Talk:Delia Grigore
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing! |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. |
 |
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Delia Grigore: |
|---|---|
|
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category |
|
 |
Delia Grigore is part of the WikiProject Romani people, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the Romani people on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
|
|
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Denial of the Romani ethnicity during the Communists
Regarding the recent deletion of this issue, the Communists included the so-called Gypsies in censuses, i.e. those who dared to declare the real ethnicity, only to show that there is still a problem-people (in their view). Citing from Istoria şi tradiţiile minorităţii rromani (that is the textbook in 6th and 7th grade for Romani pupils), at page 92, it is said that: "the Political Bureau of Central Comitee of PCR, did not recognize the existence of the Roma as a minority, they were considered as foreign elements that must be assimilated in the Romanian society. Unlike the Hungarians and Germans, the Roma did not have the right to be represented as minority and did not have the right to promote their traditions. The state denied the specific character of this people, forbade any publication from and about them." Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 17:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- So the 227,398 who declared themselves gypsies in 1977 are only those who "dared" to declare their real ethnicity ? Pretty dubious. Does that book give any decision of the CC of PCR that denies the existence of gypsies/roma as an ethnic group?Anonimu 18:03, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Tentatively, I have to side with Anonimu (!), based on this link. Biruitorul 18:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- First of all, write Rom/Gypsy with capital letter, it is a basic rule of civility. I saw that in that link it is said also how the Roma were considered as foreign elements that must be assimilated in the Romanian society and concrete cases of assimilation policies. Regarding the official policy, it was negation by ignoration, every time when they were enumerated the minorities and given representation in administration by the CC of PCR, the Roma did not appear (although they were the biggest minority). They were named only when the Communists enumerated their social enemies, with expressions like ţiganii-problemǎ ("Gypsies-problem"), paraziţi sociali ("social spongers") and other malevolent "denominantions". There are presented also in the book concrete examples of how all that was published before the war was destroyed and the Romani mass-media of that time forbidden in the 1950s - 1960s. When they saw they didn't solve the problem, in 1977 the CC of PCR made a specific program aiming at the eradication of the problem, i.e. assimilation. In 1983 a report presented the failure of the program (I saw in the link they say it presented positive results). That was the official policiy of the Communists as presented in the book, plus the concrete cases of persecutions and assimilation policies. In fact, if you are form Romania, I think you know pretty well what happened. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I don't capitalize words naming non-unique things. Ceausescu wanted to get rid of every minority in Romania, not just gypsies, but I don't think anyone claims the Romania didn't recognize these minorities as ethnic groups. Sorry, but if document and the census of 1977 spoke of them, how come they were not enumerated as a minority? Only members of the PCR or organization more or less dependent of it had access to administration. So the lack of representation can be blamed on the fact that gypsies did not join the party. As for the "biggest minority", i can bring tens of source that claim this position was reserved to hungarians.Anonimu 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Desiphral-देसीफ्राल. Without entering in the substance of the debate, let me just say that I fully agree with you that names of nationalities, ethnic groups, languages, etc, should always be capitalized -- it's a basic rule of civility, and of English too. I tried to make a similar point to Anonimu in a different context, but he rejected it. I'll let you figure out how much weight one should put on the opinion of someone who cannot grasp such basic rules of English and civility. Turgidson 19:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Turgidson, thanks for pointing out, let's hope he will improve his style, otherwise this may allude to really bad signs in communication. As for the issue on stake, I see no reason to reply to his last comments, that fail to understand that the Gypsies from the minds of the Communists were not the real Romani people but an asocial category. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- First of all, write Rom/Gypsy with capital letter, it is a basic rule of civility. I saw that in that link it is said also how the Roma were considered as foreign elements that must be assimilated in the Romanian society and concrete cases of assimilation policies. Regarding the official policy, it was negation by ignoration, every time when they were enumerated the minorities and given representation in administration by the CC of PCR, the Roma did not appear (although they were the biggest minority). They were named only when the Communists enumerated their social enemies, with expressions like ţiganii-problemǎ ("Gypsies-problem"), paraziţi sociali ("social spongers") and other malevolent "denominantions". There are presented also in the book concrete examples of how all that was published before the war was destroyed and the Romani mass-media of that time forbidden in the 1950s - 1960s. When they saw they didn't solve the problem, in 1977 the CC of PCR made a specific program aiming at the eradication of the problem, i.e. assimilation. In 1983 a report presented the failure of the program (I saw in the link they say it presented positive results). That was the official policiy of the Communists as presented in the book, plus the concrete cases of persecutions and assimilation policies. In fact, if you are form Romania, I think you know pretty well what happened. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 18:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- And some people say i'm the one who attacks people without any reason...Anonimu 20:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Another debate ruined by dogma...Anonimu 21:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- When I said I agreed with Anonimu, I meant I agreed Gypsies had been counted separately in communist-era censuses, a fact it seems no one here now disputes. I certainly do not agree with his habitual abrasiveness, which is most unbecoming. And a defender of Stalinism is in no position to lecture others about dogmatism. Biruitorul 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wheren't you two the bravest defenders of that wiki principle "discuss content, not editors"? How i'm supposed to enter in a mediation process with you two when you clearly have something personally with me(as the uncalled-for personal attack on this page proves). If defending truth means defending stalinism, i'll do it. And i don't remember blindly adhering to a dogma. All my opinions are supported by logical arguments (BTW, i'll unwatch this article, so if you want to further attack me, use my talk page)Anonimu 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- I was just clarifying that I'm defending your argument, not your attitude. However, I remain committed to the principle you mention. Biruitorul 22:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- Wheren't you two the bravest defenders of that wiki principle "discuss content, not editors"? How i'm supposed to enter in a mediation process with you two when you clearly have something personally with me(as the uncalled-for personal attack on this page proves). If defending truth means defending stalinism, i'll do it. And i don't remember blindly adhering to a dogma. All my opinions are supported by logical arguments (BTW, i'll unwatch this article, so if you want to further attack me, use my talk page)Anonimu 22:43, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
- When I said I agreed with Anonimu, I meant I agreed Gypsies had been counted separately in communist-era censuses, a fact it seems no one here now disputes. I certainly do not agree with his habitual abrasiveness, which is most unbecoming. And a defender of Stalinism is in no position to lecture others about dogmatism. Biruitorul 22:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
-
[edit] Faculty position
The article says that she currently she teaches at the University of Bucharest, yet it does not make it clear she actually is on the faculty of that University. I'm not sure exactly how things work at that University, but there are many people who teach courses at various Universities, without actually being on the faculty. It is often appropriate to identity them as academics, but I don't see how they can be listed as being faculty, or put in the respective category, if they are not specifically hired as such. In the case at hand, I'd say this needs to be verified. It would also be good to specify which Department (or Faculty, as the case may be) the person teaches in. The vita (which is kind of dated -- it stops at about 2003) only says: "Lecturer of Rromani literature and folklore at the University of Bucharest, Faculty of Foreign Languages and Literatures, Rromani Studies Section". Turgidson 12:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- This is her page at UoB, where it is said she is assistant (I'm not sure this is the English translation). Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, that should do it, I guess. I'm not quite sure how to translate that position, either -- I think it's not quite the same as an Assistant Professor in the US (which is definitely faculty), but more than a part-time Lecturer (which is not normally viewed as faculty). It would be good to have more input on this matter (not just for this article, but for others, too), but for now it looks OK to me. Turgidson 13:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Romanian Romani
Hey, guys: isn't it high time we had a Category:Romani Romanians (or is it "Roma Romanians"?) as a subcategory of both Category:Romanian people by ethnic or national origin and Category:Roma people? Dahn 17:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Place of birth
She was born in Romania, and that is mentioned at the beginning, after the brackets, I'm not sure I got what you mean. Desiphral-देसीफ्राल 11:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- No, there was something in your edit summary I misunderstood. It is complicated and, in retrospect, trivial to explain how it came to be. I see your point now. Dahn 11:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
