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.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoter's comments to @Dahn, Anonimu, and Biruitorul: Okay, I don't see the value in letting this discussion continue any further. Everyone has said... far, far more than the number of words required to articulate their arguments. In picking a hook for which to assess consensus, I actually find ALT2 to be quite interesting, so we'll start there. While there were objections to the hook, the claims that the witness-account nature of the sourcing should impede its progress don't carry much weight; multiple editors have pointed out that primary sources, especially primary sources detailed in reputable publications, are accepted for use at DYK as a hook citation. DYK nominations usually achieve unanimous consent of the reviewer and all outsiders before promotion, but that isn't strictly necessary. In assessing the discussion of ALT2, I find that both the numerical and argumentative strength weigh heavily in favour of promotion. This nomination is moving on now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:54, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
... that Gheorghe Eminescu(pictured), nephew of Romania's national poet, circulated his memoirs in samizdat, since the communist regime did not want them published? Source: (in Romanian) Iulian Negrilă, "Restituiri. Gheorghe Eminescu – corespondență inedită (1895–1988)", in Revista ARCA, Vol. XXIV, Issues 1–3, 2013: "Timpul pe care mi-l va mai acorda moşneagul Charon, înainte de a mă invita în barca lui, este rezervat exclusiv punerii la punct a Amintirilor care acoperă trei sferturi de veac şi care din cauza sincerităţii lor nu sunt destinat publicării, fiindcă de altfel nici o editură n-ar avea curajul să le publice. O mare parte din ele privesc evenimentele din Basarabia la care am luat parte şi unde ani de-a rândul am patrulat cu grănicerii mei vegheaţi de zidurile cetăţii lui Ştefan şi de umbra uriaşă a marelui voievod." Additionally backed by Anghel Popa, "Domnul colonel Gheorghe Eminescu", in Analele Bucovinei, Vol. XIII, Issue 2, 2006, pp. 746–747.
Overall: Am assuming good faith re foreign language sources. Hook is interesting and fulfills all criteria! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Shushugah: Thank you. I do disagree with the notion that titles should be translated, it is a rather cumbersome task of little value, an which will inevitably result in certain preferences being imposed on the article (translations, however bland, are likely to produce more than one result, whereas the published titles will only have one version). Your main objection is a bit blanket, but I will try to address it. For starters, the two sources on which the hook is based: ARCA is a rather small literary magazine published by the Writers' Union of Romania, which carries exact renditions of Eminescu's correspondence; Anghel Popa, who can be cited as a secondary source attesting that indeed Eminescu was censored and no publishing house would carry his memoirs, has published the cited article with Arhivele Bucovinei, which is a Romanian Academy magazine. Other sources used are Magazin Istoric (arguably the most read and respected popular history magazine in Romania), Hierasus (which was put out by the Botoșani County Museum), Poștalionul and Fereastra (both put out by Mizil City Council, and both cited for their very minute details on Eminescu's biography, quoted directly from Eminescu's statements at various times in his life), Litere (published by the Writers' Union chapter in Târgoviște), Străjer în Calea Furtunilor (of the Alexandru Averescu Foundation, which is a professional body for reserve officers, and is sanctioned by the Ministry of Defense), Studii și Cercetări Științifice (an academic journal put out by the University of Bacău), Studii și Cercetări Juridice (also put out by the Academy, through its Law Institute), Drumul Socialismului (defunct magazine of the Hunedoara County Council), Caietele CNSAS (a historical review of the state agency which researches Securitate archives), Studii Eminescologice (put out by the Botoșani County Eminescu Library), Revista Crisia (of the state-run Țara Crișurilor Museum), Istoria grănicerilor (a military monograph with a rather obscure publishing house, but with three reserve military officers as authors), and of course Augustin Z. N. Pop (whose book was published by the Academy, but back in a day when Romania did not use ISBNs of any kind). The least sanctioned sources the article uses are arguably Observatorul, which is put out by a team of Romanian Canadian journalists in Ontario, and which was considered relevant enough for Eminescu's granddaughter to give them an interview; Climate Literare, which is a rather small literary review (it does have an editorial process, but it is certainly not first-tier); and Scriitorul Român, which is similar to Climate Literare, and perhaps more polemical in nature -- but which merely republished Eminescu's 1982 interview with Corneliu Vadim Tudor (Tudor himself was admittedly a horrible source of information and commentary, especially later in his life, but I would assume his interview with, and observations about, Eminescu would qualify as at least quotable and attributable; especially in that 1980s context where few things were published without getting this sort of national-communist makeover by Ceaușescu's court). I hope that answers your questions, though let me know if you want more details. Dahn (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
As I side note: I don't believe there's any informative value, especially about the quality of a source, in rendering its title in English (which is not a requirement, AFAIK, and which is not something that was asked of me in other articles). In this case, some of the titles translate to "Without Eminescu we'd be poorer", "Mizil port and the lost regiment", "Mr Colonel Gheorghe Eminescu", "1774–1789. The French monarchy tries to save itself", "Interview with Roxana Eminescu: 'Thirst for money, dislike for intellectual values, that is [sic] our European daily bread, I can live through that with more ease among the foreigners than among my own kind'" (this last one in particular can be translated about six different ways, all with the same meaning). I hope you can see how the titles in themselves have no special informative value. Dahn (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Dahn Thank you for the comprehensive explanation and you're right it's not a policy requirement. I've changed my DYK review to a pass. I made a sample edit at Gheorghe Eminescu which added a link to Gabriel Moisa's article, using a translated title from the journal itself but agree that's not always possible/desirable. I just had a hard time googling these sources myself, and some more guidance of where to find them would have helped, whether identifiers, links or anything else, but at the end of the day, non English, offline/paywalled sources are completely admissible for Wikipedia usage. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
@Shushugah: Most welcome, and thank you as well! I will add that many of the sources used have online versions, but they tend to rot very quickly in Romania, as happened to Anghel Popa, who can only be found in the Wayback version. Since I did not want to have to archive all the links by hand, or to search if they have ever been archived, and since they were all published on paper as well, I thought it best not to include the links. I will say again that I am opposed to translating titles, especially if we only do it for one random title out of (however many there are). Dahn (talk) 16:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Comment
I'm failing to verify the hook. Neither Eminescu nor Popa mention any circulation of the work, which is an important distinction between a samizdat and a manuscript. Popa himself is aware of such a manuscript because Eminescu told him about it (in a letter and during a discussion), not because he had a copy. Furthermore, the only copy mentioned by Popa is the one sent to the official museum of the Communist Party, i.e. a feature highly unusual for a samizdat. Then there's the part about the regime not wanting to publish it: all I can verify is that Eminescu believed it would not be published and therefore made no attempt to do so. The article is interesting, however the hook is editorializing with no support from the sources.Anonimu (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
To be constructive, here's an alt fully supported by the sources:
@Anonimu: Actually, youre misreading the source (not the first time this happens). Popa mentions, on page 746, that the manuscript had several copies that were shared among Eminescus friends, and that some were used for publication of the 1995 print version: doi admiratori, sensibili la amintirea postumă a Domnului colonel Eminescu, au publicat [amintirile] bazându-se pe paginile manuscris pe care autorul, cu generozitatea-i cunoscută, le-a oferit acestora în timpul vieții sale. This is mentioned and sourced in the article, as is the fact, also sourced from Popa, that one such copy was kept by Popescu-Puțuri. Lets note: he did not send them "to the museum", he assigned them to Popescu-Puțuri personally, and believed that they would eventually be hosted by the Museum, because, as Popa argues, he also believed that communism would turn liberal at some point. On that same page in Popa, you will be able to clearly distinguish the words: Evenimentele ce nu puteau fi destinate publicării, precum și întrega perioadă interbelică, au format un al doilea manuscris -- this is Popa endorsing Eminescus belief that the memoirs couldnt have been published, making your other claim ("all I can verify is that Eminescu believed it would not be published") simply weird. Dahn (talk) 01:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can check Popa (the source supposedly supporting the original hook which I cannot verify) at this link, on PDF page number 364 and 365. On page 364 Popa says "The memoirs, including events up to and including the First World War, except the politically "sensitive" ones for the communist regime, were the manuscript that remained in his family. The events that could not be intended for publication, as well as the entire interwar period, formed a second manuscript, which he handed over to Ion Popescu-Puţuri, according to his own testimony." Thus two manuscripts: one for his family, one for Puturi, no copies circulating clandestinely. Same page, quote from Eminescu "I will entrust them to Comrade Ion Popescu-Puţuri, for the Party History Museum", thus the second manuscript was intended by Eminescu for the the party museum, using Puturi as a vehicle, again something very unusual for a samizdat. Popa also says the first manuscript was given to two "admirers" and that he suspects there's another manuscript because Eminescu once told him some memories Popa didn't find in the published book. Considering that Eminescu's published memoirs actually include memories much after WWI, is it quite possible that the published manuscript is the one delivered to Puturi (Gabriel Gheorghe, the editor, was part of the dacomanic current groomed by Puturi in the 80s). So, no clear indication of (limited) circulation characteristic of samizdat. Regarding the second part, it's not clear whether it is Popa's opinion or just his report of Eminescu's beliefs, but it's still much less than the regime refusing publication (it was never asked in the first place). As a side note, the regime did publish rather anti-Soviet takes on Bessarabia in the late 80s (including a barely toned down reprint of Kiritescu nationalistic account of post-WWI Romanian intervention).Anonimu (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
First off, the quotations are on pages 745 and 746, precisely where I already indicated they were. And precisely in that link, going to page 746, the text clearly mentions other copies being kept by friends, which, like the text youre quoting, means that "two manuscripts" refers to two versions of the manuscript (one being less politically risky than the other), not to just two copies. I will quote again and translate the relevant part: doi admiratori, sensibili la amintirea postumă a Domnului colonel Eminescu, au publicat [amintirile] bazându-se pe paginile manuscris pe care autorul, cu generozitatea-i cunoscută, le-a oferit acestora în timpul vieții sale = "two admirers, rendered sensitive to the posthumous memory of Colonel Eminescu, have published [the memoirs] using those pages of manuscript that the author, with his known generosity, had offered to them during his lifetime." Those manuscripts kept by admirers were the bases for the printed book of 1996 -- again, as I already said, and as the article clearly has it. This is quite clear indication of the limited circulation as samizdat, and I have no idea why youre pretending not to be able to read that part of the text. There is also absolutely no indication whatsoever that the two admirers had access to the copy kept by Puțuri, but in fact Popa suggests that they had fragmentary copies of their own, donated specifically to them by Eminescu.
To claim that Puțuri intended to publish it with the museum is to ignore the whole part in which Popa specifically says that the reason he assumes Eminescu did what he did was because he believed the regime would turn liberal. Moreover, the one mention of the Museum is about Eminescu's intention of having the book kept by the Museum, not even him saying that he did actually donate it as such. It is also pointless to speculate whether the book would have been published by Puțuri, Museum or no Museum, since he never did: note how the letter specifying the manuscript being shown to Puțuri is from 1980, a full nine years before the fall of communism. Was the book published in that alomost-a-decade? No? Then whats your point?
Im not sure what it adds that other books mentioning Bessarabian issues were (occasionally) published. But if we have to, then here are some issues to raise. On the one hand, we know for sure what the core stance of the regime was from the fact that it was impossible, up to the very last days of the regime, to quote Doina, by Eminescus uncle -- sources I cite in the article specifically note that it was its take on Bessarabia which was one of the most serious "problems" with the poem. On the other, see the quote from Eminescu on what specifically made his memoirs unpublishable -- he mentions not just Bessarabian issues at large, but Bessarabian issues which are interwoven in the communist narrative about interwar issues.
