User talk:Dahn/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd rather experiment in wordpads and the likes, but this page serves to quickly prevent certain discreet mistakes in linking etc. I'd rather use it for previews, so I won't be saving much text here.

If you wish to edit articles here, please don't add categories to them, as it sends this page into the respective categories.

Hi, I found the sandbox now, let me exeriment and see if comments go in here as on the main pages (never used a sandbox -- is it technically the same thing?) At any rate, just a quick question about the wording: "As leaders of anti-communist opinion inside the former Eastern Bloc..." This sounds a bit odd to my ears -- is there a way to rephrase this slightly, while basically conveying the same message? Maybe "As two of the leading voices of dissent in the former Eastern Bloc..." (or maybe, anti-communist dissent, though this would be rather redundant?) Part of the reason is that Walesa was indeed a leader (of Solidarity), whereas Bukovsky was more of a lonely voice of dissent, wasn't he? Turgidson 19:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If this is the working version of this article, then I am withdrowing my second (out of 3 changes) - sectioning. Yours does look better. I still keep my first proposition (moveing one sentence from bibliography to the introdution). As for the 3rd, I will re-read it later more laxed. But, if it would come nicer, then I would obviously withdraw my last proposed change as well.

Every Pole knew Walensa. By far not everyone inside USSR knew Bukovsky, especially after he was exchanged for Corvalan, and because he was Jew and many Russians (even anti-communists) did not like Jews. But Saharov was knows by everyone, very well known, although he was on second role and Kovalev did all work, very few knew the others, but even people from countryside who only heard propaganda knew Saharov. Also, just to let you know, when Bukovski was arrested, there was a group of 10-12 of them. Almost all the rest (they were called the Jewish group) died in the camp).:Dc76 19:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of style, but I still favor (slightly) the variant with a single section of "Controversies", broken down (after a short intro) into several subsections (Ziua, Gallagher, Goma -- whoever comes down the pike). That way, such a section would be co-equal with the main sections, perhaps "Life", "Work", "Commision", or some such. Making the controversy with, say, Gallagher or Goma carry the same weight as the man's whole life or work is just too much, I'd say. The important thing, I think, is to strive for a sense of balance, and relative weight. It's not at all clear how to achieve that (easier said than done, of course), but let's keep trying. As for Bukovsky, I don't know about others, but I still remember him making quite a stir in the late 60s sometimes, especially about the use of psychiatric hospitals as an instrument of coercion against dissidents in the Soviet Union. But I agree, his fame never reached that of Walesa (for obvious reasons -- Walesa did something much more important and of far greater significance) or even Sakharov (whose word carried more weight, because of his past research in nuclear physics). Turgidson 21:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I perfectly agree with you about sections and balance. Frankly speaking, I realy-really don't have time to research into Tismaneanu. I only had a 2 objections: inequal presentation as scholar/communist, and clarity of who said what, especially I wanted article not trying to present his critics as some rogue guys.

In 60s I wasn't yet born! :) All I know about Bukovsky is from reading and what people told me. Let me just say: his name was known among people (even ordinary) who did not believe all propaganda. But Saharov, Walensa - these names knew everyone. Absolutely independent of their merit/contributions.:Dc76 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)