Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 7

Photos again

[This is an abbreviated version of a section now on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive5]

One photo still needing identification:

Thank you, Eugen Ivan, for ID'ing one one December 23 (archived on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive6)

Photos sought

Bucharest

• Writers' Union of Romania / Uniunea Scriitorilor din România, Calea Victoriei 133, Bucharest; if I remember correctly, it is a rather elegant building that also houses an upmarket restaurant. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• State Jewish Theater / Teatrul Evreiesc de Stat (TES), str. Dr. Iuliu Barasch - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Bulandra Theatre, both halls. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Botanical Garden of Bucharest - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Sibiu area

• Răşinari. We actually have one photo. I have more on 35mm, which I could scan sometime. More for Commons than for the 'pedia, I guess. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also one of Emil Cioran's house (see the link). Dahn 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

People

• Maia Morgenstern - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Women and petroleum

(Considered separately, not together!) First, I wonder if there are any Romanian women on en.wiki. Don't get me wrong - you gentlemen are a wonderful group and I'm truly glad to be working with you. However, women do form half of Romanian society and their perspective would be useful, both on Romania-related articles as a whole, and on articles specifically about women. For example, there is a Feminism in Poland article; one on the Romanian equivalent would be appreciated. Thus, I propose a recruitment drive - let's turn our sisters, wives, female friends and other relations into active Wikipedians!

Second, I've been pondering the creation of an article on the Romanian oil industry. However, I haven't been able to find extant articles on more important industries - there's no article called "Saudi oil industry", for instance. Should this be a problem? And does anyone have information on the industry and its history so we can get something started? Biruitorul 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Great thoughts, man. I may contribute stuff for both articles, but I'd rather not build them from scratch (I'm still dragging through with other major edits).¹ Dahn 06:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

___________

¹Yes, that's right: I use much of this space to advertise my awesomeness. Dahn 06:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On the first point, you have at least Zizi Lambrino and Elena Lupescu, as well as our former queens, and Ecaterina Teodoroiu.

On the second, it's complicated. Does your "oil industry" include the heavy industry for building equipment? Dpotop 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is a history of Feminism a history of known women? None of those girls was a feminist,and writing an article on such a shabby basis of would become a tribute. If you want feminists, we have Dora d'Istria, Maria Rosetti, Sofia Nădejde, and Ecaterina Arbore. If you want to approximate, we have the first woman pilot Smaranda Brăescu and some other pioneers in their fields (not just "women we thought you'd like to know about"). And check these out: [1], [2], [3]. Dahn 08:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The original question of Biruitorul was "I wonder if there are any Romanian women on en.wiki". I think that reducing women to feminism is... ahem... not intelligent. And I presume that Biruitorul just gave one example with his Feminism in Poland. What we need indeed is a nice article Women in Romania, or something like this, resuming their contribution to the history of the country, and to its institutions. This includes, but is hopefully not restricted to, the feminist movement. And if you want to talk about Women organizations in Romania, then there's another article, including women's branches of some political parties (including PCR), girl/women schools, etc. Very interesting, but again, not restricted to feminism (which was quite insignificant in Romania compared to what you had in some western countries). Dpotop 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

1. The original question posed by Biruitorul was "are there any women editors on wikipedia?".
2. An article on Women in Romania would be painfully grotesque as a concept, vague to the point of sheer uselessness, and another playground for original research. Wikipedia specifically rejects articles created on the basis of vague concepts. Why must we always ponder alternatives that everybody else dismisses?
3. The article on feminism would inevitably contain info about the social context, placed where it ought to be. Apparently, based on just that, I found two articles which are long enough to be sources for any FA article, and they are both incomplete (because, Dpotop, what we haven't investigated is not necessarily irrelevant, and wikipedia should be an instrument to gather relevant information about even the most obscure topics). Btw, most women organizations would count as some form of feminism or at least reaction to it. Dahn 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. My bad. Dpotop 10:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Good discussion. Let me clarify a few points. First, as to the general category of Romanian women, I think we have a fair number of articles on those: royalty, politicians, athletes, authors, etc., though of course more await creation. I didn't "reduce women to feminism"; I said that a female editor (whom we apparently lack) might be more adept at writing an article on feminism, though with the pieces Dahn pointed out, that's not really vital, but wouldn't hurt.

As for the oil industry article, yes, some technical discussion would be necessary, but that's not my area of expertise. I do know someone at Petrom who might help with that. My own focus would be on history and geopolitics. Just think: the pre-war Western involvement, WWII of course, then the effect on Romania's post-war development, and that of the ca. 1970 oil peak - leading to Ceauşescu's courting of Iran (I wonder if he regretted not extending his stay in sunny Tehran for a couple of weeks that fateful December), and even today - 24% of Romania's gas consumption comes from Russia, as opposed to 94% for Bulgaria. Biruitorul 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly, I welcome the ladies. I may be wrong, but I think we have no Romanian woman involved in the wiki project... which is just sad.

I do know of one, User:Emily007, but she isn't very active here, though she is an admin on ro.wiki. But for all practical purposes, the number is indeed zero. I've heard that Wikipedia as a whole is 80% male, so even getting to 20% women would be a challenge. Oh, well. Biruitorul 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that people assume there are no female Romanian Wikipedians just because no Romanian Wikipedian has declared herself to be a woman. This is interesting from a socio-cultural point of view, since it seems, in our andronormative society, that people are automatically assumed to be male unless they explicitly state they are female. We don't know the gender of many Romanian Wikipedians, and perhaps it's likely there may no women, but I think assuming male gender when there is no gender stated is a bit sexist :) In any case, feminist theory aside, I think your proposal is very good Biruitorul. The Feminism in Romania article would be really good; I'll see what research I can do. Ronline ✉ 06:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If the statistic that 80% of Wikipedians are male is correct, then being a female here is unusual, so, in the absence of other factors (like a female-sounding nickname) I do in fact assume people are male, though often unconsciously so. I gladly correct my error when I am mistaken. (Watch me get put in my place here.) By the way, I strongly dispute the notion that the term "Mrs." is sexist, as evidenced by sites such as these: [4], [5], [6], [7]. That said, I look forward to contributing to an eventual article. Biruitorul 07:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Though often unconsciously so" - well, to be honest, that was the initial reaction that I had as well. The androcentric nature of Western society has made most of us assume that people are male until "proven" female, since male is still seen as "normative" in our cultural context, something which the second-wave feminist movement has sought to break down after World War II. It's interesting that this discussion has come up now, since I'm currently reading Undoing Gender by Judith Butler, who analyses very interestingly the way in which gender and sex has been culturally-constructed. As to the term "Mrs", I think it's sexist in that it treats women differently from men, particularly by overemphasising marital status as a defining feature of feminine (but not masculine) identity. Just because it's used by government websites doesn't make it non-sexist; to prove that, you would have to prove that government websites are non-sexist, and while most Western governments have taken steps in the last decades towards equality, some people working in government institutions continue to discriminate against non-normative people ("marginalised groups", if you like, particularly through language. Not because they're actively opposed to equality, but simply because they do it unconsciously - it is a result of "patriarchal"/heteronormative norms, if you like. Some women may prefer to pride themselves on their marital status and refer to themselves as "Mrs", and that's a matter of choice, but I believe that unless this is explicitly made clear, "Ms" should be used. This is probably best described by Ursula Le Guin in her afterword to The Left Hand of Darkness, a book which speculates on a world where everyone has a neuter gender. She says:

To say, for instance, that the title Ms. is a political invention, as the logobullies did for years, was perfectly fair so long as they admitted, which they did not, that Miss and Mrs. are equally political in their implication. It is socially and politically significant to identify a woman solely by her marital relation to a man, by her being unmarried or married, as if she had no being otherwise. This independent being is what the word Ms. (not a thinair invention, but a new spelling of the old, honorable Southern usage Miz) recognizes. The need for such a feminine equivalent to Mr. has been confirmed by the ready and almost total acceptance of it. There are not many left still decrying it as evidence of the dread Feminist Agenda, a nuke in the arsenal of the monstrous regiment of women.

I think the use of "he" as a gender-neutral or unknown-gender pronoun in English fits into the same category. Even "he/she" is not entirely inclusive in that it's not ungendered, but rather bigender, by only including males and females (and not alternatively-gendered people such as pangender, agender, etc). For this reason, I try to use the singular they as much as possible. Ronline ✉ 09:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's these sorts of nostrums that will be the undoing of Western civilisation and lead to its submission to a global Caliphate. Let's get real here: when you (not you specifically) use terms like pangender and agender without a hint of irony, you know the Eloi - Morlock split has taken place, and guess what? The Morlocks always win. Normativity, that hobgoblin of post-modernists, is, believe it or not, a Good Thing - it's how we got this far. It's provided order and structure to our societies and recognised deviance from the norm as something to be fixed rather than "celebrated". Now, I am aware that not everyone is born with normal male and female sex organs, but those individuals' parents should decide on raising them in one sex or the other. That way society benefits, because it doesn't have to bother with accomodating the mutant individual (and I don't mean mutant in a disparaging way), while the mutant can fit into the mainstream and not be sidelined and isolated. Biruitorul 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it's important that we realise that there are people out there who are alternatively-gendered, and there are people who feel that they cannot be part of the male-female gender binary and adopt a cisgender gender identity. I'm using terms such as pangender and agender because they apply to real people. I think it's unconscionable for us as a society to constrain them from expressing their gender identity. As to the efficacy of heteropatriarchal normativity - there are two schools of thought. One is that heteropatriarchy (for want of a better term) is a necessary evil - that even though some people are constrained and marginalised by things such as heteronormativity, gender roles and Butlerian performativity, this is necessary to maintain social stability. I think this view is, however, countered very well by third-wave feminists such as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, who argues that heteropatriarchy is the source of conflict, and that a society with no rigidly-defined gender roles would have no major conflict - i.e. that sexual tension leads to conflict. This is also a main concern of Le Guin's Left Hand of Darkness, a book where the ungendered inhabitants of the planet Winter have very little conflict (though this does come at a cost, namely that of a slower pace of innovation). So, yes, there are costs to both a heteropatriarchal society and a more pluralistic one. I personally believe that the latter is better because it reduces tension and suffering in society. As to your particular example of forcibly assigning gender to intersex people, I'm divided on this issue. I agree to an extent that assigning a gender may be more effective for both society and the individual in the current context of cisgender-normativity. On the other hand, most of the time the way that the gender is assigned does not reflect the gender identity of the individual later in life, who often feels both male and female to an extent (or pangender). In this way, assigning a gender solves nothing and only creates pain and confusion. This explains why many intersexual people resent the fact that they were assigned a gender at birth. Ronline ✉ 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's "unconscionable" - life went on for thousands of years before such people came out of the woodwork. Now, I'm not saying they're bad people, because their deformities (so to speak) are not their fault, but at the same time I don't see such characteristics as worthy of celebration and affirmation, but rather of pity and consolation, or at least of a neutral attitude. As to the heteropatriarchy business: much of what you say is probably academic (and derived from academics who really should be doing more productive things with their lives); I doubt we'll see a breakdown of "rigidly-defined gender roles" any time soon. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's important not to confuse grammatical gender with biological sex. Singular they, pre-modern use notwithstanding, is a means of politicising the language. If one person does something, a singular pronoun should be used. When we say "he", "he or she" is understood, and pangenders are very far indeed from ordinary people's minds. Out of curiosity, how does this work in Romanian? "Cineva te-a sunat, şi ei mi-au zis să-ţi transmit..."? I sure hope not. Thank goodness nobody actually talks that way. Or look at the Constitution: in reference to the President, we find that "El poate declara...mobilizarea parţială sau totală a forţelor armate." That's not because presidents must be male, but because preşedinte is masculine. Or should the text read "Ei poate declara"? The echoes of Orwell are strong indeed. Biruitorul 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that grammatical gender is a totally different issue, and for this reason I was never making a point about the Romanian language. As a language with no grammatical gender for nouns, however, English is different. In English, there is no logical reason why "he" should mean "he or she", and there is no reason why we should automatically refer to, say, the doctor as he, since the doctor is not gramatically-masculine in English. As to your argument that gender-inclusive language is political, my quote from Ursula Le Guin offers a counterargument to that: "To say, for instance, that the title Ms. is a political invention, as the logobullies did for years, was perfectly fair so long as they admitted, which they did not, that Miss and Mrs. are equally political in their implication." So, yes, gender-inclusive language is political, but so is non-inclusive language. Romance languages have grammatical gender, and for that reason it's correct to say "Cineva te-a sunat, şi el mi-a zis...", because "el" refers not to a male individual but to the masculine noun "om", I suppose. Same with "preşedinte"; "el" is OK in this context. On the other hand, some feminists have argued, and sometimes with good merit, that the very concept of grammatical gender only reinforces heteropatriarchal norms. This is supported by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis - by bringing people up with a language where there is feminine and masculine gender, you're reinforcing a binary gender system in society. Ronline ✉ 10:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

True, there isn't much grammatical gender in English. However, when I say "he" for "he or she" or for "doctor", I do so partly as a matter of convenience and partly because it is, in fact, customary to assume masculinity, even if it isn't stricltly logical. If someone were to use "she" like I use "he", it would strike me as a bit odd, but not incorrect. Also, I would automatically use "she" for nouns like "teacher", "nurse", or "secretary", as women predominate in those professions. Perhaps non-inclusive language is political in a sense, but I would argue that it's less political for us today, since it developed long ago. By contrast, inclusive language is a newer phenomenon that can't readily mask its political purpose. To use a Romanian example: when you call someone domn, you don't normally think "he's a nobleman/landowner, he's in a social class above my own" - it comes naturally, even though its origins lie in feudalism. But tovarăş was a different matter entirely and was clearly tied to communism. You're reinforcing a binary gender system in society - good. Chaos tends to result otherwise. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I would say it's the other way round: today, one assumes that the websites of western countries are non-sexist, and you need to prove that they are sexist. Don't you think, for instance, that the First Lady of the United States would make it known to her web designer that she wishes to be called "Ms" and not "Mrs" on her own website? More to the point, I've looked at a number of other national cabinet pages: Ireland, the Netherlands, Australia, Finland, etc., and none of them label their ministers "Mr", "Mrs", or "Ms". So can we just remove the labels entirely? Biruitorul 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, some women may choose to refer to themselves as "Mrs", mainly because they see marriage as a status symbol, as a form of "graduation" in society. Feminists would argue that that's a product of heteropatriarchal society, but I'm not going to go that far; it's a matter of choice. If women want to be identified as Mrs, they should be. But "Ms" should be the term to use when we don't know their preference, or their marital status. So, maybe the First Lady of the US (in fact, I'm sure of it, considering her context), prefers to be called "Mrs". Presidencies tend to be rather conservative institutions. As to your proposal of removing the title: I fully agree. I think the reason why they were originally placed there was to show how many women there are in the Tăriceanu cabinet (this can be useful for people who want to gauge the level of gender equality in the Romanian goverment). Another reason may have been so that the gender of individual ministers can be identified, in the context of English-speakers not knowing the gender of Romanian names. But, removing them would be better. I don't see why gender should be important when we are naming the ministers (it would be just like specifying their ethnicity in the list). We could, however, have a statement saying how many women are in the cabinet, perhaps. Ronline ✉ 10:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

On the petroleum issue, we seem to have the same interests, Biru, so we should be able to come up with a monomaniacal and over-extended section :) - don't know about you, but I have no idea of and little interest in how they drill the thing and how they refine it. But "if we build it, [experts] will come". Dahn 20:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a vague idea of how it's done, but I wager our initial effort will have three times as much on our old friend Malaxa than on drilling, refining, transport, sale, etc. Biruitorul 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Who could ever resist Malaxa? I guess we're both Nixons. Dahn 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Malaxa, l'inégalable Malaxa! Biruitorul 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

---

•

Oh, certainly. April 2007 or thereabouts is what I was thinking, so there's no rush. In fact, and this just occurred to me as well: now that the new year is not even four weeks away, I wonder if it would be at all useful to try and set some benchmarks. For instance (hypothetically):

• By 31 January 2007: articles on every Romanian commune and locality (presumably done by a bot)
• By 28 February 2007: articles on every Romanian member of parliament since 1859 (that's obviously crazy, but bear with me)
• By 31 March 2007: extensive articles on every domnitor and every major battle that has taken place on Romanian soil
• By 30 April 2007: articles on every Romanian publishing house, on the oil industry, feminism, anti-communist resistance, football in Greater Romania, the revolutions of 1821 and 1848, and every cabinet minister since 1859
• By 30 May 2007: raise a dozen articles to FA status.

For this, we'd need a staff of about 800 working round the clock, but I was just giving an example. Biruitorul 07:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

All right, so this was a bit Stakhanovite, but what about some more realistic goals, like improving the articles on every PM, not necessarily to a Tătărescu level, but certainly to a Ionel Brătianu level, where possible. I think we should strike a balance between strictly planning the whole year (which, as communism showed, restricts innovation and creativity) and having no set direction at all, which, while it has produced remarkable results in the past, might not go on doing so forever. I'd like some sort of contours as to where we're taking things.

(Next time you want to attack communism do a little research before... Anonimu 19:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

I shouldn't have another debate with you, but it's so hard to resist. I mean, come on. Just compare computer technology in the Soviet bloc with that in the West - really, there's no comparison to make. Or the arts. Or automobiles. Or lunar landing craft. Need I go on? Five-year plans are not a good idea, and the primary reason for the collapse of the USSR was the economic collapse brought about by the lack of initiative and incentive to produce that resulted from these plans, coupled with military over-spending. Biruitorul 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

When you'll stop stating communism is inherently evil and every communist inovation is bad we'll have no more debates. You can't compare computer technology in the Soviet block with that in the west. Soviet union in 1924 and eastern european countries in 1948 were pure agrarian countries. You can't develop computer technology in such societies. You first need to electrify the country, develop communications and then industry... since in communism you shouldn't exploit others (because surplus value should be very low), it's harder to get the money to industrialize a country. But anyway, communist Bulgaria had a pretty advanced computer industry. arts? what have arts to do with politics? automobiles? GAZ automobiles were nice (OK the production started with US help... but when you want to develop your industry you can accept limited help from capitalist who already posses a technology you need). Lunar landing craft? it proved useless (no economic gain). Initiative was encouraged by socialist emulation. The collapse of the USSR was the result of a concurrence of events, policies and sabotage, and can't be blaimed on communist theoryAnonimu 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Communism is inherently evil, as shown by the 100 million people it has killed so far (and is still killing in China, Vietnam, Laos, North Korea and Cuba). There were no communist innovations except more efficient methods of slaughter. First, they were not "pure" agrarian countries; second, they were fully industrial by the 1970s but stalled because further growth was impossible. Capitalism, when practiced without state interference, does not involve exploitation - it's about paying people fairly. Computers were much less advanced in Bulgaria than in the West. Arts have a lot to do with politics, since communism thoroughly censors the arts and prevents their development. Right, Western help was used and anyway, there's no comparison with Rolls Royce, Jaguar, BMW, Volvo, Mercedes, Ferrari, etc. The moon landing showed the vast creative potential of capitalism, and there may yet be economic gains in the future. No, communism encouraged absenteeism, low production and alcoholism. The USSR collapsed because communism had thoroughly exhausted the borrowed time it was living on - it was doomed from the start and only held together by fear. Its economic record was an unmitigated disaster. Biruitorul 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I already gave you a neutral link with the number of people killed by capitalism.. it was greater than the number of people killed by deformed or degenerated workers' state. (and BTW from your list only Cuba is a socialist state... Laos is not even a deformed workers' state... as for vietnam, i don't really know how far the liberalisation went to appreciate) All "methods of slaughter" used by degenerated and deformed workers' state were already used extensively by capitalism... i can't claim them for communists... A dozen factories don't change the character of an economy... cu o floare nu se face primavara. Ok, if you don't like pure, let's say mostly. The stagnation of the 70s was caused by the oil crises of that decade. these were severe blows to the economies of developing countries which based much of their industry on oil... capitalist countries could take money from reserves, but eastern european ones couldn't, because they had invested most of their reserves in developing the country. this,coupled with the enourmous interest rate of the capitalist banks have created this stall..."Capitalism, when practiced without state interference, does not involve exploitation - it's about paying people fairly. "?!? in your dreams probably... you don't know what capitalism is... go ask your local bourgeois how he made his fortune... you'll have a revelation. I don't know much about Bulgaria's computer industry (nor do you for that matter) so I can't say who was more advanced... and even if Bulgaria's was not as advanced as the western one, i explained the causes. Except for the stalinist period, there was no repression of arts in most deformed workers' states. I could compare most GAZ's with Volvo,and some Volgas even with Mercedes or BMW. And don't forget that cars like Ferrari, Jaguar or Rolls (and even Mercedes) are not intended for normal people, intellectuals or workers, because their exorbitant prices. Who cares they landed on the moon ? ... the first man, woman and dog in space were all soviets. capitalist sent a man to the moon just because they were envious (if they really were on the moon.. some say they didn't, but let's just suppose they did)As for encouraging absenteeism, low production and alcoholism, capitalist is better at doing it. just watch some american film and you'll see absentees and alcoholics presented as heros... Fear holds together capitalism too... look at the intervention of the reactionary US army in countries which decided to implement a better system ..Anonimu 12:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Capitalism doesn't have direct victims. How can it? Whose death certificate could say "capitalism" on it? I don't think it's killed anyone, only given prosperity to the world. The only legal party in Laos is the Lao People's Revolutionary Party, a Marxist-Leninist party. Similar situations are to be found in China, Vietnam and North Korea, as well as in Cuba. The Gulag was a Soviet Communist invention. OK, mostly, but remember the 1930s industrialisation in the USSR was quite thorough, and then in the 1950s in the satellite states. Well, they should have had reserves. Now they do, and they'll survive future oil shocks. Advantage: capitalism. I do know what capitalism is. It's certainly more moral and ethical than Bolshevism. The bourgeoisie has generally made its money through inheritance, investments, and above all hard work. You know, normal human methods, not the mass killings characteristic of true Reds like Pol Pot. I'm an expert on the Bulgarian computer industry, and I can tell you that it was garbage - some 20 years away from producing a microchip in 1989! Communism was the cause. Actually, Solzhenitsyn was banned, The Manchurian Candidate was banned, and the author of any work of literature, music, sculpture, etc. that challenged the Bolshevik system was severely punished. Just ask Marin Preda, victim of Ceauşescu. You could compare those cars, but in the world market, the guiding hand of the free market, that wonderful, ineluctable force that crushed communism due to the inherent contradictions and lies at its very core, decided that Western autos are preferable. And you're right - they're intended for the wealthy, who got their money by working harder and thus deserve better cars. True, the first beings were sent into space by the Reds, but they then stalled, because they couldn't keep up - Marxism just can't compete, I'm afraid. It's like a snail against a cheetah. Name a specific film, and I'll see if I agree. You're probably confusing heroes with anti-heroes. Anyway, just read about the problems of late communism, and you won't dismiss them with a wave. Those really were observed phenomena. "They pretend to pay us, we pretend to work" doesn't work in the West. No, in capitalist countries people have a right to change their system of government. Please give an example of a US Army intervention that you think targeted "countries which decided to implement a better system" and I'll respond. Biruitorul 22:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes it has a lot of them... and no death certificate says communism on it, but you still claim some 100 millions deaths... Capitalism only gave prosperity to imperialist countries through superprofit. That Laotian party can't be a real communist one... if it would have been Laos wouldn't be a largely agrarian country with almost no infrastructure... I repeatedly expressed my opinion on north korean absolutism... and even about the chinese bureaucratic state. The Soviets gave it the name but the concept was older... much older... Soviet Union was somewhat industrialized, but not at the level of the former colonial empires in western europe. and (except maybe for GDR and Poland who already had important industrial centres) Eastern european still didn't have a developed industry in the 50s. they wanted to develop industry rapidly to become independent of industrialized capitalist countries... in those times nobody thought an oil crisis would destabilize world market. Bourgeois making money by hard work?!? hard work of their exploited employees maybe.... So now you call some guy who moved the population of a whole country to rural settlements communist?!? But you don't even know what capitalism is... how could i expect you to know what communism stands for. You must be the last universal man... i think you should make your own biruitopedia... Again Soljenitin and Manchurian candidate? you have an obsession with these? so commies banned two books... good for them. You don't know much about arts in deformed workers' state. actually art in ceausescu's romanian was better than the present pornographic one... World market decided nothing. world is not US- or eurocentrist.a lot of countries still use mainly non western cars. Yeah they deserve them for exploiting their brothers harder... They didn't stall, they just analyzed the opportunities and found that further space exploration is unnecessary and money was better spent on something else (ok they spent them to make weapons, but this has nothing to do with communism)I don't know any tile... just watch some film on HBO... An example? do vietnam, bay of pigs, and contras say something to you? Anonimu 16:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right. No death certificate says communism; I thought I could slip that one by you. But still, I do wonder how capitalism kills. I know how communism kills - see Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Dej, Castro, etc. Socialism too kills, since Hitler was a nationalist socialist. Actually, even the third world has prospered from capitalism, which has given it roads, autos, computers, Christianity, literacy, etc., though maybe in smaller quantities. From the Constitution of Laos: "The state of the Lao People's Democratic Republic is a People's Democratic State. All powers are of the people, by the people and for the interests of the multi-ethnic people of all strata in society with the workers, farmers and intellectuals as key components." Translation: one-party Communist state. You know why they haven't industrialised? Because they're greedy, hypocritical maniacs like Reds usually are. North Korea too, though rather monarchistic in a sense, does have an official Juche ideologyquic based on Marxism-Leninism, as does China. Infrastructure development happens much more efficiently and rapidly through the free market, believe me. The bourgeois also work hard, but in their own offices rather than on the factory floor, with their heads rather than with their hands. That's still work, you know. Yes, Pol Pot was a diehard Commie: Khmer Rouge. I know what both are. I've thought of making my own 'pedia - maybe we could do a joint project and have revert wars for years on end. It wasn't just Solzhenitsyn and The Manchurian Candidate, though even two bans - bans on works that tell the TRUTH about Reds - shows the despicable rottenness at the core of Bolshevism. Much, much more was banned. Today, pornography coexists with high art in Romania, a fine equilibrium. Art needs to exist in a free context; otherwise it's meaningless, like playing chess in an aquarium. The world market decides everything, invisibly. And yes, there are non-western cars, but they're worse, because they're produced in socialist countries, and socialism is just communism spray-painted a lighter red. They deserve them for working harder. If they decided space exploration was unnecessary, they were stupid, because it's a good idea. What will we do in a few billion years when the sun gets too hot to sustain life on earth? Making weapons had a lot to do with communism, since they were bent on spreading it everywhere through a domino effect. HBO shows mostly junk. Vietnam, Cuba and Nicaragua tried to implement worse, not better systems, so America was doing them a good turn by invading them and trying to prevent them from slipping into the Red abyss. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of explaining how capitalism kills.. just search in our previous discussions. You don't know how capitalism kills, you know how bureaucratic collectivism does... (as for Pol Pot...) And how did Castro kill? by letting cubans emigrate to US? I don't care what the constitution say... romanian constitution says law is equal for all people, but... As for hyprocrisy and greed, they're characteristic for capitalism... i don't care about ideologies degenerated from marxism...should i reduce all capitalism to Hitler (and if you begin claiming he was a socialist, remeber that socialism is by definition anti-nationalist and internationalist, while nationalism was imposed as an ideology by the capitalist bourgeoisie). I agree, infrastructure develops more rapidly in capitalism countries, but at the cost of workers' exploitation... I didn't say bourgeois don't work.. i said they don't pay their employees according to their work (and also exploit them by adding extra costs for products). ... . I don't think you do. it would be nice, but i don't have enough time... it doesn't show nothing (and i still want a proof of an official ban). What high art?!? What's meaningless in playing chess in an aquarium? Good argument... they're worse just because they're produced in socialist countries... you really think like Stalin... They don't work harder... the exploit harder... Space exploration is not really necessary.. the human race will dissapear long before... so US is communist? so you agree with me about american films... All systems were much betterAnonimu 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine. On Cuba, from The Black Book of Communism: "From 1959 through the late 1990s more than 100,000 Cubans experienced life in one of the camps, prisons, or open-regime sites. Between 15,000 and 17,000 people were shot." That's how he killed. Everyone is equal before the law in Romania: I defy you to prove otherwise. "i don't care about ideologies degenerated from marxism" - then why do you defend Ceauşescu so ardently? Hitler superimposed nationalism on a socialist structure, but underneath, he was still a class-warfare type inspired by arch-socialist Mussolini. I don't think that much exploitation occurs, and anyway, having a job both keeps you fed and keeps you moving upward in life. As the Prime Minister of Canada has said, "the best social programme is a job". IMDb says it was banned, and it also makes sense to me: they'd want to hide the truth. High art like opera and painting. All right, I suppose playing chess in an aquarium isn't necessarily meaningless; here's a better analogy: it's like using a flashlight during the day. The blinding light of day (Communism) totally overpowers the flashlight (art). You need complementarity: flashlight at night, art in a free society. Sure: would you rather buy a car from Ghana or from Germany? From Jamaica or Japan? If you don't exploit, you don't advance. Maybe we can find resources in space that we need, like minerals. No, I meant the Soviets made weapons to spread communism. I also said that what's on HBO (current, low-brow American films) are junk - I highly value American cinema as a whole. How is Cuba better today than the US? Really, how? Biruitorul 22:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice book.. pity it doesn't show any hard proof of its claims... Just look in your journal "used to source a lot of articles in wikipedia" (Jurnalul National) or Evenimentul zilei.. you'll find at least one case a week... I don't defend him, i try to maintain an objective image of him... he has done bad things, ok... but he has also done great things, wich are generally ignored nowadays... Keep lying yourself Hitler and Mussolini were socialist.. not even american anti-communist propaganda could make people believe this.. maybe you will... You've derailed... did i say people should get things for free and they shouldn't work? ok, you're an anarchist, but i'm not one... Let me explain what art and literature is: fiction, otherwise it is literature no more, it's scientific research or documentary... What painting, what opera? It's nothing wrong with using flashlight in the day... how are you supposed to go through a dark tunnel or cave without one? If the cars from Ghana or Jamaica were cheaper and were satifiying my needs i'd buy them.... So you support exploitation... q.e.d.... I doubt we'll ever come to get minerals from space. US made weapons to spread anarchy and their military and economic domination... who's better? You wanted a film... i gave you a whole channel.. ce'o intorci ca la Ploiesti? We already discussed about Cuba.. remember the embargo thing...Anonimu 12:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So you deny that Castro is a killer? I challenge you to tell that to the close family members of any one of the people on this 253-page list of his victims. I challenge you to deny the reality of these people's stories. Are these people lying? I still don't see miscarriages of justice in Romania. True, Ceauşescu did some good things, but the price was too high. It would have been far better to remain in the burghezo-moşieresc days. Maybe I will - read his own words. As a communist, you probably think "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need", so yes. People are still painting, writing books, and staging operas in Romania - and good ones at that. 99.7% of the time, you do not need a daytime flashlight, so my analogy still stands. You might buy them but there's also reputation to factor in; many consumers might not buy them even if they were cheaper and worked well. I support pragmatic exploitation, but obviously people should be paid fair wages. Who knows? We should keep exploring, because that's human nature. Quoting George W Bush: "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways... we can be certain [that technological breakthroughs will] come, and that our efforts will be repaid many times over... We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey." The US made weapons to counter the Red threat; I hardly consider Western Europe, for instance, to have been under anarchy or US domination, despite being under NATO's protection. Clearly, the West was superior to the USSR, which tried to impose hell on earth (and sadly succeeded in many places - see Aiud, Gherla, Piteşti, Sighet, etc.). Thanks, but there's more to American film than HBO. Never mind what could have been without the embargo. First, communist countries without an embargo, like Poland, weren't that well off even with heavy Soviet subsidies. Second, you admit that Cuba is worse than the US, no? Biruitorul 00:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i do... if anyone related to those names on the list reads this: Castro is not a killer! Those are just stories of capitalists.. they don't accept socialism so they would say anything against it. You're blind. No it wouldn't have been. Everyone used socialist rethoric to attract masses... but few really took those measures when they governed... that phrase doesn't imply getting things free... Yeah, i've seen some of these books... if that's art, i'm an avatar of James Rothschild... aren't you capable of finding a good analogy? reputation is a capitalism invention to keep on exploiting workers... how could you exploit if you'd pay fair wages? now should i believe bush? hey man "Red" is an obsolete term, now they're called Native Americans... Europe is still under US economical domination... west wasn't superior (but i wouldn't say inferior either, since Soviet Union wasn't a real workers' state) Poland as other Eastern European countries had it's resourced drained by soviets in the 50s... what should have went to the polish people and help him develop went instead to the soviet people... Yeah man, Cuba is economically worse today, mainly because of embargo and sabotage.... Anonimu 20:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, they are not just stories. Those people really were killed: shame on you for denying the truth about Castro's vile, murderous regime. They don't accept tyranny, and they work to expose its foul deeds. I can see: justice is being served impartially. Just read what the US State Department says. They used rhetoric but didn't apply it because that always happens in communism: human nature means that the communist utopia will forever remain just a dream. It might imply getting things free - to each according to his need. Some of those books are art, and anyway, the right to free speech is (more or less) absolute. Reputation arises naturally; no one invents it. That's the point: fair wages are paid, ergo no exploitation happens. It's not a question of "believing" Bush, just of being awed at his rhetoric. "Red" also means communist. Europe has an independent economy and partly independent defence structures too (see France's nuclear shield). Of course the West was superior - it had no Gulags, for starters. Again, thievery is part of communism; had Poland been allowed democracy, this would not have happened. Cuba is worse because of socialism: other countries in the region are doing much better with free markets. Biruitorul 22:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Shame on you for giving credit to sume anglo-american imperialist machinations. Man, now i wouldn't call USA a tyranny... Then you have lost contact with the romanian society.. let interwar romania rest in her well-deserved coffin and you'll see things clearer... Comparing the ones who used socialist rethoric to gain power, it's easy to see that the only ones that extensively applied them were the deformed/degenerated workers' state.. of course they didn't apply all the reforms, while some were applied wrongly... but anyawy they did it better than any other system... human nature would mean that christianity is bullshit... if christianity resisted for 2,000 years, then communism has a great chance to succeed... That is just a tendentious interpretation... If fair wages were paid, capitalism would collapse... Yeah but US also used weapons to massacre native americans, not only commies... let's wait for a new wall street crash and then we'll see how independent Europe really is... they didn't need gulags... they had african colonies... Thievery is part of that human nature that makes christianity bullshit and communism an utopia. Poland was under soviet occupation.. nobody could do nothing to prevent soviets to drain it's resources... and now it depends what you understand by democracy: the plutocracy/oligarchy of the West or the real one (the one you just called utopic). Other countries in the region aren't under US embargo... Anonimu 14:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not ashamed for supporting the oppressed Cuban people and paying homage to those killed by their regime. What do those names represent, then? Did someone just make them up? Cuba is a tyranny: it denies political, civil and human rights to its people. Any example of corrupt justice? No! The dream must be kept alive! Actually, it's capitalism that delivers the goods. Communism delivers starvation and brutality. No, Communism, having killed 131 million, must be retired before anyone else gets killed. To each according to his need - what else could it mean? Do you have an example of unfair wages being paid? What does that prove? The Reds massacred everyone, even themselves. We live in an interconnected world. You could easily argue that the US depends on China due to the latter's investments there. But is the US dominated by China? No. First, decolonisation happened in 1960 or so, when the Gulag was in full swing. Second, and this doesn't make it right, but at least they didn't do it to their own people. Third, colonialism was never nearly as bad. Escape was possible, for example. No, because Christianity recognises man's fallen state but says not to steal, while Communism assumes stealing will not happen - big difference. That's what I said - if the Soviets hadn't imposed tyranny, Poland and everyone else in E. Europe would have been vastly better off. Real democracy is in the West, where all votes count equally, unlike in the Soviet bloc, where one party had a monopoly on power and elections were a joke. Right, but everyone else (Canada, Germany, France...) is free to trade with Cuba. It's still among the worst countries in the world. Biruitorul 03:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

---

As for my comment about writing articles on "every Romanian member of parliament since 1859": we do have articles on most people who have served in the US Congress since 1789, though of course there's a directory to help with that. So I wonder if an equivalent project would be possible or desireable - I imagine writing articles on every apparatchik who filled a seat în Marea Adunare Naţională would get rather dull rather quickly. Biruitorul 16:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

We're going to at leat create an article on the MAN first... (If any of you guys do, let me know, cause we have some links to review and some inclusions to make). I sincerely doubt that anyone has bothered listing pre-WWII parliamentarians anywhere: in case we'll eventually resort to ini-mini-miny-moe-ing them, I'm guessing we have some 0.2% covered at the moment. Dahn 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, and in fact, we'll need two MAN articles: the one we have refers to the communist one, but there was the Alba Iulia one as well. I wonder if those names really are lost. Are there no records of parliamentary proceedings, no electoral lists, no appendices in political science works, no almanacs or annual government reports? Then again, would it be worth our while to track these down and eventually write one-line stubs for all those MPs? Nah... Biruitorul 21:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the Alba Iulia [rather informal] MAN should perhaps redirect to Union Day (Romania) (get all our stuff in one place). A separate article on the National Romanian Council is what we need, and, although I can already see the seeds of scandal and trollorama in connection to it, it could go places (it lasted more than a couple of days, and is not intrinsically linked to just one day).

Goodness, we already have one on the Communist MAN? I need to catch up. Dahn 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's been there since April 16. Looking at articles on other national holidays, it seems that most deal principally with the holiday and not the event that inspired it. However, I wouldn't mind starting them out together and, if one section grew very large, splitting it off later. Biruitorul 03:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, we could then "Main article" the Assembly if we ever get that far. Dahn 04:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, setting SMART objectives on wiki. I believe that writing articles on anti-communist resistance and the revolutions of 1821 (there is some content about it in the Tudor Vladimirescu article) and 1848 should be a priority.- Andrei 10:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That's just what I was thinking too. Of course, it might all be for nothing. Biruitorul 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

He assumes wrongly that the Wikipedia software cannot be improved. Automated tools are the lest of our concerns. :-) bogdan 20:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the proposal of Biruitorul on top of this section and I couldn't help but asking myself: "Do these people ever sleep/work/see their (girl/boy)friend(s)/parents/dog/whatever?". Stakhanovists are little kids compared to you. As I live in France, I'll just say "Chapeau!". Dpotop 16:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

All Wikipedia, all the time. Biruitorul 09:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a monarcho-Stakhovanite! That's as good as Dalì's self-description as an anarcho-monarchist. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why not? You've got crypto-Stalinist Buddhist monarchs too, as well as openly Communist ones. By the way:

1. I don't see anarcho-monarchism as contradictory and am in fact sympathetic to it. If people want to show allegiance to a King under anarchy, they should be able to do that - in fact, being a believer in the Divine Right of Kings, I think they very well ought to do so - provided they can withdraw their allegiance at any point and refuse to obey his commands. But since the King can do no wrong - only his ministers are capable of doing that - I doubt that would happen, especially as he wouldn't do much commanding, himself living under anarchy. Or something like that.

2. Since I am a fan of the concept, I probably shouldn't point this out, but the article on anarcho-monarchism, deleted in August, was re-created last month. But it does look unobjectionable this time. Biruitorul 02:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Greier's ban

Greier was banned indefinitely from Wikipedia. In 29 November he was blocked one week for 3RR [8] on Lăutari, however he was not guilty, he made only 2 (two) reverts on that article in that day [9]. The 3RR report which was the base for blocking shows 5 reverts, but in 10 (ten) days! [10]. I thought 3RR is dealing with reverts in a 24 h period. Before this one week block was over, it was extended at total ban, without allowing him to defend himself. I am wondering if this ban which started from a 3RR block which was not deserved (he was not guilty on 3RR) was a good decision. I know that Greier made some mistakes, but I have the feeling that admins were overreacting at them, while underreacting at others, as I explained in above section about "double standards".--MariusM 00:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the sockpuppet was [justly] counted as "a Greier". In any case, perhaps such post-ban interventions will make any possible error in the process ultimately irrelevant. Dahn 01:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems you have a personal conflict with Greier. I don't know why you believe the anon who wrote on your talk page was Greier - I understood you were not involved in his blocking. No sockpuppet was counted as "a Greier" as the 3RR report which was the basis for blocking was not mentioning other edits. Why should Greier use a sockpuppet when at 29 November he made only 2 reverts at that article? He has no reason to believe somebody will block him for that and he need somehow to use sockpuppets.--MariusM 01:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The IP 213.42.21.80 which Dahn consider as being justly counted as "a Greier" in 29 November is different and not related with the IP 66.36.148.4 which same Dahn believe was vandalizing his talk page. First IP is from United Arab Emirates, second is from Canada. Greier has a history of breaking the 3RR and making personal attacks, but, AFAIK, not a history of using sockpuppets and evading blocks.--MariusM 01:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess you're right about the second one. It must have been User:NorbertArthur. For the rest, I can only speculate. Dahn 02:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive152#Greier. Khoikhoi 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked into the matter, and it seems to be that the decision is oversized. Anyway, in the edit conflict of the article Lautari, I'd side with Greier. The form he reverted looks to me more like "legends about the Roma people" than "online encyclopedia". If I can put a word in Greier's favor, please tell me where to do it. Dpotop 11:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Missed anniversary

I have just remembered the first days of this noticeboard. We missed the 1st anniversary on dec. 4th. BTW, the page was created by Anittas, and the second member was Bonaparte. :) Dpotop 09:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And it really has been working quite well. So we do owe them something. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice article on militant atheism

I am sometimes throwing an eye into publications that are not quite mainstream, just to see what's going on. And here is an article from Ziua, which I find particularly interesting. I knwo that I risk another discussion involving Biruitorul and Ronline, but it's one of the main issues in Romania today. Dpotop 11:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol, interesting article. But why would you say that Ziua is out of the mainstream? TSO1D 00:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent article. I'm primed for a new debate, should anyone want it. Biruitorul 04:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I for one think it is a crude straw man. Dahn 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

True, but the ends justify the means. Biruitorul 05:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I see you want me in this debate, and I'm not really saying no.

On one hand, I do not agree with "the end justifies the means" is such contexts (deliberate slander shouldn't be okay - for comparison, it is probable that Vadim has incidentally targeted some real con artists and saboteurs among the crowd of people he has insulted, but his allegations and sycophancy don't become okay because of that); I'm really surprised that Ziua takes that road, but I suppose Orthodoxy sells newspapers in this rather hypocritical country. Also, when that slander is aimed at the Soros Foundation, even though it matters naught who was "behind" the move, and although the move is not at all secretive and could've been enforced and endorsed by any group or person, is terribly risqué in a country that has had the Securitate to pioneer in that field.

On the other hand, I do not agree with the end, and I have always objected to religion on display in environments subject to laïcité. Those of you who have seen the carefully staged show on B1 last week may have noticed the actual agitprop pattern and its paradoxical origin: Becali, who was behaving like a stupid monkey, was paid tribute to by all that is rotten in this country and forming an ad-hoc inquisition against people who were not allowed to defend themselves. Yep, it seems this country has missed journalism in the trademark style of Emanuel Valeriu and Paul Everac; it also seems that such journalism is, for the first time, not serving to clean up former apparatchniks, but endorsing the most popular discourse of all - nationalist masturbation.

I see the myth of the other coming to our country and teaching us his rotten ways is still giving the Romanian press field days. At the risk of exaggerating in much the same manner as Mr. Roncea, I'll say: thank God for foreigners who used to gather in Oriental cities before they came and ruled us - without them, 90% of us would be entirely dependent on the other 10%; thank God for foreigners who wore aprons and shook hands in weird manners - without them, we'd still be keeping slaves; thank God for foreigners who tried to prevent all wars - without them, we'd still be denying citizenship to non-Christians; thank God for foreigners who endorsed Hungarian pastors - without them, we'd still have files kept on us all and holding up portraits in stadiums. Dahn 05:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the Church of Satan isn't really all that, well, Satanic, at least not the way most people would mean the word. Anton LaVey was more eccentric than evil.

FWIW, French and Turkish laïcité is a bit different than American "separation of Church and State". The former is actively hostile to religion. The latter has nurtured the most churchgoing country in the industrialized world. - Jmabel | Talk 06:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wanted no ambiguity, so I indicated that I have no shame in seeing my opinion branded as "Jacobin". I could go with the vaguer American concepts, but I believe that people in my country are currently conned into believing that separation of Church and State has been applied and is not harmed by religious displays in the public sphere (I'm not that familiar with the issue, but I think the US is not in an entirely different situation). I wanted to make it clear that the institutions should actively oppose religious messages in the public sphere, and that they should be promoting a non-religious setting (and not expect the community to regulate these matters on its own and taking over only when it has not and some people are complaining about it). Dahn 06:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "separation of church and state". Personally, I define that narrowly: a state church. Romania has none, but I don't see any harm in some icons on walls. In fact I see only good coming from that. Of course, the neatest solution would be to separate schools from the state: sell them all off to the highest bidder, and let the guiding hand of the free market decide what sort of religious equilibrium is desirable in schools. Biruitorul 06:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

When I said "ends" I didn't mean slander, I meant equating the current situation with atheist Communism, as Moş Gerilă in the headline implies. I know, and I think you know, that that argument is nonsense, but I'm more than willing to pretend that it has substance, to raise the alert of resurgent Bolshevism in order to further my goals of first preventing secularist backsliding and then advancing Romania on the path she would have taken had the opposition taken power at the Revolution, and ultimately joining that hypothetical course to the even more tenuously-ground-in-reality one of a Romania not sold out to the Soviets at Yalta.

I don't think exposing the dead hand of Soros in this affair is slander. Certainly, what role he - a right-wing deviationist representative of international capital, a bourgeois instigator and a capitalist provocateur - had in the domestic affairs of a foreign country, if any, should be fully explored. Who, indeed, is behind the marionette Emil Moise? It is the role of journalists to ask these questions, exposing the shadowy cabals that undergird the surface of Romanian politics, lurking just beneath.

I heartily endorse this renewed nationalism because first, without nationalism - which needs new energy once in a while - nations risk breaking down, which is not a good scenario, at least until the world is ready for theocratic anarchy (nice image there). And second, because Romania is on the verge of joining the EU, an organisation diametrically opposed to nationalism that is run by a small coterie of transnational progressivists for whom there are two main obstacles in their quest for world domination through an enlightened autocracy run by them: nationalism, which they seek to break down through insidious propaganda campaigns, and the continued global importance of the United States, where they have formed an uneasy alliance with radical Islamists in seeking to destroy that remaining bulwark of opposition - a plan doomed to failure due to the inherently weak nature of contemporary Western Europeans, who are just a few decades away from subjugation to the new world order, which will consist not of their bland Orwellianism but rather of a toxic global Caliphate.

We'll never know, but I doubt slavery would have persisted - save Haiti and the United States, it always died a quiet death. We'll never know, but I doubt citizenship would have remained restricted to this day. We'll never know, but I highly doubt that Communism would have lasted without Tőkés' actions: even in Albania it fell just two years later. Some other spark would have lit the fuse; the situation was quite untenable. And anyway, no amount of Western pressure could have toppled Ceauşescu (short of armed intervention): it was the decision of the army not to fire on demonstrators that actually allowed the regime to collapse. Plus, the SRI still keeps files, I would presume.

How's that for some hysterical conspiracism? I wonder if Paul Goma is reading. Biruitorul 06:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your point is a complex one, our disagreements many, and our shared views paradoxical. Therefore, I will aim straight for your core arguments and state my position in relation to them - while asking to be pardoned for not going into paradigms such as the Yalta myth and Soros' activities.

Word of warning to my avid readers: I may be repeating myself, so be gentle and do not reproach me that.

While "right-wing deviationist" is an exceptionally adroit pamphlet, I don't think that it has much relevancy here what he is, does, or advocates. I wanted to have this issue debate in Romanian society for decades now (just as the Tismăneanu "affair" had me hoping that we would finally get out of the 19th century), and if I couldn't care less if Soros himself is a actually a lizard who eats puppies. Implying that, if x take y stand in z issue, (s)he must have been payed by Soros to do so is probably not always slander, but it is always cheap sophistry.

But I do think it's worth investigating, if only because a) the links do seem to be there, especially as a respectable paper printed the allegations, and b) if true, while not inherently objectionable, it does reveal a certain amount of cowardice on Soros' part (and on those of "civil society" group), while at the same time, I suppose, showing Moise's courage for taking the blame. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

My point about nationalism was in strict relation with bad media being used to promote nationalism, but I'll now elaborate beyond that context. I certainly have no beef with nationalists such as yourself, Biruitorul. However, I have to point out that nationalism and conservatism are not that the same, and that history has shown nationalism to be a revolutionary by-product used against traditional elitism (deny that if you will, but for one I see the only way to challenge that successfully is through Marxist rhetoric - "privileged classes" have invented nationalism to detour revolutions by appealing to lumpen-proletarians etc.) What will apply to both is a motto by Mill (who used it only for conservatives): "conservatives/nationalists are not stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives/nationalists". I not only think that you are not part of the mass of stupid flag-wavers: I consider your views complex and fascinating, even though I cannot agree with any of them.

I suppose it depends on the degree of nationalism and the degree of conservatism. Is CV Tudor a conservative? No way. But an amalgam of reasoned conservatism and enlightened nationalism is possible and indeed not contradictory, given that today, nationalism's chief antithesis is post-nationalism, not pre-nationalism. Historically, though, you are correct. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, I could explore this according to many paradigms, but I will stick with the Romanian example. I think we are the textbook case of the "nationalist fervor = utter failure" relation. Let us ponder: 1916 - nationalist fervor/1918 - utter failure; 1920s - nationalist fervor/1940s - utter failure; 1960s - nationalist fervor/1980s - utter failure. Nationalist masturbation in Romania (and elsewhere) tends to stop only when the instrument of pleasure has become raw and bloody.

1918 was a success, no? Romania didn't do it all on her own, but she did double her territory. The other point I've always pondered is: what if the Guard had either come to power in the mid-1930s, as they could have, or what if Antonescu had not gotten rid of them and there weren't a war going on. In other words, what would several years of Guard rule have done for/to Romania? To quote Eliade:

Dar niciodata un neam intreg n-a trait o revolutie crestina cu toata fiinta sa; niciodata cuvantul Mantuitorului n-a fost inteles ca o revolutie a fortelor sufletesti impotriva pacatelor slabiciunii carnii; niciodata un neam intreg nu si-a ales ca ideal de viata calugaria si ca mireasa - moartea...De aceea, in timp ce toate revolutiile contemporane sunt politice, revolutia legionara este spirituala si crestina. In timp ce toate revolutiile contemporane au ca scop cucerirea puterii de catre o clasa sociala sau de catre un om - revolutia legionara are drept tinta suprema mantuirea neamului, impacarea neamului romanesc cu Dumnezeu, cum a spus Capitanul.

I find much that is objectionable just in that passage. But the force, the conviction contained within that movement - on a mass level - far exceeded that to be found in the PCR. Probably things wouldn't have gone so well, simply because it's difficult to contain that level of mobilisation for very long. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to stay away from theoretical debates about globalization, so you will excuse me for not challenging you on the "Caliphate" issue.

On the "what ifs...", my actual purpose was not to prove that, had it not been for a particular event, another measure would have never been enforced (though I realize it may have looked like I was making that statement, I had another emphasis in mind). Nevertheless, in some cases it is safe to say that "were it not for...", a particular thing would have happened too late to matter (if we're talking Phanariotes, I think it is safe to say that the boyars could have easily prolonged the clan system well into the modern era - what goes for the Balkans, goes for us). On the issue of communist survival without Western intervention, my comment still stands: we could debate the "could've", but thanks to them (to them as well) we are talking about what did happen, with all its many quirks (as you yourself have noted elsewhere, we are through with those). Let us also not forget that the Romanian regime still had a surprisingly successful manipulative side, and that many would have followed it for the same idiotic reasons they did in 1968 (I can even picture a Goma reconciling with a Ceauşescu if the trend announced in the 1980s would have fulfilled its goals, and if Ceauşescu would have been the first to tell Goma that he was right about the Jewish activists, about Antonescu, about interwar Romania...). To me, that looks like it is the harsh reality.

I agree, we'll never know. And despite everything else, I do have a certain respect for Tőkés. But I simply don't see Romania standing afloat in the 1990s as a rigid Communist system anymore. Milošević did last another decade, but formally he was a Socialist, and there was scope for meaningful opposition in his Yugoslavia (like independent radio and contested elections). Lukashenko is still in power primarily because of heavy Russian subsidies, which I doubt Yeltsin would have given to Ceauşescu. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to link two issues: you talk about Bolshevism and atheism in one breath. Aside from the notions that most atheism is not connected with Bolshevism, that atheism is not wrong in itself, and that atheism is not the issue here, there is one huge factor to consider. It is this one: the real problem of Romanian communism is not that it was "atheist", or "anti-national", or "anti-bourgeois conventions", but that it was not. Most testimonies and comments I have bumped into point out that it was the land of hypocrisy, populism, and shrewdness, not that of conviction, not that of dogmatism, not that of militantism. From the million of men and women who chanted slogans that they did not believe in, to the to the user here who wears the hammer and sickle next to the icon, to Gheorghiu-Dej's scapegoat claim that he had purged the party of Stalinists... Not to mention that it makes repression on ideological basis that much hard to understand (although, for the same reasons, remarkably reduced), not to mention that no efficient or even intelligent opposition from within was ever developed, not to mention that the "core" of Romanian identity, Orthodoxy included, adapted itself willingly to any ideological box (whereas the minority - political, religious, ethnic, and even sexual or psychological - was faced with the same Stalinist repressive measures decade after decade after decade). We can both see what this has destroyed, and we will agree without knowing it: you, with your Integralist perspective, will say that natural hierarchies and common sense were lost; I, with my bleeding-heart Social Democracy, will say that a chance for plausible equality and a greater common good was squandered. I don't know who of us would be right, but I can assure you we would be looking at the same society and blaming the very same process.

In Romania, atheism does have an indelible association with Bolshevism, but I did note that linking them together in the current context is "nonsense", though useful for ulterior motives. I do think atheism is wrong in itself, both because it precludes salvation and because it denies a fundamental truth at the core of our existence. I'm not surprised at the hypocrisy prevalent under Communism: it had very little native support (though probably would have had a bit more had the party not been banned). It was also, at the end of the day, very foreign, not only because the ideology was developed elsewhere (not a problem for, say, China), but also because it had a strong non-Romanian component whose membership advocated measures directly against the national interest (like getting rid of Bessarabia). So of course, once they realised that popular support would be a good thing to have, they shifted gears, eventually coming up with Ceauşism. As for the collaboration of the BOR with the party: that was indeed a very painful episode, but I think it's better than what happened in Albania (where all churches and mosques were closed). Yes, the moral authority of the church was seriously compromised, but at least there was a church. Furthermore, on the level of individual priests and monks, there was significant dissent from the hierarchy's actions and persecution too (the Piteşti experiment being the most prominent example). But you are right that the experience has been corrosive and it would have been better not to have it. The question is: what next? Some 17 years have largely been wasted. I hope someone manages to correct that (though perhaps society has already moved on and that will never happen). As for the Communist Orthodoxy of you-know-who: in fairness to him, Marx's economic writings say nothing about religion, and nothing says that a Marxist needs to adopt Marx's entire world-view. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy to explain why Communism didn't have a large number of supporter before ww2... peasants and workers (their target audience) were illiterate and had been persuaded by the capitalist controled church that their condition of slaves was natural (+ the capitalist were so afraid that communism will gather popular support that they banned it...) when Romania annexed Bessarabia and Transylvania, it ignored the will of the population of these regions... both declarations of union spoke about the autonomy of the regions inside romania and had a lot of socialist ideas.. however the monarchy and capitalists supporting it saw the union just as an enlarging of their slave base... thus it's understandable why the PCdR forged that plan to break this imperialist state (this is a good word for the romania of the 30s, considering the opression of minorities and even of romanian peasants and workers)... as for you-kno-who, i noticed that he became a leitmotif of your discussions ... since he is a fellow wikipedian, this could be considered mâncătorie...Anonimu 20:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no offence was intended. Peasants were not slaves. In fact there was universal male suffrage. The Church was independent. Poverty is natural to a certain extent (Mt. 26:11 - "ye have the poor always with you"), but these were clearly not slaves - there was equality before the law. Why would the capitalists be afraid of an ideology that was anti-Romanian? How could such an idea gain popularity? Wrong - the Alba Iulia declaration spoke of provisional autonomy but explicitly endorsed "unirea acelor români şi a tuturor teritoriilor locuite de dînşii cu România". Bukovina decreed "unirea necondiţionată şi pentru vecie a Bucovinei în vechile ei hotare până la Ceremuş, Colacin şi Nistru, cu regatul României". Bessarabia: "de azi înainte şi pentru totdeauna se uneşte cu mama sa România". So, no. What slave base? Romania tried hard to integrate its new subjects but was undermined at every step by Soviet propaganda like the MASSR. There was no oppression - simply an attempt at nation-building (or rebuilding, in fact). Romania was not an imperialist state: those are her natural frontiers. You could say that Antonescu became an imperialist when he crossed the Nistru, but Greater Romania simply contained within it all historic Romanian lands. Biruitorul 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah universal male suffrage.. let's remember a scene for Rebreanu's "Ion" (this was in Transylvania before www1 , but given the fact that education of the peasants in Transylvania was decades ahead the one in Regat, the situation is comparable to interbellum romania): half of the village votes for the Romanian candidate because the priest said so, while the other half voted for the Hungarian because the village teacher said so. This is what general election meant for the peasants: voting for the candidate supported by the local priest. And no church was not independent... and it's not nowadays either (ok, the situation is somewhat better today because of the separation of state and church brought by the communists). Equality before the law!?! Asta sa i'o spui lu mutu There were very afraid of it... even the land reform of the twenties was made under the pressure of the russian revolution... Bot Ardeal and Bessarabia wanted autonomy and both wanted social reforms... the truth is that Romania acted as an imperialist country annexing new territories, not as a "mother" welcoming back his "children". What had the MASSR to do with the large hungarian, bulgarian, ukrainian or russian minorities? Nation-building is just a fancy word for opression of minorities used by apologists for nationalism. There are no natural frontiers. If Romania wanted itself a nation state it shouldn't have annexed non-romanian territories as northern bukovina, western part of the hotin county, budjak, southern dobruja as well as some territories in transylvania. Transylvania was a historic hungarian land while Dobruja was a turkish/tatar/gagauz historic landAnonimu 14:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Right, but no one forced them to vote a certain way. Those were mere suggestions. And yes, the Church was pretty independent, and the Communists helped destroy its best elements, like its alliance with the state. Any evidence that there wasn't legal equality? I don't think they feared it; such a stupid ideology never got off the ground, and wouldn't have even if it were legal. Actually, yes, they wanted reforms, but they also voted for union - there was no imperialism, only brotherhood and friendship. The MASSR was part of Stalin's plan for creating a "Moldovan" people to then justify Bessarabia's annexation, and he also complained about alleged Romanian mistreatment of minorities. No, you can have pluralistic nation-building: see Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, and indeed Romania. No oppression in any of those. Of course there are natural frontiers - the Nistru and the Tisa, as Eminescu informs us. That is the extent of spaţiul mioritic. All those areas you mentioned are thoroughly Romanian and have been since Dacian times. That their inhabitants might have been living under a Slavic veil for a while is possible, but they are still our brothers and need to be brought up under Bucharest's wing, allowing their true Romanian essence to flourish. Transylvania is and always has been Romanian except during the illegal Hungarian and Ottoman occupations. Same with Dobrogea - illegally held by the Ottomans and Bulgaria until restored to its proper owner, Romania, a land with a special, holy destiny. Biruitorul 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

No they weren't forced... but if they didn't vote the candidate supported by the priest he could show his face in the church for months... and during those times this was social suicide. No the Church wasn't independent at all... The "alliance with the State" was the worst thing that could happen tot the church... it almost destroyed its essence... the separation of state and church was an eliberation of the church... of course in acapitalist world it couldnt stay free for too long... Just remember how the commies and the national minorities were treated... Yes they did... "that stupid ideology" became the official one of one of the greatest country in Europe... Only the representants of 56% of Bessarabia's population voted for the union... the rest abstained or voted against... and according to some source the died that voted to unite with Romania didn't even had a quorum. The mistreatment of minorities was true.. just read ru:Бессарабия в составе Румынии.. you could also find more about mistreatment of hungarians in the Corvinus Libarary. Canada, Belgium and Switzerland are not comparable to romania... there minorities have broad autonomy and the minority languages are official. While in Romania the minorities were opressed. Eminescu was initially a socialist but then became as nationalist and antisemite as Codreanu... probably his mental illness had something to do with this... What have dacians to do with romanians? there's no continuity between the dacian state and the romanian one... You talk like those nationalist from interbellum Romania who considered the minorities "romanians who forgot the romanian language"... Hungarian and Ottoman occupation were not more illegal than the interbellum Romanian occupation of Southern Dobruja, Northern Bukovina, Hotin, Budjak and Szekler country.... Dobrogea was never a Romanian land until the colonisations of the late 19th century... Romania was just lucky to receive it ... Anonimu 14:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Secret ballot, my man, secret ballot. Actually, the Church did have a high degree of autonomy, and the alliance with the state was great because the Church was powerful in those years. Caesaropapism helps the Church. The Church was not freed by the Reds - it was repressed. Religion is much freer in capitalist than in Communist countries - just look at China. The Reds had to be treated worse because they aimed to subvert the state. Minorities were treated OK. No, I think they worried about more serious threats than a Moscow-driven pathetic illegal messianic sect. Right, by force, and with no popular backing. Everyone loved the Tsar. Eh, these are just red herrings. Bessarabia was 56% Romanian because of an intense Russification campaign - it had been 86% Romanian in 1812; the others were there illegally. Russian and Hungarian sources are irredentist propaganda. Of course they're comparable: Romania was very kind to its minorities, all things considered. Just look at how the Soviets treated theirs. Right, but Eminescu is still the national poet, and what he says is very true. Romanians are the direct descendants of Dacians. Enter any history museum (including the one in Constanţa): you'll see the phrase continuitatea daco-română prominently displayed. Yes, many minority groups are just that, for instance the Hutsuls. First, they voted to unite; second, this was confirmed by the Paris Peace Treaty in 1919. By contrast, Hungary and the Ottomans had no business on authentically Romanian lands - lands that form the core of Romanian identity. Yes, Romania was lucky to receive it, and Romanianization was going nicely until Hitler interfered. Twenty more years or so, and the area would have been genuinely Romanian. But it was definitely headed in that direction by 1940, and rightly so. Biruitorul 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

So what if it was secret ballot.. the peasants were stupid... they could be easily manipulated... how do you explain that the party chosen by the king to organize the elections always won? It had some autonomy, but it wasn't independent. Man you see the church as an organization, i see it as something spiritual. Communist only gave freedom of thought to people. Nice repression it was.. the orthodox church was very repressed when it received hundreds and hundreds of buildings. What's with China? They have problems with tibetan monks, but this only because of the independence movement they support. They just aimed equality among the romanian populace. A state which represses people based only on political opinion is not free, and its judicial system is bullshit. Yeah minorities were OK... WTF... they're not people, they can be repressed. For the next 3-4 claims: I'm seriously thinking to stop talking with you... you don't know shit and make claims based on google search. You're just a mediocre nationalist indoctrinated by the legend of prosperous greater romania who feared none and the fairytale of evil communist whose only aim was to randomly kill people. How could a sane man claim that bolshevics had no popular support in Russia and everyone loved the Tsar, that minorities were not opressed in interbellum romania and that romanian are saints, while hunagarians, russians and turk are devils. Anonimu 16:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, now, Anonimu. Relax. I think you're a great guy; no need to get angry (though I admit my opinions may infuriate you). The ballot was secret, no one was holding a gun to their heads, plus people supported what the King said because he was anointed by the Church. So the system was pretty democratic. OK, it wasn't independent, but not completely under the state either. Of course the Church is spiritual, and God is at its centre, but men also make it up, and in that sense it's an organization. Communists did not allow for free thought: see Piteşti prison. Ah, but Ceauşescu tore down churches: see Ceauşima. I was thinking of Falun Gong, but yes, Tibet as well. Yeah, minorities were by and large all right (compare to, say, Jews in Nazi Germany), and Reds aren't really people, they're extraterrestrials. Of course I believe those "tales", because history backs me up. Again, go to the history museum in your city. I never said Romanians are saints and the others are devils. No, there was not much oppression, except maybe a few isolated incidents, but no organised programme like Ceauşescu against the Magyars. Sure, no one liked the Bolsheviks: as late as 1915, Russian soldiers were dying with the Tsar's portrait in their hands. People loved their Emperor, and the Reds were a very small, marginal grouping until they took power illegally. Biruitorul 05:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

People (especially uneducated ones) can be constrained to vote someone without a gun. So you accept that Church politically manipulated people (BTW annointment of the kings is a pre-christian pagan custom). Yes, it was divided between the state, the capitalists and the personal interests of bishops. Once the church began centralized it became a preffered mean to control masses. In certain ways it did. Oh please don't give example of articles sources with fascist books ( written in francoist spain.. they remember me another nice book written in spain in those times... doctrina legionara by horia sima) or Formula AS. If western Europe (and even Romania if i were to trust wikipedia) has the right to outlaw holocaust denial i don't see why chinese gvt doesn't have the right to outlaw falung gong. afghanis also lived very good during taliban administration if you compare their regime with pol pot's. You should be proud to be able to talk with a being from outer space... people would pay billions for this unique opportunity. Who back you up?!? Museum in Romania haven't been updated since Ceausescu's dacist theory. The capitalist state has better ways to spend money... education of the masses is not important for them. You said that all Hungarians and Russians lie about the treatment of minorities in interbellum romania, while romanian sources are the only ones trustworthy. What was the thing done by Ceausescu to the Hungarians that wasn't already done by the pre 1945 gvts? Yes, those few bolshevic that no one liked succeded in conquering one of the largets and most populous countries in Europe. But, since they were e.t.'s, everything is possible. Anonimu 22:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

