Talk:Alexandru Nicolschi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Romania (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Stock post message.svg
To-do list for Alexandru Nicolschi:
No to-do list assigned.

Initial discussion about Marius Oprea[edit]

I like Marius Oprea and all (btw, we should have an article on him in the future), but a link titled "Let's piss on their graves" has a major problem, no matter how preciously detailed and impartial its content actually is. I'm afraid we'll have to compensate by tapping into other resources. Dahn 03:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who he is, but I found his article quite informative. And, yes, it took me a while to understand what the title meant (the diacritics were mangled) -- I shied away from translating it. On the other hand, what he's talking about can elicit strong reactions (yes?). Actually, this reminds me of the tile of a novel, J'irai cracher sur vos tombes, by Boris Vian... Turgidson 04:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I found an article where all the information on his biography is backed, although not in as many details. Don't get me wrong, Oprea's is informative, but we can avoid the entire potential debate by simply not linking it (it did bring Vian to my mind as well...); I'm guessing that, in case Oprea were a witness to the events or a victim, the title would not pose as much problems. Btw, I'll b removing the reference to his book in the process, as we should not reference what we have not consulted. Dahn 04:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(I propose dropping references to alternative or original names of persons other than Nicolski himself in the article, as they would be clarified in the respective articles - despite the fact that a large number of sources still mention "Pintilie" by his original name, we shpuld stick with what he chose for himself; this also spares us the potential trouble of whether to transliterate it from Ukrainian or from Russian, which is a big deal for similar cases on wikipedia... don't ask...) Dahn 04:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Oprea's online article is not up to standards -- if nothing else, the typography is atrocious. But the facts appear to be rather coherently presented, and most likely true, especially when most were backed up by other sources. (In the meantime, I also looked at the Tismaneanu report, and it all gibes). My hunch is that Oprea's article is a (rather poorly executed) cut-and-paste from his book. But unfortunately, as you guessed, I could not access his book, so I only mentioned it as an external source (the book was mentioned in other places, too.) At any rate, good point -- better to leave it out till someone can actually check it. As for the transliterations, I wasn't aware of the potential trouble (it's also done on the Securitate page). The main reason I wanted to have the alternate names was to make it possible to quote Corvin Lupu, who only mentions the names those people had at birth. This issue will keep posing a problem, looks like, but not insurmountable. Turgidson 05:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe we should have an article under "Pintilie", and redirect all versions to there,which should leave us with a neutral result. Of course, all of this is in the future - I have a limit of one torturer per day, as I actually want to avoid having nightmares about them :). I admit I have not looked into the Securitate article, but I'm betting it is full of errors and POVs (IMO, refrencing the "foreign names" ad nauseam is a side effect of the xenophobia that has sadly triumphed on Romanian wikipedia... it really serves no academic purpose). Dahn 05:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
(For direct quotes with ambiguous potential, might I suggest turning "blah blah blah Pantelimon Bodnarenko blah blah" into "blah blah blah [Gheorghe Pintilie] blah blah"?) Dahn 05:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Again, wow! Article looks very thorough and researched to me (I wish I had all those books to consult, too -- sigh...). As for the plan with the naming conventions, sounds good to me. Generally speaking, one refers to public figures (including writers, actors, whatever) by their professional/adopted names, not by the names they carried at birth, as long as the chosen names are well-established. One little thing: I put the Lupu reference since I did not have many sources available (eg, to confirm Nicholschi's birth name). But now with all the other detailed sources you quoted, it may not be necessary to include this article? I still found it rather informative as general background on some aspects of the era, maybe it can be put to better use as a reference in another article? Turgidson 13:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm afraid I hadn't looked through the article in question, and, having done so, I find it to be below the quality expected from a source. It is also spurious. Yes, I will remove it, and, hopefully, we will not be debating whether to source it on other pages. I see, for example that it is branded as negationist by Lupu's peers, and I fully agree with the assessment. Dahn 14:55, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Allright. Sorry for not reading the article more carefully before referring to it. I was in a bit of hurry to get the Nicholschi article off the ground, and it's not so easy to wade through the mass of data from the internet, a lot of which is ob dubious quality or reliability. Turgidson 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I see. No problem. Dahn 15:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Ion Antonescu's Romania?[edit]

Now that AdrianTM has brought it up, this formulation does sound kind of odd, and perhaps even demeaning to the country and its people: Did Romania really belong to Ion Antonescu in May, 1941? He was indeed the dictator at the time, but that, in and of itself, did not make the country belong to him. So, while I agree it may be relevant to indicate who was in power at the time, I'd be in favor of a more factual (and neutral) way to say it. (I, for one, would never use an expression like, say, "Ceauşescu's Romania", but rather, "Romania during Ceauşescu's time", or some such construct). And, by the way, Antonescu was appointed Prime-Minister by King Carol II on September 6, 1940, a date that precedes Nicholschi's becoming a Soviet citizen, and starting training as an NKVD agent (in December, 1940). Thus, if one wants to emphasize who was in power in Romania at that time (though I'm not quite sure to what degree, if any, that would explain Nicholschi's actions in 1941), perhaps mention of Antonescu's rise to power should be made earlier? Turgidson 01:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think that's demeaning and POVish in a sense that can be used as an excuse "he didn't spy Romania, he spied Antonescu's Romania". "Romania during the Antonescu regime" could be use instead of demeaning "Antonescu's Romania" that would still sound a little POVish, but at least is not demeaning. -- AdrianTM 01:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that was my concern, too. I'm sure this is not the intention of the current formulation, but I'm concerned that others may construe it that way, and I would find that unfortunate. "Romania during the Antonescu regime" is a perfectly neutral formulation in my opinion (as long as it's put in the right place, with the right balance and emphasis). By the way, I've seen discussions on other talk pages about whether the word "regime" itself is neutral -- and, while my personal opinion is that it's not quite, though again it depends on context -- in the context of Romania during World War II I think it is well-established, and appropiate, if used judiciously. Turgidson 01:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I will answer to Turgidson's concerns, I will not answer to AdrianTM's (since his interpretation is solely based on the speculation that, given he could read a "hidden intent" in a text, the text had a hidden intent). I would first like to ask Turgidson to include in his assessment the fact that the sentence does not in fact directly involve Antonescu or Nicolschi, and that I used it merely as a necessary instrument in editing an article to serve the casual reader. This is not a question of "neutrality", and I'm rather surprised that we are discussing the matter from this perspective.

There are several reasons for this. For one, I think good editing should include all links that set the scene for events described. Secondly, it is always preferable for a reader to link to a regime, and not to a country (French Directory and First French Empire instead of France; Nazi Germany instead of Germany; etc.). Note, please, that there is no such article for Antonescu's regime, and there cannot be one (creating one for the sake of it would simply be forking content from the Antonescu page, would be redundant to the overview of WWII in Romania, and would not be legitimized by scholarly usage). Yes, I too would have preferred using something like "Romania during x's time", but you tell me if the phrase it was encapsulated in would be intelligible if I were to use that. I simply went with an alternative that seemed to be perfectly reasonable (I still think it is).

Furthermore, formulations such as "Winston Churchill's Britain" are widespread for similar concepts; to make an "academic" point, I would like to stress that, if the latter is used without fear of it being understood that "x owned y", then it could clearly work for Romania (in whatever scheme, Antonescu "owned" Romania more than Churchill did England). With this in mind, "in Antonescu's time" could mean, using the same arguments ad absurdum, that Antonescu owned time itself... Dahn 02:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There are several arguments within arguments in here (like Matryoshka dolls), but let me just address one narrow issue -- I'll need to think more about the rest. Perhaps it's just me, but I never heard the expression "Winston Churchill's Britain" -- though I'm a great fan of Sir Winston. To my ears (and, I suspect, to the ears of many other readers from the U.S., at least those born more than 35-40 years ago), the instinctive association would rather be with Senator Ted Kennedy's speech on the floor of the Senate in 1987, in opposition to Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court: "Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of government." (There is now a word in American English for such an ad-hominem attack: to bork, or borking.) So, it's not just a matter of misunderstanding whether a country belonged to a person (though that's one of the reasons); the formulation clearly has, at least in my mind, a negative connotation, most often for both the country and the person, when used in such a way. It all depends on the context, of course -- take for example Elizabethan England. Now, that was an interesting time. Speaking of which, how about the following for a neutral formulation: "the Antonescu era"? The term "era" is used in both positive and negative contexts just about equally, and it avoids the possesive from "in Antonescu's time", which, I agree, has its own internal logical problems (though not as marked as "Ion Antonescu's Romania", I'd say). Turgidson 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You know, I could be mean and say "yes, it's just you" ;). I find "era" to be a rather odd phrasing (especially for such a short era - thank God for that), but I could go for it. In fact, if you want to change phrasing in any way to include the words "time" or "regime" or "era", feel free to so. Btw, I'm allergic to people linking the word Hitler instead of Adolf Hitler, so I would use something that features (and links upon first mention) the man's full name. My main concerns were that a POV was deduced where there was none, that there was nothing inherently wrong with my phrasing, and that the practical concerns I had tried to deal with in the process (legibility, wikipedia conventions, flow, not fragmenting the reference) were not being noticed. Granted, I also think that the term "x's y" are rather rare in comparison with their synonyms, and that the latter are usually better suited. However, I do not think that there was that much room for interpretation (and especially for the "it was ok to spy" argument, which was arguably a projection).
Hey, I just very much amused that the Securitate article (which I have avoided looking into up until just now) uses something called "Ceauşescu's reign". And if "Antonescu's Romania" was problematic... Dahn 03:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
That seems equally stupid. (actually more, "reign" is not the best word to be used in case of dictatorship) however I didn't notice that... should I be considered guilty because I didn't notice that and I noticed this? -- AdrianTM 03:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Stupid"?... My, my. Dahn 03:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed that to "Ceauşescu's dictatorship" also it's worth to mention that the expression "end of Ceauşescu's dictatorship" or "end of Ceauşescu's reign" is not equivalent with the "Antonescu's Romania" expression, I hope you see the difference: the dictatorship (or reign) is something that belongs grammatically and logically to Ceauşescu, Romania didn't belong to Antonescu. -- AdrianTM 03:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I do not answer to pure projections: you seem convinced that this is the intended or traditional or obvious meaning of the wording, and I argue it was not. Obviously, whatever I argue in return is falling on deaf years. Dahn 03:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
You accuse me of pure projection but this is what you actually do here, notice that in this paragraph I wasn't talking about how that can be interpreted I was merely talking about the expression as it present itself, I would protest against "Basescu's Romania" just as strongly, while I would consider "end of Basescu's presidency" a normal sentence. Please stop projecting yourself before you accuse people of "pure projections". Thanks. I can't say that talking to you it has been a pleasure, I will try to avoid it in the future lest I'll be accused again of pure projection and Völkischism (as you seem to regularly accuse people who don't agree with you). -- AdrianTM 05:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Again, I cannot be held responsible for what you chose to conclude about my behavior, especially when it's based on various stuff you take out of its immediate context. In fact, I can hardly be expected to read it. Have a good day. Dahn 12:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Winston Churchill's Britain: OK, I buy the existence proof, but let's agree to disagree on how widely it is used. Era: I think in modern American English, at least, the term has lost much of its original Latin meaning (which is retained though by the Greek word eon), and can refer to relatively short periods of time, certainly something like 4 to 5 years as was the case with Antonescu's regime. For example, the Vietnam Era refers to a period of about a decade, whereas the Camelot Era refers to the presidency of John F. Kennedy (Jan. 1961- Nov. 1963). Hitler vs Adolf Hitler: agreed. (I've been busily changing Stalin to Joseph Stalin, Lenin to Vladimir Lenin, etc, in many pages.) "Ceauşescu's reign": I personally would use "the Ceauşescu era". (One needs to be consistent!) Turgidson 04:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, ok then. The only thing I cannot understand though is how one would fit "[Ion] Antonescu's era" into that phrase, so, Turgidson, I urge you again to operate all changes that you see fit (I would assume that you would have to rephrase more than that bit). Dahn 04:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I gave it a shot. While at it, I replaced "in the wake of" by "in preparation for": Nicholski was caught in Romania (I guess right after crossing the Dniester), 4 weeks before the launch of Operation Barbarossa, not after. I avoided the whole discussion of Antonescu's Romania/regime/era/whatever by simply saying that he was then in charge of the Romanian Army, to which the sentence and the context refers, after all. Turgidson 04:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for edits this looks much better, one comment: if he crossed only Dniester he would still have been in the Soviet Union, I guess you meant the Prut river. -- AdrianTM 05:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I guess I'm getting tired -- I better take a break if I can't keep the Dniester and the Prut straight anymore! Turgidson 05:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

User Dahn is becoming a pest[edit]

There is this one user called Dahn who systematically removes all my contributions. He gives no explanation for this. I feel persecuted like poor political prisoners must have felt under Nikolski. Still, I would like all other users who notice this behavior to report it so that momentum grows against this disruptive user. (Icar 13:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

This post and your last edit summary show that, despite my repeated calls for you to stop, you continue to mudsling. You have moved beyond uncivilized behavior, and are currently irreconcilable with basic rules regarding human interaction. As I have said, I will call for intervention later today, and I hope you'll finally be moved into the pen where they keep trolls like you. Dahn 14:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Please abstain from throwing insults: calling Dahn a pest is inacceptable just as is calling Icar a troll. Icar and Dahn, please calm down ! --Vintila Barbu 14:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how Dahn is still allowed to do this, a simple correction in Securitate page was a huge uphill battle, everyone could see that the end result of what I proposed was more clear and more accurate, however I had to lose a lot of time to discuss that change with Dahn and he accused me of trolling and other things. Even on this page a 2 words change in article that was supported by other person too has attracted accusation from Dahn against me and comments like "it's not even worthy to read what you wrote". Why this self-righteous person is allowed to continue with such impunity and continue to threaten and bully other people is beyond my understanding. -- AdrianTM 14:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

For the past two month (since I started at WP) he removed ALL my contributions. His lack of manners is astonishing. Lately he simply reverts, with a dismissive note "rv vandalism". I noticed that he basically does the same to all of you guys, whoever touches "his" pages. He has all the WP:OWN symptoms. Moreover, to me it looks like he has an enormous anti-Romanian POV. Is this also your oppinion? (Icar 14:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

One persistent annoying POV of Dahn is misusing the word "Romanian". You have this NKVD general, born in Russia in what is now Moldova, of ethnically non-Romanian parents, speaking no Romanian at the time of his mission in Soviet-occupied Romania. But Dahn resots to edit wars to call this person a "Romanian communist". (Icar 14:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Using something that's technically "correct" but 100% misleading is an art. (responded in a more detailed manner in your page) -- AdrianTM 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Producing such a fallacious argument is the actual art. Dahn 22:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Dahn has an unconditional admirer[edit]

User:Khoikhoi is a staunch supporter of User:Dahn. There seems to be mutual support between them, what I would call a Wiki-cartel of sorts. The technique is simple but dishonest: Khoi reverts when Dahn is tired. Today Dahn reverted 3 times so he gently asked Khoi to step in. As a result, Khoi reverted without any explanation. Very polite indeed. Dahn's goal, towards which Khoi contributes, is to somehow call "Romanian" a foreign ennemy who contributed greatly to the extermination of 10% of Romania's population. (Icar 21:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)).

"He was Romanian"[edit]

This is the argument for reversing Icar and my version? Where in that paragraph it says that he wasn't Romanian? And as a matter of fact if you want to read a discussion about his nationality/ehtnicity, please read the discussion between me and Dahn on Talk:Securitate but that's not the point -- I protest against these changes that are either not explained or that are explained with arguments that don't apply to the situation (I'm not going to enter again into a discussion about how Romanian was a guy born in a Jewish family in Russia who was first Russian subject and then got automatically Romanian citizenship in 1920 and then in 1940 Soviet citizenship and then he was deployed to spy in Romania) -- He was NKVD general, do you deny that? if not, why do you revert? -- AdrianTM 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more of this. Let's read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Opening paragraph together. And, btw, I don't remember a source saying that he was "a general of the NKVD", but all say he was a general of the Securitate. Not to mention that the NKVD no longer existed by the time he was a general of anything. You seem to like mixing apples and oranges, but they give me indigestion. Dahn 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, not sure about his rank, but he was a NKVD officer, if the rank was a problem the guy could have corrected that not revert anything and say "he was Romanian" which is both false and doesn't have anything to do with the edit. -- AdrianTM 01:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You obviously didn't read my entire post. Let's start over: How is it "false"? Dahn 01:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I said that I'm not going to get into that discussion again with you (and according to that manual of style that's probably OK since he gain "notability" in Romania), but what does that has to do with the revert, he was NKVD officer, right? -- AdrianTM 01:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
BTW: "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." My emphasis... is this a normal case? An Soviet agent infiltrated in Romania.... I don't think this fits the normal cases, does it? -- AdrianTM 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if he was an officer. Probably, but I don't remember reading anything that would mention it. As for the "normal cases": yes, it is. The very next mention is that he was a Soviet agent as well, and this is detailed further down in the text not once, but twice. Btw, if we are using the same elements of formal logic, I would assume that you no longer contend that the information is "false". Dahn 01:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"I dont know if he was an officer..." ? I bet you know very well that he was a NKVD general. See the link below. (Icar 07:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
Well... actually not false, misleading. Since this wasn't his only citizenship and probably not even the first one and to be sure not where his allegiance lay (even thought he ended up living most of his life in Romania). That's why I asked if this is a normal case, in normal case presenting the citizenship would not be misleading, but in this case using Wikipedia's recommended style as an excuse to be misleading shouldn't be allowed. Anyway that's as much I have to say about this issue I will let other people express their opinions if this is or not misleading and if recommended style is more important than being informative. -- AdrianTM 01:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Rose is a rose is a rose is a rose. Dahn 01:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What's that supposed to mean? Stop provoking me! Can't you just shut up and let other people say their opinion about the issue? -- AdrianTM 02:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I know you didn't mean to say that. As for the comment: your post was evidence of truthiness, and nothing else. I just answered with a notorious quote in order to express that even tautology separates fact from interpretation (whereas you seem not to want to). Shazzam. Dahn 02:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
You lack arguments (or at least you don't provide them) and then you call my post "evidence of truthiness", nice going... I'm not even going to try to defend my post and ask you to show where the tautology lies, I'll just repeat my call to stop provoking me and wait for another opinion, how about that? (hint for idiots: that's a rhetorical question) -- AdrianTM 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, apparently me posting prevents other users from joining in the debate. It also appears that someone contradicting himself several times around, someone supporting a version of the text which he admits is false, someone who brilliantly stated that something I wrote is "100% valid while being misleading", can argue that I present no arguments (when I would be presenting them the third time around), and can demand that users take a vote on what is and isn't true. Provoking you, AdrianTM? Care to read me what you recently posted about my person on this talk page and others, so we may have a sample of how "you're not provoking people"? (hint for idiots: that's a rhetorical question) Btw: "tautology" was in reference to the quote, not to your text, but let's keep pretending you actually read my messages. Dahn 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Sure, people can jump into the discussion any time, but do they want to when they see how you behave? A discussion with you becomes very fast a: "he said he didn't say that he said that he said" kind of discussion. Who's going to want to join this kind of discussion? And if you don't get the idea of something being partial true and misleading at the same time then it's prety little that I can explain to you. There's no contradiction in what I said, let me repeat my complains, I will start with another heading: -- AdrianTM 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Quick note on this, since I did not notice it beforehand: "technically correct" has suddenly become "partial true". Yep, a productive debate this is. Dahn 23:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
  1. There is clique here that revert edits without explanations or with explanation that don't apply just as User:Icar said.
  2. I didn't accept as truth that "NKVD general" was wrong, I just said that I don't know for sure his rank, that's a difference that you chose to ignore in order to accuse me of contradictions. BTW, nobody who reverted that paragraph complained about the rank, the explanation lacked or it was: "he was Romanian". Anyway, I could find references plenty for "NKVD officer".
  3. Romanian issue. Two parts here:
  1. The comment of revert claimed "he was Romanian" while the text didn't claim otherwise, so, why revert something that's not incorrect using an argument that doesn't apply and a fishy argument too as you'll see in my next point.
  2. Secondly: that "he was Romanian" is an incomplete and misleading claim. While the Manual of Style recommends to list the nationality of the person when the person gained public notoriety, it provides a coveat: "in normal case". This is not a normal case: born in Russia (therefore Russian national or "subject") gained Romanian citizenship automatically and then the Soviet one and spied for Soviets against Romania. Do you know if he gave up Soviet citizenship? The fact that he lived in Romania is not important when we talk about citizenship, I'm not aware of anybody taking his Soviet citizenship away and I'm not aware of any expiration period for Soviet citizenship, at most he held dual citizenship and manifested allegiance to Soviet side. So there you go, a honest person would have to admit that this is at least a complicated case not a "normal" one. -- AdrianTM 03:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What I gather from the above is that:

1 you used information you did not know was true Dahn 09:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

As usually you mislead people. I didn't "use" information, somebody else added that and later on provided reference -> Pacepa article. Now that's documented. As usually you hide behind your finger: nobody asked for reference regarding his rank the reverts were unexplained or explained as "he was Romanian" -- now what that has to do with his NKVD rank is beyond me. -- AdrianTM 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Pacepa does not say he was an NKVD general as far as I can tell. It is document that Nicolschi became a Securitate general in that exact period, so, unless you have solid proof that Pacepa is not talking about that, your "evidence" is inexistent. As I have said, the info about him being a Romanian is factual, NPOV, and in compliance with wikipedia norms. Dahn 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Will you agree to say "a NKVD colonel..." -- AdrianTM 04:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

2 you refuse to apply the simple wikipedia guideline on bios Dahn 09:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Another misleading statement, I'm not refusing to apply a guideline, I interpret them in other way than you do. In this case I proved it's not a "normal case" and it's not a clear case for example you didn't respond to my question Do you know if he gave up Soviet citizenship? To my understanding he remained Soviet citizen the rest of his life. -- AdrianTM 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It is obviously irrelevant if he gave up his Soviet citizenship, since he was given back his original Romanian one. If you are a citizen of two countries, you are no less a citizen of each, unless you follow some special law that only applies in your world. Furthermore, my variant includes mentions of both his citizenship, so I can't even tell what the hell you're talking about. Dahn 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

3 you hide behind the absurdity "my lead does not say he was not Romanian" - whereas, as you read for yourself, the lead should clearly indicate what he was, not leave it to interpretation (I also "don't see" any indication that he was not from Sierra Leone, but the lead is about what we all can see). Dahn 09:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What's so absurd about it? Since I think I proved this is a complicated case about a guy with 'dual citizenship and Soviet allegiance, that statement that he was Romanian is at very least misleading, the variant that I supported didn't claim anything about his citizenship. I would agree with you for clarification though exactly because the initial variant was unclear and misleading, but I don't support replacing a neutral statement that doesn't make claims about his citizenship with a misleading one (per my repeted explanations) -- AdrianTM 14:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
See both above - wikipedia conventions (which indicate the link is to include clear mentions of nationality) and your sophistry about dual citizenship. Being stubborn over untenable arguments does not make you right. I have made my point clear a long time ago. Dahn 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
What part of "in normal case" from the style manual you are not clear about? This is not a normal case, it's about a Soviet citizen, NKVD colonel (or general) sent to Romania to spy and to kill, saying only: "a Romanian Communist activist" is whitewashing. -- AdrianTM 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea what text you were reading, but you may clearly see that no version I endorsed said "only" that. Furthermore, I have already explained that I could not have made mention of his rank, since I could not find it in the sources I used (unlike him being an agent, which was present in several and mentioned in all my versions); the moment I did find a mention in a source, I introduced it -- while I still believe that ranks (general, colonel), unlike occupations (secret service officer or some other phrasing), are not material for leads. Why? Because one is generic, the other transient (while one also includes the other). To accuse me of whitewashing is the same unsubstantiated theory you have pushed about me in the past days, and I have already answered why such allegations, aside from being intentional libel, are utterly absurd. Dahn 23:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
AdrianTM, I provided below a link to an article by Pacepa where he clarifies the NKVD rank of these brave "Romanians" and their level of knowledge of the Romanian language. (Icar 07:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

My 2 cents[edit]

Let me try and say something about this discussion (regarding the lead of the article), hopefully without fanning the flames. I tried to follow best I could the arguments back and forth, but at some point I got lost -- it's no longer clear to me what the argument is about, at least regarding the specifics of this article. So here's something that may help unblock the situation: When the article was selected for WP:DYK, on January 2, 2007 (see here), following the nomination by Dahn, the announcement said, and I quote:

[Did you know] ... that despite being a Soviet citizen and a confirmed NKVD agent, Alexandru Nicolschi served as head of Communist Romania's secret police?

