Talk:Eugen Barbu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

POV issues[edit]

the part with the anti-americanism,anti-semitisms& stuff are not sustained by some proof and they appear in this page by simple fact that anyone can write his oppinion and disinform in the same time (added in the article by User:

bogdan 12:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

for sure... Eugen Barbu is the perfect Communist Monster to crucify for his political opinions. Nothing about Groapa, which is an important novel, his other novels etc.

--Dragosioan 17:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

--Mpopa (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

This article seems to be biased. It contains grave and unverified accusations against Greater Romania Party (PRM); adding quotes and "so-called".
Disguising the removal and defacing of referenced text, a simple case of vandalism, as "improving the article" is simply not something worth answering to, and is in breach of wikipedia's core policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOT etc.) I couldn't care less what the Romanian article looks like (other than to note that it cites no source): everything in this article is based on published reliable sources. My next step is to inform administrators. And please don't throw around accusations of breaking wikipedia policies that you manifestly haven't read. Dahn (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

--Mpopa (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)To the author of this article: Please remove all the biased information and the false accusations against Eugen Barbu, the Greater Romania Party and others. This a blatant violation of Wikipedia's etiquette. The author opted to ignore all the discussions related to this content. In addition to that, the Romanian version of this entry is quite different than the English version, which proves obvious lack of transparency and partisanship. I suggest this destructive propaganda to stop, as Wikipedia is no place for this kind of contributions. If the author continues his libel and refuses to come to an agreement, the next step will be to submit a request for mediation. Regards...

 There are no evidence that Eugen Barbu or the Greater Roumanian Party are xenofobic and the others false acusations.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanasu (talkcontribs) 00:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC) 

Since when Wikipedia became a forum for insults and propaganda?![edit]

This article contains false information and far from Eugen Barbu's contribution to literature and politics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpopa (talkcontribs) 20:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

--Mpopa (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Please refrain from adding personal attacks - " manifestly haven't read. " - and please do no try to impose a inappropriate - "couldn't care less what the Romanian article looks like " - tone to this conversation. Being new to Wikipedia-style editing, I would like to express apologies for my editing mishaps.

Back to the article. Quoting subjective and limitedreferences, in Romanian only, does not make this neutral, nor informative, considering it should address Eugen Barbu's creation and biography. The content is obviously biased WP:NPOV, rich in insults and name-calling WP: CIV.

This article may be easily considered an obvious defamation case, more likely typical to the underground discussion forums, but not Wikipedia.

1. The dead can't sue. Not that it's OK to defame them, but we don't have to worry about that.
2. What's wrong with Romanian references if that's all that's available? I just wrote Raluca Turcan using only Romanian sources - should we delete it because (unsurprisingly) no English sources mention her?
3. The sources are written by reliable people, respected historians like Ioanid and Tismăneanu, in reliable venues like 22, Observatorul Cultural and Cotidianul. They meet WP:RS.
4. Feel free to add content on his literary output, but remember to adhere to WP:RS & WP:NPOV. - Biruitorul Talk 05:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • re 1: This comment make no sense. Dead or alive, everyone should be granted truth and respect.
  • re 2: The article is in English. You don't expect that English-speaking to know Romanian, necessarily.
  • re 3: How can anyone write anything about a famous writer and politician only by quoting people with dubious background and a handful of tabloids?! These sources, so-called "reliable", are not neutral, nor objective. Adam Michnick describes V. Tismaneanu as being controversial. Richard Hall, CIA analyst, describe him as being just an amateur. Other academic critics identify him as being a neo-communist, which makes perfect sense since his own father, Leonid Tisminetski, was head of the communist occupation in Romania. Also, V. Tismaneanu is cited as a co-defendant in many libel lawsuits, along with another anti-Romanian and co-ideologist, Radu Ioanid. Both individuals are well known as being cronies of the current Romanian President, Basescu.
  • re 4: Making such suggestions is simply ridiculous, in the presence of an article which poor in content, misinformed and propagandistic. Wikipedia and its readers deserve much, much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpopa (talkcontribs) 20:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
  • 1. Again, defamation per se is bad for dead people as well as living people, but we rely on verifiability, not truth. We tell the verifiable truth about Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot and Mao Tse-tung (without concern for "respecting" them); we will also tell the truth about Eugen Barbu.
  • 2. Yes, obviously at English Wikipedia we write in English, but we can base our articles 100% on Romanian sources. It helps when those writing here are fluent in both languages.
  • 3. I understand you don't like Tismăneanu and Ioanid, but that's immaterial here. What's important is that they published their writings through a professional, even scientific, editorial process. We couldn't use something Tismăneanu wrote on the back of a napkin, but we certainly can use material published in 22, Observatorul Cultural, the University of California Press, and so on.
  • 4. The article presents an accurate picture of Barbu's career. If you don't want to add material about his literary output, fine, but I'm not sure what the "much, much better" we deserve might be. - Biruitorul Talk 16:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)