrong with patriarchy anyway?) but that's by my definition; the beauty of this is that there is no objective definition of tolerance. Biruitorul 07:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of re-igniting previous debates: precisely! The Church is a strong bulwark against progressivism, civil liberties and tolerance, and that is overall good, because those things undermine the real Romania as embodied in the poor, semi-literate peasant of a simple, child-like faith. Woe be to Romania if she becomes more like Western Europe, a post-materialist continent that has become too weak to even have children, much less stand up for its timeless values, and consequently is being devoured from within by a rising Moslem tide that preys upon its weakness through its unashamedly pre-modern values. As a continent, Europe is dead, but it is precisely by not giving in to crass modernity that Romania can remain strong, that the mystical light of Christianity can continue to flicker for some time yet in a land where the darkness is rapidly setting in, where civilisational suicide is already well advanced. Romania's moral compass has been fine-tuned by centuries of experience and guidance from the Orthodox Church; "progressives" seek to destroy that equilibrium and bring her into the degenerate supine state that characterises her rapidly-disintegrating Western neighbours. It is the Church that is leading the counter-revolution, the retreat into the past, and it is through her that Romania shall continue to be a spiritual force and serve as a light to the world, especially the now hopelessly lost world to her West. Biruitorul 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"the real Romania as embodied in the poor, semi-literate peasant of a simple, child-like faith" I'm not sure whether you understand that:

1. These people didn't choose to be poor. They should be given a chance to live better. And if you say no, I suggest you live like them for one year, and then we talk again.

Well, there's poverty and there's poverty. I'm not arguing for Ethiopia-style poverty. But give a man a certain amount of opulence and it usually corrupts his soul. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1. These people make a nice political manoeuvre mass exactly because they are dependent on the government due to their poverty and simplicity.

Right, and that dependence should be transferred to the Church as the state withers away. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1. These people are bound to change. And the first generations after change are not necessarily so moral.

Nothing is inevitable. In 1984, the USSR was "bound" to keep on going for many years. In 1991, inter-ethnic violence was "bound" to happen in the Baltic states. In 2003, Iraq was "bound" to become a stable democracy soon. Etc. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Living decently and being educated does not mean being materialist, as proved by all the Christian theologians which were, for the most part, neither poor, nor illiterate. On the contrary, education and a decent living is a pre-requisite to actual free will, as specified by Orthodoxy.

True, but upper-class urban life does tend to produce more secular individuals. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you mistake current "education" practice and "popular culture" for all democracy and freedom have to offer, and then turn to religion to find your solution. But no, the problems you see are social problems, that need social solutions.

Nothing is more social than the Church. And the Church has great capacity to solve social problems; government should step out of the way and let the Church do her work. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also afraid you mistake the current Romanian peasant with the one of before 1950. They are not the same. Dpotop 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. They are not the same; it is up to the Church to turn back the clock, Pol Pot-style, and restore the peasants to their earlier mentality. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I still can never tell when you are sarcastic and when you are serious. TSO1D 23:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not the first one. Even I have trouble sometimes. (I'll give you a clue, though: the bit about Pol Pot was not entirely serious.) Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"too weak to even have children"? Are you kidding? Romania has a lower natality rate than the Atheist Scandinavia. :-) bogdan 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Norway and Denmark have state churches; Sweden did until recently, and Finland has not one but two national churches. That being said, Romania is unfortunately not immune from the maladies that afflict her Western neighbours. I once told my aunt, a devout Roman Catholic, that the Communists did two good things for Romania: they banned abortion and banned the Greek Catholic Church (the second part enraged her). And I stand by that statement (though I personally would not persecute the BRU with such harshness): the abortion ban, while improperly executed, was a great idea that, with a little tweaking, would work nicely if tried again. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the state church, at least in Norway, is pretty irrelevant as far as gauging the general religiosity is concerned. For example, about 85% of Norwegians are members of the Protestant state church, yet less than 50% of the overall population identifies as Christians (and many of them define the word pretty loosely). The system of a state church also means than the state has a big say in the teologic direction of the church, for example through appointments of various bishops. Because of this, a number of liberals have prominent positions in the Norwegian church. And due to this, many religious conservatives actually oppose the system, even though they probably appreciate the idea of Christianity being the official faith of the country. Anclation 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My point, though, was twofold: a)it's an over-simplification to call Scandinavia "atheist"; b)among native Scandinavians, birthrates are equivalent to those in other European countries; it's the Muslim birthrate that drives the numbers up. Biruitorul 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The abortion ban, along with systematisation, were perhaps the most painful effects of Communism and led to the most significant social problems. Not only is maternal health placed in peril because of illegal abortions, but people also have more children than they can support, leading to the creation of Romania's orphanage problem in the 1980s and early 1990s. If you really want to encourage fertility, there are other ways to do it, such as social security. Overall, however, it is fallacious to argue that there is a direct relationship between levels of religiosity and fertility. Despite having had a state church until 2000, Sweden is among the three most irreligious states in the EU, and yet it has a rather high fertility rate. France also has a high fertility rate despite being very secular, while Italy, far more religious, has a fertility rate far below replacement rate. Ronline ✉ 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree on systematisation. The proper way not to have children is not to have sex. It's not that difficult and also healthier, because abortion has significant physical and psychological effects on women (not to mention that it kills their children), while extra-marital sex in particular can easily transmit disease. Also, generous welfare subsidies are a disincentive to reproduce because they have the effect of making people marry later and seeing children as a burden (which they are, on a micro level, but anyway). The reason Italy has a lower birthrate is because it has fewer Muslims (according to our data, 1.7% vs. 4% for Sweden and 7.5% for France, though I suspect the real numbers are higher for all three). Non-Muslim French women have a fertility rate of 1.2, while in the EU as a whole, the rate is 1.4 for native Europeans versus 3.5 for Muslims. If you welcome a Muslim Europe, then those numbers should be encouraging. Personally, I fear the implications of these numbers and would rather that Europeans of all religions had children at least at replacement level. Biruitorul 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah, its great to have slums and having to pay on reinforcing old buildings five times more than on raising up new ones.Anonimu 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you say straw man? Biruitorul 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

<joke humor-level=mild>Side note, as to some people identifying as both Romanian Orthodox and atheist: there is an old joke that the first thing you want to know about any given atheist is precisely which God he doesn't believe in. I'm a Jewish atheist, myself, which is a rather different thing from a Christian atheist. </joke> - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good joke, Jmabel. I've met Catholic atheists, Ronline has met Orthodox ones, and here you are, a Jewish one. And your case is simple, given that the religion is montheistic. But imagine the complexity of classical Greek atheism. :)) Dpotop 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As a related note: the Buzău County Department of Education has been taken to the CNCD because its schools display (Orthodox) religious symbols. The complainant is alleging this represents discrimination against other religions and infringes Romania's separation between church and state and constitutional provision of religious equality. In any case, this should be written about in the article, particularly since, if the CNCD rules that the religious symbols are discriminatory, it would have implications throughout Romania's education system (the correct interpretation of the law would be to rule against the religious symbols; Romania's law is crystal clear in this respect, and CNCD has a history of applying the law correctly rather than bowing to public sentiment). Ronline ✉ 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This Satanic ruling of the CNCD, an institution that must be terminated with extreme prejudice, must not stand! Ziua: Decizia ... ne aruncă înapoi în timp în bezna comunismului ateist". Constantin Bălăceanu-Stolnici, Academician: "hotărarea ... nu face decât să continue practicile comuniste anti-religioase care speram că nu vor mai continua dupa 1989". Dan Ciachir, writer: "În '49 ruşii ne-au scos icoanele iar acum, în numele UE, se incearcă iarăşi acelaşi lucru...[Emil Moise, who brought suit] are un dezechilibru psihic şi ar trebui să fie dus la psihiatru". Eugen Mihăescu, Academician: "cum îndrăzneşte cineva ca domnul Moise să aibă o astfel de iniţiativă?" BOR spokesman: "Decizia aminteşte de situaţia anilor '50, când regimul comunist adusese la nivel de politică de stat prigonirea Bisericii şi credincioşilor". Finally, Radu Varia, art historian: "Occidentul din care facem parte este în declin nu din cauza forţei altora ci din cauza abandonării propriei identităţi. Acelaşi lucru nu trebuie să ni se întâmple şi nouă". One can only hope that the resulting backlash forces Parliament to declare the BOR as Romania's state church and, failing that, that a Becalist-Vadimist coup propels those two into power so they can put a definitive halt to this nonsense. Biruitorul 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the CNCD ruling is a monumental step for equal opportunities and religious freedom in Romania. Romania has a world-class anti-discrimination law, and the CNCD has shown that it is a world-class equality body prepared to interpret the law correctly. I have met some of the people who work at CNCD and they're all very much committed to equality and anti-discrimination (as opposed to equality bodies in some other EU countries, such as Latvia). I can't believe how much controversy this has stirred up, with Orthodox leaders saying they are being "discriminated against". Being removed from an unfair position of advantage is not discrimination. It would be just like saying that the abolition of apartheid in South Africa was discriminatory to the white population. Ronline ✉ 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course you like this decision. It privileges the very small percentage who are atheists (0.1% according to the census, but even if somewhat larger, not very large). Remember too that it's not the BOR that is being privileged. You won't find many Orthodox symbols in Odorheiu Secuiesc or Baraolt. You might well find Muslim symbols in Babadag or Constanţa. It's absurd to argue that religious symbols on a wall do any harm. If I lived in Iran or Tunisia, much as I disagree with the tenets of Islam, I would frankly expect there to be Islamic symbols in my (hypothetical) children's schools. If I lived in Mongolia, I wouldn't object to my children's presence at daily Buddhist prayer. It's called conforming to the will of the majority, within reason. Obviously measures like yellow stars for Jews (as in Nazi Germany) or outright prohibition of non-Muslim religions (as in Saudi Arabia) are a step too far. But an icon or crescent on a wall is simply not a problem for any rational person (Moise clearly being irrational), and this ruling is simply a pretext to promote secularism because Romania's religiosity has long been a thorn in the side of her tiny secular elite, and in order to advance their foul anti-theist agenda, they have created the CNCD, an unelected, unaccountable bunch of Stalinist thugs in nice clothes who day by day chip away at what makes Romania great, most of the time working under the radar to push nefarious decisions down the throats of unwilling Romanians. The CNCD building should be evacuated and detonated, its members being detained for a thorough "reconditioning". I hope Gigi Becali and IPF Teoctist can call their followers to launch a massive series of general strikes that will bring the country to its knees, accomplishing a one-two punch: preventing EU accession and installing a reactionary regime to sweep away this non-"discrimination" pablum. And who's "clearly irrational" again? Biruitorul 05:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the ruling privileges no-one and advantages no-one. You can't say that atheists are priveleged by the removal of Orthodox icons; they would only be priveleged, and positively-discriminated, if there were posters saying "There is no God" on the walls. The point is not that they do any direct harm, but rather that they give undue prominence to a religion that the Romanian state does not recognise as its "state religion", and they discriminate against people who aren't of the Orthodox faith. More importantly, they make the school environment an Orthodox-normative one, where children are made to grow up with Orthodox influence by a secular state institution. There is nothing wrong with parents putting icons in the home, getting their children to wear crosses to school or taking them to church. What is wrong is that a state institution, which must be neutral and representative to all, is basically telling children that Orthodoxy is normative and that it should be held above all other religions - it is equating the Romanian state with Orthodoxy, which is clearly discriminatory to all non-Orthodox Romanian citizens.

The removal of religious symbols from public buildings in effect promotes atheism because absolute neutrality toward religion is impossible; the absence of such symbols is equivalent to the endorsement of an anti-religious ideology. First of all, the Romanian Orthodox Church, while not (yet) the state church, is the church of the great majority of Romanians, so it is fitting that its special place in society be recognised (except in Ţinutul Secuiesc and a few other places, where other religions are in the majority). How do they discriminate? If we go to the dictionary, we find that "to discriminate" means "to make a difference in treatment or favour on a basis other than individual merit"; no one is being treated differently by the presence of a painted piece of wood (albeit holy) on the wall; no one is being favoured in Buzău (where the complaint was filed), where virtually no one is not Orthodox. I missed the part in the Constitution about the state having to be neutral; perhaps you could point it out. I don't see how equating the Romanian state with Orthodoxy is discriminatory; it's merely affirming a fact that pre-exists the state. And I'm very glad that an Orthodox-normative environment is being created, because those who don't follow Orthodoxy risk damnation, so it's for their own good. But really, I doubt non-Orthodox students care very much about the presence of icons, and I highly doubt that those icons alone have caused any of them to become Orthodox. So as usual, this is much ado about nothing. Biruitorul 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your stance is one of the most "laicisant" ones in the world. They only implemented it in France one year ago, with the ban on "conspicuous religious symbols". And it is not necessary for Romania to follow the example. Not before it becomes more mainstream. Also, when determining "mainstream" don't mix the French ban on "conspicuous religious symbols", which is indeed non-discriminatory (at least the text of the law is), with laws recently passed in other countries banning the islamic burqa (or whatever they call it). The last measure has nothing to do with religion, but with public safety. Dpotop 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As for me, I don't see how individuals posting what they see as auspicious religious signs is "state religion". You can see it as a form of art. The professors should be banned from proselytising, but otherwise where's the problem? Orthodox art is a part of our heritage, and even if you are atheistic or jewish, seeing an icon cannot hurt you (unless you're some kind of vampire). Dpotop 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're setting up a straw man here. In my statement above, I never said that I support a ban on personal religious symbols in schools, such as crosses or headscarves, etc. In fact, I stated that "There is nothing wrong with parents... getting their children to wear crosses to school". The problem is that when a state institution publicly displays religious symbols, it goes against secularism, since the state institution becomes a vehicle for the promotion of Orthodoxism or Orthodox-normativity. That's when it becomes "state religion", not when individiuals wear crosses to school. As to the icons being a "form of art" – it's all to do with the purpose and context which they are displayed in. I would have nothing wrong, for example, in placing art in schools which includes religious symbols (i.e. Renaissance paintings). But I don't think you can reasonably argue that the Orthodox icons are placed in classrooms as an artistic or historical artefact. And if that were the case, then the artefacts of other religions should also be included, as would secular artefacts. As to "seeing an icon cannot hurt you" - I don't think that the burden of proof. The problem is that there is no reason why the icons should be there, in a public, secular institution. Keeping them there is a symbolic infringement on that principle. More importantly, as I have stated previously, they are a subtle form of prosyletism in that they signal to children that the Orthodox faith is the "normative" faith, the only faith to be displayed in schools, while indicating exclusion for those who are not Orthodox. But it shouldn't even be about that: at the end of day, religion has no place in schools, religion shouldn't be mixed up in the affairs of the state. I don't see the point of putting the icons there. The burden of proof is not on the secularists to show what damage they cause, but on the pro-symbol group to show why they should be there in the first place. And aside from discriminatory, generalised reasons such as "Romania is a Christian country", there is no reason why they should be there. Ronline ✉ 09:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination, discrimination, discrimination. Like most mantras, it's fairly vapid. Anyway, should religious education also be banned? I know you can opt out, but still, it does have a normative character. And what about state-funded salaries for clergy? Biruitorul 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to the principles of separation between church and state, there should be no religious education in schools, apart from a neutral study of religion (i.e. a subject called "Studies of Religion", taught by theological experts not by priests, and which includes all major religions; I would have no problem with this subject even being compulsory, in the same way that history and geography is). However, considering that people can opt out of the class, I don't have a particular aversion to it. As to state-funded salaries for clergy: that's definitely a breach of secularism, because it's using public money to fund a single religion, and thus disadvanting those who are irreligious (and who must still contribute). As a private institution, the church should raise its own revenue, in the same way that other cultural institutions or charities do, even though, as a non-profit organisation, it should be exempt from taxation. Ronline ✉ 07:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As an anarchist, I'd have to agree. Shut down state schools, end taxation, abolish the state: all your separation of church and state problems vanish that way. Biruitorul 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The pro-symbols league has so far not managed to rationally prove just how the removal of symbols is a violation of religious freedom and how it "discriminates" them - i.e. how it actually makes the Orthodox Church inferior to other faiths. Instead, they point to cases like Greece and Italy, and even to the Muslim states, as "other examples". The fact that Italy and Greece do not respect religious freedom in this respect does not mean Romania should take the same path. In particular, Greece has a state religion. The other thing they have done is set up a straw man argument by referring to "Communist atheism" and how Romania is somehow going back to the "dark days". This ruling has nothing to do with Stalinism and everything to do with religious freedom and equal opportunities. I understand that there is an aversion in Romania to anything that is "atheist", because of Communism, but as intelligent people we must be able to discern the difference between the often-violent persecution of the church which took place during the 1950s and the current move towards freedom of religion and secularism. And while we're at it, there should also be debate as to the cross which adorns the parliament and to practice of beginning the school year with a mass. The other issue of course is the oath of office in Romania, which features "Aşa să mă ajute Dumnezeu", even though this is optional, and hence not a violation of religious freedom (for example, George Cristian Maior, the head of the SRI, chose to omit this line when he gave his oath). Ronline ✉ 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The removal discriminates because it seeks to deny the special position of the BOR in Romanian society by shunning its symbols from the public sphere. State-enforced atheism inherently takes its place. A religion followed by a predominant sector of society becomes invisible, marginalised, shunned. Religious freedom means the freedom to practice religion, not the freedom of having no one else practice or display religion. That right is respected in Greece and Italy. Again, I don't see how icons on a wall affect "religious freedom and equal opportunities". No Catholic was ever denied a job because he went to a school that featured icons. There is a slight difference between Dej and Băsescu, but not a great one. Just the other day I was reading how Băsescu's constant attacks on the PNL are very much like those of the Communists against other parties in 1944-7. That makes sense, and I wouldn't put it beyond the current regime, dominated as it is by "ex"-Communists, to start persecutions anew–in fact this may be just the beginning. I also see the hand of Tăriceanu in this: he's a Catholic. And of course, we should have a debate about the cross in Parliament, etc. I just hope the debate ends up affirming its position there. I looked at the Constitution and Article 82 says nothing about "Aşa să-mi ajute Dumnezeu" being optional; it would be rich indeed if Mr. Maior lost his job for this (as well he should). Biruitorul 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To start off: I think this argument has two dimensions, a legal one and a philosophical one. I understand that philosophically you want BOR to be the state church, but legally BOR has no advantaged status, and this applies to schools as well. In schools, BOR should not have a special position, because schools are state institutions, and the Romanian state gives no religion a special position. As to marginalisation: it does not become marginalised more than any other religion. As I said before, just because BOR was unfairly advantaged up until now, does not mean that returning it back to where it should be is "marginalisation". Religious freedom means the freedom to practice religion, as you said. How is that in any way infringed by the removal of the icons? Children can still practice religion freely - they can wear crosses, they can pray in lunchbreaks, they can talk freely about their religious beliefs; there is no restrict on that and neither should there be. But having the right to see your religion's symbols in public buildings is not part of freedom of religion. You allude to persecutions: this is in no way a persecution of BOR. A persecution of BOR would be a negative action, such as forcibly closing down churches, or banning the wearing of personal religious symbols, or banning people from affirming their religious beliefs to others. Orthodox people are in no way being persecuted by these removals, they are simply being treated equally. As to "Aşa să-mi ajute Dumnezeu", I believe that it's optional, but will research it further. If it's not optional, that would be a significantly graver breach of religious rights than the icons in schools, simply because you would be forcing people to take an affirmation against their conscience if they are not Christian (or do not believe in God). This is unacceptable in a secular state, since it would effectively mean that state positions would only be open to those who are religious (it would be just as discriminatory as saying these positions should only be open to heterosexuals, or men, or ethnic Romanians). Ronline ✉ 09:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to several sources, the "Aşa să-mi ajute Dumnezeu" line is optional: "Jurământul poate fi depus şi fără formula religioasă". See [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. This should be normal in a country where there is freedom of religion, like Romania. Ronline ✉ 10:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply more fully later, but let me just note that these provisions are all for lower offices. There is no similar provision for the President, right? Of course, I'm sure no great outcry would ensue if a President refused to say the line, but constitutionally, the President is required to be a theist (not that there's anything wrong with that). Biruitorul 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: first, I don't think that even a requirement to say "Aşa să-mi ajute Dumnezeu" is necessarily discriminatory, because those are just words that are ultimately meaningless if there is no state religion. For instance, if I were elected President of India, a secular state, and I had to swear "So help me Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna", I would say those words, even though I do not worship those gods. I don't think they would help me, because Hindu gods have no power (in my view), but it wouldn't actually hurt me to say that phrase either. I'd think of it as just a string of nonsense, much like "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;/All mimsy were the borogoves,/And the mome raths outgrabe."

Second, I think the enforcement of strict religious neutrality is prejudicial to the BOR because it seeks to deny the fact that Orthodoxy is the predominant religion of Romania and is intimately entwined with her history. To use an analogy, Israel is de jure secular, but de facto, Judaism has an important degree of influence in Israeli public life, because everyone (except for the 15% or so who are Arabs) is Jewish, so naturally that spills over into schools, the law, etc. Similarly, outside a few regions, everyone in Romania (barring a few eccentrics) is Orthodox, so it's only normal that that be reflected in state institutions, even if the state is formally secular. Put another way: having a "state religion" does not mean any religious involvement by the state. It means, as in Protestant countries, that the head of state heads the church, or as in Orthodox and Catholic countries (besides the Vatican) that some overwhelming preference is shown to one religion; for instance, in pre-Communist Romania (ah! the glory days!), bishops were guaranteed seats in the Romanian Senate. Icons on walls do not rise to that level. Biruitorul 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• For comparison: in the U.S., which has pretty strong separation of church and state, the courts have pretty uniformly ruled that certain uses are "ceremonial" and "traditional" and therefore pass muster. Examples are "In God We Trust" as the national motto, or "so help me God" at the end of the Oath of Office of the president of the United States. A more controversial example is the mention of God in the "Pledge of Allegiance", a text of more or less socialist origin (Francis Bellamy, 1892) to which the phrase "under God" was added in 1954. Various jurisdictions have had various rulings as to what degree schools can require students to recite the pledge, and what exactly is acceptable conduct if they demur (stand silently, remain seated, leave the room, etc.). - Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, though "so help me God", significantly, does not appear in the US Constitution. Those who say it do so by choice. Biruitorul 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the anti-symbols league has failed to rationally prove that the symbols are a violation of someone's rights. Dpotop 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very easy to prove. They're a violation of someone's rights to not be prosyletised to in a state institution, and to not be presented with a religious value judgement. They're also a violation of Romania's laws which constitutionally separate church from state. Additionally, they violate the student's right to not feel excluded because of his religious beliefs, to not feel as part of a non-normative minority in a state institution which should treat everyone equally, regardless of religion and the ten other factors enumerated in Romania's anti-discrimination law. Ronline ✉ 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you should feel excluded if there's an icon somewhere, unless people pray in the classroom, which would be weird anyway. And I don't see why this other person cannot bring his religious symbol and put it on the wall, too.

Frankly, I've never understood this stance: Having a religious symbol discriminates people of other religions. The only rational explanation to this European prejudice is that it comes from:

1. the colonial period, when anti-colonial nationalisms were using them as targets.\
2. old religious exclusivisms, that existed in all religions.

Anyway, this kind of prejudice has not its place today. Dpotop 09:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"And I don't see why this other person cannot bring his religious symbol and put it on the wall, too." Ummm, because it's a public institution, not your home. I can't go into a classroom and place an anarchist symbol on it, or a Marxist symbol, or an LGBT rainbow flag, or the anarcho-capitalism dollar, or a Turkish flag, or a feminist symbol, or any other symbol that indicates one's identity. Why religion should be treated differently to this fails me. But OK, I would have no problem with having these symbols in the classroom, except that it would be bringing religion into the classroom, and hence acting as a source of division and controversy. The classroom should be free of that, as it's not really a place for political or philosophical campaigning. If Orthodox people want to learn Orthodox values and/or learn in an Orthodox-normative environment, they should set up private schools, similar to the UK model. "I've never understood this stance: Having a religious symbol discriminates people of other religions." It's very easy to understand. People feel excluded when the collective identity of some people is represented or endorsed publicly, and the collective identity of others isn't. Having an Orthodox icon there makes non-Orthodox people feel as if their religion is not as good, as if it doesn't deserve to be placed there. It symbolically makes the Orthodox religion normative and most important. To use a parallel: it would be just like being exposed to symbols of male gender all across classrooms, with no representation of females. Would that not be discriminatory to females and make them feel excluded? Ronline ✉ 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

it would be just like being exposed to symbols of male gender all across classrooms, with no representation of females

So, if I follow your reasoning on religion, one should ban all images of women and men altogether, so that noone feels discriminated? I'd say we have images of both, if someone asks for it. Just like for religious symbols. Now, discriminatory remarks, both sexist and religion-based should be completely and explicitly banned and repressed. Dpotop 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the political signs you cited above. Yes, I believe all political signs should be banned in schools, both in professors and students (and in classes, too). Political signs are proselytising by definition. Dpotop 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, would you answer my posts from 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC), which I find more fundamental to mutual understanding? Dpotop 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just one more point, if anyone cares: if you look at Romania's post-Revolutionary presidents, I don't know about Constantinescu, but Băsescu is not terribly religious ("eu n-am avut nevoie de preoţi..."), and Iliescu is likely a downright atheist or agnostic. He once told an interviewer, "Doamnă, eu sunt liber-cugetător" (sorry, no citation), and as a high-ranked Party member, he probably retained his non-religious stance after 1989 (though not necessarily: former Soviet FM Shevardnadze was baptised in 1991, some time before becoming Georgia's head of state). Despite all this, he had no trouble mentioning God when he took the oath of office. As Henri IV said, "Paris is worth a mass". Biruitorul 20:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Education in Romania

Education in Romania has had a recent major overhaul. On the whole, it seems to have been good, but there is some poor writing and POV; for example, the very first sentences are "As Romania is strongly committed to join European Union in 2007, the Romanian educational system was drastically reformed to adjust to these new commendments. Many reforms are still strongly required." (What the heck is a "commendment", anyway?). Someone may want to give this a thorough going over; it should probably be someone with good English who knows the Romanian educational system well, and I only meet the first requirement. - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Looking for Education budget figures

If someone has education budget data, please contribute (or at least post the information here or on Talk:Education in Romania.

Examples of useful info (but don't feel limited by this list):

1. Overall budget:
   1. absolute figures
   2. GDP percentage
   3. Law requirements (I seem to remember that there's a law requiring that a minimal PIB percentage should go to education. This law is never respected.
2. Budget of pre-university, university, and government agencies.

Dpotop 09:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember off the top of my head from the newspaper today that the budget is 5.02% of GDP, which is the highest allocation ever. Ronline ✉ 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you, please, be more specific? :) The newspaper does not exist in Romania. Only newspapers. Dpotop 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New intro

Could some of you, folks, take a look at the new intro and "Basic organization" section of the Romanian Education System? Please, add missing info. In particular, I don't really know how to classify language/computers/accounting schools. Are this "postliceal", or "lifelong learning"? Dpotop 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A semi-related point: since there are articles such as United Kingdom debate over veils, would an article on the icons controversy be notable enough, or at least a section in the Religious education in Romania article? Goodness knows there's been enough press coverage for a wealth of citations. Biruitorul 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romanian National Vanguard

I am probably not the best person to be engaging Romanian National Vanguard; would someone else please commit to watching the article and trying to sort it out? The presumably autobiographical User:Ronatvan removed {{NPOV}}, {{notability}}, and {{unreferenced}}, none of which had been addressed, as well as de-linking the Holocaust. I reverted, but I'd really rather not deal with this one on a continuing basis - Jmabel | Talk 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe, why not just AfD it? The entire article is a piece of crap, and the only google link that is not wiki-related is their goddamn site. It looks like they are only gathering followers in this manner, and wikipedia should not be helping them achieve the notability needed for them to have a wiki article... I mean, you ask for someone to balance the text, but you would have to find someone who has heard of them or cares about them enough to criticize them. I could start the procedure, so it does not seem like you're acting unilaterally against the article. Dahn 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. As some of you may have noticed, I've been trying on Romanian-related topics to stick mostly to talk pages and uncontroversial changes, since at least two users have accused me of editing out of ignorance or with an anti-Romanian agenda. I think the charges are absurd, but as long as they remain Wikipedians in good standing, I am trying to tread carefully. Again, as I have said to them, I would welcome an RFC where I would have an appropriate place to defend myself, but they seem unwilling to start one, and apparently I cannot start the process myself. - Jmabel | Talk 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• It now looks like, through no doing of mine, the two editors who accused me of bias have both been indef blocked (apparently for abusive remarks and - in one case - sockpuppetry). So I will be back to being a bit bolder in these areas. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hallelujah. Dahn 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To save space, I won't put this under a new heading, but Dan Voiculescu seems in need of attention; the month-old additions should be cited and/or trimmed. Biruitorul 06:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cutie comune

Exista cumva vreun infobox care ar putea fi folosit la articolele despre comunele din România? Similar celui de la wiki-ro, ro:Format:Cutie Comune România. --Roamataa 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Se pare că unii folosesc cutia Template:Infobox City in Romania pentru acest scop. De exemplu comuna Unguriu o conţine. TSO1D 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Am văzut-o pe aceasta, dar nu conţine, spre exemplu satele componente, ca şi la wiki-ro. Eventual aş putea să o traduc din română şi să o folosesc aici? --Roamataa 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Clar, fără probleme. TSO1D 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leonard Orban

I don't know if you would like to add something to the article Leonard Orban, new Romanian European Commissioner for Multilingualism. I have found adequate information on his plans as commissioner -i have added some of it already at the article, but there are few things known for his pre-Commissioner-designate era. I do not have access to sources in Romanian.--Michkalas 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photos sought

[edit] Bucharest

• Writers' Union of Romania / Uniunea Scriitorilor din România, Calea Victoriei 133, Bucharest; if I remember correctly, it is a rather elegant building that also houses an upmarket restaurant. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• State Jewish Theater / Teatrul Evreiesc de Stat (TES), str. Dr. Iuliu Barasch - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Bulandra Theatre, both halls. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sibiu area

• Răşinari. We actually have one photo. I have more on 35mm, which I could scan sometime. More for Commons than for the 'pedia, I guess. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also one of Emil Cioran's house (see the link). Dahn 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] People

• Maia Morgenstern - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women and petroleum

(Considered separately, not together!) First, I wonder if there are any Romanian women on en.wiki. Don't get me wrong - you gentlemen are a wonderful group and I'm truly glad to be working with you. However, women do form half of Romanian society and their perspective would be useful, both on Romania-related articles as a whole, and on articles specifically about women. For example, there is a Feminism in Poland article; one on the Romanian equivalent would be appreciated. Thus, I propose a recruitment drive - let's turn our sisters, wives, female friends and other relations into active Wikipedians!

Second, I've been pondering the creation of an article on the Romanian oil industry. However, I haven't been able to find extant articles on more important industries - there's no article called "Saudi oil industry", for instance. Should this be a problem? And does anyone have information on the industry and its history so we can get something started? Biruitorul 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great thoughts, man. I may contribute stuff for both articles, but I'd rather not build them from scratch (I'm still dragging through with other major edits).¹ Dahn 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

___________

¹Yes, that's right: I use much of this space to advertise my awesomeness. Dahn 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On the first point, you have at least Zizi Lambrino and Elena Lupescu, as well as our former queens, and Ecaterina Teodoroiu.

On the second, it's complicated. Does your "oil industry" include the heavy industry for building equipment? Dpotop 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is a history of Feminism a history of known women? None of those girls was a feminist,and writing an article on such a shabby basis of would become a tribute. If you want feminists, we have Dora d'Istria, Maria Rosetti, Sofia Nădejde, and Ecaterina Arbore. If you want to approximate, we have the first woman pilot Smaranda Brăescu and some other pioneers in their fields (not just "women we thought you'd like to know about"). And check these out: [19], [20], [21]. Dahn 08:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The original question of Biruitorul was "I wonder if there are any Romanian women on en.wiki". I think that reducing women to feminism is... ahem... not intelligent. And I presume that Biruitorul just gave one example with his Feminism in Poland. What we need indeed is a nice article Women in Romania, or something like this, resuming their contribution to the history of the country, and to its institutions. This includes, but is hopefully not restricted to, the feminist movement. And if you want to talk about Women organizations in Romania, then there's another article, including women's branches of some political parties (including PCR), girl/women schools, etc. Very interesting, but again, not restricted to feminism (which was quite insignificant in Romania compared to what you had in some western countries). Dpotop 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The original question posed by Biruitorul was "are there any women editors on wikipedia?".
2. An article on Women in Romania would be painfully grotesque as a concept, vague to the point of sheer uselessness, and another playground for original research. Wikipedia specifically rejects articles created on the basis of vague concepts. Why must we always ponder alternatives that everybody else dismisses?
3. The article on feminism would inevitably contain info about the social context, placed where it ought to be. Apparently, based on just that, I found two articles which are long enough to be sources for any FA article, and they are both incomplete (because, Dpotop, what we haven't investigated is not necessarily irrelevant, and wikipedia should be an instrument to gather relevant information about even the most obscure topics). Btw, most women organizations would count as some form of feminism or at least reaction to it. Dahn 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. My bad. Dpotop 10:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good discussion. Let me clarify a few points. First, as to the general category of Romanian women, I think we have a fair number of articles on those: royalty, politicians, athletes, authors, etc., though of course more await creation. I didn't "reduce women to feminism"; I said that a female editor (whom we apparently lack) might be more adept at writing an article on feminism, though with the pieces Dahn pointed out, that's not really vital, but wouldn't hurt.

As for the oil industry article, yes, some technical discussion would be necessary, but that's not my area of expertise. I do know someone at Petrom who might help with that. My own focus would be on history and geopolitics. Just think: the pre-war Western involvement, WWII of course, then the effect on Romania's post-war development, and that of the ca. 1970 oil peak - leading to Ceauşescu's courting of Iran (I wonder if he regretted not extending his stay in sunny Tehran for a couple of weeks that fateful December), and even today - 24% of Romania's gas consumption comes from Russia, as opposed to 94% for Bulgaria. Biruitorul 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I welcome the ladies. I may be wrong, but I think we have no Romanian woman involved in the wiki project... which is just sad.

I do know of one, User:Emily007, but she isn't very active here, though she is an admin on ro.wiki. But for all practical purposes, the number is indeed zero. I've heard that Wikipedia as a whole is 80% male, so even getting to 20% women would be a challenge. Oh, well. Biruitorul 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that people assume there are no female Romanian Wikipedians just because no Romanian Wikipedian has declared herself to be a woman. This is interesting from a socio-cultural point of view, since it seems, in our andronormative society, that people are automatically assumed to be male unless they explicitly state they are female. We don't know the gender of many Romanian Wikipedians, and perhaps it's likely there may no women, but I think assuming male gender when there is no gender stated is a bit sexist :) In any case, feminist theory aside, I think your proposal is very good Biruitorul. The Feminism in Romania article would be really good; I'll see what research I can do. Ronline ✉ 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the statistic that 80% of Wikipedians are male is correct, then being a female here is unusual, so, in the absence of other factors (like a female-sounding nickname) I do in fact assume people are male, though often unconsciously so. I gladly correct my error when I am mistaken. (Watch me get put in my place here.) By the way, I strongly dispute the notion that the term "Mrs." is sexist, as evidenced by sites such as these: [22], [23], [24], [25]. That said, I look forward to contributing to an eventual article. Biruitorul 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Though often unconsciously so" - well, to be honest, that was the initial reaction that I had as well. The androcentric nature of Western society has made most of us assume that people are male until "proven" female, since male is still seen as "normative" in our cultural context, something which the second-wave feminist movement has sought to break down after World War II. It's interesting that this discussion has come up now, since I'm currently reading Undoing Gender by Judith Butler, who analyses very interestingly the way in which gender and sex has been culturally-constructed. As to the term "Mrs", I think it's sexist in that it treats women differently from men, particularly by overemphasising marital status as a defining feature of feminine (but not masculine) identity. Just because it's used by government websites doesn't make it non-sexist; to prove that, you would have to prove that government websites are non-sexist, and while most Western governments have taken steps in the last decades towards equality, some people working in government institutions continue to discriminate against non-normative people ("marginalised groups", if you like, particularly through language. Not because they're actively opposed to equality, but simply because they do it unconsciously - it is a result of "patriarchal"/heteronormative norms, if you like. Some women may prefer to pride themselves on their marital status and refer to themselves as "Mrs", and that's a matter of choice, but I believe that unless this is explicitly made clear, "Ms" should be used. This is probably best described by Ursula Le Guin in her afterword to The Left Hand of Darkness, a book which speculates on a world where everyone has a neuter gender. She says:

To say, for instance, that the title Ms. is a political invention, as the logobullies did for years, was perfectly fair so long as they admitted, which they did not, that Miss and Mrs. are equally political in their implication. It is socially and politically significant to identify a woman solely by her marital relation to a man, by her being unmarried or married, as if she had no being otherwise. This independent being is what the word Ms. (not a thinair invention, but a new spelling of the old, honorable Southern usage Miz) recognizes. The need for such a feminine equivalent to Mr. has been confirmed by the ready and almost total acceptance of it. There are not many left still decrying it as evidence of the dread Feminist Agenda, a nuke in the arsenal of the monstrous regiment of women.

I think the use of "he" as a gender-neutral or unknown-gender pronoun in English fits into the same category. Even "he/she" is not entirely inclusive in that it's not ungendered, but rather bigender, by only including males and females (and not alternatively-gendered people such as pangender, agender, etc). For this reason, I try to use the singular they as much as possible. Ronline ✉ 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's these sorts of nostrums that will be the undoing of Western civilisation and lead to its submission to a global Caliphate. Let's get real here: when you (not you specifically) use terms like pangender and agender without a hint of irony, you know the Eloi - Morlock split has taken place, and guess what? The Morlocks always win. Normativity, that hobgoblin of post-modernists, is, believe it or not, a Good Thing - it's how we got this far. It's provided order and structure to our societies and recognised deviance from the norm as something to be fixed rather than "celebrated". Now, I am aware that not everyone is born with normal male and female sex organs, but those individuals' parents should decide on raising them in one sex or the other. That way society benefits, because it doesn't have to bother with accomodating the mutant individual (and I don't mean mutant in a disparaging way), while the mutant can fit into the mainstream and not be sidelined and isolated. Biruitorul 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's important that we realise that there are people out there who are alternatively-gendered, and there are people who feel that they cannot be part of the male-female gender binary and adopt a cisgender gender identity. I'm using terms such as pangender and agender because they apply to real people. I think it's unconscionable for us as a society to constrain them from expressing their gender identity. As to the efficacy of heteropatriarchal normativity - there are two schools of thought. One is that heteropatriarchy (for want of a better term) is a necessary evil - that even though some people are constrained and marginalised by things such as heteronormativity, gender roles and Butlerian performativity, this is necessary to maintain social stability. I think this view is, however, countered very well by third-wave feminists such as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, who argues that heteropatriarchy is the source of conflict, and that a society with no rigidly-defined gender roles would have no major conflict - i.e. that sexual tension leads to conflict. This is also a main concern of Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness, a book where the ungendered inhabitants of the planet Winter have very little conflict (though this does come at a cost, namely that of a slower pace of innovation). So, yes, there are costs to both a heteropatriarchal society and a more pluralistic one. I personally believe that the latter is better because it reduces tension and suffering in society. As to your particular example of forcibly assigning gender to intersex people, I'm divided on this issue. I agree to an extent that assigning a gender may be more effective for both society and the individual in the current context of cisgender-normativity. On the other hand, most of the time the way that the gender is assigned does not reflect the gender identity of the individual later in life, who often feels both male and female to an extent (or pangender). In this way, assigning a gender solves nothing and only creates pain and confusion. This explains why many intersexual people resent the fact that they were assigned a gender at birth. Ronline ✉ 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "unconscionable" - life went on for thousands of years before such people came out of the woodwork. Now, I'm not saying they're bad people, because their deformities (so to speak) are not their fault, but at the same time I don't see such characteristics as worthy of celebration and affirmation, but rather of pity and consolation, or at least of a neutral attitude. As to the heteropatriarchy business: much of what you say is probably academic (and derived from academics who really should be doing more productive things with their lives); I doubt we'll see a breakdown of "rigidly-defined gender roles" any time soon. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's important not to confuse grammatical gender with biological sex. Singular they, pre-modern use notwithstanding, is a means of politicising the language. If one person does something, a singular pronoun should be used. When we say "he", "he or she" is understood, and pangenders are very far indeed from ordinary people's minds. Out of curiosity, how does this work in Romanian? "Cineva te-a sunat, şi ei mi-au zis să-ţi transmit..."? I sure hope not. Thank goodness nobody actually talks that way. Or look at the Constitution: in reference to the President, we find that "El poate declara...mobilizarea parţială sau totală a forţelor armate." That's not because presidents must be male, but because preşedinte is masculine. Or should the text read "Ei poate declara"? The echoes of Orwell are strong indeed. Biruitorul 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that grammatical gender is a totally different issue, and for this reason I was never making a point about the Romanian language. As a language with no grammatical gender for nouns, however, English is different. In English, there is no logical reason why "he" should mean "he or she", and there is no reason why we should automatically refer to, say, the doctor as he, since the doctor is not gramatically-masculine in English. As to your argument that gender-inclusive language is political, my quote from Ursula Le Guin offers a counterargument to that: "To say, for instance, that the title Ms. is a political invention, as the logobullies did for years, was perfectly fair so long as they admitted, which they did not, that Miss and Mrs. are equally political in their implication." So, yes, gender-inclusive language is political, but so is non-inclusive language. Romance languages have grammatical gender, and for that reason it's correct to say "Cineva te-a sunat, şi el mi-a zis...", because "el" refers not to a male individual but to the masculine noun "om", I suppose. Same with "preşedinte"; "el" is OK in this context. On the other hand, some feminists have argued, and sometimes with good merit, that the very concept of grammatical gender only reinforces heteropatriarchal norms. This is supported by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - by bringing people up with a language where there is feminine and masculine gender, you're reinforcing a binary gender system in society. Ronline ✉ 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True, there isn't much grammatical gender in English. However, when I say "he" for "he or she" or for "doctor", I do so partly as a matter of convenience and partly because it is, in fact, customary to assume masculinity, even if it isn't stricltly logical. If someone were to use "she" like I use "he", it would strike me as a bit odd, but not incorrect. Also, I would automatically use "she" for nouns like "teacher", "nurse", or "secretary", as women predominate in those professions. Perhaps non-inclusive language is political in a sense, but I would argue that it's less political for us today, since it developed long ago. By contrast, inclusive language is a newer phenomenon that can't readily mask its political purpose. To use a Romanian example: when you call someone domn, you don't normally think "he's a nobleman/landowner, he's in a social class above my own" - it comes naturally, even though its origins lie in feudalism. But tovarăş was a different matter entirely and was clearly tied to communism. You're reinforcing a binary gender system in society - good. Chaos tends to result otherwise. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's the other way round: today, one assumes that the websites of western countries are non-sexist, and you need to prove that they are sexist. Don't you think, for instance, that the First Lady of the United States would make it known to her web designer that she wishes to be called "Ms" and not "Mrs" on her own website? More to the point, I've looked at a number of other national cabinet pages: Ireland, the Netherlands, Australia, Finland, etc., and none of them label their ministers "Mr", "Mrs", or "Ms". So can we just remove the labels entirely? Biruitorul 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, some women may choose to refer to themselves as "Mrs", mainly because they see marriage as a status symbol, as a form of "graduation" in society. Feminists would argue that that's a product of heteropatriarchal society, but I'm not going to go that far; it's a matter of choice. If women want to be identified as Mrs, they should be. But "Ms" should be the term to use when we don't know their preference, or their marital status. So, maybe the First Lady of the US (in fact, I'm sure of it, considering her context), prefers to be called "Mrs". Presidencies tend to be rather conservative institutions. As to your proposal of removing the title: I fully agree. I think the reason why they were originally placed there was to show how many women there are in the Tăriceanu cabinet (this can be useful for people who want to gauge the level of gender equality in the Romanian goverment). Another reason may have been so that the gender of individual ministers can be identified, in the context of English-speakers not knowing the gender of Romanian names. But, removing them would be better. I don't see why gender should be important when we are naming the ministers (it would be just like specifying their ethnicity in the list). We could, however, have a statement saying how many women are in the cabinet, perhaps. Ronline ✉ 10:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On the petroleum issue, we seem to have the same interests, Biru, so we should be able to come up with a monomaniacal and over-extended section :) - don't know about you, but I have no idea of and little interest in how they drill the thing and how they refine it. But "if we build it, [experts] will come". Dahn 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a vague idea of how it's done, but I wager our initial effort will have three times as much on our old friend Malaxa than on drilling, refining, transport, sale, etc. Biruitorul 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Who could ever resist Malaxa? I guess we're both Nixons. Dahn 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Malaxa, l'inégalable Malaxa! Biruitorul 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

[edit] •

Oh, certainly. April 2007 or thereabouts is what I was thinking, so there's no rush. In fact, and this just occurred to me as well: now that the new year is not even four weeks away, I wonder if it would be at all useful to try and set some benchmarks. For instance (hypothetically):

• By 31 January 2007: articles on every Romanian commune and locality (presumably done by a bot)
• By 28 February 2007: articles on every Romanian member of parliament since 1859 (that's obviously crazy, but bear with me)
• By 31 March 2007: extensive articles on every domnitor and every major battle that has taken place on Romanian soil
• By 30 April 2007: articles on every Romanian publishing house, on the oil industry, feminism, anti-communist resistance, football in Greater Romania, the revolutions of 1821 and 1848, and every cabinet minister since 1859
• By 30 May 2007: raise a dozen articles to FA status.

For this, we'd need a staff of about 800 working round the clock, but I was just giving an example. Biruitorul 07:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, so this was a bit Stakhanovite, but what about some more realistic goals, like improving the articles on every PM, not necessarily to a Tătărescu level, but certainly to a Ionel Brătianu level, where possible. I think we should strike a balance between strictly planning the whole year (which, as communism showed, restricts innovation and creativity) and having no set direction at all, which, while it has produced remarkable results in the past, might not go on doing so forever. I'd like some sort of contours as to where we're taking things.

(Next time you want to attack communism do a little research before... Anonimu 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I shouldn't have another debate with you, but it's so hard to resist. I mean, come on. Just compare computer technology in the Soviet bloc with that in the West - really, there's no comparison to make. Or the arts. Or automobiles. Or lunar landing craft. Need I go on? Five-year plans are not a good idea, and the primary reason for the collapse of the USSR was the economic collapse brought about by the lack of initiative and incentive to produce that resulted from these plans, coupled with military over-spending. Biruitorul 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When you'll stop stating communism is inherently evil and every communist inovation is bad we'll have no more debates. You can't compare computer technology in the Soviet block with that in the west. Soviet union in 1924 and eastern european countries in 1948 were pure agrarian countries. You can't develop computer technology in such societies. You first need to electrify the country, develop communications and then industry... since in communism you shouldn't exploit others (because surplus value should be very low), it's harder to get the money to industrialize a country. But anyway, communist Bulgaria had a pretty advanced computer industry. arts? what have arts to do with politics? automobiles? GAZ automobiles were nice (OK the production started with US help... but when you want to develop your industry you can accept limited help from capitalist who already posses a technology you need). Lunar landing craft? it proved useless (no economic gain). Initiative was encouraged by socialist emulation. The collapse of the USSR was the result of a concurrence of events, policies and sabotage, and can't be blaimed on communist theoryAnonimu 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Communism is inherently evil, as shown by the 100 million people it has killed so far (and is still killing in China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba). There were no communist innovations except more efficient methods of slaughter. First, they were not "pure" agrarian countries; second, they were fully industrial by the 1970s but stalled because further growth was impossible. Capitalism, when practiced without state interference, does not involve exploitation - it's about paying people fairly. Computers were much less advanced in Bulgaria than in the West. Arts have a lot to do with politics, since communism thoroughly censors the arts and prevents their development. Right, Western help was used and anyway, there's no comparison with Rolls Royce, Jaguar, BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, Ferrari, etc. The moon landing showed the vast creative potential of capitalism, and there may yet be economic gains in the future. No, communism encouraged absenteeism, low production and alcoholism. The USSR collapsed because communism had thoroughly exhausted the borrowed time it was living on - it was doomed from the start and only held together by fear. Its economic record was an unmitigated disaster. Biruitorul 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I already gave you a neutral link with the number of people killed by capitalism.. it was greater than the number of people killed by deformed or degenerated workers' state. (and BTW from your list only Cuba is a socialist state... Laos is not even a deformed workers' state... as for vietnam, i don't really know how far the liberalisation went to appreciate) All "methods of slaughter" used by degenerated and deformed workers' state were already used extensively by capitalism... i can't claim them for communists... A dozen factories don't change the character of an economy... cu o floare nu se face primavara. Ok, if you don't like pure, let's say mostly. The stagnation of the 70s was caused by the oil crises of that decade. these were severe blows to the economies of developing countries which based much of their industry on oil... capitalist countries could take money from reserves, but eastern european ones couldn't, because they had invested most of their reserves in developing the country. this,coupled with the enourmous interest rate of the capitalist banks have created this stall..."Capitalism, when practiced without state interference, does not involve exploitation - it's about paying people fairly. "?!? in your dreams probably... you don't know what capitalism is... go ask your local bourgeois how he made his fortune... you'll have a revelation. I don't know much about Bulgaria's computer industry (nor do you for that matter) so I can't say who was more advanced... and even if Bulgaria's was not as advanced as the western one, i explained the causes. Except for the stalinist period, there was no repression of arts in most deformed workers' states. I could compare most GAZ's with Volvo,and some Volgas even with Mercedes or BMW. And don't forget that cars like Ferrari, Jaguar or Rolls (and even Mercedes) are not intended for normal people, intellectuals or workers, because their exorbitant prices. Who cares they landed on the moon ? ... the first man, woman and dog in space were all soviets. capitalist sent a man to the moon just because they were envious (if they really were on the moon.. some say they didn't, but let's just suppose they did)As for encouraging absenteeism, low production and alcoholism, capitalist is better at doing it. just watch some american film and you'll see absentees and alcoholics presented as heros... Fear holds together capitalism too... look at the intervention of the reactionary US army in countries which decided to implement a better system ..Anonimu 12:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism doesn't have direct victims. How can it? Whose death certificate could say "capitalism" on it? I don't think it's killed anyone, only given prosperity to the world. The only legal party in Laos is the Lao People's Revolutionary Party, a Marxist-Leninist party. Similar situations are to be found in China, Vietnam and North Korea, as well as in Cuba. The Gulag was a Soviet Communist invention. OK, mostly, but remember the 1930s industrialisation in the USSR was quite thorough, and then in the 1950s in the satellite states. Well, they should have had reserves. Now they do, and they'll survive future oil shocks. Advantage: capitalism. I do know what capitalism is. It's certainly more moral and ethical than Bolshevism. The bourgeoisie has generally made its money through inheritance, investments, and above all hard work. You know, normal human methods, not the mass killings characteristic of true Reds like Pol Pot. I'm an expert on the Bulgarian computer industry, and I can tell you that it was garbage - some 20 years away from producing a microchip in 1989! Communism was the cause. Actually, Solzhenitsyn was banned, The Manchurian Candidate was banned, and the author of any work of literature, music, sculpture, etc. that challenged the Bolshevik system was severely punished. Just ask Marin Preda, victim of Ceauşescu. You could compare those cars, but in the world market, the guiding hand of the free market, that wonderful, ineluctable force that crushed communism due to the inherent contradictions and lies at its very core, decided that Western autos are preferable. And you're right - they're intended for the wealthy, who got their money by working harder and thus deserve better cars. True, the first beings were sent into space by the Reds, but they then stalled, because they couldn't keep up - Marxism just can't compete, I'm afraid. It's like a snail against a cheetah. Name a specific film, and I'll see if I agree. You're probably confusing heroes with anti-heroes. Anyway, just read about the problems of late communism, and you won't dismiss them with a wave. Those really were observed phenomena. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work" doesn't work in the West. No, in capitalist countries people have a right to change their system of government. Please give an example of a US Army intervention that you think targeted "countries which decided to implement a better system" and I'll respond. Biruitorul 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has a lot of them... and no death certificate says communism on it, but you still claim some 100 millions deaths... Capitalism only gave prosperity to imperialist countries through superprofit. That Laotian party can't be a real communist one... if it would have been Laos wouldn't be a largely agrarian country with almost no infrastructure... I repeatedly expressed my opinion on north korean absolutism... and even about the chinese bureaucratic state. The Soviets gave it the name but the concept was older... much older... Soviet Union was somewhat industrialized, but not at the level of the former colonial empires in western europe. and (except maybe for GDR and Poland who already had important industrial centres) Eastern european still didn't have a developed industry in the 50s. they wanted to develop industry rapidly to become independent of industrialized capitalist countries... in those times nobody thought an oil crisis would destabilize world market. Bourgeois making money by hard work?!? hard work of their exploited employees maybe.... So now you call some guy who moved the population of a whole country to rural settlements communist?!? But you don't even know what capitalism is... how could i expect you to know what communism stands for. You must be the last universal man... i think you should make your own biruitopedia... Again Soljenitin and Manchurian candidate? you have an obsession with these? so commies banned two books... good for them. You don't know much about arts in deformed workers' state. actually art in ceausescu's romanian was better than the present pornographic one... World market decided nothing. world is not US- or eurocentrist.a lot of countries still use mainly non western cars. Yeah they deserve them for exploiting their brothers harder... They didn't stall, they just analyzed the opportunities and found that further space exploration is unnecessary and money was better spent on something else (ok they spent them to make weapons, but this has nothing to do with communism)I don't know any tile... just watch some film on HBO... An example? do vietnam, bay of pigs, and contras say something to you? Anonimu 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. No death certificate says communism; I thought I could slip that one by you. But still, I do wonder how capitalism kills. I know how communism kills - see Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Dej, Castro, etc. Socialism too kills, since Hitler was a nationalist socialist. Actually, even the third world has prospered from capitalism, which has given it roads, autos, computers, Christianity, literacy, etc., though maybe in smaller quantities. From the Constitution of Laos: "The state of the Lao People's Democratic Republic is a People's Democratic State. All powers are of the people, by the people and for the interests of the multi-ethnic people of all strata in society with the workers, farmers and intellectuals as key components." Translation: one-party Communist state. You know why they haven't industrialised? Because they're greedy, hypocritical maniacs like Reds usually are. North Korea too, though rather monarchistic in a sense, does have an official Juche ideologyquic based on Marxism-Leninism, as does China. Infrastructure development happens much more efficiently and rapidly through the free market, believe me. The bourgeois also work hard, but in their own offices rather than on the factory floor, with their heads rather than with their hands. That's still work, you know. Yes, Pol Pot was a diehard Commie: Khmer Rouge. I know what both are. I've thought of making my own 'pedia - maybe we could do a joint project and have revert wars for years on end. It wasn't just Solzhenitsyn and The Manchurian Candidate, though even two bans - bans on works that tell the TRUTH about Reds - shows the despicable rottenness at the core of Bolshevism. Much, much more was banned. Today, pornography coexists with high art in Romania, a fine equilibrium. Art needs to exist in a free context; otherwise it's meaningless, like playing chess in an aquarium. The world market decides everything, invisibly. And yes, there are non-western cars, but they're worse, because they're produced in socialist countries, and socialism is just communism spray-painted a lighter red. They deserve them for working harder. If they decided space exploration was unnecessary, they were stupid, because it's a good idea. What will we do in a few billion years when the sun gets too hot to sustain life on earth? Making weapons had a lot to do with communism, since they were bent on spreading it everywhere through a domino effect. HBO shows mostly junk. Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua tried to implement worse, not better systems, so America was doing them a good turn by invading them and trying to prevent them from slipping into the Red abyss. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of explaining how capitalism kills.. just search in our previous discussions. You don't know how capitalism kills, you know how bureaucratic collectivism does... (as for Pol Pot...) And how did Castro kill? by letting cubans emigrate to US? I don't care what the constitution say... romanian constitution says law is equal for all people, but... As for hyprocrisy and greed, they're characteristic for capitalism... i don't care about ideologies degenerated from marxism...should i reduce all capitalism to Hitler (and if you begin claiming he was a socialist, remeber that socialism is by definition anti-nationalist and internationalist, while nationalism was imposed as an ideology by the capitalist bourgeoisie). I agree, infrastructure develops more rapidly in capitalism countries, but at the cost of workers' exploitation... I didn't say bourgeois don't work.. i said they don't pay their employees according to their work (and also exploit them by adding extra costs for products). ... . I don't think you do. it would be nice, but i don't have enough time... it doesn't show nothing (and i still want a proof of an official ban). What high art?!? What's meaningless in playing chess in an aquarium? Good argument... they're worse just because they're produced in socialist countries... you really think like Stalin... They don't work harder... the exploit harder... Space exploration is not really necessary.. the human race will dissapear long before... so US is communist? so you agree with me about american films... All systems were much betterAnonimu 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. On Cuba, from The Black Book of Communism: "From 1959 through the late 1990s more than 100,000 Cubans experienced life in one of the camps, prisons, or open-regime sites. Between 15,000 and 17,000 people were shot." That's how he killed. Everyone is equal before the law in Romania: I defy you to prove otherwise. "i don't care about ideologies degenerated from marxism" - then why do you defend Ceauşescu so ardently? Hitler superimposed nationalism on a socialist structure, but underneath, he was still a class-warfare type inspired by arch-socialist Mussolini. I don't think that much exploitation occurs, and anyway, having a job both keeps you fed and keeps you moving upward in life. As the Prime Minister of Canada has said, "the best social programme is a job". IMDb says it was banned, and it also makes sense to me: they'd want to hide the truth. High art like opera and painting. All right, I suppose playing chess in an aquarium isn't necessarily meaningless; here's a better analogy: it's like using a flashlight during the day. The blinding light of day (Communism) totally overpowers the flashlight (art). You need complementarity: flashlight at night, art in a free society. Sure: would you rather buy a car from Ghana or from Germany? From Jamaica or Japan? If you don't exploit, you don't advance. Maybe we can find resources in space that we need, like minerals. No, I meant the Soviets made weapons to spread communism. I also said that what's on HBO (current, low-brow American films) are junk - I highly value American cinema as a whole. How is Cuba better today than the US? Really, how? Biruitorul 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice book.. pity it doesn't show any hard proof of its claims... Just look in your journal "used to source a lot of articles in wikipedia" (Jurnalul National) or Evenimentul zilei.. you'll find at least one case a week... I don't defend him, i try to maintain an objective image of him... he has done bad things, ok... but he has also done great things, wich are generally ignored nowadays... Keep lying yourself Hitler and Mussolini were socialist.. not even american anti-communist propaganda could make people believe this.. maybe you will... You've derailed... did i say people should get things for free and they shouldn't work? ok, you're an anarchist, but i'm not one... Let me explain what art and literature is: fiction, otherwise it is literature no more, it's scientific research or documentary... What painting, what opera? It's nothing wrong with using flashlight in the day... how are you supposed to go through a dark tunnel or cave without one? If the cars from Ghana or Jamaica were cheaper and were satifiying my needs i'd buy them.... So you support exploitation... q.e.d.... I doubt we'll ever come to get minerals from space. US made weapons to spread anarchy and their military and economic domination... who's better? You wanted a film... i gave you a whole channel.. ce'o intorci ca la Ploiesti? We already discussed about Cuba.. remember the embargo thing...Anonimu 12:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So you deny that Castro is a killer? I challenge you to tell that to the close family members of any one of the people on this 253-page list of his victims. I challenge you to deny the reality of these people's stories. Are these people lying? I still don't see miscarriages of justice in Romania. True, Ceauşescu did some good things, but the price was too high. It would have been far better to remain in the burghezo-moşieresc days. Maybe I will - read his own words. As a communist, you probably think "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", so yes. People are still painting, writing books, and staging operas in Romania - and good ones at that. 99.7% of the time, you do not need a daytime flashlight, so my analogy still stands. You might buy them but there's also reputation to factor in; many consumers might not buy them even if they were cheaper and worked well. I support pragmatic exploitation, but obviously people should be paid fair wages. Who knows? We should keep exploring, because that's human nature. Quoting George W Bush: "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways... we can be certain [that technological breakthroughs will] come, and that our efforts will be repaid many times over... We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey." The US made weapons to counter the Red threat; I hardly consider Western Europe, for instance, to have been under anarchy or US domination, despite being under NATO's protection. Clearly, the West was superior to the USSR, which tried to impose hell on earth (and sadly succeeded in many places - see Aiud, Gherla, Piteşti, Sighet, etc.). Thanks, but there's more to American film than HBO. Never mind what could have been without the embargo. First, communist countries without an embargo, like Poland, weren't that well off even with heavy Soviet subsidies. Second, you admit that Cuba is worse than the US, no? Biruitorul 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i do... if anyone related to those names on the list reads this: Castro is not a killer! Those are just stories of capitalists.. they don't accept socialism so they would say anything against it. You're blind. No it wouldn't have been. Everyone used socialist rethoric to attract masses... but few really took those measures when they governed... that phrase doesn't imply getting things free... Yeah, i've seen some of these books... if that's art, i'm an avatar of James Rothschild... aren't you capable of finding a good analogy? reputation is a capitalism invention to keep on exploiting workers... how could you exploit if you'd pay fair wages? now should i believe bush? hey man "Red" is an obsolete term, now they're called Native Americans... Europe is still under US economical domination... west wasn't superior (but i wouldn't say inferior either, since Soviet Union wasn't a real workers' state) Poland as other Eastern European countries had it's resourced drained by soviets in the 50s... what should have went to the polish people and help him develop went instead to the soviet people... Yeah man, Cuba is economically worse today, mainly because of embargo and sabotage.... Anonimu 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not just stories. Those people really were killed: shame on you for denying the truth about Castro's vile, murderous regime. They don't accept tyranny, and they work to expose its foul deeds. I can see: justice is being served impartially. Just read what the US State Department says. They used rhetoric but didn't apply it because that always happens in communism: human nature means that the communist utopia will forever remain just a dream. It might imply getting things free - to each according to his need. Some of those books are art, and anyway, the right to free speech is (more or less) absolute. Reputation arises naturally; no one invents it. That's the point: fair wages are paid, ergo no exploitation happens. It's not a question of "believing" Bush, just of being awed at his rhetoric. "Red" also means communist. Europe has an independent economy and partly independent defence structures too (see France's nuclear shield). Of course the West was superior - it had no Gulags, for starters. Again, thievery is part of communism; had Poland been allowed democracy, this would not have happened. Cuba is worse because of socialism: other countries in the region are doing much better with free markets. Biruitorul 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

---

As for my comment about writing articles on "every Romanian member of parliament since 1859": we do have articles on most people who have served in the US Congress since 1789, though of course there's a directory to help with that. So I wonder if an equivalent project would be possible or desireable - I imagine writing articles on every apparatchik who filled a seat în Marea Adunare Naţională would get rather dull rather quickly. Biruitorul 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We're going to at leat create an article on the MAN first... (If any of you guys do, let me know, cause we have some links to review and some inclusions to make). I sincerely doubt that anyone has bothered listing pre-WWII parliamentarians anywhere: in case we'll eventually resort to ini-mini-miny-moe-ing them, I'm guessing we have some 0.2% covered at the moment. Dahn 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, and in fact, we'll need two MAN articles: the one we have refers to the communist one, but there was the Alba Iulia one as well. I wonder if those names really are lost. Are there no records of parliamentary proceedings, no electoral lists, no appendices in political science works, no almanacs or annual government reports? Then again, would it be worth our while to track these down and eventually write one-line stubs for all those MPs? Nah... Biruitorul 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Alba Iulia [rather informal] MAN should perhaps redirect to Union Day (Romania) (get all our stuff in one place). A separate article on the National Romanian Council is what we need, and, although I can already see the seeds of scandal and trollorama in connection to it, it could go places (it lasted more than a couple of days, and is not intrinsically linked to just one day).

Goodness, we already have one on the Communist MAN? I need to catch up. Dahn 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's been there since April 16. Looking at articles on other national holidays, it seems that most deal principally with the holiday and not the event that inspired it. However, I wouldn't mind starting them out together and, if one section grew very large, splitting it off later. Biruitorul 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, we could then "Main article" the Assembly if we ever get that far. Dahn 04:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, setting SMART objectives on wiki. I believe that writing articles on anti-communist resistance and the revolutions of 1821 (there is some content about it in the Tudor Vladimirescu article) and 1848 should be a priority.- Andrei 10:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking too. Of course, it might all be for nothing. Biruitorul 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He assumes wrongly that the Wikipedia software cannot be improved. Automated tools are the lest of our concerns. :-) bogdan 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the proposal of Biruitorul on top of this section and I couldn't help but asking myself: "Do these people ever sleep/work/see their (girl/boy)friend(s)/parents/dog/whatever?". Stakhanovists are little kids compared to you. As I live in France, I'll just say "Chapeau!". Dpotop 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

All Wikipedia, all the time. Biruitorul 09:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a monarcho-Stakhovanite! That's as good as Dalì's self-description as an anarcho-monarchist. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why not? You've got crypto-Stalinist Buddhist monarchs too, as well as openly Communist ones. By the way:

1. I don't see anarcho-monarchism as contradictory and am in fact sympathetic to it. If people want to show allegiance to a King under anarchy, they should be able to do that - in fact, being a believer in the Divine Right of Kings, I think they very well ought to do so - provided they can withdraw their allegiance at any point and refuse to obey his commands. But since the King can do no wrong - only his ministers are capable of doing that - I doubt that would happen, especially as he wouldn't do much commanding, himself living under anarchy. Or something like that.

2. Since I am a fan of the concept, I probably shouldn't point this out, but the article on anarcho-monarchism, deleted in August, was re-created last month. But it does look unobjectionable this time. Biruitorul 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greier's ban

Greier was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. In 29 November he was blocked one week for 3RR [26] on Lăutari, however he was not guilty, he made only 2 (two) reverts on that article in that day [27]. The 3RR report which was the base for blocking shows 5 reverts, but in 10 (ten) days! [28]. I thought 3RR is dealing with reverts in a 24 h period. Before this one week block was over, it was extended at total ban, without allowing him to defend himself. I am wondering if this ban which started from a 3RR block which was not deserved (he was not guilty on 3RR) was a good decision. I know that Greier made some mistakes, but I have the feeling that admins were overreacting at them, while underreacting at others, as I explained in above section about "double standards".--MariusM 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the sockpuppet was [justly] counted as "a Greier". In any case, perhaps such post-ban interventions will make any possible error in the process ultimately irrelevant. Dahn 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have a personal conflict with Greier. I don't know why you believe the anon who wrote on your talk page was Greier - I understood you were not involved in his blocking. No sockpuppet was counted as "a Greier" as the 3RR report which was the basis for blocking was not mentioning other edits. Why should Greier use a sockpuppet when at 29 November he made only 2 reverts at that article? He has no reason to believe somebody will block him for that and he need somehow to use sockpuppets.--MariusM 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP 213.42.21.80 which Dahn consider as being justly counted as "a Greier" in 29 November is different and not related with the IP 66.36.148.4 which same Dahn believe was vandalizing his talk page. First IP is from United Arab Emirates, second is from Canada. Greier has a history of breaking the 3RR and making personal attacks, but, AFAIK, not a history of using sockpuppets and evading blocks.--MariusM 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right about the second one. It must have been User:NorbertArthur. For the rest, I can only speculate. Dahn 02:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive152#Greier. Khoikhoi 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the matter, and it seems to be that the decision is oversized. Anyway, in the edit conflict of the article Lautari, I'd side with Greier. The form he reverted looks to me more like "legends about the Roma people" than "online encyclopedia". If I can put a word in Greier's favor, please tell me where to do it. Dpotop 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missed anniversary

I have just remembered the first days of this noticeboard. We missed the 1st anniversary on dec. 4th. BTW, the page was created by Anittas, and the second member was Bonaparte. :) Dpotop 09:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And it really has been working quite well. So we do owe them something. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nice article on militant atheism

I am sometimes throwing an eye into publications that are not quite mainstream, just to see what's going on. And here is an article from Ziua, which I find particularly interesting. I knwo that I risk another discussion involving Biruitorul and Ronline, but it's one of the main issues in Romania today. Dpotop 11:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, interesting article. But why would you say that Ziua is out of the mainstream? TSO1D 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article. I'm primed for a new debate, should anyone want it. Biruitorul 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one think it is a crude straw man. Dahn 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but the ends justify the means. Biruitorul 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you want me in this debate, and I'm not really saying no.

On one hand, I do not agree with "the end justifies the means" is such contexts (deliberate slander shouldn't be okay - for comparison, it is probable that Vadim has incidentally targeted some real con artists and saboteurs among the crowd of people he has insulted, but his allegations and sycophancy don't become okay because of that); I'm really surprised that Ziua takes that road, but I suppose Orthodoxy sells newspapers in this rather hypocritical country. Also, when that slander is aimed at the Soros Foundation, even though it matters naught who was "behind" the move, and although the move is not at all secretive and could've been enforced and endorsed by any group or person, is terribly risqué in a country that has had the Securitate to pioneer in that field.

On the other hand, I do not agree with the end, and I have always objected to religion on display in environments subject to laïcité. Those of you who have seen the carefully staged show on B1 last week may have noticed the actual agitprop pattern and its paradoxical origin: Becali, who was behaving like a stupid monkey, was paid tribute to by all that is rotten in this country and forming an ad-hoc inquisition against people who were not allowed to defend themselves. Yep, it seems this country has missed journalism in the trademark style of Emanuel Valeriu and Paul Everac; it also seems that such journalism is, for the first time, not serving to clean up former apparatchniks, but endorsing the most popular discourse of all - nationalist masturbation.

I see the myth of the other coming to our country and teaching us his rotten ways is still giving the Romanian press field days. At the risk of exaggerating in much the same manner as Mr. Roncea, I'll say: thank God for foreigners who used to gather in Oriental cities before they came and ruled us - without them, 90% of us would be entirely dependent on the other 10%; thank God for foreigners who wore aprons and shook hands in weird manners - without them, we'd still be keeping slaves; thank God for foreigners who tried to prevent all wars - without them, we'd still be denying citizenship to non-Christians; thank God for foreigners who endorsed Hungarian pastors - without them, we'd still have files kept on us all and holding up portraits in stadiums. Dahn 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Church of Satan isn't really all that, well, Satanic, at least not the way most people would mean the word. Anton LaVey was more eccentric than evil.

FWIW, French and Turkish laïcité is a bit different than American "separation of Church and State". The former is actively hostile to religion. The latter has nurtured the most churchgoing country in the industrialized world. - Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted no ambiguity, so I indicated that I have no shame in seeing my opinion branded as "Jacobin". I could go with the vaguer American concepts, but I believe that people in my country are currently conned into believing that separation of Church and State has been applied and is not harmed by religious displays in the public sphere (I'm not that familiar with the issue, but I think the US is not in an entirely different situation). I wanted to make it clear that the institutions should actively oppose religious messages in the public sphere, and that they should be promoting a non-religious setting (and not expect the community to regulate these matters on its own and taking over only when it has not and some people are complaining about it). Dahn 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "separation of church and state". Personally, I define that narrowly: a state church. Romania has none, but I don't see any harm in some icons on walls. In fact I see only good coming from that. Of course, the neatest solution would be to separate schools from the state: sell them all off to the highest bidder, and let the guiding hand of the free market decide what sort of religious equilibrium is desirable in schools. Biruitorul 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When I said "ends" I didn't mean slander, I meant equating the current situation with atheist Communism, as Moş Gerilă in the headline implies. I know, and I think you know, that that argument is nonsense, but I'm more than willing to pretend that it has substance, to raise the alert of resurgent Bolshevism in order to further my goals of first preventing secularist backsliding and then advancing Romania on the path she would have taken had the opposition taken power at the Revolution, and ultimately joining that hypothetical course to the even more tenuously-ground-in-reality one of a Romania not sold out to the Soviets at Yalta.

I don't think exposing the dead hand of Soros in this affair is slander. Certainly, what role he - a right-wing deviationist representative of international capital, a bourgeois instigator and a capitalist provocateur - had in the domestic affairs of a foreign country, if any, should be fully explored. Who, indeed, is behind the marionette Emil Moise? It is the role of journalists to ask these questions, exposing the shadowy cabals that undergird the surface of Romanian politics, lurking just beneath.

I heartily endorse this renewed nationalism because first, without nationalism - which needs new energy once in a while - nations risk breaking down, which is not a good scenario, at least until the world is ready for theocratic anarchy (nice image there). And second, because Romania is on the verge of joining the EU, an organisation diametrically opposed to nationalism that is run by a small coterie of transnational progressivists for whom there are two main obstacles in their quest for world domination through an enlightened autocracy run by them: nationalism, which they seek to break down through insidious propaganda campaigns, and the continued global importance of the United States, where they have formed an uneasy alliance with radical Islamists in seeking to destroy that remaining bulwark of opposition - a plan doomed to failure due to the inherently weak nature of contemporary Western Europeans, who are just a few decades away from subjugation to the new world order, which will consist not of their bland Orwellianism but rather of a toxic global Caliphate.

We'll never know, but I doubt slavery would have persisted - save Haiti and the United States, it always died a quiet death. We'll never know, but I doubt citizenship would have remained restricted to this day. We'll never know, but I highly doubt that Communism would have lasted without Tőkés' actions: even in Albania it fell just two years later. Some other spark would have lit the fuse; the situation was quite untenable. And anyway, no amount of Western pressure could have toppled Ceauşescu (short of armed intervention): it was the decision of the army not to fire on demonstrators that actually allowed the regime to collapse. Plus, the SRI still keeps files, I would presume.

How's that for some hysterical conspiracism? I wonder if Paul Goma is reading. Biruitorul 06:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point is a complex one, our disagreements many, and our shared views paradoxical. Therefore, I will aim straight for your core arguments and state my position in relation to them - while asking to be pardoned for not going into paradigms such as the Yalta myth and Soros' activities.

Word of warning to my avid readers: I may be repeating myself, so be gentle and do not reproach me that.

While "right-wing deviationist" is an exceptionally adroit pamphlet, I don't think that it has much relevancy here what he is, does, or advocates. I wanted to have this issue debate in Romanian society for decades now (just as the Tismăneanu "affair" had me hoping that we would finally get out of the 19th century), and if I couldn't care less if Soros himself is a actually a lizard who eats puppies. Implying that, if x take y stand in z issue, (s)he must have been payed by Soros to do so is probably not always slander, but it is always cheap sophistry.

But I do think it's worth investigating, if only because a) the links do seem to be there, especially as a respectable paper printed the allegations, and b) if true, while not inherently objectionable, it does reveal a certain amount of cowardice on Soros' part (and on those of "civil society" group), while at the same time, I suppose, showing Moise's courage for taking the blame. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My point about nationalism was in strict relation with bad media being used to promote nationalism, but I'll now elaborate beyond that context. I certainly have no beef with nationalists such as yourself, Biruitorul. However, I have to point out that nationalism and conservatism are not that the same, and that history has shown nationalism to be a revolutionary by-product used against traditional elitism (deny that if you will, but for one I see the only way to challenge that successfully is through Marxist rhetoric - "privileged classes" have invented nationalism to detour revolutions by appealing to lumpen-proletarians etc.) What will apply to both is a motto by Mill (who used it only for conservatives): "conservatives/nationalists are not stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives/nationalists". I not only think that you are not part of the mass of stupid flag-wavers: I consider your views complex and fascinating, even though I cannot agree with any of them.

I suppose it depends on the degree of nationalism and the degree of conservatism. Is CV Tudor a conservative? No way. But an amalgam of reasoned conservatism and enlightened nationalism is possible and indeed not contradictory, given that today, nationalism's chief antithesis is post-nationalism, not pre-nationalism. Historically, though, you are correct. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, I could explore this according to many paradigms, but I will stick with the Romanian example. I think we are the textbook case of the "nationalist fervor = utter failure" relation. Let us ponder: 1916 - nationalist fervor/1918 - utter failure; 1920s - nationalist fervor/1940s - utter failure; 1960s - nationalist fervor/1980s - utter failure. Nationalist masturbation in Romania (and elsewhere) tends to stop only when the instrument of pleasure has become raw and bloody.

1918 was a success, no? Romania didn't do it all on her own, but she did double her territory. The other point I've always pondered is: what if the Guard had either come to power in the mid-1930s, as they could have, or what if Antonescu had not gotten rid of them and there weren't a war going on. In other words, what would several years of Guard rule have done for/to Romania? To quote Eliade:

Dar niciodata un neam intreg n-a trait o revolutie crestina cu toata fiinta sa; niciodata cuvantul Mantuitorului n-a fost inteles ca o revolutie a fortelor sufletesti impotriva pacatelor slabiciunii carnii; niciodata un neam intreg nu si-a ales ca ideal de viata calugaria si ca mireasa - moartea...De aceea, in timp ce toate revolutiile contemporane sunt politice, revolutia legionara este spirituala si crestina. In timp ce toate revolutiile contemporane au ca scop cucerirea puterii de catre o clasa sociala sau de catre un om - revolutia legionara are drept tinta suprema mantuirea neamului, impacarea neamului romanesc cu Dumnezeu, cum a spus Capitanul.

I find much that is objectionable just in that passage. But the force, the conviction contained within that movement - on a mass level - far exceeded that to be found in the PCR. Probably things wouldn't have gone so well, simply because it's difficult to contain that level of mobilisation for very long. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to stay away from theoretical debates about globalization, so you will excuse me for not challenging you on the "Caliphate" issue.

On the "what ifs...", my actual purpose was not to prove that, had it not been for a particular event, another measure would have never been enforced (though I realize it may have looked like I was making that statement, I had another emphasis in mind). Nevertheless, in some cases it is safe to say that "were it not for...", a particular thing would have happened too late to matter (if we're talking Phanariotes, I think it is safe to say that the boyars could have easily prolonged the clan system well into the modern era - what goes for the Balkans, goes for us). On the issue of communist survival without Western intervention, my comment still stands: we could debate the "could've", but thanks to them (to them as well) we are talking about what did happen, with all its many quirks (as you yourself have noted elsewhere, we are through with those). Let us also not forget that the Romanian regime still had a surprisingly successful manipulative side, and that many would have followed it for the same idiotic reasons they did in 1968 (I can even picture a Goma reconciling with a Ceauşescu if the trend announced in the 1980s would have fulfilled its goals, and if Ceauşescu would have been the first to tell Goma that he was right about the Jewish activists, about Antonescu, about interwar Romania...). To me, that looks like it is the harsh reality.

I agree, we'll never know. And despite everything else, I do have a certain respect for Tőkés. But I simply don't see Romania standing afloat in the 1990s as a rigid Communist system anymore. Milošević did last another decade, but formally he was a Socialist, and there was scope for meaningful opposition in his Yugoslavia (like independent radio and contested elections). Lukashenko is still in power primarily because of heavy Russian subsidies, which I doubt Yeltsin would have given to Ceauşescu. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to link two issues: you talk about Bolshevism and atheism in one breath. Aside from the notions that most atheism is not connected with Bolshevism, that atheism is not wrong in itself, and that atheism is not the issue here, there is one huge factor to consider. It is this one: the real problem of Romanian communism is not that it was "atheist", or "anti-national", or "anti-bourgeois conventions", but that it was not. Most testimonies and comments I have bumped into point out that it was the land of hypocrisy, populism, and shrewdness, not that of conviction, not that of dogmatism, not that of militantism. From the million of men and women who chanted slogans that they did not believe in, to the to the user here who wears the hammer and sickle next to the icon, to Gheorghiu-Dej's scapegoat claim that he had purged the party of Stalinists... Not to mention that it makes repression on ideological basis that much hard to understand (although, for the same reasons, remarkably reduced), not to mention that no efficient or even intelligent opposition from within was ever developed, not to mention that the "core" of Romanian identity, Orthodoxy included, adapted itself willingly to any ideological box (whereas the minority - political, religious, ethnic, and even sexual or psychological - was faced with the same Stalinist repressive measures decade after decade after decade). We can both see what this has destroyed, and we will agree without knowing it: you, with your Integralist perspective, will say that natural hierarchies and common sense were lost; I, with my bleeding-heart Social Democracy, will say that a chance for plausible equality and a greater common good was squandered. I don't know who of us would be right, but I can assure you we would be looking at the same society and blaming the very same process.

In Romania, atheism does have an indelible association with Bolshevism, but I did note that linking them together in the current context is "nonsense", though useful for ulterior motives. I do think atheism is wrong in itself, both because it precludes salvation and because it denies a fundamental truth at the core of our existence. I'm not surprised at the hypocrisy prevalent under Communism: it had very little native support (though probably would have had a bit more had the party not been banned). It was also, at the end of the day, very foreign, not only because the ideology was developed elsewhere (not a problem for, say, China), but also because it had a strong non-Romanian component whose membership advocated measures directly against the national interest (like getting rid of Bessarabia). So of course, once they realised that popular support would be a good thing to have, they shifted gears, eventually coming up with Ceauşism. As for the collaboration of the BOR with the party: that was indeed a very painful episode, but I think it's better than what happened in Albania (where all churches and mosques were closed). Yes, the moral authority of the church was seriously compromised, but at least there was a church. Furthermore, on the level of individual priests and monks, there was significant dissent from the hierarchy's actions and persecution too (the Piteşti experiment being the most prominent example). But you are right that the experience has been corrosive and it would have been better not to have it. The question is: what next? Some 17 years have largely been wasted. I hope someone manages to correct that (though perhaps society has already moved on and that will never happen). As for the Communist Orthodoxy of you-know-who: in fairness to him, Marx's economic writings say nothing about religion, and nothing says that a Marxist needs to adopt Marx's entire world-view. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy to explain why Communism didn't have a large number of supporter before ww2... peasants and workers (their target audience) were illiterate and had been persuaded by the capitalist controled church that their condition of slaves was natural (+ the capitalist were so afraid that communism will gather popular support that they banned it...) when Romania annexed Bessarabia and Transylvania, it ignored the will of the population of these regions... both declarations of union spoke about the autonomy of the regions inside romania and had a lot of socialist ideas.. however the monarchy and capitalists supporting it saw the union just as an enlarging of their slave base... thus it's understandable why the PCdR forged that plan to break this imperialist state (this is a good word for the romania of the 30s, considering the opression of minorities and even of romanian peasants and workers)... as for you-kno-who, i noticed that he became a leitmotif of your discussions ... since he is a fellow wikipedian, this could be considered mâncătorie...Anonimu 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no offence was intended. Peasants were not slaves. In fact there was universal male suffrage. The Church was independent. Poverty is natural to a certain extent (Mt. 26:11 - "ye have the poor always with you"), but these were clearly not slaves - there was equality before the law. Why would the capitalists be afraid of an ideology that was anti-Romanian? How could such an idea gain popularity? Wrong - the Alba Iulia declaration spoke of provisional autonomy but explicitly endorsed "unirea acelor români şi a tuturor teritoriilor locuite de dînşii cu România". Bukovina decreed "unirea necondiţionată şi pentru vecie a Bucovinei în vechile ei hotare până la Ceremuş, Colacin şi Nistru, cu regatul României". Bessarabia: "de azi înainte şi pentru totdeauna se uneşte cu mama sa România". So, no. What slave base? Romania tried hard to integrate its new subjects but was undermined at every step by Soviet propaganda like the MASSR. There was no oppression - simply an attempt at nation-building (or rebuilding, in fact). Romania was not an imperialist state: those are her natural frontiers. You could say that Antonescu became an imperialist when he crossed the Nistru, but Greater Romania simply contained within it all historic Romanian lands. Biruitorul 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In effect, preventing public sphere-religion interactions will probably help Romanian Orthodoxy grow up and become an independent and strong part of the community (instead of the frustrated attention-seeker it is after singing to the tune of every brand of totalitarianism). Becalisms will not.

Preventing public sphere-religion interactions might help the Church, but then I look at the past 101 years of laïcité in France and the record has been one of inexorable decline in the Roman Catholic Church's fortunes there, so I'm not encouraged. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Btw, I think Goma has already passed to a Dacodavian phase, so you still have a long way to go if you want to catch up :).)Dahn 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't expect that much. Sounds like Locke and Demosthenes in Ender's Game (sorry for this non-classical reference). :) Dpotop 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)