Talk:Napoleon Săvescu

Neutrality

That WP:MAINSTREAM historians (Romanian or from the USA or elsewhere) don't buy into his views is an objective fact, this is not skewed at all, and it is certainly not something I have invented myself. Less important WP:RS may be WP:CITED according to WP:PARITY. Because this is what he is, a WP:FRINGE/PS author, spewing conspiracy theories as excuse for his lack of acceptance in the mainstream academia. Mainstream historical journals have plonked him, since his views are too fanciful to pass as history writing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

We're following Wikipedia's guidelines as close as we can here. The root of the complaint (although the complainers may not understand it) is that Wikipedia is heavily mainstream-science based. Since homeopathy is so widely rejected by the mainstream, there is really no chance that it's going to be treated in the way the proponents wish.

Like most of these kinds of debate, it all comes down to "What kind of encyclopedia is Wikipedia". We don't have to apologize for taking the mainstream science view...that's what Wikipedia is. The simple answer for people who don't like our rules is to set up their own encyclopedia with the rules they like...and indeed, there are several efforts to do exactly that out on the Internet.

The problem with that is that the pro-fringe folks realize that these other encyclopedias are getting very little readership...so they want to put their views into Wikipedia, where they'll be seen more widely. What they don't get is that the reason that Wikipedia is the fifth (or so) most popular site on the Internet is precisely because we have the rules and values that we do.

In effect, the public has voted for Wikipedia and against encyclopedias with different rules...and that's why we shouldn't change our rules...and if the rules don't change - then we're not going to change this article to be more friendly to the Homeopathists.

— User:SteveBaker, [1]

So, there is no way a Wikipedia article about Săvescu could treat him the way he wants. He just is too far in WP:FRINGE land to allow that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Since I've been quoted - I might as well chime in. My remarks (above) were about Homeopathy and similar fringe theories. This article is about a living person - and Wikipedia does have special rules (Norably: WP:BLP) about such articles. I've not been involved in whatever debate lead up to me being quoted - so I can't say whether WP:BLP is infringed or not - or whether WP:FRINGE trumps BLP or vice-versa. All I'm saying here is that this may (or may not) be a more nuanced situation than the one from which I was quoted. The advice in the big banner at the top of this talk page is clear: Be 100% sure you source everything you say here...WP:BLP is taken very seriously here - and for good reason. However, it is still true to say that people who are sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article written about them will not necessarily be permitted to have exactly what they want said about them. SteveBaker (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: Yup, Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. I've seen it at Ryke Geerd Hamer (while Hamer was alive). There is nothing against WP:BLP in this article. In fact, this article contains as little vitriol as possible (even if some would find that more vitriol would be proper). There is no way Wikipedia could consider Săvescu as an accomplished historian. By the very WP:RULES of Wikipedia, that is simply impossible. So, there is no defamation involved, unless by defamation we mean linking to the website containing the archive of his own writings, published by himself upon his own website. If his writings might seem preposterous to many, well, this has nothing to do with me. Don't blame me for what he wrote. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm really not arguing with you about this specific article. All I seek to do here is to point out that the extensive quote you made from me is taken a little out of context because I was talking about an article about a general subject area (Homeopathy) - and not about a WP:BLP where the rules are a little different. I don't know enough about the subject of this article to know whether whatever provoked you into quoting me is appropriate or not. So I wouldn't want people who read this to automatically presume that I'm agreeing with you or not agreeing with you. I don't know enough about this article, or the person it refers to - so I can't comment on it's particular validity - or whether the quote from me applies here or not.

That said - my remarks about Wikipedia's stance on not apologizing for taking a mainstream science view are correct - providing we deliver a WP:BLP-compatible article. So, if Mr Savescu's claims differ from those of mainstream science - then we can (and should) say so and not allow readers to go away thinking that his views are mainstream...AND (of course) we must provide references that clearly demonstrate that. I don't think WP:BLP objects to us doing that. If Mr Savescu (or his supporters) disagree that he veers away from the mainstream - then let them bring forth references that say otherwise - and you can write the article in a more balanced tone: "Such-and-such mainstream experts say this (reference to mainstream-peer-reviewed-journal) but Savescu says this (reference to his writings) and such-and-such established(reference) experts agree with him (reference to what people other than Savescu say about his work)." SteveBaker (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: I have searched for peer-reviewed sources about him or by him and there don't seem to be any (EBSCO, JSTOR, PubMed). So WP:PARITY applies. Zoe Petre, Mircea Babeș, and Lucian Boia, who are top Romanian historians, did say what they think about his ideas in sources with editorial control. What I could find on Google Books is this: Institutul de Arheologie (Bucureşti) (2005). Dacia: revue d'archéologie et d'histoire ancienne. Acad. p. 101. And Georg Stadtmüller (2003). Saeculum. Böhlau. p. 252. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

So if there is nothing written about this guy - he's not notable and this article should be deleted. WP:AFD. SteveBaker (talk) 02:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: He passes WP:N because of WP:FRIND (he is kind of famous in Romania, actually). So the question isn't that he isn't notable, but that he is notable only as a writer of fringe history. The Times and The Guardian aren't peer-reviewed journals, either. So, he's notable because lots of important people published articles about him. For the same reason as Alex Jones is notable. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

But WP:FRIND applies to articles about the fringe theory itself - the guy who supports the fringe theory doesn't get to be notable just because the theory itself is notable. Bottom line is - you don't have the references needed to explain this - so you don't have an article. SteveBaker (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@SteveBaker: Ok, then, merge into Protochronism, keep as redirect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)