User talk:Ismail - Wikiwand

Apologies for the insults; it was me being an idiot. 82.25.192.131 (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

TPRP

FYI, I nominated the TPRP article at Template talk:Did you know. --Soman (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Tuvan People's Revolutionary Party

On October 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tuvan People's Revolutionary Party, 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.

So Why 01:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw that you referenced Enver Hoxha pretty well about the origins of his last name. Do you speak Albanian? Would you also consider helping me cover some topics on Communist Albania? I think that they are not given enough coverage in Wikipedia, although I'm trying through the creation of these articles:

Is there anything in your mind that has a priority to be covered for Communist Albania topics? Thank you! --Sulmues _talk 16:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You have created many articles on the Communist Parties and I noticed your interest to represent in Wikipedia Enver Hoxha and other communist subjects. You have created Zeri i popullit and Zai Fundo articles and I heartly thank you for doing that. In general this shows a very good preparation on the subject. I have an interest in better representing Communist Albania as it is poorly represented. For instance the article Politburo of the Party of Labour of Albania that I have created is extremely poor, because many of the members of the politburo have not published much on their own, and there are very few sources on them. However these people governed Albania for 50 years. Mind you it was full government as everything was State owned. They governed politically and economically. They had incredible power. Per Wikipedia they fullfill wp:politician, still many of them don't have an article.

My question to you is this: What are, in your opinion, the areas of Communist Albania that could be better represented in Wikipedia? Would you be able to give me three areas of priority? I praise your opinion in the matter. --Sulmues _talk 18:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply! and also for your contributions! --Sulmues _talk 18:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Contact

Please see my reply on my talk page.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Nakhchivan autonomy

Nakhchivan has remained autonomous because the region has a military defense pact with neighboring Turkey. Thats why Armenia was unable to invade Nakhchivan eventhough it wanted to. Due to geopolitical reasons its risky for Azerbaijan to have a direct defense pact with Turkey (as this will effect the balance with Russia). Thats why Nakhchivan remain autonomous so it can actually have that pact - eventhough the Azerbaijani mainland doesnt have that pact. Neftchi (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

1940-1990 publications

The legal base for author rights is Law no 9380, date 28.4.2005 "On author rights and other rights related to it" Returning before 1990 publications, although they are published by editing houses which do not exist anymore eg " 8 Nëntori Publishing House", the articles, photos etc are created by real people. These peoples are considered authors and hold the author rights for their works. However in case the article or photo has no name or uses a nick name the author rights on that, belong to the publishing house as long as the author does not reveal himself:

Law no 9380, date 28.4.2005 "On author rights and other rights related to it" Article 5 paragraph 2 "Në rastet kur vepra është shfaqur anonim ose me pseudonim përpara publikut, gjë që nuk lejon identifikimin e autorit, e drejta e autorit do të ushtrohet nga personi fizik a juridik, që është përgjegjës për shfaqjen e veprës në publik, për aq kohë sa autori nuk e zbulon identitetin."

So if the publishing house does not exist anymore and has left no legal descendant entity, there is a gap not covered by the law, if the author of the article has not revealed himself. Aigest (talk) 09:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Albanian parliamentary election, 1945

I noticed that you redirected this existing article to Albanian Constituent Assembly election, 1945, which you have created today. However, I have reverted largely on the basis that you should have moved the existing article, not created a new one, but also because it was not a Constituent Assembly election according to Nohlen & Stöver (in your new version it referenced this fact to the book, which is incorrect). If you would like to retitle the article, please use the WP:RM process. Cheers, Number 5 7 18:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

PS, I have added your recent edits to the CA article to the parliamentary one, so your recent work was not lost. Number 5 7 18:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Your source claims it was a parliamentary election, but that's quite odd considering that there was no parliament nor even a constitution at that point. Albanian sources certainly don't class it as a parliamentary election. In any case I'll try to bring it up at WP:RM. --Mrdie (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

It is a reliable source written by respected election and electoral system experts, so based on this I've opposed the move. However, I won't be too bothered if the move is eventually made based on good arguments. Cheers, Number 5 7 19:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hoxha article

