Jump to content

Talk:Leonard Oprea/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work

I've just removed, for a third time, the 'Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work' section. As pointed out in a previous edit summary, the section is composed of quotations drawn from a self-published source. As such, their inclusion runs counter to Wikipedia's policy concerning verifiability, in particular the sections addressing self-published sources and Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves. This, too, was addressed in an edit summary. On a related note, I respectfully disagree with Judetadeus (talk · contribs) who writes in an edit summary (and appears to repeat here) that the quotations are 'necessary' and their inclusion 'mandatory' in the article. The issue of verifiability aside, I do not see that the inclusion of four random quotations, with no context provided, has a place in an encyclopedic article. Victoriagirl (talk) 20:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations

Please note that the Quotations section of articles is now deprecated, and quotations should go in wikiquote, with a link template {{wikiquote|Leonard Oprea}} in the external links section of the article. Tyrenius (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Quotations Issue - Dear Victoriagirl and Dear Tyrenius, please...

Dear Victoriagirl and Dear Tyrenius,

  • Please, I re-read carfully the 3RR. And, it is questionable if you are right concerning my possible violations of the 3RR. But, if you consider that I overreacted - O.K., I'm sorry.
  • On the other hand - yes, AuthorHouse is the former 1stLibrary Books. Yet, this is a POD Publishing House, not at all, I'm saying crystal-clear, not at all a self-publishing venture. With a POD Publishing House the author must respect the editorial international rules and, despite the fact that he pays some money for the editing&marketing of the book, the rest is the classic way to publish a book and make it available on the market. So, it is a pretty big difference between a self-publishing venture and a POD Publishing House. For example, the oldest POD Publishing House in the USA is Xlibris... a strategic partner of Random House Ventures. Therefore, may I ask: is Random House not credible for you Victoriagirl or for anyone from Wikipedia?
  • Last but not least, all your explanations concernig your checking up of these quotations are a totally false argumentation. How do you question cultural American VIPs like Vladimir Tismaneanu (see on English Wikipedia), Norman Manea (see on English Wikipedia), Adam J.Sorkin (see on English Wikipedia) and Andrei Codrescu (see on English Wikipedia) - who are American universitary professors and public persons? They can be contacted to verifiy if they wrote and agreed to publish these blurbs or not.
  • Concerning your research to check up on amazon.com the existence of Andrei Codrescu's quote about the literature of Leonard Oprea, well, you missed this reader's review (quote from amazon.com): / *****/ 7 of 7 people found the following review helpful: A marvelous book � this unique vision !, November 17, 2003. I repeat you can find it easily among the 9 reader reviews of the book of Leonard Oprea. Regarding your research on Romanian Wikipedia, sorry, but you did it superficially as well.
  • My final conclusion: Dear Wikipedia specialists & cultural friends - please, do not eliminate again the quotations. Please, find a solution to keep them in the article. I am just an old professor who loves great books and great authors; I am not a computer geek. When I introduced this article 4 years ago I did it because I considered Wikipedia being the library of the future and a huge opportunity to transform culture in a living source accessible to everyone. The rest is silence, said Hamlet. God forgive us.--Judetadeus (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)--Judetadeus (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Nota Bene: Wikipedia Good references and Quotations issue

Dear Victoriagirl and Dear Tyrenius,

Therefor, my question: what is wrong with these Quotations?!! They are on a published book backcover (nota bene: not on a self-published book! ), they are on amazon.com and other authorized web sites... Anytime you can ask their well-known cultural American VIP authors, as I wrote you already... So, for God's sake: what is wrong?!! How should I consider this?!... Please, re-read: Good references: A reference must be accurate, i.e. it must prove the statement in the text. To validate "Mike Brown climbed Everest", it's no good linking to a page about Everest, if Mike Brown isn't mentioned, nor to one on Mike Brown, if it doesn't say that he climbed Everest. You have to link to a source that proves his achievement is true. You must use reliable sources, such as published books, mainstream press, authorised web sites, and official documents. Blogs, Myspace, Youtube, fan sites and extreme minority texts are not usually acceptable, nor is original research, e.g. your own unpublished, or self-published, essay or research.

  • My final conclusion: Dear Wikipedia specialists & cultural friends - please, do not eliminate again the quotations. Please, find a solution to keep them in the article. I am just an old professor who loves great books and great authors; I am not a computer geek. When I introduced this article 4 years ago I did it because I considered Wikipedia being the library of the future and a huge opportunity to transform culture in a living source accessible to everyone. The rest is silence, said Hamlet. God forgive us.--Judetadeus (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)--Judetadeus (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Judetadeus (talk · contribs), as your two posts above address similar issues - indeed the second repeats the 'final conclusion' - I'm taking the liberty of addressing both together.
  • Time having elapsed, the issue of whether or not the three-revert rule was violated appears moot. That said, in the interests of moving forward, I will ask what it is you find questionable about the policy.
  • You have written twice that Authorhouse is "not at all a self-publishing venture". However, as I have pointed out above, the company clearly identifies itself as such on the first page of its website. I am perfectly aware of the meaning of POD and would ask that you not presume what it is I do or do not understand. With respect, I see no relevance in the fact that Random House is an investor in Xlibris.
  • You write in your first post that my explanations concerning the checking of the quotations is "a totally false argument". How so? In good faith, I employed the google search engine - as you suggested - and found nothing but a Wikipedia mirror article. I checked for the quotes at barnesandnoble.com - as you suggested - and found not a one. I checked for the quotes at amazon.com - as you suggested - and found an anonymous posting of the three quotes found on the back cover of The Book of Theophil Magus or 40 Tales about Man. You point out, correctly, that I missed the quotation from Andrei Codrescu. This particular quote, described as being "from amazon.com review" in the current article, is featured as an unsourced quote at the end of a review posted by yet another anonymous user (it is presented here under the title 'A marvelous book this unique vision !'). Finally, I checked the Romanian Wikipedia article - as you suggested - and found it featured not one of the quotes. You have written that this particular search was done "superficially". Again, how so?
  • Nowhere have I have questioned the figures you describe as "cultural American VIPs". I wonder at this conclusion. Please clarify.
  • Again, I note that these quotes are derived from a self-published book. As such, their inclusion runs counter to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, under which it is stated that "self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". I add that anonymous postings on amazon.com also fail meet the standards of the policy. Moreover, I would argue that as they are derived from a self-published source, the inclusion of these quotes is also prohibited in the section titled 'Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves'.
  • Finally, I repeat an observation made in my first post on this page: I do not see that the inclusion of four random quotations, with no context provided, has a place in an encyclopedic article. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of quotations

The books are via Authorhouse. As its website makes clear: "Since 1997, AuthorHouse, the leading self-publishing company in the world, has helped more than 30,000 authors reach their book publishing goals and self publish more than 40,000 books." WP:SELFPUB makes clear that these self-published quotes may not be used as this would "involve claims about third parties." Furthermore, it is a WP:BLP issue for any living people quoted. Please do not reinsert this material. Tyrenius (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A Happy New Year! and a few authorized sources for the needed citations concerning Leonard Oprea's anti-communist dissidence and his banned books by the Romanian Communist dictatorship

Concerning all the above information here are a few authorized sources:

  • Leonard Oprea – Romanian Wikipedia <http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Oprea>
  • USA Congressional Record: “Human Rights in Romania”, Vol. 136, Washington, Thursday, July 26, 1990, No.98; <http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcr.html>
  • CEEOL Author List Romania/ The Central And Eastern European Online Library - Leonard Oprea, Romania, <http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/authordetails.aspx?authorId=b74a386d-5a51-4466-ab2c-6156b2c5f90f>
  • Frankfurt International Book Fair, October 19-23, 2005, The Catalogue of The Romanian Authors <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_Book_Fair>
  • The Romanian National Daily Newspaper “Jurnalul Naţional”/ The National Journal/, January 8-9, 2005; the editorial: “O voce autentic diferită“/A Genuinely Different Voice/ by Vladimir Tismaneanu; <http://www.jurnalul.ro>
  • The Romanian National Weekly Literary Review “Romania literara”/ The Literary Romania/, July 13, 2007; the critical review: “Dumnezeu şi lumea de azi”/God and Today’s world/, by Tudorel Urian; <http://www.romlit.ro/>
  • The Romanian National Monthly Cultural Review “Timpul”/ The Time/ February 2, 2005; the critical review: “Cămaşa de forţă – o poveste atroce din vremuri negre”/ The Straitjacket – an atrocious tale from dark times/ by Liviu Antonesei; <http://www.timpul.ro/>
  • The Critical References from the short-stories and novellas' volume, “Radiografia clipei”/ The x-ray of an instant/ and the novel, “Cămaşa de forţă"/ The Straitjacket/ both in the second edition published by Curtea Veche Publishing, 2003-2004, Bucharest, Romania; <http://www.curteaveche.ro/>
  • Gelu Vlaşin’s foreword, ”Fascinaţia dureroasa a Cămaşii de forţă”/ The Painful Fascination of the Straitjacket/, from the electronic edition of the novel “Cămaşa de forţă”/ The Straitjacket/, published by LiterNet Publishing House, 2005, Bucharest, Romania; <http://editura.liternet.ro/carte/>
  • other authorized sources: search Leonard Oprea on <http://www.google.com>

After the Romanian Revolution of 1989, living in Bucharest, he became a well-known Romanian writer, journalist and editor. He was able to resume publishing his works: novels, short stories, tales and essays, meditations etc. He founded the Romanian Publishing House Athena, the Vladimir Colin Romanian Cultural Foundation as well as the Vladimir Colin international award.--Judetadeus (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)--Judetadeus (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)--Judetadeus (talk) 01:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

About Leonard Oprea, citation from: CEEOL - The Central And Eastern European Online Library

Warning! En Wikipedia anti-Romanian aggressions / message to International mass-media&Internet

Date: Jan 2, 2008 3:33 PM Subject: Warning ! En Wikipedia anti-Romanian aggressions / message to International mass-media&Internet To: arbcom-l@lists.wkimedia.org, info-en-q@wikimedia.org

Enough is enough: Please stop to ask: "citation needed" for "Leonard Oprea" article concerning: "…anti-communist dissident in Romania…" and "…officially forbade the publications of his writings, considering them subversive…" You had already the necessary and authorized "needed" citations (see the article and see the below excerpt). Leonard Oprea was an anti-communist dissident in Romania and two of his books were officially banned by Ceausescu's communist dictatorship. According to the many distinguished Romanian critics, today Leonard Oprea is a very important Romanian writer. This English Wikipedia board attitude could be considered an English Wikipedia anti-Romanian cultural discrimination and a pro-communist attack against Leonard Oprea. And this kind of attitude could be the subject to the Romanian mass-media and, to the international mass-media as well. Certainly, through Internet this subject could be spread worldwide. On the other side, please stop to "clean up" arbitrary and using methodically only the elimination way regarding the Leonard Oprea article ( like was the last editing which eliminated the "contents", eliminated the "citations needed", eliminated the "external" links and created an un-professional lay-out of the article). Thank you.

Excerpt: ,,Leonard Oprea was an anti-communist dissident[1] in Romania during Nicolae Ceauşescu's dictatorship. Between 1980 and 1987 he published a book and several short stories, which were honored with national literary prizes. After 1987, the Securitate (the secret police of the Communist regime), officially forbade[2] the publication of his writings, considering them subversive[3]. ________________________________ [edit] citations needed [1], [2], [3] - from authorized sources information:

  • Romanian Wikipedia - Leonard Oprea article
  • USA Congressional Record: "Human Rights in Romania", Vol. 136, Washington, Thursday, July 26, 1990, No.98; http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcr.html
  • CEEOL Author List Romania/ The Central And Eastern European Online Library - Leonard Oprea, Romania, http://www.ceeol.com/aspx/authordetails.aspx?authorId=b74a386d-5a51-4466-ab2c-6156b2c5f90f
  • The Romanian National Daily Newspaper "Jurnalul Naţional"/ The National Journal/, January 8-9, 2005; the editorial: "O voce autentic diferită"/A Genuinely Different Voice/ by Vladimir Tismaneanu; http://www.jurnalul.ro
  • The Romanian National Weekly Literary Review "Romania literara"/ The Literary Romania/, July 13, 2007; the critical review: "Dumnezeu şi lumea de azi"/God and Today's world/, by Tudorel Urian; http://www.romlit.ro/
  • The Romanian National Monthly Cultural Review "Timpul"/ The Time/ February 2, 2005; the critical review: "Cămaşa de forţă – o poveste atroce din vremuri negre"/ The Straitjacket – an atrocious tale from dark times/ by Liviu Antonesei; http://www.timpul.ro/
  • The Critical References from the short-stories and novellas' volume, "Radiografia clipei"/ The x-ray of an instant/ and the novel, "Cămaşa de forţă"/ The Straitjacket/ both in the second edition published by Curtea Veche Publishing, 2003-2004, Bucharest, Romania; http://www.curteaveche.ro/
  • Gelu Vlaşin's foreword, "Fascinaţia dureroasa a Cămaşii de forţă"/ The Painful Fascination of the Straitjacket/, from the electronic edition of the novel "Cămaşa de forţă"/ The Straitjacket/, published by LiterNet Publishing House, 2005, Bucharest, Romania; http://editura.liternet.ro/carte/ "--Judetadeus (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Anti-Romanian? pro communist? give me a break that is ridiculous. The citations are not sufficient nor properly formated and the article needs clean up to meet quality standards. Both tags are justified and have nothing to do with Eastern European politics. Don't make ludicrous threats about the media attention this will receive. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll second that. Judetadeus, please calm down, there is no anti-Romanian cabal here, just some editors who are trying to help clean up this article. It really was in terrible shape, and it still is far from conforming to WP guidelines and policies, but hopefully getting there. If you would just assume good faith, per WP:AGF, and try to cooperate with fellow editors, who are spending quite a bit of time and energy on this article, we could probably make more progress, instead of wasting everybody's time. Thank you. Turgidson (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, help - to be edited correctly Leonard Oprea article!

Hi Tyrenius. I note that you put a note regarding verification of the article I mentioned from the paper Romania Literara. The first lines of that article are given below in Romanian: "Structural, Leonard Oprea face parte din familia adevăraţilor disidenţi, de tipul Corneliu Coposu sau Adam Michnik. Ca şi aceştia, a înfruntat regimul comunist, a avut curajul să spună despre negru că este negru atunci când toată lumea, din teamă sau oportunism, prefera să admită că este alb, a suportat anchetele barbare ale Securităţii, dar a păşit întotdeauna în viaţă cu zâmbetul pe buze, fără frustrări şi fără resentimente."

In free translation this text says as follows: "Structurally, Leonard Oprea belongs to the family of the true dissidents, of the type of Corneliu Coposu or Adam Michnik. Like them, he opposed the Communist regime and had the courage to say that black is black at the time when everybody, out of fear or opportunism, preferred to agree that it is white, he has suffered the barbaric Securitate questioning sessions, but has always paced through life with a smile on his lips, without frustrations and without grudges." --Sensei2004 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tyrenius. A happy new year! I am not able to make the En Wikipedia standard corrections on Leonard Oprea article. If you can give a little help... thank you a lot. God bless! --Judetadeus (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The editors who have posted in the previous thread are doing a fine job and obviously understand wiki policies, so please direct questions to them. Tyrenius (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Few explanations for Judetadeus: Romanian Wikipedia or any site where "everyone can edit" is not a reliable source. Forget about it, you should come with better sources. Please provide a direct link to support the affirmations:
  1. Leonard Oprea was an anti-communist dissident in Romania during Nicolae Ceauşescu's dictatorship.
  2. After 1987, the Securitate (the secret police of the Communist regime), officially forbade the publication of his writings, considering them subversive.
For example, a link to "Jurnalul Naţional" is not helpful, but can be helpful a link to a specific article from "Jurnalul Naţional" where is discussed about Leonard Oprea.--MariusM (talk) 15:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunjournal

Due to a variety of circumstances, please do not add this cite back. It violates BLPCRIME, even though it isn't being used to cite the charges, which were later dropped. At the very least, you need to take it to WP:BLPN if you feel this must be here. It is UNDUE because of the content of the source itself, and using it for a simple address is unnecessary. I don't normally watch this page, so feel free to ping me if you disagree or have questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"Haijin"

This term is apparently being used by the author to self-describe. I read it and wondered where in the article it said he was a cripple, because that's the main use of the word in my experience. It also is used to refer to the "computer game nerd" who never leaves his house. Now, it does exist in Japanese to mean a haikuist or haiku poet, but a) this is enwiki; and b)it seems to have been appropriated by non-Japanese haikuists (see here for a fairly good discussion of the word). TL;DR is that haijin is generally pejorative in the mainstream, and when it 'is used to refer to haikuists, it refers to Japanese haiku writers who have been trained by a recognized haiku master and are themselves such, not just any person who writes a "haiku." To wit: See what I just did/I scribbled some words up on here/I am a haijin too would not automatically qualify me for use of the term in the required sense, but certainly might make other think of the first two vis a vis my perceived lack of mental acuity as displayed therein. MSJapan (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

thanks for the detailed note. it confirmed my opinion that it was inappropriate content; but since it was just a hunch on my part, i had not acted on it. (and I think you are well on your way to becoming a Haijin!) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

NO ISSUE regarding THE VERIFIABILITY of Quotations about Leonard Oprea’s work

  • As a Romanian speaker, I have dropped an eye at the embarrasing situation created for Mr. Oprea. His profile in Romania is very good, having published in well known Dacia and CurteaVeche publishing houses. The comments on Amazon.com are elogious, although Mr Oprea is of Romanian expression. Prof Tismaneanu who peer reviwed his works are elogious. Moreover, prof Tismaneneanu was head of the parlamentary commission mandated to issue the parliament declaration on communism condemnation and holds a prestigious position in an US university. So his very well informed on th disidence issue of Mr. Oprea since 1987, which appears to be of notoriety. The notability of Mr. Oprea is also obvious from the internet. I observed biographies of Romanian scholars who are far less representative for Romanian Humanities than the contributions of Mr. Leonard Oprea. --Dciurchea (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
why do I smell socks? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Judetadeus (talk · contribs), in the interests of clarity, and in keeping with guidelines, I've moved your post (directly above) so it follows that to which it responds. Please note that when employing the four tide signature your user name, time and date are added automatically to the post. There is no need for alteration of any kind.
Continuing with the hope of bringing some clarity, I'll address each of your points separately:
  • I do take offense to the "Wikipedia censor" reference, and remind you of Wikipedia's policy concerning etiquette.
  • I know of no assertion that any section in any Wikipedia article is beyond the encyclopedia's rules. I have pointed out that the quotations in question - seen here under the newly renamed 'Quotations' section - fail to meet Wikipedia's policy concerning verifiability. The first of the three are sourced from the back cover of Leonard Oprea’s The Book of Theophil Magus or 40 Tales about Man, a book published through Authorhouse (formerly known as 1stBooks), which clearly identifies itself as a firm for self-published authors. While there is nothing wrong with self-publishing - no one has suggested that the book isn't "perfectly legal", that it lacks an ISBN, or that it isn't available for purchase - materials published in this manner are, according to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, "largely not acceptable as sources." Furthermore, the source of the final quotation, that from Andrei Codrescu, references an "amazon.com review of The Book of Theophil Magus or 40 Tales about Man". In fact, the amazon.com listing for The Book of Theophil Magus or 40 Tales about Man features no such review.
  • I have searched for these quotes using google as you suggest, but this provides only one hit each: all to Answers.com's mirror article. An anonymous user has posted the three back cover quotes on Amazon.com. Barnesandnoble.com features not a single one of these quotes. I note that the quotations are not included in the Romanian Wikipedia article and that "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." That those being quoted - Vladimir Tismaneanu, Norman Manea, Adam J.Sorkin and Andrei Codrescu - are living persons, it is all the more important that the sources provided meet the verifiability guidelines. As I know nothing of the process employed years ago in verifying these quotations - I see no trace on this discussion page or elsewhere in Wikipedia - I cannot speak to the issue. That said, I can say with certainty that the sources currently provided for these quotations do not meet the verifiability guidelines.
I must end with a query: would you have used 72.73.96.76 to make this edit? If so, you may wish to revert your last edit as it violates the three-revert rule. Victoriagirl (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Reviews must be verifiable in professional reviews, not back cover blurbs of self published works. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC) NOTE REGARDING THE TEXT Please note that there the word "communication" in 'mass media communication' is underlined and the link leads to some ipod ad. I tried to remove this but there is no visible symbol that I can remove. This is another proof that somebody is deliberately trying to undermine the article.Sensei2004 (talk) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You probably have malware on your computer as described here. a13ean (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, it was quite hard to find the source but I finally found it as an extension in MozillaSensei2004 (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Unverifiable claims of appearance in congressional record

Neither the governments official records [2] nor the Thompson publication thereof contain the claimed reference to Oprea that keeps being inserted. Please stop asserting false claim. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Lots of non-notable crap is published in the Congressional Record (which is notoriously not a reliable source). Appearance of items by Oprea in the CR, even if verified is meaningless and does not constitute a claim to notability. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


Regarding this source I cannot comment other than to say that the source exists, and there are other sources claiming the same thing. I have already added one, but there are a few more. The question is how many citations need to be brought to prove that a spade is a spade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensei2004 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, there are several questions. 1) Does Oprea actually appear in the Congressional Record? 2) If so, what content is in the Record is appropriate for an encyclopedia article, 3) The congressional record is not a "third party published reliable source"- it is a primary source document and so it has zero value in establishing the notability of Oprea and so other actual significant content from third party reliable sources will actually need to be produced and not just claimed to exist somewhere. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:32, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing, as I said it's been a while since I've active on wikipedia. To the matter, as I said I am a bit surprised to find out that something called Congressional Record is not reliable, but I accept it. Before placing it again recently I tried to find it on line again but couldn't. The hard copy exists, but I accept your comment. His name was specifically there; there was a paper named Human Rights In Romania and it was NOT brought for proof of notability, but for proof of dissidence. His notability was not an issue at all at the time the original article was edited, and I also had no idea at the time that CR is not considered a reliable source.Sensei2004 (talk) 22:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The Congressional Record is sort of an odd case: it does not accurately reflect what is said on the floor of either house, since the legislators reserve the right to "correct, improve and expand" what is said, as well as to stick in anything else they want to: local newspaper editorials, letters from constituents, obituaries/hagiographies of dead constituents, political diatribes for or against anybody or anything, etc. Its contents are not subject to copyright or libel laws, and it is not edited in the sense that we expect even of a newspaper, far less a journal of any kind. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this info, case closed regarding this source. I will not insert it again. Nevertheless, I repeat that the reference was not placed there to prove notability. It was brought as proof for his dissidence, and in particular because it was in English, whereas other sources are in Romanian. Between 1987 and 1989 Oprea was not allowed to publish, and this has been a well-known issue among writers in Romania at the time, as the idea of the Securitate was to make him an example for others. (Had he been an unknown person such an interdiction would not have been issued.)Sensei2004 (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read this material and I don't see any problem with the notability of LO. I am asking for a few days lee-way to edit the article. I have started modifying the style and cutting repetitions (his birth was mentioned twice!). I am going to fill all the missing citations shortly, I know have a better idea of what is needed, but I have to bring the text to better readability before inserting references. The article will be revamped with correct citations in a few days. I urge the people in charge again to please remove the 'stub' note. If I fail to restore the article to a reasonable standard you can place it again, but I am sure it won't be necessary. I have restored a failed link to the editorial from 2005 in Jurnalul National. In view of the fact that Prof. Vladimir Tismaneanu would not not write an op-ed article in a national newspaper about an author who is not notable enough, I respectfully repeat my request that the 'stub' note be removed.Sensei2004 (talk) 06:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In order to address the issue of notability at least for some in this forum, I have decided to bring here a direct quite from the op-ed article by Tismaneanu.(reference to Jurnalul National, see entry). I will bring the Romanian version first (apologies for its length) as taken directly from the source, followed by my translation. Prof, Tismaneanu took other parts of the same article in an endorsement he wrote for one of the books. The quote says: "In aceste randuri, ca ilustrare a acestei unitati dintre etic si estetic, ma voi referi la opera prozatorului Leonard Oprea, participant la revolta anticomunista de la Brasov din noiembrie 1987, scriitor remarcabil, marginalizat si persecutat datorita pozitiei sale extrem de critica in raport cu dictatura totalitara. Scrierile lui Leonard Oprea, subversive deopotriva prin ideile, dar si prin stilul lor, au fost privite de cerberii ideologici drept ceea ce erau: un indemn la rezistenta si o expresie a refuzului de a pactiza cu sistemul. In momentul conceperii lor, aceste carti erau transcrieri in registru funebru ale unei realitati politice tragice. Ospiciul inlocuise ratiunea, iar viata se exilase intre interstitiile unei pure mecanicitati"... Translation: "In these lines, as an illustration of the unity between the ethical and the estethical, I will refer to the body of work of the prose-writer Leonard Oprea, a participant in the anti-Communist uprising in Brasov in November 1987, a remarkable writer, marginalized and persecuted because of his criticism in relation to the totalitarian dictatorship. The writings of Leonard Oprea---subsversive, both in their content and their style---were looked upon by the ideological guardians (of the regime-my note) for what they indeed were: a call to resistance and an expression of his refusal to be in peace with the system. The asylum has replaced logic and life has become exiled into the intersection points of something mechanical..." I rest my case here in relation with notability and dissidence. I also note that the hypertext underline that I mentioned before has popped up under a few other words (such as 'prizes') as well as in the present talk page.Sensei2004 (talk) 08:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)Sensei2004 (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

In response to one of your earlier comments, Writing for Wikipedia is different than writing for most other occasions, particularly the type of writing most academics do for a living - taking disparate bits of information and presenting them in ways that show connections or facilitate in new ways of looking at the items or the whole. In Wikipedia, we just find the evidence, analysis and interpretations that other reliable sources have already published and consolidate the high points without making or implying any connections or interpretations that the reliable sources have not explicitly made.
You may wish to read WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not seeing the hyper links you are mentioning. Have you run your anti virus program recently? What browser are you using?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that I write comments in another section...Actually I re-read the Tismaneanu reference I have already inserted with a note, and found that VT specifically mentioned the 'ideological guardians' and this means Securitate. They were the thought police in Romania. This is not "implied": this is the only meaning of this, and the author used a more elegant way of saying it just because it sounds less banal. There are other dissidents in other communist countries, they all had similar fate, there is no need to 'imply'. Being a dissident in a Communist regime meant either jail or a ban on publishing (or both). (Btw, I tried to find the definition of dissident on the anti-communist entry and came across the worst possible entry in Wiki). If you don't accept the recent changes I made I will have to write 'was marginalized by the ideological guardians' instead (as indicated word-by-word in the reference) and I don't think that using metaphors is more appropriate for an encyclopedia entry than the actual meaning.Sensei2004 (talk) 10:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)Sensei2004 (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not really sure what your point is. being a dissident does not in and of itself raise a person to the threshold of having a stand alone article whether or not the opposition is described in metaphorical or literal language.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised that you still don't get the point. The authorities do not bother with somebody and people would not call someone a dissident if he is not notable. The fact that the Securitate did bother with him means that he was a pain in the butt for them, and one cannot reach such that status if nobody knows him. There is no point in it for them, but that's not the only basis for the claim of notability. In the statistics from wiki (that was removed) he is shown as no. 13, only 12 after the Nobel prize winner Herta Miller (who does not regard herself Romanian, btw). I am yet to include much material, and it will take me some time. But note for example that LO has not published science fiction for more than 30 years and yet someone has bothered to include him in an anthology of SF writers in Romania thirty years later. If that does not indicate notability, I don't know what does. All I am asking is that I be allowed to correct the 'status quo ante'. Allow me to finish the work without that notice. If Wiki is not satisfied at that stage you can replace it. I have so much material that I am still to include and you cannot judge his notability before I am finished. All the claims are true, the citations have been butchered and now it looks like there are none. The notice was based on how the article looked before I inserted the recent references. In biographies of living persons you are not supposed to vilify the subject. He was included in Wiki, there was justification for that, now I am filling the gaps and you prevent me from proving my case as if there was no original entry. This is unfairSensei2004 (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I just want to emphasize that I did not link dissidence with notability. There was a statement there that he was a dissident, I reinstated the reference to this issue, and indicated earlier in this talk that when I first inserted this in 2008 it was for proof of dissidence not notability. The notability was NOT an issue at the time, it became one after references were removed, false accusations were inserted, etc. Having said that however, in the Communist world of the Soviet bloc this measure was applied only to artists of notoriety, and if you don't accept that that's OK with me and has nothing to do with my editing the entry. I have restored citations with some added translation so that non-Romanian speakers could understand what is being said. Earlier in this talk someone was saying that Tismaneanu did not say what was claimed. I proved that he did say that. And I am really surprised to find the fact that someone who was head of the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania and was in charge of a report on the crimes of communism in Romania, has dedicated an entire article to LO in a national newspaper is not a sufficient criterion to prove notability. (I am not talking about the reference I reinserted recently (ref. 2 now), but about the article that is now ref. 8). Please take the weight of the person who wrote this article (there are a few other personalities who referred to him in articles, but I am yet to reinstate and recheck the references) into account to consider (at least temporarily) removal of the notice re notability. Thank youSensei2004 (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It is really hard to read through your walls of text to try and figure out what you are saying, but I think: While articles in wikipedia most certainly must not be created to vilify a person, neither must they be used to promote an individual or their works. In fact, in order to have an article, the subject must meet criteria of having significant content about them, published by an independent and reliable source. However, if the subject DOES meet the criteria for inclusion, ALL aspects of the life, not only the positive, must be presented appropriately. I am still unconvinced that there is reliably sourced material that shows the WP:N threshold has been reached. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe I was quite clear, but I will repeat myself briefly: The entry has been in wiki since 2007. The notice on notability has been placed there recently. What I am doing now is restoring and improving (translating) citations and material that was there already. I am sorry that I have neglected this for so long, but my claim is that this entry was justifiably there. It is not a new entry. To show that the material included was reliable I am translating excerpts from sources that have been there all the time, but the links did not work. Literary critics of note, with Wiki entries of their own (either in English, Romanian, or both) who wrote forewords and articles in praise of Leonard Oprea. His banned books (There is an official letter sent to the author and telling him of the ban) were published by two publishers each (and many of his other books had second editions or a second publisher as well). There is a long list of other critics and there is much more material, but this has nothing ti do with the note, which was perhaps justified in December 2012, but is not justified now, in particular as in a previous ref (which you removed) I showed that his wiki statistics among Romanian novelists is at no. 13 (was 13 a few days ago when I checked). Btw, I repeat my comment re dissidents, please try to understand that writers who were declared dissidents in Communist countries of Eastern Europe were all notable. You have probably heard of Waclav Havel, Boris Pasternak, Soljenitzin...I repeat that authorities did not bother with banning non-notable people, and if you don't believe me, please read what Tismaneanu says about the authorities trying to marginalize Oprea. (Why try to marginalize somebody if that somebody is marginal?). I have more names and more reviews, I will insert them, but the note is not justified at this stage. Please involve other people in this decision if you are not convinced, because it seems to me that you are trying to be prosecutor jury and judge here, and after reading so much crap as there was on this page earlier I am not surprised.Sensei2004 (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

that inappropriate junk has been on here for a long time without acquiring appropriate sources is a reason to delete it sooner rather than to let it remain on longer. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:12, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This was never junk, even if you want to call it that. The reference you removed is an article by Gelu Vlasin, a well known writer and critic. This was not a dust jacket, it is an article available on the internet, it is a secondary source. I have reviews by American critics as well, this will be inserted when I get get to the books written in the US. Meanwhile however I respectfully request that you transfer this role to someone else in the group, as your comments show bias. Calling stuff written by people who are well known in the literary world 'junk' just because you can is wrong. This writer is active here and now. Notability he had since he was in his twenties. In the Romanian literature he is a landmark writer, but any praise comment I bring from notable people you dismiss as "junk." I respectfully demand that the decision-making on this issue be transferred to someone else.Sensei2004 (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC) New reference inserted [1] (see translation in article) It says: 1. That LO was highly regarded in literary circles and that in 1999 when he immigrated to the US his reputation was very high. 2. That his books prior to 89 were banned and were published anew. 3. That he deserves his special status in Romanian literature, as commented by other significant names (list included). This article was published in Romania Literara (Literary Romania, the magazine of the Romanian Writers Association) in 2004, five years after Oprea was not living there anymore.Sensei2004 (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

content that fails wikipedia criteria is junk no matter how long it has inappropriately sucked resources from Wikipedia to be here without proper sourcing tone and editorial oversight. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Leonardoprea

Leonard Oprea: Discrimination, Racism, Ignorance & Censorship, or ..what against me? I protest firmly against the slandering of my article in your English Wikipedia. Your “creation” of my “Biography” and “Works” are OUT of the reliable sources, OUT of the truth concerning who I am as writer worldwide. I never wrote a novella “X-Ray of an Instant”, for example; this is the title of a short stories and novellas volume. My first book – well-know – is “Domenii Interzise” / Forbidden Areas/ 1984 published – but premeditatedly you made my article a FALSE image of my biography and works. Premeditatedly you “adjusted” my image as looking … stupid… Probably I have to sue you. I want to be civilized and I like to have a common sense dialog with you… Alas! sorry, you do not have any excuse for your American ignorance and more for your OBVIOULSY CENSORSHIP. I do not agree to have such an article in your racist American space, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO MY FORMER ANTI-COMMUNIST DISSIDENCE WIDELY RECOGNIZED. I did not do anything to deserve this discrimination. Therefore, I think I will have to make public your discrimination. This is NOT a threat – yet what can I do against this evil ignorance? Leonardoprea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardoprea (talk • contribs) 09:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

1) "I will sue you " is indded a threat. You will need to retract the statement or you will be blocked.
2) WP:BLPSELF has some information about how to handle inappropriate information in articles about yourself. Note that we simply pull together content that has been published in reliable sources. In this instance, because of the nature of the claimed sources being in other languages, it is more difficult for general editors of the English Wikipedia to be able to verify the sources, content and claims made. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikified

I'd be glad to discuss why the edits by Justice007 are not helpful:
  • Lead sections do not need citations: see WP:WHYCITE. They also summarize, rather than repeat, the body of the text, which is why the version I wrote is preferable.
  • Whatever is stated in the lead is indeed cited in the text. We don't need a book review and a couple of screeds by Oprea to back that up.
  • I'm sorry, but I just don't understand the need some have to chop everything up into tiny sections. If we had eight or twenty paragraphs, sure, but with three paragraphs you'd like us to have three sections? Please review WP:BODY: "Very short ... sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose".
  • Your sentence about Tudorel Urian is not terribly grammatical, whereas mine makes sense.
  • The double asterisks indicate each work is part of the tetralogy indicated by the single asterisk.
Are we clear now? - Biruitorul Talk 22:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
your assertion that WHYCITE says that no cites are needed for the lead is incorrect: "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead."
"often discouraged" but not in any way shape or form banned or prohibited. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Er, thanks. Should you see any "quotations and particularly controversial statements" in the lead as it exists, feel free to add supporting citations. - Biruitorul Talk 23:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
and again, it is stating that the quotes and controversies should be provided with cites, but it does NOT state "ONLY quotes and controversial may be cited." -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Come now, let's not start splitting hairs. Have a look at fifteen featured articles appearing on the Main Page this month. Dudley Clarke: two quotes cited. Hudson Valley Rail Trail: no citations. Adelaide leak: no citations. Cracker Barrel: specific data point cited. Metropolitan Railway: extraordinary claim cited. Richard Nixon: no citations. History of Mars observation: no citations. Psittacosaurus: no citations. The Covent-Garden Journal: no citations. Kenneth Walker: no citations. Prosperity theology: no citations. Mauritius Blue Pigeon: no citations. Action of 1 January 1800: no citations. Lisbon Appointment: two quotes cited. Bronwyn Oliver: no citations.
In practice, whatever one may be able to read into the policy, the lead does not feature citations as a rule. - Biruitorul Talk 01:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
When an article gets to the point of being a Featured Article, the content and sources are generally of the highest level of caliber and review and so the content and claims in the Lead have been thoroughly vetted as being appropriately sourced in the body by a consensus of editors. That is NOT the condition of this article now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • There are hundreds of articles with citation to content of the lead section. In this regard RedPen's point is exact concept of the wiki rule. According to wikified and MOS, my edits are correct towards layout. Please do not gaming the system. If you are disagree, reach the consensus.Your edits are removed.Justice007 (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's going on here--we have three editors of good faith, all of whom I know somewhat, and I hate intervening but that's what I'm doing. I have reverted to this version by Biruitorul, for a couple of reasons. First of all, it's clean, cleaner than the intermediate ones. All of you are somewhat right on the business of citing in the lead, but since the now expanded lead (thank you Justice and Biruitorul) got its content from the main body, there is no need to source all those statements, and redundant sourcing is, well, redundant (and distracting to the reader). There is nothing wrong with headings called "Biography", "Publications", and "Notes", and to edit-war over them serves no purpose. The MOS does not dictate we should have a section with "Literary career", and if the amount of text is limited already then there's no purpose in splitting the article into more pieces. The back-and-forthing also led, a bunch of times, to the reintroduction of already invalid or redundant tags, and thus the need to clean them up successively, etc etc--a waste of time and electrons. An external link to XLibris was introduced somewhere along the line, but that's just a page at a vanity press site and not helpful; the link added here is to a Google Books page on one of his XLibris novels and adds nothing to the article (note that the reference incorrectly lists Google Books as the publisher).

    Let's leave this be. The article is just about as good as it'll ever be until more reliable sources pop up or the author does something that's noted in the press. Let's not throw warnings around about the MOS etc: the MOS offers guidelines but is not a stick to beat up other editors with. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

-I am trying to reinstate some relevant statements that were earlier in the article I edited. Meanwhile I think that the sentence " In that period, forthright expression had come into fashion, and stories told in parables, such as Oprea's, were no longer favored" should be removed. I have read many sources and have not found anyone saying that. And I have been told that un-cited statements should not be included. Also, the Theofil Magus series does not have a set number of books and is not a 'tetralogy'. Much relevant material is still missing. And btw,for the Red Pen of Doom: I have no connection with the comment that was mentioned here as being 'sock'. I am not sure who you claim was the 'sock', I think it is quite rare to find someone NOT using a pseudonym trying to be a 'sock'. You can check the IP address, I am located in Australia. And for readers of Romanian on this talk I highly recommend [2] that was not mentioned in my previous edit.Sensei2004 (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

It's in this article; I will translate the relevant passage. "It was a time of action, of great changes, a time when history was written in the streets, revolt was shouted in public, the written and audio-visual press could use direct expression, without inhibitions, to pronounce the most inconvenient judgements and there were too few people left to waste their time reading fictional works where political and social truths were wrapped in the complex meanings of parables." So, yes, it's in the source, and it's cited at the next footnote.
We have at least one source calling it a tetralogy, so it is one for our purposes. - Biruitorul Talk 23:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The line you mention is actually a "twist" on what he is saying. There was a time of upheaval, but in the next sentence Urian talks about the support he received from significant personalities. The Theofil Magus series may have been a tetralogy at some stage, but now there are eight books in the series, including of course those published in the US. He initially published the "Trilogy", then added others, but the series is not finished.Sensei2004 (talk) 11:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Mind the chronology: he was ignored ca. 1992, but embraced ca. 2002. That is what the article says. About the trilogy/tetralogy/octalogy business: it all depends what verifiable sources tell us. Here, in an article from 2007, we find reference to a tetralogy. At the very least, subsequent independent sources attesting the appearance of subsequent books would be needed. - Biruitorul Talk 15:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in 2007 Urian says that the planned trilogy becomes a tetralogy with that book, and goes on to say that it may continue... I dind it difficult to insert new facts into edit, because the part about his works starts after 89, but please add the book 'Domenii interzise' (Forbidden areas) (Albatross Publishing House, 19984), which was published in 1984 and included 'Colonia' (The Colony) for which he received the Romcom prize in 1981. There are verifiable sources for this and they were included in the previous edit. The last edit prior to your overhaul actually included all the citations that have been missing since 2008. I have also inserted in the previous edit references to his science fiction activity, and in the Vladimir Colin entry he is mentioned as having named Vladimir Colin 'his adopted father'. In any case, his first published book was the above mentioned "Domenii interzise" in 1984. I am glad the article is now wikified, but why not include in it correct and relevant information? (I am talking about his debut in science fiction and fantasy, his prizes in the early 80s, etc.) I can supply all the sources again, but I am not sure how to do it when the chronology now starts from 'after the Revolution'. He had other activities that were documented in my last version before overhaul, the Athena Publishing House, the establishment of the Vladimir Colin Foundation, etc. If it's OK to put the references here to be moved to the article I could do that. As I said, I prefer not to write directly in the new article.Sensei2004 (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for you to put those links here. I will look through them and see how we can use them. The Colin connection is certainly worth mentioning. - Biruitorul Talk 21:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I will do it as soon as my time allows. Meanwhile, could you please modify the statement "(first written, according to Oprea, in 1988)". This cannot be supported by external sources unless the sources are wrong. Actually, I asked him directly and now I know: "Radiografia clipei" (The X-ray of an instant) was written in 1985 and was among the works banned in 1987. I would leave this issue out altogether, but if you insist on having such a statement, please write the correct year, 1985.Sensei2004 (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for inserting the correction discussed above. Regarding other issues: I have a number of sources detailing his beginnings, but I will list here what I consider a very serious one. for “Domenii interzise”(Forbidden areas). A detailed review of this book in given the online Science Fiction magazine, Nautilus (in Romanian) 

Aurel Călăsel published the following on 07.07.10 http://revistanautilus.ro/dictionar-sf/oprea-leonard-constantin-n-1953/ (accessed Jan 19, 2013)

This article gives a detailed account on his early activity in SF and discusses in particular “Domenii interzise” (Forbidden Areas). It also gives some other interesting details on his beginnings, as well as the middle name Constantin and a list of prizes he won in local literary competitions. “Primeşte trei premii importante la Consfătuirile Naţionale din 1979, 1980 şi 1981 pentru proză Fantasy, dar şi două premii pentru proză main-stream (concursul naţional de proză iniţiat de rev. “Viaţa Românească”/1984 şi concursul naţional de proză “Centenarul Liviu Rebreanu”/1985). Este fondator al Fundaţiei culturale “Vladimir Colin”, care acordă premii naţionale pentru proză fantastică. Debut în volum cu “Domenii interzise” (1984).” (Translation for non-Romanian speakers following this talk: Received three important prizes at National Conventions in 1979, 1980 and 1981 for Fantasy prose, and two for mainstream at the National Prose Competition organized by the newspaper Viata Romaneasca (Romanian Life) in 1984 and the national prose competition "Liviu Rebreanu centenary"/1985). My note: I don't think that the prizes need to be detailed, but I think that a summary is appropriate. I have of course more stuff on other issues, but let's get this right first. ThanksSensei2004 (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Another source about his SF activity and his activity at the Vladimir Colin Foundation and at Athena Publishing House is an article written on his birthday in 2010 by the staff at another online SF site, Galileo.ro. (The editor-in-chief of the publication and the ISSN are given there as well) The exact link to this article is http://revista-galileo.ro/16-decembrie-leonard-oprea/ Sensei2004 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've seen both of those links, but I can't say either of them inspired much confidence. I know Nautilus calls itself a magazine, but what kind of editorial oversight does it really have? The magazine's main page seems to give no information about it, but they do link to a couple of sites with the same ad for a Julian Barnes sale, as well as the Gospels, the Psalms and a few other religious texts. So I really don't know how well this publication fits under WP:RS. The entry on Oprea not only looks like a blog post, it starts off with an apparent inaccuracy. It says that by 1970 - i.e., age 17 - Oprea had worked at "several factories". This in itself is rather implausible, and then we have another source telling us he graduated from high school. One can be a high school student or a full-time factory worker, but it stretches credulity to say one was both. So I wonder how accurate the rest of the piece might be.
As for the Galileo piece - well, it says right there that it's drawn from his ro.wiki biography, so again, I'm not too confident.
On the other hand, this and this look more promising, and I may go ahead and use them. - Biruitorul Talk 00:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure what happens, a large chunk of text I wrote here two days ago is not showing...Will have to restore it.Sensei2004 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
What I said in my earlier comment (that disappeared) was that I really don't think you should have doubted a source because it said he was a worker. There is no reference on when he started his university studies, and may have been a casual worker...This does not sound as invented.

In any case, "Domenii interzise" appears in all the sources, including the new ones you brought now, and also his books in English up to 2007 appear in the ceelo source. The following is another source for Oprea's SF work and the prize Romcon he received in 1981. (The article deals in particular with the Romcon and Eurocon prizes) [3] The relevant passage is found in the second part of the article and says:"Leonard Oprea a obținut premii la categoriile povestire SF (Oradea 1979) și povestire fantasy (Timișoara 1980, Iași 1981, aici cu lucrarea Colonia, care este, totuși, mai mult SF decât încadrabilă în vreun gen proxim)." (LO was the recipient of prizes in the categories SF stories (Oradea 1979) and fantasy stories (Timișoara 1980, Iași 1981, and here (i.e. at Romcon) with the work 'Colonia' (The Colony), which is classifiable more as SF than any other genre). In view of the this material, could you please modify the text to include his early activity in SF, the book 'Domenii interzise' (1984) and the prizes (all were mentioned in the earlier version of the article). I have inserted a small change, saying that he now lives in Auburn, Maine. (His emigration to the US is covered in the sources discussed). At the next stage, to complete the article I will bring sources to the other books in the Theophil Magus series, some translated into English, others written directly in English).Sensei2004 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC) New material: I came across this article by Andrei Codrescu on the site of Polirom Publishing House [4]. Not sure about the date, but the last book mentioned there is from 2004. The article ends with the following comment: "In my opinion Leonard Oprea would make a genuine contribution to the literary landscape here in the United States." Based on this (and many other sources mentioned here, all reliable) I think that you could go ahead with adding the missing material, books written in the US, etc, but the paragraph about the start of his career should be modified to include works prior to 87. Thanks.Sensei2004 (talk) 13:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC) New Comment: I don't understand what is happening with the article, why has his photo been removed instead of adding the relevant material on missing books. Meanwhile however I found that the world cat site [5] indicates 13 works in 15 publications in 3 languages and 43 library holdings, but it does not list all the books (only the 'widely held'), and a few are listed with a (slightly) modified title. I don't understand how that happened, this is a different issue, but even if the erroneous list were to be reproduced here it would be a major improvement on the article. "Domenii interzise"/Forbidden Areas is missing from this list, (because it was published before the time of the internet?), but in any case the existence of this book has been established by other sources mentioned here in the last few days already.Sensei2004 (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I see that there is no action on issues I brought here. I am going to insert the missing books and add to the background prior to 1987. The new (wikified) version of the article has left out much info for which I have already provided citations in the earlier article. Besides the various sources I brought earlier that mention his first book "Domenii interzise" (Forbidden areas) it is available for purchase as second-hand in Romania http://www.carteadecitit.ro/carte/domenii-interzise/129783/. I also brought [6]. This list is also incomplete (and "Domenii interzise" is missing as well), and it has a few slightly incorrect titles, but at least this is still preferable to the short list currently on the site. The abundant material brought earlier shows that LO's notability did not start from his dissidence in 1987: he was the recipient of literary prizes in the early 80's and had a book in 1984. After 89 he has been publishing steadily in Romania and in the United States as well, and his books are held in respectable libraries. I have been patient for the material to be inserted, but now I intend to proceed with some modifications to the present article in an attempt to bring it closer to being accurate. In the next two days I intend to deal with material that is covered in reliable reference material that was brought here. Thank you for your cooperation and could you please restore the photo?Sensei2004 (talk) 12:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Notability concern...

Xlibris, while at the time being owned by Random House, is a self-publishing house that is, by its own admission, "non-selective in accepting manuscripts." Therefore, all books originating from there are self-published works. Inclusion on Amazon is not a criterion, either, as Amazon does pass-through for anyone, and ISBNs are obtained automatically through the publisher. LCCN numbers don't mean anything - all books published in the US have one in order to standardize catalogs, and they don't reflect holdings at the Library of Congress (which don't confer notability anyway). WorldCat indicates that there are only 2 books that Oprea wrote in English; the article has four. Google doesn't help much for general sources; there aren't any RS. I cannot find anything that supports Oprea meeting GNG, and he doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR either:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors. No. Part of the problem is that he is a contemporary author, but if he is important, there should be a citation somewhere in a Google index of some sort (academic or otherwise), and I've found nothing.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. No, because I don't see reviews of the "haiku novel" as such. As a matter of fact, there are no reviews at all for any of his work.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. No, and those would be easy to find.
  • The person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. No to all four counts, as all those would again be relatively simple to find.

I'd also note that I am fairly certain that Oprea's biographical information here is self-provided from a book of his, so I'm skeptical of a lot of it without third-party sources to verify it. I'll give this a day or so for any further information to appear, and after that, I'll probably send this article to AfD. MSJapan (talk) 04:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The editing history of this article and its talk page is also fascinating. The longer I look at it, the more I suspect that a single Rumanian editor, probably the subject himself, keeps creating new accounts (all with similar styles of editing, AND names which seem to come from a similar religious background and mindset. I might suggest that a SPI would reveal some unsurprising patterns. --Orange Mike | Talk 07:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

i dont know how the actions could be any more obvious in leading to that conclusion, but a lot of the accounts are probably too stale for checkuser. The one caution I have is that some of the purported sources are in romanian, and (missing?) diacriticals may impact search results. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:11, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
But not everything in Romanian has a diacritic mark in it, and it looks like "Oprea" is one of those last names that does not (CV from WP EL of person with same last name), and it is likely that the given name does not have them either. MSJapan (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to intervene in this discussion. I am NOT Leonard Oprea, I sign as sensei2004 and I am the editor of much of the material that has been butchered here. I have a PhD and own a technical editing company and I can determine the difference between verifiable and non-verifiable material. I have no personal interest in the article, except that I find it undignified to attack a genuine talented writer, who has published quite a lot in his native country and was quite well known there in literary circles. I am also amazed to see some of the claims made here. Prof. Tismaneanu, who is mentioned here often DID endorse the work of Leonard Oprea, and so did numerous other people who are familiar with his work. In Romania his works were published, among others, by the website liternet.ro, a very selective internet publisher. As well, he won a number of prizes for his works. A famous professor of literature at the University of Iasi and the editor of a literary magazine (Timpul, The Time), Prof. Liviu Antonesei has recently published on the website "Reteaua Literara" (The Literary Network) a repeat of a review full of praise that he wrote more than 10 years ago for one of Leonard Oprea's books. Not only was LO a genuine dissident under the Communist regime in Romania, but he was much talked about in literary circles, and it is really amazing for me to see the comments claiming lack of eligibility to be included in Wikipedia. Among the claims I read above is one that claims that the number of books published in English: that number is definitely more than two, and I am collecting relevant material to post on the website. Unfortunately, I have not checked the site for a long time, and I am appalled to see that genuine material that I have worked hard to collect and verify has been removed because of a campaign of vilification that Leonard Oprea does not deserve. So in English he publishes with X-Libris. As a new face in the US this is a logical way of getting into the US market. But he is a genuine writer, and writing is what he has been doing all his life. His books are real literature, and his haiku novel IS a haiku novel, whether or not someone might not like the word 'Haijin'. At this stage I intend to update the site and perhaps reorganize it, but I need to find the time, and I hope it won't take more than two weeks. Meanwhile however I urge whoever put the new notice on notability to please remove it. I am personally aware of genuine praise for Mr Oprea's books, from genuine personalities. Please advise in what form this material can be brought to the attention of the decision-makers here: such material exists, but I don't think that having a section 'Praise for Oprea's books' in the article would be appropriate. So please advise how I can address this issue. (From this discussion it is clear to me that one or more people interested in harming Mr Oprea's reputation are involved in the present discussion, and in this situation I want to go to dispute resolution following Wikipedia's rules for such situations, but I prefer to solve the issues without such a procedure).

This link has the basics, and then this link more fully expounds on what wikipedia means by "reliable sources" , and then WP:AUTHOR and WP:NBOOK can provide more detail of what might be appropriate to establish notability for an author/book. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I have read this material and I don't see any problem with the notability of LO. I am asking for a few days lee-way to edit the article. I have started modifying the style and cutting repetitions (his birth was mentioned twice!). I am going to fill all the missing citations shortly, I know have a better idea of what is needed, but I have to bring the text to better readability before inserting references. The article will be revamped with correct citations in a few days. I urge the people in charge again to please remove the 'stub' note. If I fail to restore the article to a reasonable standard you can place it again, but I am sure it won't be necessary. Sensei2004 (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC) I have restored a failed link to the editorial from 2005 in Jurnalul National. For some reason the link did not work. IN view of the fact that Prof. Vladimir Tismaneanu would not not write an editorial in a national newspaper about an author who is not notable enough, I respectfully repeat my request that the 'stub' note be removed.Sensei2004 (talk) 06:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC) In order to address the issue of notability at least for some in this forum, I have decided to bring here a direct quite from the op-ed article by Tismaneanu. I will bring the Romanian first (sorry) as taken directly from the source, followed by translation. Prof, Tismaneanu took parts of the same article in an endorsement he wrote for one of the books. The quote says: "In aceste randuri, ca ilustrare a acestei unitati dintre etic si estetic, ma voi referi la opera prozatorului Leonard Oprea, participant la revolta anticomunista de la Brasov din noiembrie 1987, scriitor remarcabil, marginalizat si persecutat datorita pozitiei sale extrem de critica in raport cu dictatura totalitara. Scrierile lui Leonard Oprea, subversive deopotriva prin ideile, dar si prin stilul lor, au fost privite de cerberii ideologici drept ceea ce erau: un indemn la rezistenta si o expresie a refuzului de a pactiza cu sistemul. In momentul conceperii lor, aceste carti erau transcrieri in registru funebru ale unei realitati politice tragice. Ospiciul inlocuise ratiunea, iar viata se exilase intre interstitiile unei pure mecanicitati...." Translation: "In these lines, as an illustration of the unity between the ethical and the estethical, I will refer to the body of work of the prose-writer Leonard Oprea, a participant in the anti-Communist uprising in Brasov in November 1987, a remarkable writer, marginalized and persecuted because of his criticism in relation to the totalitarian dictatorship. The writings of Leonard Oprea---subversive, both in their content and their style---were looked upon by the ideological guardians (of the regime-my note) for what they indeed were: a call to resistance and an expression of his refusal to be in peace with the system. The asylum has replaced logic and life has become exiled into the intersection points of something mechanical..." I rest my case here in relation with notability and dissidence. I also note that the hypertext underline that I mentioned before has popped up under a few other words (such as 'prizes') as well as in the present talk page.Sensei2004 (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Note: By mistake this paragraph was inserted twice (once here and once later in the talk. My apologies.Sensei2004 (talk) 11:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Jan 9, 2013- I inserted a few new references to various parts of the article. I note that Liviu Antonesei, one of the personalities who endorsed Oprea's work has a Wiki page in Romanian, but not in English. Nevertheless is a well-known figure in Romanian Literary circles. I have linked the names of Gelu Vlasin and Vladimir Tismaneanu to their Wiki pages, and inserted links to his e-books on the site of Liternet.ro, the largest on-line publisher in Romania (and very selective too). I am working on additional citations. I urge again that the undeserved notice on notability be removed. I am currently working on completing the citations, but this has nothing to do with the issue of notability. The endorsements by Gelu Vlasin, Tismaneanu and Antonesei, all well known figures in the Romanian literary community, in addition to the additional article on dissidence should suffice for this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensei2004 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Apologies for not exiting earlier without signing. I was wondering however, given his ranking of 13 in the category 'Romanian novelists' if notability is still an issueSensei2004 (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC) NOTE regarding 'dissidence'. I can't understand why this sentence was removed. In Romania being a dissident writer meant that you are forbidden from publishing, because all publishing houses were under government control. In LO's case this was a punishment for actively participating in a revolt in 1987, as indicated in a the references I brought, but this is also common knowledge for anyone who lived under that regime. (This was a very severe punishment for a writer). This is not anymore an 'un-based claim'. I could bring a bit more text from ref. [2] in the article if you are still unconvinced, but I think this would be redundant, as this was a fact of life in Ceausescu's Romania and everybody knew what being a dissident means.Sensei2004 (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to be blunt about this, because there's a lot of things that don't add up here, and I'm a bit annoyed at the whole matter, to be quite honest. Seven SPA editors for a guy with no press in English? I don't think so. First of all, as a technical printer and a PhD, you should know what a return key is, or at least be able to research it. Use it. Secondly, you do not verify what is reliable or not as far as sources go, and "what you are personally aware of" is largely irrelevant. There are policies here. Read them. Frankly, we haven't even satisfactorily answered the question of why Oprea is notable in English? Because he lives in Boston? So do a lot of other non-notable people. Oprea has no hits on Google in English aside from this article and his own personal pages as the top three. He's had no coverage in English-language sources. As a matter of fact, he's made it obvious that he's the only reviewer of his own books on a lot of websites. The stuff you're coming up with in Romanian is Internet material, not Romanian literary journals. Even his Romanian article is lousy. Are you trying to write a legitimate article on a writer, or an advertising piece for your buddy? Wikipedia is not his free literary agent. MSJapan (talk) 02:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
I've cut out some of Sensei2004's recent uncited additions. And he probably should stop talking to himself.
My only quibble with what you say is your implication (correct me if I misread you) that a subject has to have been covered in reliable English-language sources to be notable for English Wikipedia. That's not the case, and there are plenty of legitimate articles drawn from foreign-language sources about subjects that have not received attention in English. Take, for example, another Romanian writer, Sandu Tudor - you'll note the article is extensively referenced, but almost entirely to works in Romanian (and a couple in French).
Oprea? I'd say marginally notable. No, the online coverage isn't exhaustive in any language, but there's probably enough to justify an article. We just need to be vigilant about promotional editors. - Biruitorul Talk 03:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Minor misread, but understandable. I'm not seeing a frame of reference in the target language (English) where this should be a topic of such rabid coverage; there's no basis in third-party refs in the target language at all. As a matter of fact, there's really nothing readily available in English that the subject himself does not have a hand in directly, and I'm still not seeing how this meets AUTHOR. Reliable sources in any language are fine, but we've got a lot more content here than in ro-wp, where there is (or should be) a lot more coverage. Tudor's article bears that out - there are lots of book references there in multiple languages, and I'm not seeing that here, even minimally. MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI...

Oprea's Facebook claims he's in Boston, so somebody's wrong. MSJapan (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what's going on here. Leonard Oprea has been living in Boston for a long time, but now he is in Auburn. He also published books from Boston. In the earlier (and much more accurate) version of this article it said that he lived in Boston and now lives in Auburn. There was also a link to his activities in Auburn. And this is no reason to erase an edit that contains only facts that have been brought here with accurate references.Sensei2004 (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

All the material I have added yesterday was based on the references brought in this talk recently. The previous article was started in 2007, and at that time Oprea lived in Boston and that detail has only been corrected (by me) in the previous version of this article. If you need evidence for his living in Auburn here it is [[7]], but there are two issues here: 1. Earlier in the talk it was mentioned that claims in the first part of the article do not need references. 2. I intend to eventually insert this reference later on.

There is also no justification for deleting all other details that I inserted, and I see no other choice than to take it to dispute resolution, as it seems to me that there is an issue with gaming the system and with ownership. The article as it is at the moment presents a very incomplete picture of the subject and I am trying to make it more accurate. I was hoping that sound and serious material brought to this talk will find its way to the article, and I was very sorry to see that it didn't happen, so I started inserting material myself by working around existing text. Deleting additions made in good faith and based on sound references is against WP policies and I strongly protest against these actions. I would like to resolve this without going to dispute resolution and request that the material I recently inserted (his place of residence, his work from the early 80's, the book "Domenii interzise" as well as the data on publications on LiterNet) be restored. Also, please restore the photograph.Sensei2004 (talk) 14:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

New note: I found the following paragraph in the article about WP policies on BLP:

"The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced, because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times."

At the moment this article does not comply with this policy because of the large amount of missing works and other details. I haven't counted all the books on Oprea's record, but those listed are about less than half the body of his literary work (see the OCLC source I brought earlier). Moreover, the details on the beginning of his career has been deleted despite the fact that I brought numerous verifiable references citing "Domenii Interzise" (Forbidden Areas). In addition, numerous steps in his career that are just facts (such as his move to the US, his residence in Auburn, his founding of the Athena Publishing House and the Vladimir Colin Foundation (facts that were referenced in the previous version) were not included, making the article inaccurate and "unfair to its subject" as determined in WP policies. So I request again that the deletions be reconsidered.Sensei2004 (talk) 13:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI 2

http://www.worldcat.org/title/domenii-interzise/oclc/224084754 No additional comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensei2004 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent Additions- Feb 2013

I fully agree with the latest version, and I changed my mind regarding dispute resolution for my earlier changes. Nevertheless, all his US-published works are still not included. I intend to add one line and include the following reference Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).. The "Breathings" and the haiku are his trademark now, and this style continues in particular in his US-published books in English. (The issues of haiku and breathings, as well as his four English books are also discussed (in Romanian) in the interview [[8]] that is already among the references). I think that there are sufficient secondary sources to include at the end of the text (before Publications) the following text (one sentence). 

"In  “Theophil Magus - Confesiuni 2004-2006” ("Theophil Magus–Confessions 2004-2006") Oprea introduces a style of meditation essays called "Respiratii" (“breathings”), a style in which haiku poems are used to close and reopen the meditations." [3],[4]."

In addition, the books he published in English are also mentioned in the interview indicated above and should find their way to the article. They are listed in worldcat and Wikipedia allows self-published books when the author has other books published by regular publishers, which is the case here.Sensei2004 (talk) 14:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)Sensei2004 (talk) 14:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC) New note on Feb. 8: After re-reading the entry I found a sentence that contains incorrect information: "Oprea wrote Domenii Interzise, published in 1984, a collection of fantasy short stories and novellas about the "populist globalized dictatorship" embodied by the United States." Actually, the stories 'Colonia' (The Colony) and 'Domenii Interzise' in that book refer to the communist dictatorship of Ceausescu. The 'populist globalized dictatorship embodied by the United States' that Oprea talks about in the interview refers to the book "Theophil Magus living in Boston" and the example is given in the interview from "Respiratia/Breathing" : AXIOMA POLITICA A SECOULUI 21 (The political Axiom if the 21st century)." Sensei2004 (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)Sensei2004 (talk) 12:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC) For anyone who still doubts the notability of Oprea I have the following link to a list compiled by Piero Scaruffi on the best Romanian novels of all times [[9]]. Oprea's "Cele Noua Invataturi ale lui Theophil Magus despre Magia Transilvana/ The Nine Teachings Of Theophil Magus On Transylvanian Magic" is at no. 8.Sensei2004 (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oprea may well be notable, but not because a mathematician with no professional qualifications in literary criticism happens to like one of his books and notes that on his personal website. (See also WP:SPS for that.) - Biruitorul Talk 01:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I don't know how Scaruffi collects this information. His site deals with books in all languages, and he couldn't possibly have read them all, so he compiled this list from other data. But the point is that the book mentioned is prominent, and so are other books from the Theophil Magus series, discussed by Tismaneanu, Liviu Antonesei and others.Sensei2004 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.romlit.ro/hans_castrop_n_romnia_comunist
  2. ^ [10]
  3. ^ {{VT-evz}} http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/senatul-evz-leonard-oprea-si-ranile-morale-ale-postcomunismului-455027.html
  4. ^ http://www.orizonturiculturale.ro/ro_intalniri_Leonard-Oprea-interviu.html
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leonard_Oprea/Archive_1&oldid=1136901375"