User talk:Plinul cel tanar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Re:
Hi. I'm a bit strapped at the moment, but I'll check it out sometime soon. It does need some copyediting (it does not comply with the detailed standards of WP:MOS), but there doesn't seem to be anything stringent. Cheers, Dahn 23:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Michael
Then please do correct the list and the Michael article. I took that family name from the article. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] email
Am incercat sa-ti trimit email, dar nu este activat. Poti sa-mi trimiti email la wizzard_bane la yahoo.com? thx. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- Nu iau nimic personal. Am vrut doar sa te intreb ceva in privat. Daca stii alta cale, bine, daca nu, nui nimic. Si asa nu era nimic important. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ro wiki and me
Hi, and please excuse the long delay. I must say your contributions are probably the best thing that's happened to ro wiki in ages, and they may signify that the tide is turning over there. Alas, i am way too committed to en wiki for now (though I have created the odd article on ro wiki; word of warning: ro wiki Dahn is not me, but some inventive vandal, probably Bonaparte, the master of proxies). An additional problem is that ro wiki has major systemic problems:
- aside from the occasional samples of blatant bias and spread-eagleism, it shows a pesky failure to treat things from a distant and objective perspective (in a telling example, articles I authored here that are being translated there are routinely toned down when it comes to less comfortable but fully documented facts);
- it fails to ensure and promote quality (most, if not indeed all, of its featured articles fail to meet even the most basic criteria;
- there is significant content forking that survives for ages;
- scores of photos are blatant copyright violations;
- a lot of articles are created without thinking of where they fir in the overall scheme and how they should relate to one another;
- entire pages are copied from other sites - as a side note, I have always had a problem understanding how a user pictures he is helping wikipedia by moving something from two clicks away to one click away...
At some point, it seemed like I was the only person asking sysops to do something about these endemic problems, and that the most I got of it was the label that I am "campaigning against ro wiki" (coming from people who mostly use this project as a chatroom). Be that as it may, I'm glad that things are improving, but I'm still waiting for a time when I will be as interested as to deal with some of those problems myself. In some ways, it is like asking me to go into the engine room of a steamship on a tropical day - I'm willing to, but I don't want to have to go back there every single day, in case a person like Dacodava goes unsupervised and turns work like yours into his brand of smelly pus, or in case some editors simply don't understand what the problem is. Keep up the good work - just saying, because I'm sure you'll be doing that anyway :). Best, Dahn 00:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] CoA
Hi again. I do remember reading something about that issue myself (just briefly), and I do agree that this needs further explanation somewhere (and perhaps even add a subsection on Michael's seal in the article on him). Two issues for now: Rezachevici's interpretation is plausible (not that plausible, if you ask me - especially considering that the source saying this is from the 1700s, and that the symbol could just be a variation on the Byzantine-like tradition of prince and son holding/planting a tree), but it still does not cover the fact that there is no explicitly Transylvanian presence on that seal (ie: it's a matter of interpretation); the arms of Transylvania, lest for the dividing band, seem to have been well established by then, and to have actually been used alongside the other two CoAs in, shall we say, outer heraldry (as they are here - note that the tree is there as well). Dahn 14:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In response to Dahn
I agree that the significance of the affronted lions holding a sword is matter of interpretation not a fact. There are other aspects of your comment on which I completely dissagree.
The affronted lions holding a sword (hence refered to as AL) bear precise meaning. The armories of Wallachia and Moldavia are explicit and unmisstakable. The crowned figures (probably simbolizing Michael and his son) act as tenants, the artwork being quite conform to the heraldic art of the age. The presence of AL on the seal cannot be dissmissed as Byzantine-like tradition. It is an independent heraldic representation and designates either a territory ruled by the Prince, or dynastic / personal heraldics.
