Talk:Gândirea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Protochronist?
The following external link was deleted by User:Dahn:
with the peremptory explanation: "(rm exyternal link to protochronist site - see its "mother" at http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/)". Sorry, I don't understand the jargon -- could you please explain the reason, in layman's language? A google search for "protochronist" yielded only 46 hits, and no definition. Wikipedia has no page on protochronist. I understand the Greek ethymology of this compound word (proto=before + chronos=time), but I don't know how widely used it is, and why applying this rather esoteric label to a web page (or web site) ipso facto disqualifies it -- is this a Wikipedia policy? I mean, can one exclude info by applying such labels, with no further elaboration? I'm asking this since I was the one who added the external link here, as reference for some edits I did (dates when Gândirea was founded, and when it moved to Bucharest). I was looking for that specific info, and this was the only article that I could find that produced it for me. I just read several paragraphs that pertained to Gândirea, and they seemed quite matter-of-fact and to the point. What's the problem with that? Thanks. Turgidson 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I searched around, and found an article on Protochronism. (By the way, shouldn't protochronist redirect there, just in case someone not familiar with the jargon looks up the word?) At any rate, yes, a bit silly -- I remember all that Burebista/Zamolxes stuff from Ceauşescu's days -- but rather harmless, looks to me. So let me then repeat the question: why go delete valid references from such sites? This smacks of censorship to me, and that's a much worse memory from Ceauşescu's days than anything having to do with the Decebal cult. I personally do not think of Cluj as Cluj-Napoca, or Turnu Severin as Drobeta Turnu-Severin (so I guess that makes me a non-protochronist par excellence?), but then again, it doesn't really bother me, one learns to live and let live. As the French say, il faut de tout pour faire un monde. Also, the protochronist label is rather parochial, if I may say so... Turgidson 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Well:
- the link is in Romanian, so its necessity in the eyes of Anglo-Saxon users is marginal
- no matter what reasons it was deleted for, the link is still available on the web for those who think that they need to see what Dacia Nemuritoare thinks about 1930s Romanian culture (just as they can easily find out what the Iron Guard thinks about Gândirea)
- the info is only partly directly relevant to Gândirea, and, from what I can see, the text is a half truth
- all of the info was since supplanted by more detailed and accurate references
Taking in view these, I suppose that there is little reason to lead readers to a controversial site: they are likely to find nothing there that would add to this article, not even a particular Dacianist POV on Gândirea. Otherwise, it would appear that wikipedia endorses information present on the site (even more so when it uses it as an authority for what are not the source's primary interests). Dahn 11:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- IMO, your arguments, Dahn, for deleting a legitimate and informative source are transgressing any limit of common sense and incivility, not to mention Wikipedia principles and rules. What you do, Dahn, is theorizing vandalism. You simply arrogate the right of arbitrary decide what Wikipedia readers have to read and to which sites have they to be “led to”. Your answer to Turgidson is really a monument of arrogance, arbitrary and bad faith. I am, as always, anytime ready to elaborate on my accusations. Please try to understand that Wikipedia is not a field where you can freely exert your caprices. I am keen to keep a civil and very calm tone on the Wiki, but this time you finally succeed to make me lose the distance. I find your argumentation in favour of deleting a legitimate and informative source profoundly revolting and outrageous. Revolting because you’re trying to dominate and humiliate co-editors through abusive reverts and absurd and arbitrary arguments. Outrageous because you are breaking the basics of Wikipedia spirit. Please refrain from behaving in a disruptive way. --Vintila Barbu 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Stop it. Dahn 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
No Dahn, you should stop behaving outrageously disruptive. This article is not your propriety. You have no right to decide what is interesting and relevant for the readers. Your behaviour is arbitrary, arrogant and brutal: you first revert a decent and informative external link and subsequently theorize vandalism. Now you are reverting again that external link, provoking a new edit war (the 4th within a week). You are trying to take possession of this article, discouraging other users from editing it. The fact that I am warning you against disruptive behaviour is irritating you obviously. From your perspective, I am harassing and stalking you. No, Dahn, I am not harassing and stalking you. Just try to behave decently, without insulting or humiliating other users, and without arbitrary reverts, and you will not hear about me any more. --Vintila Barbu 20:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm waiting for your posse to show up any minute now and begin the usual litany ("Dahn is becoming a pest", "I too am concerned with Dahn's edits", "This is unacceptable" etc etc). Of course, none of them will have the slightest idea what this is about and about what wikipedia conventions apply, nor will any of them actually read the article to inform themselves on what "essential" information I removed. Nor will they note that the information I have added, which is both accurate and thorough, has expanded the text about five times the size. For this reason and many others, I have no patience for even reading what you post in each of your stalking sessions. Dahn 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
As for readers who are not Vintila Barbu, they may find justification for the entirely reasonable step I took here: Wikipedia:External links#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view (specifically "nor give undue weight to minority views"). Aside from the dubious nature of the site, the link mentions the magazine only three times, and only once substantially [verbatim]: "Cel de-al doilea curent literar promovat in anii interbelici a fost traditionalismul. Tribuna a traditionalismului, revista "Gandirea" a aparut la Cluj, la 1 mai 1921, din initiativa unui grup de scriitori tineri, intre care Cezar Petrescu, Adrian Maniu si Lucian Blaga. Transferata la Bucuresti, in octombrie 1922, condusa din 1926 si pana in 1944 de catre Nichifor Crainic, revista a evoluat de la traditionalism spre ortodoxism. La revista vor colabora Tudor Arghezi, G.Calinescu, T.Vianu, G.Bacovia, Zaharia Stancu, I.Agarbiceanu, M.Sadoveanu s.a." This translates as: "The second literary current promoted during the interwar years was traditionalism. A tribune of traditionalism, "Gandirea" was first published in Cluj, on 1 May 1921, from the initiative of a group of young writers, among them Cezar Petrescu, Adrian Maniu and Lucian Blaga. Transferred to Bucharest,in October 1922, headed from 1926 to 1944 by Nichifor Crainic, the magazine evolved from traditionalism to Orthodoxism. Tudor Arghezi, G.Calinescu, T.Vianu, G.Bacovia, Zaharia Stancu, I.Agarbiceanu, M.Sadoveanu etc. were to collaborate on the magazine". As one will see from reading the wiki article and the references, whatever is not completely inaccurate in the Dacia Nemuritoare text (transition "from traditionalism to Orthodoxism", failure to distinguish between Vianu, Arghezi, Blaga, Calinescu, Crainic etc, failure to distinguish between their contributions to the magazine, failure to indicate who did what when, failure to even mention what other interesting doctrines the magazine adopted in later years) is utterly banal.
For the user who is Vintila Barbu, and whomever may feel the need for a blind revert: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Dahn 23:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Hiatuses
The introduction speaks of two pauses: 1925 and 1933-4. The body speaks of the 1934 one. 1)Do we have any information on a 1925 hiatus? 2)Was it 1933-4 or just 1934? Biruitorul 17:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I couldn't find anything about 1925 (in general, there is very little info on the pre-1933 variant). I also couldn't find a definite mention of when it was closed down - just that Crainic was apprehended in 1933, which may or may not be the same date as when the paper was closed down. There is an important source for such technical details: Eugen Marinescu (ed.), Din presa literară românească (1918-1944), Ed. Albatros, Bucharest, 1986. I used it on Bilete de Papagal and other articles, but, having had borrowed it from a friend, I don't have access to it right now - I'll see if there's anything I can do about it as soon as time permits me. Dahn 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Category
Since this article is getting to be so big, and since it refers to so many people, I propose creating a new category, say, Category:Gândirea, analogous to ro:Categorie:Revista Gândirea, and having the various writers associated with this magazine listed under this category. Any thoughts? Turgidson 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea. The only problem I see is that there is no confirmation of some authors cited actually being relevant contributors for the magazine (Călinescu, for one - I cannot tell if he really did contribute anything, whereas what he wrote against the magazine speaks for itself; Iorga had much the same ambiguous relation - he did write something for the magazine, but I'm not sure if including him in the category would be, for lack of a better word, appropriate; much of the same thing for Arghezi, Janco, Pandrea, and Stancu). Noteworthy: one of the sources (I can't remember which one) disputes the fact that Arghezi ever contributed to the magazine, but he himself made it clear at some point that he did - though what he said in relation to that speaks for itself ("I never read Gândirea, not even when I was contributing articles for it" - see the article on him). In the same scenario, I would propose that not all the categories the article is included in should be used for the would-be category (whereas the moved towards antisemitism and fascism, Vianu, Janco, Blaga, Arghezi, Pandrea etc etc did not). Dahn 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe one could start by including only the people clearly associated with the magazine, and then proceed case-by-case with the others. Basically, for someone like me who knows just a little about the subject (let alone someone who has no idea of the context), it would be rather hard to navigate. Besides, creating "clusters" of people based on some loosely shared ideas and some well-defined common reference point (such as a magazine) would surely fit with the Wikipedia:Build the web idea. OK, so let me go ahead then. It would be good to have a few more of these, perhaps in other areas, too. I have a few more ideas, but one step at a time. Is there a place where such issues are discussed? Turgidson 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
