Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:39, 13 March 2007

Biography: Politics and Government B‑class

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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Romania Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Misplaced Pages Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Misplaced Pages Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks

An entry from Valter Roman appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 4 March, 2007.

We should coordinate better

Dpotop, you are just adding in a new created subsection the Romanian text I just had used to write the information in the lead ! :))

If i may suggest, could you look at this ? It contains extremely interesting and complex information about two proposals made by Walter Roman to the Litvinov Commission:

1. on 24 July (1944? or 1945?) he suggests the restitution of Transylvania to Romania, cancelling the Vienna's Diktat
2. on 28 July same year, Walter Roman endorses the fromation of an independent state Transylvania

Letter 1 is endorsed by son Petre Roman, while letter 2 was unveiled by reasercers of Communism. It is a very intricate story, where the position of a Tofic Islamov is interesting as well. It is a lot of work to clear all this. Cheers, --Vintila Barbu 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I read about them, but I think it's controversial material. Let's finish the non-controversial part first. Dpotop 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I won't edit today any more. In fact, we added the same bit of info at the same time. BTW, I think this info does not belong in the lead, but do as you think. Dpotop 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW: to DYK this article, we simply need to beef up the link with the Hungarian revolution, the involvement in many Comm parties and the brigades (the cosmopolite aspect). :) Dpotop 14:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintila, I have no idea what the SRSC is. I copied it from Crisan's book. Do you know what it is. Dpotop 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dimineata

The link in to the Dimineata article poses several problems: the info does not appear to be backed by any other source, it is not properly referenced in the article, and the source is quite hostile to Roman (it's not like that is an independent newspaper). Dahn 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You mean the first wife? Well, cut her out if need be. Biruitorul 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I did. I could find no other mention of the marriage and his children, so this was probably one of those duds press feels the need to detonate from time to time. Dahn 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Levy

A few bits, if so desired:
(161) Valter Roman was abruptly removed as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in December 1952; placed under house arrest; subjected to daily interrogations at the Contol Commission, where he was accused of being an enemy agent in Spain; and targeted as a likely candidate to appear in a Romanian Slansky trial. Uncertain of his own position with the thaw in Soviet politics and suspicious of the loyalty of the party's old guard, Dej maintained an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in Romania in oder to ward off any attempts to replace him. Hence, Valter Roman was sanctioned with a "vote of censure (162) with a warning" in May 1954 for his "repeated anti-party manifestations", and he was not formally rehabilitated until 1956.

Small issues

as the political locum tenens of General Mihail Lascăr, commander of the Soviet-organized [[Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division.

as the political commissar of General Mihail Lascăr, commander of the Soviet-organized Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division.

The problem is partly generated by my first inssertion of politruk. I agree political commissar is better. Only that in the Red Army they were NOT subordinated to the military commanders, but were doubling them. You can not be a political commissar to some general, but you are the political commissar of a division or other unit. So maybe:

as the political commissar of the Soviet-organized Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division, commanded by General Mihail Lascăr.

This is of course detail, but for example older Russians who will read, will immediately see it.:Dc76 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanian communist activist

I removed the first reference to this in the first phrase of the article. Indeed, the information comes next, and qualifying Roman as a Romanian is a bit misleading. Let's leave it to the reader to decide. Dpotop 14:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only hope that one day you will actually read a wikipedia norm. Dahn 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Which one do you have in mind? Because Roman was not born in Romania, did not do his studies in Romania, did not make his name (Valter Roman) in Romania, and only came to be a Romania-related public figure as a Soviet propagandist, at Moskow-based Radio "Romania libera". Dpotop 14:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dptop, I already had this discussion. He was a Romanian citizen come 1921 to 1938 or 1940 (depends on which anti-semitic legislation referred to him) and again from 1944-1945 to his death. Him studying in Brno does not imply that he was a citizen of Czechoslovakia. He was a citizen of Hungary before the age of 5 (he is unlikely to have been one again in 1940); furthermore, one does not speculate about "letting readers decide what Maniu had for a citizenship", even though Maniu was Hungarian until the age of 45! To my knowledge, Roman never held any other citizenship. He was a member of the Romanian Army and an academic in a Romanian university.

Your comparison with Maniu does not hold, because Maniu always assumed his Romanian ethnicity, whereas Valter Roman assumed his Communist ideology. :) BTW, I don't really like the current start of the Iuliu Maniu article. I would have said "IM was an Austria-Hungarian and Romanian politician of Romanian ethnicity." Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, ethnicity has no bearing on nationality. Furthermore, Roman was, well, nothing until the age of 5. Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As for "making his name", I think you know perfectly what I meant.