Now, does anyone disagree with any of the information in this announcement? (Well, technically, Nicolschi was only deputy director, not director, but I don't think this is where the bone of contention is.) If not, how about trying to follow (more-or-less) the wording of the announcement in the lead of the article?

By the way, my natural inclination is to stay away from fights, for a variety of reasons. But I got jolted by the comment one of you made today on one of the talk pages: "in our (Romanian) mentality when confronted with such situations: we mark a big Cross sign and keep away". How very true. So let's not do that, but instead, let's just get the job done, rigorously and in good faith, and move on. How's that? Turgidson 03:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. Although that was not "despite" it was "exactly because".... but nevertheless... stil good and balanced. -- AdrianTM 04:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Grünberg (aka Nicolschi) and Bodnarenko (aka Pantiusa) were both NKVD generals. So says Mr. Pacepa, former boss of the Securitate: [1] (Icar 07:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
Thanks for confirmation. -- AdrianTM 07:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm reading that is not clear though in the case of Nicolschi, it says "Nicholschi, now a general" that might mean General of Securitate. However he was NKVD officer from what I saw in many sources. -- AdrianTM 07:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No, it says at some place "the NKVD colonel Grunberg", then later "Grunberg-Nicolschi, by now a general". There is no mention of other ranks than NKVD. (Icar 07:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
Yeah...sorry, I was reading fast... indeed it's not "now a general" is "by now a general". Thanks for the correction. -- AdrianTM 07:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again for finding a source. Please feel free to add the info and the reference. -- AdrianTM 07:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Great! So far, we agree that Grunberg was not born in Romania and that he was not ethnically Romanian with Romanian not his mother tongue; that he was a spy for SU against Romania; that he was an NKVD general. Now it is also true that he lived part of his youth in Romania and that he may have been at some point a Romanian citizen, although his citizenship by choice was Soviet. Does this make him "Romanian"? For me it is a strong NO. (Icar 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
I totally agree. Moreover, we have no proof that he gave up his Soviet citizenship at any point in life (or that USSR took that away from him). -- AdrianTM 07:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go back to the very top of this discussion page, you will see that one of the very first sources I used for starting the page on Nicholschi was this article by ro:Marius Oprea. From what I can tell, he is a quite respected Romanian historian (probably deserving his own entry on Kind of unfortunately, though, the title of his article (reminiscent of Boris Vian's well-known novel) is not quite suited for encyclopaedic usage, so the reference had to go. But the article itself is a treasure-trove on info on the subject--I wish I could use it for the related article on Gheorghe Pintilie, which was started recently by Dpotop, and which I've been busily editing lately (I will need to get hold of other books and articles published by Oprea, but I don't have the time right now). At any rate, let me bring at least to this talk page a quote from Oprea's readily available article, which pertains directly to one of the heated arguments on this talk page -- what exactly was Nicholski's (and, incidentally, Pintilie's) role in the Soviet intelligence services (mainly, the NKVD, but the names changed over time, so one needs to be careful if using a specific name such as this one):

In cazul lui Pintilie Gheorghe, mai mult decit atit: ca si Alexandru Nicolschi, el nu era un agent al serviciilor de spionaj sovietice, ci era ofiter rezident al acestora.

So how to read this info? First of all, I think this is yet another confirmation that Nicholschi was an NKVD officer, not just merely a low-level agent. More importantly, it says he was a "rezident" (in well-established Soviet terminology, the word is also used now in English, exactly the same way, as is "rezidentura"). This was a much higher -- and more important -- level in the organizational scheme. I think this aspect is worth looking into more carefully. (Not sure whether he was only a colonel, or whether he did indeed reach the rank of general, but that's not that important, although it would be good to have exact confirmation on this sticky point.) By the way, I added on the Pintilie page another reference by Oprea, which in turn is mentioned in a book published by ro:Stejărel Olaru, yet another Romania historian who seems quite knowledgeable (and may deserve a wiki page, too). I put a link to the pdf file of Olaru's book, if anyone wants to look at it more carefully, I think there may very well be more relevant info in there. Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks. Turgidson 16:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That could certainly clarify stuff. Nevertheless, I don't see any connection to his citizenship isue - to which, btw, Oprea also makes references. Him being a Soviet resident officer/agent/colonel/general/clown still does not involve the fact that he was also (and for longer) Romanian. I have made references to both allegiances in my version, and, no matter how one changes, the other will still be valid and consistent with NPOV. Dahn 14:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I cannot comment on the citizenship issue -- my guess is as good as anyone's else. But it seems to me that too much effort is put in that direction, and not enough in other matters pertaining to the subject. My main interest in starting this article was the connection of Nikolski (that's how I remembered the name being referred to many, many years ago) to the infamous Piteşti experiment, and the realization that he was a bigger fish than I'd thought, having not been just involved at Piteşti, but also at the Canal. (Incidentally, that article, you may remember, basically did not even mention the biggest forced labor camps in Romanian history, an omission which seemed so outrageous to me, that it was one the main reasons I joined wikipedia -- it's a bit like having an article about the village of Oświęcim and only mention in one sentence that there used to be a camp nearby; and, by the way, there still is no separate article on the Canal camps, which is something I plan to correct at some point if I get the energy). At any rate, back to Nicholschi: my personal opinion is that the focus should be on his leading role in the repression apparatus, and what he did at Piteşti and at the Canal (something he was never taken to task for, as the article briefly mentions). This, more than anything else, defines the man and his impact on countless lives at the time (I know personally survivors of those camps, and I heard from them some of what happened there, which was really terrible). In all these discussions, I would urge everyone involved to keep this fact in mind, and not lose track of it. Turgidson 15:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I personally see nothing wrong in that. Generally, I expand leads in proportion to the articles: if you feel this is incomplete, you can and could've added to it at any point. The issues I have with the article so far concern not what has not been added to the lead as much as what was subtracted from it - based on various appeals to emotion. I suppose neither this article or those related to it are complete (or existing), but I deal with this things one at a time (and have done all that I could do so far). I want to add again that I based this article on what sources had to say in the way they said it, so both emphasis and lack of it are to be understood in the light of that. Dahn 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Download "Raportul Comisiei Prezidenţiale pentru Analiza Dictaturii Comuniste din România" (I'm aware that this is not an original source though) and read, there's a load of material about Nicolschi and implicates him clearly and directly both in Piteşti and Canal issues. -- AdrianTM 21:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For example (sorry is in Romanian): "Adriana Georgescu va cunoaşte torţionari fără scrupule (cel mai faimos fiind Alexandru Nicolschi, „omul-şobolan”, coordonator al reeducării de la Piteşti), regimul său [...]" -- AdrianTM 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I think you will find the main adversaries of the report among my detractors (quotations from it are fine by me). I also hope you are not implying that it is my fault for not having used all available sources: as you may see by actually reading the article, information on Nicolschi's implication in both crimes is already clearly present (not to say that this is exhaustive, just wondering what you're talking about). Much of that is my direct or indirect contribution (for one, as Turgidson was kind enough to admit, it was one of my edits in another article which first made mention of Nicolschi's recorded presence at the Canal). And I will repeat myself: for these sources and none other, both emphasis and lack of it are to be understood in the light of what sources had to say. Dahn 21:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
"I also hope you are not implying that it is my fault for not having used all available sources" -- Stop being so defensive not everything is about you you make any single tiny contribution almost impossible. I was replying to Turgidson and his question about Nicolschi implication in Piteşti and Canal. -- AdrianTM 21:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Which question? Dahn 21:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
<<So how to read this info? First of all, I think this is yet another confirmation that Nicholschi was an NKVD officer, not just merely a low-level agent. More importantly, it says he was a "rezident" [...] Any feedback would be appreciated. Thanks.>> Dahn please lay off my back, I was not even replying to you as evidenced even by the indentation of my response, I was merely replying to Turgidson and his request for feedback. -- AdrianTM 21:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, that doesn't make any sense in hell. Dahn 21:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You didn't take your anti-paranoid pills today, did you? As I explained I was not addressing you I was providing material for Turgidson, I consider irrelevant if you belive me or not, or if you consider that providing material doesn't make sense, it would also be nice if you'd keep your opinions of what makes or doesn't make sense for yourself... but one can only hope... -- AdrianTM 22:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Your universe must be interesting. If one is to ask you "Do you like fish?" I suppose you answer "I had the flu when I was a kid". If the question is "Do you think globalization is for the best?", you are likely to answer "I was not at home yesterday". Hell, if any feedback will do, why not just answer "Mr. Jones and me tell each other fairy tales", or "Disco Stu just got an anullment from John Paul II", or "Call me Ishmael"? You're pretty entertaining in this way, but I wish you would let people know when you're talking to the point of, well, something, so I would not have to bother asking you what on Earth you are making reference to. Dahn 22:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
This is so funny when it comes from you. Why can't you just admit that you just assumed that I talked to you when I didn't... not a biggy... but no... you have to make a whole story about me and my life and how I respond to questions. Read my lips: I. WAS. NOT. ADDRESSING. YOU. (not everything that goes around is about you)-- AdrianTM 22:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't care who you were talking to, since you were stil making no sense. And what is especially funny is that you need to move your lips when you type (and probably expect me to see it). In either case, this was fun, but I cannot spend all my time trying to make sense of what you're saying. Dahn 23:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Look what me providing an informative link has lead to... this idiotic discussion where you pick me to death on every word I say (Oops! "write") like "read my lips". -- AdrianTM 23:37, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional info -- and really, I'm not looking here for any fight, or to assign blame, or to claim credit, or to argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or anything like that. The whole point of my remarks has been completely the opposite -- to try and move forward, get more info on the subject, and round up the picture, in a scholarly fashion. Can we please take that as a given, assume good faith all around, and focus the discussion, so that we can all get back to doing something more productive as regards this encyclopedia?
So let me comment on the one concrete new fact presented in the above paragraphs: the testimony of Adriana Georgescu. Yes, I also became aware of that (independently) last night, and added a paragraph about it in a newly-created section in Romanian anti-communist resistance movement (called Repression). I used a different source: a book (in English) by Dennis Deletant (which surely can be complemented by the reference that AdrianTM brings -- it's always better to have more sources). By the way, Deletant also mentions Nicolschi giving the order to kill 7 prisoners in transit to Gherla prison, in July 1949. I would have liked to add this info to the article on Nicolschi, but unfortunately further editing of the article is prohibited sine die by the powers-that-be. Is there any way this situation can be resolved, or is the page locked till hell freezes over? Turgidson 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You are welcome, if you have time take a look at that document. Nicolschi name appears really often. -- AdrianTM 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I will, but as long as the Nicolschi page is blocked, this would be rather futile, wouldn't it? Turgidson 22:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dahn's arguments about Nicolschi citizenship[edit]