People can be urged to vote one way or another, but the secrecy of the ballot box is what makes those things ultimately irrelevant. No, I think the Church made people aware of their choices: there's a difference there. No, the Kings of France (and maybe of Romania) were anointed. Very good: people have their ultimate reward in heaven; some of them need to suffer on earth for that. But God remained with the Church until the Devil replaced Him in 1948-90. And the state never changed the Bible or the Liturgy, for example, so there was limited involvement. What fascist book? People were tortured and killed there. Anyway, Franco was a hero - a brave, good, reighteous man and slayer of evil folk. Actually governments don't have rights, they have powers, and those that ban Holocaust denial are grossly abusing their powers, as is Red China, which sees a threat in Falun Gong. Right, but Romanian minorities were still, on the whole, not given much of a hassle - just some minor incidents here and there. Well, maybe you yourself aren't necessarily from Mars, but people like Ana Pauker or Chivu Stoica certainly seem that way. But even if they were human beings, their subversive ideology needed to be crushed. There are lots of sources for Daco-Romanian continuity, like those written by 1970s-80s historians. Education apparently is important, since schools are still functioning; updating museums is not that expensive (they could at least have covered those lines they considered inaccurate, but they didn't). Well, let me clarify: Russian and Hungarian sources stand a good chance of being propagandistic because Russians wanted Bessarabia and Hungarians wanted Transylvania; Romanians had no real reason to lie. He destroyed their villages. Right. It was, as Trotsky (who had the face of an e.t.) said, a "revolution by telegraph" - the Reds won without people really knowing the horrors (61 million killed) ahead. They were not aware of what was happening. They were duped. And as the 1917 elections showed, the Mensheviks were more popular, but Lenin shut down the legislature. Even if these guys were from Earth, they were mightily strange. Biruitorul 04:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

In interbellum Romania voting was compulsry. I doubt that it was really secret. No, because the church was partisan. So what? the custom has a pagan origin. So you don't want to go to heaven.. otherwise, you'd give away all your properties... The official version of the Bible was established by Emperor Constantine. Those written in Madrid, of course. So you think a people who commanded "a very harsh repression (...), with thousands of summary executions, an unknown number of political prisoners and tens of thousands of people in exile" is a hero? Man, Ceausescu's regime killed less people (less than 500), but i don't consider him a hero. you're just a fascist. So China is no worse in freedom of opinion than capiltalist states. Yes, just some minor incidents, here and there... and there... and there.. oh, and there.... and lets not forget there... or there.... Ana Pauker had a subersive ideology in capitalist romania, but anti-communist also had a subversive ideology in Communist Romania... You mean those written under political command? Schools are still functioning.. with yearly strikes, with selling of diplomas... great schools we have... Romanians had better reasons to lie: to keep large territories without romanian population under their rule. Ceausescu systematized villages of all nationalities, not only of hungarians. And these actions were in line with Lovinescu's "arderea etapelor"... The 1917 elections showed that Menshevics were less popular than Bolshevics. BTW, don't you think people should know that the Baragan deportees were allowed to go back to their homes from 1955-1956?Anonimu 12:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

It was probably secret enough, but we're both just speculating here. People did vote for Communist fronts, though, and the Church would surely have disapproved of that. What party did the Church support? So what? It was used by Christians too. (And don't forget that Saul anointed David: they were not pagans either.) Not necessarily; maybe God will forgive me for owning property. First, I was talking about the Romanian state not changing the Bible, and second, Irenaeus had much more to do with that - though Constantine too was a saint. First, one of the books was written in Madrid in 1981, six years after Franco died, by Virgil Ierunca, who was not a fascist. Second, I admit that the other one has some vague links to the Legion, but so what? They suffered, they have a right to tell of their sufferings. And further, what they say is corroborated by many non-Legion sources right in that article. Do you deny that Piteşti happened? Sure, he killed lots of Reds and saved Spain from Stalinism, and all of Europe from fascism (since he refused to give Gibraltar to Hitler). I'm not a fascist and neither, for that matter, was Franco, who was a Falangist. Ceauşescu actually killed many thousands in prison, on the Canal, in the rebuilding of Bucharest, assassinations, etc. No, because some capitalist states happen to have minor restrictions on speech, while in China it's wholesale. The West respects freedom of speech much, much more than Red China, which practically bans it altogether. You want to list these incidents? There were only a couple, really. Right, except Pauker wanted to subvert democracy and replace it with tyranny while people like Paul Goma wanted to replace tyranny with democracy. In other words, Pauker was on the side of evil, Goma on the side of good. No, I mean those written by independent historians. Anyway, if not Dacians, who are we? Sure, schools are working well and highly valued in the West: Bill Gates employs some 300 Romanians! They were Romanians, but their Romanian-ness was in the process of being rediscovered in the 1920s and '30s. And anyway, Romanians are not an expansionist people: for instance, it would be unthinkable for a Romanian state to include land beyond the Nistru. Right, but he focused on Hungarian villages, while the Magyars were largely left alone in Greater Romania. You're right, and I was mistaken, but the Bolsheviks lost badly and forcibly suppressed democracy soon afterward. Good point about the deportations. If you have a source, I'll gladly write that in. Biruitorul 00:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

The ones who voted for commies were generally proletarians who had to work hard to sustain their family and didn't had spare time to go to church. The ones which paid better... It was imposed to the church by pagan rulers. David wasn't a christian. Maybe not. The Romanian state didn't have to change the Bible... they kept the peasant and workers uneducated... and an illiterate can't read the Bible and has to believe what the priest say... but priests were partisans... Yeah, but they could say what happened to them. But they didn't... they generalized... and superimposed their fascist anti-communist bias... but many of those source are based on legionary claims, or have equally anti-communist capitalist bias. Yeah, and Codreanu neither was a fascist, but a legionary... If you google a bit more maybe you'll find some site claiming Franco was socialist too... if Hitler was, why wouldn't he be... Ceausescu was some minor official in Vrancea during the canal camps... how could he be guilty for those deaths? May i remember you that the last political detainees were freed in 1965? A year before the begining of Ceausescu's regime. Ok, some people were politcally imprisoned during Ceausescu's regime... but no more than 50 people died because of this... as for the rebuilding of Bucharest, accidents during construction don't count... all other people who died during Ceausescu died between 17 and 22 december 1989. I wouldn't say denying an event is less important than a man who makes people believe he is a god. The freedom of speech is present in China... you can talk about anything you want, except a dozen or so things. But remeber that in many western countries you'll be punished if you say fags aren't quite normal or even if you wear a headscarf at school. Man, there are too many to be listed.. i already told you where to search. Ok, Goma wanted deocracy, maybe he still wants it... but how could you know that Pauker didn't want democracy (and i don't mean the capitalistic pluto-oligarchy)? I can't answer that. And if i'd try, proably i'd be bashed, called anti-romanian and shit. I've heard on TV that after decades of having our universities in top500 in the last few years we had none. Yeah the myth of magyarized romanian szeklers, of ukrainians as romanians who forgot their language of turks tatars and bulgarians... oh, forgot, their un-romanianness was to evident to invent myths. No, he didn't focus on Hungarian villages. Magyars where left alone in Greater Romania.. without land, education or gvt support... Didn't you look through the external links? Except the fact that some don't work, the ones who do mention that in 1955 or 1956 they went home, or that even if they were left to go home they remained, like in EVZ "Satui de atata deportare, acestia nu au mai plecat dupa 1955 in Banat. " or on Sighet Memorial's site "majoritatea deportatilor au fost retinuti cinci ani, pana in 1956, insa altii au ramas aici pentru totdeauna." Even a the title of a book from the bibliography suggests this: "Deportaţii în Bărăgan 1951-1956 "... Anonimu 13:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe they went to church - we don't have that data. No, you can't say that King Louis XVI, being crowned in 1776, was anointed as the result of pagans imposing that on the church - clearly, the custom had become identified with Christianity by then. Believe me, I'm well aware that David was not a Christian. However, the custom of anointment came not from paganism but from Judaism, as found in the Bible - nothing inherently pagan about it. Maybe He will, maybe not. Maybe you too will not be forgiven for owning property, or for supporting the Canal. Actually, concealing the Bible is a Catholic thing. Romania had a pretty good educational system that the Communists wrecked. One, a number of them did say what happened. Two, it was very painful to talk about it, as Father Calciu-Dumitreasa noted. Three, of course they're biased, because there's nothing wrong with being biased against pure evil. Just like we trust what Jews have to say about Auschwitz, even though they have an anti-Nazi bias, we trust what the victims of Piteşti have to say about their Calvary there, even though they have an anti-Communist bias. OK? The Legion was not a fascist organisation because the love of God was at its centre, whereas fascism was atheist or neo-pagan. I've never heard Franco called a socialist, just a corporatist and a Falangist. Hitler, though, as his own party's name shows, was a socialist. First, I was referring to the 1976-84 Canal period. Second, he was part of the machinery of death - remember that Adolf Eichmann was hanged even though he wasn't a top Nazi. Of course there were political detainees: Father Calciu, Paul Goma, etc. Those accidents do count, because it was forced labour. And what about Gheorghe Ursu?? His blood is on Ceauşescu's hands. You've got things upside down regarding speech in China and in the West. Yes, there are some infringements in the West, which is unfortunate. But in China, things are far, far worse. Let me direct you to what the US State Department says. I know you'll probably dismiss this as capitalist provocations, but get real for a minute. The report is here, and here is a key quote on freedom of speech and of the press: "the government generally did not respect these rights in practice". Well, we certainly know what Pauker did once she got into power, and it didn't much resemble democracy. Well, there's some structural re-adjustment going on, but things are looking good. Nation-building is based on myths. We need more myths to sustain us. I think he did do some focusing on them, and certainly they and the Budapest government complained very loudly. Oh, please. They were equal citizens and certainly weren't doing too badly in those glorious two decades: the resplendent light of late Hohenzollernism fell on them too. All the links worked for me. Anyway, I put in a little; more to come. Biruitorul 22:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

In effect, preventing public sphere-religion interactions will probably help Romanian Orthodoxy grow up and become an independent and strong part of the community (instead of the frustrated attention-seeker it is after singing to the tune of every brand of totalitarianism). Becalisms will not.

Preventing public sphere-religion interactions might help the Church, but then I look at the past 101 years of laïcité in France and the record has been one of inexorable decline in the Roman Catholic Church's fortunes there, so I'm not encouraged. Biruitorul 17:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

(Btw, I think Goma has already passed to a Dacodavian phase, so you still have a long way to go if you want to catch up :).)Dahn 08:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't expect that much. Sounds like Locke and Demosthenes in Ender's Game (sorry for this non-classical reference). :) Dpotop 13:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tismăneanu, the Revolution

The Tismăneanu report comes out soon. We should formulate strategies for including its findings into our articles.

Also, since it's the time of year to play around with conspiracy theories about the revolution, let me present two articles that do just that. The second one is especially good. Excerpt: "Revolutia a inceput la Iasi (in 14 decembrie" - nota. red.), iar curajul lui Tokes este o inventie, atitudinea sa - dincolo de legaturile cu spionajul maghiar - fiind exact contrara imaginii proiectate in universitatile americane de Vladimir Tismaneanu; minoritatea maghiara n-a avut nici un rol, violentele de la Timisoara fiind provocate si intretinute profesionist de cetateni romani, in majoritatea lor etnici romani, pregatiti pe teritoriul Ungariei si introdusi in tara cu scop diversionist". Biruitorul 02:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What the hell has happened to Ziua? Did their entire staff start drinking formaldehyde? Dahn 02:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Could be. We'll certainly mention them in our upcoming article, Becalizarea României (or, I suppose, Becalization of Romania). To be fair, though, their were only quoting here - a certain Alex Mihai Stoenescu, to be precise. Biruitorul 02:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Needn't be formaldehyde. Cocaine and methamphetamine both can produce paranoid symptoms. Cannibis, too, for some people. Maybe they took a staff trip to Amsterdam or Marrakesh? Or Soho? - Jmabel | Talk 00:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but all articles that appeared in the journals these days on the subject follow the same lines: They say Tismaneanu's report does not talk about "communist crimes" in general, instead focusing on destroying living politicians. This is a form of political police -- using the information services to touch political opponents...

And since you talk about Becali, which I don't support, we need a moral viewpoint: Why do you see Tismaneanu and Basescu as more moral as Vadim and Paunescu? Dpotop 07:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It is just now I noticed that one of my edits had deleted this section earlier. It's weird, because I was actually typed and was saving a text in answer to Biruitorul. It was never registered - instead, the whole section disappeared. I just want to say sorry, didn't mean it. Dahn 01:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about that - Ziua would certainly have printed a lengthy article exploring whether you have Securitate connections had I told them. No problem, though. Biruitorul 13:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit war on the term absolute majority

Unfortunately, User:Khoikhoi and I, somehow got involved into a quite technical edit war on the Gheorghe Funar article. I tried to have a discussion with him on the matter, but he kept reverting my edits without motivating them on the discussion page and contacted an administrator to protect his version of the article. At the moment the article is protected, so there is a need for more people to express their comments on the disputed issues. The disputed phrase is the following:

As proposed by User:Khoikhoi:

Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918), and the union of the region with Romania in 1918 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that the majority of the Transylvanian population was ethnic Romanian.

As proposed by User:Alexrap:

Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire) between 1867 and 1918, and the union of the region with Romania in 1920 was perceived as a significant loss by many Hungarians who viewed it as an integral part of Hungary, despite the fact that according to all Hungarian censuses, the absolute majority (over 50%) of the Transylvanian population has always been ethnic Romanian. In 1920 for example the ethnic Romanians were 57.3% and the ethnic Hungarians 25.5% of the total Transylvanian population.

There are two things that we dispute:

1) the use of the term absolute majority

• User:Khoikhoi believes that absolute majority is a term that only few people understand, and this term will confuse readers into thinking that Hungarians were an insignificant minority in Transylvania.
• User:Alexrap believes that everyone understands what an absolute majority is. Also, to eliminate any sort of confusion the explicit explanation (i.e. over 50%) was included in the text. Further, to eliminate the danger of someone believing that, in contrast with this absolute majority, the Hungarian minority was insignificant, the exact percentages for the 2 ethnic groups in 1920 were included in the text.

2) Transylvania as always part of Hungary before 1918

• User:Khoikhoi wants to keep the following: Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire between 1867 and 1918).
• User:Alexrap believes that this phrasing implies that Transylvania had always been part of Hungary before 1918, which is false as Translyvania was independent/autonomous under Ottoman suzerainty (1526-1683), Austrian/Habsburg (1683-1867) and Hungarian (1867-1918). Therefore, the following phrasing should be put in the article Transylvania was part of Hungary (which was part of Austro-Hungarian Empire) between 1867 and 1918.

Please post your comments on these two issues on Talk:Gheorghe Funar#Romanians. And last, but by no means least, Sǎrbǎtori fericite to everyone!Alexrap 15:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Istro-Romanians

In Istro-Romanians, a recent uncited anonymous edit seems to have changed how the Istro-Romanian language fits in with the other Eastern Romance languages. See my question at Talk:Istro-Romanians#Spilt from... This is not something I know a lot about, but the change seemed wrong to me, and neither version is clearly cited. - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in Le Monde

I found the following article in "Le Monde". It's worth reading, as well as the timeline figuring on the same page. I cite:

La Roumanie se retrouve sous tutelle soviétique après 1945. L'arrivée de Nicolae Ceausescu au pouvoir en 1964 a plongé le pays dans le glacis totalitaire.

Nice to see Romania was not a dictatorship before Ceausescu. :) Dpotop 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I see no necessary contrast with other periods in that phrase. All I see is an indication of what characterized Ceauşescu's regime. (You may also note the special meaning of the word "glacis", which is supposedly contrasted with the "détente" in place by the 1960s.) Dahn 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I also find the wording of la Transylvanie, soustraite à l'Empire austro-hongrois en 1918 weird from a future partner. I wonder who writes this shit. Dpotop 14:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The full paragraph reads: "Contrôlées par l'Empire ottoman, la Moldavie et la Valachie se sont unifiées en 1859, suivies par la Transylvanie, soustraite à l'Empire austro-hongrois en 1918." It is merely an indication of the fact that Transylvania belonged to somebody else - someone else in comparison with the two other countries, who were, as you may read for yourself, "contrôlées par l'Empire ottoman". If the verb "soustraire" itself is troubling you, than you should perhaps look into the history of it, and see why it applies (clue: Romania was promised rule over the region upon her entry into the war, but let's keep it a secret). Also note that the verb "s'unir" applies to Transylvania as well, by virtue of "suivies". Dahn 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I remember reading an essay by Borges, where he called on governments to set aside special classes in the educational system, during which students were to learn the skill of reading newspapers (learning to tell opinion from fact and correlate them). Recently, I became more and more convinced that such classes should be instituted in countries like Romania. Dahn 16:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

To complete the picture Dahn is making: The promises given to Romania for entering the WW1 were not considered valid as Romania made a separate peace agreement at Buftea. Teritorry received by Romania was smaller than the promised one, and the basis for unification of Transylvania with Romania was the self-determination principles of Woodrow Wilson, not the promises made before the war.--MariusM 09:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes if you asked Maniu, no if you asked Brătianu. Dahn 12:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you don't understand nuances in French. I'm sure the Frence would not like you saying that Alsace was soustraite by France at some point in history. :) Dpotop 12:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Will France then allow me to say, like this article, that it "united" with France? Dahn 12:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Systematization

User:Afil asserts that the term systematization does not exist in English to refer to Ceauşescu's urban planning schemes. He has moved Systematization (Romania) on this basis, and had prod'ed both that and Systematization. I removed the prod; in the usual course of these things, I imagine he will now AFD them.

The material is now at Urban planning in communist countries with some non-Romanian material added.

Without passing judgment on whether the move was well-advised:

1. The word systematization has now been completely removed from the article, and, if he has his way, will not even be a redirect.
2. He has not taken on the project of fixing double redirects.
3. In making the move, he wrote that "the writer" (that would be me) "probably did not know how to translate it into english".
4. I have presented evidence that this word is used this way in Encylopædia Britannica, The New York Review of Books (probably the leading periodical of literary criticism in the United States), and in a Library of Congress Country Study.
5. He responded by telling me that the word does not have this meaning because it is not in "the Webster dictionary" (a very unclear designation) and, essentially, ignoring the many references I provided. He concludes, "I don't think that there is any point in carrying out this discussion."

So, basically, I stand accused of incompetence, and currently stand reversed, in a matter where I made the same decision as Encylopædia Britannica, The New York Review of Books, and a Library of Congress Country Study. I will readily admit that I am seething. I would strongly hope that some others will get involved in this matter so that it can focus on what should be done, rather than on a claim of my incomptence. Since my evidence was ignored or rejected by my accuser, I see no way I can continue to engage in the discussion without making this an ad hominem matter.

To be honest, I find this all rather bizarre. As far as I know, my only previous interaction with Afil, whom I consider a generally good contributor, was to praise his work. It amazes me that he apparently holds the opinion that I am so incompetent and so self-evidently wrong in this matter that he would bypass the usual discussion process about moving longstanding page and, apparently, that he holds firm to that opinion even after I have marshalled what I would consider pretty strong evidence for the usage I made. - Jmabel | Talk 21:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Romania

Isn't anyone else posting here these days?

I recently did significant cleanup at History of Romania. Thought I'd mention it here rather than blindside anyone. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well—speaking of not blindsiding people—if no one else is posting here, it's probably soon going to be very quiet, because it looks like soon I won't be. - Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Noooooo! I know the trend-lines have been pointing in an unfortunate direction, but please, Illegitimi non carborundum. Biruitorul 23:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

National Opera, Timişoara

If anyone is interested in doing an article about the National Opera, Timişoara, I just ran across a fact that is not in their official history, and sounds like it might be worth researching: According to a note on a generally serious forum, in 1948, on the way back to Timişoaraafter performing Rigoletto in Arad, the company's principal soloists were killed in an automobile accident.

If we had an article already, I'd just have stuck this in there. - Jmabel | Talk 19:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Technical question

When I open my watchlist I noticed a +/- number placed just after the edit times. What is that number? Sorry for asking this here, but I really don't know where to ask it. Dpotop 11:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a cool new feature -> Wikipedia:Added or removed characters. Cheers AdamSmithee 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Dpotop 13:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

A question about Leonard Orban

As he is now a European Commissioner, I suppose it is impossible that he is also a state secretary with the Ministry of European Integration in the Romanian government. But I cannot find any source about this, at least in English.--Michkalas 21:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"Moldovan-Romanian"?

I've noticed that a couple of people are designated as "Moldovan-Romanian" - people born in the Republic of Moldova or the Moldavian SSR who now live in Romania. I can think of four people who belong to this group: Ilie Ilaşcu (and perhaps his associates), Radu Sârbu, Pavel Stratan and his daughter Cleopatra. I disagree with the designation. I know what's intended: to show that these people are citizens of Moldova who live in Romania. However, I think it's a little obtuse. Yes, the two states are separate, but we should make some allowance for their special relationship. This is not just my Unionist POV - within Romania, such people are (as far as I know) universally called basarabeni, and their children are români. They are not called moldoveni-români. By contrast, someone from (say) Bulgaria is un bulgar, and his children too would be called bulgari (colloquially). As for self-identication, I'm not entirely sure, but I know for a fact that Ilaşcu (also a Romanian citizen) and P. Stratan are Unionists, so I doubt they call themselves moldoveni-români, and neither will, in all likelihood, young Cleo Stratan in about a decade when she starts thinking seriously about national identity. Sârbu too, one imagines, calls himself un basarabean or perhaps un moldovean.

This set of people is not a recognised national minority, and indeed, as they (more or less) speak the same language, practice the same religion and have the same culture, Romanians tend to think of them as regionally distinct (as they do of Transylvanians, Moldavians, Oltenians, etc.) but not as constituting a separate ethnic group.

To give a relatively precise analogy, de:Horst Kasner, whose daughter is now Chancellor of Germany, moved from West Germany to East Germany in 1954. Was he referred to, even before receiving DDR citizenship, as a "West German-East German"? Probably not.

I propose some compromise formula: perhaps "Moldovan-born Romanian", which we use for Ilaşcu, or maybe "Romanian [singer, politician, etc.], originally from Moldova". Biruitorul 02:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. The wording "Moldovan-born Romanian" is probably the best way in which to express this information. TSO1D 03:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, too. "Moldovan-Romanian" is very odd, it would be us inventing a never used before term. We can use:

• "Moldovan-born Romanian"
• "Romanian [singer, politician, etc.], born in Moldova" (born in is much better than originally from, as the later suggests that the person has left Moldova forever, which is almost never true)
• even "Moldovan and Romanian [singer, writter etc.]" (if the person has significant activity in both counties)

For people born before 1918:

• "Bessarabian Romanian"
• "Romanian, born in Bessarabia"

For those born in 1918-1944, and who moved to Romania between 1944 and 1989:

• "Bessarabian Romanian"
• "Romanian, born in Bessarabia"
• "Romanian, born in present day Moldova"
• "Romanian, born in present day Chernivtsi Oblast, Ukraine"
• "Romanian, born in Northern Bukovina"

Dc76 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(Or, I guess, 1941-4: Adrian Păunescu was born in 1943 in reoccupied Bessarabia.) But yes, good suggestions. Biruitorul 04:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

That's right. Even someone born in 1940-41 (and moved to Romania before 1989, generally that would be moved in 1944-45). So, I changed 1940 to 1944 above. For those born after 1944-45, and certainly for those born after 1950 you'd have to say "Moldova" instead of "Bessarabia".:Dc76 04:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If a person is a Moldovan citizen and lives in Romania, I see nothing wrong in the "Moldovan-Romanian" naming. It is the other way that should pose a problem (i.e.: Romanian-Moldovan). Dahn 08:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

For my part, I support a previous proposal, to call them "Romanians born in Moldova". Why, I presume Ilascu would not like being called a Moldovan-Romanian, as though he immigrated to Romania and got integrated in a different society (like Romanian-Americans do, for instance). Dpotop 08:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Ilaşcu hold Moldovan citizenship? Is Moldova a state issuing personal documents? Is it anywhere in the name implied that "he immigrated to Romania and got integrated in a different society"? Will it be indicated or assumed just because it is used in that sense in some other context? Have you perchance seen this category? Dahn 08:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the name "Moldovan-Romanian", even though it is a rather complex case, since their ethnicity is, at least according to some views, "Romanian". I think the best parallel in this case is Austria. If an Austrian singer moves to Germany to launch their career, what we would we call them? I would say "Austrian-German", even though "German originally from Austria" is also OK. The bigger controversy, I think, is whether to emphasise their Romanianness (i.e. their country of residence) or their Moldovanness (i.e. their country of origin). We can say "XYZ is a Romanian singer originally from Moldova", but that implies that he is Romanian first, and that is the most important part of his identity. I think saying "Moldovan-Romanian" implies less of that, because it tends to equalise the two origins. Even though it implies that he is "a Romanian of Moldovan origin", it can also imply "Moldovan and Romanian", which in many ways these people are.

The other alternative is to emphasise their Moldovanness (country of origin), which a lot of people have done with bands like O-Zone, calling them "a Moldovan band currently living in Romania". As you can see, there is a big difference between saying "Radu Sârbu is a Romanian singer originally from Moldova"/"Radu Sârbu is a Moldovan-Romanian" and "Radu Sârbu is a Moldovan singer currently living in Romania". The same would apply to saying "Eugene Ionesco was a French playwright originally from Romania" vs "Eugene Ionesco was a Romanian playwright who lived in France". I think the usage of "Moldovan-Romanian" or "Romanian-French", etc, is an attempt to compromise between those two versions.

The Cleopatra Stratan issue is different, since she was born in Romania (or not?) and is hence Romanian both in terms of country of origin and in terms of country of residence. If both her parents are Moldovan, we could say something like "Cleopatra Stratan is a Romanian singer..." but then in the "Early life" part we could say "Born to Moldovan-Romanian parents" or "born to parents from the Republic of Moldova..." Ronline ✉ 09:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that many Romanians would have both Ilascu and Ionescu as "romani verzi". Whereas I actually agree that Ionescu is a French writer of Romanian origin, whereas Eliade is a Romanian and American author, and Ilascu is a Romanian nationalist politician from Moldova. But, well, this is complicated and debatable. Dpotop 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, ethnically Ionesco was half-Romanian, quarter-French and quarter-Greek. It would probably be wrong to call him a "French writer of Romanian origin", since that tends to imply that he was born in France, lived in France his whole life, but had Romanian ancestry. I think the correct term for Ionesco would be "Romanian-French" (not "French-Romanian", which implies that he is a French person/immigrant living in Romania). With the Moldovan issue, comparable cases are Cyprus, Austria and, to an extent, Switzerland. How do they do it there? Ronline ✉ 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And one more thing: the Romanian usage is indeed "basarabeni" but also "moldoveni [din Republica Moldova]". "Basarabeni" definitely has no valid equivalent in English, since it very much an irredentist usage ("Bessarabian"). Calling them just "Moldovan" is wrong, since they live in Romania and, arguably, are of Romanian ethnicity (I say arguably, depending on your view of whether Moldovan is an ethnicity or not). Calling them just "Romanian" is wrong, since even if they are ethnically Romanian, they are still Moldovan nationals, in the same way that some people are Swiss nationals or Austrian nationals. Not all nationalities have to be ethnically-based. Ronline ✉ 09:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And another addition: look at the Oscar Wilde article. The listed nationality is Irish, even though he lived in England and France for a significant part of his life. I would consider the nationality of Radu Sârbu to be "Moldovan" not "Romanian". Ronline ✉ 09:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Ronline, you rule. Dahn 09:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship of Radu Sîrbu can be Moldovan, ethnicity is Romanian. When O-Zone went in France, they visit Romanian Embassy there, not Moldovan Embassy. This was their choice, they want to be considered Romanians. I can not blame them. Romanians born in Moldova is the best option.--MariusM 14:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Er... if they weren't Romanian citizens as well, they would not have visited the Embassy... the instance of double citizenship... which is what we were discussing... I'm sorry, but I cannot see how you drew your conclusion. Dahn 14:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"born in Moldova" is the best option IMHO. I didn't see any valid argument from other editors against this. We should not confuse ethnicity with citizenship. There are ethnic Russians from Moldova who relocated in Romania (Anna Leshko, for example). "Born in Moldova" cover all those cases, without need of research about ancestry.--MariusM 15:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm, Anna Lesko. :)) She is so beautiful. Dpotop 15:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• The Wilde case is not analogous. During his lifetime, Ireland was part of the UK, pretty much the same status as Scotland today. The situation of the UK is unusual: it is an explicitly multinational state. For example, in many sports, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland each have their own national teams. - Jmabel | Talk 20:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

But citizenship is precisely the point, and ancestry does not even come into question. Lesko and Grigore Vieru are both "Moldovan-Romanians", and, supposedly, none of them is "ethnic Moldovan" (it would help get my point through if you clicked the links). Whereas a person born in Bessarabia who was never a Moldovan citizen (for one, Emil Constantinescu) is not a Moldovan-Romanian. I have already pointed out Category:Swiss-French people. Dahn 15:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

First person in Category:Swiss-French people is Arpad Busson, who lives in London! Why is he not in Category:Swiss-English people? Wikipedia is sometimes inconsistent.--MariusM 15:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, because he is both a French and a Swiss citizen.He could live in Kaliningrad or an Saturn, it would still be irrelevant in this context. Dahn 15:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Two comments: one, as I said, I think the best parallel is the two Germanies, because their division was as artificial as the Romania-Moldova one, done for similar reasons and around the same time, and ended around the same time that the Romania-Moldova one should have but didn't due to political reasons. By contrast, Cypriots, Austrians and Swiss have much older claims to nationhood and for what I would argue to be better reasons as well. And again, "West German-East German" or vice versa sounds improbable. Two, the above debate is interesting, but I think it misses the component of real-life usage. In other words, we might call them "Moldovan-Romanians" here, but (as far as I know) no one calls them moldoveni-români (not they themselves, not the people around them) - they are either basarabeni or, as Ronline reminded us, români din Republica Moldova (to distinguish from Moldavia, which is called Moldova in Romanian). So by calling them "Moldovan-Romanians" and not something nearly equivalent, like "Romanians originally from Moldova" or "Romanians born in Moldova" or "Moldovans living in Romania", depending on the context, we are coming close to creating our own OR designation for them. I don't object to pointing out their Moldovan origins (indeed it should be done), but is using four or five words to do so instead of two such a problem? Biruitorul 17:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not have any problem calling them something other than Moldovan-Romanians, but I think that all the other names are more POV in that they have greater connotative strength (whereas Moldovan-Romanian is ambiguous and doesn't imply much - this is good to an extent, here). I admit, however, that this connotative strength may actually be more precise and more useful in some cases. I would agree that the two Germanies is a parallel to an extent, but the cases are not identical simply because in East Germany or West Germany there was never an ethnonationalist movement for separation (whereas in Moldova, there was the creation of a Moldovan ethnicity and language as separate from Romania). Thus, no-one ever thought about calling both East Germans or West Germans as anything other than "Germans" speaking "German". In Moldova, however, there was and still is controversy about whether they are "Romanians" speaking "Romanian" or "Moldovans" speaking "Moldovan" or even "Moldovans" speaking "Romanian". So the cases are not directly comparable; Moldova is more diverged from Romania than East Germany was from West Germany. Whether it was forcibly imposed or not doesn't really matter here. Moldova is not really "a second Romania"; even Băsescu has stopped referring to them as "two nations, one people". I would rather be inclined to say that the Moldova-Romania case is more parallel to Norway-Denmark. Ronline ✉ 23:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I too don't totally object to "Moldovan-Romanian" myself, but for the reasons I've outlined, I think there are better alternatives. I think the key is to stick to facts. For instance, if we write "Pavel Stratan is a pop music singer. Born in present-day Moldova, he now resides in Romania", I don't think anyone can accuse us of POV, and we are adhering to the principle of Show, don't tell: we state the facts and let the reader draw his own conclusions, rather than using the term "Moldovan-Romanian", which could mean any number of things. I agree that the Germany example is not a perfect analogy (there are no perfect analogies here), insofar as the Communists chose not to invent an "East German" language. (Though they could have - German does have a variety of dialects to choose from whence to create a new literary standard.) In the cultural sphere, there was some divergence, with the DDR having its own sports teams, films, music, consumer goods, etc. Moreover, the government promoted "East German heroes" who lived and died well before 1949 - local favourite Karl Marx, of course, was suitably mourned on the centennial of his death in 1983, but also that year - by an officially atheist state, no less - Martin Luther was celebrated on the quincentennial of his birth. Indeed, there is an intriguingly-titled 1995 article: "An East German Ethnicity? Understanding the New Division of Unified Germany", and some fairly clear divisions betwen former Easterners and Westerners remain (not just economic). I will grant that the divergence was greater, but also that, due to historical, cultural, linguistic, religious and political reasons, as well as actual usage and self-identification, we should treat "Moldovan-Romanians" on an ad-hoc basis and create slightly longer ethno-national descriptor terms for them.

Incidentally, what about Korea? Apparently their language has now undergone some divergences, and while I suppose there is no pretence of a "North Korean ethnicity", the cultural differences between the two countries are obviously vast, but we don't call defectors "North Korean-South Koreans" (a couple of examples). Biruitorul 06:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The key difference, however, is that both South Korea and North Korea see themselves as "Korean", speaking the Korean language and having Korean ethnicity, while claiming that the other regime is an illegitimate representative of all Koreans. In the Moldovan SSR and the current Republic of Moldova, the situation is rather different: the intention was never to present the country as a second or more real Romania, but rather as a distinct "ethno-nation", different to Romania. But, the two cases are similar to an extent. I think the problem with saying "Pavel Stratan is a pop music singer. Born in present-day Moldova, he now resides in Romania" is that we're not referring to ethnicity at all, which may not always be satisfactory. I think the above construction is very neutral and NPOV, but it says too little. We say Ukrainian-Romanian, or Chinese-Romanian, or Palestinian-Romanian, when referring to recent migrants from these countries. Why can't we say Moldovan-Romanian? Ronline ✉ 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The case of Denmark and Norway is absolutely not similar to Romania and Moldova. Danish belongs to the East-Scandinavian group, and it mutually inteligible with Swidish, approx. like Romanian and Italian, maybe a little more b/c the culture is also very similar. Norverian is in West-Scandinavian group, still inteligible, but Norvegians (at least so they told me) have haeder time communicating. Basic words, like "not", "something" are already quite different, and Sweeds change to Danish "not", "something" keeping the rest of the words in simpliest possible Swedish, otherwise Danes do not understand directly.

A good comparison would be Germany and Bavaria 1850s-1870s.

In addition to the formulas I pointed at the begining, use "Moldovan Romanian" or "Moldovan and Romanian". The general rule is: read what you write and think, call a person just as he/she would call himself/herself, do not uniformize everyone according to your own (changing) criteria of "correct". Be careful when you edit articles about people: there are much stricter rules. It is actually possible to sue wikipedia if an article portrays a living person in a was that that person considers incorrectly. There will be no "precess", b/c the article will be canged and protected immediately, or deleted. But I am sure you don;t want to feature high up b/c of some stupidity you do. Golden: don't just write, also think.:Dc76 07:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

(Right, as I said, no two cases are exactly parallel.) Good point, I hadn't thought about nationality being identified and not ethnicity. My response would be this: while neither Romania nor Moldova are ethno-national states in which 100% of people belong to the titular nationality, I think the assumption is that people do belong to that ethnicity unless otherwise stated. For instance, we say that Băsescu is Romanian - we don't also add that he's an ethnic Romanian. We do say right away that Markó Béla is a Romanian of Hungarian ethnicity. Likewise, if his name were (say) Stratanski, we could say "he is a singer of Russian ethnicity. Born..." (Interestingly, we don't directly mention that Voronin is Russian.) Of course, there is also the question of self-identity. Does Stratan consider himself of "Moldovan" ethnicity? I'll let this question and answer speak for itself:

Q: Cum evaluati dinamica dintre apartheidul vizelor instaurat de Bucuresti fata de etnicii romani din Moldova si Ucraina si apartheidul instaurat de Chisinau cu distinctia artificiala intre ‘popoarele’ roman/moldovean ?

Stratan: Desi ma abtin ca sa fac aprecieri politice, pot sa va spun ca sufleteste asi castiga orice concurs lansat sub egida: Romani Din Toate tarile uniti-va! Biruitorul 16:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Calea Victoriei

Looks like someone has done some nice work at ro:Calea Victoriei. We should sync up the content. At a quick glance, I'm not sure if there is anything in en: that is missing from ro:, but there is definitely material in ro: that is not in en: - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Iashi?

Aşgabat has been moved to Ashgabat, with the justification being, "How many English speakers know what ş means?" My question is, how can we now justify not having articles located at Iashi, Shimleu Silvaniei, or Focshani (especially given that ş in Turkmen comes from ş in Turkish, which Attatürk borrowed from Romanian)? In case it wasn't clear, I'd like to see it moved back to Aşgabat. Biruitorul 04:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

http://turkmenistan.usembassy.gov/

http://www.ashgabat.us/

It may happen "Ashgabat" is the English version for "Aşgabat". I don't know of such English pairs for Iaşi or Focşani. I mean maybe the reason is wrong but the move was justified. Daizus 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

In case we will ever have a dispute on a Romanian name with no tradition in English, we can reject transliterations like: ts/tz instead of ţ or sh instead of ş on the following grounds:

- it is Latin alphabet. Diacritics are not letters, just those super/sub-script extra signs and they come in a multitude of types - accents, cedillas, umlauts, etc.. Sometimes "extended Latin alphabet" is used to cover Latin alphabet with all its derivations (diacritics, ligatures or whatever else). But please note the original Latin alphabet didn't have letters like "W", so accepting as "Latin alphabet" the Latin alphabet with some additions but not with others, it is ultimately a conventional and controversial act which needs furthermore justifications.

- the usage of diacritics as addition to Latin alphabet it is accepted on Wikipedia, though not as a general rule (nor their rejection is a general rule): see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_%28standard_letters_with_diacritics%29 and

- purpose: the users of English Wiki will still have serious problems of pronounciation, as typical English pronounciation is not (quasi-)phonetical as Romanian, Italian and others. So for reading/writing it is better for them to have the name with diacritics, for speaking/listening only a phonetical transcription (which uses its own special alphabet) or a audio file can really help them. Daizus 09:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only English name for Iaşi seems to be Jassy, which is already a redirect. Given that Wikipedia needs to report English usual names (if any) or the native one, Iaşi is OK. Dpotop 09:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose Ashgabat is more common in English - but then again, the US Government now uses Kyiv and we use Kiev, although that's more a matter of transliteration. In any event, I hope at least our ş remains safe. Biruitorul 17:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Banned user reappearing?

The recent edits by User:132.216.104.200 suggest to me a reincarnation of a banned user. This user is simultaneously rejecting low numbers on the number of Romanians and high numbers on the number of Roma. In neither case is he presenting any real arguments, just saying that these numbers (which seem as well cited as others in the relevant articles) constitute "POV pushing". Use of that term strongly suggests experience with Wikipedia, so this is presumably not a newbie. - Jmabel | Talk 19:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Whois says the IP is McGill University in Montreal. Isn't that where Norbert Arthur was? I'm going to bring this over to WP:AN/I. - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of this person before, but thanks for mentioning it, this may explain a bit of a difficulty I've had with the page on Grigore Moisil, when someone reverted my de-listing that mathematician as being Canadian-Romanian. (Moisil's only connection with Canada, far as I know, was that he died while attending a conference in Ottawa.) Look also at the page on Romanian-Canadians, and the history there, especially at the back-and-forth about Joffrey Lupul. I gotta go delete the reference to Moisil from there one of these days, but I don't feel like fighting in a revert war over that, especially after looking at the history of that page... Turgidson 20:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)