Talk:Petre Țuțea

Untitled
Hello,

The latest additions to the Wikipedia English article about Petre Tutea are unacceptable. Here are some of the obvious issues: broken (bad) English, tendentious statements on very sensitive and debatable topics, and chaotic sources that seem unreliable / lack of precise references such as page numbers and context.

For example, in English we do not use the article as in Romanian; "departing from the Marxist ideology" is wrong (it isn't the only instance).

Moreover, a lot if not all of the sources quoted in the article are patently unreliable (such as the article in "Dilema"; they are simply hearsay; also, the Dilema reference is an informal interview in Romanian and the topic is not even related to Tutea). Please keep in mind that anecdotes have NO place in an encyclopedia article. Only facts should be stated - not even common opinions.

This article, as it stands today, is a mockery of Wikipedia guidelines. Here are the more problematic statements:

- the claimed quote that bolshevism was "controlled by the Jews" - does this have a context (i.e. do you have the exact page reference to "Intre Dumnezeu si neamul meu"?) and is it relevant for Tutea's views as reflected in his published work? It seems very striking and tendentious, inappropriate for 3 reasons: I doubt Tutea said this as quoted (possibly a paraphrase / interpretation), it is missing the context, and it would not be his own idea, therefore irrelevant. It may just be something he discussed, not his final opinion in the matter.


 * - Nae lonescu, care a fost o mare personalitate, a fost pro-legionar. Profesorul Găvănescu de la Iaşi, profesorul Şumuleanu, la fel. Lucian Blaga a fost simpatizant. Simion Mehedinţi... Toate marile personalităţi au aderat la extrema dreaptă, fiindcă nu existau decât poziţii radicale faţă de influenta nefastă a bolşevismului rusesc, pe care-l manevrau ovreii.  (from Între Dumnezeu şi Neamul meu) bogdan (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * -- That was simply an explanation of the common mindset of that era, not a current apology thereof. Do you have a precise page reference? --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

- where does any reliable source claim anything about Tutea's link to the Legionary Movement? Alexandru Popescu has researched this topic thoroughly in his book, using all currently available archives, and could not conclude one way or another. We should not state anything until we know the FACTS. If you have better sources, please provide them explicitly.


 * The article says he was not a member of the Legionary Movement. He was a sympathizer of the movement and he never denied that.


 * -- All I'm saying is we just don't know if he was a member or not, despite what he or anyone else says in an informal, dubious interview. To establish this we need verifiable facts i.e. documents or first-hand witnesses. The Wikipedia article should not state one or the other, it should plainly say it is a controversial matter. --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * - Cum v-aţi situat în raport cu Mişcarea Legionară?
 * - Am fost simpatizant al ei, fiindcă mi-am dat seama că democraţia nu garantează nici suveranitatea, nici existenţa sigură a poporului român (from Între Dumnezeu şi Neamul meu) bogdan (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * -- again, please provide a page reference, not just a pasted quote. --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

- the alleged "Christian" character distinction concerning the Legionary Movement has no place here because it is not one that Tutea made in the first place, so it is again tendentious and off topic (therefore irrelevant - this is an article about Tutea, not about the Legionary Movement, and this statement does not necessarily reflect Tutea's overall views). It was obviously added by someone with legionary sympathies, not by an objective editor.


 * Nici fascismul italian n-a durat, nici Naţional-socialismul german n-a durat, şi erau similare cu mişcarea legionară. Deosebirea dintre fascism şi Naţional-socialism şi mişcarea legionară este aspectul fundamental religios al mişcării legionare, religios creştin, ceea ce nu era cazul nici la fascişti şi nici la Naţional-socialişti. Erau laicizaţi, şi fasciştii, şi Naţional-socialiştii. 
 * - Consideraţi aceasta un atu, un argument favorabil mişcării legionare? 
 * - Dumneavoastră în ce eră trăiţi acum?! 
 * - Era creştină. 
 * - Era creştină! E superioară mişcarea, că s-a situat istoric înlăuntrul evoluţiei fireşti a societăţii moderne. Nici fascismul şi nici Naţional-socialismul n-aveau caracter religios. (from Între Dumnezeu şi Neamul meu) bogdan (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * -- you are missing the point entirely, it is not Tutea's original distinction and as such has no place in a reference article about him. He agreed with many such distinctions at one time and disagreed with the same or similar distinctions at other times. It is simply irrelevant, no matter who made him seem like this far-right ideologue. Which he is not, despite strong opinion in both leftist and rightist circles, or even common tabloid-style opinions. --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