Let me clarify the points for those users reading this, and establish what is relevant here, once and for all:

  • Nicolschi was a Romanian citizen from the age of 7 to the age of 23 (or thereabouts). A resident of Imperial Russia, he was probably a Russian citizen from his birth and until the age of 2 (if Jews were indeed granted citizenship in Imperial Russia), and probably had no clear status from the age of 2 until the age of 7. He was a resident of Bessarabia throughout the period, and, when Bessarabia joined Romania, could not have obtain his citizenship if he wanted to - the law in place prevented Jews from obtaining it, and all people of all other ethnicities became Romanian citizens in the space of those years. This changed by the time he was 7, when the law was discarded. His citizenship was withdrawn from him through an abusive measure that involved all Jews of this country (this is not meant to justify him in any way, but abusive is abusive). He was again a citizen from ca.1945 to the moment of his death.
  • as mentioned, he was ethnically Jewish. However, this is already present in the text in its proper place (per wikipedia conventions) and is entirely irrelevant to the debate - lest for small details such as the ones above, which no source finds relevant enough to list. My fellow Romanian contributors do not make a distinction between nationality (Romanian, Soviet) and ethnicity (Jewish) - somebody is not less of a Romanian citizen for being ethnically Jewish, Hungarian, etc. It is largely irrelevant how much of the language he could speak, since this was not a requirement in his receiving his citizenship. Again, his citizenship is a neutral fact, voiced neutrally, and not subject to personal assessments.
  • he was also a Soviet citizen, as the text in the way I wrote it clearly indicates. Invariably, he was a Romanian citizen for much more than he was a Soviet one (about fifteen years more). He had double citizenship for the final 50 years of his life, and continued (unfortunately, one would have to say) to reside in Romania during that period. As was noted, he achieved his sinister notoriety in this country, not any other. Nicolschi was a high ranking member of the Romanian Communist Party in the 1930s (currently, the text has an error - it should be "1930s" instead of "late 1920s" - the source describes a succession of events, and I got confused in the chronology); in 1940, he and all other Bessarabians became de facto Soviet citizens - in the Soviet Union's view, they were so de jure.
  • the mention of his ranks in the NKVD/SMERSH/MGB relies on a vague mention in a single source. I am not saying that the text is inaccurate, just that it is unclear - it specifies he was a colonel in the NKVD, but simply mentions him as "by then a general" in a subsequent paragraph that refers to a period when we know for sure Nicolschi was a Securitate general. The text could just as easily contrast this mention with another one made just above it, according to which Nicolschi was a local troop leader in the Romanian police force.
  • much of the other arguments brought up against me here, aside from the crude personal attacks, refer to untenable assumptions and logical fallacies. Arguments such as "x killed y number of Romanians, therefore he cannot be Romanian" are not worth answering to. Arguments such as "the mention of his citizenship is meant to badmouth Romania and its people" are not worth answering to. Arguments such as "he also had another citizenship", "his language skills were poor", "his original name was not Romanian-sounding", are equally non sequiturs.

One last thing: a DYK entry that centered on a particular, if arguably intended, paradox (a person with double citizenship heading the internal secret service of another country) cannot be cited as a template for a lead, and cannot avoid the fact that he was a Romanian citizen for most of his life. That is the topic of the debate, and not finding a formulation in the mention of basic truths about Nicolschi is avoided, no matter what that formulation will rely on!

If one feels the need to reply to the above, I urge that person to do it separately, and not to split my message. Thank you. Dahn 09:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please use this advice yourself, so far you inserted your comments wherever you liked. You cannot expect many people to read your novel here. You are surely a good reasearcher, please choose a history journal for your prose. Just to solve your paradox a few lines above: Grunberg (fraudulently called Nicolschi) had nothing Romanian except for allegedly holding Romanian citizenship by accident a few years before 1940, and then for being a NKVD general sent to Romania. Do you have proof that he was a Romanian citizen at all?! Whatever papers the occupation government-disguised as "Romanian" (in fact, a NKVD government) - gave to agents like him cannot be seriously considered. You may not have noticed but in december 2006 Romania's president declared the communist regime "ilegal" and "criminal". This applies first of all to the likes of "Nicolschi" and "Pintilie". You believe that length of arguments can compensate for lack of substance. Many other editors expressed their point of view. None agrees that "Nicolschi" was Romanian. Your "arguments" have been already refuted. (Icar 14:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Argumentum ad populum. Dahn 14:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia seems to work by ad populum, LOL... anyway I agree it's not important how many people think that, what's important is that some arguments were refuted or so I think, for example "he was also a Soviet citizen, as the text in the way I wrote it clearly indicates" sorry, but I don't think it's that "clear", somebody who reads the lead which starts with "was a Romanian Communist" leaves with impression that he was a Romanian who happened to spy for Soviets, not a dual citizen, NKVD colonel sent to Romania with a mission. Maybe is a question of how the stress is placed in the lead, but I don't find it quite "clear", that's all, as long as it mention all the relevant facts is fine by me. -- AdrianTM 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The lead currently says the following: "a Romanian communist activist, Soviet agent and officer, and Securitate chief under the Communist regime". It starts the way it starts for all the reasons stated above, and I will not be repeating them at your convenience. Dahn 01:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
You claimed that's "clear", I explained why _I_ think it's not. I'm not going to repeat why is that at your convenience either. -- AdrianTM 01:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Romanian... and Soviet..." is not clear enough? Oh, goodie, then we surely must begin using illustrations and rhymes. Dahn 10:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Please stop behaving like a nasty child, bring arguments without being demeaning to other people. -- AdrianTM 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I obviously meant in the article. Dahn 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The point is... was he a "Romanian Communist who was also a Soviet agent and officer" or he was a "Soviet spy and NKVD (or secret service) officer sent in Romania with a mission"? Both are technically correct (I think we agree on that, plus or minus the "NKVD" part which we can discuss in other thread) however they do convey different meaning (it's not about using illustrations and rhymes). I understand that you'd consider the second one POVish, but to me the first variant seems just equally biased in the other direction. Maybe I'm still under the impression of "actually a Romanian from Bessarabia" kind of thing from other article which to me was clear POV pushing... and can't see this one as the balanced and style complying lead that you consider it is. Please let's wait for other opinions because this way we'll provoke each other and continue this endlessly since you can't convince me that's "clear enough" I'm not going to convince you that is not. Actually, I said what I had to say, I'm not going to respond to other arguments. -- AdrianTM 19:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Since he was a Romanian citizen for most of his life, there is nothing but POV in implying otherwise. No matter how strong you feel about it, this is not up for debate, and, aside from being a fact, is consistent with wikipedia conventions. You may bring whomever you want into this discussion, a fact is still a fact. Dahn 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
He was Soviet citizen most of his life too, and most importantly he was born as a Russian citizen (I will research that to see if I can find any evidence, but it's only common sense since he was born in Russian Empire). -- AdrianTM 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
There is only one "most of his life" in this instance. Moreover, indicating both citizenships in articles having to do with dual citizens is the widespread practice on wikipedia. As for "Russian citizenship" and "common sense", inform yourself on the legal concept of Jewish emancipation (the same reason why, by default, a Jew was not a Romanian citizen at any point between the Wallachian-Moldavian Union and 1921). Dahn 21:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Dahn, first of all thank you for being informative and trying to make a rational argument for the first time without being dismissive to other people, although the last paragraph kind of spoils it... you behave like the proverbial cow who gives good milk, but at the end because she's too proud kicks the bucket and spills the milk over, therefore I will just largely ignore the last paragraph, I will address only the strawman that you built there: the issue is like this, we don't "judge" him if he was a "good Romanian" or not, everything that he did, a Romanian could have done too, there's no debate there (with the amendment that Romanians are usually not that effective in what they do, as this page witnesses ;-). The point is and I think I'm repeating myself that he was born a foreign citizen (non-Romanian ethnic too, but that's only collateral to this discussion) and he came in Romania as a Soviet spy, that needs to be mentioned in the lead because it's the most defining thing for the guy, he's not just the regular Romanian who decided to spy for Soviets, he came in Romania as a NKVD colonel together with other NKVD officers (that's the heck of a difference, don't you agree?) As for the rank we have reference that he was at least a NKVD colonel, that's defining for the guy too, in all the leads about military persons the rank is mentioned, e.g. "Patton was a general in US Army", we need to say that he was a NKVD colonel because that's what made him a "personality" without that he would have been a big nobody. It's also a matter of where we put the stress, he's not just the regular Romanian who decided to spy for Soviets, he was a Soviet, NKVD colonel who came to Romania undercover to take over the country (that collaborates with what the his other associates were: Soviets, NKVD officers, etc)
Again, I do not answer to ad hominems and other conclusions you draw about my charcter or supposed views. Suffices to say that I have already answered with these points a long time ago, while you are merely beating around the bush. Your statement is contradicted by the fact that he did not have any citizenship before the Romanian one (prove me wrong) and that his he held the Romania citizenship for the longer part of his life. Make me repeat myself, why don't you? The appeal to probability indicating what I would agree with about his citizenship weighs naught on the simple matter of him being a Romanian citizen to begin with. Furthermore, the lead as I wrote it also mentions his Soviet alliegiance in clear words, but does not impose a POV on the matter. Dahn 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the last paragraph in my previous post (the first one of this section): AdrianTM has not only brought up some of those arguments himself (the ethnicity stuff), but he should have made note of the fact that these have been brought up consistently by a certain user (who made mention of Nicolschi's language skills and wrote the completly inappropriate and irrelevant remark about "how brave a Romanian Nicolschi was" - ironically, since AdrianTM scolds me for not having seen that the purpose here is not to "'judge' him if he was a 'good Romanian' or not", and inflammatory, since the straw man alleges I would imply that or even care if he was a "brave Romanian"). It was to these I was bringing attention to there, just so we don't continue dragging appeals to emotion into this discussion (or any other). Dahn 23:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"Your statement is contradicted by the fact that he did not have any citizenship before the Romanian one (prove me wrong)"
Let me quote you: "A resident of Imperial Russia, he was probably a Russian citizen from his birth and until the age of 2". As for dealing with "probabilities" -- that's pretty much certain, when somebody is born gets a citizenship (the claim that he gain Romanian citizenship back is also a "probability", do you have a copy of the act that he got it back?) -- AdrianTM 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
For one, you did not prove that he did have Russian citizenship, which is what I asked (as you may easily find out, Jews in Russia were emancipated in 1917, when Bessarabia was in a very murky situation regrding political control, and when Nicolschi was already two years of age; I'm also not sure that the concept of citizenship was automatically extended to children back then - given that, in Russia especially, adults were entirely responsible their offspring, even their unmarried daughters of age 30 and so). You also did not address the fact that he had Romanian citizenship for the rest of his life - see Oprea for a mention of him receiving his citizenship back (the fact is also consistent with mentions in several other sources - for one, it is virtually imposible that he could have worked for the Romanian Kingdom's police forces without holding Romanian citizenship...). Dahn 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"AdrianTM scolds me for not having seen that the purpose here is not to "'judge' him if he was a 'good Romanian' or not", and inflammatory, since the straw man alleges I would imply that or even care if he was a "brave Romanian")." -- I'm sorry, but you didn't interpret that right (interesting, your reply that talks about an invented strawman is actually a strawman, how ironic) I didn't implied or made any such claim. That sentence only implies that you suspect us (as evidenced by your comments, and if I didn't get that right please correct me) that we try to discuss if he was a good Romanian or not, I discussed his ethnicity mostly in Securitate article as a collateral factor to the discussion, relevant in the sense that if he were a Romanian ethnical then the sentence "actually a Romanian from Bessarabia" would have made some sense. -- AdrianTM 01:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I will point it out again: the argument about how good a Romanian he was (in the form "brave Romanians") was brought up by someone on this very page. Oh, and perhaps, at least once in a while, you could quote me properly. Dahn 10:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
What's not proper about your quote? You talk about this "I provided below a link to an article by Pacepa where he clarifies the NKVD rank of these brave "Romanians" and their level of knowledge of the Romanian language.", right? I'm not sure where you see a straw man or somebody implying or accusing you that you "imply that or even care if he was a 'brave Romanian'" I read Icar's post only as a distaste with Nicolschi not as a strawman against you. But again I'm like a small child who needs illustrations to understand stuff... Stop accusing people here of straw men, that's a straw man in itself. -- AdrianTM 17:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Your use of logic eludes me. Dahn 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
As for which rank: colonel or general, I'd say let's use colonel because that's something which is clear referenced (and even if he was general at some point he was a colonel before too). Can you deny he was a NKVD colonel? -- AdrianTM 16:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
No, I can deny he was a general. I can also deny he was "of the NKVD" (since that would be chronologically absurd). This is precisely why I used "Soviet agent and officer" - one could improve that to say "Soviet agent and secret service officer", or "colonel", if need be (though, as I have said, I'm not sure this is compliant with wikipedia norms). This means that an article is expected to be as relevant as possible to the unfamiliar user. Hope you will see my point. Dahn 14:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
"No, I can deny he was a general. " -- You seem to respond to other question than I asked, I asked "Can you deny he was a NKVD colonel?" That seems clearly documented by Pacepa (unless he's of course too old and confuses things which is a posibility). -- AdrianTM 17:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Next time, read my posts from beginning to end. Dahn 22:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Quit being nasty, I read the post entirely, I pointed that your argument was against an argument I didn't make in this post (actually it was a question, not an argument, and the question is still unanswered as far as I'm concerned). Pacepa did say he was colonel of NKVD it's irrelevant that at some point NKVD changed its name, yes, at that point he was no longer colonel of NKVD, but he was before (I asked you if you can deny that). I also think I already explained that ranks are mentioned as a norm in Wikipedia for military people and I think that's a relevant enough fact to be placed in the intro. If you don't think so, that's fine, that's your opinion, this is mine. Shall we see if other people have other opinions or should we continue to be nasty one to another? Maybe somebody can come with better documentation too -- AdrianTM 00:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
For one, NKVD is colloquially used as a reference for other Soviet services (just as KGB is casually used for the present Russian one). Therefore, Pacepa makes no clear claim that he was actually a colonel from back in the days of the NKVD (he would have had to climb through the ranks at a remarkably rapid pace), just indicating that he rose to this rank inside the secret service (as early as the NKVD or later - note that he also mentions the SMERSH). The Patton article is not a featured one, and its lead is not compliant with norms (for one, it does not begin with a clear mention of his nationality - arguably, because Anglo-Saxons think that English-language wikipedia was produced with either America or the UK in mind). Now, if you will find me a guideline in use for this, I will concede on this isue - I could not find one myself (I urge you to read these words in my post again: "one could improve that to say 'Soviet agent and secret service officer', or 'colonel', if need be", plus the part immediately following this). Dahn 00:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me add my further 2 cents to this discussion. I found yet another reference on the subject, hitherto not quoted: the book "Scurtă istorie a securităṭii", by Gabriel Catalan and Mircea Stănescu; excerpts can be found here. Let me quote the part relevant to this discussion:

O altă instituţie care a fost trecută sub controlul partidului a fost Corpul Detectivilor, unitate a Ministerului de Interne alcătuită acum din cadre comuniste şi din vechi poliţişti, transformată radical prin reorganizarea din 14 martie 1945. În fruntea ei este numit Alexandru Nikolschi. Boris Grünberg, alias Alexandr Sergheevici Nikolski, cetăţean român de origine evreiască, membru al Komsomol şi UTC al PCR din anul 1932, a fost instruit de KGB şi trimis pe teritoriul României pentru spionaj.

So these guys say Nicolschi became a Romanian citizen at some point, but they don't specify when (in 1932? in 1945?) One new piece of info here is that he not only joined the UTC in 1932 (as the article states, and this confirms), but also the Komsomol. At the same time? Well, this is unusual, but again, it makes some kind of weird sense in this context, where so many things are unusual. Note though that these authors use the ahistorical term KGB (instead of correct NKVD for that time), but that is a common enough mistake, so I wouldn't read much into it. At any rate, some more food for thought -- see what you guys think. Turgidson 03:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, him having Soviet citizenship before 1945 is not even up for debate. If you would look through Oprea, you will see mention of him: having served in the Romanian Army in the 2nd Communications Regiment, and being discharged as a corporal in 1940 (in fact, this seems to prove that he was not even withdrawn his citizenship 1938 to 1940); having worked for the Romanian Police after March 1945 (I wish I were presented with a case where any other foreign citizen was allowed to be a Romanian policeman); having received back his Romanian citizenship sometime after 1944 (I will repeat it here that the paradox of his status in Communist Romania, per the DYK, was not of "having Soviet citizenship", but of "also having Soviet citizenship"). Note on the Komsomol issue: there doesn't have to be an "at the same time" - the man was a Soviet citizen in 1940, and he probably joined the Komsomol at that time. Oprea only mentions the UTC and the regional wing of the PCR in Bessarabia (I interpret the latter to be in reference to what Tismăneanu mentions about the Politburo). Dahn 13:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Turgidson, I'm going to have to apologize to you for a second time: I did not notice at the proper moment, but you seem to come to the same conclusions as me in another part of this page. Dahn 13:27, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

AdrianTM's arguments about the lead[edit]

Basically I support Turgidson's proposal to use the sentence that was used in "did you know?" announcement:

"Soviet citizen and a confirmed NKVD agent, Alexandru Nicolschi served as head of Communist Romania's secret police" 
  • He was was Soviet citizen at the moment he entered Romania and at the moment he became "famous" to my knowledge he was Soviet citizen till his death.
  • He was dual citizen, but he was Romanian only by accident: the region where he was born was part of Russian Empire and now is part of Moldova, it was only temporarily part of Romania. Usually, the allegiance is irrelevant, but in this discussion and in this case of dual citizenship I think it is telling that he was spying for Soviets against Romania. it would be unfair and unbalanced to describe him as first and foremost a Romanian. I'm perfectly fine with: "Soviet and Romanian citizen" or "Dual citizen, Soviet and Romanian" (whatever sounds better).
  • Moreover, he was born as a non-Romanian citizen, most likely Russian (I admit that we need a reference here) but what's sure is that he was not Romanian citizen by birth.
  • Style issue -- Wikipedia calls for a standard description in "usual cases" I think I proved this is not an usual case: an NKVD colonel sent in Romania to spy for Soviets who took over the country together with other NKVD colleagues and high officers (at this point it's not even important if he got his Romanian citizenship back after it was retracted, since nobody could have opposed his demand, he was part of the Russian occupier apparatus and he took active part in crashing the Romanian resistance).
  • NKVD agent/colonel. -- he was NKVD agent that's also a defining characteristic, the fact that NKVD changed names couple of times might be confusing, but what's clear is that he was NKVD agent at some point in time (unless somebody can come with some proof that he wasn't, there are many sources that talk about his connection with NKVD). Again, talking about style, can anyone find an article about a military person where his rank and which army or service he belonged to are not mentioned in the lead? Also, if a guy changed sides, for example if a colonel in German Army became general in French army (while French and German Army were at war), wouldn't that be worth mentioning? Representing such a guy only as "a Frenchman, general in French Army, spy for Germans" would be misleading, more appropriate would be to list the ranks and where he belonged historically "German, colonel in German Army... and general in French Army".
Please don't split my arguments, reply down the page. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 01:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Virtually all of the above message is pretentious and self-contradictory, while most of the arguments don't even apply to the text (the "French colonel" stuff, is, as proven by Adrian's own points just above it, a false analogy). What AdrianTM is basically telling readers is that he hates to see the text telling you that Nicolschi was Romanian, even though he admits Nicolschi was Romanian... Whether AdrianTM thinks that this should be encapsulated in a vague phrase that would also reflect his and his pals' blatant POV is, obviously, of no importance to this project (or any other, except perhaps colloquial posts on various forums). Repeating this stuff about what "feels wrong" with the text will not make him seem more right. Dahn 12:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
"AdrianTM is basically telling readers is that he hates to see the text telling you that Nicolschi was Romanian" -- Not quite: I don't have a problem with saying that he's a Romanian as long as it's mentioned first that he was a Soviet, NKVD officer sent into Romania with a mission.... and yeah he was Romanian too. And why is that a false analogy (just curious, I don't care too much about that analogy, I wrote it as an afterthought)? I also challenged you and others to find a lead about any notable military person which doesn't mention rank. It's also important to say on which side he was first, escuse me for being picky, but to me it's highly relevant that he was a NKVD colonel before becoming general in Securitate. And "my" proposed "vague phrase" that would reflect "blatant POV" Turgidson was the first to propose it, and that phrase was already used in "did you know" annnouncement (which as far as I understand was writen by... you). -- AdrianTM 18:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, I have already commented at length about all that. You may enjoy repeating ad nauseam the same irrelevant arguments, you may choose not to see that you are contradicting yourself, but we are not and will not be voting on what the truth is. See you around. Dahn 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's also not only my displeasure to see him characterized firstly as a Romanian it's his own declaration from here:

a marturisit-o intr-o autobiografie pentru dosarul de partid: "In iunie 1940, cand Basarabia a fost eliberata de U.R.S.S., am ramas la Chisinau, in adevarata mea patrie pe care o servisem si pana atunci prin actiunile mele revolutionare"

Quick translation: In his autobiography written for his party dossier he declared: "In June 1940, when Bessarabia was eliberated by the Soviet Union, I remained at Chisinau, in my true country which I had already served by then with my revolutionary actions". So... talking about characterizing him firstly as Romanian or Soviet... I think this pretty much settles it. -- AdrianTM 19:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no response to this, so dual citizen of Soviet Union and Romania and by own account his true country was Soviet Union. I will change back although I'm sure Dahn will revert and say that he already showed that I contradict myself and that this already has been successfully argued against when, in my opinion it wasn't (of course Dahn has a right to have opinion about the strength of his arguments, so do I). -- AdrianTM 02:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Legal status is not subject to interpretations, not even to Nicolschi's. Nobody is asking Károly Kós where his real country was in determining that he had Romanian citizenship de facto and de jure for (in this case) the second half of his life. As you so kindly hinted yourself, this was already discussed several times before and your comment is largely irrelevant. Dahn 10:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Where did I deny here that he was a Romanian citizen de facto and de jure? Nor do I want to hide that. The point is that he was a Soviet citizen and that was an important part of his life, according to his own testimony the most important, I just want the lead to reflect the reality "Soviet and Romanian Communist" is probably the best compromise. Your comment is irrelevant because it addresses something that's not debated by me. -- AdrianTM 13:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
You just defined it: your version relies on your POV about what was important about the man, mine relies on facts presented in logical order. I don't know what you are debating and with whom, but you are obviously not discussing realities. Dahn 14:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What's so logical about your order? That he was Romanian citizen before becoming Soviet? BTW, it's not my POV about that issue, it's his POV which I think makes it highly relevant in this issue: dual citizen who says that his real country is Soviet Union should be described exactly as that: Soviet and Romanian Communist. What's incorrect about that? -- AdrianTM 16:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Same old, same old. Dahn 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Saying that doesn't disprove my arguments. "Same old, same old", "you contradict yourself", "you don't make sense", "rose is a rose is a rose is a rose" don't make a valid argument. I made my point, you made yours, if you don't have anything to add then please at least don't add gibberish to the discussion. -- AdrianTM
Of course it doesn't improve my argument: my argument is common sense, yours is based on what POV you have on the matter. Simple as that. Dahn 17:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what you claim... "my argument is logical, yours is POV" Now, that's a first on Wikipedia, wow! I think I succesfully showed that's not a POV it's a fact the guy was Soviet and Romanian Communist, that's a fact not a POV. He declared himself a Soviet patriot, what do you want more than that? -- AdrianTM 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What do I want? NPOV. As should you. Dahn 19:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
That's what I want too. I don't consider that "Soviet and Romanian Communist" is with anything less NPOV than "Romanian Communist" taking into consideration that he was Soviet citizen too and he considered Soviet Union his true country. If anything is more complete and NPOV than the later variant. -- AdrianTM 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
This is a matter of Fact vs. Interpretation. Unless you can add something that would deny that, my work here is done. The opinions you may have about facts are in no way relevant to this project. I'm done replying to your posts - nothing in them has brought something relevant and factual to this topic. It may interest you too find out that wikipedia is interested in what is technically correct, not in what AdrianTM feels about what is technically correct. Bye. Dahn 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
He was Soviet citizen -- fact, he was Romanian citizen -- fact. He said that his true country is Soviet Union -- fact. Given these facts what's wrong or POV in saying "Soviet and Romanian Communist"? It's based only on facts not any interpretation. -- AdrianTM 23:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Same old, same old. Dahn 23:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Same gibberish used for lack of arguments. Can you deny that any of those are facts? I don't think so... then explain why the description is wrong. -- AdrianTM 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I trust out intelligent readers have understood what my point is by now, so calling on me to answer those equivocations you feel like repeating ad nauseam is simply tiresome. I suppose that is your only purpose now, but I guess I can only be thankful that you are not cursing me this time around. Anyway, post all you want on your own. Dahn 23:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to extract an intelligent argument from you with a clear challenge and I only get either arguments to points I didn't make or that you already responded to my arguments, when all your answers have been only "same old, same old" and "my arguments are logical, yours are POV". No, it's not my pleasure to discuss with somebody who does that all the time. Unless you provide arguments I'm not going to bother to respond. -- AdrianTM 23:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fraudulent "Romanization" of names[edit]

Now that I understand better Dahn's goal of tarnishing the image of Romania and its people, it makes sense why he tried to convince other editors to drop the non-Romanian names of the NKVD founders of the Securitate. His argmuent ("let them have the names they chose for themselves") is fallacious: there exist legal procedures for changing one's name but I have not seen any hint that they were followed by Grunberg, Bodnarenko or Mazurov. Also these were occupation agents, not normal people. Dropping the true name is intentionally misleading. At some point in their lives, these foreigners chose Romanian names because they were sent to Romania by the NKVD, but it could have been Polish or Czech names if the mission were in those countries. All that mattered (like for Dahn today) was to hide their true identity for the success of their mission. I propose to emphasize these names and refer to the "romanized" versions Nicolschi and Pintilie as conspirative names, sort of spy games. (Icar 07:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

Please let the guy be. Anyway the issue is interesting, it would be interesting to find out if they changed their name legally. -- AdrianTM 08:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, by all means: provide us with a source saying that they didn't. Dahn 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The issue raised by Icar is interesting and I cannot but follow AdrianTM’s suggestion of searching what the legal status of his Romanian name was. I have however some problems with your argumentation style, Icar. You are making imprudent allegations, like those claiming that Dahn has a goal of “tarnishing the image of Romania and its people”. Honestly, I don’t know if he has such an explicit goal, though I could guess a certain idiosyncrasy to displayed Romanianism. Even if it’s true and he really has this goal in mind, you shouldn’t accuse him of that. It’s simply not politically correct. Never forget NPOV, NPA, never forget that you are here on Anglo-Saxon cultural territory. BTW, phrases like “tarnishing the image of Romania and its people” read at least naïve if not primitive against the background I’ve just mentioned. Such a discourse makes you and others editors vulnerable. Don’t let you become a target of ironies and be depicted as a primitive Romanian nationalist. I understand very well that this is far of being true, but don’t provide ammunitions to get shot. Wikipedia says to assume good faith, I ‘d add, yes, but be prepared for the worst faith. --Vintila Barbu 09:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

If I was "fraudulently Romanianizing his name", and if the name changes were not compliant with laws, one would have to explain why the Prosecutor General opened his file under the name "Alexandru Nicolschi"... Dahn 01:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In this case it's not "Romanization" since the name is Russian and was done to hide his origin and mission, it does look fraudulent according to his own confessions (my translation):

"When I was caught, in order to hide my past and mission I changed my name to Nicolschi Alexandru Sergheevici, originary from Tiraspol. Under this name I was investigated by the 2nd Office Counterinformations Bucharest, under this name I've been presenting myself till today, 14 October 1944".

from here I don't know why authorities kept calling him that way... maybe this is just a case of using a nickname or name under which a person is usually known, or maybe they didn't know any better which doesn't make it less fraudulent. -- AdrianTM 13:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Pacepa "citation"[edit]

Where? Where is it said that he was an NKVD "general"? Dahn 09:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dahn please stop acting like a spoiled child. A source has been indicated for that info, it is your obligation to find in the source the piece of information which was referred to in the article. If you feel unable, take a break from editing and don't bother other editors with bitchy and moody demands. However, for your information:

De aceea, SMERSH a fost autohtonizat ca Brigada Mobila, iar seful ei, colonelul NKVD Boris Grünberg, a fost romanizat ca Alexandru Nicholschi.

Sorry, here is the actual fragment under debate

Decretul 221 de la 30 august 1948 a creat Securitatea. Seful ei a fost generalul NKVD Panteleimon Bodnarenko, romanizat Gheorghe Pintilie. Cei care-l cunosteau au continuat sa-l numeasca "Pantiusa". Nicholschi, acum general, a devenit unul dintre adjunctii sai. --Vintila Barbu 10:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And plese Dahn don't revert sourced information. In the lead it should stay his NKWD grade, not his nationality. Per talk page. --Vintila Barbu 10:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Vintila Barbu, in case you have that particular problem with understanding my arguments, I will lay them down for you here. As the author of 95% of this article, I introduced the qualified sources referring to his activities, NKVD spying alike. I edited on the basis of the sources, something which is apparently new to you - I said what they allowed me to say. I could find no confirmation that he was an NKVD officer (or, at least, don't remember reading one so far), simply because these were the sources I used. At no point did I deny or confirm that he was one, just that this had not been mentioned.
All of this is besides the point, since the claim made by Icar, and previously made by Adrian TM is that he was an NKVD general. To this goal and this goal only, Icar used as "evidence" a text that does not, in all actuality, say that.
Nonsense.(Icar 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
As for the lead, this should specify profession, not rank (let alone "grade"...) - check out wikipedia conventions and featured articles for that. Dahn 10:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Stop hiding behind "wikipedia style conventions", that's a highly relevant info that describes the guy. When somebody talks about a military guy (see: George S. Patton for example) they use the rank. I would also appreciate if you stopped removing referenced material. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It is clear for everyone including Dahn that the rank (and in what organization, here the NKVD) is meaningful. (Icar 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
"you have that particular problem with understanding my arguments" -- please stop being a bully. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have already told you why I ignore such statements. Dahn 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"I'm ignoring this statement" <-- that's pretty funny way to ignore it, I'd like you'd not ignore such comments. What did Vintila Barbu do to you to treat him like this? Sometimes you behave like an online bully. (I say "sometimes" only because I didn't follow your history and I don't want to generalize from what I see here) -- AdrianTM 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. Dahn 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Meanigful answer. With this token of good manners, I propose to conclude that the NKVD general rank is well documented in Pacepa's article and must be included in the lead.(Icar 10:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC))
And that makes sense how? Dahn 14:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please understand this as well: as mentioned below in the text, the NKVD no longer existed by the time he was a colonel, so the lead you push is basically false. It is precisely because of that that one should favor more generic information: a "Soviet agent", as opposed to an "NKVD agent", is still a spy, no matter what the institution he spied for was named. Dahn 10:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
So he was general in which Russian agency? SMERSH, MVD (former NKVD), or what? I hope you see the difference between a mere spy and somebody who is a general. Anybody could spy for one country or another, not everybody is a general... -- AdrianTM 14:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any indication that he was a general of any Soviet agency. On the rest, my version has: "agent and officer". You sem unable to read the text through: you will find an anser to your question there. I owe a similar answer to Vintila Barbu, who keeps claiming that Nicolschi had "no responsability in the Romanian Communist Party" - incidentally, he was a member of the Politburo in the 1930s, if Vintila Barbu would actually care to read what he criticizes. I'm pretty much done answering to false dilemmas: argue something that is based on reality, and we'll talk. Dahn 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
In the text it says he was general. I misinterpreted fist time too, but if you read again you'll see that Pacepa said that he was NKVD colonel at one point and then when he talks about subsequent period: "by now a general". -- AdrianTM 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Actually: I also see a indication that he was a police officer in the Romanian services, and then a general. This is consistent with other sources, who point out that he was promoted a general around that date. Unless you can prove that the mention is about the NKVD, you make no point. Dahn 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Dahn has the WP:OWN syndrome. I think explaning things to him is a waste of time. In this case, Pacepa says it clearly: Grunberg-Nicolschi was a NKVD colonel. Later on he says "Nicolschi, by then a general". Dahn is really an extreme case. (Icar 11:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

As the one who intiated the article, and laid out some of the basic information and references to it (see here), I am saddened to see that my role has been dismissed as essentially irrelevant by Dahn, who claims 95% authorship of the article. This was one of my first attempts at starting an article, after only a month at Wikipedia, and I was very happy to see how one can collaborate with others in making things better. The revelation of seeing how my contribution is evaluated by a fellow editor is quite dispiriting to me. I was under the impression that Wikpedia is a collaborative effort, that no one "owns" an article, and that we are all supposed to work together in creating and improving content. Maybe I'm missing something, but I do not see how such dismissive assertions about other's contributions fit with the stated goals of Wikipedia. Turgidson 13:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Turgidson, to have written this article ! Thank you for having acted without a trace of narcissistic arrogance and with perfect discretion and civility, letting other users to edit it. The rest is worth but a smile, evoking me some lost verses: “Hoţule, ce s-antâmplat ?!/Am pierdut un cal furat. /Iar acum îmi vine greu…/Parcă devenise-al meu”. Besides, you have a DYK tag. As we Romanians use to say, people have eyes in their heads. I am afraid to be forced admitting that Icar has a point when he mentions a WP:OWN syndrome. --Vintila Barbu 14:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tell me, if you have eyes in your head, why not check the edit history starting from the diff Turgidson provided you with? Dahn 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Turgidson, thank you for your calm. I can't be like that, I become very annoyed when people lie and claim ownership for something they didn't do and use that as a fake argument to support their ideas "I wrote 95% of the article, so I must be right". -- AdrianTM 15:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Where did I ever write something amounting to "I wrote 95% of the article, so I must be right"? Where? Man, you sure can talk the talk. Dahn 19:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that's your attitude, and BTW you claimed that you wrote the article, let me quote you: "I watchlist the Nicolschi article because I damn well wrote it!"... Sorry if I interpreted "I damn well wrote it" in such a deformed manner... But anyway doesn't that sound like WP:OWN syndrome as other Wikipedians wondered? -- AdrianTM 04:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Unless you claim I should not watchlist it, you make no sense. Check out the edit history: most of the article, beyond the stub phase, was created by me. I told you clearly that I watchlisted it based on this, and I hope nobody is challenging this. Now, again: where did I say, in there or anywhere, "I wrote 95% of the article, so I must be right"? Again, you can sure talk the talk. Dahn 09:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
How about "NKVD colonel", that's clearly documented, do you agree with that? -- AdrianTM 09:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
See above. Dahn 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get me wrong -- most of the credit goes to Dahn, who took the rough sketch I started and turned it in a full-blown article. For that, I thanked him at the time, and I am still thankful for his obvious contributions to not just this article, but many, many others. I'm just saddened to see how my own, admittedly much less important contributions are being treated. I am still hoping it was just a momentary lapse -- one sometimes says things which are overblown in the heat of the argument. We'll see. Turgidson 17:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Turgidson, for what it's worth, I'm sorry. First of all, I did not mean to say that I created or owned the article or that I had any right to it. Don't take me out of context: what I was answering to was an absurd and insulting allegation that I come here and "hide" stuff about Nicolschi, in an article where I have contributed most. I thought it just happened to be about 95%, which means nothing in itself - it was not under any circumstances meant as self-promotion, and it did not implicate either the value of your work or the collaborative effort of the project itself. 95% was probably exaggerated, but hope you will see that it was not in my intent to insult your contributions. Please, let's not turn this into a separate discussion, I already have a hard time responding to every single thing brought up here. Dahn 19:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

A Very Sincere Welcome[edit]

to our new guest-editors Domitius and Mardavich !

