Jump to content

User talk:Dc76/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

This page was archived following the instructions at Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page#Cut and paste procedure.

____________________________________________________________________ Joke of the day :-)

Părerera ta necesară

Articolul Transnistria a suferit multe modificări între timp, s-au scos "Border issues", opiniile lui Yakovlev, Travel warnings ş.a. Cum ai contribuit la acest articol ar fi bine dacă ai reveni la el pentru aţi expune poziţia în talk page. Mulţumesc.--MariusM 13:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Salut si La multi ani! Imi pare sincer rau ca sunt foarte ocupat acum. Sper sa pot reveni dupa 15-20 ianuarie. :Dc76 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

See, Marius, non-English in an English wiki puts other non-speaking users at a disadvantage someone may capitalize on. ;-) --Illythr 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What in the above you don't understand, Illythr. When I reply, I almost always reply in the language I was asked, and I always use the simpest language, so that anyone can read. You know what "salut" mean, "hello". You have never been in Moldova if you don't know "La multi ani" You don't know English if you don;t understand "sincer", "ocupat", "reveni", "ianuarie". "Imi pare rau" is "I am sorry", the second phrase after "buna ziua" that every tourist know. The only thing to "translate here" is "foarte"="very", "dupa"="after" and "acum"="now", which you do understand because it's impossible for you to leave in Moldova and bever here "foarte", "dupa" or "acum". "Sper"="to hope". One surely hopes "to hope" is a basic verb, hopefully. :-) :Dc76 23:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about me, I only have trouble comprehending large texts in Romanian. I formed my post in such a way, because I understood what Marius is saying, indirectly commenting on his "English chauvinism" thing. :) Although in this particular case I can only agree with him - we need more people with a clean record dealing with the issue. --Illythr 11:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Moldovan Romanian

Can you present any kind of authentic Klingon literature? :) All that is necessary for the creation of a wiki is people who can speak the language and are willing to work on the project. That's what the mo:wiki is lacking, and that is why I no longer object to its freezing. Still, I understand that the transliteration tool (have you read the deletion discussion, BTW?) is not up yet, so I'm not changing my vote (as if it mattered). Your idea was actually a comprimise proposal most people (including Node) agreed with. I haven'y seen any progress in that direction, though. --Illythr 22:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I read when I voted, but I only read 1 hour. There are several hours of reading there to do, which I am not willing to sacrifice, since we all know what is it about. I did not know there was ANY compromise on mo:wiki. Progress? Everybody likes to dispute - it's easy. Contributing with more than small edits - very hard, everybody avoids it. As usual in every aspect of life. Your vote would, however, matter, since you are from Moldova, although as I can see from above you don't speak the language (I remember you said you can understand and read it, in a discussion about Paul Goma's book if I remember correctly), or you do? What is the transliteration tool, how can that be of any help? Of real help would be (in my opinion) if you and me take pre-1989 texts and put it on wikipedia. We have the means to do it, unlike Russians who don't know the language, or Romanians who don't know the althabet, or dilletants who don't know how complicated were the rules pre-1989, least to know them. :Dc76 22:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here's the proposal part: [1]. In short, it was proposed to copy all useful material to ro:wiki (into Latin script) and use a tool that will display the text in Cyrillic script on demand. I also think that that Romanian users will resist the insertion of Cyrillic text into their wiki. --Illythr 11:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comments on MariusM's talk page

I'd like to clarify few points of my argument with Marius, as you appear to misunderstand my position and aims:

  • Talk:War_of_Transnistria#Key_players - I listed four major participants. The timeline features PMR prominently, 14th army a bit, however, MD and MPF are virtually absent. And yes, it is POV (or rather non-neutral), if you list the actions of only one side of the conflict. Just think how the WW2 timeline would look if it consisted of only, say, Soviet actions:
    • 22 June 1941: Multiple Soviet - Axis clashes along the Soviet border with numerous casualties on both sides.
    • October 1941: By using scorched earth tactics and partisan attacks against German supply lines, the Soviets weaken the Wehrmacht forces around Moscow.

A bit strange, don't you think? Now, the same with POV:

    • 22 June 1941: Soviet military formations kill xxx German citizens who attempted to cross the Soviet border.
    • October 1941: By plundering their own land and desrtoying German convoys, the Soviets have caused tens of thousands of Germans to die from frostbite in the cold Russian winter.
    Plain ridiculous? A clueless reader might get a terribly wrong impression? Well... Plenty of drunken Cossacks or unknown persons with machine guns, but not a word about riots in Kishinev, MPF volunteers or Cocieri. The funny thing is, both of these "timelines" are factually correct. Knowing that the timeline is incomplete and needs to be expanded, wouldn't it be only fair to add appropriate tags so as not to confuse anyone?
  • "no more big brother": So then, who had proposed the idea to join Romania in 1990? Probably worth including as well. The current version doesn't even mention Moldova's independence or Romanian unionism as one of the fears of the non-titular populace.
  • "leader of opinion": Your suggestion is reasonable. His research on Russians is fine to illustrate a point, as long as it is presented as an opinion. My original concern (on what is now apparently a closed issue) was that Marius suggested that since Dabija's book does not mention Rus or Russians in the area, there must have not been any (thus supporting another book; he might be correct for all I know, but Dabija's book is a bad source on such an issue). --Illythr 01:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
PS: Good idea about the occupation article. I am willing to believe that you have missed that particular paragraph, but I hope you will be more careful with such potentially explosive material in the future. --Illythr 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
All right, I understand your point now. It is perfectly logical what you say. This tag is absolutely fine. I would disagree with removing the timeline for the sole reason that not everything essential was mentioned. The (rhetorical?) question is, when and who will take the pains (time, first of all) to add the missing items in the list.
  • what do you mean by "riots in Kishinev" (BTW, it is Chisinau)? Do you mean the pickets in front of the 14th army base there? I surely don't remember any violent incident, less so riot in 1992 in Chisinau. There were other pickets as well, for example when frustrated solders came in front of the government building to protest poor action on the part of the government, which costed lives of civilians and combatants. But riots? Who and against what?
  • Adoption of language law, Moldova's independence, and Romanian unionism were indeed major factors, especially in the propaganda, they definitevely should be mentioned. One small point however: you are Russian, but you did not take weapons to fight Moldovans because you feared from these 3 events/factors. So there are also two more important factors for Transnistria - daily propaganda and ready availability of 14th army's weaponry.
  • If Dabija's book contains (reproduces probably) some thorough research, then why not including that information. If there is only propaganda - then of course, not. I have not read the book (never even had it in my hands), so I don't know. For what I know, Marius has the ability to distinguish research from propaganda, and the good sense not to take from a sourse only the exerpts that support a POV. If that book has bibliography, we can ask Marius to give us the exact refences, and follow them. Anyway, what is exactly the issue? I am guessing (just guessing) he is supporting with Dabija's book the statement that Russians first got to Transnistria in 18th century. Isn't that known, do we actually need a sourse for that?

