Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Why 1949?

On the evidence page, El_C notes: "why 1949, of all years, I'm unsure". He says this in reference to the question of whether Grigore Caraza has ever been a fascist; Anonimu's indefinite block is marginally rooted in this question. I would like to answer El_C's question here. The answer is that in 1949, Caraza (then 20) founded an anti-Communist resistance group, being arrested the following year and incarcerated for over two decades. So 1949 (and 1950) is the key date in question here. I don't totally exclude the notion that he was a fascist, but at the same time, no evidence has been brought forward to support the contention, so there's no reason for any of us to believe it. Quite likely, this is yet another of Anonimu's baseless insults.

Moreover, the book quoted in the dispute was written in 2004. If he was a fascist at the time of writing, then I'd say the book fails WP:RS. If he was one 55 years prior, he had a lifetime to move away from that ideology, so I really don't see the point of Anonimu's tagging, except as part of a habitual pattern of WP:POINT violations. Biruitorul (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  05:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. By the way, members of the resistance, "most of" whom, according to^[1] the head of Romania's National Archives, Dorin Dobrincu, "had no political affiliation" are awarded^[2] certificates by the Romanian government, entitling them to certain meagre benefits (considering the scale of their heroism). Yes, former Legionnaires formed one of many heterogeneous components of the Resistance; that in no way taints the nobility of the undertaking itself. Perhaps 60% of the French Resistance was made up of Communists, but that doesn't mean that entire movement should be discredited, either. Biruitorul (talk) 02:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, and while on the subject (which is moving away from Anonimu, but that's OK, what else can one say about him that hasn't been said already? it's getting dreary to go over this, with no clear end in sight), let me point out this article from the Romanian edition of the BBC. It turns out that Grigore Caraza has been involved in a controversy with metropolitan bishop Bartolomeu Anania, regarding the alleged involvement of the latter with the Securitate, a controversy in which Caraza's position is supported by Ion Mihai Pacepa (this is also mentioned in the Controversies section of the rowiki article on Anania). So my question is, how come we don't have an article on Bartolomeu Anania on enwiki? He looks notable enough to me... Turgidson (talk) 03:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)