Talk:Mircea Eliade/Archive 1

Would a presentation of Eliade's "Sacred and Profane" be of interest/proper ? I have something comprising what the books is about...interesting stuff...hence I might not access this page in some thime, please reply onto ivoryspoon@yahoo.com

The article on Eliade says he was criticized for his alleged Nazi connections. Is that a criticism relevant to his scholarly works? If so, it would caution people against too easily accepting his conclusions. If not, it practically amounts to gossip.

The criticism isn't relevant for his scholarly works because his sympathy (not activity) for "Garda de Fier" lasted some period in the youth while his most important scientific works were written after he begun his longlife exile from Romania (started in 1940). But the fact must be mentioned - the article's title is "Mircea Eliade" and not "Mircea Eliade, the philosopher of religion". That's also the man, his life, his mistakes. Obviously the article is incomplete and the early Nazi sympathy is emphasized, but the people should know to separate the man from his work (when talking about art or science at least). Curero

This page should talk about both the works and personality of Eliade. And Garda de Fier wasn't actually a Nazi organization, but rather a right-wing organization that tried to bring order to a corrupt Romania and that's why many intelectuals were adepts of it's principles. Bogdan 08:07, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're wrong. 1. Every good written encyclopedia page should also discuss a personality's life (the biography). That's because a man doesn't live out of the history and the Eliade's work has the touch of his time. Altough the work and his life are separate matters the question is: the latter is "relevant to his scholarly works"?. I think not. Here're some links (work + biography): Martin Heidegger, Louis Ferdinand Céline or http://18.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GO/GOETHE.htm. 2. The point isn't if Garda de Fier was a Nazi organization, but all the evil they made. Were Codreanu or Sima intelectuals? To see how intelectual was this organization please visit http://www.gardadefier.org and listen to their hymns ("Imnul dacic" :))). My opinion is that all the extremist organizations are in the same zone, communists or fascists or whatever name they gave to themselves. Curero 16:55, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

The trouble appears to be that membership in a rightist organization is about the only thing about Eliade's life that the reader is told about. Since the information is disclosed after discussing his scholarship, it appears to be an implicit argument for discounting his scholarly conclusions. That step may be appropriate, but, if so, then there should be some evidence given to back that conclusion up.

Wouldn't it be better to start with a brief account of his life, including the years when he was actively (?) involved with the rightist organization, and then zone in on his scholarly products -- with an indication of when those were written and any information about other than ad-hominem attacks on his accounts of religious phenomena?

But looking at the article once more, there have been several changes since I saw it last and it's already in pretty much the shape I just advocated above. The only thing that might be helpful would be whether the ultra-authoritarianism of his life continued into later life, or what did happen, and whether the criticisms leveled against him were just because he was viewed as a fascist of some stripe or because he was viewed as having weighted his scholarship somehow in support of his political/social views.

Patrick0Moran 16:36, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You're mostly right. But unfortunately I can't made the needed changes: 1. obviously I have difficulties with the english language 2. I rather know Eliade's litterary work then its philosophical ideas 3. I don't have much time to search for proper informations 4. I think I can give for the moment other better contributions to wikipedia

I made some improvements because the third phrase could direct to wrong conclusions (as you wrote), altough somehow it's right, but the article is still very short. The second phrase is futile given the size of the article (my opinion). So I think a larger biography is needed rather than changing the current content. And you could do it :)).

About his political ideas: here in Romania there were some talks about some great personalities' communist / fascist (call them as you wish) links. As far as I know Eliade and Cioran had some symphaties for Iron Gard , mostly influnced by their mentor, the university theacher Nae Ionescu. I don't know about any extremist activity (including mass-propaganda). But I can be wrong. Unfortunately the romanian web is very poor. Here are some links (none of them give clear information): http://www.geocities.com/translate_eliade/about_the_author.html (see "Because of his connection to the right-wing Ionescu"), http://www.westminster.edu/staff/brennie/eliade/mebio.htm, http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/eliade.htm (see the google-chached page if it doesn't work:)) - "http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:xk5f3hAUM08J:www.kirjasto.sci.fi/eliade.htm+%22Mircea+Eliade%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8").

Also it seems that one of us has a time-problem (when I posted my reply my clock was 18:55 EET (that's GMT (UTC) + 2) ). Your post's time is 16:36, but it comes after mine. I suspected there's a way to add the date/time automatically (which I missed). Any help would be appreciated). Curero 19:05, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I know nothing about Eliade except for his book on Shamanism (which I never noticed as having any particular political slant). So it should be someone else to supply a more extensive biography I am afraid.

About the time: When I sign I just use four tildas (the little diacritic markings that one sees from time to time over the letter "n" in Spanish texts). That automatically inserts my name and the UTC (Universal Time Coordinated, which is functionally equivalent to Greenwich Mean Time). It looks like you must be doing that too, so I don't know what is going on.