As I have told to Marius (that part might be in Romanian), it would be better if I can help with things that can be done in 30 minutes - 1 hour. I can verify sourses, search info about a given theme, follow links within links, translate, or edits sections. But engaging in discussions about a whole article takes so much time ... Unless it is absolutely necessary (to combat systematic POV pushing), I would rather not do that. And sometimes, I am not available for long periods of time, like several weeks with zero edits.

P.S. You see, I do exact sciences. If it's right - it's right, if it's wrong - it's wrong. It of course needs good argumentation. But "potentially explosive" makes no particular meaning to what I'm doing outside wikipedia. But I will try to remember the good observations. :Dc76 02:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

  • The riots are mentioned in the source I provided - the editorial of a pro-soviet newspaper was burned down, the Ministry of internal affairs was attacked, a few less known ones like the vandalizing of the Jewish cemetery also ocurred at that time. (BTW: At that time it was more known as Kishinev, see Kishinev Pogrom for an (older) example).
  • At that time I was too young (and had other problems) to get involved. Besides, not all who feared took action. Most just feared and did nothing. The Soviet Army weaponry is already mentioned (quite extensively), mentions of propaganda will have to be included as well. My family is actually mostly non-Russian by ethnicity. But since our native language is Russian, we are "Russians" in Moldova. In Russia, we'd be foreigners. Heh.
  • Dabija's book - both, most likely. The name - "Moldova de peste Nistru, vechi pămînt strămoşesc / Zadnestrovscaia Moldova, isckonnaia naşa zemlia" - already sounds rather suspicious, though. The problem is to "Separate the wheat from the chaff", so to speak. The dispute was about the statement "the area was part of the Kievan Rus at times" relating to a brief period in the X century.

PS: That's why I like natural sciences much more than the "unnatural" ones :-) --Illythr 00:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

We have a common ground on "unnatural sciences" :-)
  • In 1992 it was Chisinau. Kishinev is only up 1989, but again, that's only the name in Russian. Anyway. My point is, you must surely be speaking about 10 November 1989. Maybe you should read more about the events of that day, about what happened 3 days yearlier on 7 November, about the role of differnt people, inlcuding "our president". Try find something about the real causes. there were arrests (individuals, and only for several weeks) all throughout 1989. It was bound to errupt. That has nothing to do with the war in transnistria, which was 2 and 1/2 years later, other than psychologically.
  • Do you mind, what ethnicity are you? (being this a public place, I will perfectly understand if you decline to say) I guess you were born and rased in Moldova, right? If so, you are Moldavian, too, that's your (and only) country. Even if your parents were not born in Moldova. Like Americans who's parents immigrated - they are 100% Americans. You have an equal say, just as everyone else from this country. (Ethnic) Moldovans (Romanians) lived in fear in 1941, 1945, 1946-47, 1948, 1949, 1951, up until 1956. But we overcame it and fought back, and took down the system. If you feel more connection to this country than to any other, then you should just overcome the "fear". You are one of us. If someone would say you are less Moldovan, that's just un-educated rubbish. Unless, of course, you don't feel anything for Moldova, and would rather go somewhere else.
  • Dabija's book's title might be correct, after all. He referes probably to the triangle Movilau-Golta-Ovidiopol. Ukrainins came later there but in more numbers, and that land is Ukrainian now, except for what is now Transnistria. But that does not mean it was not once Moldavian. Like Pomerania for Germany and Poland. By the way, "strămoşesc" does not mean "nasha", but "ancestal", and "vechi" means "old", not quite "isckonnaia". you can translate "vechi strămoşesc" by 1 word "isckonnaia". And of course it is non-articulated, it's "a", not "the". Transnistria was virtually void during 10th century, it was part of a vast empty land (steppe) between Kievan Rus, early Romanian voivodates, Bysantines, and migratory peoples. Is it not possible simply to find a better edit of that particular sentance?:Dc76 01:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Here is the place to read about in: WP:ARCHIVE. The simplest way is just to move everything you no longer need here: User talk:Dc76/Archive 1 and leave this link somewhere around the top of your talk page. That's what I did, at least. No more time now, I'll reply to the rest later. --Illythr 12:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :Dc76 20:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I think something went wrong during your archiving. I fixed it for you. If you want it the way it was before, feel free to revert me. BTW: Did you intentionally remove the old skin? --Illythr 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I am good at screw up stuff :-) What I did was this: I "moved" my talk page to /Archive 1. But then I was not able to edit the talk page, because it had an automatic redirect. Neither could I create a new page and overright over my Talk page, b/c the talk page "existed" (the automatic redirect). The only thing I could do was to move back /Archive 1 to my talk page. (The only move over an existing page allowed by wikipedia is undo.) Then I attempted a different method: cut-and-paste. I have created /Archive1 (no space), put their the old items, and leaved the items I wanted in the talk page. As far as I understand, you saw /Archive 1 (with space) as an automatic redirect, and changed it to contain what /Archive1 contains. But apparently you took pains to go ever every item and remove a set of = =. Thank you for that. Maybe it sound complicated, but the result is good: I have both /Archive 1 and /Archive1. :-) :Dc76 22:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Again, thanks a lot. :Dc76 22:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I didn't see the Archive1 page. I guess you can delete the one you don't need, eventually. Hint: You can go to redirect pages you got just redirected from by clicking the <page_name> in the "(Redirected from page_name)" message right below the page header. :-) --Illythr 00:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem, you have helped very much already. The "Hint" is so simple! and it works! :Dc76 00:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"Union of Transylvania with Romania"

Let me give you my full suggestion. To my mind, an article should be created around a coherent entity. For one, this means that the editor contributing it should at least look around and make sense of what is already out there before adding content, especially since it is customary for one to wikilink his or her own articles, and not expect others to do it. Wikipedia calls this "look before you leap".

