User talk:Dahn/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Category:Socialist parties in France

Salut! Je ne suis pas d'accord avec toi. Le Parti Républicain, Radical et Radical-Socialiste, comme est son véritable nom, pilier de la Troisième République et de la Quatrième République, a longtemps accueilli aussi bien des républicains radicaux que des socialistes modérés. Pierre Mendès-France, qui fut ensuite l'une des personalités les plus importantes du Parti Socialiste Unifié, qui fut tout de même auto-gestionnaire pendant un moment, est l'emblème de cet aspect sans aucun doute socialiste du Parti Radical. Certes, il n'hébergea pas que des socialistes, mais il n'était pas plus formé que de "libéraux". Les critères de distinction politiques français sont, comme tu le dit, peut-être un peu subtil aux yeux d'un étranger: raison de plus pour bien les expliquer sur ce Wikipedia. Le fait qu'encore aujourd'hui, une partie des politiques issus de ce mouvement - car il s'agit bien plus d'un mouvement que d'un parti - fasse partie du Parti Radical de Gauche, qui est un allié du Parti Socialiste, montre bien que, sur certaines questions fondamentales en France (l'anticléricalisme, par exemple), une bonne partie des Radicaux du XXIe siècle se situe encore dans le camp socialiste, qui s'oppose à la droite (dont René Rémond a jadis isolé trois familles différentes, les libéraux (Orleanists), les néo-gaullistes appartenant à la tradition bonapartiste, et les légitimistes contre-révolutionnaires, que l'on retrouve aujourd'hui dans les partis d'extrême droite (Philippe de Villiers et le Front National). En d'autres termes, quelle que soit les confusions possibles, pour des raisons historiques (le Parti Radical a été socialiste, n'en déplaise à certains) ET actuelles (des radicaux sont encore dans le Parti socialiste, que je sache), ce parti doit bien être inclus les deux catégories opposées, Category:Socialist parties in France et Category:Liberal parties in France. Tazmaniacs 18:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Salut encore! Je continue en Français, tu l'écris très bien pour quelqu'un qui ne l'a pas parlé depuis des années! Je comprend tes réserves face à la désignation des Radicaux comme faisant partie de la "Catégorie" Socialiste. Mais, à mon avis, les catégories sur Wikipedia doivent surtout aider à la navigation, pas à "classifier objectivement" les partis (je ne parle même pas des catégorisations ethniques, c'est un désastre!). Selon nos opinions politiques et nos lectures historiques, on pourrait sûrement argumenter des heures durant. Toujours est-il que je pense que beaucoup de gens seraient surpris, tout comme moi, de voir que le Parti Radical-Socialiste est "présent" (plutôt que "classé") dans la catégorie "Partis libéraux", mais pas dans la catégorie "Partis socialistes". Tu as tout à fait raison de souligner que les Radicaux représentaient, pendant l'entre-deux-guerres, la petite bourgeoisie. Un historien a parlé de "République des instituteurs": ils représentaient ainsi le corps des petits fonctionnaires. Or, si tu peux considérer qu'en tant que représentant des petits-bourgeois, ils n'avaient rien de véritablement "socialistes", je suis sûr que tu comprendra qu'en tant que petits fonctionnaires, ils étaient loin d'être "libéraux"! Enfin, je pense que la vraie raison pour les mettre dans la catégorie "Socialistes" (mais je ne les exclut pas pour autant de la catégorie "Libéraux"), c'est que sur certaines questions de fond, historiques (l'anticléricalisme essentiellement), ils se placent à gauche. René Rémond, dans son ouvrage classique sur les droites, ne les considéraient certainement pas comme faisant partie des trois familles de la droite qu'il a isolé. En fait, les "républicains" historiques en France (Gambetta, etc.), à part pour ceux qui sont vraiment passés à droite (Paul Reynaud), sont anticléricaux, et ça les place à gauche. En cas de menace sur la République (February 6, 1934 crisis), ils auront le "réflexe républicain", comme on appelle ça (celui-là même qui fit voter beaucoup de Français pour Jacques Chirac contre Jean-Marie Le Pen en 2002: entre un "voleur" et un "fasciste", on préfère quand même le voleur...). Durant le Front Populaire, sans aucun doute à gauche, les Radicaux formaient le gouvernement avec la SFIO, tandis que les communistes soutenaient sans participer. Les trois familles de droite, quant à elle, partagent aussi des traits historiques, et ce n'est que depuis (relativement) peu de temps qu'elles ont véritablement accepté la République (et donc que la différence avec les Radicaux s'estompt -- and therefore that the difference with the Radicals is getting blurred). Mais, jusqu'à Vichy, et même au-delà, la guerre d'Algérie (cf. l'OAS et la crise de mai 1958, qui amena de Gaulle au pouvoir), aucun républicain, qu'il soit radical ou socialiste, au Parti RAdical, parti de notables, ou bien à la SFIO, parti de masse socialiste, n'avaient véritablement confiance en ces droites. Bref, le clivage entre gauche et droite reste la République, et même si aujourd'hui presque tous commencent à admettre notre régime de démocratie libérale, je pense qu'historiquement et encore aujourd'hui, les Radicaux doivent entrer dans la case "socialistes". Peut-être serait-ce plus simple si l'on créait une Category:Right-wing parties in France et Category:Left-wing parties in France, afin de bien montrer la spécificité du clivage français par rapport à la notion qu'en a un Américain ou un Canadien. Cordialement, Tazmaniacs 00:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
PS: aucun rapport, mais puisque tu parles Roumain, peut-être que tu serais intéressé à transcrire les informations intéressantes au sujet des liens supposés entre Ceaucescu et Propaganda Due, que j'avais trouvé dans cet article. J'ai essayé d'en tirer ce que je pouvais en fonction de ce que j'arrivais à comprendre, mais s'il y a des détails additionnels, même à rajouter au conditionnel, ça pourrait être très intéressant... Tazmaniacs 00:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kabyles du Pacifique

Je te remercie d'avoir traduit l'article fr:Kabyles du Pacifique. J'en suis très honoré. Ça me fait plaisir de constater que les traductions ne sont pas toutes à sens unique en => le reste du monde :-). Cette page devrait évoluer bientôt parce qu'un livre sur la fr:Révolte des Mokrani va sortir, je l'ai pas encore vu mais je le guête... fr:User:Fred.th

[edit] Alexandru Herman

None of your points make it patent nonsense. That he's a journalist for a local paper is irrelevant. That the article is made by him is irrelevant, not to mention that we have several of those (see, for example, David Mertz and User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters). It says he's a politician, maybe he's a notable one. I don't know, but it sure isn't patent nonsense. If you think it should be deleted, take it through AfD. Snoutwood (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Vlach She Wolf?

Vezi Articol ZIUA 10 Mai 2006

Baza populara a miscarilor de extrema dreapta in Romania a fost mult mai mare decat se accepta printr-o istorie inca nu bine studiata. Ce stim noi de "Lupoaica", organizatie de dreapta a aromanilor din Grecia, care au pactizat cu ocupantii italieni, ca apoi o intreaga comunitate sa "beneficieze" de reactia violenta a grecilor, in marea lor majoritate antifascisti. Apostolos Margaritis

What do we really know about 'Lupoaica' (She Wolf)? a right-wing organization of the Aromanians of Greece who sided with the Italian rulers of Greece? Apostolos Margaritis 08:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Executed Widerstand members

(rm cat: will add to Category:Resistance fighters killed by the Third Reich)

Thanks for spotting the above; as you've probably guessed, I'm currently working my way through Category:People condemned by Nazi courts (formerly "Victims of Nazi justice") removing any (hopefully all) articles that may be categorised under Category:People killed by the Third Reich. (Cf ...#Recategorisation?)

Does Category:People killed by the Third Reich seem a reasonable name / parent category?

Thanks again, David Kernow 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

...The name is perfect, IMO, as it is both comprehensive and neutral. In the future, perhaps a Category:Executed Sturmabteilung members could be added and included in there as a subcat, so all possible meanings of the term "killed" are covered, and the relation between political repression in Nazi Germany and contrasting political groups may be established. Let me know if I can be of any assistance. Dahn 18:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I'll keep your page on my watchlist as a reminder to let you know when I've finished trawling through Category:People condemned by Nazi courts. I don't know how many articles there are or might be about murdered SA members, but beyond Röhm and maybe one or two others, I wouldn't've thought it was that many...?  Regards, David 22:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how many there were, actually. I was looking through pages for Nazis a while back, and it struck me that articles had been created for several of them. But, yes, I am not sure if they could form a distinct subcat. Dahn 20:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alexandru Ghika

Hi! I noticed that you have included the article on Alexandru Ghika in the Ghica family category. Are you sure that he is part of the family, because it could be just a name coincidence (I don't know anything about his relation to the Ghica family)? You can answer here, I'm watching your talk page. TX AdamSmithee 20:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I had checked with the Romanian version, which includes him. The Romanian Academy site also features Ghika under the name "Ghica", and it is very unlikely that the name was used by any other family in Romania. I am not 100% sure, but others seem to be. In fact, the name is so rare outside of the family, that it seems likely there would have been mention of him "not being related to them" in the article - even over a mention of him being related to it. Dahn 20:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I have just noticed you are Romanian, so part of my explanation is superfluous (just so you don't think I'm being condescendent, and "explaining to you how we hand out names to our own" :)). I think the mention of his noble ancestry might have either turned into "the elephant in the room that we do not speak about" under communist rule, or it was swallowed by the carlessness many Romanian sources have in not explaining something which they hold to be "self-evident". Dahn 20:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I thought so too (though I have to recognise I didn't look further into it), just trying to make sure :-). By the way, thanks for the nice job you are doing cathegorising and copy-editing articles (I also noticed your fine work on copy-editing Spiru Haret and Gheorghe Ţiţeica a while ago). Now, you probably do other good things too, but this is just what I noticed :-) AdamSmithee 23:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks. I was feeling a bit weary of those articles, since my knowledge of mathematics tends towards zero, but you confirm that I have found the proper links for mathematical concepts. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me know. Dahn 23:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Phanariotes

I do not know what Miskin has suggested. From what I understand he suggested that the article on Phanariotes should also cover contemporary greek presence in Instabul. If this is the case I obviously agree with you that this kind of info has nothing to do with an article on Phanariotes. By the way, right now im away from home and dont have access to any books/libraries- by mid-june i return to greece. if you like by that time we could collaborate a bit on the article on phanariotes or other history articles.best--Greece666 17:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

hi again. a)regarding nations, we share the same point of view. im glad to have met you, cause there are few (balkan) ppl in wikipedia who write on balkan history from a non-nationalist point of view. so keep up the good work!

b)about vladimirescu- from what i know, indeed, few greek writers did not accuse him of "anti-greek" stance. one is yannis scaribas and his book on the greek revolution. scaribas regarded vladimirescu as a leader of revolutionary peasants against the greek bourgeoisie (i dont know if this is true either, but at least it is not nationalist rhetoric!) by the way, you can also email me if you like Wikipedia e-mail best--Greece666 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


You should both read my last post on the article's Talk page, which says that I agree that contemporary Greek presence in Phanari is irrelevant to the subject. Dahn I think you're jumping into conclusions too quickly. You've been accusing me for wanting to point out contemporary presence and revive the "magale idea" only because I wrote "reside" in stead of "resided". I think this is a bit exaggerated from your part. I initially said that the Phanariotes are still the Greeks of Phanari as a response to you irrational claim that Phanariotes exist still as the Romanians with names such as "Palaeologus and Comnenus". This statement gave me the impression that you erroneously believed that Phanariotes was a name exclusively connected to the Greek Princes of Romania. I think your opinion on Phanariotes is a POV, which stems from the fact that they are connected to Romanian history. The fact is that all contemporary and modern sources label them ethnic Greeks, because that's what they were. Today's Romanian people who might decend from them have nothing to do with the ethnicity of the real Phanariotes. Your POV theories of "cosmopolitanism" vs "taking sides" obviously stems from there. For your information Etairia was primarily a Phanariote society whose mission statement was the "liberation of the motherland". Miskin 18:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"I agree that contemporary Greek presence in Phanari is irrelevant to the subject." If this is so, I apologize for having misunderstood your point of view. best--Greece666 18:42, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dahn: I do not understand why you think I might be insulted- just the opposite :) . i think communication might be easier through email, though.Wikipedia e-mail

Of course I do not mind that you do not have an email account. "Romania-related pages are slowly turning into a war between various ethno-nationalisms". i agree that this is sad. "hopefully will not be getting lines crossed again" i wish you good luck, but i think this is a very difficult task to accomplish. in any case keep up the good work!--Greece666 19:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I ve just added a comment on the Phanariots discussion page. Regarding Phanariots, I would like to see more information about their role in Ottoman administration, avoiding nationalist POV. personally, im not sure that the phanariots had a national identity/feeling. after all, some of them continued to serve the sultan long after the 1821 Revolution. I also think it should be added to the page that some phanariots took part in the greek revolution and that Alexander Mavrokordatos (i think hes the grandson of the one mentioned in the site) became an influential greek politician. thats all i can contribute for now, cause as i ve told you, i dont have any books available.

Hi again. I also agree with all your points!

a)Their link with Romania is intrinsic and I do not think there is a serious historian(including Greeks) who doubts that.

b) They did come from various places in the Balkans.

c)Pls do not get upset with Miskin. Just cool down and reply with arguments as you did.--Greece666 20:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Greek born in Constantinople myself and I could safely say that I've been well familiar and involved with this topic. The initial impression I had was that you and other editors were drawing conclusions on the Phanariotes via the Princes of the Danubian provinces. What I want to point out is they they were not the main representatives of the Phanariote society. Arguments of the type "Phanariotes remained in Romania and in Ottoman posts" cannot be used as an argument for their ethnicity. Neither can language. Although the vast majority was Greek-speaking, it's true that some might have been Hellenized, but then again how can you prove who's Greek and who's Hellenized? Kolokotronis and Bouboulina (principal heros of the Greek war of independence) were Arvanites for example. The Phanariotes who became Romanian in that sense, are not historically regarded as Phanariotes but as Romanians, despite what their ancestry or name reveals. In the Ottoman Empire, the sole criterion of ethnicity was religion, not language. The subjects of the Patriarch of Constantinople were "Greek Orthodox", which was later simplified to "Greek national". Furthermore the vast majority of them, were Greek-speakers (although with great dialectic variation). Who worked with whom is also irrelevant, Greek interest was varied significantly during the 19th century. During the war of independence many Greeks from the island and Phanari opposed the revolution, in the long run the majority offered support and by the 20th century everyone would sing nationalist songs. In the long run, everything that went wrong in the Greek Kingdom was paid by the Greeks of Constantinople (Phanariots included). The etaria was in fact a Phanariote society, and this doesn't mean a society from the Princes of the Danubian provinces, but a society founded and preserved by the wider community of Phanariotes. I have a source right next to me that verifies this. I've got sources for all my claims and I'm sure I could find countless more. In fact I've never run into one which would say differently. Most of your ideas are based on the other hand are based on original research, and I think that providing personal arguments as an answer to POV is not an efficient method of resolving disputes. Maybe we should let the sources talk in our stead. Miskin 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Most chose to be Greeks, but reference to "Greeks" before that actually refers to Christian Orthodox who had a fond memory of the Christian Empire."
However scholars do refer to them as Greeks, hence that the term wikipedia is obliged to use. See Eric Hobsbawm's "The Age of Revolutions" to get my point. Your erroneous conclusions stem from unfamiliarity with Greek history and ethnicity. I think this discourse is leading us nowhere. Let us have scholars decide by citing sources. Miskin 01:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but your views are a POV which doesn't reflect scholarly consensus. Phanariot is synonymous to Phanariot Greek, simple as that. Byzantine=phanariotes=modern greek is not a monopoly, it is a reality, and your personal convictions are irrelevant here (so are mine). Literally all europeans (including Russians) in the medieval world referred to byzantines as "modern Greeks" and it survived into the modern era. What you should question instead is the cultural connection between Byzantine/modern Greeks and classical Greece. That one was introduced for Romantic reasons. Miskin 01:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Calm down Dahn, I never said nor implied that "nationalism blinds you from the truth" or anything like that. I don't even like using such terms. Your focus on Romanian history might have given you the wrong impression on the nature of Phanariotes. That wouldn't make you a nationalist. I only tried to clear a few things out, that is all. Miskin 01:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not a bad thing to have a focus on Romanian history and a "de-focus" on Greek, it's something normal. Similarly I have a focus on Greek history, hence why I don't pretend to be an expert on Romanian. You pretend to be an expert on both, which is certainly not the case with the former. Miskin 20:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re Query on my talk page...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_10#Category:Far_right_politics_in_France :) Syrthiss 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Circassians

I am intrigued by the claims of wiki as to the Circassians having been kicked out of Kossovo (in the eve of the 1999 Civil War which pillaged that province). I added my comment at Talk:Kosovo#Ciracassians. I wonder if pundit Dahn or Miskin for that matter can come over above and share with us their expertize (or antything they might happen to know) on this matter. I am calling upon the so-called Vlach speaker Hectorian too should he hear my cry of anguish since he claims he is a geographer and lives indeed close to the disputed area in Salonica. Many thanks in advance! Apostolos Margaritis 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

After receiving Margaritis' invitation [1], i passed by to leave a msg... Although i am not sure if i can offer anything of "my expertize (or anything I might happen to know) on this matter", according to Margaritis. In addition, it seems that he has some sort of prejudice against me, for this is how he introduced me: the so-called Vlach speaker Hectorian, he claims he is a geographer (for the record, i never made such a claim, but i like geography a lot, as seen in my user templates). So, on the Circassian matter, i know very few things as a whole. i know many things 'bout the Circassians in Turkey, former USSR and Jordan, a few about the Circassians in Greece and Israel, and nothing about those in Kosovo and Bulgaria. sorry, but i cannot help (although i still wonder if Margaritis' msg to me had actually anything to do with the Circassians...-i hardly have made any edit in related articles, thus noone has reasons to call me an expect on the matter)... --Hectorian 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you, as a resident of Salonica may have something to say as to the East Salonica neighbourhood (suburb?) of Ayios Stefanos which was called until recently something like Kirkasoi. Just wondering if (descendants) of the Circassians are still lingering there. That's why I asked for your expertize Apostolos Margaritis 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, no. I have no idea about the place u mentioned. i am not from Thessaloniki, i just study here. the few things i know about the Circassians in Greece, is that some of them followed the greek refugees from Asia Minor after 1922. now, if they settled in Thessaloniki or elsewhere, i honestly do not know... --Hectorian 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry It's Ayios Serafimos (near Salonica's INTL Airport). D'you kow the neighbourhood? It was the Circassian quarter of Salonica Apostolos Margaritis 15:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Blackshirts saltire.png

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Blackshirts saltire.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hunter 13:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Margaritis calling

Times are hard as usual Dahn: I'm just having a squabble with NikoSilver over the ethnicity of Saint Cyril. What's your opinion on this issue? Come over to my discussion page. Oops, in the meanwhile a tendentious Graecophiliac named Aldux is for a reason vandalizing my contributions to wikipedia. Apostolos Margaritis 18:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greeks in Romania

Teodeor Calmasul was a Romanian boyar from Moldova. His son changed his name to Ioan Teodor Callimachi when he worked as a dragoman at Istanbul, to facilitate his selection as prince of Moldova during the Phanariot "prime time". He did spoke greek (plus several other languages, as he learned with Dositej Obradović), but he was still Romanian. Or, at best, (romanianised) Greek of Romanian origin. greier 12:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Phanariotes'origin

  • Having read the discussion page of phanariotes and some of the comments I would like to add something to the discussion myself.To my understanding, one of the main reasons of confusion is that most greeks consider that all Phanariotes and Byzantine officials were Greeks. This is obviously not true or in any case depends upon the definition you give to the word greek (and this is also a big issue, bcs some greeks have a very broad definition of "greekness").
  • In any case, I am very interested in the issue Margaritis has raised: indeed at least in Greece the issue of the ethnicity of St. Cyril is always suspiciously omitted from schoolbooks and encyclopeadias so I do not know anything about it. All I know (and I think this is what also most greeks know) is that the two saints lived in Salonica ( i hope that this at least is true). If any of you knows more on the issue, i d like to exchange opinions. best--Greece666 17:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Phanariotes are not Byzantine officials. Anyway the Greek name is Νικόλαος Μαυρογένης, I haven't looked for an english spelling (Nicholas Mavrogenis maybe) [2]. Miskin 19:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"that all Phanariotes and Byzantine officials were Greeks": i mentioned byzantine officials as an example similar to phanariotes, i never said they are the same thing.--Greece666 00:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"when the Sultan effectively replaced the Byzantine Emperor": I do not think this is the best way to put it, but in any case maybe "virtually" is better than "effectively". best--Greece666 03:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I had been trying to find a better term that the "basically" added in the text by another user. Dahn 04:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer

In reply to your question here, who else other than Bonaparte? ;) Cheers. —Khoikhoi 15:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/h/User_talk%7EDahn_Archive_4_12a6.html"