In the last 12 hours, users Domitius and Mardavich joined Khoikhoi in reverting edits on this article.

I cannot but welcome the sudden interest for this very marginal Romanian article shown by users well-known for their valuable contributions on Oriental topics and who never before contributed to any Romanian topic. Strangely, the same phenomenon happens in Leonte Tismăneanu, where a distinguished user Artaxiad seems to discover that article, making uncommented reverts.

It appears that a group of users around Khoikhoi is willing to help in articles where Dahn is very active.

A cordial welcome to any new editor ! However, let me remind you, that uncommented reverts are to be undone at sight. If our new co-editors really wish to help, they should first expose their points on the talk page, join our editing community, learn and confront with our difficulties and dilemmas and than, of course, edit, creating content, not just reverting.

I look forward to a fruitful teamwork alongside our new co-editors. --Vintila Barbu 11:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good news indeed! The authoritative Domitius and Mardavich joined our humble efforts in this obscure corner of the English WP. We expect their contributions to bring essential improvement to this article. (Icar 13:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
Me too, I'd apprecate if they would document their edits though. -- AdrianTM 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if collective "hit and run" edits made with the obvious intention of avoiding 3RR rule and “winning” edit wars, fall under the incidence of any WP norms. Could someone check ? What is troubling, is the collective and organized character of this action. As long as "edit wars" take place between normal editors engaged in working on an article, this is regrettable but understandable. However, if things really are what they seem to be, here we have to do with organized collective action aimed at undermining the very spirit of Wikipedia. Alarming for me is the mentality behind this, which evokes what Romanian criminalists call “rezoluţie infracţională” and their German colleagues call “kriminelle Energie”. I don’t know the English word for this.--Vintila Barbu 15:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure this is a very popular article in English Wikipedia therefore we'll see this kind of edits from people who were not active before, and by the way, I assume they are all Romanians (just like Nicolschi) -- AdrianTM 16:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Myself I am very appreciative of foreigners who are interested in Romania, its people and its culture. This does not mean that foreign agents (NKVD) who took Romanian names suddenly became "Romanian". I hope there is no ambiguity about this. (Icar 09:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC))

Article by Miruna Munteanu[edit]

I found another article about Nicolschi:

This article contains all sorts of information -- some simply corroborating what we know, but much completely new. The article is pretty well written, I think, and is based on research by historian Cristian Troncota, who apparently had access to the SSI dossier of Nicolschi. Among the highlights:

  • Nicolschi did his military service in Iaşi in 1937-39, where he became corporal. (This seems to reinforce the case that he had become Romanian citizen by then: hard to imagine one could serve in the Romanian Army -- or any other Army, for that matter -- without being citizen...)
  • By the way, the article as it now stands says Nicolschi was "elected to the internal Politburo" "by the late 1920s". This does not sound very likely to me: he was only 14 in 1929. Who would elect someone that age to the Politburo? Maybe late 1930s is meant?
  • His initial contact with Soviet intelligence was with a man named Kasenberg ("Blondul") from Chişinău.
  • He became member of the PCR in 1937.
  • The Munteanu article says he crossed the border on May 16, 1941 (not May 26). Can we double-check?
  • He had 13,450 lei on him when he was caught. Anyone knows how significant a sum that was at the time? Sounds non-negligible to me.
  • The investigation into his activities was done June 6-12, 1941 by Lt.-Col. Emil Velciu. This is when Nicolschi confessed he was a Soviet spy, recruited by Capt. Andreev. Note that this confirms one of the categories we have on Nicolschi ("Admitted Soviet spies"), to which only 7 people worldwide belong!
  • He was sentenced to life in prison on August 7, 1941.
  • Before going to Aiud, he spent some time in prison at Ploieşti.
  • Apparently, he was set free on August 24 (not August 28) 1944, through Royal Decree #1624 -- can this be double-checked?
  • On April 9, 1946, it was Nicolschi who took charge of Ion Antonescu, Mihai Antonescu, and other high-ranking prisoners, escorted back from Moscow by Soviet Lt. Col. Rodin. (Clearly, Nicolschi was already a senior figure by then.) This is an interesting vignette, I think.
  • In 1954, Alexandru Drăghici had information about Nicolschi, according to which Nicolschi was drawing (at the time) a salary from the Soviet Embassy in Bucharest and that he was (implictly) a KGB officer. This sounds like strong evidence to me that Nicolschi had maintained his ties with the Soviet Union (and, one could reasonably argue, his Soviet citizenship) even at that late date. (I'm not saying that the case is 100% clear, just making a reasonable inference).
  • He retired on a pension of 4,200 lei a month.

I could go on, but as long as the page is blocked, this seems rather futile. So let me ask again: is there a valid reason for keeping this page blocked indefinitely, while new information is coming up? Is there any admistrator reading these messages, and, if so, could some response be forthcoming? Or is this hopeless, and should I just give up on trying to work on this article? Thanks. Turgidson 05:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry again for not noticing this at the proper time. Aside from those details that can be simply passed into the text, I have some comments:
  • According to Oprea, Nicolschi was "a member of the Communist Party in/of Bessarabia" (I'm quoting from memory). I've seeen this distinction made in several other places, with an indication that the Besarabian structure of the PCR was virtually an independent one, but could find no details regarding this. Note that, if this is the reason why, it could explain both of the apparently contradictory mentions in Tismăneanu and Munteanu. Concerning the date: as I have answered beforehand someplace in the above text, I misread the text I had in front on me (which does not actualy mention the date, just the office; the one date mentions in there refers to the late 1920s, and I took it as an indication that it applied to subsequent sentences - it did not, and the text most likely refers to something from the 1930s - early to late -, to which I have since changed it in the article). I would also presume it refers to the late 1930s, esopecially since most of better-known (and older) PCR activists were kept at the state's expense around that moment.
  • He was probably freed by Soviet troops and probably heard the news that he was officially free sometime afterwards.
  • Yes, he did have double citizenship, as confirmed by several sources. (As stated, I do not interpret this as weighing much on the citizenship debate.) Dahn 13:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
First, glad to see the page was unblocked -- thanks to the admin who did it. I started incorporating some of the info from the Munteanu article, but it's slow going -- I've had a bit of pain figuring out this formatting scheme for references (I usually use other ones, but now it's OK). About dates: yes, errors do occur (eg, Munteanu puts Nicolschi's joining the UTC at 1923 instead of 1932, which clearly must be a typo). There still are a couple of unresolved date conflicts, but these differ by days, not years, making them more difficult to resolve just by common sense. Also, I now see that at least one of the above facts was in the article -- the one about Nicolschi taking charge of Antonescu & Co in 1946; but the added detail may still be useful. Turgidson 13:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
All accurate detail is useful, and thanks for it. Btw, if you feel like changing the references system, I have no objection (generally, I use this one because it seeems to be the easiest one to apply, and especially the easiest way in which one can add more references to any single version). I would suppose that changing it is probably harder than working from with this one, but hopefully this doesn't mean that I [inadvertendly] twisted your hand into using it. Dahn 14:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
After experimenting with various reference schemes (and there are at least 2 or 3 of them within wikipedia) I came to prefer the one where the referece is added in the text (as opposed to at the bottom), and then referred to in quotes. I know, it's more clumsy that way, and harder to add on later on, as you say; but the final appearance is more compact, and it's easier to follow which reference is used where (though it can be a problem if specific page numbers are used). So all in all, the case is not strong enough or clear enough right now to go against inertia, and face the pain of changing things. But I propose keeping this is mind, especially if at some point one would envisage bringing the article to a higher ranking, and planning things ahead when working on similar articles, i.e., deciding in advance which ref scheme is best suited to a given article. BTW, can a ranking (say, Start? or better?) be given already? While at it, how about trying to add a photo of the guy, as requested in a template at the top of the page? I never could find one, and even if one could find such a photograph, one would surely run into copyright issues... Turgidson 14:29, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Specific pages are my main concern as well (though not the case here, it is a headache when somebody decides to switch from one system to another where a large book was thoroughly used as reference). I came up with a compromise in some articles, where I used your preferred system for all non-specific references together with my system for those with page numbers). Any solution is fine by me.
From what I understand, anybody can add a rating (or at least argue in favor of it on the page indicated in the template). I persoanlly never bothered with projects, and there might be a specification that this si to be done by people who did not contribute to the articles.
I too have no idea what the man looked like. When reading Oprea, I found a mention of a photo of him at the crematory (about to be cremated, that is) - this was the only indication I did see of there being a surviving recorded image of him... Dahn 14:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I added the info on Nicolschi and Antonescu from Munteanu's article. Note though that the dates seem to conflict with the previous ones (1946 vs 1945). I think the 1946 date is the correct one (I also added it to the Antonescu article yesterday), but maybe this is just due to some fuzz about when Antonescu was sent to Moscow, and when he returned. By the way, I think it would be good if that were to be explained more precisely and in more detail in the Antonescu article (the transition between August 23, 1944 and his trial is just too abrupt). I may do it later on, right now I probably won't have the time. Turgidson 15:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, by all means: a lot needs to be done about the Antonescu article. As you may have deduced from my modus operandi, I generally gather information in related articles that are bound to be shorter, then either gather it all in one place, or leave others to do it. Dahn 15:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


It appears without possible doubt that the lead is misleading (no pun intended) and that the version pushed by User:Dahn is unacceptable manipulation. The discussion was carried with manifest bad faith by User:Dahn, who seems to be in denial when proofs are presented. This is a severe case of a clique formed around one editor, helping him to push nonsense info on WP. Icar 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's also telling that the protected variant was always the one promoted by User:Dahn. -- AdrianTM 20:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


It seems there are irreconciliable differences between one editor User:Dahn and the rest of the editors. This may be only one impression, as some other editors have reverted for User:Dahn, however their ability of understanding the issues is questionable. It seems to me more like bad wiki practices.

In any case, the article as such has a few problems reflected in this talk page.

I calim that the lead is false and misleading by presenting Nicolschi first as "Romanian". Let us call a vote on this. Icar 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see that WP:MOSBIO is invoked in revert war[edit]

Let's see how the claimed policy applies to this case: "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.)"

  1. First of all that this quote mention "normal case", I would challenge anyone to show that this is a normal case. A non-Romanian born in Russia who came to Romania to spy for Soviets and then became chef over the secret service of Romania. How is that "normal case"? Please explain.
  2. it says "country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable". When Nicholschi become notable he was both Soviet and Romanian citizen, so it's correct and complete info to represent him as such. So, what's wrong in saying he was both Soviet and Romanian communist? Please explain. -- AdrianTM 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
We have been through all of that already. Not once. Not twice. Not three times. I'm guessing it was about four times that you invoked the same spurious and contrived theory about what is "the whole truth" about Nicolschi (in addition to other interesting theories about how and why I would want to hide it). All of your original arguments have been proven wrong, but i still have to "please explain" stuff to you. Furthermore, the text does not in any way reject the notion that he was a Soviet citizen, it places it in its proper and informative order in the text. In addition, you misinterpret and twist the guideline you cite, since the part after "or", as semantics will show you, is the alternative to providing the nationality that one is known to have had (that is to say, is somebody held several citizenships in succession, the part after "or" clarifies that you are to use the one that made him famous, even if that person no longer held that citizenship by the time of his/her death; neither of this applies to Nicolschi, who was a Romanian citizen for virtually all his life, and who died a Romanian citizen).
I cannot answer to whatever new inventive amphibology you come up with. You have filled this page with rhetoric, and you have filled others with direct accusations aimed at me. And ad neauseaming does not make the point in any way valid. Dahn 02:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Inventive? I still don't see how WP:MOSBIO applies since it was invoked by User:Khoikhoi you didn't explain that, you only claim that my arguments have been proven wrong (which of course I don't agree)... this, by the way, seems like a fallacious argument. As for the guy dying as a Romanian citizen is irrelevant, the very policy that you appeal to talks about "country of which [...] was a citizen when the person became notable." He was citizen of Soviet Union and of Romania and he declared that his true fatherland was Soviet Union? Why are we still discussing this? -- AdrianTM 03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
As you will remember, I invoked wp:mosbio a long, long time ago. Your arguments have factually been proven wrong, because you originally claimed that he was not Romanian, AdrianTM (not only that, but your first comment on this subject made reference to his name as "proof" that he was not Romanian... his name, for Chrissake).
I have answered, just a couple of lines above your reply, why your argument about wp:mosbio "not applying" is based on inventive and spurious reconsideration of a clear-cut rule. Again, I will not repeat myself at your convenience.
The theory about what you consider relevant in his statements bears no weight on his factual citizenship status.
I believe these arguments to be as clear as spring water, and have had quite enough on replying to just any pointless hubbab just because it is assumed I have to. Dahn 03:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't twist anything, the policy in this case supports my version. It's funny to invoke the policy to revert some changes that the policy actually supports. The policy supports listing the citizenship of the guy: he was both Soviet and Romanian citizen most of his life, when he become famous he was citizen of both countries and himself declared that his true fatherland is Soviet Union. Why should we present him as "Romanian communist"? No policy supports that no matter how you twist it. -- AdrianTM 04:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I have already answered. All you reply above has nothing to do with the text as hand, and you clip sections of each text you refer to ("Romanian communist" instead of "Romanian communist activist"; the second part of a policy sentence you could read in its entirety), while, again, you pretend that my version does not say he was Soviet. If it is not clear to you by now, I do not answer to projections, so feel free to post me when you actually build up a logical and mature argument. Dahn 04:28, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I also answered, your reply is insufficient and doesn't prove anything, I don't respond to accusations of projections and arguments about what I discussed in other pages. He was first and foremost a Soviet as himself clearly declared, expediting that somewhere after "Romanian communist" misrepresents the historical fact. -- AdrianTM 04:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you don't understand what a historical fact is. Dahn 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
He was Soviet citizen -- that's a fact. He declared that Soviet Union is his true fatherland -- that's a fact. What more do you want from the poor guy to recognize his main citizenship? -- AdrianTM 05:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
A fact is not an interpretation of facts. I have answered above, and made a full point, not something you chop into pieces and reply to selectively. Dahn 11:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The NKVD general Boris Grünberg, aka Nicolschi, is presented in the current version as "Romanian communist". Ridiculous imposture. AdrianTM, I think that User:Dahn understands perfectly what you say, but his Trotzkist prejudice prevents him from recognizing that he is wrong. I am afraid that arguing with him is futile. Icar 07:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's quite enough libel, Icar. Dahn 11:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry to see how much time and energy is spent on arguing about a few words in this article, especially when there are so many (related) articles that are in dire need of attention. (For example, Soviet occupation of Romania#Reorganization of the security services could use some expansion.) I'm not sure whether I can do anything to help improve the situation, but let me go ahead with a small change, that hopefully will help clear up the air. Namely, I added a category here (NKVD), which I think is appropriate -- after all, everybody agrees A.N. was affiliated with the NKVD at some point in his career, yes? As far I understand, some of the differing opinions are as to what exact rank he achieved when in which of the various Soviet intelligence agencies, and to what extent those functions overshadowed (or trumped?) the functions he had in the Securitate. Although I can see pros and cons on various sides (I'm not at all dogmatic about this), I'm afraid I can't answer those questions with any degree of certainty beyond what's in the article already. Perhaps the best would be to come up with new sources, that somehow could shed new light on this topic? Absent such new sources, I'd say let's just go with the default solution (Occam's razor!) -- which seems to be Dahn's version, since he has been the main contributor to this article (though I've done my bit at various junctures, too) -- and move on. Sounds reasonable? Turgidson 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how about starting an article on Vladimir Mazuru? After all, he was the other deputy chief of the Securitate at its inception -- there are all sorts of redlinks pointing to that (still virtual) page, may as well turn them into bluelinks. Anyone willing to give it a shot? Turgidson 19:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Who gave the order to kill Foriş' mother?[edit]

The article states that "it was Nicolschi who ordered Foriş' mother to be drowned in the Crişul Repede", with reference to articles by Betea and Golpenţia (with a similar account in the article on Ştefan Foriş). Now, I found a new reference on the history of the Securitate (article by Gabriel Catalan, Mircea Stănescu in Sfera Politicii), which seems to be a good source for this topic. I haven't checked all the details, but almost everything I read matches what's already in this article, or the related ones on Gheorghe Pintilie and the Securitate (though there are some new nuggets that I plan to add when I get a chance). The only (slight) discrepancy that I could find so far is on deciding exactly who ordered the murder of Foriş' mother. Based on Dennis Deletant's book, and on an article by Dan Cătănuş and Ioan Chiper, Catalan and Stănescu say that Gheorghe Pintilie (the guy who killed Foriş) was the one who ordered the murder of Foriş' mother. Of course, it may well be that the order came on from the very top of the Securitate (i.e., from Pintilie), and then was passed on by Nicholschi to the agents in the field, who actually carried it out. By the way, the article on Foriş says that the order came from all the way to the top (i.e., from Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej), with reference given to an article by Adriana Criş. Can all this be sorted out? It's probably tough to say with 100% certainty (would such an order be put in writing??), but maybe there is a way. Turgidson 02:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points. Since I was responsible for the discrepancy, I will explain how it came about: I thought most details should belong in the article on Foriş, so I did not bring in the reference that claimed Dej was at the end of this chain (since, although I do not contest it, it seemed superfluous and required using a reference that only mentions Nicolschi once or twice). There was probably a connection between Pintile and Nicolschi, so adding citations from the sources you mention would not be contradictory (especially since Nicolschi did recount he himself was somehow involved).
A minor pint, but one I consider essential: when I use a reference, I tend to use it with whatever it says, and thus cite it even for what is already cited. I have three reasons for doing this: the user needs to know just how much sources agree; the text would be messed up for non-exhaustive citations if someone would proceed to change the sentence order or other semantic details; you can never really have too many citations. Also, consider that the two articles I have cited for the Iron Guard issue here largely say the same thing; if I had to pick one of them to reference the story, and the other to reference only details not present in the first article, the full picture would have to suffer (since it would seem like I am gluing versions of researchers who may not actually disagree on events). I would encourage sources in general to be used in this way (I know, it may get dreary, but it helps the project in the long run). Dahn 03:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Last paragraph[edit]

I wonder whether that paragraph (based on a discussion from Deletant's book) could be set out separately. Previously, the article ended with the retirement of A.N. as part of the nomenklatura, and his death, just before he could be brought to justice for his role in the violent political repression of the 1940s and 1950s, and face some of the survivors of his actions. Now, that ending no longer stands out -- it is somewhat overtaken by this discussion of A.N.'s ethnicity in the last paragraph. While that's of some relevance, I still view it as a side issue compared to the magnitude of the events discussed in this article (founding of the Securitate, the Piteşti experiment, the Canal, etc), in which A.N. had a direct hand. So what I propose is to create a new section at the end (as is the case in many biographies I've seen on WP) about legacy, ongoing controversies, etc. In other words, let the past be with the past, and the present with the present ("morţii cu morţii, viii cu viii", as they say). Turgidson 14:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. For now, I thought I could just tie it to what is already there, since I'd rather merge than have small separate sections (since I cannot figure out what else would go in such a section). I also do not know what title works best. So, Turgidson, please feel free to make the change as you see fit. Dahn 19:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what an appropriate heading would be -- perhaps "Controversies"? On the other hand, maybe it would be better to have this discussion on the main page for the Securitate, an not repeat it (except perhaps briefly) for Pantiuşa, Nicolschi, Mazuru, and all the other gentlemen of said organization? While at it, it would seem appropriate to bring other points of view (and citations) for this, not just Deletant's. By the way, I don't think this kind of controversy is just about the Securitate, in the Romanian context. Indeed, similar controversies have been going on for decades about the origins of the Cheka, OGPU, and NKVD (under Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, Yakov Peters, Grigoriy Ordzhonikidze, Vyacheslav Menzhinsky, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Lavrentiy Beria, etc.). So maybe if this were treated in the main article about the Securitate, one could draw some comparisons with the modus operandi of sister organizations. I'll try to see if I can find some references that treat such a subject--i.e., not just from the point of view of the USSR or Romania, but, say, the whole Eastern Bloc. Turgidson 21:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Edit war[edit]

Let's not mention his citizenship since it's complicated (as I explained) and it's kind of hotly debated here. BTW, I don't consider "Soviet agent" related to citizenship, I read it as "it was agent of Soviet Union" not as "he was Soviet citizen". AdrianTM 00:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What about "Soviet officer", AdrianTM? It comes straight after that. Or are you again projecting? And, when it comes to absolute truths: yes, AdrianTM, it is an absolute truth that someone had Romanian citizenship, and that absolute truth is not "mine". Just to be clear. Dahn 07:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I explained that "Soviet agent" means "agent of Soviet Union", that's I think the common understanding of anyone who reads that, it isn't indication of citizenship (although he was Soviet citizen too). In the long debate I didn't really question that he had Romanian citizenship (although it might be debatable if he got it back legally) I mentioned that he was Soviet citizen too and most likely Russian before being Romanian citizen, his allegiance was also with the Soviets, that makes it more complicated and it's probably the best if we don't focus on citizenship at all in the lead, the article explains pretty well his path and where he was born and what he has become... -- AdrianTM 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
What about the undeniable truth that the true name of "Nicolschi" is Boris Grünberg, while "Alexandru Nicolschi" is his forged identity as a Soviet spy? He may well have been a Romanian citizen at some points in his life, this is irrelevant compared to this main citizenship: Soviet. Don't try to push Soviet propaganda here. Icar 11:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Icar, WP:POINT. Unless you go now and change article leads to: Mihail Eminovici (pseudonym Mihail Eminescu), Cyprian Gołęmbiowski, known as Ciprian Porumbescu, etc. Tell me how that pans out. Now, be on your way with your libel and all. Clear? Dahn 11:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
We are talking about conspirative names here for the spy "Nicolschi" and his buddies, not about the forceful Polonization of an ethnic Romanian family (Porumbescu) under Austrian rule. In one case, we have some spies assuming false identities; in the second case, we have honest people spelling their names as they felt they should be spelled, not according to the whims of some temporary rulers. May I note in passing that last names were quite unstable in Romania until 1900. But go ahead and change Ciprian Porumbescu if you dare. Icar 12:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Usually, other trolls are more discreet than you in stating their POV - that can only clarify the matter from when we ultimately bring your behavior to the attention of sysops. Have a good one. Dahn 12:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe it would be better if you'd not call people names. -- AdrianTM 13:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
While at it, try also changing the lead paragraph in Che Guevarra according to the Stalinist nomenklator. Icar
User:Dahn's polite, constructive contribution is also neded in the articles Joseph Stalin and Vladimir Lenin. Icar 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)