Talk:Marian Munteanu

Untitled

Coming across this by chance, I have started removing excess material, and rewriting into grammatical English. There's a lot more to do of both. DGG (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would restub it entirely: this is self-promotional, riddled with weasel words and editorializing to endorse what is the position of a very controversial man. The article doesn't even begin to mention how problematic an image Mr. Munteanu has in Romania, but instead "preempts" such edits by making insidious allegations about his adversaries and former political associates. Dahn (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Request to stop the Vandalism

We would like to ask you to stop the vandalism actions and intervention that have been recently directed towards this page. Thus, there are numerous third party sources such as National Geographic, US Congress Documents and famous journalists' reports, quoted on the page. 10 years of teaching at the most prestigious Romanian University is a long period for anyone, as a Professor. The presence of the material is mainly justified by the role played by Professor Munteanu in the changes occurred in the Eastern Europe in 1989 - 1990. Also, the large quantity of information is justified by his international activities and presence. It is obvious that these vandalism interventions have nothing in common with the norms of an encyclopedia and we consider them as attacks originating from propagandistic areas and believe such interventions should not be allowed in a free encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogdan Munteanu (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Again: I will point you to WP:COI and WP:NOT (as well as WP:SYNTH). Your allegations and your blatant misinterpretation of Wikipedia policies are entirely irrelevant to that simple fact, so I'll refrain from commenting on them. Dahn (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

As a reader I was disappointed in this article. Googled Marian Munteanu after seeing a mention of him in a National Geographic article (Dispatches from Eastern Europe by Tad Szulc, March 1991). I have more questions than answers about who he was after reading about him on Wikipedia.

The whole situation with "the miners" (which miners?) is described as if everyone should know exactly what happened. Someone coming to this without understanding the background of the events would only be left confused. If not more detail on the climate in Romania at the time, at the very least it should be made more straightforward what this man and his student league were protesting.

"almost decapitated by a miner." That statement seems overly dramatic without an explanation. What does it mean to be "almost decapitated"? It appears from pictures his head was entirely intact. If he was almost decapitated, more of a story seems to be required. What I read was simply that he was left with an injured hand and a broken foot, which (if accurate) seems a little more helpful than "almost decapitated" unless the events are described in greater detail.

I'm not at all qualified to edit this, so I can only ask that someone who is make a little more sense of it. --Unicornfield (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)