Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Icar (talk | contribs) at 17:09, 3 January 2007 (Vandahl Dahn strikes again). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

PhD subject

It would be interesting to have the title, and maybe abstract of his PhD thesis. Does anyone have a link to information about this thesis? Dpotop 11:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The thesis title is "Noua stînga şi Şcoala de la Frankfurt" (The new Left and the Frankfurt School", (Editura Politică, Bucharest 1976). According to a Washington Post editorial by Victor Gaetan, Tismăneanu's doctoral thesis is "a vitriolic sermon against Western values". The conclusion of the thesis thesis is that "Capitalism cannot be destroyed through vague dreams, dogmatic revolt, sudden transition and metaphysical studies. The only mean to overcome this statu-quo is through Socialist revolution, in which the working class, led by the revolutionary political Party, will play the leading role." (193.226.4.133 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Objections

In addition to my objections: I have removed details on his father. If you plan an article on him, add them there.

I'll detail below my other points:

• His father's name was Leonte Tismăneanu, as chosen by the man himself. Despite the habit, one cannot deny someone else the name he chose for himself. Any detail on this issue belongs in an article on Leon Tismăneanu, not here (Vladimir's name was never Tismineţki - in fact, for reasons of chronology, Leon's own name is likely not subject to Romanian transliteration more than it is to standard Russian-to-English, but that is another matter)
• Communist words do not a communist make, and we have been debating this before. I do not intend to help anyone build[REDACTED] as a database for a witch hunt, especially when that witch hunt will be based on hypocrisy (among historians, it is not just Tismăneanu who has pointed out that trait of later Romanian Communism)
• It will be a cold day in hell before[REDACTED] will link to Tricolorul for references Dahn 13:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And let me ask you, D: is there any particular reason for not using diacritics? Dahn 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dahn. As mentioned at some point in the edit history (you should read it), I'm trying to translate the text on ro.wiki (not well worded, anyway). If you wish, correct the text on ro.wiki. And, anyway, I gave up for now. I'll wait for the aftermath of his report.

As for the guy and his report, my oppinion is forged by what I read about them. As for now, I have both CTP, Cristoiu, and what I see as non-partisan public oppinion (as well as the opponents of Basescu) considering this report a disgrace, and the author a spineless guy. I am never relying on only one oppinion, but from my experience both CTP and Cristoiu were quite moderate. I also have friends of mine commenting along the same lines, and have seen no person (public or friend) I appreciate comment positively.

So: I don't try to do a witch hunt. I consider the report to be part of a political campaign of Basescu, and I think it should be put in perspective. Factual perspective, not witch hunt. Tismaneanu is becoming a public figure, and his background must be known. I believe this not to be the case, yet. I don't quite understand your "communist words do not make a communist". We are not talking here about some poor guy that needed to write political propaganda to be left in peace (Adrian Paunescu could be in this case). And even if he did so, then the guy was a fraud when he wrote his first articles. Why should I believe him now?

As for your help, I didn't ask for it. What I am going to do here is to report what I find to be NPOV, while accepting to change my POV according to supplementary sources or enlightening notes by other users.

Cheers. Dpotop 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article on ro wiki is the product of a witch hunt, from a person who has declared himself to be an anti-Semite. I have no stomach to go and undo all of what that person has felt free to do over there, and I'd rather make this article sourced with proper sources and moderate tone.

Well, I'd say Cristoiu and CTP can be seen as "propoer sources", unless they, too, are anti-semites. :) And these sources are saying Tismaneanu is conducting a witch-hunt. Is this source enough for you? Dpotop 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, did I stutter? I have deleted references from Tricolorul as to Tismăneanu's alleged "communist convictions", I have not removed any of his family history (except those parts that would fit in the link for his father - otherwise, WHY have a link?!), and I have not removed anything by either Cristoiu or Popescu (nothing by Cristoiu or Popescu was prexent in the goddamn text!). Dahn 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against including criticism of his report, if it is stated on the basis of "he said, she said". Also note that nothing on that was present in the text, and that I have left all information about his family past that had ditect relevancy for Vladimir himself.

