Talk:Vasile Luca/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Vasile Luca. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

"Sâncatolna"

I find it somewhat doubtful that this town exists, at least under this name. A quick Google search gives us a low amount of Google hits, and I haven't been able to find any village in Romania under that name. I noticed this article lists the village as "Sincatolna" (is the correct spelling "Sîncatolna"?), and that it was in Treiscaune (Háromszék) county. This map shows us a town called "Szentkatolna" (in the yellow járás, right below Kézdivásárhely) However, I couldn't find any connections between Szentkatolna and Vasile Luca. Does anyone have any more sources on his hometown? Khoi khoi 03:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Luca made the claim himself (see crammed text in the link to his resume - "autobiography"). Dahn 19:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Nowadays it's called Catalina link and it's located in Covasna County. Sâncatolna is an alternate Romanian name, derived from the Hungarian name of the village. bogdan 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys! So I'm guessing he spelled it Sîncatolna in his autobiography? I just have one more concern: do we know 100% for sure that Szentkatolna/Catalina is his hometown? (i.e. do we have any sources?) It's that I guessed by seeing this town on the map, and I'd rather not have this turn into some Wikiality... Khoi khoi 03:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

With pleasure. As I have said, one of the links provided is the man's resume (in Romanian). He used the Romanian form. The journal he is quoted in has a habit of not using the â, but, since he wrote in the 1940s, he probably used it (Sâncatolna) - although, to really bore everyone reading this, I have to say that he may have followed some other guidelines (some people who insisted on not using the letter were around even during that period). Also bear in mind that the internet version of the journal does not use any diacritics for some obscure reson (my guess is "imbecility"). What the journal says is "M-am nascut in Sincatolna, jud. Treiscaune, in anul 1898 (8 iunie)" ("I was born in Sincatolna, Treiscaune County, in the year 1898, 8 June"). Now, an amusing issue is that the journalists quoting him say they had to edit the grammar, but tried to limit themselves to the instances where the text could not be understood otherwise - you can picture what kind of Romanian the poor man spoke. One of the authors I've referenced also indicates that Luca spoke Romanian with a heavy accent - to this should be added the encouragement of illiteracy inside the Communist Party (I'm mean). Dahn 03:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this takes us out of wikiality per se, but it makes other possibilities very unlikely: see and their (románul Catalina) mention. Dahn 03:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. The fact that his Romanian wasn't the best is indeed amusing, and IMO justifies using the Hungarian name as well. However, I know it's highly likely that Szentkatolna = Sâncatolna, but I still haven't found any sources that confirm this. In fact, this website shows Catalina and "Sincatolna" as different towns. However, there is a possibility that the source is referring to one of the two Cătălinas instead. I guess all I'm really looking for is just one source that confirms that Sâncatolna and Catalina are the same place, because I know it's highly likely, but as we know, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not educated guesses. Khoi khoi 19:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The site you quote aparently lists towns and railway stations with different names. It's quite confusing. Dahn 20:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

But you understand my point, right? Without sources information can easially be deleted. Khoi khoi 22:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,I do, and it constitutes one more reason to get annoyed at the indifference of Romanian sources in clarifying such issues. But I've got it: a kind of infobox inside the Drăgoescu text says of Luca "S-a născut la 8 iunie 1898, în com[una] Cătălina [sic], jud. Covasna". When I was looking through it, I paid no attention to the detail (I had not even noticed the difference). The diacritics appear to be a misunderstanding (Cătălina is the more common Romanian rendition of Catherine), but there aren't any other places in Covasna that likely to be subject to such an error. Are there? Dahn 23:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are—thanks!! Now the only remaining issue is that this article could use some images, and the only good one I could find is his mugshot. Do you know of any others? Khoi khoi 23:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

There is one more in the Jurnalul references - one has a large version (scroll down on this page), the other a puny one. My bet is that it is public domain. Dosarele Istoriei also has a cool picture of all the party leaders together in one place, but i need to get to a scanner sometime in the future. Dahn 23:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll ask one of the copyright experts on Wikipedia if it's PD or not, then I'll upload it. Khoi khoi 23:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In case you need it, the relevant piece of Romanian legislation is quoted here, for example. Dahn 23:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. The only problem is that {{pd}} is apparently obsolete... Khoi khoi 23:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Since that is just a portrait (a plain one and not a work of art), I think it might PD in Romania. (see this). Also back then, the copyright length for "artistic photographs" was only 5 years (10 years for series of photographs) and there was no copyright for "non-artistic" photographs. bogdan 23:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Article protected

For a week. Please discuss the problem here in the meantime. Best, Moreschi ^Talk 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Reversion vs. discussion

I notice that people are reverting the article over and over between two versions. Could someone provide a precise summary of why? Thanks! PouponOnToast 12:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure. We have one editor User:Dahn with admitted Trozkyst prejudice, who insists to introduce in the lead of this article the name of the person as a Soviet agent (the Romanian-sounding pseudonym Vasile Luca), rather than the true name (Luka Laszlo). The same user deletes info about Luka being a Soviet leader (a member in the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet). It has to do with communist propaganda. Icar 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaning your views of the other parties motives. If you could provide reliable sourcing for your assertions it would be helpful. PouponOnToast 12:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Icar has a POV to push on several pages, and has introduced unreliable and spurious information on various articles pertaining to Romanian communists, making the leads contradict the sources and the body of the article. His version of the lead prioritizes a name variant which is almost never used in contexts, and to which he refers to as "a pseudonym", even though the names were legal ones. He is doing this with the assistance of one other user AdrianTM; over the past weeks, Icar's versions have been rejected by countless respected users and administrators - more than once, he has introduced libel (including libel about living people), and, more than once, he has deleted sourced informations on the basis of trivial excuses such as "it was sourced too much". The discussion was extended over several talk pages (see Talk:Valter Roman, Talk:Leonte Tismăneanu, Talk:Alexandru Nicolschi), where he has accused me of being "a communist" and "a Trotskyist" for not supporting versions which turn facts into relative notions, and unreliable or inflammatory info into facts. He has repeatedly removed mention of Romanian citizenship from articles whose subjects he considered "non-Romanian" (of other ethnicities: Romanian Jews, Romanian Hungarians, Romanian Bulgarians) and/or "anti-Romanian" (even though these persons did have Romanian citizenship). And, may I add, the sources who prioritize "Luka Laszlo" vs Vasile Luca and "Lothar Wurzer" vs. Lothar Rădăceanu are of the Adelaide Institute nature. For a full picture, you can look through Icar's edit history, and note what is the type of information he adds to articles. Dahn 12:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for explaning your views of the other parties motives. If you could provide reliable sourcing for your assertions it would be helpful. Why do you care so much which name gets used in the first paragraph of the article? PouponOnToast 12:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Which assertions do you mean? That he is universally known as "Vasile Luca" and that he had Romanian citizenship? You have all the sources for this article to confirm, just out of many sources available. As for Icar's history and the attitude editors and admins have expressed toward him, as for his history of mudslinging me, there is frankly very little in his edits, ever since he first signed in, that would not refer to this. Dahn 13:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about anyones history. If you could source that he is universally known as Vasile Luca and that he has Romanian citizenship would be useful, yes. Following eachother around and reverting over and over is certainly not helpful and should stop. PouponOnToast 13:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do not follow anybody around: as a major contributor to this article and virtually all other articles involved, which I have personally researched, I have every one of them on my watchlist. As for the name and uses: all sources used in this article refer to him as Vasile Luca, all indexes for every scholarly book list him as "Luca, Vasile" (this includes books used to write this article), and, in case they have "Luka, Laszlo", it is always with "see Luca, Vasile"). Other sources that have a professional discourse, in case they do list the "Luka Laszlo" version at all, do so once, and generally after the Romanian version of his name: the Final Report on the Study of Communist Dictatorship in Romania; Dennis Deletant, Ceausescu and the Securitate: Coercion and Dissent in Romania, 1965-1989, p.44. Thus, a google book search for "vasile laszlo luka" gives 13 results (including an incorrect "Vasile Luka"); "vasile laszlo luka luca" gives 4 results (all present in the "vasile laszlo luka" search). "Vasile Luca" gives 634 results - presumably, these are intertwined with multiple mentions of people named "vasile" and people named "luca"; "vasile luca communist", which would narrow that search, gives 263 results; "vasile luca pauker" yields 330. "Luka laszlo Romania" gives 6 results (5 of which are also present in other searches, one which does not refer to him).

This and other foreign names are used as a means to emphasize the type of argument whereby communism was imposed on ethnic Romanians by non-ethnic Romanians. It is prioritized by successors of the fascist Iron Guard (here and here - this Romanian-version text features the concept of "the Holocaust committed by foreigners against the Romanians"), by the ultra-nationalist Greater Romania Party (here). Dahn 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

here we have a mention of Luka Laszlo. In all, 117.000 entries by google. Now User:Dahn's evil insinuations are irrelevant in this discussion. Most sources are from the communist period when of course the pseudonym was used. Just imagine someone calling Stalin "comrade Djugashvili". As for User:Dahn WP:OWN syndrome, I let him speak for himself: "as a major contributor to this article and virtually all other articles involved, which I have personally researched". Magnificent! Remember WP:OR?Icar 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, as should be clear to anyone, I use the word "research" in the sense that I have compiled all the article from reliable and published sources, and they are all abundantly referenced and verifiable (which Icar has not been doing). The absurdity of his google search becomes instantly apparent: a google search carried in this manner includes all mentions of all Luka Laszlos, with or without Vasile Luca, as well as, in the end, for all Lukas and all Laszlos. An unrestricted search gives 469,000 mentions of Vasile Luca, and 552 for "laszlo luka vasile luca" (all combinations included). Even "laszlo luka romania" (including, again, all contexts in which the three names appear together, with or without connection to Vasile Luca) gives just 20,900 hits. "Vasile luca pauker" gives 11,100 hits, while "laszlo luka pauker" yields the impressive 286. "Vasile luca comunist" ("comunist" is Romanian for "communist") provides us with 38,300 hits; "vasile luca luka laszlo comunist" gives 111; "luka laszlo comunist" - 175; "luka laszlo communist" - 663 (note that "luka laszlo communist romania" gives 550). "Vasile luca communist" gives 9,560; "vasile luca luka laszlo communist" - 77; Contrary to google books, google includes all the Jew-bashing and neo-nazi sites present out there - nevertheless, I think the results speak for themselves. Dahn 13:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Luka Laszlo was member in the Ukainian Supreme Soviet before being sent to Romania by the USSR. He had Soviet citizenship before 1944 (hence no Romanian citizenship, as Romania and USSR were at war between 1919-1944). This is not disputed Icar 13:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that all of the participants in this discussion read and thing long and hard on WP:TIGERS. Wikipedia is not the place to fight your political battles over if old communists were Russian or Romanian. Please consider trying to make this article more informative - perhaps by finding reliable sources for the naming dispute that currently exists and describing them. PouponOnToast 13:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no actual dispute over his name, and this is not a political battle. It is about reliability of content and the nature of info presented on wikipedia. Whether Icar chooses to pretend that all who oppose him are Trotskyists or Stalinists will not make his arguments more tenable. Dahn 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Dahn seems to have a clear political agenda. In fact his vicious personal attacks suggest he is more a political activist on the internet, wanting to make WP his tribune. Nowhere have I deserved all the calumnies spread by this user. He stalks me (basically all my contributions are reverted by him). In the articles where he reverts, he is alone defending a extremist Communist POV contradicting MoS:BIO against all active editors (but he calls in other editors with no competence on the articles in question, to revert for him). Icar 06:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

You earlier wrote "This and other foreign names are used as a means to emphasize the type of argument whereby communism was imposed on ethnic Romanians by non-ethnic Romanians. It is prioritized by successors of the fascist Iron Guard, by the ultra-nationalist Greater Romania Party." Why can't we summarize this somewhere? PouponOnToast 14:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

That was an observation I made in relation to google hits, and in particular to those google hits. Passing this into articles would be OR; noting that it is the case (i.e.: that sites with this agenda prioritize the name, as opposed to sites that do not have this agenda) serves to clarify issues of reliability and NPOV. Dahn 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This demonstates the disingenuity of User:Dahn's reverts: he reverts to push what he percieves as his political fight, and in the process he smears good faith editors. Icar 06:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

If necessary, may I suggest that at some stage you fellows might like to request a third opinion? Just an option that's often useful. Moreschi ^Talk 14:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, users who have so far voiced their opposition to Icar's moves on this series of articles include User:Bogdangiusca, User:Khoikhoi, User:Francis Tyers, User:Illythr, User:Jmabel. User:Turgidson and User:Biruitorul have also voiced support for previous versions of the articles Icar has edited, and clearly objected to Icar's disruptive edits on several pages. User:Alex Bakharev and others have also objected to what Icar was doing to these articles; as we speak, Icar's behavior was criticized by another third-party editor. These users come from various backgrounds, they have all added reliable information based on respectable sources, they have a clear grasp of guidelines, and they are respected by a large potion of the community. Dahn 14:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Khoikhoi is notorious for reverting and protecting articles on User:Dahn's behalf. Some of the others he named are just the editors I have mentioned above, reverting to User:Dahn's version indiscriminately. Such behaviour is a bane for WP. Icar 06:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And, let me add: just above, you have Icar calling my statements "evil insinuations"; elsewhere, he has deemed me "anti-Romanian" and my contributions at first "Stalinist", then "Trotskyist" and in general "communist" (even though I have repeatedly stated that I am neither, even though he has gathered no proof that this is the case). He likened me to people who tortured others in jails during the 1950s. He has repeatedly manipulated my words to paint a picture of me (he does this just above). He has persistently repeated this sort of allegations in virtually all his messages to other users, accompanied by messages about how foreign agents have established Romanian communism - which is basically a statement of a POV akin to what I have outlined above. This was acknowledged by other users (including Francis Tyres, who noted the preeminence this conspiracy theory has on Romanian wikipedia, and Biruitorul, who, in this edit summary, drew a parallel with Żydokomuna). Virtually all of Icar's edits refer to this type of POV-push in this type of articles. Dahn 15:03, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To carify: I have said all I had to say to Icar. His uncivilized and inflammatory discourse, his admitted POV and fallacious poisoning-the-well allegations about my POV and me "stalking him" on pages that I have contributed to with reliable sources (and that are subsequently on my watchlist) cannot possibly dissuade anyone from acknowledging that, I, a reliable editor, with support from many other reliable editors, have done my best to improve wikipedia's coverage of various subjects, on the basis of informative value and NPOV (both being policies which I fully understand and respect). Icar's sole method of self-defense was to attack me in various ways - one one notable instance, this was accomplished with support from the banned User:Bonaparte, through his sock (User:HIZKIAH).

Needless to say, he was constantly warned for the type of behavior, and yet he carries on in the very same manner (he does so just above). Dahn 09:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the name issue, let me add my two cents here. As mentioned in the article, one of the best-known slogans of the late 40s and very early 50s in Communist Romania was "Ana, Luca, Teo, Dej / Bagă spaima în burgheji". Clearly, that slogan referred to Vasile Luca — not László Luka. To my mind, this is the most memorable line about the man, highlighting as it does his leading role in the repression against all people resisiting in one way or the other the imposition of Communism (such people were branded as "bourgeois", so as to justify their imprisonment in various hellholes, I guess). So I say, let's stay with Vasile Luca, forget about the naming issue, and concentrate instead on adding more info to the body of the article, if possible — e.g., expanding on the role Luca played in order to qualify for inclusion in that slogan. Turgidson 11:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: the commonly used name, and the legal name.

The legal name was undoubtedly Luka László.
The usage name in Romania was certainly Luca. But before being notable in Romania, he was a member in the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet, which was an important position. I bet my two cents that over there he did not have himself called Vasile Luca. It is Romania-centrism to call him Luca.
Compare to the Stalin article. I do not object so much about the name of the article (Vasile Luca) as to the fact that his legal name is not mentioned first in the lead, as in Stalin, Lenin etc. It contradicts MoS:BIO's explicit recommendation: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the real name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym." and also "While the article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known, the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known." Note also the general guideline: "Nationality: In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." Here we have abnormal cases. The version pushed by User:Dahn goes against WP policy. Icar 12:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

For those reading this: I have answered to such arguments in countless places. Other third-party users, including third-party ones who have indicated that Icar was involved in disruption (see his talk page), have also pointed out what is wrong in this view of things. The same carefully cropped version of things is moved from one page to another, points made against it are ignored, and versions which feature Icar's changes contain not only this POV, but also large sections of unreliable material (which, if at all based on outside sources, is based on ones which are inflammatory and unverifiable, with deletion of reliable and verifiable ones) and deletion of information or removal of categories, also based on his POV, and against the information present in the articles' texts and their sources. In one instance, if users will remember, he has introduced texts from an article published by a Greater Romania Party newspaper (with "information" presented by no other source); in one other case, he has added in the text "information" which was not present in even the most polemical texts he presented as "sources".

As noted by several reliable editors and administrators, this is his constant level of contributions, and not just additions here and there. Dahn 12:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing some of the relevant discussions here, even though there is obviously some pretty nasty edit warring from both sides, I cannot help but laying the blame for this whole situation squarely on Icar's side. This is one of those situations where one party's irrational insistence on their POV agenda and obtuseness to reasoned discussion simply cannot be countered except by reverting them or blocking them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Verbosity of User:Dahn

User:Dahn's comment have taken the vast majority of this discussion page. It contains libel directed against me but no substantiated arguments other than epithets. Now Turgidson and other good-faith editors: could you address my points above? Do you agree that what goes for Stalin goes also for Vasile Luca? Once we agree on that, we will have a sound basis for discussion. Icar 13:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, I understand there is a lot of bad blood here. But this is no reason for implying that Dahn is not a good-faith editor: in fact, he is a first-rate editor, who contributed greatly to all these articles that you keep questioning, and many, many others, and is willing to listen to other viewpoints, if presented in a calm, ponderate, well-reasoned way. So, whether you agree with him or not on certain points, I think you should stop impugning his motives, or question his good faith (see WP:AGF). If somehow we can get that settled, then we could try to discuss rationally other points, and hopefully move forward (which is something I would dearly love to see done -- I personally find edit warring very disruptive, even dispiriting). Otherwise, I'm afraid there is not much else that can be said. Turgidson 23:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Aladár

Imre Aladar should be Imre Aladár.