Furthermore Sigismund Bathory's mixed armories from 1597 Image:SigismundBathory1597.jpg (hence refered to as B) cannot be called on as evidence of a well established coat of arms of Transylvania, and certainly not of the dividing band. In Levinius Hulsius' Cronologia from 1596 a coat of arms of Transylvania is given featuring the emerging eagle and seven hills with superposed towers (hence refered to as C). Note that the AL on Michael's seal are rampant on seven hills. An even earlier representation (S) - a seal dating from 1550 Image:TransilvaniaSigilium1550.png has survived and it has nothing to do with either AL, or B and C. One may notice that prior to the official establishment of such heraldry by the Diet of Sebes in 1659 Image:Coat of arms of Transylvania.svg (hence refferd to as O) similar to B and C, one Prince used a similar coat of arms (G) to indicate his rule over Transylvania, namely Gabriel Bathory Image:GabrielBathory1609.jpg . The seal dates to 1609 and Gabriel was kin to Sigismund.
Let us resume. We have S, the earlies known heraldic representation of Transilvania which is completely unique and features a saxon symbol. We than have C in 1596, than B similar but not identical (the towers are separated and the hills are missing). We than have AL on Michael's seal whose significance is not known (the hills from C are there however). G follows and it is practically identical to B, the two Princes using them are family. Finally O is adopted in 1659. One can hardly argue for well established state heraldry of Transylvania in the 16th century, and one may trace the origin of such heraldry to the Bathories.
I also believe that you are dissmissing Vitezovic to easily. The work is from the early 1700s, that is 1701, so it's not that late especially given the period of time needed to produce such an anthology. The AL identified as the coat of arms of Dacia are the same as the ones on Michael's seal (you may want to check a secondary source on that - Maria Dogaru; know however that I double checked the primary source myself just to make sure). The meaning of the name Dacia is of course ambigous. Rezachevici has conducted extensive research on the medieval and pre-modern occurunces and meanings and has come to the conclusion that is designated either the territory of three Principalities or one of the three (usualy Transylvania).
If you ask me the most probable hypothesis is that the AL are Michael's choice of heraldry for his principality of Transylvania, I base my conclusion on Vitezovic coroborated with Rezachevic and with the presence of the seven hills as in C. Michal, Sigismund Bathory considered himself ruller of all the three countries and, like Sigismund should have made it clear in his heraldry. Of course this is original research and cannot go into the article.
Another hypothesis whic M Dogaru seems to prefer is that AL represent Michael's "united state".
Finally, I suppose one can admit the possibility of an atempt of establishing dynastic or personal heraldry. Earlier evidence exists for the use of the lion as a heraldic animal in Oltenia.
Regards, Plinul Plinul cel tanar 11:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- I cannot say I truly disagree with any part of that interpretation. My main point was that, since there is a precedent with B, which would make it hard(er) to stress that Transylvania's CoA is actually present on Michael's seal. That precedent may itself bear the imprint of circumstance, and your case is pretty solid, but its presence is also pertinent. (Btw, I actually said that the dividing band was not part of B, which could actually help further substantiate your point about the 1500s-1600s being a period of heraldic transition.) The possibility that B is one half of the seal as it was at the time, with Micheal's being the other, is very intriguing and rather plausible - alas, it is not definitive proof.
- Concerning AL. Indeed, it does look like it has a definite purpose, but it is still a rather mysterious occurrence in its immediate context. And Michael did not have the time to tell us where he was going with it. Likewise, if a later source tells us that it stood for Dacia (which, considering the references to Dacia in Renaissance cultural revival, on both sides of the ethnic divide, is not in itself impossible), it could be because it was in use by then, without having necessarily maintained its original purpose - just as the towers came to be used instead of the hills.
- On "Zalmoxianism" - it would seem that Mr. Pachia is on a campaign trail to introduce his nonsense and promote himself on wiki. I wonder how that will turn out... Dahn 13:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
- Btw: I've watchlisted your page, so if you reply here I'll know. Dahn 13:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I got your messages over there, and, oh yes, let that article rot in hell. The only thing is that, given all the hype surrounding my presence there, I'm afraid a negative comment by me would only result in a lot of keep votes. Dahn (talk) 18:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- They have to stop one way or the other, especially since, as you may see for yourself, there is active encouragement of such type of behavior. It is apparent that they view wikipedia as a tool for their experiments, and that there are no instruments in place for dealing with this over there. All I did was to comment on what administrators did that went against the purpose of this project: if they live with the impression that there is an "anti-Romanian conspiracy" at work for questioning what is questionable, then they perhaps should not be editing wikipedia at all. Dahn (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
On a different note, I glanced at some of your edits there (It's not like I have much else to do now, so you'll hopefully forgive the intrusion). I thus noticed that Mr. Pachia's article on "Dadaismul valah" has caught your eye, and it has consequently caught my eye as well. I'm not going to get into that matter any time soon, but it overlaps with some stuff I'm reading at the moment - namely, with Paul Cernat's Avangarda românească. It would seem that the load of hogwash in that article has some tradition, and actually started with statemeants made by Ion Vinea, through which he merely proposed that there was something specific linking the avant-garde to Romanian tradition (more precisely, he proposed generating a new Romanian tradition on the basis of modernism). This was, as you'd expect, hijacked by the Protochronist school, who turned into, well, Protochronism. There are loads of obvious reasons to have that article tied to a fence and burned (and I would not be as cautious as you in having Pachia's work removed from wikipedia - per WP:NOT, to cite just one policy). I'm just adding this info just in case you may need additional and actual scholarly verdicts in the process. If asked, i will provide exact quotes and direct citations from the book. Regards, Dahn (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I see I got some absurd static for spelling "Isus" with a small-case "i" - even though the paragraph nelu craciun [sic...] was quoting also used "Isus"... Alas, my left shift key is acting up - which is why I also happened to lose capitals in some of my other messages. Not that I'm not at liberty to spell his name whichever way I wish to - and the reason why this would be a problem, like all the rant about people who died in December so that we can have Goma as a reference, has a lot to do with that "cultural problem" you mention. But I digress. Dahn (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Next
Hi. As it happens, you last message came at a time when I was not really active on wiki, and then I happened not to notice it in the backlog - for which I apologize. I have been paying some attention to both the article and the related talk page. For now, I have to say that I agree the article needs quite a lot more work to become GA - both in editing stuff that was added there and in filling in the huge gaps that it has. Though I don't at all appreciate the trend to smack-bang-add and then promote, especially when the subject of an article is tricky, I don't want to seem like I'm putting Eurocopter down (pun intended): he's been doing some very fine work, but I feel that his research only covers the tip of the iceberg, and tip is not what GAs are all about. I also happen to think that, given the magnitude of the subject, the article could do with cites from secondary foreign sources (even Braudel wrote something about Michael) and with reviewing some of the seminal contributions to both historiography and mythology (from Boia back to Bălcescu). Let alone tracking down for the sake of the reader what Michael was in post-1800 literature, visual art and even music, from Heliade's poem to Meštrović's sculpture to Ceauşescu's industrial patriotism. There are other issues I see as problematic, but I'll elaborate on them in the future and on the talk page there, once I can look more into this, and perhaps I'll start adding to the article. Dahn (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The way I see it, things are already moving (painfully slowly) in the right direction. I'm very sorry you were dragged into the mess they made when they started calling out names of people they want out, but there is one essential thing to consider: every one of them knows further exposure of what they are doing could only result in a backlash on them, which is why they are resorting to demagogy in making "a point". I view this as their last resort, and the more they threaten to expel reliable editors in order to defend antisemitic and neonazi material, the more likely they are to take the back door out once all other means of debate have been exhausted (and they are getting pretty much exhausted). This was my last attempt to discuss the issue there, and if rowiki gets back to what they want it to be, then the precedents, the seriousness of the situation, the favorable response from several enwiki and rowiki admins, and my willingness to see an end to this will imply a discussion about this at a central level. Where that level is I don't exactly know yet, but a common message from those who have noticed the problem and were prevented from dealing with it should do nicely. Yes, Gutza is right: it will mean that we would have to watch certain editors attempting to cast a new web of lies, it will mean that much time will be wasted in debunking them, but, as they well know, any argument that they use to con rowiki users will not hold water over here. Dahn (talk) 12:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
