Jump to content

Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11

News and announcements

Emergency: Cinema of Romania

This article still has horrible opening paragraphs left by someone who translated an unencyclopedic text on Romanian Cinema from the Ro: Wiki or something. This is an urgent case. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Victor Ion Popa

New article. I just started it, needs attention: Victor Ion Popa. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 01:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I need help figuring out the licensing for this image Image:Teatrul Victor Ion Popa.jpg of the Teatrul Victor Ion Popa in Barlad that I took from this website. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There's none usable. You're breaking copyright. Dahn (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Then there's no photo available for now. The image will be deleted by the usual process after 7 days. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 11:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Please remember not to upload copyrighted pictures in the future - they all get deleted sooner or later, the only palpable consequence being headaches for those who seek and remove them. Dahn (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Romanian crime in Europe

User:Moldopodo created a "revenge" article on the Romanians: Romanian crime in Europe. It's hopelessly POV, but I don't have enough time for now to fix it. If anyone here is interested? bogdan (talk) 15:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Now doing the rounds at afd. Your opinions welcome! - Francis Tyers · 20:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Well I haven't checked whether gypsies did most. Maybe so. I heard from a cousin in Spain (see Romanians in Spain) that Romanians are doing a lot of it, and he told me that the gypsies mostly do the low-grade crimes, while the Romanians are likely to do the more complex scams, like computer frauds, etc. I apologize for unduly accusing the gypsies of Romania like that. Let's keep it real, and keep the love flowing as best we can in this world. Excuse me but I have to say one more thing: I went through extremely horrible occurances in 2007 that made me very angry & hurt, I literally wasn't in my right mind, and it shows in mood swings like the one where I was accusing gypsies like that. I'm sorry, I'm getting back to my loving self again. Alex (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Help needed with templates/navigation boxes

Anyone can help to make this Template:Moldova_district_navigation_box look like something similar to this: Template:US county navigation box, Template:US county navigation box/doc. The most simplified version would do. I just want a place to introduce all localities, so one can find them, nice and clear, when one needs. :Dc76\talk 19:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I solved the problem. So here are the instructions for everyone:
FAQ

Funny reading

I suggest that people interested in Romanian subjects read this thread: Talk:Vladimir Tismăneanu#Which is the reason of keeping stupid calumnies in this article?. You will see there two established editors (Dahn and MariusM) suggesting that the other is a political operative, but this time the alleged affiliations are precised. Very Caragiale-like, very much like current Romanian politics and "civil society". Anyway, I suspected it for a long time, too. Dpotop (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Could someone point me to the statements of that "admin at ro.wiki"? I'm really interested. Dpotop (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Comisia Prezidenţială pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România: Raport Final

Editura Humanitas has published the Final Report of the Presidential Commission for the Analysis of the Communist Dictature in Romania, the so-called Tismăneanu Commission. Saturday, 24 November 2007, it started appearing in libraries (75 lei). As it calls itself in the introductory note, the report "is only the theoretical basis for an official act, and simmultaneously an invitation for a subsequent investigation, destined to bring suplementary explanations and new nuances in judging this period from the history of Romania".

Comisia Prezidenţială pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România: Raport Final / ed.: Vladimir , Dorin Dobrincu, Cristian Vasile, Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2007, 879 pp., ISBN 978-973-50-1836-8

From what I can read, it is far from being a detailed study, but noone can fit that information in one book, and the Report does not pretend to be but an overview. It is written, in my personal oppinion, in the most retained tone towards the communist regime. Occasionally, when it goes into details, the Report only selects a few things and talks only about those. However, it does not fail to call black black and white white when sufficient documentation and hard evidence exists and was available to the Commission, at least in the few instances I noticed. Sometimes the Report contains questionable judgements, however it does not fail in such instances to add "in our oppinion" or "we believe". Dispite the fact that it is not at all complete, and many important aspects, facts and details are, in my personal oppinion, overlooked, the Report is excellent as:

  • a documented summary by an official Commission of specialists
  • a list of known available sourses: archives, printed works based on archive material, communist literature, related periodicals, testinimonies, and a specialist bibliography about the subject

It perhaps wouldn't be such a bad idea if some of us would try to read through some of this material. Those of you interested in getting a copy but who are outside Bucharest/Romania, I guess, could contact Comenzi Carte prin Poştă: tel. 021-3112330, e-mail: cpp@humanitas.ro, www.librariilehumanitas.ro, at least so it says at the begining of the book. As a means to help those of you who will not get a copy, Here I am going to keep the Table of Contents and occasionally copy in a few paragraphs, pending on what is need/requested. :Dc76\talk 16:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dc76, are you aware that the report is available online, and has been so for some months? Are you also aware that it has already been used as a source in several articles? Dahn (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, they did published that shit, did they. BTW, it's the final version, or the final final version? Dpotop (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
There we go again... Let me know when you guys are done. Dahn (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sarmizegetusa, or Sarmisegetuza, or Sarmisegetusa, or...?

Which one is correct? The article title has the first spelling, but the lead starts with the second (and gives a few more alternates); the article on Dacia has both. The List of Romanian words of possible Dacian origin says Sarmisegetuza is the Daco-Romanian word, and Sarmizegetusa is the English spelling. As for the Battle of Sarmisegetusa, it uses yet another spelling, which is reproduced in First Dacian War, Second Dacian War, First Battle of Tapae, Second Battle of Tapae, Trajan's Dacian Wars, Dacian Wars, Decebalus Treasure, Coson, and on, and on. If you look at "what links here", you'll also see Sarmizegethusa and Sarmizegetuza. Theoretically, it seems there are 8 possible variants (s/z in first position, t/th in the middle, s/z in last position), with about 5 occurring on WP. How about we try to decide on the preferred one, and stick to it, more-or-less consistently? I have to confess I thought it was Sarmisegetuza (at least, that's what my vague memories from the last millennium say), but it looks to me that the preferred spelling (certainly in English, but also, somewhat to my surprise, in Romanian) is indeed Sarmizegetusa, with google search giving some kind of confirmation for that (193K for zs, 38.7K for sz, 20K for ss, 1.4K for zz, etc). At any rate, before embarking on some Augean stables cleanup (or not!), I would like to hear from others, who surely would know more about this momentous dilemma than I do. Turgidson (talk) 05:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

In the wake of the historic defeat of the PRM, I vote for Szármiszegetuszá. Dpotop (talk) 10:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Although -segetuza is widely used, the proper form is Sarmizegetusa. (Per the Cambridge Ancient History, the Romanian encyclopedic dictionary, and most renditions of Roman inscriptions I've seen). Dahn (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The article on Britannica on Decebalus uses "Sarmizegethusa." IMHO the "t+h" form is the correct form in English. Nergaal (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Have you asked yourselves whether there is a single correct form? It was attested in several forms. The article on Sarmizegetusa should strive to trace the various forms back to their original attestations. There is also a variant Ζερμιζεγεθούση (Zermizegethouse). A Romanian Thracologist/linguist is convinced that the e was used by Thracians, while Daco-Moesians used the a: Ζαρμιζεγεθούσα (Zarmizegethousa). So that variation seems to be accounted for: from Sorin Olteanu's website see note 8:
În opinia mea, izofona a/e face distincţia între două dialecte(limbi?) tracice: cel daco-moesian (cu [a]) şi cel trac (cu [e]). Se poate observa bine, mai ales după cucerirea Daciei, că numele autohtone pătrunse masiv în latina balcanică prezintă aspect daco-moesian: în inscripţiile latine şi la autorii ce folosesc informaţie romană (cum este Ptolemeu) găsim nume ca Σαρδική/Sardica, Δανθαλῆται, Ζαρμιζεγεθούσα/Sarmizegethusa etc., cu [a] în rădăcină, în vreme ce autorii romani mai vechi (precum Plinius), ca şi cei ce-şi iau informaţia din surse trace, citează forme cu [e]: Serdica, Δενθελῆται/Denseletae, Ζερμιζεγεθούση. Poate că şi [e]-ul moesian din variante mai târzii (precum δεβα pentru δαυα, Ζελδεπα din Ζαλδαπα, *Βουρδεπα pentru Burdapa etc.) se datorează presiunii lingvistice trace asupra geţilor din Moesia.
-A is putting the smack down (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD on Denial of Soviet occupation

This AfD may be of interest to members of this project. Comments are welcome. K. Lásztocska 11:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC) K. Lásztocska 11:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


Moldova again

Apparently this site contains information copied almost verbatim from Wikipedia (particularly the article about the Republic of Moldova and other related ones), without stating the source. - Andrei (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny map

(Fair use image removed by ImageBacklogBot because it was in non-article space.) I have incidentally saw this map (lower on the right of this page), which I find quite funny. It's about Holodomor and the years 1929-1933. Yet, it includes the Moldovan ASSR (in its post-1939 fronteers), and with data for the population decrease. Romania is not covered, but what's funny is that other parts of today's Ukraine are not included either, such as Chernivtsi.

I know Wikipedia standards are low, but is this map OK, even for Wikipedia? BTW, the source is a Western book. :):):) Dpotop (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Nergaal

I feel we have a problem with this user that is making massive edits on all Romania-related articles. For those involved, he is the guy that tries to understand what really happens in Moldova by asking the oppinions of fellow wikipedians. I have just reviewed his changes on Romania, and I felt like reverting all his 150 edits. Several problems:

  1. The guy does a lot of restructuring, but the new structure is not better than the old. He removes sometimes grammar errors, but introduces new ones, and the resulting text does not sound better. In other words, his edits improve nothing, but make traceability of previous versions impossible which is very bad given the lack of oversight (he made all these changes practically alone).
  2. Concerning the actual content, he is adding lots of [citation needed] notes on easily-documentable statements, and even on sourced statements. Also, he is adding disputable statements, e.g. in "Communist Romania", where he attaches independent policies to the reign of Ceausescu (which contradicts, of course, the date of 1958).
  3. While still AGF, the user seems to have detailed informations on Romania and Moldova, while still posing stupid questions.

I feel this editor is posing a problem here, but before making wholesale reverts I'd like to have your oppinion, too. Frankly, take the last 50 edits and ask yourselves if they deserve to be preserved. For all the 150, I have no idea, because the diff becomes unreadable. Dpotop (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you would have spent 10 seconds to check the talkpage instead of jumping into poking me, you would have seen that the article was just rejected as a GA-nomination. And the main reason for rejection was lack of references. I have submitted the article for review myself , thinking that the references were not necessary. Apparently, for a GA-article they are. I believe you saw there, were tags I placed a GA-reviewer would like to reference. This does not mean that all that info is going to be eventually referenced, but at least there is a set of references to choose from, to which to add. Nergaal (talk) 13:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw that. But the article after your edits is not better. Then: you added [citation needed] randomly. In the section "Communist Romania" there is a paragraph where one reference is marked on the first sentence. The same reference sources in fact the whole paragraph, in fact, but you chose to place [citation needed] on all sentences!!! Also, you added bits of text that are highly disputable (no relation with the GA process). Also, moving around all paragraphs adds nothing and is not the main problem in the GA process. Dpotop (talk) 13:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
not exactly sure what are you saying. give me a link with what changes you are not ok with. Nergaal (talk) 14:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I am not saying it was better. I am saying I tagged information that could use referencing. And I bet 90%+ of those references are going to be mine. Ok, I am going to add {underconstruction} to remove the confusion. Nergaal (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Anittas

There is currently an ongoing discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding Anittas. He has been blocked indefinitely, however the discussion continues. Since Anittas's main area of interest was Romanian topics, I think many of you have interacted with him the most, so if you want to give your views on the subject, please do so on the AN. TSO1D 19:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Irina Livezeanu

  • I wrote a stub for Irina Livezeanu, referred in wikipedia twice, which was immediately tagged by an overzealous patroller. I have to go away now, and I am afraid some trigger-happy admin may delete it. Please help expanding a bit, to establish notability (I guess she's reputable, since quoted by Encyclopedia Britannica). `'Míkka 06:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Marko Bela, the UDMR, and the recovering of the lands of 1918

It seems that the news concerning Marko Bela's proposed "Noua Descalecare" are not a Romanian-nationalistic hype. They did happen, and are reported in most Romanian newspapers. I cite the English-language Nine O'clock [1]. As Mircea Badea put it, it seems that all the claims of Romanian nationalists were actually right. The Hungarians are separatists, in all senses (not just "cultural").

OTOH, I was wondering: Shouldn't we profondly modify the article UDMR to take this reported fact into account? Mind you, Marko Bela is not one of the "extremist" or "radical" leaders of the UDMR. Dpotop 13:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I know, he denied that his statements had any separatist message. In my opinion, he probably played with ambiguities in order for the Hungarian electors to get the meaning they wanted, and thus attempt to gain back some of the votes his party lost (the baseless accusations he aimed at the president could also help to substantiate this view). Note for example that he mentioned the Mongol invasion as the initial point of "loss", which could make it seem that he was talking about Hungarian inhabitants of Transylvania (using, to nobody's surprise, a variation of the Roeslerian view on Transylvanian history).
Let me stress this: we are not allowed to conduct original research concerning what the policies of the UDMR "mean", so this only adds a "controversial" aspect to the articles in question. It does not and should not serve as a basis for deducing UDMR policies, just as Iliescu's various Marxis-like arguments about property or the rule of law do not make the PSD a communist party. We are here to report, not to pass judgment. Also, as far as I know, the UDMR never rejected the notion that areas of Transylvania should be subject to self-rule - and requesting that is not as polemical or inflammatory as you make it seem (not only because we live in a democracy, but also because many Romanians do not reject this concept). If and when the UDMR as a whole adopts an entirely new policy, we'd be talking some more. And no, not even then would we use the polemical term "separatist" to "define" its policies. Dahn 13:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And, let me add, if we get our political assessments from Mircea Badea, we're in LOL land. (If we're free to speculate o'er here, could Badea's "discovery" that "Romanian nationalists were right" be connected with the fact that the PC and the PRM are busy jumping into each other's arms? Oh, the things that Băsescu's adversaries can do in order to keep hoping that they'll still be in parliament come next year...) Dahn
In the UDMR article there is a "Policy" section, or something like it. This should be updated severely, in the view if these declarations. Unlike you, I find them inflamatory and inacceptable. Dpotop 14:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I find it weird you don't see the difference between local autonomy as it exists in France, for instance, and what these guys want: A regime of full exception from the laws of the Romanian republic. But then, again, I don't revenues allowing me to spend 12 hours/day on Wikipedia promoting openness. Dpotop 14:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Leaving aside the nature of your contributions and your otherwise stated political biases behind many of them, it seems that you can spare the time to use this very page in order to promote your political views - in fact, I'm spending time answering your thesis right now, after you've done me the service of advertising it here.
Illogical. We are talking here about 30 min/day vs. 12 hours. There is not only a quantitative issue (as you seem to imply), but also a qualitative one. In my case, I can work for a living doing something else than editing Wikipedia. Dpotop 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
As for your remark concerning political bias: You mean, bias w.r.t. what average? Because, you may know, bias is defined w.r.t. an average. Dpotop 15:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't care what kind of bias you represent and argue I represent. The fact is that you have consistently edited on the basis of your political opinions and have spent time promoting them in various contexts. Dahn 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Illogical again: Everybody, you included, is conditioned by his/her oppinions. This is why, e.g., you never use Romania Mare as a source. Because your political oppinions make you consider this source unreliable. Or maybe you claim on having some divine political referential? Dpotop 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I claim I have understanding of wikipedia policies. Dahn 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So you claim that Romania Mare (an other sources) have something intrinsically against Wikipedia rules? Something that does not depend on user's oppinions? That's funny. Dpotop 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep. It has to do with its treatment in outside sources. Do I really need to elaborate? Dahn 18:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
So you're so biased, you don't even see your bias. :) The only thing Romania Mare does bad is that its positions are not well-represented on Wikipedia, hence not NPOV. Dpotop 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, good thing I have you to watch over my shoulder. The point, dearest Dpotop, is that, if I pull out any other reliable source (and a helluvalot of scholarly ones) pertaining to Romare, the image of its non-reliability will be clear. I'm sorry this notion isn't already familiar to you, because I do believe it does reflect in your editing. In addition, Romare is known to have repeatedly published false and on counts absurd claims (proven so by several tribunals in this fair land). Your thesis above reinforces my opinion that you consider this project similar to a blog. let me assure you it is not. Dahn 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be projecting a lot, Dpotop. For one, I did not not bring France into the conversation, so you'll have to let me know how come I "don't see the difference". If you find the UDMR proposal inflammatory and unacceptable, I trust you can see how this has marginal relevancy here (though I have to point out the irony that they are part of a government coalition you otherwise claimed to support until just now).
False: I am not alone in considering it inflamatory and unacceptable. Marko Bela was criticised (and made fun of) many Romanian publications not associated with some form of right wing. If you tried to imply that my oppinions are marginal w.r.t. NPOV, then you're off the charts. It's you who has marginal oppinions w.r.t. the mainstream. Dpotop 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't care who shares your views: the point here is that you cannot turn a supposed "change" in the UDMR's agenda into a certainty based on various speculations. Dahn 16:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
If you don't care about who shares my views, then cease to talk about relevance, when relevance is defined by NPOV (which still is a POV). Dpotop 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't seem to get this system, Dpotop: we are here to report neutrally, no matter what opinions we have, and no matter how many people support them. The agreement we refer to does not belong to wikipedians but to outside reliable sources. Dpotop and his friends are not a reference. Dahn 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest you relativize your oppinions, because you tend to be absolutist, which is very un-Wikipedian. Dpotop 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I call the privilege of not taking advice from you on what makes a wikipedian. Secondly, you are the one here who expresses opinions, at this very moment. Thirdly, not that i would consider relativism a merit, but I would be very interested to see you cite me being "absolutist" about anything. For instance, at this very moment, I am arguing about properly reporting on the activities of a party I have no sympathy for (whereas your series of contributions on current events centered on bashing people you have stated disliking - and, in many cases, you have neither attributed nor even checked the facts). Dahn 19:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
At this very moment you are preventing me from adding a reputable source in an article. Moreover, this reputable source describes well and in a succinct way the goals of UDMR. And all of this because the "politically correct" position among Romanian "intellectuals" is to protect UDMR coûte que coûte, just to be anti-nationalistic. Very cliché. Dpotop 20:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Is that so? Care to read my version you're reverting, or are you just getting carried away again? For the rest; i have given you equally reputable sources who do not agree on the implications.
The final part of this last comment of yours is yet another poor attempt at speculating about my motivations, and is a rather shabby projection relating to nothing in this conversation. I can point you the wikipedia guidelines that prevent one from presenting an opinion as a fact and not attributing interpretations. This is what I laid down for you, in simple terms. If you want to discuss my supposed "political correctness" based on that, I'm afraid you're totally tripping. Dahn 21:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What I did say is that we live in a democracy, and they can campaign for this and much more than this as far as the system is concerned. There is also a world of difference between what they said, rather ambiguously, to be about, and what you (and Mircea Badea) claim they are about - as far as this project is concerned (that is, feel free to call them separatist and whatnot on a blog). I specifically fail to see where "full exception from the laws of the Romanian republic" and reshaping Romania's legislative system to provide for autonomy become synonymous.
Cool, we live in a democracy. But we still have the right to report what the leader of an organization declares as goal. If they are separatist, then they should be labelled as such. "Full exception..." is exactly what "separatist" means. They want to be outside in evey conceivable way. Dpotop 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly: reporting. Reporting facts. Not interpretations. Read me the part above where I address this exact point. Dahn 16:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
What the leader of a political party/union says is fact. Then, I can report it. Dpotop 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes: you are to do it in full, and without mixing commentary with facts. Dahn 18:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no commentary of mine in the statement you removed. Just Bela's statement. In full, as I found it on Gandul and other newspapers. Err... No, actually I cut out the part concerning the 16 century. So, I re-added the statement. Dpotop 18:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
That said, as per my previous post, one could easily report on the facts in the respective articles, without making any claims to a self-righteous "breakthrough" of the "Romanian nationalists were actually right" or "UDMR is a separatist party because Mircea Badea says so" type. Dahn 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Separatist because they declare so. Not because MB says so. The common sense remark of MB was that all the remarks of the nationalist leaders were correct. And that all the shit said about "democracy groups", about Hungarians only wanting "cultural autonomy" was... well.. shit. Meant to reduce the influence of the nationalist groups. Dpotop 15:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dpotop, as far as I can tell, "full exception" and "separatism" are words you use, based on an interpretation of what they say. This is basically your argument, and you continue to spend your precious time improvising from it. Is there anything else? Dahn 15:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in the UDMR article I cited the exact words of Bela: He wants the country he lost in 1918. I could not ask for better. Dpotop 16:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Yeah, there is one thing else. You could try to be friendly with Dpotop, as he is treating you with respect. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
The Greek chorus perchance? Dahn 16:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see good old Dahn habits, such as reverting everything based on his innate sensor of original report. "Wikipedia is Dahn", I would say.Dpotop 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

1. That quote does not belong in the lead, per countless guidelines on wikipedia. 2. That quote was not given in full - you may see for yourself in several other third-party sources ([2], [3], [4]) 3. The link in the quote (which, per the MoS, should preferably be avoided) is based on your own personal deduction, and it takes the quote out of its immediate context. 4. You deleted a sourced paragraph previously in the text and replaced with original research - since you drew the conclusion that the previous goals no longer applied (whereas virtually all articles reporting on this make it clear that, at that very meeting, the UDMR actually spoke of several projects of autonomy, which is consistent with what was already in the text). 5. With your edit, you added several controversial views, which have been contested by the UDMR itself for years now.
In short, you have used the article as a platform for the conclusions that you drew on this page. Dahn 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Dahn is in actuality a biased editor who doesn't always take to report all sides of the story. Such was the case with Wallachia and such is the case with many other articles. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
And just what the hell is my bias, Anittas? Let's have it from the most neutral wikipedian alive. Dahn 17:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Your bias is not a result of your political or religious beliefs. I believe that your bias is based on popular approach. Basically, you go with the flow (the flow stands for the majority of self-acclaimed scholars). You take what they say for granted and oppose the representation of other theories, even though they may have merit. I have stated this before: you seem to believe that only you can seperate logic and objectivity from the chaotic realm of nationalism; and in order to do so, you believe that you must suppress theories that are not endorsed by the academia at large. However, that doesn't always mean that the academia does not take them into consideration. I'm obviously not talking about conspiracy theories, but about things that do not relate to nationalism. If, however, one minor theory would gain more credibility in the world of academia, you would probably make a u-turn and support the new theory. In my opinion, you are a righteous person who chooses his collegues on Wikipedia--and most likely in real life--based on what you believe to be their education and social status. In retrospect, you are very territorial and will not hesitate in bullying others whom you deem to belong to the working class and who manifest patriotic sensations. If they have one fault, you will use that against them to discredit their work, whenever you feel that is necessary. --Thus Spake Anittas 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the merit of information, you are basically stating that my bias is obeying wikipedia's guideline and not introducing my bias. Great stuff. As for the rest: even if that were true (and I don't even want to begin considering that it is true or relevant), I fail to see how it relates to my contributions as an editor. Dahn 19:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the merit of information that I am referring to is not in contradiction with the Wikipedia guidelines. As for the other part, it affects your behaviour and approach when dealing with editors. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
1. If true, this does not appear to be indicative of any sort of "bias". 2. I'm currently engaged in a conversation with two people who have called me names and produced all sorts of canards involving me and my character (including very nasty developments of the very allegations you make above). And, by the way, just how many people on this project have asked you to stop trolling just in the past days? If anything, this is what "affects my interactions" with other users, and, interestingly, it is with users who do that. Just in case anybody reading this is buying this perspective of yours. Dahn 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Stop victimizing yourself. No one's going to buy it. We have seen just how friendly you were in this discussion, with a user who was respectful to you. You start picking on people and when they put on a resistence, you start referring to guidelines and start calling them for trolls. Get real, man. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You can lecture me on this and other issues of civility once you stop touring wikipedia to launch into base comments against all inhabitants of Wallachia, once you stop making inflammatory speculations about my "bias", and once you stop calling other editors "bitches". That is what trolling is, Anittas. Perhaps this should give you a dose of what it means to "get real". And, no, man, me being "unfriendly" doesn't begin to compare with that ongoing festival of yours, an iceberg of which the unsubstantiated claims you made just above are merely the tip. I think we're done here. Dahn 19:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Dahn publicly declared he would vote for a UDMR candidate, so why are you even trying to discuss with him? ;)Anonimu 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