It is an interesting question whether one's political views can be prevented from distorting one's philosophy or other intellectual views. Everybody is subjective to some extent, and philosophers are supposed to be the ones who are professionally trained to think straight. I know Martin Heidegger was attacked for his rightist views too. When I was reading such things I thought I could follow Husserl fairly well, but Heidegger was in some other universe as far as I was concerned. (Maybe his thought just needed modern literary critics to come and "deconstruct it" and that would make it o.k. ;-)

Patrick0Moran 00:58, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Searching for a unique photograph (Cioran, Ionescu & Eliade) I found these articles: http://livres.lexpress.fr/critique.asp/idC=4280/idR=12/idG=8 and http://members.rogers.com/francisdworschak/copertareve.htm (the second in french: http://members.rogers.com/francisdworschak/tf+coperta.htm). I still think that this is "witch-hunting", exaggerating the "sins of the youth". None of the three man can defend now, I don't understand why all this "shit" appears after half a century (it sounds to me like the american "political correctness"), why the comunists never said a word about them (they should have profited from this "dirty fascist past"). But the greatest evil I found (it's my personal emotional point of view) is the deformation of the picture: from friendship to conspiracy (in 1977 !!). This day I hate the western world... Just kidding! Curero 13:36, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Bibliography

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)

§ If you still don't like "scientific," then what would you suggest as a replacement? P0M 22:55, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How about "scholarly"? ---- Charles Stewart 08:40, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changes

I've moved these off the main page until I come up with texts in english:

Scholarly works [1]

• Cosmologie si alchimie babiloniana, (1937)
• Comentarii la legenda meşterului Manole, (1943)
• Techniques du yoga, (1948)
• Traité d'histoire des religions, (1949)

Fiction [2]

• Întoarcea din rai, (1934)
• Huliganii, (1935)
• Domnişoara Christina, (1936)
• Nuntă în cer, (1938)
• La ţigănci, (1969)

what about all the pornography eliade wrote

Moved from the article

(* This is certainly a matter of debate, not an encyclopedic certainty. There is a very strong association between mytho-poetic religious studies and extreme right-wing positions: not just Eliade, but also Joseph Campbell, Jung, etc.)

Fascism etc.

I have tried to be balanced. i think this version covers and explains all the problematic points. As for works/politics quota, if you feel like adding more to increase the former, go ahead. Erasing is censorship. Dahn 00:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The Category:Romanian fascists stays. It has a disclaimer which should cover him. Dahn 00:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

In an attempt to balance out the life, the scholarship, and the controversy, i have moved all the post-death speculations about Eliade into a new section, AFTER the scholarship section, and titled it "Controversy: anti-Semitism and pro-fascim." I barely touched the writing of that section, but i did remove one sentence, which i reprint here:

Eugène Ionesco rejected the momentary attitudes of Eliade and Cioran, and described the metamorphosis of intellectuals under the spell of Fascist ideals in his Rhinocéros.

I am not sure that "Rhinocerus" is specifically about Elade. if it is not, it is merely a diversion here. Also, even if Eliade was the subject of Ionesco's writing, Ionesco does not speak directly to whether Eliade was a fascist / right-winger / anti-Semite. If someone can think of way to actually relate this sentence to the section, i'd like to see it. I cannot, and prefer it to be gone.

That being said, i understand why it is important to identify Eliade's fascistic political affiliations and anti-Semitism: He did not disown these alliances, and thus we have no choice but to weigh his contributions to scholarship with the knowledge that he, like C. J. Jung, Julius Evola, Joseph Campbell, and a host of their contemporaies in the fields of esotericism, occultism, mysticism, and spirituality, carried within him progammatic ideologies that may have compromised his neutrality when dealing with the religious and mystical expressions of certain cultures.

This is not, as some have suggested "political correctness," it is, rather, a sincere attempt to create and maintain true neutrality in the WP. Catherineyronwode 05:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Coppola's new movie

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)

We need a new section about his fiction works. bogdan 20:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

One-sided and incomplete

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)

Describing his work on history of religions as "euhemeristic" seems totally inappropriate to my understanding of that term: that myth represents a re-telling of actual historical events -- this is about as far from Eliade's approach as I can imagine.

POV?

"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)

Speculation

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)

To Dahn: recent "vandalism" reversions

Two recent reversions of the entry under the premise of "vandalism" are understandable given that the vandals did not explain their edits. However, both cases are cause for concern, and the more recent "vandalism" actually seems to have been a good edit. The most recent of these two "vandalisms" accurately described the statements of Sabastian as claims. Can anyone verify that he did in fact take notes of the conversation or that the notes he did take were accurate? The current, reverted version needs this type of language for the sake of NPOV. The issue of the excerpt itself is trickier, but if it is unverifiable, and especially if it is not presented with a counterpoint, then how can it be neutral? Did Eliade have a chance to respond to these allegations and if so what did he say about them? I think the "vandal" was right in deleting it in favor of a description of Sebastian's claims (although it may be fair to summarize the claims, any thoughts?) The matter of the first case of vandalism is more problematic, yet it brings up an important point that needs to be addressed, especially if there is dissagreement. The presentation of how Eliade's work is viewed by other scholars, though perhaps accurate, should be referenced. I hope editors here see it fit to do so.

As for the recent reversion of "vandalism" I am going to revert the entry to what had originally been vandalism (but is no longer so) on the grounds laid out above. Unless a justification can be given for reverting my edit, or unless the language can be otherwise cleaned up, please do not simply and wrongly revert it on grounds of "vandalism". Also, I would like to cauting everyone editing this page against using it as a vehicle for promoting a POV in regards to Eliade's anti-semitism, and I mean either POV. The readers of Wikipedia deserve a balanced and neutral perspective in this entry as in all others.PelleSmith 13:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, I have no intention of highlighting his anti-semitism or indicating that Sebastian was taking accurate notes or writing down anything more than a claim. I am not policing this text, and I am not endorcing a particular version, but the editor had deleted a fragment of information. Even if the discussion between the two would be inaccurately rendered, the fragment expands on the accusation itself. I think that the text can only be improved if we point out that Sebastian was claiming instead of recording this and that (which I had not objected to), but we also keep the fragment detailing his claims. Now, if anyone wants actual proof of Eliade's antisemitism, I will soon look through his contributions as a journalist to the Iron Guard press, as rendered in Zigu Ornea, and will thus clear this matter once and for all (for me personally, Eliade was clearly an antisemite for sticking with the Iron Guard in the first place - it is not as if anyone could not be aware of the fact that the Legionnaires or Nae Ionescu were antisemites). Dahn 14:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me note, PelleSmith, that I fully agree with your call for referencing and structuring (perhaps partly deleting) those subjective comments regarding the status of Eliade's work. I think that the article still needs work (a lot of work?), but I believe I was right in reverting an intervention with the purpose of reducing depth and detail. Dahn 16:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that sounds good. The main problem (made clear by the vandals edit) was in initally not representing the accusation as a claim, which was then compounded by the quote ... as if the quote in its detail was a recorded fact--which it is not. Thank you for editing it. I get the point of "expanding" on the accusation, but of what exact value is it to people if it is only an accusation. That sounds a bit like someone testifying in court and then having the judge ask the jury to strike the testimony after they have already heard it. As if to say, this person may or may not be lying, but here's the inflamatory comment. The result is in hightening the emotional reaction to something and not in expanding our KNOWLEDGE of what can be at least partially verified. Perhaps the alterntive approach is to supply historically verifiable facts about Eliade's expressed views, as you say you are working towards. Such an effort would be commended, by anyone reading this entry in order to understand who Eliade was, what he did, and why he may or may not be important. Mentioning his various critics in the controversy of anti-semitism adds to our knowledge of the controversy as well (I agree with this), but going into details about supposed recordings is a slipperly slope. Someone interested in a NPOV in presenting accusations, will also wish to look into whether or not Eliade responded to such accusations, or how his apologists may have responded to them. That is the NPOV when presenting specific (and unverifiable) accusations as part of a controversy. Maybe this is a philosophical or ethical difference here between us about the presentation of information. I don't know, but I don't think you are fairly dealing with my critique.

For one thing, Sebastian never published his journal, which makes it highly unlikely that he was using it as part of an attack (since it was first published in 1996, it also answers to why Eliade did not have a chance to respond). The accusation of anti-semitism, in some form or another, surfaces with several of his contemporaries; Eliade's mentors and colleagues had a public pride in declaring themselves anti-semites (it is not clear to me whether Eliade himself did as such, but he certainly supported an anti-semitic movement and wrote articles for the most disturbingly and insultingly anti-Jewish press of the Iron Guard propaganda-machine; about his personal tone in writing articles, I will respond in a week or so). In that context, the claim made by Sebastian is important because it is specific: frankly, an accusation of anti-semitism aimed at Eliade is easy to support; Sebastian, who does not base his personal diary on attacking Eliade (or Cioran, for that matter), adds a voice to those of critics inside Romania who knew Eliade and his politics (of most such criticisms, Eliade was aware; to most, Eliade chose to never respond). Furthermore, presenting Sebastian's full testimony on a particular episode is helpful, as it establishes what was found in Sebastian's claim and no one else's. If there is indeed a side contesting this, erasing the portion of text would not ensure NPOV as opposed to referencing that claim. If the latter does exist, someone will probably insert it in here; if not, it makes no sense to lose a valuable piece of information. About its emotional potential overriding information quality: the argument would work only in the assumption that the article is trying to spit on Eliade's image and nothing else; if the article is to grow into more than what it is, and if certain sentences in here are to be referenced or dropped altogether, that quote would be a necessary part of a larger picture. I feel compelled to point out that I take a rather marginal interest in this article, have copy-edited it at some point, have added info which I thought would be otherwise hard to find, and, overall, attempted to defend it against a certain kind of nationalist Romanian revisionism (while paying less attention to other developments). In that context, edits such as the one sparking this discussion were, shall we say, "in my line of fire". Dahn 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

