Talk:Oltenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Stop adding absurdities. A minor observation: it's Roman, not roman, and if you had the common sense to look on a map, you would see why I didn't leave it like that. It's absurd to link lion (see where it gets you, and tell me that Wikipedians aren't all idiots if they don't already know the meaning of it).Dahn 11:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

see roumanian version, about borders. Also, Calafat it isn't a great city.

My points still stand as they were. First of all, you did not respect naming conventions (for the second time - it's "Roman", not "roman", and all Romanian diacritics should be featured. Second of all, and this is the topic itself, take a look at the map for the region now. Oltenia was never defined by the limes, since it was in connection with medieval realities. These specified the Olt as the border, and Oltenia nowadays does not even respect that criterion. The region can at best be said to roughly co-incide with an old Roman province (which is of minuscule relevance). Also, lion should not be linked, lest you find the article for lion in heraldics (I looked for it, and could not find it). Revert.Dahn 06:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Oltenia are the same with Dacia Malvensis...Oltenia was never bordered by Olt river , well there is an exception , austrian domination. Take a look to the history and to a map for nowdays !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• 2. Calafat...is not a great city. Never was.

take a look again :

1 Craiova 304.142 2 Râmnicu Vâlcea 107.656 3 Drobeta Turnu-Severin 104.035 4 Târgu Jiu 96.562 5 Slatina 79.171 6 Caracal 34.603 7 Motru 25.860 8 Balş 23.147 9 Drăgăşani 22.499 10 Băileşti 22.231 11 Corabia 21.932 12 Calafat 21.227 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• 3. Transylvanian alps? :D what is that? :D geee

• 4 Malva....MALVA is not a location !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you understand that ?

Look, I am perfectly willing to cut out Calafat and Malva. They were in there to begin with, and what I did was to improve the English the article used (frankly, I can't possibly care if there was a Malva, but I'm sure there are plenty of other Romanian wikipedians you could talk to about this). Now, to the point of it: this is an article for what can/should/may/whatever be considered Oltenia TODAY. Its border was never properly defined until the Austrian rule (and that's because it was the Banate of Craiova, not of a specific region). The "info" about the limes is just some XIXth century historians who thought that it should have a limit. The Olt, however, is a border logical in itself (clues: it is big, you had to pay to cross it, it defined different jurisdictions). There is no connection betweenv Oltenia and Malvensis, other than co-incidence. (If this is because you believe what Hasdeu wrote down, please spear us that unique perspective.) Let me clarify another aspect for you: the Prince of Wallachia had the claim to domenium eminens. In this case, it theoretically means that he did not recognise any other domain on his territory (even common private property was "granted" by him). What does that mean? That OLTENIA'S BORDERS HAD NO REASON AND NO LEGAL BASIS FOR THEM TO BE DEFINED FROM INSIDE WALLACHIA. The Ban was never oficially a feudal, boyars owned land on both sides of the Olt, and OF COURSE the Austrians were the first ones to clearly state were Oltenia ended (since they were stopped by the Ottomans from getting more; which is why the common reference in German was/is Kleine Wallachei). Do I make myself clear? Now, Transylvanian Alps is the common English reference to the Southern Carpathians (for some reason, the article for Southern Carpathians does not feature it as an alternative). Let me show you what I mean: when this is reverted (and before you revert for the umpteenth time and those move one step closer to being qualified as a vandal and banned), when this is reverted I say, look at the article and notice that the link will turn blue. Do you know what that means? It means that the article for it EXISTS (yes, it is now Southern Carpathians, according to the edit history on that page). But what say you get yourself a little more info and we talk later? I'm not kidding, however, about the risk of you not being allowed to edit anymore (especially since you did not get a signature). More of this and I'll see to it.Dahn 09:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Daicoviciu considered that there was no city named Malva, but since the time he wrote that, more proofs of its existence were found, such as one inscription referring to a "coloniae Malvense ex Daciae". Usually, it is identified with the city of "Romula". (which was in Olt County) [1] bogdan 09:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There was also a Roman town Malvesa. Alexander 007 14:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

for Dahm: after you're proved you don't know easy things like Calafat great city....:D you are trying now to explain the border of Oltenia :) and more than that, you use the word "logical"....there is not such of thing. Malva in latin means riverside of Danube..