- there are even more anti-semitic tendentious references that are completely irrelevant, written by people with an axe to grind, that take up a disproportionate amount of space in this relatively short article. Please provide the page refrerence where Tutea states that Jews are responsible for anti-semitism. Also, the relevant reference "322 de vorbe memorabile" was not approved, edited or signed by Tutea; this again amounts to hearsay.


 * Antisemitismul nu e o reacţie spontană a românilor, a germanilor, a polonilor, a maghiarilor, a francezilor, a americanilor, ci e provocată de ovrei, prin exces. Există un principiu al tuturor principiilor care sunt cosmologice: principiul acţiunii şi reacţiunii. Păi, dacă rabinul, care e doctor nu-i aşa, şi face parte din Consiliul Mondial Evreiesc, îl înjură pe Eminescu... (from Între Dumnezeu şi Neamul meu) bogdan (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * -- Again, you forgot the page reference (please) and the interviewer's name should also be mentioned in Wikipedia. All you have quoted are statements taken out of context from a motley collection of edited interviews taken by amateurs and published in unreliable sources (such as fly-by-night newspapers in post-revolutionary Romania), i.e. a series of conjunctural statements, at best. So far, I have yet to see something like this written (i.e. signed) by Tutea after 1964 or even stated with the awareness that statement or opinion was going to be published, broadcast or used in some way. Can you give me one - just one such example? Most of these were recorded in private conversations and presented as "interviews" by various irresponsible characters with no serious credentials. --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I expect administrators will thoroughly analyze these problems, provide precise justifications and references, judging the size and the overall context of the article, then provide a more appropriate version. Please take your responsibilities seriously.

Botean (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I took no part in editing the article up to this point. But I must say i find the above comments flawed from several points of view.
 * Alexandru Popescu (loc. cit.) indicates that it is Ţuţea's word against that of two sources - the Securitate and Petre Pandrea. At least one of them is biased, but Popescu does not even refer to this aspect. Furthermore, if Pandrea is biased, and we shouldn't take his word for it, then so is Ţuţea. It is therefore not Petre Ţuţea being right, but Ţuţea's word against Pandrea's. Furthermore, Popescu clealry says that Petre Ţuţea was an Iron Guard sympathizer, pure and simple. There is also additional evidence/commentary. See for example here. This is not by all means an exhaustive research, but it gets you there.


 * -- Have you read the book? Actually, Popescu writes he found statements implying Tutea was a member (either by him or by known Legionnaires, who would know for sure, as opposed to Pandrea) but those statements were obtained under torture. The issue is not if he was or not a sympathizer or if he understood certain aspect of it in some manner or other (which is much more complex that presented in these quotes above). The issue is plainly if he was a member or not, as an objective fact; the Wikipedia article states he was not, but the "evidence" is inconclusive, the quoted sources biased, and patently unreliable, including Tutea himself. --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have read the exact pages in the book referred to in this article (and, in fact, having read further, I see that he mentions other commentators who condidered PT a Guardist). Please don't apply sophistry here: 1) there are sources saying that PT was a Legionary, member or not; 2) the Iron Guard had a loose system of affiliation, and notoriously did not impose membership on its sympathizers; 3) PT was a sympathizer of the Guard, and the article does not say different - per himself (no, not under torture), per Pandrea, per Gafencu etc. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tutea was definitely a sympathizer during the '30s early '40s, at least according to the common understanding of the word. Your repeated sarcasm regarding torture is really uncalled for (this betrays your lack of sensitivity! Amazing. Torture was mentioned by Alexandru Popescu in order to explain contradictory written statements). And you are completely wrong on 2., the Legionary Movement had a very rigid structure and "legionary" actually meant a member of the organization, while even sympathizers were registered as part of an affiliated group. All this is discussed in sources like Popescu et al. and various historical publications. You seem to have no idea what you are talking about, just stating what you think to be the case. --Botean (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So let me see: the article doesn't say he was a member, and you agree that he was a sympathizer, but you are debating your POV on what that implies. Pass. I'll excuse the personal attack within the speculation about how sensitive I am. As for membership in the Guard and the "rigid structure" thing: see for example Francisco Veiga's study on exactly when the Legionaries started forming a party and what that meant. From the 1993 Humanitas edition, p.217-218: "insa, de fapt, cine era realmente legionar? Nu au existat niciodata carnete de membru si este chiar putin probabil ca la sediul central din Bucuresti sa se fi pastrat alta evidenta decat cea, foarte generala, a cuiburilor existente; nici despre aceasta nu se stie cat de precisa era. Infrastructura birocratica era foarte precara, iar cea care exista indeplinea functii de contabilitate, incasa fonduri sau edita si vindea lucrari de propaganda. Este semnificativ faptul ca singurele carnete care au putut fi distribuite au fost cele destinate recent createi Asociatii a Prietenilor Legiunii, a carei finalitate recunoscuta era aceea de a contribui cu ajutoare pecuniare. Nici macar nu fusese stabilita vreo deosebire operativa intre cei care apartineau Legiunii si cei grupati teoretic in Garda de Fier [...]. Teoretic, calitatea de militant implica depunerea unui juramant personal ata de Codreanu, insa realitatea era mai putin formala. Spre exemplu, figuri proeminente ale grupului Axa, ca Polihroniade, Vojen sau Radu Gyr nu au prestat niciodata juramant legionar si la fel s-a intamplat si cu un personaj atat de cunoscut cum era generalul Zizi Cantacuzino. Intr-un anume fel, statutul de legionar nu se datora unei formalitati birocratice, ci unei 'convingeri interioare', completate cu un activism mai mult sau mai putin continuu, in timp ce aprecierea cu privire la cine apartine si cine nu elitei era diferita in functie de epoca." Dahn (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We seem to have a comprehension problem here: for the last time, the Wikipedia article on Tutea in English states he was not a member, which we do not know as a fact. This is different from not saying he was a member. Again, for your benefit: saying he was NOT isn't the same as not saying he was. Comprende? The public is interested in facts, as opposed to what Tutea said on some informal occasion, or what every other rumor seems to convey, or in what declarations given under duress spell out, or his good friends or bad enemies seem to think. Get it? --Botean (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have told you that: a) I took no part in authoring the article; b) I still don't see a problem with using that quote, since all the arguments you bring against it don't make it less of a relevant statement. If you have a problem with the way it is formulated, reformulate the sentence. Under whatever circumstance, we do know for a fact that reliable sources describe him as a Legionary, member or not. Dahn (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know who added the reference, but I would not presume it was a Legionary sympathizer. But the editor above is implicitly right about something: Ţuţea has manifestly become a poster boy for the neofascist lobby since the 1990s, and, if this is reflected in serious secondary sources, it could perhaps become part of the article once it is developed further.


 * -- It's definitely beating up an old horse, given the disproportionate attention given to this sensitive topic. Tutea is one of those personalities who can be quoted to support almost anything imaginable, because he discussed many issues in a very empathic manner and from various points of view that change even within the same interview. I can easily quote Tutea for and against evolution, for and against the Legionary Movement, for and against 'the people' or even romanians according to the same or similar sources, and I mean it, these are not random examples. I don't think anything he ever said has the same authority; to support his own views, please provide something he wrote, approved and signed, otherwise refrain from admitting such descriptions and unreliable references that amount to hearsay. --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That may well be, but PT is identified as a Legionary in reliable secondary sources, so it does mean more. If PT supported all sort of things, then we should list those things as well. In fact, as I already told you before, one can start with his support for "national-communism" - there's much to say, and not obtained "during torture". Dahn (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tutea's past legionary sympathies are not the issue here; quotes from unauthorized interviews, taken out of context are. Alleged support for "national-communism" shows you have an agenda, which seems terribly inappropriate.--Botean (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again: sources describe him as a Legionary, with or without the quotes. As for my "agenda", it simply involves not glancing over PT's fascist past, which is attested in secondary sources, for which I am not responsible, and which he seems not to have denied himself. As for the national communism issue, so says the source I cited, both quoting PT and commenting on that statement. Dahn (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Dilema Veche article is a reliable reference as such, no ifs or butts. The info referring to the subject of this article and the journal Pravda is also backed by other sources - here (where it's even more elaborate). I also remember having read it in several other places. Cioran's comments, once their source is indicated, pass as such - no doubt Cioran, for all his faults, was a reliable source on what the people he knew did. If there is also one source contesting the story, the solution is to add from it, not to delete mention of the whole incident.


 * -- Nonsense about Dilema Veche, and once more you are missing the point. The source is a passing remark of an interviewer in a piece that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, inside a Wikipedia article that happens to be extremely thin on Tutea's life and work. I am shocked by your criteria, and lack of precise references. Yes, Cioran said that on RTV, but we need to state exactly the title of the broadcast, who was the interviewer, name and date of publication etc.  --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense? The sources don't fail WP:RS, so what exactly is your objection? And let me tall you that, in fact, wikipedia prioritizes secondary sources (WP:PSTS) - which is why I was ready to accept part of your comment on Dumnezeu & neamul meu. That means that there is absolutely no requirement to quote from Cioran directly - you already have two sources which, when quoting him, establish not only what he said, but why and where it is important. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Once more: the only issue here, besides the very thin context would be the reference (or lack thereof, i.e. hearsay). A good secondary reference would point the primary source (Cioran + where & when he said it). You don't seem to get the difference between fact and opinion and witness (opinions may be true and still not established as "facts"). Here's the difference: facts have a moment and a place that people may witness. That two persons vaguely say the same thing means they have the same opinion, overheard it, or cannot remember -- and any of that is clearly unreliable as a source, reference etc. --Botean (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for "enlightening" me, but again pass. Cioran, who is clearly cited as the source of the statement in both the text and the secondary source (and I just showed you yet another such source), is reporting on either fact or fiction (it really don't matter, since it is attributed and thus made relative). That is the fact. Whatever opinion is built on this fact by the sources, if at all distinguishable, is not cited (though even it could be cited, since even that would be relevant). The entire issue you are raising is a red herring, since both sources are reliable. Dahn (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Still not sure you understand. The main point right now is not thst Cioran said it, its relevance etc., it is: where exactly did Cioran tell this anecdote? That none of the sources referenced refer to the primary source is very symptomatic of the sorry state of Romanian journalism, but we seem to be in Wikipedia En, where hopefully editing habits are slightly better than Wikipedia Ro or will improve soon enough (I wish). In any case, please ask contributors to find better, precise sources in English or Romanian. And don't forget my original issue, which is again different from the funny problem of locating where (and when, to whom etc.) Cioran said the anecdote: Tutea was indeed a left-wing activist in his early youth, if Stanga means anything. But the only reference about this (actually quite interesting issue, given that few authentic marxists were publicly active in Romania at that time or anytime) is one or another vague reference to Cioran's anecdote? Absolutely ridiculous. --Botean (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And still you miss my point. If just one reliable reference mentions this anecdote, it's enough - in wikipedia eyes, per the rule I have showed you, it would be just as if he were saying it is found there. Reproaching with Romanian cultural journals that they don't carry citations is a no true Scotsman. If the problem you see is indeed that only Cioran is cited as the source for PT's Marxism: a) I have presented you with another source above; b) more published sources are of course available, including Z. Ornea's Anii treizeci, where this is discussed in some detail. As I have told you several times already, I for one intend to look into what these and other sources have to say once I have that kind of time and interest to spare. Since the article at the time has no major problems (none of those you see are major, and some are trivial) I see no sense in continuing this discussion. Dahn (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I tend to disagree with primary sources being interpreted, so, yes, I would like to see exact quotes and page numbers in that section. On the other hand, criticism of Ţuţea's extreme nationalism, xenophobia, and even his ideological connections with the isolationist stance of the Ceauşescu regime can be found with relative ease. One author who covers this topic in detail is Adrian Marino, in his Pentru Europa, which I would recommend as a reference (and plan to add from it myself when I decide to dedicate more time to this article).


 * -- Now you're trying to "prove" some commonly held opinion, which is quite worrisome, and it seems to me your particular sources are limited to electronic editions. This way you could easily prove, let's say, that Kierkegaard was against Christianity (actually, "Christendom"). Have you read one book actually written by Tutea? If not, then please don't contribute anything. I am appalled at the obvious bias in this basically one-dimensional article about Tutea that you apparently intend to make even worse, if that's even possible. Marino covers his 'topic' i.e. ridiculous allegations of "ceausism" in about one sentence of that book, and it is a clearly anachronistic opinion (i.e. his views of the '90s projected on something written by Tutea in the late '60s early '70s); arount the time Tutea wrote the lines Marino quotes in his book, Paul Goma was soon to join the Romanian Communist Party, following Ceausescu's discourses detailing such formulaic "principles" as independence, sovereignty, mutual advantage and respect etc. At that time, these simply meant: Romania is not a Russian sattelite anymore. But then, the point of an encyclopaedia article is to be objective, to present the facts in their context - all the facts, not an opinion, not even the authors' or "enlightened" opinions such as Marino (who in Tutea's case is badly mistaken, and clearly leading). You don't seem to even have the first idea about how a serious encyclopedia article should be written. --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me see. You start by telling me that it may not have happened at all, then you tell me that it was not important, then you speculate about why it happened, then you question both my ability to interpret it than the source's. All of that is ignoratio elenchi, so I can't really be bothered to answer it. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I am telling you that you are relying on dubious resources (unauthorized interviews and publications), that you fail to understand what are accurate references, and that moreover you interpret them indiscriminately, according to your strongly established opinions. If any of this is the case, we have a problem. And by the way your response here refers to anything except my explanation of Marino's tendentious and anachronistic interpretation. --Botean (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly told you in what context I can see a use for the sources, and I myself would prefer clearer citations, but I still cannot and will not agree that the problem you see in using them to begin with is relevant here. Which makes it the more ironic that you would emit verdicts about a reliable outside source in the same breath as speculating about my "strongly established opinions". Dahn (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, anecdotes do have a place on wikipedia, provided they are published by reliable sources (if they take them into account, we can as well).


 * -- In a 3000 word article, perhaps. Here, as the article stands today, it is strikingly out of place, and I have yet to see a reliable (written) source or reference. I don't doubt Cioran said it, I've heard it myself - just pointing out it is quirky and the reference still comes short and as such cannot be verified. --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I tell you below and above, vandalizing an article by removing valid references is not the "solution" to this overexposure you see (which is, btw, a non-issue). And let me add: it is quite common that secondary sources approach the narrative in much the same way; I frankly don't see many reliable sources other than Popescu still bothering with what PT actually considered his philosophy (even more so, because, as you have indicate yourself, his philosophy is actually polemic that intertwines with his biography). So no: if you want to see this article focus on other aspects, add those aspects instead of removing-then-re-adding prose (and just who do you think is here to do that for you and the image you maintain of PT?). Dahn (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You completely lost me here; did I bring up "vandalizing"? Also, why are you leading me pretending to assume what is precisely in doubt here, i.e. the "validity" of current references?! Yes, everyone passes a rumor the same way, through hearing. Otherwise believe it or not researchers like Popescu, and many like him still bother with philosophy, and did pay enough attention to "polemic" and biography, but also know its rightful place. You are terribly presumptious; all I'm interested in is accuracy. The current article is tendentious, and I actually still think the article was written, in part, by a neofascist sympathizer. Oh, well. --Botean (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only point you again to what I have said above. In a nutshell: the article can be improved by adding, not by subtracting. Dahn (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * And, let me add, I also find the statements about "axes to grind" when it comes to antisemitism very disturbing. Should we read them as "Jews are out to get Petre Ţuţea"? If not, then how should we read them? And how much space the info takes is utterly irrelevant especially because it is a short article: even if they were overexposed (and I don't think they are), the move is to add more sourced content, not to renounce one source. Dahn (talk) 00:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * -- No, it wasn't meant like that at all! Any "axes to grind", of any kind, are by definition unreliable and biased. Not even common opinion among part of the public, or Tutea's reception in various circles should be presented as fact. It doesn't matter who says something if they have an agenda and trying to 'prove' something without showing the other side of the story. All the facts (not just some opinions) are what matters, i.e. official and /or signed textual documents or independent confirmation of such facts, and / or official interviews where Tutea was aware they were going to be broadcast or published. Such are the RTV interviews and his own writings, not the unofficial, heavily edited and tendentious "Intre D-zeu si neamul meu" pieces. Otherwise, I can quote just as many fragments from similar interviews where Tutea states The Legionary Movement was a failure and utterly mistaken, that antisemitism is nothing more than irrational resentment, that Jesus was a very typical Jew, that after WWII a Jewish person is entitled to being watchful against any manifestation of anti-semitism no matter how "soft" etc. Should I proceed? Is this the purpose of this article or even of this discussion?! --Botean (talk) 06:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends. If you can provide reliable sources, yep. By reliable sources I mean transcripts of those interviews or, though I'm not sure this is accepted, internet broadcasts belonging to the sources themselves - not youtube or similar, not live broadcasts that aren't stored anywhere but in your memory. But yes, if PT made contradictory statements on the subject and those are sourceable (not just presumed), citing them as well would provide depth. If you can find them in his own writings, that would be peachy. What I would suggests to Bogdan is for him to find some commentary in a secondary source involving these issues, and introduce the debated parts with it, which would make adding from primary sources a smooth affair. Dahn (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyway, I have never seen, until now, an encyclopedia article, even within Wikipedia, that refers mostly to unauthorized interviews, biased interpretations / opinions and imprecise statements bordering on hearsay. Also very funny, throwing a YouTube link below while equivocating on their level of acceptability. What is this below, a Securitate Candid Camera?! --Botean (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding, not subtracting. But yes, you can quote me on this: referencing from the book could do with page numbers. The rest of your argument is pure speculation. Dahn (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is simply a description of the current state of this article and a rhetorical question about the non-sequiturs you keep dropping here. You can search Google and copy & paste, yaaay! --Botean (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, you are assuming that I have authored this article, which I am telling you yet again I did not. I have also introduced you to some printed sources, that you have been rejecting on ulterior grounds that I frankly find ridiculous. I also did not link to youtube (and, incidentally, the user who did did not do so in mainspace). Dahn (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then, of course, you can simply see this interview (youtube link), in which he says he participated in the attacks against Jewish and Hungarian-owned shops, that he broke their shop windows, after a speech by Octavian Goga.
 * - Dar pe Goga l-aţi ascultat, cu ideea naţională, la Cluj?
 * - Dar n-am spart şi eu vitrine? 
 * - După discursul lui Goga? 
 * - Noi toţi tineri, am spart toate vitrinele de ovrei, de unguri... bogdan (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Botean, I for one have heard enough. I have told you what i find reasonable in your post and what I feel is fandom. So please, if you have any other solution to the supposed problems other than deleting references, let's see it. Dahn (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You are presumptious - please don't project your preconceptions and feelings on me. Unfortunately you didn't pay attention to most of what I wrote. But discussing with both of you was quite useful in understanding what's going on here. Thanks. --Botean (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Any time. Dahn (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)