Lastly: it is actually very clear that the issue of censorship is Popas opinion as well -- its just that you failed to notice that in the text during your earlier readings. Popas narrative voice: Evenimentele ce nu puteau fi destinate publicării, precum și întrega perioadă interbelică, au format un al doilea manuscris = "Events that could not be put in print, as well as the entire interwar period, were the subject matter for another manuscript". Dahn (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:, given the below discussion, the fact that the hook has been verified beyond a reasonable doubt, and is only being held up by an objection thoroughly shown to be frivolous, isn’t it high time this was passed already? — BiruitorulTalk 19:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
I restate the fact that I have failed to verify two significant parts of the hook: the manuscript being a samizdat and the government having any opinion on it. The quote provided by the nominator verifies neither. I also linked the additional source used to "support" the original hook, thus anyone can try to verify it (automatic translation does a fair job). The objection has not been shown to be frivolous, it was just called that way by the nominator. The reviewer should look directly at the sources and judge by himself whether they verify the hook, not just go along with what the nominator says (or what I'm saying, of course).Anonimu (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Have there been any updates on this issue after Anonimu's objections, which I argued were entirely frivolous? Dahn (talk) 06:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
None of the sources call Eminescu's work a samizdat, and such claim is extraordinary, considering "Romania is the only country where not one genuinely full-blown samizdat publication appeared" ref. Moreover, the regime's attitude towards Eminescu's manuscript as described in the original hook is purely an opinion, not a fact. ALT1, which I have proposed, would solve these two important issues. Anonimu (talk)
The text you're quoting from refers to samizadat journals, and even there qualifies the term samizdat with "full-blown", while also noting that less full-blown samizdats exist in archives (precisely the case here); this is plainly and painfully visible in the very link you provided, you again cutting down text exactly where it seems to endorse your claims. The claim about the regime and its attitude is (a) a qualified opinion, by the secondary source provided, and (b) a fact in itself, since the manuscript was never published outside of private circulation. It is also a fact that it was a samizdat from the existence of several copies in circulation. It wasnt a major samizdat, a "fiull-blown" samizdat, but neither is it claimed that it was. You are wasting everybodys time with this ridiculous objection. Dahn (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
@Dahn, Anonimu, and Biruitorul: I'm far out of my depth here—I couldn't possibly help move this nomination along, and it looks like you're at a standstill at the moment. I'd get some more eyeballs on this nomination, see if you can find a non-unanimous consensus. If that can't be achieved, we should close within a week. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: While I view Anonimu's objections as exceptionally contrived, I will try to move beyond this with an ALT:
ALT 2: "... that Gheorghe Eminescu(pictured), nephew of Romania's national poet, spent time in communist prisons, including one which allocated him a 25-centimeters-wide (10-inch) sleeping area?" Source: Ion Deboveanu, "I-am cunoscut după gratii", in Magazin Istoric, August 1994, p. 93. You can consult the online copy here (though please note that we probably should not use these links in the reference for the article, as I'm pretty sure the uploader on that site has no permission from the Magazin Istoric publisher). Reads: În celulele Jilavei, l-am cunoscut pe căpitanul (pe atunci) Gheorghe M. Eminescu, nepotul marelui nostru poet. Din întâmplare, am fost „cazat" la șerpăria din celula 8 a reduitului, chiar sub priciul unde, pe scândura goală, Gh. Eminescu „beneficia" de un spațiu de 25 cm. pentru dormit. This translates to: "In the Jilava cells, I met Captain (as he was back then) Gheorghe M. Eminescu, nephew of our great poet. As it happens, I 'bunked' with him at the snake-place in Cell No 8 of the redoubt, right under the cot where, on the naked board, Gh[eorghe] Eminescu 'enjoyed' a 25 cm sleeping space." Dahn (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Hearsay is an improvement over false info. I'll let other reviewers to decide whether this info is interesting and sourced well enough to appear on WP's home page.Anonimu (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
This is Anonimu clarifying the sort of bias that went into his original objection: a source published in a reliable historical magazine mentioning an eyewitness account of Eminescu's prison conditions is still not enough, because it is an implicitly negative fact of the communist regime (just like previous hook). I absolutely need and will request another reviewer. Dahn (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
"Witness accounts" are primary sources, thus they have to be attributed in WP. It's publication in MI only establishes its notability, not its reliability. Regarding MI: it's a popular history magazine, a category of sources which, while generally reliable, are not know for excessive factuality or dedication to neutrality. When the author of an article is a professional historian, this can be considered WP:RS (i.e. attributed only if contested by other RS), however it's best to attribute in article text whenever the information comes from other types of authors (and I commend you for having done that in nominated article). Also, do WP:AGF.Anonimu (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
See my answer to this latest egregious claim of yours below. Dahn (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
The article fulfills all DYK criteria, as established by Shushugah 50 (yes, 50) days ago. As to the hook, it checks out. The hook says what the nominator says it does; I can and have read the original. It’s sourced to one of the most prestigious Romanian historical magazines, and there’s no provision in WP:RS excluding firsthand accounts as long as they’re published by reputable sources. There is no possible rational objection to this nomination. It passes all possible requirements. — BiruitorulTalk 19:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Magazin Istoric is not "one of the most prestigious Romanian historical magazines", it's just one of the prominent Romanian popular history magazines, akin to History Channel without the aliens. While there doesn't seem to be an explicit rule about this, as a participant in the above discussion, I think it would be graceful if you refrained from actually confirming the DYK.Anonimu (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I will address here another one of Anonimu's egregious claims, specifically his theory (conveniently created for this nomination) that Magazin Istoric is not reliable. First of, his entire claim about popular history magazines being unreliable is concocted and not backed by WP:RS; second, his comparison with History Channel is willingly misleading, misdirecting from MI's actually being an exact Romanian counterpart of Historia, L'Histoire, and Historia y Vida. MI has an editorial team and scientific council headed by a Romanian Academy member, and has had one throughout its existence -- this counts as peer review, a process which is entirely absent in History Channel and the like; MI's editorial work is also done by professional journalists with training in History; further, MI is known for publishing reduced versions of scientific papers (meaning the authors themselves submit them there -- this includes Romanian and foreign authors, many of whom are members of learned societies). I could easily cite here professional authors specifically vouching for MI as a highly reputable source -- anniversary issues of MI, for instance, print such assessments volunteered by such authors, which refer to it as "Romania's best historical magazine", "impeccably scientific" and the like. There is nothing to prevent eyewitness accounts included in MI from being quoted, not when it comes to RS in general, and especially not in a context where all sorts of less prestigious accounts are used as the source of hooks (for instance, DYKs based on blogs).
So at this point reviewers need to ask themselves if the bizarre claims made by Anonimu here are motivated by anything other than his attempt to trip me and/or his rather well-known POV, including his apologetic view of Romanian communism (a regime which the hook implicitly describes in unflattering detail). Consider having a DYK entry on the Cambodian Genocide being reviewed by one who has already suggested that the Khmer Rouge really weren't that bad, telling you that an eyewitness account published in a reliable journal cannot be used to source the hook. And describing such an account as "hearsay" (a verbal magic act which makes the eyewitness who actually slept next to Eminescu appear as someone who simply heard that Eminescu was living like that -- and when hundreds of other prisoners went through the same regimen in that same cell). Dahn (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Magazin Istoric is as reliable as the author of each article is. Simply having Romanian Academy members on its team doesn't make it realible, considering the extent to which such members support a highly nationalistic, xenophobic and revisionist view over Romanian history (not to mention that they switched from Ceausescu ass-kissing to rabid anti-communism in less than a month). MI itself was for much of the 90s a venue promoting historical revisionism regarding wartime dictator Ion Antonescu and minimizing Romanian participation in the Holocaust (not to mention dubious articles praising Ceausescu during the 80s) so no, MI is not a top RS, but a qualified one.
Coming back to the issue at hand, the witness account is by defintion a Primary source, per WP policy. The same policy says "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Publication in MI makes the account good enough to be mentioned in WP (as opposed to being published by Click.ro), it doesn't mean that WP should promote the details of that account as secondary scholarship. For the purpose of DYK, I consider "interesting" to be more or less equivalent with "exceptional", which, again per WP policy on primary sources, "Any exceptional claim would require exceptional sources". Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the fact that we have DYKs passing with much less scrutiny doesn't mean we should give this DYK some slack.
It's not my fault the hook you originally proposed was just your original interpretation of sources (you might be right, you might be wrong, WP cares only about verifiability). And that's certainly not an excuse to throw personal attacks at me, infering about my supposed motives and indirectly accusing me of supporting the Cambodian Genocide. Please be WP:CIVIL and comment stricly on the content.Anonimu (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I will let other reviewers note again the sleight of hand whereby Anonimu is substituting his own private impressions and editorial comments about the content of a source instead of grounding it in policy. I will also note that he veers into even more egregious fibbing about MI's content by making the ludicrous claim that MI published "historical revisionism" favoring Antonescu -- when in fact it was the first and most persistent review in covering the wartime sufferings of Romanian Jews and Romanies, for instance as a venue of choice for Israeli historians covering that period (Șlomo Leibovici-Laiș and Liviu Rotman come to mind), as well as a venue to host direct testimonies by the likes of Rabbi Alexandru Șafran; see for instance Rotman's article on page 69 here, which is a specific call for researching the topic -- this is in 1992, when Anonimu will have you believe MI was some sort of crypto-Nazi review. Mind you, even at the height of Antonescu's absurd recovery by the communists, in the 1980s, MI had articles specifically mentioning his responsibilty for the murderous deportations of Jews to Transnistria, when these were more or less a taboo subject; see the article by Auschwitz survivor Oliver Lustig here, page 26. If this is not enough to highlight the absurdity of his claim, consider that Cristian Popișteanu, who was founder of MI and its chief editor for 30 years, including throughout the 1990s, also helped put out the anthology of primary sources on the history of Romanian antisemitism, at the Jewish publishing house Hasefer, with the Jewish intellectual Dumitru Hîncu as the primary author (see page 200 here).
Bottom line: per WP:RS under any reading, a magazine put out by an Academy member is among the highest vetted forms of scholarship. In arguing that it is not enough, one should be able to invoke an objective criterion, such as "other, more qualified sources, have argued that this source is bunk". Anonimu can cite no such source against MI; he cites himself.
Anonimu then mixes in the claim that, under communism, MI published articles endorsing the national communist line -- which was required of every single publication in Romania, as is the case under a totalitarian regime. Yet Anonimu himself has no trouble profusely quoting from Studii, which was a journal vetted directly by the Communist Party -- which shows you how facetious this claim is. Just like his claim that we should not be relying on testimonials, when he has sourced several articles to a book by Constantin Titel Petrescu (who was not a historian at all, and whose work was not carried in a magazine with an editorial council). Mind you, Studii and Titel Petrescu can and should be cited with what they say; and Anonimu knows this, while at the same time creating this convoluted special pleading for content that he dislikes. This is specifically designed to waste time and make it seem like there is a controversy to be had here. Dahn (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Also note how Anonimu "cites" WP:PSTS, by (again!) carefully removing all parts of that policy which establish how primary sources can be cited -- specifically, to make straightforward statements about verifiable facts. In this case, his reading is that Deboveanu, an eyewitness and a historian, was lying about the living conditions at Jilava (or about Eminescu being there at all?), that these are not facts backed up by other sources (I could easily cite three reporting the same conditions at Șerpăria), but Deboveanu's impressions and personal values. Further, PSTS explicitly indicates that publication by reliable sources is indeed an asset in allowing primary sources to be quoted (and MI quite clearly is a most reliable source, despite Anonimu's vague, fluid, incoherent attempts at shooting it down). Dahn (talk) 16:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that by his own estimation, Gheorghe Eminescu had the largest collection of books in Romania?
Might be good to give this the context of a year or at least a decade. valereee (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
On the one hand, I appreciate the proposal and understand why it's being made. On the other hand, I don't particularly care for this bending over backwards to avoid mentioning that the subject was the victim of a totalitarian regime. Imagine us being forced to accommodate demands that a biography of one of Hitler's victims not mention that fact in the hook. Unthinkable. Anyway, in the interests of moving forward at long last, I suppose this is all right. -- BiruitorulTalk 15:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Since we are all caught up in Anonimu's web by now, I suppose any ALT will do, though I second Biruitorul on how this is a very poor precedent. @Valereee: do you suppose we could also squeeze in that he was "nephew of Romania's national poet" into the ALT3? Dahn (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I hear you. Absent any expertise with these sources, I'm loathe to just say the other editor is simply being difficult or engaging in POV pushing. I'm fine with adding that in if you can make it seem relevant -- I don't love just dropping two unrelated facts into a hook. IMO they need to related to one another in some way. But I can't approve the hook anyway, so feel free to muck about with it at will! :) valereee (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
If you don't want to do all this reading (i certainly understand), an executive summary can be found here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I've read the summary and a bit from the discussion, and from what I've seen, I don't see any issue here. Per WP:SKYISBLUE we don't necessarily need sources saying that Eminescu's works were a samizdat when we already have sources describing them as such. And I specially see no problem with the second hook. I will also note that if 4 editors (apart of the nominator, and including myself) have already expressed their approval of one or both of the hooks or their disapproval to Anonimu's reasoning, and that after mentioning this discussion in the DYK WikiProject nobody raised any issue regarding any of the hooks, maybe it is time to ignore what only this user is saying? SuperΨDro 14:47, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
We have tons of sources saying there was basically no samizdat in Romania:
"Romania is the only country where not one genuinely full-blown samizdat publication appeared"[1]
"Romania may be one of the very few Eastern European countries in which samizdat periodicals are virtually nonexistent" [2]
"In fact, the only known samizdat publication in Romania is the Hungarian Press of Transylvania" [3]
"Andrei Plesu: In Romania, daca a existat un samizdat, a fost samizdatul mancarii" (if Romania ever had a samizdat, it was samizdat of the food)[4]
"Romania is one of the only East European countries in which samizdat is almost nonexistent" [5]
"Romanian particularity of inexistence of samizdat", "in Romania, Bulgaria and Albania they [samizdat] were non-existent". [6]
"in Romania invece l'idea di solidarietà e di samizdat sembra non essere esistita" (in Romania, the idea of Solidarity and samizdat doesn't appear to have existed) [7]
"in Romania, the subject of this chapter, samizdat, hardly existed (except for the work of some Hungarians living in Transylvania)" [8]
"Din fericire pentru toată suflarea cenzoricească de la noi, fenomenul numit „samizdat“ nu s-a răspândit în România." (Luckily for us, the censorship, the phenomenon known as "samizdat" never spread to Romania)[9]
"In Romania samizdat has been confined to protests from neo-Protestant groups like the Baptists and to the Hungarian minority seeking to call attention to national discrimination" [10]
"As Iulia Popovici points out (2015) [...] Romania did not have a samizdat culture" [11]
Considering the ammount of evidence regarding the practical non-existence of samizdat in Romania, identifying one would certainly make for a DYK, but this is clearly not the case here.Anonimu (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Anonimu: You are misleading readers by using references which either refer to samizdat journals (i.e. something which Eminescu's writing evidently was not) or do in fact indicate that samizdat existed, though not as widespread as in other countries (i.e. do not exclude the existence of some samizdat writings -- in fact, as a random example of how you are going about this: you are patently misquoting the Corobca source by mistranslating it as "never spread to Romania", when it says "never spread about Romania", with a reference to how it spread in Romania just some lines after the fragment you are quoting). This is the second time you are trying this tactic on us. Why? Dahn (talk) 11:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I specifically linked the sources so that anyone can verify. The fact repeated again and again by the sources is that there was no samizdat phenomenon in Romania, except for some very specific groups (Hungarian minority and some neo-protestant groups), neither of whom include Eminescu. I was under the impression that you were a native speaker of Romanian, however your obvious mistranslation indicates you have some difficulty with the language. This may however explain your misinterpretation of sources. If you cannot fully grasp the text of a source, it's better not to use it at all.Anonimu (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Precisely: anyone can verify, and I have verified your claims. The sources either describe samizdats as rare in Romania (which does not deny there being some) or specifically refer to there being no samizdat journals (which is irrelevant). The Corobca source you have invoked does not refer to the Hungarian samizdats, which only adds to the pattern of misdirection you are using here; what Corobca says, just after the tidbit you claim to be quoting in your innovative translation, is that there was a "modest spread" of samizdats -- read that again: there was one, but it was modest. This is true of various other sources you cite, which phrase the exact same issue the exact same way: it existed, but it was small-scale. (Some of the sources you cite, for instance Grancea's book, are glaringly about samizdat press, not samizdat memoirs -- when they deny that the phnomenon existed, they only refer to that aspect of it, i.e. journals, as I have repeatedly informed you, a point you keep dancing around.) Let alone that you are stretching this manipulative tactic to also denying another hook that was proposed. Enough shenanigans. Dahn (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Similarly to what Super Dromaeosaurus said. No strong opinion among the hooks. Certainly worth a DYK. - Jmabel | Talk 17:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
WP:5P2 cannot be overidden by local consensus. Since we've reached Reductio ad hitlerum: if we had an article about X and a source saying Hitler was carrying a gun when he was near X, the original hook is equivalent to saying "Hitler once tried to shoot X".Anonimu (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Anonimu: that makes absolutely no sense as an analogy, or even as a coherent sentence; you're just throwing in random words in this incessant litigation. Dahn (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
It's just as coherent as your collaborator bringing Hitler into discussion in a desperate appeal to emotion.Anonimu (talk) 08:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
1) I did not contribute to this article, so I’m not a collaborator; 2) There is neither desperation nor emotion here, just a reasonable observation that, as we would never hide the fact that someone suffered under the Nazi regime at the behest of a neo-Nazi editor, so too we should have no compunction about approving a well-sourced hook showing that Eminescu was a victim of the Romanian Communist regime, despite the maniacal attempts to prevent that information from reaching the main page. — BiruitorulTalk 13:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it should be clear by now which side of this trite debate is manipulating sources, if only from the fact, above, that Anonimu claims to have read the Deboveanu source where Deboveanu reports he slept just under Eminescu's cot and could assess its size with his own eyes, yet went on to describe it as "hearsay". Forget the claim he advanced that Magazin Istoric is a neo-Nazi review, forget his persistent misreading of sources saying "there were few samizdat works in Romania" as "there were no samizdat works in Romania", forget etc. etc.; if nothing else, this "hearsay" sample of his technique should be enough of a red flag (pun not intended). Dahn (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
So apparently it all comes back to the same old trite personal attacks. On one hand, I didn't say that the hook based on Deboveanu is unnaceptable (as opposed to the original one), just that is subpar, being based exclusively on a WP:PRIMARY source. Considering the DYK appears on WP's home page, I think they should represent samples of how to correctly apply WP's internal rules. And that means not using a claim based on a primary source when you have a rather good article with plenty of secondary sources (I assume good faith and consider that the other refs stick to the sources, with the samizdat part being an unfortunate exception). Regarding the source, I never qualified it as neo-Nazi (does calling things Nazi ever helps you win arguments?), just noted that throught the 1990s it spread (as a popular history magazine) historically revisionistic pieces regarding Romania's wartime dictator and the country's participation in the Holocaust (on a quick search I could find a reliable source highlighting Buzatu's constributions in the magazine). Regarding the samizdat issue, the sources are pretty clear: there was practically no samizdat in Romania. That doesn't mean there was not one samizdat in Romania, just that if there was ever a samizdat, it was an exception. Thus any claim that a certain work is samizdat is by definition exceptional and requires solid, explicit sources. None of the sources in the article support such an extraordinary claim.
Do note that I have proposed an alt that brought your proposal in accordance with your source, while still keeping it "political" (which, in your view, was bassically the same as excusing the genocide in Cambodia).Anonimu (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Anonimu: I have exhaustively answered your verbose claims -- I'll only add that calling Magazin Istoric a "revisionist" source when it comes to the Holocaust is the same as claiming it is/was neo-Nazi; and both are infuriatingly manipulative, given that MI was in fact the review most open to exposing Holocaust crimes and criticizing revisionists. You have made that disqualifying claim, and anyone can read that above: "[MI is] a venue promoting historical revisionism regarding wartime dictator Ion Antonescu and minimizing Romanian participation in the Holocaust"; you are trying now to play it down.
There is of course nothing "exceptional" about calling a multiplied manuscript circulated clandestinely a samizdat. All the sources you have brought up either do not refer to this topic at all, or do in fact validate that there was a samizdat culture in Romania, though it was a small one. What part of your verbose claim contradicts this?
You have also claimed that a direct account by a witness of something that happened in front of his eyes is "hearsay" -- a term which specifically refers to cases where a sources alleges things they have heard from another person. Regardless of how you now distract from this: how should your readers qualify this behavior of yours, if not as an attempt to make it seem like the account is more doubtful than it actually is?
As for the rest: as I have asked you before, do quote the part of the WP:PSTS policy which prevents us from quoting Deboveanu regarding Eminescu's sleeping arrangements at Jilava, specifically when it comes to DYK. As we stand, that policy makes a clear mention that primary sources should generally be used with care, but can be used to state verifiable facts: "primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." The fact of Eminescu sleeping in a very narrow bed directly in proximity to the witness is a fact, no interpretation being added; this is precisely the sense in which you yourself have exhausteively used Constantin Titel Petrescu and Atanasiu, both of them primary sources, to write biographical articles on Romanian socialists. So how do you imagine PSTS applies here, and, by your own standards, only here? Explain, at long last.
I also note how you now integrate a creeping rule, also of your own making, about not making DYKs "political" -- where "political" means making very factual references to the crimes of totalitarian regimes. So yes, keep validating my analogy with the Khmer Rouge apologists, you are making it easier on anyone to see the implicit agenda. Dahn (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Am assuming good faith re foreign language sources. Hook is interesting and fulfills all criteria! ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:56, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
marking for return to WP:DYKN. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The article fulfills all DYK criteria, as established by Shushugah 50 (yes, 50) days ago. As to the hook, it checks out. The hook says what the nominator says it does; I can and have read the original. It’s sourced to one of the most prestigious Romanian historical magazines, and there’s no provision in WP:RS excluding firsthand accounts as long as they’re published by reputable sources. There is no possible rational objection to this nomination. It passes all possible requirements. — Biruitorul Talk 19:45, 2 February 2022 (UTC)