As it is, we currently have a Union Day (Romania), which, if fully developed, will be likely highly redundant to the content you have just added. Remember when you were wondering if the article on the "Ultimatum" should be merged into the "Occupation of Bessarabia"? You have besically done the same thing currently, since most of that information will belong under a title with a concrete, not abstract, title: Directory Council of Transylvania. Just like it is much better to create an article on Sfatul Ţării than on the "Union of Bessarabia with Romania". Dahn 08:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Salut. I wasn't sure about Targu Mures either, but today I found this: [2]. And if you're asking me, yes, I think these articles should be merged. Axi 18:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

How exactly to merge the two articles? There is more to the issue than the Union Day (Directory Council, military actions in 1919, diplomacy in Verseille and in Bucharest, discussion at the time about whether the administration of Romania should have a centralized or descentralized character etc etc), so it will be unfair to title the common article Union Day. On the other hand, Union Day, sort of needs an article. A solution would be to develop this article, including in it the material from Union Day, after which to redirect Union Day here. But that needs A LOT of work, and I can not do that alone.
The sourse you give me would not lie about dates, though I disagree with many things written there. The events of 1918-1919 are portrayed through the prism of Romania's involvement in WWI and her agreements with Entente. That is not what brought Transylvania to union with Romania. We should remember that Romania lost WWI, she was unprepared for war, due to the cowardness (or even evelness) of Bratianu's government, who is so positively portrayed in your sourse, when he's the most responsible for the deaths during the war. Romania signed a piece treaty with Germany and Austria in May 1918, by which it lost substantial pre-war territory. The thing that saved Romania were the Romanians from Transylvania. Transylvania united with Romania by the democratic will of its inhabitants, not by military conquest. A military conquest can be undone by another military conquest. The legitimacy of the democratical will, however, is not decreased a bit by a subsequent military or dictatorial event. Romania entered some localities of Transylvania starting from 16 November in agreement with Entete powers which alotted her a small piece of land, up to Mures (basically just 1/4). Even that part was not occupied by Romanian army till long after 1 December. But Romania occupying that territory for a few days do not give her right to annex it. Only the democratic will of the elected representatives of Transylvania has legal consequences. That's why de jure no more and no less than the regions that voted for union unite. The treaties between Romania and Entente only confirm that, they do not bring anything new, except the international recognition of an already de jure fact. Hungary can contest 1000 times those treaties, it can never contest the democratically elected parliament and government of Transylvania, which decided the union.:Dc76 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
On second thought, maybe Union Day/December 1 could be interpreted just as the final step in the unification process and keep its own article (where we could even briefly describe this process of unification , if it's not already done someplace else). About that other issue, I gave that source strictly for the Targu-Mures date (frankly I didn't read much else of that article - it looked obsolete). Axi 20:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tighina

I like your latest edit to Tighina. Not so sure about the census part with the empty fields, however (under population). I doubt that we will ever be able to fill out all the fields. All I have is the 1989 census info in detailed, Tighina-specific form. You might want to consider commenting-out the format of that section until we have fuller data. It will look better. - Mauco 22:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Add the census info for 1989 to the article. We can kindly ask Mark us Street to find for us the census date for 2004, I am sure he can do this. As for earlier, I can do that by searching more thoroughly Moldova's Statistics Bureau's webpage, or even writing them an email. That's the kind of data they surely have. If we go back to 19th century, only then we can have a problem of finding detailed info... Nice to know that despite our (perhaps totally) different political views, we can talk like humans, not like dogs.:Dc76 22:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I am also very curious about detailed data of Transnistrian census. Surely data exist, I suspect Transnistrian authorities don't want to make them public.--MariusM 12:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

Please help fighting vandalism in Transnistria (which was unprotected) and restore paragraphs with accurate and usefull information which were deleted.--MariusM 01:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Trebuie sa te misti repede. Am deschis un poll la Talk:Transnistria, te rog spuneti opinia.--MariusM 12:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Localităţile din Republica Moldova

Proiectul localităţilor din Republica Moldova este doar pe wikipedia română. Nu ştiu să existe ceva similar pe wiki-en. În principiu s-au creat paginile şi acum se lucrează la corecţii, ş.a. Personal nu mai am foarte multe tangenţe cu proiectul, am ajutat în faza iniţială, dar acum nu mă mai pot ocupa. Eventual vezi ro:Wikipedia:Proiectul localităţile din Republica Moldova. Pricipalul utilizator care ştiu că se ocupă pe wiki-ro este Afil. Discută cu el şi vezi cu ce poţi ajuta.--Roamataa 06:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

O rugăminte aş avea - ştii cumva pe unde aş putea găsi o listă cu localităţile regiunii Cernăuţi din Ucraina? Una cât mai completă. M-ar interesa iniţierea de pagini şi pt. acestea. --Roamataa 06:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Mersi frumos pentru raspuns si informatii.
Aici] gasesti ceva informatii in limba ucraineana. (In masura in care se aseamana cu rusa te pot ajuta sa traduci). Mergi in colonita stanga pe fiecare raion si apoi cauta Схематична карта району. Vei obtine la fiecare o mini-harta cu toate orasele si comunele (dar nu stiu daca neaparat si satele). Vad ca scrie asa: Кількість населених пунктів: 417, в тому числі: міста - 11, селища міського типу - 8, села - 398. Ceea ce inseamna Cate localitati: 417, inclusiv: orase - 11, orasele - 8, sate - 398. Daca gasesti informatii in rusa/ukraineana, te pot ajuta sa traduci. Si evident, daca dau peste ceva o sa-ti spun. :Dc76 07:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Sunt 252 de comune, deoarece sunt 252 de consilii comunale. :Dc76 07:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Mulţumesc, o să mă uit peste ele. --Roamataa 07:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Un-semi-protect request

Hi! Actually, your talk page has been unprotected since December 2 (check the protection log). I don't think your subpages are protected; you will know because it will tell you when you edit each page. To see a list of all your subpages, click here. Unfortunately, only admins can delete pages. Which ones do you want me to delete?

I hope you enojoyed Christmas. I've been pretty busy in real life myself, but Wikipedia distracts me too often. :-) Cheers, Khoikhoi 08:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. In the future, you can just add {{db-userreq}} to the top of your subpages that you want to be deleted (it's one of the many deletion templates). I was actually celebrating Hanukkah during my break. :-) I had a good time. I actually never knew I had 40,500 edits...wow. Back in October, I think I only had 40,000. I hardly read articles that much anymore either. Most of what I read is when I see people make edits or comments on talk pages. Anyways, please let me know if you ever need help with anything else. Cheers, Khoikhoi 03:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

True to my Wikignome nature, I made only some cosmetic changes. The places part: Maybe create a List of places in Moldova and put it all there? All of Transnistria is officially considered part of Moldova, so a separate section about "problematic" territories can be made there. --Illythr 22:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

All your edits were in good faith. I have absolutely no objections. List of localities in Moldova exists, but is incomplete - they forgot a whole district + Tighina + Transnistria. In fact this is being in developement in the Romanian wikipedia, as I am being told (scroll up half a page). So we might wait until it's organized properly and a little developed there. The only thing is, we must have a direct link from Transnisrtia article to the section where this info is. If you think of something, go ahead and do it. I am sort of lazy. :-) :Dc76 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess we can wait until the list is ready in ro:wiki and then , er, borrow it for our purposes, seeing as how all the names are going to be identical. Then we can link the Transnistria article to the appropriate section of the list. --Illythr 23:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Union of Transylvania with Romania

Salut,

Dupa părerea mea, articolul ar trebui sa fie împărţit (aproximativ) in 5 capitole:

  1. Evenimentele care au condus la Unirea Transilvaniei cu Romania (situaţia românilor din Transilvania, cauzele intrării României in război de partea Antantei, o scurtă istorie a războiului între 1916 si 1917 - cu referire la articolul principal Romanian Campaign (World War I))
  2. Adunarea de la Alba-Iulia şi rezoluţia adoptată acolo la 1 Decembrie 1918 (cred că ar trebui sa mutăm/copiem paragrafele din Union Day (Romania))
  3. Războiul cu Sovietele maghiare din 1919
  4. Constituţia de la 1923 (nu trebuie tratată extensiv, cred că merită un articol de sine-stătător) si încoronarea Regelui Ferdinand şi a Reginei Maria la Alba-Iulia
  5. O scurtă referire la Second Vienna Award şi tratatul de pace de la Paris din 1947

Pentru 3. avem nevoie de bibliografie şi imagini (din free domain). Cea mai bună carte în domeniu este "În apărarea Romaniei Mari" de Dumitru Preda, Vasile Alexandrescu si Costică Prodan (Bucureşti, 1994), pe care nu o am din păcate. Dacă locuieşti in Romania, poate reuseşti să intri în posesia ei.

O să încerc să ajut în limita timpului disponibil şi a informaţiilor la care am acces.

Succes! :) Mentatus 10:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I still think it is confusing to use both calendars. When I first looked at the article, I thought eg. that the break-trough of the French army took 13 days (October 24 / November 6,).
#2 I do not really want to get involved in editing this article because I do not have time to search for sources. When completing the text plese keep in mind: December 1 is national day for ethnic Romanians and I believe it is a great thing that Romanians were united in one state. The same time, the occupation of Transylvania and of East Hungary meant that millions of Hungarians were cut from their motherland, who did not wish to be Romanian citizens at all.
#3 The text should not suggest that the unification happened because Romanians at the Alba Iulia (Gyulafehérvár) meeting simply decided so. Huge ethnic Hungarian and mixed territories were occupied too. It should be clear that Romania wanted to occupy these territories and the Entente powers wanted to reward Romania for their 1916 efforts and that France wanted Hungary, a potential ally to Germany, to become as weak, as possible after the war.
#4 Please refrain from using expressions like "Parliament of Transylvania, or "Government of Transylvania", because these simply did not exist. --KIDB 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


intro, Transnistria

You asked "how is this" and I answer: It is acceptable. Your latest edit doesn't flow very nice in English, but it is technically correct. If we could say the same, but in more fluent English, that would perhaps be better. Mauco 20:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

perfect. about fluency: I tried to minimize the number of words...:Dc76 20:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Jokes aside, your point was actually a good one. Mountolive 21:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moeso-Romanian language

Just to inform you that another editor has chosen to change your "!Vote"/Comment at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moeso-Romanian language. (No opinion in debate, just a friendly "head's up"). SkierRMH 20:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal attack question

I've responded on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 00:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Uncesored version of the initial portion of the discussion for deletion of Moeso-Romanian language

The following is the full, uncensured by User:Mikkalai version of the initial portion of discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moeso-Romanian language. The portion in bold is in bold only here, simply to show what has been erased.

Moeso-Romanian language

Moeso-Romanian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

del. Original research by an editor who came and go and doesn't answer the questions in article and user talk pages. I noticed some Romanian wikipedians don't mind it deleted, others just ignore the issue. While the topic is plausible, these people do exist, but as the article says, "They have been neglected by researchers in linguistics and anthropology because of their identity mimicry" or whatever, but wikipedia is not a vehicle for their revival. `'mikka 17:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete -- the name is a neologism, not found anywhere outside wikipedia. The names used are "română / rumâneşte" in their language or "Vlach" in Serbian. bogdan
  • Delete -- the fact that the historical region Moesia covers more or less the area where they are found, does not imply that one can change the name of the language according to it. These people are called Timok Vlachs in English, Vlachs in Serbo-Croatian, and themselves call Rumâni. They speak Romanian (a dialect, and for obvious reasons somewhat poorer in vocabulary). I coppied the content of the page into an item of Talk:Timok Vlachs, so that if there are 2-3 useful sentences, one can use that info in the appropriate page. It is a waste of AfD space and time to name an article for deletion when it is obvious an ad hoc invented title. The appropriate space for this discussion would have been Talk:Moeso-Romanian language, and the result would have been the same in 1 day. Why are some users so over-zelous to erase everything with word Romanian? Erase base on content, not on national tastes of some users who regard the world through the prism of cliches such as Romanians are Gypsies (see Talk:Moeso-Romanian language) or Slavs are Tataro-Mongols (see some "knowledgeble" guys in R and M). None of the 4 ethnic groups should be treated denigratory, even in implied suggestion, nor confused with one another. "All animals are equal", and no animal is more equal than other animals.:Dc76 19:13, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • (1) Personal attack removed. (2) The sentences cannot be "useful" if there is no reference. (3) Talk pages are not for deletion "in 1 day". (4) Romanian wikipedian have seen this page, but did not use the choice of speedy deletion for whatever reason, while expressing serious doubts in personal chat. (5) I am not an expert in the area, therefore I nominated the article for regular deletion and posted TWO notices where Romanian wikipedians congregate, therefore your accusation is badly misplaced. `'mikka 19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
      • (1) If you think that someone personally attacks you, it is logical to ask a different person to asses, and delete/keep. If you think that someone personally attacks a third person, it is logical to point directly to the the person in question and ask her to remove something.This is a general observation of flowless in logic and a request for objectivity. It is as far from a personal attack as one can think of. I never ment any personal attack, I am very sorry you see personal attack in everything I write. I will ask an independent (not involved) admin to decide whether it is an attack or not. If it is, I have no more comment. If it isn't, I will restore the portion you erased, and will kindly ask you to abstain in the future from hastly actions based on prejudices. (2) I ment if there is any info that can be soursed. What else could I mean? A priori there can be a lot of useful unsoursed sentences. (3) I did not propose to delete any talk page. It was about the article, which you proposed to delete. And, yes, some articles can be deleted in one day, when there is universtal concensus. This seems to be such a case. (4) Yea, all Romanian wikipedians have seen this page, and they all are so bad and did not wish to delete it. Because they are Romanians, right? (5) About fast deletion, I am not accusing you, I am just suggesting that that can be done in a much simplier way (as is done in 90% of deleted articles on wikipedia). Sharp critics(sorry that's my personal style, my criticism is almost never mild) is one thing, but there is no bad intent in it. Are you against criticism in general? :Dc76 22:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. No proof was given that the concept exists; all Google hits lead to Wikipedia. We need to wait until linguists will write about this subject in an independent publication. — AdiJapan ☎ 06:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Bogdan. Given that there is no google hit outside of wikipedia, this article even qualifies for speedy: it is a hoax. Dahn 10:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a copy or mirrow of the discussion page, changes in that page will not be reflected here. If you have any comments about the article proposed for deletion, please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moeso-Romanian language. :Dc76 13:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


