This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion.
To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
A fact from Fănuș Neagu appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 12 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that writer Fănuș Neagu(pictured) claimed to have spent the Romanian floods of May 1970 stranded with a feral wolf on the roof of a cannery?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Source: Ion Butnaru, "Actualitatea culturală bucureșteană. Între proză, film și dramaturgie — Interlocutor Fănuș Neagu", in Informația Bucureștiului, 7 February 1987, p. 5: Lucrez în prezent la două piese: „Casa de la miezul nopții", pentru „Bulandra“, și „Golful de plumb", pentru „Nottara“. Cea dintîi e o poveste de dragoste [...]. Cealaltă e o dramă care mi s-a întipărit in minte în timpul marilor revărsări de ape din deceniul trecut, cînd am trăit cîteva zile și nopți pe acoperișul Fabricii de Conserve Zagna-Vădeni; jur-împrejur pluteau milioane de cutii de conserve. Siretul curgea pe o lățime de 17 kilometri [...]. Eram împreună cu un inginer, cu zece muncitori, care încercau să salveze ce se mai putea salva, precum și cu niște indivizi, aruncați acolo de-o luntre spartă, și cu un lup azvîrlit de ape, care tremura de frica noastră. -- "I am presently working on two plays: 'A Midnight Home' for Bulandra, and 'A Gulf of Lead' for Nottara. The former is a love story [...]. The other is a drama that got stuck in my mind during the great floods of the preceding decade, when for a few days and nights I lived on the roof of Zagna-Vădeni Cannery; millions of cans were floating all around. The Siret had widened to 17 kilometers [...]. There was me, alongside an engineer, and ten workers, who were working on salvaging all that could be salvaged, as well as some fellas that had been thrown there out of a wrecked boat, and a wolf that had been discarded there by the waters, all trembling with fear at the sight of us."
ALT1: ... that Romanian novelist Fănuș Neagu(pictured) once appeared on screen as a heavy-drinking Soviet general—a role which "fit him like a glove, according to the more spiteful of commentators"? Source: Gabriel Dimisianu, "Amintiri cu Fănuș Neagu", in România Literară, Issue 13/2002, pp. 12–13: A doua zi apăru, într-adevăr, Fănuș Neagu [...], o namilă blondă cu alură izbitoare de rusnac. De pe urma acesteia s-a ales, peste ani, cu un rol într-un film de Andrei Blaier, acela al generalului Susaikov, trimisul rușilor în Comisia aliată de control, mare petrecăreț și frecventator asiduu, cum reiese din film, al caselor de plăcere din Crucea de piatră. Fănuș l-a interpretat cu mult aplomb, potrivindu-i-se rolul ca o mănușă, cum au susținut unii comentatori malițioși. -- "On the second day, we were indeed greeted by Fănuș Neagu [...], a blond-haired giant that perfectly resembled a Russki. Thanks to this he would much later be cast by Andrei Blaier in a film role as general Susaikov, a Russian member of the Allied Control Commission, a heavy drinker and, as the film suggests, a habitual client of the Crucea de piatră bordellos. Fănuș stepped into the role with great confidence, since it fit him like a glove, according to the more spiteful of commentators."
In addition to the eternal obsession about delinking arcane terms from the infobox (based on some users' entrenched preference), this edit only adds a dumbing down of the text. To anticipate: it may seem like "his fame as an irrepressible rebel" is editorializing, but only to readers who do not note that it is a neutrally-voiced rendition of opinions held by others. To reduce this to "his reputation as a rebel" dumbs down the text to where the best-selling author of his day, whose rebellions resurfaced multiple times, in multiple contexts, as quoted directly from multiple sources, is just some random fella among the million other people who were once at odds with the cultural requirements of the communist regime. It downplays his contribution, without seemingly understanding what it was. Same goes for the "multilayered novel" issue, which, seriously, only someone not actually reading the text may misconstrue for praise -- it simply refers to the narrative being, well, on multiple layers, something which made it unique in its literary context (and, what is more important here, more complex than other works by Neagu). Etc. etc. This is not good editing. Dahn (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"whose greatest achievement was to have been included on Romania's national youth team" was reduced to "he was on the team". For Crikey: a sport keeps rankings, and someone's best performance (or "greatest achievement"), a personal best, can easily be discerned, particularly if the person declares it as such. What sort of callous reading does it take to misconstrue this matter-of-fact statement as my belief that FN was a really great tennis player, and then censor it under this weird assumption? How is this atrocious sort of dumbing-down, this induced paucity of vocabulary and ideas, the same as a "copy-edit"? Dahn (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to wonder why, especially in a context where ellipsis is favored as a typographic sign by the people quoted inline (see the Agopian quote), one would consider it a good idea to replace (just here and there, mind you) the bracketed ellipsis, which clearly marks a shortened quote, with the unbracketed ellipsis. How does this add anything other than sheer confusion? And who edits in this way without even considering why this was an editorial choice by their peer(s), then proclaiming such an intervention to be a "copyedit"? Dahn (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is important to make it very clear when opinions from source materials are being adopted. If it is the opinion of others that the subject is famed as an irrepressible rebel, then that opinion should be properly attributed; to present it without attribution as a summary is not