I had a bit of a dilemma with that. When I did a superficial research into the matter of Imre Aladar/Imre Aladár, it seemed that: a.many (most?) sources who mention him discard the diacritics; b.of those sources, many will use diacritics for other names, in the same context (for example, the 1978 encyclopedic dictionary has him under "Aladar, Imre" (sic), while it does use diacritics for all other Hungarian names). This led me to believe that Aladar/Aladár transliterated his name without diacritics into Romanian (probably the same kind of transliterations that gave us "Gheza Vida" and "Ghizela Vass", but not as obvious). Dahn 22:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's possible because "Aladár" has no Romanian equivalent as I know. I dont know too much about his life, so maybe he had Romanian identity. However, Romániai Magyar Irodalmi Lexikon mentions Imre Aladár as editor of Munkásélet, a Hungarian language worker's journal. Imre was his surname and Aladár his first name. --Koppany 13:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My proposal is that, when we do get an article on him, it should be "Imre Aladar", with a note of some kind on the original name and redirects for other versions. Considering the info you bring in, he probably made an even more radical change in using the Romanian version (for lack of a better word) of his name: I double checked, and the 1978 dictionary has him under "A" (I'm guessing that, aside from not using diacritics, he inverted his names?). Dahn 13:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

That's really interesting. I also checked and while another "Hungarian" is written as Fodor Sfefan , he is mentioned as Aladar Imre. Nevertheless, it might be an error as well, sometimes Romanians are confused with Hungarian name order. I wonder if he inverted his names and wanted to seem more Romanian why did not translate Imre to Emeric? --Koppany 17:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do not want to exclude the possibility of it being an error. The question, though, is not about him wanting to seem more Romanian, just about colloquialisms - rather like him not minding that Romanians were adapting his name to some other spelling. This also means that the resulting errors may date as far back as the 1930s, when he was active (be they discouraged or simply ignored by "Imre Aladar"). Dahn 20:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: name and nationality in the lead

There is a dispute concerning the name that should appear first in the lead paragraph, and the nationalities that should be stressed there. 08:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

The information in the body of the article is not accurately reflected in the lead.

The legal name of the person commonly known in Romania as Vasile Luca was Luka László. This should appear in the format "Luka László (June 8, 1898—July 23, 1963), pseudonym Vasile Luca" per MoS:BIO: "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym". This is the format used in more prominent similar cases, like Stalin, Lenin, Che Guevara and Yasser Arafat.
Luka was born Austro-Hungarian, and was for a long period a Soviet citizen. He was even a Ukrainian Supreme Soviet member. He also activated in Romania before 1944 but as the agent of a foreign power (the Party of Communists from Romania was banned, its members being officially considered Soviet agents). Introducing Luka as a "Romanian Communist" is misleading. The name that he used in the USSR was Luka László, so it is even doubtful that the article should be titled with the pseudonym that Luka used in Romania. Icar 08:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First of, let me clarify that I do not endorse any sort of formal character for this "RfC", I am simply adding text here to point out what is simply misleading in Icar's above post. I have already answered to these claims ad nauseam, in various pages where he has displayed his POV and has relativized the truth (the above posts are just a sample).

As far as I am concerned, Icar has stated his POV in clearer terms elsewhere (if you read above, you will notice it and perhaps agree with me). On the basis of that POV and nothing else, his version:

a. removes mention of a Romanian citizen's citizenship on the basis of allegations he makes. This is especially unacceptable since he is hiding the facts that Luca was a citizen of Romania from 1921 onward, that he had an important political career while in Romania before 1940, and that climbed to the highest point in his career while in Romania;
b. pretends that his name was "a pseudonym" (which, I remind editors, means that Luca had a legal name while colloquially using that one), without providing any proof for it (although proof for such a statement would be required) - this, despite the fact that Vasile Luca is known by all respectable sources under the Romanian version of his name, and despite Luca having signed legislation with this name. Also see above about what outside sources prioritize this name and why;
c. uses as "proof" what they do in articles where the name was proven to be a pseudonym and articles that are not endorsed by wikipedia (in fact, let's have Leon Trotsky for a counterweight, just to stay in the theme);
d. describes Luca as "a Soviet leader" in his version of lead, on the basis of him being a member of a constituent republic's legislative assembly (which, in 1991, had 450 members). My, my, the Soviet Union sure had a lot of leaders...

In addition, when Icar has shown that his type of reasoning works for people connected with Romanian institutions and accepted as icons by Romanian nationalists (such as Mihai Eminescu, who was born Eminovich), he commented that this rule only applied to "foreign agents", and not to "Romanians who have been forcefully Romanianized etc.". So much for "rules" and "consistencies".

I will ask Icar that, if he should reply to this, he would not slip his replies among mine - he can easily make his point in another post - rest assured, I will not answer to that post, I will only answer to third-party users if they should feel like asking me something. Simply because I have answered elsewhere to Icar and one of his friends, and all I got for it was calumny and curses.

All the arguments made here work, mutatis mutandis, for all other articles in which Icar has intervened in the same way. Dahn 11:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, we should first mention in a biography the legal name. That is the name in the birth certificate unless the person has legally changed it. This is the way we have at Jean-Paul Sartre or Stendhal. In case the name was legally changed, we should have the new name, as we have at Madeleine Albright.Dl.goe 12:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the name at birth should have precedence over pseudonyms, nom de guerre, commonly known names (see Yasser Arafat who had both nom de guerre and another known name than his real name), spy names, names changed after marriage, etc. I also agree that in case a person had more than one citizenships, and a declared allegiance to another country, the citizenship should be treated in a careful manner: "Romanian communist" might be highly misleading in the case the person was born in Austro-Hungary of Hungarian ethnicity and having Austro-Hungarian citizenship as his first citizenship, Soviet as the second, the person became "Romanian" only by historical accident and that was his third citizenship, we shouldn't put a wrong stress like "he was Romanian communist" in the lead, this to me sounds highly misleading and POVish. One example is Albert Einstein, he is not declared as "American", "Austrian", or "German" in the lead, but merely presented as a "German-born theoretical physicist". -- AdrianTM 12:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To people reading this: it was never proven that Luca did not legally change his name, and, in fact, the burden of evidence seems to indicate that he did (which is what is required one one starts contending that a name is "a pseudonym", a "nom de guerre" etc.). To this, let me add the most specific reference to this that I could find while researching this article, from Tismăneanu, Romanian edition, page 163 [emphasis added]: "Născut Luka László în Transilvania, în 1898, era un etnic maghiar care din motive politice şi-a schimbat numele într-unul ce suna româneşte". This translates as "Born Luka László in Transylvania, in 1898, he was an ethnic Magyar who, for political reasons, changed his name into a Romanian-sounding one". Not "adopted a pseudonym", but "changed his name". Unless someone has reliable sources that say otherwise.

I have already answered here and elsewhere about using unwikified articles as "evidence" of how guidelines are not applied. In addition, and I am repeating myself, Luca's "second citizenship" was not "Soviet", it was Romanian - and I think it is a basic requirement that people who speculate about "what the truth is" actually read the article. Tismăneanu, loc. cit., defines Luca as a member of an ethnic minority in Greater Romania, and describes him as "together with Pauker, the leader of the communist Romanian emigres in Moscow after 1940" (this while having Soviet citizenship during that interval - which Pauker does not appear to have had, btw).

Ironically, every person born in Transylvania before 1918 had Romanian citizenship through the same "historical accident", so let's not play with words here. Dahn 12:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read the above discussion, so let me add a bit to it, see if this helps (or not). While I agree that these are not a completely clear-cut cases, given all the varying standards at WP, and lingering uncertainities about the legal status of those name changes—based only on the narrow issue of precedents here at WP, I must say that the example given by Dahn in point (c) above (Leon Trotsky) is much more convincing and relevant than the examples adduced by the other editors (Stendahl, Sartre, Einstein, etc). Looking at various Old Bolsheviks and Comintern people, such as Lev Kamenev, Grigory Zinoviev, Béla Kun, Mátyás Rákosi, Jean Jérome, John Pepper, Mikhail Borodin, Kata Dalström, etc, I see that the naming convention that Dahn advocates is used almost exclusively in such cases, with perhaps only a few exceptions, such as Victor Serge (of course, there are also Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin, but these seem to be altogether different cases). At any rate, what I'm trying to address in this comment is just a narrow point—if we are to argue about precedents here, let's at least keep the discussion focussed on more-or-less relevant comparisons, and leave the likes of Stendahl rest in peace. Turgidson 13:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He had several names, he was born Luka László, and changed his name to Vasile Luca. So, we should present it as it is in the article, Vasile Luca (born Luka László). Second thing, was he Romanian? Now, he probably was not Romanian, but he certainly was Romanian. Therefore, using Romanian communist is not a problem, as the word is polysemous/ambiguous in English and the linking disambiguates it. The sources that Dahn has presented are impeccable, with the Tismăneanu at least describing him as a "Romanian emigres" (presumably Romanian, not Romanian!) while Icar has presented no sources. - Francis Tyers · 14:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

His first citizenship was Austro-Hungarian, he was ethnic Hungarian, presenting him as "Romanian communist" no matter how you frame it is misleading, "communist in Romania" is probably acceptable. It is interesting that a Hungarian born in Austro-Hungary is treated as "Romanian communist" while Iuliu Maniu who was a Prime Minister of Romania (and Romanian ethnic) is described as "Austro-Hungarian and Romanian politician" by the same editor. -- AdrianTM 15:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As indicated many, many times: 1. the link is to his citizenship, not to his ethnicity; 2. what ethnicity he had is irrelevant to his citizenship; 3. Maniu was a prominent politician of Austria-Hungary before being PM of anything.

That said, if someone should want to add "Austro-Hungarian-born" to this article's present lead, I would not object. As for the rest: the sophistry and "stringency" of some POV, invoked, against all logic, as "an argument" in favor of removing his Romanian citizenship, should be, if anything, telling on what is at stake here for the project as a whole. Dahn 15:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Going back to the subject at hand, I took yet again a look at the lead. I have no problem with the first sentence (which seems to be the main subject of discussion here), but it seems to me the second sentence could use some fine-tuning. It starts as: "Noted for his early activities in Hungary and the Soviet Union, ...". But why would those early activities in Hungary (I guess, from 1918-1919 or thereabouts) be notable? All the article says is that Luca joined the Székely Division (btw, with what rank? and when exactly) — which does not seem notable enough to make it into the lead. On the other hand, his activities in the Soviet Union (around 1940-1944) were indeed quite notable, though arguably they were not "early activities" (they came when he was already well into his middle age). I'm not quite sure what to do about this, but I'm willing to give it a try at tweaking that sentence if this seems reasonable. Turgidson 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Good points - that is what I came up with as an early attempt, and am open to any rephrasings that preserve the integrity of the main facts in the lead. So feel free to rephrase.

The rank is not given in the sources I used (unless I missed it). The exact period is also not clarified (probably because he did his best to hide it).

Oh, btw. This doc also has some relevant and very interesting info on him and his early activities, which we should probably introduce in the text once the editprotection is over. Dahn 16:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have not much time and energy to get involved in the discussion here (just for the record, my views more or less agree with Francis' above, and let me just add Willy Brandt as another similar case where the names were prioritised like that). May I just ask that the original disputants should now leave this section to the outside voices please (unless it be for briefly filling in factual information)? Dahn, Icar and Adrian, you've all made your positions abundantly clear, let's not have lots more threaded discussion between you guys here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me give you an imaginary example: Should a man, born in Zimbabwe who faught for Zimbabwe independence be named British? Another example: should Vyacheslav Chornovil be named a URSS politician?
But, apart from the subject, I saw Icar was accused of harassment; I do not know the whole story, but I saw on Icar talkpage the first message he received was "See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Consider yourself warned.", sent by Dahn. He received this warning on the second day of Wikipedia editing.Dl.goe 20:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Names are used here according to notability. He was prominent in Romania, so I guess "Romanian" goes in. But Icar tells me he was member in the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet. This is notable enough. Should this be supported by sources, the goot text should be "Ukrainian and Romanian politician". Dpotop 20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems the info is sourced, so I presume the text should read:

XXX was a Hungarian, Romanian, and Soviet Communist politician

where XXX should depend on the date where he changed his name. If he seated in the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet as "Laszlo", then Laszlo should go first. Also, we should cite here his Ukrainian name. Does anyone know it? Dpotop 21:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

He was not a "Hungarian politician", not even a "Hungarian communist". He was an ethnic Hungarian (apparently, since there is one credible source indicating that he was Jewish), he is generally viewed as a Szekler by origin, and his activities during the Hungarian interlude (1919) would tentatively indicate that he was not at all a communist at the time (quite the contrary). He was however an Austro-Hungarian citizen. So, if you want to expand the lead, my proposal is:

Vasile Luca (born László Luka; June 8, 1898—July 23, 1963) was an Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian and Soviet communist politician

As for the Ukrainian name: I actually conducted searches to find that out, but no variant provided it (or, at least, not until I lost patience). I have no objection to adding it within the brackets. Dahn 21:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This proposal looks good to me. Not related to the proposal, I wonder about what Dl.goe said: "Should a man, born in Zimbabwe who faught for Zimbabwe independence be named British? Another example: should Vyacheslav Chornovil be named a URSS politician?" -- this is something that we need to ponder about. -- AdrianTM 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I have failed to see any merit in both analogies, both in generic terms and those that apply to Luca. I could tell you why, but that would be another discussion, and the reasons why the analogy is false can be deduced from the arguments I and others have made for a while now. Dahn 21:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dahn's proposal above looks very good to me. And, yes, I will try to edit a bit the second sentence when I get a chance. As for Luca's prominence as a member of the Ukrainian Supreme Soviet: I don't think it ever reached the prominence he achieved as a politician in Communist Romania (if we are to go by that slogan about "Ana, Luca, Teo, Dej", he was among the top 4 in the PCR apparatus at some point, which says something, for better or worse). As Dahn basically says, he was just one of the guys in Ukraine, among a couple of hundred other local party apparatchiks. The only notable thing he did around that time (1940-1941), as far as I can tell, is the visit he payed to Storojineţ, just before the Fântâna Albă massacre. This is what caught my attention, and it is something that I'd like to pursue at some point (I got some leads, but not yet enough good sources). I would also be interested in finding out more about his activities (together with Ana Pauker) at Radio Moscow during the war, and especially about the role the two of them played in the founding of the Tudor Vladimirescu Division, around 1943-1944 (by the way, we still do not have an article on that!) At any rate, I think exploring these and related angles would be much more productive (and hopefully, more interesting to a wider audience), than dwelling on the Luca vs Luka fight. What says you guys? Turgidson 21:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

What about Iuliu Maniu, why should he be called Austro-Hungarian and Romanian politician? Another question, should Mahatma Gandhi be called British and Indian politician?(and, if India hadn't declared independence on 1947, but 1949, Gandhi would have been called just British politician?)Dl.goe 03:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied about Maniu: because he was a politician of Austria-Hungary, not just of Romania. He was an Austro-Hungarian, and was so for over 40 years of his life. In relation to Gandhi: the British Empire was (and is) divided into territories which are generally seen as "on their own" (i.e. British India, itself largely divided into self-governing states that could also be, and are, used as indicative of origin or place of birth; in his case, I think it was the Bombay Presidency); Gandhi never held office in the UK-proper, and never actually did hold office; the relation and differences between citizens of the colonies and citizens of the metropolis were clearly defined by internal and international law; furthermore, Gandhi's connection to present-day India is clarified, in the article's present lead, through mentioning of the independence movement (much like mentioning the Romanian National Party). Dahn 09:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Future Perf asked me, AdrianTM and User:Dahn to refrain from posting, but the latter floods the discussion with politically motivated comments. I emphasize that User:Dahn's consistent claim "no ethnicity in the lead" is bogus. Completely false! The MoS:BIO guideline says "Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability". This is the complete opposite of what User:Dahn pushes on us. Here the ethnicity is extremely relevant to the subject's notability. In fact, in the example User:Dahn provided (Leon Trotsky) it says "Trotsky...was a Ukrainian-born Jewish Bolshevik revolutionary". Does this contradict User:Dahn's absurd dogma? Sure it does. Is it relevant? Sure it is relevant. The readers want to know who the person really was, not just a propaganda-pushed nom-de-guerre. The bootom line is, I am outraged that Iuliu Maniu is introduced as Austro-Hungarian while Luka as a Romanian communist. This sounds like George Orwell (note the lead there) "Ignorance is Strength" or "Falsehood is Truth". Icar 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The one thing that I will answer to, as I have in the past: the fact that an article has a wrong lead which is tolerated at the moment is not indicative of anything. Dahn 09:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I also protest User:Dahn's dismissive use of quotation marks for "RfC". This shows how little he appreciates the time of people discussing here. I want also to point out his stated extremist POV. He is a self-avowed trotzkist sympathiser. He says "it takes intelligence to be a Trotskyist". "I also respect [Trozkysts]" "I can even sympathize with some form of Luxemburgism". That much about Trozky. Now concerning ethnicity, he says here: "Not that I personally care about ethnicity". However, from his posts he is actually obsessed with ethnicity (136 google hits for Dahn ethnicity on en:wikipedia alone). Icar 06:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Icar was repeatedly warned about character assassination and harassment. To the allegation that I am "a [Trotskyist] sympathizer", I have already replied wherever this person has done me the prejudice of misquoting me: I recommend editors to actually read the diff in question, and then I recommend them to read my next post on that very page, which Icar, when stalking me, has "forgotten" to link, but quotes without providing the full context; it is here. Not only does this person manipulate my own words to use against me, but even the very "quote" he provides is indicative of something wrong - you see, Icar presumes that one would "have a POV" when one does not use wikipedia articles to curse at people (in this case, one has "an extremist POV" when one acknowledges that Trotskyists may not be as stupid as other communists).

For the other quote, the context is again not provided. What I was saying there, not that it is Icar's business, is that I do not care about the supposed validity of ethnicity as an argument (i.e. its objectivity and scientific nature). As you will plainly see from reading the diff, I was commenting on an article that failed to note the differences between ethnicity and nationality in referencing data, while stating (again, as I probably do in those goggle hits that refer to me) that I do not care what ethnicity a person has, but that I do acknowledge it is a concept used. Trying to stay calm, I'm going to ask one rhetorical question: "what is it to Icar if I do or if don't?".

As far as I am concerned, every iota of what Icar has posted in such canards and elsewhere should serve to discredit him in the eyes of all established users. Let me stress: I have replied to this sort of allegations wherever they were brought up; the fact that Icar continues with propaganda for a notion he knows is false should be relevant in itself. Dahn 09:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I am overwhelmed by the rudeness of User:Dahn. He may do this on purpose or involuntarily; the fact is, no discussion is possible when he floods us with repeat comments ad nauseam. If the other editors agree, I will prune this discussion page of his interventions made after future Perfect asked him (and myself, and AdrianTM) to stop posting. Although, I cannot help noticing that he explains even more clearly his enormous prejudice ("I do not care about the supposed validity of ethnicity as an argument": as if ethnicity was an argument for anything!). After all, I started this RfC and will not tolerate User:Dahn's vandalism. Icar 12:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Icar, as I have said before, I'm trying to stay calm. Though, honestly, considering your history, I would be very disappointed if the content of these last two posts of yours doesn't provoke an admin response. Dahn 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Add to this: in three subsequent edits, Icar has erased all my replies to his comments above, as well as replies to comments made by another user. Dahn 13:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gentlemans

"Vasile Luca (born László Luka; 8 June 1898—23 July 1963) was an Austro-Hungarian-born Romanian and Soviet communist politician"

I think we have a winner! Although I would be also happy with: "Vasile Luca (born László Luka; 8 June 1898 in Szentkatolna, Austria-Hungary — 23 July 1963 in Aiud, Romania) was a Romanian and Soviet communist politician". - Francis Tyers · 12:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your "winner" is User:Dahn's version. Why don't you let other editors state their opinion? Your unmotivated reverts to User:Dahn's version in the past disqualify you from giving neutral advice. Stop cluttering this discussion page. Icar 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Icar, can you please give it a rest, you make people ashamed for supporting your position. -- AdrianTM 14:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I just made a revert to Poupon before reading above. If that's the general feeling, I withdraw temporarily from this discussion. Icar 17:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Name change date

For my information: When did Laszlo Luka change his name to Vasile Luca? In other terms, at which date is this name change a certitude? There may be two things here: The date where he adopted a new name and the date where he officially changed it. Dpotop 15:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No source I looked into provided this detail. I also fail to see why it would matter that much when he did, since he did. Dahn 15:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It matters. If the guy changed his name after the Soviet period, we could use his first name first (because he was notable under bth names). Dpotop 16:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I still think it is absurd to call Iuliu Maniu an Austro-Hungarian and Romanian politician; as he didn't support Astro-Hungarian Empire; quite on the contrary... I find it similarly absurd as to call Vyacheslav Chornovil an USSR politician. (Vyacheslav Chornovil was a dissident to the Soviet policies) BTW, I saw on Dahn talk page there were also another user who complained about the verry same subject. I think a third opinion would help; you can ask for a third opinion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion Dl.goe 16:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again: Maniu was a politician in and of Austria-Hungary, and, given that he was discussing the United States of Greater Austria with his friend Franz Ferdinand, he seems to have supported it. He was certainly not a guerilla warlord or something like that: his main goal for the first half of his life was to give Romanians accurate representation in the Double Monarchy, and what he was considering was to redefine the state he lived in, and not to discard it (especially since this was impossible at a time when Romania and Austria were allies). Chornovil was not a Soviet politician; on the other hand, calling him a "Soviet dissident" and "Ukrainian politician" clarifies all that needs to be clarified - but that is really not in the scope of this discussion. Dahn 17:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

But what about Gandhi I think many people would be offended if you'd call him British... -- AdrianTM 17:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have already answered in the above "RfC". Dahn 18:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very convinced by that argument, every time there's a change of border or somebody declares independence we have this issue, was George Washington a Brit? Were the people in Ireland British? Poland disappeared from the map couple of times in history have the Polish people disappeared too, should we call anybody born under occupation a Russian, British, Turk, etc only because of temporary status? I understand that you are not very concerned with ethnicity but in this cases the citizenship is not very relevant, how about cases of refugees like Einstein was he an American, German, or Austrian scientist? -- AdrianTM 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I think he did his best work in Switzerland, where he also studied (at ETH Zurich). So maybe "Swiss scientist" should be also considered as a possibility? :) Turgidson 22:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be the neutral choice ;-) -- AdrianTM 22:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To Adrian: The issues you raise are very diverse, and so would be the approaches to them. In the case of the British Empire and others, the apparent problems stretch far and wide, but there are people who deal with them better than I could. This is just a disclaimer, as i can argue about what one could do with leads (and many cases will tend to agree with me).

On the issue of Ireland: like India and Colonial America, it was never "British" per se - it was subject to the Crown (which was English, or British, but was also Irish). Ireland was kept as a separate entity ("the United Kingdom of..."), which can and has led to links to links to nationality as Irish - allow me to point out that this has generated a completely different sort of confusion, whereby users tend to link citizens of the Republic to the vaguer Island. In fact, for people born in England, for very similar reasons pertaining to the peculiarities of that weird country, the rule of thumb seems to be linking to England.

I'm not weighing in on the Luca issue at all, but I must express some disagreement. Ireland was one of the Home Nations. The Pale was explicitly, indeed quite exclusively British for centuries. True, much of Ireland was on the Celtic fringe, but so were the Scottish Highlands, at least until the Battle of Culloden, and various other Celtic areas. Jonathan Swift, Edmund Burke, Oscar Wilde, CS Lewis, Ian Paisley ("I would rather be British than right") - Irish, to be sure, but also British. London's attitude toward Ireland was far different than toward the Colonies (even the mostly British ones), and the attitude of the Irish toward London (at least of the élite) was long one that accepted and even embraced being British, something not found in India, though still seen today among some ... Canadians?:

"I was born, in Toronto, of generations of Canadian parentage on both sides. A British subject: it was inscribed in my first passport, as the mark of my freedom. This was part of what being a Canadian entailed. I am not English, not Scottish, not Irish, not Welsh, but Canadian, and therefore as British as the rest. The Liberals took that away -- the inscription in my passport -- by a parliamentary trick. They took away the proud title of the Dominion of Canada, by another trick. They've stripped my Queen off public walls, by administrative orders; they've covered the lion and unicorn with their paper maple leaves; and that before turning the moral order akimbo. They speak as if my very loyalty to the Canadian order in which I was born, removes me from participation in their 'new Canada'. Notwithstanding: Civis Britannicus sum. ... I remain, while I live, a British subject, and a Christian citizen of the Dominion of Canada. For they cannot take away what I am." Biruitorul 03:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Poland, I could not gather what the consensus was, but even there people had a Poland during partitions (for one, they had Congress Poland).

In any case, this is similar to not replacing Wallachian/Moldavian with Ottoman (as opposed to replacing a link to Turkey with one to the Ottoman Empire in, say, 1700). In Washington's case, he was clearly American after some point in his life (or even before it, depending on who you ask), and I suppose that the current lead (which, you will note, is not by any means copyedited) is based on the written or unwritten convention that American presidents are by definition American, and mention of citizenship would be redundant.

My main point is that there are many ways to deal with fringe cases where the designation would look self-contradictory or irrelevant, and could be/should be rephrased (if we go back to cases of the Middle Ages, the problems increase twofold). However, the cases where one was clearly a citizen of a country, and associated with that country in more than way, and without stately proxies, provide no particular rationale for rephrasing.

In Einstein's case, people discussing the matter have agreed on the present lead, which, if I understood their argument, refers to certain perceived complications about his citizenship; I find that argument pretentious - one could easily say "German-born Swiss and American... For part of his life, he was a stateless person", but I'm really in no capacity or mood to go and discuss it with them. Dahn 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

hu:Szentkatolna

Activities during WWII

The second sentence, "Noted for his activities in the Ukrainian SSR at the start of World War II, he sided with Ana Pauker during and returned to Romania..." addresses the point I raised above, but (perhaps because of all the Sturm und Drang surrounding this discussion?), a temporal delimiter for Luca's siding with Pauker in WWII is missing now (note that his association with Pauker did not come in the Ukrainian SSR, but rather, later in Moscow, in a different capacity, so indeed it should be presented separately). Since we do not want to repeat WWII in that sentence twice (right?), and since 1940/41 is not really at the start of WWII (viewed from a global perspective), how about something like: "Noted for his activities in the Ukrainian SSR in 1940/41, he sided with Ana Pauker during World War II, and returned to Romania..."? — Turgidson 14:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, now this looks better. To double-check some of the chronology here, I went back to Lavinia Betea's JN article, "Sovieticul Vasile Luca". If I read it correctly, it says that Luca was a deputy in the Supreme Soviet of the Ukrainian SSR from July 1940 (right after Bukovina was annexed by the Soviet Union) to September 1944—which is for a longer period than I thought. On the other hand, in 1943 (when exactly?), Luca went to Moscow, which is where he became associated to Ana Pauker, worked at Soviet radio, met his future wife, etc. I still don't quite understand what he did from June 22, 1941 (the start of Operation Barbarossa), to 1943. Betea leaves that unsaid, though she mentions a stay at the "Anti-fascist school in Ivanovo" from April 1943 to Fall 1943. The article, on the other hand, hints at Luca going directly to Moscow at the start of Operation Barbarossa, though that is not made completely explicit. At any rate, maybe some other references can be used to clarify the chronology at the end of the section "Prison and exile", and perhaps sharpen further that second sentence in the lead. I'm willing to work on that -- hopefully things will quiet down enough for that. Turgidson 22:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure - references I used tended not to be clear on the subject, and I might have missed some details in reviewing the online ones (I generally try and read more carefully the paper ones, but I may happen to err in that area as well). I'm willing to fill in stuff from the previously cited doc (mainly about him and the UPM). Dahn 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's one more nugget from that article (referring to the 1941-1943 period, I gather from the context): "Urmeaza pe teritoriul sovietic un periplu incalcit datorita misiunilor ce i se incredinteaza, misiuni cu care nu se va putea lauda, in gura mare, la Bucuresti. Mai intai va fi trimis pe front (in nici una dintre declaratiile sale nu vom gasi amanunte despre aceasta etapa, considerate, probabil, secrete)." I'm not quite sure what to make of it -- looks like Luca first fought with the Red Army, and then was sent on various secret missions (where? when? by whom?) This sort of info may be very hard to come by, unless one has access to the relevant archives... Turgidson 04:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vasile Luca/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have to ask: since there are two basic criteria for rating articles "B-class" (other than grammatical errors or confusing character - both of which don't seem to apply), was the said label decided because of lack of insight (which is probable, although less so than for other B-class articles), or because of questions about its neutrality? If the latter is the case, I would like someone to list them. Dahn 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 09:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vasile Luca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071010050313/http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1999/current1/m27.htm to http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1999/current1/m27.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)