Talk:Valter Roman

We should coordinate better
Dpotop, you are just adding in a new created subsection the Romanian text I just had used to write the information in the lead ! :))

If i may suggest, could you look at this ? It contains extremely interesting and complex information about two proposals made by Walter Roman to the Litvinov Commission:
 * 1) on 24 July (1944? or 1945?) he suggests the restitution of Transylvania to Romania, cancelling the Vienna's Diktat
 * 2) on 28 July same year, Walter Roman endorses the fromation of an independent state Transylvania

Letter 1 is endorsed by son Petre Roman, while letter 2 was unveiled by reasercers of Communism. It is a very intricate story, where the position of a Tofic Islamov is interesting as well. It is a lot of work to clear all this. Cheers, --Vintila Barbu 14:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I read about them, but I think it's controversial material. Let's finish the non-controversial part first. Dpotop 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't edit today any more. In fact, we added the same bit of info at the same time. BTW, I think this info does not belong in the lead, but do as you think. Dpotop 14:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW: to DYK this article, we simply need to beef up the link with the Hungarian revolution, the involvement in many Comm parties and the brigades (the cosmopolite aspect). :) Dpotop 14:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Vintila, I have no idea what the SRSC is. I copied it from Crisan's book. Do you know what it is. Dpotop 14:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Dimineata
The link in to the Dimineata article poses several problems: the info does not appear to be backed by any other source, it is not properly referenced in the article, and the source is quite hostile to Roman (it's not like that is an independent newspaper). Dahn 21:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You mean the first wife? Well, cut her out if need be. Biruitorul 21:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did. I could find no other mention of the marriage and his children, so this was probably one of those duds press feels the need to detonate from time to time. Dahn 22:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Levy
A few bits, if so desired: (161) Valter Roman was abruptly removed as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications in December 1952; placed under house arrest; subjected to daily interrogations at the Contol Commission, where he was accused of being an enemy agent in Spain; and targeted as a likely candidate to appear in a Romanian Slansky trial. [But Stalin died...] Uncertain of his own position with the thaw in Soviet politics and suspicious of the loyalty of the party's old guard, Dej maintained an atmosphere of fear and intimidation in Romania in oder to ward off any attempts to replace him. Hence, Valter Roman was sanctioned with a "vote of censure (162) with a warning" in May 1954 for his "repeated anti-party manifestations", and he was not formally rehabilitated until 1956.

Small issues
as the political locum tenens of General Mihail Lascăr, commander of the Soviet-organized [[Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division.

as the political commissar of General Mihail Lascăr, commander of the Soviet-organized Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division.

The problem is partly generated by my first inssertion of politruk. I agree political commissar is better. Only that in the Red Army they were NOT subordinated to the military commanders, but were doubling them. You can not be a political commissar to some general, but you are the political commissar of a division or other unit. So maybe:

as the political commissar of the Soviet-organized Horia, Cloşca şi Crişan Division, commanded by General Mihail Lascăr.

This is of course detail, but for example older Russians who will read, will immediately see it.:Dc76 23:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Romanian communist activist
I removed the first reference to this in the first phrase of the article. Indeed, the information comes next, and qualifying Roman as a Romanian is a bit misleading. Let's leave it to the reader to decide. Dpotop 14:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only hope that one day you will actually read a wikipedia norm. Dahn 14:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which one do you have in mind? Because Roman was not born in Romania, did not do his studies in Romania, did not make his name (Valter Roman) in Romania, and only came to be a Romania-related public figure as a Soviet propagandist, at Moskow-based Radio "Romania libera". Dpotop 14:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dptop, I already had this discussion. He was a Romanian citizen come 1921 to 1938 or 1940 (depends on which anti-semitic legislation referred to him) and again from 1944-1945 to his death. Him studying in Brno does not imply that he was a citizen of Czechoslovakia. He was a citizen of Hungary before the age of 5 (he is unlikely to have been one again in 1940); furthermore, one does not speculate about "letting readers decide what Maniu had for a citizenship", even though Maniu was Hungarian until the age of 45! To my knowledge, Roman never held any other citizenship. He was a member of the Romanian Army and an academic in a Romanian university.


 * Your comparison with Maniu does not hold, because Maniu always assumed his Romanian ethnicity, whereas Valter Roman assumed his Communist ideology. :) BTW, I don't really like the current start of the Iuliu Maniu article. I would have said "IM was an Austria-Hungarian and Romanian politician of Romanian ethnicity." Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, ethnicity has no bearing on nationality. Furthermore, Roman was, well, nothing until the age of 5. Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As for "making his name", I think you know perfectly what I meant.


 * As a matter of fact, no. I see no source talking about the Communist Neulander of before 1940. Meaning that he was at best another Communist. He made his name in the artillery unit in Spain. Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A Romanian artillery unit (speaking of assuming nationality...). But he actually made his name as a communist in Romania. Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia conventions clearly state that the nationality (not ethnicity) is to be specified in the opening paragraph. Cease being disruptive. Dahn 14:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll try another variant. Dpotop 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Dahn 15:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you have to be such an ass, and not explain what you have in your head? I can't guess? Because my new version had nothing on ethnicity. I just left him a Romanian activist, as you wanted it. But did you read my text, at least? Dpotop 15:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dpotop, "Romanian" is a nationality. "Romanian Communist Party" is not. Quit POV-pushing. As for explaining, my version is self-explanatory. You could do without, and I recommend you do without, the personal attacks. Dahn 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanking sources
Icare, while I can live with most of your reverts, I really see no need for this, you're blanking sources. Am I missing something?--Domitius 13:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted to my version which had been labeled "vandalism" and I had not noticed the new material. The sources I willingly did erase were superfluous (did not support any controversial point). Aside from this, I feel that there is too much citation of Vladimir Tismaneanu. It looks to me as if all the Romanian history section of WP were written by this guy, who is a rather dubious source knowing the hald-line marxist-leninist stance he adopted in the first half of his life, and the huge controversy he provoked recently with his Commission. This Commission and report it issued should not be used extensively as sources before the controversy is cleared. (Icar 14:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

You deleted, consciously (as shown by the fact that you did it in three consecutive edits), all information from Levy, Cioroianu, and Tismăneanu, including a direct quote from Roman himself. In fact, you removed a source in its entirety. Your theory on Tismăneanu does not hold water: the University of Maryland, the University of Pennsylvania, the Romanian Presidency, and countless academic institutions back his credentials and expertise, but Icar does not. So is the absurdity about "too many sources", which is contrary to several wikipedia policies. This is outrageous: there is simply nothing to mediate here - this is a question of vandalism on your part, and I am frankly ashamed that you were not blocked for it. Dahn 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Guys...stop edit warring. If you want I'm willing to mediate you. Icar said it's ok, what about you Dahn? -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 14:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no cause for mediation when a vandal intervenes on a page. I find it absurd that it is even suggested. Someone comes in here and writes a new lead based on his POV (against wikipedia conventions on leads), deletes information and sources, botches text to make sources say what they do not in fact say, and I, a reliable contributor, am asked to somehow allow this to happen. It's outrageous, especially since, at this very moment, the other user is actively campaigning against me on several discussion pages. Note: much of the deleted information was actually provided by User:Biruitorul, and only edited in by me (see above). Dahn 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You describe yourself as a reliable contributor, yet you call user:Icar a vandal. I think you would need mediation, yet you should read WP:CIVIL. Will you stop calling others as "vandals"? -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 14:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to ask yourself: is removal of text and reliable sources vandalism? I describe myself as a reliable contributor because I am a reliable contributor, and I hope people have the sense not to question that. Dahn 14:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I question that, and others will question that too. See above your behaviour. -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 14:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And you actually want to mediate when entertaining such notions? I will ask you again: is this vandalism or is it not? And what I see above and on Icar's talk page is evidence that it was identified as such by other users. Dahn 14:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn, I need time to read and research. If you want I can mediate this dispute. -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 14:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I do not. This is the third time I am saying it. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel this to be yet another pointless edit war started by the inability of User:Dahn to explain his technical position with respect to edits of other users. Indeed, some of the edits of User:Icar are disputable. I feel that deleting sources is not a good policy, and my personal view is that we should only add decent sources, never delete them. However, do take a look at the edit hostory of the article, with the last 15 edits or so corresponding to the edit war. All User:Dahn does is revert, treating other users as vandals, a.s.o. No edit on the talk page. Dpotop 14:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I have felt this myself one week ago, when I have tried (and succeeded) in changing an unbalanced introduction by User:Dahn. But take a look at the edit history, and imagine how disgusting it is to fight (indeed!) a user whose sole argument is "rv" or "rv vandalism". The few talk page messages shouw that he did not understand my edits, and did not try to understand. This sort of edit practices can push another users to concentrate on warring instead of refining his arguments. Dpotop 14:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, Dahn did delete a source I added here, a source I still consider meaningful. So, Dahn, too, has a history of source deletion in spite of other editor's oppinions. Dpotop 14:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have deleted a source that was not used in the article. Per wikipedia conventions, what is not used in the text is not "a reference". I checked the source in its entirety, and it did not mention anything about Valter Roman in particular. The rest I simply will not answer to. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The quality of my contributions may have gone down lately, since I knew anyway that they were to be erased immediately with a pityful "rvv" for epitaph. I apologise to my fellow editors who do contribute in good faith.(Icar 15:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Off topic, but I reported him here -- HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 15:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can only trust wikipedians will see that people who erase information are not reliable contributors. Dahn 16:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

My view
Here is why I support Dahn's version: 1. Roman was, in terms of citizenship, Romanian. He was also a soldier.
 * He was Romanian citizen but he was not born in Romania; did not speak Romanian as first language; he was not ethnically Romanian. So saying in the lead that he was a "Romanian communist activist and soldier" is false. He was a "soldier" (fighters in the International Brigades were not really regular soldiers, were they?) but this does not define him so well like the Comintern does. Details about his military ranks still apears in my version.(Icar 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * For Chrissake, per wikipedia conventions, ethnicity does not matter in leads, and citizenship is not subject to Icar's whims. Dahn 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is one of User:Dahn's favourite pieces of nonsense: somebody like V. Roman is "Romanian" for him (Note that the name Roman was chosen by the NKVD precisely to maintain this confusion). I know by know Dahn's absurd convictions about this aspect. Biruitorul, do you agree to call "Romanian" a one-time (accidental) Romanian citizen who was not born in Romania; did not speak Romanian as first language; was not ethnically Romanian; waged war against Romania; was sent to soviet-occupied Romania as a comissar (hence he was also a Soviet citizen)? Should "Romanian communist and soldier" appear in the lead?!(Icar 11:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Manual of Style (biographies). Note that there is no dispute over whether he was a Romanian citizen, and that there is no mention of him being a citizen of any other country. Dahn 12:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We do not need permission to know he was a soviet comissar. He was SOVIET more than anything else. (Icar 12:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

2. Dahn's version mentions he was in the Comintern, right in the second sentence.
 * And in my version, it appears in the first. I find it more appropriate there. (Icar 11:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Well, per policies, wikipedia does not. Dahn 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying this show that you are touched by WP:OWN. Of course editors decide what is the most significant (and true) piece of info for the lead. In case of V Roman, it is the Comintern. The heck with "soldier"! noone cares. (Icar 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Manual of Style (biographies). Dahn 12:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

3. He was in the PCR, but he was also a politician.
 * Politician is a bad word for that period; party activist would be more appropriate but it is contained in the info about PCR official position. (Icar 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Yeah, right... Dahn 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

4. His son is still a politician, and has his own biography if readers want details.
 * The defining sentence for Petre Roman is his prime-ministership, not his current activities (I hope we all agree that his recent extra-marital affair should not be reflected in the article on his father). (Icar 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

5. Why not say exactly what he was broadcasting?
 * Indeed, why highlight Romania's links to Nazi Germany instead of USSR's (like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact?). This introduces a POV. Let the readers know that it was during the war between Romania and USSR that V. Roman chose to deliver his broadcast in romanian language as war propaganda. The context of WWII can be found in that article, no place for stalinist POV pushing here. (Icar 11:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * I have answered to this ad nauseam. I will note that this person continues to imply that I am "a Stalinist", despite knowing full well that it goes against wikipedia policies. Dahn 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Dahn pushes a strong POV which coincides with Stalin's view of world affairs. (Icar 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * WP:NPA: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse." Dahn 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting "sexual" rules is nonsense here. That's not a place to unfold one's phantasies! User Dahn happens to push a POV that Stalin also pushed (by different means). Whether he is a Stalinist, I do not care. But I note that he feels attacked for no reason. (Icar 12:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor." Dahn 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find Icar's avoidance of Dahn's arguments by producing out-of-context citations and attacking Dahn's persona inexplicable. --Illythr 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not attack anybody. I only remarked that User:Dahn has a strong POV on WWII which happens to be identical to Stalin's POV of that issue. The "context" provided by User:Dahn for V. Roman's radio Moskow propaganda is a showcase in manipulation. I do not "attack" User:Dahn. However I reserve the right for myself to criticise and correct blatantly biased contributions. Icar 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

6. Why not give details about his downfall?
 * I willingly eliminated only some vague remarks, that I found boring. See also below (Icar 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * WP:NOT. Dahn 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

7. Why eliminate details about his anti-Ceauşism? He was a bad guy, but he wasn't a complete monster either. Let's portray the positive as well as the negative.
 * I did not see that Dahn had added material, specifically the Ceausescu portion. In between "rvv" kind messages from Dahn, I simply did not notice it. It was unintentionally that I removed that part. (Icar 11:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Yet this edit indicates that you deleted it willingly. Dahn 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is indeed remarkable bad faith. (Icar 12:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * It happens to be the truth. What is your justification for the edit, Icar? Dahn 12:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for the edit is 6 lines above. You are remarkable! (Icar 12:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * So, you "found it boring" (which is not a reason in any instance), erased it, but then you did not realize that you erased it? Brilliant. If you mean to say that "it was in between my rrvs", it still does not make sense: it was the first of your three edits . I repeat: what is your explanation? Dahn 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited the balanced version of Dpotop, that Dahn had just reverted. I paid no attention to what Dahn had added. So in fact I was careless at my first edit that day. Personally, I find Dahn's addition uninteresting but that's a different matter.(Icar 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC))

Please try to address these points individually, without extraneous allegations. Biruitorul 17:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanking Biruitorul, I would also like him to specify his view on the reliability of sources used and their deletion, since this argument was brought up by a certain user. Dahn 17:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No insinuations any more. When someone's first edit is reverted, and they are sufficiently angered by this that they leave several paragraphs of invective on the reverter's talk page, it is highly unlikely that that person is suited to become a Wikipedia editor. Hard as it is, we need to leave our egos at the door, or as much of those egos as it is possible to unload. Not only can anyone edit, but anyone does edit, and reversions of good-faith edits are all part of a day's action here. -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: someone reverted sourced edits, many of which were the result of collaboration, and the sources themselves. The sources are scholarly, produced by researches with both national and international status, and all are considered seminal in their area of expertise. That is not, under any definition, "good faith". I therefore consider your comment surreal and ad hominem. Dahn 17:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see. Dimineaţa I've agreed is not reliable. Levy, Tismăneanu and Cioroianu, on the other hand, seem solid to me, and shouldn't be removed. As for questioning Tismăneanu's credentials - yes, he comes from a communist family, but that doesn't mean he can't be a reliable historian of the period. Indeed his conversations with high-ranking party members since childhood, and the milieu in which he was raised, make him, if anything, more reliable on the subject of internal party history. Should I say more, or have I given enough of an idea? Biruitorul 17:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you know that Tismăneanu was a communist propagandist before moving to the US in 1981? Have you read this for instance? How about that? and that? Icar 13:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ok, but where is the assessing the reliability of the sources used in an article allows the editor to caveat the statements made, identifying where weaknesses are present and where there may be alternative positions on a statement, with a qualitative opinion presented on the relative arguments based on the quality of sources? HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What? First of all: why are we even discussing this, when a direct quote was simply erased? Secondly: sources are to be compared if and when they disagree with each other, not deleted when they disagree with Icar. Dahn 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons should be removed immediately and should not be moved to the talk page. Jimbo's opinion:    -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 17:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Err... First of all, Valter Roman is dead. Secondly, all the information erased was based on sources (scholarly sources) and compliant with wikipedia requirements for editing. You will also note that all disputed information about Valter Roman is present in a separate section, citing what sources say (statement/reply, statement/reply). Dahn 17:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dahn asked my opinion here. I don't have any independent knowledge of Roman, and I'd rather not wade too deeply into this but:
 * 1) Above all, I trust Biruitorul's ability to be neutral in matters like this, and suggest strongly that, after discussion, people trust him to decide how the disputed passages should read.
 * 2) What Icar did was at least bad process. Changing aparently well-sourced material without first either discussing (and getting some sort of consensus about) problems with the sources is rarely a good way to go. It can sometimes be OK (like if you are genuinely expert and can tell that sources have been mishandled), but if you are reverted in doing so, it's time for a discussion, not an edit war and certainl not an accusation that someone who merely restores the previous state of the article is a vandal.
 * 3) My last remark is just about process: it has no bearing on who is ultimately correct on the facts about Roman or on what is citable. I would suggest that if Icar thinks Dahn's sources have this wrong, he should be bringing his own sources to the table. If he believes that Dahn's sources have are being misquoted or otherwise misinterpreted, he should be concrete about the issues. I might add, I'd be surprised if this last is the case. I've seen Dahn sometimes be missing part of the picture and be a little too sure of himself; I can't remember ever seeing him be dishonest.
 * I provide you with the example of his calling Valter Roman "Romanian" in the lead. In disputable case like this one, it is basic wisdom to ponder the facts. Roman (like Gheorghe Pintilie) was foremost a Soviet agent. Even the name he took (Roman) at the request of the NKVD proves clearly the intention of surreptitiously assuming a Romanian identity in occupied Romania. He was no political refugee or immigrant willing to blend in the local society; no, he was a occupation agent, directly co-responsible for the mass killings in the country he fought against, in which after the occupation he was a representative of the occupying forces. Let me give an example: if Che Guevarra had managed to spread revolution to the US and had been appointed (by Fidel Castro) US citizen and director of the CIA, would you call him "US American"? I guess that sadly, some of the people here would. Icar 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Conversely: Dahn, after Icar reverted a second time, even though he was out of line, it was probably time to bring in a third party and/or discuss on the talk page rather than have an edit war. There is nothing so disastrous about an article sitting for a day or two in a bad state. Given the lack of clear consensus, you can slap an tag, or something similar and more appropriate, on the article and discuss rather than fighting.
 * 2) To all concerned, but especially Icar: Your personal disagreement with the politics of a source does not make it a bad source. It may be useful to clarify the nature of the source, or to counter with a source that disagrees, but in general the issue about sources is whether they are intellectually honest, not whether they are, for example, centrist (centrism is a point of view, too).
 * Jmabel, what is your view on the fact that right now, mostly through User:Dahn's editing, many articles on Romania have tens of citations from Tismaneanu? Does this sound reasonable to you? This author has had a spectacular change of career from a communist propagandist to a US scholar when he was 31, and is currently strongly contested in the Romanian media. But even if it were not so, one must choose references more diversely. The current situation amount to a re-writing of history according to the view of a former communist propapagandist (User:Dahn is in denial about this fact, which he minimalizes). The guy is not even a historian... Your view is appreciated. Icar 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice input, me, for example, I tried to explain something to Dahn here -- HIZKIAH (User &#149; Talk) 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dahn has asked me to check out the situation here and so I did. Here's my two cents:
 * 1) This edit by Icar basically reverted Dahn's edits with a few minor changes. As Dahn's edits were sourced, such a revert without any comments at all looks disruptive.
 * It happended in the context of a edit war, started by User:Dahn on all articles where I contribute (he admitted watching my page). Icar 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) This edit by Icar actually introduces POV instead of removing it, by eliminating some specific details. Bad stuff.
 * This edit removes a huge POV introduced by Dahn's comment. His unstated goal is to whitewash Valter Roman. The bare fact is that Roman was a propagandist a Radio Moskow, in Romanian language, while Romania and USSR were at war. Now comes Dahn sticking words like Nazi near Romania to suggest that Romania was bad and so to justify Valter Roman's actions. It would be more meningful to stress instead the Soviet ultimatum to Romania and the Molotov-Ribbetrop pact between Nazi Germany and Stalin's URSS as true explanation of the war. But this belongs to another article. Illythr, do you agree that my edit removes a POV? (Icar 11:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * By eliminating the specific details on the guy's activities you had created a dangerous generalization, reminiscent of the Soviet era, where any criticism of the Soviet government was immediately branded a "crime against the State" with all the unpleasant implications. If you feel that this is indeed whitewashing, add more sourced details instead. --Illythr 13:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not remove specific details about the guy's activity, but some intentionally misleading details on WWII. Icar 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope everyone here sees what sort of fantasy is involved in such allegations. Never mind the straw man, but this person actually thinks that wikipedia ill condone his removal of context because it is "too much context", and will pretend that simply providing context is "whitewashing". The very core of Icar's "argument" is a manifest fallacy, and this person simply does not understand that saying who did what when is not justifying that x and y are "justified" - it is a matter of common sense, especially since, for example, that radio did not even exist back in the day the Iron Guard was in power and that the Comintern was disestablished in 1943 (I wonder if Icar has ever heard of this stuff or he's just winging it). Aside from it not being relevant here, to say that the Pact was "a reason for the war" is also an absolute fallacy - post hoc ergo propter hoc; it would mean that Romania knew back in 1940 that Germany was going to attack the USSR, and sided with one of the two signers. If this is the level of awareness required in a discussion with Icar, I have no reason to pay attention.
 * To say that it is "whitewashing" to provide context on what propaganda was used for is in itself a fiction: in order to get to that perspective, one would have to agree not, as Icar implies, "that Nazism is bad", but also that "Communism is good, the Comintern was good, those particular communists were good, and propaganda is good". There was no indication of that assesment in the text, and speculating as to supposed reasons why one should be specific about such thing will not make it be in the text.
 * As Illythr was kind enough to note below, all this "explanation" is absurd, since Icar cannot possibly justify why he has erased both references and text. By now, several editors have provided their rationales several times, all of them backing a more complete version for the common sense reasons. If your only tactics are to repeat the same stuff and accuse me of the same imaginary guilts, if genuinely annoying as all trolling is, will not in any way add to that. Dahn 11:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Quoting from Dahn: "radio did not even exist back in the day the Iron Guard was in power". This is ridiculous nonsense. (Icar 12:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * You continue to embarass yourself, Icar. What I have said is the radio (that particular radio). Dahn 12:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Such fallacies deserve no comment. (Icar 12:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC))


