Talk:Vladimir Tismăneanu/Archive 1

PhD subject

It would be interesting to have the title, and maybe abstract of his PhD thesis. Does anyone have a link to information about this thesis? Dpotop 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The thesis title is "Noua stînga şi Şcoala de la Frankfurt" (The new Left and the Frankfurt School", (Editura Politică, Bucharest 1976). According to a Washington Post editorial by Victor Gaetan, Tismăneanu's doctoral thesis is "a vitriolic sermon against Western values". The conclusion of the thesis thesis is that "Capitalism cannot be destroyed through vague dreams, dogmatic revolt, sudden transition and metaphysical studies. The only mean to overcome this statu-quo is through Socialist revolution, in which the working class, led by the revolutionary political Party, will play the leading role." (193.226.4.133 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Objections

In addition to my objections: I have removed details on his father. If you plan an article on him, add them there.

I'll detail below my other points:

• His father's name was Leonte Tismăneanu, as chosen by the man himself. Despite the habit, one cannot deny someone else the name he chose for himself. Any detail on this issue belongs in an article on Leon Tismăneanu, not here (Vladimir's name was never Tismineţki - in fact, for reasons of chronology, Leon's own name is likely not subject to Romanian transliteration more than it is to standard Russian-to-English, but that is another matter)
• Communist words do not a communist make, and we have been debating this before. I do not intend to help anyone build wikipedia as a database for a witch hunt, especially when that witch hunt will be based on hypocrisy (among historians, it is not just Tismăneanu who has pointed out that trait of later Romanian Communism)
• It will be a cold day in hell before wikipedia will link to Tricolorul for references Dahn 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And let me ask you, D: is there any particular reason for not using diacritics? Dahn 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dahn. As mentioned at some point in the edit history (you should read it), I'm trying to translate the text on ro.wiki (not well worded, anyway). If you wish, correct the text on ro.wiki. And, anyway, I gave up for now. I'll wait for the aftermath of his report.

As for the guy and his report, my oppinion is forged by what I read about them. As for now, I have both CTP, Cristoiu, and what I see as non-partisan public oppinion (as well as the opponents of Basescu) considering this report a disgrace, and the author a spineless guy. I am never relying on only one oppinion, but from my experience both CTP and Cristoiu were quite moderate. I also have friends of mine commenting along the same lines, and have seen no person (public or friend) I appreciate comment positively.

So: I don't try to do a witch hunt. I consider the report to be part of a political campaign of Basescu, and I think it should be put in perspective. Factual perspective, not witch hunt. Tismaneanu is becoming a public figure, and his background must be known. I believe this not to be the case, yet. I don't quite understand your "communist words do not make a communist". We are not talking here about some poor guy that needed to write political propaganda to be left in peace (Adrian Paunescu could be in this case). And even if he did so, then the guy was a fraud when he wrote his first articles. Why should I believe him now?

As for your help, I didn't ask for it. What I am going to do here is to report what I find to be NPOV, while accepting to change my POV according to supplementary sources or enlightening notes by other users.

Cheers. Dpotop 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article on ro wiki is the product of a witch hunt, from a person who has declared himself to be an anti-Semite. I have no stomach to go and undo all of what that person has felt free to do over there, and I'd rather make this article sourced with proper sources and moderate tone.

Well, I'd say Cristoiu and CTP can be seen as "propoer sources", unless they, too, are anti-semites. :) And these sources are saying Tismaneanu is conducting a witch-hunt. Is this source enough for you? Dpotop 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I stutter? I have deleted references from Tricolorul as to Tismăneanu's alleged "communist convictions", I have not removed any of his family history (except those parts that would fit in the link for his father - otherwise, WHY have a link?!), and I have not removed anything by either Cristoiu or Popescu (nothing by Cristoiu or Popescu was prexent in the goddamn text!). Dahn 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against including criticism of his report, if it is stated on the basis of "he said, she said". Also note that nothing on that was present in the text, and that I have left all information about his family past that had ditect relevancy for Vladimir himself.

I disagree with you. As CTP noted, part of the infamy of the author of the report comes from his position in the Communist high-life. This information is meaningful in this context. If you want a cheap comparison: Hitler's background is meaningful, too, in explaining his deeds. Dpotop 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What you do not understand, Dpotop, is that I do not deny either the source or Tismăneanu's position in the high-life (more or less - as it is obvious to anyone that his father had fallen into disgrace). Yes, he lived a good life as a kid, and yes, some journalists say that it matters where he grew up (note that Tismăneanu will never deny where he grew up!). This has nothing to do with "communist convictions" allegedly expressed by Tismăneanu himself. Now, even if you are to quote someone saying that Tismăneanu himself was a communist, don't quote a piece of trash (ie: if Cristoiu and/or Popescu say it, quote them saying it; if they do not, there must be a goddamn reason for it!). Just how obvious is this? Dahn 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The personal conclusions you draw about his writings belong to the realm of journalism. Aside from the fact that they are sourced with a newspaper that writes calumnies about the man (and should thus be discredited from the get-go), nothing would allow you to draw a conclusion in presenting the facts. It would also mean that every person who has ever graduated from a branch of the University and was required to write such a stereotypical essay is "a communist",as well as all historians who were required to quote Ceauşescu. Dahn 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We are talking here about human sciences, not exact ones. The boundary between history and journalism is never quite clear. And you are confusing here "Tricolorul", which can be considered as extreme, with well-respected editorialists from Gandul (CTP) and Jurnalul (Cristoiu). Don't mix them. Dpotop 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, more appeals to probability. Read above. Dahn 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics: I don't have them on my US keyboard, and I don't know how to install the needed converter outside Word or OpenOffice. BTW: how do you write them? Dpotop 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... I click the symbols... at the bottom of the screen... in the editing window... And, in case I hadn't noticed they were there after years of editing wikipedia, I would still copy-paste the words with diacritics, already present in the text... Dahn 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And I forgot. I find some references to Tricolorul justifiable, especially when they cite the source (journal, number, year, article), and excerpts. And you are not the only one to decide what gets in and what remains out. Dpotop 14:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. Don't invest your energy in discrediting wikipedia. Dahn 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't invest time in defending Basescu's political agenda. It's discrediting wikipedia, too. Dpotop 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. That agenda would be much more respectable than a paper that engages in slander. 2. I just told you I do not defend it. Dahn 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To the IP who keeps pushing the POV

Do read the templeate at the very top of this page, and then Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Please understand that rumors from one side of the debate are not "sources", that they are inflammatory, and that, while presenting no proof, they were at least partly dismissed by the person whom they are aimed at (which would make them hot potatoes for wikipedia). Some of them are not reliable on principle, and some content you keep adding is redundant (while the rest is mostly libelous). Dahn 10:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn: for you some sources might not be reliable "on principle" but you are not the ultimate decider of what is reliable and what isn't. The links to "Tricolorul" that you have groundlessly removed simply reproduce Tismaneanu's own articles. Ditto for the PhD. thesis conclusion. "Tricolorul" merely provides an online version of the printed papers. Please stop removing them, unless you check that the printed papers are different from what "Tricolorul" claims.

As for "allegations" of communist activities in the "youth years": this is blatantly biased. There remains no doubt that this guy was a dedicated communist propagandist until the age of 30. As The washington Post Editorial (check the link, it is an Editorial) says, his thesis is a "vitriolic sermon against Western values". Do you actually doubt that he wrote that crap? As for "youth", it is misleading to say youth of someone who is 30. These are weasel words, give them up by your own advice. (193.226.4.133 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Nice contributions, mr. Anonymous editor. Dahn, you should accept these new sources. Dpotop 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1.The links to Tricolorul are referring to a paper that ids controversial at best, engaged in the debate, and known to have published false material in the past. Linking to that paper also creates a precedent for wikipedia. All of that material needs to be verified, and is in itself undue weight. (Note: I have actually checked other sources, and they do not make as specific claims, which means that, by including Tricolorul, we would not just be introducing a biased source, we would be favoring it!) 2.The thesis conclusion cites a source as if it is familiar with it. It is not, but merely presumes it is (you have copied the reference from the Romanian version, which quoted nothing, and assumed that the quote is to be found verbatim in the work in question). 3.The term "alleged" refers to his convictions. They are alleged, because we would otherwise imply intimate knowledge of a person's feelings and ideas. There is nothing referring to his thesis, and, as all Romanians of the times, he would be entitled to mimicking communist convictions without having them. 4.The article is not "an editorial", and the link actually says that it was "in the editorial section" ("An article in a periodical written by a certain person and published as an official argument: Our local newspaper's editorial section featured dozens of letters reflecting opposing views of this year's presidential election.") 5.Per wikipedia conventions, all details about his father that do not relate directly to the son belong in that article. Much of what you push in that area is questionable at the very least, but the debate is to be carried there (though, frankly, I do not see much room for debate). Dahn 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

His father (surnamed Ciungul) has his own page. By the way; he is one of the main communist propagandists in Romania, according to the report of Tismaneanu's commission.

The links to "Tricolorul" provide the readers with a online reproduction of Tismaneanu's printed papers. Dahn must have some vested interest in defending Tismaneanu aginst his own past writings. One must be mad to hide this information because one has a personal dislike about "Tricolorul". All the comments about Tricolorul are just Dahn's POV. What source do you cite for claiming all those things about that journal?(Icar 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

I will not answer again. As to the style and status of the paper, Bogdan gave you an answer below, so did Jmabel. Let's not continue this needlessly. Dahn 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations about communist convictions" refer to his stated (printed) beliefs. Not all Romanians at the time stated in print such beliefs, whether Dahn likes it or not. One example: Paul Goma. Since you object to this, I will write "activity as communist propagandist". I will include again all references to Tismaneanu's scientific workul°s before 1981.(Icar 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Not unless you can point out where you found them. Dahn 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Status of article

Dahn asked me to protect this article. I'm not doing that at this time: this seems to be a content dispute, not vandalism or other breach of rules. I haven't looked into all of the details of this. However, I have to say: Tricolorul makes a pretty lousy source. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons is certainly relevant here, and several aspects of Wikipedia:Reliable sources seem relevant here as well: in particular, the remarks about Partisan and extremist websites presumably also apply to partisan or extermist newspapers. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. What the anon reader is doing here is equivalent to the POV-pushing of Dahn on List on Romanian Communists where he has actually no source but keeps claiming that Adrian Paunescu and Richard Wurmbrand were activists of the PCR. This is relevant here, because the conflict on this page is part of a larger edit conflict related to current events in Romania. Unfortunately, I'm on vacation and have a lousy connection. Dpotop 10:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Weren't you edit-warring for the exact same POV-pushing as the anon editor? In fact, wasn't "you should accept these new sources" directed by you towards me, D? Or did the wind change direction again? Dahn 21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty lousy? You don't like the newspaper in which Vadim insults all his adversaries? Women are regularly named "whores", while the men are "worms" -- usually tapeworms and roundworms. :-)

How can one doubt the veridicity of information such as "Băsescu wears diapers" bogdan 11:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Dpotop

Aside from being weasel-worded OR, Dpotop, that statement about his father being head of the publishing house is also not true - he had been removed from that position a decade earlier! Dahn 13:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandahl Dahn strikes again

Dahn has again reverted my version by claiming that it is 'misleading'. WHAT is misleading, Mr disruptor? We agree that the references 3 and 4 describe pieces of communist propaganda by Tismaneanu, yes or no? Now we do not talk about convictions (fine thinkers like Dahn say that you cannot tell a convinced communist just by his communist writings). Fine, I removed 'convictions' altogether and replaced it by 'activity'. What on earth can you object to this? As for my English style, mind the log in your own eye(Icar 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Because it his alleged convictions, not his activities, that are the topic of controversy (for one, the theoretical debate involving his doctoral thesis is thus mislabeled - in what I suspect was your attempt to introduce a weasel wording, reading that all his activities involved writing propaganda). The casual reference to him as "a propagandist" takes a side in what is an open debate (it is a subjective qualifier, and, as such, a POV); it thus falls under the provisions of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. That aside, what was misleading was what you did to the paragraph on his school years, where you either make children responsible for what their parents did or introduce an utterly superfluous phrase (I have trouble telling what you did, because it is in atrocious English). You have also silently removed the reference to "propaganda aimed at students", which is what the institution had for its purpose (not to mention that you have replaced with something vague and in awful English). Btw, what you did with the word "nomenklatura" counts as overlinking.

I believe the expression is "plank in your eye" (quite ironic, ain't it?). I would also like to know what you consider problematic in my English, but perhaps this is not the place for such diatribes. Dahn 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no controversy at all about convictions. What matter are the facts: did he, or did he not write papers with communist propaganda? If he did (and the proofs are there, Mr Tahn) then he is a propagandist. I do not care about writing 'propagandist', but I want his propaganda activities to be shown. Is it clear? Writing "alleged" instills some doubt where there can be none. What open debate are you dreaming about? Why do you want to use "he was received into the ranks of the Union of Communist Youth"? This is a ridiculous mot-à-mot translation from Romanian of a communist cliché. Very un British indeed. He was in the Party, wasn't he? He was much more than a simple UTC member, it is misleading to insist on UTC. What exactly was his (paid or unpaid) position in the Central Committee of the UTC? Does it have to do with the "propaganda aimed at students" that you are talking about?(Icar 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I support you on "alleged". No need for it. Dpotop 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

There is the issue of the high school name and link. I have linked it only because I considered that it can eventually have its own article (just as several high schools in Bucharest currently do), and it is likely to be under that name; I can "hide" the present name using the format

[[Jean Monnet High School|High School Nr.24]]

but I do not know if the designation should take this form in English, and I do not think it is ultimately relevant. Dahn 18:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the name of the school is really irrelevant. Take it out if you will, we are not discussing about high-schools here. I think that you just want to display some 'European' name for Tismaneanu's school instead of its former name 'Jdanov', with its genuinly Stalinist appeal. (Icar 18:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I'd say the name of the school is meaningful, because it remained the school of the children of the political elite ever since. Of course, not all children of political elite studied there, nor all pupils were from such families. But still... Dpotop 19:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you missed my point. Since we are very likely going to have an article on the high school, I created a link to it. Of course, the school had a different name at that point. Using the format presented above, which I supposed you were familiar with, a link with the name it used to have will lead to the present-day name. I don't see any point for either removing the link or discussing at length what our impressions of the school are. Dahn 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is not only my oppinion. It is the oppinion of every guy that wrote about the high-school. For instance, during the "bombing" incident several years ago. Dpotop 08:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't care: the only thing worth discussing here, and the only thing I think we were discussing, was related to a naming issue. Nothing more, nothing less. Dahn 12:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Tismaneanu's DSS file, published by Ziua

It appears that Dahn is deleting my inclusion of a new source from Ziua http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2007-01-23&id=214592 , which gives the first page of a DSS report on Tismaneanu (see the top links to included documents). I consider Ziua as a decent source, and the article contains all needed references. There is no controversy left. Dpotop 10:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition to my edit summary, I call your attention to the fact that such "information" does not belong in Biography, but in "Controversy" (if at all). The "document" is, in fact, somebody's conclusions from a supposedly existing document! Also, you may not deny the value of Ziua as a source, but Tismăneanu himself does, and this is what matters here. Please understand this: in case the information turns out to be false, wikipedia is liable. Dahn 10:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL: wikipedia is not liable if it reported what Ziua published, which is exactly what I wrote there. Dpotop 10:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

No, this is an official Romanian document, stating the position of the Communist state on Tismaneanu's conduct. It's not a simple POV. BTW, it reports facts, such as Tismaneanu working a propaganda lecturer. Dpotop 10:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

1) There is no proof that the document is real (and you may remember that Ziua's editor went to jail for a quite similar claim he made at some point). 2) The document also contradicts previous "data" also published by Ziua, according to which he had "been infiltrated" in the West by ăthis and that structure (whereas the file clearly says that "he has betrayed his country"). Dahn 10:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to whitewash this guy. I don't understand why, though. Dpotop 10:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For the record, here is my contribution to the Biography section and which is not accepted by User:Dahn:

According to his Securitate file, partly published by journal Ziua, prior to 1981 Tismaneanu has been well integrated in the Communist Party structures. Among other, he functioned as a lector of the Propaganda Commission of the Municipal PCR Committee of Bucharest. He was also allowed to travel to various Soviet block and Western countries.

Dpotop 12:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had several conflicts with Dahn and I noticed either he's right or wrong in a question he refuses to concede and always perpetrates edit wars and removes information inconvenient to his views. More than that, he often refuses to read the arguments made to reach a consensus while he quotes Wikipedia policies he doesn't read himself. For instance, the biography of living persons states very clearly:

Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, zines or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below).

Not all widely read newspapers and magazines are equally reliable. There are some magazines and newspapers that print gossip much of which is false. While such information may be titillating, that does not mean it has a place here. Before repeating such gossip, ask yourself if the information is presented as being true, if the source is reliable, and if the information, even if true, is relevant to an encyclopaedic article on that subject. When these magazines print information they suspect is untrue, they often include weasel phrases. Look out for these. If the magazine doesn't think the story is true, then why should we?

Ziua is a widely read newspaper, so we're out of the 'obscure' or 'self-published' area. More than that the article points to an exact reference which can be doublechecked (ASRI, FOND "D", Dosar nr. 10.947, Volumul 9, p. 369-370) and it seems a part of the information is also published by a book reflecting infromation from Securitate files (though not a scholarly book - Mihai Pelin is not a researcher, a historian, a political theorist, just a writer with a philosophy degree; also there's no peer-review about it). Any decent editor can see it's not jsut about a gossip, or about information of unencyclopaedic nature, but about facts about Tismaneanu's biography. Moreover Dpotop's formula is very cautious, stating the information not as an undeniable fact but coming from a source he names.

I believe it has a place in the "Controversy" paragraph. My advice: Dpotop do your addition, if Dahn can't argument his position report him on his 3rd revert, if he argues and you reach a consensus then it's wonderful, otherwise you'll meet him in higher instances where more users or arbiters will try to find a middle way.

For conformity and lack of incoherence and hypocrisy, much of the information from this article (as from many others) is built on newspapers. One example: the statement Antohi falsified his credentials (libellous if untrue) is based on newspapers (in Sorin Antohi's Wiki page the reference is ironically another article from Ziua). Adding some convenient potentially libellous information based on newspapers but rejecting other is a doublestandard raising a well-founded doubt on the good intentions of some of the editors. Daizus 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is about weasel words, presenting theoretical data as definitive, and drawing conclusions from a particular text (i.e.: having a POV). The latter are either supported by Ziua or "deduced" by the users in question from what they have read into the facsimile; in both cases, they are not differentiated from what the text says, and are amalgamated to lead to a particular conclusion. A lot of the present text is guessing and unsupported allegation (users have allowed themselves to compare data, as you have done in another article). Note that the current article contradicts the previous accusation in Ziua - where Tismăneanu was presented as a "Securitate agent" after his exile (whereas the current file, as accurate or inaccurate as it may be, clearly indicates that his was a defection, and defines it as treason!).

It is also customary to publish only information to which the person has had the time to respond.

Notice that I had not removed the information from the Controversy section, just "facts" and their customary weasel words from the Biography section (where they have been re-introduced by User:Vintila Barbu, who should know better).

What "observations" you have made about me does not interest me in the least. Dahn 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments change from reply to reply. The arguments you gave to Dpotop were not about weasel words but about potentially libellous material and using a widely read newspaper as Ziua as source (and if you anything against Ziua's reliability why don't you remove also the other statements sourced by Ziua and only this one?). I simply directed you to the rules and to the habits of building biographies of Romanian VIPs. If you have something to counterargue to that, do it, otherwise why bother with straw men? I see Dpotop's formula and I see nothing definitive in that. It's a simple statement according to a source, which is how it should look like. Anyway, do you care to give Dpotop a threshold - after how long that information can be published here? A day? A week? A month?

Again, the point was about how potentially libelous material is passed for reliable information, and about how conclusions and facts are intertwined. I don't think that you have seen Dpotop's version, or at least not all of it (check out his edits to the "Biography" section). Nor have you seen my version (check out my edits to the "Controversy" section). Do so, and then we'll talk some more. Dahn 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

On the first point I think I already argued. Ziua is equally used for potentially libelous material because is a widely read newspaper. If new arguments/opinions/evidences are published, they can come on this page and enrich it. I've seen Dpotop's version (I've checked the edits, it's the same According to Ziua ...). And I've seen your version (removing completely his edit, not moving it to "Controversy" section, not sweetening some potential weasel words). You have a point the article is too fresh and it's wise to wait for a reply, but that's it. Concede with Dpotop on a several days break to see if anything pops up, but you can't simply reject this information just because Tismaneanu denies it or you don't trust Ziua on Tismaneanu. As we're at it, Goma denies he's an antisemite and that didn't stop first the fact, now the view to be here on Wikipedia. Daizus 21:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: have you seen my version? Have you also perchance seen Dpotop's edit where the word "defection" is placed in quotes, and where conclusions about the file (such as "prior to 1981 Tismaneanu has been well integrated in the Communist Party structures") are cited as facts present in the file? Have you? And what about the current version, where some user has run amok with various POV claims? Have you seen it? Dahn 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note here. The quotes from my edit are not there at my initiative. If you take a look at the title of the article from Ziua, it uses these quotes. So, your argument on this one is bogus. I'll reply to the rest a bit later. Dpotop 08:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe you still don't get a thing that obvious! Ziua can place it quotes gfor the reasons it feels are justified - the same reasons that led to Roşca-Stăneascu's public apology. You are to never use that form (it is a weasel wording, and I suggest you once and for all open the wikipedia section of guidelines and read all about it, especuially since wikipedia clearly states that it expects users to be familiarized with its core principles!). A person defects or does not defect, he may allegedly defect, but he never "defects", unless you are writing a pamphlet or a polemic article about him (and you are not, in case that is not clear to you by now). On the other hand, there is no document that would deny he defected, and nothing except Mr. Mureşan's claim, which has received your endorsement against wikipedia rules. Dahn 10:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If I recall well, I only used the quotes in the English translation of the Ziua article name. Do you suggest I should chnge the wording of the article name when translating it into English? Dpotop 11:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I haven't checked the entire history, just the versions where you and Dpotop changed the Biography section repeatedly one after another. "Defection" sounds dubious, but that can be replaced with 'alleged defection' or wider phrases as the point of the new information is to show it was not actually a defection. And as long as the edit starts with "Ziua published a new article " I don't see how the information becomes a fact. If you say "According to Ziua X" or "Ziua published a new article stating X" to me is the same.

Placing the word in quotes was Dpotop's own initiative, and has nothing to with the file. In fact, the file clearly points out that it was a defection, so no need for "alleged" or any such formulation. The edits in the Biography section did not start with any relative statement, so you should perhaps read them again. Let's add to this that questionable material should never be equated with "biographical info" (especially since Dpotop's edits rendered as certain in the first section what they later on claimed they were doubting!). Dahn 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

True, not with the file, but there were allegations about his colaborations with Communists after he left Romania and I think this is what Dpotop had in mind. Anyway, placing quotes was inapropriate, I agree.

Dpotop's first edit in biography is "According to his Securitate's file published by Ziua" - not the most cautious sentence in the world, but certainly not a fact. It is relative, it depends on two sources a) Ziua b) the file.

As for the last thing, we're in agreement again. The 'Controversy' section is suitable for such things until they'll get unanimously admitted. Daizus 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As for the last edits (if you mean the earlier edits of Vintila Barbu), you have to agree they are not all harmful. There is Tismaneanu's activity in youth where he produced materials clearly supporting Marxist-Leninist ideology - you can't say if he really believed in them but they can be safely labelled as "Communist activity and publications", Ziua published indeed a facsimile (you can download the Jpg image from the article's link) the authenticity can be questioned however, and the claims are indeed accusatory. I really don't find useful mentioning a large list of how many Communist elites sent their children to the school Tismaneanu graduated so I won't comment on that. Yes, there are weasel words but my point the added information is not entirely POV. I'll work a bit on it, right away. Daizus 22:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

A discussion about Autonomist Marxism, which is what the text refers to, is actually, in itself, not that much of Marxism-Leninism. What I can draw from the texts is that he was a Marxist analyst required to present a conclusion (not a body of text) with a Marxist-Leninist color to it. The first part of this argument reflects a possible ideological choice (*which is not the same as that of the regime), the latter does not (if it would, almost every person who ever published something of substance in post-1975 Communist Romania would have to be a "Leninist" - given the idiotic messages censorship imposed on them). It is absurd to assume that a person using Marxist rhetoric, imposed or cultivated, is necessarily a supporter of the regime (from Silviu Brucan to Roy Medvedev, the world is filled with counterexamples). From what I gathered from Tismăneanu's various interviews, he was having doubts about all forms of Marxism at that time (and had never supported official dogma).

But he's not accused of having a Communist belief, just of having Communist activity. And I don't think his published material is reduced to Autonomous Marxism. This is like saying Vadim's activity before '89 was simply poetry. His thesis about the New left and the Frankfurt school allegedly (I haven't read it) concluded: "The capitalism cannot be annihilated by vague reveries, by dogmatic revolts, by sudden transitions and metaphysical studies. The only way to overrun this status-quo is the socialist revolution, where the proletariat under the leadership of the revolutionary political party will have the main role". This looks like Marxisim-Leninism to me and in some aspects even opposed to Autonomism. Also Tismaneanu had a publishing activity in the papers of his time and even coauthored to a book. I remember on article from Jurnalul National where the conclusions of Tismaneanu report were parodied with Tismaneanu's materials published in co-autorship in an educative guide for the youth. You may know about them, if not I can search them for you. Daizus 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to the article in Jurnalul, actually. My point still stands: I believe that, from the fragments quoted, one can clearly discern a Marxist (not Marxist-Leninist) perspective on Autonomism. Note for one the reference he made to Communist Romania having applied a, to paraphrase, more authentic Autonomism - which, IMO, is equivalent to the opinions of historians who were required to say something nice about x or y policy in order to get their volumes published (and we could perhaps note, unlike Jurnalul, that this point was, in fact, very unlikely to be part of official dogmas). This is what I tried to point out about the very quotes (several scholars expressed similar self-contradictory conclusions just so thsat the bulk of the work would be published; I never supposed that Tismăneanu's books is Autonomist in tone - just that it is a scholarly book about Autonomism which had to pass ideological requirements). Also consider that Vadim is not criticized for his views, but for his actions, and that he stood by his views after the Revolution. Tismăneanu's actions are in no way relevant for "communist activities", and there is no proof that, given the context, those are even his views.