As a matter of fact, no. I see no source talking about the Communist Neulander of before 1940. Meaning that he was at best another Communist. He made his name in the artillery unit in Spain. Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

A Romanian artillery unit (speaking of assuming nationality...). But he actually made his name as a communist in Romania. Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages conventions clearly state that the nationality (not ethnicity) is to be specified in the opening paragraph. Cease being disruptive. Dahn 14:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll try another variant. Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

... Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have to be such an ass, and not explain what you have in your head? I can't guess? Because my new version had nothing on ethnicity. I just left him a Romanian activist, as you wanted it. But did you read my text, at least? Dpotop 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, "Romanian" is a nationality. "Romanian Communist Party" is not. Quit POV-pushing. As for explaining, my version is self-explanatory. You could do without, and I recommend you do without, the personal attacks. Dahn 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanking sources

Icare, while I can live with most of your reverts, I really see no need for this, you're blanking sources. Am I missing something?--Domitius 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to my version which had been labeled "vandalism" and I had not noticed the new material. The sources I willingly did erase were superfluous (did not support any controversial point). Aside from this, I feel that there is too much citation of Vladimir Tismaneanu. It looks to me as if all the Romanian history section of WP were written by this guy, who is a rather dubious source knowing the hald-line marxist-leninist stance he adopted in the first half of his life, and the huge controversy he provoked recently with his Commission. This Commission and report it issued should not be used extensively as sources before the controversy is cleared. (Icar 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

You deleted, consciously (as shown by the fact that you did it in three consecutive edits), all information from Levy, Cioroianu, and Tismăneanu, including a direct quote from Roman himself. In fact, you removed a source in its entirety. Your theory on Tismăneanu does not hold water: the University of Maryland, the University of Pennsylvania, the Romanian Presidency, and countless academic institutions back his credentials and expertise, but Icar does not. So is the absurdity about "too many sources", which is contrary to several wikipedia policies. This is outrageous: there is simply nothing to mediate here - this is a question of vandalism on your part, and I am frankly ashamed that you were not blocked for it. Dahn 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Guys...stop edit warring. If you want I'm willing to mediate you. Icar said it's ok, what about you Dahn? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no cause for mediation when a vandal intervenes on a page. I find it absurd that it is even suggested. Someone comes in here and writes a new lead based on his POV (against wikipedia conventions on leads), deletes information and sources, botches text to make sources say what they do not in fact say, and I, a reliable contributor, am asked to somehow allow this to happen. It's outrageous, especially since, at this very moment, the other user is actively campaigning against me on several discussion pages. Note: much of the deleted information was actually provided by User:Biruitorul, and only edited in by me (see above). Dahn 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You describe yourself as a reliable contributor, yet you call user:Icar a vandal. I think you would need mediation, yet you should read WP:CIVIL. Will you stop calling others as "vandals"? --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to ask yourself: is removal of text and reliable sources vandalism? I describe myself as a reliable contributor because I am a reliable contributor, and I hope people have the sense not to question that. Dahn 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I question that, and others will question that too. See above your behaviour. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

And you actually want to mediate when entertaining such notions? I will ask you again: is this vandalism or is it not? And what I see above and on Icar's talk page is evidence that it was identified as such by other users. Dahn 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I need time to read and research. If you want I can mediate this dispute. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not. This is the third time I am saying it. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel this to be yet another pointless edit war started by the inability of User:Dahn to explain his technical position with respect to edits of other users. Indeed, some of the edits of User:Icar are disputable. I feel that deleting sources is not a good policy, and my personal view is that we should only add decent sources, never delete them. However, do take a look at the edit hostory of the article, with the last 15 edits or so corresponding to the edit war. All User:Dahn does is revert, treating other users as vandals, a.s.o. No edit on the talk page. Dpotop 14:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have felt this myself one week ago, when I have tried (and succeeded) in changing an unbalanced introduction by User:Dahn. But take a look at the edit history, and imagine how disgusting it is to fight (indeed!) a user whose sole argument is "rv" or "rv vandalism". The few talk page messages shouw that he did not understand my edits, and did not try to understand. This sort of edit practices can push another users to concentrate on warring instead of refining his arguments. Dpotop 14:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Dahn did delete a source I added here, a source I still consider meaningful. So, Dahn, too, has a history of source deletion in spite of other editor's oppinions. Dpotop 14:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted a source that was not used in the article. Per wikipedia conventions, what is not used in the text is not "a reference". I checked the source in its entirety, and it did not mention anything about Valter Roman in particular. The rest I simply will not answer to. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The quality of my contributions may have gone down lately, since I knew anyway that they were to be erased immediately with a pityful "rvv" for epitaph. I apologise to my fellow editors who do contribute in good faith.(Icar 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Off topic, but I reported him here --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I can only trust wikipedians will see that people who erase information are not reliable contributors. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My view

Here is why I support Dahn's version:
1. Roman was, in terms of citizenship, Romanian. He was also a soldier.

