Talk:Paul Goma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

An entry from Paul Goma appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 10 March 2007.

Contents 1 The editing war 2 Picture 3 Books 4 Further improvements? 5 Translation help: "Faculty of Letters" 6 Citizenship 7 POV concern, Romanian references 8 circumstances of Goma's dismissal from the Tismaneanu commission 9 Ostinato published in Romania first?

[edit] The editing war

Lately, User:Dahn does not bother to explain his moves. He reverts everything! So Goma got an editing war because Dahn wants to fight. Does he have any friend out there to tell him to stop? (Icar 11:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Picture

Does anyone has an idea how to find a picture of Paul Goma that has a free license or can be used under "fair use"? -- AdrianTM 07:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Books

AdrianTM asks: "added more books, grouped the translations together (any idea for better arrangement?)" First of all, since these are all books by the same author (the author being the subject of the article), it seems to me that his name is no longer needed in that list. As for books with various versions and translations, I struggled with this dilemma too, when starting the list. One could try sublists (using ** for double indents). Alternatively, just list the several versions (without the (Romanian), etc tags, leaving the title to explain what language the first edition was in). See for example the list of books for Virgil Gheorghiu that I've drawn -- not sure this is the best format, one could surely improve on it. I guess it's all trial and error at this stage... Turgidson 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Better this way? I still need to find some titles in other languages. -- AdrianTM 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better, yes. The hierarchical model rulz! Turgidson 03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further improvements?

I think it would be nice to develop the article about Goma's life in two direction: more info about Charter 77 involvement since that seems like an important issue and defining moment in his life, and his relation with the Writers' Union (and the reaction of other dissidents, or "dissidents" to his actions) since that's also an important issue. Maybe give more details about what Securitate did to him, expediting that into one sentence seems... a little bit too short for something that's a defining moment in his life.

Any other proposals for further improvements? Anything important that's missing? -- AdrianTM 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Having just glanced over this article, I can tell you two things for sure:

• the text needs serious copyediting
• the "Controversy" section can and should be expanded to cover who said what about what - the first of the two paragraphs is amazingly vague, and people who have spoken against Goma are quite notable; the second paragraph, IMO, should give a little more insight into what precisely was said and by whom.

Considering what I had to deal with in the past, I expect this task to cause a stir and whatnot. I deliberately stayed away from this article for it to be expanded reasonably so that a clearer text about the controversy would be proportional to Goma's overall activity (and not undue weight). At the moment, it appears to dismiss an otherwise notable event: a large portion of Romanian public intellectuals (as right or as wrong as they were) identified a series of statements made by Goma with Holocaust denial and prejudice about Judeo-Bolshevism, and have explained at length what they consider spurious in them.

I want to make it clear that I will not intervene in this article as a means to libel Goma, just in the hope that I can provide more in-depth information from several relevant sources. For starters, I wish to point out this article in Observator Cultural, where an authority on the matter talks at length about exactly that (while, you may want to note, providing detail on the vicious way Goma was treated by Communist authorities). Similar replies here, here, and here.

Also: in the article on Vladimir Tismăneanu, which was partly rendered here, there are some more things that connect the two controversies - I believe it would be fair to make note of that here, especially since Goma has persistently called attention to the fact that several members of the Commission have criticized his texts about Jews, and especially since, contrary to what Goma said, VT did not express his opinion on that matter (but was subject to the backlash, as you all may know). It would also be important to note that Goma publicly declared that he wanted to be on the Commission while knowing who else was on the Commission, and that his reply came not, as it was once insinuated, "because of a personal conflict with VT", but because he was in a dispute with the Commission - during which, and I can source this for you, he attacked virtually all members for "lacking credentials". You will note that this last action also drew criticism from a notable third-party source [1]. Dahn 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about copyediting, I hope somebody will help.

I also agree about the expanding cotnroversy section especially with cocrete quotes and references to notable people who expressed their opinions about the issue.

Feel free to edit, don't wait for my permission, I edited this article because it was a puny stub without almost any references and with many request for references (no offence to previous editors) -- AdrianTM

Also "several" libel lawsuits should be fully qualified listing persons who were sued, and where (France or Romania). -- AdrianTM 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter: I happened to bump into this link, from a reliable source. It gives further details of Goma's dissidence and attacks against him in the communist press. Dahn 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Translation help: "Faculty of Letters"

That doesn't sound like a right translations, should we use the Romanian name for the University or try a better translation? -- AdrianTM 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually is the standard translation. Dahn 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Then it's a non-issue... -- AdrianTM 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citizenship

This needs to be stated clearly: Goma does not go about requesting his citizenship legally. He is not "prevented" (as the DYK entry wrongly states), he is not ignored by the Romanian gvt until citizens sign a petition: citizens signing petitions are basically requesting that Goma be an exception to the law. Whether he is entitled to it or not is not material for a discussion here - let's however make the legal situation clear in the article, so we don't end up with a half truth. See for example here (scroll down). Dahn 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Goma is not requesting his citizenship back "legally" because he says it was taken away "illegally" from him (some people are like this: "why should I ask for something that should be mine anyway") I don't know all the details though and not sure how to handle this in the article, if you have some direct quotes about the issue and relevant info please add them. -- AdrianTM 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the best way to phrase it is to include how Goma feels he is an exception to the law (since both his replies and the link above at least indicate that the law requires paperwork to be filled). Now, again, he may be right or he may be wrong; either way, nobody is preventing him from obtaining it. Dahn 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article claims that. It just noted "no further advances" in the matter. -- AdrianTM 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the DYK nomination does. And I think we should include all circumstances for this in the article (i.e.: why Goma thinks the law does not apply in his case, and Goma addressing Băsescu + the fact that Băsescu replied and his reply remains undisclosed). That way, we don't leave room for interpretation. I'll do so in the future. Dahn 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not responsible for DYK nomination, but I do agree with you, we should list all circumstances (as I always militate ;-) -- AdrianTM 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I was halfway through editing the text (I had expanded the bio section about five times the size), then my computer crashed. I was just about to save a backup copy, but in any case trusted Firefox to give me a "restore session" - it did, but the text in the window was the version before I even started editing! Has this ever happened to you guys?

That's it: from now on, I'm gonna be way more prudent - I'll use a sandbox or do more and less expansive edits in a row. Anyway, I'll get back on this when I have the willpower. In case someone wants to add to the text:

• stuff on the Charter and other things [2] [3]
• a mention of a controversy involving information presented by Goma in his Gherla book - if you read his foreword here, you will note that his account was considered libel by other political prisoners (Constantin Noica, Ion Varlam, Nicolae Carandino, Virgil Carianopol and Mircea Ionescu-Quintus). In my would-be version, I was going to mention this in "Controversies", then add "Goma attributes this reaction to Securitate intrigues". (I presume this is what he means)
• I was going to add more stuff from his bio-biography (nb: if you do this as well, do it with a grain of salt, guys - not all things he says are verifiable, even if they could in theory all be true; for these, i was going to use "Goma contends...", "in Goma's view..." etc.; for example, one may never know if Breban actually went to visit Bernard and ask him not to broadcast Goma's texts).
• I never managed to, but I was going to add the relevant details to the already present paragraphs on controversy, from sources mentioned and other.

In my view, the article is far from being complete, and I can only apologize for wasting your time with my blunder. Dahn 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Get a Mac! Sorry, I could not resist the gibe. But, in all honesty, I also lost some edits (very frustrating when that happens!), but not due to a crash -- basically, Macs never crash :) -- but because of edit conflicts, in fact, on this very same article, when trying to edit at the same time with AdrianTM. There must be a jinx!! Turgidson 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Or... use Opera (under Linux). Sorry, could not resist. I never lose text with Opera even if there's an edit conflict I can just go "back" and I have my typed text there. Sorry Turgidson for making you lose edits, I should have put that "inuse" tag, but my edits were not quite planned. -- AdrianTM 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV concern, Romanian references

This is a Romanian author, most of the references will be in Romanian unless they are from a book that's translated to other language. Is Romanian something that cannot be checked? I mean, I understand the idea to provide English references when they exist, but this case is about a Romanian author and his books and articles published in Romanian. -- AdrianTM 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if people think a reference is dubious they can place a reference-check tag to ask people who know the language to check it, I think that's the normal procedure when there are no English references available. -- AdrianTM 03:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and for all it's worth, the article has an external link to a site in English (the short bio from IMDB). Moreover, as mentioned in the article, one of Goma's books ("My Childhood at the Gate of Unrest") is translated into English (see here, for example). Having said that, I agree that it would be good to have more references in English. But, as AdrianTM says (if I understand correctly), it does not seem reasonable to make that into a sine qua non requirement. Turgidson 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I wanted to say. It would be nice to find English references, but it's doubtful we'll find many. -- AdrianTM 05:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A scan over entries returned by a Google search shows a number of English references for the controversies section. It would be helfpul to add these to the citations. 70.114.132.23 11:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added two English references. I hope more will be added. — ERcheck (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] circumstances of Goma's dismissal from the Tismaneanu commission

According to Tismaneanu Armand Gosu, "N-am avut de-a face cu Securitatea", in 22, nr.849, June 2006, it appears that there were two reasons for Goma's dismissal:

• having questioned the moral and scientific asuthority of Tismaneanu. It appears that Goma, after wronlgy attributing to Tismaneanu an attack on himself, had written that Tismaneanu "after all, is just a Bolshevik offspring", and had expressed doubts about VT's scientific credibility.
• having published on the Internet a private letter from VT, in which the latter criticised harshly his father.

So it is inaccurate to say that Goma was dismissed because he questioned the scientific credibility of the board; instead, it was a quiproquo between VT and Goma and mutual accusations of moral wrongdoings, which lead to the dismissal. It seems that both Tismaneanu and Goma declare it was a personal dispute between the two of them.

I suggest changing "who justified the exclusion based on Goma's implicit and later explicit refusal to recognize the board as a valid instrument" either to "because of a personal dispute", or to a more accurate description of the circumstances. Icar 10:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I copied that from Tismaneanu article without much inspection, but the reference supports indeed the "personal dispute" explanation. -- AdrianTM 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The interview is from June. It is always good to research things in full: this is Goma harshly criticizing the Commission on May 6 (also note that he indicates he disagreed with membership of the Commssion as early as April 5). Furthermore, VT, in the interview with Goşu, makes mention of the implications of Goma's scandal with other intellectuals, including (per Goma) members of the board, as the source of the other scandal, and the latter beginning with Goma questioning his status as a scientist. Also note that VT indicates that Goma did not, in fact, object to the membership of the Commission at the time he was invited, and this is actually backed by the interview Goma gave to Cotidianul; it was the scandal over his (alleged) antisemitism which first brought his attacks on the Commission, and this did not implicate VT in the least until Goma dragged his name into it.

To dismiss this as "a personal matter" is POV-pushing, trying to make Goma look like a person who was marginalized, not as a person who wonders why he is not welcomed by people he kept cursing at. Now, one may think that Goma either discredited or glorified himself by writing himself off the Commission, but, under any circumstance, he did do that. Dahn 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In Goma's 2006 Journal here we find Tismaneanu's invitation e-mail (page 88) dated April 4, 2006, as well as the "dismissal" e-mail (pp. 110-111) dated April 14 (so 9 days later). In the second message the two causes for the break (Goma's unauthorised posting of a personal letter from VT and Goma's questioning in his Journal of VT's scientific credibility) are invoked. There is absolutely no mention at that time of the other members of the bord. User:Dahn has entirely fabricated that information. In fact, Tismaneanu writes to Goma on April 11: "I appreciate your position regarding the Commission members" (my translation from Goma's 2006 Journal, page 101).

In light of evidence, I expect this pointless argument to end. Apologies for the obstructionism would also be appreciated Icar 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, all circumstances need to be made clear in the article, not hidden in a vague comment, and not half-quoted in a sophistical debate on the talk page. Second of all: Goma, as stated by this person I have to engage in conversation, denied scientific merit to VT (which in itslef means that he denied merit to the Commission, headed by the person with "no scientific merit"), as well as - clearly indicated by VT's interview - dragging him into a debate over anti-Semitism (which, as indicated by Goma's letter to Ziua, he was carrying with, among many others, members of the Commission). No more spin, Icar, and cut the personal attacks (at the very least, because your history shows that you are walking on thin ice). Dahn 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that pushes any POV, it's a personal issue because Goma called Tismaneanu "pui de bolshevic" and he published Tismaneanu's private letter (I think that counted more and Tismaneanu explains that very clearly). This looks more like a personal issue than a conflict over the Commission or other members. I don't think the present form makes Goma look better or worse, it reflects what happened... one could add more details about those "personal issues", but somehow I don't think it would be quite encyclopedic material... -- AdrianTM 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

...or if you insist to that variant use a different reference because that ones details personal issues not the conflict over Commission validity. -- AdrianTM 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? "nu poti face par­te dintr-o comisie in momentul in care con­testi presedintelui acestei comisii, omu­lui care te invita, credibilitatea morala si stiintifica. Punctul intai. Si atunci ii poti da dreptul acestui presedinte de comisie, care nu stiuse ca ai publicat aceste lu­cruri, sa spuna: sorry, nu cred ca putem co­labora. Mai ales ca nu era vorba de mine, eu am o responsabilitate pentru in­­­ca 20 de membri ai Comisiei, nu vorbesc numai de mine. Daca cu fiecare s-ar pe­tre­ce asa ceva, unde ajung in final?" Dahn 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "personal issue with the President of the Commission". Yes, the President of the Commission has all the right to consider that this is something that is damaging to the whole Commission and he has the right to dismiss somebody who contests him (especially that he invited Goma in the first place), but to me it still looks like a "personal issue with the President of the Commission" at least that was the primary factor, right? -- AdrianTM 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, Adrian: my version clearly states it was VT who justified it this way, not the at one is to see it. I wish you would have pasted more from the article you took this from, since it was indicated there that VT referred to "Bolshevik offspring", and the sentence in there indicated that it was through and because of what Goma said about the Commission (no, I do not find that unencyclopedic - if the controversy is encyclopedic, than so is an overview of its most important issues; this especially in biographical articles about the people involved). I can see several rephrasings possible, but "personal conflict/issue/squabble", in reference to attacks that Goma went out of his way to publicize at the time and ever since, strikes me as whitewashing. Dahn 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To make it more clear how I saw this issue: I wanted to present pure fact: "personal issue with the President of the Commission" not its spin (justified spin, by the way) "you can't be in a Commission if you contest the President of the Commission"... but here we try to present facts not their spin. If you choose to present each person opinion (spin) then please feel free to add more info from that article. But let me say I don't feel very strongly either way, I don't think it's white or blackwashing either way... -- AdrianTM 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In short: this article needs to clarify in full detail: the controversy over Goma's antisemitism (with its implications for the scandal with VT), what Goma initially said about the Commission, what Goma said about VT, what VT replied, what Goma ultimately said about other Commission members. Not clarifying these issues is a serious enough problem; addessing them as "personal issues" is more so (consider an article about a teacher who verbally attacks the principal of the school and, related or unrelated, other members of the school board; then imagine the wikipedia article on him saying that he was thrown away from school "for personal reasons"). Dahn 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe User:Dahn would consider translating that passage and explaing where it comes from and when it was published. In my oppinion, the dismissal letter is explicit. There is no futher point in the discussion after that. Icar 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It comes from the goddamn interview you claim to have read yourself. Dahn 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I regret that I have to answer. In any case: the interview is 2 month older than the facts. It does not support User:Dahn's claims. In fact this user tries to wear our patience thin here by being absurd. It the passage quoted, as far as I get all the subtelties, it is never claimed that Goma had questioned the Commission memebrs other than Tismaneanu. So User:Dahn's position is simply unexplainable. i have had enough of this bad faith and cursing. I call a vote on the issue of wheter to maintain the absurd POV of User:Dahn or replace it with the version by Icar as supported also by AdrianTM. Icar 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my version, Icar: "he was dismissed by the Commission's president, Vladimir Tismăneanu, who justified the exclusion based on Goma's implicit and later explicit refusal to recognize the board as a valid instrument". It is in perfect line with the text I have rendered above. I don't know what the hell you are talking about, but you are obviously not paying attention. Dahn 20:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all calm down, take a deep breath... count to 10... whatever helps. Second, if you keep this version at least you should say something like "refusal to recognize Tismăneanu moral and academic authority... etc" not the board because it looks like primary issue was Goma's personal problem with Tismăneanu, not with the board. (and Tismăneanu says the same thing as far as I gather) -- AdrianTM 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, I can see it being rephrased on such a way. Only if detail on the previous scandal is specified, with the connections indicated, and only if Goma's repeated attacks on other members of the Commission, around and after that date, are also mentioned.

Do me the favor of refraining from coaching me next time (after all, you had no "advice" to give the person who keeps trolling on this page). Dahn 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you were out of the line in this discussion. Icar used normal language. -- AdrianTM 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, good that you're not an admin then. Dahn 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AdrianTM, I did not even talk directly to User:Dahn! He still managed to threaten me twice and to spew out profanity, also twice. He also mistreated you. More sadly, he trolled us the whole evening. He is pushing unsourced info which contradicts all available sources and which we should remove without further ado. Icar 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more of this. Dahn 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The version pushed by User:Dahn is in contradiction with all the texts quoted here. Goma's membership lasted for 9 days. On day 6, Tismaneanu thanks Goma for his views on the commission. On day 7 he finds old texts by Goma. Day 9: he dismisses Goma because of the two reasons I explained, both of them strictly personal, having nothing to do with the commission members. Icar 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, what are you on about? Dahn 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

and I do not talk to people who use the vocabulary User:Dahn seems to enjoy. Icar 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. I'm pretty sure that more than makes up for the gazillion personal attacks you aimed at me, the for all the nonsense you keep claiming about me. Dahn 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about User:Dahn so profanity is to be left at the door. Icar 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there an admin reading the above remark, or does this warrant a complaint? Dahn 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what User:Dahn has been doing on this talk page fully qualifies as trolling. User:Dahn pretends not to understand the obvious facts, just to prolong the discussion needlessly. Profanity is what User:Dahn has used twice in this talk section in the past hour. Any complaint would be as absurd as this whole discussion. In fact, I would welcome it as it would expose the abject trolling we were subjected to here. Icar 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I modified the page detailing to the two causes that appear from the sources cited and also in the e-mail of VT to Goma of 4/14/2006. The POV pushed by User:Dahn is unsourced and will be immediately removed. Icar 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ostinato published in Romania first?

Can anyone find some info about Ostinato being published first in Romania? -- AdrianTM 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is not the same with "Camera de alǎturi, Bucharest, 1968.", right? -- AdrianTM 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)