Talk:Paul Goma

The editing war

Lately, User:Dahn does not bother to explain his moves. He reverts everything! So Goma got an editing war because Dahn wants to fight. Does he have any friend out there to tell him to stop? (Icar 11:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC))

Picture

Does anyone has an idea how to find a picture of Paul Goma that has a free license or can be used under "fair use"? -- AdrianTM 07:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Books

AdrianTM asks: "added more books, grouped the translations together (any idea for better arrangement?)" First of all, since these are all books by the same author (the author being the subject of the article), it seems to me that his name is no longer needed in that list. As for books with various versions and translations, I struggled with this dilemma too, when starting the list. One could try sublists (using ** for double indents). Alternatively, just list the several versions (without the (in Romanian), etc tags, leaving the title to explain what language the first edition was in). See for example the list of books for Virgil Gheorghiu that I've drawn -- not sure this is the best format, one could surely improve on it. I guess it's all trial and error at this stage... Turgidson 01:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Better this way? I still need to find some titles in other languages. -- AdrianTM 02:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks much better, yes. The hierarchical model rulz! Turgidson 03:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Further improvements?

I think it would be nice to develop the article about Goma's life in two direction: more info about Charter 77 involvement since that seems like an important issue and defining moment in his life, and his relation with the Writers' Union (and the reaction of other dissidents, or "dissidents" to his actions) since that's also an important issue. Maybe give more details about what Securitate did to him, expediting that into one sentence seems... a little bit too short for something that's a defining moment in his life.

Any other proposals for further improvements? Anything important that's missing? -- AdrianTM 16:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Having just glanced over this article, I can tell you two things for sure:

• the text needs serious copyediting
• the "Controversy" section can and should be expanded to cover who said what about what - the first of the two paragraphs is amazingly vague, and people who have spoken against Goma are quite notable; the second paragraph, IMO, should give a little more insight into what precisely was said and by whom.

Considering what I had to deal with in the past, I expect this task to cause a stir and whatnot. I deliberately stayed away from this article for it to be expanded reasonably so that a clearer text about the controversy would be proportional to Goma's overall activity (and not undue weight). At the moment, it appears to dismiss an otherwise notable event: a large portion of Romanian public intellectuals (as right or as wrong as they were) identified a series of statements made by Goma with Holocaust denial and prejudice about Judeo-Bolshevism, and have explained at length what they consider spurious in them.

I want to make it clear that I will not intervene in this article as a means to libel Goma, just in the hope that I can provide more in-depth information from several relevant sources. For starters, I wish to point out this article in Observator Cultural, where an authority on the matter talks at length about exactly that (while, you may want to note, providing detail on the vicious way Goma was treated by Communist authorities). Similar replies here, here, here, and here.

Also: in the article on Vladimir Tismăneanu, which was partly rendered here, there are some more things that connect the two controversies - I believe it would be fair to make note of that here, especially since Goma has persistently called attention to the fact that several members of the Commission have criticized his texts about Jews, and especially since, contrary to what Goma said, VT did not express his opinion on that matter (but was subject to the backlash, as you all may know). It would also be important to note that Goma publicly declared that he wanted to be on the Commission while knowing who else was on the Commission, and that his reply came not, as it was once insinuated, "because of a personal conflict with VT", but because he was in a dispute with the Commission - during which, and I can source this for you, he attacked virtually all members for "lacking credentials". You will note that this last action also drew criticism from a notable third-party source [1]. Dahn 17:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about copyediting, I hope somebody will help.

I also agree about the expanding cotnroversy section especially with cocrete quotes and references to notable people who expressed their opinions about the issue.

