Talk:Rădăcineşti, Vâlcea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
MGS
(NOTE: Please note that this article is informally written. Information is based on the author's learning experience as he was born in this village. Several substantial articles about this village were written by Professor Dumitru Mitrana and published in "Studii Valcene" ad by Fr. Mihail Sandu, in a monography of the local church.)
- WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:CITE. These should disqualify not only "learning experience" (which is original research), but probably also the monograph, unless it is published by a reliable source (i.e.: not self-published). Moreover, forking info from commune to village is creating information clutter. And, btw, I sincerely doubt that there is any source backing the racialist manifesto about what the inhabitants of the village are by physical aspect or whatnot. Dahn (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Dane, Although I removed those "racial" references which seem to bother you, I do not see your point. Probably you have not studied sufficient history of Romania to comprehend that one of the legacies of barbaric invasions were women getting raped and pregnant. In that case, genetically speaking, what are the offsprings? I was only refering to their facial expressions and not to any cultural traits.
In terms of monographs published by reliable sources, very little has been written as far as I know, apart from these two sources I listed in case someone who lives in Romania will be able to see them and expand the article.
What I meant by "learning experience" is that I was born in that village, and learned the culture of my village, prior to going a doctorate at Harvard. This means that insofar, I published several books and tens of peer reviewed articles. Additionally, in the study of folklore, you get information from the source. In this case I am the source because I grew up there, I know the songs, the carols and all the traditions and passage rituals such as wedding, and funerals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.149.67 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- So, if you, as you say above, based the article on original research, I think it's quite clear that it is in contradiction with wikipedia policies (cited above). That means you are effectively abusing this here free encyclopedia. I'm tempted to comment some more about the supposed resume above, but there really is no need to: what is relevant here is that you are not abiding by the policies. Dahn (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- You know what, wash youself with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.94.149.67 (talk) 18:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