Transnistrian regime

My beef if with the loaded word 'regime'. If you want to replace it with a neutral word (such as 'government'), that would also work. In this context, however, it is already quite clear that Transnistria means a reference to the Transnistrian authorities. Only a non-English speaker can read it any other way. - Mauco 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • regime is not a denigratory word. Unlike government it can be applied equally to recongnised and unrecognised bodies. US government is a regime, Moldova's government, and Transnistrian authorities that declared separation from Moldova, all as well. regime and authorities are "neutral" words, while government can be applied to a fully recognized body.
  • No, it is not clear that that is a reference to Transnistrian authorities. There are cases when reports etc blame people for stuff like inactivity, incapacity of organization, lack of motivation, hostile attitude. For example in 1945 there was something to tell to the ordinary German as well. That was much less than to the Nazis, but the Germans have allowed them to power, have supported them, did not seriously attempt to take them down. That is a criticism that I support. In the case of Transnistria, someone can believe that the people simply bully the ones that voice discord. Which is not the case, the people are by far dissatisfied with their cuthorities, even they do not necessarely see the solution in a straighforward closeness with Chisinau.
  • The majority of those that read Wikipedia in English are not native speakers of English.
Dc76 20:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Qualification of sources

This always has an inherent POV. Sometimes it may be correct, sometimes not, but it ought to be discussed first. - Mauco 19:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, sure. But you see, you started blancking out regeme, separatist, etc. I only reverted 1/7 of your changes! Let's continue the discussion, if any, at Talk:Transnistria, please. :Dc76 20:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
OK. It wasn't really 'blanking' though, since we already discussed words like Separatist in the past. And I left one of them in (because it was in context, and makes a lot of sense where it is. I think it was something written by you, in fact). Sometimes the word can be used as a smear, but in the context where you used, it was an accurate description and I left it in place... - Mauco 23:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Transnistria.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Transnistria.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Fixed:Dc76 00:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Language

Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin are not even different dialects. They are in fact different names for same dialect of one language. Language formerly officially known as Serbo-Croatian had four dialects: Shtokavian, Kajkavian, Chakavian and Torlakian. Modern "languages" known as Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin and Bunjevac are all based on Shtokavian dialect and therefore there is no any large difference between them. Shtokavian dialect had 3 sub-dialects: Ekavian (standard Serbian), Ijekavian (standard Serbian, standard Croatian, standard Bosnian, and spoken Montenegrin), and Ikavian (spoken Bunjevac). So, Bunjevac is most different of those, but I can understand Bunjevac 100%, which mean that even this difference is not large. So, I in fact speak only two languages: Serbo-Croatian and English. :)) PANONIAN (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is bad idea to have only one Wikipedia for all speakers of Serbo-Croatian - there will be endless revert wars in that Wikipedia. :)) Regarding Northern Marmaroshchyna, I believe you should discuss this first with some Ukrainian users - I would appreciate their opinioin about this. PANONIAN (talk) 01:32, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Bocicoiu Mare

Hey, it's not a problem. As for Northern Maramureş, I think it should be moved back. For one thing, "Northern Marmaroshchyna" gets zero Google hits, and I see no evidence that the term is used at all. Thanks your comment about the image. I didn't take it, I just saw it on User:Diliff's userpage (he takes some amazing pictures by the way). Khoikhoi 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

One reason why there are no search engine hits for "Northern Marmaroshchyna" is because Ukrainian language mostly use Cyrillic and therefore you should try search with "Мармарощина": http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&cop=mss&p=%D0%9C%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%89%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0&x=31&y=14 Now we have some hits, and I also found there that two other Ukrainian names exist for the region: Мараморщина and Марамуреш: http://www.ji-magazine.lviv.ua/kordon/impress/2003/livinskyj.htm Therefore, even if we change name of the article, it should not be changed to "Maramureş", but to "Maramuresh", which still would reflect variant of the name used in Ukrainian, and there are a lot of hits about this: http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oGkjfr1t5FtBYAznRXNyoA?p=Maramuresh&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-501&x=wrt Of course, I still would like to hear opinion of some Ukrainian user, which of the 3 Ukrainian names for the region is most often used and we can check hits for them in Cyrillic:

  • Maramures, Maramuresh or Maramureş is the same to me.
  • User:Khoikhoi and User:Biruitorul have contributed to this page a lot as well. Their oppinion should also be asked. Here is for example some old, yet unfinished discution. I obviously don't mind any Ukrainian user to help, on the contrary. I simply don't happen to know any one. I know a couple Russians, and 1 Russian Ukrainian, but I know not a single native-speaker Ukrainian.
  • Maramuresh is a historical region that is currently divided between Ukraine (north) and Romania (south). Not quite along ethnic lines, since there are about a dosen Romanian villages in Ulkraine and Ukrainian (mostly Hutsul) in Romania. There is also a small Hungarian minority in Romanian part. In the past there were important German and Jewish communities as well (tiny at present). The region was homoginiously Romanian up until about 1300, then small German and Hungarian groups arrived. During 1500s-1800s there was slow but constant migration of Ukrainian, especially to regions with smaller population. During 1800s also important Jewish migration. The was never any ethnic conflict there. Wars between nobles, battles against Tatar invasions, etc don't count. The only ethnic thing that was there was deportation of Jews to Auschwitz during WWII. Consequently you will find names for the region in Romanian, Hungarian, German, Ukrainian. English and French usually borow from r or H. The oldest one is in Latin, Marmatia, but we decided this is not appropriate, since noone uses that name in English.
  • The region is a cultural and tourist treasure house.:Dc76 18:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
My concern simply was that usage or Romanian name (not strongly established in English) for region that is entirely in Ukraine is not appropriate. However, I would not object to the usage of any of 3 Ukrainian names: Marmaroshchyna, Maramorshchyna, or Maramuresh. PANONIAN (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope you won't mind if I copy your answer to the article talk page as well. :Dc76 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I also asked user DDima for opinion about this: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:DDima#Maramuresh PANONIAN (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Bocicoiu Mare 2

Thanks Dc76! That was really interesting to read. You might also be interested in this (Lunca la Tisa is listed as "Lug"). Also you can read here one woman's account of of her trip to Velykyy Bychkiv and Bocicoiu Mare. I only wish she had gone to Lonka as well. Khoikhoi 09:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That advice was very helpful, thank you again. :-) I was actually planning on going sometime, I just don't know when. BTW, what did you mean by "try to avoid cities in which there are some festivals during the days of those events"? I'll let you know when I'm going; if I bring my camera it might not be necessary for me to write an account, but I suppose I should (I forget things easially anyways). Cheers, Khoikhoi 09:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for the info on Lunca la Tisa and the Romanian administrative system! I updated B. Mare's article and created one on Lunca. I don't really have an opinion on Northern Maramureş, but thanks for notifying me about it. – Alensha talk 18:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Template

Hello, Dc76 and thank you for making that template. I think it's very well designed and I look forward to seeing it included in the appropriate articles.

However, I must respectfully protest your moves to Northern Maramuresh (geographic region) and Maramures (historical region) (which I see Khoikhoi has moved back to Maramureş (historical region)). Let me explain. I like Maramureş, and I think there are good arguments for Marmaroshchyna (since it is, after all, in Ukraine). But as far as I know, Maramures and Maramuresh exist only in Western publications, mainly older ones, for two main reasons: ş wasn't available as a typewriter or computer key, or the editor didn't see the need for a diacritic. They're not scholarly formulations. That's why I think we should use Maramureş for mainly Romanian contexts, Marmaroshchyna for mainly Ukrainian ones, and settle on one or the other where both are involved. I think it should be Maramureş because that's more common in English, but I have no real problem with Marmaroshchyna - just like it's not really a problem that we use Tisza when Tisa has an equally valid claim. Biruitorul 01:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think Northern Maramuresh (geographic region) is fine as the main article. But let's settle on something - să nu ne mai zăpăcim.
On a different note, could you please have a look at Romanian calendar? Are these names familiar to you as well? If so, then do put in a reference to Moldova - I try never to forget our dear brothers across the Prut, care, să sperăm, vor fi reuniţi cu patria mamă destul de curând. Biruitorul 20:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I think the current settlement for Maramureş is a good one. Of course, if we need to make more changes, we'll do so, but things are, I think, fine as they are now.
Well, of course, if Moldova were in Romania, we wouldn't even have this discussion, as there is (eg) no "Transylvanian culture" category, even though I think they are equally distinct. Admins can move categories. My suggestion is to talk to User:TSO1D, a Unionist admin. Anyway, the category is good, and I was thinking maybe to write "used in Romania and Moldova"; I'll do that.
Ei, măcar nu-i chiar o cortină de fier, ci una de plastic, dar ai dreptate, tot greu cade. By the way, see this video - it's moving, sad, but also funny in parts. Of course, as a monarchist, I can't get that excited about Băsescu (and indeed when the King visited Moldova recently, I heard that people shouted "Basarabia pământ românesc!" in his presence, which would probably have made me cry to see), but he is better than Voronin. Let's just keep hoping, and working toward our goal (which actually is to recreate Greater Romania, but one step at a time). Biruitorul 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

When you talk about culture, it is pretty safe to put "used in Romania and Moldova". The only objections that would be are like: What is that "dragaice"? What language are you talking in? They are called "sanziene"! or harbuz vs pepene vs castravete. Yes, Moldova, Transylvania and South Romania are about equally distant culturally. Listening to Transylvanians is more pleasant to the ear of Bessarabians. But sometimes even within there are big diffs over 300 km or so. For example, people around Cahul have an accent similar to those from Galati. And those from N Bukovina - by far the most cultivated language among all on the eastern side of the "plastic curtain" (at the level of ordinary people). So, if it's an ethinic culture thing, put it in "Romanian culture", if it is something refering to Moldova as a country - the put it in "Culture of Moldova". I know I am repeating myself: "Moldovan culture" means ethnic to those from Moldova (not even regional, as in Bessarabia-Valachia, but ethnic, as in Moldavian-Russian). Culture of Moldova by definition would contain everything in Moldovan Culture=Romanian culture, plus things from Russian culture, Ukrainian, etc.

The newspaper article is very interesting and truthful. The video I can not get to start, but I know what's there. There are almost no monarchists in Bessarabia (I know only one person!). That's not me, I'm not monarchist, I can not forgive Carol II. As for Mihai, I cannot believe a guy could have lived from 1948 till 1989 in absolute freedom, have the full legitimacy to cry day and night against the communists and for his country, and he just went along with his life and forgot all his countrymen. He had the duty to have a voice 10 times louder than all the dissidents together, and people ... most people in 1980s did not even know Romania was ever a kingdom. He did not even create a formal government in exile! And this year, for the condemnation of communism, the smartest thing he could come with was "Communism in Romania was born in the same year as me." How much did he think to come up with that? My grandmother used to say she was born the same year as the king, but she never cared when communism was born, nor did she ever thought that blasphemy on whatever is human has year of birth. It was important for it to die, not to be born. A good communist is a dead communist! How can we understand Mihai:

  • did he mean that if he would not have been born, then communism would not have happened in Romania?
  • did he mean to say people who suffered or died because of it are less important than the king?
  • or simple he did not mean full stop/period

I personally trust more a democratically elected official, whose character and intelligence I know, then someone whose true capacity is never reveled until he has absolute power, like Carol II [to prove me that the whole idea of giving power for more than a strictly limitted amount of time to a person is simply plainly and blantly wrong] I even agree in case of necessity to give one dictatorial powers for like 24 hours. Capable to use it smartly - fine. Not capable - good bye. And there won't be any abuse, as he will know, if he does, the next 24 hours, the next guy will hit him back. My point is : symbol-ok; power-no, go in line with the rest of the citizens. Iam sorry about beeing too direct... To compare him with Voronin is like comparing a lazy person with a huligan. Of course I don't want huligans, but, please, I don't like lazy either. I'd rather go with a hands-on Basescu for 8 years (without forgetting his sins, just postponing their paiment for these years).:Dc76 21:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I had no idea he was in Moldova recently! Did Voronin allow it? Well, I guess Mihai now is harmless in the eyes of neo-pseudo-communists... Pitty there is no chance Mihai can prove Voronin wrong. That's why Basescu is better, Basescu would always find something to scratch whom necessary when necessary. Maybe not right scratch, but at least he gets 10 for the effort.:Dc76 21:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is, of course, great confusion about the terms Moldovan, Moldavian, ethnic Moldovan, cultural Moldovan... But I think the category is fine there for now.

Carol II was a disaster, I agree. However, I think his son redeemed his sins, and furthermore, with safeguards in place, I think the King could become a force for stability rather than a danger to democracy. For instance, it was the King of Spain who really stopped 23-F. You're right that he could have done more, but remember that he's a very quiet man who doesn't speak very well. But I don't think he really forgot us. (Also, the King of Yugoslavia and the Tsar of Bulgaria didn't do that much either.) I couldn't find a link, but yes, he was in Chişinău last year.

I'm not sure what the King meant by that statement - his pronouncements are rather oracular. Biruitorul 20:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify - I didn't mean you were confused, just that people in general are confused, for many reasons - the fact that there are two Moldovas (Moldova and Moldavia), the fact that "Moldovan culture" as distinct from Romanian culture is often a Soviet fabrication, etc. I also meant that for now, the category can stay in "Romanian calendar", but that eventually, we should define its purpose more clearly.
About the King - you see, I tend to take a more pre-modern view: the King can do no wrong, only his ministers, the King being God's chosen man to lead his people. Is that, to some degree, absurd? Well, I won't say "yes" outright, but there you go. And the fact is that he did receive rather poor advice, and he was also not very experienced. Remember that from 1940-44 he really was a figurehead, and very quickly became one again, so he didn't quite know what to do.
When I said he washed away what his father did, I was referring to 23 August. As he said recently, (to paraphrase): "Romania was liberated on 23 August. I don't know why the Russians had to come in to do so" - and indeed, they didn't reach Bucharest for another few days, but notwithstanding later communist lies about having liberated Romania, the country was in fact free before they came in. Şi ăla a fost momentul lui de glorie. Biruitorul 01:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
The you shouldn't have been an issue. I formulated my previous reply in a rush, my mistake.
As fi vrut un moment ceva mai glorios. Macar sa fi fost cu vreo 6 luni inainte. Bun, acum la varsta lui si folosit cum zici tu de toti... Problema mea este ca adesea ministii se simt responsbili (care din ei se simt) superiorului decat natiunii. Plecarea in exil n-ar fi trebuit sa fie o optiune, eu inteleg ca cer foarte mult, dar ... cer si eu.:Dc76 01:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maramureş

No problem. I think Northern Maramuresh is better than Northern Maramuresh (geographic region), because there is no need to disambiguate. Is there a political region called Northern Maramuresh? Or a cultural region? The only region with that name I can think of is the geographic one. Khoikhoi 02:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's correct, there is no political entity Northern Maramuresh. The culture is slightly distinct from the rest of Zakarpattia, but not very much (like New York and Massachussetts). As during Soviet Union the phrase cultural region, without any "dictature of the proletariat" twist in it, sounded quite bourgeois, I don't think we can speak about a way-way distinct region. The cultural heritage - yes, that is in wooden churches, in people's habitts etc. But that's about how far the distinctness streches. The "(geographic region)" came out of the fact that some users view the name Northern Maramuresh as POV and protest - there is no such poltical entity (of course, there isn't!), or suggest the editor is some kind of irredentist (what can I answer to that? how can I say that I simply like to research things little ready info is available about?). I have no preferrence between Northern Maramuresh and Northern Maramuresh (geographic region). Biruitorul answered me yesterday that he prefers with (g r) - I guess he flipped a coin - so I created the one without, and redirected. You are welcome to interchange them if you see it better fit. I am not an admin, so I can not do that without loosing the article history, which would be a pity.:Dc76 20:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Populaţia Bucureştilor

Salut, Biruitorul are dreptate, este haos în indicatorii statistici (vezi de ex. şi "estimările" de populaţie din Timişoara sau Cluj-Napoca pentru care nu am găsit vreo sursă - nu contest că nu ar putea fi adevărate). Ca regulă generală, dacă nu există o altă sursă oficială actualizată, cred că ar fi corect să se utilizeze datele de la ultimul recensământ (vezi şi răspunsul meu pentru Biruitorul). În ceea ce priveşte minorităţile, e dreptul fiecăruia de a-şi declara etnia sau religia aşa cum le dictează conştiinţa. De exemplu, la recensământul din Australia aprox. 70 mii de persoane şi-au declarat religia de cavaleri Jedi :)) ([3]). Mentatus 10:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

De acord:Dc76 14:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Alert the newspapers! Biruitorul 15:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Goma et al.

On what I was trying to tell you about Goma, please read WP:RS, specifically: "A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that express views that are widely acknowledged as fringe or extremist, are promotional in nature, or rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources may only be used in articles about themselves". You see, wikipedia does not use for anything sources that are grossly unreliable in their nature (this is why one of my first comments on the talk page was "even if the fact is trivial [and not itself disputed], find another source for it" - because this source is disputed). Moreover, "separating" fact from fiction in Goma in the context where the scientific community at large is rejecting the validity of its statements would be WP:OR.

Furthermore, you said it yourself: the book is an essay, written by someone with something to say. Using it as a source, per wikipedia, in articles that are not about the book or Goma would simply discredit wikipedia. To put it shortly, as you will see here, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Using a questionable source, that you yourself argue is not a history book by a historian, makes the fact presented simply not verifiable. Especially when Goma is known to have published not only an inflammatory agenda, but false information.

Those are wikpedia policies.

"I mean that when people bring to light nowadays the horrors of Communism and communists, and are dismissed as being non-autoritive, negationist, spurious, anti-semitic, etc, I think that is wrong. I am sufficiently intelligent (I bieleve) to discern anti-communism from anti-semitism. Goma is not the only one blamed for fascist sympathies because some (even if many, doesn't matter) communists happened to be Jews." Look, you may believe whatever you want. The point is that his opinions were dismissed as such by the vast majority of scholars (where Goma is not a scholar), not by communists, that he has used false information, that his books on the matter are inflammatory in purpose and manipulative in content. These are not "blames", they are facts: a book that says what Goma's say discredits itself; write it, publish it, read it, but do not pretend it is accurate or relevant, and do not pretend it is not propaganda for fringe ideas. I happen to agree with those scholars, and it shames me that such antisemitic nonsense as the one produced by Goma is still as present as it is in our society. But I am not willing to debate over my opinions, so let's please not engage in such a discussion.

If you reread my message on the proposed Jewish state, you'll see that I was referring to the Allies of WWI. Also, the Jewish Autonomous Oblast created in the 1920s, and it was not created "in denigration". Dahn 11:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Fantana Alba

Thanks for offering to help. Mostly what we needed was translation of external sources--I do not have any spare time to work on that article right now, so contact Biruitorul or Turgidson if you have a chance to do some translating. Thanks again! K. Lásztocska 14:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

An Answer from Phiddipus

Khristos a Inviat!

Hi Dc76,

I am glad to correspond with you on this matter. Please forgive me if my argument is too forceful, it is meant to be presented in the spirit of friendship.


One of the things we have discussed in the past by Orthodox contributors to the article is the question of comparison to other Christian denomination. We decided long ago to avoid making comparisons unless they were directly related to the subject (e.g. The Great Schism). We wish to present what the Orthodox Church “Is”; not what it “Is not”. It is easier for the reader to make comparisons in his head between the text presented and his own beliefs than for us to present how the Orthodox Church differs from each denomination.

There were a number of reasons I removed the following paragraph:

Orthodox Churches regard other Christian churches and communities as deviations (of different degree) from the orthodox, i.e. traditional, or apostolic Christianity. While following different traditions from these, the theological differences with Catholic, Eastern Rite Catholic, Anglican, Old Catholic, and at least some Oriental Orthodox churches (such as Armenian Apostolic Church) are minimal, as they all share the common belief in Eucharist, and, if one disregards modern-day simplifications, have an almost identical liturgical structure. The differences with Protestant denominations vary in degree according to whether the latter are emphasizing national autonomy (e.g. Anglicans), which Orthodox do not regard necessarily as schisms, or different theological dogmas (e.g. emphasis on the Bible more than on the Apostolic link and tradition), which Orthodox regard as schismatic.

First off, it split one of the concepts presented. Bishops are all equal spiritually, administratively they are not.

Second, the section was about how the Orthodox Church organizes itself internally; not their relationship with other churches.

Third, and in direct contrast to the above paragraph: What is imagined a minimal difference between Catholic, Anglican, Coptic, Armenian, and Eastern Orthodox are, in fact, major fundamental theological concepts – so major that they label those who follow them, heretics. Because of these differences one cannot make the statement, “They all share a common belief in the Eucharist” when the very nature of Christ is in question. Similarities between them are completely superficial; it’s the theology that counts.

Forth, The Orthodox Church believes itself to be the original church, directly linked back to the apostles. It existed before there were any differences and its members have fought and died to preserve the integrity of its beliefs. It has always regarded any group which differs theologically to be outside the Church. It does not recognize the validity of their priesthood or their mysteries (Sacraments), or even their baptisms. At the same time, it does not condemn them for their mistake, nor does it imagine that such a mistake keeps them out of heaven. All it recognizes is that such deviants are not Orthodox.

Finally, In this modern age, in this age where communication is easy, and dialogs between people of different beliefs are common; It has become necessary to invent a language of diplomacy as we are neighbors, and it is a sin to offend ones neighbor. So we tend to point out the similarities between our beliefs in the hopes of cooperation and friendship. We tend to try and ignore the differences. Let’s all just get along. But this has nothing whatsoever to do with what we really believe. Anyone believing anything not supported by the Orthodox Church is, by Orthodox definition, a heretic. The deviation of an inch is as good as a mile. This is not a popular thing to say, it offends almost everyone. But it shouldn’t. All it means is that they aren’t Orthodox. All it means is that their beliefs fall outside the Orthodox Church. And since we Orthodox believe You Do Not Have To Be Orthodox to be saved; we condemn no one for their beliefs. --Phiddipus 17:46, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

1. One of the greatest problems in attempting to write and article for an encyclopedia is that it requires a simple form, so that the broadest collection of readers can understand it. When read, the reader naturally makes comparisons with knowledge he has already gained. If a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist reads the text, each will draw his own comparisons. It doesn’t seem likely that a person looking for information will simply find Orthodoxy and stop, without reading other articles and gaining some perspective. All we can do, as Orthodox, is present our beliefs as plainly as possible. If I were to speak directly to a Hindu, for instance, I would make comparisons in order to help him understand. But because our readers could be anything, I think they will have to do the comparison work themselves.

2. If we did a comparison of religious beliefs I think it should be handled in a separate article; yes. I also think that such an article would be a monumental undertaking.

3. When we speak of the Orthodox Church we mean she is one single church. It does not matter whether you are Greek, Russian, Romanian, Arabic, etc. We are all part of the same church which was founded by Christ and has never faltered or ceased, as you said. It is a single entity. But the extent of that body only includes Orthodox Christians. Any other variation is cut off from the body. The Roman Catholics were once part of the body; they are not any longer. The problem is that after 1000 years of separation, neither side will concede. They are free at any moment to return to the Orthodox Church but in order to do so they will not only have to throw out the Filioque clause, but Papal supremacy, and all the substructure that has developed since then. There are other differences too. There are a thousand years of divergent philosophical ideas that ultimately are incompatible with an Orthodox mindset. This is complex, almost beyond reasoning and would take another 1000 years or more to fix. Likewise the heresy that separated the monophysites and the Orthodox is still strong enough to keep us apart.

But, as I said, in the end it doesn’t matter. Salvation comes from God as a gift. There is nothing we humans can do to force God into action. If one keeps all the practices, If one lives a sinless life, If one is perfect in ones every action, it does not guarantee that God will allow him into heaven. No person deserves heaven. It all rests in God’s infinite love and mercy. That is why I say, “You do not have to be Orthodox”. A good Muslim, or Hindu, or even Atheist can be saved by God. That is not to say that the truth does not matter or that we should not preserve the truth. We preserve the truth because it is a good and holy thing. We preserve it because it is the most effective path – not to salvation – but to theosis, becoming like God. We are called to become little Jesus Christs within Jesus Christ. Goodness for the sake of Goodness, not because of some reward. And this love is open to all mankind. Pontius Pilate’s confused belief that one cannot discern truth is really quite a profound statement on our greatest flaw. Man’s confusion may be his greatest gift, because it allows God to easily forgive mistakes.--Phiddipus 22:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Liviu Librescu

We'll find out more details as they're available, but not every Holocaust survivor wrote a book about it, and talked publicly about it, but it was a horrible time. I've sourced what exists so far. I don't know the percentage of Romanian Jews who were murdered (or his family naturally), but it certain parts of Europe, entire familes were wiped out, in Poland where some of my family was from, maybe of 200 familiy members 1 survived. People don't always want to talk about what they experienced, and he was a young kid on top of it. We'll find out more as it comes, but it does appear he was a Holocaust survivor by all indications, Bush talked about him at a memorial service for Yom HaShoah this week! and every paper says this, so I'm not sure where the opinion has come from by user:Bogdangiusca has come from to try to minimize it. Epson291 04:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your message and kind words. I made an attempt to fix/improve it, hope the text is now adequate. Unfortunately this subject is not something I am an expert in. I'd like to learn more about this history someday. ←Humus sapiens ну? 08:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dc76/Archive_2&oldid=1142961296"