Talk:Leonte Tismăneanu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
WikiProject Romania This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Leonte Tismăneanu:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

To my edit summary, I will add: the "source" does not even say that she did not have training et al. It merely implies, alleges, pretends. Dahn 15:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

You also present no proof for the enormous charge of being an NKVD agent. Dahn 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor for his nickname. Dahn 15:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor do you explain why you had reverted the clear and proper link to Operation Barbarossa (not to mention that your version breaks several wikipedia style conventions - one of which is not linking the same word everywhere it appears). Dahn 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

It is also a terribly inane solicism to say that he was "born in Russia" - it goes against wikipedia policies, it is made clear below what polity he was born in, and he was a Romanian citizen before he left for the Soviet Union. Dahn 17:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Information disputed: biased and unverified

Let me point out the supposed "sources" in full:

La Universitatea Bucureşti au venit "profesori" precum L. Tisminetki, comisar sovietic, din 1948, şeful catedrei de satanism, pardon, marxism-leninism. La Medicină a predat "savanta" H. Tisminetki, crainică la emisiunea în limba română de la Radio Moscova în timpul războiului.

Translated as:

At the University of Bucharest came "professors" such as L. Tisminetski, a Soviet commissar, the head of the Satanism, oops, Marxism-Leninism Department. The "scientist" H. Tisminetski, a newsreader for the Romanian language wartime broadcasts, began teaching Medicine.

Mentioned again below:

Răul, personificat de impostori ca Roller şi Tisminetki, trebuie tăiat de la rădăcină prin condamnarea comunismului şi prin legea lustraţiei.

Translated as:

The evil, personified by impostors such as [Mihai] Roller and Tisminetski, must be removed from its roots through condemning communism and passing [a law which prevents former communist politicians from ascending to public office].

You will note that not only does this reflect a side in the debate (see the "Satanism" reference; note the persistent reference to the man by the name "Tismine[ţ]ki"; also, the text concludes with a condemnation of Vladimir Tismăneanu's work for the Commission), but it also fails to indicate any facts. If I say that the original contributor's mother is "illiterate" (especially when I myself place it in quotation marks), I don't become a "source" telling you that she is illiterate! For that, I would have to indicate that I know she was never taught reading, or that she never went to school. It is not you who should be presenting evidence that your mother was not illiterate, it is I who should be presenting evidence that she was! In Hermina's case, I would at least have to make a specific claim about how she did not graduate from college, or about how she payed for her degree... something! not somebody's opinion. Mr. Moroianu is not a historian who has somehow investigated the facts he is venturing to talk about; nay, he apparently is a mathematician!

An essential factor is that, in response to such vague claims, Vladimir Tismăneanu specifically indicates (in the source I have quoted) that she graduated from a Moscow institution of higher learning. This may even imply that Mr. Moroianu does not question the fact that Hermina Tismăneanu had training, but rather points out that he does not consider her training to have been sufficient - which contains a huge and implicit POV.

In fact, here is Tismăneanu, quoted in full:

Am vazut, mai nou, ca cineva spune ca ma­ma n-a facut medicina. Nu numai ca a facut medicina, a facut 3 ani la Bucuresti, pana la plecarea in Spania, a terminat la Moscova, dupa care a fost, in perioada 1954-1955, daca nu ma-nsel eu, as­pi­ran­ta pentru gradul de doctor in medicina la Facultatea de Medicina din Mos­co­va. Unul din profesori i-a fost profesorul Ko­van, cei doi frati Kovan din procesul me­dicilor de la Moscova. Mama a fost con­ferentiar la Facultatea de Medicina, iar principala ei contributie stiintifica a fost coordonarea volumului Cartea sa­na­tatii scolarului. A avut de-a face cu CC o vreme, cand a fost detasata de la Ministerul Sanatatii ca sa-l invete limba ru­sa pe Alexandru Moghioros. N-a reusit, pen­tru ca Al. Moghioros nu avea notiuni de gramatica elementara. Or, cand in­­cer­ca sa-i vorbeasca despre cazul instru­men­tal, el nu putea pricepe ce este un caz. Si atunci mama a esuat in scurta ei ac­tivitate la CC. Si a avut o perioada - ia­rasi vreau sa precizez -, o perioada foar­te scurta, m-am interesat, nici nu stiam de ea, o perioada foarte scurta cand a fost numita pe linie de partid dupa 1953, cred ca 6 luni de zile, director de cadre in Mi­nisterul Sanatatii. In momentul in care a incercat sa intre in camera in care se ti­neau dosarele, adjunctul ei, un domn Lem­nete, care ulterior avea sa faca ca­rie­ra la sectorul sanatate si doctor gine­co­log celebru sub epoca Ceausescu, i-a spus: imi pare rau, dvs. nu puteti intra in aceasta camera. Mama fiind directorul ca­dre­lor. Si atunci s-a adresat ministrului din epoca, care cred ca era inca Vasile Mar­za, si a cerut transferul imediat acolo de unde plecase, adica la Directia Mama si Copilul. Deci in Ministerul Sanatatii nu a fost, cum a scris recent un fost sef de corp de control al primului ministru, “prin­ci­pala epuratoare a sistemului sanitar din Romania”. Nici vorba de asa ceva, a fost medic si pana acum vreau sa spun ca n-am intalnit un singur om care sa-mi spu­na ceva negativ despre mama. De­spre tata am citit, stiu, am scris chiar eu, sunt lucruri care trebuie recunoscute. De­spre mama, nu.

That is:

I saw that, currently, somebody says that my mother did not graduate in medicine. Not only has she graduated, she had completed [the first] 3 years [of study] in [the Faculty of] Bucharest, before leaving for Spain, completed her studies in Moscow, and was after that, in the period 1954-1955, unless I'm mistaken, a post-graduate student for a doctor's degree at the Moscow Faculty of Medicine. One of her teachers was professor Kovan, [one of] the two Kovan brothers involved in the Moscow Doctors' [Plot] Trial. My mother was a lecturer at the Faculty of Medicine, and her main contribution was coordinating the volume The Book of Student Health. She had to do with the C[entral] C[ommittee] for a while, back when she was detached from the Health Ministry in order to teach Russian to [Party boss] Alexandru Moghioroş. She failed, given that Al. Moghioroş lacked knowledge of elementary grammar. Hence, when she tried to teach him about the instrumental case, he was unable to understand what a case was. That is when my mother failed in her short activity for the CC. And she [also] had a period - again, I cannot indicate precisely when -, a very short period, I have inquired about it, I didn't even know, a very short period when she was appointed, on a party line basis after 1953, I think it was for 6 months, head of the cadre [selection] directorate inside the Ministry of Health. The moment she tried to enter the room where files were being kept, her subordinate, a Mr. Lemente, who was to make himself a career in the health sector and became a famous gynecologist during the Ceauşescu epoch, answered her: I'm sorry, but you are not allowed to enter this room. This was while my mother was head of the cadre [selection] directorate. It was then that she decided to address the minister, who, at the time, was still Vasile Mâr­za, and asked to be transferred back to the directorate where she had previously been employed, meaning the Mother and Child [Health] Directorate. So, inside the Health Ministry she was not, as was recently written by a former chief of the Prime Minister's Body of Controllers, "the main purger of Romania's health system". Beyond doubt, she was a physician and I wish to say that until now I have not met a single person who would have something negative to say about her. I have read about my father, I know [about what he did], I have written myself [about it], these are things that ought to be admitted. About my mother: no.

(Note that this also warrants removal of the reference to her as an activist.)

What to choose: vague and potentially libelous text written like a pamphlet? or specific rebuttal from a man whose parents' reputation was questioned without proof? Wikipedia's guidelines and credibility impose on us to pick the latter.

There is also the theory that Leonte Tismăneanu was "not qualified to teach Marxism-Leninism"... as opposed to? It is obvious to anyone that his was a political office - I would point out that saying "not qualified enough" in this context is merely stupid! If anything, the curriculum itself was an outrage (and Vladimir Tismăneanu is, as seen above, the first one to admit it), but stating such facts in this way eludes the formal tone of an encyclopedia article.

The "source" for the NKVD charge, which is an enormous allegation to make, is actually involved in the dispute with Vladimir Tismăneanu: the writer Paul Goma, who has went on record calling his adversary all sorts of names, and who, in the process, is known to have made other unverified and serious allegations (on one recent occasion, after engaging in a polemic with other intellectuals, who have deemed his theory on Jews in WWII Romania "anti-Semitic", and being handed a false information that Vladimir Tismăneanu supported his opponents, without ever verifying it, indicated that Tismăneanu took this stand because his parents "were Bolshevik and Jewish"). This was just to say that the source is not reliable in itself. What is really important here is that not even this source claims Leonte Tismăneanu was an NKVD agent or envoy. Dahn 18:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: careful investigation of previous edits has uncovered that the IP who pushed the NKVD "information" no longer makes that claim. Hopefully, this means that at least some of my point made it across. Dahn 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's also note that the user still keeps pushing "Soviet" ahead of "Romanian", even when it was made clear that the man's first citizenship was Romanian. Let's also note that the word "Marxism-Stalinism" was never in use, anywhere, and was by no means the name of the University Department; it is a metaphor used by Goma, and, if you ask me, it is rather shabby one (btw, the user would do good to actually click the link for Marxism-Leninism, and note why the reference to "Marxism-Stalinism" is an absurd term - Marxism-Leninism is, basically, Stalinism plus ultra). Dahn 08:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference you discuss is printed in Adevarul, a major Romanian newspaper. (Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
It is Dahn's POV that the article by Moroianu is not a "source", likewise for Goma's article. In fact, Dahn would not admit any source other than Vladimir Tismăneanu. (Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
"A Moskow Institution" is a rather vague specification! Do you have any information about institution/ graduation year? (Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
On the contrary, the citation shows that Hermina Tismăneanu was a Party activist. Her function as director de cadre of the health Ministry, even if she held it for only 6 months, fully qualifies her for the activist label. (Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
There is a point in saying that someone is not qualified to be a Professor. Did Leonte Tismăneanu hold a doctral degree? If not, he was clearly unqualified fro being a professor and for heading the Philosophy Department of a major university. There seem to be some indications that Leonte Tismăneanu was a linguistics student in Moskow, but not about any graduation date. (Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
This is an interview with Vladimir Tismăneanu, son of Hermina and Leonte. He does not present hard proofs like diplomas, but only tells the story he learned from his parents. His comments are vague concerning Hermina's graduation (what year? what institution?) ahd her doctoral studies (did she eventually finished them? he only says that she was a graduate student in Moskow for a year in 1954-1955). (Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
The man was born in 1913 in the Russian Empire in territory acquired by Romania in 1918. So at least for his first 5 years of life, he was a Russian citizen, not Romanian. He seems also to have been a Soviet citizen at least until 1949, when acoording to his son Vladimir Tismăneanu, he was naturalized Romanian citizen and changed his name from Tisminetki to Tismăneanu.(Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
It is Dahn's POV that the paper by Goma is shabby. But Goma is a huge writer and dissident who must be taken seriously by everyone, including by the amateur wikipedia user Dahn.(Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Phrases like "Obvious to anyone" are ridiculous. Why should this be obvious? As for Marxism, this is a respectable and major topic in Philosophy, taught acroos the world. If Dahn considers this topic to be an outrage, it is his POV but clearly a marginal one and cannot be seriously considered.(Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Goma claims that "Marxism-Stalinism" was the official name of the discipline taught by Tismăneanu. Dahn, keep your comments concerning "absurdity" for yourself, especially when they refer to reality. Indeed reality can be absurd at times and it is absurd to try to hide it. (Icar 18:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))
Jews were not citizens of the Russian Empire, and neither were people four or five years of age. Your solicism about his citizenship is bewildering: if you start theorizing about it, you should at least have the common sense to look into what you are talking about - since the Soviets did not recognize the validity of Bessarabia's union with Romania, all Bessarabian-born people were considered Soviet citizens. Regardless, his first citizenship would have been the Romanian one, acquired in 1921, unless he was barred from having one by some special reason (which is unlikely, given that he would have been a stateless person otherwise). He lost his citizenship in 1938, together with all Jews (you will note that he fled Romania after that point).
My point was that, since the term was never in use anywhere, that is a piece of sarcasm from the part of Goma. My point about it being "shabby" was that, as a joke, it is a quite crappy one. You will find plenty of references to "catedra de marxism-leninism"; the only one you will find about "catedra de marxism-stalinism" is Goma! I'm sorry that these things are not clear to you by now, and that I have to explain how you should have done your referencing if you want to even hope that you will be taken seriously. Dahn 11:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
As for the rest, I have already answered. All added details to the previous argument made by Icar and his IP are puerile (such as Tismăneanu having to "prove" that his detractors are wrong, when his detractors don't have to prove anything, and don't even have to make a concrete accusation; such as Goma being right because he is a huge writer,and somebody's comment being logical because it was published in some newspaper; such as the word "Marxism-Stalinism" being the legitimate name of the Chair because some writer thought it was good material for a pamphlet etc etc). Therefore, you will excuse me for not bothering to reply to such intoxication and sophistry. Dahn 12:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note on the "nickname" - I don't know what the hell reference was cited, but, no matter who uses it, they don't appear to use as often as to vouch for it to be called a "nickname" (as opposed to a recent, fringe and cynicial attack from his adversaries). On google, "tismaneanu+ciungul" gives 51 hits (which are variations of, respectively, the Romanian wikipedia article on him, Tricolorul, and the other article Icar keeps pushing as a "source"; there is also an online chat). "tisminetki+ciungul" gives a total of seven hits, of mich the same quality, while "tisminetski+ciungul" gives no hits. The total for "leonte+tismaneanu" is 617 hits; the total for "leonid+tisminetki" is 99, and that for "leonte+tismaneanu+tisminetki" is 108. Note that these esntries also cover the versions with diacritics. Once again: wikipedia is no place for calumny. Dahn 12:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Note on the Report - I think that, especially since the Report is available online, we should actually reference what it says about Leonte Tismăneanu, not what it is believed to say (in fact, it would be ridiculous to do otherwise). The document is a pdf without an html version, so this task has proven quite difficult for me so far; I'll try hrader, unless anyone wants to help. Dahn 14:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Status of article

Dahn asked me to protect this article. I'm not doing that: this seems to be a content dispute, not vandalism or other breach of rules. However, Dahn makes what looks like a pretty solid case for his version of the article. I would hope that if the anonymous editor disagreeing with him wishes to continue the exchange, he or she does so here on the talk page instead of inserting into the article material against which Dahn has made a good (and so far unrebutted) prima facie case.

If Goma's charges are to be included at all, then certainly response to the charges should be included as well. - Jmabel | Talk 19:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt response. Myself, I believe that details of the Tism.-Goma debate belong on other pages, and this page should refer to the minimum of relevant information (that is, what Goma is talking about, and, briefly, in what context - I have provided the latter in my last edit; after all, it is not humanly possible to pinpoint who said what in the debate without having to go into a lot of details, some of which involve Bessarabia during WWII). Dahn 19:55, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Answer to vandalizer Dahn

If you cannot open the report of the Tismaneanu commission, it is not a reason to remove my contribution. If you are unable to check your sources, just leave this page alone.

The argument about google is nonsense. People used to exist before google indexed them. 59 references seem better than 0 but this is not relevant. What matters is that the surname is documented in a scientific journal in a history journal, whose reference I provided. What's your problem with this nick? It's just saying that the man lost his arm in Spain. (Icar 14:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Your negative comments about Goma could not matter less. The fact is, he mentioned this Marxism-Stalinism detail in print and I documented it. You are taking a personal stand in this matter concerning a dead person. Are you related to L.T.?

As I said above and you did not bother to answer: Hermina T. was a party activist (director de cadre), according to the source you cite. Are you happy now with this? She did not hold a Professorship but rather she was associate professor. Your insisting that she had trained as a physician is ludicrious in light of the patchy instruction she boasted, so leave this part out.(Icar 14:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

First argument: read it, then reference (don't trust others to tell you). Second argument: which is why I have proven how many times he is indexed without the nickname; since information on wikipedia is supposed to be relevant, his nickname would have to be notorious. Third argument: the term does not exist, and Goma does not even indicate it exists (he is merely being funny). Fourth argument: see WP:OR and Wikipedia:Verifiability (also note that Vladimir Tismăneanu does say where she trained).
The personal stand that I am taking is ensuring that this encyclopedia is a reliable source of information, not the product of libel. Dahn 14:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If YOU cannot read, then just refrain from making changes until you can see. This is becoming funny: do you believe this page is your property?! (Icar 15:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Tell me where in the Report you have read it, and I'll re-add the reference. Dahn 15:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Tismaneanu says that she studied in Moskow but not that she finished her PhD.

Say clearly if you acknowledge that she was a Party activist.

About the source, I am not at your command. If you cannot open the publicly available document in question, just stand back and let others do the job.(Icar 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Sophistry. Just because he doesn't say it, it does not mean he says she did not, while your "source" does not say that she did not. If we would have any concrete evidence instead of your deductions, it could be included. Otherwise, no. Claro?
It is not my job to say if she was or was not. It is Tismăneanu's own statement that she was not, and I have no reliable source to tell me that she was.
I can open it just fine, but I cannot find any such reference. Perhaps you will lead the way, and give an exact citation. Dahn 15:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are inventing here: Tismaneanu does NOT say she was not an activist. He DOES say she was "director de cadre". You are dispalying incredible bad faith. Are you, yes or no, personally related to them? (Myself I am not)

As for Goma's statement (concerning Stalinism): it is not a joke, why would you think so? It is very serious, so please let famous writers make statements without Dahn's saying what is a joke and what isn't. Otherwise, everything can be removed by saying it is a joke... Refrain from making such annoying personal interpretations in the future. (Icar 15:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

I already gave the exact citation and you are only disrupting any constructive discussion. Again, if you are unable to check the reference, just abstain. You are not the ultimate decider about this page. Nobody cares about your being or not able to search through a document. Have you understood that? (Icar 15:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

If you debase the discussion with arguments of the "are you related to them" nature, I cannot begin to address your problems. Pressure about furnishing personal details, I must warn you, is grounds for user banning on wikipedia. Out of the principle of it, I shall not demean myself to debate in that key. I'll just point out that I have about 0.01% contributions on this subject, while you have 100%.
All indications are that the official name of the Chair was "of Scientific Socialism", and, in more or less colloquial contexts, "of Marxism-Leninism". It is Goma and only Goma who uses the term in this context, and let's see if you can discern official usage from this text by Adrian Cioroianu ("Ştefan Roll, poetul modernist interbelic cu apariţii prin reviste precum 75 H.P., Integral sau Unu, fost, o vreme, redactor la ziarul de stânga Dimineaţa şi viitor, graţie lui Mihail Roller, şef al catedrei de marxism-leninism a Universităţii Bucureşti"). The Commission itself uses "Scientific Socialism" (see the Report as referenced in the article, footnote on page 66).
An exact citation for a text that large means chapter and page (or at least chapter, or at least page), since you are citing the source. Otherwise, you are simply pushing something that you have read in newspapers, without knowing if it is true, and without being able to point out where this is stated, although the document itself is available! I have looked through the document, and did not find the mention - although it may be there, I did not find it. This is not about "computer problems"; it is about Wikipedia:Verifiability, and I'm sorry it takes me so long to make you understand that. Dahn 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Consider yourself warned. Dahn 15:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It has more to do with your inability to use the search function. The reference is there, I will not provide it now by principle since you are just a disruptor. But you have no right to doubt that it is there, even more as you acknowledge that newspapers talk about it. Do not worry, it will be there to stay. To make you happy: I DID see it.

Could you answer: do you recognize now that HT was a Party activist? Come on, it's not a big deal! She was just another Communist activist. That's a fact supported by your citation above, not a value judgement.

As for your identity, I could not care less. However it is unethical to write about yourself or your relatives without declaring it. (Icar 16:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Newspapers are opinions, and, in case you want to quote them, name the issue and the author. I was not able to find the reference with the search function, and I was not placed on this Earth to trust that you have seen it.
My main concern was actually the "also" in that sentence (misleading in her case), but I believe that the current version clarifies all that needs to be clarified.
If I have to reply, I will point out that it is not unethical to write about yourself or your relatives if you or they happen to be notable enough to have an article, and especially since you are eliminating hearsay and libel in the process. Why that should be your concern in the first place, I don't know. After all, how does one verify if I am or not, and how does one verify that you are not in fact Paul Goma? I say this charade of yours is quite boring. Dahn 16:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

So Dahn finally accepts the evidence concerning the activist activity of Hermina. Did I hear 'sorry for being disruptive'? Now be so kind to remove the disputable claim "training as physician" and replace it by "speaker at Radio Moskow in Romanian language during WWII". Also, mention that she was a nurse in Spain in the International Brigades. Like this, we are coming closer to the true picture.

He also found the reference about Leonte in his son's report... some real progress for today (Icar 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

First of all, stop trolling.
Her training as a physician is subject to what I have indicated above, and we're not playing with each other on this issue.
As I have said before on this page, I was investigating what the exact mention is in the report (and the conclusion is not exactly what you had added there). Dahn 17:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

You are simply and desperately trying to obstruct the truth. Pityful. Stop writing sententios nonsense and removing every changes of other editors. You are a bane to this site (Icar 17:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

Whatever. When you actually have something to support your smalltalk, aside from ad hominems and the unfiltered attacks of people who do not indicate their sources (or even the basis of their reasonings),I'll continue this conversation. Dahn 17:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] syntax

I tried to repair the references provided by Vintila Barbu but the reference list does not look right... (Icar 15:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Now it is better but still need fixing (the strange references just look awful) (Icar 15:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] data about PhD

I introduced a reference to Petre Opriş in "Dosarele Istoriei", year IX, nr. 12(100)/2004, pp. 11-15, which shows that in 1954 Tismaneanu did not have a PhD since the CC asked for permission for an extraordinary defence, without the legal requirements. The fact that Communist leaders in Romania did not have diplomas is common knowledge and needs not be referenced as such. But in the above reference I give, this fact is actually exposed as ALL indoctrinators and propagandists needed a sort of fishy PhD procedure. I do not understand Dahn's remark. in fact I disagree with his removing of referenced, relevant material. (Icar 09:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

What is the name of the article? Dahn 09:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that I made this thing up? I hope not. If not, I see no reason to give the name. You are free to check it up in the library. Even in peer-reviewed scientific works, the reference titles are not always mentioned. Your insinuation is absurd. You seem to be in denial about Tisminetki, by the way. (Icar 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

I gave the title for all references. Surely, yours has a title as well. Dahn 10:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not "mine". Go ahead and either find it yourself or say clearly that you believe it is an invention. (Icar 10:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

I asked you to provide the title, per a single perspective on format. What I believe about it is irrelevant to you. Dahn 10:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Compromise"

Aside from spelling errors, the version pushed by Vintila Barbu contains several major POV-pushes - citations to the highly debatable article of Mr. Moroianu's (which makes unverifiable and inflammatory claims); casual use of Paul Goma's text as "reference", when it is in fact part of a polemic; the utterly unlikely mention of the University Chair under the name "Marxism-Stalinism", as used in Goma (who, even if he were a neutral source, is not by any means an authority on Marxist dogma), and not used by any other sources - be it in reference to Leonte Tismăneanu's position or to the Chair itself (where Marxism-Leninism or Scientific Socialism are the terms indicated for the entire period), be it in general (the only other mention of the term is an anti-Stalinist text, where it forms part of criticism of the Soviet Union). This is at first glance, and you may note that I have already called attention to this on the talk page. Dahn 10:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


Firstly, I would be grateful to show me the spelling errors.
Your entire criticism to my version confines proclaiming fully legitimate sources as “highly debatable”. You cannot simply delete sourced information just because you don’t like it. You cannot simply dismiss the sources just because they contain information which you wouldn’t like to have it quoted in the article. This is highly arbitrary and amounts to heavy vandalism.
  1. Moroianu's article is perfectly citable and by no means “highly debatable”, nor does it contains “unverifiable and inflammatory claims”. If his “claims” have inflamed you, this is your problem. You cannot simply reject a scientific source, just because you feel uncomfortable with it.
  2. Paul Goma is one of the most reputable sources about Romanian Communism. Dahn challenging Goma is one of the most ridiculous panoramas one can get cost-free on the web.
  3. Initially, the chair of Leonte T. was “Istoria PCUS” (History of the Communist Party of Soviet Union) which was taught at the Philosophy Faculty up to the mid 1960s. (It even seems that Leonte T. was really good in telling the history of the Communist Party of Soviet Union). Thereafter, he moved to the “Marxism-Leninism” Chair. Of course I am not a source, but having Goma as source for this is getting the chance of a very trustworthy information.
I wouldn’t like to conclude before pointing out – again ! – at a behavioural aspect of you Dahn, which I deem highly dubious. On the User talk:Khoikhoi you have brought up obvious absurd and ridiculous accusations against Icar. Knowing that you are involved in multiple debates with (or against) Icar, and also knowing that you have opened a procedure against him, I have very strong reasons to believe that you are trying to manipulate Khoikhoi against a fellow editor (Icar) with whom you are presently at odds. In building up my suspicion, I am corroborating other attempts of you Dahn, to stir opinion of admins against other users, just because they edited infos you didn’t like. Of course, I can proof all this.

--Vintila Barbu 12:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

1. "Moskow".
2. See above, where other users have weighed in. The article makes unverifiable claims and is not in the a voice of authority on the matter.
3. Paul Goma has made extremely dubious allegations in the same article you are citing.
4. Above, I have also presented a neutral source which does not refer to the Chair under any such name for that period. The claim is not in any way verifiable, and I don't go calling VT "a Bolshevik offspring" based on the fact that Goma did and it should thus be "NPOV". If I were to actually translate what Goma says in the article (a tiresome and utterly pointless task under any other circumstances), any neutral user coould realise that it is not by any means an encycolopedic source; the same goes for Moroianu's pamphlet, as already pointed out).
5. I don't care about your suspicions, and there is no indication that I should care. I have been the target of quite enough mudslinging from you to be even attempting to justify what I do in front of you. On the other hand, the user you defend has written equally repulsive stuff about me, and you both have used several pages to advertise a cabal against me and my contributions.
One should also mention that including the weasel-worded statements about VT having "partaially refuted" Goma's statement is in breach of several wiki conventions (VT chose not to enage Goma on this isue, clearly indicating that he considered these words an insult; furthermore, there is nothing to "refute" when somebody calls one a "Bolshevik offspring", just as there is nothing to refute when somebody calls one a "son of a bitch" - dropping a mention of these being "refuted", and, moreover, "partially refuted", is someone's personal assessment of Goma being right and VT being wrong, and especially illogical since, again, this was not a dialog).
Have a glorious day, Vintila Barbu. Dahn 14:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My compromise proposal and Khoikhoi's reverts

Since a new edit conflict threatens to break out, I am proposing a compromise based on common sense and Wiki rules: let us adopt a version including all sourced information. It is exactly what I did in my edit, which was uncommented reverted by Khoikhoi. BTW, I am kindly inviting Khoikhoi to participate to our discussion in order to find a common solution. Just reverting the work of others, as he just did, is not very helpful. Please, present by yourself the reasons for your edits, Khoikhoi.

I must mention however, that in my version I removed one sourced information, that referring to the moniker of Tismăneanu - The Cripple. It is true that he was surnamed this way by his students at the Philosophy Faculty in Bucharest. This rather crude surname was given to him as an expression of aversion against a very bad professor, notorious for his incompetence and his fiercely Stalinist dogmatism. Actually, he continued to be a “Stalinist beast” up to the 1970s, making other professors at the Faculty – who either professed Marxism-Leninism – to feel very uneasy. As he went on pension, a general breath out relieved the Faculty. I suppose that one of the reasons why his incomparably smarter son Volodea couldn’t reach a position at the Faculty (to which, IMO, he would have been intellectually entitled), was just the very bad experience the Faculty had with his father. People act emotionally, and the simply thought of having another Tismăneanu in the staff might have frightened many people. This is completely irrational, since Volo was known as smart and – under given circumstances – tending towards “enlightened” Communism. Nevertheless, it was how it was. Now, enough with recalling.

Khoikhoi, don’t forget to express your reasons for your edits. You have repeatedly on several articles just reverted to Dahn’s version, without any other contribution or even a comment. This kind of “teamwork”, where Dahn is the brain and you are the hands, is little flattering for you. Besides, it represents an infringement of Wiki rules and spirit: you may very well know that every editor must be responsible for his edits. You are not only breaking WP, you are maneuvring yourself into the unconditional executor of Dahn’s will. I know that you are able to understand very complicated contexts and subtle details, I also know that you are able to take wise decisions in extremely complex situations and I cannot understand why are you letting yourself transforming into an instrument of someone else. Just dare to be yourself. On the other hand, if you really have a point on this article, don’t forget that we need your experience and cleverness. Come along with content and solutions, not just with reverts. --Vintila Barbu 12:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negotiation

I propose to separate all the conflicting issues in 1 paragraph each. I start with "Ciungul". here is my opinion: I would find it well-placed in the lead since this was indeed his nickname. He is not alive anymore so no sensitivity is hurt by calling him "Cripple". If someone can prove that it hurts anybody to emphasize this nickname more that it deserves, it is another matter. Along the same line of thought, how about Pantiusa? This is a nick for the NKVD general Panteleimon Bodnarenko, first director of the Securitate, who used in Romania the name Pintilie. Should we discard Pantiusa? (Icar 13:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC))