Talk:Gândirea

message: The following external link was deleted by User:Dahn:
* "Cultura româneasca de la 'România Mare' la 'Democraţia Popularǎ'"
with the peremptory explanation:  "(rm exyternal link to protochronist site - see its "mother" at http://www.enciclopedia-dacica.ro/)".  Sorry, I don't understand the jargon -- could you please explain the reason, in layman's language?  A google search for "protochronist" yielded only 46 hits, and no definition. Wikipedia has no page on protochronist. I understand the Greek ethymology of this compound word (proto=before + chronos=time), but I don't know how widely used it is, and why applying this rather esoteric label to a web page (or web site) ipso facto disqualifies it -- is this a Wikipedia policy? I mean, can one exclude info by applying such labels, with no further elaboration?  I'm asking this since I was the one who added the external link here, as reference for some edits I did (dates when Gândirea was founded, and when it moved to Bucharest).  I was looking for that specific info, and this was the only article that I could find that produced it for me.  I just read several paragraphs that pertained to Gândirea, and they seemed quite matter-of-fact and to the point.  What's the problem with that?  Thanks.  Turgidson 01:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I searched around, and found an article on Protochronism.  (By the way, shouldn't protochronist redirect there, just in case someone not familiar with the jargon looks up the word?)  At any rate, yes, a bit silly -- I remember all that Burebista/Zamolxes stuff from Ceauşescu's days -- but rather harmless, looks to me.  So let me then repeat the question: why go delete valid references from such sites?  This smacks of censorship to me, and that's a much worse memory from Ceauşescu's days than anything having to do with the Decebal cult.  I personally do not think of Cluj as Cluj-Napoca, or Turnu Severin as Drobeta Turnu-Severin (so I guess that makes me a non-protochronist par excellence?), but then again, it doesn't really bother me, one learns to live and let live.  As the French say, il faut de tout pour faire un monde.  Also, the protochronist label is rather parochial, if I may say so...  Turgidson 02:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: IMO, your arguments, Dahn, for deleting a legitimate and informative source are transgressing any limit of common sense and incivility, not to mention Wikipedia principles and rules. What you do, Dahn, is theorizing vandalism. You simply arrogate the right of arbitrary decide what Wikipedia readers have to read and to which sites have they to be “led to”. Your answer to Turgidson is really a monument of arrogance, arbitrary and bad faith. I am, as always, anytime ready to elaborate on my accusations. Please try to understand that Wikipedia is not a field where you can freely exert your caprices. I am keen to keep a civil and very calm tone on the Wiki, but this time you finally succeed to make me lose the distance. I find your argumentation in favour of deleting a legitimate and informative source profoundly revolting and outrageous. Revolting because you’re trying to dominate and humiliate co-editors through abusive reverts and absurd and arbitrary arguments. Outrageous because you are breaking the basics of Wikipedia spirit. Please refrain from behaving in a disruptive way. --Vintila Barbu 19:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop it. Dahn 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm waiting for your posse to show up any minute now and begin the usual litany ("Dahn is becoming a pest", "I too am concerned with Dahn's edits", "This is unacceptable" etc etc). Of course, none of them will have the slightest idea what this is about and about what wikipedia conventions apply, nor will any of them actually read the article to inform themselves on what "essential" information I removed. Nor will they note that the information I have added, which is both accurate and thorough, has expanded the text about five times the size. For this reason and many others, I have no patience for even reading what you post in each of your stalking sessions. Dahn 20:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protochronist?

message: The introduction speaks of two pauses: 1925 and 1933-4. The body speaks of the 1934 one. 1)Do we have any information on a 1925 hiatus? 2)Was it 1933-4 or just 1934? Biruitorul 17:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find anything about 1925 (in general, there is very little info on the pre-1933 variant). I also couldn't find a definite mention of when it was closed down - just that Crainic was apprehended in 1933, which may or may not be the same date as when the paper was closed down. There is an important source for such technical details: Eugen Marinescu (ed.), Din presa literară românească (1918-1944), Ed. Albatros, Bucharest, 1986. I used it on Bilete de Papagal and other articles, but, having had borrowed it from a friend, I don't have access to it right now - I'll see if there's anything I can do about it as soon as time permits me. Dahn 17:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hiatuses

message: Since this article is getting to be so big, and since it refers to so many people, I propose creating a new category, say, :Category:Gândirea, analogous to :ro:Categorie:Revista Gândirea, and having the various writers associated with this magazine listed under this category.  Any thoughts?  Turgidson 19:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. The only problem I see is that there is no confirmation of some authors cited actually being relevant contributors for the magazine (Călinescu, for one - I cannot tell if he really did contribute anything, whereas what he wrote against the magazine speaks for itself; Iorga had much the same ambiguous relation - he did write something for the magazine, but I'm not sure if including him in the category would be, for lack of a better word, appropriate; much of the same thing for Arghezi, Janco, Pandrea, and Stancu). Noteworthy: one of the sources (I can't remember which one) disputes the fact that Arghezi ever contributed to the magazine, but he himself made it clear at some point that he did - though what he said in relation to that speaks for itself ("I never read Gândirea, not even when I was contributing articles for it" - see the article on him). In the same scenario, I would propose that not all the categories the article is included in should be used for the would-be category (whereas the moved towards antisemitism and fascism, Vianu, Janco, Blaga, Arghezi, Pandrea etc etc did not). Dahn 21:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe one could start by including only the people clearly associated with the magazine, and then proceed case-by-case with the others.  Basically, for someone like me who knows just a little about the subject (let alone someone who has no idea of the context), it would be rather hard to navigate.  Besides, creating "clusters" of people based on some loosely shared ideas and some well-defined common reference point (such as a magazine) would surely fit with the Wikipedia:Build the web idea.  OK, so let me go ahead then.  It would be good to have a few more of these, perhaps in other areas, too. I have a few more ideas, but one step at a time.  Is there a place where such issues are discussed? Turgidson 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if these are discussed anywhere in particular, but you are definitely an editor I would encourage to be bold. Dahn 22:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category

message: I just came across this article, and it is very good. Excellent sourcing, paragraphing, and general flow...good job!  --172.164.80.216 15:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, after readmiring the solid prose and looking over the vast number of sources that this article contains, this might be good enough to be a featured article. I can't believe that no one has tagged this as a good article yet! --172.164.80.216 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As the main contributor, I offer you my thanks. I'm not sure about it passing FA though: there are more details to add, and the lack of pictures is a likely problem. Dahn 16:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: *The lead needs to be reworked a little bit so that the ideas follow logically into each other, particularly for an uninformed reader.
*I would move the long list of intellectuals elsewhere in the article. Such a list is unnecessary in a lead per WP:LEAD and all of the red-links are disconcerting.
*The article needs a quick copy edit. There are: awkwardly worded sentences, grammar mistakes, wordy sentences, and misplaced words.
*Try to identify with a phrase some of the many people and movements you link to for the reader who doesn't already know them - they are not going to click on all of those links.
*In general, do not link words in quotes - it is a form of interpretation (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links)#Quotation).
*Perhaps some of the quotations could be removed from "Crainic's impact" - there are too many and it is hard to follow what the argument of the section is.
*I would suggest adding a section entitled "Artistic context" or "Historical context" so you could provide some historical background to the article, letting the reader know the broad outlines of the art movements you will be referring to and the major debates within them. Right now, the article is a bit detailed and hard to follow unless you already know that information. 
*I assume that there aren't more sources in English? As this is the English wikipedia, the assumption is that the reader knows English best. 
Please drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to re-review the article or if you have any questions. Awadewit | talk 11:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is anyone planning on improving this article? Awadewit | talk 08:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am. But what you proposed will take time, and I'll have to rethink some sections. Dahn 15:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. I just noticed that there hadn't been any activity on the page and I was concerned. I am happy to know that there are editors who think before they revise. :) Awadewit | talk 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am failing the article for now, since a week has passed. I look forward to seeing its revised version. Awadewit | talk 07:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA hold

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Gândirea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070629095556/http://www.inshr-ew.ro/pdf/Final_Report.pdf to http://www.inshr-ew.ro/pdf/Final_Report.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907140735/http://www.crvp.org/book/Series04/IVA-22/chapter_vi.htm to http://www.crvp.org/book/Series04/IVA-22/chapter_vi.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120914113908/http://www.nec.ro/fundatia/nec/publications/nation.pdf to http://www.nec.ro/fundatia/nec/publications/nation.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gândirea. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070420032558/http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/52-5-9.shtml to http://files.osa.ceu.hu/holdings/300/8/3/text/52-5-9.shtml
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130416173121/http://www.observatorcultural.ro/informatiiarticol.phtml?xid=12736 to http://www.observatorcultural.ro/informatiiarticol.phtml?xid=12736
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified