Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:57, 4 December 2006

Why does this article look like its writer has never seen a[REDACTED] article before? Why must people grind their nerves trying to mend up nonsense like Lapushneanu and whatever, just because the original contributor did not bother to check things out? Is there any link in the article? And: isn't this copyvio?Dahn 13:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be copy-pasted from 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, which is public domain, so, no it's not a copyvio, but it might be outdated. bogdan 13:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey folks, it is indeed largely from the Jewish Encyclopedia for the early history, and from other sources for the more recent stuff, as I said in my edit summary: "Lots of material, much from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia. More cleanup and wikilinking later." I have done a many of these articles starting from the 1906 Encyclopedia, and the end result is something like the History of the Jews in Poland or History of the Jews in Spain, it just takes awhile to clean up and wikilink everything, but it is a heck of a lot easier than starting from scratch. Feel free to help, or I will plug away at it over time myself, but it will eventually be fully wikified. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Having looked at the "early history" section, I'm afraid it's full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings. Someone should check the facts against some "modern" reference. bogdan 17:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you give me some pointers to the inaccuracies that you spotted? --Goodoldpolonius2 19:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

For example, I'm a bit skeptical about Jewish presence before the Roman conquest. Then, the "desolation" of Dacia is not accepted nowadays. Also, the decree of the Roman emperor in 397 refers to Dacia Mediterranea, which is in Bulgaria and Serbia, not in Romania. bogdan 19:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Great, I will do my best to review and improve, it would be great if you did the same. I know considerably more about relatively recent Romanian Jewish history, but much less about the older stuff, so I was planning on fleshing out the 19th and 20th centuries first. I have some sources around that are useful on the ancient history, but it'll take awhile before I am fully up to speed. One way to handle this is to aggressively trim the most dubious stuff, since the Jewish Encyclopedia is wordy anyway. --Goodoldpolonius2 19:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And the medieval history says very little of the Sephardi Jews of Wallachia, focusing on the Ashkenazi of Moldavia. Hm.. I wonder if I have some references... bogdan 20:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

currencies

One here that I've never heard of -- galbeni (plural of galben, "yellow") -- and another -- löwenthaler -- that could certainly use an article. - Jmabel | Talk 07:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

"Galben" is a name given to several types of golden coins. "Löwenthalers" were Dutch coins, which apparently were quite popular in here. The name of "Leu" is derived from it. bogdan 09:17, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, löwenthaler I know, but they could use an article, which I'll try to remember eventually to write if no one else does. Galbeni I don't know enough to even know where to start. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The dictionary says: Nume dat mai multor monede străine de aur, de valori variabile, care au circulat şi în ţările româneşti., A name given to several types of foreign golden coins, of various values, that circulated in the Romanian Countries. bogdan 20:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

See if one can't be tied to this: Thaler. Dahn 16:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

ISurvived

I gather that there has been a big fight back and forth on the ISurvived site, variously simply in, simply out, and in with a qualifier. I believe the last is correct. As of this writing, it is simply in. I believe that the following is accurate and should follow the link. - Jmabel | Talk 01:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The ISurvived site has been subject to some criticism for its skeptical remarks about several individuals. However, none of these criticisms seem to refer to the Romania-related materials. For the controversies, see, Jonathan Tilove, Dachau Survivor's Reputation Wanders Turbulent Terrain of the Internet, Newhouse News Service, July 20, 2006. The Tilove piece characterizes ISurvived as follows: "ISurvived is mostly a compendium of Holocaust information built through links to hundreds of reputable Holocaust archives and Jewish education sites… The one section bearing Brattman's personal imprint is the 'Holocaust Controversy Page'"; with reference to that section, Tilove discusses several criticisms.

If as you stated "none of these criticisms seem to refer to the Romania-related materials," then WHY is that matter posted in here? One possibility could be that you dislike profoundly that website http://isurvived.org . In any event, I noticed that they have posted a reply to Tilove's article at http://isurvived.org/Tilove-refute.html

No, actually, I have no problem with the site at all; I don't really take the Tilove criticisms all that seriously. But they are from a reputable source; the disclaimer was the upshot of someone removing all instances of the ISurvived site from Misplaced Pages, and trying to come to a viable compromise. - Jmabel | Talk 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not clear why you are spaming this site with matters unrelated to the History of the Jews in Romania. That "someone" --that you are referring to, and YOU perhaps are Holocaust deniers --and that is fine with me. Tilove is a serious, good, and careful reporter. The issue that you are avoiding is NOT about Tilove but about YOU that are using this forum to advance your agenda of hate towards a website and its editor that is presenting the story of the Holocaust and it has an excellent material on the Holocaust in Romania.

The editor of iSurvived is the one with e personal agenda and a website filled with attacks on Holocaust survivors. Webville's only response to revisions of his spamming is that it is the work of "Holocaust Deniers"

Joe,

You stated: "I have no problem with the site Isurvived at all; I don't really take the Tilove criticisms all that seriously" and yet you keep putting that irrelevent information in here!!! WHY?

Where are you getting all this hate from? Are you a Holocaust denier believing that the Holocaust did not exist within the territories of Romania?

What is your beef and hate towards iSurvived website and its editor and WHY you are using this forum to unleash your hate here? Again what all this has to do with the subject of this article?

Not only that you are spaming this discussion section but now you have vandalized the article itself. What is your sick pleasure in all this?

Just FYI all, User:Webville has been banned for linkspamming isurvived.org, so it's safe to assume the issue is dead. -Elmer Clark 22:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

from their first mention on what is nowadays Romanian territory

There's a definition problem that is probably obvious to Dahn. Either the previous definition needs a change, or the article should exclude Bessarabia and Northern Bukovine. Dpotop 13:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are confused. For starters, the mention refers solely to what has been established as a strating point - no matter what, that mention does refer to Jews having lived in "what is now Romanian territory" (somewhere in Transylvania), and not some place else. It states: "The history of Jews in Romania concerns the Jews of Romania and of Romanian origins, from their first mention on what is nowadays Romanian territory", and not "The history of Jews on what is nowadays Romanian territory concerns the Jews of Romania and of Romanian origins, from their first mention".

The statement does not involve all or any subsequent mentions.

Furthermore, the text does not trully deal with Bukovina or Bessarabia - or at least not with the history of communities there, which belongs on History of the Jews in Ukraine and Bessarabian Jews respectively (both are indicated as separate links on this page). It will inevittably deal with regions outside of present-day Romania, to the measure where these have been affected by specific policies of the Romanian state (the Holocaust); as I have said, this does not actually contradict the statement in question or its relevancy to the text. Look throughout the text and tell me if you see something that contradicts these guidelines: the only thing I can see is the mention of Benjamin of Tudela and his contacts with Vlachs - I've kept it in only because it appeared to have some anecdotic relevancy to the two sources used that mention the event, but I'm prepared to accept any initiative to delete it.

So, in effect, the article does exclude Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina. As it should. Dahn 13:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This text is a big lie !

A decree of the Roman emperor (397) granted protection to the Dacian Jews and their synagogues (Cod. Theod. de Jud., xvi. 8), but at that time Roman troops had retreated from most of the current Romanian territory, and only remained in Dobruja (the reference itself was most likely made to Dacia Mediterranea).

• In year 271 the Emperor Aurelian retreatted from Dacia Traiana (Romania) the army and the administration, in the south of Danube, in Moesia, and made a new Roman province called Dacia Aureliana (today the land of Bulgaria). So Dacia Traiana (Romania) and Dacia Aureliana (the land of Bulgaria are different, and someone wants to transfer the facts from the south of Danube in Romania. It is just a manipulation!

Now, if you would actually read the fragment you copypasted... Dahn 13:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• The term Dacian Jews is a contemporan word invented to manipulate the true about the history. You may say Romanian Jew which means a Jew having Romanian citizenship, borned in Romania, speaking Romanian. But did not exist Dacian Jews because at that time did not exist citizenship, and Dacia was an ethnic kingdom, and more that that, there are no certain proves about the existance of Jews on Romania's territory. So the term Dacian Jews is a big lie!
• The Jewish protocronist theory, which claim that Dacia Traiana (Romania) was colonized by Jews before the Romans, was invented as a reason of making an European Israel.
• Conclusion: The text is a big lie having wrong intentions!

Actually, there is nothing like that in the text. It's not my responsability to read it for you. Dahn 12:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Btw, your comments about the "European Israel" et al... They are the more troubling fantasy of the two. Dahn 13:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you hear about woodrow wilson? At Paris Convention of Peace (1919-1920)he sustained a plan for an Israel European. you shoild read more about this subject even if you do not like to hear about it. Daos 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You should not trust every piece of propaganda that reaches your high school. Dahn 09:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

you should learn to read because this text tells about Dacians in a Roman province where lived Thracians! Daos 08:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Where? Point it out to me. Dahn 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

In Moesia later Dacia Aurelia, lived Thracian tribes not Dacians. Daos 08:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of that. Now do point out to me where the text says otherwise. Dahn 09:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Which is the meaning of this text if it tells about Dacian Jews but in the same time it says that in Dacia did not happened? First makes a statement and then deny it! And more important than that, please show me where says in the original text abot Dacian Jews because this is an contemporan invention and a big lie. I've read the Latin text of Mommsen and I saw nothing about this stupid text! It is just a big manipulation! Daos 08:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen, Daos: that part of the text is based on the original Jewish Encyclopaedia section, which indicated that the Codex speaks of Dacian Jews (which is to say "Jews in Dacia, not "Jews of Dacian stock"). The issue of Dacia Mediterranea was first brought up on this talk page a year ago - when I decided to clean up the text, I have added the mention, to indicate what the text was talking about (precisely so it does not seem like it was addressing Romania's territory). Now, if you mean to say that the Codex says nothing about Jewish Dacians, you're right, but you're also talking to yourself (since no one and nothing is contradicting you). If you want to say that the Codex does not mention Jews at all, I'd rather trust an encyclopaedia over your "proofreading".

And, for God's sake, learn some English, will you? Dahn 12:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Bunul simt ar fi trebuit sa-ti spuna ca nu exista Dacian Jews si ar fi trebuit sa te documentezi inainte sa ma pui sa comentez un text ilogic, dar nu esti decat un escroc care face propaganda mincinoasa. Daos 12:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fallacy and personal attack. Dahn 12:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You attacked me first! Daos 12:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't attack you at all. But whatever. Dahn 12:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It is not your job to tell me what to learn! I know myself which is my level in English. You just wanted to hurt me saying that and it was an attack. Daos

Comunist Jewish Activity

This article tells nothing about Comunist Jewish activity, their intention to make an European Israel in Basarabia (woodrow wilson-Paris 1920), and later a Soviet Republic (Stalin promise). It shows only that Romanians are criminals! Daos 08:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This does not even deserve an answer. It is merely a variation on the theme of collective guilt with a bunch of sophisms and fallacies thrown in it. Dahn 13:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Romanians are guilty for everything! And people like Ana Pauker, Mihai Roller, Valter Roman who brought the comunism in Romania are some angels. Daos 09:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fallacy. Dahn 12:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You are in eror!Daos 12:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I was about to write a big paragraph about how the above argument has a false framework from a logical point of view (including the view which it takes of the present text), as well as being factually wrong. Stating the obvious does not deserve as much energy. Instead, I will suggest that you inform yourself of the facts, not interpretations in what are, I suspect, very biased comments about the facts. I will, however give you a general advice: a painting of a smoking pipe is not a smoking pipe. Dahn 12:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The Latin Text

• The Latin text says nothing about Dacian Jews. Jewish enciclopedia lies and make a false propaganda. I suppose you are payed very well to sustain such a manipulation theory. Did you get a grant, or a good job for making such a stupid propaganda? You will make a great career sustaining lies because it is nowdays very appreciated this kind of crap! THEODOSIANI LIBRI XVI:
  • It's possible to disagree with someone or point out errors that they may have made without flinging accusations around or resorting to offensive language. Please remember to exercise a bit of courtesy and respect for others here. Thank you. Silverhelm 10:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC).
    • As a Romanian he claim to be (Dahn), he knows very well that did not existed Dacian Jews and I was angry because he did not want to ask himself if I might have right and to search for the true. Daos 12:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
      • I will disregard the above and attribute it to the editor's newbieness. I will repeat the fact that Daos misinterpreted the succession of words to mean that there were "Dacians who were Jews", whereas "Dacian Jews" stood for "Jews in Dacia" (explaining that this was about Dacia Aurelia etc.). The accusations based on some anti-Zionist theory of his which I have never heard of before deserve no attention. Dahn 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Explanation: The words Dacia and dac are the Latin words for Dacians. As you may see below Iudaei is for Jews. And the only this 2 decrees are in Cod. Theod. de Jud., xvi. 8, year 397:

16.8.12 Idem aa. Anatolio praefecto praetorio Illyrici. Excellens auctoritas tua rectores conveniri praecipiat, ut percepta notione cognoscant oportere a iudaeis irruentum contumelias propulsari eorumque synagogas in quiete solita permanere. Dat. XV kal. iul. Constantinopoli Caesario et Attico conss. (397 iun. 17). 16.8.13 Idem aa. Caesario praefecto praetorio. Iudaei sint obstricti caerimoniis suis: nos interea in conservandis eorum privilegiis veteres imitemur, quorum sanctionibus definitum est, ut privilegia his, qui illustrium patriarcharum dicioni subiecti sunt, archisynagogis patriarchisque ac presbyteris ceterisque, qui in eius religionis sacramento versantur, nutu nostri numinis perseverent ea, quae venerandae christianae legis primis clericis sanctimonia deferuntur. Id enim et divi principes Constantinus et Constantius, Valentinianus et Valens divino arbitrio decreverunt. Sint igitur etiam a curialibus muneribus alieni pareantque legibus suis. Dat. kal. iul. Caesario et Attico conss. (397 iul. 1). Daos 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seemingly contradictory information about the late Roman period

I've removed this from the "Early history" section:

A decree of the Roman emperor (397) granted protection to the Dacian Jews and their synagogues (Cod. Theod. de Jud., xvi. 8), but at that time Roman troops had retreated from most of the current Romanian territory, and only remained in Dobruja (the reference itself was most likely made to Dacia Mediterranea).

Perhaps it's the truth but not the whole truth? Theodosius II wasn't emperor in 397. Possibly someone's conflated two different things? Silverhelm 10:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC).

Then that was the Jewish Encyclopaedia. I left much of the text as it was, just brought the info about Dacia Aurelia into it. Dahn 12:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn please stop behaving like this! Daos 12:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)