And I do believe I have also said that I believe the government coalition discredited itself. Plus, the argument here was about the neutrality of my contributions. Since, based on them, I've been accused of being anything from a Trotskyist to a conservative, your "point" eludes me. Dahn 20:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the commotion that has been made out of this, both here and in the Romanian press, is absolutely ridiculous. The UDMR's goals have been the same for quite a few years now: to gain territorial autonomy for the Szekely Land. Interpreting Marko Bela's comments as some sort of attempt to cede Transylvania back to Hungary and restore Pre-Trianon borders is simply setting up a straw man, and should definitely stay out of the article. The most recent comments by Marko Bela do not, in my opinion, mark any significant shift of doctrine by the party. They have asked for nothing more than territorial autonomy. Whether we personally support that is another issue, but the point is that it would be bad faith and misrepresentation of information to read Marko Bela's latest comments in the way that Dpotop seems to have interpreted them. It is because of this constant misrepresentation that Romanian society cannot have a mature and rational debate on territorial autonomy

Secondly, I would like to clear up this whole "illegality" point which people keep on inserting in the UDMR article from time to time. The allegation is that the UDMR's comments are "illegal" because they contravene Article 1 of the Romanian Constitution, and similarly that the informal referendum conducted in the Szekely Land is illegal. There is absolutely nothing illegal in Romania about political campaigning and political speech that opposes the constitution. Accusing Marko Bela of making an "anticonstitutional" statement because he said that "Romania is no longer a national state" is ludicrous. The constitution doesn't even make it clear what "stat naţional" means - it defines neither was "naţiune" refers to, or who the titular nation is. The accusation levelled against Marko Bela would be like accusing some Orthodox people of being anti-constitutional because they consider Orthodoxy to be the national religion of Romania, or accusing hypothetical federalists because they believe that Romania should not be a unitary state but rather a federation of historical regions. In fact, even territorial autonomy for the Szekely Land would not contravene Article 1 of the Constitution. Only something like the federalism could reasonably go against Article 1 and its provision of "stat unitar". Not to mention that the referendum in the Szekely Land (which was mentioned in the article) was not conducted by the UDMR but rather by the Hungarian Civic Union. Ronline ✉ 06:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

How should we interpret his comments? --Thus Spake Anittas 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's simple: The backbone of the "civil society" of Romania is composed of NGOs that get their money and/or political backing from abroad. To get money, they have to prove they are "fighting for rights". No more fight, no more money. So:
  1. even when stray dogs are a plague, they fight for dog rights.
  2. even when Hungarians go mad with separatist claims, they fight for their rights.
  3. more generally, even when shit is comparable in size with what other countries have, in Romania it is presented out of any proportion, and there are choruses of "democracy fighters" screaming on all wavelenghts that Romania is a catastrophy (I don't even get into "anti-corruption" and "transparency" shit, where these NGOs have even managed to get money from the Romanian government).
This system is now well-oiled, after 17 years of functioning. For the westerners, it's a cheap way of screwing the Romanian government whenever they want (usually in the wake of some other, bigger shit they want to take on Romania). For Romanians, it has become a career, and many youth were raised to believe that throwing shit at Romania is a decent living, and that it "promotes democracy and openness" (unlike in any other European state), and makes one "cool" and "respectable" (regardless of previous political allegiances, etc.). The system also has its pillars: the protection of gays, Hungarians, stray dogs, and the (varying) political figure that is currently supported by some foreign interests (currently, there's some ambiguity, as Basescu and the liberals have both good support). Even if one of the pillars makes a bad move, it must be protected at all cost. In the name of "positive action", of course. :) Dpotop 09:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not to say that problems do not exist, and that some advances were good. But we are now overstepping the lines of decency. Dpotop 09:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I really liked the Romania Libera interview of the Czech ambassador [5]. When asked about "Transparency international", he disconsiders them completely, but dimplomatically. :):) Dpotop 09:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that really answers my question, but all the problems that you have mentioned should be solved overnight, without difficulty. Straydogs should be taken cared of; gays should have equal rights and stuff--but not privilages; Hungarians should have their own thingy, too, whatever that may be. Yes, people throw shit at Romania, many times without cause; but most of the time it's justified. It's sad that people can't identify the real problem that has ruined so much for the country and its people: Bucharest and Muntenians. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's quite insulting to the groups you have mentioned to insinuate that no-one genuinely cares about their rights and is instead only concerned with grants from overseas NGOs. Your view implies that no-one should be concerned about the demands of marginalised groups because these demands are by nature invalid. I know personally that a lot of the people that work in Romanian NGOs are actually committed to their cause: the "Western financing" isn't as great as it seems, and it definitely isn't there for these people to make a profit from.
There may be some dedicated, but the majority, and certainly the ones we see on TV are more concerned with power struggle and money, than the rest. As such, I can make my remarks. As concerns "western financing" not being so big. Well. I presume these NGOs have started to milk even the Romanian government (i.e. taxpayer money) in recent years. I would really like to choose where my taxes go, and certainly not to leeches such as "Transparency International". Dpotop 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Secondly, it's a very common view in Romania that "there are no more rights struggles left to fight for", that somehow there are no reason why Hungarians or gays should ask for any more rights. I think the reason why these groups sometimes adopt more radical dialogue is simply because mainstream Romanian society does not engage with their moderate demands. The common response is, "You've already got your rights. We're not ready". It reminds me exactly of the current situation in Singapore regarding Clause 377A. When the UDMR diplomatically asked for a public debate on territorial autonomy, the offer was pretty much rejected. The same happened when ACCEPT campaigned for registered partnership and same-sex marriage: the response from mainstream Romanian society was silence.
The problem is that of proportion. Most funds are concentrated on issues Romanians don't care for, and wouldn't give money for: gays, Hungarians, etc. Issues such as women's rights and social relief get comparatively less funding, and no word from the part of the "civil society gurus". This is due to the fact that the "civil society" has no roots in the Romanian interests. It represents foreign and Hungarian interests. Period. Dpotop 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As concerns your particular points: UDMR asked for a public debate on territorial autonomy. Ok, all the parties said they are not interested. This was a public debate, and the result is that majority is not interested in it. The Romanian society is also not interested in granting gays more rights. If this happens (which is possible), it will not be because of democracy, but against it. BTW, this "same-sex marriage" shit has been rejected in many countries, and I do not feel Romania has to spearhead the gay rights movement. It has other problems. I am also against it. Dpotop 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That is exactly the problem I am referring to: no one was interested. That is, instead of trying to make a legitimate attempt to rationally discuss the problem, all the parties simply ignored it, without even reasonably explaining their stance. I'm not expecting everyone to be in favour of autonomy; in fact, I agree that there are many rational reasons why there shouldn't be autonomy. However, no party or politician has engaged in the debate; instead, they have either said "No, full stop" or come up with illogical and unreasonable arguments that don't really address the issue. Secondly, the majority has no mandate to decide on the rights of minorities: this is called the tyranny of the majority. If you think about it with a bit more empathy and consideration, you will realise that you can't just tell someone that "We are against it. Full stop. Goodbye." It is a basic sign of respect in a democracy to engage in open debate and bring about a real exchange of ideas. I think your approach sums up exactly what a lot of Romanians think: that they can simply pretend the issue isn't there, hoping it will go away. This only serves to radicalise people. Finally, with regard to "same sex marriage shit" (which is offensive), the fact that it has been rejected in some countries doesn't mean there shouldn't be a debate on it. Remember that same-sex unions have also been approved in many countries, exactly because of open debate. As I have stated previously, the key feature of an open society is free debate. Ronline ✉ 10:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thirdly, it's another very common view in Romania to exaggerate the demands of minorities and to ignore that exactly the same demands are being made in other countries. For some unknown reason, Romanians always think that "they're the target" while other countries "escape unscathed". In fact, the very same discussions about minority rights are being made in countries as diverse as Spain, the UK, Hungary, etc. And I suppose that, in those countries too, there are people going on about how their issues are being presented "out of proportion". I think that the problem stems from this flawed idea that minority rights is a zero-sum game, and that when mainstream society gives minorities more rights, the majority must lose something. Otherwise, I don't understand why there should even be hostility to the pressure placed on Romania to embrace minority rights to a greater degree.
It is common in Romania for the minorities to have unreasonable demands. Romania is not Spain, nor the UK. It has a clear majority. As to Hungary, weren't they who were under investigation for not respecting minority rights some one year ago? I also hate receiving advice from a country that conducted its last successful ethnic cleansing in the last 60 years (the Germans, after WWII). Dpotop 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As to minority rights: The problem is that this entire "minority rights" shit of Romania has nothing to do with minority rights. It's all about land and property (as Bela very well put it). Romanian Hungarians want the biggest part of the Romania cake as they can grab. I say they got enough. Dpotop 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, I think that approach is simply a straw man used in order to trivialise minority rights demands. The same has been done with the Jews and the Holocaust. It is very easy to delegitimse a cause by portraying it as corrupt. Once again, in order to avoid engaging with the issue, the cause is simply portrayed as being about "corrupt interests" or "Western financing". And I guess this sort of thing is "trendy" now in the same way that conspiracy theories about "Noua Ordine Mondială" used to be trendy in the 1990s.
Also, it is convenient to think that Romania has a clear majority. However, the simple fact that minorities are making their voices heard shows that there are significant minorities, and that minority rights issues are not just a marginal problem. The Basques in Spain form around 5.3% of the population, less than the proportion of Hungarians in Romania. Ronline ✉ 10:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Finally - and this is the most important point - the fact that Romania has a "clear majority" doesn't mean that Romanians should be persecuted. Majorities should not have more rights than minorities; neither should they dictate what rights minorities can and cannot have. That sounds less like democracy and more like serfdom. Ronline ✉ 11:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Lastly, the Czech interview: I too agree that the Transparency International index is rather flawed, and I think that's the only point that the Czech Ambassador was trying to make. I don't think he was understating the extent of corruption in the Czech Republic per se. Ronline ✉ 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, take a look at the country presentations on BBC.org, to see where this shit goes, often thanks to Romanian employees. Also take a look at the presentation of the Czech republic. Dpotop 10:06, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Czech Republic indeed has beautiful, smart and witty branding, and I think Romania should do the same. However, Romania won't solve its problems by sweeping minority rights issues under the carpet. In fact, the Czech Republic hasn't done the same in this regard. Its official website, www.czech.cz, contains a lot of very honest news stories about the Czech Republic. The idea is not to lie to the rest of the world, but rather change things in a real fashion so that the image of Romania can be improved. Ronline ✉ 10:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I will only reply here, because it becomes repetitive otherwise.
First of all, it seems to me that you care more about openness than about democracy. You seem to completely ignore the actual ideas of the Romanians, and instead would like to educate them to make them more like... you. This is very illuminist in approach, but then let's drop the masks and cease claiming to be democrats. If not, let Romanians decide what they are interested in. Given the reactions of the street, I presume they would say that gays and Hungarians have enough rights. And cease talking about oppressed minorities, as if there were still Hungarians or gays condemned to prison for what they are. There are only 2 oppressed ethnic minorities in Romania: Gypsies, and Romanians in Harghita and Covasna. Also, if not having gay marriage is oppressing gays, I suggest you go to the US or France and tell them they are oppressing gays. :) Dpotop 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
My second point is that if you keep treating Romanians as retards, you will continue having movements like the Iron Guard, PRM, a.s.o. Why not let, like in Poland, the people decide what they want. It seems to me that's more democratic, and finally more productive for Poland and the others (BTW, what Poland obtained is good for us, too). I remind you that maybe the single grassroots movement of post-1990 Romania was the anti-gay one. Maybe the civil society of Romania should be anti-gay. Otherwise, it's not a civil society, but a cultural colonization facility. Dpotop 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Finally: Why do all Romanians feel they need to morally re-model a somehow unfit Romania? It seems that every Romanian is a mini-Antonescu willing to "improve" the Romanians and their image. Maybe the only thing that needs to be improved is economy and government, to make it more representative (in the proportional sense, not the anarchist one). Dpotop 13:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I forgot: The Czech republic is not Romania. It has a different history, and different people, which are naturally anti-clerical after centuries of anti-popular religious manipulation. You cannot expect Romanians to be Czechs. You can praise the guys, but you cannot say Romanians are not as good, because they have other values. Dpotop 13:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You are right in saying that I care more about openness than democracy, if you mean democracy as simply "majority rule". Your point is, however, rather contradictory. On one hand, you claim that Romanians should be given self-determination to look after their own affairs without "Western" interference - "let the Romanian people decide what they want". On the other hand, you oppose the right of minorities within Romania to have that same self-determination. If we replace "Romanians" with "Szekelys" in your argument, we get something like, "If you keep treating the Szekelys as retards, you will get extremist movements forming". In fact, the Basques and the (Northern) Irish are a case in point. My question is this: why should a person from Craiova or Tulcea have the right to decide on the rights of Szekely people in Miercurea Ciuc? Why should a heterosexual Romanian have the right to deny same-sex marriage to same-sex couples? Fundamentally, how is that different to a French NGO deciding on the rights of Romanians? If we're talking about letting the people decide what they want, why is it that you're advocating that some people should be allowed to decide for others? Giving people rights to take away the rights of others is the big paradox of majoritarianism. I support everyone doing what they want with their life as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. Thus, Romanians should be free to live their life how they want to, but they do not - and can not - have the "right" to restrict the rights of others. This reminds me of a video that ran in California a while ago about same-sex marriage, showing a man going around to different households asking for the right to marry. The message was: why should the minority be forced to bargain with the majority for their rights, when the majority does not have to do the same? Ronline ✉ 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, let's focus on gays, because you seem to care about them most (are you on payroll in some NGO? never mind).
So: How are gays denied rights in Romania? The **only** revendication I can see today is the prohibition of gay marriage (couples are not prohibited, one can do whatever he wants). Ok. Why do gays want to marry in Romania? For the symbolistic of marriage? I guess not. Because they could get married in the Netherlands, and I even presume there are churches, even in RO, performing same-sex religious marriage. So, actually, it's for property-related issues, and maybe adoption.
At this point, I remind you asked me "why should these guys be constrained by the other"? Well, when it comes to adoption, the same-sex relation will have an influence on someone external to the couple (the community grants them the guard of the child), so the community has a right to dictate conditions of its choice.