(response rewrite) The journal was never published? He is the only source for the type of information he provides? This source hasn't been responed to by anyone? You don't see how those facts make it an even more obscure, unverifiable, and quite frankly inconsequential piece of information? Let the facts, the major accusations, and the otherwise important aspects of the controversy do the speaking here. In trying to address the problem with this quote, which is that it is rather inconsequential and simply inflamatory in its detail, you have only supplied more reasons for striking it. You might as well write something like "Given that Eliade is an anti-semite here is what he might have said ... ". The difference between saying that and the quote you use is only that the the quote come from someone else. Any other differnces, like Sebastian's relationship to Eliade, and so forth are circumstantial. For the sake of everyone here please clean it up to include facts and more verifiable accusations. If Eliade was an anti-semite, as you expressedly think, then the facts will speak for themselves.PelleSmith 18:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)PelleSmith 18:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

1. The journal was never published by Sebastian is what I have said (he kinda died before 1996). 2. His is the only source for this nuance of the accusation (anti-semitism itself in Eliade's attitudes is backed by tens of sources; his fascism was backed by Eliade himself; what Sebastian provided was a detail, written from his own perspective, on what Eliade allegedly thought of the German war-machine etc. which counts as a relevant detail). 3. the accusation was not responded to by Eliade, but few accusations ever where. 4. please do not misinterpret me: first of all, I have not added the quote, I have kept it; secondly, even as just an allegation, it is a valuable addition to the text (any claim should be detailed). Dahn 20:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok then so we should add the following published (yet equally erroneous) remark by Bruce Lincoln, a prominent scholar of religious studies, a former colleague and friend of Eliade's, a Jew, and a harsh critic of Eliade's scholarship: "The kindess and friendship he showed me were particularly remarkable in light of the chargesthat have been leveled against him. Although we rarely mentioned it directly, he knew full well I was of Jewish descent and Marxist inclination, two things that--according to his critics--should have made me the object of his antipathy. I did not know him in the 1930s and 1940s, but my experience makes it impossible for me to believe he harbored anti-Semitic hatreds in his mature years." (pg. 146 Lincoln, Bruce. 1999. Theorizing Myth. Chicago: Chicago University Press). This quote is equally unuseful, perhaps on different grounds, but that is besides the point. Any claim should not be detailed. This page is not a log for claims about a controversy, but an encyclopedia entry on a famous, and perhaps infamous, man.PelleSmith 15:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

IMO, we should detail both views. Let me note, however, that you are omitting three very relevant things: if true, Sebastian's statement mentions something more than Eliade's curtesy or lack of curtesy (after all, he must have had roughly the same type of curtesy given that he said these things to a person he knew was a Jew, i.e.. nobody is accusing him of being rude to Jewish persons, but of having ideas about the "danger" posed by Jews etc); Sebastian is a source on events, and none of us would have reasonable proof that he was on a mission to crucify Eliade (furhtermore, since no one is indicating that he was necessarily right, the detailing cannot fail to be neutral); since Sebastian wrote pieces on his daily life (which may or may not be accurate, but there is no proof of them being malevolent), the detailing carries an extra necessity - Sebastian's book is about many things, and the parts about Eliade with Sebastian's claims (and I personally think we are exaggerating a bit with the presumption of guilt by calling them "claims") are better indicated by citing them. Again, if you feel that this is unbalanced, cite Lincoln as well (erroneous for disregarding the fact that Eliade at the very least associated with politically-minded anti-semites); either way, I see no reason for dropping Sebastian's quote. Dahn 15:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

On a more general note, I would also suggest that not enough attention is paid here to Eliade as a scholar. Sure we expect to learn about the man, but we know him as a scholar. If someone looks up this entry the chances are they they have heard of Eliade, again, as a scholar. Isn't it pertinent to structure an entry in a way that at least gives equal breadth to the most prominant aspect of that person? I'm no Eliade scholar, so I cannot do that work myself, but it would surprise me that anyone thoughtful enough to start an entry on Eliade wouldn't be thinking of presenting some of his theories, maybe summarizing his most imporant works, etc. Why else would someone start and entry on a scholar? Now I'm not suggesting it was started for other reasons, but simply that as you said yourself the entry needs to be fleshed out in more ways than one. My original comment on anti-semitism and POV, also relates to this point. The way that information is balanced, and parcelled out can itself seem like it is coming from a POV. Part of the job is in fleshing out the entry in the most useful manner to those who come here for information, and not (and again I am not accusing you of this) in the extremest case slant it to certain details and aspects. The current structure does seem slanted, however, if only because even his life is presented mostly up to the point of his move from Romania and even less after his his move to the United States. Those early years may be a dark stain on his life, maybe even frought with anti-semitism ("maybe" even to the point of influencing his work) though I personally don't know, but those years are also his life prior to his most academically productive years, and prior to the massive impact that he had as a figure as well as a scholar in the field of religious studies. This is my perspective. I hope you at least find it mildly interesting.PelleSmith 18:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, mostly. However, as I have said about, there is little I myself can do to answer that request (I could, depending on bibliography, contribute more to balancing or structuring the political aspect of his early life - which, in terms of information, is already abundant; I could do very little and, likely, of very little quality in assessing or even presenting his activities as a scholar). Dahn 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to be clear that I think the information in this entry is for the most part valid and highly informative. I just think that it needs to be fleshed out and expanded to be a more useful resource. I am hoping that these comments are productive and not taken as an attack on the integrity of the entry as it is.PelleSmith 20:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Overall, I welcome your ballance in editing this article. Dahn 00:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To Dahn: "Implicitly" and rigid policing

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Neutrality contested

Simply take this fragments as examples of heavy infringement of NOPV policy:

• overt and emphatic assessment and judgement

"Eliade's work is widely discredited at present[citation needed], viewed as more theological than historical. He is considered to have discerned some valid patterns in mythological and religious traditions, but his presentation of them was often historically cavalier and heavily loaded with his own brand of Romantic spirituality that lauded religions of the "cosmic type" over traditions of history and modernity. Some have traced these views about the "terror of history" and the dangers of modernity to his experiences as a Romanian in World War II."

--212.227.103.74 09:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes this paragraph is horribly problematic, especially without reference. In order to not start the kind of unuseful editing war that 212.227.103.74 has, I opted to discuss the issue at some point above. However, it is becoming clearer at present that another editor would rather have the information displayed without references, and possibly in violation of NPOV policy, than to either fix it or remove it until such time that it can be fixed. Although just removing chunks of texts without an explanation isn't helpful either, especially when the person doing so has no identifiable screen name. If i remove the text, as should be done until it can be fixed to fit policy, I know that it will just be restored, so I refuse to do so. My hope, which is slimming at present is that the other editor will start to understand the problems with the above text and others included on this page and either fix them or not reject the edits and/or removals of others.PelleSmith 15:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with you here. As I have said, I do not approve of much in the tone of the article, but I equally reject 212.227.103.74's censoring edits on what are quotes, statements of facts etc. and not the personal views of other editors ("widely discredited at present", "some have" etc.) Dahn 15:55, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. You are or you aren't objecting to the removal of sentences or phrases containing weasel words ("widely discredited", "some have")? To quote the entry on weasel words: "generalization through grammatical devices such as quantifiers and the passive voice can be used to introduce facts that are beyond the proof of direct citation." Also, this is from the wikipedia style guide:

"Weasel words are words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources. Weasel words give the force of authority to a statement without letting the reader decide if the source of the opinion is reliable. If a statement can't stand on its own without weasel words, it lacks neutral point of view; either a source for the statement should be found, or the statement should be removed."

In other words the usage of weasel words here "lacks a neutral point of view" and hence isn't just a matter of style but against Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_wordsPelleSmith 19:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the IP has since rendered this confusing by adding text I do not agree with to the part I did agree with. To clarify this: I disagree with what I said I disagree with, and agree with the rest. Again, I fail to see how on Earth specifying what regime he served as diplomatic representative for counts as "a weasel word", I fail to see why we need to delete instead of rephrasing (if it seems like coaching) the sentence about how Eliade's depolitization is hard to support (it is, for Chrissake, precisely that - "hard to support"; any open debate carried in Romania or elsewhere has not managed to present adequate proof that he had turned into something else - because he had been a legionary, and because he never made clear that he had changed his attitudes in the meantime; add to this that the Iron Guard itself profits from his vagueries: I can provide about 20 links to Iron Guard-apologetic sites that present him as one of theirs); I cannot see how presenting Sebastian's account in more detail would even indicate that Sebastian was right. For the rest, do whatever.

Let me also note that what surprises me here is the revisionist tone condoned: it does not matter that I or you or Mr.T find ideas such as those once or forever expressed by Eliade to be problematic for a democratic society, it matters that he didn't (he - the candidate in elections for a fascist party; he - the Salazar apologist; he - the ambassador kept in office by a fascist regime that purged each and every office); to clarify: I am not judgmental about this, but we may at least rest assured that calling, say, Mussolini "a fascist" will not be insulting to Mussolini - Eliade was perhaps not Mussolini, but he certainly was a fascist at some point in his life, and some (quoted, etc.) have argued that he had remained one. Please see my point: a man may read into these accusations of this and that, but that would be simply avoiding the issue. I am not trying to harm his pedigree, but neither do I go at lengths to preserve it, as that would be equally wrong. You're building yourself a straw man: indicating the regime he served does not make him responsible for the regime's crimes (and the absurd concern that people may read something else into an informative statement should certainly not prevent us from being informative); the debate about his fascist convictions cannot, in any case, obscure the fact that he had been a fascist - the continuity of his fascist convictions is debatable (and the article states nothing other than the fact that it is a debate, as it well is), but that may imply that he was "evil" only to a man wanting to read that in it (to be blunt, his adversaries have rather expressed the opinion that he continued to be not violent, but simply stupid - Ionesco ridiculed him on the basis of this upon Elaide's arrival in France). Dahn 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would hapilly condone your either moving the above comment somewhere else or changing it, because you're either avoiding the issue or you missunderstood. The discussion of weasel words has NOTHING to do with the parts of the entry you are writing about but it has everything to do with the quote ABOVE--about his scholarship--and again NOT the quotes BELOW about which I didn't comment. Specifying regimes has NOTHING to do with the weasel words used concerning his scholarship--again about which I have commented. Now if you missunderstood then by all means edit your response. BTW don't confuse me with the IP editor withwhom you engaged in an edit war. I am not interested in debating his affiliation with parties, whether or not he was an anti-semite, or damaging or restoring his pedigree, only in balancing this entry, in removing weasel words, in making it useful and usable. Hence not deleting paragraphs outright, trying to use the discussion page productively (which has been hubris), and even trying to work with you in wording some of the entries (again don't confuse/conflate me with others). Address the weasel word problem, because it is a PROBLEM as outlined by wikipedia for good reason. Eliade's theories, at this point, have been discredited by many respectable scholars, and I personally don't find much use, or interest in them (as I understand them)--but for heaven's sake either present it in a verifiable manner or don't object to edits that actually conform to Wikipedia policy (see WEASEL WORDS).PelleSmith 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have made myself clear: in any point regarding his scholarship, as you may see here and on one of my edit summaries on the history page, as well as in other comments I have made in other sections of this page, I have no view to express or support. There is nothing preventing you from editing the text into whatever form you find more appropriate. As you may see from my previous edit, I was answering in the eventuality that you had not noticed that the IP had added more content after I had replied; my re3ply had already included an alternative for the instance where that would not have been the case (it's here: "For the rest, do whatever."). In fact, it would have been obvious that I agree with your original comment in reply to the first post of the IP in this section. God, we have both begun to sound bureaucratic :). In case you were expecting me to go and make the changes: I was not aware that debating on this topic was over, and I have never discouraged you from making those changes yourself (nor will I revert them). Dahn 21:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• emphatically intervening with own opinions

"This de-politicization of Eliade is difficult to support, given his having stood for election under the auspices of the "Everything for the Fatherland" Party, his refusal to sign the "declaration of dissociation" with the Iron Guard, and the testimony of his one-time friend, Mihail Sebastian."

• manipulation - pulling together coincidental facts in order to create the appearance of connexions or even causality

"...he retained the same position in Portugal where he was kept on as ambassador by the National Legionary State (the Iron Guard government) and, ultimately, by Ion Antonescu's regime."

"At the same time, the Iron Guard stood out among Fascist movements for its mystical character — prevalent themes that were investigated by Eliade during, as well as after, his political activities (notably, the preocupation for Zalmoxis' cult and its supposed monotheism)."

--212.227.103.74 09:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. ...just as a matter of fact: as regrettable as an "editing" war might be, responding with force to force must remain the ultima ratio ressource ...by the way: please try to respect (identifiable) IP-users just as you do with (anonym) pseudonym-users --212.227.103.74 09:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Original scholarship does not belong

Dahn,

When you draw together information to prove a specific point ... like the idea that Eliade's account is "unreliable" you are engaging in "original scholarship" and original scholarship does not belong in Wikipedia. It is against policy. Original scholarship is published in journals, books and the like and is then subject to the criticisms of the academic community. As such the author, who is clearly attributed to such scholarship is accountable for his own scholarship. Wikipedia is a community project that aims at presenting uncontested and agreed upon information about all matter of subjects, and distincly not a portal for original and novel arguments--however much you may feel the facts support these arguments. THE ARGUMENTS themselves do not belong. If you feel that information presented in this paragraph belongs in the entry then please rephrase it and do not present it as the necessary justification of YOUR argument.PelleSmith 17:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me first stress that I could, on principle, do without that addition at all if it is debateble/debated. I need, however, to render clear my original reasons, and you, as well as anybody reading them, may tell me how much should be kept (if anything).

1. Since the section is about a polemic, I can present and condense the point made by an author (especially given that other sources are only minimally referenced as is)

2. Ornea is a respected scholar, and this book is standard bibliography in several universities. You may note that the book was published in 1995, and I may add that it has consituted, in its entirety, a focus in public debates in Romania (it has its backers, it has its attackers, and both are free to expand on his points in this article - hopefully, not by adding stuff such as "he was Jewish"). The book does not express Ornea's frustrations or resentments: it is one piece in his work on Romanian culture. This, of course, is not to say that he is right, but let us see what you challenged (below).

3. the assessment of Eliade's claim to have been arrested because of his friendship to Ionescu. You rejected the notion that this reason was unlikely in itself - the point was, perhaps, superfluous, but I felt (my POV) it should be made clear that Eliade would have been the only man to have this happen to him (not my POV). Eliade's claim is in itself an accusation that cannot be supported by facts, just as Sebastian's is now indicated to have been! This leaves us with a double standard. What should one refernce here: the entire anti-sedition legislation, the system of government and its principles under Carol? Need I place a note saying "Eliade was not justified in believing that he lived in Ruritania"? Just because Eliade claimed what nobody else did or could?

4. Eliade contributed to Vremea, which was not a Legionary magazine, writing a serial on "The Legionary Movement and the Province" (referenced on the given pages in Ornea). Since the first measure of the regime was to close down all explicitly Legionary papers, and since the goal of new laws to dismantle what it viewed as Legioanary propaganda in all its forms, the cabinet simply established subjective criteria for establishing who wrote like pro-Iron Guard stuff in the non-Iron Guard press. Among those writers was Eliade (IMO, it was, given the title and content of his articles, a fairly easy task). Note, please, that the criterion was never "who was a friend of whom", as these people were not hunting unicorns, but trying to curb a percieved threat. It simply means that they viewed him as a Legionary, and that Eliade was not right in stating that they didn't. Ornea himself makes a further claim, which is pure POV (my POV as well) and does not really belong in the text: according to him, Eliade's persistance in stating that he had not been a member of the Movement is sophistry, as to him (and to me, and prolly to many others) being active in the way Eliade was is close enough to being a member.

5. The point about the declaration he was offered to sign stands as self-evident. He was still offered this chance while in camp; Ionescu did sign it and did get out of camp (only to get back in after allegedly breaking his promise to be on his best behaviour), and so did many other Legionaries (Ornea does not babble about it: he cites three newspaper articles, one on the common declaration of dissociation of 34 detainees, and two where Zaharia Stancu informs his readers on Nae Ionescu's trip out and, respectively, in (he makes the allegation on Ionescu's broken promise). This also indicates that Eliade was not right in claiming that Ionescu's frienship was a reason - not only did those people believe him to be a Legionary, but they also made him stay in while Ionescu was out!

6. According to the footnote in Ornea, Eliade's Memoirs have been published in 1991 in Romania. (I believe they could form a source in themselves) Eliade's claim to have split with the Iron Guard is, as was proven by much in the text, contested (not more, but certainly not less). Ornea gives him the presumption of innocence, and looks into the reasons Eliade himself gives as his own. In full, Eliade argues that he had left the movement after the assassination campaign in 1940 (retalliation for the earlier murder-execution of Codreanu). And I quote Eliade: "They [the assassins, ie] have rendered void the religious "self-sacrificing" purpose of the Legionaries executed under Carol and have compromised without any possibility for redeeming the Iron Guard, considered ever since then a terrorist and pro-Nazi movement. The killing of N. Iorga, the great historian and brilliant cultural profet [may I add: also the target of rudimentary attacks to which Eliade was contributing, but I guess he only looked at the pictures], shall forever be a stain on the name "Romanian"". (Memorii, Humanitas, 1991, vol.II, p.49) So, Eliade again did not know what the rest of Romania did: that the Iron Guard tended to send self-sacrificing persons or squads (of, the irony) to murder its political opponents (Stelescu, Calinescu, Manciu, etc. - one of them was killed by Codreanu himself). And, of course, we are not allowed to point out that he claimed he did not, because... he might have actually been right? Hm. Again, would I have to cite all the millions who did now and those who did suffer violence, just because Eliade claimed that the Iron Guard had turned terrorist after he left?! Dahn 19:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe I have unwittingly avoided part of your point, which was about how much of the text in the article was to be found in the source.

Let's quote Ornea on page 202 (note: this transaltion is more colloquial than the text itself, using synonyms rather than perfect equivalents on account of me being tired): "In his Memories, to which I shall return, the truth is, carefully, hidden, the references to embracing guardism counterfeit, so as to induce the idea that, in fact, he had suffered an unjust accusation, everything being centered on - includinmg the incarceration in the legionnaire camp in Miercurea Ciuc - his spiritual devotion, but politically non-alligned, toward Nae Ionescu. That which is a clear lie. It means to say that he was not inducted, formally, into the Iron Guard. That which is, apparently, true. But his journalism and, as it shall be made clear, active propaganda work, in the midst of the Guard, is that not an expression of affinnity? Eugene Ionesco, etc. (stuff about the letter to Vianu)", then follows Ornea's attempt to prove that this was the case, during which, again, he raises points which stand as self-obvious. I have left aside Eliade's quoted praise for Codreanu and other Iron Guard heroes.

From all the points made by Ornea, I have selected the ones which seemed to stand on their own legs: those about how the regime viewed him, which are objective (no room for my bias or his), and which form as well part of Ornea's argument. Moving on, Ornea clearly states, in a sentence on page 209, that "Liberation from the camp also [ie: just as the arrest, as specified in previous sentences] depended on his declaration". I had added detail from outside this chapter (from p.239-240) not because I glued to arguments together, but because Ornea detailed the cases of freeing from arrest in there (especially since, on page 209, there is a reference to Nae Ionescu's own declaration in the sentence immediately following the previously quoted one).

As I have said, the quote on Iorga and vengeance is given in full, and the knowledge of those facts was accessible to all mammals but Eliade. The comment given by Ornea is of the same nature, and mentions a pre-1940 victim of the Iron Guard that Eliade indicated he was not aware of: their first, the prefect Manciu.

The accusation that I have gathered sources to "induce" a POV is unfair. I had only stuck to those examples sanctioned by sources and comments, which indicate that Eliade's excuses had inaccuracies (for what reasons that was, I have and will, as editor, pretend not to care), and I have done all of this inside a section that bears the huge title "Controversy", and not under the one saying "God's gift of knowledge to the world".

The accusation that I would want to induce POV fails to take into account that I have treated all other sources in the same way, and that I have added info on Eliade's apparent philosemitism in the early 1930s and his nationalist-but-not-fascist personal dogma etc etc etc etc. The one "POV" that I would induce is that Eliade did not give accurate explanations in front of sheer historical data. There is a lot of stuff to add to the list of Eliade's dissociation problems in Ornea's view, but I had, and I repeat myself, decided to introduce only those who present, in themselves, challenges beyond he said/she said, in the belief that an innacuracy, unlike a wrong-or-right issue, is assessed objectively. Otherwise, we would have to believe an Eliade saying that he was born before his grandfather and that Chicago is a capital in Africa. Dahn 22:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting a more pertinent allocation of information

I cannot but recognise the recent contributions of user dahn. More source-backed information should always be welcomed.

Yet, i think the biographical section has become somewhat unbalanced. I have done a simple quantitative analysis of this section: out of about 1000 words, some 550 refer to biographical facts, some 420 relating to his political viwes and activities (the rest is trivial details).

I suggest to reasign the information to the respective sections.

I'll try to do it myself. Feel free to reword and adapt it.

--212.227.103.74 17:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me stress that one discredits a source he begins by recognizing if one adds a particular nationality to it.

Let me also stress that I had added the info to the top section because, as you would find out by weighing its content, it only partly relevant to either his fascism or anti-semitism, but to his oevre in general (the ideas he developped on his own, which were original nationalism rather than anything else) and to his cultural activities in general.

The text can be better proportioned if we simply strip the list of works, add extarnal links to sites listing them, and introduce a section actually talking about his works (then, perhaps, the part of the info in the first section citing his literary thought could be detailed there).

There are some things I need to clarify with Pelle over the issue he raised, and hopefully all of us will discuss future developments from that fresh perspective. Dahn 18:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I keep wondering why you were not banned by now. First of all, my friend, adding "Jewish" in front of Sebastian makes clear why he had been addressed anti-Semitic remarks, as well as why he is judged by some (absurdly, IMO) to have a bias when making a certain claim for which his testimony is the only proof. On the other hand, anonymous IP, Ornea wrote a STUDY on Eliade, one which is backed by evidence that, in itself, cannot be contested. Ornea was not involved in a relation with Eliade, nor was he in dialogue with him. Furthermore, both Sebastian and Ornea are Romanians as well: Sebastian lived at a moment when a difference between Romanians and Jews was being made for untenable reasons, and the reference to him as such only indicates that the reference was being made; furthermore (and this should be obvious to anyone familiar with facts), Sebastian did not have different opinions on life in regard to Eliade, as he was himself a disciple of both Criterion and Ionescu (so the reference to him as "Jewish" does not mean to indicate anything about his views). Ornea was not subject to any of this when writing his works, and the casual reference to him as "Jewish" would, on one hand, perpetuate the bias that made Sebastian "look different" to people living in his day, and, on the other, indicate that Ornea holds the opinions he does "because he is Jewish" (which, besides being the POV of an uncivilized person, would add a layer of mistrust that is irrelevant - especially since Ornea is the source for the arguments Eliade citied in his "defence" for this article). Dahn 15:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This Article is Blatantly Biased

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)

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)

"Apology of"

"…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)

"Wer Jude ist, bestimme ich !" - this arbitrary and arrogant attitude is not acceptable

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)

I'm not going to feed you, troll. Dahn 17:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Regardless of your opinions I made a trim of the article. Two new articles were made:

• Main article: Life of Mircea Eliade
• Main article: Controversy: anti-Semitism and pro-fascism of Mircea Eliade

--Peter IBM 17:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

212.227.103.74, since you mention me by name (while choosing not to have a name, yourself), what exactly is it that I have done that you are objecting to? I believe that all of my edits to this article have been on matters of grammar, usage, etc.

And what on earth do you mean by "every one who dares to contredict the comical nickname?" - Jmabel | Talk 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

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)

Actually, he or she has just been blocked. Moving on. Dahn 01:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

I will ask a mediator to help this article to reflect all points of view. --Peter IBM 19:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Mircea_Eliade --Peter IBM 19:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Listen, kid. I have no reason to "state" a particular version or argue my case in front of someone who has engagd in deleting and manipulating the text of this article. You will carry that mediation alone, if at all, since any user vaguely familiar with WP rules will tell you not only that you are wrong, but that you ought to be banned (your quick familiarity with WP procedures despite your Johnny-come-lately-ism also lead me to suspect that you are somebody's sockpuppet; given your record with uploding images that have been created by others as your own, doing it for pages of cities in Romania, I suspect that you are User:NorbertArthur, a close friend of user:Bonaparte). Your "mediation" request is a pathetic attempt at diversion, and I turn my back on all its sophistry. I also do not appreciate that you have come to this article after stalking me for having pointed out to you thst you were breaking several copyright legislations.

In other words, I will not engage in a dialogue with a vandal. I urge all people to simply revert your disgraceful edits. Dahn 19:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this particular edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mircea_Eliade&diff=73813390&oldid=73812364 does much help here. Anyway, I think that Dahn and me should not engage into a revert war. All users have been warned about 3RR. Let's wait the mediation process to end. --Peter IBM 20:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Counterculture

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)

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)

What the controversy is

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)