Talk:Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania/Archive 1

1st country
Is Romania the first country condemning communism, or it is the first in the former Eastern Bloc to do it? As far as I know, besides the Council of Europe, also The Catholic Church did it. Does Vatican counts as a country in this matter ? If so, I think Vatican and CE should be mentioned. adriatikus | 17:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a misquotation of the source. I fixed it. Still, Vatican didn't condemn its own Communist regime (it never was Communist, obviously). In that, Romania may actually be the first country to do so officially. --Illythr 17:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is an issue here. It is Communism (as ideology) to be condemned, or one communist regime or another? IFAIK there is no communist regime not walking on bodies. Based on the report, the President condemned not only the crimes (which are particular to one regime or another), but also the ideology (there are people blamed for propaganda) which is largely shared between regimes. This is also the CE's approach: "The move in Strasbourg marks the first time that an inter-governmental organization, such as the CE, condemns the crimes and the ideology of communism " . Secondly, I expect reactions firstly from those affected in one way or another; and Vatican was affected, not only by the restrictions on the religious freedom, but also as a conflicting ideology. My point is I think that the phrase should be more accurate, because it is full of dinosaurs around here and there who preach "the good Communism who, sadly, was so badly implemented". adriatikus | 04:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, we have the original report. If it condemns Communism in general, then the article should indeed say "first in the former Eastern Bloc". (It's "too many letters" for me to check)
 * BTW, there is at least one "Communist regime" that wasn't established on piles of corpses... Not a lot of them, anyway. ;-) --Illythr 23:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

To Dpotop
You were entirely right about adding a section on that topic, but I think it should be rewritten on the basis of who said what, not from a "scholarly perspective" about what one may observe - that would be original research. A section on that topic deserves a more laborious process of actually looking into what all sides have said, when, and how; without that, the section is useless POV. Dahn 12:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

You have indicated somewhere that the section was "just the beginning". I'm sorry if I have to repeat this, but your entire section went against wikipedia conventions by drawing conclusions (and, might I add, without providing its sources). That should not feature in the beginning of an article, it should not feature in the middle of an article, and it should not feature in the end of an article. It should not feature anywhere in an article. Dahn 12:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

And, once and for all, letters with diacritics, all of them, can be found if you scroll down outside the editing window in the editing menu (consider scrolling all the way down when you are replying to this, and you'll find them). They are clickable. Check this out: ǚÖĊĠðŐ... Magical, ain't it? Dahn 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Dahn, but the entire section is about what critics say. And this was clear from text. The references were missing, and I said, as you well noted, that it was just the beginning. Your critique is weird. I'm not scholar in saying that "some critics say that ...". Dpotop 12:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * D, the style of the section draws a conclusion. Instead of indicating, let's say, "this source says Băsescu is politically motivated, which is also backed by this source" in one paragraph, and then "this source says Băsescu's actions are dangerous for interntl relations, and so says this one" in another, it establishes a conclusion about what criticism focuses on (which is already a subjective assessment, and one belonging to you, as correct or wrong as you may be). Dahn 13:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, to quote What Wikipedia is not: "Although current affairs may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (i.e. passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced so as to put entries for current affairs in a reasonable perspective. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete." Dahn 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Interesting to note that this applies to me, but not you and your famous and subjective "List of PCR activists". Dpotop 13:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not actually check with the guidelines for NPOV and neutral tone, then see what applies to lists, then actually move on to understanding what I actually talked about on the list's talk page, and perhaps ponder completing the task I suggested there instead of endlessly theorizing. And next time, perhaps you could talk to the point, cause I'm getting tired of hide and seek (of the kind: "Dahn, you should accept these new sources" ↔ "Agreed. What the anon reader is doing here is equivalent to the POV-pushing of Dahn" ↔ "Could you contribute by adding sources?"). Dahn 14:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, this was a very good idea to start a section about controversy. Even today I read a harsh critic of the report written by Constantin Dobre, the leader of the miners revolts in Jiul Valley in 1977. He concludes that "Condamnarea crimelor comuniste trebuia facuta dar nu avand la baza raportul Tismaneanu." that is, "the crimes of communism must be condemned, but not based on the Tismaneanu report." Now without departing from my NPOV, I cannot stop comparing this guy to what Tismaneanu was writing in the 1970's: his thesis and the communist propaganda articles, as documented in his page (that Dahn systematically vandalizes). There is this person Dahn who believes that these pages belong to him. In wiki terms, it is WP:OWN. 'Dahn', you may wish to take a break, would you? This being said, you should now provide careful references to all the claims in this controversy section (of course, if vandal Dahn does not strike again) (Icar 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Icar, I do not answer to straw men. Dahn 14:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You may also want to shed light as to why Goma was "fired" (which I'm not sure is the word to use). Dahn 13:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice Dahn. Now can we get back to work? Thank you. As for why Goma was fired (this is precise enough: dat afară in Romanian) I gave the short reason: personal dispute. The long story is that Tismaneanu was unhappy that Goma labeled him "Boshevik offspring". Goma had said that before Tismaneanu invited him on the commission, after wrongly attributing to Tismaneanu some comments. So this is really some personal dispute between the two men.(Icar 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC))
 * Icar, I do not answer to straw men. Dahn 14:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I repeat myself
Again: try and source who said what, not what it amounts to. Your version is filled with weasel words ("it is remarkable"), hasty generalizations, proof by verbosity, and guilt by association arguments. Dahn 13:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure Dpotop will do precisely this provided omniscient Dahn gives him a chance. (Icar 13:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC))