That article on Jurnalul is built on excerpts from "Mic dicţionar social-politic pentru tineret" a propaganda book. I haven't read it except those quotes, I am not sure if anyone here has read it, but the title seems obvious to point a propaganda book for the official ideology of those times. Do you believe he supported in this book autonomist theses or other ideologies and not the ideology of his times? Certainly this is activity in the sense it was pictured (and I support it here). As for your differences between brands of Marxism, I suggest you to read the Wikipedia's article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leninism. The emphasis on the role of party in the proletarian revolution is actually a core tenet of the Leninist doctrine and one of its main differences from 'classical' Marxism. That's why the conclusion of Tismaneanu's thesis as it is formulated it advocates Marxism-Leninism as I claimed first time. Also it seems he had a rich publishing activity in those years writing in many magazines and periodicals. True, I don't know what exactly he wrote on, but again for a sociologist in those times what he could write? Criticism on Communism? Let's get serious!

So we have a sociologist in Ceausescu's era, with rich publishing activity, on whom we have quotes clearly supporting Marxism-Leninism, who co-authored in propaganda books, what do you want more? Daizus 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

For now, let us note that Rowiki indicates that the book was never published (it is an unsourced information, but it may turn out to render part of your point utterly irrelevant).

Rowiki actually claims the book was retreated (not never published) beacuse he left the country, but my point about this book was he wrote in a propaganda book. I don't see why my point becomes irrelevant if the book was retreated. The propaganda material remains a propaganda material. Daizus 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I beleive you have built yourself a straw man. Let me state it again: I do not believe his book was Autonomist, I believe it was about Autonomism. I do not need a link to "Leninism", thank you very much, since my point was that the regime was Leninist, making every little thing it touched Leninist. The question about "criticism of communism" is a false dilemma: nobody could write criticism of communism, which does not make their writings pro-communist; as you yourself say, sociologists in particular could not avoid Marxist-Leninist rhetoric, which does not make them Marxist-Leninist! My actual statements were regarding allegations about the purposeand form of his books, both of which are contended to be this and that, without definite proof. Dahn 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You stated "I believe that, from the fragments quoted, one can clearly discern a Marxist (not Marxist-Leninist) perspective on Autonomism" but the fragment quoted clearly mentioned the role of the party in the proletarian revolution as a necessary way to follow to defeat the capitalism. If you considered that quote to discern a Marxist perspective (instead of a Marxist-Leninist perspective) it results you made a confusion between Marxist tenets and Leninist tenets or from some other reasons you didn't want to acknowledge them in the perspective given by that quote.

Why not read that entire sentence? Dahn 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is the entire sentence. The quote is followed by a full-stop in your original reply. Daizus 10:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You are right, and sorry. However, this was the sentence I had posted earlier, and expected you to read it as well (when called to search in my own replies, I actually mmistook it for the one you were replying to): "What I can draw from the texts is that he was a Marxist analyst required to present a conclusion (not a body of text) with a Marxist-Leninist color to it". Dahn 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

We have absolutely no clue about how the rest of the text is written, but these quotes spreading Marxist-Leninism propaganda. If you want to speculate please take in account a) this seems to be a conclusion, therefore other Marxist-Leninist "arguments" were presented before it b) generally, the material of such a nature had much larger chunks (than a single line as it was quoted here) dedicated to the official ideology so it's groundless to assume "well this quote sounds Leninistic, but definitely the rest of the material is not". Daizus 11:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the rest of the paragraph are quite useless to further debate. I've never (talking of straw men) supported he actually believed in Communism, but that he published Communist propagandistic and ideologic materials. The syntagm in discussion "Tismăneanu's communist activity and publications" is not just an allegation, is a consequence of these materials and is also perfectly coherent with a detail from his biography: "took part in authoring and compiling propaganda aimed at students." Daizus 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

If we are talking about the Controversy section, I must point out that the actual controversy involves allegations that he was a supporter of Communism! This is what his writings were used to "prove". The fact that he authored propaganda (which may have never been published), and the fact that his scientific works are deemed "propaganda" are interpreted by his detractors to indicate that he was, to quote Jurnalul, "the country's first communist". There is no way for one to prove that he was a supporter of Communist ideas, Daizus. None. Therefore, "alleged communist beliefs" is the word. Either that or "party activities", but we both know that was not the theme his detractors used... Dahn 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Liiceanu (and Lavric points it very clearly in the article quoted as reference) doubts the moral authority of someone having a notable Communist activity in the 70s to lead this commission. They do not assume and do not care if Tismaneanu actually believed in that crap. They just grow concerned on the incompatibility (Lavric made also a parallel about calling ex-Nazis to lead the comissions of investigating Nazi crimes, regardless if they actually believed in Hitler's politics or antisemitic doctrines). So we have a) Communist activity being the base of all accusations b) Communist activity and alleged Communist belief being the actual accusations (where the latter is obviously derived from the former). Pick your choice, but in anyway, the Communist activity must be noted as a reason for controversy. Your conclusion is derived only from the accusations from Ziua, but the controversy section covers much more than that! Daizus 10:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The Ziua file, if authentic, only says that he worked as lecturer at the Propaganda Commission of the Municipal Committee in parallel to his scientific work. This, in itself, does not even mean that he worked as a propagandist, but as a low-ranking cadre lecturing on certain topics (at a time when all academic staff were required to be active on the party line). The weasel words about "well integrated" et al are not necessary conclusions of the text, and are based on the POV of some guys. Furthermore, the document neatly separates the bulk of his academic contributions from his political attributes - and the latter are, under any definition, minor. Dahn 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. But I'm supporting here only an admittance of his activity, not emphases. Daizus 23:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you actually check with the version I endorsed, you will see that his authorship of propaganda texts is mentioned (I must insist, editors' speculations that would include his scholarly works among propaganda does not belong on this page; credited claims amounting to this are included and should remain confined to the last section). What I ask for is:

• a source not to be cited for one conclusion while it is presented as controversial in another section of the same text! (Therefore, references to his "propaganda activities" should be drawn from sources other than his alleged file, at least for now.)

Like mentioned above, the propaganda activities are an open admittance of his published materials. The article from the media attacking Tismaneanu do not resume to his Securitate files but also to juicy quotes from his writings back then. Daizus 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again: the Ziua file relies on the file. In other versions of the text, other sources are quoted for this (check them out). I have not checked them again myself, but they don't appear to mention all of his alleged appointments and offices (I would presume that these would have otherwise been mentioned). All those offices may be true, but their citation relies on a controversial source. I therefore propose dropping all references to the file and info contained in it made in the Biography section unless this is backed by Jurnalul or Adevărul (in general, returning to the form that part of the text had in my version, with possible additions from other sources). Dahn 00:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I must repeat - the controversy sections is much more than Ziua's accusations based on a file. Jurnalul's own article ( http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol_68723/tinerete_revolutionara___tismaneanu__intaiul_comunist_al_tarii.html ) is based on Tismaneanu's writing not beliefs.

As for your selection of sources (Jurnalul and Adevarul and not Ziua) is clearly a POV. We're talking about echoes in widely read newspapers, not about some obscure leaflets. Daizus 10:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, I have argued my point as clearly as for this reply of yours to be either pointless or deliberate misrepresentation. I had said the following: the text taken from Ziua in the Biography section relies on a file that the other section views as debatable (as it should, at least for now). Use as many sources as you want to present "the facts of his life" (in fact, below I've gathered a couple to make this a more relevant article), but not one based on the file! You want to present the info in that file as facts? Then do so in the bottom section as well! (as it is, the file is an "alleged" part of his file in the Controversy section, and a "no questions about it" in the Biography section!). Again, for reasons that depend on the respectability of wikipedia, I ask that this should not be done until the file is confirmed as real (one may remember the time when Ziua published "facsimiles" of files indicating that Iliescu was a KGB agent, so nothing is for granted). Dahn 11:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's make it clear: I am against of removing (at the best you can postpone the information few days if you want to wait for Tismaneanu's replies) Ziua's accusation from the Controversy section. I am supporting the removal of Ziua's allegations from Biography section. Daizus 11:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus: the Biography section currently includes information that draws on the file (including his travels abroad, his office within the Bucharest PCR, and "appreciation" - at least, Dpotop has agreed to change that). I too say that it should be confined to the Controversy section under any circumstance, and, for the third time, ask that the info in Biography be checked against similar sources, and only kept if it has been mentioned by others. If, in time, the file proves to be bogus, I advocate removing the claims altogether. Dahn 11:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Daizus 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• all speculation about "well integrated into party structures" and other such crap to be dropped pronto, since it relies on weasel words and the qualifier is in no way a fact, but a comment [an inaccurate and tendentious one] of a fact (if one wants to credit and attribute it, let him or her do so, and we'll move it to the bottom section, where various opinions belong!) Dahn 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Daizus 00:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As for Brucan, he's openly admitted a Communist in his Wiki page, why the hesitations on Tismaneanu? Daizus 23:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have said: Brucan was clearly a Marxist-Leninist. With Tismăneanu, the proof appears to be far from sufficient, and facts used to draw that conclusion could just as easily not lead to it once you take Jurnalul's theories out of the article. Dahn 23:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The list of his colleagues resulted from the persistence of other users to add it. I think it may be somewhat relevant (since he himself makes note of it), and may prove top be so if the article is to become more detailed (such is the trend among featured articles). That said, I think that it will be alluded to again, so it may as well have a proper citation. I note that Lica Gheorghiu was removed from the list, presumably on the notion that she is "not notable" (although I think she was a horrible actress, she was still an actress in several films, and was also involved in several melodramas of the nomenklatura). Dahn 22:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You can add Lica Gheorghiu and whomever you want. I really don't find it an important detail but at the moment the page is not that lengthy and can contain many details. Daizus 22:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the article's length does not ever count in favor of content removal. A Featured Article is both long and detailed. The point you may want to make is about the info's relevancy, and it is precisely because every article should aim to become a featured one that the info may be argued to belong (similar biographical data is to be found in thousands of FAs out there). Dahn 23:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen lengthy article on whose talk pages it was debated whether if some less relevant info to be removed if not moved in other pages. Again, I'm not contesting your addition. Daizus 00:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And about you and me as long as I'm not replying to you or on you talk page, I don't think I care about your interests but about those of the people I reply to or the interests of building/correcting a page. But if you like to talk about yourself, I can't stop you, so you can remind me from time to time what your interests are or are not (not that I would care). Daizus 21:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. Dahn 21:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Also:

"He has also enjoyed the uncommon privilege among ordinary Romanian citizens to travel abroad" and "The same Securitate document reveals that, contrary to Tismăneanu’s previous allegations, this one enjoyed the privilege of travelling abroad, in the West."

Let us note:

• Tismăneanu has never denied traveling abroad. For one, he traveled to Poland or some other Eastern European country, as he makes it clear in his "Stalinism for All Seasons". He did not deny it, and was basically never before accused of such a thing.
• The format is based on some guy's deduction about what was and what was not privilege. For one, if it was that uncommon, it still does not say anything about Tismănenau having "done something" to get it (which I suppose is what is implied). Whether the source believes he did is the source's own business, not a fact in itself.
• Traveling was not uncommon. If anything, it had always been less common than it should have been and was becoming more uncommon at that moment. Ten years earlier, Ioan P. Culianu defected while visiting Italy. During the same time as Tismăneanu, Gabriela Adameşteanu (whose uncle was a refugee in Italy) was traveling to Poland. I could continue adding to this list, but we would fall into the realm of the trivial. Dahn 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There is also another edited in wording which is utterly embarrassing: "Tismăneanu's allegations". Tismăneanu "alleges" stuff about himself? He is suspect over any other source? To me, such edits show incompetence. Dahn 21:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You removed the claim the alleged file conflicts with Tismaneanu earlier allegations about his visits abroad. Well, Tismaneanu himself declared that in an article linked in Wiki's page: http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?art=2802&nr=2006-06-16 "Am fost in Ungaria, e adevarat, in Un­ga­ria si RDG, in calatorii turistice, dar nicio­da­ta in Occident. Aceeasi fisa de Se­cu­ri­ta­te sustine ca am facut mai multe cala­to­rii in Occident. Afirm in chip cat se poate de categoric ca niciodata pana in sep­tem­brie 1981 nu am fost in Occident. ". From mistake I removed "in West" but the file says clearly "socialist and capitalist countries". Both Hungary and DDR were socialist. Therefore there's a contradiction between file's content and Tismaneanu's allegations. Daizus 23:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Then it means that he clearly denied a long time ago that the note, supposedly the same as the one which Ziua presents as an amazing discovery, is right in claiming that he had traveled to the West as well. If that is the file, then he is aware of it, but rejects that it is right in claiming that (note, btw, that, unlike Tismăneanu, the file does not say where he traveled to - if at all authentic, it may be in error). In that instance, one would need a third-party source saying that he did travel abroad, specifying when and where.

I must insist that the term "allegation" does not befit Tismăneanu's position on this issue, given that he does not imply anything about anybody but himself. He denies that such claims are correct, and he has priority in doing that (he is innocent until proven guilty). The entire argument was constructed by the two users as a means to incriminate him - going abroad is not a crime, and this was instead dragged into the debate to somehow indicate that Tismăneanu is presumably hiding the truth. As we stand, the fact is that Tismăneanu rejects the notion that he has traveled to the West, under any form it may appear in the Securitate files. Dahn 23:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Securitate files are official reports, which I believe should be credited (in case they are authentic) more than one man's opinion. If one man's opinion conflicts with official reports, the doubt should be placed on man's opinion not on report. I'm not talking about trialing someone, just about sorting out the sources by their reliability.

As for the file, it was not in file's purpose to make a detailed biography of Tismaneanu nor to acknowledge Tismaneanu's touristic routes. And the file is a 3rd party source (in case the conflict is between Tismaneanu and some gazeteers or politicians who want to reveal his past). Daizus 00:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As indicated by Tismăneanu, the two parties in the debate about his trips abroad are him and the Securitate, since he says that the Securitate was wrong in making the vague mention. As you may see, Tismăneanu says "I have only traveled abroad to these countries", while the file does not say to which countries he traveled. I'm saying that a record of his travels abroad must be kept somewhere else, and a document, be it official or not, merely resurfacing with information that Tismăneanu considers erroneous, does not become extra proof. As we stand, Tismăneanu refutes all such informations - if we present the info at all, we should not hold any side as evidence of anything (and not, as Vintila Barbu insinuated, Tismăneanu "alleging" stuff about himself in front of "new evidence"). Dahn 00:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

When Saddam denied official reports I don't think anyone called for 3rd parties to settle the problem. It's one man against official acts (look in the left corner to see it's an official act if you have doubts). Even wikipedia's policy on sources should tell you the reliable source is the report, not the man. There's simply no conflict between a man and a report therefore the entire problem is false, no need for other 3rd sources. Tismaneanu could go on denying any other 4th and 5th and 6th and n-th source, he can't be taken as a reliable opinion forever against all odds. Daizus 00:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again: the document was not authenticated. If it is, and if info about his travels is in any way relevant, then we should take into account the fact that Tismăneanu also cites his CNSAS file, which does contain all his requests for exit visas, but no approvals! The info is presumably backed by the CNSAS (as even Ziua indicates). Compared to that, the "info" provided by the other document is vague (the requests specify which countries he asked to visit - Greece, among others), and is likely to be a mistake! When one denies an information in an official report that is not a verdict, that report ought not be presented as a definite information. Dahn 01:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Because the document was not authenticated we have the epithet "alleged" and the inclusion in "Controversy" section instead of "Biography". If the document shows to be authentic, no allegation remain and it becomes a biographical fact.

"Instead of Biography"? Have you read the biography section?! Dahn 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've seen Ziua's accusations are listed there, but I assume they will be removed as soon as we'll be in agreement on what to do about them. Because to me it looks clear that both you and me want the Biographical section to contain only non-controversial material. Daizus 11:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep asserting an official document to be likely a mistake and offer full trust in Tismaneanu's testimony - that is your POV. If you don't trust official reports, that's your own problem. If you have other reliable sources (other official reports, scholarship) to prove this report is erroneous please show them. Wikipedia doesn't care about verdicts but about sourced claims. And according to Wikipedia, an official report is a reliable source, someone's own declaration is less. Daizus 10:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether you trust or I trust it is irrelevant. The point is that the formulation presented the alleged Securitate file as if it were evidence that Tismăneanu is mistaken or hisding the truth, which is unacceptable. If the file is suthentified, than we should have "Securitate documents specify that T. traveled to "capitalist countries", which T. denies" (again, a person does not "allege" things about himself, because he is not required to substantiate them like a Kafka character). Let the readers decide who to trust: as long as you specify which stemmed from what source, you have made your point in a neutral formulation. Dahn 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually if it's a personal declaration (a less reliable source) against an official report/scholar study/etc., the claims of the person need to be substantiated by other reliable sources, that's why they are allegations. Let me give you semantic contexts:

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/allege - the example being "alleging his innocence of the charge" (see, a person alleges things about himself)

http://iic.idaho.gov/legal/decisions/2003/jan03/IC-01-520629-01-10-2003-f.htm "He alleged he" occurs twice

http://hometownsource.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=170 "He alleged he" occurs twice

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Sharp "He alleged he" again etc. I'm sure you can find many other instances (I've just searched for "he-alleged-he"). As you can see, the statements about oneself are not granted to be true (when charged or simply in public controversial matters), that's why they can be allegations. As long as statements about oneself are not considered as coming from a reliable source, as they are not granted to be true, I don't see any problem in using this term. Daizus 11:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, to move on, yes I agree Tismaneanu vs Securitate's file must be presented with the decent tone as the file's authenticity is not confirmed. Perhaps for the moment is wise to drop "allegations" from Tismaneanu's side, but if the file will get confirmed then this term can be used with absolutely no problem from the reasons stated above. Daizus 11:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

All those instances refer, from what I can see, to people subject to investigations, who present their case in court. I'm afraid you did not address my point. Dahn 12:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.whistleblowers.org/Govt_Doctors_Get_Whistleblower_Protection.htm is any court case concerning why the man was fired?

http://www.boingboing.net/2004/10/07/_david_beckhams_alle.html is this looking anything similar to a court case, too?

There are 29,600 search results on Google on "he-alleged-he" and 12,400 results on "she-alleged-she", you're free to browse them (or find other similar syntagms to reveal the allegation on oneself as a real issue).

However, you might want to start with the dictionary definition "to allege = to assert something to be true". The court context is optional as you can see, and can be replaced with any other one. Daizus 13:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Both of the cases you cite are allegations involving someone else. Were that document to be verified, it would still be non-specific and not validated by a verdict, not argued in court. My point, again, is the one contained in the current formulation: it gets across the point that the source is official, without implying that it is right. Dahn 14:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Tismaneanu's allegations involve someone else unless you suggest he left abroad completely anonymously in a private jet he piloted himself without even his own mother to find out. In Wikipedia (and not only), the right source is the more reliable source. I've told you since the beginning, an official report is a reliable source, a man's opinion is not. If two sources of different reliability conflict, the text should obviously give weight to the proper source, the more reliable one. Daizus 15:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

That is absurd: the document does not even say when he left the country and where he went. Tismăneanu cites his file, backed by the CNSAS, which does not include approvals! If the facsimile in Ziua is official, it is an account of alleged events that appears to contradict another official source. I see no requirement to favor either of the sources in such an instance, and, in all instances, a formulation like the current gets the point accross without making a claim nobody can vouch for. Also, the comment about private jets et al is irrelevant to this debate, since none of the sources implicate other authorities (I would understand it if the document said "he flew on June 6" and Tismăneanu would say "no, I didn't"). Dahn 15:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, you're taking the document for something it is not. The document is a report, it doesn't have to prove or to give evidence for its claims. If you read the report of the Tismaneanu comission it doesn't give you a full detail analysis or a full presentation of the evidences they reached when the incriminated people or the entire regime. Most reports do not justify themselves. They don't have to. They are authoritative and that is enough. Moreover, the point of the report is not Tismaneanu's tourism so it doesn't even have to give a certain degree of detail on that. The report is a brief biographical file of Tismaneanu and that's it. If the report is authentic it doesn't need other source to confirm it.

The official sources do not contradict each other, as we have only an official source (allegedly authentic) - this facsimile. What Tismeananu invokes as sources are only his allegations (he could have claimed he checked the CIA database for that matter, who cares?)

And the comment on private jets is an answer on the absurd claim the allegations of Tismaneanu traveling or not in other countries do not involve other persons. Daizus 15:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you got both of my points, and that you are continuing this for the sake of argument. It is obvious to me that both of your statements are not replies to the arguments as I have stated them, but as you imagine them. Dahn 15:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just reserving the right to edit Tismaneanu's claims as allegations whether they will get confronted with reliable sources (official reports, scholarship, etc.). Daizus 15:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lica Gheorghiu

If the main source for the claim is Academia Catavencu, then Vintila Barbu is right in removing it. Because I've just checked it and it says only: "Liceul fusese creat, am inteles dupa ani de zile, pentru a aduce laolalta odraslele inaltei nomenclaturi, inainte de toate pe cei trei copii ai Licai Gheorghiu) intr-o zona cit mai apropiata de resedintele familiale. ". Daizus 00:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes,that was an honest mistake on my part (I did not fully read the text, and obviously got the chronology wrong). Dahn 00:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To do

Other sources to use: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Also: these interesting comments and, of course, after an official verdict in a matter, the public apology for a piece of crap that was published by Ziua (and is still casually referenced as a "he said-she said" by this article) (see its variant in English). Btw, interesting to note that Roşca-Stănescu was committed not to publish claims by Mureşan, and indicated that he did not take his qualifications for granted (he also says one of these is not "consultant for the US Republican Party", but "for a firm that works with the US Republican Party"!). As it is, the search for "Dan+Muresan+Republican" on google yields no results related to the person other than Romanian media quoting his open letter! Dahn 01:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore: the fourth source I have cited here is Tismăneanu saying that he did not arrive in the USA in 1985, but in 1982 (he repeats it here); the source that we currently quote is him saying that he was working in Philadelphia in 1983! So says his CV at the Presidency site, so says the one at the Curtea Veche Publishing House. Therefore, when Vintila Barbu posted "1985" without an explanation, he went against the statement of the person he incriminates and used a source he did not bother to check twice (the source says "according to documents", which is very reassuring...). This also makes the opinions of Mureşan highly, highly questionable. Dahn 03:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For the goddamn fifth time, I feel I should point out that the document in question states black on white that, according to the Securitate, Tismăneanu betrayed his country. Yet, Mureşan manages to read in the text that he left "with assistance from the Securitate"! What is he, simple? Afflicted with some sort of peculiar problem in regard to reading skills? Ziua publishes his claim and lets it slide, even though its editor-in-chief found himself in a position to apologize for publishing the same sort of libel in summer! (Never mind that both this inept piece of proof by verbosity and the original reason for Roşca-Stănescu's apology are hosted by the signature of the same journalist, Mr. Vladimir Alexe!) Dahn 04:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I would also like someone to explain to me what the hell is Mr. Alexe trying to say in that paragraph about "Jews only allowed to emigrate to Israel" which was "a rule that Mr. Tismăneanu broke"? Is he reproching to him that he betrayed what Mr. Alexe thinks is the land were all Jews should go? Does Mr. Alexe lecture Mr. Tismăneanu on Zionist patriotism? Is Mr. Alexe really gullible enough to assume that, since Israeli laws say it (do they?) Jews will only emigrate to Israel, where "they are supposed to live for a number of years"? To me, it looks like you have to be really drunk before you start writing such hallucinatory stuff. Dahn 04:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Travel abroad

Dahn made a fine point questioning this "priviledge". Can someone support this allegation? I know plenty of people traveling abroad (mostly in socialist countries from the Eastern Europe, indeed) and I would assume (I have no evidence for it) at most a Party member card would have been necessary (and you could be a Party member even if you weren't part of the propagandistic structures, a simple engineer could be and only presence to important festivities like 23rd of August was required - there were several millions members in the 80s IIRC). Daizus 11:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, a party card was not enough. My mother was a party member and this was not enough. And I'm talking here about visiting Bulgaria, not Yugoslavia or France. Dpotop 11:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

For many people I know (including my parents) yes it was enough. And I'm talking USSR, Czechoslovakia, DDR. Perhaps there were other factors (like "healthy origin" - though some of my family members were in prison in the '50s-'60s, no relatives abroad, "heroine mother" etc.). Daizus 11:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

What's that "heroine mother"? Dpotop 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

A mother with many enough children (I think there was a threshold on three children in the 80s). Obviously if a couple decided to go abroad, having children waiting for them at home was an argument they will come back and not try to run away across the borders (I don't know if their age or their number would have mattered, but if you say your mother didn't succeed to travel abroad though she was a member I can speculate on that, too). Daizus 11:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This being said, I do agree that many people visited foreign countries, especially Warsaw pact countries. However, the fact that he was able to do it means that he was a member of a privileged minority. Dpotop 11:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Because you say so. Dahn 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I remind you that the opening of the fronteers was one of the main points in 1989. You seem to contest it. Dpotop 11:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I remind you that formulating an argument in this way is original research. Furthermore, it is established that you needed approval to cross the border (otherwise, we would not be discussing this), but it is not established that this was for a particular reason. As you may read into the file (authentic or not), he passed Securitate supervision in his travels, a thing which was fairly easy, at least for visits to Eastern Bloc countries (I point you again that, with her atrocious file, Gabriela Adameşteanu was allowed to travel to Poland in 1979). The notion that he traveled anywhere but in the Eastern Bloc is vague and unverified - even if true, it would still have to be contrasted with facts such as Tismăneanu having been denied visas on several occasions (as presented by the CNSAS and implicitly admitted to by Roşca-Stănescu). Basically, if true, Tismăneanu was awarded a rare privilege in relation to other people such as Tismăneanu! Dahn 12:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I simply stated that the facsimile states he travelled abroad. Dpotop 12:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have specified what the big deal is supposed to be, in what I believe is a more neutral wording. Dahn 13:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Permission to travel abroad was a very complex matter, since the usual criteria (administrative position, party membership, etc.) didn’t automatically apply, so that people with apparently “bad files” sometimes could travel in the West, while others with apparently good notes, couldn’t. The passport offices (serviciul paşapoarte) – organized teritorially at judeţ and Bucharest level – had their own standards which didn’t always coincide with what people would have expected. Thus, some anonymous nanny could be allowed to go to Paris while a noted scientist wasn’t allowed to leave Romania not even for Prague. Insofar a rule can be drawn from that intricated reality, in principle:

