Talk:Mircea Eliade/Archive 1

message: References in en.wikipedia should give translations where they exist.
MIRCION: This article needs thorough rewriting. Given Eliade's importance, it is much too short, rather uninformative on life, scientific work and literature. His political sympathies have to be mentioned as well, critically, of course.
Is it appropriate to describe Eliade's work on the history and philosophy of religion as 'scientific'?  I think there is a POV issue here.
§ When you are dealing with social science questions I suspect that the main determinant as to whether something is "scientific" or not is the question whether we, the members of the "audience" are expected to believe something on authority (the authority of the Church, the authority of some self-anointed expert or "guru", etc.) or are being offered evidence for every point that is asserted.  I am not a great student of Eliade's work, having paid attention mainly to his work on shamanism, but my memory of that book is that it was not written in a dogmatic way, and was not written in a way that would either demonize the non-Christian or "anti-Christian" aspects of this very long-lived kind of religious practice, or would support it as a kind of religious practice that the reader would be well-advised to adapt.  Instead, he attempted to systematize, understand, and lead his readers to understand the research that had been done by generations of anthropologists and others who did similar field work.  All of the sources that he quoted are readily available, I believe. If any of them were fabricated I suspect that the fabrications would have long ago been discovered. If any of his conclusions were greatly out of line with objective knowledge, I suspect that other researchers in the field would have debunked his work. As far as I know, there have been no major attacks against any of his work that would be comparable to the book that attacks the works of Carlos Castenada regarding shamanism.  
::It's his attempt to make sense of shamanism that interests me too, but what you say about the scope of "scientific" is very POV, and contrary to what most scientists believe ---- Charles Stewart 10:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "scholarly"? ---- Charles Stewart 08:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bibliography

message: Francis Ford Coppola is currently filming "Youth Without Youth," a movie based on a short novella by Mircea Eliade. I thought this would be interesting for this article, but I am not sure where to add it. Suggestions? mike 20:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a new section about his fiction works. bogdan 20:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Should I add it under the Selected Fiction Works heading and add the blurb about the movie after it? mike 21:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have found two other films, based on novels by Eliade: La Nuit Bengali and Domnisoara Christina. I think they should also be added. --Zserghei 23:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not go ahead and add the material? Sometimes controversial changes in articles go down better if they are discussed ahead of time, but for things that are just matters of fact (I saw a movie entitled such-and-so based on the novel such-and-so) it would be unusual for a change to create any problem. P0M 07:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coppola's new movie 

message: There is no mention of the 2 vols of his Autobiography, the books "Two Strange Tales," The Forge and the Crucible, Australian Religions, the long novel The Forbidden Forest, the play "Colonne sans Fin", etc. etc.
This article seems pretty slanted to me. Eliade was an immensely prolific & influential historian of myth (he wrote the long entry for the Encyclopedia Brittannica on "Myth", anmong other things). To say that his work is "widely discredited" is patently false.Proyster 15:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-sided and incomplete 

message: "When Eliade began coughing blood in October 1938, he was taken to a clinic in Moroeni, because the death of a popular young writer in custody was a potential scandal" (my highlighting). Do we have references for this, or is it the phrase author's inferrence? --Gutza T T+ 22:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV? 

message: Sentence should be removed:
"These are possibly the characteristics which initially attracted Eliade to Fascism, rather than a pattern he would have followed throughout his life."
This sentence rounds out the section on Eliade's scholarship.  It is inappropriate not only because it is speculation, "These are possibly the characteristics ...", but also because Eliade's personal attraction to Fascism does not belong under the heading of Scholarship, especially since he did not produce scholarship on or promoting Fascism.  Perhaps, if you have a scholarly controversy over this speculation, it could be included under Controversy.
: I have removed the sentence myself for the reasons mentioned above.PelleSmith 23:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation 

message: Dahn this is meant simply as a word of advice.  You may wish to consider the changes people are making to this page with a bit more of a critical eye instead of simply reverting them.  What does it even mean to "implicitly function as a diplomat for ..."?  Do you mean that during part of the time of his ambassadorship to Portugal the Iron Guard was in power?  The whole time?  Was he appointed by them? I might agree with you that a wholesale deletion of the sentence isn't necessary but my advice is for you to critically engage the language of a deleted section when someone else thinks it's problematic and not simply to revert it--when you simply revert others may see your actions as just plain policing the page and refusing to take suggestions or to critically reavalutate your own writing.  Maybe you could just tone it down to say that during part of his tenure in Portugal (or the whole one or whatever i'm not sure of the facts) Romania was under Iron Guard control.  Readers are interested in facts not in "implicits" and so forth.  Tell us the facts and let it go from there.PelleSmith 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the National Legionary State engaged in recalling and persecuting virtually all officials who held political views other than the newly-sanctioned ones, the episode ranks as both relevant for Eliade's career and, very likely, the regime's view of him. Also, the mention simply points out who was in power at the time (it would be common sense to list it, as we have also made ample mention of who put him in jail and why, who tried to rehabilitate him etc. - for the reader who is unfamiliar with periods in Romanian history, which I am willing to bet most are). The word "implicitly" was not meant to induce POV: it was there to indicate that, although nominated by the previous regime, he was kept in office by the coming one - I rank the relevancy of this as equivalent to stating that an ambassador of Imperial Russia was kept in office by the Soviets or a Girondin in office by the Reign of Terror. In itself, it may not add anything to the debate about Eliade's personal convictions (and is not meant to coach a reader in that direction) - it is, however, a fact. Now, if you believe that the statement is voiced clumsily, there is nothing preventing you from mending it; as you yourself noted, there are enough reasons for simply reverting its simple deletion. Note however, that I would favour keeping in the text a mention of the fact that he was not only under a different regime, but that he represented it abroad (for better or worse). Dahn 18:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Let us also note that he moved from London to Portugal after Romania broke relations with the British government (it would be highly unlikely that he would have remained in office with Romania having turned into an Axis power). This further establishes the context for his office. Dahn 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok the speculation there ("highly likely") cannot be put on the page--it violates Wikipedia policy.  As for the fact of his leaving London because the Romanian governement broke relations with England i'm not conviced it is useful.  You want to add more text just to say that he had to leave his post in London because Romania broke relations with Britain?  See my changes, but I'm not convinced in their utility or necessity.PelleSmith 18:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To your first point: that is why I did not enter it in the text on the page, and addressed it on the talk page (as an extra pointer to its relevancy, if subjective). I approve of your changes, and I have answered above as to the info's utility and necessity (regardless of what the info allows me to conclude, it is still factual in itself, beyond my conclusions). I have added in-depth detail about him being kept in office by Antonescu: weirdly, this should also smooth things out, given that, despite still serving a fascist regime in a fascist country, Eliade also represented the chief adversary of the Iron Guard. About the info on London: I am pretty sure it was like that, but we need exact dates of office; it is sure that Romania and Britain had broken relations by the time he was in Portugal, but I'm not sure if Eliade left for Portugal because of that or if he had been appointed earlier. Dahn 19:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Chose between the Legionary State or the Iron Guard goverment.  putting information like that in parenthesis shows that you have an explicit interest in alerting people to it when it is not necessary.  if the Legionary State was controlled by the the Iron Guard then you don't need to highlight that.PelleSmith 19:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was simply detailing information as to what the government was. People may not be aware of the fact that the Iron Guard and the Legionary State had the same source (not to mention that the latter is not yet a link); only in Romanian would this be redundant - here, it is just providing detail. Your speculation as to what the mention "indicates" disregards the fact that I have also added Antonescu in there. Dahn 19:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To what end do people need the extra information--why not simply put, then, "under the Iron Guard regime"?  You have a recurring vandal here at present who is challanging you on the idea that you are trying to supply information that is leading to particular conclusions.  My advice is to neutralize your presentation.  If you think that supplying information about his continued service under Antonescu will balance things then you are yourself addmitting that the Iron Guard reference is implicating something.  Are you trying to implicate him or are you trying to present a factual account of his life?  Convince the neutral reader that you are yourself being neutral (and I don't mean your vandal--ive looked up some of his/her other edits and they are not exactly neutral). PelleSmith 19:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iron Guard and National Legionary state are to remain separate articles, for obvious reasons (one is about the political movement, one is about the political movement in power - you may find a parallel in NSDAP and Nazi Germany, as well as the PNF and Fascism in Italy). Aside from the fact that one of the guidelines specifies that the text is to be as autonomus as possible, and thus make to-the-point mentions about what a potentially unfamiliar notion may stand for, the article about the Iron Guard regime will be the National Legionary State one. "If you think that supplying information about his continued service under Antonescu will balance things then you are yourself addmitting that the Iron Guard reference is implicating something." - no, it is a recognition of the fact that it was read as if implicating something (in full, I have also stated that this too will potentially harm Eliade's pedigree if someone is looking for a confirmation of such a pedigree). Dahn 19:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Dahn: "Implicitly" and rigid policing 

message: Simply take this basic statistic:
out of aproximately 2500 words contained by the article, as in its present version:
* 28% refer to the biography of Eliade
* 10% refer to his works
* 60% refer to his political views (1933 - 1945)
--212.227.103.74 15:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is not preventing anyone from writing more on each, as I have always suggested they do. I have rendered exhaustive what I could contribute, and people can take it from there in regard to other parts. It is completely irrational to call for deleting information when all of it sourced and relevant. Note that you keep moving information actually relevant to his career and views on culture to the section on "controversy" (including that about Criterion, which was an important p[art of his actual career as an intellectual). Dahn 15:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Article is Blatantly Biased 

message: "…an apology of the Estado Novo" is not exactly wrong, but it is a use of "apology" that many native English-speakers won't understand very well. (This meaning of "apology" is rarely used in English outside of a religious context; in fact, it is barely more common than using the Latin apologia in an English-language context; "apologetics" is slightly better known, but, again, strictly religious.) The context doesn't make it clear whether it is a book or an article, but I'd suggest, depending on which it is, "a book/article in praise of the Estado Novo". - Jmabel | Talk 21:22, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Apology of" 

message: To assess the situation i'm addressing to, should be very simple, since it requires but common sense. 
If one editor writes "Mihail Sebastian, who was a Jew...", than another editor should also be allowed to write "Zigu Ornea, who was a Jew..." 
Developing a plethoric argumentation to allege that the first mention is legitimate and necessary, while the second is not, isn't but cheap sofistry. 
Claiming that the mentioning of Zigu Ornea being a Jew is an attempt to discredit this researcher, suggesting that this mention is rude, primitive, disguised antisemithic and a "POV of an uncivilized person" isn't but an infamy.
By the way: chuming up, posing as a victim and asking help to Mr. Mabel in the hope that i will be unmasked as the big bad anti-Semite, who has to be banned, etc., etc., THIS is really disguisting. 
Actually, every one who dares to contredict the comical nickname, should be banned under whatever pretext, shouldn't he...
What i am decided to prevent happening in this article, is to let an ego-inflated, self-sufficient figure to deploy his ideological agenda. 
Under other circumsatnces i probably could find some understanding for disoriented Romanian immigrants desperately trying to appear post-modern, politically correct, anti-nationalistic, emancipated and everything.
This is called a "syndrome of hyper-integration" - recent convertites becoming more catholic than the Pope.
I deeply regret of being forced to become so personal, but i couldn't find another way to cope with this situation. When i see so much fanatism under the mask of civility, i simply cannot resist to such blatant bad faith.
--212.227.103.74 16:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to feed you, troll. Dahn 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: All the points of view must be reflected in any article Dahn. --Peter IBM 19:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe that was a Romglish way of mocking me. By reading through his posts and seeing what his edits actually were, I hope it will be clear why I will not be addressing the IP directly from now on. Dahn 01:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, he or she has just been blocked. Moving on. Dahn 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Wer Jude ist, bestimme ich !" - this arbitrary and arrogant attitude is not acceptable 

message: Aside from what is currently being argued about: the article should make mention of his influence on, and popularity with, the counterculture of the 1960s. - Jmabel | Talk 01:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. It should also make mention of many other things connected with his ideas and cultural status. I myself can contribute only too little to that, and my goal was to at least reference and clear out one part of this article (which did partly touch his cultural attitudes around 1927). Also, I believe that, instead of the useless and clumsy list of his works, we could have a "Literay works" section, where we could outline his major literary themes etc. (and perhaps open the road for having articles on some of his novels); the list of works could just be replaced with links to the websites it was copied from. Dahn 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterculture 

message: If more people get the idea of moving stuff relative to his early political and cultural convictions back to the "Controversy" section, I want to make it clear why this is a bad one to have:
*there is no doubt that Eliade was an Orthodox nationalist, and that he eventually became associated with the Guard; what is debated here is not that he did any of those things, but that he had been a member of a political party (he himself did not even debate the fact that he had been a fascist for some time) and that he had continued to be attracted to the Guardist ideology after 1940 (not before).
*the paragraph on these includes all of his personal convictions, including his apparent philosemitism, his distaste for Nazism, as well as a probable distaste for Fascism that he would have continued to carry even after becoming an ultra-nationalist; for example, his disputes with Calinescu, Radulescu-Motru, the Cuzists, and even Nae Ionescu, as well as his adherence to Criterion and Trairism, have obviously nothing to do with the controversy. Dahn 02:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''What'' the controversy is