appropriate. If a work is considered by someone to be complex and unique, provide attribution for that rather than presenting it in Wikipedia's voice. In the absence of attribution, writing neutrally is not "censorship", and I would propose either undoing this edit or adding attributions throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The entire article attributes those opinions, from multiple sources, and they are summarized in the lead -- which is specifically for summaries of what is upheld by the text below. Actually reading the article before you "correct" it will clarify that. Dahn (talk) 00:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the lead, we can't assert opinions as if they are facts - it's important to maintain a neutral, encyclopedic tone. And some of the changes reverted were not in the lead, for example the claim that Blecher's memoirs are "tragically worded" - is that Neagu's opinion, a critic's, someone else's? The attribution needed to include that is missing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. The opinion about Blecher's tragic text, purposefully written as a tragedy, is Neagu's (who rails against Blecher for tjis precise reason), as well as the critic's (which is why the secondary source is cited), as well as (incidentally) anyone who has glanced over a book in which Blecher describes his own agony from a horrible disease. Dahn (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here might be one of mistaking the idiotic everyday overuse of "tragic" to puff up various events and the quality of a literary work belonging to the artistic realm of tragedy (as in: aiming for the pathetic description of something). This is the sort of confusion that went into other "corrections", such as reading "unique in 1960s Romanian literature" (as in: a factual statement that no other Romanian writer of that generation used that particular style) as "uniquely beautiful", or some other such puffery. Dahn (talk) 00:32, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: again, some of the issues you are "correcting" are not a matter of opinion, as you seem to misconstrue them. The work referred to is "multilayered" not as a compliment, but simply because it has multiple levels of narration, even when compared to other works by Neagu. It isn't empty praise, it is a statement of it being, well, baroque -- something spelled outright by all the critics cited in the article, and in fact accessible to anyone holding the book in their hands (like saying that Joyce's Ulysses is multilayered). The same with "unique", which sounds pompous and "needs attribution" (in the lead!) only if you stubbornly ignore not just that it is backed by the critical voices cited (all of them, including those who say Neagu sucks, agree on this), but also that it refers to a uniqueness within a generation of Romanian writers, not on the world stage or whatever you're implying can be read into the text. Dahn (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's the opinion of one person or every single one, it is still opinion. See the example of Shakespeare provided in WP:SUBJECTIVE: "For instance, the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language by both scholars and the general public. It should not, however, state that Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language." Saying someone is "unique within a generation" is a subjective assessment. (And having other things that can be read into it is part of the problem with the current phrasings - it's not at all clear what interpretation is intended). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The version you "corrected" had clear mentions of his stylistic uniqueness (again: not greateness, simply uniqueness, as in "nobody else wrote the same kind of prose, be it good or bad") being a matter of reputation and his irrepressible rebelliousness being a matter of fame. These are identical with the Shakespeare example you mention, and, like that example, summarize the opinion of many scholars (cited in the text -- you would just have to proceed with actually reading those quotes, provided verbatim). It is exactly the same situation: many critics, summarized in the lead, talking about what made this person notable -- moreover, in Neagu's case, we are not rendering a value-judgement, because, again, none of that is tantamout to calling him greatest or beautiful or the like. (I insist: the deplorable prostitution of the English language in the media should not prevent a logical user from still noting that "unique" simply means "one of a kind", "the only one to have done x", and not "best".) Dahn (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I at least manage to get it across to you that calling the tone of a tragic literary work "tragic" is not the same as calling an event "tragic"? Dahn (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request: Hi, @Nikkimaria and @Dahn. I've reviewed the discussion and some of the edits which caused dispute, and in my understanding of the situation, the main points of conflict are:
1. the copyedit by Nikkimaria which changed sections considered not to have been in an encyclopedic tone, such as "his fame as an irrepressible rebel" vs. "a reputation as a rebel", removing "An unrelenting...", a description of the novel as "multilayered", "lady" to "woman", etc.
2. the removal of wikilinks and more precise location in the infobox and in sections of the article (e.g. Elias Hospital and Brăila County), as well as other instances I couldn't find
3. The substitution of a bracketed ellipsis for an unbracketed ellipis in a quote (which I wasn't able to locate).
Regarding point 1, I believe that as per WP:LOADED, the copyedit did in fact make the article more encyclopedic in tone, and I would have made similar edits had I worked on this article. I also think that as per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:SUBJECTIVE subjective statements should be attributed, even in the lead.
Now on to point two, I think Dahn's version of the toponymic links works better because it separates the links for the county and town, and links to the article for the historical Kingdom of Romania, which to me is necessary. I'm generally in favor of linking as much as possible.
About the ellipsis -- the way I see it, if the quote doesn't in fact contain an ellipsis, and it has been added in Wikipedia to condense the text, then it should be bracketed. If it is in the original quote, then it should be unbracketed. I can't read Romanian, so I have no way of checking firsthand.
Maybe we can work out a consensus edit? I'll try as per WP:BRD, feel free to send feedback.
CVDX: Allow me to thank you for your input. I do not necessarily reject your assessments about the issues included under point 1, but please have a look at the exact wordings in context. For instance, I was told that I cannot refer to a text as "tragically-worded" (a point also explicitly made in the source), because this would be "subjective"; however, the "subjective" aspect would refer to me/us calling an event "tragic" -- it certainly does not apply to calling a text "tragically-worded", which refers to its objective literary category (as in: not a comedy). This is an important point, precisely because it was Neagu's own point: he detested Blecher because Blecher's hospital memoirs are intended to stir emotion in the reader, whereas Neagu was (or pretended to be) indifferent to his own dying.
Similarly, "irrepressible" does not refer to me thinking that Neagu was an outstanding guy, but to his continued rebellious stances, despite multiple attempts to repress them (i. e. a summary of the text, which refers to these attempts at repression). Consider also the way in which "unique" is being misread as referring to the quality of Neagu's works (as per the idiotic and overused "he is a unique guy"); in fact, this refers to his style being unlike that of any Romanian author of his generation -- something explicitly stated by critics, as quoted in the text, and in fact a rather neutral observation to make (it is not saying that he was good, but simply that nobody else wrote the way he did). In the same vein, I am told that calling as "multilayered" a novel which has multiple levels of narration (again: as pointed out by critics) is a "subjective" assessment, simply because in some other contexts "multilayered" is used as puff-piece adjective.
So I must protest against this creeping rule whereby we dumb down the text, leaving out necessary summaries of critical opinion, of what the critics argue is historically significant about this writer, simply because the terms seem to be "subjective", once we really stretch the meaning of "subjective". Also note that these terms appear side by side with quite negative assessments of Neagu's work -- precisely because critics who define his style as unique, and talk about his multilayered narratives, also believe that he overdid this to the point of being "kitsch". This is the substance of why I reject Nikkimaria's edits, and view them as simply callous. Dahn (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can also verify the dictionary entries of all these terms, and note that they all have absolutely neutral definitions. They may all be semantically reinterpreted to puff-up claims made in various contexts (for instance, by calling "unique" something that isn't); however, this is not the case here, and we should not refrain from using perfectly banal words just because they may be misconstrued. Dahn (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning point 3: I have marked all cut-outs in the original text, generally eliminating subordinate clauses for brevity, with the bracketed ellipsis, and I have kept the ellipsis where the original used it (there is only one example of the latter in this text: the Agopian quote, which ends in three dots in the original -- presumably, to indicate his melancholy). Dahn (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dahn, I understand your point (especially in the case of "tragically-worded") that these are descriptions of Neagu's style, and not entirely subjective per-se. As I understand it, if there is a source that uses that wording, then it can be cited inline following the statement. But there's no citation following the "multilayered" statement regarding Frumoșii nebuni ai marilor orașe. As I said, I can't read Romanian, but if that is included in reference 3, which is cited in the following appearance of the book title, then by all means just cite it inline to clear up any doubts that the statement is backed by sources. Ideally, include a quote using the "cite book" template.CVDX (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reject notions of having statements, especially blanket, summary-style, statements, cited in the lead, especially since this is to be done only in extreme circumstances. But before you propose this, allow me to direct your attention to the section of the article that refers to Frumoșii nebuni ai marilor orașe: have a read through the paragraphs of texts that cite critical commentary, and note how they all refer to the multiple layers of narration and symbolism (as in: a commentary about 1950s bohemia, an overt pastiche of Mateiu Caragiale's work, a discreet pastiche of Ionel Teodoreanu's work, a political dystopia, and also a biographical homage to Cornel Dinu). This is what authorizes us to call the narrative "multilayered" -- not because we love it or advertise it, but because it is what it is. The same goes for all other qualifiers, which are dismissed as "subjective", but which in fact summarize critical assessments as amply quoted in the text. Also look over the portion of the previous discussion, where Nikkimaria suggests that we can call Shakespeare "great" as long as many critics do (as they do); here, we call Neagu's work unique (in its immediate context) and complex (in its narrative layers) because, well, critics do. So all of this looks like it is special pleading against doing to Neagu what we would do to any other writer. Dahn (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note how every statement from critics is backed by a citation to a book/journal source (no, not using the template, which is by no means obligatory, but using all the necessary identifiers). So asking that we cite it