Talk:Mircea Eliade/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[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 [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. 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)

[edit] Hi, I Am Mayuma

Hi, I am Mayuma, this is my user name in Ro.wiki. I have been researching in several archives on a book on Mircea Eliade and I have studied the question of the interview given to Adrian Păunescu. Eliade taped the interview and he rejected the additions made by Păunescu himself for his montly magazine, Flacăra, so I think u shouldn t rely on this statement in your article Eliade praised the communist youth.

If anything, that would vouch an addition to the text, not a removal. Provided, of course, this can be backed up from a reliable source, and not just postulated. Dahn 10:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, I Am Mayuma

Actually I can quote from his Securitate Forreign Intelligence file, I wanted to do it in my book first but I can give here some hints. My real name is Iulian Baicus, I am Assistant Professor at Faculty of Letters at Bucharest University, and Paul Cernat is my fellow colleague, but I am researching at CNSAS right now. Mircea Eliade was reluctant to give that interview so he had taped it and when it was published, he refused to recognize several statements added by Adrian Păunescu. In some of the worst passages he stated that Nicolae Ceauşescu should receive the Nobel prize for peace cause he is the most valiant leader in Eastern Europe. Eliade protested against Păunescu manner of conducting the interview in a letter sent to Radio Free Europe. I have the precise page from the file I took my information. From your article one could think Eliade was a sort of admirer of Adrian Păunescu and of the Romanian communist youth. If you agree I can state this in the article I will quote the exact name of the SIE file and the page.

No, I'm sorry. You will have to quote it with a secondary source (as is the quote via Cernat). If Eliade did indeed publicize the protest, it should be present in such a source. It is a question of reliability, not one of confidence. Dahn 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I think your secondary source is casting a shadow on Mircea Eliade's biography, but I will comment on this passage in my book. Mayuma 21:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, when it is published, you are welcome to cite it for what it says. Dahn 15:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi, I Am Mayuma

I Am the Walrus. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. Biruitorul 02:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Destroyer of Worlds -- that a song by Bathory (not Erzsébet)? Turgidson 03:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks, editors/contributors for improving this article !!

This article has certainly been improved. My gratitude to those whose hard work & dedication it represents. It is much more complete and fitting.

[edit] Hagiography

The article as it stands gives no background an perspective on Eliade's views. It even seems that he pioneered the idea of sacred-profane dichotomy as the core of religion, while he was almost 40 years late.--BMF81 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As I have said in my edit summary, the detail does not belong in the lead, and is probably irrelevant to this article. Also, as far as I can tell, this article does not appear to state that he initiated the theory. Furthermore, neither of two articles cited have a direct connection to Eliade, which means that adding them here may fall under the section of WP:OR referring to using published material as a means to advance a position not explicitly present in that material. Dahn 22:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify my last edit: context referring to the earlier use of "sacred and profane", if it makes a direct mention of Eliade, belongs in the "Scholar" section, not in the lead (for comparison, we do not explain the earlier meanings of "Communism" or "Dialectics" in the lead for the Karl Marx article). The link to the article in the lead is enough; I cannot really tell if the detail is important for Eliade, but, if it is, it still has no place in the lead. Dahn 23:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A recent edit added citneeded templates here: "One of his most influential contributions to religious studies[citation needed] was his theory of Eternal Return, which holds that myths and rituals do not simply commemorate hierophanies, but, at least to the minds of the religious, actually participate in them. In academia, the Eternal Return has become one of the most widely accepted ways of understanding the purpose of myth and ritual.<ref>Eliade, ''Shamanism'', p.xiii</ref>[citation needed]" the stated reason was that the sentences in question constituted praise. In fact, those two sentences constitute acknowledgments of notability: one clarifies that, among his most important contributions, there was one called "eternal return"; the other indicates that it is among the most used theories of its kinds - which it is, as the text itself expands and references below, and as attested by the fact that Eliade, for better or worse, was a man of influence in his community. While I was never charmed about the original editor having seemingly cited Eliade to seemingly indicate how important his theory was, it is granted that his theories were influential on the scientific community, without ifs and buts.

Another recent move was the addition of a NPOV template to a section on his scholarly contributions. Having personally combed that section, I must object to the implication that it is explicitly pro-Eliade - there is, afaict, no sentence where praise of him would be unilaterally voiced (or even voiced at all). Not being well acquainted with Eliade's work, I must presume that the implication was one regarding a sin of omission, in respect to the already discussed notion that Eliade's work in whatever area was preceded by other scholars. Well, afaict, nowhere does the text say that he pioneered in respect to notion he used, just in the way he applied them. Furthermore, if the contributor thinks more content is needed, let him or her contribute content that he or she did not deduce means something about Eliade, but one which at least mentions Eliade by name. Furthermore, the template advertises a discussion on the talk page, and that discussion does not appear to be taking place.

I would also like to note that the "context" template applies only to introductions (and, as pointed out, does not apply here).

By looking over the past history of this page, one can see that I am not one of Eliade's fans, and that I have been accused of being one of his detractors. But tagging a well-sourced article because it does not confirm to one unpublicized position is neither constructive nor fair. Dahn 13:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dahn here. He has patrolled my edits with ruthless vigilance (to good effect, I should add) for anything resembling "original research" or promotion of Eliade's ideas. When he's done combing an article, you can be sure it doesn't contain anything that presents Eliade in too positive a light.

With regard to the NPOV template, Dahn said:

"Not being well acquainted with Eliade's work, I must presume that the implication was one regarding a sin of omission, in respect to the already discussed notion that Eliade's work in whatever area was preceded by other scholars."

This is precisely the problem (if you want to call it that) with much of Eliade's work. In the introduction to The Sacred and the Profane, Eliade cites Rudolf Otto as his predecessor in discussing "the sense of the sacred"; this makes it seem like Eliade's building primarily off of Otto. Yet this apparently isn't the case. According to an evidently well-researched website that I have no reason to suspect of falsehood,

"Mircea Eliade travesties Durkheim in The Sacred & The Profane (1957) by ignoring completely his fundamental contribution to the study of the sacred. Durkheim had made the sacred - profane dichotomy a central theme of The Elementary Forms of Religious Life (1912), [1] but Eliade passes over this in total silence, leaving you to suppose he is himself first in the field, with no previous account to consider."[6]

This is a considerable blow to Eliade's character (not to his ideas). Many of Eliade's concepts, like the break with profane time and return to sacred time, were already discussed by Durkheim. By citing Otto as his inspiration instead of Durkheim, Eliade makes himself look more original than he really is. However, I'm not going to add a discussion of this "problem" to the article, because right now the only source I have is some random guy who knows how to put up a nice website. If anyone can find a more reputable source that discusses this "problem", please feel free to discuss it in the article. --Phatius McBluff 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tungusic/magician

Dahn

(1)I have changed 'overlook' to overview' since the former rings ambiguously (to overlook = to miss seeing, disregard). (2) The word magician is, as you yourself know, problematical. Eliade liked, unless my memory fails me, the idea of a 'technician of the sacred'. On that same page, in the French edition, he speaks of 'manipulator of the sacred'(Mircea Eliade Le chamanisme et les techniques archaïques de l’extase, 2ième ed. Payot Paris 1968 p.22, which is an echo of Plato. In the Gorgias Socrates holds that Gorgias’s position is that rhetoric as a peithous dêmiourgos (453a2), a ‘craftsman of persuasion’).(3) the other adjustment is to clarify that while shamanism in the classic anthropological literature of his day was considered peculiar to Central Asia and Sibera, the word we use to denote the phenomenon came from just one term used by one of the relevant tribal cultures of that vast area. Your rephrasing looked good, but I thought it required smoothing out, given other adjustments.

Regards Nishidani 10:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My edit in that paragraph was meant to reflect what you had pointed out in your previous summary, and thus avoid articles contradicting each other. Your clarifications were both necessary and welcomed. Dahn 10:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Dahn Thank you. Seeing the cantankerous treatment over the page your very good contribution has produced, I did not wish to seem pernickety. A few notes for suggestions (1) Eliade had gross debts to Jung. (2)The 'Eternal Return' owes much to his reading of Nietzsche against the Classic and Indian sources, and is not considered seriously now, at least in the tendentious way he formulated it. (3)The sacred and profane distinction is inherent in classical languages, and had a vast literature on it long before Otto popularized it. (4)Durkheim's prior discussion occurs in Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse (1912)pp.50ff. (5) Bellow's caricature of him in Ravelstein esp.pp.124-6, reports primarily Allan Bloom's attitude to Eliade, not necessarily Bellow's. Keep up the good work Nishidani 12:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I must note that virtually the entire credit for the sections dealing with Eliade's scholarly works is owed to Phatius McBluff (I only handled structuring additional info). That said, I encourage you to elaborate on any/all the issues you present, but please do so by citing sources that specifically refer to Eliade, whether criticizing him or praising him (and I'm sure sources can be found for all of the points you make).
There is one point you make which involves one of my own additions: it is in reference to Ravelstein. At the time I added the info, the sources I found had as much to say about that as is presently in the text. Personally, I cannot confirm or deny your view (I did not read the book, and I could not find more critical material detailing the reference to Eliade and its background - this material would have been necessary for adding to the article regardless of whether I had read the book or not). Sources mentioning Bellow, Bloom and Eliade together are scarce and seem inconclusive (though I did find some Romanian-language articles in which literary critic Nicolae Manolescu is quoted with a claim that neither Bloom nor Eliade are actual characters in the book). I'll keep looking, and perhaps you too will help add to it. Dahn 15:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well thanks to Phatius McBluff as well, and my apologies. I only entered the notes above here because I didn't want to alter the text. which is the work of many others who follow this more closely than I can. I did my MA preliminary on Greek Shamanism, so I have strong memories of all of Eliade's work, but the documentation is in some files I have misplaced, and I may not be able to help concretely. I knew Evola's own personal doctor, who recounted to me Eliade's encounters with the former. But again, that is only my memory, and as such mere hearsay. I do know that in Evolian circles, the correspondence is kept (understandably - they are an extremist bunch) under tight lock and key. I do know, as a longtime student of nationalist ideologies the world over, that Eliade's texts are considered by 'adepts' as having a twofold reading (esoteric and secular), something that even struck me as probable when I first read them as a young secular outsider. That is why I cited the reminiscence from 'Fragments' about Evola. Elsewhere in his journal Eliade himself hints at the same distinction. The whole male/female (male first-female second qua 'decadent' phenomenon) binome, for example, in his discussion of shamanism flies in the face of the literature, and reflects his private theory positing an 'Adamic' "in illo tempore" mage capable of bridging the gap between this world (Northern/Nordic) and the other world. The notion of temporal decadence, or to use the Heideggerian term, the 'errancy'(Die Irre) of historical time, which introduces the feminine, the 'South' and agriculture, and destroys the heroic masculine world of the sacred is an ideological construct with analogies in the esoteric far right ideologies of national culture in Germany and Italy at that time. This is how his esoteric friends read his work (2) Ravelstein is, all insiders and the critical world agree, a caricatural portrait of Bloom. The comments made in the novel on pages pp.124-6 about him being a follower of Nae Ionesco, and that 'the record shows what he wrote about the (excuse my transcription) Jew-syphilis that infected the high civilisation of the Balkans." (S Bellow, Ravelstein 2000, Penguin ed.p.126) are all given as citations of what Ravelstein aka Bloom told the author. The book is of course a novel, but an extremely realistic one, which takes pains not to avoid precise indications as to the identities of the people portrayed under pseudonyms. No doubt some academic has teased this out. I don't know the critical literature, have no access to libraries other than my own, and cannot pursue this. I only dropped in these few notes as a prompt for further researches by those who have composed the article.Best wishes for the page Nishidani 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if we get more on the "twofold reading" (one of the sources I introduced in the text already alludes to this - albeit it is a Romanian-language tertiary one).
I see your point about Ravelstein, and I'll add an indication of the fact that Grielescu is portrayed through Ravelstein's statements (since that seems to be a basic fact). Thank you again. Dahn 05:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)