Talk:Alexandru Bogdan-Pitești

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: 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.</div>
: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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Successful [[Wikipedia:Good articles|good article]] nomination

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Second section in "Biography" - Sensations internes. Dahn (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Alexandru B.P. as poet

message: , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Catholic anarchism