Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:32, 28 November 2006

In older works (19th-20th century), by "Danubian principalies" it meant Wallachia, Moldavia (and Romania), Bulgaria and Serbia. Better would be to create an article Romanian principalities, to clarify some very probable future disambiguations... greier 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because:

Yes? Dahn 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You were wondering why is it necessary to have that footnote, right? I introduced it, because if I wouldn`t of done it, than you would of immediatelly reverted, and say that.... (see below your answer dater from June 18th.) Greier 13:15, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I have trouble understanding your post, but I assume you mean I was wondering "why have a footnote". My full point was "why have the information at all" - if used at all, the "Romanian principalities" part is never properly used in English (except perhaps for stylistic variation or self-evident sentences). Dahn 13:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

They are used. , , , . Greier 13:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are. They are used by Romanians, whose grasp on English is as relevant as yours. Dahn 13:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic, both in arguments, and in insults... Greier 13:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it didn't. This is common reference in English, and there is no professional use of "Romanian principalities" - it was only used by Ceauşescu. Dahn 18:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

ok, ok... starting again with Ceaucescu?(everything has to have a begining:in this case it was during Ceausescu...should that mean that it has to be dismissed from the start?)... anyway, it was just an opinion... (e.g. The Principalities of the Danube) greier 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

...The three states which are usually spoken of as the Danubian Principalities are Moldavia, Wallachia, and Servia. The first two were combined under one government in 1861, with the common name of Roumania...

More structured

"More structured" is POV unless backed by sources. Besides, the phrase is awkward: "more structured than previous the provisional ones previously enforced".

The comparison is between one Russian administration and another. It is meant to explain a particular aspect of this one over another (clue: no other resulted in a constitution etc.). It simply puts things in perspective. I believe the original text was fine and self-explanatory, and that I had to change it into a form which, out of my carelessness, proved to be awkward, simply because you misinterpreted it. Sourcing a text is fine (although this was inted as a brief overview of other articles which can and should expand text more - hence, references are more necessary there than here); it is fine for all cases, except that I find it hard to believe that someone has not yet heard of the fact theat the union was not internationally recognized beyond Cuza's reign until a change in European status (namely, until the the Austrian-Prussian War)! Dahn 21:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You didn't have to change it at all, you could've left it out. And the successive changes seem to nake it worse: what does it mean "more rationalized" when applied to a military administration?

What should I call it, friend, sice you dissmissed the first one? It means that, from a row of administrations, this was the most established and far-reaching? I know I could have left it out, I wonder if I should have left it out. Get my point? Dahn 13:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't call it anything, that's the point. When the alternatives are bare fact versus fact plus opinion, it seems to me that choosing the bare fact is more in line with the WP philosophy. Don't you think? Dmaftei 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. This was a bare fact: it was aquick way to explain to a user what the difference between the other Russian occupations and thisun actually was. Nothing in it was meant to gratify something in particular, but, if you worry that users "may not know where Romania is", then you'd better worry that they oughta understand that twenty years of Russian domination, with a new constitutional regime (and the first one to actually be written down) differ from previous easy-come-easy-go Russian presence. It simply means to indicate context. Dahn 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen there's a ton of stuff that you find "hard to believe", but that's not the point. "Sourcing a text" is a fundamental WP policy, isn't it? That's the reason for the tags in the article. Dmaftei 13:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Dmaftei. What I have said is not that I am bewildered that you call for references, but that you called for this particular one: I am willing to reference the whole text (less so the mention of population shrinking, which was likely produced by user:Greier's theories on history), I was wondering whether it is possble that this was an unfamiliar notion. To you. To me, it is like asking to reference the section "Romania is a country in Europe".

The familiarity of a notion is relative. You'd be surprised to know how many times I had a dialog like:

somebody: "Where are you from?"

me: "Romania."

somebody, with a blank stare: "Oh... Where's that?!"

The point here is that what's obvious for you is not necessarily obvious for everybody else. Dmaftei 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless. Dahn 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It looked like all your edits in the text focused on things not correponding with the preordained greatness of Romanian-related events through history. So, I had to wonder. Dahn 13:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It's a mistery to me how you concluded, from my fact-tagging of although internationally recognized only for the period of Cuza's rule, that all your edits in the text focused on things not correponding with the preordained greatness of Romanian-related events through history, and I'm genuinely interested in hearing from you how you got from one to the other. I do not mean to offend you, but your automatic assumption that whoever has something to say that doesn't fit your views on Romanian history must be some sort of oh-Romania-is-so-great lunatic gives your argumentation a paranoic luster. I think you'd be better off if you adopted the "inocent until proven guilty" view. Dmaftei 16:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I was looking at all the things you asked to be referenced. If referencing the text was called for, I concluded that specific references are particular concerns of yours. All of them indicate what I have mentioned. As for jumping to conclusions... just read again what you just posted. Dahn 16:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

There are the fact-tags:

• ...a decrease of population by 30%.
• The following century the population would quadruple, and in 20th century would increase by another 50%.
• Although internationally recognized only for the period of Cuza's rule...

How exactly are the population changes and the international recognition of the de facto union connected to the "preordained greatness of Romanian-related events"?! And I have read again what I just posted; what's with "jumping to conclusions"? Dmaftei 17:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"that whoever has something to say that doesn't fit your views on Romanian history must be some sort of oh-Romania-is-so-great lunatic gives your argumentation a paranoic luster". Thank you for rading my mind. Dahn 17:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not reading your mind, I'm reading what you write on discussion pages. This is the third or fourth time I'm in a discussion (argument?) with you, and every single time you ended up insinuating or stating directly that whatever I had said was due to my alleged Romania-the-greatest attitude. (You directed similar remarks towards other users, though I don't know whether you were justified or not by those users' statements.)

Now, you think you can explain how the population changes and the international recognition of the de facto union connected to the "preordained greatness of Romanian-related events"? Thanks. Dmaftei 17:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor mention first (I have posted this already): I cannot vouch for the decrease in numbers, which seems to be Greier's version of history, but I can vouch for the increase (mentioned by Djuvara, if I remember correctly - I will pick up the book and others when I will reference this article, although, again, I feel that references belong more on the linked pages, where people can see the detailed topics). Now, I'm going to say this: I do and reference quite a lot on wikipedia, and for the love of me I can't see why others don't just go and pick up references instead of calling for them in what is otherwise common sense information. As for accusations et al, Dmaftei: this is the second time you imply I'm insane, and I don't appreciate it much. Since you called for references for the entire text (which, to repeat myself, is rather superfluous for a summary article), I am left with to wonder why you needed citation tags for some, and not, hell, all words. That is my personal assessment, just as your personal assessment is that I am paranoid. What I know is that the mention of international recognition not being applied until Carol is not flattering and was generally obscured (especially in films by Sergiu Nicolaescu). Also, since you chose to delete a mention of specifity in Regulamentul Organic and constantly point to a version that lists it as one among other occupations, I was led to believe that you are simply dissmissing its relevancy to the region's history. Dahn 18:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us hope that this will put many issues to rest:

1. I do not know who put the three phrases that I tagged in the text. I tagged them not because they were Dahn's or Greier's edits, but because I thought they are specific enough to deserve the tag.
2. Things are done in different way by different people, some go and pick references, others call for references. I see no reason to get upset because of this.
3. The "call for references" was not directed to you, Dahn, apparently you took it personally, and I don't see why... If you feel inclined and have the ability to add references, do so, the article will be better. If not, maybe somebody else will do it. If not, well, then the article will remain what it is now, a story without references (albeit one that many know to be true.)
4. I understand perfectly your not appreciating somebody calling you insane. The problem is, I don't understand why you're telling me this: I have never implied or stated, and I do not think, that you are insane. In the few discussions we've had I referred to your opinions -- expressed in articles or discussion pages -- not to your person. Heck, for all I know you could be the most wonderful person on Earth, or the ultimate jerk; I don't care...
5. I don't know who is "not flattered" by the lack of international recognition until Carol. I do know that I don't have any emotion about the fact. (And I don't see what Sergiu Nicolaescu's films have to do with it.)
6. What I chose to delete was the "more structured" qualifier, I didn' touch the "while the two principalities were given the first common governing document (the Organic Statute), which confirmed a modernizing government, but was never fully implemented". You can check this for yourself: . I'm sorry you misinterpreted my edit, but I don't feel responsible for that.
7. For what is worth, I don't have objections to the current formulation of the sentence in question. Dmaftei 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Fine, then. Dahn 21:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)