 * 1) Icar's explanation of his deletion of Dahn'd edits above makes no sense, as sources are there to reference ANY information that is present in the text, not just the controversial parts.
 * 2) Users Dahn and DPotop had proven to be reasonable and responsive in the past and I see their conflict here as a misunderstanding.
 * 3) The attitude of user:HIZKIAH towards Dahn (that of an unprofessional psychiatrist to an obvious loon), , ,  looks rather inexplicable and highly provocative to me. --Illythr 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My conflict with User:Dahn is unfortunately systematic, occurring on practically all articles where we edited together. My basic problem is that once User:Dahn feels my edits are not *perfectly* in line with his POV, he reverts entire posts wholesale. Take a look at the recent history of this article, one of the few places where User:Dahn conceded to a change in a paragraph. You will see the sequence of reverts to my edits. In the end, I complained in a few places, I probably got Dahn's attention, and he *only* copyedited my version (which I still believe was not necessary). For an article where he forcibly imposed his POV, see the List of Romanian Communists, which includes persons according to whether he/she had "communists convictions"... Thought crime, if I ever saw one. Dpotop 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The edit style is arrogant and patronizing, which I resent. Dpotop 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe the clearest characterization of Dahn's behavior is given by WP:OWN. Dpotop 19:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I don't seek immediate punishment or something. Just that the same rules are applied to him, so that blocks for 3RR are not overturned almost immediately, and that admins have to justify actions against him just as for any of us. Dpotop 19:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

RfC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Dahn here -- HIZKIAH (User • Talk) 19:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I filed a complaint about User:Dahn's behavior here. Icar 10:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Please give some input on my complaint. Icar 12:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Sources: 19 citations of Tismaneanu is unacceptable
User:Dahn is serving us a distilled portion of Vladimir Tismăneanu each morning. His contributions across the romanian history section of WP are only a compilation, albeit reamrkably extensive, of Tismaneanu's works. But quoting 19 times this former propagandist of the (Communist) Central Committee in one article is exaggerated. Can someone remind him that WP is not a scholarly tribune where Tismaneanu can re-edit his books? I propose that quoting Tismaneanu more than twice in a given article (outside his own and his father's) should be forbidden. (Icar 12:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * Am I even supposed to answer to this? Dahn 12:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. The report is a disputed document. Given that Daizus discovered that the report uses large portions of a previous book by Tismaneanu, it would be better to cite this book directly. Dpotop 12:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, they are both distinct documents, no matter how many alleged or actual similarities. On the other hand, if citations were from the report and not the book, it is quite clear that they are not to be found in the book (I have read both in this instance, and they are not identical AFAICR). Furthermore, Icar is using this flag-waving to hide that the fact that he deleted references from a third source (Levy) and a fourth source (Cioroianu). Last but not least, there is nothing wrong in having several sources for the same fact (just as there is nothing wrong in the report using texts from the book). Enough with the charades. Dahn 12:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

So the report is a plagiarism. Great! How about the fact that it is not printed on paper and that it did change on the internet at least in one instance? Aside from this dubious report, I feel that we should see less of Tismaneanu in the Romanian history articles. Do you agree? As for the accusations of removing sources, they were treated above. I simply edited a version written in good faith. (Icar 12:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC))
 * You must have no understanding of what plagiarism is, Icar. Dahn 13:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Request
editprotected Could an admin please replace inclusion in the Category:Romanian military leaders with the more specific two categories Category:Romanian generals and Category:Romanian Land Forces officers? Thanks in advance. Dahn 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going to unprotect the page, so you will be able to edit it yourself. CMummert · talk 01:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is unacceptable propaganda
Calling "Romanian" a foreign agent with no allegiance to Romania is repulsive. Icar 11:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Catiline. Dahn 14:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Romanian"
I took a look at Napoleon Bonaparte, which I see as a similar case. The guy was a "general during the French revolution", a.s.o., but there is no claim in the lead concerning his citizenship. Dpotop 12:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that would be because he was an Emperor of France, as specified just below, per wikipedia conventions on royalty, and making his nationality redundant. Since Roman was not an Emperor of Romania, this point is exceptionally contrived. Furthermore, the "it works elsewhere" argument has its obvious limitations (I could hand you a dozen articles that are nowhere near wikipedia standards on whatever issue, but that would not make them the standard). Dahn 12:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Absurd. He was activist in Romania, USSR, etc, as mentioned below. Dpotop 13:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. Your "analogy" doesn't work, which makes this last outburst of yours a non sequitur. 2. You have been presented with the conventions in use, and your POV is irrelevant here. 3. His only citizenship was Romanian, regardless of where else he was active ("in" and "where" have no bearing on citizenship), which makes your version an omission of truth. I suggest you respond with some semblance of logic instead of reacting from the gut of your POV. Dahn 14:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Valter Roman was born an Austrian-Hungarian citizen, so your statement is not exact. Of course, this is a technicality. However, I feel comfortable in using it, given that you refuse to acknowledge him being a Jew on "citizenship" grounds. Dpotop 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, OK, you don't call him a Jew, but then don't call him a Romanian. He was a citizen of the world, a revolutionary, period. Dpotop 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Beware of 3RR. Dpotop 16:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So was Maniu.
 * As I have said, your POV is not relevant (even if you add "period" at the end of it). There is a clear guideline, which I have cited ad nauseam by now, about no ethnicity in leads, unless it is particularly relevant to the subject (i.e.: if he was an activist for Jewish causes, a Holocaust victim, if he lived in the Middle Ages - stuff like that). Therefore, your version is in breach of Manual of Style (biographies), whereas the Spinoza article (which you cite in your edit summary) probably isn't.
 * Most sources mention and give importance to his Jewish background, so it probably is important. Dpotop 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: it is mentioned, with or without your "foray" into "the majority of sources". Dahn 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In consequence of the above, the notion that I would "refuse to acknowledge him being a Jew" is spurious and irrelevant. The convention clarifies the place of citizenship (always in the lead) and that of ethnicity (almost never in the lead). His ethnicity is detailed in several ways at its proper place in the text. As you may see, this is not a bargain you and me are striking, it is upholding a standard that you have never bothered enforcing. Dahn 13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Upholding a standard or a law is not exact science, it is always a negociation, as any lawyer will tell you. Dpotop 14:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, as long as the standard exists and is already applied, there is nothing to negotiate. Most of all, one doesn't have to negotiate how Dpotop would like to bend the standard to suit his POV on "citizens of the world". Dahn 14:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

According to Trotzkist propaganda, "Roman" (Mr. Neulander) was Romanian. According to the truth, he was not. Out with "Romanian", full speed ahead! Icar 17:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the type of demented argument I am not in the least considering answering to. And, for the goddamn fourteen time, we are talking citizenships here. Now shoo with your repeated trolling. Dahn 17:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One editor keeps spreading profanity and pushing ridiculous propaganda. Talk about trolling when you look in the mirror. Your diversions will not be tolerated. Icar 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. And you (Icar) keep composing diatribes and push your extremist POV that serves no purpose. Instead of choosing limited, decent goals and actually achieving them, you keep trying to impose a Vadim-like discourse on wikipedia (which is fortunately impossible). Dpotop 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Should you have tried to simply impose the Jewish origin in the lead section, we could well have done it. But no, you had to modify half the article. Dpotop 18:09, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to restore a little common sense, which for me is not calling a foreign agent "Romanian". That's all, I will just oppose naming him "Romanian". I did not modify half the article, just the lead. And thanks for the Vadim "compliment"... Icar 18:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's no compliment. While a talented polemist, Vadim is a guy that achieved nothing as a politician. He simply managed to structure an electorate for the likes of Becali and Basescu. He should have kept to his tabloid. Dpotop 18:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I interupt some enjoyable edit warring. Just hear me once, and ignore if you wish. How about this:

Valter or Walter Roman (born Ernst or Ernő Neuländer; October 9, 1913—November 11, 1983) was a Comintern cadre and a Romanian communist activist and soldier. During his lifetime, Roman was active inside the Romanian Communist Party (PCR), the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, the French Communist Party, and the Communist Party of Spain.[1] He started his military career as a volunteer in the International Brigades during the Spanish Civil War, and rose to prominence in Communist Romania, as a high-level politician and military official.

Valter Roman was of Jewish origin. Valter was the father of Petre Roman, a post-1989 politician in Romania.


 * About previous edits. Be serious, who writes "a solder of Jewish origin"? His activity as a solder had zero to do with him being of Jewish origin. You really want to introduce he was a Jew? Put it as a separate sentence. Why is it so difficult to see an obvious solution?
 * You want Comintern before Romanian - fine, here you are, look at my suggestion. However, after his arrival in Romania, he became Romanian citizen and was even a Romanian official. In that sense he was absolutely Romanian. I don't see it being written ethnically Romanian. Especially if you introduce the sentence about his Jewish origin. But keep in mind, there is no implication, in neither direction, between "Jewish" and "solder and Comintern". Not even half of comintern were Jews, and not even 1% of Jews were comintern. So don't suggest strange associations.
 * I finshed what I had to say. Ignore this if you want.:Dc76 20:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's fine with me, if you have Dahn accept it. :) Dpotop 22:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

His Jewish origin, which, may I add, he did not ever emphasize in any way (see the quote in the text), is not a topic for leads. It is mentioned in the first lines of the body of text, as it should be. Like Koestler and others, he was a low-ranking Comintern activist for a brief moment in his life, without having any citizenship other than Romanian (and, no, "Comintern" is not a citizenship - I see Dc76 himself is making much the same point). Note that the lead already lists him as a Comintern activist (which, btw, was a direct consequence of him being a member of the PCdR), without confusing it with a nationality, and without creatively interpreting guidelines. Dahn 12:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Dpotop's arguments, in compact form
I am still looking for what Dahn calls "style rules", and I still believe they, if they exist, do not impose what Dahn says. For instance: Given this, my proposal was to simply strip the article Valter Roman of nationality/ethnicity information, and let the reader decide by itself what the guy was while reading the article. :) It is his presentation as solely a Romanian that bothers me, because it's misleading (and, again, not imposed by any Wikipedia rule). Dpotop 09:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In Pal Teleki, Ferenc Szalasi, Gyula Gombos, Miklos Horthy there is no nationality/ethnicity in the lead. This can come later, which is perfectly OK.
 * Funny enough, Bela Kun mentions a Hungarian nationality. BTW, Dahn worked on that article.
 * OTOH, Istvan Bethlen is given as Hungarian, and this is of course not a nationality, but an ethnicity (he lived more time in Austria-Hungary than in Hungary). Similarly, Iuliu Maniu is Romanian, which is not exact following Dahn's rule of "nationality". The guy was an Austria-Hungary subject and politician for a long time before being a Romanian national.
 * Actually, it is imposed by a wikipedia rule, and I am not responsible for how this rule was not applied in n other articles. And, as you could and should have read for yourself, this is not my rule. Dahn 12:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you, please, point me to this rule in a Wikipedia policy page? Something that requires editors to place nationality in the lead section? Dpotop 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I am not against mentioning his nationality in the article. I am simply against doing it, alone, in the lead, and in the absence of all other info. Given that many wikipedians often read only the lead of certain articles, this is misleading.
 * You can also try to read the reply of Dc78 on my talk page. I tend to agree with him. Dpotop 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Manual of Style (biographies) (note that this is the second time I am referencing it) - it answers both 1) and 2). To the other solution, I have answered just above why I do not consider it correct. And, let me add, the only reason why this is discussed is that you, Dpotop, want your POV to be introduced in the article, which I find illegitimate to this process. You rely on what "bothers you", what you think "wikipedians do", and other such subjective notions. You have continued to change the issue ever which way, all because you want to obscure a simple fact. And, no, we do not "let the reader decide" what the citizenship of a person was, since citizenship is always a fact. Dahn 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wait, this should be simple. Was he first a member of PCR and through it in Comintern, or vice-versa? :Dc76 13:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * According to his autobiography, he went to Spain as a Romanian communist; this is confirmed by several other sources. And, let me add: parties, not persons, were "members" of the Comintern; the Comintern had activists, all of whom were members of one member party or another. In his case, it was the PCdR - that is why he was employed by the Romanian-language radio station. Dahn 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And how about "a politician in Communist Romania" or smth simmilar instead of adjectivizing? :Dc76 14:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: his nationality was Romanian, ever since 1921. I do not know why we are discussing alternatives, since he was clearly a Romanian citizen (both by right of birth and effectively, ever since 1921). In other words, his status as a Romanian communist official is independent in respect to his actual citizenship, which he did not gain from Communist Romania, and which did not require him to pass a loyalty exam or anything like that. Even if he were to have gained his citizenship from x regime, the nationality is not the regime (Communist Romania was not a different country, but a different regime).
 * I must stress again that I see no reason for discussing such obvious issues, other than that a user feels uncomfortable about the fact of the matter. Dahn 14:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I read the guidelines. I will accept your argument based on them for now. However, you probably see that the rule is broken. For instance, the two examples they give are both mentioning an ethnicity, not a nationality. :) Dpotop 14:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did he gave up his citizenship when he was not in Romania in 1930s-1940s? If he did, that might add some controversy. If not, finita la comedia (IMO). Dahn, I understand your arguments. But since "Romanian" can be an ethnicity as well, maybe it makes sense just to reorder something to make sure noone reads it "ethnically". Ok, my pesonal understanding is that he was 1) a Romanian communist, 2) a Comintern cadre (cadre, not member, just as you used it) 3) an official in the Commurnist Romania 4) ethnically Jew 5) whatever else he was 6) "os de ardelean" :-) . If I am a reader, and I see "Romanian communist", and several words/sentences/paragraphs (not pages) appart "ethnically not Romanian", this clarifies 100% for every intelligent reader. If both of you agree that he was 1)-5), please make an edit that in your oppinion best reflects that and your understanding of WP "rules". We can ask then someone like Biruitorul,Lasztochka,etc to read the two intros a little more than intros and tell which he/she think better reflect 1)-5). If current edit is ok with you, just say so. (I personally don't want to edit the article, I might mess up because i simply don't know enough, so there will be no version of mine) :Dc76 15:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * To my eyes, the current lead is the best and most compliant with guidelines. I should add that the concern about citizenship sounding the same as ethnicity is incorrect: if they are homonyms, they are homonyms in every case, but this is sorted out by the fact that the link is to Romanian, not to Romanian (as a rule, this is what links look like). As I have said, he did not give up his citizenship at any point in his life - it is possible that it was withdrawn from him by either the antisemitic legislation of the early 1940s (although similar cases show that even that legislation was chaotic); in any case, since wikipedia is not itself a tool for promoting antisemitism, this should not add to the matter. Furthermore, if the abusive measure ever regarded him at all (and we have no means to verify it), he would still have been a national (i.e.: subject to Romanian legislation).
 * The lead currently says things as they were, and whoever wants to draw his conclusion may do so from that text. Projections and conjectures regarding Roman's loyalty or the supposed implications of his activities have no connection to properly writing an article, nor to the use of terms as they apply.
 * There is also a secondary matter regarding his ethnicity: as you may see, Roman never placed an emphasis on it, and was never defined by it. Both he and his son stressed that they came from a multicultural background, so the issue of them being Jewish has minuscule relevancy outside of POV-pushing. Dahn 16:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

MoS:BIO
One user is pushing unacceptable propaganda by calling the USSR agents in occupied Romania "Romanians" just because they held some position in the puppet regime imposed by the USSR after WWII. One "argument" repeated ad nauseam is the WP guideline page MoS:BIO. Now those guidelines specifically mention that "Adherence to the guidelines is not required; however, usage of these guidelines is recommended". Here are two recommendations:
 * "Nationality: In the normal case this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable. Ethnicity should generally not be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability."

In the case of NKVD agents who at some point took a Romanian-sounding name to make the Soviet occupation more palatable (less abject) to the Romanian populace, we clearly should emphasize their true background as thoroughly as possible. These are not normal cases! No comparison with Maniu here, since Maniu was no foreign agent, did not change his name etc.


 * "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the birth name should usually appear first in the article, followed closely by the pseudonym. Follow this practice even if the article itself is titled with the pseudonym."

I hope this is clear enough for Trozkysts of any denomination (somebody said that they are smart guys...). So the article will start with Luka Laszlo (known in Romania after 1944 as Vasile Luca)

This being said, all the articles in a similar position should be changed according to the recommended style. Icar 13:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I asked Dmcdevit to block Dahn. Bogie down. --195.187.251.106 14:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bye, Bonaparte. Dahn 07:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

How it is

 * 1) He was a Romanian citizen
 * 2) He was a member of the PCR (thus a Romanian Communist)
 * 3) He lived in Romania

I'm not particularly interested in ideas of 'race' or 'purity of ethnicity', so there is no need to argue that. But there is no problem with saying "Romanian Communist". Perhaps if you wished to hang tough on the more sanguine aspects, you might complain if it was "Romanian Communist", but it isn't. It clearly links to the country, therefore citizenship, not to the ethnic group (ethnicity). - Francis Tyers · 16:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Your arguments are not relevant, because:
 * He was also a Czechoslovakian, French, Spanish, a.s.o. communist.
 * He also lived for significant periods in other countries, including the USSR.
 * The real relevant thing is the recent source Dahn presented on your talk page. It appears that Valter Roman explicitly mentioned his attachment to Romania (as a state). Meaning that he did not take the matter lightly, as he did with ethnicity. Now, this is relevant when writing a meaningful article, with substance, not just form. Dpotop 17:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dptop, don't obscure the facts. His only citizenship was Romanian, no matter where he lived, and his membership of other parties is not in any way relevant to his citizenship, as you well know. Also, if you want to compare stuff for the sake of comparing: he was a member of several parties, but he was not a general in several armies, and he was not an academic in several countries. We have been through all of this, and you, like AdrianTM, change the paradigm whenever your arguments are proven spurious. At the moment, AdrianTM claims that Roman has had "n" citizenships as a basis for pushing your version, when he knows this not to have been true. You yourself keep claiming ad nauseam that users will be confounding two notions, when several editors have indicated that you were wrong, and when separation of homonyms through different internal links is one of the basic uses wikipedia has. Furthermore, whether Roman did or not value his citizenship was not a criterion in him having it, so all this senseless. Dahn 18:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source saying explicitly that he had no other citizenship? Dpotop 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, my claim was not that he had many other citizenships, but rather that citizenship was irrelevant to him as a true citizen of the Communist world. Dpotop 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Third: Why on Earth don't you give here the proper citation from his Memoirs so that we're over with this stupid discussion? Dpotop 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The first question is a manifest fallacy: we have sources tracing his entire life, explicitly saying that he had Romanian citizenship, and not mentioning any other citizenship. The very source that was cited for membership of other parties mentions this without mentioning if/that he had other citizenship, which is relevant in itself. What you need to produce is a source explicitly saying that he had other citizenships. Good luck with that.
 * When you talk about a fallacy, I can understand why people needed so much time to understand intuitionism, and the fact that there's a difference between statement X being false and statement X not yet being proved true. Dpotop 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Now, I think you should go and add that Tudor Vladimirescu was Hawaiian, because there is nothing in any sources explicitly stating that he wasn't. Dahn 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your POV on "true citizens of the Communist world", and this text does not guide itself by personal opinions.
 * I think I have told you several times why, with or without the Memoirs, the point still stands. If you missed it before, I'll write it down again: it is not relevant how much emphasis he placed on his citizenship, it is relevant that he had it. Dahn 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your POV and rigid interpretation of the rules. Take a look at Albert Einstein to see how rules are adapted to the real situation. What would you write there instead of the existing lead? Dpotop 20:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And here we go again with this monotonous "look what they do over there". I could tell you what I would do over there, but this is irrelevant to this article. And, may add, again, that Einstein did not have just one citizenship? Dahn 20:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Einstein is actually a great example, nowhere in the introduction it says "was a German scientist" or "was an American scientist" -- AdrianTM 20:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, just because someone, for some reasons, has slacked in applying guidelines, doesn't mean you have a point. Furthermore, the current state of an article is not, as pointed in numerous replies you could have read for yourself, an indication of anything in particular (if I go and add citizenships there, would the "example" still stand? nay, you'll find another article "where they don't do it"). Furthermore, apples and oranges don't mix, since Valter Roman did not have multiple citizenships, whereas Einstein did (presumably, that is why they say "German-born", because they do say something; as for them not saying "American", aside from being negligent or goodness knows what other reason, it may be a symptom of American users thinking that "wikipedia in English" means "American wikipedia", so everyone is American unless otherwise stated); when one can and should clarify citizenship, all this "matter" subsides, because it belongs to a POV not to say it. Just to clarify this, in case someone still mistakes sophistry for logic. We've been through this already, and if you and your friends wouldn't have a POV to push about how some Romanian citizens are more foreign than others, this discussion would have died of natural causes. Dahn 20:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But Einstein was not an "American scientist". If I follow your reasoning, he was a "Swiss scientist", because he became prominent while being Swiss. :) Good thing the editors of Albert Einstein had the decency not to stupidly obey rules. Like all rules, including laws, Wikipedia rules are made for the people to interpret them. The goal not being to respect rules, but to make decent articles. Dpotop 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, don't get me started on what your notion of "decent articles" is. As for the rest, I have no reason replying to some parallel logic. And what should be obvious to you by know is that Roman was not Romanian because he was "prominent as a Romanian" (even if he was), but because he was a Romanian citizen and not a citizen of any other country (so much for you claiming to "follow my reasoning"). That is, of course, provided one would even begin considering the absurdity of replacing norms with "hey, look, they don't do it in that article". You may celebrate negligence for as long as you want, but do not hide your POV behind it, and do not bring down the informative quality of pages because other pages are not up to standards. And, please, when you consider replying to a post, do not reply to selected arguments from it, but to the issue as I presented it, because we are not playing hide-and-seek over here. I hope I make myself clear. Dahn 21:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(I'm indenting). Now, Dahn, you put the finger on the problem. For Tudor Vladimirescu, you find countless sourcess calling him a Romanian patriot, a.s.o. The first link with Google was this one. Now, you go searching for "Valter Roman Romanian", and all you will find is Wikipedia (i.e., your production). Nobody, except you, labels Valter Roman as Romanian. Or, at least, I haven't been able to find such a quote. Can you? Dpotop 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

So, beat off with your self-righteous following of "rules". You are making OR, something that can be found nowhere else, and which spreads disinformation on the Internet. Dpotop 06:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The 1978 Encyclopedic Dictionary (p.1635) calls him a Romanian publicist. The Open society Archives describe him as a "Romanian official". No source you ever presented indicates that he did not have Romanian citizenship or that he had any other citizenship. This you can find synthetically outlined in Francis' fine comment above.
 * Furthermore, go and read again what I posted (as opposed to what you think I posted) on the Vladimirescu issue: whatever a source indicates about him, it fails to indicate that he was not also Hawaiian.
 * The repetitive accusation about "disinformation" presumes thus that I would introduce "untrue statements", when none of the statements you cited is untrue; as opposed to every single statement you made over here in the past weeks/months (that he did not have Romanian citizenship, that he had multiple citizenships, that one is required to verify what you consider to be loyal behavior when assessing one's citizenship, that users are unable to tell the difference between Romania and Romanians). The OR path is pursued by you and your two friends, who have made a mockery of wikipedia's reliability. Dahn 10:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

How it is - Answer== ==

Not only Romanian! He was born a Austrian-Hungarian citizen (1913). He was a Soviet citizen too, for a long time, it is not clear if he ever got back the Romanian citizenship.
 * 1) He was a Romanian citizen
 * Do you have proof of his Soviet citizenship? I don't. Dpotop 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * His bio shows he was a Soviet citizen: he worked as a Soviet comissar. Do you think soviet comissars were not Soviet citizens? Also, Soviet citizenship was exclusive of other citizenships, which means that he had to give up his Romanian citizenship no later than 1938. This is when he took the pseudonym we use here as "name". Do you have proof that he retrieved his Romaina citizenship after 1944? Icar 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, a half-processed argument. He was a commissar of the Romanian unit in the Soviet army - it is simply nonsensical to presume that staff of that unit was required to have Soviet citizenship. As already stated, if the antisemitic legislation applied in Romania, Roman was probably discarded (abusively) of his citizenship ca. 1938 - while still being a national, as were all Jews in Romania; as you may read in the Final Report, he was classified as a "Romanian emigrant" while in Moscow. He did not have to gain back his citizenship, since that was simply awarded sometime after August 23, 1944 (an abusive law simply overturned). Not only that, but, by order of Nicolae Ceauşescu, the time of combat in the International Brigades was assimilated with that many years of service in the Romanian Army (info also taken from Sub cerul Spaniei, where Roman also quotes the law saying that, in order for it to apply, one had to have Romanian citizenship at both the time he was in Spain and the time the law was passed). In addition, in order to state that Roman was not a Romanian citizen, it is Icar who should present proof that he was not, not I or anybody that he was (which, nontheless, I have). Also note that Icar makes a spurious claim about commissars of the Horia, Cloşca and Crişan unit "needing to be Soviet", but fails to note the obvious fact that Romanian Army generals had to be Romanian citizens. Dahn 11:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Dahn has presented sources which show he had Romanian citizenship. He may have had Austro-Hungarian citizenship, but that lapsed after Austro-Hungarian Empire ended. He was born in present-day Romania and died a Romanian. You have presented no sources (let alone reliable sources) which suggest that he ever had Soviet citizenship. - Francis Tyers · 10:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How about not wasting people's time in articles where you have no inkling about what's going on? Icar 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

... and of many other communist parties! No need to stress so much the romanian party. The romanian party was illegal at the time and it was considered a terrorist group; membership to such a URSS-sponsored group does not make "Roman" Romanian. He was never a Romanian Communist; maybe you mean "a member of the Party of the Communists from Romania".
 * 1) He was a member of the PCR (thus a Romanian Communist)
 * Wikipedia biography rules reject ethnic denominations. Then, go to point 1. Dpotop 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * PCR = Partidul Comunist Român = Romanian Communist Party. Members of this Party are Romanian Communists. Just as members of a Communist Party are Communists. Members of the French Communist Party are French Communists... etc. The English translation of "Partidul Comunist Român" is not "Party of the Communists from Romania", that would be in Romanian "Partidul Comuniştilor din România" (please correct me if I am wrong). - Francis Tyers · 10:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What you claim is nonsense, sorry to say it; the PCR was just a Comintern section, called "The Party of Communists from Romania". Icar 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

... and also in Spain, USSR, Czechoslovakia and France. Do not put undue stress on Romania.
 * 1) He lived in Romania
 * Now, this is disputable. What I suggest is to accept stress on Romania based on the sources Dahn has and where Roman himself assumes this citizenship. Dpotop 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There is already much stress on Romania in this article. I propose to look at it from a less Romania-centric viewpoint. Objectively, he was above all a successful Soviet agent. His role as a Soviet employee demanded that he call himself "Roman", that's just a disguise. Now we are not going to pick up Soviet propaganda for the Soviet agents!Icar 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Most of all, Neulander was a Soviet agent and comissar, ennemy of Romania, agent of occupation, whose mission was to establish communist rule in occupied Romania. Now stop spreading the anti-Romanian propaganda. Icar 10:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In case anyone expects me to answer to this individual, I already have, several times, in sections above. Not only is this a statement of a POV, but virtually all of what is presumes is either unfounded or just plain manipulation. Dahn 10:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Roman/Neulander was all that you say. Still, you must know that there were many ethnic Romanians that did similar things. Some out of opportunism, but some out of belief. They believed they were building a brave new world. Dpotop 10:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Examples please?Icar 11:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Icar, don't take it bad. I'm simply trying to build a consensus here. Dahn is right on some points, and if you apply wikipedia rules blindly he is right, period. My note is that we should not apply the rules blindly, and do not create information (even though it's by Wikipedia rules) in such disputed cases. Let the reader decide. Dpotop 10:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, User:Dahn is not right. Please check the articles on Stalin and Lenin to see how they treat the real name of the persons. Check Che Guevara for treatment of trans-national activists's nationality in the lead. And do not fall prey to these manipulators with stated Trozkist or communist bias. Icar

Possible compromise
How about linking like this: Romanian communist ? - Francis Tyers · 10:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't ideal, but shows willingness to compromise. - Francis Tyers · 11:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, if it comes to that, I'd rather have the "from Romania" version Dpotop and his associate were pushing earlier. He was a national of a country, not an appendage of a party. But I must stress that the only reason why this discussion is being held is because some users want to stress how some Romanians are more foreign than others. See the type of argument just below. Dahn 11:08, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I do not have "associates", a thing I cannot say of you (cf. Francis Tyers, and before that Khoikhoi). Now, we are still having this discussion because you insisted on having an ideological victory. I already told you I consider the "Romanian" variant OK as soon as you include the sources where the guy places some weight on his citizenship. Dpotop 12:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As for "some people are less Romanian than others". We are here to write what the guy was notable for according to existing reputable sources. For my part, I had never found a source labelling Valter Roman as "Romanian something". I presumed that he did not consider nationality important (just like he did not consider ethnicity important). Now, Dahn, you gave sources, don't try to convert you to your ideology (yes, even the declared lack of ideology is an ideology by itself). Dpotop 12:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Above, I gave two sources describing him as a "Romanian something". Furthermore, as long as a source mentions that he was a Romanian general, as noted, this implies that he was also a citizen (perhaps, just perhaps, all sources do not use dictionaries as templates, for them to have to introduce Roman). Also note that the purely descriptive and encyclopedic material on Roman is remarkably scarce (he is the object of primary or secondary sources more than of tertiary ones), while many Romanian sources presumably simply feel they don't need to state that he was Romanian (I wouldn't picture a newspaper or magazine article having to clarify this aspect, as opposed to an encyclopedia, and most of all to a non-Romanian encyclopedia).
 * Whether sources do describe him as a "Romanian something" (and they do) is ultimately irrelevant, since sources do not need to do so for him to have been a Romanian; this aspect is clarified by the fact that he had a Romanian citizenship, as attested. You repeating the same sophistry over and over again is not going to change this. Dahn 15:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * In the US, a foreign-born citizen cannot become president. Are some Americans more foreign than others? Presumably so. Now how about a foreign-born individual which relinquishes his country's citizenship to become a citizen of a country technically at war with his, to enroll in hostile activities, and to eventually return as a leading occupation agent? Is such an individual "more foreign than others"? I think so. Remember that communism was illegal in Romania before the 1944 Soviet occupation and it was officially condemned in 2006. [[User:

Icar|Icar]] 11:28, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, wikipedia was not created for you to vent your personal theories. Dahn 11:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Check the articles on Stalin, Lenin and Che Guevara to see what wikipedia was created for. Icar 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn, that's a personal attack, not a logical argument, please keep it civil. -- AdrianTM 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be accurate to write "member of the Romanian Communist Party and of several other communist parties". However he was notable for being a Comintern activist and Soviet comissar more than for being a PCR member. Now "Romanian communist" sounds like "Romanian", which is misleading. Why do you insist on Romanianizing this person? Icar 11:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, in case the person had more citizenships and different nationality than the country of birth I think is not productive to bring in front one of his/her citizenships, nobody calls Einstein "the German scientist" not even "the American scientist" on Wikipedia exactly because things are a little more complicated, also the example with Stalin, Lenin and Che Guevara are highly relevant because it's about the same type of persons: different nationalities/citizenships, use of different names, etc -- very similar situations.  -- AdrianTM 12:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what arguments you are following, but allow me to point out, yet again, that Valter Roman did not have multiple citizenships, so all your paragraph above is bogus. Every once in a while, you come back with the same speculation, just because you assume people do not have the patience to scroll up. If being tiresome is what you are aiming for, you have succeeded. Dahn 12:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * about the name issue, see Yaser_Arafat too. -- AdrianTM 12:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, is Valter Roman a real name, or a nom de guerre? Dpotop 12:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, that's interesting to know if he changed his name legally. However in all these cases the name at birth seems to be preferred, which makes sense. -- AdrianTM 12:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: when someone believes that a name prioritized by the majority of sources, overwhelming in mentions, was not legal, it is only logical that that person present proof that it was not legal, not request proof that it was legal. Dahn 12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A fake for sure. He coined this name in Spain, while working as a terrorist there on the payroll of the USSR. He also seemed to claim that he was born in the town of Roman and made bad-taste jokes about Roman-Romanian-Roman (name-nationality-birthplace, none of them being actually true). Or should we allow people to choose their birthplace as User:Dahn and Trozkyst theory would prefer? Icar 12:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Question
Is this just a rehash of the kind of stuff that was on the ro:Evrei comunişti article? If so, participants should be reminded, that unlike the Romanian Wikipedia, the English Wikipedia does not have anti-semitism as something which is tolerated. - Francis Tyers · 13:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My motivation is presented before. No need to get your "You, nazi!" hammer indiscriminately (it's a bit cheap). Dpotop 13:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit war again?!!!
I am seek to see it! :Dc76 14:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture
Where did you guys get this picture of supposedly Valter Roman? Because on youtube there is a video that seems to be from an old newsreel, a young man reporting about the situation in Hungary. Look at the face, the nose and the bottom of the ear. There is no way that this is the same guy, no matter how many years difference. The young man speaks Romanian with a very strong Hungarian accent. He doesn't seem to be Jewish or Romanian at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.243.254.224 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Valter Roman. 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/20070218131409/http://www.beius.ro/raport%20final_%20cadcr.pdf to http://www.beius.ro/raport%20final_%20cadcr.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011104913/http://ziua.net/display.php?id=183279&data=2005-08-23 to http://ziua.net/display.php?id=183279&data=2005-08-23
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061215144130/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAF5.pdf to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAF5.pdf

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) 12:27, 10 January 2018 (UTC)