User talk:Dahn/Archive 43

Gigurtu

Hm. Let me start by quoting the source (Nicolescu, 163, as part of his list of measures Gigurtu took to ingratiate himself with Germany): "adoptarea Decretului-lege de revizuire a cetatenilor evrei stabiliti in Romania dupa 30 dec. 1918 (cca. 1/3 din totalul celor supusi revizuirii, adica 225.222 de persoane au fost excluse din randul cetatenilor români)". What should we make of that? It may be he's actually referring to what Goga did, but [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] provide details on the Nuremberg-type law. So if the detail is cut, that's not a problem, as long as we know it's wrong. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be a good idea - he was ramping up a trend (albeit with its ebbs and flows, and let us not forget he came into office on the low note of the Dorohoi pogrom) started by his friend Goga, not starting from scratch. Each footnote verifies whatever comes before it in the paragraph. So for instance in the "The king turned to Gigurtu" paragraph, footnote 5 verifies up to "to Hungary"; footnote 6 from "The cabinet" to "their citizenship"; and footnote 2 the rest. I hope that's clear. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. Two further small points. Iuliu Maniu is cited at Neagoe p.327 as having once called Gigurtu "cel mai accidental prim-ministru al României". Not sure if we can (or should) fit that in anywhere. Second: several sources ([6], [7], [8], [9]) mention how Gigurtu's appointment as foreign minister was itself seen as a pro-German move, so I've mentioned that. At the end of April, Carol had also amnestied the exiled Guard leadership in order to appease Hitler, but that's not quite relevant here. I also like the discussion here about how Gigurtu's interpretation of neutrality differed markedly from Călinescu's, but that may be more a matter for the main Romania in World War II article.

To muse on a DYK hook, how about "...that a series of measures taken by Romanian Prime Minister Ion Gigurtu, including official persecution of Jews, failed to sway Adolf Hitler from his demand that Romania cede Northern Transylvania to Hungary?" - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've added in the Maniu quote and made the nomination. We can think about citing Wylie too, but no rush there. Speaking of Google Books, it's too bad one can only find out through snippet view that his mother was named Olga Bălcescu and he married Ana Bolova in Craiova in 1920, though I suppose those facts are just trivial enough one could rely on the snippets. Well, have a safe travel and see you around. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, that he was from the Bălcescu family. I'll have to mention that. Verification has been taken care of. And I do want to say I reminded myself several times to ask you if you'd like to share credit for the expansion (since you did take things to another level) - but still forgot. Blame early-onset Alzheimer's disease, not ingratitude. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice, I like it! And as for the gov't collapse: indeed, though since we already had articles on the ministers, the update was none too difficult. Nicolae Pleşiţă was on the main page, by the way - a rare Romania-themed article not by one of the "usual suspects". - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, sounds intriguing. As for the pictures: bad weather looks kind of ugly, but you have the advantage of not needing to worry about the sun washing out your work. (Look on the bright side.) And freedom of panorama or not, you still have a lot of work to do: see here, pp.7-18, 74-76! After you're done, we send you to Câmpulung-Muscel. (Which reminds me: the Piatra Neamţ city hall doesn't use the hyphen, but the law consistently does. A trivial issue, of course, but I wonder if it's worth moving, or which takes precedence.)

Pleşiţă is sort of OK, but the structure is a bit chaotic, and of course the Ceauşescu and Kim Il-sung pictures are most unnecessary -- shall we have pictures of Ceauşescu in the biography of every Romanian from the '60s, '70s and '80s? ("This fellow lived during the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceauşescu.")

Since you're much more the "music guy" than I am, could we have notability spot checks on Edward Maya and David Deejay? I suspect Lunam Docs (co-run by Natasa Muntean and, of course, by Munteanatasa) will have to go, as will her Punam and Journey of a Red Fridge.

Elena Udrea is now handling Tourism and the Environment. However: the PSD and the PNL can bring down the government if they really want to, and it looks like they do. Back to the halcyon days of the late Radu Vasile era... - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Mark A. Meyer - he's met Constantinescu! And Snegur! And Lucinschi! And Djukanovic too! - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

More to come, but first let me bombard you with one more headache: Franz Josef University of Kolozsvár. Redirect to Babeş-Bolyai University? Attempt a merge? In other news, Race (sociology) just got kept at AfD: I like this section ("Hungary has yet to really face up to what it did to the Roma... Some older Czechs still dislike Germans for what they did in World War 2 and Slovaks also vehemently dislike Hungarians and Gypsies, who they stereotype as naturally criminally inclined"), and the image captions ("the Russian come Israeli Physicians, Mr Benzion Werbin is of Jewish decent and could become a victim of anti-Semites"). Hmm. Reminds me of Christianity and violence, which has yet to improve, 3 months after surviving AfD. We could start a "worst of Wikipedia" contest - surely Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti also belongs ("So, becomes obvious, that the slightest attempt to return Turkic ethnic minority in edge will provocated a tension situation, first of all for the Georgian population, who occupied former turks-meskhetzs settlements. The little conflict between the local Georgian population and immigrants can strongly destabilize the all region, and Georgia will loss the territories which has been won’’ from Armenians.... If we take 1918 - 1979 interval, we shall see, that the Armenian population in Samtskhe-Javakhk has increased only for some thousand person. It proves the fact that it is impossible to trust data of census unequivocally on 100%. However the facts beat in a bell, and to escape from them isn’t probably. For last 60 years the Georgian leaders excellent managed not only a policy of not admitting a natural increase of the Armenian population on all territory of the Georgian Soviet republic, but also organize the maximal outflow and assimilation").- Biruitorul ^Talk 04:05, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind and eloquent words. I can't say you didn't warn me earlier, but I've certainly been thoroughly disabused of any notion of having anything further to do with that site (at least as regards using their material here). All's well that ends well, though, and I think this sums it up nicely (or this). Eh, back to this nonsense, I suppose. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "Ortodoxia şi refuzul extremismelor" was enlightening, though one element I would have liked seen discussed was a link between their project for the future and the time before the 1930s. After all, if that decade was an aberration, it must have been an aberration from something more positive, and indeed it was. There is much to admire in the outlook of the Church in the Romanian Principalities; even on Jews the record is not entirely negative for some periods (certainly when compared with other churches). To return the favor, let me link you to this recent piece, where I think you'll find some interesting bits.
About Ernst Nolte - ! It was fine in August. How about prime minister? First, why all the links - aren't there better places for those? Second, why those prime ministers in particular? Why not, oh, Churchill or Zhou En-lai or Molotov or Bismarck?
Question: when a newspaper lifts text from Wikipedia, does it become reliable? This isn't the first time I've noticed the practice, either. Also, a more practical question: I put him in the catch-all Category:Romanian generals, as he was an Interior Ministry general and not a Securitate one. However, since the two were related, could we also say that all Interior Ministry generals belong at Category:Securitate generals? And come to think of it, since he was promoted in 2001, Category:Romanian Land Forces generals might also be appropriate. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I know this article has been in poor shape for years, but could I ask you to glance here? The fake interwiki links, the echolalic repetition of "Târgu Mureş / Marosvásárhely", the map that (with all due respect) should be in Romanian or better yet English... And the history section was expanded from an 1868 work, although I suppose that's marginally more acceptable than the other changes. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted, with a comment. Also, a certain list is up for FLC. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK question

Hello! Your submission of Şerban Cioculescu at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Orlady (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! OK now. --Orlady (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Şerban Cioculescu

On September 28, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Şerban Cioculescu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Bund

Hi. I created the article General Jewish Labour Bund in Romania. The article is 400 characters short of being nominated for DYK. Do you know any sources that could be used for expansion? --Soman (talk) 11:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Soman (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for helping out with the expansion. --Soman (talk) 20:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Nicolae Pleşiţă

Thanks much for your work in cleaning up the Nicolae Pleşiţă article. I am not too familiar with Romanian history/government, but found the story in the obituaries to be very interesting. I did my best with the available sources to start a creditable article, but your work has improved it significantly. Thanks again. Cbl62 (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The article is vastly improved by your efforts. For an article that was only started over the weekend, it's looking pretty good. Cbl62 (talk) 00:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ion Negoiţescu

Man, that is one monster article! - Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I mean that in a good way. I just wrote Jacob Furth, way shorter, and I know how much research I had to do to write that. - Jmabel | Talk 01:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories

To help you, here is the list of all categories I created. Which ones are "absurd"? And who, I pray, has ever objected to them? You were the only person that mentioned Category:History of Moldavia, but you seemed satisfied with my response, b/c you did not object further, nor did you suggest something else. Also, I would appreciate, when you have personal dissatisfactions with me, to point them at my talk page (you have been always welcomed there). If there is something to it, I would not be shy to correct whatever is necessary. But making accusations without being specific (not to mention without addressing them directly to the editor in question) is a form of trying to undermine a content opponent in the eyes of third parties. Can we disagree about content without getting personal? Dc76\^talk 20:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:History of Romania by period contains the following subcats (not in alphabetical order, because that order makes them seem less logical):

• Category:Years in Romania
• Category:Prehistory of Southeastern Europe
• Category:Ancient history of Romania
• Category:Romania in the Early Middle Ages
• Category:History of Transylvania (1003-1308), high middle ages
• Category:History of Transylvania (1308-1526), late middle ages
• Category:History of Transylvania (1526-1683), early modern period 1
• Category:History of Transylvania (1683-1848), early modern period 2
• Category:History of Transylvania (1848-1867), late modern period 1
• Category:History of Transylvania (1867-1918), late modern period 2
• Category:History of Wallachia (1242-1386), high middle ages
• Category:History of Wallachia (1386-1512), late middle ages
• Category:History of Wallachia (1512-1714), early modern period 1
• Category:History of Wallachia (1714-1821), early modern period 2
• Category:History of Wallachia (1821-1859), late modern period 1
• Category:History of Moldavia (1242-1457), high middle ages
• Category:History of Moldavia (1457-1504), late middle ages
• Category:History of Moldavia (1504-1711), early modern period 1
• Category:History of Moldavia (1711-1822), early modern period 2
• Category:History of Moldavia (1822-1859), late modern period 1
• Category:History of Bessarabia (1812-1917) (unlike Transylvania and Wallachia, which were simply under one empire, Moladvia was divided by 3 empires, therfore we need cats for Bessarabia and Bukovina here, but not for Banat, Oltenia, etc)
• Category:History of Bessarabia (1917-1940), also subcat of Category:History of Moldova, b/c Category:Greater Romania (1918-1940) cannot be subcat there (Also, it is only temporarily here, afterwards it will stay only in Cat:Greater Romania (1918-1940).)
• Category:History of Bukovina (too few articles so far to divide at 1918 and 1940)
• Category:History of Transnistria before 1792 (these 3 cats are only temporarily here, until we clear non-Romania related articles from Cat:History of Romania, but subcat the minor bits when they relate to certain details related to Romania)
• Category:History of Transnistria (1792-1991)
• Category:History of Transnistria since 1991
• Category:United Principalities, late modern period 2
• Category:Kingdom of Romania
• Category:Communist Romania
• Category:History of Romania since 1989

It takes so long to distribute articles because you have to consider that they go not only to History of Romania by period, but also to People in the history of Romania, Histories of cities in Romania, as well as thematic histories. And people cats are poorly organized. Dc76\^talk 22:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc, which part of my argument about the parenthetical dates eluded you? Dahn (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that you dispute the years of the 6 subcats of Category:History of Transylvania, 5 subcat for Moldavia and Wallachia, and 2 subcats for Bessarabia? Dc76\^talk 23:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I dispute all the years and the corresponding categories, Dc. Now that you mention it, I also dispute the fact that you seem to believe creating categories "temporarily" - which is simply disruptive; create them to work, or don't create them at all. Now that you seem to be compelling me to look into the matter, it's also absurd that you create categories for "before [insert date]" (!), and that you created a "United Principalities" category to cover... just how many articles do you imagine it would cover, Dc? But no, wait, don't answer that - if you still don't see the problem, chances are you'll never see it. Dahn (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I noticed your post in Biruitorul's talk page (I hope you don't mind i read it). Would you prefer renaming Category:History of Transylvania (1308-1526) into Category:Transylvania in Late Middle Ages and Category:History of Moldavia (1242-1457) into Category:Moldavia in High Middle Ages? You could have told me so, you know. Dc76\^talk 23:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1. I did not say that the categories for Transnistria were temporary. They are temporarily subcats of History of Romania, something which I can remove in seconds, if you just say so.
2. I don't understand what is wrong about "before (a date)" for a province, when it is clear that that part of history would NOT be subcat in History of Russia, the middle one would be, and the one after 1991 wouldn't be. Why Cat:History of Romania after 1989 is any different? 1792 was more radical from Transnistria than 1989 for Romania.
3. is it ok according to you to merge United Principalities with Kingdom of Romania? Tell me an argument and I will think about it. Honestly. In principle, there could be around 20 articles covering 1859-1881. We don't have them yet, but a complete encyclopedia would have about that many. Just think about the War of Independence and Declaration of Independence and Cuza dismissal and Kogalniceanu's reforms. There is some content to it. Can I suggest to move it as subcat to Cat:Kingdom of Romania ?
4. "chances are you'll never see it" thank you for nice words. Just note, I don't use such addressing you.
5. would you prefer to merge Category:History of Wallachia (1242-1386) and Category:History of Wallachia (1386-1512) into Category:Medieval Wallachia ? Dc76\^talk 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

1) and 2) You keep arguing for the category (and others) as if it's some widely used concept, and this the way to categorize. It's not. It's vague, it's POV (it's a date that you think is relevant for cutting in half the history of the region), it's of no informative quality. It answers to your own priorities, however relevant you think those are for the project. The reason why the "before" is ludicrous, if this needs explaining, are that such notions are arbitrary - while "post-something" ("post-1989", if you will) has some logic and some precedent, the "before something" categorizing is inherently POVed and puts the carriage before the horse. I also note how you persistently inform about your reasons for categorizing in this manner, when this is not an issue - the issue is that, if it needs explaining, it's more often than not not a valid category.

3) The important part is that you're always thinking about these things after you create the category. That aside, let me inform you that the name "United Principalities" went out of use (at least, inside Romania) during Cuza's rule, when, in 1864, he changed the binding constitutional law. From that moment and until 1881, when it became a Kingdom, Romania was the "Principality of Romania" - a constitutional matter which is best addressed as a section of Kingdom of Romania (lest we start having separate articles on the Socialist and People's Republic of Romania). Now, you not only have created a category that covers a grand total of five years, but obviously it can't include the stuff you believe belongs there (the War of Independence, etc). Let me also point out that, regardless of how long the period took, you missed by far the point of my original question: I know you could say many things about a certain period, but not many of them will/should be standalone articles - lest we start having a separate article on everything that we can pretend is an independent concept.

4) And yet your reply above includes the words "I don't understand what is wrong about etc." - precisely. I'm not saying you're incapable of understanding a point, I'm saying you're unwilling - because you're entrenched; and give that you didn't assess the problems as you were creating the categories, it's only natural to assume that you would not care for revisiting them as time passes. It would be interesting to note how many times this has happened in our conversations in the past: that you would start saying I'm totally wrong, that you would turn to saying I'm not making sense to you, and, after a million years, coming to agree that there was something you missed from the very beginning. But don't get hung on that point - I do believe that, without the holier-than-thou attitude, you'd notice that it's not (and not meant meant as) an insult; it's a fact of life.

5) I'd frankly prefer to merge all those categories back into Wallachia or maybe a "History of Wallachia", and similar for the other cases. There's no chance these categories will grow "too big", and further subcategorization appears to be overcategorization. But, sure, anything that spells out what it designates is better than random dates and artificial separation lines. Dahn (talk) 00:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1)2) the only useful thing you said is "if it needs explaining, it's more often than not not a valid category". Let me ponder a little more (1-2 days) and I will tell you (honestly) which categories might not pass (imo) this criterion.

3) The 4 events I mentioned deserve articles, let's not argue about that.

Do you suggest to include (as a convention, not as a rule) all articles about 1859-1947 in Cat:Kingdom of Romania and merge Cat:Romania Principalities with Cat:Romanian Old Kingdom? The years are not that important, I introduced them only as a convention. I can take care of removing them. Let's ensure things would be fine after we remove the years. This goes as an answer to Cat:Greater Romania, as well.

4) But somehow, when Biruitorul or others tell me something, it only takes them 2-3 lines. About how I created the categories, let me just confess that this was take 3. Take 1 and 2 were thought for a week each and dismissed. Take 3 was thought for a week and approved (by myself :-) ) The very fact of this discussion is a living proof that I am willing to revisit everything, and care for your opinion. (Not because it's yours, but because there can be some truth in it. If I would have suspected you only had general things to tell and no examples in the back of your mind, I wouldn't have insisted about examples. Believe me, when I suspect people have nothing to tell, I dismiss them rapidly.)

Think about the good side: you don't need to convince other editors in the future. I can do more effectively b/c I know what kind of arguments swayed my opinion. (None of this is in WP policy pages, I searched.) And a solution here means an easier solution in other similar categories. After all, you can use me to argue against you or for you. I can be just as effective as I am effective at squizing kb out of you.

5) I will bring up a new proposal soon (1-2 days). Dc76\^talk 03:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

1) and 2) Okay, whatever.

3) I see absolutely no reason for having four distinct articles on those events - yet again you seem to imagine that an issue can't be covered unless it has a separate article. First of all, it strikes me that you have thought of these articles as a method for filling out a category, which is a bad idea in itself. Now, for Kogalniceanu's reforms, we have Land reform in Romania and Secularization of monastery estates in Romania, so what is it that remains to be covered? Cuza's deposition is really a matter for his biographical article, lest we end up with another crappy one with no context and little ties to the others, while the Cuza article itself is still crap - even if you would decide to create another article on that, it would still have to be properly linked and summarized in countless other articles (another job you seem keen on leaving for others to do). Positing that we need yet another article on the "declaration of independence" (which is not even notable as a document) is another way of putting the carriage before the horse and focusing on the insignificant detail - particularly since, at the moment, there still are two articles on the war itself! Just who do you imaging would be helped by that sort of writing? But, let me note again the main and essential point: neither of these articles, existing or hypothetical, would belong in the "United Principalities" categories, since the United Principalities existed between 1859 and 1862.

What I would suggest is that we include events relating to Carol's reign (from 1866) in the Kingdom cat, and simply have the rest (if it even exists or should exist) appear in the respective Moldavia and Wallachia categories (whatever they'd be ultimately named).

4) Okay, moving on.

5) Fine. Dahn (talk) 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

3) ok. Just note, that I said those events deserve articles. I did not say which articles. Land reform in Romania and Secularization of monastery estates in Romania cover one of them just fine, obviously no need for a summarizing article. (You did not seriously think I would suggest a summary article, did you?) One of the reasons I started to work on categories is because I couldn't find easily what articles already exist when I want to expand/link something; but that's another issue. I am not fond of Cuza to write about him, and I agree there is no sense to have an article about his deposition when we don't have articles even for entire presidencies of Iliescu, Constantinescu and Basescu. By "Independence" I meant not only the declaration, but the whole diplomatic issue. But I personally have many other plans and don't have a specific idea about this one. And I did not think how would that relate to the article about the war; there might be a problem about that.

5) Here is a preliminary version, so we can experiment. Don't worry about deleting cats. For many of those I am the creator and sole contributor, and I can nominate them for deletion as a whole group once we move their articles to proper cats. (I dealt with CfD and CfM before, and the only thing was to wait 7 days for possible "con" votes, which never happen.) Dc76\^talk 06:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I also invited Biruitorul. We are now an odd number, so it should be easier to move forward with 2:1 or 3:0. Dc76\^talk 06:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Awright. I'll be on later today. Dahn (talk) 06:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Take your time. No rush.

Also, would you agree to create Category:Hungarian nobility in Transylvania as subcat of Category:History of Transylvania and Category:Hungarian nobility? For starters we would have such members as Category:Szécsényi family (remove from Category:History of Romania), Category:Báthory family and Category:Hunyadi family (both to be romeved from Category:People from Transylvania). The idea came to my mind when I noticed Category:Kingdom of Hungary counties in Transylvania, which so happens was created by you. Dc76\^talk 06:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

May I ask you to look over this plan, and tell if you see any major objections. By all means future corrections can be made and I would undertake to do them if other people prefer other tasks than cats. But if you see an obvious problem with the new proposal, which can be taken care right now with ease, it would help save time and effort in the future. I would like to do some changes to the existing paradigm, because I do understand its shortcomings, and do not want to have this task in such poor state hanging over me. Dc76\^talk 10:41, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, take your time. As much as you need. Biruitorul (to whom I wrote an identical message as above) has told me to wait, b/c he wants to look more and is also busy. I agreed to wait, but no more than 1 month. :) Seriously, that's exactly what I told him. So, you take all the time you need and do other things first, this is the one which will wait. BTW, I am also quite busy this week, so chances are you will reply and I will read it only in a few days time. Do more urgent stuff. Forget about me.

About your apologies, please don't. For God's sake, it's already cold outside. :) Do you want snow in October? :) How, seriously, there is nothing to apologize about. I do feel uneasy when people sound apologetic. Let's just talk about the specific things without too much complesantries (I am sure I made up this word :) ). I find it very interesting when I talk with you about specifics, be it WP related or general chat. Dc76\^talk 19:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, Thank you very much for your detailed answer about categories. I must admit you have raised a number of very good points. Yes, I was looking to find a sub-categorization scheme that would leave almost nothing out. It would help in searches, especially when wikilinking and planing new articles, which (searches) is where categories are so helpful. But I see and agree with most of the points you make. Let me explain myself on the basis of the example you have given the last: Category:Kingdom of Romania would have natural subcategories Category:Greater Romania, Category:Romania during World War I, Category:Romania during World War II, but the articles concerning 1866-1914 and 1945-1947 can be safely left in the "mother"-category. They would be just as well evident there, because the articles for 1914-1945 have been excluded. If those for 1945-1947 would be as well, it would be just perfect. But even with 1945-1947, I think it is acceptable. I also agree with Category:20th century in Transylvania being more ilogical than logical, which implicitly means that other subcats have to be rethought as well. I would like to wait for Biruitorul's comments as well, and I would like to rethink the categorization scheme in view of what you told me. I would like a categorization scheme a little more detailed than the one you have in mind, but allow me to emphasize the words "a little" rather than the words "more detailed". I will get back to you. Again, thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 14:01, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a specific question: Category:19th century in Romania would include what? 1830s in Moldavia fits there? How about 1840s in Bukovina or 1850s in Transylvania ? 1860 in the United Principalities? (N.B. I do understand 1800-1822 and 1866-1900 in the Old Kingdom: these articles will be both in "19th century in Romania" as well as in "Phanariot era", resp. "Kingdom of Romania". But I have trouble with 1822-1866 in the Old Kingdom and all period for Transylvania and Bukovina, not to mention the headache for Bessarabia. Ok, for Bessarabia, we can solve with "See also "Category:Governorate of Bessarabia"". But Bukovina? How about Oradea in 1850 or Constanta in 1830? How about Bucharest in 1840? Do they fit in "19th century in Romania"?) I presume you are going to say: it's on the territory of the modern country Romania, but I want to hear it from you to be sure I understand exactly your logic. Dc76\^talk 15:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Dahn, Please, be patient, I think seriously about everything I am told, I never reject ideas even when pushed in aggressive tone. OK, forget it about tone.

Your answer, unfortunately, again focuses on seeking deficiencies in what I do. But please take a moment and think about positives as well. With all due respect, when was the last time you started or edited substantially an article on Bessarabia in general, not to mention about the Soviet period? It is natural that things don't look simple to you, because you allow a disproportionately small portion of your attention span to these subjects. I allow myself a disproportionately small portion of attention to subjects you are interested in, but I do not attempt to dictate you how to organize those. After my last adjustment (adding a category for MSSR), IMHO, the things are just perfect: simple, clear, uncontroversial. Look how this is done for other places: Finland, Baltics, Poland; it is consistent with those. Consistency if a very important aspect in WP.

I must also complain, that from my point of view I am being harassed. I want to edit content, but I am being dragged into lengthy discussion, put at a wall and fired upon again and again, having to justify obvious things, including to people who never accepted a letter of what I said. I have only one explanation for this: some fear the subjects I write about. Please, I beg you, do not be part of this. You know very well, I have and will always address all concerns you or Illythr had or would have. Please, allow me to edit content as well.

To address more specific of your concerns:

• not to create a category for every nuance. - is this a nuance. How about this one or this one? If we generalize too much, everything is a nuance of something. These are very notable "nuances" needing dozens of articles to be described, therefore justifying a category.
• You also introduced a POV, since again you didn't rely on accessibility, but on how you think the subject are connected - Just as much I can say "MSSR" is a pov, but I am not prone on using the word "pov". If it were how *I* think the subject is connected, then there wouldn't be consistency with other regions of Eastern Europe.
• what is the connection between Bukovina and Bessarabia after they became Soviet, other than that they were Soviet? - look at the articles now in the category. Plus the articles I did not write yet about famine, resistence and resistence groups, collectivization. Each of these were phenomenons specifically about Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, absolutely not about MSSR and UkSSR. How many times do I have to tell this? Why do I have to justify? I believe it would be fair to read a number of books on the subject before criticizing.
• Name the subcategories after the respective entities - I have just corrected, introducing a category for MSSR.
• and place the articles that straddle the divide (such as "Soviet occupation of...") into both. -That is an excellent point you made, and I assure you it is high on my attention list.
• Now, do you really see no reason in taking your time before starting something that all others are supposed to be working with? - When was the last time "all others" worked on those subjects? Never! "All others" gang up and discuss at length aspects of 1-2 words I use, but they don't edit content. From my point of view this is called obstructionism, that is how one derails and chases out people from WP. I beg you, don't be part of this. I am listening as always to everything you say, but please, allow me some room to breath.
• "this is how a wikipedia user thought you should get your info" How about "this is how three users gang up to chase another person"? Unfair? Think about how unfair are your words about me? I am being nothing but consistent with how the subject is organized in other similar situations. And open to everything you say! Are you open to everything I say? Dc76\^talk 10:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, when I don't like something you say, I either say it or keep quiet. I do not call your words speculative. It was a request from me to you. You can simply ignore it, but I would appreciate if you could do that without denigration. If you don't like me, just don't talk to me. To the issues:

• For the "Georgian era", it refers to a specific and singular concept. similar to Fanariot era, and similar to Soviet era. With all due respect, the analogy is not flawed.
• For the "occupations" - not that the category is questionable (though it's subcats are, because they duplicate content), but the simple fact that it exists is no guarantee of anything; - Certainly. I am not at all claiming a guarantee. I am just saying that as long as that portion of the category tree exists, we should be consistent with it. You can of course raise the larger question of moving that entire category tree. Also, I disagree that the subcats are duplicate content; I believe there is very little if any superposition. The fact that you dislike those subcats is a POV, you would agree, wouldn't you?
• your precious subcat May I ask you respectfully to dispense with ironies. It is not polite.
• is about some mysterious "Soviet era" Not at all mysterious:
  • it includes phenomena that are common for both Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, which if treated separately would artificially divide the subject
  • it includes the period after the invasion and before the establishment of the Moldavian SSR
  • it includes the period after MSSR ceased to exist when Moldova declared sovereignty, in particular the state got a different name, which is more than a year before independence. If you are so knowledgeable about what the "mysterious" Soviet era was, could you please tell that date. Every child in Moldova knows it. Do you?
• dare I assume it's because you esnted to reflect your notion that the occupation ended in 1991? No, absolutely not. There are several interpretations of the term "occupation", there is only one interpretation of the term "Soviet era". No POV. If it would have come from an Englishman, you wouldn't assume it's POV.
• "Maritime history of Romania" - Soviet occupations (one of the mother categories) is in a sense a thematic category.
• the category you created advertises Romania irredenta after 1945 - No. You must be dealing in real life with die hard Ceausescu era nationalists. I am not one. I come from a particular geographic area, and I love my land as every person love his own land. I advertise nothing. I am using the terminology used by the historians that study the history of my native area. I couldn't care less about Bucharest fashioned irredentism, be it communist, legionar, antonescian, vadimist, or simply idiotic. I couldn't care less about those irredentists. Be so kind and don't put me in a bowl with them. Do I compare you with communists? with Soviets? with leninists? with stalinists? I have never have suggested you advertise their irredenta, because I know for a fact you don't. Please, do not assume so much bad faith on my part. Cann't you believe people actually want things right and true as they were, no matter how unpleasant? I can make you acquainted with many honest and decent people: it is the people you do not see on TV, on radio, in newspapers. There are many decent and modest, ordinary people who simply want to know the truth and do not put preconditions. "Mai naste si Moldova oameni." Nu tot ce e stralucit pe lumea asta s-a nascut la 100 km raza de Bucuresti. Cand scrii despre x, spui cum arata lucrurile in x, nu cum sunt vazute ele din y. I-as trimite undeva mai departe pe iredentistii vostri. :-) E problema voastra pana la urma si imi displace cand mi-o urcati in carca. De ce credeti ca eu gandesc ca ei? Parafrazandu-l pe Carp, mai exista si altceva pe lumea asta decat "Romanian irredentism".
• "Moldavian SSR" is not POV, because the entity undeniably existed - the category formed around it would not favor any POV. - Absolutely, the category "Moldavian SSR" is very logical, and I created it only hours after Illythr told me (I just needed to get a few hours of sleep, but the first thing I did when I came back was to create it, because Illythr has raised a valid point: that category is justified.) But it doen't cover everything, and I would liek to invite you the second time to look at what articles are there to notice this fact (+resistence, collectivization, famine, and a couple more subjects which don't have articles, yet). Why are you saying "undeniably existed"? Do you deny there was a Soviet era in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina? No. This category is just as warranted. It is however, larger than "Moldavian SSR"
• You revert back to a logic we discussed elsewhere, and again imply that a number of articles straddling a divide is equivalent to a "need" for separate categorizing; - There is no straddling of a divide here. This is a logical topic. Give me the right to write about it, please. When a category can be created logically (does not contradict the existing logic of the category tree), and has enough articles, it should be created. Your solution is very good, but we can not apply it universally. We should apply it when there is indeed a straddling of a divide, not when after some logical twists one can interpret things as a straddling of a divide.
• You have an article on, say, resistance in both the MSSR and Bukovina. Per the precedents, per logic itself: include it in the MSSR subcat, in the History of Bukovina cat, and in something to do with the history of Soviet Ukraine (if it does or doesn't exist). - But the resistance did not take place in MSSR. It took place in Bessarabia. Famine did not exist only in MSSR, but in Bessarabia. I want to create (eventually) an aarticle about a remarkable event that took place on 4 July 1940. There was no MSSR back then. Look at all articles there now, and you see as obvious that they did not occur in MSSR. Later events, for example in 1950s, yes those occured in MSSR, that's where they will be.
• Incidentally, by creating a cat for "Soviet era" and then one for the MSSR, you effectively duplicated your own system... - no, no, I didn't. I have contributed and am going to contribute to this area. I know what I am doing. The last thing I want is to complicate things I deal with. I am a freak of simplicity and organization.
• seriously, it's getting old - Va urez sa nu patiti asa ceva, dar Dumnezeu e martor, la fel de bine astfel de lucruri se pot intoarce impotriva oricui. Daca D-ra incercati sa le ignorati, este alegerea D-ra. Eu insa va spun, ca nu voi avea ipocrizia sa le ignor daca se vor intampla altora.
• the idea is that us, all of us users who will ever deal with the subjects or even have to sift through them, will have to deal with a confusing category tree. - There is nothing confusing. Everything new is confusing to people who are new to a subject. Please, try to write a couple articles, help organize and develop the existing ones, and please tell me then if things still look confusing. You know very well other people, including respectfully you, never create content in this area. What is the real problem for the project, is the constant obstructionism and chaise out content creators receive. Unfortunately with the direct contribution of other content creators. This is the most painful part. Because you know how difficult it is when you have limited time and have to deal with every "chichita" found by other who never create content. It is very easy to criticize. Please do, but allow me time to gather forces and time to clear things. You criticized justifiedly the article "Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina", and I am still trying to address the bare minimum of the points you raised. It takes a whole day to come up with only one screen page of text acceptable in the first scrutiny. It is so much work, and I do not have time because others chase me; that's such an effective strategy for them! Minimal effort for maximum gain. I just hope others don't have to put up with this. God, I so much sympathize with them. Dc76\^talk 22:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Benno Straucher

I am quite baffled to read such a comprehensive high-level article written in only one day after the creation of a very short stub. Bravo ! --Pylambert (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In some (googled) book I read Straucher was a partisan of Simon Dubnow's Folkism, do you think this is true, as you read a lot more about him than I did, or was it just some coincidence that his views paralleled those of the folkists ? --Pylambert (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ion Negoiţescu

On October 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ion Negoiţescu, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikipedia:Did you know 07:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Benno Straucher

On October 12, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benno Straucher, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 03:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Not that it matters for WP, but...

"Not just because it is not forbidden, but also because an administrator of that project has previously used wikipedia talk pages to rant not just against wikipedia as a project, but against yours truly." - That is exactly what I don't like about you. You keep personal grudges. So what if they are warranted? Just let it go. You are intellectually superior, and yet you come down to argue. You don't seem to know how to exploit your intellectual superiority. Imagine Radufan or Anonimu could write like you, or have read 1/2 as much as you did... Please, don't take my words as offence, I sincerely don't mean them as such: You don't seem to know to exploit fully your comparative advantage.

"Not to say that it's all fair game" - If it were "fair game", your content contributions and intellectual superiority would mean you always win to 99% of people. Many of your opponents realize that, and don't let it be judged ultimately by the content contributions, because then they have no chance, so they drag you into the game, knowing that you often take the bait "against yours truly". They will make it "against yours truly" because that is your weak spot, they know that after 3-4 pages of discussion you and they look more or less just as credible. So you loose your comparative advantage because you let yourself dragged into that. There is absolutely no harm when you discuss 3-4 pages about content, b/c you can ultimately convince people. But when it is about "x said y about z", and you try to persuade people that are physically unpersuavable (is there such a word? ) ... you shouldn't let yourself into that. Dc76\^talk 06:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I may have kept a "grudge" against Radufan, or rather I resent that he tried to destroy my reputation on an entire project, by breaking every rule in the book - for the same reason why rowiki looks the way it is, which is that these sort of editors wanted to keep it as ransom; and most of all because he seems unapologetic about that. More than what he did with me (not as much the content of his allegations, but the actions themselves), I resent what this has meant for the rowiki project, where his policies and the way he understood to enforce them have resulted in preserving, for as long as he was there, the worst content and expelling the best. I resent that he gratuitously and viciously attacked me for no other reason than me wanting to improve that record, and particularly that he used his admin privileges to block me for openly discussing problematic contributions by members of his clique. Whether or not I am these guys' intellectual superior is really not relevant to me: it's how they use their real or imagined talents that I can ultimately discuss, and that was the problem all along.

But note that this entire issue is an aside. You originally said I can't be discussing their project. Hell yeah I can, and if Radufan or his colleagues imagine that I cannot because they'd rather shut me up (using one of the most unrealistic rationales I've yet seen), let them know better. The main issue here is that their project, to put it bluntly, sucks - that is the main issue I've chosen to state, and with arguments presented in this process. To this, I've added a secondary rationale: a ER editor has no serious (moral, legal, whatever) grounds for asking that we as individuals don't discuss their project at all, because no one would have such grounds in this situation; I also went into the details outlined above to state that Radufan personally has lost all other possible equal footing in this matter, (a) because he spent (and spends) much of his time making speculative claims against wikipedia as a project and (b) because he was personally involved in harassing and mudslinging me while still performing duties as a wikipedia administrator. His rationale for demanding us to curb our freedom of opinion and ignore his project, a project which (as you yourself noted elsewhere) he was the one to bring up for public debate, is utterly illogical and insults the intellectual abilities of all of us. In addition to that, him requesting that special treatment under such circumstances is hypocritical - something which I thought needed to be pointed out. That clarified, I myself see indeed no reason not to go on ignoring his project for the rest of eternity - you will perhaps remember (as Biruitorul did) that I had unilaterally recommended that solution long before this incident.

"Fair game" is idiom for "acceptable prey" (as in "game"), and, by extension, refers to arguing against someone with all rhetoric weapons at one's disposal. Meaning to say that I don't believe I have and I won't attack the project or Radufan himself with statements that I myself would consider unfair or unsupported, and that all of what followed was my reasoned critical assessment (this, I believe, is contrary to what he has been doing - but I'm not held up on that). In any case, a full review of the context leading up to his claims is serious enough, as I'm sure he knows. Dahn (talk) 12:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

As much as "my" project (it's actually "ours" because we are 3 founding members and puting effort and money into it) sucks in your opinion, the hard fact is that we got copied from Wikipedia, and not the other way around. Incidentally the copyright violation was done not by anyone, but by a reputed colleague - and protegee - of yours. That's the true issue here. It was his misunderstanding - ok, I accept that from him, but the fact itself remains, as much as you wish to preach us about values. Your stormy defending reaction simply speaks for itself. Nobody is perfect.--Radufan (talk) 16:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, let's speak plain terms. 1) I couldn't care less about the logistics of your project - it's your (Radufan's) project, as in you are among those who created it, and that's a fact; 2) You may not be aware of notions such as individual responsibility (one of the many basic concepts of human interaction which don't seem to appear to be in your book) - whether or not the object of that responsibility is or isn't frivolous, I have commented and length and will do so no more. That said, I don't have and won't have any proteges on wikipedia, and all my friends here are in no subservient position to mine. But I can see why, having run a posse for as long as you did, you would have difficulty imagining that others don't do so; 3) I don't expect much good faith (or even logical) interpretation of my actions and words from your part, but, for what it's worth, I never would preach you or your associates on anything, and the statement that I have been doing so is vacuous. Of the numerous reasons for that, let me cite an essential one: I always wanted and still want to keep all my interactions with you guys to a minimum, and we are in spontaneous agreement that your entire project is best ignored by wikipedia editors everywhere. I would have continued to ignore your project, had a third party not started making claims about the nature of site and you not started to dance around the arguments with what was, under all definition, a lecture. It was a fraudulent lecture, and, since at least one article I had worked one was being dragged into it, I decided to step in an clear away some of the smoke and mirrors show, before more naïve users take the various claims at face value.

Since there's no other controversy here, and particularly since you remain unapologetic about, at the very least, your earlier diatribes having me as their subject, I see no reason to go on debating anything with you personally. Kindly leave my page and don't let the door hit you on your way out. Dahn (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of General Jewish Labour Bund in Romania

Hello! Your submission of General Jewish Labour Bund in Romania at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for General Jewish Labour Bund in Romania

On October 15, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article General Jewish Labour Bund in Romania, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

SoWhy 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Claudio Mutti

Your assessment of Claudio Mutti and some of your other claims made at [10] need to be corrected.
Pannon Front is not an organization but a journal on politology.
Was Mutti a neo-nazist (from which he is very far), the argument "although a neo-nazist, [he] is an important scholar" would indeed still be absurd, because the correct way to put it would be "a neo-nazist and an important scholar". For the two things have no logical connection whatsoever with each other.
If Mutti's scholarship (still far from being laughable) appears somewhat fragmented, it is because as Evola puts it, author-scholars like him are similar to rear-guards in a hostile territory (modernity) trying to catch up with an ever more distant main army (a traditional social-mental constitution). Because of his more elevated viewpoint, any single paper of Mutti is a greater achievement than the whole work of Lukacs and his "masters" and "disciples". (Both of the latter two expressions are all but blasphemies.)
It is not Mutti's work but Sedgwick's book which should not be used as reference, since it has been aptly refuted as being incorrect (even on the level of facts), inadequate, and biased; one which lacks any correct intentions. See [11] and [12]
Wolfsson (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

That's two consecutive edit conflicts due to essentially the same thoughts on the same matter. Perhaps we should request a Checkuser procedure against us. One of us may be harboring a terrible truth... --Illythr (talk) 15:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fringe interpretation?

[13]. Why not trying to read through and copyedit, for a change? I can expect revert from other editors, but I know you are capable of quality edits. Why not doing those instead? If it is POVed in one direction (which you didn't say why, what issues?), why did you rv to a POV is another direction? It is very easy to put tags to all sentences that are problematic. Revert is just not constructive. Not to mention that it only helps to swing the pendulum. Dc76\^talk 15:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This is empty: [14]. So many people like to push the rv button, without addressing or mentioning any issue. I did not expect you among them. Undo parts that you consider incorrect, but blind revert it over the top. Dc76\^talk 15:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I see you have taken the ax to cut a lot of Gordian knots tonight. (And you were claiming you have no moods...) I cannot for the love of me be expected to discuss the same things over and over again. - And I did NOT ask you to do that. I asked you to copyedit the entire article to a version that would seem alright to you. When I am sea seek, I never throw on others. Dc76\^talk 15:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

a) I have been discussing this on talk pages, a long time ago (incidentally, these arguments were never reviewed by those who pushed back the amphibology, who did not talk about it, who silently pushed back that version, and who claimed consensus when all others had lost patience to follow up on that - after that stage is where your own edits came in, as far as I recall); - You have a lot of arguments in private discussions (especially in discussions with empty walls, because in discussions with people who are willing to listen to you, you just go around in circles and avoid talk about content), but you don't have the courage to edit the article and say "this is my version. criticize it, and I will defend the points on which I am right, and concede on points on which somebody proves me wrong". You have a tone of time for long replies, but no patience to edit and propose something specifically. Also, you put everyone in a single bowl. When was the last time you made painstaking edits and I blindly reverted you? Never! Yet you allow yourself such total lack of politeness. You could have said "I have many issues about your latest edit(s). Here is a better version. Could you please analyze it and tell me if you disagree with something?" Do you consider me a hypocrite which will not consider it seriously, and not think about all the details of your version? Just admit it: you don't have courage to edit content in such articles. You are afraid of "controversial" articles.

b) on principle, with or without that history, I can't possibly be expected to end up debating every nook and cranny of an article (I could do much "worse"; for example, I could, to use an expression Biruitorul uses, "torch" such articles to the bare minimum, since all things beyond that are dubious); - Please do "torch" down, it would be much more constructive than blind reverts. And please, don't debate anything before somebody asks you. Maybe I would agree with your version. But first show you are capable of editing, not just of empty talk.

c) while I have said I can't be expected to discuss the same things for ever, note that I have still explained myself in the post above; - Who asked you to explain yourself? You are wasting your and mine time explaining yourself. Spend time editing and creating good content in articles like this one. After your edit, I will comment on specific issues on which I might wish additional info from you, and please answer only to specific issues related to the content. I am sincerely not interested in your past experience with other editors who edited this article. If you have something to say content-wise about the article, please. Otherwise, find yourself a better toy, please.

d) I don't think there's something in my rationale which you actually find questionable, and I suppose that you were reverting Anonimu's version because, well, it was Anonimu's - that is unfair and not constructive. - I reverted a blind revert by Anonimu. You know very well, I keep everything constructive by him. Not because I love him. Just because of the opposite: I want to "disarm" him, by implementing immediately everything positive he has to offer, so that he is left only to push his negatives. Oh, and you know what is questionable in your rationale? I ask you about apples and you answer about oranges. I asked you about content and you tell me about your experience with other users. Edit the article, please, or stay out. Dc76\^talk 19:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

you begin by saying that I should edit an entire article, top to bottom - Yes.

and then tell me that I should expect no informal guarantee that I'm not doing it for nothing - Here is my informal guarantee to you that you are not wasting time. I will take your version as a baseline (so try to make it short, much shorter than it is now). I might question a few details (but expect me to question 1-2 words or even nothing). Then I would try to build on top of your version, by trying to add info after that. Obviously most if not all that info would have to be sourced. And obviously, much more scrutiny would be given to that than to your baseline version. should problems arise, we would revert back to your baseline version and start from there. You don't have to find a ton of source. The baseline versio n can be written with 2-3 sources. I have asked Biruitorul the same thing, so maybe you could complement each other. But if you prefer to do it alone, I am sure he would yield to you. How about the baseline version to be 1 page, no more? Dc76\^talk 21:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Dc76\^talk 22:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Communes

HI. I haven't forgotten about the infoboxes and pop sorting. I have been waiting for Kotbot to finish his current task. It might take a few weeks but I hope soon enough he will be able to sort them all out... Himalayan 19:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Zigu Ornea

On October 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zigu Ornea, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Jake Wartenberg 13:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Look,

I am sorry that I am somewhat harsh tonight. But I see a lot of time lost, and... I wasn't able to write anything about "my preferred subject" these last two days. I still have no idea how do you propose to deal with 15th century events in Transylvania when a lot of Hungarians will protest to Category:15th Century in Romania (please, do look how this is done for Britain, England, Scotland and Wales). I hope you do not suggest to just abandon and focus on 100 km radius from Bucharest. I still have one respected editor who shall not be named "checking" every edit I perform (if he new how much it irritates me, he would be drinking champaign every night). And I still have not persuaded you to edit Moldovans, the article, not the talk page. Not to mention real life. Sorry it was you tonight to get the full throttle. I am sorry. But you have to stop putting other people to the wall and yourself only in the position of examiner. Is that a professional habit? :-) (Don't answer, I don't need to know your real life identity.) You should do more editing in articles or subjects you criticize. ... oh, no... my short apology became another long moralization. :-) Anyway, thank you for answering. I did read everything you wrote, and I will be thinking more, even if I replied already. Please, try to be more specific: sometimes it is really difficult to understand when specifically (nor procedurally) you mean. Dc76\^talk 23:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• like we're supposed to be sharing the last can of tuna out in the wilderness - what can? we are down to the very last tuna. :-) Dc76\^talk 23:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• poetic "Soviet era"? Are you kidding? There is nothing poetic. Whatever you think about (and I really have no idea), I assure you, historians talking about the subject don't refer to it. "Soviet era" is like "Communist Romania" but even more warranted given the fact that Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina were split while the political events were identical for a period.
• The comparison with the United Principalities is flawed, imho, respectfully. It was not a different name, it was a different state. There was a puppet state before. There was a sovereign state after. This is by far the opposite to "ultimately non-essential and nitpicking distinction". It is very essential and based only on law. And you didn't answer, which is the date. :-) Mistake, not in 1989! :-) I am not surprised you call it "nitpicking" if you never heard of it before. This just proves how quick are you to present your opinions as absolute truths in areas you are not so well read. Sorry for harsh criticism.
• The portion of the category tree, as questionable as it is, does not address that fact, but generally the topical phenomenons of 1940 (again, the ambiguity you seem to endorse about the occupation lasting down to 1991 is not a fact, but an interpretation - it may be solid, just as it may not, but it is not the universal cold fact). - No, it is POV to state that "occupation" means only the invasion, and it is POV to state the "occupation" means the entire Soviet era. It is NPOV to have names that do not imply any of these two senses.
• you don't have a problem with creating a common category for Bessarabia and Bukovina after neither was officially known under that name, and when the two regions no longer shared the same political reality - This is exactly what I am talking about. They did share the same political reality. Articles on issues that reflect that would be in this category, article on issues specific to Moldavian SSR, Chernivtsi Oblast and Budjak will be in this respective categories. Very simple and clear. Mind you also that the Soviet era started before, not simultaneously with the creation of the MSSR.
• how about Transnistria in the 14th century? The term "Transnistria" was not used before 1600s. Hence 14th century in Transnistria is moot. 17th century would be the first, but there were so few notable events before 20th century that they can safely go to Cat:History of Transnistria. In fact, the way I made it now, everything before 1991 does.
• Here's the deal: after 1940, there was nothing substantial uniting Bessarabia and Bukovina with one another. There was! And a lot. Do I have to retell the whole history, or you would prefer to go to library? BTW, I am not favorable to new deals. yes, this would be a new "politically correct" representation of reality.
• Nothing beyond the symbolism of some concepts, and that symbolism belongs to a side of the dispute - the unionist side - please, don't start with this. What does this have to do with unionism? Didn't I tell you a thousand times, history about x, what happened in x, not history about x as view by y. It's about what happened in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, not about the reaction in Romania.
• I mean, sure, they had a political reality in common, but they also shared it with Armenia and Yakutia After the Stalinist period, yes, similar to Armenia. During the Stalinist period - no, not similar at all with Armenia. Also not similar in 1990-1991.
• Category:Ireland and Botswana in the British era. - If this is the level at which you gave consideration to my arguments, I cannot possibly add more. Are Botwana and Ireland neighbors? Did they become British subjects simultaneously? Have they been subject to the same identical decrees and actions specific only to them, not not to Namibia or the Isle of Man? A good comparison would be "West Bank and Gaza under Israeli control" or "The Holocaust in Bessarabia and Bukovina".
• That subcat you created, in addition to its many other problems, wittingly or unwittingly favors a POV - Can you spell out what POV, please. I don't understand this point if you don't say specifically.
• And since it overlaps significantly (80%? 90%?) with at least one other category, whatever other articles you have been planning, the result is, in fact, duplication. - right now, it "overlaps" in 3 articles, while having 8 other own articles. That is 27%. But since one category is subcat in the other, there is just subcategorization, without any overlapping.
• First of all, please drop the polite pronoun, it makes me feel strange after so much time (unless you're doing it as a statement of renewed coldness, in which case I regret but respect that choice). - I don't know your age. For all I know you can be a 60 years old personality. I was just trying to be respectful. I have once called someone "tu" in Romanian (on wiki) and was politely told to revert to "D-ra". I felt very-very bad. If it is ok for me to call you "tu", then I definitively will. (Absolutely no "renewed coldness". I am just irritated that the time runs so fast. Me contradicting you is nothing new under the sun. :-) )
• Secondly, I'm sorry you see things that way: my interest is in improving content and preventing mistakes (including things done on the spur of it). I don't "gang up" with anybody, I don't view anything in this as a personal crusade (my only request and expectation from you is that you improve your editing style at some point, including in creating cats, precisely so that we can avoid these tiresome and divisive debates, which I assure you could be avoided). - I appreciate your words. (seriously, no irony) thank you. :) if I missed something, i'll review again tomorrow; hopefully I won't be too busy tomorrow. Dc76\^talk 00:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

While there are many points of contention, one of the bigger ones seems to be over whether we link Bessarabia with Northern Bukovina. There's no obvious solution to this, particularly as parts of Bessarabia were not in the Moldavian SSR. I have a new proposal that might move us forward. Delete Category:Soviet era in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, create Category:History of Chernivtsi Oblast, Category:Budjak and Category:History of Budjak (with the latter a subcat of the former). Articles that are common to all three or to two of three (eg, Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Soviet deportations from Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, Romanian prisoners of war in the Soviet Union) are placed in multiple categories. Articles that only deal with Northern Bukovina (eg, Fântâna Albă massacre) go in Category:History of Chernivtsi Oblast, and so on. Thoughts? - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a viable alternative to what I suggested - instead of using historical names (Moldavian SSR etc), use names of modern territories. On the other hand, cats on historical regions also exist: Category:Moldavia (not connected to Moldova, for some reason). --Illythr (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to understand. You said "instead of using historical names (Moldavian SSR etc), use names of modern territories". I understand that you propose something like "Soviet era in Moldova" or "Soviet Moldova/Moldavia" (don't know which one is more correct). If that is so, then I have a counter-proposal which is only 2 inches apart (as opposed to one mile right now). It also addresses Biruitorul's suggestion, and in my view simplifies it. Dc76\^talk 18:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

N.B. Category:History of Moldavia is a subcat in Category:History of Moldova by region. Do you have a better idea? Dc76\^talk 18:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the cats will simply be "History of X", where X is the modern region in question. Actually, my suggestion is compatible with Biru's: Category:Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic can be made a subcat of History of Moldova, along with Moldavia[n Principality] and Bessarabia[n Governorate] cats. The basic idea is to name categories after political entities contemporary to the event. --Illythr (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a few minutes ago you agreed to not insist on "Moldavian SSR". The moment I am prepared to compromise, you step back? You said "instead of using historical names (Moldavian SSR)", and now you say "to name categories after political entities contemporary to the event". Prime lesson why one shouldn't attempt to compromise?

Moldavian Principality gave its name to the historic region: Moldavia, Governorate of Bessarabia to Bessarabia. Moldavian SSR was just a defunct puppet state, which does not cover the entire Soviet period in Moldova. Moldavia was an independent state. Bessarabia also, albeit only for a few months. Moldavian SSR was but an administrative unit of USSR: something warranting an article, but not a category. Please do consider something along the lines "Soviet period in Moldova". I hope we are not here to promote Soviet POVs. Dc76\^talk 18:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc, if I was right in interpreting your comment above, on this very page, you claimed not that the Moldavian SSR was an administrative unit of the Soviet Union (indeed it wasn't, or not just), but that it was a "puppet state", and this only until 1988 or whatever. This not only smacks of entrenched POV (regardless of whether that POV is relevant or not), it not only means that you are changing the arguments as you go (wuite ironic, given that you accuse Illythr of doing the same), but it also avoids the simple fact that there's nothing preventing wikipedia from having categories designed around either federal units (Category:Vermont) or puppet states (Category:Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia). Whether it was or wasn't "occupied", a "puppet state" or whatever slogan you want to keep shouting at us, it's categorizing we're discussing here.Categories address facts, not interpretations of facts. Dahn (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Side note: Moldavian SSR was both a puppet state (for example, it had an embassy in Moscow) and a subdivision of the USSR. USSR was a (con-)federative state. Not a unitary state like Romania. It just itches me (mainile, nu careva prostii) to remind you of the library. MSSR has both features, and one can refer to whatever feature contradicts something, doesn't have to re-list all of them. About the second point, you can extent Vermont to when it was part of New Hampshire, but you can not extend Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia beyond what it strictly is. That is a imho a basic principle of NPOV in naming categories: a regional designation (based or not based on the name of an extant state) can serve as a reference, while a puppet regime - can not.

I'm sorry, I can't honestly see what this adds to the conversation. Dahn (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was simply pointing out that "Moldavian SSR was both a puppet state" and "Moldavian SSR was a subdivision of the USSR" are not contradictions. You said that by using one of them to refute X I couldn't used the other to refute Y. However, by using both I was refuting X and Y, whatever X and Y was. Dc76\^talk 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that part was probably confusing. I'll try to clarify. There were following political entities on the territory of modern Moldova: Principality of Moldava, Governorate of Bessarabia, MDR, MASSR, MSSR. As they are all part of Moldova's history and relatively complex subjects, they each should have a category named after them, with each category handling articles and subcats pertinent to that political entity. Their common supercategory would be then History of Moldova. Instead of "Cat:Soviet era in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina" there would be "Cat:MSSR", "Cat:MASSR" and one of the following: "Cat:History of Chernivtsi Oblast" (Biru), "Cat:UkrSSR" (me), "Cat:Bukovina". My version also covers Budjak, for the other two, Cat:Budjak will have to be created. --Illythr (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

side note: Moldavia and MDR were independent states, which automatically warrants categories for them, because those topics can not possibly be covered by something else. MSSR and MASSR weren't. Governorate of Bessarabia's other title would have been something like Russian Bessarbia, which is obscure and unclear. By contrast Soviet Moldova is very clear. Dc76\^talk 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you point out the guideline that states this strange division? AFAIK, the only rule is that the topic must be clearly defined and complex enough to warrant a category. In case of the MSSR it is definitely so (MASSR may be included into some cat about the history of Ukraine). --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't express well. I mean that categories of independent countries are needed because otherwise there will be articles without (historical periodization) categories (exclude categories with "difuse" tag, sich us mother categories Hisory of X, where X is a modern country). Categories on subdivisions can occure for the reasons you say (enough articles), but not for the reason of avoiding uncategorified articles. I am simply saying there are different reasons behind, I have not questioned the legitimacy of MSSR on its strict limits. Dc76\^talk 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the principle is good as a system, but maybe some parts of it need to be "troubleshot", and some tweaking was already proposed below. But the categories as a rule look okay. How they relate to the existing "Moldavia" and "Bessarabia" categories is something to be addressed in detail, once we reach some compromise over the larger issues. I see two possibilities, of which one is already in place, but incomplete and chaotic. Dahn (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please, do tell me one of the following days what do you mean. I am interested. Seriously. This is not baiting or joking. I suspect you might have very valid points. Dc76\^talk 23:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll see about mapping it out soon, and, if I happen to forget mentioning it when this discussion is again on tomorrow, please remind me. I've got a lot of things on my mind. Dahn (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Take you time. i have to attend to things in real life. Dc76\^talk 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, gentlemen, that's three posts, three approaches.
Biru, that's very much what I suggested, and, sure, the cats on the Budjak seem warranted (though I don't think the lack of them is the reason why Dc why opposing my proposal to delete the category). But I will object to the one Category:History of Chernivtsi Oblast, for a couple of reasons: it would overlap much with Category:History of Bukovina, when a simpler solution would be include articles that straddle the chronological divides into Category:Chernivtsi Oblast and Category:History of Bukovina; I also think it's a tad risque precedent in prioritizing the present and "unilateral" overcategorizing (Category:History of Ialomiţa County?), and carrioes the effect of suggesting a grid on the history of Ukraine, by implying that "we're doing this 'history by oblast' thing now, but we only care about this oblast".
Illythr, I think the suggestion of naming the cat after the SSR was the simplest one (and Dc created it any way); the problem is with the ubercategory for Bessarabia and Bukovina. In what concerns the category on Moldavia, it is connected to the Moldova categories, though not ideally so - if it were after me, I'd include all the categories on Moldova into the Bessarabia subcat, going by the Moldavia>Bessarabia>Moldova system, but I can see why others would object. In any case, let's leave that discussion for later. Note: I don't object to also having articles on the history of Moldova (whether within or parallel to the "Moldavia" cats), though again the system created there by Dc is chaotic and highly repetitive.
Dc, you suggestion (which, btw, is not a suggestion, but something you've made into an actual category) does not "simplify" anything, because for all the problems it supposedly answers it creates others. So you don't still see those problems after my days of detailed answers to your every claim. So fine: I could only beseech Biruitorul and Illythr to read them, as I'm sure they can't be missing them (in fact, I think they already did read and acknowledged them, hence the above). Dahn (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You already put words into Biruitorul's and Illythr's mouth? According to you, it doesn't matter that you proposed no scheme that deals with existing issues (the obvious ones, at least), it matters to you only that people pass as good everything coming from you, preferably without reading your Wallachian-centered (lack of) logic. You know, for a few minutes there, I did hope you might be rational and prepared to listen what others say (you have ignored all issues I raised about your minimalistic approach), and we could indeed move on. But yes, rigidity, Stalinist-type rigidity... :( Dc76\^talk 19:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean by "Moldavia>Bessarabia>Moldova system"? Category:Moldova in the Early Middle Ages subcat of Category:History of Bessarabia ? Something like that? Dc76\^talk 19:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc, let's just focus on this one issue, without losing perspective, and without invoking the "Stalinist" or "Wallachianist" charge. Otherwise we'll never advance. Please see my suggestion below. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) For Christ sake, Dc, instead of wasting my time making me reply to the same baseless stuff over and over again, and instead of requesting breaks that you yourself don't feel obliged to respect, what say you take some time and read the countless instances on your talk page, on your project page, and on Biruitorul's page, where I repeatedly explain and detail the solution as I see it, in direct comparison to your proposal. As for the "Stalinist" canard: Dc, a man can have only so much patience; that you would come up with that sort of argument during a civilized discussion, particularly when is misinterprets my statements in such an awful manner, is starting to look like you are lacking the sense of propriety. Don't make me start my next post with: "At long last, sir..." Dahn (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I did think about that and yes, a separate Category:History of Chernivtsi Oblast is probably excessive. Let's then put all articles dealing with Soviet-era Northern Bukovina, Herţa and the part of Hotin County in the Ukrainian SSR (ie, Chernivtsi Oblast) into Category:Chernivtsi Oblast. The Budjak is dealt with at Category:Budjak and Category:History of Budjak. The rest of Soviet-era Bessarabia (plus Transnistria), i.e. the Moldavian SSR, is at Category:Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic. And Category:Soviet era in Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina goes. Are there any serious objections or counter-proposals? Let us know. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

None here. Dahn (talk) 19:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. --Illythr (talk) 19:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. The name Category:Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic is pro-Soviet. (For one, it pretends June-August 1940, and 1990-1991 did not exist. And these periods are crucial, they have much higher article density per unit of time.) A neutral name would do. The articles related to Chenivtsi oblast in the Soviet period, since there will be many of them (already are quite a few) and they shouldn't mix with localities, poeple, etc. can go into Category:Soviet period in the Chernivtsi Oblast. I agree that history of an administrative unit is a bad idea. Similary Category:Soviet period in Budjak. Well, not so similarly, Category:History of Budjak might actually do instead. Dc76\^talk 19:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me address those one by one.

Whether we like it or not, there was an entity called Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic from 1940 to 1991. That was its name. Sure, we might consider Category:Communist China or even Category:Red China more appropriate than Category:People's Republic of China, but there are times like these when the official name is simplest, easiest to recognize, and least open to question. (Category:Communist Romania is an exception to the rule, since Communist Romania had two names.) What category name could be more appropriate? I ask that with all sincerity.

I have a different suggestion. How about Category:Villages in Chernivtsi Oblast, in order to remove some of the localities? First that, then we avoid mixing history with localities. We already have Category:People from Chernivtsi Oblast, so that's not an issue.

For Budjak let's just agree to Category:History of Budjak. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sure, there are many neutral alternatives: "Soviet period in Moldova", "Soviet era in Moldova", "Soviet Moldova", the "status quo ante bellum" "History of Moldova (1940-1991)". They are predominant in sources to "Moldavian SSR". The situation, IMHO, is just similar to "Communist Romania". That obviously does not negate the existence of Moldavian SSR. On the contrary, Moldavian SSR would be one of the two main articles in the category. But we cannot extend the notion Moldavian SSR over it. Just as we can not extend the notion "Luisiana territory" (by contrast we can extend the notion Luisiana, similarly to how Kingdom of Romania is category-wise tacitly extended over the United Principalities). We can extend the notion Moldova, but not that of Moldavian SSR.

Certainly, Category:Chernivtsi Oblast can be subject to regular maintenance. That would somewhat violate the principle of coherency with Moldova and Budjak, but it I can understand this might be the simplest solution in package (in order to make sense to be the simplest) with the solution on Moldova. Dc76\^talk 20:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc, what sort of leverage and power of conviction do you expect to have when you created the category you now object to? And, for the love of me, what would Category:Soviet period in the Chernivtsi Oblast add? Seriously, Dc, it's exactly the "every concept/nuance/slogan should have its own category" logic that you revert to over and over again.

No problem with Biruitorul's new suggestion either. Dahn (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Biruitorul's proposal for Budjak and Chernivtsi Oblast makes sense in conjunction with Moldova. So yes, if we extend the notion "Moldova" and not "Moldavian SSR", then we got an agreement, though to be sure we should spell it out.

Dahn, I don't object to category Moldavian SSR as subcategory of Soviet era, because that would have restricted Moldavian SSR to what it meant exactly. But I do object when the notion "Moldavian SSR" is pushed both up and down, i.e when it is the name on the one category. Dc76\^talk 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

About the "pretending" bit: that happens in lots of categories, for ease of categorization. Two examples will suffice. Category:Romania during World War II pretends Romania was in WWII from September 1, 1939 and not June 22, 1941 - hence the inclusion of National Legionary State, Ip massacre, Jilava Massacre. We don't have a Category:Romania as non-belligerent in World War II, because that would be excessive. Likewise, Category:Members of the Democratic Liberal Party (Romania) pretends all those in the category are PD-L members, even though (for instance) Adrian Severin left the PD almost a decade before the PD-L was formed. Again, it would be excessive to have a separate category for PD members. Likewise, although you are absolutely correct that the Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic as such lasted from August 2, 1940 to June 23, 1990, by pretending it lasted from June 28, 1940 to August 27, 1991, and, of course, noting the subtleties at the beginning of the category page, like we do with the PD-L category, we are being efficient and reasonably accurate, as well as neutral. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

An unrelated remark: Romania entered WWII with the Soviet invasion of Bessarabia and northern Bukovina. Dc76\^talk 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That's absurd. Dahn (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Romania's first declaration of war, as well as the first act of war, came on 22.06.1941. --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

First of all, this is an unrelated remark w.r.t. the scope of the categorification discussion. Soviet Unions's declaration of war was the threat of use of force in the 2 ultimata on 26 and 27 June 1940. Romania's derailment into Axis' camp was a result of the Soviet military invasion. Mind you, some isolated military units put up some resistance. The first acts of war occured on the evening of 27 June 1940, when Soviets laid down pantoon bridges and ferried tanks even before Romania decided it won't put up a military struggle. Ox before the cart. Cause and effect. If this looks absurd to you, why I was wondering then that both of you occasionally support elements of the Soviet politicized ideological historiography. If you want to continue this topic, could you please start it elsewhere, I am lost in the remarks here. Some remarks you posted 3 hours ago, I only got to read a few minutes ago. They came up like mushrooms :) Dc76\^talk 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We do have Category:History of Soviet Georgia, and I wouldn't strongly object to moving Category:Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic to Category:Soviet Moldova, provided there was only one category encompassing the concept, as well as general agreement on the idea. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, while I still don't see a problem with the MSSR name (and can agree with Illythr's suggestion about the tree, which differs slightly from that), "Soviet Moldova" (or, heck, even "History of Soviet Moldova") could work as an alternative. It would be more helpful if there were already a common system for all former Soviet republics, not just the one precedent, because I just can see this ending up in widespread chaos - note Category:Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Perhaps Illythr would want to help sort it out one way or the other for other former SSRs as well? He is both more interested in that global perspective and more aware of the issues at stake than all of us are, and he could either see about creating some more cats or generate a larger discussion. Dahn (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I support both "Soviet Moldova" and "History of Soviet Moldova". Any of them would do. One category, obviously, I conceded already on that. Dc76\^talk 20:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

BTW, very good observation by Dahn to look at USSR in general. We have Category:Soviet Union (not "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"), and its subcategory Category:History of the Soviet Union and Soviet Russia (observe "Soviet Russia"). In this logic, it seems to me that Moldavian SSR could be an article in Category:Soviet Republics, subcat in Category:Subdivisions of the Soviet Union, subcat in Category:Soviet state, subcat in Category:Soviet Union, while Category:History of Soviet Moldova could be a subcategory in Category:History of the Soviet Union and Soviet Russia. Consistent with Georgia as well. "Soviet Moldova" would have been just as good, but since I don't want to brake the existing pattern... Dc76\^talk 21:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously Moldavian SSR would be also one of the two main articles in the new category. Dc76\^talk 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

When in Rome. Dahn (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm honestly not familiar with this expression. Do you mean to say my last remark was obvious/redundant? Sure, I just wanted to be sure that you understand that i don't mean something weird (b/c just above I said that the article is warranted - and is there alrady - also in Category:Soviet Republics). Dc76\^talk 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Idiomatic: it means that we are probably best to follow the precedent, but expect that the entire cat tree may change. I accept "what the Romans do" as a rule of thumb, but would also support any other single nomenclature if/when such is adopted. That's what I meant. Dahn (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ahhhhh, long-long time ago I knew it. Yes, i totally forgot it. I understand what you said. Fair enough. Dc76\^talk 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The "...and Soviet Russia" part is there because for the period of 1918-1922 there was no USSR, but there was a Soviet government in Russia. Basically, the same crutch as "Communist Romania" (two names for the same government). In case of Moldova 1940-1991... eh, it actually makes sense, too, because Moldavian SSR was renamed to "Republic of Soviet Socialist Moldova" sometime in 1990. In any case, there's no POV whatsoever in stating the facts that MSSR existed, was a Soviet Republic and is now part of Moldova's history. --Illythr (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. An even better comparison to Soviet Russia in the early years is the status of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina in June-August 1940. Just a note: RSFSR formally did exist since November 1917, but there was no USSR until 1922. When 4 republics got together, the USSR was created. Of course, RSFSR was the big brother, and its diplomatic activities in the west (as well as its activity in other parts of the former Russian Empire) are called Soviet Russia. But these are details for another discussion. About the last sentence: yes, there is absolutely no POV in that. Dc76\^talk 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So then why do you object to cat:MSSR being a subcat of History of Moldova? --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We now have the Budjak categories, and it looks like we've settled the Chernivtsi issue for the time being. Let's wait for Illythr as well to say something on Moldova, but meanwhile, I share Dahn's observation that the SSRs are categorized rather chaotically, and that it would be helpful to approach Moldova from both contexts: as a former Romanian territory, but also as a component of the USSR. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(Obviously, I am not assuming anything until Illythr would reply, as well, but) Thank you very much, Biruitorul. You can't even imagine how entangled we were. I really appreciate what you have done tonight. I was very worried that my disagreements with Dahn could spill over elsewhere. But now I have very high hopes that we'll be able to take a step or two back and look forward more constructively. I do admit that when I saw "isn't a controversy", "occupation of Bukovina", etc. (plus the declaration that Moldavia is a mere territory, Wallachian possession, compared to mighty Scotland) it got me all wired up. If I reacted too heavy, Dahn, yes it was warranted, but I also apologize. Dc76\^talk 22:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

As another side note, Dc, you really seem to have an unwillingness to follow a complex argument from points A to B, even if it's one in which you take part all the way. In the above, yet again you misconstrue my points. Seriously: stop it. I'm reminded of Icar, who made a name for himself saying that I was a "Trotskyist", based on a statement I made which couldn't possibly be read to state that thing.

For the "isn't a controversy" thing, I have no goddamn idea what you're referring to, but, remembering the few instances where I've said something similar in past debates, I'm sure it must be something you're taking out of context.

For the "occupation of Bukovina", I presume you mean where I've once mentioned in passing me paraphrasing the "Chernivtsi Oblast during the Romanian era", as a counterexample of your categorizing. And even that would not be thae same as "Romanian occupation" in Bukovina. I obviously meant to say not that I would share that POV - I don't, and you know it by now, this even though the incorporation of Bukovina into Romania was primarily a military action; ultimately, what I do and don't believe is irrelevant, both to this discussion and to the point I was making. The point I was making (the same that Biruitorul has made), is that if we don't allow categories to evolve outside of POVs, if don't at least make the effort of thinking outside the box and acknowledging that the cherished idea is not the neutral idea, we only encourage a wikipedia structured around POVs and exposed to an endless war. In cases where the neutral title and perspective are easy to find, and the POV easy to discard, it was only your exasperating resistance and misinterpretation that was blocking that natural process. When you add ridiculous claims to add in a poor attempt at poisoning the well, you seriously discredit yourself and your position.

Your reading of the Scotland-Moldavia comparison is frankly embarrassing. For starters, whatever I said went for both Moldavia and Wallachia, so your pesky and undignified remark about me "thinking this ay because I'm a Wallachian" is bogus and inflammatory. As for Scotland: take a pause if you will, walk around a bit, relax a bit, then return to your computer and read again what I have said, and what I'm repeating next: Scotland (like England) is a country, and does have administrative representation as such; neither Moldavia or Wallachia are anything of the sort. That said, the category tree for, say, Scotland, reflects its present and past political status, and the very analogy you state is flawed because of that: Scotland, unlike the whimsical system you propose, is consistently reflected into categories at all levels (while your proposal has "14th century in Wallachia" to "19th century Wallachia" and then Wallachia disappears because the state did, lo and behold - Category:19th century in Scotland is centuries after the Stuarts, for the exact reason I mentioned). So, if you want to be consistent with your own analogy, you would have to have a "20th century in Moldavia" as well (which, obviously, would not make the same sense as it does for Scotland) - this after you agreed that 20th century in Transylvania would be problematic. Now do you understand?

I want you to read the above carefully. There are some things in there that I expect never to have to repeat. But regardless of how utopian that expectation may after all prove to be, let this part of my message at least stick with you: the moment you so much as attempt to put a spin on any of my future posts to make them look like they're an extremist POV of any sort, I won't presume ignorance or innocence, and I will immediately go through the channels to have it sanctioned. What you did in this context is inexcusable, and I only let it slide for this last time because I'm still willing to give you a chance to review how you chose to interact with other editors. As I have repeatedly said, my interest is in having and preserving an encyclopedia, the vendettas are frankly all in your head - they only spill out of there if you air them. If you don't attempt to put a check on that from now on, there really is no way for us to work together on improving anything. Dahn (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Side note to side note: 1) I forgot that "isn't a controversy" was from the other discussion we had: Modlovans. Sorry. Resonance effect: a conflict in one place amplifies the conflict in another, which in turn amplifies the one in the first. We two must put some energy dumpers in place. 2) "Soviet era" and "Soviet period" did not evolve around a POV, they were neutral. "Soviet occupation" is also neutral but, it can be interpreted in a non-neutral way. I didn't even propose it. You see, I did not even defend "the cherished idea". I simply have irritation towards Soviet propaganda. But it's not my problem. I have just the same irritation towards the Nazi one. Before now, that you told me that you do no edit while having Soviet sympathies, I wasn't sure that your declared anti-nationalism (anti-xenophobia or anti-romantic nationalism?) did not evolve into complaisance towards Soviet ideology (on the grounds of your lack of interest towards Moldova, which could have evolved into an irritation towards Bessarabia). You do know that on occasion there are such people in Romania, and I was worried you were turning into one of them. 3) the "the neutral title and perspective" which was "easy to find" was "Soviet Moldova" not "Moldavian SSR". Moldavian SSR is by far not neutral when applied outside its strict delimitation. 4) "Scotland (like England) is a country, and does have administrative representation as such; neither Moldavia or Wallachia are anything of the sort" Absolutely true. Yet, if I remember correctly, it was only the Tony Blair's term that it got one. Romania was formed through union of existing entities, not by acquiring territory. I claim, and I am sure 95% of Moldavians (Moldova, Romanian Moldavia, Budjak of Bukovina) consider the same, that Moldavia, Tyansylvania and Wallachia are constituent parts of Romania. I understand you disagree. So many people in London feared Scotish nationalism. 5) But you are right on the part that events in what is History of Moldavia after 1859 need not double, they are ok in History of Romania by centuries, decades and years. This is different from they way it is done for Scotland and Britain; obviously I knew that. I have compared the Scotland and Moldavia per se. About categories, there can be certain things done for Scotland, that are not warranted for Moldavia if there is a consensus they are not warranted. For example years, decades and centuries after 1859. I don't see this as a contradiction to having "18th century in Moldavia". I understand that you do see a contradiction. It would help very much to move forward past this point if you could explain how would you deal with a) events in 13th century in Transylvania, which will be removed from Romanian categories "intr-o veselie" by many Hungarians and b) the fact that "History of Transylvania" will get very busy having to do with 900 years. We would need some subcats. Which ones? 6) Please, try to calm down. I respectfully ask you not to turn content disputes into threats of them being interpreted as personal attacks. Yes I was on the limit, but only after you arrived at your limit by suggesting I have some irredenta. I suggest a better way would be for both of us to step back, and since we've learned the sensible areas of each other, let's try to attempt to avoid them. In case one of us does step inadvertedly on the other's toes, let the one who feels offended say "I feel uncomfortable with the following remark of yours: ... Could you, please, paraphrase." Can we make it a gentlemen agreement to actually paraphrase our remarks when the other complains? You know I have the intelligence to paraphrase and I know you do have it. Can we promise each other we will also have the will. Dc76\^talk 00:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

1) I gathered as much. Here's what I had said: "Secondly, the subject of this article is about the ethnic identity (as questioned or questionable as that identity is or isn't)." Here's what you read into it: "If you pretend there is no controversy, then you are highly POV (not to mention factually wrong: there is a controversy. period.), and hence totally disqualified to edit or comment." This askew reading didn't deserve an answer then it doesn't deserve an answer now. I was again paraphrasing the points in the discussion, trying to move beyond the opinion pieces you so often get stuck on ("Do Moldovans identify as Dacians?" "Yes, they do" - and other such faux certainties about faux subjects); what I was trying to get through to you and everybody else is that this particular issue, of whether or not it is controversial, is not relevant to what the article addresses, that the article would address the same identifiable notion were that notion entirely controversial or not at all. If you till don't see why it's askew, ask someone else to explain it to you, because if you didn't get me the first ans second time, there's a good chance you may not get me the third, fourth etc.

2) Sigh. I was talking about the fact that you were creating a special duplicated category for events ("occupation", "era", whatever) in Bessarabia and Bukovina. Aside from the problems posed by "Soviet era" and whatnot, you were (again, I can't stress this enough) wittingly or unwittingly, favoring the historiographic POV which follows Bessarabia and Bukovina together after the Soviet annexation. This, again, may be a benign point overall, but is still POV and it is superfluous where a neutral categorizing is available (neutral, not "Soviet" - one revolving around facts, not opinions). Romanian historiography treats the subjects together, goes on prioritizing references to the regions rather than to the republics, and exacerbates the points these two regions had together, and does so ultimately because the regions are (in the sense that they are perceived as) Romanian irredenta. Whether you share the POV is and always was irrelevant to me - though I do believe you didn't make a secret of your unionist ideals (which neither qualify or disqualify you), I couldn't care less how they connect to this fact. What matters is that, in the case we were discussing, you favored an approach which, for whatever reason, created categories around the historiographic ambiguity I outlined above. It's what I've been telling you over and over again, post after post, and which you keep interpreting as a reference to your opinions. Revisit the sections of the posts in question, and you'll see that this has been my stand all along. As for the rest of the argument, try and imagine how you'd be reacting if I were to tell you "I wasn't sure that you hadn't become a Nazi since the last time we spoke". (There's a large quote from Orwell at the top of my rowiki user page, one that I would invite you to read.)

3) That argument is pretentious (it's an if-by-whiskey)and looks like saving face. In any case, I'm gonna let it flow past me, since it no longer addresses a relevant subject. But you may want to brace yourself: the title, as I have said, may yet change to Moldavian SSR, if this should be the result of consensus regarding the categorizing of articles on the same level in the Soviet Union categories; I for one am unsure about whether I would follow up on that.

4) and 5) Oh, man... Please, stop for a moment inferring a political bias on my part (and again it's a masquerade, based on assumptions), and try and see this as what it is: a problem of consistency (with other branches of the category tree, and between the categories). For one, I am not addressing symbolic reality, and categories can't reflect such subtleties (and it would be sterile for them to attempt to). In plain terms, you have one or the other: period or century categories that follow the, let's say, regional issue from one end to the other ("Scotland in the 20th century" would go with "Moldavia in the 20th century" - something which I agree is not desirable or feasible); period or century categories that, for the sake of reasonable reference, project a national category into the past ("Romania in the Early Middle Ages" or whatnot). Your system uniquely stops halfway between these two options, which creates no solution but plenty of problems. For the Transylvania (and not just) categories, and this has to be the fourth time I'm answering your claim that I offer no proposal by repeating the proposal, here is the proposal: take x article on 15th century Transylvania; place said article in "Romania in the 15th century"; are you with me so far? Now, the article may naturally belong in other categories as well, which incidentally address all sensibilities - even though they're not designed for addressing those sensibilities, it's a job they do well. Okay, you may ask, what categories are those, Dahn? Well, for purely Transylvanian realities (and sensibilities), we have Category:History of Transylvania; for Hungary, we also add it to (if this applies, cause it may not always apply) the "History of Hungary" categories (whatever they may be on that level, several of them if need be). We can even consider entire topical subcats, such as the one of the (semi-)independent Grand Principality, which would go with the "History of Romania" cats, the "Histor of Hungary cats" and the "Ottoman Empire" cats. Still with me? Now, for the post-Habsburg period, you have a variation o that system, with the two cat tree branches (Ro and Hung) and Category:History of Austria or whatever more specific stuff emerges in there. And so on, and so on...

6) I am and was rather calm, and I expressed exasperation rather than anger. As you may hopefully gather, at long last, from the above, I never suggested you "have some irredenta" (I have basically said that the only perspective from which those two regions can be treated together in 1940-1991 is the one where they are grouped as Romanian irredenta - whether you believe they are irredenta or not is, again, not something I'm interested in discussing, at least not willy-nilly in the middle of general, relevant, points). So, the fact that you continue to claim I have been discussing (at all, let alone first) your opinions is yet another barrage that you raised in the path of opinions flowing from me to you, not something I am responsible for. I find the suggestion you make needless, particularly since I have told in just as plain terms that I found what you were doing objectionable, that you were misreading my comments, and asked you to stop, but you continued either way. So one more quasi-formal step for dealing with that won't help much; what would help, again, is for you to either make really sure that you're replying to stuff I actually said or at least exercise self-control instead of divining why and how other editors are out to get you, have a shady agenda etc.

And, again: the issue is not (not as much) that what you said touched a nerve because of the words it used, that it depicted my sane objections as something I myself would find disturbing; the primary issue is that you (yet again) twisted my words, jumped to conclusions and spread false info. Not just calling my views "Stalinist" was objectionable and grotesque, but simply the principle of you feeling the need to do that, that you felt the need to do that, that you find it tolerable behavior - that is what gets to me. An index of adjectives I would find hurtful would not address the matter - it could have been any notion, as long as it did not even make an effort to fairly depict the point of view I had stated. In fact, I find it just as insulting that you invented and keep projecting on me the much less harmful notion that I don't "get" Moldavia because I'm Wallachian (Anittas would be proud of you) - if you plant such labels on people and they keep popping up in normal conversation, what the hell are they to do when they want to communicate what they mean, not what Dc has decided they mean? And that then you are the one claiming those you expose to such half-baked labels are also the ones who won't get off their high horses is surreal - it's saying "I can say whatever I want about you, and your failure to admit that I'm right about each of these things that pop in my head will result in me saying you believe yourself without flaws." For those familiar with the work of Caragiale, it's something condensed into the words ăsta-i cusurul tău. For the others, it's the damned if you, damned if you don't scenario.

You're not the first one to try his hand at this type of discourse here: it used to be a common approach by Romanian editors, and I was dragged through all sorts of mud here and on the Romanian wikipedia because of trying to sort things out beyond the cliches and defamation seeping into various articles. You said earlier that I'd have no idea what it's like to be "ganged up" on; no, Dc, you're the one who has no idea, even though I recall you posting on at least one talk page in the middle of a long thread in which I was being called all things from "vandal" to "Securitate agent" by many users at a time, simply because I wanted to prevent the article from turning into sinister libel. There was this user who was rather well-respected (including by you and by people like Anonimu), and who wouldn't let a day go by without posting some in(s)ane speculation and some half-baked characterological assessment about me - and the sad thing is that he, like you earlier, didn't even realize that I could be offended by his claims, that there are natural limits when addressing even people you dislike. It so happened that, at some point in the past (2006?), there were at least four wikipedia users who were spending time on forums posting diatribes against me and advising themselves on what tactics to use in blocking out my edits; some continued to do the same on wikipedia talk pages. One of those users, ironically, is the one complaining about a certain mailing list I for one have never so much as seen. I did not comment on your claim that I don't know what it's like to be "ganged up on", but maybe I should've - maybe now you'll realize who is on what high horse, and you'll perhaps realize the difference between users realizing the factual problems in some articles you happened to edit, and trying to remedy them, and what "ganging up" really is. I avoided opening this subject earlier because I'm not hung up on it (other than saddened to see that some things never change), because I have never reacted on the basis of it, and because the least time we spend on these issues the better. But my patience has its limits.

This actual "ganging up on", the scapegoating and the random lack of awareness for the basics of civilized human interaction, like so many things we're trying to put behind us, is the byproduct of officially-promoted tribalism, aggravated by the years of communism. This largely explains why Romanian wikipedia is just slowly, and only now, lifting itself from rock bottom. But we all display them on some level, some more than others, and we all need to shape up. In real life, I can avoid the herd behavior by simply leaving those who display it to their devices; but here, Dc, the only real option left to someone who is repeatedly harassed with the labels, in an environment where nothing warrants this behavior, is to ask for admin intervention. This is why I mentioned that, should it come to it, it will be my next step - as long as you acknowledge that, the purpose of this post is achieved. A lesson in civic education, hopefully the last one I'm forced to give. Dahn (talk) 02:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, since you have withdrawn your (what seemed to me) accusation of me being a Romanian irredentist, and since you have now stated that you do not have a pro-Soviet agenda in mind while editing (something which was not obvious to me until you spelled it out, because previously - to my understanding - it correlated in meaning with your comments), I would like to withdraw all (direct and indirect) accusations against you of defending a pro-Soviet POV and of being rigid in a Stalinist fashion, and I would like to say I am sorry for using them in the first place. I did exactly what I complained against once before: added momentum to a swinging pendulum. I would like to say I appreciate the fact that despite a very heated discussion, you found energy to clarify these aspects, which now tremendously help me understand your argument. I have a few more comments to make later on about a few points you touched upon, but if you would excuse me for becoming very busy in real life, I would postpone for another time (cann't even promiss yet when.) Thank you very much for your kind patience. Dc76\^talk 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look around the other Soviet Republics, and it seems that "X SSR" cats are missing everywhere, except for the "Cat:Russian SFSR". There are "Cat:History of Soviet Armenia" and "Cat:History of Soviet Georgia", however. Apparently, nobody cared to establish a pattern. So I guess we can go with the "majority" and create a Category:History of Soviet Moldova as a subcat of Category:History of Moldova. --Illythr (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What I don't like with the "History of [Soviet] X", where X is the name of the modern state/territory, is that if something were to happen to the modern territory (say, a rearrangement of oblasts in Ukraine), then all of these X-containing-categories will have to be renamed as well. The historical entities, on the other hand, are set in stone. So should, say, Moldova join Romania, then "cat:MSSR" would still make sense as a subcat of "History of Romania", but "History of Soviet Moldova" would not. --Illythr (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you a unionist?! :)

Just a hypothetical example I hoped there will be no ideological opposition against. --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also more in favor of things that are "set in stone", but Dahn objected for example to Medieval Moldavia and early Modern Transylvania, and has proposed History of Romania in the Middle Ages. Yes, there is a logic to both approaches. We just need to know which one we follow and where its limits are (No "Dinosaurs of Iowa", or "Stone age Chisinau", please). The issue you raise is totally valid, but it is similar to the possibility of Transylvania reverting to Hungary, Dobrudja to Bulgaria, Austria to Germany, Wallonia to France, Corsica to Italy, Russian Far East to China, Canada to USA, Korea to Japan, Kuwait to Iraq,... ups, stop. A lot of re-categorizing would be needed due to the "politically correct" (=historically ignorant) paradigm in this age. Dc76\^talk 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Illythr, anything of this sort may in theory happen, and, yes, like you guys, I too am for "set in stone" things - but some can't be set in stone. To give you an example: Category:History of Romania since 1989 - whose to say where it ends and when a new era begins? If, say, a coup takes place tomorrow, will it begin a new regime and we would find a new name for "1989-2009"? (Incidentally, to creep people out, with the life cycles of regimes in Romanian history, we're "due"... tah-dah-dah.)

But, even in the scenario that the two counties unite (let's not hold our breath), it's not actually necessary to change the name of the cat - sure, it's not perfect, but it would be, on some level, the history of Romania by that point. Obviously, this doesn't mean the name should not be changed - whatever of the MSSR Soviet Moldova and History of Soviet Moldova is ultimately good, but it's best if it's one that follows and endorses a practice in other such cats. So, if it's changed, I'd rather see it changed as part of a system for all former Soviet countries - the least random, the better. Dahn (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I was talking about things that *are* set in stone, that is, have time periods with a beginning and end (as opposed to "History of Country since Yesterday to Today").

As for the system to be common, I can't agree more. There's just to system at all right now. --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

This does make sense (both of you). Just a side remark about "after 1989" category. I believe it is an unwritten rule that one generation back (30 years) does not constitute history. But the stop has to be at some clear cut event, delimiting an era. 1989 is definitively such one,a nd while in the future eras will be delimited by historians (until 2057 computer era, after 2057 super-robots era, or whatever, i.e. these would be determined in the 2090s), in 1989 people were very eager to put an end to the old era (likewise in 1918 to start one anew), and no other clear alternative exists. We can of course call it Post-Communist Romania and Post-Soviet (or Intdependent) Moldova. So, IMHO we won't need to create new cats until 1 era+1 generation after 1989. 1989-2007 is very short, and frankly, what changed? So, wait until 2060s-2070s. If some United States of Europe emerge, that would be a different paradigm. (I am against the idea.) Dc76\^talk 00:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, can someone remind me, what was the original problem with "cat:History of Moldova (1940-1991)"I kinda lost that bit in the heat of the argument. --Illythr (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dahn did not like when the years are present in catogory names. He said descriptions are preferred. I would have sticked with the old name, but he would have proposed it for deletion. Dc76\^talk 23:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Having dates in the category name was seen as problematic, I think. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, I believe we've achieved a workable category system to cover the territories seized by the USSR in June 1940: Category:History of Soviet Moldova, Category:Chernivtsi Oblast, Category:Budjak and Category:History of Budjak. My involvement in this is over for today. Tomorrow we can tackle the next issue, whatever that may turn out to be. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much!!! The rest - some other time. I will also take a little (or more) time off. Thank you, everybody. Dc76\^talk 23:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Biru - as usual, you've been a great help. A la prochaine. Dahn (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm good with that. --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer below, b/c I can't find where this is above (can see only through diff):

• Comparison with Soviet Russia. So then why do you object to cat:MSSR being a subcat of History of Moldova? --Illythr (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC) - Only because 2 months in 1940 and 1990-1991 would not be covered, and I am sure it would be crazy if I suggest specific categories for those. "Soviet Moldova" covers everything w/o problems. Dc76\^talk 00:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

1. .Next time you gentlemen decide to gather consensus pertaining on more than a couple of articles, please use a public venue, such as WP:MDL. I do watch all your talk pages, but probably they are people interested in Moldova that don't.
2. .tl;dr, but there's a "but": I've seen that some of you went ahead and changed the cat to "Soviet Moldova" or something. This may seem right prima facie, but it raises further problems, since Moldova is unlike Russia, Armenia or Georgia. For one, Moldova de jure extends over a part of the MASSR, and MASSR was Soviet, thus is MASSR part of this category? Next, there's the part about the early post-WW1 years. Do Rumcherod, Bessarabian Soviet Socialist Republic and even MDR (it sought and obtained recognition by the Soviet of Petrograd as an autonomous republic of - by then Soviet - Russia) fit this new category?
3. .If users can't ignore ideology in something as simple and plain as categorisation (which is far from being the most used feature of WP), how are those users expected to neutrally edit real problematic articles?Anonimu (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

1. . Hyeah, well, I think what we gentlemen in "relative seclusion" did is still better than the alternative, which was a user designing the entire tree top to bottom without any form of troubleshooting. Now, as a side note: you may be right that others may also be interested, but, for the sake of sanity, not every decision can involve everyone who has an opinion. After all, I spent a couple of days just trying to get the one user to change his opinion, and at least grow aware of a problem (on what was admittedly a subtle, but by no means irrelevant, point); an extended discussion with several sides doing the same thing is just not my cup of tea.
2. . I for one am aware of that. Maybe you'll un-"tl;dr" and notice where I say that the name is good because it has a precedent, but bad on other counts. Yes, there is overlap, and, yes, articles such as Rumcherod should (or at least could) go in there as well - vague term, vague category, but no actual problem. Incidentally, articles such as Rumcherod should also go into Category:Greater Romania, since they are directly connected to the period. The MDR itself... no, not really. But the MASSR, sure: there and into Transnistria categories.
3. . I don't know what and who you're commenting on, but it looks like water under the bridge. Hopefully, we're past that stage. Dahn (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)