Friend, I don't care about Calafat is what I said. In the sense: I did not even notice its mentioning throughout my corrections. The same about Malva. To challenge me with stuff I never claimed to know is to use sophistry. But what I do know, I have proven in my answer. You, however, do not know anything about what you claim to know, and you can't even understand that "Enlightened absolutism" is not my judgment of a concept, but the word itself (which is why you got rv by other people as well). You did not bother to check that I had given two references (nor have you read any page of these). You did not bother to check what "Transylvanian Alps" means, nor that the proper way to spell is (for the fifth time!) "Roman" and not "roman". You can barely understand English. I also suspect you can barely understand Romanian, since you gave a reference from RoWiki which was not only blatently wrong (someday they'll have to take a look at the version), but it was written by people who cannnot understan syntax (in their style: people, who cannot understand syntax). I say you go back to learning how to edit and stick to your football interests - I will not be bothering you there. Just because you're Oltenian does not make you a historian of Oltenia. Dahn 08:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Well here is one, fresh off the Romanian page: Un alt indiciu al latinizarii avansate, il constituie diferenţele de infăţişare ale oltenilor. Not only the comma, but the sheer Gaubineauism of the sentence. Dahn 08:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

after you're proved you don't know easy things like Calafat great city....:D you are trying now to explain the border of Oltenia :)

and more than that, you use the word "logical"....there is not such of thing.

Malva in latin means riverside of Danube...

I shouldn't even be bothered to explain things to someone who will write this kind of phrases. Let me attempt to construct in proper English for you: "After you were given proof that you did not know elementary things such as Calafat not being a great city, you still attempt to explain Oltenia's border to me." The rest... not even God in Heaven could know what you meant by it! The obvious thing is that you cannot construct a phrase on a pattern other than Romanian. You just translate word by word, and you have no vocabulary. Please, don't embarass yourself anymore. Dahn 11:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• Dahm, your text is truly stupid..after, calafat, malva and many great stupidities...you're proving now, that you are a bad character.I tell you why.

1. you said, Senelsau , not Litovoi and if you check, you will find that Litovoi, tooked after death of Seneslau,the control to his voievodat. 2. that phrase with autrichians is to stupid, and you can't use that term during the period that they ruled Oltenia. 3. you are telling me that Roman are with majuscule, it's true, I don't know english very well but I know history.You don't know history, geography, but you don't whant to know enything...all you are interested is to keep your version even after you know that is wrong another thing, Oltenia was't under goth rulers, there isn't any prove of that.But there is many proves that teritory of Oltenia was lied bu Roman Empiere even after 271.

Anyway,I'm glad that you're knowing now what's abot Malva , Calafat steep by steep, you learn a little history ang geography :D

Ah, sa nu uit....daca nu m-am exprimat bine in engleza, Malva vine la mal , ma :D malul Dunarii.....nu de la o localitate Malva.:D esti atat de aerian....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.239.134 (talk • contribs)

Still?

1. For the umpteenth time, I did not add anything about Calafat and Malva.
2. The thing you say about the "succesion" fot Litovoi is your own spin.
3. "the phrase about autrichians"? You're a Frenchman now? Yes I can use the term "Austrians" to shorten. Why? Lookey: ever heard of the House of Austria (clicky - it leads to Habsburgs = synonimous)?! The Austrian Empire appeared after Napoleon, not the name. You might also want to know that they were never officially the Habsburg Empire - that is modern-day convention (they were Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire up until 1806, and many other things at the same time. No official title reunited all their domains, so Austrians is just as good as Habsburgs (NOTE: it is nowhere in the article a link to the Republic of Austria! so you have nothing to complain about).
4. don't you go pedantic on me. You can't spell in any language. Learn how to that, then write me "a little history and geography" of your village and surrounding area.
5. Yes, right. Oltenia was ruled by the Roman Empire, and this until the 1990s, when it was taken over by the Comanches. The rest of Romania, of course, was ruled by female unicorns and President Joseph of Arimathea... I have heard people profess this blabber about "the Roman presence continued" etc. Hasdeu first and foremost. Take the theory and shove it.
6. I'm tired of this shit. If you didn't realize by now that anybody reading this page has decided to keep my version, you're a cretin. Dahn 01:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Pentru ca engleza mea nu este atat de buna am sa risc sa-ti raspund totusi in romana, sa fiu sigur ca ai inteles: 1.Nu ai mai spus nimic de ceva timp de Calafat si Malva dar cand ti-am atras atentia initial,ai spus sa nu mai adaug stupiditati desi sustineai niste enormitati.Asta denota ca in afara de o engleza buna, pentru care te felicit, esti complet aerian.Si cand spun complet aerian, ma refer la Calafat mare oras sau Malva oras in primul rand, mai sint insa multe alte aberatii pentru care te zbati sa le pastrezi. 2.Pe diploma cavalerilor ioaniti apar 4 formatiuni statale:cele ale lui Litovoi, Seneslau, Ioan si Lupu(Farcas)...in momentul razboiului dintre Litovoi si unguri, deja apare Litovoi ca domnitor peste toate cele 4 formatiuni statale.Vei gasi aceste informatii in orice carte de istorie serioasa.Citam din cartle de istorie. 3.Felicitari pt pasajul copiat despre austrieci, ma refeream ca pasajul tau cu "absolutismul iluminat" este o fraza ridicola, care nu are ce cauta vizavi de momentul discutat.Numai absolutism luminat nu a insemnat dominatia habsburgica.Nici daca ai fis cris despre impreiul Austriac, aceasta fraza nu era acceptabila pentru ca nu era un punct de vedere neutru.Sint multi care ar spune exact contrariul. In plus, intreaga explicatie a evenimentelor frizeaza ridicolul si denota ca nu ai nici cele mai vagi informatii istorice despre acea perioada. 4.Din pacate in afara unei engleze fuctioanle nu ai devoedit nici macar minimul bun simt, vorbesti de sate cu accentul oamenilor grotelor, pacat. 5. Daca in tirada ta plina de spune te refereai la perioada imediata retragerii aureliene, in pare rau ca te dezamagesc dar tocamai Dacia Malvensis a fost pastrata, exista numeroase descoperiri arheologice si documente. Nu stiu de unde ai copiat pasajul dar, din pacate, se referea la teritoriul Munteniei. 6. Aici o iei la vale, potrivit proverbului "prostul nu e prost destul pana nu e si fudul" si ca sa fii fudul pana la capat, nu ai ezitat sa treci la jigniri directe si grosolane. Textul pe care il aperi nu are absolut nici o legatura cu istoria sau geografia. Acum daca ai descoperit cum sta treaba cu malva si Calafatul sa nu crezi ca esti cult.. :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.239.134 (talk • contribs)

1. .Eu nu am spus niciodata ceva despre Calafat si Malva. Daca ai fi stat sa citesti, ai fi vazut ca am scos referirile le ele. Ceea ce nu inseamna ca o sa ma apuc sa zic ca romanii au mai stat pe acolo nu stiu cat timp. "Exista numeroase descoperiri" - e usor sa scrii asemenea aberatii, e usor sa tntroduci un asemenea sofism generic. "Imi pare rau sa te dezamagesc" vs. "exista multe descoperiri". Astea nu sunt afirmatii de om inteligent, mai ales ca nu demonstrezi in nici un fel.
2. Litovoi apare ca singurul mentionat, ceea ce ii face pe unii istorici, cu proiecte si fara rezerve, sa afirme ca ar fi fost si singurul, si predecesorul voievozilor. Adevarul e ca nu se stie. Afirmatia de acum este cea mai cuminte (o intelegi? sa o traduc?)
3. Se pare ca nu intelegi ca nu am scris eu tot articolul! Versiunea aparea ca semnata de mine pentru ca facusem ultimele modificari. Intelegi? Si eu nu "copiez" pasaje, pur si simplu citez surse. Tu citesti manulaele lui Ceausescu. Citeste-l macar pe ala de engleza.
4. Inca o data, ca vad ca nu reusesti sa citesti literele. "Enlightened absolutism" este echivalentul din engleza pt. "despotism luminat". Ceea ce ar fi trebuit sa te frapeze este faptul ca "absolutism", ca si "despotism", nu are conotatii pozitive. Chiar daca ar fi fost pozitiva in aspect, expresia se refera la politica de stat a Imp. nu la ceea ce cred eu despre ea. Cand vorbesti despre guerilla "Cararea Luminata" (Shining Path nu inseamna ca tu crezi ca Maoismul este o cale luminoasa spre un viitor paradisiac. Cand imparti epocile imperiale din China sau Japonia dupa criteriul numelor de domnii nu inseamna ca esti de acord ca "domnia [sa zicem] Fericirii si Pacii" este intr-adevar fericita si benigna. Intelegi? Sintagma diferentiaza o politica, si expresia (care poate sa fie si o contradictie in termeni) apartine iluministilor si idealurilor lor (care au o perioada de valabilitate depasita, totusi). Intelegi? Da pe aticolul de la enlightened absolutism si vezi. Aveau toate scopurile absolutiste de indeplinit, si reforma administrativa asociata primului val de iluminism. Au incercat sa o puna in practica, n-au reusit. De ce? Nu pentru ca aia care li se opuneau erau tampiti, ci pentru ca scopurile Austrie insemnau sa mergi intr-o directie nedorita: trecuse un secol in care se evitase plata birului (pentru ca moneda era cea mai imp. resursa), si acum veneau austriecii sa le impuna unul sporit. In plus, urmau sa ii oblige pe boieri sa renunte la privilegii si sa lase administratiei un criteriu al competitiei libere + sa remunereze adm., sa nu mai permita completarea veniturilor in mod necontrolot (in Muntenia, te plateai singur in slujba: daca obtineai una, trimiteai la stat cat trimiteai si traiai din ce reuseai sa strangi). Intelegi? Nici o parte nu era mai avantajata de mine. Am descris un proces caracteristic pt perioada de ocupatie.
5. O sa cer ca pagina asta sa fie incuiata. Pacat, ca ar mai avea nevoie de contributii. Dar nu vin decat imbecilitatile tale. Dahn 09:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Eu nu am spus niciodata ceva despre Calafat si Malva.

dupa ce ti-am atras atentia, ai dat revert si ai spus sa nu mai adaug stupiditati.A trebuit sa vin cu lista oraselor ca sa te convingi de Calafat si sa apara si altii ca sa pricepi ce e cu Malva.

• e usor sa scrii asemenea aberatii, e usor sa tntroduci un asemenea sofism generic.

Dahm, toate informatiile pe care ti le-am dat pot fi foarte usor verificate,harti, carti de istorie,cele oficiale si acceptate de majoritatea istoricilor si guvernul Romaniei.

• Astea nu sunt afirmatii de om inteligent, mai ales ca nu demonstrezi in nici un fel.

Dahm,aluneci prea usor spre limbajul suburban.Pacat Si cu sigurnata,nu iti dovedesti nici intelgenta si nici cultura jignind.

• Litovoi apare ca singurul mentionat, ceea ce ii face pe unii istorici, cu proiecte si fara rezerve, sa afirme ca ar fi fost si singurul, si predecesorul voievozilor. Adevarul e ca nu se stie.

D mai Dahm, nu stiu daca realizazi ridicolul frazei tale?

Poate nu am fost destul de explicit, sa-ti explic: Pe diploma cavalerilor Ioaniti apare 4 formatiuni statale. Insa in momentul luptelor cu ungurii, Litovoi stapanea peste celelalte 3 cnezate.Adica exista mai multe documente in acest sens.De unde l-ai scos pe Seneslau cand el murise inainte de luptele lui Litovoi cu ungurii.Da-mi o singura sursa istorica care il pomeneste pe Seneslau ca stapanitor peste cele 4 voievodate :D Spui ca adevarul nu se stie dar te lupti sa mentii o informatie lipsita de logica si nesutinuta de nici o sursa istorica.Daca vrei, dam fiecare sursele(macar linkuri)..nu inteleg motivul incapatinarii tale? Chiar e o prostie ce sustii tu in legatura cu Seneslau..iar fraza cu "Adevarul e ca nu se stie" este jalnica.

• Afirmatia de acum este cea mai cuminte (o intelegi? sa o traduc?)

Dahm, afirmatia cu privire la Seneslau, nu este cuminte, este pur si simplu, gresita.Nu este sustinuta de nimeni in afara ta. "Enlightened absolutism" este echivalentul din engleza pt. "despotism luminat". Ceea ce ar fi trebuit sa te frapeze este faptul ca "absolutism", ca si "despotism", nu are conotatii pozitive. Absolutismul luminat,ca termen, a aparut referitor la unele perioade din istoria Frantei si Austriei.Se referea la perioade de progres, desi conducerea erau una autoritara, perioada era considerata ca prospera iar linia conducerii determinata de idei progresiste. Nu te face de ras, iar comparatia cu "sendero luminoso" ...:D Domne, mare ti-e gradina :D Pe urma ai binevoit sa-ti expui propriile pareri schioape despre situatia din Muntenia :) nu se face stimabile ;)

• O sa cer ca pagina asta sa fie incuiata. Pacat, ca ar mai avea nevoie de contributii. Dar nu vin decat imbecilitatile tale. Dahn 09:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Cred ca fraza asta te caracterizeaza perfect Dahm, insticntiv, primele tale gesturi este sa ameninti(cu protejari, inainte o dadeai cu blocarea ip-lui :D desi nu erai tu in masura s-o faci,intre timp ti s-a explicat :)..acum ameninti cu blocarea paginii etc..desi, crede-ma,aberatiile care apar in textul tau, sint unele epocale..........cel putin cele din versiunea initiala cu Malva si Calafat sint demne de o antologie a prostiei. Nu sint departe nici cele cu absolutismul luminat si mai ales Seneslau.Explicatia ta referitoare la Seneslau este bestiala :D Imi permit sa-ti amintesc o vorba din popor mai Dahm: "Prostul nu e prost destul, pana nu e si fudul" nu tine cu dintii de formularile tale cand vezi bine ca sint complet gresite. Apropo Dahm, sint date pe pagina doua carti, informatiile pe care le sustii tu, apar in acele carti? :D ai vazut tu acolo, "absolutism luminat" , Seneslau cel care si-a extins micul voievodat, Calafat metropola, Malva orasul? :D Tu chiar nu realizezi dimensiunile aberatiilor pe care le sustiii?

D

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.228.85 (talk • contribs)

Nu ma mai deranja. Daca vrei sa lasi informatia asa cum e. N-ai decat. Eu m-am saturat de cacatul asta. Sa-ti dea altii revert. (S-ar parea ca nici nu intelegi ce ti se spune).Dahn 15:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)