# Talk:Alexandru Bogdan-Pitești

An editor keeps adding this article to Category:Rosicrucianism. That does not seem appropriate. The only thing the article states with respect to Rosicrucianism is that the subject influenced by the occultist and novelist Joséphin Péladan, and attended his "Rosicrucian salon". This does not establish that the subject had any significant influence on Rosicrucianism which is what would be required for inclusion in that category. If it can be established that the subject was actually a Rosicrucian, he should be added to Category:Rosicrucians. In no case is there justification for adding to Category:Rosicrucianism. IPSOS (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no requirement for him to have had "significant influence on Rosicrucianism", but for Rosicrucianism to have had a significant influence on him, which seems to be the case. Categories give people a way to see related subjects all in one place, and not to serve as a board for what one user has considered is significant for Rosicrucianism. If the subject of the article was influenced by Rosicrucianism, then the basic criterion is met. Is there a single policy that you can use to justify your interpretation? If not, you are being disruptive. Feel free to ask for a third opinion, but, in case this you leave it at this, I'll revert and report this to AN/I. Dahn 19:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
To be in the category, the individual should be significant is some way to Rosicrucianism. There is no evidence of this. This is no different than adding someone to Category:Communism because they happened to attend a couple of Communist meetings. Silly, that does not make the person significant to Communism nor Communism a significant aspect of that persons life. If you want to created a subcategory of Category:People who were peripherally involved with Rosicrucianism, be my guest, but I'll immediately nominate it for deletion. Please look at this from the point of view of someone browsing the Rosicrucianism category and ask yourself, is this person significant to the categorical topic? Let me help you here, the answer is a resounding NO'. IPSOS (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. My concern is exactly the person browsing through the categories, who should have all the related articles in one place. The subject of this article was a close associate of Peladan's, who, as you will note, also organized the latter's visit to Romania. And no, I would not add a person who attended communist meetings to a "Communism" category, but that is mainly because that category is already to diversified for me to so - the bet is that I would be able to find a relevant subcategory leading down to the main "Communism" category, especially if that person is connected to communism in the same way Bogdan-Pitesti was associated to Peladan. Even in this case, for more definite associations with Rosicrucianism, readers have subcategories they can look into - and this is how it is supposed to work.
Again, prove me wrong with policies or guidelines or ask for a third opinion. Dahn 20:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I engaged in no personal attack. Please don't toss about unfounded accusations. And why should I be the one to "prove" something. You need to prove significance of the association and add it to the article. That's the way it works. Why don't you ask for a third opinion, afraid you're wrong? What I'm saying is simply common sense. But since you insist, try WP:CAT which clearly states: "The categories to be included, which serve as classifications, should be the significant (useful) topics to which the subject of the article most closely belongs to as a member." Now please kindly cease your disruptive editing. IPSOS (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
For the personal attacks, I have a very hard time understanding what the first word of this sentence is supposed to mean: "Silly, that does not make the person significant to Communism nor Communism a significant aspect of that persons life." Perhaps you would like to clarify.
I was referring to the idea I had just expressed of putting somebody into Category:Communism because they attended a couple of meetings. If English is not your first language, please let me know so I don't make the assumption that you can see how one sentence follows from another. IPSOS (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Since you are the one contesting inclusion you already found here, and since you are drawing on interpretations, it is up to you to bring in third opinions. As I have stated, the inclusion in the "Rosicrucianism" category is perfectly validated by the article's content, and in line with policies. You draw on your interpretation of the word "member", but I suggest that your interpretation is simply absurd. Prove me wrong. Dahn 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Isn't the new category rather vague? What's the standard for inclusion? Biruitorul 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't it accurately describe the only reason the subject was being repeatedly added to a category he was only vaguely associated with? IPSOS (talk) 22:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder, IPSOS, have you ever read WP:POINT? Dahn 22:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it. You are the one who is guilty WP:POINT violation, if anyone is. The subject is simply not closely enough related to place in Category:Rosicrucianism, yet you persist in repeatly adding it. Therefore I created a more accurate category as you yourself suggested with respect to your response about my example of Communism. Please respect the opinions of other editors rather than repeatedly reverting them. I am working from the point of view of not having Category:Rosicrucianism cluttered with only veguely related articles. Please try to understand and respect that. I've pointed out that WP:CAT does indicate that the subject should be significant to the category. Yes no one has bothered to question what  the criteria for inclusion in Category:Rosicrucianism might be. Why is that? IPSOS (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You manifestly have not read it, since you claim that I broke it (by adding an article to a category which, btw, you yourself validated through the subcategory?).
A parent category is expected to include all relevant articles, not just those you decide are relevant. A person who was connected with Peladan and organized his visit abroad is relevant for Rosicrucianism under a broad definition (not even "the broadest"). You are expected to subcategorize that in order to touch on tighter areas of the subject, and not to eliminate articles from the category! In this case, there was simply no stringent call for a new subcategory, and especially not for that subcategory, which is absurd on all counts - not because it does not define Bogdan-Pitesti, but because wikipedia does not [sub]categorize under such titles. You have effectively created a category to include one person, which is deeply disruptive and an attempt to play with the system.
Furthermore, the claim about me having "suggested" the category is not just ridiculous, but also an admission of WP:POINT infringement. I have suggested no such category, and anyone reading my messages may see that this is the case. Nor is my analogy with the "Communism" category an invitation to start experimenting with categories: as a matter of fact, you will find no parallel for you invention in that category. In case you missed it the first time, here is my point: people associated with a movement in the way Bogdan-Pitesti was associated with Peladan's group may go into categories for that specific movement, even if they were not members. An intelligent solution in this case would have been to create a subcat for Peladan's brand of Rosicrucianism, and include Bogdan-Pitesti in there, instead of wasting everyone's time with a mainspace illustration of why IPSOS thinks Dahn is wrong. Dahn 23:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It is you who have been wasting my time. I just thoroughly reorganized Category:Rosicrucianism, creating useful subcategories and removing vaguely related articles. Please either show that your subject was a Roscrucian and put him in the proper subcategory, Category:Rosicrucians, or stop abusing the category system with loose and vague associations. IPSOS (talk) 00:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
And I suppose it's up to you decide who is and who isn't a Rosicrucian (as if they carry cards...). As I have said: since the category does not imply membership, and since the subject is relevant for Rosicrucianism (as you yourself indirectly acknowledged), you are merely being sophistic. The objective way is to include, in one form or another, directly or indirectly, all articles that deal with a topic into a category on that topic; the subjective way is to decide what is "real but vague". And no, IPSOS, I have no obligation toward you. Dahn 00:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but you yourself said we don't create such categories. Why is that? I'd say that if true, the reason is the same reason why the article shouldn't go into the Rosicrucian category in the first place. The subject is simply not significant to Rosicrucianism. And I have no obligation toward you either. IPSOS (talk) 00:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So, let me see if I got this right: you created a category you don't approve of?
And one final time: there is no requirement to create all imaginable subcategories., and there is nothing wrong with an article staying in the main category just because wikipedia does not validate creating absurd categories. Furthermore, just because you generated an absurd category does not mean, as I have already told you, that this is the only way to subcategorize. it just means you're being ridiculously obtuse. Dahn 01:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. IPSOS (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


### Arbitrary section break
You said "all articles that deal with a topic into a category on that topic". My point, in case you aren't getting it, is that the article does not deal with the topic. It currently only mentions it in passing. I've requested that you improve the article to show more clearly (with references) why the subject is significant enough to Rosicrucianism to be included in the category. You have refused and instead engaged in edit-warring. And you accuse me of being obtuse. Doh! IPSOS (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

But the subject is significant enough to Rosicrucianism, IPSOS, as many precedents will indicate. With this type of messages, you are asking me to comply to your own perception of things. Dahn 01:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You can't tell that from the article, and the content of the article is the objective standard by which inclusion in a category has to be considered. You are asking me to simply accept your knowledge of the significance without documenting it in the article. That's just not the way it is done. The article has to support the inclusion. Currently, it does not. IPSOS (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No, IPSOS: I am telling you that what is in the article makes him significant for Rosicrucianism - not prominent, but significant. The category is supposed to be a quick reference to all related details, not to what you decide is important among them. Dahn 01:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with you. We don't just include an article in a category because the word is mentioned once in the article. I am simply removing an inappropriate category. The burden to justify the inclusion is on you. You have not adequately justified the inclusion. That's that. IPSOS (talk) 02:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
To whom? That is why I told you to seek a third opinion. And, for the fourteenth time: he is in the category because he was an associate of Peladan's, which, as you will do me the favor of noting, is not "mentioned once in the article". Of course, that is to be noticed only once someone reads the article beyond "search function: rosicrucian". So, really, what are you talking about? Dahn 11:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
To the other editors of this article. And as I've said, association with a Rosicrucian is not sufficient reason for inclusion in the category. Perhaps you should create Category:Associates of Joséphin Péladan somewhere? IPSOS (talk) 15:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of January 18, 2008, compares against the  six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass
If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.
Nicely done. I would remove the "Biography" heading and move everything in that section one level up. Also readability might be improved if the scope could be narrowed for some of the (maybe overly) long lists of persons who were associates of the subject. Feel free to ignore those suggestions if they don't help. Thanks for a great article. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to thank you for all the copyedits. The "Bio" header is common practice - meaning that, if it is removed, there's bound to be someone adding it back and so forth (plus, I myself rather like that it splits the article into two main and manageable sections). It's also good to show all connections between various individuals in one place, especially when the sources themselves do it and when the subject of the article had an influence on all their lives - plus, eventually, all the red links will become articles. Dahn (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Somewhere, maybe a year ago now, I thought that WikiProject Biography assessment included removing the Biography heading as a matter of course, but looking quickly I don't see that rule. The lists are a little bit long, e.g. "listy", and ambitious if you really mean to make them all articles! But that's all cool as far as I can see. Good luck to you and best wishes. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Oops, my bad: I thought you meant the "Biography" title in the article. Now that I see what you meant, I guess it's either way for me - and I even share your concerns that the project header tends to look pointless (to begin with, I could never picture the type of user who would be interested in biographies of no matter whom :)). On the lists: there's ample material around for each and all of them, what is lacking is the time and, given that I obsessively tracked them down to begin with, my good will in filling the red links sooner rather than later :). Best, Dahn (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As a reader of poetry from across the world I would like to see more information about A. B.-P.'s poetry in the article. I've been reading Rimbaud, Verlaine and Mallarme since I was 17 or 18, but I still have not read a single poem by Alexandru B.-P. Where can they be found online? Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably nowhere. He was indeed a poet, and published poetry which was reviewed by others in his day (this would make him a poet by any standard, though not necessarily a good poet) - in any case, his controversial involvement in politics and the vindicative nature of his generation have left a toll on his posterity. Oddly enough, he is not even reviewed as such by Călinescu, and that book has detail on the likes of G. Ranetti and Alexandru G. Florescu... For what it's worth, the article mentions his early volume of poetry and his contributions to Literatorul, even if finding critical commentary about either may prove to be a bitch. Dahn (talk) 19:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I may have missed it in the article but I have not yet found the mention of his early volume of poetry. I see mention of Bronzes, a volume of Macedonski's poetry that B.P. helped edit and for which B.P. wrote a preface. Alex contributing from L.A. (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Second section in "Biography" - Sensations internes. Dahn (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

He respected Catholicism and Judaism as the most elevated religious cultures, rejected Orthodoxy, atheism and communism as ideologies for the mediocre, and depicted himself as a Catholic anarchist. @Dahn[1], do you have this Mitchievici ref handy? Is "Catholic anarchist" a direct quote from the text? "Christian anarchism" can denote a variety of ideas, so would like to clarify in this context (e.g., whether in the vein of Tolstoy or simply a Catholic who held anarchist beliefs). czar 22:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
@Czar: There is a quote from Ion Călugăru paraphrasing ABP's beliefs on p. 344, and it shows him justifying himself as an individualist anarchist who was for private property and believed that Catholicism was the "world's enlightened order". He was not a Tolstoyan, but he clearly linked anarchism and Catholicism (to which he had actually converted) into one philosophical format, or at least was perceived by his friends as doing so. Dahn (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)