again in the lead is explicitly against what the lead is supposed to do, not to mention redundant in itself. Dahn (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, the supposedly "subjective" words appearing in the lead are also accompanied by qualifiers such as "reputation as" and "fame as", which indicate that we do not view these as facts, but report on a perception. The perception is a summary of what critics are quoted saying in the body of text. The terms were removed in Nikkimaria's version simply by striking out the terms, not minding the context and the general practice at all. Dahn (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CVDX, thanks for your comments, and your edits - I think those could represent a very positive path forward. Just to clarify your point 2: MOS:GEOLINK indicates that [[Grădiștea, Brăila]] should be used rather than [[Grădiștea, Brăila|Grădiștea]], [[Brăila County]], and the documentation for the parent template indicates the format for birth and death places should be "city, administrative region, country" (so not hospital). Dahn, regarding Shakespeare, WP:SUBJECTIVE states "the article on Shakespeare ... should not, however, state that Shakespeare is the greatest author in the English language" (emphasis added); what it says we can do is say that he is considered so by scholars, attributing that opinion to them (which is different from citation). Similarly here, we can say that scholars/critics/others believe something, but not state that something as fact. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: Let's go over this again. Per the policy you cite: "the article on Shakespeare should note that he is widely considered one of the greatest authors in the English language" is allowed. The qualifiers you modified here, in this article, are of this kind: "established his reputation as a unique voice in Romanian literature." (I have added: "of his time" to the latter, to clarify further.) Let's you and any other reader note: "unique voice" means "the only one to have taken up this style" (as referred to in that phrase in its entirety). It is not a qualifier on any way on par with "greatest". Further: this refers to "his reputation", which is precisely the same as "widely considered", and refers to the text cited below. Tag-bombing the article "for neutrality" does not strike me as particularly constructive, especially since you never claimed that the article is not neutral -- not even the lead is, not even with the disputed terms (disputed willy-nilly, I would argue), particularly since anyone can read there strong criticism of the subject, which is also backed by the sources. This looks to me like we are simply playing games. Dahn (talk) 01:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contention that these are subjective terms is entirely yours, as is the claim that "fame as" and "reputation as" are not forms of attribution. But fine, I have conceded top your stubbornness and have modified the text to use even clearer terms. Dahn (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As for the provisions of WP:GEOLINK and moreover Template:Infobox person/doc, they should be reassessed quickly and discussed there. Users who were never involved in the supposed consensus there are slowly becoming aware of the absurd paradoxes created there by users who made their preferences into a "policy" (one widely ignored by various articles which have become GAs and FAs). Dahn (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the examples provided in GEOLINK are not introduced as absolutes to be followed to the letter; it says: "generally do not link the larger unit" (note how all the examples that follow are from the Anglo-Saxon realm). One reason to provide an exception here (and in multiple other cases) is that "Brăila" in "Grădiștea, Brăila" means absolutely nothing to the regular user; another reason to link on the county as well is that (while not the case here), Romanian administrative entities kept disappearing and being reorganized -- for a person born in Romanați County or Stalin Region, the link would be vital (since fewer and fewer Romanians alive today are even aware that these existed -- let alone the outside world). I also note how none of this addresses the other issue, which is the claim that GEOLINK would mandate delinking Kingdom of Romania in the infobox (and not just?). It does not, and in fact reads the exact opposite; and I am so annoyed by this claim that I view it as disruptive by this point -- let our colleague CVDX contemplate the scenario in which zealous editors pop up in Brazilian articles to delink Colonial Brazil and Empire of Brazil. Dahn (talk) 03:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and, Nikkimaria, since you brought up Template:Infobox person/doc, allow me to ask when you actually plan on reading the section that says: "Country name should be visible (not just in a link target). Well-known countries should generally not be linked, but historical and less-well-known countries can be." It seems that, yet again, you are citing norms that actually openly disagree with your claims. (Unless you are arguing that, per the article here, Kingdom of Romania is a well-known country, and that, per our previous dispute over the infobox in Ioniță Tunsu, so is Wallachia. That would be an exotic claim, surely, outside of a cultural universe defined by the likes of Nicolae Ceaușescu, in which "Romanians were always crucial players in European history and on the world stage".) Dahn (talk) 03:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reference in this article to a "feral wolf" strikes me as very strange. As the article Feral puts it: "A feral ... animal or plant is one that lives in the wild but is descended from domesticated individuals." Domesticated wolves are called "dogs", and there are feral dogs, but how can there be feral wolves? I wonder if there is a problem with the translation. William Avery (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing I'm unsure about is the excessive genres in the infobox, but that's minor. ALT0 is excellent. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to third opinion request: Hi, @Nikkimaria and @Dahn. I've reviewed the discussion and some of the edits which caused dispute, and in my understanding of the situation, the main points of conflict are: