Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Naming of articles on villages in Romania 2 Greeks in Romania 3 Our next featured article? 4 Territorial divisions 5 Political parties 6 Naming conventions 7 Transnistria and Wikipedia in The Economist 8 Bucharest Metro maps 9 Cinema of Romania

Naming of articles on villages in Romania

In Romania, counties are divided into communes, which are divided into villages. The communes are usually named after their largest village.

There is a problem with disambiguation: what should we do when we have a commune and a village with the same name? Should we have a disambiguation or should the commune stay at the main title with a disambig note?

For example, in Vâlcea County, we have the commune of Popeşti and another village of Popeşti, in the Sineşti commune. How should we name them? bogdan 14:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Standing by my suggestion: merge villages and their respective communes (after all, from what I have noticed, in the disambig pages you created, when the names would point to villages, you linked the communes these were part of - xeşti is also a village in yeşti commune). Plus, who is ever going to get substantial info about a village (any village)? Think about it. Dahn 12:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To summarize, there are about 4 major distinct problems of creating separate articles for villages and communes: naming ambiguity (a village of the same name and in the same county as a commune), repetitive information (any commune article is bound to repeat stuff that is present in the villages' articles), administrative ambiguity/irrelvancy (villages are not self-administrating units, and we should strive to be as formal as possible), and stubiness (there is no village in Romania that would reach featured article status on its own; where more text could be composed, any of the villages could still form sections of the commune article; in the surreal case where an article on commune would expand its village sections to the point where they could be turned back into separate articles, disambig would be so much easier - the total number of localities with the same name and different status would have decreased dramatically¹). Now, can someone please indicate a problem with my plan? Dahn 12:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

___

¹at most: xeşti and xeşti are two villages, and xeşti is a commune - all in the same county. Both texts on the villages would be included in their respective communes' articles, but one would expand dramatically: since the other does not, and remains a mere section, the difference between the expanded xeşti and the commune could be indicated with much less effort (commune: xeşti, z county; village: xeşti (village)).

As I see it, it's a problem of indexing, and we must choose how the villages can be accessed. I suppose we need to:

1. Hierarchize them. Village X in commune Y in county Z is X_(commune_Y_(county_Z)). No need for a category villages_in_commune_Y, because the article of commune Y contains the references to the villages.
2. Allow direct access through name. This concerns all names, not just villages. So, we need general disambig pages, all belonging to a class Places_in_Romania.

Don't you think it's enough? I mean, why use a category, when the structure is there already, and since there's no uncontrolled growth in list sizes? Dpotop 13:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. That was not at all the topic of the discussion.
2. Disambig pages do exist (thanks to Bogdan). Making them part of "Places in Romania" is unnecessary and ultimately absurd (since such categorizing is nowhere attempted, and since the names themselves could be found in Moldova - and, on principle at lest, names can be shared by locations all over the face of the Earth). Dahn 13:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Could you try to use less often the word "absurd". I find it particularly annoying and ultimately idiot, given that in many cases it's a problem of understanding each other, not 0 versus 1. Dpotop 14:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
2. As concerns "Places", having several categories "Places in Romania", "Places in Moldova", etc, does not hurt. What I proposed is that we try to identify what we expect the user to need or to use.

1. No.
2. That's absurd. (You will also note that it has: a. no connection to this issue; b. of no use on its own; clue: dismbig pages should not be included themselves into categories, for about 1,000 reasons) Dahn 15:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't get into the discussion, as I contribute rarely to articles on RO topics and will never contribute to these villages articles. But, anyway, I would remind you of the notability issue: I, for once, would vote to delete thousands of separate articles on villages that basically have no feature that would interest anyone not living there. AdamSmithee 15:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

When you finish the argument, could you please, list here for everyone to understand, how exactly this will be constructed. I for once want to do this for Moldova, but I don't know so much wiki "programming", so please explain so any intelligent non-specialist can effectively use your instructions. There is an additional problem with Moldova: there were raions, then counties, then back raions, which not always coincided with the previous raions, and it is not excluded that in the future some communes/localities would change from one administrative unit to another. So, please think of a way so that:

• One can enter in the article of each raion and county the exact list of cummunes and villages, and in the article for each commune, there should be an automatic short text "This commune consists of n villages: ..., it was part of raion X before 1997, of county Y between 1997 and 2003, and of raion Z after 2003."
• Allow search feature by village & commune names mixed
• Allow to expand later for counties 1918-1940, counties 1825-1918, lands 1812-1825, lands 1400-1812.
• Be aware also that although during 1960s-1980s there were few changes in the administrative division, there were many raions created, deleated and recreated in 1940s-1950s. Somehow allow for that. One idea: create a cathegory "Administrative divisions of Eastern Moldova/Bessarabia/Republic of Moldova" so that in time we can make a reliable 1400-nowdays reference.
• Let me know when you have arrived at some definitive idea. Thanks:Dc76 22:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Greeks in Romania

Hello, while reading the Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu article I noticed he is categorized in Category:Greek Romanians. I took a look in this category, and found Ion Luca Caragiale, Mateiu Caragiale, Cezar Bolliac, and the full Ghica, Cantacuzino, and Caragea families. Funny enough, Nicolae Iorga is not in the list (wasn't his mother Greek?). Do these guys claim a Greek ethnicity?

I wonder, what would happen if some Greek reads wikipedia and then tries to talk with Mr. Tariceanu. Is he going to succeed? :)

I believe that the current category somehow puts together ethnic Greeks with Romanians of Greek ancestry, which is something a bit different. Dpotop 13:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The list is arguably incomplete. However, your objection is inaccurate: I've done my best to split the list into relevant sections (note the subheaders), and the least exclusivist criteria is the rule - yes, D, ythat would be ancestry (as seems to be the case everywhere else) - immediate ancestry. You know I'm not a fan of such conventions (hell, I don't even think of them as "conventions"), but one has to prevent chaotic inclusions. Accordingly, I have objected to the inclusion of Alecsandri for having just one Greek grandfather (it seems that the other one was Jewish - how ironic for an anti-Hellene anti-Semite!). Apparently, Tăriceanu's mother is Greek (so says one source - I have not objected, but feel free to check); Caragiale was Greek on both sides; Bolliac was Greek-Italian on one side (don't know what that implies in detail, but it means for one that his father spoke Greek), and the Phanariote families, as I have explained 14 times already, are too hard to define either way (in fact, I had grown tired of various users who were including Cantacuzinos living in the 20th century into the Greek-Ro category; you should know by now that categorizing a category need not cover all its members in the same way - what it does is point out to the unfamiliar reader what matters are touched by the topics). Don't know much about Iorga's family history (and don't really care, to tell you the truth); if he qualifies under these provisions, by all means let him step in. Dahn 13:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I find this "first degree ancestry" a bit weird. I have never found something like this or wikipedia or elsewhere. I suggest we rename the list into "Romanians of Greek Ancestry" and put there all guys whose greek ancestry is notorious. It's proper, and you will not have second thoughts when including someone. Due to the sub-categorizing, it should be OK, and it is exactly what "ancestry" means in the US.

And I see nothing bad in having 20th century Cantacuzions into this category. You already included Caragiale, and I've never been aware of any pro-Hellenic propensity from his part. So, I'd say he was Romanian of Greek ancestry.

How can I put it: You want to define a functional difference between 18th century Cantacuzions and 20th century ones. This results in a criterion that is artificial for many other personalities. Just think of Tariceanu. My impression is that the difference between various Cantacuzinos does not justify the definition of abstract concepts that are otherwise meaningless.

Don't take it bad, I understand your problem, but I'm asking this for the sake of consistency and clarity. Dpotop 13:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What is "notorious" and who defines it?

2. The Cantacuzinos were always more Greek than Tăriceanu until the 1900s; but not all of them had Greek parents like Tăriceanu. Since this is a two-way criteria (where kinship should stop at a reasonable level - ie, one grandparent)

3. Wikipedia conventions have always mixed ethnicity and ancestry, for the reader to make up his mind. No matter what criteria we use to define someone as "Greek" or "of Greek ancestry",we lead entries int0o the same category - because the alternative of separating them would be unmanagable. You think about how great your solution would be for a definite case or another, but you did not consider having to explain to everybody what distinction you make between the two areas, and why they should care. If, by some relevant criterion, Tăriceanu is half-Greek and many of the Cantacuzinos were Greek by some other relevant criterion, it does not matter that the criteria are different (check out similar categories everywhere else). Please see my point, and please see why your proposal is neither consistent nor clear.

My categorizing, backed by wikipedia guidelines, may fuse certain critieria without any notable degree of subjectivity; however, consider that we are already having to debate whether Caragiale and the Cantacuzinos were Greek, according to what propensity Dpotop is aware of (and let me note that one in two sources identify Caragiale as Greek; and let me note that your theory on categorizing, aiming to answer the issue of which Cantacuzinos were "not Greeks", presents a bigger problem for those Cantacuzinos that were Greeks by several criteria - and there were plenty of them). Dahn 14:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me add: the parent category of "Greek Romanians" is Category:People of Greek descent. Notice the vague[st] definition used for this very purpose. Dahn 14:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then let's rename the contentious category into "People in Romania having at least a Greek grandparent". This is not misleading. Dpotop 15:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not see your point. What is "misleading" here and in other such categories, Dpotop?

Very important point: I have told you that all people included have at least one parent, not one grandparent; I personally think it is reasonable that, aside from the Phanariote salad where we go straight with families (I challenge you top come up with a more correct reasoning), people with one grandparent and other such vague criteria are not included.

Btw, there's a talk show I tuned into on tvr1 just now. They are discussing how Eminescu constantly referred to his rival Caragiale as "that goat-smelling Greek"... Dahn 21:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tăriceanu's mother was only 75% Greek (his maternal grandmother was 100% Greek, while his maternal grandfather was 50% Greek). He is thus only 37.5% Greek. However, I believe he declares his ethnicity as "Romanian", not as Greek, and for that reason I think placing him in the blanket category "Greek-Romanians" is rather misleading (since he is not really part of Romania's Greek minority - compare with Varujan Vosganian and his placement into "Armenian-Romanians"). I also think we should separate those who have Greek ancestry and those who have/idenity as Greek ethnicity. There is a significant difference. Ronline ✉ 23:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand the difference fine and all, but: you concentrate on examples where this is not problematic, instead of seeing the bigger picture - the more subjective criteria you introduce, the least relevant the entry; you fail to note that wikipedia does not condone such separations, and that it cannot enforce them - whiile the problem with Phanariote families and the Caragiales would become acute (for example, Dpotop says he is not aware that Caragiale thought of himself as Greek, but I have several sources on Talk:Greeks in Romania indicating that he did, but that "these are things we don't talk about"). Rather than sitting around debating when it is and when it is not relevant, we should just use the most objective criteria available.