• to travel abroad was not at all usual (just asking for a passport was subreptitiously regarded as somewhat strange)
• travelling in the East Block was accessible, though considered a favour; one should have had a bad Securitate file in order to be prevented to travel in the East
• travelling in the West was a great privilege; one should have had a good Securitate file in order to be allowed to travel in the West

It should however be noted that the system of travel containment didn’t function flawless, so that unexpected breach could open. Anyway, decisive for being allowed to travel in the West were the criteria of the Securitate, not those of the Party. (Permission consented to a factory director to travel to London was surely due to his good Securitate file, similar permission granted to an anonymous old lady was due to her insignificant position within the system.) Therefore, every case of permission to travel in the West should be individually analysed as for reasons and causes. --Vintila Barbu 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good summary of how things worked. Since this topic is being debated here, it does seem to gain importance beyond the original confines of the specifics of Tismăneanu's travels (or lack thereof). So I have a question/suggestion: how about putting some of this in another article (or even creating a separate article?) about travel between the Eastern Bloc (or perhaps that's too wide, maybe just Romania) and the West, during the Communist period? Not sure how vast or how specific one could/should make such a topic, but anything that would include the summary that Vintila Barbu wrote, in a more chiseled form, would be welcome, in my opinion. And then, coming back to the topic at hand, one could more easily put into context Tismăneanu's situation at the time, if needed. Turgidson 13:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to describe that piece of real life and how it functioned. Problem is, wiki doesn’t allow “original research”. Thus, I should first publish elsewhere an account about how people used (not) to travel in communist Romania in order to quote it here (!!). As for Volo, we know each other for about 35 years. If I wish to add here any info, (which is definitely not the case), I still wouldn’t be allowed since I cannot quote it.--Vintila Barbu 16:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lector"

Dpotop, do you know what the word "lector" means? Dahn 11:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, do you? Dpotop 11:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you see that it and its correct English version refer to academic activity. Therefore, we know that it was in the area of sociology, unless the source would specify that it was not. Dahn 11:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, you don't know what you are talking about. The lecturers (lector) of the party fall in the third category of the definition. It's not their academic rank that made them "lector", but the fact that the party called them to give lectures. Therefore, you don't know on what subjects he gave his conferences. It can very well be marxism-leninism. Dpotop 11:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I never said it was an academic rank, I said it referred to their academic activity. He was giving lectures in areas he had trained in - yes, these included official dogma, but under sociology (and included in a sociological course). As long as he did not lecture in astrophysics or gynecology, your addition was absurd. Dahn 12:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

These lectures were not necessarily on sociology. I know of a mechanical engineer that gave lectures on "civil defence", in which he lacked proper training. :) Moreover, as long as you don't have a source stating that he gave courses in Sociology as a party lecturer, you can't put this info here, per WP:OR (the report itself does not state it). Dpotop 12:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Such theories are the very definition of OR. But, either way, I agree with a version where mention of either "sociology" or "unspecified subjects" is dropped (as pointed by my last edit). Dahn 13:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Some infos about how indoctrination was organized within the Romanian Communist Party:

The basic unit of the party was the “organizaţia de bază” (basic organization) reuniting all party members from a certain workplace (factory, school, institution, etc.). For ordinary party members (some 99% of the aprox. four millions members), “political activity” meant compulsory participation in two monthly meetings:

• “adunarea de partid” – ordinary party meeting, where the duty of the ordinary member consisted in keeping silent and applauding at due moments
• “învăţământul politico-ideologic” (political-ideological education), where a “propagandist” recruited from the actual “organizaţia de bază” hold a so-called lecture, where (s)he read out some propaganda material (s)he previously had received from propaganda higher instances of the party

Those higher instances were territorially organized, e.g. for Bucharest there were Sectors Party Committees (equivalent to a judeţ) and Municipal Party Committee, each with its own propaganda section.

Ordinary “propagandists” from basic organizations were reunited, say monthly, in front of a party lecturer, who told them what to tell the people at the bottom. Being a lecturer of the “Comisia de Propagandă a Comitetului Municipal de Partid Bucureşti” (Propaganda Commisson of the Party Committee of Bucharest) – as Volo Tismăneanu was – meant that he instructed lecturers from the Sector level, who in turn instructed propagandists from basic organizations.

The content of those lectures was strictly and exclusively communist propaganda. "Lecturer of the propaganda Commission" means communist propaganda lecturer. It existed only one higher level of lecturers: Central Committee. Anyway, being a third level propaganda lecturer was a very important and trusting position within the party. I don’t know if it was paid. I suppose it wasn’t. However there were many other privileges in exchange, not to mention the prestige and influence of such a position. --Vintila Barbu 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Source? Dahn 15:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this **** of Tismaneanu can throw crap at everybody, and gets cited here (because it suddenly became citable). At the same time, common knowledgeis rejected (OK under WP:OR), and sources contrary to Tismaneanu are minimized thanks to our new ruler, Dahn. He's probably the only ex-commie with immunity on wikipedia. Dpotop 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Now: sources? Dahn 15:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Diacritics: I still have to wonder

This may seem like I'm hostile, but I really need Dpotop to explain why he still does not use diacritics and waits for the diacritic fairy to come and place them in his contributions. If this is a technical matter, I repeat: scroll down in your editing window with the mouse on the scroll bar (or anywhere outside the text window), and you will notice little clickable letters with all symbols of every conceivable alphabet. In case you still have some reason for not clicking them, at the very least you could do the following: instead of typing "Tismaneanu", copy-paste the word "Tismăneanu", which is already present in the text many, many times! I'm sorry I take up space here, but this is becoming very annoying. Dahn 13:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Wonder is the basis of worship, said the immortal Gambetta... er Thomas Carlyle. Dpotop 14:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ψôṇďèŗ ïŝ ʈḥě Бáʂĭṣ ǒʄ ωöřşĥîρ. Dahn 14:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Who likes facsimile?

This article contains a series of links to photocopies of Tismăneanu's Securitate file. I was researching it to include it as reference, and happened to notice on the latter (see here, third one from the top). It is the contribution of one of Tismăneanu's professors, turned Securitate informant. I shall translate it into English, and we can read it together (the reference is to Tismăneanu himself): "I realized that, as he was attempting to get closer to 'academic' research and teaching, without ever managing [I'm guessing this backs the info on the Presidency site, according to which he was not allowed to research or teach], he accumulated a series of dissatisfactions, which he experienced intensely, becoming an unsatisfied person and supressing his feelings with strokes of aggresivity in regard to the scientific field. An eruption amounting to this, in my opinion, was the brochure he wrote [and] dedicated to the Frankfurt School, published by Editura Politică, where, under the mask of a firm critical analysis and pretentious language, he was actually being apologetic in regard to members of the [S]chool, whom, through biographical data and presentation of their works, he actually popularized inside Romania." There is other stuff in there that ought to be read by some people who are known to engage in edit-and-runs. Dahn 23:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

The story of insatisfaction is confirmed also by his mother in the first photocopy from your link.

But what I find intersting is that his thesis was supposed to be a criticism on the Frankfurt school, therefore probably reeked Leninist ideology all over. After all, this professor expresses his concerns the alleged criticisms from the thesis had a second face - the popularization. Daizus 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is nowhere stated that it was supposed to be critical. We all know that it could not have been objective or reflect the honest beliefs of the person writing the text, in case that person had any other opinions, so let's not engage in sterile arguments about how he was "more communist" than others. What this appears to do is to confirm that officials believed it had a message to be read between the lines. Dahn 23:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

As I see no official confirmation only a professor turning on him. Also the professor stated the apology of Frankfurt school occurred "under the mask of a firm critical analysis" (emphasis mine), therefore his thesis was as much supposed to be openly critical as it was supposed to have a message between the lines. Either you accept a source, or you deny it, don't just pick what it's convenient. Daizus 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: there is no indication that it was supposed to be "critical of", just that it was supposed to be a critical analysis (obviously leaning towards the Marxism-Leninist conclusion - just like any other published book at the time!). Even if you would take that wording to mean "critical of", you would have to theorize that it was also "supposed" to have "pretentious language". As to "picking" from a source, well, you did it just above: you consider objective an opinion about the tone (which you have likely misinterpreted), but not one about the content. Dahn 00:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There's no criticism without an object. If it is a critical analysis of a phenomenon, logically it follows it criticizes also the phenomenon. Your interpretations are flawed due to your faulty grasp of English (probably and Romanian) language and semantics. Daizus 01:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The point is that there is no criticism. If it is a critical analysis of a phenomenon, it follows logically that it analyzes the phenomenon from a critical perspective (negative or positive in its conclusions, but necessarily appraising). The same sense is covered in Romanian, and is prevalent with the term "analiză critică". Just ask Dpotop, he has recently learned about the actual meanings of the word. As for my grasp of whatnot language, I'll let others decide. Dahn 01:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A critical analysis presents strengths and weaknesses (thus criticism, too) from several perspectives assumed by the one who does it. To claim a critical analysis contains no criticism is either ignorance or illwillingness. Daizus 09:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be misrepresenting my point, Daizus. Please point me to where I said that "claim a critical analysis contains no criticism". Please do. Below, you rely on an interpretation of the term "firm", for which you claim ulterior knowledge. You also dismiss the part of my argument where I basically confront you with your failure to distinguish between terms. I repeat: virtually any published work, from any author, took an official position at the time. Do you agree? Yes or no? Dahn 11:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You stated "The point is that there is no criticism.". You have also stated "critical perspective (negative or positive in its conclusions)" while the definition of critical analysis states of negative and positive (as you can see even in the definition you summoned from dexonline.ro). My claim was from start: "critical analysis hence criticism (also)".

As for my allegedly ulterior knowledge, you probably failed to notice that I emphasised "firm critical" (these exact two words) some time ago. So there were two points: a) a critical analysis contains necessarily criticism (can be somehow else too, but if it doesn't contain criticism is no longer a critical analysis but an apologetics or whatever else) b) Tismaneanu's critical analysis comes from an official (firm) position, therefore his criticism was obviously coming from the official ideology (and consequently had to be against Frankfurt school, at least to a degree) Daizus 11:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"There's no criticism" is in strict reply to your "There's no criticism without an object" - I should have perhaps phrased it as "there is not even clear mention of criticism". From the rest of replies, you can gather my full point, and your above reply indicates that you have. "Negative or positive in its conclusions" is synonymous with "negative and positive in its conclusions" - I placed emphasis on several possible conclusions, meaning to indicate that it is perfectly within the definition for a work to have entirely positive or entirely negative conclusions, but that "critical" simply means that it is meant to assess ("but necessarily appraising" was the sentence immediately after the one you fished from its context), whatever the result of that assessment may be. I am to understand that we agree on your point a), which is one half of the debate over (the one where you started arguing that the wording states have been critical in tone). For the rest: we already knew that it was, at least partly, critical in tone (see my comment about the "panegyric"). You have, nevertheless, amassed no proof for the statement "reeking with Leninist cliches", which is what I was debating. Furthermore, I called on you to answer whether dose of Marxism-Leninism and support for various official theories were not required from virtually any published work (at least in Human Studies). The work cited is, apparently, the man's PhD thesis, which I'm sure was meant to comply with all official requirements! Instead, you call my attention to having italicized a sequence of words, but: (1) only below did you come up with a theory on a supposed jargon; (2) you have interpreted it against grammar ("firm critical analysis"/"analiză critică fermă" is not the same as "firmly critical analysis"/"analiză ferm critică", and "firm" would thus have the sense "clear-cut", "precise", not explicitly connected with any official requirement). Dahn 11:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeatedly mentioned I don't care if those people believed in propaganda or had to write propaganda. I don't question (yet) intentions, but facts. And the facts are within written material. So I'm not following you there, stop trying.

Your <<"Negative or positive in its conclusions" is synonymous with "negative and positive in its conclusions">> is absurdly funny. Basically you take the same sentence and replace an "and" with an "or" (a conjunction with a disjunction if you have a little basis in maths or logic). If you can't make the difference between an "and and an "or" you disqualify yourself as an intelligent contributor, not only in this little debate with me. You can claim "brick" is synonymous with "flower" - it won't get so if you claim so.

Also you still fail to acknowledge that a critical analysis is necessarily (also) a criticism. I hope you're just joking when you talk about "Analiza ferm critica" and other such absurdities because we have the original in Romanian and is "analize critice ferme" (in genitive and "firm" is an adjective of the noun "analysis", this is how it I regarded it and I don't know about what you're talking about)

I've also brought evidences for my alleged "reekness" and I see absolutely no reason to keep debating this issue with a person obviously lacking common sense in logic, semantics, knowledge in the topic and the decency to concede when his arguments are over. Your ineptitude is not my problem and I granted you enough of my time and knowledge to absolutely no valueable conclusion. Daizus 12:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that we are both looking at the same facts, and not bringing in stuff from whatever secret garden we may keep, you have cited no proof for the works being either propaganda or even especially Marxist-Leninist. I don't care what you care about in this respect: the issue of debate was not "how that makes us feel", but always the fact that there is no clear, reasonable argument about them being "propaganda", for as good or bad as propaganda may be! The only argument you pretend is clear-cut is your interpretation of the word "ferm"/"firm", and, given the fact that you are aware of what the term is in Romanian, you should also have the honesty to admit that the mention is vague, and that the meaning you ascribe it is not to be presumed.

No that is not my only argument. My argument is a Securitate file where a professor grows worried that what he thought to be a firm critical analysis proves to be popularization of ideas. This sentence makes sense both in Romanian and English and the only semantical insight on the word "firm" was the correlation with the official ideology (a correlation you refused to make anyway). Even without the epithet "firm", any honest reader can see from the opposition between "popularization" and "critical analysis", the latter was supposed to have a significant dose of criticism. I was ready to follow AGF policy until your repeatedly disruptions proved me you're not among those honest readers. Daizus 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, your interpretation of the word is your only argument. Dahn 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you would kindly read the entire argument I made about the "and/or" issue, including the explanation I give as to why that is in this context. I will repeat it: a critical analysis is defined by its method, not by its conclusions; therefore, its definition as "critical" gives it the liberty to be anything between a magnificent praise and a vitriolic sermon ("expressing criticism or expressing praise"), including all other variations ("expressing criticism and expressing praise"). This obviously means that the only indication that we have is that it used a "critical method" (ie: one based on appraisal), and nothing about its supposed conclusions, outside your contrived interpretation of the word "firm".

"And" and "or" are never synonyms, in no context. If you speak other languages than English, if you use other concepts than normal people, please let me know (next time, when we'll conflict on other issues). The rest of arguments gets invalid starting from an invalid premise. Daizus 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I have not said that the two words are synonyms, but that the two sentences in which they are included have the exact same meaning in this context (or, to make it even clearer, that the formal difference between them is irrelevant for what we were discussing). You refuse to make note of the fact that your variant was included in mine. Dahn 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid the issue is quite simple, so it must mean that you wasted your own time on your own ineptitude. Dahn 13:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

If you try to be witty stop parroting. It makes you look worse than you really are.

I guess you have proven once more you have nothing more to say to me. I suggest you to do not waste your time in writing another reply here because you won't get one from me (though you may want to have your last word to feed your ego). Daizus 13:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad hominem, but I got used to such replies. Dahn 14:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I note that you have added an "also" to your original "it criticizes the phenomenon" (btw, not in the proper place for the meaning you intended - the sentence "it criticizes also the phenomenon" is ungrammatical). Supposedly, that means you admit that the word does not rely on "expressing criticism of", but on "weighing things". The conclusion you consequently rely on is pretentious enough to be spurious: you are basically telling me that all text that is critical in the least bit about Autonomism/the New Left/the Frankfurt School is not only "official", not only "propaganda", but also necessarily "Leninist". In fact, nothing short of a panegyric for either of the currents would prove "not be Leninist" - of course, a panegyric could never have been published, but I'm guessing you assume Tismăneanu should have tried anyway... Dahn 01:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added an "also" simply because a critical analysis can contain more than simply criticism. Your suppositions are wrong because they are straw men, so there's nothing to discuss.

I've continued my earlier idea that a conclusion praising Marxist-Leninist doctrine it should have been supported much more heavily in the text. Moreover, the exact syntagm is "firm critical analysis" and coming from a professor apparently faithful to the regime suggest the critical position of Tismaneanu in that thesis was (supposedly, as the professor doubted it later when he gave the report to Securitate) coming from the official ideological POV which was essentially Marxist-Leninist (though the current denomination was rather "scientific socialism"). You may have not read much propaganda materials written back then, the epithet "firm" (in Romanian "ferm/ferma") was heavily abused to denote the steadiness and the absolute truthness of "scientific socialism" and its core values and concepts. A "firm critical analysis" was performed not only to Frankfurt schools, but also to Capitalism and all the values and concepts incompatible with the official ideology. Afterall, Gaetan reported this thesis to be a "vitriolic sermon". He might have been overreacting, but this again supports my idea, the "firm critical analysis" certainly differentiated between the "decadent Western values" and praised the "glorious socialist society" (of course, led by the revolutionary party.

As for my grammar, I've made much worse mistakes, even in debates with you (though even in English word order changes are not always grammar mistakes, they can be literary 'licenses' ;) ) Coming from you while you're unable to make proper arguments, they are simply cheap attempts of scoring. Daizus 09:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's all clear now that you say you have a deeper understanding, one which allows you to uncover hidden meanings in words used. Why did you not say so earlier? Dahn 10:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I would trust Gaetan to give me insights on the book when he gets its title right. Dahn 11:11, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thesis?

The Presidency site indicates that his PhD thesis carried the title Teoria Critică a Şcolii de la Frankfurt şi radicalismul de stînga contemporan, and that it was presented in 1980. The current text cites it among his works, under the title Noua Stângă şi Şcoala de la Frankfurt, indicating that it was published in 1976! Having checked Gaetan's article, I note that he does not specify the title, but backs 1976 as the date. The three sources who claim it are highly questionable and not subject to review Tricolorul, AlterMedia, and a site maintained by Pavel Coruţ (with various mirrors and related blogs); they are all anti-Tismăneanu and appear to quote each other. Dahn 12:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Just found confirmation: [13]. Interesting read. Dahn 12:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Tismaneanu, Vladimir (1976): Noua stânga şi Şcoala de la Frankfurt (The New Left and the Frankfurt School), Bucharest, Editura Politică Hey, hey, hey! How come this guy doesn't use diacritics for Tismăneanu's name, though he uses diacritics everywhere else? I smell a conspiracy there! C'mon, guys, lighten up a little. The whole debate about this man is getting to be too tense, and convoluted. Is he really such a big deal to warrant such a long and intricate discussion? I've tried to follow the back-and-forth arguments on this page, but after a while I got lost. Anyone cares to offer a recap of where things stand, and what's still controversial, and what is settled (more-or-less)? Thanks. Turgidson 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, this guy is not that interesting by itself, but by what he represents. Just like various journalists, I see him as an attempt by the Presidency (Basescu) to give an appearance of respectability to some very dirty political moves. If you read the "Controversy" sections of this article and the one on the Tismaneanu commission, you will see that nobody really dares to question the condemnation of the Communist regime. Instead, they say it could have been done better, by people with better credentials, and maybe without conclusions mapping in such a transparent way some short-term political interests of the Presidency. Yes, Dahn, all this post qualifies as original research. Dpotop 13:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you can post whatever you want on the talk page. Dahn 23:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For '76 - '80 debate I think there could be an much more reasonable explanation. Many scholars have studies/books on the same theme as their PhD (having the same title or just a similar title). So there could be actually a published material (in '76) and a PhD thesis (in '80), different persons refering to one or another. Daizus 13:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Liiceanu's alleged endorsement

Liiceanu's criticism on Tismaneanu was on moral incompatibility (see Lavric's article). Until there's no statement to retreat that, the claim of "full endorsement" is simply false. He might agree with the identification of Communist crimes in an official report given by an appointed Comission, but he may keep opposing the fact this Commission is led by Tismaneanu. And I don't think the point of the article is the support for the Commision (itself), but about Tismaneanu's role. Daizus 14:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dahn seems to lose his temper and ask for templates. Well, here they come !!!! Daizus 14:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In what way is "gave full endorsement to the final report" inaccurate?! Here is Popescu: "Textul lui Băsescu poate fi contestat de oricine în mod civilizat. Este absurd să susţii, aşa cum a făcut Gabriel Liiceanu luat de val, ca fiind critic faţă de Băsescu şi discursul lui te alături în mod obligatoriu lui C.V. Tudor şi faci parte dintr-un partid anti-Băsescu." Dahn 14:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you quote it to me and you're not reading it yourself. On this topic you may want to re-read Lavric's article on Liiceanu, Vadim and Tismaneanu because it discusses the same thing.

Until you can't bring proper evidence Liiceanu fully supports the Commission as it is (with Tismaneanu leading it), your addition is a POV expressed in dubious words and with a questionable relevance to the article. Daizus 14:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

He was invited by Băsescu to attend the reading. He was cursed at by Vadim. Popescu interpreted his attitude, expressed by Liiceanu after the events, to mean that anybody opposing Băsescu was supporting Vadim. This means precisely what I indicated: that he gave full support to the report (also in Fati: "Raportul Tismaneanu este sustinut mai mult de reprezentantii elitei intelectuale [including Liiceanu, as mentioned in her previous lines], singurii care par intr-adevar motivati sa condamne regimul comunist ca fiind „ilegitim si criminal“, decit de politicienii care se declara de centru-dreapta si care fie nu inteleg importanta momentului, fie nu au argumente pentru a-si exprima punctele de vedere"). This has relevancy here, if only to point out that Liiceanu supported the Commission itself and its conclusions. It cannot be stated clearer. Dahn 14:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Full support" are your weasel words. Nobody mentions "full support". Lavric commented on a similar thing as Popescu and reached this another conclusion expressed as such: Non idem est si duo dicunt idem.

Anyway, let's put it simple for you: Bring quotes on "full support" or remove the info. Keep the info without proper quotes and I'll keep my templates. Daizus 14:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Lavric wrote in October and Popescu just after the report was released. If I read it correctly, Lavric did not comment on the same thing, but made his own investigations into what the possible, and not explicit, connection between Vadim and Liiceanu may be. On the other hand, Popescu indicated that Liiceanu (who got "carried away") endorsed Băsescu to the point where he explicitly equated attacks on Băsescu/Tismăneanu with support for Vadim! Dahn 15:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've said "similar thing" not "same thing". Lavric observation is still on: attacking one side, it doesn't mean full support for the opposite side. I've also completed the info on Liiceanu to show all along he would have supported a report against Communism, only Tismaneanu as an ex-propagandist of Communism was an issue. Daizus 15:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, Daizus: "gave full endorsement to the final report" is not "full support for the opposite side". Your edits were an arguably better phrased way of saying the same thing. Dahn 15:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had the impression you conditioned Liiceanu's "full support" just because he was against Vadim. Anyway, I'm glad at least occasionally we agree. Daizus 15:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, do you make note of the fact that the original version said "gave full endorsement to the final report"? It would be beneficial for civilized relations between two editors if you take that into account. Dahn 15:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I still believe that is not supported because the "final report" is the report of a Comission led by Tismaneanu and we know at least Liiceanu opposed Tismaneanu leading this commision, while we also know he supported all along a report to incriminate Communism. So he would endorse such a report, he might have given full endorsement to a similar (perhaps not identical) report created by another Commission, but I believe it's a bit outstretched to say he gave full endorsement to this report, to the final report as you named it. I hope I made myself clear. Daizus 15:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I find your argument exceptionally contrived, I suppose it ultimately doesn't matter, since we have reached a consensus on the text. I will add, though, that it is a bit outstretched to use tags for something you find "a bit outstretched". Dahn 22:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A "bit oustretched" on a living person may be dangerously outstretched. Moreover, Liiceanu's page on Wiki is a bit larger than a stub and his public image depends heavily on these "bits". Daizus 08:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Some aspects from the internal life of the Romanian Communist Party

I relocated the discussion from above, since it seem to present some interest--Vintila Barbu 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, some I know as ex-party members worked 8-10 hours a day and in weekends they were usually at home, sleeping or playing with the kids. I also remember party members in vacations 3-4 weeks long (but true, never or let's say seldom over 23rd August). My view can be distorted, can you tell more about these monthly meetings? Where they were held? In what day? How many hours did the last? etc. Daizus 15:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, the monthly ordinary party meeting (adunarea de partid) was planned by the "biroul organizatiei de baza" (the leading commission of the base organization) which comprised some impair number of persons (7, 9, 13) among whom the leaders of the institution (practically, you couldn’t lead the least unit unless you weren’t party member). Thus, those who scheduled the party meetings were the very leaders of the unit. Since in communism productivity didn’t actually count, there was never a problem to stop the work for organizing a party meeting. Besides, the number of party members in a certain unit (factory, hospital editing house, whatever) rarely exceeded some 20% of the employees, so that it always remained someone to continue the activity. Such a monthly meeting rarely exceeded 2 hours and took place in some hall, room, etc. What was discussed: 1. directives/propaganda from the higher instances – they always were abstract, briefly presented and of minimal importance for the people (e.g.: why shouldn’t amies deploy middle range missiles in Europe or what for marvellous things achieved Ceauşescu in the last month); 2. activity of the unit ( a new faculty dean should be “elected”, how much steel should produce our factory, etc); 3. personnel and interpersonal issues (most important for people), like, say, assistant professor sleeps with student, or who should be promoted as lead of the research section, etc. --Vintila Barbu 16:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

From what you're saying they were meetings also for management and planning but also for propaganda, which makes it more verosimile. Anyway, from what I've heard, and also generalizing from the examples I've lived (I was in school in those days), I had the impresions these "Adunari de partid" (and other meetings where propaganda was delivered to members of the Communist organizations) were much less seriously taken and sometimes (if not often) the presence was incomplete, the members of the organizations (PCR, UTC etc.) motivating various reasons for their absence. In the light of your new details (and again generalizing from my experience) it seems probable even the propagandistic content delivered in such a meeting was not constantly the same, the leadership of an institution (you are perfectly right on the correlation between membership and hierarchy) could have focused not on delivering the ideological message (in which most of the people anyway didnt believe) but on solving their problems and then calling the meeting off.