The Human Rights section for the Hoxha article is highly POV primarily because it does not consider the work of Albanian authors and their positive assessments of the state of human rights during socialist Albania, particularly with respect to the principles found in the Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights covenant. The work of Albanians about the state of human rights should be added to the section. What do you think? SadSwanSong (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

expansion

Hi. Great work on expanding the Soviet-Albanian Friendship Society article! --Soman (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Omer Nishani

Ismail yesterday I saw in a documentary for Enver Hoxha in Klan TV of the journalist Blendi Fevziu. According a dossier of Ministry of Interior of Albania the legal the coroner wrote that Nishani was suicide. Albanian dictator Hoxha probably wanted to hide that fact. Maybe in the book wrote by Fevziu for Hoxha is publish the document of Ministry. Irvi Hyka (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Ismail! I found something about this. Mapo published an article by Prof.As.Dr. Gjergj P.TITANI: Prof. Titani published a biography of Omer Nishani. Tatani said in the article that Nishani was suicide according a document of Ministry of Interior of the People's Republic of Albania on 26 May 1954 he was suicide because Enver Hoxha humiliated he. Another Professor Kastriot Dervishi published an similar article. Irvi Hyka (talk) 18:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC

Citation sorting

My pleasure. I was concerned that you might be annoyed that I had changed to a different citation style. I find this style works well when most of the sources are books. You article on Trade Unions of Albania is very interesting. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

If you look at template:cite book you can see the parameters for a template that defines a cited book. I always use this template (or others like template:cite journal or template:cite web) because they automatically put the different bits of information into the right format. template:sfn gives a way to easily make a reference and footnote that link to the cited source, thus:

One fact taken from Smith's book.{{sfn|Smith|2009|p=13}}
Another fact taken from the Encyclopedia.{{sfn|Norwegian Blue|p=27}}
{{reflist |colwidth=30em}}
*{{cite book |ref=harv |first=John |last=Smith |title=Common Parrots of Antarctica |year=2009 |publisher=Methuen}}
*{{cite book |ref={{harvid|Norwegian Blue}} |title=Encyclopedia of Arctic Parrots |chapter=Norwegian Blue |publisher=Methuen}}

Displays as:

One fact taken from Smith's book.^[1] Another fact taken from the Encyclopedia.^[2]

[1]
Smith 2009, p. 13.
[2]
Norwegian Blue, p. 27.

Smith, John (2009). Common Parrots of Antarctica. Methuen. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
"Norwegian Blue". Encyclopedia of Arctic Parrots. Methuen.

The trick here is that the "cite book" template includes "|ref=harv" which tells the template to make a footnote from the author's last name and the year of the book, e.g. "Smith 2009", and link it to the book definition. That may not always be possible, because the author's name and/or publication year may be unknown, in which case you can tell the template what name to use for the footnote, as in |ref={{harvid|Norwegian Blue}}

Enough! You just have to explore and experiment. Hope this helps. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Footnotes that include citations are a bit tricky. They can be done like this:

A sentence contains a point that needs explanation{{#tag:ref
|This is the explanation of the point {{sfn|Jones|2053|p=55-59}}
|group=fn}}
and the sentence also has a citation.{{sfn|Jones|2053|p=13}}
;Notes
{{reflist |group="fn"}}
;Citations
{{reflist |colwidth=30em}}
;Sources
{{refbegin}}
*{{cite book |ref=harv |first=Fred |last=Jones |title=Tropical Penguins |year=2053 |publisher=Methuen}}
{{refend}}

which displays as:

A sentence contains a point that needs explanation^{[fn 1]} and the sentence also has a citation.^[2]

Notes

[1]
This is the explanation of the point ^[1]

Citations

[1]
Jones 2053, p. 55-59.
[2]
Jones 2053, p. 13.

Sources

Jones, Fred (2053). Tropical Penguins. Methuen. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |year= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

{{tag:ref |text... |group=fn}} tells the software to place "text..." in a special reflist called "fn" instead of in the default reflist. (<ref group="fn">text...</ref> does that too, but does not allow the text to hold citations.) Further down, the special reflist is identified by {{reflist |group="fn"}}.

Note that on the second reflist, colwidth=30em. Often you could get a good visual appearance with narrower columns, 20em or even 15em. Don't. Many editors never use any templates at all. They will stick in unformatted "bare url" footnotes like <ref>http://www.cyberarchi.com/actus&dossiers/portraits/index.php?dossier=81&article=3076</ref>. A width of 30em gives some room for that. Note also {{refbegin}} ... {{refend}} around the source definitions. This just says that the text should be the same size as in a reflist, which looks better.

You now know everything I know about citations and footnotes. :~) Aymatth2 (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Trade Unions of Albania

Qamili

DYK for Haxhi Qamili

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

reply

Vietnam War maps

Need help

Speedy deletion nomination of Lachin Kurdish Republic

Hoxha

Disambiguation link notification for April 14

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Simon Stefani

Orphaned non-free image File:EnverHoxha.jpg

Sino-Albanian split

Proposed deletion of Grover Furr

Nomination of Grover Furr for deletion

I think a dispute should be opened regarding user misconduct on behalf of 'David Gerard', but I would need your help.

I am Eusebio Rodriguez Salas's granddaugther

Katyn massacre

Grover Furr

Wallis and Fortuna listed at Redirects for discussion

You've got mail!

ZSL

Wow, a fellow grave digger :) That's one of the things I love about Wikipedia: people contact you about edits you did a decade ago :) 2005, those were the days...

As to the topic at hand, ZSL did not do much more than that. Running newspapers and journals (not too big), running cooperatives, supporting education of farmers and such. In theory it was "allied" to PUWP, but in practice it meant very little.

There are four notable periods when it comes to ZSL. Initially after 1945 it was an entirely bogus party usurping the name of a long-established political movement. However, chief positions were occupied by people from pre-war tiny communist parties. Which is why the early ZSL was in practice an extension of PUWP, it didn't even have its own program, instead officially supporting the program of PUWP, including the support for collectivisation, criticising pre-war peasant movement, some of its' members went as far as to officially admit that the ZSL party has had served its purpose in the early years of communist Poland and that it should be disbanded.

After the Polish October situation changed and so did ZSL. In 1957 an official agreement was signed between the PUWP and ZSL regulating their relations. ZSL lost any and all influence on agrarian politics of the state, but instead got some seats in parliament and other bodies. It had a couple of members in the Council of State and every Sejm (some 25%; nothing to do with free elections, mind you), but the Sejm in practice had very little power and its' role was mostly to cheerfully accept what the politburo ("Central Committee of the PUWP") came up with. Often the minister of agriculture was officially a member of the ZSL (you know, "peasant party running peasant business"), but then again, in a centrally-planned economy ran by the politburo the role of the minister of agriculture was symbolic as well. What's more important, the ZSL got some influence on a local scale: local cooperatives (some 30% of directors seats were given to ZSL members), local administration (some 20% in the National Councils) and so on. And it was slightly less concrete-minded than the PUWP, which is why after 1956 it became a little less unsavoury alternative for all the people who had to join the party or risk loosing their jobs (say, university professors, journalists and so on).

The situation changed again after 1971, when Edward Gierek "turned the screw a little tighter", as we say here, and ZSL again started to drift closer to being just PUWP under a different name. And then again it started to change the other way after 1980 (Solidarity!) when ZSL's members of parliament started to ask questions that would seem unsavoury to the PUWP politicians. But then again, it was never a real opposition - and it never had a chance to win any elections since in communist-led Poland there weren't any in the first place (or rather there were, people could vote - an in practice they had to - but their results were known long before the first ballot was cast). But it is a fact that in the 1980s ZSL started to act more independently, trying to rehabilitate Stanisław Mikołajczyk, asking for a thorough reform of Poland's economic system ("socialism with a human face"), lobbying for official recognition of the rights of individual farmers (see the article on Collectivization in the Polish People's Republic). The ZSL was officially in favour of further collectivisation, but wanted some legal confirmation that the farms that were not collectivised would not be forced to do so - which they got in 1983, probably because the commies were trying to appease the farmers during the Martial law in Poland.

Interestingly the finest hour of the ZSL was also the beginning of its end: in 1989 it took part in the Polish Round Table Talks (usually supporting the Solidarity rather than the PUWP) and after the 1989 legislative election its' members of parliament officially switched sides and formed a coalition with the Solidarity, entered the government of Tadeusz Mazowiecki - and put a silver bullet in PUWP's heart. And shortly afterwards the ZSL dissolved/transformed into the modern PSL. //Halibu tt 21:58, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with most of this. ZSL initially was a "refuge" party for people - from rural backgrounds - who didn't like what was going on but who at the same time thought that the whole "doomed soldiers" thing was a pipe dream based on empty hopes of intervention from the West which wasn't forthcoming and idiotic romantic fantasies which make for great folk song but at the end of the day did nothing for the guy with half a cow and four chickens. At the national level, you're essentially right. It was more or less a faction of the PUWP. At the local level it made a lot of difference. Whether the local wojt that was appointed was a die-hard Stalinist or some local guy who, yeah, everyone knew was a sleek opportunist who shouted Marxist slogans when the people from Warsaw came to visit and then who went back to just regular graft and corruption (which everyone was used to and knew how to work with) when they left - ZSL had a lot of say in that. And that may not sound like a great choice but given the circumstances, it mattered. Like PSL before it, ZSL people were very pragmatic, in a very "peasant" kind of way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, the key here is understanding what "private" and "collective" farming meant in practice. Historically, most parts of Poland were mostly owned by large landowners (initially the szlachta, later also bourgeoisie, tsarist henchmen in Russian-held part of Poland and so on). Which in practice meant there were millions of peasants who were either landless or had barely enough land to feed their own families, let alone sell their crops. Most food production was actually done by large farms (as was the case everywhere else).

After 1944 the commies instituted a land reform, parcellating most large estates (large in this context means anything above 50 hectares in most voivodeships). That way the people responsible for most food production got evicted from their land, while the landless were given *some* land. Typically a landless family could obtain up to 5 hectares within pre-war borders of Poland and somewhere between 7 and 15 hectares in the Western and Northern Areas obtained from Germany after WWII. While this allowed plenty of people a chance to feed themselves and their families, 5 or 10 hectares is still not enough to support modern, large-scale food production.

Simultaneously the commies tried to force farmers to collectivise their farms. The means were mostly brutal: millions of people were arbitrarily ordered to pay huge sums of money for not meeting food delivery quotas (instituted by the Germans shortly after their invasion of Poland, but kept by the commies as a means to pressure the farmers into collective farms), often "unknown perpetrators" would simply beat people up and destroy their machines for speaking against collectivisation, and so on and so forth. By 1955 some 200,000 farmers joined the collective farms, but those who had larger estates mostly resisted, which means that less than 10 percent of arable land belonged to those collective farms. This meant that an average collective farm of some 20 families had only approximately 80 hectares of arable land - which meant the production efficiency was actually lower than in case of individual farms. What was the response of the commies to that problem? Tightening the screw, as always. Instead of working on improving the efficiency of collective farms, they tried to force more people into them - and in the process destroyed the efficiency of private farming as well. It was still the 1950s, Korean War, the arms race in full swing, so production focus further shifted to arms instead of civilian production - which meant that even those private farmers who didn't have problems with the commies, could not obtain fertilizers, buckets, plows and whatever they needed. Again, ineffective collective farms were prioritized while effective private farms were being punished. By the end of Stalinism in Poland the food shortage was so dire that commie propaganda had to explain to the people of Poland that the situation is the result of sabotage and "American imperialists dropping potato beetles from their strategic bombers" (really!).

That's why after 1956 Gomułka decided not to proceed any further with collectivisation, acknowledge the existing private land ownership and called it the "Polish way towards socialism", distinct from all the other countries of the bloc. Sure, this lessened the pressure on private farming, but it did not end the problems of both private and collective farming in Poland. Gomułka's decision simply froze the situation, without solving any real issues that limited the efficiency of both types of farming. In 1962 the collectivisation efforts were resumed in line with a secret (!) act of parliament that assumed full collectivisation by the end of 1980, but in practice this only meant that private farming continued to be persecuted, while subsidised collective farms were not reformed in any way.

And that's the background of the numbers you cited on my talk page. Some private farms were extremely effective (notably in the more profitable branches, where the state-owned farms couldn't meet the demand, like fruit or poultry production), but most were not - because they couldn't be due to small area, inability to buy more land and problems with even basic tools, let alone mechanised ones). And the same applies to state-owned "collective" farms: most were extremely ineffective because they couldn't be. And with the advent of next generations social problems started to plague them, as collective farms "rural workers" received payment regardless of whether they actually did anything or not. Compare it to families living on benefits in some Western European countries and you'll get the picture.

Whether the numbers you cite are accurate or not is another matter completely, farming was a sensitive issue to the communists, so I wouldn't trust official efficiency statistics. And to add even more complexity to the issue, regardless of food shortages on domestic market, large part of Polish food production had to be exported to the USSR due to Polish satellite status within the Eastern Bloc (officially it was normal export within COMECON, but in practice it was equal to economic exploitation of a colony). All this meant the shortage of even basic food products was inherent in commie Poland. This led to the price rise of 1970, which in turn sparked the 1970 Polish protests, the same problems with lack of food led to the 1980 strikes and the creation of Solidarity. //Halibu tt 13:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

China-Nanjing listed at Redirects for discussion

Ways to improve Albanian People's Army

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Fidél Castro listed at Redirects for discussion

North Korean people listed at Redirects for discussion

Ammu-Nation listed at Redirects for discussion

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Ndihme mbi artikuj per Shqiptare neper bote

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Nomination of New Zealand Communist Party for deletion

Nomination of Lenin Circle for deletion

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Zinoviev and Kamenev were indeed members of the Opposition Bloc.

Greetings, Ismail. I disagree with some of your edits regarding the opposition bloc in Stalin's USSR. You argued in the bloc page that "Source does not say that Zinoviev and Kamenev "joined the bloc"." However, in Broué's article, he specifically states that the zinovievists groups had Kamenev and Zinoviev negotiating with trotsky and sedov to join the bloc. And, in the appendix, sedov's later says: "The (...)* is organised [15] it includes the Zinovievists, the Sten–Lominadze Group and the Trotskyists..."

Broué said the missing word seems to be "bloc".

Because of this, everything leads us and Broué to think that Z and K did in fact join the bloc. Notice how he never opposed the idea like how he did with Bukharin, in which he argued that "there is no indication to support the hypothesis that these people carried on any activity in 1932, or even that they maintained a certain oppositional spirit."

So, yes, while Broué never said with all words that zinoviev and kamenev joined the bloc, the fact they were negotiating with trotsky at the time and sedov's remark about how the zinovievists joined the bloc, makes it clear that they did indeed join the bloc.

Do you disagree with any of my assesments? I'd be glad to dialogue with you. Seekallknowledge (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Broué's article, as I said, doesn't claim Zinoviev and Kamenev actually joined the Bloc. Broué indicates that Zinoviev by 1932 had regrets about having "capitulated" to Stalin and was aware of efforts by others to renew oppositionist activity, but does not say Zinoviev and Kamenev themselves joined. J. Arch Getty, in his article "Trotsky in Exile: The Founding of the Fourth International," writes that the Bloc "included mainly lower level, less prominent oppositionists: followers of Zinoviev, but not Zinoviev himself." By the standards of Wikipedia, I think your argument ("while Broué never said with all words...") slips into breaking the website's policy of no orignal research (specifically the section titled "Synthesis of published material" which states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source.") --Ismail (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I have to concede you're correct. Seekallknowledge (talk) 19:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Related Articles