The source on the Tăriceanu article (as it was quoted) said that his mother was Greek, without any nuances. For consistency, I included him in the category and the list. Since the objective criteria does not apply in his case, I shall simply remove him. Dahn 14:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I found a clear way to say the current solution is wrong: By saying that Tariceanu is a "Greek Romanian" you are making original research, which is forbidden on wikipedia. Until you find sources where this is explicitly stated, you should not write it here. Dpotop 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For Chrissake, D, read what I have just posted. Dahn 00:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

On a different register: Maybe Ronline and I do concentrate on simple examples. But you are complicating everything by trying to square the circle. There is no simple solution to your "Cantacuzino" problem. But Tariceanu is not a Greek Romanian, by any standard except the one you invented here. Dpotop 21:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For Chrissake, D, read what I have just posted. Dahn 00:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And since you talk of objectivity. I remind you that it is you that explained here that ethnicity in Europe is not an objective concept. One should rely on self-choice and public recognition in defining the ethnicity of someone. Dpotop 21:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

For Chrissake, D, read what I have just posted. Dahn 00:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look into the edit history here, and perhaps square things out with user:Hectorian if you feel like it. I've had my share of scandal over this absurd matter. Dahn 00:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To an American ear "Greek Romanians" tends to suggest pretty much the same thing as "Romanians of (at least partial) Greek ancestry". It gets a little tricky because it is not clear how little connection to Greece leaves a person still "Greek" and "Romanians" is ambiguous as to citizenship or ethnicity. Following usage prevalent in the English-speaking world, I wouldn't hesitate to call a Romanian citizen of any significant Greek ancestry or heritage a "Greek Romanian". Certainly, "Greek American" just means "Americans of (at least partial) Greek ancestry".

But clearly, even in the English-speaking world, a few such terms have specific connotations. "African American" is a good example of how complicated it can get:

• Most living "African Americans" are at least eight generations removed from Africa, don't know anyone in Africa, speak no African language, etc.
• A son of an immigrant to the U.S. from Kenya would typically be called "Kenyan American" rather than "African American" (although, as the case of Barack Obama shows, if he'd like to embrace an identity as "African American", almost no one will object)
• Most self-described "African Americans" have at least some white (or even Native American) ancestry (and there is nothing unusual about that being the majority of their ancestry)
• Someone whose ancestry is from north of the Sahara, or a descendant of white Africans (such as settlers who may have been for centuries in Capetown) who moves to America is not considered "African American", nor are their descendants.

Jmabel | Talk 22:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Our next featured article?

(I promise not to initiate a new thread for a while, since I've been starting a lot lately.) There hasn't been a Romania-related FA for a while, but I have an idea for a new one. I know everyone's busy with various projects, so I'm giving plenty of advance notice. The article in question is 1907 Romanian Peasants' Revolt. I think this would be suitable for several reasons:

• The centenary is in March.
  • With that, expect lots of good articles on it in the Romanian press in the coming months.
• All contemporary reports and photos are PD and thus free of copyright issues.
• The current article needs lots of work, but it is a good starting point.
• It's an interesting topic and relatively little-known outside Romania.
  • Lots of notable figures are involved, not only in Romania, but, indirectly, in the rest of Europe as well. Antonescu made his name here.
• There's a vigorous historiographic debate–different interpretations, the Communist view, argumentation over death tolls and significance, etc.
• Some memorial statues and monuments remain that people can photograph. The one in Bucharest was sadly destroyed by the Băsescu regime, but others remain in Buzău, Piteşti, Craiova, etc.
• In the spirit of healthy competition, I note that Hungarian Revolution of 1956 will most likely be an FA on October 23. We shouldn't let ourselves be outdone, especially because we have until March to make this happen.

Thoughts? Biruitorul 02:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a great choice. - Jmabel | Talk 03:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also think it's a good choice. While my area of interest is not this type of history, I'm willing to help with stuff such as formatting, standardisation and writing. The more FAs about Romania there are, the better! Ronline ✉ 06:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Biruitorul already knows that I am consider this a great initiative. Dahn 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are some articles which are rather close to the FA standard (mostly Dahn's work), such as Regulamentul Organic, History of Bucharest, History of the Jews in Romania and perhaphs even Nicholas Mavrogenes. bogdan 10:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Among other things to help us get there, I was thinking of calling on some Russian users to contribute their share to Regulamentul Organic. Dahn 18:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. There's nothing wrong with having multiple Romanian-related FAs; the Poles do it quite well, I think. Biruitorul 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I started the commons:Category:Memorials of the 1907 Romanian Peasants' Uprising on commons, with a picture of the Buzău 1907 memorial.- Andrei 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, great picture, Btw, I suppose we can all agree that the main picture is to be the eponymous paintig by Octav Băncilă, right? Since I suppose it is not copyrighted: can anyone create or find a good reproduction? Dahn 17:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Cine cere, nu piere. We're moving right along. Thank you! Biruitorul 00:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Territorial divisions

There's a project waiting to be done here. What we have so far:
1. 18__ - 1927: ?
2. 1927 - 1938: awaiting translation
3. 1938 - 1940: done
4. 1940 - 1948: see 2
5. 1948 - 1952: ?
6. 1952 - 1960: awaiting translation
7. 1960 - 1968: ?
8. 1968 - 2006: done, except the infobox is still not working

For historical regions, we currently have this template, while ro.wiki has this one. I guess ours is fine, but what about the map? Since our template does mention Budjak, Hertza, etc., perhaps we should include the Greater Romania map. Biruitorul 21:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Political parties

As part of an ongoing effort to rationalise and stadardise the way we approach Romanian political parties, Dahn and I have created a template that includes the more important historical political parties from Romania. Input would be appreciated, including suggestions for improvement. Also, something similar for post-1989 parties would be a good idea at some point. Biruitorul 21:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Although we already have a template showing present parties based on parliamentary representation, I think the idea of grouping them in ideologocial categories would be a good one. On the other hand, it could be controversial as well, since many of the contemporary parties don't have a clear political ideology (where would the Democratic Party be placed, for example?). Ronline ✉ 01:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Grouping Romanian (or other) parties according to ideology is impossible:

1. In a historical view, many parties changed "color". For instance, PNT moved from center-left to far right. Even more obvious, the liberals were called "the Reds" for a long time during the 19th century, and for a good reason.
2. When talking about current parties, a simple left-right classification is impossible. We could talk about perceived classification, and then try to give more objective criteria, related to what the parties say in their statute(s) and related to what the parties really do.

And even in doing so, I subscribe to the question of Ronline: Where do you put PD, which is radically changing its ideology every 2 years to remain in the ruling coalition or to get European funds? PD is not an ideology-based party. It has not been created to promote ideas, but persons (also see my comment below). Dpotop 10:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm thinking of doing is leaving the current parties template (with PD, PSD, PRM, etc.) alone and making another one with defunct post-1989 parties (UFD, ApR, PUNR, etc.), trying to group those by ideology, and maybe another one with very minor current parties (PAS, PMIII, PSU, etc.), but this already looks pretty complicated. Anyway, since PD already is on one template, and since people can read more about it in the PD article, I don't think it's absolutely necessary that we try to determine its ideology ("centrism", I suppose, or maybe "opportunism" would be a better term). If you look at other countries' templates for their parties, you rarely (if ever) find them grouped by ideology. Biruitorul 03:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with Romanian (any other European) politics is that most politicians are professionals with no other means of existence. Not much private property, if any, and no means of getting a decent (apolitical) job when the mandate is over. Therefore, many politicians (not just in Romania) tend to do whatever they see fit to remain elected. Ideology is used nowadays to justify the association into parties. You can't just say "I need his support, and he needs mine", because voters won't buy it. In this framework, PD is quite innovative. They have invented the "expandable ideology". They should patent it. Wrap-up: ideology is no longer a cause in politics, it is a consequence, and quite often a simple public relations stunt. Dpotop 11:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. I was thinking more of a grouping along European party affliation or something, since there are still some clear ideological lines in Romanian politics (at least formally) - the PRM, PNG are clearly right wing, PSD are "social democrats", etc. I emphasise "formally", since in the real world they really depart from their ideologies. I think in Romania the problem you outline is somewhat more significant - the PD being a case in point. But in Europe this is indeed happening more and more. Social democrats are becoming increasingly free-market oriented, and an increasing amount of conservative parties are supporting socially-liberal policies (my favourite example being the UK Conservatives under David Cameron). This has led to a situation where parties aren't voted so much on their ideology but rather on the people that lead them and on their trust record. In some ways this is democratically positive, since it leads to greater flexibility and responsiveness, but in other ways, it can be lead to populism (compare, for example, to the European Commissioners - even though they're not elected, they are some of the most progressive politicians in Europe). Ronline ✉ 12:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that in developed countries one can still identify some ideological rifts (but which do not match the classical right-left paradigm). You have "free market" versus "state controlled marked", "euro-federalist" versus "sovereignists", "xenophobes" versus "human rights", etc. In this world of dichotomies, many parties take clear options, which are quite ideological. The problem is that you can probably find today euro-federalist state-controlled-market xenophobes. Dpotop 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are a fan of the system, you could tell that it shows that the classical notions of "left" and "right" are too coarse for the degree of political stability these countries have. Therefore, you have a "social left" and a "social right", a "defence left" and a "defence right", an "immigration left" and an "immigration right". One party can combine them. Dpotop 13:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, this is quite a well-documented phenomenon: catch-all parties, the median voter theorem, de-pillarisation, etc. But predictions of the death of Right and Left have been bandied about for years; they have yet to reach fruition.

Hm, give me an example of ideological left-wing or right-wing party where the ideological stance spans over social, foreign, and immigration policies and propaganda. Left and right are already dead, and buried. Dpotop 06:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What about the Communist parties? As far as I know, they generally support left-wing social policies (contraception, abortion, same-sex marriage, generous welfare spending), left-wing foreign policies (anti-war and anti-globalisation causes, and long-term, the withering away of the state), left-wing immigration policies (being all for open borders, the abolition of controls on citizenship, and lax asylum policies), and produce left-wing propaganda like posters featuring red flags and hammers & sickles. Next question? Biruitorul 08:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What communist party? That of China, which is pushing for hard capitalism? That of Russia, which aims at a re-creation of the Russian empire? That of France, which governed a democratic country (thus breaking with the "dictatorship of the proletariat")? None of them is really communist. They use the word "communist" to legitimize themself historically. Dpotop 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of France and other European countries. Even if they have participated in democratic governance, let me remind you of a few other parties that did so: the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, the Romanian Communist Party, the Bulgarian Communist Party, etc. It's called strategic retreat until you have enough armed force in order to launch a successful putsch. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

democratically positive, since it leads to greater flexibility and responsiveness - who wants that? Governments elected on a particular platform should be expected to abide by their electoral promises, not shifting with the prevailing sentiment of the masses (or more likely the press). This is especially relevant because of the EU; it is in the European Council that governments most often tend to forget their electoral promises and compromise in the name of cooperation with their "European partners". This is but one deleterious effect of the EU, and but one reason that we should welcome its coming collapse with joy.
it can be lead to populism - oh no! What's wrong with populism, with listening to, appealing to and responding to the demands of the people at election time? As long as it's populism of the right-wing variety, I have no problem with it.

You must be dreaming. The US had this problem even before the European countries. The UK has this problem, and it never has been in the EU, except for pushing for its distruction. What other democracy... Oh *Japan*, which had one ruling party for the last 60 years or so. And don't even mention nordic countries, because their mix of social and liberal policies is not classical left or right at all. Dpotop 06:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please spell out what you mean regarding the US, Europe and Scandinavia. As for Japan, the LDP was in power from 1955 to 1993 and has been since 1996, but it was out of power from 1993 to 1996 and always (I think) governs in coalition. Anyway, Sweden is a classic example of socialism, though one that will soon come crashing down as plummeting birthrates, an increasing Islamic population, a burdened pensions and health system, and the spread of global jihad clash to produce rivers of blood and mass starvation. Biruitorul 08:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Your are obviously mixing socialism with social democracy. The latter, in fact, is just a form of welfare state in which a capitalist system is amended to reduce perceived injustices. This definition alone means that social democracy is not really an ideology, but a small and not-well-defined patch on capitalism. Sweden has been governed by social democrats for most of the last 100 years. Dpotop 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I know the difference, but it can be blurred at times. Sweden has very high rates of trade union membership and the commanding heights of the economy are in the hands of the state, so it does have strong elements of socialism, even if the Social Democrats call themselves that because it looks good. Léon Blum was a Marxist, Salvador Allende was a Marxist, and I have no doubt that Göran Persson is a Marxist who, until his recent ouster, slowly but inexorably led Sweden further down the road to the promised classless utopia. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As for the US, ideology per se was never an election topic, as democrats and republicans have not been as far as right and left for at least 50 years. Dpotop 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is a fair amount of left-right divergence. For instance, Republicans are against full state-funded health care, while Democrats are for it. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And what has Jihad have to do in our discussion? I think you're watching TV political shows too much. You see, the animators of those shows have to earn their salary, too. And the only way to do it is to keep you in front of it by waving red banners. Just like Basescu is doing. :) You know, there's no global conspiracy. :):) Dpotop 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jihad is a real threat. Every day it claims new victims, and this will accelerate as the push to establish a global caliphate intensifies. To quote Mark Steyn's upcoming book, of which he's provided an excerpt, "Why did Bosnia collapse into the worst slaughter in Europe since World War Two? In the 30 years before the meltdown, Bosnian Serbs had declined from 43 per cent to 31 per cent of the population, while Bosnian Muslims had increased from 26 per cent to 44 per cent. In a democratic age, you can’t buck demography - except through civil war. The Serbs figured that out – as other Continentals will in the years ahead: If you can’t outbreed the enemy, cull ’em. The problem Europe faces is that Bosnia’s demographic profile is now the model for the entire continent." Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jihad was created by western mentality. Now they have to deal with it. Normally, it shouldn't be a problem for Romania, because we histrically had good relation with the muslims world (especially turkey untill ww2, and arab countries after) an we have a muslim minority that made no demands (except the natural ones like state-funded religious education and education in their mother language, but the latter is specific for ethnic minorities). Actually szeklers are more likely to make problems than the muslim minority. Anonimu 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jihad originated in the Koran. And it could well be a problem for Romania when nuclear weapons fall into the hands of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran and Pakistan. While I don't have a problem with Romania's indigenous Turks and Tatars, and I agree that the Szeklers are a grave threat to national integrity, what worries me are the recent Muslim immigrants from the Arab world; if immigration and citizenship restrictions are not in place soon, they will come to create situations like in France and Denmark, which would be bad. Biruitorul 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think Sweden's a really bad example if you want to highlight problems with the EU political model, since it's got some of the most solid economic growth prospects in the EU. It has probably the most advanced knowledge-based economy in the EU and is on track to meet the Lisbon criteria - one of the few states to do so. In this respect, it is one of the few European high-income economies which does not have major problems with its future economic sustainability. This may also be because of its demographic sustainability (it's population is actually growing), in part due to left-wing welfare state policies. Ronline ✉ 13:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Points taken, but the picture is not so simple. First, Sweden's growth comes in part from its rejection of the Euro. Anyway, actual unemployment is around 20%. Also, having cities with large Muslim populations where women are oppressed, police are attacked, and sharia law is being imposed, as Sweden does, is not good for the future. The fertility rate is 1.66; the replacement rate is 2.1. Plus, when the Olduvai theory comes true, Sweden will be particularly hard-hit, with people at best living like in movies such as Queen Christina or The Virgin Spring, but probably a lot worse, with the all the social chaos that will ensue. Wait another few years, as the clash of civilisations intensifies, and things won't look so good. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, but we get here into another argument: The nordic countries are far more permeated by the moral values of protestantism, and far more homogenous in this respect (and unlikely to become less homogenous in the near future, given their immigration policies). This may explain their good functioning in the absence of an obvious left- or right-wing political ideology. And I'd also say that the nordic countries are far more conservative, in the first sense of the word, than other European countries. I'd also say that Germany, the country that invented social security, has elements of this social model. Dpotop 14:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually they have lots of immigrants who grow at much faster rates than the native populations. Soon the dull consensus politics of today will give way to Iranian-style theocracies across Scandinavia (and other European countries). Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

some of the most progressive politicians in Europe - but at the same time they are hypocritical socialist politicians who know how to cheat the system very well, given that the EU is so rife with corruption that its own auditors have not signed off on its financial statements since 1995. Biruitorul 02:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Cool! then go to the US. At least, corruption is legal there. It's called lobbying and campaign contributions. And never mind thinking when you vote. Anyway, it's the big money who decide who gets elected, and the problem can be traced back at least to the nice farewell speech of Eisenhower.

Of course the EU and member states have their problems (corruption and other), often quite big. But don't blind yourself to the fact that no models exist. So, it's better to take the existing model, and good aspects in other systems, and try to combine them. Maybe the one thing that deserves being improved in some European countries is *low-level bureaucracy*. But this has no direct links with the political system. Dpotop 06:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Corruption is illegal in the US. Lobbying and campaign contributions are regulated–they shouldn't be, but they are. And if you've heard of Jack Abramoff, you know that corruption gets punished in America.

Well, if you still believe that no corruption exists, I will not try to wake you up. Dpotop 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I never said corruption is non-existent, but that it's illegal. As for the Florida matter: there were măsluiri on both sides. We'll never know who truly won Florida, but if an election results in, say, over 95% of ballots being counted accurately, that's good enough. Not every single vote needs to be counted to produce a valid result. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Plus, Europe is no better: the thoroughly corrupt Jacques "Wheel" Barrot is the EU Transport Commissioner, former French PM Édith Cresson has gone unpunished for her massive graft activities, Adrian Năstase remains in Parliament, etc. I bet that as many Americans "think" when they vote as do Europeans. Please cite a source to the contrary. While conspiracy theories about military industrial complexes are fun, the fact is that real change happens much less often in Europe. Take Austria, for instance, with decades and decades of the same people in power until the populist breakthrough of 1999. The European elite, extremely out of touch with the masses, plays its own games within the Commission and the Council; acolo se decid jocurile. The rest–the European "Parliament", national parliaments, elections–is just window-dressing.

Well, I'm not saying 100% of what the EU does is bad, just that it's unnecessary as an organisation. Something like EFTA + NATO (free trade + peace) would do the job much better, without the whole "European identity" and sovereignty reduction nonsense. Biruitorul 08:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But the European identity isn't nonsense. In a globalising world, identity also becomes more diverse, and diversity can be wonderful thing - it makes us understand others better, and leads to a synergy effect, while also combating exclusion and a lack of empathy. The nation-state is not a perfect model for organising the populations of the world. Ronline ✉ 13:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, maybe there is some validity to the idea; I just prefer for it to emerge organically rather than artificially. Things like travel, learning foreign languages and personal relationships do much more to foster a common identity than when such a thing is forced through methods like pasting the ghastly EU flag everywhere. Remember, ~70 years of the USSR and of Yugoslavia were relatively unsuccessful in creating Soviet and Yugoslav identity, while a unified American, as opposed to individual state, identity, took a long time to develop. And no, the nation state is indeed not perfect; as a long-term anarcho-capitalist who looks forward to the disappearance of states and their replacement by a non-governmental order, I agree. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But if you're anarcho-capitalist, how can you support the criminalisation of homosexuality, the establishment of a state religion and the criminalisation of sex outside of marriage? Isn't anarcho-capitalism all about economic liberalism and social liberalism? As a note, I'm both economically and socially liberal, though I wouldn't call myself "anarcho-capitalism". Ronline ✉ 04:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I do have a bit of squaring of the circle to perform, so let me try. As I said, I'm a "long-term" anarcho-capitalist, maybe a couple of centuries. Certainly, immediate anarchy could well lead to the annihilation of all of us, given the many nuclear warheads that would be in private hands. I do believe in creative experimentation with anarchism; Somalia, considering the rather dismal state of its neighbours, held up pretty well under anarchy for a decade and a half. I think that if a small, advanced industrialised country like the Netherlands were to try anarchy, things wouldn't turn out so badly. As long as we are to have states (and they will be around for a while), I remain a firm economic liberal, while carving out certain niches for the state in the social sphere. Once the state disappears (and sooner or later it will, given that the sun will one day become so large that it will burn up all of humanity), then I foresee the church stepping in to fill some of those social coercion functions, though 1)it won't have a monopoly on force, as private individuals and militias will also operate, and 2)it won't cover the whole earth, so one would have the option of relocating to a land beyond reach of ecclesiastical authority. Biruitorul 07:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

But if the coercive function of the state is replaced by the church, what good does that too? Coercion still remains, control over people still remains, and the whole concept behind anarchy - that of absolute self-determination and laissez-faire - is destroyed. In any case, I still don't understand why you support the state prosecuting victimless crimes, even if this is a transitional measure until "the church" assumes this function (once again, you're assuming they will overlap, while in an anarcho-capitalist society, most people will simply refuse to fall under the jurisdiction of the church if it entails a loss of personal freedom). A society which collectively criminalises victimless crimes (as you would see the state do) is almost entirely opposed to anarcho-capitalism. Ronline ✉ 08:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The coercive function would work differently. The church would have great leverage because it would have an imprtant (though not decisive) role in determining who obtained salvation. Those who disobeyed its dictates would face punishment, but only from a higher power, presumably at the Apocalypse. However, since the Orthodox church has never been in the business of conducting inquisitions, burnings at the stake, etc., people would not have to fear the relatively unimportant sort of coercion that states exercise today (the worst a state can do is kill someone, but the church can have a role in someone being damned for eternity, which is far worse). Anyway, I disagree that "absolute self-determination and laissez-faire" is the guiding principle of anarchy. If someone freely and voluntarily submits to an authority, and retains the right to remove oneself from the auspices of that authority whenever one wishes, exercise of power under those circumstances is compatible with anarchy. To cite an obvious example, one would still be able to hire a dominatrix in anarchy. However, more seriously, one would also still be able to subscribe to a powerful group, even one with state-like structures, provided one can withdraw with no harm done to one's person.

most people will simply refuse to fall under the jurisdiction of the church if it entails a loss of personal freedom - not necessarily. People like order. Order need not come in state form. And when a group has a claim on salvation (Orthodoxy doesn't make it explicit, but still subscribes to Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus), then one can expect sizeable numbers of adherents. Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You make the same mistake as the Catholic Church made in Western Europe. That is, you assume that some abstract "salvation" is enough to keep you in power until Kingdom Come. Unfortunately for you, Romanians are European, and educated enough not to fall into cheap mysticism like the Americans do (with their evangelic churches, a.s.o.). So, it may work for, say, one or two years, but not more, and this effort would completely destroy the National Church (yes, I think the Orthodox Church should be a National Church in Romania, too). Relying on church to exert laic power is the most stupid idea I've heard in ages. Both for the society, and for the Church. Dpotop 09:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, then we need a programme of re-education in order to cleanse the people of corrosive Western influences, so that they will be more receptive to the Church's message. Plus, I will remind you that unfortunately, evangelicalism is experiencing solid growth in Romania too. For instance, an actress told me recently that cultural institutions in Arad are controlled by Baptists, and that she was unable to secure permission to stage The Barber of Seville there due to its perceived immorality. Again, the church would not exert civil authority through ordinary means, but if people are rational actors, then they'll behave themselves in this world in order to achieve eternal salvation in the next. Biruitorul 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm, defining oneself as "diverse" is a non-definition, and I hope the EU won't follow. This said, I do believe a European identity can be founded on real stuff. You can feel it when you travel. In France, Italy, Spain, and even in Germany. :) The people are not very different. Dpotop 14:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, but neither are people in Switzerland too different from those in Germany, but the EU excludes the Swiss from its identity-building project because they have (wisely) chosen to remain aloof from such projects. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but the EU is necessary as a lever against the USA and China. Dpotop 12:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How? Aging population, feminised post-modern elites, a rising Islamic tide that increasingly cows other Europeans into silence by force, and, save Britain, no significant military to speak of? Let's get real here. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that while responsiveness to one's electorate is a good thing, outright populism is negative. As leaders, politicians need to have greater foresight than their electorate, and for this reason have to often make decisions that the electorate does not immediately agree with. A lot of reforms, for example, are heavily resisted by the population, and yet by looking at them with hindsight, we can state that they have had positive effects. I also hope you can see just how strange your statement that "as long as it's populism of the right-wing variety, I have no problem with it", particularly since you then go on to call the EU Commissioners "socialist". If you're arguing that populism in principle is good, then what exactly distinguishes left-wing populism from right-wing populism? If a given population is left-wing, be that either socially or economically, then why would listening to them and carrying out their will be wrong? Or is some populism more equal than other populism? Ronline ✉ 06:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: populism isn't always desireable, but it's not inherently undesireable either. Clearly, in countries larger than Monaco, the representatives of the people need to make day-to-day decisions that sometimes may diverge from those of the people. Indeed, one good example would be the Polish transition to capitalism, which was painful but paid off rather soon; by contrast, Belarus has not undertaken that transition and remains much poorer. However, what I especially resent are divergences from electoral platforms that come about due in some way to the EU. Phrases like "conformitate cu practice/standarde/normele europene", "aderarea la structurile euro-atlantice", etc. drive me crazy. The great men of the past – Cuza, Kogălniceanu, Brătianu, Maniu, etc. – didn't think like that. They crafted a unique path for Romania. They didn't kowtow to the likes of Olli Rehn and tremble every time Günther Verheugen moved his fish-like lips. If unpopular change comes from within Romania's borders, then I can deal with it; the yoke of Brussels is a harder thing to swallow.

Yes, some populism is better: I'm going to have a lot more sympathy for a crowd of 3 million people in and near Piaţa Universităţii holding icons and images of King Mihai, demanding the return of the monarchy and the re-establishment of the BOR as the state church than for a similarly-sized group of people calling for more generous social assistance. If I were Tăriceanu's advisor in the first scenario, I'd advise him to arrest Băsescu and deport him to Russia, invite the King to form a government of national unity, unconstitionally dissolve Parliament, resign en masse with his cabinet, and allow the continuation of the political system under the 1923 constitution of Romania, which was illegally abrogated in 1947. If we were dealing with the second situation, I'd tell him to bring out dozens of tanks with orders to fire indiscriminately into the crowd, whereupon deeply conservative generals would stage a coup and re-establish the National Legionary State, again inviting the King to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the resurgent fascist movement, with Gigi Becali as prime minister. OK, so a little far-fetched in both cases, but at least it's exciting, unlike EU politics.

I think it's quite fair to label the EU Commission as socialist. We have Barroso, an "ex"-Maoist, and then a number of admitted socialists (Almunia, Mandelson, Špidla, Wallström, etc.), and then the "ex"-Communists Kallas and Kovács, and finally those on the "centre" or "right" like Barrot and Frattini whose views on most issues are at best marginally different from those of their openly socialist colleagues and none of whom vigorously advocate the abolition of the welfare-warfare state. So, yes, socialists.

In sum, if a population is left-wing, it's because they have not yet been educated to see that left-wing ideas are incorrect. They are in need of enlightenment, and strong, decisive leaders can provide that. By contrast, a right-wing populace is better-educated or has better instincts, in which case I would naturally support populism. Biruitorul 08:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"left-wing ideas are incorrect"?!? says who?Anonimu 12:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I do; that's why I don't hold them. And presumably you hold them because you think they're correct. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

huh.. i worried that someone important said so...Anonimu 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I am important. Second, I'm sure some important people have said so, or at least implied it. Thomas Sowell comes to mind. Biruitorul 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you're just a maggot.. How many times did you appear on tv or in a newspaper, how many books did you write?Anonimu 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Men who in their day were never on TV or in a newspaper and wrote no books: Socrates, Alexander the Great, Qin Shi Huang, Jesus Christ, Augustus, Ştefan cel Mare, Mihai Viteazul... Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This is just cheap sophism... Anonimu 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be, but then again, there is no single definition of "important." Biruitorul 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

One could be : something Biruitorul is not. Anonimu 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You're a funny guy, Anonimu -- that's why I'll kill you last. Biruitorul 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

After you kill jews, gypsies, slavs and all other commies? Anonimu 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

YES! We shall make hecatombs for the glory of Romania! (Just to be clear: it's only a line from a movie. Plus, show me just one place where I've indicated anti-Slav, Jewish, or Gypsy sentiment.) Biruitorul 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You claim to be an adherent of a fascist ideology ("legionarism") who was against Slavs, Jews and GypsiesAnonimu 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I never made a direct claim to that. Furthermore, do you have any evidence that they were against Slavs or Gypsies? Biruitorul 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't you see that you are as indoctrinated as the ones you call left wing? You replaced one exclusive ideology (communism) with another (anti-communism, maybe legionarism). Well, depending on your age, it may be normal. It's the only propaganda you saw, and in Romania anti-communist propaganda was quite harsh. But why don't you think with your own head? Remember what happened during WWII, when these conservative guys were in power. Dpotop 12:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Try telling the 100 million people murdered by Communism that it's propaganda. Also, Antonescu wasn't a conservative, but more of a fascist, which is a movement of the Left. A conservative would be someone like the Catargiu family or the great Gheorghe Cantacuzino. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The the billions killed in the name of capitalism surely won't agree with you. Now fascist is left? Mussolini must have been wrong when he said it's right wing.. but what does he know.. he's just the founder of the first large-scale fascist movement...Anonimu 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute. 100 million for Communism is a reasonable number. "Billions killed in the name of capitalism" just sounds deranged. Please elaborate if you want me to believe you. As this great piece notes, Mussolini was "a living saint of leftism... the peerless duce of the Italian Left". These two essays very clearly indicate that Mussolini and Hitler were leftists: 1 & 2; I think they speak for themselves. Biruitorul 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Billions is reasonable. Think only how many people from the 3rd world die yearly because of capitalism. If you count all people who died in the last hundreds years because of capitalism, you'll get those numbers. And about fascism, you give me some essays written by some unknown guys you found googling. But let me give a quote from Mussolini "Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. " See also Definitions of fascism. Anonimu 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's say that capitalism has been around since 1200, and that 30 billion people have been born since then. So how do we quantify your claim? Does any death certificate give "capitalism" as the cause of death? People die of hunger, disease, violence, not an economic system. You'll have to do better. Plus, you could argue that capitalism has also improved many lives. It's why Westerners live so well. As for the third world, once they open up markets and agricultural subsidies are abolished, you'll see longer lives there as well. As for fascism, I've known about the indefatigable John Ray for years. That's an interesting quote, but the fact is that Mussolini was a socialist in his economic policies, with nationalism thrown in. Read some of his quotes, like "Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics". Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

But think how many people died of hunger or violence because capitalism. Just think how many africans, amerindians and south-eastern asians died for these Westerners to live so well now. And pure free market in the thirld world means slavery. Since westerners will imediately buy all the thing they had'nt bought by now, and the only choices for these people is to revolt or become slaves. Mussolini wasn't socialist, it was corporatist. These may have some common point, but they apply to different categories (socialism to all people, corporatism only to the lower classes, preserving the upper classes' wealth).Anonimu 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see it as a zero-sum game. Everyone gains from capitalism, or at least from free trade; see Comparative advantage. Westerners won't be able to buy those resources if third worlders won't sell to them. They are not doomed to slavery. Mussolini hated the wealthy; as one scholar points out, "He had a profound contempt for those whose overriding ambition was to be rich. It was a mania, he thought, a kind of disease, and he comforted himself with the reflection that the rich were rarely happy". Biruitorul 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Westerners don't need to buy those resources. If third worlders don't want to give them , westerners will take them by force (Doesn't Operation Iraqi Freedom(sic) say something to you?). Now think of a world where armies are property of just a few capitalists? Do you think they'll pay correct prices for resources instead of taking them by force? I had enough of these "scholars". He didn't do nothing to stop the wealthy capitalist. So he couldn't have been a socialist.Anonimu 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all, third worlders can make nuclear bombs to stop Westerners, like Iran and North Korea are doing. Second, why the sic? The Iraq War was intended to bring freedom, democracy, peace and prosperity to a troubled region, draining the swamp of Islamic fundamentalism by allowing the brave Iraqi people to seize control of their own destiny and guide the Middle East to a glorious new era filled with hope for the future and built atop the rubble of the fallen Baathist tyranny. Again, consider the power of nuclear weapons (and chemical and biological). Of course, if we all start firing them randomly, the planet will be destroyed, but they will act as a deterrent to such mad schemes. Actually, Mussolini imposed high taxes, a hallmark of socialism. Biruitorul 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

They could make nuclear weapons because they were organised as state. If they didn't have a state, they couldn't have done that.. And any way, north coreans are slaves anyway in their absolutist ereditary monarchy (the so-called "Juche"). Do you think that Iraqis feel freer, more democratic, secureand prosperous and are currently controliing their destiny? I was wrong, You're not Ceausescu, you're a Ceausescu-Bush hybrid. And remember Baath wasn't Islamic fundamentalist, they were quite atheistic. But think why Mussolini imopsed those taxes? To make an army to recreate the Roman Empire... seems pretty far-right to me.. and to most respectable historians. Anonimu 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't absolutely need a state to make nuclear weapons; it helps but is not vital. Plus, when states collapse, a lot of nuclear material will be in the hands of poor people, like the guards at nuclear facilities. Also, countries like Niger have yellowcake uranium, so people there too can be a credible threat to the West. Yes, North Koreans are slave-like (because of Communism--the dictatorship of the proletariat), but Iranians are slightly more free. I like neither Ceauşescu nor Bush, but I suppose I am like them in certain ways. The Baath may have had secular principles, and certainly were not good friends with Islamic fundamentalists, but Saddam was (or said he was) a faithful Muslim. I do think Iraqis feel freer than under the former tyranny, more democratic than under dictatorship, more prosperous in a non-sanctions free market environment, and do control their own destiny; the Coalition would leave if asked to. No, they're not more secure, and that's bad, but it could change. Anyway, if you want to know how an actual Iraqi feels, read or even talk to this guy. Yes, Mussolini added nationalism to his pre-existing socialism. That is uncharacteristic for a true socialist/red in the Trotsky mould. But he also intervene heavily in the economy and keep a tight rein on it, and hated big industrialists, so his impulses were left-wing, even though it was his nationalism (and redistribution of wealth) that made him popular. Biruitorul 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

You could have all the uranium and plutonium in the world, but if you don't have the know-how and adequate technology, you couldn't make nuclear bombs. Since people in the third world have neither, and since without a state they won't be able to get them, they'll never bee a threat to wealthy capitalist. North Koreans don't live in a dictatorship of the proletariat, they live on the royal domain of the Kim family. There only difference between an absolutist monarchy and the north korean regime is the terminology. Being a faithful Muslim doesn't mean being an islamic fundamentalist (as being a faithfull catholic doesn't mean being a supporter of the Inquisition). Man, what you think and what the reality is are two different things. I wouldn't believe that guy (because if he still lives in Iraq, he must be someone who has american support, since normal iraqis have better thing to do than surfing the web - like trying not to be killed by Americans or insurgents- and don't even have computers in the first place). And no, Mussolini didn't hate big industrialist, he hated those industrialist who didn't support his megalomanic dream. A real socialist would hate all big industrialist indiscriminately. Anonimu 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe they do have the know-how. There are recipes for nuclear weapons on the Internet and anyway, raw uranium is still a pretty big deterrent. Plus, chemical and especially biological weapons are a lot easier to make, so they will be protected by those as well. Don't get so worked up about the hereditary aspect. Stalin didn't transmit power to his descendants, but he ran a dictatorship of the proletariat, and so is Kim today. How else would such a dictatorship look? I agree, Saddam wasn't an Islamic fundamentalist, but he wasn't atheist either, at least in his public persona. Never mind the conspiracies; he lives in Iraq and works (I think) as a dentist, without CIA money. Computers are not that rare in Iraq and believe it or not, there are still plenty of relatively safe zones there. Anyway, if you want a strongly anti-American Iraqi, try here. You can e-mail her too. Sure, Mussolini co-opted some business leaders, because the only alternative was the Communists, who were even worse for big business, but like all good Marxists, Mussolini had a healthy dislike of wealth and did all he could to undermine it and subject it to the all-powerful socialist state he was building. Biruitorul 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's a nice quote about Marx: His chosen public mask was the image of Prometheus, the fire-bringer. He hated the “authoritarian” religion of Christianity. He was self-consciously in revolt against the god of bourgeois civilization, all in the name of proletarian man and the eschatology of the imminent and immanent Communist millennial paradise. Like Prometheus, he brought fire to the society of man – or as Billington has put it, Marx and his revolutionary colleagues brought fire to the minds of men. That fire still rages.

“Those who hate me,” says Wisdom in Proverbs 8:36, “love death.” Karl Marx hated God. Above all, he hated God. He was therefore ultimately suicidal – economically, politically, and intellectually. Two of his daughters killed themselves. The Revolution eats its own. But not soon enough. [1] Biruitorul 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You haven't proved anything with those quotes. Since they don't express Marx's view, just some opinions (of supporters of God knwos what ideology, the second being for sure a right-winger) Anonimu 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Both are from the same right-wing source, and seem pretty reliable. Certainly, Marx's actions throughout his life as well as his writings demonstrate contempt toward religion, which is why the above author wrote what he did. Biruitorul 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You know, politics is not meant to be exciting, but simply to make life easier. If you have too much energy, you should go out with other guys, not push for another war. Dpotop 12:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't push for a war, just a nice little governmental overthrow. Though, come to think of it, I would advise the hypothetical generals to swoop down into the Bugeac, move with lightning speed into northern Bucovina, send two divisions to occupy the Cadrilater, and lay siege to Chişinău, shelling the Moldovan parliament and bulldozing the Moldovan embassy in Bucharest. Anyway, our visions disagree; I see excitement and dynamism as a fundamental purpose of politics. I could go out with other guys, but I'm not very talkative, and I don't drink alcohol, so it might be a rather poor experience. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What you're promoting is pure imperialism (Cadrilater has only 500 romanians+vlachs in it). BTW, alcohol and mainly talking are the base of politics. If you don't express you're thoughts to the large public, you're not doing politics.Anonimu 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's a defensive policy of recovering unjustly lost territory. True, there aren't many Romanians there now, but a combined mass fertility initiative, robust population transfers, generous incentives for Romanians abroad to settle the area, and Romanianisation policies directed at remaining Bulgarians will make the area quite Romanian within a few years. Alcohol is a good political tool when distributed gratis to voters, but if you look at Russia, you'll see what a difference it makes: on the one hand, the leaders of the August 1991 coup failed primarily because they were drunkards, and Yeltsin was also a joke because of his vodka consumption. In contrast, the great Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin strictly avoids alcohol, and he has managed to make Russia feared and respected again. While I agree that I need to express my thoughts to the public, I can have mouthpieces doing it for me. For example, Miklós Horthy took a hands-off approach to politics, letting others run Hungary on a day-to-day basis. Similarly, while King Michael and Prime Minister Becali will ostensibly run the show after my envisioned Royalist/fascist/militarist coup, people from behind the scenes such as myself will make the real decisions. Biruitorul 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

But why would you support this recovery of "lost territory" as an anarcho-capitalist who supports the gradual breakdown of the state? Once again, I'm really at a loss to see how you can reconcile what is a rather extreme and "pure" form of nationalism with anarcho-capitalism. In anarcho-capitalism, people are very much treated like "economic agents", with no value judgement made on their culture and morals, whose value is rather determined by market forces. But here you are saying that the Cadrilater should be forcibly Romanianised, in a way that treats Romanians favourably just because they belong to a collective group. That sounds very, very left-wing and "communistic" to me in the sense that it emphasises collective rights over the rights of the individual, which in anarcho-capitalism is pretty much all that matters. As to Becali: no comment. Do you believe that the guy can run the country? Or are you really willing to sacrifice prosperity and stability just for the sake of Becalic "excitement and thrill". Ronline ✉ 08:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

In reference to my politics, a friend of mine once called me a "walking contradiction", so you're not the first to notice some inconsistencies in my world-view. I take comfort in Emerson: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do." That being said, I will not attempt to reconcile anarcho-capitalism with ardent nationalism (something never yet successfully done). Rather, I will point out that the Cadrilater business was part of a hypothetical line of thinking - something I'm not seriously arguing should take place. If Băsescu did march into Bulgaria tomorrow, I would revere him and be 100% behind him. But I don't expect it to happen, and I don't actively advocate it. If it did, though, I must say that while I am a long-term anarcho-capitalist, I have a strong sentimental attachment to Romania, Greater Romania especially, and it's not easy to let go of that and think of people without any reference to ethnicity/nationality. If states fade away after I die, that's all right. But as long as I live, I want to live with a strong Romania on this earth.

I think Becali can run the country if he has the right people around him. The following Wilkie Collins quote has been used to describe George W. Bush, but it could apply to a PM Becali as well:

Look where you will, in every high place there sits an Ass, settled beyond the reach of all the greatest intellects in this world to pull him down. Over our whole social system, complacent Imbecility rules supreme -- snuffs out the searching light of Intelligence with total impunity -- and hoots, owl-like, in answer to every form of protest, See how well we all do in the dark!

However, I think that with the right team and with some coaching (he should tone down his outbursts and his swearing), then Becali might make for a competent leader. Anyway, look at the Kaczyński brothers; Poland is not yet on the verge of collapse. I think both, though, are possible: stability and prosperity on the one hand, but mixed in with a little Becalism, as men in green shirts march in lockstep through the streets of every Romanian city, up mountains and down valleys, their arms raised in salute, singing hymns to an Archangel... Plus, I would want the King back, and in a monarchy, the King is the ultimate guarantor of constitutional order, and he would be able to dismiss Becali if things got out of hand. Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That Cadrilater was never a romanian territory. It was unjustly occupied in 1913. And remember Transylvania was also unjustly lost by Hungary. Nationalism, Mass fertility initiatives, Romanianisation?!? Man, are you an avatar of Ceausescu? The best decission in meetings, from the collaboration of numerous people, and these meeting wouldn't work without alcohol (Ok you don't need alcohol when you are holding a monologue, and you bring people just to have an audience, like Fascist, bureacratic collectivist (dubbing themselves "communists"), and Stolo did). I think you're just one of those teens without social relations who take refuge in nationalism. (Like probably initially i became communist just because i was not as prosperous as the wealthy people - but we all know how the wealthy people of the mid 90s came to be prosperous. Being in my teens, i was also much more radical.. now i became more "liberal"...i.e. now i think the IMM-uri should continue to exist -of course under state control- because they bolster initiative and make people more responsible). And Ronline, collective rights is not exclusively left-wing, they are also specific to the extreme rigth. Just that leftist think these in an economical way, while rightist see them in a nationalist, racist or mystical wayAnonimu 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It was Romanian territory from 1913 to 1940, the spoils of victory. (Romanian) Transylvanians, the ethnic majority, wanted to unite with Romania. Yes, I do have a Ceauşist streak. I agree alcohol would be useful in such situations. I am not a teen; I am older. My relative lack of social relations is not correlated with my nationalism. How do you reconcile your Communism with your Orthodoxy? That seems quite contradictory, not that there's anything wrong with that. Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Transylvania was Hungarian territory from 1000 to 1920. And there was no plebiscite to decide if ALL the romanians wanted to join Romania. And remember Bessarabia and Bukovina we're also spoils of victory, of course not Romania's. It's not contradictory, since Communism brings mainly a new economic view on the world. It doesn't impose any moral principles on people (some thinkers tried to impose some, or better said impose their absence, as Fourier did). Because a society needs moral principles, and since Romania is traditionally an orthodox country, i think the moral values promoted by it should be kept.Anonimu 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hungarians unjustly seized Transylvania, which it is the Romanian people's God-given destiny to control. Romanians fought with God's blessing in World War I, and that is why Transylvania is and rightly ought to remain Romanian. Same with Bessarabia and Bucovina. Romania is like an eagle: Dobrogea and the Cadrilater are her head, Bessarabia, Moldova, Bucovina, Muntenia and Oltenia her wings, Transylvania, Banat, Crişana and Maramureş her body. Remove one of those and national death results, as it did in 1940. Ah, but remember what the arch-Communist Marx said: "religion is the opiate of the masses." It's difficult to separate the two, unless you're a Christian communist. Biruitorul 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope this "dissertation" on God-given land was tongue in cheek. Because from what i remember, God gave a promised land only to Israelites (even if he eventually He took it from them). Marx never said opium is bad ;). And no, I'm not a Christian Communist. People (including you) should never mix politics with religion. Anonimu 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right that in the Bible, only Israel was mentioned. However, there have been at least two subsequent Covenanting peoples who saw themselves as the New Israel, claiming land after a period of tribulation and oppression: the Puritans of New England and the Afrikaaners of South Africa. No reason why Romanians can't join that august crowd too. Marx also hated religion. Christian Communism doesn't necessarily mix the two; as I see it, you are a Christian and a Red, ergo a Christian Communist. Anyway, there's nothing wrong with religion-politics mixing; they work together quite nicely. As our kings might say, Nihil sine Deo! Biruitorul 10:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't remember God sending His son to Puritans or Afrikaneers (or Romanians). Do you have any hard proof that "Marx hated religion"? And no, i'm not a Christian Communist, i'm a Communist who's also, like most people in Europe, a Christian. No, religion and politics don't work together. Every time they did something bad happened. What kings are you talking about? The dead ones, or the ones without a country to rule? Anonimu 14:26, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but the Israelites were God's chosen people long before Christ came to earth. It is possible for a people to make a covenant with God without Him sending His son to them. Plus, Jesus came for all of us, not just the Jews. In any case, I do believe that Romanians have a special connection with God, and that we are one of His chosen peoples, as evidenced by the gifts He has bestowed on the rich land where we live and the remarkable endowments of the people, especially the peasantry. OK, not a Christian Communist; you know better. Actually, Norway, England and Greece have state churches and are doing pretty well compared to Malawi, Zimbabwe and Liberia, which don't, so there isn't necessarily a negative effect from having that mix. Nihil sine Deo was Romania's motto under the Hohenzollern monarchs, who will soon return to reclaim their rightful throne and oust the impostor Băsescu. Biruitorul 22:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but in the mean time they got a lot of prophets. And about Jesus not coming for Israel, let's quote Jesus (Matthew 15,24): "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (KJV) Norway, England and Greece got their prosperity by (indirectly for NOR and HEL ) draining resources from third world countries like Malawi, Zimbabwe or Liberia, so it has nothing to do with relgion (on the contrary, this is pretty against christian ethics if you'd ask me).Anonimu 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

They did get prophets, but other peoples have produced saints who have received divine inspiration; for instance, Saint John Chrysostom was Greek. We Christians, are the new Israel, so He did in fact come for all of us. What resources are there to drain from Malawi? Millet? Most trade between wealthy countries is with other wealthy countries, and vice versa. Biruitorul 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

From the social point of view, the (socially) left-wing is generally significantly more educated than the right-wing. I think a trend can be drawn between increasing education and increasing support for progressive or socially-liberal parties. Educated people also tend to support change more, which is against social right-wing ideas. As to the communism vs legionarism debate, I also believe that both must be condemned. I personally find it very unfair that Ceauşescu and Communism is seen as a "black spot" in Romanian history, yet Antonescu is seen as OK, even a "national hero" by some. As to EU-mandated change, it's basically in the same boat as the economic reforms of the 1990s. You're saying that the painful economic transitions of the 1990s paid off, and I agree, but I believe that, in the same way, EU-mandated reforms also pay off in the long run. Take equality, for example. The EU plays an important role in ensuring the countries enshring equality and minority rights in their legislation, something which often gets overlooked in some countries due to populism and the like. So when we have to give Roma people greater rights, or decriminalise homosexuality, or put up bilingual signs, or ensure that people with HIV/AIDS aren't prevented from getting a job, or try to enable disabled people to access public institutions, or ensure greater fairness in the justice system, I would definitely argue that this is (only) good, and that without the EU Romania would be worse off in this regard. Ronline ✉ 13:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I see no communism vs. legionarism debate (btw, what's legionarism? the legionary movement was just a typical fascist organization. there's nothing to support a different name for it's ideology). And it's pretty easy to explain why the deformed communist period of Romania and Ceausescu are seen as a black spot. People (especially politicians) blame that period for everything that is wrong in Romania just to hide their incompetence and incapacity to do soemthing better. It works like an excuse. This, coupled with the normal anti-communism of the (newly formed) wealthy class (it's suggestive that wealthy people, like SOV, attack communism only indirectly) and people (mostly intelectuals) who accuse communism just to hide their collaboration with the regime, makes communism unattractive. Most problems communism is accused of appeared only after the coup of 1989. Of course, some problems existed before, but were caused by ceausescu's nationalism (an attitude specific to right-wing politics) and excessive personality cult ("normal" personality cult is actually present in every country, be it a capitalist or a deformed workers' state), and, of course, the stalinist policies in economy (overdeveloping the heavy industry, at cost of more important things, like social security and medical system.. communist policy? i don't think so ). On the other hand, Antonescu is too far in time, and he has a (questionable) excuse: he was ruling during the war (he was a kind of dictator - as in the first period of the roman republic)Anonimu 14:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Legionnaires always denied being fascist. As Mircea Eliade wrote, "Astăzi, lumea întreagă stă sub semnul revoluţiei. Dar, în timp ce alte popoare trăiesc această revoluţie în numele luptei de clasă şi al primatului economic (comunismul) sau al Statului (fascismul), ori al rasei (hitlerismul) - Mişcarea Legionară s-a născut sub semnul Arhanghelului Mihail şi va birui prin harul dumnezeiesc." I agree that blaming Communism is used as an excuse, but Romania in 1989 was in far worse shape than capitalist countries because of PCR policies; that is partly why it still lags behind. Even the most advanced ex-Communist countries like the Czech Republic still have some catching up to do. Biruitorul 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If i'll search, i'm sure i can find quotes from Codreanu or Sima saying they're fascist. I already explained why Romania was worst than pure capitalist countries. But you forget that Romania wasn't a communist state but a monarchy-like deformed workers' state in 1989. And returning from a quasi-socialist system to a capitalism one is the worse thing one can do.Anonimu 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see those Sima or Codreanu quotes. One: true, it wasn't communist in 1989; no society will ever become communist because people like to hold on to power. Two: would you argue that Eastern Europe is worse off now than in 1989? Do you prefer the Belarus model? Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am aware that leftists tend to be better "educated" - by other leftists, naturally, in a self-perpetuating cycle of indoctrination, which is why I said that "a right-wing populace is better-educated or has better instincts". I think Antonescu and even the Communists can be seen with certain shades of grey. I'm not an Antonescist myself but those I know cite his steadfastness in the face of adversity - ("s-a ţinut de cuvânt"), even though it may have been a bad idea. And the Communists, evil as they were, built the Bucharest metro, rail lines such as Salva-Vişeu, myriad (ugly) housing blocks, etc. They did help modernise the country, though at incalculable human cost. I'm against that type of equality, naturally, as the EU is imposing its own moral values on Romania, with which I (and many others) profoundly disagree. I like Article 200; I think it was indicative that society was enlightened enough not to be willing to stand for such practices, though I would also support banning sexual activity between unmarried heterosexuals, though with lesser penalties. And I think bilingual street signs are a waste of money because very few Romanian citizens don't know any Romanian. Ultimately, though, I want an end to all states, and in that world, the free market will sort out these matters in its own uniquely competent way. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

My kindergarten teacher must have done a great job indoctrinating me. Because i had all the education that counts (that's after 4th grade) after the 89 coup. And i'd say i'm pretty "educated". As for the housing block being ugly, if you put some stucco you get western looking ones. Of course it'b better to have good-looking , but the working classes, the target inhabitant care more about how their houses look on the inside. What incalculable human costs? I think you all know what i think about homosexuality. A capitalist stateless world is impossible. Only communism can do this. And even it needs at least 100-200 years to do it. Anonimu 18:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You probably are quite educated, but maybe not in the right fashion. Try reading about how many people Communism killed, for example. I agree that the inner look is more important, but many of them are falling apart. Incalculable human costs – do these names mean anything to you, when placed in a row: Piteşti, Aiud, Gherla, Sighet, Jilava, Râmnicu Sărat? 550,000 to 2 million victims. If you deny their suffering, taking into account Romania's smaller size, that's almost equivalent to Holocaust denial. Actually, I don't know what you think about homosexuality, but I'd be glad to hear it. Actually, a capitalist stateless world IS possible – I challenge you to disprove that! Biruitorul 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What should be the right fashion? The legionar one? As i already said, Capitalism has killed far more people than communist (and if you take out the people killed by stalinism, - which, even if it IS NOT communism, it is included by some historians in communism just because of state owned economy and collectivised land- you'll get an insignifiant number). Those figures you claim can't be objectively proved. A capitalist stateless world could teoretically exist, but would be extremely un-ethical. It would mean transformation of the third world in a world of slaves. Anonimu 11:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a Legionnaire, but 1940 was a far better time than 1948. "Insignificant"? Tell that to the Chinese killed by Mao, to Iuliu Maniu, to Imre Nagy (himself a Red), to those countless hundreds of thousands who died at Piteşti, Aiud, Gherla, Sighet, Jilava, Râmnicu Sărat, etc., to those killed in the Red Terror, etc. They have been objectively proved from the Reds' own arrest records. And no, the third world would not necessarily become slaves, first of all because slavery involves coercion and is thus incompatible with anarchy, which prizes liberty; second, because third-worlders could also become global business leaders (nothing would be stopping them); and third, because once the world runs out of oil, which will happen soon enough, maintaining imperialism will become impossible, because we'll revert to the Stone Age. Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course 1940 was better. Romania wasn't still a war theatre and there was no severe drought in 1940. Yes insignifiant. At Pitesti for example less than 100 people died. How could you impose to rich people in an anarchy not to enslave other people? And there will be something to stop "third-worlders" from becoming global bussiness leaders: lack of money and racism (you can't regulate racism in an anarchy). And we have nuclear energy and we're making progress in using hydrogen as an energy source. So if the oil runs out, the only effect will be economic domination of the ones who posses such technologies (=imperialism). Anonimu 12:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but what about Aiud, Gherla, Sighet, the Canal, Râmnicu Sǎrat, etc? You conveniently omit those. Everyone has hydrogen, and with a little know-how, can develop nuclear power. Biruitorul 00:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find no real data for the other prisons (just rough estimations of anti-communist "scholars"). But anyway the total number wasn't larger than 100,000. That little know-how is extremely expensive (too expensive even for third-world gvts). Anonimu 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Even 100,000 dead for Romania would be huge. I've taken tremendous heat from leftists for defending the great Augusto Pinochet Ugarte, and he only killed 3,000. So he seems like a good guy in comparison, which he is. Again, we're talking about a 1945 technology. If you put your mind to it, it can't be all that hard, especially for someone who knows about physics and chemistry. And again, biological weapons could also be an option. Biruitorul 20:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

A capitalist stateless world is possible, but the part I don't get is that you don't really seem to support one. I honestly don't see how you can reconcile an absolute free-market and stateless world, with maintaining laws that criminalise homosexuality and sex outside of marriage. In a truly libertarian world with no state and no market controls, these laws would not exist, since they are the characterics of a very interventive state rather than a minimal state. If we let the free-market solve all of society's problems, then what's the need for having laws against victimless crimes? And even if you say that we could have a state which is morally-interventive but economically-minimal, I really don't see how that ideology holds together. In fact, that's what puzzles me about neoconservatism in general - how it can, at the same time, advocate economic freedom, but also a lack of social freedom through laws regulating abortion, homosexuality, etc. As to education - OK, I agree that measuring someone's level of education is subjective, but it is rather clear trend that as populations become more educated, they tend to adopt more left-wing policies (i.e. concern for equality and human rights, for the environment, etc). This also explains why nearly all of the votes for right-wing extremist parties are from relatively-uneducated sectors of the population. Or are you saying that the PRM-voting peasant "cu patru clase" is more educated than a PNL-voting urban cultural worker just because that peasant may have more "bun simţ"? Ronline ✉ 04:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

As above: long-term vs. short-term. Also, I wouldn't necessarily call extramarital sex "victimless", as it tends to spread disease much more often than sex among monogamous married couples. The homosexual lifestyle is also self-destructive; while a study claiming to show that homosexual men die on average at age 43 has allegedly been debunked, one need not be a doctor to see that that type of misuse of sex organs is bound to have some pretty damaging effects on the body. And my anti-abortion views are strongly grounded not only in religion but also in liberalism; not counting the usual "life of the mother" exception, we're talking about a situation where if the mother gives birth, one more life is added, whereas if she aborts, that life is prevented from starting; the right to life is the most fundamental, because without it the exercise of all other rights is impossible. Yes, I agree that today, the more formal education, the more likelihood one is comfortably left-wing (though not a radical leftist). Interestingly enough, it was not always so, at least in Romania: in the 1930s, except for Pătrăşcanu, the leading lights of the intelligentsia (Cioran, Cuza, Crainic, Ionescu, Eliade) were all decidedly, even dangerously right-wing. But as someone who is fundamentally backward-looking, seeing the idealised Romanian peasant as the "soul of Romania's soul", and hearkening back to the glory days of the Regat, though without the corrosive Western influences, yes, I do instinctively lend credence to the special sort of wisdom that the tillers of the soil possess. The rapid erosion of Romania's peasantry is perhaps the worst impact of the EU, given that they form the core of the national character, and ideally should number around 80% of the population, as before WWII. Biruitorul 07:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, extramarital sex per se is entirely victimless. If two people consent to sexual relations, their actions have no negative externalities on a third party. If disease is spread in these relationships, that's a different matter, with the spreading of an STD from one partner to the other, with malicious intent, qualifying as a crime. Without the malicious intent, the crime is still victimless, because no third parties are disadvantaged - if someone gets sick from having sex with another person, they are simply bearing the responsibility for engaging into the consensual "contract" with that other person. The only arguable externality in this case is the cost to society of treating the sick person, but that only comes about in the case of substantial government intervention in the economy (and, in any case, personal freedom is far more important that this minor economic externality, I would say).

Actually, there are many potential victims, depending on how one defines a victim. If a rational adult willingly drinks cyanide, he is a victim in addition to being a perpetrator, which is why suicide used to be illegal in many places. There is no right to do with one's body as one pleases; we are meant to treat it with the respect due to it. Similarly, disease transmitted is evidence of victim status, as is further transmission of that disease, even if inadvertent. I would say that the state should not spend money to treat the victims of sexually transmitted diseases, or of any disease; instead, people should pay for treatment themselves or rely on charity.

More importantly, if no disease is spread, the participants in extramarital sex become victims for two reasons: 1)they sin, lessening their chances of salvation, and 2)such sexual activity, being devoid of substance, serves only to create powerful emotional scars in people from which it is very difficult to recover. Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the "homosexual lifestyle", you say it's "self-destructive". Even if this were true, the action is still victimless. The definition of victimless crimes is not that "there is no victim at all" but rather that the action does not violate the rights of unwilling third parties. Even if we were to accept that two men having sex with each other brings about their self-destruction (which is obviously a flawed argument, and for someone so anti-gay you seem to edit quite a lot of LGBT-related articles), this is still a victimless crime, since their action is consensual and harms no-one else. In the same vein, suicide is a victimless crime, and is not punished by the law, because of the fact that while it involves "self-destruction", to use your terms, no other agent is involuntarily harmed.

The definition of victimless crimes is ... that the action does not violate the rights of unwilling third parties - according to whom? As I see it, one can even cause oneself to be a victim. As noted before, your approval of consensual cannibalism puts you well outside the mainstream on this issue. I see you've anticipated my suicide argument; again, even though this sounds paradoxical, "our" bodies are not ours, neither are they the state's, but from an ethical standpoint, we can't do just as we please with them. As for my editing of "LGBT" articles: I try to correct mistakes wherever I see them, and I do have a certain interest in/fascination with "the community". For instance, I cherish My Ántonia in great part because of the vibrant lesbian subtext running through it, while Fox and His Friends, a favourite film, needs no further qualification as an explicitly homosexual-themed work. More to the point, it's absurd to call me "anti-gay": I'm againt sodomy, but there's more to a person than his sexual practices. Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

See victimless crimes. Under your definition, anything that someone does bad to themselves should be punishable by law, which is clearly against the most basic of human rights and liberties - control over your own life and body. All the other freedoms extend themselves from that. And just think about that on a human side: I see it as the utmost denial of freedom, the utmost evil, to deny a person the right to do something to themselves that doesn't affect anyone else. Whereas under your ideology, you're pretty much saying that humanity has a responsibility to be enslaved, and no right to escape from this enslavement. And we're having a rational political debate here, so spirituality and supernaturalism should not be brought into this (proving your argument by references to supernaturalism is pretty much a cop-out). Under anarcho-capitalism, any action that only affects you but affects no other external agent is not criminalised - in fact, the state doesn't care about it all. Furthermore, if the external agent consents, in an informed way, to the action, then pretty much he or she must bear responsibility for the consequences of that action. This is not about what I think, or what you think, but about victimless crimes. As I see it, you support the criminalisation of victimless crimes, which most people do to some extent. All I'm noting is that support for this is quite significantly against the anarcho-capitalist ideal which you self-identified as. In particular, your idea that people do not "own" themselves is really, really, really against anarchism and libertarianism, which emphasises the rational and autonomous capabilities of the individual. And your justification for this is simply "well, my argument is not consistent and neither should I be" which is, quite frankly, another cop-out. Ronline ✉ 09:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I stated above that "our bodies...are not the state's". I don't believe the state should be in the business of punishing most victimless crimes. We are enslaved by, for instance, the Ten Commandments - laws that no man can repeal. I find your use of the phrase "the utmost evil" to be quite interesting. Atheists, for all their claims to reject God, merely fall back on an alternate vocabulary that mimics Christianity, without rejecting its doctrines outright. "Sin" or "vice" becomes "evil" or "wrong". "Virtue" becomes "good" or "positive externality". An abstract notion of "morality" substitutes for the Bible and Holy Tradition. But peel away these superficial changes, and a Christian lurks beneath every atheist's surface. He recognises that there is a universal moral law. He doesn't acknowledge that every law proceeds from a lawgiver, and that that lawgiver is God, but when all is said and done, his thinking is still very similar to a Christian's.

Referring to Orthodoxy as "supernaturalism" is dubious. It is a religion, and your argument is not strengthened by insults. Once again, when the state does die, no earthly power will punish any crime, whether or not there is a victim, unless through a private legal system where both parties consent to adjudication. People don't own themselves, but neither does the state. Biruitorul 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I suppose abortion is the only one where a case can be made for it not being victimless - the victim is arguably the child, who arguably has rights at that age. The argument then is over whether that child is a legal entity and whether they should hence have rights. I would argue that since the child is not self-aware, it cannot be considered "human" yet, and for that reason the mother's right overrides the embryo's right in all cases. As an anarcho-capitalist, you should be the first to say that when a voluntary act between agents has no externality, it should not be punished or sanctioned by the law. Ronline ✉ 08:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? Plenty of adults are not self-aware: Alzheimer's patients, "vegetables", etc. - surely you don't want them killed, and consider them human. Second, it's disingenuous to use solely the word "embryo" when "fetus" would be appropriate for most of the pregnancy. While the case against abortion is not airtight (which is why we're having this debate), I believe that there is an obligation to at least give the fetus a chance at life, particularly because, except in the case of rape, the mother did choose to have sex, leading to pregnancy, so I find the "choice" argument to be rather weak. As an anarcho-capitalist, I see an important negative externality arising from abortion: involuntary death (murder?), so I do support a law against that as long as states are around. Once they're gone, one hopes that virtue will prevent unwanted pregnancies, and that virtue will compel mothers into carrying them to term should they occur, but ultimately they would, unfortunately, be able to abort freely in such a world; it's a trade-off I'm reluctantly willing to make. Biruitorul 04:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between Alzheimer's patients and unborn children. Alzheimer's patients are autonomous individuals, and thus even if killing them would cause them no harm, an external agent simply has no right to do such thing. On the other hand, unborn children are dependent on the mother, and hence their life is still in the hands of the mother, who has choice over this. I think the choice argument is pretty damn strong. Just because someone chose to have unprotected sex doesn't mean they should be subject to having a child. The mother can choose to have sex and not have a baby, particularly since aborting the baby is not going to cause anyone any pain (unless perhaps the mother, but since it's voluntary, it's not morally-reprehensible). The negative externality of "involuntary death" is not apparent, since that child is not yet an autonomous agent - in fact, he is not an agent at all, but simply an extension of the mother until birth. Just because it has the potential to be an autonomous agent doesn't mean that it is an autonomous agent. Ronline ✉ 10:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, what about people in a coma and on a respirator? I'm sure you'd support someone turning off that respirator. Would you also support shooting them? If not, why not? They are dependent on medical staff, so following your argument, the staff has choice over whether to end their lives, even if they previously declared they would want to live in such a situation. Just because someone chose to drink uncontrollably doesn't mean he should be subject to contracting cirrhosis, right? Except that bad actions sometimes lead to bad consequences. You have sex, you get pregnant, you bear the consequences and have the child. Fetuses can feel pain at least as early as 20 weeks into a pregnancy. And actually, it isn't just an extension of the mother: what other "extensions" have their own brain, heart, lungs, arms, legs, etc? Given that babies born at 24 weeks have survived without serious problems, and given that you presumably support abortion until 40 weeks, how is that consistent? If you cut a 38-week fetus out of the womb, it would do just fine, but would you support aborting another fetus at 39 weeks? And again, there are many people who are not autonomous agents at all, who have no consciousness, and who are entirely dependent on other to survive. Biruitorul 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

As to the EU commissioners - fair enough, the Barroso commission is left-wing and socially-liberal. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Siim Kallas as an ex-communist, however. He's a big free-marketeer (but socially-liberal), and comes from what is perhaps the most neoliberal country in Europe, Estonia. Not to mention that a lot of the liberal commissioners are against the welfare-state and protectionist policies of the economic left. So, just because there are no nationalists and conservatives on the Commission doesn't mean it automatically becomes socialist! Ronline ✉ 13:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

On Kallas: yes, he's had a convenient change of heart, but his past is troubling. And there might be some opposition to welfare-state policies, but attempts at reform have been thwarted by striking French dockworkers and other malcontents. So maybe it's not socialist in the Ion Iliescu mould, but it does lean to the left and its lack of will to draft more liberalising directives is, in effect, acquiescence to and complicity in the demands of socialists. Biruitorul 15:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that the EU needs to do more to liberalise, but in actuality, it's the national governments who resist it. It's the national governments who don't want the EU to bring about free competition in postal services, or to implement the Bolkenstein directive, or to increase the free movement of labour. And, once again, I don't see how your ideology holds up. On one hand, you support economic liberalisation and the gradual erosion of the state, but refuse to support European integration, which is trying to do just that. Ronline ✉ 04:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Commission is (sort of) trying to liberalise. However, we must wonder why the strongest backers of integration are found on the left today and not on the right. I once saw a pair of graphs that explained this, so let me try to describe the graphs. The first was a bell curve and showed the benefits of integration for the centre-right. At first benefits were small because not much was going on during the Eurosclerosis phase. But then came the 1985-92 burst of liberalising activity (guided by the socialist Jacques Delors), which clearly made the right happy. However, further moves toward integration have since been generally disapproved of by the right because, while some liberalising directives may still be coming down the pipeline, the focus has shifted to a "social[ist] Europe". The graph for the left was an upside-down bell curve. At the beginning they were very opposed because the right was championing it and because it threatened the protectionist welfare states of Europe; the classic welfare state, Sweden, didn't join till 1995. But once the Single Market went through, the focus shifted quite emphatically under Santer toward issues like the environment, women, equality, welfare, health care, and other causes dear to the left, which now loves the EU. In other words, the great liberalising mission of the EU was finished by 1992; now what largely remains is for it to grant the wishes of various groups on the left. Anyway, I appreciate the Commission's efforts to liberalise, but that can also be done both by individual members and by EFTA, which no one has satisfactorily dismissed yet. Biruitorul 07:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Naming conventions

I was looking at Sibiu recently and it occurred to me that we ought to set some standard for how we render the names of Romanian institutions such as universities, museums, theatres, etc. in English. In particular, I'm worried about those named after an individual. For instance, the article makes reference to a "Radu Stanca" National Theatre, a "Lucian Blaga" University of Sibiu, a Colegiul Pedagogic "Andrei Şaguna", etc. But in English these wouldn't have quotation marks. So, can we agree that if we keep the Romanian name, we keep the quotation marks, but if we give it in English, we give an appropriate English-language version (preferably from their website) that doesn't contain quotation marks? Biruitorul 00:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've always found the quotation marks very odd in English, and I think it's also to do with the fact that in Wikipedia articles we seldom use any punctuation. So, "Lucian Blaga University" or "Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu" would be the best titles. The other question, of course, is whether to translate when there isn't an "official" English-language version (i.e. whether we should have Romanian-language titles at all). I would be slightly in favour of translating the titles of institutions, since it greatly improves understanding. For this reason, I would favour "Andrei Şaguna Pedagogic College", etc. Ronline ✉ 01:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done a little work on the Sibiu section but have yet to translate, which someone else might want to pick up. Personally, I'm fine leaving them in Romanian unless they have articles of their own (especially as terms like Colegiul Naţional shouldn't be too difficult to figure out), but I don't have a strong opinion on that either way. Biruitorul 04:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly agree with losing the quotation marks. The other is tricky. If there is an official—or a widely used—English-language name, then of course we should use it. But there are times when rendering in English is just silly. Centru Civic, for example. I wince on the rare occasion I see that rendered as "Civic Center": besides anything else, that is suggestive of a very different type of place. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What really bothers me about that article is not that it is Romanian, but that it is in absurd Romanian. All dictionary entries for it would actually be Centrul Civic. Dahn 19:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, and "the Centru Civic", used throughout the article, strikes me as redundant. Biruitorul 02:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"The Centrul Civil" is gramatically incorrect since "Centrul" already contains the article; "The Centru Civic" would not be incorrect, since there is no article in the Romanian. For some reason, however, Centru Civic sounds more natural (perhaps in the same way that Sighetu Marmaţiei is not named "Sighetul", or "Târgu Mureş" is not "Târgul". Also note that the Romanian Wikipedia article is also at Centru Civic. Quarters and place names should generally not have the article included, so Centru Civic follows this convention. It translates literally as "Civic Centre", instead of "The Civic Centre", which I think is more correct for a place name. On the other hand, Centrul Civic does seem to have a bit more Google hits (when searching for Centru Civic, Wikipedia articles and mirrors come up first). Ronline ✉ 06:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not se why "Centru" would sounc more natural, and I cannot see the parallel with "Sighetu". Centru, as you indicate, features nowhere but on wiki. This is the clear policy we should establish: in the proper version,the article is implicit, which should include the English article topic; the simple and correct way is to change all mentions to "Centrul Civic" and drop the "the" in front of any mention ("In Centrul Civic, I eat mushrooms" etc.). This method is flawless: paradigms I can think of refer to languages that do not have the article as part of the word, but consider that, even if "going to the Observatoire" is right and "going to the L'Observatoire" is wrong, one cannot go wrong with "going to L'Observatoire". Dahn 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my mistake–"the Centru Civic" could work; it's just that I was already considering it as "Centrul Civic". I think part of the problem is the tendency in spoken Romanian to barely pronounce that final l. Someone who said "Băiatul a băgat mărul în sacul meu", hitting the l every time, would sound like a fool to my ears, while "Băiatu' a băgat măru'n sacu' meu" would be quite natural. Also, note that while pronouncing the l in a phrase like "băiatul meu" might be all right, "Centrul_Civic", said together, is problematic because that combination (l_ch) is awkward and so the l drops out even more naturally.

Since no one (to my knowledge) actually says "Centrul Civic", and since this place hasn't been written on extensively, that may be what gave rise to the current title. But Google and the rules of grammar appear to back up Centrul, so I'd support a move.

The Sighet and T-M examples are interesting, but one can equally talk about Parcul Carol, Piaţa Mare, Oraşul Vechi, etc.

Also, when you have a common noun and common adjective together, you must use either a definite or an indefinite article, no? "centrul civic" or "un centru civic", but "centru civic" is, in fact, non-existent. Biruitorul 00:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with Centrul Civic as a title; I was merely arguing that "Civic Center" (or "Civic Centre") are bad choices in this case. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear. Do we have a consensus to move? Or should we move this to Talk:Centru Civic first? Biruitorul 06:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, move. And it would be helpful to also move this discussion to the talk page of Centru Civic. Ronline ✉ 07:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Biruitorul 19:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. now we are ending up with locutions like "the Centrul Civic" at History of Bucharest, which is not quite "the the Civic Center" or—best Romanian approximation I can imagine—'"cel Centrul Civic", but it's close. Code switching is always tricky. Biruitorul, these are yours, I believe and you seem almost perfectly bilingual (chich I certainly am not); is this not a bit odd to your ear? - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I myself again suggest dropping the "the" in front of all mentions. Dahn 23:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

At Palace of the Parliament, I see that Biruitorul dropped "the". FWIW, my own gut was/is "the Centru Civic", but I have no problem with "Centrul Civic". - Jmabel | Talk 23:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I rushed through those. Thank you, Jmabel, for catching that error. "The Centrul Civic" would indeed be redundant, so I fixed it. Biruitorul 04:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria and Wikipedia in The Economist

There's a nice piece in The Economist here. It's about some ocult lobbying group that apparently tries to spread pro-Transnistrean disinformation. On wikipedia, too. :) The article deserves 5 minutes. I found it after reading a weird discussion on Talk:Transnistria. Dpotop 13:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest Metro maps

Hi. I've made a linear map of every line on the Bucharest Metro and uploaded them to Commons, as can be seen below:

I've indicated the stations which connect to other lines, as well as connections to the CFR network (at Gara de Nord and Basarab). I am, however, interested in including another piece of information: disabled access. From what I can gather on Metrorex's website, Gara de Nord and Piaţa Unirii are currently wheelchair-accessible. I've also read, however, that potentially all stations are accessible through staff intervention. Is this true? Could the Bucharest residents here please indicate which stations are wheelchair-accessible (those that have lifts, I suppose)? Also, are there any mistakes on the maps? I'm also making a map of the route for the Express Bus 783 from Henri Coandă. Does this bus go through Aurel Vlaicu Airport, or not? I've heard previously that it does, but the route indicator does not show this, and also the route still uses DAF buses (whereaas apparently all routes to Băneasa have been fitted with Citaro buses). Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Baneasa is between Bucharest and Otopeni, and 783 goes in front of the Baneasa airport in both directions. Whether it stops is another question, though, because other buses are preferred by Bucharest people (they are cheaper and as fast) to go there. Dpotop 13:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Great work, first of all. I would, however, not write Gara de Nord metro station as a connection between M3 and M4, because changing trains there is impossible without paying a new fare. And another thing: Republica metro station is located near the Titan Sud train station (a station with only three daily trains, I know, compared to Basarab's sixteen), and can be considered a railway connection. Your call about it. - Andrei 11:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Gara de Nord is in fact two separate stations (as is Piaţa Victoriei M2/M3 and Dristor 1 and 2, are they not?). But I still think it's good to have the connection there just so people can know that Gara de Nord is also served by Line 4 (if they're on M3), and vice versa. Just as an aside, are the two stations at Gara de Nord physically disconnected or does Metrorex simply not make them part of the same ticketing area? In London, for example, Bank and Monument are separate stations on separate lines, but are connected with each other (without paying a new fare, AFAIK). I will add the CFR connection to Titan Sud, provided it's within walking distance and reasonably adjacent (in the same way that, say, Basarab Metro is to Basarab CFR). Thanks! Ronline ✉ 13:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike all the other stations that are connected, Gara de Nord is the only one where you have to leave the ticketing area in order to change the station. Republica station is right under the tracks of the Titan Sud Railway station, I can confirm that. About the 783, I think it stops also at Baneasa airport, as that is also a terminus for a great number of other transport lines of RATB, so it's a quite important hub. I also have to aknowledge that I do not remember if it stops there when it comes form Otopeni to Bucharest. So, you might call it an "optional" stop ;). Mihai -^talk 13:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the map for Express Bus 783. I've made the line black so it doesn't conflict with the metro, even though RATB use a certain colour (blue?) for buses. Next up will be the line 41 of the light metro - I've got a station list somewhere for that. I'd also like to integrate it into the main metro map. Thanks, Mihai, for the confirmation on Republica and Titan Sud - I've updated the map accordingly. Ronline ✉ 13:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Typo. You wrote "Piaţa Preşei Libere" :) - Andrei 14:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Updated ;) Ronline ✉ 14:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

There is one more problem with the metro maps. For some reason (simplicity?), you chose to reassign many M1 stations to M3. However, if someone is printing this and then trying to match it with the Metrorex version, he/she/it will be in *big* trouble. Dpotop 14:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK the lines show the actual routes which Metrorex currently operates. What they call "Magistrala M1/M3" is actually two separate route lines - M1 and M3. M1 runs from Industriilor to Eroilor, even though it will continue to Policolor and Linia de Centură when that branch is opened in 2007. M3 runs from Dristor to Pantelimon. Previously, M1 would run from Industriilor straight through to Republica, I think, but since a few years ago, it terminates at Eroilor. The big metro map I made before, which show all the lines, is actually wrong, since Republica or Piaţa Unirii or Timpuri Noi is not served by M1, in that there is no direct connection between Industriilor and this station. I only hope Metrorex will soon clear this up and introduce a more streamlined route structure, since apparently its own diagrams contradict each other. The official Metrorex map is here. It is basically the same as my own all-lines map, which can be seen at Bucharest Metro. It was actually someone from Wikipedia (Bogdan, I think) who told me that M1 does not terminate at Republica, but at Eroilor. Consequently, this map is more correct, even though it mixes up the line colours. Hmm, having done a bit more research, it seems the mixing up of the lines is an error on the part of Metrorex. The Industriilor-Eroilor segment is shown as "M3" (yellow) on the maps, but on the stations themselves, M3 is actually the Dristor-Republica section. This photo of Basarab shows that the station is on M3, but the latest 2006 Metrorex map shows it to be on M1, even though the 2005 map shows it to be on yellow (that is, M3). I think the most trustworthy source in this case would be train announcements, and from what I have heard, Basarab is announced as being on "M3", while Industriilor is on "M1".

One more question (the Metro network is really confusing sometimes -_-): what is the name of the University Square station as shown on the signposts? Is it "Universităţii", "Universitate" or "Piaţa Universităţii"? I have seen all three of them on various maps and documents. Ronline ✉ 14:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It is announced in the M2 trains as Universitate, and AFAIK, that is what is written on the station walls.- Andrei 15:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Cinema of Romania

I put this in the new articles announcement section, but I think this article is quite problematic and that is why I am writing about it here as well.

As you may notice, it's pretty much a direct translation of the Romanian version, and a lot of work is needed. Here are some imperatives, just for starters:

• The translation is quite choppy in points and I take full responsibility for that. It needs much smoothing out before it becomes readable. In fact, the article even seems to contradict itself in places (for instance the section on post-1947 cinema claims that there wasn't much of a film industry to speak of before the Communists came to power, despite the fact that the bulk of the article deals with pre-1948 cinema).
• We need the images, with captions, from the Romanian version.
• A section on post-1989 cinema.
• Much more on 1948-1989 cinema. The earlier section is actually quite good, but this one is just barebones. For instance, no mention is made of Ciulei or Pintilie, or of actors like Rebengiuc. That's a bit like trying to discuss the French New Wave without mentioning Truffaut, Godard, or Anna Karina. Similarly, the vital films of that period–Valurile Dunării, Pădurea spânzuraţilor, Reconstituirea and Pentru cine bat clopotele, Mitică?–are all absent.
• Less POV. The introduction sounds more like an essay, and similar personal opinions permeate the text.
• A real bibliography.
• We can also probably gain increased readability by cutting down on all those cast and crew lists and by eliminating more of the original Romanian phrases I preserved.

This is just a first approximation, as I've made clear. Any input is welcome–I think this will have great potential once it's been thoroughly pruned and expanded in the appropriate places. Biruitorul 01:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)