He was Romanian citizen but he was not born in Romania; did not speak Romanian as first language; he was not ethnically Romanian. So saying in the lead that he was a "Romanian communist activist and soldier" is false. He was a "soldier" (fighters in the International Brigades were not really regular soldiers, were they?) but this does not define him so well like the Comintern does. Details about his military ranks still apears in my version.(Icar 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

2. Dahn's version mentions he was in the Comintern, right in the second sentence.

And in my version, it appears in the first. I find it more appropriate there. (Icar 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

3. He was in the PCR, but he was also a politician.

Politician is a bad word for that period; party activist would be more appropriate but it is contained in the info about PCR official position. (Icar 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

4. His son is still a politician, and has his own biography if readers want details.

The defining sentence for Petre Roman is his prime-ministership, not his current activities (I hope we all agree that his recent extra-marital affair should not be reflected in the article on his father). (Icar 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

5. Why not say exactly what he was broadcasting?

Indeed, why highlight Romania's links to Nazi Germany instead of USSR's (like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?). This introduces a POV. Let the readers know that it was during the war between Romania and USSR that V. Roman chose to deliver his broadcast in romanian language as war propaganda. The context of WWII can be found in that article, no place for stalinist POV pushing here. (Icar 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

6. Why not give details about his downfall?

I willingly eliminated only some vague remarks, that I found boring. Se also below (Icar 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

7. Why eliminate details about his anti-Ceauşism? He was a bad guy, but he wasn't a complete monster either. Let's portray the positive as well as the negative.

Please try to address these points individually, without extraneous allegations. Biruitorul 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanking Biruitorul, I would also like him to specify his view on the reliability of sources used and their deletion, since this argument was brought up by a certain user. Dahn 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No insinuations any more. When someone's first edit is reverted, and they are sufficiently angered by this that they leave several paragraphs of invective on the reverter's talk page, it is highly unlikely that that person is suited to become a Misplaced Pages editor. Hard as it is, we need to leave our egos at the door, or as much of those egos as it is possible to unload. Not only can anyone edit, but anyone does edit, and reversions of good-faith edits are all part of a day's action here. --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Again: someone reverted sourced edits, many of which were the result of collaboration, and the sources themselves. The sources are scholarly, produced by researches with both national and international status, and all are considered seminal in their area of expertise. That is not, under any definition, "good faith". I therefore consider your comment surreal and ad hominem. Dahn 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see. Dimineaţa I've agreed is not reliable. Levy, Tismăneanu and Cioroianu, on the other hand, seem solid to me, and shouldn't be removed. As for questioning Tismăneanu's credentials - yes, he comes from a communist family, but that doesn't mean he can't be a reliable historian of the period. Indeed his conversations with high-ranking party members since childhood, and the milieu in which he was raised, make him, if anything, more reliable on the subject of internal party history. Should I say more, or have I given enough of an idea? Biruitorul 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, but where is the assessing the reliability of the sources used in an article allows the editor to caveat the statements made, identifying where weaknesses are present and where there may be alternative positions on a statement, with a qualitative opinion presented on the relative arguments based on the quality of sources?HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

What? First of all: why are we even discussing this, when a direct quote was simply erased? Secondly: sources are to be compared if and when they disagree with each other, not deleted when they disagree with Icar. Dahn 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page. Jimbo's opinion: --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Err... First of all, Valter Roman is dead. Secondly, all the information erased was based on sources (scholarly sources) and compliant with wikipedia requirements for editing. You will also note that all disputed information about Valter Roman is present in a separate section, citing what sources say (statement/reply, statement/reply). Dahn 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn asked my opinion here. I don't have any independent knowledge of Roman, and I'd rather not wade too deeply into this but:

1. Above all, I trust Biruitorul's ability to be neutral in matters like this, and suggest strongly that, after discussion, people trust him to decide how the disputed passages should read.
2. What Icar did was at least bad process. Changing aparently well-sourced material without first either discussing (and getting some sort of consensus about) problems with the sources is rarely a good way to go. It can sometimes be OK (like if you are genuinely expert and can tell that sources have been mishandled), but if you are reverted in doing so, it's time for a discussion, not an edit war and certainl not an accusation that someone who merely restores the previous state of the article is a vandal.
3. My last remark is just about process: it has no bearing on who is ultimately correct on the facts about Roman or on what is citable. I would suggest that if Icar thinks Dahn's sources have this wrong, he should be bringing his own sources to the table. If he believes that Dahn's sources have are being misquoted or otherwise misinterpreted, he should be concrete about the issues. I might add, I'd be surprised if this last is the case. I've seen Dahn sometimes be missing part of the picture and be a little too sure of himself; I can't remember ever seeing him be dishonest.
4. Conversely: Dahn, after Icar reverted a second time, even though he was out of line, it was probably time to bring in a third party and/or discuss on the talk page rather than have an edit war. There is nothing so disastrous about an article sitting for a day or two in a bad state. Given the lack of clear consensus, you can slap an {{NPOV}} tag, or something similar and more appropriate, on the article and discuss rather than fighting.
5. To all concerned, but especially Icar: Your personal disagreement with the politics of a source does not make it a bad source. It may be useful to clarify the nature of the source, or to counter with a source that disagrees, but in general the issue about sources is whether they are intellectually honest, not whether they are, for example, centrist (centrism is a point of view, too).

- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice input, me, for example, I tried to explain something to Dahn here --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dahn has asked me to check out the situation here and so I did. Here's my two cents:

1. This edit by Icar basically reverted Dahn's edits with a few minor changes. As Dahn's edits were sourced, such a revert without any comments at all looks disruptive.
2. This edit by Icar actually introduces POV instead of removing it, by eliminating some specific details. Bad stuff.

This edit removes a huge POV introduced by Dahn's comment. His unstated goal is to whitewash Valter Roman. The bare fact is that Roman was a propagandist a Radio Moskow, in Romanian language, while Romania and USSR were at war. Now comes Dahn sticking words like Nazi near Romania to suggest that Romania was bad and so to justify Valter Roman's actions. It would be more meningful to stress instead the Soviet ultimatum to Romania and the Molotov-Ribbetrop pact between Nazi Germany and Stalin's URSS as true explanation of the war. But this belongs to another article. Illythr, do you agree that my edit removes a POV? (Icar 11:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

I hope everyone here sees what sort of fantasy is involved in such allegations. Never mind the straw man, but this person actually thinks that wikipedia ill condone his removal of context because it is "too much context", and will pretend that simply providing context is "whitewashing". The very core of Icar's "argument" is a manifest fallacy, and this person simply does not understand that saying who did what when is not justifying that x and y are "justified" - it is a matter of common sense, especially since, for example, that radio did not even exist back in the day the Iron Guard was in power and the Comintern was disestablished (I wonder if Icar has ever heard of this stuff or he's just winging it). Aside from it not being relevant here, to say that the Pact was "a reason for the war" is also an absolute fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc; it would mean that Romania knew back in 1940 that Germany was going to attack the USSR, and sided with one of the two signers. If this is the level of awareness required in a discussion with Icar, I have no reason to pay attention.

To say that it is "whitewashing" to provide context on what propaganda was used for is in itself a fiction: in order to get to that perspective, one would have to agree not, as Icar implies, "that Nazism is bad", but also that "Communism is good, the Comintern was good, those particular communists were good, and propaganda is good". There was no indication of that assesment in the text, and speculating as to supposed reasons why one should be specific about such thing will not make it be in the text.

As Illythr was kind enough to note below, all this "explanation" is absurd, since Icar cannot possibly justify why he has erased both references and text. By now, several editors have provided their rationales several times, all of them backing a more complete version for the common sense reasons. If your only tactics are to repeat the same stuff and accuse me of the same imaginary guilts, if genuinely annoying as all trolling is, will not in any way add to that. Dahn 11:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Icar's explanation of his deletion of Dahn'd edits above makes no sense, as sources are there to reference ANY information that is present in the text, not just the controversial parts.
2. Users Dahn and DPotop had proven to be reasonable and responsive in the past and I see their conflict here as a misunderstanding.
3. The attitude of user:HIZKIAH towards Dahn (that of an unprofessional psychiatrist to an obvious loon) , , , looks rather inexplicable and highly provocative to me. --Illythr 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

1. My conflict with User:Dahn is unfortunately systematic, occurring on practically all articles where we edited together. My basic problem is that once User:Dahn feels my edits are not *perfectly* in line with his POV, he reverts entire posts wholesale. Take a look at the recent history of this article, one of the few places where User:Dahn conceded to a change in a paragraph. You will see the sequence of reverts to my edits. In the end, I complained in a few places, I probably got Dahn's attention, and he *only* copyedited my version (which I still believe was not necessary). For an article where he forcibly imposed his POV, see the List of Romanian Communists, which includes persons according to whether he/she had "communists convictions"... Thought crime, if I ever saw one. Dpotop 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
2. The edit style is arrogant and patronizing, which I resent. Dpotop 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
3. Maybe the clearest characterization of Dahn's behavior is given by WP:OWN. Dpotop 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
4. BTW, I don't seek immediate punishment or something. Just that the same rules are applied to him, so that blocks for 3RR are not overturned almost immediately, and that admins have to justify actions against him just as for any of us. Dpotop 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dahn here --HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Mid-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• Politics and government work group articles needing infoboxes
• Biography articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Biography articles
• Unassessed Romania articles
• Unknown-importance Romania articles
• All WikiProject Romania pages