User talk:Bogdangiusca/Archive11

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Chios

It belongs in history.

Chr. Tell

Could you please add a sentence in the article regarding when he was Mayor of Bucharest? I cannot seem to find the precise dates. Dahn 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Mayor of Bucharest (I got that from a list published in some newspaper), he was between November 1870 and January 1871. bogdan 20:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Dahn 21:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Gheorghe Manu

Good article, but I have two points:

1. According to [1], the fourth Catargiu Cabinet took office on 29 December 1891, but you have him becoming State Property Minister in that Cabinet on 27 November. This might be a simple Old/New calendar issue, but even so, 27 November is 9 December on the New calendar, still leaving us 20 days short.

2. Again according to [2], Manu was never Prime Ministerm despite what you claim. Biruitorul 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

but according to Conservative Party (Romania, 1880-1918) and the book I used as source, he was a Prime Minister. :-) bogdan 22:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Then I guess, as a project, we should work toward cleaning up this situation, determining which dates are on what calendar (in articles about Manu and other Regat politicians), also fixing that list of PMs, and eventually adding the full panoply of infoboxes and succession boxes that currently only the articles on Năstase and Tăriceanu have, plus a template à la [3]. Your book might be a good starting point, and perhaps a message on our noticeboard would spur further activity. Biruitorul 00:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've made a template here. I've worked off the list I linked to above, so the data is probably slightly corrupt and it needs tweaking. Nevertheless, if you like the general idea, I'll start including it in all the Romanian PMs' articles. Biruitorul 02:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PMs from Barbu Catargiu to the 3rd cabinet of Ion Brătianu were not "of the Kingdom of Romania", but of the United Principalities of Romania. That means you have to divide Ion Brătianu's third cabinet in half - first one for the Principalities, second one for the Kingdom. Dahn 09:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do that within a day, unless someone else takes up the task. Biruitorul 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I have no idea what kind of flag you'd use for the United Principalities. There's the one here, but that only covers Cuza. Carol used a vertical tricolour, with a crest divided in half (Mold. and Wall., with the Dobruja dolphins, and prolly with Oltenia - not sure how on Earth they were arranged - and I'm not sure he used the white/black/black/white inescutcheon of the Hohenzollerns until becoming king...). We need info on that, and a lot of work on the Flag of Romania page. Dahn 12:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources appear to be prone on spreading bullshit: "După 1859 (an când Ţara Românească si Moldova s-au unit într-un singur stat) s-a pus problema unei steme reprezentative. În anul 1863 a fost găsita soluţia reunirii simbolurilor tradiţionale ale Ţării Românesti (vulturul de aur cruciat) si Moldovei (bourul cu stea între coarne). Ulterior, în 1872, comisia naţională de heraldică a propus o stemă rezultată din combinarea simbolurilor tradiţionale ale tuturor provinciilor românesti: Ţara Românească, Moldova, Bucovina, Transilvania, Maramures, Crisana, Banat si Oltenia. Stema a fost adoptată de Guvernul României si s-a aflat în uz până în 1921 când, în urma Marii Uniri de la 1 Decembrie 1918, a fost creată noua stemă a României Mari, prin adăugarea simbolurilor instituite în 1872: însemnele Casei de Hohenzollern (casa regală europeană care-si are originile în zorile Evului Mediu)."[4] The info about when the inescutcheon was added is valuable, but I have huge doubts about Transylvania, Banat, Maramures etc. having been added to the coa of a country in strong alliance with the Central Powers. Dahn 12:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

worldstatesmen lists 3 flags for the period. the pre-1872 have symbols only from moldavia (2nd and 3rd quartering) and wallachia(1st and 4th quarter), while the post 1872 have also lion (in the 3rd quarter probably for oltenia, although in the current CoA is for Oltenia and Banat) and two dolphins( in the 4th quarter, for the Danube, later for Dobruja). Also the supporters are changed. And both have H-S inescutcheonAnonimu 14:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This info needs to be edited in the articles in the future, and we should prolly start work on editing detailed flags (I personally cannot edit something that exact - I'm just learning to work in svg, which is the best extension to use). I also propose that the final version (post-1872) be used as the main symbol for the United Principalities of Romania references, and the very first, horizontal flag, be used for the United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. Dahn 14:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In the future, I suggest moving the info that absurdly sits at the top of the Kingdom of Romania page to the bottom of the Danubian Principalities one, and redirect all "United... of..." forms to the latter. We'll add a "Main article: Thisun" at the top of the "early" sections of Danubian Principalities, and develop the info about Cuza and a young Carol in a final section. Tell me what you think. Dahn 12:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

List of persecuted Turkish writers

The article wasn't deleted, as you may or may not have heard elsewhere, so I'm canvassing opinions for what to rename it to/merge it to on its relevant talk page. All reasonable suggestions will be entertained. BigHaz 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Jonny Pez:

You recently protected[5] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 09:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Lupasco

Bogdan, I enriched Stephane Lupasco but I would like an expert advice. Do you know someone qualified in logic or can you take a look at this? Thanks,--dio 12:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Map of Bulgaria

Hi! The nationalist website is just hosting the map, they're not the authors or anything. The map is perfectly OK, it's reliable and used in many other sources. I also checked in a history book of mine (printed 1995, ISBN 954-426-099-4), which confirms the borders from the period. What exactly bothers you with the map? The extent to the north?

Actually, all of Romania and eastern Hungary were added to the Bulgarian Empire during the rule of Krum (796/803-814), who crushed the Avar Khaganate together with Charlemagne, and conquered these territories. Since these lands were not particularly well-organized and at all vastly populated then, the only trouble were the barbarian invasions from Asia (Magyars, Pechenegs and later Cumans) and the Kievan campaigns. As the article Romania in the Early Middle Ages says, Bulgarian control over the former Dacia "would last between 802 and 1018". Todor→Bozhinov 16:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bulgarian Empire simply went in a couple of military expeditions in there, they crushed the enemies and went home. They did not governed those territories, or at least there is no evidence they did. bogdan 16:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Did they really? Then who spread the "Slavic" language as a liturgical language in these lands? How did the predecessors of the Romanians get Christianized? Is that enough in terms of evidence? Besides, who do you think governed those territories when it wasn't the Bulgarian Empire? Come on, that's silly and revisionist. Todor→Bozhinov 17:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well... You are slightly wrong:

First of all, the predecessors of Romanians got Christianized using the Latin language. The most basic Romanian words related to Christianity are inherited from Latin, not from Greek nor from Slavic:

Boteza < Batizare (Baptize); Paşte < Pascere (Easter); Dumnezeu < Dominus Deus ([Christian] God); Preot < Presbiterum (Priest); Biserică < Basilica (Church), etc

Then, Orthodoxism and Slavic as the liturgical language were adopted at the earliest in the 11th/12th century. How can we tell that? Simple, there is no archaeological evidence of any earlier Orthodox churches.

Also, that's not "revisionist". The mainstream history says that the region was inhabited by Romanians, who lived in the mountains and some valleys and various "barbarians" (Avars, Cumans, Pechenegs, etc) in the plains. Simply, there is no evidence of a Bulgarian administration. bogdan 18:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any archaeological evidence of Romanians practicing Christianity after the Roman Empire, but prior to the Bulgarian control of the region? That would be interesting. Also, could you please give any details regarding this 11th/12th century adoption of Orthodoxy and the Slavic language? I'm very curious how that would have happened with today's Romania controlled by various barbarian tribes (certainly not having much to do with Christianity) in the period.

Also, the Romania in the Early Middle Ages article says "By the 10th century, the Wallachs (exonym of the Romanians) both north and south of the Danube, after having long remained faithful to the Greek ritual, had adopted the Slavonic liturgy and became subject to the metropolitan at Ohrid, the Bulgarian capital.", and cites an early 11th-century source that clearly evidences the Romanians were Orthodox by then. Thus, they were converted to Orthodoxy in the Bulgarian Empire.

I'm not sure in what form the Bulgarian Empire controlled the lands north of the Danube, but it certainly did. Peter I of Bulgaria is mentioned to have faced Magyar raids in these areas and later to have allowed Magyar tribes to settle as federates, later Samuil is also evidenced to have reigned over Wallachia. Todor→Bozhinov 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, the whole religion issue is off-topic on this case, as this might be cultural influence. I'm just asking for a reference which gives proofs of a Bulgarian administration in that land. If you don't have any proof, then it's just a wild speculation. bogdan 19:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt it was a cultural influence and provided enough evidence in the last two paragraphs of my last reply, as well as generally. An indirect reference is the 11th-century charter of Basil II to Samuil, and I'm sure there are other (maybe you should refer to User:Imladjov, he's an expert in the subject). The international science uniformly treats these lands as part of Bulgaria, so does the Romanian science (as I see), then what exactly are we disputing? Todor→Bozhinov 19:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Bogdan, it is entirely plausible that Bulgarian vassals of some sort clashed with the Magyars when the latter entered Transylvania (I think Xenopol argued that Gelou was one). What I suggest is a new map, where the regions north of the Danube would be hachured in the same color as Bulgaria and the color of, well, nothing. Who's gonna do it? Dahn 20:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, the vassals were only in Western Transylvania and we have no data about the rest of Romania/Moldova. Anyway, I guess a hachured map would be better: one with northern border no so precisely set, because we don't know it exactly. :-) bogdan 20:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. From what I know, claims on both sides have speculated that the Bulgarian territory extended further than Western Transylvania (as I note, so does even our Greier-produced article - and that means that even the ultras have little problem with awknowleding that it may have had :)), A hachured map with your specifications would be the best deal. What do you say, Todor? Dahn 20:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, btw. Todor: let's not turn an uncertain situation into one version of jingoism or another. Awright? Most of what you provided about "Bulgarian spoken in Wallachia" is actually about Church Slavonic, at a stage when Bugarian was slowly emerging as its own language - I know it is a habit of Bulgarian sources to take over Church Slavonic patrimony, but that is is just clumsy (especially since the language was used in Moldavia as well). Furthermore, even if it were Bulgarian (and it is pure sophistry to say that it was), drawing the conclusion that "Bulgarian-speakers" were "Bulgarian ethnics", aside from all the absurdity of assigning ethnicities in the Middle Ages, would imply that all people using Latin in Medieval Europe were members of Latin peoples! Dahn 20:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Wait, wait, wait, what jingoism, I've never said these things. And furthermore you're confusing terms. I've never said Bulgarian was spoken in Wallachia as a vernacular (although people claim this and they've got some reasonable points) by the Romanians. I've also never said there was a substantial Bulgarian population in these lands then. And note that Old Bulgarian had already emerged and shaped in the period (this is the Bulgarian recension of Old Church Slavonic that was spread among the Romanians). Don't confuse Old Church Slavonic with Church Slavonic, which is a later East-Slavicized version of it).

Actually, those Romanians who expressed themselves in writing used Church Slavonic primordially. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, but I have seen Bulgarian contributors telling me that Romanian developed in a Bulgarian-speaking area etc. Dahn 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As for the hachures suggestion, I see no reason to have Romania hachured and the rest not — Simeon and the other tsars had many parts of the empire locally ruled by governors/vassals, that's why it's an empire. What is today Romania was not more autonomous than any other part of the Bulgarian Empire and it wasn't in any way special to deserve hachures. Todor→Bozhinov 21:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, here's some obvious reasons: the extension to the north of the Danube should not be hachured because of vassalage, but because it is, for the most part, theoretical, with unspecified and unclear borders, and without clear pointers in time as to when it was factual and when it was not (rather, all we have are separated claims which do not clarify if it was a continuous rule). Add to this that, whereas some scholars agree that it was real, others, based on the same evidence, do not - I am not referring to nationalists in Romania, which deny it on principle, but to people involved in actual research). If something is relative, we should point it out as relative - I think the case is much clearer for all other areas ruled by the Bulgarians at the time. Let's build a bridge, dude: consider that the alternative is a an un-academic quagmire, with pages contributed by Romanians claiming that it did not happen at all, and pages contributed by Bulgarians exaggerating on the basis of vagueries. We have a chance to actually do something for the readers, and not for our respective catered audiences. Dahn 22:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't convincing. I'm not an expert on the subject, and I'm not aware of the Bulgarian rule over the region being denied by the international science. As I said, you should refer to User:Imladjov, who is an expert on the subject and will be hopefully able to explain things better. Until then, I'd avoid referring to anything as "academic" and "unacademic". That the Romanian science sometimes denies something and the Bulgarian always supports it doesn't necessarily mean the truth somewhere in the middle. In fact, I'd be more than happy to hear a number of external opinions, plus that of Ian Mladjov. Todor→Bozhinov 10:39, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me read this to you again, Todor. I have pointed out that, even if the rule would be certain, its limits and continuity would have to be debatable (simply because all evidence about present-day Romania tended to be decades apart). I had thus not said that the truth is "somewhere in the middle": I do not establish truth, and nobody could on the basis of this little evidence. What I had asked you to consider is not that Romanian scientists deserve to manipulate knowledge, but that the knowledge itself is not certain! That is to say (and I repeat myself): a hachure does not indicate a compromise between historians for the sake of letting Romanians have a field day, but an indication that, although a Bulgarian presence is very likely to have been the case, proof of it is not definite and continuity cannot be established (much of the evidence you Todor, for one, presented is speculatory in nature - the difference between hachure and full colour is the difference between recorded testimony and speculation). Dahn 11:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Aleksander Schinas

		The Original Barnstar
		I hereby award bogdan this Barnstar for his thorough rewrite of Aleksander Schinas, better than anything I believed possible. Great job! Huon 10:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Schinas

Hi bogdan. You said Schinas called the greek people his countrymen. Could you please help me finding where he has said that? Thanks --J. Cosmos 15:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at the third image given here. Schinas is cited talking about "3,000,000 of his countrymen in Greece". And I doubt he speaks of "his Macedonian countrymen in Greece", especially as he said so while living in New York, before the annexation of (parts of) Macedonia. Yours, Huon 16:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I answered you at Talk:Aleksander Schinas. bogdan 16:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Basarab dynasty

Could you please move Basarab dynasty to House of Basarab? The latter term is more accurate: they were not precisely a dynasty (no father-son lineage in an elective monarchy). Dahn 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. bogdan 22:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You rock. Dahn 22:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BOT - Regarding your recent protection of Chios:

You recently protected[6] this page but did not give a protection summary. If this is an actual (not deleted) article, talk, or project page, make sure that it is listed on WP:PP. VoABot will automatically list such protected pages only if there is a summary. Do not remove this notice until a day or so, otherwise it may get reposted. Thanks. VoABot 13:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Vlad III the Impaler to Vlad III of Wallachia

sal bogdan, i want to move the article Vlad III the Impaler to Vlad III of Wallachia, but the name already exists, and it says an admin should do the move. I think Stephen III of Moldavia is a good model for Vlad III Criztu 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but right now I'm preparing to leave in holiday and I don't have enough time to see what is the dispute about. Maybe you should ask User:FrancisTyers to help you reach a consensus. bogdan 19:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Hello! Can you move like this?;

Frankfurter Judengasse > User:Sheynhertz-Unbayg/Frankfurter Judengasse

--Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 11:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back. Dahn 21:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. bogdan 21:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

extinct

But ... but ... I am extinct in the wild ... ah, forget it, you're probably right. --M@rēino 01:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Help!

Hi Bogdan, I've gotten into a conflict with a user about a Romanian guy's name. Please see Talk:Cezar Bădiţă. He argues that the page should be at "Cezar Badita" because most English sources spell it that way, but "most sources" spell it without the diacritics because they can't due to technical limitations. He's also saying "note also that, there are no diacritics in the English Wikipedia article title of Romania", which I think is absuard. Could you help me by joining-in on the discussion? Thanks! —Khoikhoi 15:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Eventually block the vandal...:)))) Coyote you should stop begging help from others. You are abasing yourself :)))))

and you ask the help from a Romanian...you hungarian jew...

Mircea Eliade

You may have noticed that an IP is having a field day on that article. Please inform the person on the existance of bans. Thank you. Dahn 19:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)