So let's say in theory it maybe worked as you said, in practice the involvement of all party members (and more, the members of all Communist organizations like UTC, Soimii Patriei, etc.) in propaganda and indoctrination was significantly less. Daizus 16:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It is beyond any doubt that propaganda and indoctrination had negligible results…At least this is what we believed, in those days. Now, after all these years, I am forced to refine what proved to be more of wishful thinking than of lucid analysis: like everywhere, effects of propaganda and indoctrination were inversely proportional to education. Living embedded in our autarchic intellectual milieus, we developed the certitude that such an absurd and unreal discourse like those of the communist propaganda couldn’t reach anybody, since it was far below any threshold of common sense. Recent history has taught us a better lesson. Now, returning to the “party meetings”, yes, of course, they were but a masquerade and I still persist believing that in a factory or among the most modest peasants, things were not perceived otherwise. It was but this PR-technique of mixing chunks of propaganda with portions of real life (mostly the management of interpersonal relationships) which made the party meetings somehow swallowable. As for the absenteeism, this depended on the individual’s capacity of avoidance. However, as far as I know, party members were severely penalized for absenting those meetings. As for the degree of indoctrination, I cannot prevent the feeling that it was not only a function of education, but one of generation as well. I think that older generations, which were less exposed to modern methods and instruments of mass propaganda kept less indoctrinated than newer generations, prone to and victims of mass propaganda.--Vintila Barbu 17:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've gathered several more opinions and it seems the people remember skipping party meetings was not that serious and I've heard only of one case of punitive measures (though I couldn't get a confirmation that measure was legitimate, or it was simply an abuse). Someone even remembered in amusement that he skipped several festivities on National Day invoking various reasons (illness, funeral, etc.). Also it seems the amount of ideological indoctrination and the mandatory presence of all party members at these meetings varied between individuals, institutions, towns, perhaps even education. If the presence of someone was not required as part of the work and if his superiors were openminded, or tolerant to a degree, more than likely he could have skipped some meetings with no problems.

An interesting account was of someone remembering that propaganda in the 60s was much more consistent than the one in the 80s (but I couldn't get a confirmation in the 60s the propaganda was consitent in all environments: urban/rural, high education/low education, etc.). These are just opinions, perceptions, POVs of some people. It would be very interesting a real study, but I doubt anytime soon this will happen. Daizus 22:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now, like every compelling system, communism created certain ritualism. Meetings were essential parts of the rituals, there was however a certain hierarchy: not every meeting required/organized by the party was a “party meeting” (adunare de partid). The last was the very manifestation of the internal party life, hence very important, while occasionally or anniversary meetings were not as important as this. Skiving an “adunare de partid” in the sense of an ordinary monthly party meeting, was, as far as I know, quite a capital sin. Skipping the 23rd August manifestation or any other masquerade of the kind, though reprimanded, was ultimately not seen as a severe derailment. I, for one, never took part in such things. You’re perfectly right as the diversity of forms and requirements of the party life, according to milieu. The diversity was even higher than one may guess: experiences as a party member could be fundamentally different if you were working in a research institute of the Academy or at Fabrica de Rulmenţi Bârlad. Indoctrination as well. Nevertheless, the “adunarea de partid” (I mean the ordinary monthly party meeting) was the venue for many forms of collective life (gossip, intrigues, power struggle, any other thinkable interpersonal interactions). It was a method, for the party, to channel and control organizational life. As for in what epoch the propaganda was more consistent, I can offer you but my own recalls: in the 1950s we felt direct fear of direct physical threat like sudden imprisonment, which could happen everywhere and at any time. Things were simple. On the other hand, except that omnipresent physical terror, you didn’t feel invaded as individual. Twenty years later, things became more subtle: it was very improbable to be arrested without any apparent reason, however “they” were everywhere, more insidious and omnipresent than in the good old times of the Stalinist terror.--Vintila Barbu 15:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Fake info

This assertion appears in the article:

“The same work was nonetheless cited as evidence that Tismăneanu was "a liberal student of Euro-Marxism" by University of Bucharest professor Daniel Barbu (who contrasted its author with the official ideological background, as one of "some outstanding authors").[10]”

Now, let’s see what is said in the quote:

“Some outstanding authors, however, did emerge from, if not against, this background. In the long run, the most influential of them in terms of the discipline turned out to be Vladimir Tismăneanu. Unsurprisingly, he started in Romania as a liberal student of Euro-Marxism (Tismaneanu, 1976), to later become, once reborn as an American political scientist, a scholar of civil society in Central and Eastern Europe (Tismaneanu, 1991) and a stern critic of anti-liberal and radical intellectual and political trends in the region (Tismaneanu, 1998). In the 1990s, he served as a role model and mentor for numerous Romanian political scientists.”

As anyone can see, there is absolutely no mention in the quote of whatever the fragment alleges.The fragment in the article is a fake information, a fabrication. --Vintila Barbu 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I see in that quote the following: "he (Tismaneanu) started in Romania as a liberal student of Euro-Marxism (Tismaneanu, 1976)". That means the work was used as evidence (as proven by the reference T. 1976). The characterization of T. is "liberal student of Euro-Marxism" as the article claims. Daniel Barbu is a professor of University of Bucharest (you can check unibuc.ro). The constrat is also justified by the emergence of these "outstanding authors" out of the background in question. Perhaps you can improve phrasing, but I think the Wiki material reflects accurately enough the quoted source. Daizus 16:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK --Vintila Barbu 16:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant bio details

What relevance for the reader do have following infos about VT?

• he travelled to Spain shortly after the death of his father
• he accompanied his mother during this travel
• mother’s name is Hermina Tismăneanu (actually already mentioned; once should be enough)
• mother’s intention was to visit places where she and her husband had fought as young people
• mother returned to Romania

All these details are of no relevance when presenting Tismaneanu in WP--Vintila Barbu 16:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a biographical article, and they have all the relevancy in the world. Check to see Featured Articles for comparison. Also, they are the setting for his defection, which is in itself an extremely relevant event in someone's life. As for the details of it: he was allowed to travel because of the death of his father (per his mother's request to revisit the place, as indicated in full); his mother returned, while he stayed (it is also indicated in the text that he stated his mother was subject to Securitate pressures - the reader would utterly confused if it is not made clear that she had returned). By the way, her name is not previously given as "Hermina Tismăneanu", but as "Hermina Marcusohn", making the point about "repetition" untenable; I pay some attention to style when I edit things in - you may not, and thus failed to notice that the alternative was using the word "mother" ad nauseam; I also gave her full name since using just "Hermina" is a bit below the standards of an article. Any more questions? Dahn 21:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

...which nobody can deny

• ...that the relevance of certain information is disputed
• ...that the article reflects the views of an editor against the views of the majority

Hence, the tags. --Vintila Barbu 17:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I find in this article three major problems:

• The introduction is biased, portraying Tismaneanu as a scholar, not as a communist party activist who after being sidelined in Romania and emigrating has slowly addapted to the realities of the world: people are against communism, and communism as a system is doomed.
• The section Controvercy is written almost like a super-specialized text. I am Romanian, have read many times about these people, and still I have hard time following who said what and acted how. Imagine a person who does not know much about Romania and communism. The only impression he/she will get will be that there is a polemic that is impossible to sort out. And that's exactly the problem: essetials are hidden in details so as to portray Tirmaneanu and his critics on equal footing. A outside reader would conclude, maybe one is right, maybe the other, only it is a very messy situation, and there is nothing standing out. But there is a lot there to stand out: CNSAS had published Tismaneanu dossier showing he was a Securitate colaborator.
• Let me cite the follwing HIGHLY BIASED portion from the present verstion of the article:

An extended polemic was sparked between the Tismăneanu Commission and the dissident writer Paul Goma. Goma, who initially accepted an invitation to Commission membership as issued by Tismăneanu himself,[17] claims to have been excluded after a short while by "the self-styled 'eminent members of civil society'".[18] According to Tismăneanu, this happened only after Goma engaged in and publicized personal attacks aimed at other Commission members, allegedly calling Tismăneanu "a Bolshevik offspring",[8] based on his family history;

Now, please read Paul Goma's account that the only thing he has got was 2 emails asking whether in principle he might participate in the working of such a commission. As a normal person, Paul Goma replied that yes, if such a commission would be formed according to moral principles and indeed for the declared aim, he would participate. Tismaneanu, took it as an official endorsement by the most outspoken Romanian dissident, hence providing him the outmost autority: how can an ordinary Romanian critisize the workings of the Tismaneanu comission when even Goma has approved it! Here are "Goma's endorsements":

În unul din mesajele trimise în 10 aprilie a. c. V. Tismăneanu îmi explica din capul locului: “Rolul Dvs: (…) Nu trebue sa scrie[t]i: ati scris ce trebuia scris”.

Goma's protest followed after this. In return Tismaneanu, used the fact that Goma mentioned in these protests that he is the son of a former high communist official to sideline Goma as "biased towards people who are not responsible for their parents politicsl views".

What does the current version of the article does? Messes up things so that if not to white-wash Tismaneanu completely, at least to bring serious doubt about Goma. Goma is known to have political view to the right of the center. It is very easy for an editor to portray Goma, using this messing-up-facts tactics, to an outside reader as an extremist nationalist. This is the classical tactics of the communist regime: put tags to dissidents so as to shut them up. This is going on on Wikipedia!!!

Just another example: Goma used the expression eminent members of civil society because he criticized ceveral things in the same letter addressed to president Basescu. The current version of the article leaves the reader with the impression that Tismaneanu is a respectable member of the civil society and Goma is some rogue hard-headed extremist! Tell me if this does not remind you of before 1989!!!

In conclusion, I suggest:

1. To rewrite the introduction
2. To separate the section "Controvercy" into 3 sections:

• The Tismaneanu Commission
• Tismaneanu's Securitate dossier
• Controversy

Dc76 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The main problem is Tismaneanu does not fully acknowledges his Communist past (many of his earlier writings we've found out from press, instead from his profiles, his declarations, his books). So if you want to stick with the image Tismaneanu (and his friends or scholars whose respect he earned in US) promote, this is how the article would look. He is a scholar with a very thin Communist past because he wants to be seen that way. I don't think is much we can do, and anyway here you have to learn the bitter lesson of "verifiability not truth". So even if you knew personally Tismaneanu, until that information won't go public in a reputable source it values nothing on Wiki.

As for Goma, (funny, some minutes ago I've wrote on the same problem), you see, Dc76, when some days ago in his own Wiki page Goma was presented as Holocaust denier (not alleged, not viewed by others, right as one), Dahn initially reverted my edits to keep him as such (while here he contests all the labels on Tismaneanu and rephrases in such a way to be as relative as they can be) and only after a small struggle he conceded (and I thank him for that). At the same time I had incredibly long matches with him here for few words. I don't want to imagine what it takes to change that paragraph on Goma. Daizus 22:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I am too young to know Tismaneanu. Before verifiability the article must have clarity. The first section is more or less clear. But in the second - I don't understand almost anything from reading it. Only from knowing some of this stuff I can sort a little out. Imagine a non-Romanian who never heard his name. We are not negociating here between countries, I give you that, you give me this. It is perfectly all right to say "X sayd in 1990 that Tismaneanu is a specialist in Y" and "Z claimed in 2005 that Tismaneanu is a former activis/colaborator of W" But the article does not do that. It uses tons of weasel words and editor comments which are practically original research, so that the meaning of each citation is lost. The issue of Securitate dossier is totally separate from the commission. Why are they messed up in a single hard to read text? :Dc76 22:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I've suggested, those are the results of endless relativizations and compilations of sources (which as you say, finally they enter under the coverage of WP:OR policy). I have no problem reading them because a large part of them I saw it building and I have read many of the newspaper articles sourcing them several times each. But now as you mention it, I realize it can be quite hard to be read by the casual reader. If Dahn subscribes to some serious redesign/rephrasings, we may divide the work between us and give a new face to the article much faster. We'll see ... Daizus 22:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That's constructive. Well, hopefully you and him will do it.:Dc76 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Dahn has strong POV on this issue, but despite that he has the full ability to distinguish right from wrong, fit from not fit. The question is, does he want to do it.:Dc76 23:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. (not related to this article) By the way, Goma is not a Holocaust denier. He claims some Jews (the pro-Soviet Communist activists) have desearved it. Calling Goma a Holocaust denier just becuase of that oppionion of his is like if you fail a student, and someone blames you of not promitting students' interest in studying. Unfortunately, some people who have something unclean from communist past, don't want to believe that the vast majority of people, including the vast majority of Jews, were honest. Jew is not a synonim to communist. If you give me the example of 1000 communist Jews I will only conclude that those particular 1000 people were bad. I know dosens (out dosens plus 1-2) of Jews who are as anti-communist as you and me. And I know sufficiently many communists who have zero Jewish blood if you go 500 years back. This is black and white, every common sense person understands that black does not mean slave, jew does not mean communist, german does not mean organized, etc etc If I say that many germans were nazies, am I anti-German? 99% of germans have not been! Goma is passionate, he is very critical of communists and he does not sway away from saying that many of them were jews. But he does not say that there were no killings of inocent jews. The disproportionate percentage of jews among communists has a clear social reason: they did not have a country, they lived in a europe where people were more and more proud of their nation, and they had none of their own. 99% found the normal way out of this situation, and built a prosperous exemplary country, or are excellent people in countries like US (I have met a lot of jews in US, and I never saw one who was communist. They are mostly democrats, but I even met republican jews). If 1% found the wrong way and became communist activists, the other 99% have nothing to be responsible for. Punishing them is punishing relatives for ones mistakes. That is simply savage. Most of the jews killed had nothing to do with communism. They were inocent people, and killing them was a big crime. But, please, don't tell me that the 1% were angels. They were as criminals as the 1% of germans who were nazis. I might be wrong about numbers, maybe it's not 1:1, maybe it's even 1:3, but the idea is judge the person. :Dc76 23:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I cannot believe I'm reading all this. It is crying out to Heaven that somebody will allow himself or herself to sink as low as to invoke such arguments. (I should also note that all these accusations surfaced much after the tags where placed, and that this users are having a field day testing me with new and intricate pretensions and tantrums.)

First of all, all the above is incoherent. Is it a concern that the lead portrays him as a scholar?! Based on what? On what one side of the debate has had the energy to allege about the man? He is a scholar. Bottom line. The other side of the argument, if at all relevant to this point, is contended, is the controversy itself. As you may plainly see anywhere, Tismăneanu is regarded as a scholar by his peers, at home and abroad. He trained as such, no matter what theory you advance to question his training (let me add an emphasis: you advance, not even the "sources" you "quote").

As for Goma, as sick of his involvement in the matter as I became: Goma did not say anywhere that he received only an e-mail, just that he received an e-mail and that he considered it enough.[14] He praised to Commission at length, and had nothing to say about its president at the time. The reference to "eminent members of the civil society" does not even refer to Tismăneanu, but to people who took a stand against members of the board. It is utterly embarrassing to say that "it leaves people with the impression that T. is an eminent member of civil society", and only a person who cannot read a sentence all the way through can say that Goma is quoted to endorse "that idea". Aside from the fact that, irrelevant to your POV, a man may just be a member of civil society (and an eminent one at it), what Goma is actually quoted saying is that those people where "self-styled members of the civil society". Do you understand the word "self-styled"? No? Then pick up a goddamn dictionary. As for the whole can of worms on his attitudes towards the Holocaust: all that fallacious diatribe about his opinions is irrelevant; the only reason why these are cited here is because Goma has argued that Tismăneanu sided with his critics on this issue, in the exact chronology given in the article. Nobody gives a shit if some editor thinks that the article depicts Goma as a denier or an extremist nationalist - the only point made by the article is that a group of persons argued that he was, and Goma's allegations about T. originated in the fact that he believed T. to be implicated in this! One should not bother with arguments such as this one from Vintila Barbu - none of us is around to feed, clothe, and tell fairy tales to other users, so what they dream about at night is no reasonable concern for a reasonable person.

The various accusation regarding, on one side, a "communist POV" - which I find an extremely grave one, and will ask for sanctioning on the basis of it -, and, on the other, of "original research" - based on the fact that I gave all sides equal footing -, coupled with the abhorrence according to which I had used "weasel words", are bewildering. You felt at liberty to libel Tismăneanu, now you feel at liberty to libel me! The very fact that some guy, some person who has already went to market on my reputation by composing a sinister sophistry and a lump in wikipedia's throat according to which I am "anti-Moldavian", that this troll allows himself to discuss my good intentions and my ability to discern right from wrong is dystopian. As for the speculations about legibility and context (the latter of which was actually meant as an invitation to original research), I'll take them from someone neutral and who makes use of basic logic.

This article has by now attracted a tight group of POV-pushers with no understanding of wikipedia norms. It would take a competent and well-meaning person to verify how much of the templates is justified by reality, and how much by various fantasies and frustrations. It is not the first time that I have to stand all alone for the decency of NPOV, and, given the current trend, it is far from the last.

No actual charge or evidence was brought against me and my editing style. Nobody could seriously cite a wikipedia guideline that the current text breaks, and nobody could cite that anything in the text has added my own perspective (let me add, unlike various contributions from all my detractors). Instead, there is propaganda, there is speculation, there is libel, there is logical fallacy, there is scapegoating. Therein is the consecrated status of the average Romanian wikipedian, which all reliable contributors from other countries tend to avoid. What could I possibly say in return?

I'm pretty sure that the reply to this will be more inane accusations and theories about my supposed POV. What I will ask is: no matter what you post, do not intertwine your reply in this message - one of you has shown me how to use that as a way to manipulate a point. As for me, I will never ever ever reply to such straw men again, so at least change the chorus. Dahn 09:32, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah Dahn, everybody else is a POV pusher, you're the guardian of truth. Shame on them all and praise to you! Daizus 10:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you Wiki is built on consensus. If you're unable to estabilish one or be part of one, you can rant all you want, you're simply not right in what you're claiming.

And for the time I couldn't read (and understand) your entire reply. It's much too incoherent. If you have anything interesting to say, you may take it with one at a time and with some more patience and considering more of your opponents. WP:AGF, Mr. Policy-Treader. Daizus 10:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Ad nauseam. Dahn 10:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this is important to note, in answer to an unbelievable statement above ("But there is a lot there to stand out: CNSAS had published Tismaneanu dossier showing he was a Securitate colaborator"): the CNSAS rejected all notion that he was a Securitate collaborator, as explicitly as possible. [15] [16] [17]. This was admitted to by the press who published the original allegation, accompanied by an apology [18]. Furthermore, the alternative statements made by Ziua regarding his other file, which was reportedly issued in 1987, themselves make no such claim. This latter file is not backed by any official source. Also noted in the CNSAS file is the fact that he was actually a target for the Securitate (see facsimiles published here). All of this is currently detailed in the article, and it takes a lot of nerve to ignore that. In fact, that file cited by Ziua clearly describes Tismăneanu's failure to return from his trip to Spain as "betrayal of one's country", which should in itself silence all irksome speculations about the matter. Dahn 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Discreete discrimination vs. occult privileges: doctoral titles in communist Romania

This is a modest attempt to provide further first-hand information about some aspects of the life in communist Romania. Feel free to use this information as you please.

Discriminatory access to education ranked among the instruments of the “class struggle” in communist Romania. After the coming into effect of the education system reform in 1948, differential education taxes have been established according to the social origin of the students. This led to the situation of many tens thousands students being expelled from the university, not being able to pay exorbitant tuition fees imposed on them as belonging to capitalist classes. Ironically, after the nationalisation of the entire economy at 11th June 1948, there were no capitalists left in Romania, nevertheless their offspring had to pay enormous tuition fees.

It was the local administration (Sfatul Popular) which delivered certificates of social origin for students. Actually, everyone not being of labour or peasant origin received a certificate assigning him a capitalist social origin (usually and officially called unhealthy origin).

These measures excluded from higher education entire portions of some generations up to the mid 1950s, as the tuition fees system has been abandoned in favour of the so-called recommendation for university. This was compulsory for accessing the university, being delivered by the last institution where the student had been registered (high school, work). This new system maintained the control over the access into the universities and exerted a huge pressure upon the young generation.

Gradually, the access system loosened, certain faculties like Sports, Polytechnics, Sciences abandoning the recommendation, the only hurdle remaining the entrance examination. In the late 1960s only Law Faculty, and Social Sciences required a recommendation, starting with 1970 or 1971 the admittance was totally liberalised.

However, what remained strictly controlled was the access to doctoral studies. These ones were subject to many and severe restrictions: only a few selected professors were allowed supervising doctoral students, each of these professors was annually assigned a restrained number of doctoral places, professors enabled with doctoral attributes could any time lose this privilege, the entire doctoral procedure from admission to graduation had a confidential, nearly secret character.

In order to become a doctoral student, one needed a lot of authorisations and recommendations: only 20% of these requirements were of scientific/professional nature (publications, relevant research, etc), while the rest was political. Here are some of them:

• approval from the leadership of the workplace
• recommendation from the “basis party organisation” (regardless if you were or not a party member)
• approval from a higher party committee
• approval from the highest territorial party committee (Judeţ, Mun. Bucureşti)
• recommendation from at least two professors enabled with doctoral capacities

After gathering all this (which anyway was nearly impossible), nothing was sure until you had the agreement of the “Consiliul Naţional Pentru Ştiinţă şi Tehnologie” (National Council for Science and Technology) headed by Elena Ceauşescu.

The extreme low ratio of doctors to 1000 graduates witnesses about all this.

To sum up, it was one of the most difficult things to achieve in communist Romania, much more difficult than travelling in the West, becoming a party member or being promoted in your work. If one can mention a really rare privilege in communist Romania, than the Ph.D. --Vintila Barbu 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good description of the way access to higher education was regulated in Communist Romania. Indisputably, young people in Romania in the late 40's and through the 50s were denied the possibility of pursuing their education at the University level, based on a made-up "unhealthy social origin" criterion that kept them away (I know personally such people, whose lives were diminished as a result of this policy). And, yes, even after the relative liberalization of the early 60s, and through the 70s and 80s, the possibility of even starting a Ph.D. degree was tightly regulated by the Party. I know for a fact that this was the case in some of the "hard sciences" (well, what other sciences are there? -- but that's my personal bias, passons). As for the "social sciences" and the like -- I shudder to think what hoops one must have had to jump through in order to be admitted as a PhD candidate, let alone obtain a PhD, during, say, the 1970s. Now, what can one make of this, I don't know -- but maybe more light could be shed on the subject if a study could be found, and referred to (by the way, do those social scientists, or historians, study these things, or is the subject below their radar screen?) Turgidson 18:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This definitevely should be the subject of a wikipedia article. But I am not aware of any present day studies of this phenomenon. I can say from personal experience that several of my former professors have had extremely hard time to get the permission from the party to start their PhD. They are renouned scientists that are well respected now, and people from the west can not believe one had to go for 4-5 years at a row to try to beg every week to let him be allowed to start his PhD. Some of those stories can make movies! Back to the present article however, it does not even say that Tismaneanu getting his PhD was a high privelege of a high class. All animals are equal, but some animal are more equal than the others. The article should state clearly, that before his departure from Romania, Tismaneanu was among these poeple, much "more equal" then those that are just equal. Not even close to us mortals.:Dc76 21:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Animal Farm -- a great book. As Boxer says, "Napoleon is always right." Turgidson 21:56, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you suggest revisions to the article, please. I am not a "specialist" on Tismaneanu/communism, and don't want to be blamed of editing things I don't know how to research. It will take me hours or even days to find proper sourses. I don't have that kind of time. But I have the common sense to verify the logic in a sentense and to check citations with the sourses. It is not sufficient to put tags to the article, it must be editted to be a normal, good article. :Dc76 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I am in the same situation: I really do not have the time to research this, and I am definitely not a "specialist" on Tismăneanu. Actually, I never even heard of the guy before I started contributing to Wikipedia about two months ago, when I realized soon enough that his name is quoted and debated quite a lot, at least among editors interested in Romanian affairs. I have been following the debate in the talk page(s), and I started forming some opinions, but I am not quite ready to express them, I would like more time to ponder the pros and cons of this debate, which I find rather interesting, though too tense for my taste (I'd rather have a more subdued conversation). At any rate, if someone has a specific question that I can answer, I will give it a shot. Turgidson 22:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Dahn 09:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realize most of the material you compiled from sources (newspapers, sites) falls under this policy? Should I add the OR tag to article, too? Daizus 10:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, all the texts I have quoted make specific references to Tismăneanu. They are all indicated as opinions expressed by various individuals on Tismăneanu, and are entirely attributed to these persons, involved in the debate as they are. There is a basic requirement to include all sides in a debate, and especially the opinion of the side that is being attacked, to the measure where these were expressed. There is nothing in that policy that you can cite against me. Dahn 10:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

A large part of the phrasings in the article are not to be found in sources, they belong to you. Many of the claims have several references, basically they being compiled from them. That's the very definition of Original research through synthesis. May I remind your own advice, to dedicate to each source a different paragraph concerning specifically the content of the source, so users won't get confused by your insinuations (there's already one complaint!). Daizus 10:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do the paraphrases hide or manipulate the meaning of anything in the sources? As for the editing style: interestingly, I have done precisely that. Dahn 10:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

There are complaints (see Dc76's) they do. Daizus 10:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No. There are complaints that the text fails to give an accurate message of what Goma is, not of what Goma has said. You will note that there is no actual reference to what Goma is to be found in the text. Dahn 10:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you to read more carefully Dc76's complaint. Among his criticisms you may find things like "hard to understand", "essentials hidden in details" (general criticisms to Controversy section) which refer precisely to the way you compiled the sources. As for Goma, the complaint is that from what Goma is pictured to have said, readers can jump to conclusions about who he is (and that is again OR thru' synthesis, pushing a POV, etc.).

But you know what, I'm tired of arguing with you and your strawmen. I will just follow this page and take care the tags on the article properly reflect your debates here with other people. Daizus 11:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Argumentum ad populum. Dahn 11:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Confused controversy

Dahn asked me to comment; this is too complicated for me to really jump in, in the little time I am giving to Wikipedia these days. However, two remarks:

1. Here on the talk page, would people please try to focus on article content rather than each other's presumed motivations and projected character, especially when passing unfavorably on these?
2. The "controversy" section is currently an incoherent collection of snippets. It does not flow. It has no lead paragraph indicating what is controversial. Several of the paragraphs begin with statements that are effectively demolished by the end of the paragraph, but their respective first sentences effectively sit as misleading topic sentences for the paragraph. And the material on Goma seems mostly to belong in an article on Goma, not on Tismăneanu. (It probably deserves a sentence or two here.)

On this last: one should always be very careful how one writes about accusations that have been withdrawn or solidly refuted or those that rely on the unsubstantiated testimony of one witness. Usually, before even introducing the accusation, one should set the scene so that it is not misread and taken out of context. E.g., a paragraph may begin with "In an accusation that was later withdrawn…" or "One of his colleagues at this time has raised issues with his conduct, although others have not corroborated his reports."

I hope that is of some help. - Jmabel | Talk 17:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Jmabel it is of help. Actually you restated an already existing complaint: the "Controversy section" does not read well.

I expected the involved parties to react on your comment, it seems they didn't. I renew my proposal of reworking it by sharing chunks (episodes) to various editors willing to help. Daizus 10:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to help. But I fear any try to clarify the section will finish with Dahn reverting it. Dpotop 10:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Facts vs. fiction: the tags and the scandalous reasons behind them

It seems that the extended spin above managed to obscure the fact that none of the tags has a reasonable argument behind it, and that they all invite to original research and POV-pushing. It is hard enough having to reply to an entire group of users with strong agendas; it is even harder when they rely solely on misrepresenting facts and opinions and change their statements from one minute to another.

The one person who has raised most concerns is Dc76 (the others' arguments were circular: one of them added the templates without explanation, another backed them without explanation, Dc76 backed them and pretended to explain them, and finally the others cited his explanation as a reason to keep the tags...). I wish to explain here first and foremost why his comments are utterly false and misleading in both their assumptions and conclusions. Below, I will answer to his original comments and quote them verbatim, comparing them with the expectations of an encyclopedia article and actual, sheer, data that all those who rushed in to back him should have checked before doing so.

His original objection was :

"The introduction is biased, portraying Tismaneanu as a scholar, not as a communist party activist who after being sidelined in Romania and emigrating has slowly addapted to the realities of the world: people are against communism, and communism as a system is doomed."

I will not go into details. Suffices to say that, universally in academia and civil society, Vladimir Tismăneanu is regarded as a competent and influential scholar, and that the only allegation that he was a communist party activist comes from a source that was not open to public scrutiny, and is not verified by a public authority. The source is claimed to be a file kept on him by a special unit of the Securitate, and was issued in 1987 (six years after the man left the country). Instead, a verified and publicized Securitate file, which was handed to Tismăneanu by the CNSAS (for those ewho are not aware of it: the CNSAS is the one official body charged with investigating whether public figures were Securitate informants) does not say it.

The rest of the interpretations about his supposed communist views are ever-subjective, form part of the debate, and are contradicted by several sources - they also rely on fragments of text he authored, in a context where, as clear as clear does get, all published material was subject to censorship. According to Tismăneanu himself, he was a Neo-Marxist [i.e.: not a supporter of the official Stalinist dogma] until ca.1983-1985 (I think), when he moved towards liberalism - interesting to note, a denunciation of him kept in his Securitate file indicates that he was viewed as such by his supervisors, which made him the object of suspicion. Also note that, as a Neo-Marxist in the USA, he worked with anti-communists both Right and Left, including with neo-conservatives. See also the analytic English-language text by Daniel Barbu, linked in the text, for a professional opinion on Tismăneanu's work.

There is much more to say about this particular aspect of the debate and those involved in it, but this suffices in order to clear out what in it is encyclopedic and what is Dc76's POV.

Moving on to Dc76's next theory.

"The section Controvercy is written almost like a super-specialized text. I am Romanian, have read many times about these people, and still I have hard time following who said what and acted how. Imagine a person who does not know much about Romania and communism. The only impression he/she will get will be that there is a polemic that is impossible to sort out. And that's exactly the problem: essetials are hidden in details so as to portray Tirmaneanu and his critics on equal footing. A outside reader would conclude, maybe one is right, maybe the other, only it is a very messy situation, and there is nothing standing out. But there is a lot there to stand out: CNSAS had published Tismaneanu dossier showing he was a Securitate colaborator."

This glues several separate issues. One is whether the text is confusing or not (I will explain my actual views on that further below). The other one is that the text gives (check this out): "the impression [...] that there is a polemic that is impossible to sort out". Well, whadya know? Dc76 considers that the text is POV because it does not take sides! He wants the debate "sorted out". Judging by his other statements, he wants the debate sorted out in his terms, and claims, verbatim, that the text errs in its presentation of Tismăneanu and his critics on equal footing!!! Did this person even read a wikipedia guideline in his life?

And next comes the LIE to support this edifice: "CNSAS had published Tismaneanu dossier showing he was a Securitate colaborator". I will post again my answer to this:

"By the way, this is important to note, in answer to an unbelievable statement above ("But there is a lot there to stand out: CNSAS had published Tismaneanu dossier showing he was a Securitate colaborator"): the CNSAS rejected all notion that he was a Securitate collaborator, as explicitly as possible. [19] [20] [21]. This was admitted to by the press who published the original allegation, accompanied by an apology [22]. Furthermore, the alternative statements made by Ziua regarding his other file, which was reportedly issued in 1987, themselves make no such claim. This latter file is not backed by any official source. Also noted in the CNSAS file is the fact that he was actually a target for the Securitate (see facsimiles published here). All of this is currently detailed in the article, and it takes a lot of nerve to ignore that. In fact, that file cited by Ziua clearly describes Tismăneanu's failure to return from his trip to Spain as "betrayal of one's country", which should in itself silence all irksome speculations about the matter. Dahn 12:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)"

The users who have endorsed Dc76 on this issue were, apparently, aware that such was the case, but backed them using the same reasoning, which only served to endorse a fallacy.

Moving on to the most tiresome and embarrassing part of the public debate. According to Dc76:

"What does the current version of the article does? Messes up things so that if not to white-wash Tismaneanu completely, at least to bring serious doubt about Goma. Goma is known to have political view to the right of the center. It is very easy for an editor to portray Goma, using this messing-up-facts tactics, to an outside reader as an extremist nationalist. This is the classical tactics of the communist regime: put tags to dissidents so as to shut them up. This is going on on Wikipedia!!!

Just another example: Goma used the expression eminent members of civil society because he criticized ceveral things in the same letter addressed to president Basescu. The current version of the article leaves the reader with the impression that Tismaneanu is a respectable member of the civil society and Goma is some rogue hard-headed extremist! Tell me if this does not remind you of before 1989!!!"

Note the return of the "messes up things" implication: Dc76's POV on the alleged events is divine law, the only thing one can do to "silence him" is to "mess up things". Oh, goodie. And, of course, if Dc76 can read the text like that, it means that it was written like that...

These are the events relevant to this page, and they are present in the text:

• in 2005, Goma published two texts which caused debate due to their content. I have not expressed a view on these, but a large number of intellectuals have called them "anti-Semitic" and "Holocaust denial". It is also irrelevant to this article whether they were or were not. (Nor does the article say that they were.)
• early in 2006, Goma was asked by Tismăneanu, who had already been assigned to form the Commission by the President of Romania, if he would take part in it. This interview with Goma (April 11, 2006) makes it clear that the man interpreted Tismăneanu's message as "a proposal to be a member of the Commission"; true, Goma says that he did not consider it "an invitation", but that is an If-by-whiskey (the very news is about him having accepted, not about him expecting some other sort of invitation). He also praises the Commission for its project, and indicates that he is aware one candidate was also to have been accepted by the other members of the Commission ("I am not even sure I will get accepted there").
• next cometh controversy, where his 2005 texts are cited by several persons as evidence that his presence on the board was not welcome, as right or as wrong as they were. At that point, Goma answered to a rumor that Tismăneanu had sided with the latter (which was not true - see the reference to Goma's apology in the text); this is the relevancy of the Holocaust controversy to this article, and hope you all can see that Dc76's accusation that I have "tagged" Goma (as well as the particularly inflammatory analogy between me and the institutions of Communist Romania) is a lousy personal attack. Goma's statements about Tismăneanu, first made during that time (and repeated ever since), have been judged not just as insults by their target, but also as evidence that Goma rejected the Commission he wanted to be a member of. Goma stood by the depiction of Tismăneanu as a "Bolshevik offspring" (which, in his interview, Tismăneanu showed he considered particularly relevant) - he wrote an entire article on that subject, and sent it to the media (which indicates that Goma considered it particularly relevant). Not mentioned in the text is this: an open letter (May 2006) in which Goma questions the professional backgrounds of all members of the Commission.
• let us also note in passing the hypocrisy associated with the issues, as expressed by these comments:
  • "The current version of the article leaves the reader with the impression that Tismaneanu is a respectable member of the civil society and Goma is some rogue hard-headed extremist!" (to which I have answered above: "Aside from the fact that, irrelevant to your POV, a man may just be a member of civil society (and an eminent one at it), what Goma is actually quoted saying is that those people where "self-styled members of the civil society". Do you understand the word "self-styled"? No? Then pick up a goddamn dictionary.")
  • "Tismaneanu, took it as an official endorsement by the most outspoken Romanian dissident, hence providing him the outmost autority: how can an ordinary Romanian critisize the workings of the Tismaneanu comission when even Goma has approved it! Here are "Goma's endorsements" etc." - this is yet another abject straw man.
  • "In return Tismaneanu, used the fact that Goma mentioned in these protests that he is the son of a former high communist official to sideline Goma as "biased towards people who are not responsible for their parents politicsl views"" - ignoratio elenchi: it is an objective fact that Goma rejects the core of the Commission, and that is the only thing that matters here.

Let me add: Goma's claim (real or not) that he was scandalized when he realized Tismăneanu invited him not to research, but to approve of others' work (btw, nobody can verify if Goma is actually quoting Tismăneanu), although Dc76 presents it (against basic chronology) as the cause for conflict, is in sheer contrast with Goma's earlier statements. In the April interview: "[answering to the question "what do you plan to do on that board?":] That which I have done all my life. I am a writer, I have written books and will continue to write books. Not books of history, or of politics, [therefore?] it is futile to ask me for more details. I have no details to research. I do not study history, I have lived it, I have been subjected to it. Those who study history by sections, sit down and take notes are not historians, they shall be public officials." And: "[answering to the question "will you be elaborating documents to condemn communism?":] No, I shan't be elaborating anything. Elaborating is a task destined to present-day apprentices, those who are just finding out things."

To quote one of the editors assessing this very message: "I suggest you to read more carefully Dc76's complaint. Among his criticisms you may find things like "hard to understand", "essentials hidden in details" (general criticisms to Controversy section) which refer precisely to the way you compiled the sources. As for Goma, the complaint is that from what Goma is pictured to have said, readers can jump to conclusions about who he is (and that is again OR thru' synthesis, pushing a POV, etc.)." This is a direct accusation aimed at me, and argues that there is a point to Dc76's, even though Dc76's central argument is a non sequitur based on a misrepresentation of facts.

There are two issues left to be answered to.

One is Dc76's template and Vintila Barbu's diatribe on supposed "context", which is an invitation to original research. I wish to remind everyone that it is against wikipedia rules to introduce one's conclusions regarding education in Communist Romania into a text that deals with the recipient of such an education (instead of citing such an allegation as made by a source). For reference, see Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, which all proponents seem to have systematically ignored.

The other one is whether the text is confuse or not. Well: when I tried to simply remove unverifiable claims and theories from the text, I met with the stiff refusal of some irresponsible editors. I have simply indicated all sources, and all that is relevant in them - the previous versions of this page quoted allegations as facts, did not include Tismăneanu's replies (even though these had been published), failed to note that many accusations have been withdrawn (even though the information was accessible, and published by the same sources), did not distinguish between fact and comment on fact, and allowed themselves to introduce their own comments. This is why the page was protected in the past. Overall, the situation may have resulted in confusing bits of text, but I reject the notion that the entire section of text is confusing, let alone "incoherent". Dahn 11:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

These are the objections raised against the article. Keeping the tags would require answers that make note of the issues I have raised. I have pointed out several instances in which my detractors presented false evidence, and the fact that this false evidence was reflected in arguments made in favor of the tags. The only tag which arguably has some validity is the one placed over the "Controversy" section - however, per Jmabel, the only solution to that supposed problem is to simply remove or clearly marginalize speculations and those allegations that have since been refuted or withdrawn; as long as editors advocate keeping all those opinions of various informal and unverified sources (Gaetan, Mureşan) and to allow Goma's various theories air time, then my version is the best way to summarize how Tismăneanu has defended himself, how others have defended him, and what the context for those allegations is.

With the exception of the latter, I shall remove all tags if the editors in question do not raise issues that would rely on verifiable and valid information. I leave two days for replies on this topic (and, let me be very clear: I do not respond to blanket accusations and any unsupported claims regarding my editing style on this article). Dahn 19:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Vintila Barbu and Dc76 are two different users. You're accusing Vintila Barbu of things he didn't say. You accused several users of being "Romanian detractors", you still accuse them of having "strong agendas" without giving a single evidence. Most of the above disertation is a gratuitious ad hominem straw man. Daizus 12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, Jmabel agreed with Dc76 (and me supporting Dc76's complaint) on "Controversy section" ("hard to understand", "essential hidden under details" from Dc76 and "incoherent collection of snippets", "It does not flow", "respective first sentences effectively sit as misleading topic sentences for the paragraph" from Jmabel). You failed to follow his advices to calm down and to start discussing arguments and not persons.

I believe it's about time you to be reported for your attitude. Daizus 12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I have failed to note where Vintila Barbu began his text and Dc76's began his. As for strong agendas: I will let all the editors' statements on this page, as well as the highly POV and libelous previous versions of this article to be proof of that. What I understood Jmabel to have suggested is actually for you to stop speculating about my supposed POV, and for several details in the disputed section to be dropped - because their very inclusion is misleading. Dahn 12:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have failed to note, it doesn't provide a good excuse for the diatribe you started on Vintila Barbu (and now that you realized it, I see absolutely no apology). The intention was clearly to demolish him as a person, not his arguments.

As for Jmabel, he made an appeal to all of us, you weren't excluded (as you constantly made ad hominem appreciations at all of your debate partners - me, Dc76, Vintila Barbu, Dpotop). If you believe otherwise, let's check what Jmabel (or any neutral authority) says. I can provide quite a nice brief of various things you called me and the others in the last days. Daizus 12:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, go and harass someone else. In the meanwhile, I have raised objective concerns. Dahn 12:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, before I forget to clarify this: I don't know who gave you the impression that I consider your opinion on this issue neutral to the point of being relevant, but I find your "authoritative" theories on what "should be done" about me rather ridiculous. Dahn 12:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

My opinion accidentally coincided with Jmabel's in some points: a) the Controversy section must be rewritten. b) the text on Goma shouldn't be here (more than him, I consider it misleading, but this will be estabilished in a separate case). Daizus 12:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, go and harass someone else. In the meanwhile, I have raised objective concerns. Dahn 12:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I challenge anyone here to present, in the above sequence of the debate, an argument that was brought in favor of the article being POV or OR. A single one. Dahn 18:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If I am not harassing you, let me give you some hints.

Somewhere in the arguments you chose to ignore there were concerns expressed by Dc76 and me that the way sources are compiled reeks as OR (you should know very well WP:OR#SYNTHESIS as you used that to boycott me for a simple "But also"). Also, Dc76 voiced his concern (and supported by Jmabel to a degree - see his comments on the fluctuation of opinions in a single paragraph) that some POVs are pushed through these compilations.

Therefore, as long as the Controversy section is maintained as it is, the tags are supported by these former requests which weren't resolved (nor proved as inaccurate). Daizus 18:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I will state this again: you must justify the concern, and not hold an article at ransom. "Expressing concern" is not evidencing that there is something factually wrong with the article and the way in which I have used sources. Dc76 stated his claim based on things that are only present in his imagination, and not anywhere in the text (I wish to be proven wrong). Your claim relied on nothing concrete, just on backing Dc76 and telling me that I should take his point into consideration! Reply to the point next time. Dahn 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If there was something "factually wrong" I would have put another tag. The accusation is the texts from "Controversy" section are POV pushers and synthesized not by a source, but a user to push those POVs.

Please read again: I just gave you hints. You should reread and search the page and see what you have missed. Why would I bother for your lack of consideration and attention? You were challanged multiple times to argue, everytime you avoided and mocked your opponents, when you decided to argue you actually dropped a kilometric diatribe few dare to read it. Your behaviour was insulting, insinuating, arrogant. Deal with the consequences. Daizus 18:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When using the "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position" argument, Daizus, you would have to accuse me of using sources which do not make reference to one another in direct comparison to one another (you know full well the system: it's what you did in that other article). Not only have I used sources that deal with each other, I have used sources that are in dialog with one another. Unless you find something that factually breaks that guideline, I'm afraid you have no point in hell. Dahn 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. There's no 'dialog' between sources - this is your imagination and an extra proof for OR. Thank you, very much. Daizus 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you a better hint: Paul Goma. Don't tell me you refuted it - your "argument" was a straw man and a non sequitur, spiced with ad hominems, rhetoric and fallacious equivocations. Daizus 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What about Paul Goma, Daizus? I have cited only that which made Goma be removed from the panel and was in direct connection with Tismăneanu. All of what was quoted were the words of Goma himself, and Dc's claim relied on nothing (it was refuted by the quotes I have provided, and was accompanied by the inflammatory accusations of "communism"!). Dahn 18:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Sophistry, Dahn and I'm tired of it. Let's take a clear example. In the article you claim "an invitation from Tismaneanu". Goma's reply in the source you quoted for this statement: "there was no invitation". What can be clearer than that? You're taking your own interpretation at the source to give whatever look you want to Goma-Tismaneanu debate. This is POV, OR and as Jmabel says, quite irrelevant to the article (if you look at other featured articles, the focus in a controversy seldom points to other person than the current one, and if it is the case new articles are created specifically for the debate). Daizus 21:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Some concerns about the NPOV and OR in this entry

• “his alleged communist political activities”

Why "alleged" ? Was his activity as a propaganda lecturer of the Propaganda Commission of the Bucharest Municipal Committee of the Romanian Communist Party not enough ?

• “However, Liiceanu endorsed the incrimination of Communist regime and eventually the report itself,[12][13][14] engaging in a public debate with Cristian Tudor Popescu and Octavian Paler over its implications.[14]”

"However" to what ? Liiceanu’s criticism was directed towards Tismăneanu's early communist activities deemed as incompatible with the moral status required from a leader of the Commission. This "However" insinuates that Liiceanu was initially against the condemnation of the communism, (in fact he was against the leadership of Tismăneanu of the Commission) however he changed his mind

• “In 2006, Ziua newspaper repeatedly published accusatory claims that Tismăneanu had left with support from the the Securitate, that he had settled abroad with assistance from the Communist Party of Venezuela, and that, after escaping communist censorship, he continued to publish materials supporting official communist tenets. [8]”

The source [8] is an interview of Tismăneanu, not that what Ziua published about him. We have to source directly to Ziua. Until than, it’s unsourced.

• “including antisemitic arguments,[7][8]”

I couldn’t find any of the kind in the sources

• “In January 2007, Ziua published in facsimile a document alleged to be part of a separate file kept on Tismăneanu by the Counter-Espionage unit of the Securitate,”

Why the facsimile published by Ziua [16] is treated as “alleged to be part of a separate file … of the Securitate”, while the facsimiles published by Cotidianul [7] are presented as “files kept on him by the Securitate” ? They should be equally treated as their credibility.

Until these fallacies are managed, there will be an ongoing discussion about NPOV and OR on this page. --Vintila Barbu 18:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat:

• "Why alleged" - the one source alleging stuff about his political activities was not confirmed, as admitted to by Daizus and as obvious in itself.
• "However" - unlike other sources displaying the same criticism, he has not rejected the report or its implications.
• "The source saying..." - as you may see for yourself, Ziua withdrew the claims. T. makes a synthesis of the articles published on him, and I frankly did not bother finding each and every article published in Ziua on this subject. T. would have to be quoted anyway with this for having rejected the claim, but if you find the articles published saying this, feel free to add them as references. Note: by way of consequence, all of these were refuted through the CNSAS verdict and Ziua's formal apology.
• "antisemitic arguments" - see the hostile reference to his nationality.
• "files kept on him" - because the source cited by T. has been confirmed by the CNSAS.

Let me add: none of these "concerns" was brought up in previous debates, which means that editors opposing me are constantly changing the issues. Dahn 19:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the ad nauseam claims, I just want to correct the last erroneous statement. Actually the concern was voiced by Dc'76 on his first reply here (so I don't understand what issue did he change?). Some days ago you confused Dc 76 with Vintila Barbu, which may explain your error - you can't distinguish between 'the editors'.

As for my support, I said very clearly to Dc'76 (and not only) that I avoided constantly arguing against you because your attitude (see above for "'and' and 'or' can have the same meaning in a specific context" and other similar "gems" exhausting my patience). I noticed the arguments given, I realized their value and I added the tags. Again, no issue was changed, it was only then when I decided to express my disagreements to the current look of the article, to your views on the article and your obstructionist techniques through these tags, all of them corresponding to the arguments made in this talk page. Daizus 21:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat: none of these claims was voiced by either Vintila Barbu, Dc76, you or Jesus Christ. None. All detailed claims included asopects which were proven to be false. But keep playing hide-and-seek. Dahn 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true Dahn. Oh well, if you can't make a decent conversation why bothered asking for the tags to be removed. The situation is the same as before. Daizus 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me where these reasons were ever cited for removing the tags. Dahn 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Straw man. Daizus 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And have the decency of not misquoting me. Dahn 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've quoted from memory so if you feel misrepresented you can correct it. As you didn't, your observation is pointless. Daizus 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, stop trolling. Dahn 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I am just feeding a troll, if you want to see this as trolling, fine - I'm guilty of it. Daizus 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and please stop writing false things about me - I haven't admitted his Communist activities were "alleged". I only agreed we should drop things like "full-integrated in party structures". I actually argued to you the basis of the controversy are his writings and his activities, not his beliefs. Daizus 22:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

You have agreed that the DSS file is not to be cited as anything other than an allegation until confirmed by an official source. As it is, no reliable third-party source actually mentions his "position" in the Party. None. Dahn 00:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

To have a Communist activity doesn't mean to have a position in the party, Mr. Straw Man. Being part of UTC means he has a position in the Communist structures. Writing aimed propaganda means Communist activity. These are biographical facts inside this article. And I told you then too, Dahn, the Controversy section covers more than Ziua/Securitate file controversy. Now let's assess the presence of this word, "alleged" - that would mean the article is a POV and also contains "weasel words". Oh my, another tag?

But you know what, I really don't care. The existing tags are enough to warn the readers about the content of the article. And you failed to prove the arguments supporting the tags wrong or persuade the editors placing them the article should read as a NPOV or your intentions are to create a NPOV material or whatever would make the placement of those tags obsolete. So bottom line, tags stay. Daizus 07:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have proven that most of the claims made about the article were lies. This is why you and your cronies come up with new reasons each day. Dahn 08:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You have not proven anything, a fallacy is never a proof. Most of the reasons were pointed out in the initial criticism, your failure to read is not "our" failure to justify. But you see, the real reason you err when you say the reasons are new is that you fallaciously regard me, VB, Dc76, Jmabel and all those formulating criticism on this article as a single entity. VB has his reasons to tag the page, Dc76 has his, I have mine. Your refusal to discuss and the lack of mediation will keep this page at a low quality, and conseqsuently tagged.

What are yours and how do they relate to the other claims? Because I cannot reply to a conglomerate! Dahn 09:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Mine are signed with "Daizus". Daizus 09:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yours do not exist. You have told me that you support Jmabel on [re]moving Goma, which is a topic in itself and covered by the tag on "relevance", and you have endlessly pointed me to concerns raised by other users, even when these were centered on fallacies such as "Securitate collaboration proven by the CNSAS". So, do state what you object to in the text, for reasons you take responsability for. Dahn 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I have told you much more than that. I never made a mention on CNSAS. If you can't get your facts straight (what do I wonder, some time ago you couldn't distinguish VB from Dc76), it's not my problem. You routinely ignore the arguments made by others. It's your failure to read and I have no obligation to repeat my claims for everyone playing blind. Daizus 09:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Daizus, you never mentioned the CNSAS, but you supported someone who had argued stuff about the text on the basis of that and nothing other than that. You have argued removing Goma, but obviously not in the spirit of what Jmabel had proposed (since Jmabel's argument was set against over-detailing sources, which means that he has the same point to make about Gallagher etc.). With or without that, there remains the matter of how I chose to phrase the text: you have simply accused me of pretending to refute Dc76's claim when I hadn't, which added nothing to the debate - for one, you never stated how you wish the text to look like in the event that the Goma paragraph is to remain part of it. That means you have to indicate what you think I did wrong - not in summarizing an entire point of view that Goma has on issues brought up, but in referencing what was relevant to the debate between him and Tismăneanu (I had chosen to evidence what both accepted as topics of contention, what they have confronted each other with, in the belief that the rest can be quoted in other articles). So, please, if your point-by-point criticisms have eluded me for any reason (and I apologize if it is my fault), do me the service of summarizing them again below. Dahn 10:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have discussed on Goma with Dc76 before Jmabel's intervention. And there I told Dc76 I'd have liked to modify the paragraph on Goma but because of the difficulties I had with you to fix few words I wouldn't dare to do that.