I disagree with you. As CTP noted, part of the infamy of the author of the report comes from his position in the Communist high-life. This information is meaningful in this context. If you want a cheap comparison: Hitler's background is meaningful, too, in explaining his deeds. Dpotop 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

What you do not understand, Dpotop, is that I do not deny either the source or Tismăneanu's position in the high-life (more or less - as it is obvious to anyone that his father had fallen into disgrace). Yes, he lived a good life as a kid, and yes, some journalists say that it matters where he grew up (note that Tismăneanu will never deny where he grew up!). This has nothing to do with "communist convictions" allegedly expressed by Tismăneanu himself. Now, even if you are to quote someone saying that Tismăneanu himself was a communist, don't quote a piece of trash (ie: if Cristoiu and/or Popescu say it, quote them saying it; if they do not, there must be a goddamn reason for it!). Just how obvious is this? Dahn 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The personal conclusions you draw about his writings belong to the realm of journalism. Aside from the fact that they are sourced with a newspaper that writes calumnies about the man (and should thus be discredited from the get-go), nothing would allow you to draw a conclusion in presenting the facts. It would also mean that every person who has ever graduated from a branch of the University and was required to write such a stereotypical essay is "a communist",as well as all historians who were required to quote Ceauşescu. Dahn 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We are talking here about human sciences, not exact ones. The boundary between history and journalism is never quite clear. And you are confusing here "Tricolorul", which can be considered as extreme, with well-respected editorialists from Gandul (CTP) and Jurnalul (Cristoiu). Don't mix them. Dpotop 15:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I see, more appeals to probability. Read above. Dahn 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics: I don't have them on my US keyboard, and I don't know how to install the needed converter outside Word or OpenOffice. BTW: how do you write them? Dpotop 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Er... I click the symbols... at the bottom of the screen... in the editing window... And, in case I hadn't noticed they were there after years of editing wikipedia, I would still copy-paste the words with diacritics, already present in the text... Dahn 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

And I forgot. I find some references to Tricolorul justifiable, especially when they cite the source (journal, number, year, article), and excerpts. And you are not the only one to decide what gets in and what remains out. Dpotop 14:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

See above. Don't invest your energy in discrediting wikipedia. Dahn 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't invest time in defending Basescu's political agenda. It's discrediting wikipedia, too. Dpotop 15:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1. That agenda would be much more respectable than a paper that engages in slander. 2. I just told you I do not defend it. Dahn 15:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

To the IP who keeps pushing the POV

Do read the templeate at the very top of this page, and then Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Avoid weasel words. Please understand that rumors from one side of the debate are not "sources", that they are inflammatory, and that, while presenting no proof, they were at least partly dismissed by the person whom they are aimed at (which would make them hot potatoes for wikipedia). Some of them are not reliable on principle, and some content you keep adding is redundant (while the rest is mostly libelous). Dahn 10:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Dahn: for you some sources might not be reliable "on principle" but you are not the ultimate decider of what is reliable and what isn't. The links to "Tricolorul" that you have groundlessly removed simply reproduce Tismaneanu's own articles. Ditto for the PhD. thesis conclusion. "Tricolorul" merely provides an online version of the printed papers. Please stop removing them, unless you check that the printed papers are different from what "Tricolorul" claims.

As for "allegations" of communist activities in the "youth years": this is blatantly biased. There remains no doubt that this guy was a dedicated communist propagandist until the age of 30. As The washington Post Editorial (check the link, it is an Editorial) says, his thesis is a "vitriolic sermon against Western values". Do you actually doubt that he wrote that crap? As for "youth", it is misleading to say youth of someone who is 30. These are weasel words, give them up by your own advice. (193.226.4.133 12:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC))

Nice contributions, mr. Anonymous editor. Dahn, you should accept these new sources. Dpotop 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1.The links to Tricolorul are referring to a paper that ids controversial at best, engaged in the debate, and known to have published false material in the past. Linking to that paper also creates a precedent for wikipedia. All of that material needs to be verified, and is in itself undue weight. (Note: I have actually checked other sources, and they do not make as specific claims, which means that, by including Tricolorul, we would not just be introducing a biased source, we would be favoring it!) 2.The thesis conclusion cites a source as if it is familiar with it. It is not, but merely presumes it is (you have copied the reference from the Romanian version, which quoted nothing, and assumed that the quote is to be found verbatim in the work in question). 3.The term "alleged" refers to his convictions. They are alleged, because we would otherwise imply intimate knowledge of a person's feelings and ideas. There is nothing referring to his thesis, and, as all Romanians of the times, he would be entitled to mimicking communist convictions without having them. 4.The article is not "an editorial", and the link actually says that it was "in the editorial section" ("An article in a periodical written by a certain person and published as an official argument: Our local newspaper's editorial section featured dozens of letters reflecting opposing views of this year's presidential election.") 5.Per[REDACTED] conventions, all details about his father that do not relate directly to the son belong in that article. Much of what you push in that area is questionable at the very least, but the debate is to be carried there (though, frankly, I do not see much room for debate). Dahn 18:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

His father (surnamed Ciungul) has his own page. By the way; he is one of the main communist propagandists in Romania, according to the report of Tismaneanu's commission.

The links to "Tricolorul" provide the readers with a online reproduction of Tismaneanu's printed papers. Dahn must have some vested interest in defending Tismaneanu aginst his own past writings. One must be mad to hide this information because one has a personal dislike about "Tricolorul". All the comments about Tricolorul are just Dahn's POV. What source do you cite for claiming all those things about that journal?(Icar 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

I will not answer again. As to the style and status of the paper, Bogdan gave you an answer below, so did Jmabel. Let's not continue this needlessly. Dahn 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Allegations about communist convictions" refer to his stated (printed) beliefs. Not all Romanians at the time stated in print such beliefs, whether Dahn likes it or not. One example: Paul Goma. Since you object to this, I will write "activity as communist propagandist". I will include again all references to Tismaneanu's scientific workul°s before 1981.(Icar 21:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC))

Not unless you can point out where you found them. Dahn 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Status of article

Dahn asked me to protect this article. I'm not doing that at this time: this seems to be a content dispute, not vandalism or other breach of rules. I haven't looked into all of the details of this. However, I have to say: Tricolorul makes a pretty lousy source. Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons is certainly relevant here, and several aspects of Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources seem relevant here as well: in particular, the remarks about Partisan and extremist websites presumably also apply to partisan or extermist newspapers. - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. What the anon reader is doing here is equivalent to the POV-pushing of Dahn on List on Romanian Communists where he has actually no source but keeps claiming that Adrian Paunescu and Richard Wurmbrand were activists of the PCR. This is relevant here, because the conflict on this page is part of a larger edit conflict related to current events in Romania. Unfortunately, I'm on vacation and have a lousy connection. Dpotop 10:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Weren't you edit-warring for the exact same POV-pushing as the anon editor? In fact, wasn't "you should accept these new sources" directed by you towards me, D? Or did the wind change direction again? Dahn 21:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Pretty lousy? You don't like the newspaper in which Vadim insults all his adversaries? Women are regularly named "whores", while the men are "worms" -- usually tapeworms and roundworms. :-)

How can one doubt the veridicity of information such as "Băsescu wears diapers" bogdan 11:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Dpotop

Aside from being weasel-worded OR, Dpotop, that statement about his father being head of the publishing house is also not true - he had been removed from that position a decade earlier! Dahn 13:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandahl Dahn strikes again

Dahn has again reverted my version by claiming that it is 'misleading'. WHAT is misleading, Mr disruptor? We agree that the references 3 and 4 describe pieces of communist propaganda by Tismaneanu, yes or no? Now we do not talk about convictions (fine thinkers like Dahn say that you cannot tell a convinced communist just by his communist writings). Fine, I removed 'convictions' altogether and replaced it by 'activity'. What on earth can you object to this? As for my English style, mind the log in your own eye(Icar 17:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC))

• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles