Talk:Mircea Eliade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romanian related topics. For more information, or if you would like to participate, visit the project page.

Archives
/Archive 1

Contents 1 This article is a complete & utter crap 2 Sebastian on Eliade 3 This article is a caricature 4 Chill Out! 5 Users having considered this article as unbalanced (undue weight) 6 Protected 7 Some new sincere attempts to improve this article 8 Bibliography 9 POV tag 10 Creating topical in-depth articles 11 New lead section 12 Apologies for fascism and antisemitism are POV 12.1 "Although his reputation..." 13 Request for comment 14 Separate article for the critical works 15 The Terribly Limited Scope of References In This Article 16 All critical works, but no bilbiography is POV 17 Merge "Mircea Eliade" with "Eternal return (Eliade)" 18 A gleam of hope for this article 19 What should go into a "general description" of Eliade's work in the "Scholar" header? 20 The header for the whole article 21 "Everything for the Fatherland"

[edit] This article is a complete & utter crap

Having read a few Eliade's works (Aspects of myth, Tha sacred & the profane, Shamanism, Yoga,I,F, Mephistopheles & Androgyne, Initiation (exact title ?)), I'm rather displeased with the "quality" of the article. To recap:

• ca. 60-70% of the article is about Eliade's alleged Nazi & pro-Nazi loyalties. Interesting footnote, I'd say-but, nothing more than a footnote. In fact, I'd say that those immersed in mythic lore & pre-rational ways of psychological functioning possess a temperamental affinity with rightwinger irrationalism (gossip about Jung, Joseph Campbell, possibly D.H.Lawrence etc.). So, being a fascist (or, quasi-fascist) fellow-traveller or member doesn't deserve more than 5-10% of the text.

• but, more importantly: Eliade's work as superseded, discredited or obsolete ? How come ? As far as I know, his fields are: philosophy of religion, comparative religion, anthropology and ethnology. Which are the works that have rendered Eliade an obsolete romantic & subjective preacher of neo-traditionalism ? Who are the authors of the books that treat myths in a "scientific", "modern & exact" way ? Who dumped Eliade into company of Lavater, Marr, Gobineau & Lombroso ?Mir Harven 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to read something of what has been posted on the talk page before you snap at the article. Eliade's Iron-Guard-et-al past has been referenced here by me because of the tendency to question ot bury it. His fascism is not 60-70% of the text: it his the entirty of his pre-US convictions which adds to that.

This kind of "presentation" is a breach of wiki policy- no WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. That's what makes the article heavily biased. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me point out again: this article is unbalanced because it thoroughly lists and offers context for all of his pre-1940 attitudes. (I insist: all of them). I repeat myself: the solution is to add to the text. Dahn 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In the section of the talk page just above I have pointed out that Elaide's works as a, shall we say, "modernist nationalist", before he even thought of becoming a fascist, were relevant to cultural personalities at the time (placing Criterion at the center of cultural debates in that decade, as a respectable voice on the right), were not ever held against Eliade (as opposed to what he did later), and they are still influential in and outside Romania. The sections dealing with his fascism and anti-semitism are and should be specific because they tend to be disregarded, and because they are unfamiliar to the pro-Eliade scene in the Anglo-Saxon world (while having been the subject of much debates in Romania). At the same time, that specificity was matched with other detail for the sake of NPOV: among the section you viewed as too detailed are Eliade's early rejection of fascism, his (arguably) purely idealist interest for Mussolini, and his condemnation of Nazi policies. Once again: since the goal was to once and for all clarify a matter, I added all the text I saw as necessary in achieving that goal. There is one more obvious reason for keeping the text: no matter what it is to the rest of the article, it is detailed, specific, and true (I was not aware that wikipedia aims to tone down texts written along these lines...).

I can only repaet: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And I can only repeat: add to the text. Dahn 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As I have indicated in sections above, this article wouldn't just accept edits greatly expanding the sections on Eliade's scholarship and literature, it needs them. I could not myself judge to what measure Eliade's nationalism and Eliade's fascism, but I do agree that 60% is very unfair to [the rest of] his work (I cannot however, agree with 5%, nor can I agree with the comparisons you make: not Jung, but rather Celine!).

Comparison with Celine is absolutely out of place, considering all pros and cons. It may be an "outside-of Romania" opinion, but this reflects, I'd say, not just my preferences (or prejudices), but a general view on Eliade's importance: the Iron guard & later political sympathies are just a footnote. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The comparison with Celine is fair, all in all. Although Eliade never paid service to an authoritarian regime, Celine never, to my knowledge, contributed propaganda for an authoritarian organization. What you fail to note is that Eliade's nationalist-to-fascist sympathies form a huge part of his work as a philosopher, journalist, and essayist, between 1927 and 1940! In it, Eliade's Iron Guard connection, you may note, is a footnote! All of what is quoted in the first section of the article are Eliade's own works, and expanding the article could and ultimately should reciprocate by adding precisely that kind of insight. This basically means that the undue weight here is in connection to Eliade's youth weighing over Eliade's old age. I view it as a work in progress: the section dealing with his early life is as complete as the entire article ought to be. Dahn 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The man was, in my opinion, a mediocre author and more of an almanac writer than a researcher (note that I never add anything in the text that would reflect such personal beliefs), but he was, at the very least, highly influential.

Philosophers of religion are not expected to be researchers conducting field work. Eliade's company are William James, Rudolf Otto and Baron von Hugel (sp ?). These people are not field anthropologists or ethnologists. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I was talking about his contributions as a historian of religion. The impact of his activities as a philosopher of religion is, in my view, also covered by the "mediocre writer" mention I made. Dahn 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The only solution to the disparities so far was to call for erasing or obscuring information,

This is absolutely necessary first step. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

See above. One does not delete something because it good, one does not delete something because it is referenced. the day that will be condoned, I'll be saying adieu to wikipedia. Dahn 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

instead of simply adding text that would deal with Eliade's predilect activities. What is ironic here is that many of the people who protest reference of his political engagements on the grounds that he "did so much more" (a perfectly valid point to make) don'rt seem able to contribute information on that. I would have done it myself, but it is not at all a topic I would be familiar with.

As I've said, this is a highly unbalanced article because it breaches Wikipedia's conventions on writing an article. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A final version of an article looking like this would be breaching wikipedia conventions. However, there is nothing preventing well-meaning users from expanding this article overall. Dahn 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about subjectvism in a section of the article. However, even there, I do not advocate simply deleting information, but rather referencing it, placing it in context ("according to x, Eliade is..."), and comparing it with other verdicts ("...but, according to y,..."). Dahn 23:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct. But this doesn't alter the fact that the text is a classic example of undue weight bias. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This way of replying is quite repetitive by now, it splits my point, and fails to make note of my arguments. I have chosen to disregard this as potentially unintentional and answered, but if it continues in this way, I will do so no more. Dahn 11:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

An essential point: the "undue weight" policy refers to views expressed on disputed facts, not to undisputable events. If you want to dispute relevancy (and that is a very, very subjective perspective to have), please do not misquote rules. Dahn 16:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

And let me stress this again: there is nothing "alleged" about Eliade's pro-fascism. There are allegations of anti-Semitism, which, although allegations, also rely on Eliade's own statements. There are allegations of Elade's membership in the Iron Guard, but there is nothing "alleged" in his consistent, heavily politicized praise for the latter in the Iron Guard press, and there is nothing alleged about the comments he made on Salazar and Mussolini. And, for chrissake, more than half of the comments on his Orthodox nationalism have nothing to do with the Iron Guard - while having constitued a major and highly influential part of his pre-1940 work. All of this is relevant, all of this explains Eliade's status inside and outside Romania (from his arrest to Ionesco's rejection of Eliade to attacks against Eliade in the Communist press to his rehabilitation to post-1989 controversies). Dahn 16:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

When people intersperse this heavily into each other's comments it is very hard to say who said what, but offhand I don't seen anything in the article about Eliade's right-wing nationalism in the interwar years. The article needs expansion. Greatly. Yes, at the moment there is undue weight, but only because no one has gone through the necessary work to do the rest of the article that we should have. - Jmabel | Talk 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• I typo'd in the above in a way that almost reversed my meaning; what I meant to say was "I don't seen anything inappropriate in the article about Eliade's right-wing nationalism in the interwar years." - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify. I have said it, and it is here:

§ To clarify, which "I" is speaking here? And which "it" are you talking about? Jmabel just remarked that this talk page is difficult to read with people chopping into other people's writing. (If somebody chops in at five points and signs only the last one, it can soon become impossible to figure out what is going on.)P0M 15:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

"As one of the figures in the Criterion literary society (1933-1934), his initial encounter with the traditional far right was polemical: the group's conferences were stormed by members of A. C. Cuza's National-Christian Defense League, who objected to what they viewed as pacifism and addressed anti-Semitic insults to several speakers, including Mihail Sebastian;[1] in 1933, he was among the signers of a manifesto opposing Nazi Germany's state-enforced racism.[2] Eliade's views at the time focused on innovation — in the summer of 1933, he replied to an anti-modernist critique written by George Călinescu: "All I wish for is a deep change, a complete transformation. But, for God's sake, in any direction other than spirituality".

And here:

"He and Cioran were by then under the influence of Trăirism, a school of thought that was formed around the ideals expressed by Romanian philosopher Nae Ionescu. A form of existentialism, Trăirism was also the synthesis of traditional and newer right-wing beliefs.[5] Eliade's articles before and after his adherence to the principles of the Iron Guard (or, as it was usually known at the time, the Legionary Movement), beginning with his famous Itinerar spiritual ("Spiritual itinerary", serialized in Cuvântul in 1927) center on several political ideals advocated by the far right. They displayed his rejection of liberalism and the modernizing goals of the 1848 Wallachian revolution (perceived as "an abstract apology of Mankind"[6] and "ape-like imitation of [Western] Europe"),[7] as well as for democracy itself (accusing it of "managing to crush all attempts at national renaissance",[8] and later praising Benito Mussolini's Fascist Italy on the grounds that, according to Eliade, "[in Italy,] he who thinks for himself is promoted to the highest office in the shortest of times").[9] He approved of an ethnic nationalist state centered on the Romanian Orthodox Church (in 1927, despite his still-vivid interest in Theosophy, he recommended young intellectuals "the return to the Church"),[10] which he opposed to, among others, the secular nationalism of Constantin Rădulescu-Motru;[11] referring to this particular ideal as "Romanianism", Eliade was, in 1934, still viewing it as "neither fascism, nor chauvinism".[12] A major dissatifaction with the state focused on the unemployment of intellectuals, whose careers in state-financed institutions had been rendered uncertain by the Great Depression.[13]"

All of this refers to Eliade's overall attitudes, and expands on his transition to the Iron Guard. If this needs clarifying, I'll be happy to comply. Let us all note that I have referenced both his initial rejection of anti-Semitism and (in another section) his dumbfounding statements in the late 1930s, both his initial rejection of fascism and his highly original take on Mussolini (while providing the context for it), both his Orthodox authoritarianism and his clash with the Cuzists. All of this, and all the rest, I would wager, constitute relevant information in themselves (with or without controversy). Dahn 01:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel I should add: considering all the available material, all of this was kept to a minimum. For example, the polemic with Călinescu, casually mentioned here, covered several years, during which the Poporanists closely followed Eliade's career and viewed him (before anyone in America had even heard of him) as the major figure in the right-wing section (and what a big section!) of the youth. I have access to issues of Viaţa Românească from that time: I could have included direct references. There are also other sources I could have tapped into solely for Eliade's activities as a journalist and political figure (for example Francisco Veiga, who seems to argue that there was a direct connection between Eliade in the 1920s and the Eliade sympathetic to the Iron Guard). I chose to touch only the most essential aspects, considering the length of the article, the fact that sections on literature and reserch work do not even exist yet, and, quite frankly, trusting my ability to synthesize. Dahn 01:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Should I remind to anyone that 5 out of 6 references point to political issues rather than to Eliade? I think that he had much a brighter role in setting up a history of religions than involving in the Legionaries' business. Your neutrality is doubtable and so this article's. Azotlichid 21:11, 17 October 2006 (GMT)

I think that you could have been a little more subtle when creating the above sockpuppet, Timor Stultorum. If, under those circumstances, I still have to answer this comment (and I cannot begin to see what it was prompted by): I don't think anyone would care to prioritize his contributions to anything by how "bright" they were. Questioning my neutrality right after coming up with such a comment is ridiculous. Besides the fact that, again, I have given ample metnion of all that Eliade did during the period (and preferably in Eliade's own words), and besides the fact that one who has more to highlight in other areas can just up and add more, even if I were "not neutral", that would still have no logical connection with the referenced text! And, may I ask, if Eliade's activities of the time were "trivial" or whatever: how come he spent so much time producing articles, essays, propaganda, and scandals? And how come there are about four books dealing specifically with this aspect of his oevre? Let me see: we all hate him, and that is why we "expose" things that he regularly published in easily accessible and popular media, right? Dahn 00:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

1. You're paranoical ("you could have been a little more subtle when creating the above sockpuppet")

2. "we all" isn't represented by four writers. There are different and different opinions, I bet that with a little big of good will if you'll find a lot of other books praising Eliade, and not deprecating him, but this is not my point as I'm trying to reach objectivity.

3. If Eliade had moments in his life when he felt attracted to the Legionaries it doesn't mean that his political influence is the reason for which he now has a page on Wikipedia. Keep objective, but focus on the central issue.Azotlichid 18:36, 21 October 2006 (GMT)

1. Haha. Let me remind you that you're moving towards permabanning by using a sockpuppet to do the same work that got you banned.

2. Actually, that is socoteală armenească. Mir Harven expressed his belief that the article is biased, but showed that he has not in fact made the difference between Eliade's nationalism and the Iron Guard issue (as you pretend not to be able to do yourself); PelleSmith did not contest anything; Jmabel explicitly said that he does not see anything wrong in listing Eliade's inter-war activities, and that he wishes other areas be expanded as well (which, as you pretend not to note, is covered by the "please expand" sections which I have added). "Four" turns to two - you and Timor -, which turns,of course, to one: the puppeteer, not the sockpuppet.

3. Either utter failure to see the point or an annoying game is what your posts display, Timor/Azotlichid. Please, for the goddamn 14th time please, pay attention to the fact that the larger part of the text you object to does not even deal with his Iron Guard period, but with his attitdes as a modernist-to-nationalist-to-fascist ideals (the stuff of comments and the main topic of his work during the 1930s). I believe readers "need to be warned" not that Timor/Azotlichid objects to the fact that a part of this article is throughly investigated, but to the sophistry used by Timor/Azotlichid (who assimilates all far right and fascist credos with the Iromn Guard, and on the basis of this shoves an entire decade in the closet). Dahn 18:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sebastian on Eliade

Hi. I had originally deleted the "from an alleged..." part because it seemed like overkill. We have "according to Sebastian" as an introductory section - in itself, that establishes that it may be acocryphal. I have since included a mention just below the quote indicating precisely what is disputable about it. I mainly disliked the sentence because it did not comply with format, and because it currently rests inside the quotation marks (which is just wrong, IMO). Tell me what you think. Dahn 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Would either of you know what offensive Romanian term he used for Jews in that quotation? It might be helpful to put it in brackets and italics next to its English translation, which seems imperfect. Biruitorul 12:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the whole {{cquote}} thing objectionable when used so much. It pops these quotes out as if they were of crucial importance. If we can just use normal block quotes, then I have no problem at all with Biruitorul's wording. But if we are going to pop the quote out so prominently, then I think we also need to pop, equally prominently, the indication that it could be apocryphal. I'd be happiest if we just change these to normal block quotes and drop the qualifier. Dahn, is this OK with you?

It's perfect by me. I also favour blockquote (I can't remember who it was that placed those in "cquote", but i never used the template). Dahn 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Dahn, you provided the quotation; do you have the Romanian original? - Jmabel | Talk 15:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, I didn't. It was in there when I began working the text, and I remember being quite annoyed because the user who added it had not specified the edition he or she used (although, granted, I do not know if there are several). I can, however, look through the Romanian edition one of my friends has (expect this to take a while). Btw, if specifications from Ornea are needed, I have them handy for now - but, since I do not own the book, this will not be possible for ever. Dahn 15:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the history the quote was first inserted here, and a page number is provided: [[1]]. Pg. 238 I believe it says, inserted by Catherineyronwode. Hope that helps. Also I'm in full agreement on blockquotes instead of the current format and on specifying the nature of Sebastian's, or anyone else's statements. In fact I made such changes myself a while ago and didn't even realize that they had been altered again.PelleSmith 16:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to wonder. This very discussion is about the fact that, given my additions immediately following the Sebastian quote, your mention of "alleged" (btw, is quite obvious in itself that it is an alleged conversation) is superfluous. So, what do you actually support? Dahn 17:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This whole discussion seems to be, correct me if I'm wrong, about two "facts": 1. The current formating of the quotes 2. The mention of the nature of the quote attributed to Eliade (directly under it) given the format. I support in the first instance, as I clearly noted, the use of blockquotes which do not feature the quotes so prominantly, as Jmabel suggested and you agreed with as well (clearly no argument). In the second instance, perhaps I phrased things poorly, I support being specific about the nature of such quotes in general. I was not trying to attack your editing out of "alleged" by pointing out that I had tried to strengthen this language a while back. Alot of editing and moving around has occured since then, and its possible that there is enough language indicating the nature of the quote already. I just hedge towards caution when representing an "alleged" quote--in other words something someone claims to have been spoken word for word by someone else. Originally, as you know, the quote dubiously contained the unacceptable caption (see the above link to the history if you don't believe me): "-- Mircea Eliade, from a 1939 conversation recorded by Mihail Sebastian in his "Journal 1935-1944: The Fascist Years" (p. 238)". I'm not sure we really disagree here, and I don't understand at all what you are claiming this conversation was about. However, since you bring up the additional information provided under the quote, I would like to address that as well.

Well, as you may note, the debate was mainly about using blockquote in exchange for dropping the specification. Dahn 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I wish to voice my objections to your use of original scholarship in this article, this time, perhaps ironically, in terms of deconstructing Sebastian. The facts are simply that Sebastian claims that Eliade said "x,y and z". You, or anyone else may draw inferences to the truth of this claim in either direction based upon other information, but such inferences are not facts. So when you say that "(t)he content of Sebastian's testimony is disputable given the uncharacteristic radicalism of Eliade's supposed views, and the clear but unprecedented esteem reserved for German methods", you are basically providing us with an original argument for why Sebastian's claims may or may not seem likely (however simple that argument may be). Maybe you should publish an article on your own argument then have someone else cite it, but it isn't acceptable in an encyclopedia.PelleSmith 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I will disregard the fact that you have not answered to previous posts your I have questioned your very use of the term "original scholarship". I would, however, like you to clarify whether you find anything objectionable under the provisions of that theory in the current version of the article (I am, for example, puzled as to why you intervene now and on this topic, but, although claiming objectivity, you did nothing for this article when it was being vandalized).

Let me stress this very simple point: the only real reason one has to mistrust a testimony (aside from instances of benign inacuraccies). Would anyone really mistrust Sebastian if he were not to be making claims that no other source seems to back? Consider that I have already referenced in the article that Eliade did not seem to back Nazi stances on the "Jewish Question". Therefore, it is quite easy to say what was uncharacteristic about the statement,without a single trace of POV. My awareness of style in writing down sentences tells me that I have to link concepts somehow. If it is useless, do rephrase it: but I beg of you to come up with something other than simple telegraphy ("in the year... he...; the next year, he..."). In fact, I am willing to bet that each of the sources who say "Eliade was not" attack Sebastain on the basis of this. Let me also note that, under virtually all other circumstances, we would not be going through such trouble to road-signal what is otherwise a first-hand account!

If you want to talk about ,major problems of POV, let's approach this one. The title of the last section is inappropriate. It is by now obvious and beyond any POV that the man was a fascist for part of his life. As I have said and referenced, the controversy is about his relation with the Iron Guard. I suggest changing the title to "Controversy: Anti-Semitism and relations with the Iron Guard" (let us all also note that, under all circumstances, he did have some concrete relation with the Iron Guard - not denied by anyone -, so the title would not be misleading). Of course, we should also move the mention of his praise of Salzar to the biography section - it will also explain the Scînteia quote featured there. Dahn 18:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I like your title change, because the word "fascism" is too ambigous anyway, particularly in the contemporaneous English speaking world. What about "Controversy: Anti-Semitism and Iron Guardist Affiliation" ... so basically what you suggested just shorter?

Let me stress that the vagueries associated with "fascism", although of substance when talking about fascism from integralism all the way to Alleanza Nazionale, and although the source of a debate on the Iron Guard (with virtually all serious historians coming to the conclusion that, for at least part of its existence, originality aside, the Iron Guard=fascism), have really no relevance to Eliade. He, like Cioran, was and apparently wanted to be seen as a fascist for part of his life. We may be having this talk about Panait Istrati: I frankly do not know were to place him in his final years, but I do know that he always rejected being called a fascist. We may be having a debate about Carol II and his cronies - even there, despite various fluctuations, the model was and remained some form of fascism. A section of Eliade's activity complies to most, if not indeed all, definitions of fascism common to Romanian and English. I needed to state that, so it doea not seem that we came to the same conclusion for the same reasons.

Nevertheless, we face an immense problem with "affiliation". I would say "yes, that is the word" myself, but note that not all would. I wonder what the hell sources Rennie used when he came up with the conclusion that Eliade "never paid active services etc"; still, Rennie is quotes as such in the text. "Links with the Iron Guard"? Will this do?

Do you also agree that the info on "Salazar" (the book) belongs in the first section? Dahn 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In regards to original scholarship I have repeatedly told you the very simple reason for my objections--though maybe I'm not even right, but I don't think it inappropriate to discuss the matter here. When you draw conclusions from various bits of "evidence" you are engaging in scholarship. That is exactly what "scholarship" in the humanities is--using relavent facts to support a claim, however novel or common this claim is or may seem. When a fact becomes common knowledge, which is by defintion something you can find in an encyclopedia, it can be stated without such supporting evidence. So you write: "The content of Sebastian's testimony is disputable given the uncharacteristic radicalism of Eliade's supposed views, and the clear but unprecedented esteem reserved for German methods". I'm saying that YOU are concluding that "the content of Sebastian's claim is disputable", based upon the supposed facts 1) the radicalism of the statement is uncharacteristic and 2) the esteem for German methods is uprecedented. In other words you are debating the controversy yourself--you are engaging Sebastian in a dialogue. "According to Dahn, Sebastian's testimony is disputable because ..." is really what it should read and as such no one would disagree that it wouldn't belong in the entry. That is, and has been, my argument against what I call original scholarship (in the humanities context--which of course includes the discipline of "history").

Look at it from another angle perhaps. Personally I think Sebastian's claim is "indisputable"--in other words I think your conclusion is wrong. There is no way to dispute such a claim. We can all offer our opinions, based upon circumstantial evidence, like what may or may not have been "characteristic" of Eliade but we cannot actually dispute the claim. But as I have stated above, providing readers with suggestions as to how to form their own opinions is not our job. Is it?PelleSmith 22:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a referenced mention in the first section about how he condemned Nazi persecution of Jews at an early stage; I aimed not to repeat it for the sake of it in the second section, and thus rendered its context there. No charge was made that Eliade went back on his anti-German ideas until Sebastian. With ot without suspicion towards Sebastian (and I guess it is clear that I do not have any), this is the quote's relation to other sections of the text (and I suppose it also is its relation to Sebastian's detractors). Since I turned a subsection into a review of all his known or (if it has to be) alleged attitudes toward the Jews, I wanted to indicate an objective relation between them, and not just telegraphically list them, and without repeating stuff. If you agree to the format and my point, perhaps you can rephrase. Dahn 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to add to the point I made earlier. I should note that I only know three anti-Semitic slurs (k___, y_d, and j__an), but if Eliade allegedly used the last one, then the second one would probably be a better translation, or maybe 'd___ Jews'. 'K___' would, I think, be too strong. But until we get a Romanian original, this remains just informed speculation working on the knowledge that 'j__an' is by far the preferred slur in Romanian, and was for the Legionnaires as well, as evidenced by their speeches and songs. Biruitorul 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that, if the j word was used, the y word is a better translation. What should, however, take precedent here? Supposedly, the editor included the text as found in the En-lang edition (one more reason to ask oneself why he did not specify editorial details). If that is true, I propose adding a note and, if the Ro word does not comply with the k word translation, add the complete explanation there ("As translated into English; Eliade uses... which may be considered closer in meaning to..."). Dahn 23:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution, at least until the Romanian original turns up and we can verify for sure. Biruitorul 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

We would still need the Romanian original. If the translation is official (and I suppose it is), we add a note comparing translation with original text. Dahn 11:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why not ask the originator of the quote? According to the history it was Catherineyronwode. Hope that helps.PelleSmith 11:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Her page says she does not contribute anymore. Dahn 11:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This article is a caricature

The article is blatantly unbalanced - this opinion is endorsed by nothing less than five users on this talk page.

I am hereby explicitely joining the other users who expressed criticism regarding the undue weight of this article.

The only one claiming that the article reflects a NPOV as it currently is, is user dahn.

In order to impose his strong indeologised POV, this user breaks the 3RR-rule with the complicity of an acolyte.

As a supporting strategy, this user is trying to disqualify and delegitimize every user who contredicts him. Thus, I am a victim of systematic slandering perpetrated against me by this user, who absurdly accuses me of sockpuppetry. --Timor Stultorum 12:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I've had enough. Dahn 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

On another occasion I assured you to have no interest in humiliating you (how could I, since I don't know you personally ?!).

Incomprehensibly, you're manoeuvring yourself over and over into impossible situations, displaying more of ridiculousness than one could bear.

It seems that you need recognition: ok, than you should know that I sincerely appreciate your overall work here. However, please understand that in the case of this article you are seriously infringing a principle of NPOV, that you otherwise try to respect. Whether this is intentionaly or you simply let yourself go, it's of no relevance now.

Please try to understand that the way this article looks like now, it is below any standard. Any common sense -reader never having heard of Eliade would decode this article as a diatribe against a certain Eliade, who ever this might have been.

I am sure that this wasn't your intention. I can understand taht you aimed at offering an objective view about this great scholar, showing his shady side as well. Yet, taking permanently care to counterbalance nationalistic and/or self-celebrating clichées, you exaggearated into the opposite direction.

The article, as we have it now, is unusable. Your rationale: "it might be unbalanced, still i didn't do but my part, let the other do their" is childish. You should know better taht every editor/user holds the responsability for the entire stuff, not just for "his/her" part.

You're taking things too personally: the POV tag is by no means directed against you and your work, it is reflecting the current state of the article.

Please, try to get out of this confrontational logic and...don't ever underestimate the others.

--Timor Stultorum 14:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WHAT "diatribe"? WHERE is the verb or the noun that makes it a diatribe? Once and for all: I do not personally believe that you are as left-of-the-center as to consider all persons with a factual fascist past "doomed for eternity"'; therefore, I am led to assume that you have an agenda of cleaning up Eliade. You make NO SENSE: if you are endorsing solely the expansion of the article (which I do as well), there is no logic in calling the article "a diatribe", is there? If by "caricature" you mean "distorted rendition", then your posts are the actual caricature. Dahn 20:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chill Out!

Stop the revert war. Stop the name calling. Sign your comments. Use the colons to step out comments for readability. This has become rediculous. If the reverts continue, I will ask for page protection. I along with Dahn think this page needs to have a frank discussion of flaws and criticisms; but note to Dahn, please stop the aggressive and obnoxious behavior.--Cberlet 13:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Timor Stultorum (the very name he chose is name calling, look it up) profits from two facts: the conversation is very long and the conversation is very dense. I have repeated myself several times by now, and told him (and his avatar) why he is either wrong or deliberately misleading. I will repeat my points here one final time, as I cannot be expected to be answering every time a certain users feels that enough time has elapsed for good-faith users like Cberlet not to notice the facts:

• it is not "five users" who oppose the version of the page. Biruitorul made a point about the use of a certain word, asking if we could investigate into the matter (but not even proposing its outright replacement); Jmabel has indeed said that the page is unbalanced in aspect (not "in content"), but he has also specifically indicated that, unlike Timor Stultorum, he sees nothing wrong in mentioning Eliade's interwar activities. Pelle Smith asked for some things to be rephrased, most of which have been rephrased (may I add that he has also asked for sentences to be referenced, which resulted in the current format). Mir Harven has made some unbacked assumptions (identifying Eliade's 1927-1936 discourse with his later pro-Iron Guard activities), and has requested for referenced text to be deleted (even though much of the references are Eliade's own words) - we do not act like that on wikipedia, do we? Azotlichid is, in all likelyhood, Timor's sockpuppet.
• identifying Eliade's increasingly and independent pro-fascist stance in the 1930s with his Iron Guard activities is deliberate misinformation. The controversy in the literary word is not about the former, but solely about the latter - also note that the current article does not indicate Iron Guard membership as a given, and is therefore neutral in this respect as well.
• the mention of his 1930s activities prominently features Eliade's rebellious modernism, his early condemnation of Nazism, his clash with the anti-Semites of A. C. Cuza, and the distinction he initially made between fascism and his "Romanianism" ("neither fascism, nor chauvinism"). I have added those, just in case someone is willing to believe the crap about me having "a POV" on the issue.
• the persistent claim that this was "just an episode" in Eliade's life - although lasting almost 20 years, containing some of his most elaborate essays, polemicised with top literati of his time, and argued by some to have remained present with Eliade late into his life - is best described by one word: "revisionism". Revisionism is POV, and, by definition, its opponent never is.
• Eliade's nationalism-to-fascism itself is the subject or one of the main topics of several books, as pointed out [ironically] by Timor himself. Let me add: large books. In fact,the Humanitas publishing house, who edited all of Eliade's works in Romania, has a site I've linked in the reference section. Clicking on it will reveal a series of interviews with Eliade's peers: ask any Romanian to read from them, and you will note that about 80% of the content circles Eliade's activities in the 1930s. Dahn 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, Sir, I cannot but be pleased having written my answer to Dahn before I could read your intervention.

Useless to mention, that I really mean what I've written to Dahn.

This is not just tactics in order to get this POV tag on the article.

Finally, if someone's agenda is to present Eliade as a big bad fascist on the Wikipedia, be it as he wishes !

Mircea Eliade is already a name and an institution in the culture history.

Presenting him in this blatant one-sided manner doesn't disqualify him, but Wikipedia !

Please, think about this !

--Timor Stultorum 14:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I am sad to see again your rigid, uncompromising and aggressive reaction.

First of all: I am nobody's sockpuppet. This is slandering. If you continue, I will undertake steps you won't like at all. (Besides: instead of slandering me, if you have a legitimate suspicion, why on earth don't you ask for a check ?)

To the content of your answer: none of your arguments has been ever adressed by me. Everything you write about the ideological orientation and activity of Eliade is OK, except taht it is too much for an encyclopedical article. Once again my argument: the article is biased because of undue weight, regardless of the content. It is not the content of your contributions that I am challenging, but their volume. It is blatantly quantitatively disproportionate to mention 70% about ideology and 10% scientific and litterary work. This is Eliade not Mussolini !

...by the way, being ridiculous: whose name is alluding my username to ?

No offence, Dahn. Im trying to deescalate with you. Please give me a chance. --Timor Stultorum 14:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have answered all your points. Furthermore: only one user (two, with your sockpuppet) agrees with your theory on what an article should be; I have invited you and others to add content to "balance things out", and you seem unwilling to do so - however, the "please expand" tags are still in place in case one is wondering; this is an exhaustive coverage, leaving as little room for interpretations as possible in what are extremely relevant issues. You are also contradicting yourself when saying "if someone's agenda is to present Eliade as a big bad fascist on the Wikipedia" and "Everything you write about the ideological orientation and activity of Eliade is OK, except taht it is too much for an encyclopedical article". As I have said, you have played this tune for far too long. Dahn 15:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me also note something about your theory on encyclopaedia articles: I've picked a featured article on a person at random - Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Make sure you look through it and pay some attention as to what is included, what is referenced, and what is quoted. Dahn 15:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users having considered this article as unbalanced (undue weight)

1st User: Pelle Smith

quote

On a more general note, I would also suggest that not enough attention is paid here to Eliade as a scholar. Sure we expect to learn about the man, but we know him as a scholar. If someone looks up this entry the chances are they they have heard of Eliade, again, as a scholar. Isn't it pertinent to structure an entry in a way that at least gives equal breadth to the most prominant aspect of that person? I'm no Eliade scholar, so I cannot do that work myself, but it would surprise me that anyone thoughtful enough to start an entry on Eliade wouldn't be thinking of presenting some of his theories, maybe summarizing his most imporant works, etc. Why else would someone start and entry on a scholar? Now I'm not suggesting it was started for other reasons, but simply that as you said yourself the entry needs to be fleshed out in more ways than one. My original comment on anti-semitism and POV, also relates to this point. The way that information is balanced, and parcelled out can itself seem like it is coming from a POV. Part of the job is in fleshing out the entry in the most useful manner to those who come here for information, and not (and again I am not accusing you of this) in the extremest case slant it to certain details and aspects. The current structure does seem slanted, however, if only because even his life is presented mostly up to the point of his move from Romania and even less after his his move to the United States. Those early years may be a dark stain on his life, maybe even frought with anti-semitism ("maybe" even to the point of influencing his work) though I personally don't know, but those years are also his life prior to his most academically productive years, and prior to the massive impact that he had as a figure as well as a scholar in the field of religious studies. This is my perspective. I hope you at least find it mildly interesting.PelleSmith 18:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment: on August 24! Dahn 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

While I stand by this comment, I wish to be dissasociated with this squable entirely. Please do not reference me as being for or against the NPOV tag. My view is that this article does need to be amended quite seriously, but as Dahn has pointed out, it needs to first be amended by adding substantive information about the parts of Eliade's life and scholarly work that are not represented thus far. My own squabbles with Dahn, some of which I honestly regret due to their unproductivity, have been about specific wordings and modes of presentation as well as general suggestions about the over all tenor of the article (see above quote). Never have I put the NPOV tag on this article, or suggested that it go there. Of course if it were there I wouldn't object to that either, since the article does need work (work I am not qualified to do myself). So seriously I'm not for your tag, nor do I object to it. Leave me out.PelleSmith 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

2nd User: 212.227.103.74 17:49

1st quote

Yet, I think the biographical section has become somewhat unbalanced. I have done a simple quantitative analysis of this section: out of about 1000 words, some 550 refer to biographical facts, some 420 relating to his political viwes and activities (the rest is trivial details). I suggest to reasign the information to the respective sections. I'll try to do it myself. Feel free to reword and adapt it. --212.227.103.74 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

2nd quote

Simply take this basic statistic: out of aproximately 2500 words contained by the article, as in its present version: 28% refer to the biography of Eliade, 10% refer to his works, 60% refer to his political views (1933 - 1945) --212.227.103.74 15:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: user banned for operating from a proxy. Dahn 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

3rd User: Mir Harven

1st quote

Having read a few Eliade's works (Aspects of myth, Tha sacred & the profane, Shamanism, Yoga,I,F, Mephistopheles & Androgyne, Initiation (exact title ?)), I'm rather displeased with the "quality" of the article. To recap:ca. 60-70% of the article is about Eliade's alleged Nazi & pro-Nazi loyalties. Interesting footnote, I'd say-but, nothing more than a footnote. In fact, I'd say that those immersed in mythic lore & pre-rational ways of psychological functioning possess a temperamental affinity with rightwinger irrationalism (gossip about Jung, Joseph Campbell, possibly D.H.Lawrence etc.). So, being a fascist (or, quasi-fascist) fellow-traveller or member doesn't deserve more than 5-10% of the text. .....Mir Harven 21:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

2nd quote

This kind of "presentation" is a breach of wiki policy- no WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. That's what makes the article heavily biased. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

3rd quote

I can only repaet: WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

4th quote

The only solution to the disparities so far was to call for erasing or obscuring information, This is absolutely necessary first step. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

5th quote

As I've said, this is a highly unbalanced article because it breaches Wikipedia's conventions on writing an article. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

6th quote

Correct. But this doesn't alter the fact that the text is a classic example of undue weight bias. Mir Harven 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: user has proposed deleting referenced text. Dahn 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

4th User: Jmabel

quote

The article needs expansion. Greatly. Yes, at the moment there is undue weight, but only because no one has gone through the necessary work to do the rest of the article that we should have. - Jmabel | Talk 01:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment: user expressed his support for added text. Dahn 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

In case I have been in any way unclear: Dahn's contributions to this article have been excellent. I see nothing about Eliade's involvement with fascism in the era up to and including WWII that should be removed. There is a great deal else about Eliade that should be added to bring the article into balance, but there is no reason to remove any of what Dahn has now researched well and written well about. - Jmabel | Talk 01:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

5th User: Azotlichid

1st quote

Should I remind to anyone that 5 out of 6 references point to political issues rather than to Eliade? I think that he had much a brighter role in setting up a history of religions than involving in the Legionaries' business. Your neutrality is doubtable and so this article's. Azotlichid 21:11, 17 October 2006 (GMT)

2nd quote

If Eliade had moments in his life when he felt attracted to the Legionaries it doesn't mean that his political influence is the reason for which he now has a page on Wikipedia. Keep objective, but focus on the central issue.Azotlichid 18:36, 21 October 2006 (GMT)

Comment: well, you know... Dahn 16:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned in a previous post, there were indeed five users (excepting myself) who expressed, on different tones and with different arguments their concern with the undue weight of this article.

Someone of very bad faith could of course try to relativize some opinions presnted or even try to discredit some users. Nevertheless, these are articulated, legitimate opinions.

So, the score is until now, five to one in favor of considering the article as biased in the sense of undue weight. --Timor Stultorum 16:13, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please also note that the POV tag is just a short phrase assessing the state on the talk page.One can disagree wheteher the article is actually biased, but nobody can disagree about the fact that five users think it is biased against one who think the contrary.

Once again: the POV tag describes the situation on the talk page, not that of the article itself. Nobody can resonable deny that there is a majority of users on the talk page thinking that the article has an undue weight--Timor Stultorum 16:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

To the last comments of Dahn regarding the cited opinions: sorry Dahn, but you are so predictable !

Just read again what I wrote before you inserted your comments:

Someone of very bad faith could of course try to relativize some opinions presnted or even try to discredit some users. Nevertheless, these are articulated, legitimate opinions.

Exactly what happened !

You really never get tired, don't you ?!

Anyway, that tag must be on this page since it reports about the state of the debate on the talk page. The POV tag doesn't label the article; it's just reporting the state of the discussions.--Timor Stultorum 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I do get tired, my troll. Currently, I am very, very, very tired of you. Dahn 17:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Timor, this year were published in Romania two books:

• a detailed biography: Mircea Eliade - Prizonierul istoriei, by Florin Ţurcanu, Humanitas, ISBN 973-50-1087-9 (there's also a French language version of the book, La Découverte ISBN 2-7071-2954-2)
• his personal journal from the time he was in Portugal: Jurnal portughez şi alte scrieri (2 vol), Humanitas

If you are really interested in Eliade, maybe you could add some information from those books instead of wasting your and other people's time with endless arguments. :-) bogdan 20:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protected

This article is now protected to give time to editors to find common ground and a way forward, withouy resorting to revert wars. When you are ready to resume editing, please make a request at WP:RFPP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry to see this argument and the state of this article. Wikipedia is a place to get to the crux of the matter, and it seems our friend Dahn is helping us do so. I do agree that the article is unbalanced. I'm not saying that the information covered in the article should necessarily be deleted for it may have a place in wikipedia, but not here, at least not all of it. Sayvandelay 12:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Eliade on himself (in an interview with Handoca - see the reference in the article): "În 1933 eram cunoscut, în România, ca scriitor şi (poate) conferenţiar. Astăzi sunt cunoscut mai ales ca orientalist şi istoric al religiilor." Translated: "In 1933 I was known, inside Romania, as a writer and (perhaps) a lecturer. Today I am mostly known as an orientalist and a historian of religion." One more reason why the 1930s are not "discardable". Dahn 15:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some new sincere attempts to improve this article

Since the article has been unprotected, some initiatives have been untertaken to improve it. Thus, User: Dahn proposed yesterday PelleSmith on his talk page to move the entire list of "Critical works about Eliade" on the ....talk page of the article (!), the list being...pointless for starters, while experts could very well access it on the talk page. User: Dahn made further constructive proposals, this time regarding the list of the very works of Eliade: this list, so User: Dahn, is simply too long. Besides, such lists can be accessed on external sources, why to keep them in the article ? Much better, says User: Dahn, would be to make a selection of Eliade's most important works, User: Dahn suggesting that he is ready to accept the task of judging and selected which works deserve to stay and which not. After the selection is accomplished , "In case we still need a list ... we could at least trim it down to "selected works"." so far User: Dahn

This is insulting to my and everybody's intelligence:

I hope that your insulted intelligence is recovering well. Get well soon !--Timor Stultorum 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have actually proposed adding an entire section on Eliade's writing instead of a meaningless list of chaotic entries. I had said merely a sentence away: "we should begin work on a section about Eliade "The fiction writer", which could sketch his most important works - on some of them, we could also start separate articles in the future". Timor/Timur was able to read for himself the entire proposal, but has come up with an intentional halftruth instead, in a poorly-processed attempt to dicredit me! Dahn 21:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dropping away the list of Eliade's works appears to be Dahn's most recent contribution to improve and re-balance this article.

With unexhaustible tact, PelleSmith answered: "Either way I think we should keep the literature listed on the main page because as you pointed out, maybe it will spark someone to do some reading and to add to it. Maybe the list is too long though, but I am not the person to say which works are more important than the others."

Minutes later, User: Dahn recurs with a frontal demand on PelleSmith, asking for anticipated support for whatever edits he, Dahn, plans to do in the future on Eliade's page. The most perplexing and disconcerting demand of Dahn comes at the end: he asks that any removal of his edits in the future to be automatically considered as vandalism. Let's cite User: Dahn himself: "I would like to know if, on principle, you accept and endorse the relevancy of my edits overall, and if you would view their removal as vandalism"

I have not, in fact, at any point in time asked Pelle to endorse my future edits (even if I would venture to such a thing, I would have to be an idiot to think Pelle would sign a blank cheque).

Now, if you say so, I have no further comments...--Timor Stultorum 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is clear from the very context that I was asking if Pelle endoreses the part in the present text that I had added and referenced. This only because I believe he did not initially make it clear - he has clarified his position since. Anybody could have figured out what the dialogue was about (relevant quote from myself: "I would like to know what other weaknesses you think the article has, so that we may overcome them (I have not reverted or rephrased your previous edits,and have invited you to continue editing the text if you think certain phrasings are objectionable). The main point here would be to come up with a version of the current text that nobody could delete partialy or entirely"; note: I had italicized the word current in the original, precisiely as to indicate what I was talking about). Again, Timor/Timur is not telling the truth. Dahn 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You still don't seem to realize, what is this behavior like, to overtly ask "that nobody could delete partialy or entirely" your edits. --Timor Stultorum 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Useless to say that PelleSmith couldn't find any answer to this.

Well, useless to say, he has. Dahn 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

...after you pressed him repeatedly and not at the time I had written my comments--Timor Stultorum 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

What if Dahn finds eventually an accolyte to "overall accept and endorse" his edits and to declare "any removal as vandalism" ?

I'm afraid that old poor Eliade won't enjoy a quiet future here on this WP page. --Timur Stultorum 16:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me condescend. Dahn 22:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

PS I know, he will treat me now as a troll, sockpuppet, etc. Nevermind...

First of all this discussion does not belong on this talk page--since this talk page is and should be about the article and not about specific users, their suggestions to other users, or their hypothetical "demands". Feel free to start/join a discussion on my talk page, on Dahn's talk page or on your own regarding these types of matters. This should be relatively clear given that the very discussion you are referencing was itself initiated on one of our talk pages and not on this one. If something relavent to the article comes out of such a discussion I'm sure we would all easily agree to bring it to this talk page. There has been too much name calling and accusation on here already, lets not start more.PelleSmith 17:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To make clear what I meant, since my name is being dragged through here again: I have asked if works that are not quoted could perhaps be removed, as they are simply dragging the text down (by occupying space while not actually providing information) - I have respected and agreed with Pelle's view that they may be needed as a section on further reading (although, I repeat myself, I do not use such sections in articles I create); I have also asked for something to be done about the immense, repetitive, and chaotic list of his work - which could be easily replaced with a paragraph on his literary work, detailing his oevre (with links to possible future articles on, for example, La Ţigănci.

I have asked Pelle to clarify a statement I considered ambiguous, and I have asked him to stand by a referenced text, and not by my opinion of Eliade (which has not itself passed into the text).

If my detractor has read the whole exchange of replies, as he seems to indicate, then it is clear that he is deliberately providing halftruths, as my actual points could not have been clearer. Dahn 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

All I have done was quoting you. I dindn't add anything to your own statements.--Timor Stultorum 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to also note that I have made the proposal about condensing the list of works and giving encycopaedic value to a section about his writing a couple of pages ago. Especially since: much of the list on Eliade's works was copy-pasted from one of the external links; the rest of the list only includes those novellas that were published for the first time in a certain collection (which is a poorly chosen criterion in listing, as it clogs the list with trivia). Dahn 19:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A user who didn't edit one single word about the actual work of Eliade, having contributed some 60% of the entire article with edits about Eliade's ideological preferences, wants now make us to believe that he is suddenly preoccupied about the "encyclopedic value" of the section about his writings.

Dahn, in my eyes you have lost any credibility regarding your neutrality about whatever aspect of the life or work of Eliade !

As I already proposed on the talk page of PelleSmith: you should better look to write a good article about the ideological preferences of Eliade (using the stuff you already have in the main article) and let others, better than you and me to write about the work of Eliade.

Up to now you sedulously excerpted from the obscure Zigu Ornea about trivia in the life of Eliade. This is your area of expertise. It's OK, keep working on it and don't attitudinize as an Eliade expert.

Sutor, ne ultra crepidam, your --Timor Stultorum 15:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I will not gratify incoherent and misleading trolling with an answer. You are currently on your third sockpuppet. I will, however, object to the audacity of calling Zigu Ornea "obscure".Dahn 16:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The following excerpt should be moved to the Controversy section, as it is not directly related to Eliade's achievements as a scholar:

Marcel Tolcea has argued that, through Evola's particular interpretation of Guénon's works, Eliade kept a traceable connection with far right ideologies in his academic contribution.[32] After the 1960s, he, together with Evola, Louis Rougier, and other intellectuals, offered support to Alain de Benoist's controversial Groupement de recherche et d'études pour la civilisation européenne, part of the Nouvelle Droite intellectual trend.[33] --VMS

The ideological trends identified in his thought sure as hell are part of his scholarly work. So is his membership to a think tank which claims to be involved in cultural analysis. Dahn 23:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Again: the controversy refers to his Iron Guard connections, not to his more notorious political and cultural views. Dahn 23:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but since we have a section especially dedicated to his political ideology and how they related to his work, I don't think we should use up the space in The scholar section to talk more about his right wing leanings. There should be more summaries of his theories by the way; the entry contains an almost complete list of his oeuvres, yet only a handful of them are actually expounded on in the The scholar section. --VMS

Let me make it even more clear: the section about controversy does not and should not deal with his political attitudes. That would amalgamate points to create a POV perspective. I have said it before: there is nothing disputed in the fact that he was a far right supporter for part of his life, there is nothing disputed in the fact that he was a fascist for part of his life; what is disputed, and what the section you cite is actually about, is his membership to the Iron Guard and his anti-Semitism. Furthermore, both those comments are connected strictly to his scholarly activities. Let's not mix apples and oranges. Dahn 23:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you are right in that his political affinities relate to the views expressed in his books, but since there isn't a lot of actual commentary/analysis on/of any of his books, it seemed to me like it belonged better with the Controversy part. I'm not saying any of the stuff connecting him with the Garda de Fier or even later pan-European Evola-inspired movements should be removed, just that the section about his body of works seems awfully anemic right now and should be developed to counter-balance the political stuff. I'm sure you've all had this discussion before, and I apologize if I'm simply reiterating these ideas. --VMS

I have advocated expanding all these sections, and placed the tags over them. I have called for a section on his fiction literature,with links to all his major novellas etc. (we should have articles on them, I guess). For this section in particular, I have added potential references that do not make such claims, but have not used them (I am involved in editing altogether different articles at the time). I don't want to see the point about Evola feature prominently, I wanted to see it referenced - and, if it belongs in the scholar section,let's keep it there. Since you agree with the tag placed at the top of the article, readers expect for sections not to be complete. With these in mind, I urgue you not to move a section and lose track of it in an altogether different one, but instead to contribute/expect/call for more content to be added in the incomplete sections. Dahn 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

But do they actually relate to views expressed in his books? I'm pretty sure the extent to which political ideologies influenced views expressed in his books is an ongoing controversy. See some of the works referenced below. I support the original move of this material. We shouldn't have to qualify stuff in this section with "So and so has argued". That means its not a consensus reading of his work.PelleSmith 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the point about Fascist influnces in his work, as you will note from reading the entire paragraph, has been made by more than one. Even if this were not the case, the "he said, she said" is what we have used in other sections. We are not here to "generate" consensus, we are here to point out who has said what, and there is nothing prevenyting anyone from adding sources that say otherwise. That is what I call "comprehensive".

I have specifically asked you before if you agreed to maintain the controversy section as one referring to his Guard membership and Anti-Semitism, for reasons I have made clear then and there. You have agreed. Now you want to move there a fragment that would have nothing to with the rest, based on the notion that it is "an open controversy". Yes, it is.But it is not that controversy. Dahn 00:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, what is the following supposed to mean exactly? His conclusions regarding Dacian history (arguing that Romanization was limited inside Roman Dacia)

It seems like a truism to me, and if it aims at expressing more than simply the fact that Romanization occured within Roman Dacia, that meaning is lost to me, and I would suspect to other readers as well. The author should revise that bit. --VMS

My mistake. I meant to say "the process was limited in effects" or something like that. I'll rephrase. Dahn 23:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

On a lot of biographical articles of prolific writers, we put the bibliography in a separate article and give only a prose summary of highlights in the main article. You might want to take a look at how we handle Jorge Luis Borges in this respect. - Jmabel | Talk 01:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I am confused about the section "References" which does not seem to be references for the article. This is not in accordance with normal Wikipedia practices. Andries 20:32, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... what? I'm afraid you don't know what you're talking about. Every single reference was cited at least once, as indicated by the notes. Care to look again? Dahn 00:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I looked again and I was wrong and you were right. In what section do I leave a book that is not used for the article, but that I will most probably use later to expand the section scholarship (which is clearly too short now in comparison to the rest). Andries 17:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I suggest either leaving it in "Critical works about Eliade" for now, or adding it to bibliography when/after you have used it (and thank you, btw). Dahn 17:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

Even though I don't think there is anything actively wrong with any of the material in the article, I disagree with the removal of the POV tag. Right now, this article is unbalanced. I'm not the one who tagged it, and I have already said that I think the appropriate answer is to add material, not remove it, but I think the reader should be warned. Do we have a different tag that is more speficic to undue emphasis? If not, I'd be in favor of restoring the one that was there. - Jmabel | Talk 03:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree to restoring the POV tag. My reasoning is that the world (i.e. we, Romanians, who study his works in school) does not remember M. Eliade as an (alleged) supporter of the Iron guard, but as a renowned teacher of the history of religions and as a writer. An impartial, useful encyclopedia should, IMHO, mainly record these, his most important features. The controversy has its place in the article, but currently it all but is the article. And if a stub tag can remain with an article indefinitely, I don't see anything wrong at all with keeping the POV tag, as long as it applies. Daniel Mahu 07:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Oopss....Well, well, it seems that common sense and good faith are back gain ! Welcome home !

I mean of course the reaction against the abusive removal of the POV tag. This tag has to stay there as a caution about the discussion on this page and the discussion will last here as long as the article will remain flawed with undue emphasis. --Timor Stultorum 10:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The following extract from the main entry is completely POV, and should either be removed, or supported with citations.

Eliade's work is viewed as more theological than historical.^{[citation needed]} He is considered to have discerned some valid patterns in mythological and religious traditions, but his presentation of them was often historically cavalier and heavily loaded with his own brand of Romantic spirituality that lauded religions of the "cosmic type" over traditions of history and modernity. Some have traced these views about the "terror of history" and the dangers of modernity to his experiences as a Romanian in World War II.^{[citation needed]}

Who exactly views his work as theological rather than historical? Who exactly has traced his concept of "terror of history" to his pre-war Iron Guard sympathies?--VMS

I noticed someone had added Simonca as a source of the latter statements about the relation between the concept of "terror of history" and the Iron Guard, and about his "cavalier and heavily loaded" presentation. I could find no such references in Simonca's article, and consequently removed the statements from the paragraph.

The refernce was not for the "cavalier and heavily..." sentence, it was for the one right after it. Both the title of the article and the title of the book made reference to Eliade's concept and linked it to his far right activism. But I was not married to that format. Dahn 22:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, I've added some references to other critics. Thanks in advance for copyediting, etc. since I don't have much experience with this kind of thing. Daniel Mahu 22:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating topical in-depth articles

First, allow me please to clear some points. As I assured on previous occasions,

• I never proposed, endorsed or even tacitly approved the removal of content on Eliade’s page. Moreover, on this talk page I explicitely expressed approval for the content
• I don't regard the POV tag as a tactical measure aiming at removing edits in order to re-balance the article
• I'm not preparing any coups or edits wars

Nevertheless, I reaffirm that the article, as it is now, is a caricature, that is, a "distorted rendition". Moreover, the article shifts the emphasis from essential to unessential in such an arbitrary way, that it represents disinformation.

The current article on Eliade with its 70%-focus on his right-wing ideological inclinations is like an article on Mozart with 70% treating about Mozart's freemason activities and convictions. Freemason themes are incomparably more present and visible in Mozart’s work than rightist themes in Eliade’s work. Nevertheless, Eliade’s article concentrates with 70% on rightist ideology while Mozart’s article mentions freemasonry with 64 words out of 4700 (!)

The aim of any entry with encyclopaedical ambitions is to provide essential information. In the case of an entry about a personality, essential are those aspects in his life and activity which are relevant for his notoriety. Eliade is universally known as an outstanding scholar with a seminal legacy. Any biographical and bibliographical fact, any account and interpretation of his work which can enlighten the scholar and his legacy is essential. The rest, not.

Of course, "pop culture", not being able to access "high culture", remains a prisoner of trivia, being interested e.g. in the mental suffering of Nietzsche or Eminescu, or in the sexual life of Rimbaud or Rousseau. This is what they understand, this is what they like. Though Wikipedia is inevitably invaded by pop culture, we shouldn’t let us overwhelm.

A suggestion in order to get out of the actual impasse would be to follow the procedure used for every important entry: a main article with sections linking to in-depth articles. An excellent beginning was made by User:Phatius McBluff with his Eternal return (Eliade). (BTW, this first in-depth article should be better highlighted in the Eliade’s main article. I suggest creating a new section, called "Work" - which wouldn’t overlap thematically the section "Scholar". Thus, the "Eternal Return" would be the first linked in-depth article in this new section.

A further in-depth article could be created about the controversy regarding the ideological preferences of Eliade, while in the main Eliade article a compact section would present the main arguments. The material already exists.

I am ready to provide myself a rationale for such an article: it would be to highlight less known aspects in the life of a great personality. It still remains pop cultural trivia of the sort of “did you know…?”, but at least it wouldn’t interfere seriously in the main article. Currently, the Eliade’s article is properly squatted by this ideology stuff.

We are nothing left, but the hope that reason will prevail. Sursum corda, speranţa moare ultima ! --Timor Stultorum 12:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't you ever get tired of posting tons of propaganda? Dahn 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me add, for other users: the entire list of references is dismissed as "pop culture" in the above post. All this is is is an attempt to shadow in sophistry and highly irregular moves what is a large part of Eliade's life, based on some shrine-like cliche. If the "worry" is about length, we have featured articles that reach 100 KB in length; if the "worry" is about detail, let me caution you that a featured article is a featured article for including all relevant biographical detail in one place. All of these "concerns" are false, and based on original interpretation of wikipedia guidelines; "mending" in accordance with POV has been attempted before in this precise form, and has been judged to break several wikipedia rules. Dahn 22:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have trimmed this article a bit based on a logical guideline (note Category:Bibliographies by author), per what has already been discussed on the page. Dahn 22:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this article should digress more on his scholarship. This does not mean that well-sourced information about rightist activities should be removed, though they should may be summarized more briefly. Andries 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New lead section

Noticing that the old lead section did not reflect the entire personality of Eliade, I endeavored to rewrite it.

• I didn't see enough reasons for calling him a literary critic (the Encyclopedic Dict. didn't, either), so I removed that
• I added a paragraph about his work as a historian of religion (which is possibly incomplete, I tried my best to synthesize it in a few words)
• another paragraph with his literary works (and mentioned here specifically the best known ones, since it seemed the easiest way to pick out only a few titles -- two of those are studied in school, the other two are also well known) (feel free to review the list, of course)
• I wanted to write about his philosophy in a last paragraph, but I wasn't able to come up with something worthy enough. One idea would be to mention his book Solilocvii. Please help if you can.
• I kept the reference to the Iron Guard, moved it to a paragraph talking about his youth, removed the story about his lifelong friends (which belongs to the body of the article)

I hope at least this part can be considered NPOV now, so we can have something to start with. Let me know what you think. Daniel Mahu 03:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If your intent is to be an apologist for fascism, then this entry is now NPOV. Otherwise you have failed.--Cberlet 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologist for fascism? I don't get it. What part of what I wrote defends that movement? (Also, please note I was only talking about the lead section, the first few paragraphs before the biography). Daniel Mahu 07:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet that is out of line and at least bording on a personal attack. Someone comes in here an actually expands the entry and fleshes out the lead without removing any information and he/she gets attacked? Daniel good job, please don't let this scare you off. PelleSmith 12:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit and the current wording is a sanitization of the facts and the historic record. We have had this dispute before. Eliade's support of the Iron Guard is not a minor error of youth, nor is there any serious dispute about it being fascistic. I will start to add the published cites and expand the detail.--Cberlet 13:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't say that anything about it being a minor error during his youth. It says he's been criticized since the 1970s for his connection to the Iron Guard. Anyone who reads the article will find ample information about it. The issue isn't about removing this information but having a good lead section.PelleSmith 13:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. François Mitterrand was member of the Croix de Feu in his youth, yet this is discussed only in two sections in his article, namely in his chronology and the particular controversy section. No why can't we do the same here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinkos (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Apologies for fascism and antisemitism are POV

This page has repeatedly been sanitized by rewriting the terms used to describe Eliade's support for the Iron Guard and the nature of the Iron Guard, a fascist movement hat was viciously antisemitic. This is repugnant. It is a POV apology for fascism. I will be delighted to discuss this at length.--Cberlet 13:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The references provided for the Iron Guard are superfluous - we have an entire article on the movement, and half of this article already clarifies such aspects. Was this because of my comment regarding their clericofascism? Because: 1) I am not at all denying they were fascist, I'm just saying it's disputed which kind of fascist (and I have to point out that some serious scholars dispute that it was fascist at all for part of its existence - see Veiga, see Nagy-Talavera); 2) a dispute their exact ideology has no relevancy to this article, and Eliade's problematic connections (with the rationale behind the polemic) are anything but hidden in the current article. Dahn 14:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Allow me to note: being antisemitic and being fascist are not the same thing (one can obviously be both, but he can also be just one). As the person who has added the exact references about Eliade's fascism and connections with the Guard (and have been subject to trolling and allegations from Eliade's defenders based on this), I endorse the current lead section and recent edits by Daniel Mahu, I point out that NO INFORMATION HAS BEEN ERASED. Ergo, Cberlet's comment is slander. Dahn 14:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The importance of Eliade's support for the Iron Guard is under discussion. Placement of the text matters. The terms used to describe the Iron Guard matter. These need to be discussed. I read this page as one tiny step away from Holocaust Denial. If that horrifies you, it should. I am repulsed by the apologetic tone on this page. It is not slander for my to argue that the current version of this page appears to me to be apologies for fascism and antisemitism. I am well aware that the two need not be conneted. Consider, however, the following:

• Like other clercial fascist movements of the time, the Iron Guard was avividly antisemitic, promoting the idea that "Rabbinical aggression against the Christian world" in "unexpected 'protean forms': Freemasonry, Freudianism, homosexuality, atheism, Marxism, Bolshevism, the civil war in Spain," were undermining society. (Volovici, Nationalist Ideology, p. 98, citing N. Cainic, Ortodxie şi Eţnocratie, pp. 162-4.)

I am disputing (1) the importance of what is currently in the lead, (2) the nature of the Iron Guard and the terms used to describe it, (3) the level of antisemitism in the Iron Guard, (4) and the entire apologetic tone of the references to the subject in this article. Which would you like to discuss first?--Cberlet 14:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is ridiculous to claim that since half of the article on Eliade is focused on his connections with different right-wing groups (with considerable space being allotted specifically to his relationship to the Iron Guard), there is any attempt on the part of the authors to soften or apologise for his shady politcal past.

I think the article is mainly pretty balanced and not at all POV. It is true that Eliade openly expressed anti-semitic views in some of his journalistic writings, and that has been dealt with exhaustively in the Controversy section. The fact is, he was not an official member of the movement. Saying so is not apologetic. Depicting Eliade as a one-dimensional unscrupulous hitlerist would be completely misinformed, not to mention completely POV. I think your problem is with the Iron Guard, mr Cberlet, not with Eliade per se. This article however is not about the Iron Guard. --VMS

The tone and terminology are relentlessly apologetic. Every claim is surrounded by a counter claim that serves to rebut the accusations. The description of the Iron Guard is sanitized. Here is an accurate summary description: "sympathized with the fascistic Iron Guard, a far right and anti-Semitic political organization" and I have made that change as a start.--Cberlet 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that changes the tone of the article in any way. It was already established that he was an Iron Guard sympathizer during his youth. I want to know what in particular you find apologetic (quoting examples would be a good idea) about the article. Overall, I can't say I am opposed to your addition.--VMS

I just cited and example of apologietic tone and terminioogy and changed its wording to be stronger...and yet you see no difference in stating that the Iron Guard was "influenced by fascism" or was, in fact, a form of fascism? This is exactly the problem of apologetic tone and terminology I am talking about.--Cberlet 15:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be a false linguistic problem to distinguish between fascistic and fascist-inspired in this case. The structure of the Guard was definitely inspired and perhaps almost identical to that of the Italian Blackshirts, but there were significant differences in ideology, despite their common shared antisemitism.--VMS

People have called the Croix de Feu fascist, but somehow this is not a point in the François Mitterrand article... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinkos (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Also when something has its own entry, where you can readily read all about it, like the Iron Guard, and it is wikilinked we don't have to qualify aspects of it on this page. No offense, but standard procedure on most wikipedia entries is to just link it, and put it in without a qualification. But I know you're just going to tell me I'm sanitizing history ... lets her it.PelleSmith 23:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the two Mitterrand comments show that some users are not informing themselves of what the issue actually is, so I personally will not be answering them. Secondly, Pelle, I've seen the supposed standard you cite contradicted by established users on several occasions. And let me add: it is redundant to reference what the Iron Guard was over in this article, but it is certainly not redundant to briefly indicate what the Guard was - wikipedia should profit from internal links, not depend on them. Dahn 00:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this at all ... but the standard I mention (and clearly its not universally used ... very few policies here even are) refers to what tends to happen in controversial situations. Also it helps keep pages from getting cluttered with all kinds of qualifiers. Yes people dont' know what the Iron Guard was, how about a much shorter qualifier? Its too long. How about just writing "the Iron Guard, a fascist political organization."PelleSmith 00:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Or if it sits better with you. "the Iron Guard, an antisemitic political organization".PelleSmith 00:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In my view, it should remain both - "fascism" and "anti-Semitism" are not intertwined, and they are both defining characteristic of the Guard (with the mention that the former could even be expanded to "fascist-inspired", which is IMO better formulated). To say just one is too little, to say both is not too much. Dahn 00:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but can we take the interwar ROmania part out ... I'm going to do at least that.PelleSmith 00:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The prospect of dropping that, and thus leading the sentence to be read as "Eliade had kept contacts with the Iron Guard throughout his life", is quite fun, but I'm sure you'll reconsider upon reflection. Dahn 00:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

"Far right and fascist" is a pleonasm (all facists are far right); I tend to favor a more nuanced form ("fascist-inspired", since they were more complex if not less vile).The actual point, and this is what Cberlet misinterpreted, is that several scholars have argued the Iron Guard not to be a fascist movement (ie: not to cherish a corporatist model, which is what fascism is all about, or at least not before 1940). In that sense, using "clerical fascist" is even more controversial for a brief overview of the Guard (1."clerical fascism" is itself a controversial term; 2.it is dependent on the definition of the Guard as "fascist"; 3.not all experts who rate the Guard as "fascist" also rate it as "clerical fascist"; 4.the Orthodox Church has had a massive impact on the Guard, and vice versa, but such relations have not usually been described as "clerical fascism" by those who have touched the issue, given that the Orthodox Church itself has a different [for better or worse] view on Church-State relations). Please note that I am not even saying that they were not fascists or even clerical fascists, I am saying that we should not impose an opinion on the matter. This has nothing to with Antisemitism: their criminal acts against Jews (as well as against political opponents) are undeniable, but several fascist movements were not at all Antisemitic, and those that were weren't so because of being fascist; furthermore, the Iron Guard developed its Antisemitism from a Romanian tradition of intolerance and violence, and not by borrowing it from those fascists who were Antisemitic (if you read Codreanu's early rants, cited in Talavera for one, you will note that he looks upon fascism as an equivalent of his movement, not as an inspiration, and deplores the fact that Mussolini was not an anti-Semite). Dahn 15:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us note an ESSENTIAL POINT: with or without the Iron Guard connection, Eliade was a Fascist (ie: a partisan of Fascism as developed in Italy and elsewhere) in the 1930s, as shown by his writings. Dahn 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

the Iron Guard developed its Antisemitism from a Romanian tradition of intolerance and violence this sounds a bit calumnious, Dahn. Are you trying to say, that much like EVERY nation on Earth, the Romanians have their own history of prejudice and intolerance, or that Romanians in particular were more given to intolerance and violence than other nations, thus facilitating the Guard's rise to power?--VMS

I'm saying that, by the time when the Iron Guard was founded, a large part of the political spectrum was violently anti-Semitic, and that Jews were almost completely excluded from society. Antisemitism was certainly a worldwide phenomenon, but it was exceptionally represented in Romania at the time. I don't attribute this to any singular cause, and certainly not to "people being Romanian"; I am saying that anti-Semitism was a traditional political attitude in Romania, and I think it is Veiga who has traced one of the early major influences on Guardists to the Black Hundreds and other deeply Orthodox 19th century movements. I'll add more of all these views on the Guard to the respective article (have been planning to do so for a while), but I'm currently trying to finish major edits in unrelated articles. Dahn 16:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Let us note an ESSENTIAL POINT: with or without the Iron Guard connection, Eliade was a Fascist (ie: a partisan of Fascism as developed in Italy and elsewhere) in the 1930s, as shown by his writings. Dahn 15:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[Note: What this meant to say was "his writings of the 1930s" - his essays and articles. I realize that it had led to confusion, but I'm partly glad, since the confusion allowed me to expand on my point about his entire work. Dahn 22:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)]

But do you think that invalidates his scholarly contributions to the field of religious studies? And in fact, I would address this question to anyone who's taking part in this discussion.--VMSolo 18:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. In fact, I don't even think I accuse him by saying he was a fascist in his early public life (I have said before that, IMO, a fascist person x is certainly wrong on all levels, but that one should not formulate guilts based solely on the fascist opinion of x person) - I just think that option and its implications need to remain stated clearly in the text. On the other hand, and this is strictly my opinion, I think that the academics who have criticized his work are right, and I think that it is largely intellectual mumbo-jumbo.

The third issue to consider here is the fact that his weird political convictions may have seeped into part of his work (paradoxically, as a person who dislikes Eliade's work, I find this the most interesting part of his contributions to literature and science - in the sense that it, and only it, is contained within my main field of interest). In an academic debate, mentioning that has limited impact on his work overall (because, if one could say for sure "Eliade borrowed this idea from fascism", nobody could say "Elaide borrowed all his ideas from fascism"), but it should also not be avoided (just as one could not write about Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu's sociology without indicating that he used Marxist ideas). Even if he had borrowed a lot from [his fellow] fascist scholars, that should not necessarily lead to discarding his work - not only was that field of research traditionally been packed full with people who have made the same idiotic political choices, but all those ideas, expressed in a neutral context, have become an autonomous part of culture (as much as I resent that particular culture, I cannot and will not dismiss it altogether). Dahn 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, you previously stated that you view his work as "mediocre"; that must surely mean that you are familiar with the vast majority of it, no? (otherwise why would you make such a presumptuously dismissive remark?) If so, how come the Scholar section of this article has been from the very start so poorly developed? I understand you are involved with the editing and writing of other articles, but I am hoping you will grace this article with your exhaustive knowledge of Eliade's work in the future, and help expand the Scholar section.--VMSolo 18:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with a large part of his work, nor do I feel need to be to in order to make that remark. I am familiar with part of his work and with some of his main ideas, and do not consider them relevant. (I apply the same judgment to his literary works.) It is a question of tastes, and I trust you can see that I did not bring my tastes into the article.

I have already answered questions regarding my ability to contribute on Eliade's scholarly activities: I do not feel I have as adequate knowledge of them or interest in them as I should if I were the one picked to do it, except for compiling or adding to a short summary (for example, I'm not sure if I have a clear picture of what is considered important throughout his oevre, as I was never actually a student of his work). I can add some stuff, trim a little, rearrange, perhaps even summarize some things, but I could never write an adequate and informative review of his entire work.

My interests are political and historiographic, and what brought this article to my attention were pushes to remove informative bits about his status in politics. Since I was called to, I chose to reference what I could, based on the sources I had access to. Dahn 19:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying that. I do not agree, I'm afraid, with your position on his scholarly contributions (even his fiercest critics admit he had a significant influence on later historians of religions), but insofar as it is a matter of taste, I have no problem accepting it (although to be honest, I think the negative criticism in the Scholar section is preponderant, and while that might not be your taste at work, it obviously gives the section a certain bias)--VMSolo 19:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

By all means, that section should be expanded. What is currently in there should become less than half of the text in the section. I have added among references a Spanish-language link, which is an overview of his work and not used at the moment, and we also have the Rennie site - they could be reviewed to form at least the skeleton for the expansion (I personally don't know where to start and what to select, but I could give it a go - although perhaps not today.) Dahn 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

(I need to clarify this again, as my previous explanation was probably lost in the bulk of messages sometime in the past months: I authored virtually nothing in the "Scholar" section - most of my interventions there have been modulations in tone and the Zalmoxis info - which is currently referenced.) Dahn 20:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Although his reputation..."

Probably. But do we really need to make such an intimate and reassuring claim in an encyclopaedia article? Dahn 14:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, if you remove this part but leave the rest of the phrase where it is, it comes a bit abruptly after, and unrelated to, the list of his fiction works. I agree the reassurance is not really needed, but you'll probably have to rearrange paragraphs again. — Daniel Mahu · talk · 21:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment

Mirce Eliade is universally and exclusively known as a great scholar, one of the most influential religion scientists and an original and seminal writer and theorist. In the article, all these essential informations are massively obscured by an overflow of items dealing with Eliade’s ideological preferences. Basically, the entire article is being taken hostage by ideology. This is a matter of concern for many users: the present score of those having expressed unease on the talk page with the present WP:Undue weight of the article is seven against one. I am therefore proposing the creation of a separate article addressing the ideological orientations of Eliade. Such an entry will gather all the biographical, bibliographical and interpretational items dealing with this topic. The creation of a new entry out of the present section “Controversy….” represents an upgrading of this topic. Thus, readers interested in the ideological orientations of Eliade will find specific and focused information, while those interested in the scholar, thinker and writer will be able to follow their line of research. The present amalgamation of 70% ideology and 15% science is fallacious and untenable. Please give your comment on this proposal.--Timor Stultorum 11:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, let's hide everything under the rug. Oh: and I don't know where you come up with those percentages. Dahn 14:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Addition: I recently bumped into this wikipedia guideline. Dahn 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with creating a separate article. I personally think that having this information in the section called "Controversy..." is enough to allow both categories of people to focus on what they are interested in. Besides, there are other, more important issues to fix in this article. The biography is lacking further information both from his youth (his intense study methods, his radio lectures just to give two small examples) and from his later years (there isn't any mention of his death!). The scholar section only seems to cover a part of what he worked on. There is no section describing his fiction works! Bottom line, your insistences with moving/shrinking the Iron Guard related information are at the moment pointless and just a waste of everyone's time and nerves. Let's first have a more complete article, and then we can talk about what needs to be moved where, if that is still the case. — Daniel Mahu · talk · 15:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I support the idea of expanding the article with Eliade's many accomplishments, but at some point we need to discuss the long, rambling, and convoluted section that, when diagramed, reduces down to "some critics call Eliade an antisemite, but because some of his best friends were Jews, readers should not take this claim too seriously."--Cberlet 16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is long because I have gathered all possible evidence without commenting on them (except perhaps for the Sebastian quote, which I'm willing to rephrase). It was my goal to be as explicit about what Eliade thought on these matters, without attributing him things that were not his: in other words, if Eliade was an anti-Semite (which I personally do not dispute), he did a good job at hiding it. What that part does/should actually be diagramed to is: "most critics call Eliade an antisemite". I also fail to see where it is indicated that "most of his friends were Jewish" (or that it is relevant how many of them were); it is, however, a fact that Eliade was initially a philo-Semite (like many non-Nazi fascists), and that Sebastian, for some reason, had been accepted in Ionescu's group and was naively adopting its outlook on the world. If you want to look at it this way (and many have), it is a matter of scandal that Eliade chose between his Jewsih friend(s) and the Iron Guard, that he behaved in a disgusting manner towards Sebastian, and that he had the nerve to express his sadness that Sebastian died just before he (Eliade!) could tell him that there were no hard feelings betwen them ("I've just raped your wife, but I'm not upset, and neither should you be"). Dahn 17:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

That was not at all his intent. There were hard feelings, and Eliade wanted to deal with them personally and get a chance to tell Sebastian he was sorry (and I believe he was). You should read his Memoirs before you call his sense of loss (in regard to Sebastian's passing) phoney. Sebastian himself, in his Journal, declares on numerous occasions that despite being shunned by Eliade, he still considered him a friend, and knew that "it wasn't the real Eliade" (paraphrasing) who was writing those nasty antisemitic diatribes and proclaiming the glory of the guard. (to a lesser extent, he felt the same about Nae Ionescu). Maybe Eliade didn't feel the same, but at the time when he was already in exile, and writing his Memoirs, he was genuinely saddened by Sebastian's death (such a stupid death too...). I don't see why you have to deny the man all traces of humanity. I mean for f's sake, he wasn't Satan incarnate. He made some pretty big mistakes yes, but he did have friends, and he did care about Sebastian (and Sebastian cared about him). Your rape remark is completely off-topic.--VMSolo67.71.159.94 15:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

VM, the topic here is differentiating between what can be listed in Eliade's actions and what can be deduced from them. I certainly agree that it was off-topic, but that was my precise meaning: I was pointing that listing Eliade's actions and noting that less than Cberlet's expects are incriminating for Eliade still does not mean that somebody is "hiding" Eliade's guilts/mistakes. Therefore, I did not indicate that one should entertain that opinion, but, for the purposes of what was discussed, I showed that the current text should not be read as either an apology or a castigation. Whether I do believe what I have theorized is ultimately irrelevant, and responding to it was truly off-topic, but, if you ask to know: no, I don't believe that he did that exactly, but I don't think that what he did was far from that. On a different level: even the harshest interpretation of what Eliade did would not indicate to me, nor serve to indicate to me that the man was Satan or that he had no traces of humanity. To me, it is rather indicative of precisely the trance of violent and modernist relativism that so many others fell into, right (Papini, d'Annunzio, Emil Nolde, Jünger etc etc) and left (Koestler, Picasso etc etc). In particular, it is also illustrative of the appeal of the collective mind to even the most individualist souls in Romanian culture (how many have talked about the frenzied and hypnotic immersion of Romanian intellectuals into extremism?). What I would rather say is that Eliade never did realize the harm he had advocated, and that his primordial interest has always been making himself look good. Were it not for the consequences his actions had, I would consider that his right and privilege. But, as I have said, all of this is nothing to the text we're discussing. Dahn 22:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, I think the article is improving. :-) --Cberlet 20:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think there still is in this article a problem of undue weight. The controversy section is twice as big as the scholar one. This is not OK. Note that I'm not contesting here the quality of the two sections, just their relative sizes. Dpotop 11:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, now, if you would kindly check the kilometers of talk above and in the archive, as well as the tags placed in the article, the solution is to expand the other sections accordingly. I was able to add things relevant to other sections; if others can add relevant stuff to other sections, you've got the way out of this problem. Nevertheless, the only "solution" proposed here was moving or removing other content. If you are also proposing the latter, I'm afraid I for one am not at all interested. Dahn 12:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for the critical works

Someone has separated the scholar works into a separate article. At the same time, Dahn insists on preserving the critical works (one screen) in this article. To me, this seems to be unfair. Either you keep both scholar (i.e. positive side) and critics here, or put them both in separate articles. I will revert you last change, which I consider unfair, and POV. Dpotop 19:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I can sympathize with your complaint, but the problem is that the works by Eliade are so many making this article very long. May be we could list his most important scholarly works and fiction works here and refer the reader for more information to a long bibliography. I cannot do this because I do not what the main works by Eliade are.

E.g. {{main|bibliography of Mircea Eliade}} which yields :

Main article: bibliography of Mircea Eliade

.

Andries 19:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Including his most important works and his most important critics may be a good solution. But including all works on Eliade and not all works by Eliade is not OK. Two arguments:

1. Few wikipedians know how to search on wikipedia.
2. You should first include the real thing and only then comments about it.

BTW, your argument works against you, too, because searching for "critical work on ME" gives exactly the list of critical works. :)

PS: I added an indent to your edit. I hope it's ok. Dpotop 19:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw your last edits. How do you like the current structure? You will have to add here the main works about Eliade. Dpotop 20:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the current structure is fine, though I have my doubts about the question whether so many fiction works by Eliade should be listed here. I know Eliade as a famous scholar, not as a famous writer of fiction. But again, my knowledge about Eliade is very limited. Andries 20:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, let me be very clear about this, "critical works" does not mean, as you understood it based on your patchy knowledge of English, "works critical of Mircea Eliade". They mean works of LITERARY CRITICISM, so the question of POV that you raise is MOOT (there is no "positive side" or "negative side"). The very notion that you think someone could comply a list based on which works are positive and which are not is infuriating, because it implies that you would also consider such a criteria acceptable. In fact, most of those works aren't even "critical" of Eliade (Simion's is basically a homage). Please understand, because this is getting ridiculous. Dahn 20:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I know very well what "critical works" means in English. However, I don't see why you need "critical", when "works about" is semanticslly complete. I also don't see why you reverted the edits of Andries, too (not only mine). Dpotop 20:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Ask the native English speaker who created the section why he chose the wording. 2. "Works about Mircea Eliade" is vague, and surely not limited to "works of professional criticism", which is what was intended. Dahn 20:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Those books are not only criticism of his works. They also criticise (unfavourably) Eliade's political stances. We are talking here about a person that has 2 faces: one scholar, and the other political. While the previous wording was ok for the scholar, the books listed there (e.g. the one by Turcanu) comment on both aspects. Hence, using the scholar meaning of "criticism" is not OK. And, of course, I intended the title to be broader than the one you chose. Dpotop 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? Name the book that does not fit into the "criticism of his work" criteria. Name it. Now, even if you had an objection towards Ţurcanu being included in that list, that could be debated on its own, and the objection would still not explain your creation of a fork, nor your original explanation of the term "criticism". Dahn 21:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Turcanu's book does not entirely fit inside "criticism of Eliade's work" because it also comments on the political view of the young Eliade. Moreover, Turcanu takes great care to identify both the scholar and the political incarnations of Eliade, and explain how they are different, yet sometimes intertwined. Dpotop 21:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

And therein is the logical fallacy: False dilemma. If you argue that, for some reason, one of the books is not entirely of criticism, it still does not mean that it is not largely of criticism (as opposed to Ornea's book, which is not a critical study of Eliade's oevre, but solely a clear-cut investigation into his and others' political activities). Key terms: entirely, largely, solely. Might I add that the said book also falls under the main and neutral definition to be found in the article on critic ("reasoned judgement or analysis, value judgement, interpretation, or observation"), that it is about Eliade, and that it is written by a researcher, as well as investigating his literature (scientific and fantasy). Since the main purpose of that list, per what was agreed when I proposed removing it altogether, and per wikipdia guidelines on sources that were not [yet] cited, is to provide readers with where they can find extra information about the topic of this article, this most likely belongs here.

You also obstinately continue to refuse explaining why you created a fork for Bibliography of Mircea Eliade in this article, and fail to explain why your arguments about the topic have changed three times by now (beginning with the whimsical addition you made to Critical works about Mircea Eliade - "The following works are perceived as critical on Mircea Eliade", which shows precisely that you had no clue). Dahn 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I would not classify the book by Daniel Pals as criticism. Yes, it critically asseses his theory (and other theories), but it is not harsh criticism. Andries 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Andries, the meaning of the term "criticsm" is strictly in reference to "literary criticism", ie: to scholarly material on Eliade's contribution to literature and science. I have just indicated that most of those books are actually praises of Eliade. A list of works that express criticism of Eliade has not been, cannot be, and should not be created. Dahn 21:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of this meaning of the term criticism is ambiguous and should be avoided unless explicitly explained. Andries 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Then change it to something you consider explicit, unless you want to ask the person who introduced the term why he or she chose to do so. In any case, propose an alternative to the title, and do not rely on the previous assumption. Dahn 23:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The term "critical works" is featured in many other articles dealing with literary, artistic and scientific figures on Wikipedia, and is completely acceptable. I can't believe people are still arguing about such trivial nonsense, while the article on Eliade's scholarly output remains chronically undeveloped.--VMSolo 17:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Terribly Limited Scope of References In This Article

I contend that this article is not neutral because of the terribly limited scope of references. For example, nearly half of the references included in this artical are from one book by Z. Ornea which apparently primarily focuses on creating a critical view of Eliade's associations with the Iron Guard. On the other hand, there is not one reference from the writings of Mircea Eliade which serve to clarify his positions on the relationships between religions or, far more importantly, his work in furthering studies into the phenomenology of religions. Furthermore most critical references in this article aim to display Eliade, by association, as a fascist and antisemite -- an association which stands in strong contradiction to the mass body of Eliade's scholarly work.

As a solution to this problem I suggest that references taken directly from Eliade's own scholarly writings, or those not critical of his writings, be added with the same ferocity and defensiveness which apparently Dahn has provided to those critical of Eliade's early life. Until this is done, this article will remain unfairly biased in the view it gives of Mircea Eliade's life and works. Jdsudol 06:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Way to state the obvious. You know, I'm getting pretty tired of being depicted as the person who opposes expanding other sections, when I was always merely in favor of referencing other sections as much as the ones I referenced. Let me make this clear, because I see people still have problems understanding the million of replies I already gave on this topic, (whenever someone began to question or attack me willy-nilly): I agree that this article is INCOMPLETE. Allow me add this: up to now, tens of people have criticized me for the utterly idiotic reasons of not having provided more references for other sections (under the assumption that this is what I can and should do) or that I have provided to many references for one section (with the vandal "proposal" to erase or remove text); up to now, tens of people have argued that "the actual Eliade" or "the other Eliade" was under-represented - funny to note that, throughout the months of debating these issues, not a single person of the more aggressive people who claim to know Eliade and speak for him, not one of them was able to expand the sections. No, those sections are currently as big as they are, and not smaller, because a user who has not actually criticized the rest of the text has expanded them and has found references, and because I myself have expanded them.

And, after all, can you see in the article the tags that call for expanding sections? I suppose you can. Have you seen anyone proposing that the article should be limited to its present form? I suppose you did not. I urge to speak to the point if and when you decide to criticize me or anyone else. Dahn 10:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

The above intervention of Dahn is disabusing: for being ridiculous, it is by no means less dangerous. Frankly, what Dahn makes, is to insult all others users who contribute to this debate:

• "Let me make this clear, because I see people still have problems understanding the million of replies I already gave on this topic" – meaning: I, Dahn, have condesceded to reply on this topic, ("millions of replies") but you people still have problems understanding my replies. Accusing others of not being able to understand, means calling them stupid. This is a harsh insult.
• "up to now, tens of people have criticized me for the utterly idiotic reasons..." – meaning: those tens of people had all idiotic reasons for criticising Dahn, who, obviously, was right.

In this discussion, Dahn is walking the line of decency. He should consider him warned in all due form. --Timor Stultorum 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have to troll, at least change your verses. Proof by verbosity. Bye. Dahn 11:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All critical works, but no bilbiography is POV

I still believe that having all the cited critical works, but no bibliography whatsoever is not correct, from several points of view:

1. First of all, this is an article about Eliade, and should give access to Eliade's works, in the first place. Some of you needing access to critics is another problem.
2. Despite what you may have discussed (or what Dahn poured into your ears), citing a long list of works is not against wikipedia policies, as you can see at William Shakespeare, where most of his works are all listed, and no critic. You may say that Eliade was a scientist, but he was not only a scientist. He was also a writer and publicist. And take a look at James Fraser (one of Eliade's inspirations), Emil Cioran (Eliade's friend and part in the Legionnaire controversy), Richard Pipes, etc. ALL DECENT ARTICLES CITE THE WORKS OF THE AUTHOR FIRST.
3. Dahn says you somehow talk here only about the scholar. But this is false. Most recent critics somehow criticise Eliade's political positions, making those books into actual unscientific critic.

I also suggest you try to read this article while assuming you don't know shit about Eliade. What does this article say: The guy was a fascist who managed to hide it, he wrote some things, but it's deprecated, and anyway it's not clear what he wrote (because nobody will get to the "bibliography of ME" list). Is this what people should know about Eliade? Think about this, and compare this article with other decent articles. Dpotop 08:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, D, as I have said before, I have little to no objection about dropping the critical works about Eliade altogether, and I have even proposed it originally, but was given a fine argument why that should not be (please see Talk:Mircea Eliade#Some new sincere attempts to improve this article section above for my full point, the answer given, and the agreement reached). Note, however, that I will not accept a move to a separate article - the reasons given by PelleSmith would no longer make sense in that instance -, and note that I would certainly oppose creating such an article based on the grotesque assumption that it lists works critical of Eliade rather than works of criticism about Eliade (unfortunately, it is eloquent that you would have accepted, on principle, a list about works critical of someone, even though complying one would have broken every single wikipedia guideline on notability and POV).

I moved bibliography, per Jmabel's suggestion, to a separate article, since it is, and is bound to be, immense. Having done that, I have suggested that this article feature instead a separate and descriptive section about his major literary works (an overview, not a bollet point list), with links to the titles (as future articles are eventually bound to appear on those - much of the reason why I also created a Category:Mircea Eliade). See my point? (Also note that I have made this proposal public not once, but probably five times, and that I was not answered to by anyone but PelleSmith - who thought it a good idea. I'm afraid I don't send out newsletters, so you could have made the effort of reading what I have posted on this page before drawing conclusions.)

Please, be constructive. Dahn 09:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer my concerns presented above. Dpotop 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The bibliography of some of the above-cited authors is immense, too, but nobody has had the bright idea to move it elsewhere. An author is defined first by his work, and only then by critics. I'm sure Jmabel can understand this. And I'm sure he could accept what you deleted, which is a selective bibliography and a selective list of critic books, whereas the "full" lists are given elsewhere (because the critical books mentioned in this article are by no means all that has been written on Eliade, for good and for worse). Dpotop 11:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As for constructive, from what I see here you are not constructive. Dpotop 11:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Use logic, Dpotop. Please. The issue was not at all about "nobody has had the bright idea to move it elsewhere", but about the fact that the idea is not at all stupid (i.e.: they could just as well apply it there, and I can point many articles where they have!). Again, try and concentrate on what I have told you: my full proposal was to (move 1) get rid of the critical works altogether (only cite them if and when used as references), while (move 2) removing the bibliography altogether, while (move 3) doing for his literary works what we did/are doing for his scholarly ones (i.e: a new section to list all that is relevant in there, and that would read as a text; users interested in a particular edition of a particular story could bypass it and go straight to the over-detailed bibliography). All three points, together. In the process, PelleSmith opposed me and said: no to move 1 (citing reasons which I respected, but for which I take no credit or responsability), an alternative to move 2 (curtailing the list to feature only the most relevant works), and yes to move 3. Upon witnessing this, Jmabel proposed moving the bibliography to a separate article, as an alternative to decimating the titles included (citing the Jorge Luis Borges example). I allowed time for the proposal to seep in, and none of the active users have objected; subsequently, I proceeded to do this, since the list is unruly, not fully copyedited, and easily replaceable in this article with an entire section, of encyclopedic quality, that would provide the same help for all average users (again, those who want the purely trivial details, such as "this story was published for the first time in this volume, and is the only one of the volume never to have been published before, so it is a first edition for it, but not for the others" can always click the link). This is called consensus. I will add here that, originally misunderstanding a point made, and subsequently changing your reasoning entirely, you have concentrated on questioning and misrepresenting my motivations (without checking what others have argued), and then upped and created a content fork, which is in itself grounds for reversion (as it obviously decreases the quality of wikipedia).

Any failure to take these points into consideration in your future posts will result in me not engaging in a dialog with you on this issue: I shall simply view it as spamming.

For Christ, this talk page reminds me too much of 12 Angry Men for comfort. Dahn 11:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I know I've been trying to avoid weighing in on things, but in this case where I see two genuinely good contributors clearly angry at each other over an important article, I'll make an exception.

I don't particularly see this as a POV issue, but I do think that the current arrangement could certainly be improved. I've never shared the objection to really big articles, and I personally would have no problem having the bibliography of his works in the article, but it is pretty clear that the general consensus on Wikipedia has been against massive bibliographies within author articles. And this will inevitably be a massive one. However, similarly to Dahn, I think an overview of his major works, with prose commentary on what they are about rather than on publication details would be a great addition to the article. I'd suggest the addition of such a section, called "Works", with the bibliography as a "main" article listed at the top of that section (and the prose of that section possibly repeated in the bibliography). I think that the "See also" section is probably too obscure a placement for the bibliography; I'm not thrilled with that in the Borges article either, but that article has a lot more discussion of the author's works.

As for the "critical works" section: I'm indifferent to its presence, but I remind Dpotop that this is "critical" in the sense of discussing a writer or artists work, not "critical" in the sense of "oppositional". As far as I can tell, the bulk of the works cited are favorable toward Eliade.

One work (which I'm unfamiliar with) presumably has a typo in its title right now: in Changing Religious Worlds: The Meaning and End of Mirce Eliade, I presume that the odd spelling of Eliade's name is accidental.

I do somewhat agree with Dpotop that "negative" material still makes up too much of the article, but I don't see anything that should be cut; I think this should be dealt with entirely by expansion.

Hope that helps. Now, back to my cave. - Jmabel | Talk 17:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I obviously agree with your overall assessment, but I propose for consideration that the section to be created on his fiction ought not be called "Works" - his scholarly activity produced works as well, but their analysis belongs in the "Scholar" section (right?). Instead, let's go with something explicitly limited to his fiction ("Works of fiction", "The fiction writer", "Fiction literature" or something like that). Dahn 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge "Mircea Eliade" with "Eternal return (Eliade)"

I would like to propose the merging of "Mircea Eliade" with "Eternal return (Eliade)", and concomitant header editing as the latter contains Eliade's philosophical/anthropological contributions. --JamesSonne 22:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Eventually, all major titles and themes of his work are going to be articles, so merging what is a tuned and detailed autonomous article for just one of the many large contributions is pointless and counter-productive (like merging Charles Dickens with Great Expectations, Sketches by Boz, or A Tale of Two Cities). Consider what relevancy the Bagadjimbiri urinating has to this article, and then ponder its purpose in there. [Btw, with 2 contrib., one of which is a reminiscent proposal, I have half a mind to call for a checkuser.] Dahn 22:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • [new to posting in the community, sorry] --JamesSonne 01:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• I would like to, if I may, elucidated my request further. The article requested for merging with this article does not contain information on Eliade's various works, but rather his salient philosophical ideas that emerge from them. This merging would give this article a more balanced look at what may be considered by some to be Eliade's important life efforts, which are currently absent from this article. If not a merging, and thus an obliteration of the article requested for merging, it may be beneficial to include in this article more information from the article requested for merging.
  • I myself agree with more content being summarized in the Scholar section, as long as it is done while keeping in mind that mentions need to be coherent and essential, and that they may be subject to ample changes the moment when we have access to overlooks of his work (we may eventually have to change priorities and to clarify ideas beyond the scope of that article). Otherwise, we would simply be forking content. Dahn 01:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I am not sure that coherence is always necessary for inclusion. Sometimes there is such a diversity of view points and the complexity is so big that coherence is not fully possible. I think that lack of coherence is no excuse to remove material or simplify things more than the sources allow. Andries 22:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course, and I did not mean that. I was just emphasizing that the imperative is to have a relevant addition rather than a large one. I encourage for sources citations and relevant quotes to be duplicated here, but with an accent on summarizing rather than mirroring content. Dahn 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
• I won't take sides in this argument, mainly because I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I don't feel I completely understand Wikipedia's quality standards yet (see my early difficulties with Eternal return (Eliade) and my still unresolved problems with myth and ritual)--but also because I don't feel passionate enough. However, I think Dahn and JamesSonne may be talking past each other to an extent.
  • Dahn is simply noting the obvious point that we can't just take everything in Eternal return (Eliade) and dump it into the Mircea Eliade article. Adding an endless explication of one of Eliade's theories (even his major theory) doesn't in any sense "balance" an overemphasis on his shady political involvements. Balance can only be achieved by a thorough examination of his non-political life and scholarship as a whole. (In particular, although Cosmos and History, The Sacred and the Profane, and Myths, Dreams and Mysteries are almost monotonous reexaminations of the sacred-profane and eternal return concepts, Eliade also wrote books on all sorts of crazy subjects like shamanism and alchemy. His Shamanism, for instance, can't be reduced to a reexamination of the sacred-profane idea in a new context, although it incorporates the sacred-profane idea.)
  • JamesSonne is completely right in the sense that the Mircea Eliade article should have started out with a lengthy discussion of the eternal return to begin with. And I don't think merging Eternal return (Eliade) with Mircea Eliade is the same as merging Great Expectations with Charles Dickens. Yes, eventually all of Eliade's works and ideas will have their own articles, but that isn't happening quickly. The eternal return--the idea that religious behavior is not simply an imitation of, but also a participation in, sacred time--has been widely adopted in religious studies; it is Eliade's most enduring and distinctive idea--and it didn't even have its own article when I first joined Wikipedia! That shows how quickly Eliade's ideas and works are getting their own articles. And, since it IS Eliade's most enduring and distinctive idea, the eternal return probably deserves a discussion in Mircea Eliade that is at least as long as the discussion of his politics. It is not one of his works or ideas; it is the basic principle that informs almost all his works and ideas (open up any Eliade book).

I have a feeling that any attempt I make to create a new "Eternal return" section in Mircea Eliade is going to upset a lot of people and get this argument nowhere. For now, I'm keeping my hands clean of editing this article.--Phatius McBluff 10:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Phatius, you are certainly the best person to summarize that article (since you authored it). I would welcome your editing of a new section inside the "Scholar" one (you, with more grasp of Eliade's scholarly works than any of us here, are most likely to know how the overall "Scholar" should look in the end - so you probably know what should constitute a section of it and what shouldn't). My main concern was that, since we all seemed to have little actual awareness of his entire work, we would simply be pulling on a thread in the hope that it would get us somewhere, at the risk of ending up somewhere completely irrelevant. Again, I have no objection. Dahn 10:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Phatius, please don't forget to add the volumes you used to the "References" section, specifying the edition (otherwise, the page by page citation will be useless). Dahn 01:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I also want to point out that creating a subsection for just one sentence looks horrible. Is it ok if I condense the text in the future (in format, not in content)? I for one cannot see why we would need to have subsections for subsections: the higher level (the === level, as opposed to the ==== level) is perfectly fine without its own sections, and the idea is perfectly intelligible. Dahn 01:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the specific references. Feel free to condense the text, but keep in mind that Eliade's reasoning can get rather dense and wordy at times. I purposely divided the text into lots of small sections, each with its own introductory sentence, etc., so that readers could follow the arguments more easily.--Phatius McBluff 01:16, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Dahn 01:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A gleam of hope for this article

emerges from the recent interventions of Phatius McBluff. His luminous initiative, if continued and developed, will surely help this poor article out of the present quagmire of semi-educated triviality. Of course, there will be things to discuss over one aspect or another of Eliade’s work and legacy. For instance, I would suggest that besides the theory of "eternal return", undoubtedly being one of the "most enduring and influential contribution to religious studies", Eliade has a crucial role in developing a dialectic of hierophanies and an onthology of the sacred, anticipating at the same time the critical value myths take in a desacralized world. Anyway, I think that for now it’s still premature to debate on all this, before this article ceases to be just another example of semi-educated enlightening the ignorants. Phatius try to break through is worth an applause. --Timor Stultorum 18:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Timor, I believe that my recent additions to the "Sacred and Profane" and "Symbolism of the Center" sections answer, at least to an extent, your concerns about adding info on "a dialectic of hierophanies" and "an ontology of the sacred". Everyone, please let me know if you think I'm missing anything big.--Phatius McBluff 20:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What should go into a "general description" of Eliade's work in the "Scholar" header?

I’ve carefully read your edits and found them very pertinent. Thanks to your contributions, this entry begins looking like decently encyclopaedic. My above suggestions referred rather to a general characterization of Eliade’s scientific work in the lead. You already improved the lead of the article, providing essential information about the main merits of Eliade’s work, mentioning the study of hierophanies and the eternal return, that is the "what" and the "how" of an ontology of the sacred. I wonder if a more general description of Eliade’s scientific work as "semiotics of the religious phenomenon" would bring further information. More generally, if we take a look at some serious encyclopaedia, we find Eliade depicted as "one of the leading religion scholars" (Brockhaus and Meyers) and as an "historian of religions and man of letters, distinguished for his researches in the symbolic language…" (Britannica) --Timor Stultorum 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Timor, thank you for your words in praise of my additions. However, I feel that I'm increasingly viewed in an almost deferential way when it comes to the section of this article on Eliade's scholarship. I must emphasize that I am NOT an authority on Eliade, only a lay reader well-read in Eliade's works and comparative mythology in general. Dahn said I have "more grasp of Eliade's scholarly works than any of [you] here". Maybe that's true, but I have already put down (in a highly summarized form, of course) almost everything I know about Eliade's scholarship--or, at least, everything I think I can effectively convert into an encyclopedic style of presentation. As for Eliade's ideas on religious semiotics (symbolism), I can only say that I haven't figured out how to effectively summarize Eliade's discussions of symbolism in Myths and Symbols and Patterns in Comparative Religion, given that both books consist of disjointed discussions of many different symbols from all over the place. Of course, I could just list info on shells, then info on trees, then info on the Earth Mother, and so on, but I would only consider doing that as a last resort, after having failed to work all of Eliade's ideas on symbolism into a single coherent framework akin to his framework for hierophanies. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to comb Eliade's books for such a coherent framework right now. Currently, I don't have the time or the energy to read back over Eliade's works to see if there's anything else I want to pull out for the article. This is Wikipedia, guys; if you feel a certain discussion is lacking, then don't hesitate to add it yourselves.--Phatius McBluff 03:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, although it would be correct, I'm not sure that it would be to the point to call Eliade's work a "semiotics of the sacred". True, symbols play a big role in his vision of religion (as they must in any vision of religion). True, everything Eliade discusses (liturgical time, the symbolism of the Center, etc.) could be seen as a form of symbolism or language. Yet to call what he did "semiotics" seems (to me) to draw attention away from the main point, which is that Eliade discussed the stark break between the secular experience of the world and the religious experience of it. For modern, secular man, the world simply is what it is; examining the world won't tell you how it or man ought to be: any purpose must be invented and imposed by man. But to homo religiosus (Eliade argues), the world has a built-in structure to which man conforms himself, a pattern established by a hierophany, a manifestation of the Sacred. Also, for modern man, time is a straight line; what is past is past. But for religious man, to conform to the pattern of a hierophany is to participate in the hierophany itself, no matter how long ago it occurred. Thus, I would say that Eliade's major contribution was to develop our understanding of the discontinuity between religious thought and secular thought. Thoughts, anyone?--Phatius McBluff 10:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. You’re right: describing Eliade as a “semiotician of the religion” would be too reductionist. As for the appraisals of your contributions, sure, decent persons feel uncomfortable with praise, and I am ready to excuse me for this. However, if you visit this talk page, you’ll understand the background and the reasons of my enthusiasm in regard to your contributions: since I was and I still am by now not able to contribute more than some words on the talk page, you are the only one to bring some substance to this article, which otherwise risks to sink into semi-educated triviality… So, please keep on working. A last point for now: my concern as to what should go into a "general description" of Eliade's work regarded less the "Scholar" header and more the lead section of the very article. The reader should be offered brief information about the reasons why this Eliade is worth an encyclopaedic entry: who was the person, what did he, how important is his work, why. IMO, every of these points is briefly addressed in the lead section, except how important. (Surely, appraisals are a delicate issue, especially in the WP, but describing Eliade's work as "leading" or "seminal" or "important" is amply backed by the scientific community) Cheers, --Timor Stultorum 12:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I note you continue to troll and misrepresent the others' points. Dahn 12:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The header for the whole article

After some thought, I've added the following to the header info on Eliade:

He was a leading interpreter of religious experience, who established paradigms in religious studies that persist to this day. As a tool for interpreting religion, his theory that hierophanies (events that manifest the Sacred) form the basis of religion, splitting the human experience of reality into sacred space/time and profane space/time, has proved a far more widely applicable than the older term "theophany", which denotes the manifestation of a god.^[1] His most enduring and influential contribution to religious studies was possibly his theory of "eternal return", which holds that myths and rituals do not simply record or imitate hierophanies, but actually participate in them (at least to the minds of the religious). In academia, the eternal return has become one of the most widely accepted ways of understanding the purpose of myth and ritual.^[2]

I think this is reasonably neutral (making it clear why Eliade deserves an article, while stopping short of promoting his ideas).

--Phatius McBluff 23:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Everything for the Fatherland"

The issue is not one of literal translation, but of usage. The name is usually translated as "Everything for the Fatherland" (or "All for the Fatherland") in English reference [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. References to "Everything/All for the Country" are sporadic.

The two variants are also present in several scholarly works (Tibor Iván Berend, Decades of Crisis: Central and Eastern Europe before World War II; Barnet Litvinoff, The Burning Bush: Anti-Semitism and World History; Joseph Slabey Rouček, The Politics of the Balkans etc.), while "Everything/All for the Country" appears to be used by, well, none. Dahn 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, usage wins. And, for all it's worth, "All for the Fatherland" seems better English than "All for the Country" -- the only way something like that would sound OK would be "For God, King, and Country", but that's in another context. Which brings me to a question: why Fatherland, and not Motherland, as in "Patria Mamă" (or, "Patria Mumă")? I read the discussion in those articles, but it's still not clear to me why the former is considered to be the preferred translation. Any good reference for that? Turgidson 00:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you mean "in general" (I'm not sure, though, so I apologize if I didn't get you). Well, what has always struck me that the word "patria" has a hermaphrodite quirk ("pater" turned feminine...). Dahn 01:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

From what I know, Fatherland is used when referring to Germany (Vaterland), and Motherland when referring to (Mother) Russia (Rodina). For other coutries, there does not seem to be such a definite rule, though the above two articles seek to establish more-or-less precise guidelines. In the case at hand, since "Totul pentru Ţară" was associated with the Iron Guard, the "Fatherland" translation possibly tries to convey a German connotation. But this is just speculation... Turgidson 02:12, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dahn, sorry about the confusion. I wasn't yet familiar with the format of the Talk page, so I didn't know where to look for your comment - thank you for clarifying. I did have a question though regarding the usage of "Fatherland". I had mentioned that the "Totul pentru Tara" party would have a literal translation as either "All for Country" or "Everything for Country", being that "tara" literally means "country" in Romanian. Maybe I am mistaken, but I always understood the word "Fatherland" to mean "patria" or "patrie" hence the pater/father derivation. My question is, since the translation is incorrect (even though there are english references to it), how does one reconcile (as an academic) an improper translation that's been in common usage, with what a literal translation should be? Thx. Yanks-rule 02:27, 11 March 2007

Hi Yanks. Firstly, the translation into English is not incorrect, just not literal. Also, as Turgidson pointed out above, the translation in use is better English than a literal one. I also think it strives to cover a meaning that is present in the Romanian original, but would be lost in a literal translation. What we did here on wikipedia was to provide all the alternatives where the main mention of the group is made (in the Iron Guard article), as we did with suggesting that "Great Romania" was a literal translation of the Romanian România Mare - although sources overwhelmingly use "-er Romania". Dahn 11:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dahn - thanks for the clarification. In case you were curious I did find a few instances of "Country" being used, but its definitely not prevalent.

1) Institute of Historical Review - "March 20, 1935: Codreanu institutes Totul Pentru Tara (Everything for the Country) as a legal party under the presidency of General Gheorghe Cantacuzino." (http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p193_Ronnett.html)

There were a few other instances, but nothing you'd call scholarly. Best - Yanks-rule —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yanks-rule (talk • contribs) 10 March 2007.

And that one citation is from a Holocaust Revisionist source. - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)