Later on I replied to you the complaint on Goma (merging several opinions including mine because, as you can see in my formula, no one else but me affirmed that) is that people can believe unproper things about who he is based on what he was pictured to have said (and I concluded that to be OR and POV). Your reply was brief and dismissive: "Argumentum ad populum". I tried to say, you didn't want to listen.

However, yesterday, to see if this discussion can move anywhere, among the hints I decided to give you I have pointed to a concrete discordance between your text and the source (as you asked me "What about Paul Goma?"). The source you quoted on Goma's invitation goes as following: the reporter asks Goma on Tismaneanu's invitation. Goma replies there was no invitation but a proposal in a private conversation (an email, more exactly). Question: why on a phrase relying on this source only between a reporter and Goma you chose to give the reporter's version and not Goma's? Isn't that altering the image on Goma? Yes, it does. Isn't that choosing a POV? Yes, it is. Isn't this choice belonging to you and not to the source you invoked? Yes, it does. POV and OR.

I can go on and browse that entire paragraph and show several such cases where the text doesn't follow the sources (please confirm if you are willing to read them), plus the balance between Goma vs Tismananeanu (and unfortunately others - those self-styled eminent members of the civil society, the Commission itself, thus the paragraph looks like it is actually a controversy on Goma instead to be a controversy on Tismaneanu), altering again the image on Goma.

You can believe whatever you want on Goma, we can debate on Goma as much as you like, but not your view should be in the article, but a NPOV view based on sources. And like I said, if the debate Tismaneanu-Goma is too voluminous for this section, we should do like in other featured articles to create another article for the debate and have a link there, an article where for both sides more space can be allocated without altering one side (POV) with the other.

One more comment, Jmabel criticism was not against the details, but against confusing details (and thus, POV pushers). Let me quote him again: "Several of the paragraphs begin with statements that are effectively demolished by the end of the paragraph, but their respective first sentences effectively sit as misleading topic sentences for the paragraph.". Daizus 10:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

And since you insist on "our" new reasons, I'll add the "weasel word" tag. Yes, this one is indeed new! Daizus 09:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not until you cite the "weasel words". Dahn 09:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Read again. "Alleged" in this context is a "weasel word". Daizus 09:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not actually read the text? Dahn 09:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't noticed that change. My bad. Daizus 09:49, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I was forced to warn user: Dahn on his talk page against vandalism. Here are the incriminated edits:

• delinking the official site of Prof. Gallagher
• erasing a short list of Gallagher's works

I have strong reasons to presume that these removals were made in order to diminish the credibility of Gallagher.

• manipulating the citation:

Gallagher expressed further criticism about the way Tismăneanu exerts his influence in the Romanian academic life, declaring that “he wishes to build up a vast patron-client network in contemporary history and political science not dissimilar to what the PSD did in those areas where it desired control.”

into

Gallagher indicated his belief that Tismăneanu has continuously exerted his influence on Romanian academic life on the basis of "....a vast patron-client network]] in contemporary history and political science not dissimilar to what the PSD did in those areas where it desired control".

which is, erasing the very relevant fragment he wishes to build up

(not to mention that Gallagher expressed further criticism turns into Gallagher indicated his belief, which is blatant weasel wording) --Vintila Barbu 13:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ.

• I did not spend all that time creating a proper reference system for this article for someone to add imbedded links. All info specifically about Gallagher belongs in an article on him, which you are free to create.
• "References" are things that you compile and use in writing the text, not random stuff that you found about Gallagher on the internet. Again, you can cover this in an article on him. (The "strong reasons" that you have actually show that you have never paid attention to the wikipedia Manual of Style).
• your quote had the line "the way Tismăneanu exerts his influence in the Romanian academic life", which was your wording, not Gallagher's. This implies that you are agreeing with him on what Tismăneanu does. I simply rephrased that for NPOV (the supposedly "relevant" fragment actually added nothing to the phrase, especially after I had changed wording on the other side of the sentence to "has continuously exerted"). The same for "expressed further criticism" - one expresses further criticism of something objective to which criticism itself gives an interpretation (a phenomenon, a state, an event). What Gallagher is doing is to theorize that Tismăneanu has been doing a particular thing, not to argue an opinion about what all agree Tismăneanu has done! In fact, I have used the exact same wording for something Tismăneanu himself has declared, which was of a similar nature.

I will not even begin to discuss the other POV changes you recently pushed in the text (blockquoting an opinion in an article that did not even blockquote statements by Tismăneanu, erasing large portions of text, etc.).

I ask Daizus to excuse the fact that I have not yet addressed his points, and promise to do so in the near future. Dahn 13:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Dahn, but I think Vintila Barbu is right here. You changed the sense of the paragraph. And I don't see what is is bothering in "the way Tismăneanu exerts his influence in the Romanian academic life". You use the exact same word (exert) in saying "Tismăneanu has continuously exerted his influence on Romanian academic". No, the only difference is that Vintila correctly conveys the criticism of Gallagher, through a long citation, whereas your formulation makes it benign. Dpotop 13:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, regarding long formulations, see WP:Undue weight. Secondly, I wish you would read a sentence through before siding with it or criticizing it: the version said "Gallagher expressed further criticism about the way Tismăneanu exerts his influence in the Romanian academic life"; see that? "Tismăneanu exerts", not "Gallagher claims that Tismăneanu exerts". Vintila Barbu and Gallagher agree that Tismăneanu does x, and Gallagher says something about x. My version says: "Gallagher indicated his belief that Tismăneanu has continuously exerted his influence on Romanian academic life etc.". Gallagher says, and he does not have to be right or wrong about it. Third of all, I fail to see what in my version is "more benign". Care to be more specific? Dahn 13:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Gallagher is also used as the main source of criticism in Adrian Paunescu, and I haven't seen you (an editor of that article) question it on the grounds of WP:Undue weight. It didn't seem to bother you that much. From what I have seen previously, Gallagher (a journalist) is considered a reputable source on Romanian politics because he is exterior to the establishment. Therefore, there's no WP:Undue weight problem on Gallagher.

As concerns you other concerns, how about:

Gallagher expressed further criticism, saying that Tismăneanu “ wishes to build up a vast patron-client network in contemporary history and political science not dissimilar to what the PSD did in those areas where it desired control.” The goal, according to Gallagher, is to exert control over the Romanian academic life.

Dpotop 14:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Not having expressed criticism of idunnowhat article does not mean I endorse it, so your first point is irrelevant.

Concerning that formulation: it is highly redundant and self-evident. How about: "Citing concerns that Tismăneanu has been attempting to exert influence over Romanian academia, Gallagher argued that Tismăneanu "wishes to build up a vast patron-client network in contemporary history and political science not dissimilar to what the PSD did in those areas where it desired control". Dahn 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I can agree with Vintila Barbu's current formulation on that last issue. Dahn 14:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The "info" on Bukovsky and Walesa is inflammatory: I'm sure plenty of other important people have not heard or do not remember Tismăneanu, but what the hell does that have to do with anything?

I apologize for believing text had been removed. It appeared like that after Vintila Barbu had moved things around in order to make it seem that Tismăneanu was not talking about his Securitate confirmed by the CNSAS, but about the non-existing file for which Ziua apologized. He had also made it seem that the file handed down by the CNSAS is "alleged"! Now, again, I don't care what he believes in, but this is manipulation. Dahn 14:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The info on Bukovsky and Walesa is anything but inflammatory. It is highly relevant that two most eminent anti-totalitarian personalities worldwide have provisos towards someone who wants to analyse communism. If you read the interviews, it clearly comes out that both Walesa and Bukovsky don't endorse Tismaneanu. The phrase "never heard of him" is but a cautious way to express it. Read the interviews first.--Vintila Barbu 14:40, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, just for the sake of truth: Gallagher is not a journalist. He's a distinguished scholar with scientific credentials of which Tismaneanu could only dream (just check, for fun, ISI ranking). The fact that a distinguished member of the international scientific community is active too as a journalist on Dambovitza, is his, say, affective choice. The Dambovitza fauna is deeply bothered by the fact that this type interferes with their derisory and dirty games. They are mostly infuriated and intrigued by the fact that he doesn’t seek any noticeable advantage, "ca oamenii", like everybody. It probably sounds pathetic, but he belongs to the tiny minority who are a chance for Romania.--Vintila Barbu 15:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

He is a scholar alright, I haven't asserted the contrary. :D Daizus 15:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Controversy reshape

Perhaps many of the current issues with this page will dissolve and will be easily manageable if we actually break the controversy section in several large affairs and eventually we put the rest of the small stuff (if any remains) in the page. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein a) we could create more sections on Controversy with specific topic b) we can create new pages (Gallagher-Tismaneanu debate/affair/whatever, Goma-Tismaneanu debate/affair/whatever).

In these new articles we'll have space to set the stage, to present at large the two points of view, and stop fighting to stuff so many POVs and details / sentence here. Daizus 14:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I fully second this suggestion. It's so good, it could be mine ;))--Vintila Barbu 15:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

However: I hope we are speaking about subsections of the Controversy -Section, not about articles per se.--Vintila Barbu 15:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with any solution as long as it saves us from the current twisted phrasings and it allows the editors to bring the sources they want and give them a proper presentation. Daizus 15:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ciungul

I included Tisminetki's surname "Ciungul" (he lost an arm in Spain). The biographical details on the parents are needlesly long since they have their own entry. However it is necessary to highlight that they were both Soviet party activists and had a significant anti-Romanian activity before moving to Romania after WWII.

Clarified that Tismaneanu's collaborator Antohi is still an editor of the journal where Tismaneanu is chair of the editorial board.

There are still plenty of useless links and lame citations from Tismaneanu. As it is now, the page looks as if he had written it himself. (Icar 20:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC))

You actually trashed a lot of content which even if it is under debate, it was content nevertheless. Worse, it was sourced content, which makes your edits to be rendered as vandalism. Whatever your intentions are, please talk here first and then modify the article. I've done some edits here and there to correct obviously wrong issues (like the weasel on Ciungu or the false information on GGD's children) - but there will be much more than that to do. Don't waste other people's work, even if you don't agree with it. Daizus 08:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about some recent edits of Icar

Icar, some of your recent edits represent exactly the kind which feed agenda-driven bad-faithed editors. Let me give some examples:

Leonte Tismăneanu surnamed Ciungul (The Crippled)

I knew personally old Tismăneanu – he was a Stalinist beast. Still, mentioning his surname is irrelevant and tasteless

At school, Vladimir Tismăneanu was in the same class as Nicu Ceauşescu, son of communist leader Nicolae Ceauşescu, as well as the children of Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej,

Lica and Tanţa (daughters of Ghiţă) were 23/21 years older than Volo Tismăneanu

Along with Tismăneanu's father, these persons are responsible for the crimes of the communist regime in Soviet-occupied Romania, according to the report of the Commission chaired by Tismăneanu.

It’s factual correct , but it has nothing to do with Vladimir Tismaneanu, not to mention with Liceul 24. It’s profoundly irrelevant.

(Personal attack removed)

I suggest you to carefully read the talk page and help improving this article, after having gained an insight about all the clues at stake. You surely have your word to say, but say it calmly and thoughtfuly.

I appreciate your courage and determination to openly unveil the fallacies of this article. Many of your recent edits were justified and reasonable. (Personal attack removed) Cheers, --Vintila Barbu 21:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, I have been following the back-and-forth arguments on this talk page, and tried to make some comments on style (and some minor edits on the article itself), while staying away as much as possible from the dispute, which is just too "hot" for me. But let me just interject one comment here.

I share the opinion that calling Leonte Tismăneanu "Ciungul (The Crippled)" is in poor taste. First of all, this could not have been his "surname" (unless he legally changed his name in this fashion, and this seems extremely unlikely to me); at most, this would be a nickname, which is something different.

Second, it doesn't seem appropriate to me to mention pejorative nicknames of people (especially when those nicknames stem from a physical handicap), most anywhere, but especially in an encyclopedia, unless perhaps it refers to some long-ago time, when such nicknames were more common, and not as loaded as they would be today, or else the nickname was used in a specific context by someone who is being quoted as such, in a verifiable reference, and the use of that nickname is absolutely necessary in the context. Maybe this is due to a cultural barrier, so please check the article on cripple for an explanation how this term is viewed nowadays, at least in the Anglo-Saxon context (but I suspect, in a wider context, too, which I presume would include most of the European Union, and many other countries).

Finally, if there is to be an argument about how to refer to Leonte Tismăneanu, I would submit such an argument should be conducted within the article/talk page about him (Leonte), not the one about his son (Vladimir); only after the argument is settled there, should it conceivably be revisited here.

By the way, I say all this with absolutely no sympathy for the Communist ideology that Leonte Tismăneanu represented -- to the contrary, I totally abhor that ideology, and those who enforced it, and I have great sympathy for its countless victims. Turgidson 22:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for engaging in dialog, and allow me to state more reasons behind my recent changes:

• I have re-added the details of his defection - this is a biographical article, and such info is relevant detail (I urge you to compare this with Featured Articles)
• Concerning Leonte and Hermina Tismăneanu - I agree with Turgidson that details belong in the article on Leonte (including details on Hermina); mention of the CPSU and the Russian Empire would deserve more biographical detail, that is best handled over there (none of them is directly relevant to VT); moreover, as natives of Bessarabia, the two had Soviet citizenship by default.
• "allegedly not given approval" - the info is backed by his Presidential Commission CV, and is not contradicted by something substantial (there is no mention of him having an academic position)
• it is redundant to specify every time his controversial activities are mentioned what his position was (the reader can find it a couple of paragraphs above); I have also rephrased to its oriiginal form the mention of his authoring propaganda - lest "support for NC" would become a staple of all articles that mention people who published in Romania, virtually all of them quoting NC as a "guiding light" etc.
• restored full scope of the controversy with Goma - Daizus' objections deserve a separate discussion, but, in any instance, one would have to include what VT has argued in this context. Dahn 09:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Another minor issue: the site linked to from Gallagher is not directly relevant to this article. You could start an article (or at least a stub) on Gallagher, if you really want to. Also, consider that "undermining his scholarship", an accusation you launched at me earlier, is, paradoxically, best achieved by the imbedded link (it sends out the message that, if one would want to know who Gallagher is, one could only find it on that site... which is like stating he is not notable enough). Let's keep this article formatted. Dahn 09:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Starting a new article on Gallagher seems the way to go to me, too, especially since his name keeps coming up (someone mentioned him in connection with Pǎunescu, too, though I haven't checked that article), and since, I agree, in-line exterior links look pretty bad. Turgidson 13:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

I have copied the article in my last version to User:Dahn/Sandbox. If Icar continues his attck on the page, I shall request protection for the article. Either way, I propose that we use the sandbox as a forum for the large-scale changes proposed above, and for discussions regarding content and level of detail. I invite Daizus, Vintila Barbu, Dpotop, Turgidson, and all those interested in anything other than vandalism to primarily make use of that venue until we agree on a version (or,at least, until we reach consensus over the major issues).

I agree on principle with some changes proposed (including sectioning the controversy part), but there are practical concerns (such as which part of the text belongs in which section - for example, a serious article on VT should have a section devoted to his scholarship, and an issue that pops to mind is how to deal with criticism of his work vs. criticism of his other activities, without becoming repetitive or self-contradictory in tone). Apologies are again due for not having responded in detail to what Daizus has argued, but that was bound to take more time than I had at my disposal. Either way, I believe that showing what we meant to edit in is more efficient than explaining it, and a sandbox is best suited for that. Dahn 10:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a very nice idea, Dahn. I'll add your sandbox on my watchlist and participate as I will have time to. Daizus 10:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Very welcome, it's sounds very reasonable. I hope, this will relax the debate.

BTW, what about Daizus suggestion on subsectioning the "Controversy" ? --Vintila Barbu 10:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

See above. I support it, but we can all agree that this would involve some collateral changes. (Btw, I oppose creating separate articles, mainly for editorial concerns - overexposure of what can be easily summarized, creating abstract articles for what can be dealt with in concrete articles, forking information, etc.) Dahn 10:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I simply overlooked you writing "I agree on principle with some changes proposed (including sectioning the controversy part)". OK, than. As for creating separate articles for controversies, I don't think someone is that masochist...:)

Your edit: a coded reference to his Jewish background ("tunărean") takes for granted the interpretation tunarean = Jewish. However, this is but the opinion of Tapalaga. We shouldn't put it as a confirmed info. Nevertheless, I am ready to concede on this point, as a gesture of good will. (I too think that Secu-boyz meant "Jewish", though we don't have any proof of it). One last point: could you indicate where the fcsimiles displayed by Tapalaga are confirmed by CNSAS ? What we actually have, is Volo saying he visited his Secu-file. This is fine to me. We could report what Volo says about his own Secu-file and corroborate with the facsimiles published by Tapalaga, even though they are not confirmed by CNSAS. Anyway, we should mention it.--Vintila Barbu 11:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

1)It is extremely unlikely that the reference is to anything other than "Jewish". 2)The file is the one handed down to him by the CNSAS, and it is extremely unlikely that he is quoting another document (the implication would be that he deliberately forged the documents). The whole section dealing with that topic begins with the words "Based on data from his file, Tismăneanu also specified...". This clarifies that VT is the one reading and interpreting the file, and that the statments are not ours, but it is unreasonable to assume that the file is not the same as the one handed down by the CNSAS. Dahn 11:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Something being unreasonable to assume is yet no fact. Making resonable or less reasonable assuptions means making conjectures. We are not allowed to present as facts conclusions based on assuptions. I ask for understanding not to continue this discussion--Vintila Barbu 11:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

So,then, what's your proposal? Dahn 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have rephrased to "Based on data which he indicated formed part of CNSAS file", which arguably better conveys your point. Dahn 11:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As we stand, I argue that the text contains no wording to give the impression that either VT or Ziua are to be taken for granted, which is what the issue was (note the use of "allegedly" in reference to when the last documents were filed according to VT). I also argue that any wording beyond this reasonable doubt would make it seem that VT is not to be trusted - which is POV. That was my original point, and I urge editors to state their objections to this part of the text. Dahn 12:13, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Good to see that the discussion is getting back on a constructive basis. While at it, let me get back to a (minor) point that was discussed in the past, and seems settled, but which still bothers me. Namely, the reference to the high school that Tismăneanu attended -- the No. 24 Lyceum, nowadays the Jean Monnet High School -- which I think is quite relevant there. The way it is now, the reference is somewaht anachronistic and convoluted -- I would much prefer a reference to No. 24, the way it was called at the time. The best way out of this dilemma would be to have a separate article about the high school (of course, with the current name), and include there a discussion of its history, including various names it has had, plus a list of notable alumni. Then one could use something like "During his years of study at the Lyceum No. 24, which was then largely attended by students belonging to the nomenklatura", which would flow better as a sentence (avoiding also, by the way, mention of Bucharest in there).

By the way, after re-reading the enclosing paragraph in the article, I realized it may be useful to have a transition between T. being born in Braşov, and T. attending high school in Bucharest. Is it possible to say when he (and I guess, his family) moved from Braşov to Bucharest? Turgidson 14:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Earlier in the debate, I had proposed the following type of link for that: [[Jean Monnet High School|Lyceum No. 24]], which is apparently your own choice of wording. I received no feedback on that.

Regarding VT's birthplace: it may just be that his mother was visiting Braşov or something that trivial. No source I have seen bothers to explain that, but it seems that the Tismăneanus resided in Bucharest at the time. Dahn 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's the same formatting I had in mind -- I just didn't know about the nowiki trick, that's a good one to know. As for place of residence, how about then saying something like "he grew up in Bucharest" in between place of birth, and high school? Turgidson 18:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

One more point: This proposal goes beyond the confines of this article, as it overlaps with another proposal I made elsewhere, in a different context. Namely, I think one needs more articles about important educational establishements, first of all Universities (most Romanian Universities are completely absent from wikipedia), but also High Schools, especially those of renown. For example, I am very surprised there is no article on notable Bucharest high schools such as Ion Luca Caragiale, Mihai Viteazu, etc, in addition to No. 24. Is there a reason not to?? Turgidson 14:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose there is any particular reason other than the chaotic ways of us editors. I have edited some articles on high schools and universities, but I find creating new articles on these a rather boring activity. Dahn 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proeminent figures of the Eastern Bloc

I am bit confused about quoting them. What is that supposing to prove? Is there a contoversy about the notoriety of Tismaneanu as an anti-Communist activist? If it is, I haven't remarked it and I believe in the "Controversy" section there's no stage set for that. Daizus 10:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I myself find the bit of info rather trivial in nature, but I am prepared to assume that the two actually expressed veiled criticism of the man (not so sure about Walesa, though: the Ziua reporter throws a piece of sophistry at him, and I'm not sure if he knows who it alludes to - he probably just plays along with it). Their statements, as far as I could tell, are not about VT as an anti-communist, but about him in general (in case those two are objecting to something, it is hard to tell what they are objecting to - I have instead merely indicated that they were commenting on the Commission's activities). The mention of what they are, as obvious as it may seem, is actually expected from an encyclopedia (plus, the other version was really abrupt). Dahn 10:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the opinions of people like Walewsa or Bukovsky are highly relevant for the suitability of Tismaneanu as chair of a "Communism Commission". Actually the entire "Controversy" section deals with this. Tismaneanu should not necessarily be notorious as an anti-communist activist in order to be appointed as chair of that commission. However, we don't speak here of the notoriety of Tismaneanu, we speak of endorsement from eminent and notorious ant-communists. It is evident that both Walesa and Bukovsky don't endorse Tismaneanu as lead of this commission, and this is relevant. --Vintila Barbu 10:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Vintila Barbu that the opinions of people like Lech Walesa and Vladimir Bukovsky are relevant in this context, though I also agree with Dahn that the Ziua interview of Walesa is kind of funny, and a bit leading, so it's not quite clear what conclusion to derive from it, except obviously that Walesa did not know (or recall) who Tismăneanu was, which made me feel better, since I also confessed I did not know anything about Tismăneanu before starting editing here at wikipedia (one of the things I like about this endeavor, by the way, is the opportunity to learn new things!). At any rate, how about leave the references in, with some (brief) explanation of the relevance of Walesa and Bukovsky in this context? Turgidson 14:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to cover the "relevancy in context" in one of my last edits (the introductory sentence: "As leaders of anti-communist opinion inside the former Eastern Bloc, Lech Wałęsa and Vladimir Bukovsky had been requested to comment on the Commission's activities"). Dahn 15:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It is worth pointing out that the sandbox has its own talk page. You could consider directing at least part of your comments there (especially since it is rather uncomfortable replicating all minor changes from this article to the sandbox). Dahn 16:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Improved introductory section

One user moved the account of Volo's pre-1981 activities in the first section. This is a good idea since it reflects accurately the first half of his life. (Icar 16:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Hermina T. was a Soviet and Romanian communist party activist

I find it troubling that the reference to HT's activism in the communist party vanishes periodically from this page. To make things straight: she was a party member in Romania in the 1930's, when the PCR was outlawed. She took part in the Spanish civil war on the side of the Communists. She was speaker for the Romanian language broadcast of Radio Moskow during WWII, when Romania and USSR were at war. Finally, in Romania after 1948 she occupied several activist positions. Of these, her son acknowledges "a few months". But even this still qualifies her as an activist. Either she was, or she was not an activist. This situation resembles being "just a little pregnant". (Icar 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC))

Whatever is not important, and does not refer to the article, move here

As for the comments of user Dahn who have accused me during the last week of dosens of things, I would like to tell that I am not interested in discussions in talk pages that are not directly linked to the editting to the article. Dahn has used some very strong words, called me troll and other names (I only read about 8-10 of his 20+ messages, and I think that's enough), which in my oppinion speak about his, not my logic in supporting / criticizing / argumenting. For my logic, read my comments and criticism, not his. He has accused me of trying to impose my POV as some universal truth. My reply is: my POV is correct only as long as and to the extent that it does not contradict the reality and truth. Please, remember that not only me and Dahn are editing this article and talk page. I am not God, and I can not possibly impose my view on another human without his/her willling to accept it before me suggesting it, but I did criticize (very sharply, I never citisize softly, that's how I am as a person) Dahn's stand on some key issues and edits of this article (not on 100% of the article). I am glad that we do not live before 1989, and Dahn can not call a party meeting to condemn me. Of course, this is 100% my oppinion, but I think that were it before 1989, he would. I base this on how I view his replies and reverts to the article - I do believe that not telling that communists were communists was a pro-communist edition of the article. This is my oppinion, not some universal truth, and I am 100% entitled to expressing it, and believing that in this instance my oppinion might come pritty close to the truth.:Dc76 18:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Except this paragraph above I don't want to comment what editor says/supports what, just to discuss speciffic, technical eidts of the article, and comment on the issues only. I am very sorry, but even if I wished, I don't have time for more than specific, technical discussions/edits. The paragraph above is therefore thefore the closing one.:Dc76 18:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The 3 modifications I did

• I have split the section "Controversy" into two parts: that related to criticism of Tismaneanu's activity as head of the commission, and that related to other criticism. In my view, both subsections should reflect the oppinions of both his critics, and of Tismaneanu himlef, but in defferent paragraphs, e.g. According to... X has voiced... Y has expressed... It is not a good idea to put in the same paragraph 4 sentences, 1 and 3 supporting one side of the story, 2 and 4 supporting the other. Of course, this is just my oppinion how the "Controversy" section should be organized. If noone would support me on this, of course go ahead and revert my changes.

Let me make only a purely stylistic comment: I think that the "Controversy" section is just too long, making it hard to read. I think it would be much better to split it into sub-sections, with informative short titles about each controversy. As an example of how this can be done, take a look if you wish at the article on Ann Coulter (in a very different vein, to be sure, but some of the general principles of style and organization of material should apply; and, if you think this discussion is getting to be long, you should see the one there!). Turgidson 18:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I support you on that. And I wouldn't mind at all if people ignore my edit of that section, as long as they propose a better one.

I saw her once life, and I was very-very disappointed. There was controversy from the first sentence she said. Her popularity is based on her stating controvercial things. She did not care to argument or to find alternative and intelligent ways of saying something. She just went forward like a hammer, trying to find the most hard way to express her ... sorry I can not say she had any thoughts for what she was saying were only cliche. Even when she had a golden opportunity to get her way on one issue with a nice and simple argument, she showed she can not formulate two short comprehensible sentences on the spot. Controversy is her bread. She would just say something, and wait for reaction. And when people were calmly waiting for her to continue explaining herself, she just had nothing substantial to add. Her opponent was Janet Reno, and I can say it was by far a difference of class. Even when Reno was saying things that people would not agree on, she managed to do in such a calm and convincing way. Ann Coulter would even be proud her wikipedia page is in edit war.:Dc76 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's funny - yes, many times, "famous" people dissapoint in person, though on rare occasion, it's the other way around. Also, I must say I'm quite puzzled at times who rates a big article at wikipedia, with lots of attention and edit wars, etc, and who doesn't. By and large, it works out in the end, but there still are people that did something really meaningful and important (eg, scientists, or engineers, or doctors, etc), who hardly rate a few words (or none), whereas media "celebrities" tend to draw so much attention and energy and passion. Ah, well. C'est la vie, as they say. Turgidson 20:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• I have moved a sentence from the "Biography" section to the introduction section. The "Biography" is not getting poorer in information from this move, while the introduction looks more logical: 1st paragraph saying Tismaneanu is currently a political scholar, 2nd saying he was a high ranking member of the communist youth before 1981, 3rd saying he headed the 2006 commision. Again, this is my oppinion. As I can see (see 3 paragraphs above) one editor has endorsed it already, and (see article's history) one editor interprets it as vandalism. I think we should ask more editors to comment on this.
• I have copyedited the paragraph pertaining to Goma-Tismaneanu debate. Basically I have split it into 3: 1) say there was a debate 2) say Tismaneanu's POV 3) say Goma's POV. The exact formulations of sentences I found demand further imporvements. I welcome anyone who wishes to copyedit this part, as long as he/she keeps the division into 1) 2) 3).

Dc76 18:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would very much appreciate if it would be possible to say yes/no to the three proposed changes above, and in short what is wrong. If someone bring logical arguments that are not refuted by other users (me appart), I am not going to insist, that's obvious.:Dc76 18:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I've proposed also some sub-sections for Controversy here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dahn/Sandbox Daizus 22:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in using a page owned by Dahn for working on this page. In fact Dahn is the only cause of the edit war: he shamelesly whitewashes Tismaneanu. I am really frustrated to see that Daizus reverted me; the first paragraph of my version (introduced in fact by someone else) is a accurate presentation of reality. What Dahn does is pure vandalism, do not feel intimidated by bullies like him. Btw, what happened with Tismaneanu's mother activism in the Party? (Icar 15:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC))

Your version (the one you defend) = Dahn's version but mostly with content moved from one side to another. I don't know why you think the lead of the article should focus on what Tismaneanu did in the 70s (for his career that episode is of relatively little importance).

As for the new details, they were poorly sourced (that he was a PCR member in 1973 or that his mother was an activist - perhaps was so, please bring some reputable sources, not the rumors from the press) while other details were simply removed - that his mother was a physician, or that his parents relation with the Communist regime gradually worsened. Daizus 15:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am tired of making any substantial modification because Dahn immediately removes my edits. This one editor has disrupted the work of us all. The "episode" 1969-1981 covers the first half of his life. He was a communist propagandist during that period and this should be reflected in the leading section. It was DC76 who porposed this rearrangement and I fully agree. On this discussion page you will find an article by Tismăneanu about his mother, translated by Dahn, where it is stated clearly that she was a high-rank activist ("sef de cadre") in the Health Ministry. (Icar 08:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

From Dc76's edits I agree (to an extent) only with 1 and 3. Just look at Picasso's page - do you see anywhere in the lead about his Blue period (i.e. early career)? No. Is anywhere in the lead on Heidegger written about his involvement in Nazi structures (i.e. controversial aspects of the career)? No. The lead is not an exhaustive brief, just a meaningful brief. And I don't think his early career in writing and propaganda are actually meaningful for Tismaneanu's career, only as a stain on his past (and controversy generator).

As for his mother, can you bring the source? I've seen you claiming before she was an activist, but I haven't seen the source. While I've seen her presented as physician in the articles I've browsed. Daizus 09:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that the lead must mention in some form the controversy around the personality of Tismaneanu. This controversy is meaningful to his biography, because in the sense of NPOV, the scientist Tismaneanu has less importance than the object of controversy. I'm not pushing for an inclusion of his communist past in the lead. But the lead must mention that Tismaneanu, his commission, and his report are the subject of much controversy in Romania. Dpotop 10:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your last sentence. I am not sure if it must but certainly it would be relevant. Daizus 10:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In the page Talk:Leonte Tismăneanu you will find an interview with Tismaneanu, graciously provided and translated by Dahn, where it states clearly that Mrs Tismăneanu was "sef de cadre" i.e. a high-rank activist in the Ministry of Health. It is even more ridiculous that he's trying to hide this fact here.

She held indeed a position of associate professor (at the end of her career) based on alleged diplomas from Moskow. Aside from the fact that none of us have seen those diplomas, it is common sense that the Soviets would provide their faithful agents with bogus diplomas. It was their policy to replace academics from occupied countries with incompetent "scientists". Saying that she had "trainig" sound like original research to me. For all I know she was an unqualified nurse in Spain and speaker at Radio Moskow's broadcast in Romanian language. This position was by all means to be given only to the most faithful PCUS members and Soviet agents. So I don't think it is unreasonable to say she was a Soviet agent (after all, she was sent by the Soviets in Romania) and to suppose that her diplomas were bogus if they existed. What is your oppinion? (aside from Dahn who may keep his oppinion to himself). (Icar 13:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Ok, based on that source it seems she was a physician and an activist. "One-time" seems weasel to me. It's also unfair to doubt her diplomas with absolutely no proof at hand. She had training according to Tismaneanu himself, so it's no OR at all, Tismaneanu (in his books and interviews) being a primary source for his biography. Daizus 14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Saying they were Soviet agents after 1948 is common sense, but WP:OR. Unfortunately. :) Dpotop 13:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

How about her communist activism? is it proved now? (Icar 13:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

And how about her "training as a physician"? Is this porved or just WP:OR too? (Icar 13:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

One-time activist...

Dahn insists on saying that Tismaneanu's mother was a one-time activist. I dare say that perticipating in a war for your Communist ideas, and then being a speaker of the main propaganda tool of the Soviets qualifies her as a hardcore communist. At least at that time. So, it's going to be "former communist activist". Dpotop 14:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, is this going to be another debate where you misinterpret a word in English? Because, let me tell you, I'm quite fed up with that. Dahn 14:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite fed up with you myself, so beat off. As for "misinterpretation", "onetime" and "former" are synonymous. And if I have the impression that "former" is clearer for people that are not as proficient in English as you are, it's my right to change it. Why clearer? Because one-time also means "occurring only once", according to m-w.com. Dpotop 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop: Why "former"? Why not put her on equal footing with her husband? After all, they fought together in Spain, worked together at radio Moskow and were sent together in Romania. Why not simply say "...son of the communist activists etc." As for Dahn, I am also quite fed up with him. Are 5 reverts in less than 3 hours not enough for Dahn? His strong POV is annoying. (Icar 14:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but one can argue that she was not directly paied by PCR any more, and you don't have reputable sources talking about her activism after 1948. Of course, for pre-1948, she is on equal footing with his husband. Dpotop 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And, BTW, you should go for 3RR. Dahn seems to have another one of his "accès d'humeur". Dpotop 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In the passage indicated above (the article by Tismaneanu about his mother on the talk page of Leonte Tismăneanu) it is clearly stated that she was "sefa de cadre of the Health Ministry" at some point, although "only for a few month". Anyway, who cares: she has been an important activist also after 1948 (lame excuses are not receivable), so we can safely label her as an "activist". (Icar 20:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Multiple 3RR violations

14:08, 19 February 2007

09:02, 20 February 2007

11:23, 20 February 2007

11:42, 20 February 2007

13:04, 20 February 2007

13:41, 20 February 2007

13:56, 20 February 2007

14:07, 20 February 2007

These are the reverting edits committed by Dahn to this article in less than 24 hours. The first two are more significant reverts, the last 6 are on the same paragraph, particularily on the the description of Tismăneanu's parents as activists.

10:54, 20 February 2007

11:33, 20 February 2007

13:00, 20 February 2007

13:36, 20 February 2007

14:02, 20 February 2007

These are the reverting edits committed by Dpotop in response to Dahn.

What is wrong with you??

Daizus 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Daizus, you seem to be confused about what constitutes a revert. Dahn 22:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - in all those edits, you reverted to information existing in the previous edits (one obvious example: Communist activist vs activist; most of your edits stripped the "Communist" adjective, hence this particular epithet was reverted much more than 3 times by you in less than 24 hours. I have absolutely no interest in having you blocked, but if you want to clear up the confusion I can make an official complaint with evidence on how the information was reverted. Daizus 22:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Given that "you" is ambiguous, I will reply, too.

It's simple: I find that Dahn has a special tendency to push his POV. Thus, Adrian Paunescu is a notable Romanian Communist, whereas Emil Constantinescu is not. At the same time, Leonte Tismaneanu is just a Romanian Communist activist, whereas his entire power after 1945 came from his Soviet connection. And ahy all this? Because almighty Dahn decided so. I'm quite fed up with this and I decided this is a good place to say no. Dpotop 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

And there's something related to Dahn's editing style. Even for small edits, he reverts until the other finds the "good wording". I find this practice outraging. For the time being, Dahn and I are editors and have the same rights around here. And even though I acknowledge Dahn's superior contribution to Wiki, I cannot accept this sort of behavior. Not just with me, but with guys like Vintila Barbu, a.s.o. And I don't say you are not often right, I'm just saying you (Dahn) are rude and impolite with people of good faith.Dpotop 19:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

In the last day, Dpotop, you posted two amphibologies (LT's activism in the party reduced to after 1945; "former activist" used for HT, which has the attribute of allowing readers to form a false conclusion). You will excuse me for not answering to the rest of your post. Dahn 22:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Create content, not just erase the work of other editors !

I am warning you Khoikhoi to refrain from simply erasing the work of several editors without any apparent reason. As any other user, you are more than welcome to improve this article. Please, engage first on the talk page, present your point, interact with the editing community of this article. You also may note that every editor of this article has significant contributions on the talk page. Talk first with us, help us improving this material. Bumping into the article and simply erasing other contributions without any comment, as you just did, is counterproductive. Help us creating content, not just erasing.--Vintila Barbu 20:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Khoikhoi just intervened on Dahn's side. He does that often. Daizus 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

I protected the page because there seems to be a lot of reverting, including one 3RR violation, although I think it was canceled out with a self-revert. Please try to reach a compromise here, and let me know when you're ready to start editing again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Whose 3RR violation are you talking of? Dahn's? I didn't see him self-revert. Dpotop 21:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's mine. I was the evil-doer, of course. It seems I have narrowly escaped a 3RR-trap. I, for one, will be much more careful in the future. Nevertheless, there is need for more solidarity.--Vintila Barbu 22:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tried to help, but it seems Dahn has buddies that help him even when they don't have a clue on what they edit. I presume the only way to circumvent Dahn is to edit ourselves, and then push the text against Dahn and his buddies. Dpotop 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I also suggest you use the same technique as Dahn when doing reverts: Change another one or two words, so that there's not a clear revert. It's dirty, but he's using it, so why not you. Dpotop 23:12, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, I suggest you and Dahn to actually read 3RR policy ("An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period." and "A partial revert is accomplished either by an ordinary edit of the current version, or by editing an old version. The former is convenient, for example, for a partial reversion of a recent addition, while the latter is convenient for a partial reversion of a deletion.") and stop playing with fire. Daizus 23:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Btw, Mr. Vintila Barbu, there is a good reason why I don't take lessons in civility from you. As for "dialog", I have explained everything in the text twice, and I have argued at length why those edits are based on ulterior knowledge and grammatical fallacies (I also note your actual "recipe" for a dialog and "non-confrontational" behavior speaks for itself). Oh, I suppose you may want to start another tiresome side argument about how I write my replies, how I'm being harsh on you, how I'm not educated enough, how I don't know Vladimir Tismăneanu like you do, how I use other editors to unreasonably remove information that corresponds with your personal beliefs (but not with verifiable facts), etc. I'm also sure that would also involve those other users who are dying to call me "Stalinist" and "communist", sound their irrelevant alarms that I am "anti-Romanian", etc, etc. I will not prevent you from doing that, albeit you would arguably be misusing and spamming this talk page. I will just point out that I will not bother reading it. As I have indicated before: it is what you have allowed yourself to say about me that prevents me from sitting here and arguing stuff with you (just as it is preventing me from discussing things with a certain Icar). Oh, I am sure you are a wonderful person, thoroughly educated and utterly intelligent - which is why I believe you will understand my motivations in this instance. Dahn 23:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, you declare yourself not being disposed to take lessons of civility from me, but you don’t explain what “lessons” you are alluding to. Let me explain that: in a warning which you deleted from your talk page, I described your behaviour to several users as being often confrontational, insulting and denigratory, meanwhile expressing concern about you growing into a problem for the community. This was but a simple conclusion, by no means a lesson. Besides, recent developments have rather confirmed my appraisals. This is definitely the sort of situation about which I feel no satisfaction being right.

Now, you’re citing a post of mine as a reason for your discontent. I must first say that I completely stick by this post, every word of it. I looked into the post for any phrase or word which could have disturbed you. It doesn’t contain any reference on you, Dahn. I only depicted what I firmly consider an unacceptable and detrimental editing pattern. I can explain your irritation only as being caused by you recognising yourself in what I described as “semi-educated original research”. In this case, I cannot help.

As I already told you in a previous post on your talk page, which you deleted as well, please try to differentiate between criticism and personal attack. You cannot prevent me or anybody else from criticising certain editing behaviours. As long as you are not personally mentioned in an insulting manner, such criticism is legitimate and necessary and doesn’t represent any personal attack. If you feel targeted by such criticism, this is really your problem, which you have to cope with.

A possible better approach than just feeding resentments would have been to address me, showing that you have been struck by a criticism I had formulated against certain editing trends. Since your edits match the trends criticised by me, you demand explanations. I would have presented my arguments, you, yours, and a dialogue could have started. I am afraid that this is what you are not ready to engage in. --Vintila Barbu 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for suggestions, but no thanks. You may view what you post in whatever light is fine by you, but I am free to feel insulted by the stuff you took the liberty of posting there and elsewhere. I will never come to you for suggestions on what to do when you insult me (no longer than I would call on a prosecutor to replace a judge), and you assuming that I would is of no relevancy to me. The inflammatory posts from you, and those other guys I did not need on my page, and am at liberty to erase such pamphlets as I please. I also don't expect you to tell me what you consider "a problem for the community" (for reasons which should be clear to you by now), and have absolutely no interest in the other ad hominems you bring into the discussion. Absolutely no interest. Dahn 20:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Time to reach consesus

My opinion is that we can reach consensus for this page. Unfortunately User:Dahn has prevented all other user from bringing their contribution. I think that many issues were decided by now and that his pushing of his own POV version has to stop. We already discussed many things where he defended the wrong cause. Example: VT's mother's activism in the Party. This has been agreed upon, now it is time to let it appear without anybody erasing it. Enough is enough. (Icar 14:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

I personally have nothing to say to you. Dahn 16:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Funny, in the last diff I would take Dahn's paragraph on the parents of Tismaneanu and Icar's paragraph on the defection (because defection it was, not some melodramatic "accompanying the mother and opted not to return"). Dpotop 16:00, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not answer to projections. I gave the full account, and clearly indicated that it was a defection, while indicating the circumstances: this is a biographical article, and such details are always relevant. Dahn 16:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpoptop, please go ahead and make the changes you like. We do not need approval from any Party officials here, do we?(Icar 10:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

OK Guys

The constant revert/revert/revert thing you two are pulling is quite entertaining, but there is virtually no difference in the meaning of your versions. In some cases one seems better than the other, but neither of you is consistently better -- you're the same. Is this really about improving the Tismaneanu entry?Bubble07 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Bubble07, thanks for your remark. Your help is appreciated. Here and here for instance you have evidence that both parents of this person were Communist activists. One editor [23] insists to eliminate this information regarding the mother. Here it appears that one user tries to introduce his own biased interpretations of sources, against the opinion of all other contributors. These aspects are by no means the only weak points of the article. However, as long as I am constantly reverted, I cannot concentrate on improving other parts. The biased user who reverts me enlisted in the past the help of other editors, with no competence on this article, to revert [24] and protect the page. Icar 06:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

His residence

"and a resident of Bucharest's Primăverii quarter during his youth"

You forgot to list his address and mention his neighbors. Does it really matter where in Bucharest he lived? It's all the same **** anyway. NY has famous blocks and suburbs, such as Brooklyn, but Bucharest has only the Parliament House and the sewers. The redlink doesn't tell the reader a damn thing. --Thus Spake Anittas 01:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is a link to the article in the template for the quarters of Bucharest. NB: When I was adding info to Gheorghe Asachi, I also specified which neighborhoods he lived in (feel free to fill in the respective links). Incidentally, one could actually add some of his neighbors, since VT talked/wrote about them in various contexts (given what suburb it was, those neighbors are actually pretty damn important; I don't know if it's sourcable, but in an interview last year he mentioned how Pintilie, who lived across the street from him, was all alcoholic and paranoid, looking out the window expending Ceauşescu's men to come and pick him up, and holding a gun with which he probably intended to kill himself). Dahn 01:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I had not noticed that before, but now, come to think of it, the fact that Tismăneanu lived in the Primăverii neighborhood during his youth is as relevant (and as indicative of his background) as the fact that he attended Lyceum No. 24: both facts speak of a nomenklatura background. Pretty much anyone growing up in Bucharest at the time would know that only the priviliged few (that is, Party members high up in the hierarchy) lived there. So yes, I think it's a relevant tidbit. Turgidson 02:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's relevant if you understand the context--that is, if you know what that Primaverii neighborhood is about. If you want to underscore that he grew up in a privilaged living area, then explain that to the reader. As an addentum, I've seen Dahn talk about this guy on several ocassions and I still don't know what the big fuss is. Today he mentioned lawsuits and stuff. What's the big deal with this guy? It's just a guy with a Russian name. The end. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the half-truths... Dahn 12:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another country heard from

Dahn asked me to take a look at this; I'm not sure I want to plunge in. I made a few edits (basically copyedits) that I hope will be uncontroversial. I do have two remarks (without really having done a close reading):

1. We quote a relatively unknown businessman's negative remarks on the op-ed page of the Washington Post, but we don't quote the Post's own positive remarks. That seems really unbalanced. Why should we (or the reader) be more interested in the remarks of this businessman than in those of the editorial board of the U.S.'s half dozen leading newspapers?
2. Given that I gather there is dispute about the content of this article, I think it would be useful for someone to attempt a relatively neutral statement of what issues are in dispute. Any takers?

I'll try to check back here in a few days. - Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. I do not have access to the full Post article, but here is the sample coming up in the archive search (Jim Compton Special to The Washington Post, "U-Md. Teacher Heads Inquiry in Romania Probe of Communist Past Stirs Backlash", July 28, 2006; A Section, Page A16):

"Working out of a human rights office in a former mansion in this Balkan capital, a University of Maryland professor is leading an official inquiry into Romania's ugly communist past. His work has stirred a vicious backlash from people who want that past left alone.

Vladimir Tismaneanu, born in Romania and now a U.S. citizen, heads a national commission appointed by President Traian Basescu earlier this year. "A democratic political community cannot be built on [available fragment ends here]"

I must admit I had not looked into the article up to now, and that I based its description as "positive" on Gaetan's own assessment. I was ready to believe that the article was simply "not negative". However, I do believe this fragment indicates not only that the Post gave a positive assessment of VT and the Commission, but also that it gave a negative assessment of their critics (and, afaict, questioned their motivations).

If more of the article is available for reviewing, or if this sample is considered sufficient, I would welcome adding it in the text. Dahn 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In case this helps, here is a bit more from that article

"A democratic political community cannot be built on amnesia," said Tismaneanu, 55, an energetic man who favors jeans and casual shirts. The commission's 20 staff experts, drawn from the Romanian academic world, are poring over scholarly research and papers in state archives. "Our goal is not to break new ground," Tismaneanu said in an interview, "but to bring together the mountain of existing material, with every statistic, every fact, about our communist past." ... The man Basescu appointed to catalogue the four-decade communist era is a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland's College Park campus and the author of standard works on Romanian communism and on Eastern Europe after the revolutions of 1989. He grew up in Romania under communism, earning a BA degree at the University of Bucharest in 1974. He left the country in 1981 and later campaigned against the dictatorship of President Nicolae Ceausescu, speaking on Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty and the Voice of America. .... Tismaneanu, who commutes between College Park and Bucharest, works out of a mansion in the capital that houses the Group for Social Dialogue, a political and human rights organization formed during the 1989 revolution. The house was once the scene of parties held by Nicu Ceausescu, the dictator's son. Tismaneanu shrugs off criticism that his parents were committed communists and that his credibility is hurt by his friendship with Ion Iliescu, who held various posts under Ceausescu and served twice as president after 1989. Nationalist politicians have harassed Tismaneanu relentlessly. The extremist Greater Romania Party published articles asserting that he was a Zionist operative and stooge of the Americans. "A Greater Romania Party senator made a speech in Parliament," he recalled, "about 'five reasons why Tismaneanu should not head the commission,' and reason number three was that I was a Jew." The mainstream newspaper Ziua printed an allegation that Tismaneanu had been a Securitate agent as a student in the United States, a story for which it later apologized. (A government agency certified that his political past is clean.) ...

There is more to this (interesting) article, but let me not put it all here (I'm not sure how much I can post here without violating copyright -- if it appears I do, please delete as much you think should be deleted). Turgidson 22:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggesting regarding how to incorporate the Post article

It is a very interesting piece indeed, and I do believe it should be quoted thoroughly - given its prestige, independence, and level of detail, as well as the rationale provided by Jmabel.

Here are my proposals on what to do with it, if you'll allow me to elaborate on them. From the text you cite, I see several relevant details to add not just in that section, but also in the biographical section (as additional reference), and in other sections of the controversy part. In respect to the latter: there are details on the PRM's attacks and precisely what was considered harassment (that whole nonsense about international Zionism and American stooge-like status). We also have a more detailed and earlier reply by VT regarding the nature of the attacks. The article is also another source for the CNSAS verdict (just in case one more is needed).

Concerning other parts of the text: I think that the best way is for you or someone else with access to the entire article to add more citations from the rest, in case this should prove necessary (and, if need be, throughout the article).

These proposals would probably require some adaptations in and even readjustments of the text. I would be happy to have a go at sourcing from what you so generously provided above, but I would also welcome it if you decide to do it yourself. In any case, I encourage you, Turgidson, to add from the source as you see fit, and at any time you see fit. Since I have full confidence in your neutrality and abilities as an editor, that goes for any other edit you should consider necessary. Dahn 23:24, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will see what I can do. It's a bit of a daunting task to incorporate new material into this article (given how intricate it has become, and how much controversy it has generated in the past), but I think it's worth a shot, especially since this comes from a highly rated source (WaPo), and is written by a rather well-known journalist (Jim Compton). What I think I'll do is insert some snippets here and there, and put extra material commented out, in case you or others may want to expand on it, or verify it. It may take a few days, though.

By the way, the article also has some quotable snippets on a few other people Dan Voiculescu, Adrian Năstase, Doina Cornea, and Augustin Buzura (how come we don't have an article on this last guy?) So I may spill some of the relevant quotes in those articles, too, as we go along. (An insider joke: do you see any connection with Stepaniuc's bronze bust? This may be too deep...:)) Turgidson 02:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Concerning intricacy: we should consider sectioning the controversy part at some point in the future, as was attempted in the past. The problem I see is with the interconnection of statements and events, but I think it is feasible once we start moving things around. I have some proposals on this matter, but I suggest we concentrate on adding more material for now (see below).

I fully agree on the info needing to be "mirrored" on other pages as well (stuff already in the article at this moment is also subject to that). As for Buzura: I remember wanting to kickstart the article, but the prospect of reviewing various Gomaisms aimed his way seemed disconcerting.

As in "watching over the shoulder"? ;) Dahn 02:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, it makes sense to add stuff, and then reconsider, see if there is a better flow possible. BTW, I just read that article of Dan Pavel that you mention below, looks like a fresh (and welcome) development. As for Buzura, I must admit I just learned of him from Jim Compton's article, and then I saw he has a page on ro.wiki. Maybe there is enough motivation there to start a page at some point, I'd be interested to see what makes the guy notable.

Sorry, this was too deep. OK, here's another hint: think of this feline :) Turgidson 02:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would be Dan Pavel ;) - sorry, I couldn't resist the joke: the man, as I'm sure you know, is also a neocon. Buzura is a pretty interesting guy, but he is the subject of much controversy (for a taste, see here). I wanted to give you more detail on his polemics with Goma, and google sent me to a 1999 article by Pruteanu, where Goma is the subject of much criticism (I wonder where Pruteanu stands now, cause he sure seems to have stood everywhere...).

Funny: when I saw your edit summary, I thought you were going to say something about the Catman himself. And I was wondering why you spelled it with a "k" :D. Dahn 03:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Why is this article longer than many interesting ones? Anybody realy cares about the crazy romanian politician? Please, accept my short version. Greetings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.120.81.100 (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I can safely say that, if you continue to vandalize this article (or attempt to vandalize any other), you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. You have received an automated warning for this, and I'll be quick to notify any administrator about your actions in the future (that is, in case the anti-vandalism and recent edit patrols fail to notice them beforehand). Dahn 22:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I looked at one of his edits and I think he may be correct in using the name "Tismaneanu" without diacritics, because that's probably Tismaneanu's official name, now that he's a US citizen. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Even that edit of his/hers would be untenable, since VT is also a Romanian citizen, since Americans tend not to use diacritics in texts that simply do not use any diacritics (no matter what the "official name" is or isn't), and since he signs his name with a diacritic. Dahn 22:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay then. I tried to learn more about this guy, without having to read too much, and found this on Youtube. I'm surprised Anonimu hasn't found his article, yet. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Cute bust of Iron Felix that guy has on his bookcase. Turgidson 22:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think that criticism of VT and criticism of the report are, by default, separate things. I do believe that, unless Stepaniuc said something about VT himself (I admit I didn't have the patience to sit through his entire rant), this should be a [small] part of the article on the Commission (which, btw, is still an atrocious piece of original research, original synthesis, weasel wording and irrelevancies). Oh and: from something more reliable than YouTube.

Incidentally, I cannot help but notice how the Commission was attacked for not saying anything about Bessarabia (which was, afaict, something completely outside its scope of investigating "communism in Romania" - since Bessarabia was not part of Romania under communism, and is not part of Romania at the moment) and for implying something about Moldova. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, one would have to say. Dahn 22:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh and yes: the Iron Felix (Brass Felix in this case?) does highlight a paradox... Nice catch, Turgidson :). Dahn 22:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks -- that YouTube link from Anittas was fun to follow. Well, fun, in a morbid sort of way -- to hear that communist langue de bois again (albeit sugar-coated with modern jargon) was rather disorienting. But Stepaniuc didn't really say anything, just rambled on, yes. Turgidson 22:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed: the man talks about the merits of Destalinization with Dzherzhinsky watching over his shoulder... Dahn 23:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of any English-speakers following this who may not understand langue de bois: it's a French phrase, literally "wooden language", and is often used to characterize the cliche-ridden language of Communist functionaries. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Other stuff

I would like to bring up for discussion other sources that could prove important for the "Controversy" section in this article, or, alternatively, for the one on the Commission. I have mentioned several on Jmabel's talk page (there, you'll find mention of the Horasangian articles, the anti-Ziua protest signed by 18 intellectual figures, and other articles which could serve to indicate the lateral implications of the controversy).

In addition to these, there are three studies published by Idei în Dialog (part of these issues: [25], [26], [27]) and a reaction to one of them ([28] - a follow-up to this). One may also want to look into assessments made by politologist Dan Pavel, such as this one (which he graciously published in Ziua). Regarding Gallagher's early allegations, there is an editorial reply published by Adameşteanu in 22 which may also find its place on this page. Also notable is this Adevărul piece, authored by academic Sorin Adam Matei - it is critical of the Report, but condemns the entire press campaign against VT.

One might also want to take a careful look at the criticism voiced by political analyst Michael Shafir. Elsewhere, it sourced from this interview he gave to Dan Tapalagă, originally published in Ziua 's local branch, Ziua de Cluj. As those of you who speak Romanian will note, the article gives both positive and negative assessments - his main argument at the time was that the Report did not maintain a distant tone from the events it described. When asked to give it a grade, he said "7+, below 8". More serious is the accusation of plagiarism, which he repeats here (as far as I can tell, it relates to some of VT's works, not to the Report). However, in that same article, one will see clear condemnation of VT's main detractors at Ziua. Concerning Tapalagă, who came to parttake in a lawsuit against Ziua, here is his full explanation for why he left its local branch in protest (in short, hid employers published an article on him which he considers libelous).

Another recent source also proves to be very interesting, IMHO. In Academia Caţavencu, Nr.41, 17-23 October 2007, p.4, one finds an interview of Social Democratic parliamentarian and sociologist Alin Teodorescu (Eugen Istodor, "Alin Teodorescu: «Spălam vase cînd m-a sunat Tăriceanu. I-am dat o aspirină»" [sic]). In one section of it, Teodorescu criticizes Băsescu on various issues, but he has this to say when it comes to VT:

"În rest... condamnarea comunismului... dacă nu era Tismăneanu, [Traian Băsescu] nu o făcea niciodată, iar Tismăneanu a făcut o operă de o viaţă, sigur, perfectibil, dar a făcut un studiu de excepţie. Băsescu s-a urcat pe umerii lui Tismăneanu, pot spune."

My translation:

"As for the rest... the condemnation of communism... were it not for Tismăneanu, [Traian Băsescu] would never have done it, and Tismăneanu has produced the work of a lifetime, for sure in a perfectible manner, but he produced an exceptional study. Băsescu climbed on Tismăneanu's shoulders, I could say."

I find this statement important because: a) it shows that not all Social Democrats rejected the study, and that at least one of them praised it; b) it is an assessment by one of Tismăneanu's peers; c) it provides an original and arguably singular take on the whole scandal. Dahn 01:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just realized the Teodorescu interview is available online ([29], [30], [31]). Btw, for those still wishing to assume that the PSD rejected the Report on the same grounds as other parties, here is an interview with its Chamber representative Vasile Puşcaş, where, alongside criticism of the results, one finds a clear statement of the fact that the party endorsed both the Commission's intent and VT's chairmanship. Dahn 01:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

More of VT's detailed replies here. Heh, check this out: "Nu am tinut sa raspund la valul de calomnii (care au infestat si articolele despre mine din Wikipedia, atit in engleza, cit si in romaneste) pentru ca am urmat preceptul „You do not dignify them with an answer“". Translated as : "I did not care to reply to the wave of calumnies (that have infested the articles on me on Wikipedia, both in English and Romanian) because I followed the principle 'You do not dignify them with an answer' ". This should be something of the uttermost relevancy for this project, and I expect it to attract more careful scrutiny from the administrators. Dahn 05:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Has anyone brought these issues before the WP:BLP contingent? - Jmabel | Talk 17:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're referring to the last article I cite here: I posted it on Jimbo's page, because I thought it would be important for the project as a whole (only because I've seen such issues discussed there in the past). It was moved to the BLP noticeboard since - I do not object to the move, but I am not sure if BLP applies any longer to this issue, given that we have eliminated the inflammatory material to which VT was arguably referring. I think this is still important for two reasons: the ro version of this article has clearly not gone through the same cleanup process (or, at least, not entirely), and, if you read that piece, you will probably agree with me that it is one of the usual irresponsible rants hosted by rowiki, where users have allowed themselves to editorialize and mislead; the whole backlash here and in the text, the manner in which fringe viewpoints were presented as reliable sources, and the fact that VT has made a reference to wikipedia, can hopefully bring attention to this article and establish a more resolute enforcement of policies in the future. One could also that, when an advocacy group with a proven agenda edits this article, and at the same time uses wikipedia articles as sources for its own allegations, we risk turning wikipedia into a tool of manipulation. Dahn 17:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is the reason of keeping stupid calumnies in this article?

Dahn accused me of vandalism [32] because I removed some stupid calumnies against Tismăneanu which were published in Ziua, but later this newspaper retracted the accusations. I consider against WP:BLP to keep in this article unproven facts, we should concentrate about the opinions regarding Tismăneanu's writings. The article is anyhow too long (around 41 KB). I expect apologies for the unjustified personal attack that User:Dahn made against me, accusing me of vandalism.--MariusM 16:13, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hah. You had deleted both the claims and the reactions to them, and have effectively erased the entire early history of this case. I remember when users could not get enough of mudslinging VT with that nonsense, now all of as sudden it is "unproven facts". The claims made by Ziua need to be placed in context: if they had the irresponsibility to publish all that nonsense, they did gain exposure. The info you deleted sourced all sides of the polemic, and it should be pretty clear that the incidents described caused serious reactions - which should make them notable. And I'll have you know that there are articles running at 80 or even 140 kb. Dahn 16:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And I cannot help but point out the irony that you sit around here lecturing me about those calumines while, on ro:wiki, in defiance of policy, you introduce and reintroduce two sources that go against the very minimal requirements of WP:RS, one of which, closely connected to Ziua, only serves to popularize all those calumnies Ziua has produced in the past (while the other, which was taken to court by VT, publishes stuff that even Ziua is ashamed of printing). Dahn 16:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course I deleted both claims and reactions, they are both irrelevant. About which users are you talking who are "mudslinging" Tismăneanu? Check my edit history, I never added unproven or incorrect information about him, neither here or at rowiki. I see you are continuing with your personall attacks, accusing me on bad faith. Please stop with this attitude. Also, please stop inter-wiki calumnies about me. I introduced at rowiki 2 new sources about Tismăneanu, one is Richard Hall that I introduced also here and the other was a criticism about the Institute of Romanian Revolution attacks against Tismăneanu - in fact an article favourable to Tismăneanu, you considered it as an unreliable source, we don't have the same opinion about what a reliable source is but this is not a problem for me. The other sources, including the "closely conected to Ziua" source, were not introduced by me, I only objected against a complete removal and advocated a rephrasing. I hope you will apologise for the untrue facts you are talking about me.--MariusM 16:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope, both claims and replies relevant, since they provide context for the whole deal, and since they have been popularized throughout the press (in sharp contrast with their reliability). Ziua is a major newspaper (for better or worse); it made the claim, and it was replied to by at least three leading intellectuals in quite reliable sources.

WP:RS and WP:V are not up to interpretations when it comes to self-published sources and extremist claims. I do not care if you are the one to have added them there, I care that you continue to push them in the text despite being presented with policies that reject their nature, before one would even come to discuss their claims. If you continue to push those links over there, I'll ask admins to review your conduct both there and here. Dahn 17:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Is up to you to ask whatever conduct review you want, your conduct should also be reviewed by admins, considering the fact that you refused to apologise (in rowiki you did apologise in one particular issue, you should do it more often or you should not write untrue things). In rowiki there was already an admin who reviewed your conduct and I don't think you made good impression there. Regarding this article, the whole deal you are talking about is irrelevant as the matter was solved and Ziua retracted its accusations. This article is over 32 KB, some browsers have difficulties with such long articles, irrelevant info should be removed.--MariusM 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in rowiki I removed the same calumnies and nobody objected.--MariusM 17:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

That is simply not true. For starters, the info you erase, which is two-paragraphs long (doesn't use up much of that space...) establishes context, and clarifies what controversies he has been involved in and with whom. It also serves to show what sort of info Ziua has been known to publish, and what reactions the stuff it published caused. In one section above, I have provided tens of other sources who condemn Ziua for its actions, even though some are rather critical or even very critical of VT - I do not plan to detail all their takes on the matter inside the article, but you get the idea. That reaction is as notable as anything published by Ziua, and not to clarify that it is a controversial venue in what concerns the community of journalists would not be fair representation of the events. And, when accusations are retracted, they don't magically vanish, MariusM: wikipedia is not a blog, where we can do away with old "topics".

The claim about length is bogus: Søren Kierkegaard is 18 kb larger, Ku Klux Klan is 70 kb and Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 75 kb large, while Prostate cancer is 92 kb large and Seattle, Washington goes over 100! - all five are featured articles, meaning that they have been endorsed by the community.

I have nothing to apologize for to you. I have had my say: if you should want to continue erasing info sourced from reliable sources for the sake of making one look good, I will be seeing you on the administrators' noticeboard. Dahn 17:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a content dispute between us. This article is full with a flood of stupid calumnies against Tismăneanu, which is making difficult for readers to follow relevant criticism on him. Is the tactic Richard Hall was talking about. We should give relevant information to our readers. It seems that you don't know WP:DR steps, but this is your problem, not mine.--MariusM 17:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no dispute with you: you simply erase sourced info. WP:BLP says that the info will have to be removed it is "poorly sourced or unsourced" - this one is plenty sourced, and we have clearly indicated what opinions have been expressed against it. If we use as a source what some businessmen was able to send a letter to Washington Post and get published, then this is sort of event is even more relevant.

And it is precisely your observation about Hall (a good friend of Mr. Mioc, btw) that makes the purpose of your edit dubious, since it is an invitation not to indicate the side in a debate, and since it hides the fact that one of the participants in this conflict has lost a lot of credibility with what it published in this exact same scandal. Btw, I should add that Hall is also published by Ziua, and that Roncea, who introduced his article, is one of the persons nominated by the critics who objected to what Ziua published earlier.

I repeat: do not delete sourced info, especially when frivolously invoking any false guideline, and especially when it is "because Hall said it". Dahn 18:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain how do you know that Hall is a good friend of Mr. Mioc and which is the relevance of such a fact (if true) for this article? BTW, you are the one who gave me the link to Hall's article yesterday, in our dispute at rowiki link given with acceptance as reliable source and you specifically told there "puteţi cita asta la sursă" ("you can quote this"). I followed your advice in both rowiki and enwiki, is this something wrong?--MariusM 18:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

He says this in the article: "Unicul lucru bun pe care il pot spune despre asta este ca el include o nota de subsol referitoare la munca lui Marius Mioc - un cercetator din Timisoara care, probabil, nu s-a bucurat de recunoasterea suficienta pe care ar fi meritat-o pentru munca sa despre decembrie 1989." Much of te same treatment here.

I had no objection to you adding the source, or to that source still being in any of the articles, but when you start pushing one of its comments as the basis for editing any other section of this article, at the cost of removing reactions to allegations made in a paper we keep quoting in the article, and when that comment was hosted by the very newspaper those reactions you erased deny merit to, then we have a serious problem of neutrality. Dahn 04:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your point. You tell that Hall is quoting Mioc in his studies. Same is true for Tismăneanu (in the report of Tismăneanu comision). Are you claiming that those quotes from Mioc's writings are not based on the value of those writings but on personal friendship? Maybe Mioc is friend also with Tismăneanu? As I told, it was you who, in the debate at rowiki, proposed to include in Tismăneanu's article the refference to Hall's article. I also don't understand which is the relevance of those presumed (but not proved) friendship relations for this article. I already explained the reasons of my edits.--MariusM 10:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have said what I have said. Since the source you added is included in the article, I fail to see what your problem is. When you delete part of the article based on a statement made by Hall, which you believe was correct, you are breaking several guidelines. My comment about Mioc referred to yet another argument brought against you, which, I do believe, is in your best interest to, per Turgidson, "let slide". Dahn 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, guys, for interrupting, but I have this article on my watch list, and I couldn't resist following the above discussion. Without getting into any of the substance, could you please elucidate two points for someone who's completely mystified by some of the names being brought into the discussion? Namely:

• Who is "Mr. Mioc"? I did a google search, and the closest I came with (given the context) was this, about a certain Marius Mioc, who is a journalist.
• Who is "Hall"? Again, using some hints from the context, I did a google search, and the closest I came with was this, about a certain Richard Andrew Hall, who served as a Romanian Political Analyst with the CIA from October 2000 to April 2001.

Am I warm, or am I cold? (There was an edit conflict, maybe the answer is already in by now). Turgidson 18:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I for one have no idea who Mr. Mioc is, but I could quote an administrator on Romanian wikipedia who has publicly confirmed my suspicion that Mr. Mioc is the same as a certain editor. That certain editor has been introducing references to Marius Mioc on both projects, with links to a self-published source strongly connected to the neofascist movement in Romania (as confirmed by all two or three outside and reliable sources who even bother taking it into consideration). I do believe we have something of a something to face.Dahn 04:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I could quote the same administrator on Romanian Wikipedia suggesting that Dahn is personally related with Tismăneanu.--MariusM 10:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that would have to rely on reasonable suspicion, for which no evidence was presented. If I were to quote the posts in question and the history of the case, anyone would see the difference between the two suspicions. Plus, even if I were related to VT (which, again, I am not), that would not be in any way covered by WP:COI, whereas being a person involved in authoring sources which are pushed on wikipedia is what that rule is about (especially when those sources are self-published). You have my specific denial of the accusations brought against me being true in any way, and I have presented arguments supporting this. Dahn 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that Hall. According to, the only non-self-published¹ source other than Ziua I could find on this, his credentials are "Richard Andrew Hall received his Ph.D. in Political Science from Indiana University in 1997. He currently works and lives in northern Virginia", to which is added his indication (and Roncea's) that he was once employed by the CIA - the latter indication has not yet been confirmed by an independent source. This may be enough for him to be quoted, though I have some doubts (considering that we are yet to quote every maverick political analyst with a PhD who expressed a thought on the matter). But, as we stand, his qualifications (as opposed to the initial unsubstantiated claim that he was "a professor") and his venue are indicated for those who need context, whether they agree with him or not. Dahn 04:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

¹Almost... Let's say I don't mistrust the fact that it may actually be a Radio Free Europe doc, even if it is only hosted by a self-published source. Although that particular host only returns to us as "Bobo", and although I could never be persuaded that the source could be used for anything in the article (since it fails WP:RS by much). Dahn 04:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. Perhaps the best is to just Let It Slide. But, before we quit the subject, let me just quote this fragment from the page I mentioned above:

[175] The terminology of “myth” has been used (and arguably abused) in connection with December 1989, almost from the beginning. In English, Michael Shafir (1990 in Radio Free Europe Research) and Dennis Deletant (1994 in the Slavonic and East European Review) used it prominently. Vladimir Tismaneanu’s excellent exegesis about mythological or “magical” thinking in post-communist Romania and the former Eastern Europe is even entitled Fantasies of Salvation—a play on words undoubtedly meant to conjure up and inspired by Iliescu and Co.’s “National Salvation Front”…(all-too-conveniently, of course, those who believe in and advocate myths, according to Tismaneanu, are the opponents and competitors of liberal democratic intellectuals such as Tismaneanu). Monica Ciobanu’s review of Siani-Davies The Romanian Revolution of December 1989 and Tom Gallagher’s Modern Romania: Theft of a Nation is entitled “The Myth Factory”.

Much as like Macs, something published on homepage.mac.com is not the most scholarly source in the world, I agree. But the above fragment sounds quite reasonable and informative to me, even if it doesn't make into the article (though perhaps it could, especially if it came from a more serious-looking site-- we really have very little critical review of VT's scholarly work, especially when compared to all the other stuff). Just by curiosity, though: I don't know much about this subject (I'm still trying to absorb some of it), but shouldn't one also quote Lucian Boia in this context? Unfortunately, the article about him is just a stub, but I recall he wrote several books where the word "myth" appears in the title, closely related to the same subject. Turgidson (talk) 05:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The essay you mention is self-published in that source, and, unlike the RFE reports, appears to have first been published there (at least, unlike the other pieces, it does not claim to have been published elsewhere first). Such sources fail both WP:RS and WP:V.

I am all for introducing positive or negative critical commentary - though, as a rule, I think we should place the bar higher than Hall's unedited and seemingly marginal comments, and above people whose only claim to notability remains unverified.

About Boia: yes, perhaps - though I frankly cannot tell what Hall's criterion is, other than that he is talking about researchers themselves as the object of his comment (if he's discussing the earliest such works, then perhaps Boia doesn't make it - he published most of those works after 1995 or so). Dahn 06:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am Marius Gabriel Mioc (author, researcher, etc.) and I am very familiar with Tismăneanu, Hall and some of the other individuals that are mentioned in this context. I won't edit on this page or its discussion page because I fully understand the concept of Wikipedia conflict of interest and I respect Wikipedia's rules. I merely came here to clarify that MariusM is not me despite our very similar backgrounds and interests. Hope that clears it up. Marius Mioc (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it is safe to say that we are dealing with a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet - one would have to wonder how this message got here. Dahn (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that Marius Gabriel Mioc is the real author and researcher. I fact, I doubt that there is a real author with the name Marius Gabriel Mioc, the author I know is always signing Marius Mioc (without Gabriel). I received from wikimedia fundation an e-mail telling me that someone requested in my name a new login password for English Wikipedia but, if someone else made this request, I can ignore the new password which was asigned to me and still use the old one. In the e-mail is written the IP adress from where the request was made.--MariusM (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Few more comments about this Marius Gabriel Mioc, who I think is playing a dirty game impersonating the real researcher Marius Mioc. I can not imagine the real researcher writing such stupid things like aknowledging the fact that a conflict of interest exist if Marius Mioc would edit the page of Vladimir Tismăneanu. COI would exist if MM would edit his own article on wikipedia, which don't exist. Even if is true that the real researcher Marius Mioc is familiar with Tismăneanu's writings (this was not proved, however, AFAIK Mioc is writing mostly about Romanian Revolution while Tismăneanu has a wider area of interest), it would not be a conflict of interest for him to edit this article, on contrary, it would be a good reason for him to edit. It is very strange with this Marius Gabriel Mioc appearing in the debate and telling "Dahn is right about the COI issue, but the admin from rowiki who made asumptions about Dahn and MariusM identity is wrong". What can be done to clarify this things? I saw many dirty games here at Wikipedia, including in an arbitration case where I was involved.--MariusM (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You're officially boring me, MariusM. I take no interest in the tactics you've adopted (because I cannot honestly and with a straight face presume they are anything other), but you obviously have little understanding of what WP:COI is all about. Dahn (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what tactics I adopted are you talking about. Also I don't understand if you still keep your accusation of COI regardings the edits I made at this article (there are 2 such edits - the inclusion of Hall's comments about VT, which I thought was generally agreed and the removal of some stupid calumnies which were already retracted, where there is still no consensus).--MariusM (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Not the first time you are going around in a full circle. Again, your decision to erase prominent and finely sourced info from the article based on your POV, whoever you are, is disruption. As for WP:COI and puppeteering, I think that, after your campaign of "exposure" of what you call "dirty games", you are fully aware of what implications it may have if proven true. Dahn (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I'm really glad I'm no longer caring about this project, given the level of the discussions. This discussion in particular obviously emphasizes the fact that certain editors are in fact representing interests from outside Wikipedia. :) BTW, could you point me to the remarks "of a ro.wiki admin" concerning Dahn~Tismaneanu and MariusM=Marius Mioc? Dpotop (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, the only such assumption indicated in respect to me relied on taking out two things I wrote several months apart (one of which was a comment on a user page, where I simply offered a sample of failure to apply the MoS on Romanian wikipedia). This was in tandem with the acknowledged fact that I did not write non-neutral material, that I relied my edits on scholarly and mainstream sources (of which books by Vladimir Tismăneanu are a small section), and that I never pushed material belonging to a source where I could be said to have published myself. If I were related to VT or a political campaigner for VT (and I have to wonder just what sort of campaigning that would be), it would still not matter, because all my edits relied on outside sources. To be clear: I am not. In respect to this article: what I have edited out were rumors and allegations based on unreliable and fringe claims, and what I have done was to tone down the prevalent POV and attribute quotes. My reputation inside the community is spotless, and my contributions have been acknowledged by the community at large not as partisanships, but as neutral and fair representation of all areas were I contributed.

The application of WP:COI in respect to the other editor was made on the basis of him having published material present in a grossly non-reliable source, which was identified as self-published, and to which he was considered a contributor. Several of his edits here and on the Romanian wikipedia are also closely connected with that source, and, if the identification is correct, other material he has added to articles also fall under WP:COI. Personally, I view the comments made above as an attempt to divert attention - in any case, the user who claims to be Marius Mioc is either a meatpuppet or a sockpuppet of someone. Dahn (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with Dahn's comments regarding "the other editor", neither with the way he claimed the community aknowledged Dahn's contribution. I remember Dahn often being discussed as a trouble-maker at Romanian Wikipedians noticeboard. I consider the sources used by "the other editor" at Wikipedia and in particular at this article as reliable. Is good that Dahn edited out from this article "rumours and allegations based on unreliable and fringe claims", this is exactly what I want to do. This is what I was talking about the last few days.--MariusM (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not care how I am discussed on the Romanian wikipedia, especially since my contributions there have been marginal (it was actually clear from the context that I referred to my contributions here). As for the "other editor" I mentioned, my main and only point was that his edits have been identified elsewhere as an infringement of WP:COI, whereas my own edits could never be said to be self-published, and none of them come from a questionable source.

As for what you want to have removed from this article: those are polemics published in mainstream newspapers, forming part of the history of this polemic, and are required per several policies. We fully agree that Ziua published calumnies, but that don't mean we can erase them to clean up Ziua's record - because, as can be seen there, the Ziua articles themselves formed the subject of controversy. Dahn (talk) 19:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Richard Hall

Dahn was saying I don't mistrust the fact that it may actually be a Radio Free Europe doc, even if it is only hosted by a self-published source. Although that particular host only returns to us as "Bobo", and although I could never be persuaded that the source could be used for anything in the article (since it fails WP:RS by much). Dahn 04:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

In order to clarify the situation (not only for Dahn, in fact we don't care here about Dahn's feelings, we need to verify the reliability of our sources) I did some research. Here are some works of Richard Hall hosted at Radio Free Europe /Radio Liberty website (Eastern European Perspective Archives, compiled by a certain Michael Shafir): [33], [34], [35]. As I see, Hall did publish articles about Romanian subjects long time ago in reliable sources.--MariusM (talk) 16:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, good to know. To further clarify things, let us note that Michael Shafir is chairman of the Dept. of International Relations within the Faculty of European Studies at Babeş-Bolyai University. Turgidson (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what MariusM's comment is all about. I was aware that Hall published for RFE, I must didn't look to see if that article he claimed was an RFE one was among them (but I did stress that I do not do not especially doubt that it is). This has nothing to do with the claim that he is "a professor", nor with the claim that other stuff he publishes on his personal page is "reliable" (the policy is quite clear that such self-published documents cannot be used in articles about third parties, no matter who wrote them). Dahn (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't use self-published documents, we use an article published in "Ziua", aren't we?--MariusM (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And, you will note, the article is cited in the text. So, again, what are you talking about? Dahn (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)