Talk:Valter Roman

message: Dpotop, you are just adding in a new created subsection the Romanian text I just had used to write the information in the lead ! :))
If i may suggest, could you look at this ? It contains extremely interesting and complex information about two proposals made by Walter Roman to the Litvinov Commission: 
# on 24 July (1944? or 1945?) he suggests the restitution of Transylvania to Romania, cancelling the Vienna's Diktat
# on 28 July same year, Walter Roman endorses the fromation of an independent state Transylvania
Letter 1 is endorsed by son Petre Roman, while letter 2 was unveiled by reasercers of Communism. It is a very intricate story, where the position of a Tofic Islamov is interesting as well. It is a lot of work to clear all this.  Cheers, --Vintila Barbu 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I read about them, but I think it's controversial material. Let's finish the non-controversial part first. Dpotop 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't edit today any more. In fact, we added the same bit of info at the same time. BTW, I think this info does not belong in the lead, but do as you think. Dpotop 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  BTW: to DYK this article, we simply need to beef up the link with the Hungarian revolution, the involvement in many Comm parties and the brigades (the cosmopolite aspect). :) Dpotop 14:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should coordinate better 

message: The link in to the Dimineata article poses several problems: the info does not appear to be backed by any other source, it is not properly referenced in the article, and the source is quite hostile to Roman (it's not like that is an independent newspaper). Dahn 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the first wife? Well, cut her out if need be. Biruitorul 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did. I could find no other mention of the marriage and his children, so this was probably one of those duds press feels the need to detonate from time to time. Dahn 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dimineata

message: as the political locum tenens of General Mihail Lascăr, commander of the Soviet-organized [[Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division. 
as the political commissar of General Mihail Lascăr, commander of the Soviet-organized Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division.
The problem is partly generated by my first inssertion of politruk. I agree political commissar is better. Only that in the Red Army they were NOT subordinated to the military commanders, but were doubling them. You can not be a political commissar to some general, but you are the political commissar of a division or other unit. So maybe:
as the political commissar of the Soviet-organized Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division, commanded by General Mihail Lascăr. 
This is of course detail, but for example older Russians who will read, will immediately see it.:Dc76 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Small issues 

message: I removed the first reference to this in the first phrase of the article. Indeed, the information comes next, and qualifying Roman as a Romanian is a bit misleading. Let's leave it to the reader to decide. Dpotop 14:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can only hope that one day you will actually read a wikipedia norm. Dahn 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which one do you have in mind? Because Roman was not born in Romania, did not do his studies in Romania, did not make his name (Valter Roman) in Romania, and only came to be a Romania-related public figure as a Soviet propagandist, at Moskow-based Radio "Romania libera". Dpotop 14:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Your comparison with Maniu does not hold, because Maniu always assumed his Romanian ethnicity, whereas Valter Roman assumed his Communist ideology. :) BTW, I don't really like the current start of the Iuliu Maniu article. I would have said "IM was an Austria-Hungarian and Romanian politician of Romanian ethnicity." Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, ethnicity has no bearing on nationality. Furthermore, Roman was, well, nothing until the age of 5. Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  As a matter of fact, no. I see no source talking about the Communist Neulander of before 1940. Meaning that he was at best another Communist. He made his name in the artillery unit in Spain. Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A Romanian artillery unit (speaking of assuming nationality...). But he actually made his name as a communist in Romania. Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  I'll try another variant. Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why do you have to be such an ass, and not explain what you have in your head? I can't guess? Because my new version had nothing on ethnicity. I just left him a Romanian activist, as you wanted it. But did you read my text, at least? Dpotop 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romanian communist activist

message: Icare, while I can live with most of your reverts, I really see no need for this, you're blanking sources. Am I missing something?--Domitius 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted to my version which had been labeled "vandalism" and I had not noticed the new material. The sources I willingly did erase were superfluous (did not support any controversial point). Aside from this, I feel that there is too much citation of Vladimir Tismaneanu. It looks to me as if all the Romanian history section of WP were written by this guy, who is a rather dubious source knowing the hald-line marxist-leninist stance he adopted in the first half of his life, and the huge controversy he provoked recently with his Commission. This Commission and report it issued should not be used extensively as sources before the controversy is cleared. (Icar 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Guys...stop edit warring. If you want I'm willing to mediate you. Icar said it's ok, what about you Dahn? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no cause for mediation when a vandal intervenes on a page. I find it absurd that it is even suggested. Someone comes in here and writes a new lead based on his POV (against wikipedia conventions on leads), deletes information and sources, botches text to make sources say what they do not in fact say, and I, a reliable contributor, am asked to somehow allow this to happen. It's outrageous, especially since, at this very moment, the other user is actively campaigning against me on several discussion pages. Note: much of the deleted information was actually provided by User:Biruitorul, and only edited in by me (see above). Dahn 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You describe yourself as a reliable contributor, yet you call user:Icar a vandal. I think you would need mediation, yet you should read WP:CIVIL. Will you stop calling others as "vandals"? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to ask yourself: is removal of text and reliable sources vandalism? I describe myself as a reliable contributor because I am a reliable contributor, and I hope people have the sense not to question that. Dahn 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I question that, and others will question that too. See above your behaviour. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you actually want to mediate when entertaining such notions? I will ask you again: is this vandalism or is it not? And what I see above and on Icar's talk page is evidence that it was identified as such by other users. Dahn 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dahn, I need time to read and research. If you want I can mediate this dispute. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I do not. This is the third time I am saying it. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I have deleted a source that was not used in the article. Per wikipedia conventions, what is not used in the text is not "a reference". I checked the source in its entirety, and it did not mention anything about Valter Roman in particular. The rest I simply will not answer to. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I can only trust wikipedians will see that people who erase information are not reliable contributors. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blanking sources 

message: User:Dahn is serving us a distilled portion of Vladimir Tismăneanu each morning. His contributions across the romanian history section of WP are only a compilation, albeit reamrkably extensive, of Tismaneanu's works. But quoting 19 times this former propagandist of the (Communist) Central Committee in one article is exaggerated. Can someone remind him that WP is not a scholarly tribune where Tismaneanu can re-edit his books? I propose that quoting Tismaneanu more than twice in a given article (outside his own and his father's) should be forbidden. (Icar 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Am I even supposed to answer to this? Dahn 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. The report is a disputed document. Given that Daizus discovered that the report uses large portions of a previous book by Tismaneanu, it would be better to cite this book directly. Dpotop 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, they are both distinct documents, no matter how many alleged or actual similarities. On the other hand, if citations were from the report and not the book, it is quite clear that they are not to be found in the book (I have read both in this instance, and they are not identical AFAICR). Furthermore, Icar is using this flag-waving to hide that the fact that he deleted references from a third source (Levy) and a fourth source (Cioroianu). Last but not least, there is nothing wrong in having several sources for the same fact (just as there is nothing wrong in the report using texts from the book). Enough with the charades. Dahn 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

text: You must have no understanding of what plagiarism is, Icar. Dahn 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources: 19 citations of Tismaneanu is unacceptable 

message: Could an admin please replace inclusion in the :Category:Romanian military leaders with the more specific two categories :Category:Romanian generals and :Category:Romanian Land Forces officers? Thanks in advance. Dahn 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to unprotect the page, so you will be able to edit it yourself. CMummert · talk 01:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request

message: Calling "Romanian" a foreign agent with no allegiance to Romania is repulsive. Icar 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Catiline. Dahn 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page is unacceptable propaganda 

message: One user is pushing unacceptable propaganda by calling the USSR agents in occupied Romania "Romanians" just because they held some position in the puppet regime imposed by the USSR after WWII. One "argument" repeated ad nauseam is the WP guideline page MoS:BIO. Now those guidelines specifically mention that "Adherence to the guidelines is not required; however, usage of these guidelines is recommended". Here are two recommendations:
* "Nationality: In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."
In the case of NKVD agents who at some point took a Romanian-sounding name to make the Soviet occupation more palatable (less abject) to the Romanian populace, we clearly should emphasize their true background as thoroughly as possible. These are not normal cases! No comparison with Maniu here, since Maniu was no foreign agent, did not change his name etc.
* "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym."
I hope this is clear enough for Trozkysts of any denomination (somebody said that they are smart guys...). So the article will start with Luka Laszlo (known in Romania after 1944 as Vasile Luca)
This being said, all the articles in a similar position should be changed according to the recommended style. Icar 13:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bye, Bonaparte. Dahn 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[MoS:BIO]] 

message: Is this just a rehash of the kind of stuff that was on the :ro:Evrei comunişti article? If so, participants should be reminded, that unlike the Romanian Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia does not have anti-semitism as something which is tolerated. - Francis Tyers · 13:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My motivation is presented before. No need to get your "You, nazi!" hammer indiscriminately (it's a bit cheap). Dpotop 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: I am seek to see it! :Dc76 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war again?!!!

message: Where did you guys get this picture of supposedly Valter Roman? Because on youtube there is a video that seems to be from an old newsreel, a young man reporting about the situation in Hungary. Look at the face, the nose and the bottom of the ear. There is no way that this is the same guy, no matter how many years difference. The young man speaks Romanian with a very strong Hungarian accent. He doesn't seem to be Jewish or Romanian at all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Valter Roman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070218131409/http://www.beius.ro/raport%20final_%20cadcr.pdf to http://www.beius.ro/raport%20final_%20cadcr.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011104913/http://ziua.net/display.php?id=183279&data=2005-08-23 to http://ziua.net/display.php?id=183279&data=2005-08-23
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061215144130/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAF5.pdf to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAF5.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified