Template:Did you know nominations/Mihai Ralea

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Mihai Ralea[edit]

(
)

Ralea at his desk, circa 1960

Created by Dahn (talk). Self nominated at 19:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC).

  • Comment: @Dahn: ALT2 is definitely the most interesting of the three (with ALT1 my second choice). The article text uses the term "far-right" in this context not fascist, and the hook needs to match the article text and source somewhat closely, which this does not. And, is it really necessary to mention he "was sent to the West by Communist Romania" when that detracts from the interest of the hook? What's interesting here, IMO, is that while trying to denounce an exile for connections to the far-right, he was also denounced for the same thing. In any case, you want the hook to follow the source text: "At the time, Ralea was also sent abroad with a dossier on exile writer Vintilă Horia, who had received the Prix Goncourt. It showed evidence of Horia's support for the interwar far-right. Ralea's mission was hampered by revelations about his own compromises with fascism, published in Le Monde and Paris-Presse, under such titles as: "Ralea used to lift his arm really high". I should also like to point out that both references are non-English sources, so it is difficult to verify. I'm hoping that Google translate will help. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned elsewhere, I see no need for us to parrot the the text of the article (which I also wrote, btw) provided we use synonyms. The only reason why I had chosen "far-right" instead of "fascism" in that particular paragraph was merely stylistic: the word "fascist" occurs over and over again in the text, and that tends to be annoying for the reader. But yes, I have changed it accordingly in the text, which now uses "fascist". (If there should be a wider debate about what far-right is to fascism: I want to point out that in this case the core article is Iron Guard, which is described as both, interchangeably. Whether or not this can be said about other fascist movements, of more or less socialistic inspiration, is irrelevant here.) IMHO, stating outright that Ralea was on a political mission to expose Horia's past adds interest to the hook, most notably so because it backfired on him and the communists. Also, I feel it provides context. But the ALT is my suggestion, not my order of battle, and editors who agree with you are free to change it. And no, with all due respect, I don't see what it adds that the (online and offline) sources are in a foreign language -- though, yes, you can easily verify that particular one through google translate. In fact, that particular title from Paris-Presse is rendered in the original French: Raléa levait très haut le bras -- this, I believe, is more readily accessible and verifiable than the Romanian text surrounding it. Foreign sources are a frequent topic of AGF, but even if they weren't, I fail to see what is particularly disputed here more than in other articles using foreign-language sources. It's not like we expect the details of Ralea's career to be routinely reexamined in the Anglo-Saxon press, is it? (Although please note that 10 of the article's sources are in English or French.) Dahn (talk) 11:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Are any of the three hooks cited to English sources? If yes, which one(s)? Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that we coming up with new criteria as we go, and frankly this is frustrating. No, there are no English-language sources for that tidbit, and I don't see why there should be. Yes, if you suspect me of bad-faith editing, you can verify the text of that particular source, which is online, by running it through google translate or whatever other engine has earned your trust. Yes, (a relevant) part of the text is French, which is more accessible than Romanian -- ask a French speaker other than myself to tell you if it translates to that. Or show me the part where it says I have to exclusively use English-language sources, so that we may all know that what we're developing here is an encyclopedia of the anodyne. Dahn (talk) 10:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see any new criteria under discussion here. I'm following the reviewing process, which states, "If the article is entirely or substantially sourced to offline or foreign-language sources, verify the basic facts, or at the very least, the existence of the article subject." If you don't want to help, then you can wait for another reviewer. Also, I have no idea what you mean by "As I mentioned elsewhere", since this is the only place where I have discussed this. I should also like to point you to supplementary rule H3. Viriditas (talk) 11:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Viriditas, you are citing from the section on "Reviewing the article", and not the hook in particular. Am I to understand that you doubt that Ralea existed, or other basic facts about him? As for verifying the rest, I have repeatedly suggested a method for doing that exact same thing: find the online reference, copy the text, run it through whatever translation you wish. But do note that the rules are not and are not meant to be exhaustive here: it is conceivable that a hook might be based on an offline source that you might not be able to verify, even if it's an English source, or that you simply may not be able or willing to translate it for the review. All of this would be fine, because you can simply AGF in such instances, as indicated by the fact that you can indeed pass a review with the second of the review icons at the top of your screen, the one marked {{subst:DYKtickAGF}}. This routinely happens, and it is inevitable for hooks and articles that have been covered by arcane scholarly sources rather than online newspapers and such. Dahn (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • In what way does this article lack "basic verifiability", I would be interested to know. Dahn (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You've already been pointed to the reviewing process and H3, so your question has been answered. Now, you've pointed me to viataromaneasca.eu. Great, would you be so kind as to tell what exactly I will find there? Am I able to verify all three hooks there? And what kind of source is this? It says it was published in Romanian Life by the "Writers' Union of Romania". I don't know if that's a reliable source. You are not a very helpful nominator. Again, if you don't want to help, then wait for another reviewer. Per H3, I can't verify the information in the article, which means I can't verify the hook(s) at this time. Please don't belabor this point. I have not formally reviewed his article. I am merely following up from the backlog page trying to help out. Feel free to wait for a formal review from another reviewer. Viriditas (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • 1. You are conveniently misreading H3. 2. What you will find in the reference is exactly what you're asking for: verification for the hook where it is used as a source, the one you said you were verifying (the other hooks obviously have other citations, I imagined that would be somewhat clear by now). You will find the whole story of how Ralea came to Paris with instructions to denounce fascists and found his own fascist past revealed by the French press. But of course, instead of asking me about it, you could actually try having a glance over the text in a machine translation of your choosing, I'm sure that 2 minutes of intense (if slightly difficult) reading will clarify at the very least that the article does verify the hook. 3. You do not actually need to very the text, on principle, you can go with AGF. You don't have to do that either, it is really your choice. 4. The source, on which we have an article, is a leading peer-reviewed magazine of literary criticism in Romania. It is, ironically enough, a magazine once edited by Ralea himself. Florin Manolescu is a lecturer in Romanian literary history and Romanistics at the University of Bucharest and Ruhr University Bochum. 5. It is perfectly fine to decline competence, but it is not fine to claim it and deny it at the same time. You cannot blame me for the article being difficult to review, if you expect the review to be an entirely effortless process. If you can't verify it, you can't; but that is not because the article is against policy, it is because you're being pretentious. Which is your right and privilege, but is already counterproductive here. Dahn (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not misreading anything, and you're not being helpful. Where in the cited source does it support the hook? I've already sent it through machine translation. All you need to do is highlight a string of words for me to find. Instead, you are being difficult and telling me I must assume AGF. Well, I won't. Now, get off your high horse and tell me where to find the text in the article, or wait for another review. Or respond with more time wasting. Your choice. I can't verify it because you won't help me verify it. Now, who is being pretentious? Viriditas (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I repeat, the whole article is about that, though not all of it is about Ralea. Surely you can see the word "Ralea" in the text; have a look in that general area. For instance this is a French language fragment quoted verbatim by Manolescu, from one of the articles exposing Ralea's fascist past, which were published as a result of Raela's attacks on Horia (the whole story, I repeat, can be read in the rest of the text): "Ancien membre du parti paysan de Maniu, Michel Ralea trahit ses amis socialistes (sic) en 1938, pour devenir ministre du Travail du gouvernement dictatorial d’inspiration fasciste établi par le roi Carol. C’est à ce titre qu’il liquida les syndicats. Parti consulter en Allemagne le docteur Ley, chef du Front du Travail, il fonda à son retour le mouvement «Munca Si Voie Buna» (sic), équivalent roumain de l’organisation nazie «La force par la joie», à la tête duquel il défila à Bucarest en saluant l’hitlérisme. [...] Décoré par Hitler, Michel Ralea participa en juillet 1943 (sic) à la fondation du parti unique et à la dénonciation de l’alliance anglo-franco-roumaine. Après l’entrée en guerre de la Roumanie contre l’U.R.S.S., il proposa au «Conducator» (führer, en roumain) Antonesco de créer un parti national-socialiste. C’est seulement après Stalingrad que, flairant le vent, il se mit à la disposition des communistes et réussit à se faire placer quelques jours dans une résidence surveillée analogue à celle que connut Vintila Horia. / Il existe à la Bibliothèque nationale (folio M 1397), une déclaration autographe de Michel Ralea souhaitant à la revue nazie Freude und Arbeit «une longue vie pleine de tous les succès qu’elle mérite»." And this is what the machine translation returns: "Former member of the Peasant Party Maniu, Michel Ralea betrayed his socialist friends (sic) in 1938, and became Minister of the dictatorial government of fascist inspiration established by King Carol Labour. It is in this capacity that liquidated the unions. Party in Germany consult Dr. Ley, head of the Labor Front, he founded his return movement "Munca If Buna Way" (sic), Romanian equivalent of the Nazi organization "Strength through Joy", headed by he marched in Bucharest saluting Hitler. [...] Decorated by Hitler, Michel Ralea participated in July 1943 (sic) to the foundation of the single party and denunciation of the Anglo-French-Romanian alliance. After entry into the war against the USSR Romania, he proposed to "Conducator" (Führer, in Romanian) Antonescu create a National Socialist Party. It was only after Stalingrad that, sniffing the wind, he began at the disposal of the Communists and managed to get a few days in a place similar to that experienced Vintila Horia house arrest. / There are at the National Library (folio M 1397), an autograph statement Michel Ralea wishing to Nazi magazine Freude und Arbeit 'a long life full of all the success it deserves.'" Surely this helps you verify at least part of the hook! Dahn (talk) 12:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And another relevant fragment from the source, in Romanian this time: "În acelaşi timp însă, Dieu est né en exil este romanul care marchează într-un cu totul alt înţeles decît cel exclusiv literar existenţa lui Vintilă Horia. Pentru că de el este legat evenimentul special al „Premiului Goncourt“, acordat în noiembrie 1960 de un juriu din care au făcut parte Hervé Bazin, Roland Dorgelès, Gérard Bauer, Philippe Hériat, André Billy, Jean Giono, Pierre Mac Orlan, Raymond Queneau şi Armand Salacrou (ultimii patru cu voturi fie pentru Henri Thomas, angajat în competiţie cu romanul John Perkins, fie pentru Albert Simonin, cu Du mouron pour les petits oiseaux), şi la care prozatorul a fost constrîns să renunţe ca urmare a unui scandal politic conceput în laboratoarele secrete ale Securităţii, din iniţiativa regimului comunist de la Bucureşti, şi transferat de aici la Paris, în atelierele de propagandă ale Partidului Comunist Francez. Aşadar, un scandal programat la Bucureşti, dar instrumentat la faţa locului de Legaţia R.P.R. din Franţa şi de profesorul Mihai Ralea (fost ministru al Artelor în guvernul Petru Groza, fost ministru al României la Washington, vicepreşedinte al Prezidiului Marii Adunări Naţionale), un util tovarăş de drum trimis la Paris cu misiunea de a se ocupa de această chestiune. Că planul ca atare s-a desfăşurat în această regie, cu aceşti actori, pe acest traseu, s-a putut dovedi pe deplin după 1989, prin identificarea unor note secrete ale Securităţii." Here's what the machine translation yields: "At the same time, East né en Dieu exile is the novel that marks a completely different meaning than the exclusively literary existence Vintilă Horia. Because it involves special event "Goncourt Prize", awarded in November 1960 by a jury which included Hervé Bazin, Roland Dorgeles, Gerard Bauer, Philippe Heri, André Billy, Jean Giono, Pierre Mac Orlan, Raymond Queneau and Armand Salacrou (last four to vote either for Henri Thomas, engaged in competition with novel John Perkins, either Albert Simonin, pour les petits Du mouron oiseaux), and the writer was forced to quit due to a political scandal Security designed in secret laboratories, the initiative of the communist regime in Bucharest, and transferred from there to Paris workshops of the French Communist Party propaganda. So scandal programmed in Bucharest, but handled onsite RPR Legation in France and Professor Michael Ralea (former Minister of Arts in Government Petru Groza, former Minister of Romania in Washington, Vice President of the Presidium of the Grand National Assembly), a handy travel companion mission sent to Paris to deal with this issue. That the plan itself was conducted in this direction, with these actors, this route could prove entirely after 1989, through the identification of the Securitate secret notes." It is slightly annoying to read the disjointed phrases, but surely you can make out the general meaning... Dahn (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • My general impression from the above is that ALT2, while it is my preferred hook, is synthesis and should be discarded. If so, then you should focus on supporting the original or ALT1. Viriditas (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • A synthesis of what? Both of these issues are discussed and placed side by side in the same source, namely Manolescu. Manolescu relates the events, and he cites different sources to say exactly what the hook says: that Ralea, who went to Paris with a mission to expose Romanian fascists, was himself exposed as a fascist. It is not my synthesis, it is not me that's saying "let's compare the two"; but, yes, obviously and naturally, authors of secondary literature, whom we cite, draw on more than one source to write their texts. If you disagree, what do you base your impression on? Dahn (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • See WP:SYN. DYK hooks must be explicit from the source and easy to verify. As far as I can tell, ALT2 doesn't really exist, it's a unique statement based on material you put together from the above. Where is the link between Ralea and Horia in the source material you've linked to above? I'm not seeing it. Sure, you could interpret that from the above, but we don't verify hooks from interpretations. There's no guess work involved. Maybe you should just focus on the original and ALT1 for now. The fault may or may not be with the article, but that's not what this discussion is about. This discussion is about the sources in the article supporting the hook. Viriditas (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This "as far as I can tell" refers to your reading of two fragments from the whole text, after repeated claims that you could not be expected to glance at the whole article. "Where is the link between Ralea and Horia in the source material you've linked to above?" You've got to be kidding me -- it's right there, in that second fragment (discussing Ralea's mission to France). The sequence of events related in the source goes exactly as the hook: Ralea was sent on mission to expose Horia's fascist past, and as a result was exposed as a fascist in the French press. There is abolsutely no interpretation on my part, and there is the link rendered explicit in Manolescu's article; there is however your belief that, because I did not translate the entire text and shown you the causal link as stated by the source, then no causal link was stated by the source. Let's try it again, in simpler terms: fragment no. 2 is from the beginning of the text, where the affair is outlined; the article itself centers on the affair and how it was covered by the press. Later in the text, Manolescu returns to Ralea's mission, and says exactly that: that the press published revelations about Ralea's past in reply to his revaltions about Horia's past. My mistake here was believing that you would actually bother to compare the fragments I gave you with the text of the source, and figure it out for yourself. Those two fragments I gave you are not exhaustive, they were just a quick reply to your demand for a "string of text". Dahn (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please read WP:SYN again: "do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." The source you have cited does not explicitly support your proposed hook of ALT2. You have admittedly combined "two fragments from the whole texts" from one source to create the hook. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." In this case, the conclusion (i. e. that Ralea was exposed for his fascist connections after leaving for France to expose Horia's fascist connections) is explicitly stated by the source, not by me. Dahn (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Where does it explicitly state, "Ralea was sent to the West by Communist Romania with documents exposing the fascist past of Romanian exiles only to find himself subject to similar accusations"? Pretty simple question. When I asked you up above, you combined two different parts. Is that the case? Viriditas (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Where is that conclusion "not explicitly stated by the source", Viriditas? The rule explicitly says that you're not to combine different parts of an article where you're drawing a conclusion not found in the text -- in this case, if I were to say, for instance, that "Ralea was not liked by the anticommunists and the antifascists alike". (It would be a sound inference, based on the fragments, but it would not be explicitly found in the source. Whereas the two facts, that he was on a mission from the communists to expose fascists, and that he was himself exposed for fascism, are quite plainly found in the source.) Do you understand at last that you're misquoting the rules? And, as an aside, the only reason why the two parts of the account are separated by a few paragraphs is because that's where Manolescu makes a parenthetical reference to the background of the affair and the Ezra Pound case. Look at it this way: the only two parts of the text that detail Ralea's mission are those two ones, and they depict events in direct succession, with a causal link that is stated outright by Manolescu (in the fragment that begins "Dintre toate publicaţiile periodice ale exilului etc."). Dahn (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Where does the source you've cited explicitly juxtapose Ralea's accusations against exiles with accusations against Ralea? Please don't connect two different parts of the source, as that's an interpretation. We don't write hooks like that. Hooks must be explicit, they must be directly supported by the source, and there can't be any ambiguity about what the source intended to say. Your hostility and inability to verify the hook with a simple passage from the source tells me that ALT2 should be discarded. There is no longer any need for you to discuss it. Please focus only on the original hook and ALT1. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Where does the source you've cited explicitly juxtapose Ralea's accusations against exiles with accusations against Ralea?" Just before the first fragment I have translated, in the pargraph "Dintre toate publicaţiile periodice ale exilului etc.". It begins by saying that this was the press' coverage of the Horia case (which is the very topic of the article), and goes on to mention that Paris-Presse and Le Monde responded to the Ralea's accusations by citing his fascist past. Exactly like that: Ralea calls Horia fascist, claim gains notoriety, Ralea himself is exposed as a (former) fascist. You have asked me to point you to the parts of the text where Ralea is mentioned, and I did by showing you what the machine translations say, which you could frankly have done yourself. Just because I have not translated all of it for your pleasure, not anticipating the next round of pretentious claims, doesn't mean that I have given you all the context with those quotes. But I had assumed, alas, that as the self-proclaimed reviewer you would show enough interest in your own review for me not have to do your work as a reviewer. Dahn (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • That's your interpretation of the source. You can't point to a single sentence, or even two, that support the hook. I've read that paragraph several times and I don't see how it supports the hook without your interpretation. In case it isn't clear by now, we don't promote hooks based on the interpretations of the nominator. Feel free to object all you want. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "I've read that paragraph several times and I don't see how it supports the hook without your interpretation." I'm compelled to bring up (again) WP:COMPETENCE. Dahn (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to be very clear for all those reading this tiresome discussion: there is absolutely no SYNTH involved here. Manolescu, the author of the article, discusses both issues found in the hook about Ralea, in an article that centers on Horia. Both claims are found and linked in and by the same source, not by me. Dahn (talk) 13:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • "Do not combine different parts of one source" is very clear. And very common. Which is why I did not AGF. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. The part right after that: "to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." What is that "new" conclusion, one not in the source, pray tell? Dahn (talk) 13:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Please don't turn a very simple question about sources into Wikilawyering over a policy. That is, how do you say, gauche. Viriditas (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I reject your reading of that policy, as per the policy itself. I have added absolutely no original research to either the article or the hook, as per the very definition provided in the fragment you quote. There are two facts, and no conclusion, none at all, is drawn from them. Enough, please; if you have a point or not, let others weigh in on it. I demand a review for someone less entrenched. Dahn (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Because of the above response(s), I will ask any reviewer to specifically disallow ALT2 from consideration as it cannot be verified beyond the synthesis of the nominator. I would ask that any future reviewer focus solely on verifiying ALT1 and the original hook, both of which would have already been approved if the nominator could answer a simple question without engaging in long-winded diatribes. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And I would ask reviewers to focus on the ALT2 just as well as the others, given that all the claims made against it are utterly frivolous. Dahn (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I also note that the "simple question" keeps changing, from "Where is the link between Ralea and Horia in the source material you've linked to above?" to (most recently) "Where does the source you've cited explicitly juxtapose Ralea's accusations against exiles with accusations against Ralea?" I have answered all the questions, though no: my answers were not simple, but they could not be any simpler. This guy is asking me to translate and interpret chunks of the source text just to settle an (imaginary) issue, then swiftly changes the issue, just to make it look like this is a case a WP:SYNTH. Use your common sense, folks. Dahn (talk) 01:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Reviewers should not waste their time trying to verify a hook that can't be verified. Viriditas (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The above discussion demonstrates otherwise. If you are feeling competent today (as opposed to yesterday), why don't you verify the hook (that sociologist Mihai Ralea was sent to the West by Communist Romania with documents exposing the fascist past of Romanian exiles, only to find himself subject to similar accusations) with a single quote from the source? You can't because there isn't one. It's your interpretation of the source, and we can't promote hooks based on interpretations. Is this getting through to you yet? Please feel free to distract, eavde, argue, threaten, and all of the rest. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Goddamit, the only reason I "evade" having to do this is because I don't ever want it to be implied that editors should be expected to do the sort of work I performed for you below, where I translated an entire chunk of the text that you claimed to have read "several times", just to be risk being faced with another bombardment of inane claims at the end of that exhausting exercise. Nobody should have to go through this in a simple process of DYK review, especially not when the objections are clearly fabricated on the spot based on some whimsical interpretation of policy. You do understand that, having already written and sourced the article itself, and having presented my arguments thrice already, I have had to also translate walls of text on that whim of yours. This is not a decent expectation to have from editors, while other similar articles just get promoted on AGF. So enough of these shenanigans, I have other stuff to do. Dahn (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • This is getting ridiculous. I ask for a second opinion, preferably from one who isn't going out of their way to imagine faults with the article. Dahn (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Viriditas makes above the egregious claim that ALT2 is unsourced, and then claims: "I've read that paragraph several times and I don't see how it supports the hook without your interpretation." Here's my translation of that entire paragraph, thank you for wasting my time:


"Of all the exile publications that have referred to the scandal sparked by Vintilă Horia's award (La Nation Roumaine, Semne, România, Vatra, Caete de Dor, America, România Muncitoare), the Parisian general information bulletin B.I.R.E. was the one who, this time as ever, kept its readers posted on the course of events, followed step by step, in reportage style, and communicated in such way as to be accesible to all people. 'Unbelievable, yet true' (regarding the denunciation of Constantin Virgil Gheorghiu, in Paris–Presse l’Intransigeant daily, where the author asserted in 1960 that [long quote excerpted]), 'After Vintilă Horia's denunciation, the Goucourt Academy decides not to grant its prize to any other person', 'The statements made by the author of Dieu est né en exil and of Goncourt Academy leaders', 'The attacks [on Horia] by the French communist press and by the servants of Romania's communist regime' [other such titles]. Also in French, in issue 322 of January 1, 1961, 'Ralea used to lift his arm really high...', with photos, bibliographical references and the reproduction of information published on December 13, 1960 in Paris–Presse l’Intransigeant (this is after revelations published since as early as 1957, Prof. Constantin Marinescu, former director of the Romanian School in Fontenay-aux-Roses, relocated to France and settled in exile as president of the Royal University Foundation Carol I from May 1956 to April 1958, had written in Le Monde about the 'pro-Hitlerite' past of the man whom the communists would later send to Paris to coordinate the attack on Vintilă Horia): 'A former member of Maniu's Peasant Party, Michel Ralea betrayed his socialist friends in 1938, in order to become a Minister of Labor in the fascist-inspired dictatorial government set up by King Carol. While in office, he liquidated the trade unions. Leaving for Germany to consult with Doctor Ley, head of the Labor Front, he founded upon his return the movement «Munca Si Voie Buna» (sic), a Romanian equivalent of the Nazi organization Strength through Joy, which he led at parades in Bucharest where he saluted Hitlerism. [...] Decorated by Hitler, Michel Ralea participated in July 1943 [a sic placed by Manolescu signals the chronological inaccuracy] in creating the single party and denouncing the Anglo-Franco-Romanian alliance. After Romania's entry in the war against the USSR, he proposed to «Conducator» (Romanian for führer) Antonesco to set up a national-socialist party. It is only after [the battle of] Stalingrad that, sensing the wind of change, he placed himself at the disposal of the communists and managed to get himself imprisoned for a few days under a kind of house arrest that was analogous with the one that Vintila Horia was under [at that time]. The [Romanian?] National Library preserves (as folio M 1397) a handwritten statement by Michel Ralea, wishing that the Nazi review Freude und Arbeit would have «a long life, ripe with all the success it deserves».' What's more, on December 16, 1960, the editorial director of this publication, René Théo, quoted Robert Escarpit's Le Monde piece, building on the thesis that a writer's work and a writer's life should be held to different standards, and evidencing that he himself had taken it to heart: 'We cannot be suspected of any sympathy toward the far right. We have from the very beginning attacked in our columns the criminal organization that was and is the Iron Guard, just as we have attacked murderous international communism. [...] Vintilă Horia's articles, despicable as they are, endure as pearls of antidemocratic thought. This journalistic orientation on the part of Vintilă Horia proves just what sort of confusion had gripped the Romanian youth in those years just before World War II. The very fact that he has passed through the most sinister of all old Romanian editorial offices — the one at Porunca vremii — which is in no way different from that of present-day Scânteia [a communist newspaper] — even if it were for just two months, is enough to harm [Horia's] reputation and honor. [There follow considerations as to why Horia's novel is still a great book etc.]"


(Please note! The cuts in the text marked "[...]" are found verbatim in the source; my cuts are the ones that specify what has been cut, and are only there for legibility. I have for instance removed a longuish and confsing quote from Constantin Virgil Gheorghiu about something to do with Iron Guard members living in Francoist Spain, which has little to do with either the Horia affair or Ralea's participation in it. I hope to fend off any potential accusations that I have intervened in the text -- the format here closely mirrors that found in the source.)
I trust you will note that ALT2 is in fact verified by the paragraph, and that the part verifying it could have been picked up by any competent editor acting in good faith, even from a basic machine translation, and even if that does, alas, require a bit of patience and work (though certainly less than it took me to translate it and type it verbatim for you). Incidentally, this fragment (I now note) even supports the fact, fully verified by that other fragment from the same source, that Ralea was sent to Paris specifically to attack Horia: had written in Le Monde about the 'pro-Hitlerite' past of the man whom the communists would later send to Paris to coordinate the attack on Vintilă Horia. This should render irrelevant all of Viriditas' claims about "WP:SYN", which were already exceptionally contrived.
I for one am done doing Viriditas' homework and following his long trail of nonsense. Anybody still willing to review this will hopefully be able to read the verification in the text here, if still unconvinced by arguments in the long discussion above. Dahn (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
  • ALT2 while definitely interesting, is an ambiguous "fact" that is neither properly mentioned in the article using the current wording nor properly supported by an inline citation to a reliable source, as verification of the source in question shows an editorial interpretation/synthesis of the inline source rather than a definite fact. The other two hooks may still be candidates, but the wording in the article as well as the source must directly support them. It also appears that the nominator is emotionally invested in the topic, and may benefit from the objectivity of an uninvolved party. Viriditas (talk) 00:07, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I am emotionally invested in this discussion, quite clearly so, but only because the objections are ridiculous. The fact is evidently mentioned in the source, as the lengthy quote above will show, and the amount of effort that was required of me in the "verification" process is beyond unreasonable. And no, lengthy quote does not mean "ambiguous" quote, unless we have all turned illiterate all of a sudden. The accusation of WP:SYNTH is, as I have already shown above, and as the quote itself indicates, entirely frivolous. That said, I have repeatedly asked for the involvement of another reviewer myself, particularly so because Viriditas keeps presenting himself as both a reviewer and a reviewer of his own reviews. Dahn (talk) 01:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
      • The discussion above shows you are emotionally invested to the point where you have become incivil and have lost your perspective. As you have said quite clearly above, you are not used to having a reviewer attempt to verify your hooks. In the past, it appears that most reviewers have accepted your hooks on good faith, without attempting to verify them. The only time I accept hooks on good faith is when I am able to conclude from reading the article that we are dealing with an unambiguous fact. Please try to get yourself together and focus only on the other two hooks. I would be happy to look at them once you calm down. Do not, however, continue to engage in personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 01:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
        • That is another absurd accusation thrown in the pile. The only ones of my hooks that were verified on AGF alone were the ones in which the source was available only in print; such is the case for any article were this may occur, whatever the language of the source used. I have repeatedly offered precise references and have willingly translated relevant fragments were this was required of me, even where the source was not instantly verifable (for instance here). In this particular case, I have been more than transparent from the beginning: while I have suggested that you could AGF should you decline competence (and clearly stated that it was your choice to make), I have also answered all your questions and disproved all your negative claims -- claims which you made by simply refusing to go and read the text, or whatever you can make out of it, yourself. You have also went on record saying that you had read the fragment several times, but could still not find the reference to Ralea being exposed as a former fascist in the midst of the Horia scandal -- if this is true, and if you have read the text without gathering as much, then it shows that some deeper level of attention or skill is required for this review. Though I have now provided you with the full chunk of the text (which is more than is required of me), you keep pretending not to be able to "see" how the fragment verifies the text, which is frankly astoundingly stubborn in pursuit of a prejudice you have insinuated from the very beginning, namely that I am trying to get the article promoted with my own unsourced claims or the like. I am done investing attention in your claims, and am waiting for some non-partisan review. Dahn (talk) 01:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
        • And yes, the fact is mentioned in the article as per the source, with exact citations:

At the time, Ralea was also sent abroad with a dossier on exile writer Vintilă Horia, who had received the Prix Goncourt. It showed evidence of Horia's support for interwar fascism. Ralea's mission was hampered by revelations about his own compromises with fascism, published in Le Monde, Paris-Presse and the Romanian diaspora press, under such titles as: "Ralea used to lift his arm really high".[125] According to later assessments, the Horia affair and Ralea's participation therein were instrumented by the Securitate.[125][203]

Dahn (talk) 01:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
          • You've been given a non-partisan review and you've responded by attacking the reviewer over and over again for days on end. Many of your hooks (but not all) have been accepted without verification, and only by way of AGF. A small sample of your hooks shows this to be true: [1][2][3][4][5] Beyond the fact that many of your hooks are verified AGF, the other pattern that emerges is that many of your hooks involve negative material about people, mostly dead by the looks of it. This implies, to me at least, the appearance of an agenda. In fact, out of the 50 or more hooks you've written, have you composed one that had anything positive to say about the person you were writing about? I'm curious as your answer. When I look at your DYKs and the hooks combined, I see a pressing need to verify your hooks beyond AGF. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
            • As noted, the hooks in question refer to paper sources; you are conveniently glossing over the ones that have been reviewed and verified from the source as well (I have not counted them, but surely you can pick those out by going through my record). If the facts in question have "negative material" (?!), this is because such were the interesting and sometimes paradoxical facts to mention about those people: yes, my agenda is to write interesting hooks and articles. Incidentally, the claim that calling the founder of a fascist movement a fascist is "negative" is ridiculously PC, as is the claim that something negative can be found in this hook or this one. The only thing that is beginning to be implied here, to me at least, is that you have decided to tarnish my reputation as an editor, especially with the "pressing need" you suggest. This is one more reason for me to demand an independent review. Dahn (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
              • You've avoided another simple question. Are all of your hooks (and you've got 50+ by the looks of it) focused on adding negative information about people? To prove me wrong, surely you can find one positive hook you've written. I think it's important for reviewers to approach each review differently, based not just on the type of sources used, but on the quality of the material. Surely, you can understand, that if a nominator has a habit of writing negative hooks, we should make an effort to verify them above and beyond, let's say, a hook about the size of a building, or the type of material used to construct a car? Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • Again, not even the links you cite against me are all based on "negative facts", most are completely neutral in context. There is absolutely no way in which you could paint this into a "negative facts" hook, unless you have misunderstood it in its entirety. But here's just a small sample of completely achromatic or positive hooks and article I wrote that were approved: for one, there's the one I had provided just above (you should really start reading my replies, especially if you're going to launch allegations at me); then, off the top of my head, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, as well as the Nicolae Iorga entry (I can't find the exact nomination page for it) or the Wilhelm Stepper-Tristis entry (ditto). I should also point out my contribution to writing the article reviewed here, as one of the recent examples. And this is just a small sample. Are you just about done? Dahn (talk) 02:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
        • I am quite calm, thank you very much: perplexed is not the same as annoyed. And no, thank you for the offer, but I am looking forward to another reviewer, not just another review. Dahn (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, you've already got a review of one hook, so you can knock that off your list. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
            • I am still waiting for someone else to read through the source and either verify it or back up your claim. I am inviting in any Romanian speakers who should like to verify it fully. Dahn (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
              • My "claim" is that you composed a hook from an interpretation of the source material. You responded by proving my claim. Next hook please... Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                • I have proven that you are incapable or unwilling to read policy, just like you are incapable or unwilling to give proper interpretation to how I have contributed to DYK over the years. You have the exact quote above -- I have heard your vague theory that it's SYNTH, I have debunked it as far as I can tell in all honesty, and, at the very least, I am expecting independent and reasoned confirmation that I have added my own conclusion to the facts mentioned there. Next reviewer, please. Dahn (talk) 02:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                  • The policies and guidelines are very clear and I understand them and apply them on a daily basis. While your interpretation of those same policies and guidelines may differ, we cannot use hooks based on such interpretations. For example, your proposed hook, "Did you know that sociologist Mihai Ralea was sent to the West by Communist Romania with documents exposing the fascist past of Romanian exiles, only to find himself subject to similar accusations" is an interpretation of the source material; it does not appear explicitly in the source you cited. Further, the article itself does not display this hook. Instead it includes a synthesis of the source material, which in the article reads, "At the time, Ralea was also sent abroad with a dossier on exile writer Vintilă Horia, who had received the Prix Goncourt. It showed evidence of Horia's support for interwar fascism. Ralea's mission was hampered by revelations about his own compromises with fascism, published in Le Monde, Paris-Presse and the Romanian diaspora press, under such titles as: "Ralea used to lift his arm really high". According to later assessments, the Horia affair and Ralea's participation therein were instrumented by the Securitate." As a result, I've stricken the hook above. Please focus on unambiguous, explicit facts from the source material that can easily be verified without interpretation or synthesis. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                    • Of course it appears explicitly in the text, both in the source and in fact in the very fragment you cite there. I have shown that. Dahn (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                      • You've shown that it's an interpretation of the source material. It is not an explicit fact, and it's not even clear if you are simply citing an opinion, biased or not. Furthermore, you've called me an "involved reviewer" which makes absolutely no sense. Exactly what is my involvement other than telling you that ALT2 isn't going to work? You're so emotionally involved in the outcome of this DYK you aren't even making sense. Viriditas (talk) 02:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                        • Here, I'll spell it out even more clearly for reviewers, from the fragment in the source: "Also in French, in issue 322 of January 1, 1961, 'Ralea used to lift his arm really high...', with photos, bibliographical references and the reproduction of information published on December 13, 1960 in Paris–Presse l’Intransigeant (this is after revelations published since as early as 1957, Prof. Constantin Marinescu [...] had written in Le Monde about the 'pro-Hitlerite' past of [Ralea,] the man whom the communists would later send to Paris to coordinate the attack on Vintilă Horia): [there follow revelations about Ralea's fascist past]." This is exactly what the hook says, in words that come right after one another. No ambiguity of meaning, though, yes, the text is a bit difficult to read even in its Romanian original. And no interpretation.Dahn (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                        • And yes, Viriditas, I did call you involved, because you're now involved in a dispute with me. A third opinion is required before you can strike out the hook. (The revelation that you apply such misreadings of the policy "on a daily basis" is slightly worrisome.) Dahn (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                        • And of course it is quite clear from the hook that I am referring to an opinion. The hook says, and has always said: "only to find himself subject to similar accusations". Meaning that he was accused of being a fascist. This although his fascist past is well attested by other sources, and by now a matter of public record (as you will note by looking over that part of the article text, covering the years 1938-1943) -- the fact of the hook is that he went in to accuse Horia, and was accused himself; the fact of the hook is not that he was a fascist (although he had evidently been one), but that he was accused of being a fascist. That he was accused is amply verified by the accusation cited verbatim right there, before your eyes, which is quoted by Manolescu for that explicit purpose (namely, of discussing the accuations brought against Ralea). What is unclear about that? Dahn (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
                        • As for the part about Ralea being sent in by Communist Romania for the purpose of denouncing Horia, this is again verified by the source itself: though it is detailed at the beginning of the text (where Manolescu, the author of the piece, casually notes that it can be verified nowadays by looking into the secret police file on Ralea), you will note that the accusation is repeated in that very fragment I quote above: "[Ralea being] the man whom the communists would later send to Paris to coordinate the attack on Vintilă Horia". This fulfills even the most pretentious and misinterpreting of Viriditas' requirements, namely that the two claims in the hook should be in immediate proximity to each other, in the source. Both Manolescu and other sources also launch an even more serious claims, that I have left out of the hook: namely, that Ralea was sent in not just by the regime, but by the secret police, that he was, to put it bluntly, an agent of communist diversion. This is detailed in the text in a separate phrase, and attributed, which would in any case make the milder fact (Ralea as an envoy of the regime) implicit. Are we done? Dahn (talk) 03:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
How is that not synthesis? You're combining two claims together into a novel hook. If that was allowed, we could come up with all sorts of new historical narratives. You're creating original research. Do me a favor, scour the DYK's for the last week and try a find a hook that's been approved like this. I don't think you'll find one. Hooks are explicit in the source, unambiguous, and easy to verify. Furthermore, whenever a dispute arises, you should be able to point to a second source that supports the hook. That you can't is even more reason to strike it. You are devoting an incredible amount of energy to one stricken hook when you have two others you can choose from. I hope they are easy to verify and explicit as well. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I have explained several times how that is not synthesis, beginning from where I noted your refusal to quote that policy in full. As for your request that I find a similar hook in the last week, we need look no farther that this one or this one (compiling not just two tidbits, but tidbits picked from different sources!). Moving beyond that arbitrary limit of "one week", and into the realm of "in the last month or so", we find for instance this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, or this one. If we work our way back from that through DYK history, we find hundreds of such hooks, because, guess what, it is a perfectly fine thing to do, and well within policy. I am devoting all this energy (how much is really none of your business) precisely because I see your misinterpretation of policy and consensus as a counterproductive creeping rule that should be met with stiff rationality before it lays its eggs. And yes, I have been providing a second reference for the part where Ralea is defined as a communist agent, as noted just above (here's one, here's another, and there's also a paper reference, also in Romanian, that you will able able to download, should you insist to, from the electronic version of Bucharest City Library). For the other part, the one about him being accused of fascism at the time of the Horia affair, the source itself cites several references, that I do believe you will be able to verify by going through the archives of the cited newspapers and magazines, wherever they may be. Frankly, these canards are getting more and more fantastic by the minute, and the standards to which this article and hook are held more and more imaginative. Dahn (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
And no, there is absolutely nothing "new" (as in, added by me) in this narrative. It's all from the source, which backs every bit of the hook. Beyond that, the fact that Ralea was a fascist (which is still not what the hook says) is in fact quite easily verified and verifiable from countless other sources, some of which are amply cited in the article (just not in that part of the article, because chronology). But that is beside the point: the hook is about him being accused of fascism while on mission to accuse others of fascism, and this, for chrissake, is verified by the source with no ambiguities whatsoever. Just how you can still claim otherwise is beyond me. Dahn (talk) 03:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well? Dahn (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any synthesis in the hooks you describe as examples. Why don't you just pick one? If you aren't creating a novel historical narrative, then I should be able to verify your hook in other sources. You pointed me to the hook from "Word Crimes" as an example of synthesis, but I don't see any. The hook, "Did you know that "Word Crimes", "Weird Al" Yankovic's grammar-based song parody of Robin Thicke's "Blurred Lines", has been likened to a modern-day Schoolhouse Rock" is easily verifiable. The author of that hook did not have to create anything. The author of the hook was also able to cite not one, but many different sources. Can you do the same? Or are you just constructing this artificial hook out of one source? You say "that sociologist Mihai Ralea was sent to the West by Communist Romania with documents exposing the fascist past of Romanian exiles, only to find himself subject to similar accusations", but does the cited source actually say that, or is that your interpretation of an opinion? Viriditas (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
For the 15th time: of course it says that. And of course I can cite (and did cite) multiple sources. How many times must I answer these charades before you actually read my posts and realize that you simply messed up your earlier review, simply because you assumed that I broke DYK rules? Dahn (talk) 07:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Here it is in a nutshell, summarized for the fifth time.
Manolescu is one (secondary) source, for both parts of the hook. He attests clearly that Ralea was sent to France by the regime (in fact, not just by the regime, but by the Securitate) with a mission to attack Horia; he says this in several parts of his text, including right there, in that fragment I translated for you. In this immediate context, like right after asserting again that Ralea was sent by the regime with that precise mission, he also gives direct references an a quote from the French and Franco-Romanian press of the day, which discuss polemically Ralea's own fascism (though he does mention that some of the press had already covered the subject, and was merely returning to it). This is with the explicit intent of showing what the coverage of the Horia case was during that time -- a purpose stated at the very beginning of that paragraph, but also implicit in the fact that this is the very subject of Manolescu's article. He (Manolescu) clearly indicates that these are revelations made about the man "to coordinate the attack on Vintilă Horia", just before quoting them in extenso. So yes, this citation clearly verifies the hook, in its entirety, in its current phrasing, and in any phrasing that you could imagine states that same idea.
That Ralea was sent in to France with the explicit purpose of attacking Horia for his fascist past is also mentioned as a fact in several secondary sources, all cited in the Ralea article (for that part regarding the Securitate, which is the same as saying that he was sent in by the regime, but a tad more serious an accusation).
If anything, this is even better that any of the approved hooks mentioned above, because it has one tidbit quoted from several sources, the other quoted to just one. And, let me add, in all the hooks cited above, at least one of the tidbits forming the hook, and sometimes usually both, is/are also exclusively cited to one source. Your implicit request that I should go and find you even more sources is utterly exceptionalist, of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety. It has nothing to do with DYK rules.
And yes, Manolescu, a perfectly acceptable reliable source, is the only one I have mentioning (and also quoting, with exact references) the counterattacks on Ralea during the Horia affair. This is not to say that it is the only source in the article mentioning Ralea's fascism -- which is by now a matter of public record, and amply verified by yet more sources used in the article. Manolescu simply is the only source I have mentioning this as an accusation in that 1960s context. Just as "likened to a modern-day Schoolhouse Rock" in the Weird Al hook is a claim stated in just one source. Do I still have your attention?
Your comment also shows how you change your own requirements as we move along. You first raised WP:SYNTH as a concern because you read it (absurdly) as a ban on hooks that compile tidbits from multiple sources. Though this was your very definition of synthesis, and in fact "Please don't connect two different parts of the source, as that's an interpretation", you now tell me: "I'm not seeing any synthesis in the hooks you describe as examples." Of course you aren't seeing synthesis -- it's because this simply isn't synthesis, not in there and not in here either. Now you're telling me (and we agree) that these hooks are actually fine -- but why is it you would chose to take exception from your earlier rule? not because of the revelation that the rule was bunk, but because you found the hooks in question "easy to verify"! This entirely novel and unverifiable, entirely subjective, criterion changes your own requirement while maintaining a constant -- the constant seems to be that you simply don't want to approve this hook, that there's some special undisclosed reason why you think I and my hooks are suspect of something etc. In fact you hinted at this insidious suspicion with your claim (since debunked, but still not retracted): "Beyond the fact that many of your hooks are verified AGF, the other pattern that emerges is that many of your hooks involve negative material about people, mostly dead by the looks of it. This implies, to me at least, the appearance of an agenda etc."
Now please understand. I am making an effort to make you comprehend each part of a case that is a tad more complex than some other DYK noms. I am listing complete answers to your every question, precisely as you pose those questions. I have so far given punctual answers to any of the objections you have raised, and have shown several of them to be blatantly false. I do this so you read them and reflect on them, not so that you may present me with rekindled versions of the same objections as time goes by. I also don't do this so that you may then question why I waste so much energy replying -- I waste as much energy as you make me waste. For this discussion to go anywhere, you're going to have to start acknowledging that you may, in fact, be wrong -- that it is at least slightly possible that I may be right. Dahn (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The search is over![edit]

At last, we have found the contentious DYK discussion by which all other contentious DYK discussions will forever be measured. EEng (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

  • The article is new. It was started five days prior to being nominated.
  • The article has not previously featured on the Main Page.
  • The article is long enough, by far.
  • Citations are sufficient and drawn from reliable published sources.
  • The online citations are in languages I can read.
  • No disputes surround the article itself.
  • I see nothing that might be construed as a BLP violation.
  • I can find no particular issues with plagiarism. The wording is original.
  • I see no neutrality issues, either. This is a straightforward account.
  • The article is not up for AfD.
  • I see nothing wrong with ALT 2. It's a fairly straightforward account of the controversy surrounding Vintilă Horia's God Was Born in Exile: Ralea having been sent to Paris by the regime to discredit Horia as a fascist, Horia fired back by exposing Ralea's own dubious past. The entire story is contained within one article (written by a noted literary critic and published in an eminent magazine). No conclusions are drawn by users, no original research embarked upon, no syntheses created between the two clauses of the hook: the links made are entirely the work of the author of the piece. Far more than needed to be said about this has been said, and it's now time to send this to the Main Page. - Biruitorul Talk 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Mihai_Ralea&oldid=622322215"