We are therefore left with the property-related issues, at which point I will ask you if you agree with the above before proceeding into more complicated issues. Dpotop 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you, and I think it's this sort of reasoned discourse that should take place in Romanian society rather than just saying "No" full stop. So, to expand. The only main legal right denied to Romanian gays is relationship recognition. Full relationship recognition would include marriage as well as the full legal rights associated with this. Adoption is, indeed, another issue which I agree is a lot more complex and actually does have a wider range of implications (even though, after evaluating these, I support it). So yes, we are left with the rights of marriage, be it property-related issues or all the other benefits that stem from marriage in Romania. And yes, I do work for an NGO, but I am not paid for it. Ronline ✉ 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As to the Czech Republic: you brought it up in a positive light, not me. I'm not expecting Romanians to be Czechs. But you can't use the idea of different "cultural values" as an excuse to justify denial of rights to minorities. Furthermore, my particular concern with Romania is that this argument of "majoritarianism" is more prevalent here than in nearly any other country I have been to. There is this idea that if you're born as part of a minority group, be it ethnic or sexual, you must succumb to the will of the majority: effectively, you become a second-class citizen in the public discourse, because the "majority must always prevail". To me, this is not democracy: this is nothing more than rule by one group over another. Ronline ✉ 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I did not bring the CR i a positive light, far from it. I have just outlined that not having czechs thowing shit at their country is useful (even though they may have their problems at home). Dpotop 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
BTW, democracy is the rule of one group over another. What constrains the use of power is the state of law, which is a different thing. Democracy and the state of law are often going hand in hand. What you propose is different and anti-democratic. You do not want to leave the people choose their laws. It's the basis of absolutism. Of course, you can also have absolutism and a state of law, but nowadays this is somehow outdated. Dpotop 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I never argued that denying same-sex marriage is "oppression" and not even that France and the US are role models in this case. Romania shouldn't legalise same-sex marriage to keep up with European trends, but simply because it is the right thing to do in order to ensure equality. If bringing about the equality takes foreign pressure, than so be it. That foreign interference is no more morally wrong than the Romanian majority's interference with the rights of gays. Ronline ✉ 14:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"simply because it is the right thing to do"... says Ronline. :)
I do not agree. Marriage, as a set of material advantages, is an institution that has grown up to reward couples that (traditionally) procreate. Indeed, you may be right that from a civil POV the advantages should be dissociated from the couple, and attached to the procreation and the child. Still, marriage has a function that is biologically closed to male gays, for the time being at least. Which means that, technically, there can be no equality. It would be like denying maternal leave to women on the grounds that it's discriminating against men. :):):) Dpotop 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I have just realized that our UDMR problem is just part of our old problem with the Soviets. What could we expect, when the official name of the UDMR defines it as a Szovetseg? :) Dpotop 10:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, "szovetség" has nothing to do with Soviets or the USSR...the word does come from the Slavic "sovet" meaning "council", but it just means "organization" in Hungarian. No communist implications... :-) K. Lásztocska 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Democracy has nothing to do with rights; and there is nothing that says that one should have a right, unless you attach that statement to a moral. Rights are taken and rarely given. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, therein lies the flaw of pure democracy (and I use "pure" here because the current, Western understanding of democracy is rather more complex than simple "majoritarian democracy"). I don't believe giving people control over the rights of others amounts to nothing more than coercion. I believe in the concept of inalienable human rights, and it is that concept which majoritarianism goes against: under majoritarianism, anything goes as long as the majority wants it. To use the classical example: if rights can be taken away, then the right to life can also be taken away; and what would prevent 51% of the population killing the other 49%? Remember, at the risk of conforming to Godwin's Law, that the Holocaust could be perfectly compatible with pure democracy. Ronline ✉ 14:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Ronline, this makes for 2 Hitler citations in 3 hours. You're out of decent arguments, which should be expected, given that you try to prove that democracy is not good. Dpotop 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Democracy is not fool-proof alone. You have to take into account the population. Techically, Western democracy is pure majority rule. For instance, NGOs have practically no influence in France. The same should be in Romania, and then the population will decide which rights are granted to whom. I presume that doing so will result in no same-sex marriage (but no pogrom, either), and no autonomy for the Hungarians, maybe some more informal church-state relations, like in Poland or Greece. Which is Ok within Europe, and very advanced w.r.t. the world as a whole. And when, and if Romanians are ready, they can grant more rights. Without resentment, as it happens today, when "liberties" are forced upon Romanian's throats. Dpotop 14:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The Hitler citations don't have anything to do with running out of arguments: they are simply a way to show where extending your argument will lead. Now, I would like to clarify that I believe in democracy, at least in the contemporary Western sense, with free elections and all that. However, I believe that Western democracy is not at all pure majority rule. It is a majority rule that is heavily counterbalanced by the rule of law and checks and balances such as human rights laws which ensure the protection of minorities. Furthermore, as I have previously argued, it is unconscionable to force minorities to wait for their rights until Romanians are "ready". From a social cohesion perspective, I agree that your approach (a sort of consensus democracy, I guess) produces better outcomes, but this social cohesion comes at the cost of minority rights (which is a common feature of mildly authoritarian regimes like Singapore, where collective harmony is placed over individual rights). Ronline ✉ 15:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your point. I was just saying that Democracy has nothing to do with rights. Even if you give gays and Hungarians whatever they want, the problem will persist. As a Libertarian, I don't want anyone telling someone else what he may and may not do. That includes teens. I also think that non-human animals should have rights, yet over 100 million of them are abused annually in experiments only, including dogs and cats. In politics, rights are mostly discussed from a perspective that pertains to the interest of the many, not from a moral point of view. I find that to be of a greater concern. --Thus Spake Anittas 14:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, agreed, including the animal rights part. In fact, I believe that the libertarian opposition to gay rights is the only legitimate opposition to gay rights (and this could equally apply to things like territorial autonomy). Ronline ✉ 14:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Animal rights... Right. I have two questions for both of you:
  1. When did you or your girlfriend use a good lotion (sun, moisturizing, etc.)? You know, they are good because they are tested on animals.
  2. Do you have kids? Do you have stray dogs in your neighborhood? Are you willing to pay hard money (tax money, but still) for these dogs to be impounded and not killed?
For my part, my family never (maybe "almost never") uses what I would call "vanity" drugs. Still, when it comes to the safety and well-being of my family I am for tests on animals. The same way I am not a vegetarian, i.e. without unneeded cruelty. Dpotop 15:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You know, if you go onto "animal rights", maybe you should also care about "vegetable rights", and get into the variety of vegetarian approaches (some Indians only eat grains). Dpotop 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You are now manifesting the Muntenian stereotype of a retard. Muntenians believe they have a strong character for not caring about the well beings of other animals. These are also the people that hit the ground pretty fast. My message was meant to be taken seriously, not being mocked by an idiot like yourself. I don't care for all animals. For example, I don't care about you. If you die, tough nuggets. You must be the reincarnation of Einstein to recognize the fact that animals are used in tests that pertain to make-up; altough there are products that state that their products have not been animal tested. If animal tests that pertain to medicine can be justified, then this animal test, where dogs are forced to inhale cigarette smoke for 3 hours per day, until the day they die, is harder to justify. If you're an idiot and decide to smoke, then you--and you only--should take the consequences of your choice:--not some animal who is forced to inhale smoke while being locked up in a cage and never see the sun outside. Now get your hairy Muntenian ass out of here. Go cry to some admins or something. I don't give a fuck. --Thus Spake Anittas 15:30, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
How does this guy get away with his constant anti-Wallachian hate speech?? You'd think someone would have called him on it by now?! K. Lásztocska 01:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Simple: He does not deserve such a punishment. There are several guys that were quite destabilized by Wikipedia. I know of 3: Bonaparte, Anittas, and Anonimu. Bonaparte and Anittas did try to be gentle in the beginning, but were driven mad by the Moldovan-related business and some Soviet editors. I have witnessed it. Since then, Bonaparte is banned, and Anittas managed to have his ban overturned. Anonimu was also quite moderate in the beginning. Dpotop 08:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
If you keep ignoring NPA, one day you'll see your name on ANI. Of course I was quite moderate in the beginning. Wikipedia is well known for its bias towards "established users". If I, as a new user, would have tried to remove the lies imposed by decades of nationalism championed by the ceausescu era and post coup education systems, I would have been reverted in no time. Now, with my 2+ experience, I only have to talk with other "established users" when I have a problem. As wikipedia grows, and its policies are better enforced, the life of a newbie gets harder and harder. Just look at the user list at the bottom... the last real entries are from 2006 (the ones from 2007 being a greek and an "established user").Anonimu 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey, Anonimu, You talkin' to me? FYI, I joined this board on February 24, 2007, which is less than 3 months after I started editing at WP, on November 26, 2006. Anything wrong with that? As for being "established" by then, I dunno. What I remember vividly, though, is that my first close encounter as a newbie was with some unfriendly guy who was trying to whitewash the crimes committed at the Canal by the Commies. Ah, the memories. Turgidson 17:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me if I've offended you by calling you an "established user". Actually, I think that user was just enforcing wikipedia policies... you know, those things you should be correctly enforcing too by now...Anonimu 19:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, you are off the line (did you smoke smth?). I am Moldavian by parents, so your "hairy" stuff may as well apply to you. Also, your example is probably badly chosen. If I recall well, the poorer the people, the greater is the probability they smoke. So, given Moldova is currently the poorest region of Romania, I presume that the percentage of "smoking idiots", as you call them (and I agree with you) is greatest in Moldova. BUT: you missed my point. For instance: Would you terminate all research on vaccines because it's started (in some cases) on animals? Even harder to decide ethically: If your child needed an organ, would you accept it to be grown on a mouse created for that purpose? Does your girlfriend buy beauty creams [6]? If you ever bought her some nifty cream, then you're as guilty of animal cruelty as that smoker, because beauty (vanity) is no more a justification for cruelty than smoking. Dpotop 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are beautycreams that have not been tested on animals. As for medical research, if they must be conducted on animals, then the animals should be treated with respect and cared for as much as possible. --Thus Spake Anittas 13:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
My point: There is no absolute right or truth. Everything is decided by the society, including who lives and who dies (don't be rush in saying that Europeans are beyond this, and remember euthanasy). Decisions are made through a political process, not a scientific one. Which is good, because science has no moral by itself. And democracy (pure one, the one and only true democracy) is the best way to make decisions that benefit a majority of people. Dpotop 15:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
With regard to animal rights: I haven't investigated the case long enough to make an informed judgement. I tend to be humanist in my positions, and thus animal rights have not been a significant concern to me, but I do believe greater attention should be paid to this.
See my answer to Anittas. It is a complex ethical question, and people should be informed. Don't think I do not care about animals. For instance, I think campaigning against fur usage outside traditional niches (e.g. in the eskimos) is good. I also think medical testing should be well constraint. However, there is medical research that should go on. Dpotop 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As to your point about democracy: I agree that it is efficient in a utilitarian sense, in that it makes decisions that benefit the majority. However, I think simply benefiting the majority is not good enough. There need to be checks and balances in place to ensure that the majority does not have the right to restrict the rights of minorities. It is for this reason that I support legal protections for minorities. It is for this reason that I also believe that the only people who should be voting on the autonomy of the Szekely Land should be the inhabitants of the region itself. As with euthanasia, I support it, because I believe that only the individual should have immediately control over their body. I think euthanasia is particularly important point with regard to democracy because, like same-sex marriage and territorial autonomy, it involves people having to ask others for rights that really shouldn't have a say at all. Ronline ✉ 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
When functional, democracy also leads to minorities' rights being protected. I have yet to see a functioning democracy where the majority decided to harm a minority. Of course, it's again a question of ethics to decide which kind of minorities qualify (the minority of thieves does not qualify, for instance).
What I am trying to say is that to appear to think there exist some general rights of all humans that do not depend on the current status of the society. I say there are no such rights, as history has shown. Dpotop 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And to answer one post above. Of course current Western democracy is majority rule. With various degrees of majority (simple, qualified), and various time-smoothing techniques to eliminate political spikes. But, for instance, and to return your Hitler citation, if France turns fascist tommorrow, and stays so for several years, there is no watchdog that can hold. Dpotop 18:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Something that hasn't been brought up here, but I think is relevant: perhaps the panic over Marko Bela's comments is rooted in fears of "another Kosovo" happening, especially given that that province in poised to declare independence. I need not list the parallels (though there are important differences too), but Romanians may be afraid that the path the UDMR is leading down may end up where Kosovo is now. That's probably not a legitimate fear in the short to medium term, but I applaud any manifestation of nationalism, Orthodoxism and a firm desire to maintain the territorial integrity of the Romanian state (and hopefully expand it to 1923 borders, within the political system then prevailing), so I'm not complaining. Much more refreshing than this mindless kowtowing to the increasingly out-of-control Brussels dictatorship. Biruitorul 04:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"perhaps the panic over Marko Bela's comments is rooted in fears of "another Kosovo" happening". You bet so. Especially when Putin is threateing us with it [7]. The FSB (ex-KGB) has a long hand in Romania. 87.91.12.204 14:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Women's suffrage in Romania

In Timeline of women's suffrage, it is stated that Romania granted the right to vote to women in 1946, and with restrictions. Wouldn't that be 1938 (under the constitution of Carol II), and 1946, without restrictions? Dpotop 12:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

A really bad article and possible copyright infringement

A while ago, someone added a long text that I thought to be a combination of useful information, original research, POV and unsourced statements, to the article Glodeanu-Siliştea. I had started to clean it up a little, but abandoned the project due to lack of time. Now when I looked a little closer, I noticed that the text is an almost mot-à-mot translation of the ro-wiki article, which in turn is a verbatim copy of a copyrighted material located here. So... what should be done? Delete the text altogether or extract useful information, rephrase and cite the source? Needless to say, should we choose the latter, I may need help from someone, as my time to spend on wp is rather limited. Thanks.- Andrei 15:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to say "delete". The info could be picked up, trimmed and rephrased at any time, using the original source or the version in the article's history. Dahn 01:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Now a harmless stub, if anyone cares. - Jmabel | Talk 08:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Really bad articles

There's been a proliferation of these lately. I know we have a to-do box, but that doesn't seem to get checked very often, so I've made a list just below that. Feel free to add more, and to remove items once they're reasonably cleaned up. I'm not talking FA status, but come on. Some of these things are just mind-blowingly terrible. They make us look bad and they make Wikipedia look bad, so let's work on some cleanup. (If someone highly objects to the list, remove it, but I do think it serves its purpose.) Biruitorul 05:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles that need attention

History of Transylvania

Unfortunately, here we go again... This time is User:Koppany who is insisting in putting incorrect data in the Historical population table. I don't want to start an edit war with him and unfortunately he does not really want to participate in a discussion on the talk page. Please have a look in there. In a few words, he is trying to add some estimation numbers (apparently taken from a Hungarian book, but I cannot find them) next to official data from censuses. This is just wrong. And this is without even starting any discussion on how accurate the estimations are. In fact, this was the reason some time ago it was decided to have in there just official census data. Alexrap (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Trianon

There seems to be another push of Hungarian revisionism. Now, the guys are trying to present with no explanations a map drawn by Count Teleki in the 1920s. Such an obvious propaganda item should be either labelled as such, or deleted. :) Dpotop (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghenadie Şonţu

Please verify the notability of this guy. Self-promo? `'Míkka>t 06:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say: (1) everything about him online looks like self-promotion. (2) He looks like a reasonably competent and occasionally interesting artist, but I can't see any evidence of encyclopedic notability. - Jmabel | Talk 08:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanian resistance movement

Suprising glaring red link to be stubbed, at least (mostly WWII context, but see Polish resistance movement for ideas).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say if it there ever existed one as such, and, outside what pre-1989 propaganda said, there is very little documentation available. The one party who did claim to have organized some form of violent resistance was the Communist Party, with its circa 1,000 members and (let's suppose, for the sake of the argument) three times as many sympathizers. However, most of its activists were rounded up and sent to jail and Romanian camps (where they fared okay) or to Transnistrian camps (where they were butchered) from as early as 1941 (some before), and their remaining leader Ştefan Foriş was assassinated after the war, by his rivals, for, among other things, not taking steps to organize any sort of resistance. Since, before Barbarossa, the Communists were ordered not to do anything against the government (even at a time when the government was formed by the Iron Guard!), there can be no question of pre-1941 resistance, and the window of time between when Antonescu started rounding up communists and the start of Barbarossa is minuscule - meaning that many to most of the communists arrested were passively waiting to be picked up by the gendarmes. To give you more context: the party was struggling to stay afloat ever since 1934 (if not earlier), the gendarmes already knew and infiltrated its entire organizational structure, and, after what Antonescu did in January-June 1941, the Communist Party's total leadership outside of prison comprised Foriş, his secretary, and two other guys. Filimon Sârbu, Francisc Panet and Ion Vincze were possible exceptions to the rule, though it is hard to discern exactly what happened in their cases and exactly how relevant it was for the situation as a whole.
Outside of this, the only info I was able to find about people opposing the Antonescu regime in an organized (but quite non-violent and probably inefficient) way refers to Gheorghe Ursu and Iordan Chimet, both of whom were very very young. There might have been a more substantial resistance movement in Bessarabia, but, if so, it has more to with the Soviet partisans than with a local Romanian movement. [Note: I'm not saying that, if the latter turns out to be the case, the red link should not eventually be filled.]
What I'm getting at, overall, is that the issue demands lots of careful consideration, and that it should not be taken for granted that there was a resistance movement in Romania just because countries in similar circumstances had resistance movements of their own. I personally deplore that almost complete lack of relevant opposition to fascism in WWII Romania, but I do have to note that there were some good reasons why that was: most Romanian parties, including left-wing ones other than the communists, feared and resented the Soviets more than they feared or resented Antonescu/Hitler, and for justifiable cause as far as Romania was concerned at the time; Antonescu advertised himself as a moderate who put a stop to the Iron Guard's excess, and the political opposition was grateful that, at the very least, there were no longer any Legionaries around to use anti-fascists for target practice; Romania's affiliation to the Allies had crumbled (largely due to Romania) - even though the pro-Allied Romanians - who, as it turned out in 1944, were a silent majority - would have preferred a democratic rule, they had neither a choice to make or the belief that the Allies could win the war. Dahn (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
What about Northern Transylvania? I'm not sure whether there was any anti-Hungarian resistance or not. bogdan (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Be that as it may, it was technically "resistance in Hungary", wasn't it? Just like the extermination of Jews in that region is logically part of "Holocaust in Hungary", and like the Romanian-organized extermination of Jews in Transnistria is not part of a potential "Holocaust in the Soviet Union" or "Holocaust in Ukraine" or "Holocaust in Moldova" etc. Right? Dahn (talk) 17:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And yet there is an article called Holocaust in Poland. (yeah, I know that the Polish got annoyed when some western press used the expressions "Polish concentration camps" and "Polish gas chambers") bogdan (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but I think that may have to do with two separate things: moves to subsection the generic article and the fact that Germans kept most of Poland as a separate entity, a colony of sorts (granted, so was Transnistria - which, yes indeed, may provide a distinct way for structuring wiki content, of which the largest chunks are still missing! but that is a separate discussion; at least for now, applying the system to Germany's satellites and their regional units would just be pretentious). Personally, to strip away most of the ambiguity, I would title that page "in occupied Poland" or "in German-occupied Poland" or "in Nazi-occupied Poland". Dahn (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
See here: "Professor Dennis Deletant has been awarded a £5,100 pounds small research grant by The British Academy for a project entitled Anti-Fascist and anti-Communist resistance in Romania, 1940-1964. This project will run from 1 July 2007-31 May 2009." So it'll be a while before the book on this comes out, and at that point, it may prove worthwhile to read and adapt its contents into an article. Biruitorul (talk) 23:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
That would certainly help us bridge the 1940-45 gap. I'll also do my best to get my little hands on that book once it's out. I can only hope it is as substantial and informative as Deletant's other books, and not just "on pages 2 to 3, we cover the antifascist resistance movement; one pages 2 to 550, we discuss the anticommunist maquis" :). Dahn (talk) 00:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Iasi-Chisinau_Offensive poll

This is a recurring fight/argue/debate that some of you will know what is it about just from the name. Leave a vote or something. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Poll on naming convention

Ongoing poll and discussion about a new naming convention at User_talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian_experiment#Proposed_naming_convention. Please take a look. Squash Racket (talk) 06:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

For the cities names, which is the convention – to use the name of the town at the referred moment in history or the present time name ?
As an example, Sighetu Marmaţiei, now in Romania, is the birthplace of Simon Hollósy (Romanian Simion Corbu). The town was called Máramarossziget at the time, since it was in Austro-Hungarian Empire, but the Romanians called it Sighetu Marmaţiei even at that time.
Which is the name that should be used for the article ?
Morosanul (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would recommend a book published in 1797 written by Vali Andras, he list of all localties of Kingdom of Hungary (w/o Transylvania) and there you can find all names of the villages/towns used that time. It is republished in Slovakia recently. Maramarossziget is there, since it is not Transylvania. Unfortunately it is in Hungarian. The town had also very high Jewish population in late 19th/early 20th century (upto 50%). So in this case RO/HU/Rusin/Jiddish/whatever would be correct--Vargatamas (talk) 14:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Source on/by Andrei Plesu

Andrei Plesu published in Adevarul an article on himself. Maybe we can use it as a source [8]. Minor remark: The article made me laugh and my impression on Plesu is even lower than before. The guy rhetorically asks: "Why am I not emigrating from Romania" (given the obvious problems he lists). I'd say the answer is simple: Money and power. Leaving Romania would transform the guy into nobody. Dpotop (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Please process

See Talk:Michael I of Romania#Page protection `'Míkka>t 01:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Spam

Can someone please see if this guy's edits are spam? I reverted them once, but I need a second opinion. — AdiJapan 19:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review

Just a bullet list of things people might want to review.

Was Levski a teacher in Dobruja or Bessarabia?

Hey guys, I've been tidying up and improving the Vasil Levski article. From the sources, I have established that he was a teacher in what the authors say were the villages of Enikyoy and Kongas "in Dobruja near Tulcea": according to all accounts, the villages were neighbouring or at least relatively close. But even though I found some leads that the old name of Mihail Kogălniceanu, Tulcea was Enichioi (can someone confirm that?), I've been unable to locate any Kongas/Congas/whatever-sounds-like-it near Tulcea. I did, however, locate Congaz in Gagauzia (southern Moldova) and an Enichioi, Cantemir not far from it.

Mihail Kogălniceanu was Yeniköy/Enichioi according to http://www.gondola.hu/cikkek/37562 and http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mihail_Kogălniceanu,_Tulcea bogdan (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I want to be at least partially sure that I'm not making a mistake by adding that to the article, as the Bulgarian sources on Levski's life all claim Kongas and Enikyoy were near Tulcea. The two regions are pretty far apart although they were both in the Ottoman Empire in the 1860s when that episode took part, so that would be a pretty big overlooking on the part of Bulgarian historiography. Does anyone know of any village/former village/old village name near Tulcea that sounds like Kongas? Am I on the right track by looking for those villages in Bessarabia? Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 20:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Congaz is the old name (throught the 1970s) of the nearby village of ro:Rândunica, Tulcea, which is part of the same M. Kogalniceanu Commune.Baltaci (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much guys, that explains it all :) Todor→Bozhinov 20:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Mircea Badea

I've reverted some egregious WP:BLP violations that have been allowed to sit there for days. More eyes on the article, and adding some sources wouldn't be bad. Pcap ping 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Romanians living abroad at Romanians

There's an ongoing problem there with User:Danh claiming that the hundreds of thousands of Romanian citizens living in Spain and Italy are ... not of Romanian ethnicity. It may be true that not all of them are, but seems a ridiculous to insist on this given the overall ethic composition of Romanian citizens. Danh also claims that those living in Spain and Italy are migrant workers, so they shouldn't be counted as living abroad, even though the census bureaus in these countries do count them as living there. He's basically pushing his own version of WP:TRUTH, i.e. ethnic Romanians don't live abroad in large numbers. He's also labeling editors that disagree with him as "rudimentary trolls". Pcap ping 14:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest a Request for Comment as otherwise it's jut an invitation for edit warring. "Migrant" Latvians living abroad working in the EU, for example, are no longer counted as residing in Latvia and are instead counted by the country of residence. I don't see that Romanians are any different. Making an economic choice to feed yourself and your family is not a choice which in any way denigrates one's ethnic heritage, and it's a choice which should encyclopedically be recognized. There's no reason to push "Well, they haven't REALLY 'left'". While this may reflect poorly on Romanian (the country) demographics, there's no implication of anti-nationalist "Romania sucks so I'm leaving" sentiment, which might (speculation on my part) be an editorial motivation here. -PētersV (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Pēters, you are missing the point, and are referring to people who, as you claim, are for sure not counted at home. Read below to see what the problems are in this case. Dahn (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I can only characterize Pcap's comments as one of the most absurd misinterpretations of anything I have ever said on wikipedia. The man is either doing it on purpose (in which case he or she is trolling) or fails to locate the source of a simple problem (despite several posts in which I have pointed it out for him/her).

Once and for all. People who are not permanent residents in countries outside Romania, or citizens of other countries, are counted in Romania (if anything, for no other reason than that the Romanian census predates the outsourcing exodus). The Spanish and Italian statistics cited in this context clearly mention that this is the case: those people are Romanian citizens who happen to be in those two countries, and who are counted as such for administrative reasons. Moreover, their number greatly fluctuates with seasonal migration (some have returned since, some are leaving, some have changed status), and most of those people, unless homeless to begin with, have a registered domicile in Romania. The basic issue here is that, through such creative maths, and by using sources against themselves, we are not only in breach of WP:OR, we are also leading readers to believe that are hundreds of thousands more Romanian people than there actually are, simply because we count those temporarily absent twice (at home and abroad) and make no distinction between those temporary residents and actual diaspora (i.e. citizens or at least permanent residents of other countries).

One more relevant issue. For obvious reasons, none of those statistics will refer to the subject of the article, i.e. the Romanian ethnicity. I am anything but a nationalist, and have always made clear that I consider one's ethnicity largely on entirely subjective, and mostly irrelevant, but the article will be about ethnicity no matter what I think. It stands to reason, and I don't plan to be challenging it (if ethnicity is subjective as its core, it is still about that subjectivity). Now, none of the statistics invoked for seasonal migrants refers to their ethnicity, and thank god for that. They refer to their citizenship. No matter how many presumptions one can make about them being "mostly ethnic Romanians" (as Pcap did), those presumptions would still be in breach of WP:OR. Not to mention that they would ignore there being a sizable Romani migration from Romania, which, I do recall, was the subject of much discussion not longer than some months ago.

I would also thank Pcap to cite my username correctly. Dahn (talk) 03:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh and, btw: I have also clarified my "rudimentary trolls" comment in an earlier post on the relevant talk page. For those of you unfamiliar with the issue, I will summarize it here: all that overcounting was deliberately introduced by a user who was since banned or permablocked (I admit I don't recall that detail) not just for playing around with info, but also (and mainly) for attacking other users with the most vile of insults. Those edits were supported by another famous banned user, through a variety of sockpuppets - all of which were also banned. It is that category of users I was referring to in that post, and I stand by my comment. They and their agenda are the source of the problem, and I find it ironic that, because they bypassed a logical issue and polluted the text with their wishful thinking, we are still discussing it some years after. Dahn (talk) 03:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Romanian National Archives' communist era photos

FYI, see these discussions about a gold mine full of free Romanian Communism-related photos.- Andrei (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedians%27_notice_board/Archive_11&oldid=1141881499"