 * I am also sure that Dahn knows that he can edit the current section to change its form. I'm searching for the sources now (and have other things to do in my real life, too). I'm sorry if the current form is not entirely NPOV. But rewording a sentence cannot be that difficult. Dpotop 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure you know I was not born to serve you. Just as I'm sure it's better if I explain what I object to regarding editing tone and style, as well as about up and editing without already having sources (i.e.: by guessing); since searching for sources does not remedy that, and fails to even address the problem of weasel words, generalizations, proof by verbosity, and guilt by association (not to mention your omission of facts and your, sorry to say it, unfamiliarity with English vocabulary and grammar). A person obeying wikipedia guidelines would find little to keep in your entire version, so, instead of doing the work that you pretend to want done, I simply added tags for now and communicated my grievances (to you, as I don't really care much about the other opinion expressed above). Dahn 12:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sure wikipedia is not only due to the super-native-english-en-5 professionnals that always spell right in english, romanian, and all other languages. Dpotop 13:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * According to my views, it should be limited to people who can spell the words "English" and "Romanian". But hey, that's just me. Dahn 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dobre?
As far as I can tell, the Report does not say he was killed, so he may be altogether mistaken and/or manipulated (where in the text would one find the info he is rebutting?).

I must insist that the issues were not at all addressed, that Dpotop is still writing according to proof by verbosity and using testimonies as people as self-incriminations. I will rewrite that whole section in the coming days, and hopefully that will be the end of it. Dahn 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Some questions
If the comission was "an official body instituted in Romania by President Traian Băsescu", on what legal basis was it constituted (Romanian constitution doesn't mention the abilitty of the president to institute official comissions)?

When was the act instituting it published in "Monitorul Oficial"?

Was it remunerated? If yes, from whose money? Anonimu 23:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yours is an argument based on OR deduction (and going against the sources). I have no will to stand around debating sophistical what ifs. Dahn 23:49, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The question is good. Calling it an "official body" without reputable source saying exactly that is not OK. And even if it is called "official", some text is necessary to say that Romanian law does not allow it. But the text must be a simple reporting of facts, without interpretation. Dpotop 06:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling the Romanian Presidency an official source without a reputable source is basic intelligence.
 * If you find a source saying it and indicate it, we'll squeeze it into the controversy section. Otherwise, it just you guys deducing that it is thusly. Dahn 08:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the Romanian presidency is not reputable. I'm just saying Romanian law is as reputable. Dpotop 08:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read again. Dahn 08:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I think is a correct wording of the matter: "The commission has been created at the initiative of the Romanian presidency, and its report has been adopted as an official document of the Romanian Presidency, and published on its web site." Dpotop 08:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC) I do agree that the current use of "official", as an adjective, can be supported as being related to the office of president. However, in creating the commission, the Presidency acted as a private organization, for its publicly mandated missions (specified in the Constitution) do not include the creation of presidential committees. This is why I would argue for the previous formulation, which: What do you think? Dpotop 08:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) leaves no doubt as to the way the presidency acted
 * 2) is more likely to be accepted as NPOV by other editors
 * 3) is as correct, semantically.

Securitate people
I included in the list of communist criminals the Securitate bosses in the following paragraph:
 * Main responsibles for the hundreds of thousands of victims of the Communist regime were: Burach Tescovich (Teohari Georgescu), Vladimir Mazurov (Mazuru), Marin Jianu, Emil Bodnǎraş, Panteleimon Bodnarenko (Gheorghe Pintilie), Boris Grünberg (Alexandru Nicolschi), Alexandru Drăghici.

Unfortunately, colleague Dahn erased the list. Needless to say the list was compiled from a longer list from the conclusions of the Tismaneanu report. It is unconceivable that Bodnaras, Bodnarenko, Grunberg and the others not be present in this article. Instead of erasing, think of completing the list. (Icar 11:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I don't have the report under hand. Are all these names listed there? Are the original names listed, too? Or, do you have sources for these original names? I searched for "Burach Tescovich" and didn't find much. Dpotop 20:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, the report will be cited with what it says, not with Icar's propaganda. Dahn 21:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The nick of Burah Tescovich is "Teohari Georgescu". The report only mentions the Romanian-sounding names but we have no reason to believe that they were at some point the legal names of those people. Whenever I found on the Internet the real name (before "Romanization") I included it and gave the usage name in brackets. It is the same situation as for Tisminetki-Tismaneanu. I find it deeply perverse that someone would remove from an Enciclopaedia the real names of historical persons. Here it is even more inappropriate since the people we discuss about were already well-known before they adopted for usage a Romanian-sounding name. (Icar 08:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Well, Icar, I understand your POV, but you have to be consistent and clearly say why you want to use the birth name for Burach Tescovici, but not for Eminescu or Porumbescu. Once a rule is chosen, stick to it. In our case, we use the most used/known names. And frankly, I knew the name Teohari Georgescu, but not that of Burach Tescovici. Of course, biographic information needs to be present in the article Teohari Georgescu, and you are free to make a link to it, named Burach Tescovici, or whatever, if you have reputable sources supporting it (I did a search for the name, and only found a few hits). Dpotop 09:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OTOH, if you want to emphasize the affiliations (communists, bolsheviks, etc.) or ethnicity (russian, jewish, whatever) of a person, do it explicitly. Don't hide your message behind this naming issue. Dpotop 09:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a hidden agenda. Just it is essential info about a person's real name. Please do the job the way you find appropriate. I think the real name should appear at some point, now if really it is obscure compared to the usage name then I agree that the usage should be kept. I guess that making entries for the birth name linking to the article with the usage name would be appropriate. (Icar 09:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)).
 * Ok, do you know what the "real name" of Ciprian Porumbescu was? Gołumbowsky (I hope I got it right, Polish has such a complex alphabet). Now, go change it everywhere, if you feel like. Corneliu Zelea Codreanu's "real name" was Zelinski. Not to mention Eminescu's "real name": Eminovici. Are you going to mark Eminovici in all articles refering to Eminescu? I guess not. So, your "real name" criterion is bogus. Dpotop 09:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The only justification to having Teohari Georgescu called Burach Tescovich, or Tismaneanu called Tisminetki is to prove with sources that this "real name" was actually well-known at a certain period. I mean, prove, with sources, that the guy was called for about 10 years Tisminetki, that he signed articles with this name, etc. In other words, that this name was well-known at a certain period, and that the guy was called by this name.Dpotop 09:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is, of course, pointless on wikipedia, where secondary bographical information can be accessed through internal links. Dahn 10:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. The most common name of a person can change depending on the context. In articles concerning the Soviet period of Tismaneanu, he should be called Tisminetki (because this is his most common name in that context). It is also important to find out when he changed his name. If he came to Romania as Tisminetki, then he should be cited as such for the description of his arrival to Romania. Then, for the period following his name change, he is Tismaneanu. Dpotop 10:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Tisminetki this is easy: there is a reference in the current version of his article which says that he got his name Tismaneanu in 1949 at the age of 36. He was a media man (at radio Moskow) during WWII so it is reasonable to suppose that he was notorius by then. He also was in jail at the age of 20 for communist agitation so his name must show up in the archives. (Icar 09:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
 * I agree that both names of Tisminetki could be mentioned here. It is relevant. But then, you should negociate this with Dahn. :) Good luck. Dpotop 10:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems in the "pillars, enforcers" section
1) The roles of Vadim, Paunescu and even Iliescu are over-emphasized. 2) Ceausescu is missing! 3) The NKVD generals and Bodnarenko and Grunberg as well as other leaders of the securitate / Internal Affairs also not mentioned. These names appear in the conclusions section of the report and should be included. (Icar 14:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC))


 * Yeah, this is why Cristoiu called the report "Raportul rafuielii politice", because it allows such interpretations and selective character-killing. Dpotop 14:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding. I meant that the conclusions of the report are distorted in the current version of the article. I did not mean to criticise the report in my remark above, but the section "Pillars etc" which is inaccurate so far. In the report the stress does not really fall on Vadim etc but rather on the likes of Nicolski, Draghici and Pantiusa. One might conceivably argue that Vadim and Paunescu are treated too harshly, but that is a different matter. (Icar 16:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC))

Warning to User :Dahn
You have repeatedly removed important information from the article. This is vandalism. Please stop before you are banned. (Icar 08:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
 * Should I be replying to this? When you misquote the topic of this article, you are breaking wikipedia rules, as should be clear to you by now. Dahn 13:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that both Dpotop and Dahn are incorrect in this case. This is clearly a content dispute (over including/excluding a tag), and not vandalism. Interestingly enough, Vandalism states:

"Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule."

Khoikhoi 09:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You probably noted that:
 * No 3RR infringement exists (edits are spaced). Dpotop 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The dispute is on the "Disputed" tag itself, not on the content. And the page you mentioned clearly states that templates should not be used on other templates. Meaning that the dispute tag should be discussed here. Dpotop 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Dahn is pushing the idea that an article hee deems incomplete must be tagged with "Disputed" even though he is not willing to contribute. Therefore, there's no edit conflict. Dpotop 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is why I consider his edits as vandalism. Dpotop 09:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to take part in this edit war, on Dahn's side, so please do not intervene as an admin. Dpotop 09:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I have commented at length as to what is missing in the text, and will not do so every time a POV-pusher or another pretends that the issues have been addressed. For several reasons, I did not have time to add text that would clarify what opinion was expressed by whom and what the other side has said (including those people who were implicated by allegations present in the article); however, such references can easily be added by anyone who has ever read anything other that Ziua and Tricolorul (some of this is already present in related articles, some I have indicated users where they would be able to find, some is prominently present on the www). Several issues I have raised in the past (such as using italics to highlight a POV and clearly attributing opinions to people who expressed them instead of conglomerating POVs) have simply been ignored.

A certain user, who has persistently engaged in introducing unverified info on this subject, keeps ignoring this wikipedia norm: "Do not remove [templates] unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled." Instead, he pretends that the template is subject to debate, which is clearly not the case. Dahn 17:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR is not a license to make three reversions every 24 hours. It is an absolute limit, beyond which it is considered that there is no question that the person is edit warring. But edit warring at a slower pace is also unacceptable. Perhaps you could try to bring in more people and reach a real consensus: no one gains from an article going back & forth several times a day on what it says.


 * I don't have a strong opinion on the names thing, myself, so I'm not going to try to make one up. - Jmabel | Talk 05:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to note
I found these days while researching on Bodnăraş that large parts of text of this report are actually taken (translated and slightly adapted) from Vladimir Tismăneanu's " Stalinism for All Seasons: A Political History of Romanian Communism" (as much as I could see with Google Books: e.g. compare the section on '44-'48, in the report starting at p.35, in the book starting at p. 85 as Chapter 3, or Bodnăraş' short biography, in the report at pp. 646-647, in the book at pp. 256-257). I find weird nowhere such thing is mentioned (the report does not have a bibliography anyway only few footnotes) especially as Tismăneanu was the president of the comission, and not mentioned as a proper author/expert/whatever. I've spent time trying to compile two sources to realize they are the same :( Daizus 06:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent ! It should be mentioned in the article. Highly relevant.--Vintilă Barbu 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:OR. Dahn 11:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should I remind the amount of Romanian texts translated (i.e. interpreted) in Wiki articles (by you also, including even in a featured article)? It's no more OR than the one involved in creating a material in English from Romanian sources. Therefore if the translation is not OR, then I don't see what else could be in this case? I can provide the content of the two sources to clarify any WP:V issues (both are online!). Daizus 11:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple: the translation is a rendition, not a conclusion. Your conclusion is a secondary source. You have to present a reliable source that tells us: a. it was taken into consideration; b. it is relevant. Dahn 11:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that simple. If I use the report and I translate it into English I risk being accused of plagiarism because there's already an English version of the material (actually is the other way around, the English material is the original) and more than likely will be a great degree of similarity between my translation and the already existing English material. If a potential accusation of plagiarism won't be under OR, then my conclusion is not OR either, as it is the same inference. Moreover, to conclude two texts claim the same thing also it's not OR, because this is used very often in Wikipedia editing ( check the statements sourced with multiple references). Daizus 13:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will anser to the only part of your argument that is not a sophism (I suppose you know that accusations of plagiarism against x user are not part of the article, and your own translation of the Report will not be plagiarism - however, translating the entire report would be absurd). To conclude that two texts claim the same thing is not OR (depending on instance, but I would assume that it is so in most instances); to conclude that a text is similar in form to another would need to be backed by sources - because, as is clearly stated, wikipedia is about attributing and verifiability, not truth. If no reliable source backs the information that one is based on the other, it is simply not an information. Dahn 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What you claim to be a sophism is a real problem. Let me be very explicit:
 * Text A: "Born to a Ukrainian father and a German mother. One of the most complex personalities of the Romanian communism. A career officer, he became a Soviet spy and he defected to USSR. He returned to Romania in the middle 1930s and fulfilled different special missions for the Soviet military intelligence. Caught by chance, Bodnăraş was sentenced to ten years in prison. At the Doftana and the Caransebeş prisons, he became a trusted friend of Gheorghiu-Dej's and a key figure in Dej's faction."
 * Text B: "Născut dintr-un tată ucrainean şi o mamă de origine germană. Una dintre cele mai complicate personalităţi ale comunismului românesc. Ofiţer de carieră, el a devenit spion sovietic şi a fugit în Uniunea Sovietică. S-a întors în România la mijlocul anilor 1930 şi a îndeplinit diferite misiuni speciale pentru spionajul militar sovietic. Prins din întâmplare, Bodnăraş a fost condamnat la 10 ani de închisoare. În închisorile de la Doftana şi Caransebeş, el a devenit un prieten de încredere al lui Gheorghiu-Dej şi un personaj cheie din grupul acestuia."
 * Text C: "Born to a Ukrainian father and a mother of German origin. One of the most complex personalities of the Rommanian communism. A career officer, he became a Soviet spy and he defected to USSR. He returned to Romania in the middle 1930s and fulfilled different special mission for the Soviet military intelligence. Caught by accident, Bodnăraş was sentenced to ten years in prison. In Doftana and Caransebeş prisons, he became a loyal friend of Gheorghiu-Dej and a key figure in Dej's faction."
 * Very serious question: is text C) a plagiarism of text A) or a translation of text B)? As you can see, it's not about some remote similarity but the very translation of a text (sometimes there are slight adaptations). The same reasoning one would use to conclude two texts are the same, claim the same, or that one text plagiarizes another is used to conclude the report has the same content as Tismăneanu's book. Or all conclusions are allowed or none. The middle ground means a double standard and I hope you realize it.
 * From another point of view, as far as I have noticed the editors are allowed to decide a source is reliable, to decide a source claims the same with another and eventually to choose the better/most representative source among several, to decide a source opposes another, etc.. If as editors we are allowed to say source A says basically the same thing as source B, or that source A says the opposite thing as source B, we are allowed to say in this case the book and the report, for those pages we can provide reference, say the same thing. I am not thinking to formulate a real accusation, just to make a point, which otherwise it's made consciously or not almost throughout Wikipeida, whenever more than one source is involved in creating an article. Daizus 14:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand your point, and I do not find it a problem for either the book or the report if it is so (in fact, I noticed similarities myself, but I don't think any rule was broken, as the author may dispose of his work as he or she sees fit). However, the issue here is that this is an information to be furnished by a third party, because none of us should decide on how widespread or meaningful this is - the information should come from a source that claims the information is widespread and does mean something. Your questions about whether or not is plagiarism etc. are not relevant: they have to be posed by a source, not by a contributor. Dahn 14:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The very interesting information from Daizus can have a very practical consequence: We are no longer forced to cite the report, which is a disputed piece of paper with a dubious authorship. However, those of us who have the book will have to provide the exact citation. Dpotop 12:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, you mean a disputed electronic document who has already changed since it was first posted. We remember also that it was a political command, not a history work. I think this report should not be extensively cited in other articles than this one. (Icar 13:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * No, Icar. The document is distributed on the official site of the Romanian presidency, which makes it reputable enough. Now, calling it "historical text" is disputable, both given the profession of Tismaneanu (not a historian, and he claims not to being one), and the perceived status of disputed political document. But the document is reputable enough. Dpotop 13:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For starters, what you perceive in the document is not the document. The subject matter makes if a historical text, and so does the fact that several people on the board are historians first and foremost. Furthermore, VT does not "claim he is not a historian", he claims he is a political scientist. Being a political scientist and a sociologist also gives him expertise on history, as does his domain of research for over 20 years (and before). Dahn 13:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Here Dahn is unfair. Tismaneanu's expertise encompasses over 35 years; he started writing Marxist-Leninist texts already in 1971. In 1981 he was co-author of a "Sociology" dictionary for make benefit students, under the guidance ov Virgil Magureanu. So "clearly" he is the ultimate expert on history, sociology and political sciences. Of course! (Icar 13:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I do not answer to straw men. Dahn 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is no straw man. Tismaneanu indeed worked in the same fields before leaving Romania, and his PhD is in political science. Good point, Icar. Dpotop 13:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I will post this again, for you and your friend: Furthermore, VT does not "claim he is not a historian", he claims he is a political scientist. Being a political scientist and a sociologist also gives him expertise on history, as does his domain of research for over 20 years (and before). To this, I will add: the topic of the report is not only historical, and, even in this instance, the board comprised at least two historians. In fact, if I remember correctly, one of Dpotop's speculations about the report was that it did not include more non-experts... Dahn 13:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Icar is right in saying that you should replace your pleonastic expression for over 20 years (and before) with over 35 years. Now, do you understand? Dpotop 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing serious things, not taking lessons in formal logic from Icar. Dahn 14:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Dahn is in denial. It is futile to argue with him at this stage. Let us build consensus among good faith editors. Icar 09:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * What the hell is "dubious" about it? Dahn 13:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dubious. That is, you have n autors on a piece of text copied from the book of one of them. Dpotop 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So? The book was Awritten by the author of the Report (so there is no plagiarism involved) and counter-signed by all members of the board, as well as by the President. And to what extent did that happen? Because I have read both, and I can tell you that most of the text agrees with, but does not copy the book. Dahn 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are indeed looking for conflict, aren't you. What I propose here is a decent way of referring to the original text, discovered by Daizus, the one that has more value as a scholarly text (because it was not backed by some political interest). Why are you so psychorigid? Dpotop 13:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see it is impossible to open a conversation with you that would not immediately fold on your readiness to discuss character, psychology, or political views. Again, your theories about the Report are not the Report. What you can say about the Report does not make it objectionable. Dahn 13:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because you are the problem here. This is not math, it's social science. There is no 1+1=2, but several possible interpretation/presentations for a fact. And in this case there are several presentations of the same text. So, we can use both sources. Period. Dpotop 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia. does. not. allow. you. to. engage. in. original. research. over, the. extent. to which. two. texts. are. similar. in. form., not. in. character. If you have a secondary source saying it, fine; if you don't, it's your own guess. Dahn 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As to my characterization of the source as having dubious authorship, you can simply say you do not agree, not "What the hell is "dubious" about it?". This is un-civil. Dpotop 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can simply, and objectively, say that is a non sequitur. And no, it was not "uncivil". Dahn 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

As concerns the discussion above, I think that mentioning that the commission chief wrote on these subjects similar text is OK. But then, you have Dahn, that allows himself OR (like in List of Romanian Communists), but refutes it in other editors. If you decide to push the inclusion of the reference, I support it, along the argumentation of Daizus (not plagiarism, but inclusion of an additional source). Dpotop 13:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What the hell sort of argument is this? "I know this is OR, I can pretend someone else is engaged in OR, therefore I am allowed to engage in OR"? Really, now. As for that article, which you keep advertising: I have left an exhaustive explanation on its talk page, and have asked you to prove me wrong by finding other reliable and relevant criteria. You did not (simply because it is impossible), but you keep libeling me. You continue to move the debate elsewhere, but that does not make you right. Neither did crying wolf in Bonaparte's company. Dahn 13:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn, nobody on wikipedia is simply citing sources. Compiling them into decent text always involves some OR, if only in deciding the perceived importance of POVs which is essential in constructing the NPOV. You have included OR in your text, in legitimate cases, and some illegitimate ones. Claiming that you don't do OR at all is stupid. And here the argument it between you (saying it's too much) and the other (who say that it's not). Dpotop 13:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I simply cannot follow that. It does not make any sense. I simply can't tell what you are talking about. Dahn 13:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad for you. Dpotop 13:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Too bad for whomever has had to read that. Dahn 13:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that User:Dahn seems to refuse any dialogue. Icar 13:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Presumably if a large portion of a very prominent report reiterates a rather prominent book, there shouldn't be much trouble in finding a review that says so. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I thought so, but I couldn't find any review of this report. I have found this article where Tismăneanu says about the bibliography of the report (not published at that date): "My books, as well those written by other political scientists, historians, ex-dissidents, regardless if they are members of this Commission or not, will be consulted to achieve a real persective of Romania under communism.". This is just an interview, so it only may insinuate (though not in a Wiki article ;)) something about the scholarly integrity of V.T. and/or of the Commission he led.
 * It is not in my purpose to make a point of these (it's still not clear to me if V.T. is regarded or not as writing that report, too), just of the similarity between the materials, given the fact they are both sourcing many of the Wiki articles on Romanian communism. Daizus 09:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dumitru Stăniloae
As of April 25, 2007, the current entry includes the following: The report is considered unscientific and blatantly biased, given that it characterizes Orthodox theologian Dumitru Stăniloae as an author of "lousy works" praising the action of the regime.

Can we get a citation on "considered unscientific and blatantly biased" because that sounds like a church apologist defending the span of Stăniloae's career? It is not my understanding that the report is widely "considered unscientific and blatantly biased" (but it is my understanding that the reports is respected, despite acknowledgement of some flaws which any such report would necessarily contain).

Next up, can we get a citation on how the report characterized Stăniloae? It's one thing to say he was an "author of lousy works" (which consensus disagrees with) and entirely another thing to say "lousy works praising the action of the regime" (which he may have actually written, but I'm asking for someone else to bring forth that citeable knowledge).

Thanks - Anon Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.136.186.132 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The tags
Again: one should never write an article that fails to distinguish which sources say what (original research); most of the text would need rewriting to portray that from an NPOV perspective. The POV section about support gives the impression that only one person in academia supports the report, and that even that person has some criticism to express (this is obviously absurd, as is well known to the editor who added it). Using colloquialisms like "fired" is contrary to guidelines (and inaccurate to say the least in this instance). The text fails to distinguish between opinion and ("critics point that... x is y", and even "x should be y", "x is incorrect", in a situation where the phrasing is "this critic/these critics argue(s) x on y point, this critic/these critics argue(s) x on z point"). Using italics to highlight a point is tremendously POV (at a quick glance, I noticed Shafir is not even quoted properly, and criticism of the Commission was carefully plucked from an interview that has very little in common with other critical views).


 * Several points:
 * For each claim in the "Criticism" section, the list of sources saying it is specified. The article also says that "various critics have various arguments, as listed below". Why is this not enough? The relation between sources X and claims Y is clear, even if presented the other way around (not X->Y, but Y->X, which has the advantage of grouping around main ideas without adding OR).
 * The "Support" section is short. However, my POV is critic to this commission, and I have not encountered many positive appreciations I would cite here. You seem to claim that the article is POV, which means you have sources saying something else. Please, add them here.
 * I agree that "fired" is too colloquial (it was not me who added it). What should we put instead? Is "dismissed following a conflict with Vladimir Tismaneanu" ok?
 * As for Shafir, what is the correct quote? Would quotes instead of italic be OK for you?
 * Dpotop 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You failed to see my point. An opinion is to be referenced as such, and it belongs to the person who expressed it. That person must be indicated in the text.
 * I presume we agreed a bit below (the "preserve grand ideas and identify oppinions" bit). Dpotop 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It was especially hard for me following your reply all at once (given the use of indents), but I note that you we did. Dahn 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, until you edit more to that section or allow me to do it (when I have time and energy to do it), a tag should make clear what we are dealing with.
 * Yes, but I hope not a plethora of tags. Dpotop 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As you may see, I have argued that all of them belong[ed]. I recognize your willingness to improve this article, but I cannot vouch for their removal until I have a close look at your final version and make the necessary additions. Dahn 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not my final version. :) And you certainly know that current wikipedia practice (not theory) is to use the most significant tags only. But as you wish. Dpotop 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For one, you should indicate that Goma questioned the moral authority of the Commission before he was barred access to the Commission.This was by no means a "conflict with T.", but Goma's refusal to legitimize the body he wanted to sit on. I can add further sources citing Goma questioning the competence of Zub, Berindei, etc. as well as neutral sources who say that he was out of line. All of this is in direct connection with T. recalling his membership, as indicated by T. himself.
 * Generally speaking, that's fine with me (in fact, it's even better from my POV). One note, however: Goma did insist on Tismaneanu on moral grounds. You seem to say that G questioned the involvement of Zub and Berindei on a different register (competence). It's different. Maybe we need to detail. Can you point me to the sources, please? Dpotop 16:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have detailed the issue as best as I could in one instance - see Goma's statement and a reply from Bedros Horasangian (in Ziua!) in the article on Alexandru Zub. For the rest of your argument: I think we agree on principle on what Goma said about whom, it's just that both of us could have refined our arguments on this issue to reflect that. Dahn 16:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find the article, but I've got better: Goma published his 2006 journal on paulgoma.free.fr (700 pages). Dpotop 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The link does not work, so I'm not even sure if it is a quote. From what I remember from when the link was quoted, you took Shafir out of context (so did Ziua). Dahn 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I still have a copy of that web page on Ziua de Cluj. The mere fact that recent information disappears from newspaper sites is troubling. You can still find it at "Revista Presei": http://www.revistapresei.ro/pp_articol_16877-Raportul-Tismaneanu-notat-cu-7-la-Babes-Bolyai.htm . Maybe we should change the link. :) Dpotop 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Overall, this article is a superficial text aiming to champion a certain perspective. Aside from its flaws in depicting criticism, it does not include any answer to criticism. Of the many sources that gave overt support to the report and argued in favor of it, none are currently cited.


 * Let's make it factual. You saw I deleted unsourced text. As for supporting sources, you seem to have them. Please add them. As for reply to criticism, you can add it, in the limits of due weight. If it's just Tismaneanu saying "the other are wrong", it's not much. If there are other members of the commission, then it's better. Dpotop 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am willing to expand this text, Dpotop, but I cannot do it just now (interestingly, I would have done some work on it if some guys, ahem, would not have called all my attention and energy to a related article). Until I do so, th tags clearly belong. As for T.: it is paramount that a text making allegations about his behavior cites his response as well. And no, he is not at all the only one to answer. Dahn 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We should forget about our "linge sale", there is no way on wikipedia to wash it privately (I can assure you I have some hard feelings about one or two articles). :) Dpotop 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's also note that, since dropping the POV mention of what "is remarkable" about Leonte Tismăneanu being cited in the report, the casual mention in a section on controversy refers to Dpotop's views on what should be controversial (aside from the fact that the thing is already mentioned in the above section).


 * I'm not sure that paragraph was introduced by me. Dpotop 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Concerning Leonte Tismaneanu: What do you think about replacing the current statement with: "Some sources criticise the choice of Tismaneanu as commission president on the grounds that (1) he comes from a family of notorious activists, and (2) he was active as a propagandist prior to his American exile". The sources to this would be Liiceanu and Goma. And we need to mark here the difference between the two (one supports the report, and the other criticises it as insufficient and biased). Dpotop 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that we could present the sources separately (instead of having them as mere references on short descriptions), but I insist on preserving some grouping along the 3 main lines, even though this may mean replicating one or two sources. There are not many critics covering all subjects, anyway. Dpotop 16:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well...
 * I would reword that - for one, only his father was a "notorious" (but not particularly important) activist (his mother was an activist for a couple of years in her life, and a minor one at it; only one other of his extended family was known as an activist, and not by many); you could, for example, use "communist family... father was a notable Communist Party activist" (alternatively or together). I would again use who said precisely what - especially since Goma worded his accusation in a manner that cannot possibly implicate Liiceanu. There are also notable third-party sources who, in direct reply to these statements, have argued that it has no relevancy/no bearing - one would have to mention them as well.
 * Yes, that is entirely acceptable. Dahn 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll do something along these lines. Dpotop 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * For Leonte Tismaneanu: As you note very well, we are here to report what is being said by other. Therefore, we should report the fact that some critics mention the father, who was an activist (1st problem) that came with the Soviets (2nd problem), while others mention the communist color of more than one relative, including his wife, or (as Goma says) some aunt Cristina Marcusohn. Dpotop 21:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I read your proposal better, it's OK (the family is mentioned with due weight). Dpotop 21:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This is just a quick overlook. I consider ubuesque having to explain and evidence what is POV about the text, when this is self-evident for about 100 separate arguments. To make it even more clear: the question to ask about the last section of the article is not "what in there is not compliant with wikipedia guidelines?", but "what in there is compliant with wikipedia guidelines?". Dahn 15:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * PS: A press article proven to rely on a fake info on one topic should probably not be cited as reference for another topic. Dahn 15:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about "Ziua"? Dpotop 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I am talking about the article in Jurnalul which implies that x person was presented as dead. Reflecting upon it: this may have been one of the infos rephrased during (I have not compared the articles), if such is indeed the case. Dahn 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was my mistake, and I corrected it as soon as you pointed it (a long time ago). We should move on. Dpotop 20:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the fragment I moved from the top of the page to its bottom: I note a fragment reflecting claims and opinions had been presented as reliable evidence, even though the text itself stated that the "legal status is unclear" (my italics). The latter sentence qualifies the section for controversy (a he said-she said situation). Of course, I feel it should be subjected to the same common sense norms I called attention to just above. Dahn 15:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, the fact that the final report changes belongs to the intro. You may shorten the reference, but please put it inside (I concede that the legal status belongs to the controversy section). Dpotop 16:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine then. Let's neatly separate the issue. I also recommend, again, attributing the statement to the person who made it. Dahn 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear guys, I'm very interested in finding the article of Ziua where it is said that Valdimir Tismaneanu changed the legal status of the Report (http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2007-01-23&id=214593). I searched today, but appearently the Ziua web edtion archive has been shout down. Do you know where I can find that article? Thank you so much in advance.
 * Try this . It may take some time to load.Anonimu (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.246.160.175 (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania. 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/20061221095959/http://www.adevarulonline.ro:80/2006-12-15/Prima%20Pagina/iliescu-vadim-si-paunescu-stalpii-comunismului_210727.html to http://www.adevarulonline.ro/2006-12-15/Prima%20Pagina/iliescu-vadim-si-paunescu-stalpii-comunismului_210727.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:38, 1 January 2017 (UTC)