User talk:Dahn

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user declares his annoyance at browsing through articles initiated by US or UK users which fail to mention that the theme has to do with one of the two countries (arguably because they assume that English language wiki means "English/American wiki").

Contents

[edit] Puttees

Dunno about puttees, Soviet soldiers had worn them too (Russian ones still do, AFAIK)...

The poster reads: "Remember (about) Bessarabia!"
"In the 10 years of the bloody occupation of Bessarabia (a list of unspeakable evil deeds most certainly follows)"
(vertical) "Hands of Romanian invaders away from Bessarabia!" (the sentence is a bit malformed in Russian, it either addresses the Romanian invaders ("get your hands off!") or someone else who should do it ("let's get their hands off...!"))
The star below probably lists the MASSR achievements in the same 10 years.

PS: Note the swastika.

On Goma: no need for translations that was sufficient. What's the other controvercy? The commission on Communism? --Illythr 23:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Puttees: They were (and probably still are) standard issue in the Soviet (Russian) army. At that time, they were standard for all the world's armies, I'd wager.
Swastika: Well, MASSR was founded in 1924. +10 years makes the poster's year 1934...
Commission: But they did condemn Communism... Why were the far rightists unhappy? --Illythr 00:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Nasi

Thank you for getting in touch. The note I made and subsequently incorporated didnt have full details; I intended to put in the other details later. Anyway here is the complete reference: The Venetian Empire, by Jan Morris; Penguin Books; London, 1980. I originally had the hardback, but in the paperback edition it seems the relevant page is 102. There is an interesting amount of information about Nasi as a rival of Venice in the Aegean; remarkably, the treaty between Venice and the Ottoman Empire that confirmed the cession of Cyprus to the Turks was signed by one of his associates, also Jewish. Hornplease 11:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culianu & mysticism

Salut! Culianu avait l'air d'être un personnage intéressant... pas grand chose à voir - quoique...-, mais tu connais Alejandro Jodorowsky? En tout cas, "democatholic" semble être un néologisme, en français ça fait bizarre, on dirait plutôt démocrate chrétien, "démocrate catho" ça fait étrange (voire même oxymorique ! - on a plutôt tendance à dire "réac catho" !) Si c'est effectivement en référence au contexte français (probablement d'un point de vue extérieur) ça peut vouloir indiquer le ralliement d'une partie des catholiques à la Troisième République vers 1900, sur les traces d'Adolphe Thiers et autres Orléanistes. Grosso modo les cathos votent à droite, et la droite a longtemps été anti-républicaine, comme tu le sais... Quoi qu'il en soit, l'inventeur du terme "democatho" a probablement voulu souligner le fait qu'il ne s'agissait pas de protestants ou d'orthodoxes, et cela n'a guère de sens en France, où le vote protestant & autres (si ça existe encore) est plutôt à gauche — c'est comme cet usage anglais d'écrire "Roman Catholic Church" au lieu de simplement "Catholic Church" ou même "Church" tout court. Sinon, il y a l'air d'avoir une tendance confirmée en Roumanie de spiritualisme et de mysticisme que je ne connaissais pas, ça tend à valider une partie des thèses de Zeev Sternhell qui n'a pas hésité à traiter le personnalisme d'Emmanuel Mounier comme précurseur du fascisme, bien que cela s'apparente en réalité bien plus à un existentialisme ou/et humanisme chrétien, pas très différent à vrai dire ni de Alain ni de Sartre (du premier Sartre en tout cas). Un mélange de cette tradition de l'occulte avec les thèses racialistes d'un Xenopol donnent en effet le cocktail du nazisme, positivisme + spiritualisme, vraiment étrange... Je ne sais pas si l'Huma exagère toujours autant, mais lire leurs articles pendant la Révolution roumaine doit être quelque chose - mais cela vaut pour l'ensemble de la représentation médiatique de cet événement, malheureusement... Il est clair que ces règlements d'appart sur la Côte d'azur n'étaient officiellement pas appliqué, prétexte paradoxal de leur maintien. Dans un autre registre, on vient de s'apercevoir qu'une loi datant de Napoléon interdisait aux femmes le port du pantalon ! Connaissant, néanmoins, les pratiques de discrimination raciale en vigueur dans diverses agences d'immobilier, ainsi que la popularité des thèses racistes dans le sud, je n'assurerai pas qu'ils n'étaient vraiment jamais appliqué, ces fameux règlements vichystes... A + ! Tazmaniacs

[edit] Quick request

Hello - could you, when you have a moment, take a look at Iosif Chişinevschi? I had a question on the talk page, which I tried to answer in footnote 1, but perhaps you can confirm or modify my explanation. Biruitorul 12:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

VT on p. 159 of the English edition does say, "Chişinevschi had personal connections in the Soviet secret police, as an agent of which he infiltrated upper ranks of the Romanian communist hierarchy." However, do take your time - it's not urgent.
Yes, very disruptive and should be reverted on sight. If you're facing 3RR issues, let me know and I'll help. Anyway, I suspect some of these individuals are due for banishment from here. Biruitorul 12:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Church Slavonic

I think I remember you suggesting such a Wikipedia with pre-1917 reform rules before... Well, there it is! :-D --Illythr 14:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Awwww... :'-( --Illythr 15:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Valter Roman

Hi, I've decided not to block you for breaching our Three revert rule policy today, instead preferring to protect the page whilst you and Icar (along with all other interested users) come to an agreement over the content, preferably by using the articles talk page. If you persist in reverting more than 3 times in any 24 hour period following this warning, I will have no hesitation in blocking you in future. -- Nick t 14:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help you both, if you want to.--HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I reported you --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 15:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Alas, I was away while protection occurred. Cine pleacă la plimbare, pierde locul de onoare, at least temporarily. Biruitorul 15:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, done. Biruitorul 17:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's good to let your ego be punctured once in a while. Most of us, after several years and tens of thousands of edits, start to put a lot of our egos into our work here, more than we originally either intended or anticipated. While it's natural for this to happen, the unintended consequences include feelings of ownership over one's contributions and a quickness to react in poor faith, and even with arrogance. Someone reverted your edits with a sarcastic edit summary? Let it go. Someone called you a bad name somewhere? Don't retaliate. Let it go. While it hurts at first to let these things go, being able to do so is the true test of strength and maturity. You only gain in the long run. Retaliating not only brings you discredit, but it increases your anger, and corresponding risk of over-reaction, as the number of related provocations rises. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I am not having this conversation, HIZKIAH. You have simply reverted several articles to vandalized versions, so all of this coaching is out of place. Dahn 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's worst enemies are those whose vanity has been wounded. They may be moderately notable people, such as Daniel Brandt, who failed to control the article on himself; or they may be people who worked hard on an article which was deleted by the community; or they may be people who attempted to push a POV which was rejected by the community. Usually they invoke a higher moral principle in support of their campaign against the project, such as censorship, free speech, conspiracy against them, or whatnot, as their own vanity prevents them from recognizing that vanity itself is the source of their displeasure. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I repeat: none of that has any relevancy to a situation where somebody erases scholarly sources on they basis that they "have been used to much". You may continue to talk about ego and whatnot, but that weighs nothing on this very simple issue. Dahn 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you an Adaptive behavior which is a type of behavior that is used to adapt to another type of behavior or situation. This is often characterised by a behavior that allows an individual to substitute an unconstructive or disruptive behavior to something more constructive. These behaviors are most often social or personal behaviors. For example a constant repetitive action could be re-focused on something that creates or builds something. In other words the behavior can be adapted to something else. I try to help you, if I fail ...I hope not. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I do not answer to straw men. I see no relevancy for this type of messages on my talk page, so if you continue to discuss my psychology or whatnot, I will simply remove your future posts from this page. Dahn 17:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racovschi

Firstly, I will look for that image and scan it. It can be found in Trotskys Balkan War correspondence. Secondly, I have his work "Republica Federativa Balcanica" in Romanian lying around somewhere as a collection of images photographed of a photocopy. If you want these I'll render them to you aswell (I am about half way through translating it into English).

About the anti-Semitic stuff, it is quite sad. There isn't much that can be done but wait and hope more fair minded users turn up. Although, scandal has in the past served to bring other Wikipedias more in line. I believe they had a significant problem on the Serbian Wikipedia and Jimbo intervened. But I don't remember the exact details. If you come across any other articles let me know. - Francis Tyers · 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strike!

(By the way, the Hizkiah episode was funny - I was going to ask him, "Who are you?", but I guess we now know.) (Oh, and thank you for the Tâmpa expansion.)
After doing the piece on the Lupeni strike, I think I've stumbled on an interesting, largely untapped (within Wikipedia) vein of Romanian history - the workers' movement. I'll use this message to try and propose the contours for an eventual series of articles on the subject.
I think an overall article called "History of the Romanian labour movement", or something on those lines would not be amiss. We can cover some of the smaller strikes there, like the many that happened in the 1880s-'90s, or in the 1920s in the Jiu Valley (actually the latter is always going on strike). And of course speak of PSDR and later PCR involvement. As to individual strikes we may want to include, I've found references to Galaţi, June 1907 and a general strike in 1910, but they're quite vague. Then there was the 1916 Galaţi strike involving Rakovsky.
For the post-WWI period, we should definitely write about:
1. The 1918-1920 labour unrest, culminating in the October 20-28, 1920 general strike.
2. The 1929-33 wave of unrest - strikes, demonstrations, revolts (Tismăneanu touches on it near the end of Chapter 2) - perhaps we could title it "Romania in the Great Depression".
2½. The Griviţa strike article needs eventual expansion (it doesn't mention, for instance, Vasile Roaită).
3. Not a strike in the classic sense, but the 1946 Cluj and Timişoara student strike/ethnic tension merits an article or two.
4. And of course, Jiu 1977.

That's at least five articles in there, so this is a longer-term undertaking. But does the general idea strike (ha!) you as a sound one? Biruitorul 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you say is right on the mark, so I look forward to getting things off the ground whenever more pressing projects are finished. Indeed, even on the 1920 general strike I've only found a few scraps (though I'm sure there's more out there), so putting it in as a section in the larger article (which has FA potential) is not a problem.
The only point I'd take mild issue with is the Depression. Of course, we do need to straighten out the Old Kingdom/Kingdom/Greater Romania articles. However, there is a strong precedent for separate articles. It's not a crucial point, but something to ponder.
And yes, we can always experiment first by sandboxing. Biruitorul 22:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good - slow and steady. As for the English variant, let's just stay with whatever one we start out with. I have no trouble writing in either. Biruitorul 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's where I read about the earlier strikes. Overall, not a bad article. Biruitorul 23:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, great minds do think alike, but I must confess I'm not great at creating "big picture" articles, preferring more specific subjects like events and people. So I'll leave it to you to create, and add in more material as appropriate, whenever you're ready. If you will, I'm the Stalin to your Lenin, or perhaps the Sima to your Codreanu - a less imaginative, more bureaucratic follower of the man with the Big Ideas. But in the end, Stalin had a relatively good life (though presumably the afterlife is proving more painful for him), not to mention Sima, who spent a good four decades frittering away his days in sunny Spain.
Anyway, what do we call the Cluj '46 article? 1946 Cluj student strike? There's an OK article on Timişoara here, but I've found less on Cluj. Biruitorul 00:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HIZKIAH

No problem. BTW, perhaps you could check something out for me. On the Târnăveni article, there's a dispute over a certain sentence, and the use of Hungarian over Romanian for the names of the Hungarian counties. I've explained my reverts here, and there's also an explanation from another user here. However, Olario left some message to Orioane in Romanian on his talk page, and although I don't know exactly what he's saying, I did notice the sentence, "cum si el zice si si noi stim limba latina o fost pana tarziu limba oficiala in ungaria deci sa zici ca limba oficiala era maghiara si de aia le ziceau asa la orase ii absurd." Perhaps you could leave a comment on his talk page or at least tell me how to solve this issue. I noticed that the article contradicts itself right now. While it says in the history section, "From its founding until its incorporation into Romania with the 1920 Treaty of Trianon, the town formed part of Hungary or an independent Transylvania", the article then goes on to say, "In 1502, the place was mentioned as a borough (oppidum), as a part of Cetatea de Baltă fields, owned in the 15th-16th centuries by Moldavian rulers Stephen the Great, Petru Rareş and others." Which one is correct? Khoikhoi 01:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 15 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Proclamation of Timişoara, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
--howcheng {chat} 06:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing articles: 1848 Wallachian revolution, etc

Hi, I was looking at red links, and wonder if you can tell me what happened to articles like 1848 Wallachian revolution and Wallachian Army. There are lots of incoming links ("what links here") to those missing articles, but there is no record of them being deleted in the Logs. As you've been an editor of Regulamentul Organic I thought you might know whether those articles ever existed. - Fayenatic london (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aha, I see. Perhaps you might consider creating stub articles in the meantime, with a couple of lines of text and some categories. This has two advantages: (i) it's just possible that somebody else might add material while you're not getting round to it; (ii) as long as things stay as they are, the red links are in danger of being deleted. HTH! - Fayenatic london (talk) 13:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Woo!

Yes, I have been. I've been collecting sources and reading research for around 6 months now. You can see a list at User:Francis Tyers/Research. I was considering calling it "Balkan Federation", but I think your article title, "Balkan federalism" is better. If you want any of the sources I have photocopying or emailing, let me know -- some of them are hard to come accross (particularly Stavrianos' work). - Francis Tyers · 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course, all material would be gratefully received! I'm currently in the gathering phase, but I'd love any suggestions. I have been wondering how to split up the article, as with the amount of material I have it could get quite large rapidly. Please feel free to edit my Research page. - Francis Tyers · 17:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I added the photo, could you email me so I can send you the rest of that stuff? - Francis Tyers · 09:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, actually I just realised that I wasn't watching that page. I'll check them now. NP about the email. - Francis Tyers · 11:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism

I am sorry to bother you, but I really need some help. There is an ongoing campaign by a few editors to portray Fascism and Nazism as representative forms of socialism. As part of this effort (a debate that stretches back to 2004), there are a tiny handful of editors who revert and redirect National Socialism to Nazism. I believe a majority of editors support redirecting National Socialism to National Socialism (disambiguation). I realize we just had a poll on the Nazism page where I thought this issue was settled, but apparently the struggle is not over. Please consider voting in the new poll, or adding a comment at: Talk:Nazism#Survey:_redirecting_National_Socialism. Also consider notifying other editors with an interest in this matter. I am doing the best I can, but need assistance. Thanks.--Cberlet 17:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gheorghe Tătărescu GA on hold

On Hold — Notes left on talk page. --Nehrams2020 00:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Email

Check it. Khoikhoi 08:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Labour movement

Good start; I'll see what I can add. I have a feeling the PSDR and your new PS article will come in handy.
On an unrelated note, do you happen to know how Gheorghe Gheorgiu-Dej's corpse was disposed of? In the article on him, we claim he was buried, but I noted in the Cremation in Romania article that he was cremated. Admittedly, I don't have a citation for the latter, so I don't mind removing it. But do you know for sure that he was interred - is there a citation to that effect? Because at least as far as I know, inside the Mausoleum there were urns, not coffins. Biruitorul 02:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - it's certainly something we had a burning need for. (And the Encyclopedia of Cremation has articles on lots of countries, but I kind of like the idea of Romania being the only country with such an article; also our oil industry, when we get around to that.) Of course, the Cioroianu check can wait for later. Also, if he's of interest to you, I've redone Nicolae Labiş. Probably needs sections, citations, etc., which either one of us can put in. Anyway, I must be off, but I'll see you soon, perhaps with some more thoughts on the labour piece (though the ideas you outlined a few days ago are a rather solid jumping-off point). Biruitorul 02:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; I took your suggestions into account. He probably was some sort of communist - certainly on the left, and in fact one of my sources reads, "Asasinat politic, ca Foriş sau Pătrăşcanu. Ca pe un marxist care... gândeşte. Cel mai periculos! Automat deviaţionist." So if you add the category, it's fine; if we wait for more confirmation, that's also fine. And yes, he's probably coming soon - but as long as it's just cn tags and not wholesale cuts, I can usually deal with that - in fact they're good to have, up to a point. Pe curând. Biruitorul 04:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, that's problematic. I've e-mailed Cioroianu; we'll see if he replies. Meanwhile: the "Ulyanov to Koba" reference hit me just a bit late; I suppose this one is "Comandantul către Căpitan" - a message Sima could have written even after 1938, for, as Marta Petreu writes, "[Legionnaires had] the idea that the nation included both the dead and the living, that the nation's heroes provided assistance from 'beyond' to those who invoked them. This element of doctrine involved an authentic mystique of the idea of dying for one's nation, for a Legionnaire killed in the line of duty instantly became the hero who could continue to support the undertakings of living Legionnaires". By the way, have you come across her book, Un trecut deocheat? It does have some interesting material in it.

I was also thinking (yet a new article idea!) about that Jurnalul series on relations with Italy. Following this model, we could spawn a whole set of articles on "Romanian-X" relations. At least with the US, the UK, France, Russia, China, North Korea, Germany, Italy, Spain and various Eastern European countries. Did I miss any? Uruguay? Burkina Faso?

As for the dismissal: we should get our Cabinet page in order before the elections (at the latest under two years away (which I guess is forever in wiki-time)): we don't want to be caught off guard when a new cabinet comes in.

Oh, and it looks like we could use some of this. Biruitorul 21:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I did see the site; usually people put, oh, maybe an e-mail address on their sites, but not him (it took a little searching to find).
You're right that that sort of article can be excess, though I suggested it since we do have the source on Italy. But now that I think about it, an article on "Russian-Romanian relations" would probably duplicate a lot of what we already have. (Ah, and there was one country I forgot: Israel. Indeed the whole issue of post-WWII emigration to Israel could be better explored in at least three articles (PCR, History of the Jews..., and Ana Pauker), so a fourth probably won't be needed (we can mention Ceauşescu's Middle East mediation attempts elsewhere too.)
As for the political party question: I think the standard is to mention only the party someone belonged to while in office. For instance Ronald Reagan used to be a Democrat, a fact mentioned in the article but not in the infobox. Bob Rae is now a Liberal, but the only major office he has held has been as an NDP member, so that's what is mentioned there. For Winston Churchill it says "Conservative and Liberal", because while he was a Conservative as PM, he held ministerial office as a Liberal earlier on. So, in sum, for Iliescu let's not say PCR & PDSR/PSD; for Stolojan let's not say PNL & PLD, unless he becomes PM again. Biruitorul 00:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. And it's official: Paul Goma uses Wikipedia. Great title, anyway. Biruitorul 01:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. By the way, are we limiting the Labor movement article mainly to cities, factories and mines? If we're to discuss the working peasantry (ţărănimea muncitoare) as well, then this new article might have some relevance. Biruitorul 19:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Harta Olteniei

Poti sa-mi explici de ce ai inlocuit harta care reprezenta Oltenia cu o harta care reprezinta Regiunea de dezvoltare Sud-Vest? In articol este vorba de regiunea istorica Oltenia, situata intre M-tii Carpati, Dunare si raul Olt. Astept o reactie din partea ta, altfel repun harta anterioara. --Olahus 09:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friends of the Soviet Union

Hi,

Do you have any new info regarding the international affiliations of FSU? On [1] it gives the impression that Friends of the Soviet Union was a transnational organization with its secretariat in Berlin. The question is, was this one monolithic structure or were organizations in different countries affiliates to an international network? --Soman 09:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

There was sort of a similar issue in the International Red Aid article. Based on that IRA and FSU were children of the same era, it would certainly lead to the assumption that there was an international organization with national branches in several countries. Somehow its difficult to find sources regarding this, since most national communist historians focuses mainly on the relation between their national CP and the local FSU. --Soman 13:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
See [2]. Thus FSU was an international organization, and Friends of the Soviet Union should be converted from a disamb page to an article on the international organization. --Soman 13:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the speech itself is mainly rhetoric, with little article value. The point is that a world congress of the FSU was held on certain dates. See also [3]. Briefly, it states that an organization called FSU was founded in 1927, and a German section was founded in 1928. Thus the puzzle is sort of cleared out, 1) there was an international organization headquartered in Berlin and 2) it had national sections. --Soman 13:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have enough time right now to rewrite Friends of the Soviet Union adequately. Once that opportunity would emerge then I'll try to rewrite it, brief introduction about the FSU at international level and 3-10 sentences about each of the different national sections (with, the the cases where separate articles already exists, links to those article). If you could summarize the Amicii URSS in 3-10 sentences, it would be great. --Soman 13:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Polonization#About_European_powers

What do you think? I am neutral on this, but perhaps you will have some interesting insight...?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Socialist Party of Romania

Updated DYK query On 24 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Socialist Party of Romania, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
--howcheng {chat} 06:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help!

I think I'm on pretty solid ground here, but your input would be appreciated. I know it's only a stub, but the dispute strikes me as tendentious. Biruitorul 07:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem - thank you for your well-considered proposal. As I said, either variant could work: keep the present title and explain that it was not a de jure occupation through 1958 but has been called one, or change it and explain that it has been called an occupation for the entire period.
On the peasantry issue: that's what I figured - stay mainly with the cities (which, as late as the 1940s, made up only ~20% of the population, a fact that had broad implications in several areas).
Anyway, illegitimi non carborundum. Biruitorul 21:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Right. By the way, one more thought occurred to me: we could have a "Collectivization in Romania" article, no? Not only is there a good precedent for it, but it seems a large enough topic to merit its own article and not be folded into another. (But I guess the interwar land reforms could fit in the Greater Romania article.) Biruitorul 00:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Siegfried: AfD nomination

A tag has been placed on Matt Siegfried, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Orange Mike 17:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grigore Iunian

Updated DYK query On 29 March 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grigore Iunian, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
--howcheng {chat} 06:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi Dahn, this is a message I'm posting to everyone who participated in this AfD. I have nominated the same article for deletion again here – you might be interested. Regards, KissL 08:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

Sure, I'm willing to adapt and adjust the way I use references to the system that's most covenient to everyone. I'm still groping to find what's best (and/or standard) -- when a page is already developed, I go with what's there, of course. But when I start from scratch, I tend to use what's fastest, to get things started, with the thought that one can always go back and change to a better system if need be. But I guess that could prove difficult to do, once the page gets too complicated? So OK, please just let me know the pages you think should be revised, and I'll see what I can do. Perhaps not immediately, since I'm also writing a couple of papers and a book at the same time in real life, on totally different subjects (with completely different quotation systems!), plus a few other things, but I'll give it a shot. Cheers. Turgidson 20:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problemo. But really, I haven't done anything to the July Theses article, except for adding a few random wikilinks -- all credit (and whatever little blame!) -- for developing such an interesting article is due to Biruitorul. I thought youu were talking about other articles. At any rate, please do take a look at the talk page on Bodnăraş, there is a little related discussion there on how to quote things. I think it would be good to unify and synthesize these so-far disjointed discussions in a more accessible page (but where?), and try to come up with some useful guidelines for quotations. I'm willing to help if needed. Turgidson 20:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What was that all about with Anonimu? Anyway, thank you for cleaning it up. Biruitorul 20:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Frankly, I never understood why the mere mention of Tismăneanu triggers such a panic in some people, but anyway. As for the Barbu issue, that's from Deletant, 182: "The former [Principele] is a thinly disguised allegory of the Dej regime, set in the Romanian principalities during the Phanariot era (1711-1821). The prince (Dej) is portrayed as an instrument of a foreign will that has little sympathy for the interests of his subjects. The allusions to the Stalinist period are so thick as to include a project to build a canal which claims the lives of many of those involved in its construction." Biruitorul 21:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I wouldn't be defending Antonescu, but Anonimu tends to elicit rather hyperbolic rhetoric from my part. On that theme, though: I was looking through Istoria României în date (fascinating) and came across this tidbit on p. 451:
2-5 martie 1941. Plebiscitul organizat pentru aprobarea politicii generalului Ion Antonescu dă 99,9% răspunsuri afirmative şi 0,1% răspunsuri negative.
The question is, since elections and referenda are usually considered notable, do we create an article for this one, and for Carol II's similar referendum on the 1938 Constitution? Biruitorul 20:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite lousy, as I've complained about before. Biruitorul 20:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, they use Take Ionescu to represent "conservatism", and of course Iorga is out for his rather ambivalent attitude to Christianity, as is Maniu for being a Greek Catholic. Then again, I do wonder how devoted Codreanu was, as he seemed to be turning into a (more) reasonable politician; with his death the Guard had to start over in building political experience, and it shows - I'm amazed at just how bad a politician Sima was. We don't know how Codreanu would have acted in power (at least while sharing power), but it seems he was a little more adept by 1938. Biruitorul 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, incidentally, speaking of sainthood: Codreanu has actually been proposed for sainthood. I'm told it's unlikely to succeed, though, as the BOR hasn't canonised anyone who killed in cold blood (which he did, although he probably received absolution for it). Dumitru Stăniloae also suggested Moţa and Marin for sainthood, but nothing has come of that either. Biruitorul 21:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, for Moţa and Marin there is Rost (...), citing Stăniloae speaking in the last year of his life (though not directly proposing sainthood in this passage, I see): "Jertfa acestor doi băieţi viteji are semnificaţia unei ofrande aduse lui Dumnezeu de poporul român(…) Această faptă de jertfă supremă pentru creştinism a lui Ion Moţa şi Vasile Marin a meritat să fie cinstită – destul de târziu, la trei ani de la înlăturarea comunismului – printr-un parastas prin care să se pomenească sufletele celor doi martiri ai Crucii şi să se atragă atenţia poporului nostru asupra semnificaţiei majore a acestei jertfe".
About Codreanu, I asked a priest if he'd been proposed, and he said yes, but didn't say who did it. I will see if there's a reliable source, or maybe ask him for more details. I too asked the priest about Ştefan (Mihai isn't a saint, to my knowledge, though Brâncoveanu is). He told me the answer was no: Ştefan killed in battle (ostensibly for religious purposes), and probably had people executed, but didn't commit murder plain and simple. Biruitorul 21:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Orthodox Church isn't a legalistic church, so Codreanu could theoretically be made a saint, and there's no hard and fast rule - just guidelines and precedents. The reasons for Ştefan's sainthood are summarized here: basically, he fought the Turks, built churches and monasteries, and was popular. I think the important thing, though, is that Codreanu's murders had no justification (except the one he made up himself), while the killing done by Ştefan in battle was done (at least in theory) for the good of the Church, and was not overly excessive. Other killing he did could be justified by the special powers he had given his status as a ruler (see Romans 13:3-4: Dregătorii nu sunt de temut pentru o faptă bună, ci pentru una rea. Vrei dar să nu-ţi fie frică de stăpânire? Fă binele, şi vei avea laudă de la ea. El este slujitorul lui Dumnezeu pentru binele tău. Dar, dacă faci răul, teme-te, căci nu degeaba poartă sabia. El este în slujba lui Dumnezeu, ca să-L răzbune şi să pedepsească pe cel ce face rău.) Biruitorul 22:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess so. By the way, I was looking at Iorga's biography and struck by this sentence: "In recent years, apologists for the Iron Guard have claimed..." First, it uses the word "recent", which always triggers a reaction from me, as it means little. Second, it's uncited. Might we be able to do anything about this? Biruitorul 23:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too - let's do more at once. Meanwhile, do note that Gigi is taking heat from the Church as well. Biruitorul 00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, by all means. Template:Tăriceanu Cabinet already exists, so do we move that to "First Tăriceanu Cabinet"? But yes, I don't object. I do think one of the two models (FR/AU) gives more occasion for presenting minutiae (cabinet shuffles, exact dates, etc.), but I quite like the template idea too. Biruitorul 21:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I like what I see so far, and what you say sounds quite reasonable. One small suggestion, though: full dates. See this page for what I mean. Actually that whole page could be a workable model: cabinets, dates and changes are listed, and then the templates at the bottom (with redlinks in anticipation of articles, though I don't think those will be needed for Romania). And incidentally, while most German articles on cabinets are just lists, this one is an actual article, so for particularly significant cabinets, like Antonescu I or Groza I, we can also create real articles (assmuning they wouldn't just be forks).

Anyway, I'm glad they're now online, and this looks like an exciting project to complete in the coming months. (And we'll also get around to fixing the many problems with the Prime Ministers. Examples of what I mean: in the Ion Brătianu article, we're told he started his second term on July 24; in the main list, August 5 (clearly a calendar issue). Gheorghe Manu's article claims he was a PM, but he isn't on the list. Etc.) I'll try my hand at a couple when I get a chance. Biruitorul 00:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There is and there isn't: some of those dates (September 14, 1940, March 6, 1945, December 26, 1989, etc) carry a lot of weight. Plus in a year with many cabinets (1918 had 5, for instance), it's good to know the dates at a glance. I don't insist, but I don't think it would hurt to have dates.
And hey, since when are we excluding the Groza Cabinet minutes!? I think even as raw text, they'd fly through FAC. Biruitorul 01:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it was just a joke. OK, so let's say we add dates in special cases only for now, and see how that works out. Biruitorul 01:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, it promises to be quite difficult. I also noticed they skipped the Communist period. I've made a first feeble attempt with Catargiu. I assumed all ministers were Conservatives. (Incidentally, not to sidetrack you, but in the infobox on Catargiu's article he is listed as a Conservative, but the link points to a party founded in 1880, though he was killed in 1862...). Biruitorul 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I know what you mean. We may be typical lethargic Romanians, but at least we know what needs to be done - eventually, at some (far) later date...
There's a strong precedent (Category:Members of the Cabinet of Canada) for categories by cabinet, so I'm fine with the idea. By the way... Biruitorul 06:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you :) but I haven't done so much work, just small pieces here and there. Not as much as you and several other editors. Mvelam 13:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 4 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chronicle of Huru, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
--ALoan (Talk) 15:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ákos

No problem. Here's my source for the diacritics by the way. Also check out this, this, and this. I'll try to correct the other names. Actually, I'm pretty sure "Laszlo Borbely" is incorrect: I can say for certain that the correct seplling is László, but I'm not sure about the surname. It might be "Borbély", but I'd have to look into it. Hajdu Gábor apparently has two articles about him on the Romanian Wikipedia: Menyhért Hajdu Gabor and Menyhért Gábor Hajdu. "Gábor" is probably his first name (or given name), as it translates to "Gabriel" in English. However, it might be his surname, I'm not sure. Khoikhoi 20:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's also sometimes useful to try the Hungarian Google. "Béla" is a common Hungarian given name, see Béla Bartók. It means "white". Khoikhoi 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the only reason I said that is because I knew someone with the last name "Gabor", but you never know what goes on at Ellis Island. Usually, Hungarian given names stay the same. Khoikhoi 21:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I like polenta. :-) I always thought the Italians made it better though... Khoikhoi 22:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your comments. BTW, the anon you've been reverting on Romanians is you-know-who (I've blocked the IPs as open proxies). Khoikhoi 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Errrr...not quite... Remember that Arthur's IP addresses always start with "66". Khoikhoi 04:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

I wanted to thank you for the Constantine Hangerli article; it was quite a surprise to find it on wikipedia. I stumbled upon Hangerli in a novel by Eugen Barbu, Saptamana nebuniilor, although there was spelled Hangerly. Anyway, you're work on en.wikipedia is quite impressive! Keep fighting the good fight.

GeoAtreides 10:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An answer

Hi, Dahn. Sorry for the mix-up, but on the notice board it wasn't clear that you and only you would be working on the cabinet templates. But anyway... As for the colors, if you want to keep them consistent, go ahead (you're right, it doesn't make sense to use colors in one-party cabinets). And you're free to update the templates I created as you see fit. Let me know if you need help. Mentatus 19:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No prob, absolutely no hard feelings from my side. Wikipedia is above all team work and I'm glad if I can give you guys a hand. And yep, sure, change the Roman Cabinet template as you see fit. Mentatus 20:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting question: I've linked "Agriculture, Commerce, and Public Works" to "Transport, Constructions and Tourism", which may also be a bit of a stretch. I'd say link it to education, at least until (and unless) we make a page for that separate ministry (for which there is, as always, precedent). I agree: let's merge as much as possible. Of course, at some point, there may be a case for separation, but we're far from it. I also agree on adding party affiliations. For the older ministries I've noted continuing Old/New calendar discrepancies between various sources, so watch out when you get there. Biruitorul 03:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Easter

Thanks for the wishes. Hristos a Înviat! — Turgidson 13:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and a very Happy Easter to you as well. One more question: Minister for "relation" or "relations" with Parliament? The latter sounds better to me - is there a particular reason to use the former? Biruitorul 14:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/a/h/User_talk%7EDahn_f554.html"