Feel free to edit, don't wait for my permission, I edited this article because it was a puny stub without almost any references and with many request for references (no offence to previous editors) -- AdrianTM

Also "several" libel lawsuits should be fully qualified listing persons who were sued, and where (France or Romania). -- AdrianTM 20:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter: I happened to bump into this link, from a reliable source. It gives further details of Goma's dissidence and attacks against him in the communist press. Dahn 19:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation help: "Faculty of Letters"

That doesn't sound like a right translations, should we use the Romanian name for the University or try a better translation? -- AdrianTM 16:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It actually is the standard translation. Dahn 17:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Then it's a non-issue... -- AdrianTM 17:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Citizenship

This needs to be stated clearly: Goma does not go about requesting his citizenship legally. He is not "prevented" (as the DYK entry wrongly states), he is not ignored by the Romanian gvt until citizens sign a petition: citizens signing petitions are basically requesting that Goma be an exception to the law. Whether he is entitled to it or not is not material for a discussion here - let's however make the legal situation clear in the article, so we don't end up with a half truth. See for example here (scroll down). Dahn 19:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that Goma is not requesting his citizenship back "legally" because he says it was taken away "illegally" from him (some people are like this: "why should I ask for something that should be mine anyway") I don't know all the details though and not sure how to handle this in the article, if you have some direct quotes about the issue and relevant info please add them. -- AdrianTM 19:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the best way to phrase it is to include how Goma feels he is an exception to the law (since both his replies and the link above at least indicate that the law requires paperwork to be filled). Now, again, he may be right or he may be wrong; either way, nobody is preventing him from obtaining it. Dahn 19:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the article claims that. It just noted "no further advances" in the matter. -- AdrianTM 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the DYK nomination does. And I think we should include all circumstances for this in the article (i.e.: why Goma thinks the law does not apply in his case, and Goma addressing Băsescu + the fact that Băsescu replied and his reply remains undisclosed). That way, we don't leave room for interpretation. I'll do so in the future. Dahn 20:03, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not responsible for DYK nomination, but I do agree with you, we should list all circumstances (as I always militate ;-) -- AdrianTM 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I was halfway through editing the text (I had expanded the bio section about five times the size), then my computer crashed. I was just about to save a backup copy, but in any case trusted Firefox to give me a "restore session" - it did, but the text in the window was the version before I even started editing! Has this ever happened to you guys?

That's it: from now on, I'm gonna be way more prudent - I'll use a sandbox or do more and less expansive edits in a row. Anyway, I'll get back on this when I have the willpower. In case someone wants to add to the text:

• stuff on the Charter and other things [2] [3]
• a mention of a controversy involving information presented by Goma in his Gherla book - if you read his foreword here, you will note that his account was considered libel by other political prisoners (Constantin Noica, Ion Varlam, Nicolae Carandino, Virgil Carianopol and Mircea Ionescu-Quintus). In my would-be version, I was going to mention this in "Controversies", then add "Goma attributes this reaction to Securitate intrigues". (I presume this is what he means)
• I was going to add more stuff from his bio-biography (nb: if you do this as well, do it with a grain of salt, guys - not all things he says are verifiable, even if they could in theory all be true; for these, i was going to use "Goma contends...", "in Goma's view..." etc.; for example, one may never know if Breban actually went to visit Bernard and ask him not to broadcast Goma's texts).
• I never managed to, but I was going to add the relevant details to the already present paragraphs on controversy, from sources mentioned and other.

In my view, the article is far from being complete, and I can only apologize for wasting your time with my blunder. Dahn 03:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Get a Mac! Sorry, I could not resist the gibe. But, in all honesty, I also lost some edits (very frustrating when that happens!), but not due to a crash -- basically, Macs never crash :) -- but because of edit conflicts, in fact, on this very same article, when trying to edit at the same time with AdrianTM. There must be a jinx!! Turgidson 05:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Or... use Opera (under Linux). Sorry, could not resist. I never lose text with Opera even if there's an edit conflict I can just go "back" and I have my typed text there. Sorry Turgidson for making you lose edits, I should have put that "inuse" tag, but my edits were not quite planned. -- AdrianTM 05:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

POV concern, Romanian references

This is a Romanian author, most of the references will be in Romanian unless they are from a book that's translated to other language. Is Romanian something that cannot be checked? I mean, I understand the idea to provide English references when they exist, but this case is about a Romanian author and his books and articles published in Romanian. -- AdrianTM 03:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, if people think a reference is dubious they can place a reference-check tag to ask people who know the language to check it, I think that's the normal procedure when there are no English references available. -- AdrianTM 03:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and for all it's worth, the article has an external link to a site in English (the short bio from IMDB). Moreover, as mentioned in the article, one of Goma's books ("My Childhood at the Gate of Unrest") is translated into English (see here, for example). Having said that, I agree that it would be good to have more references in English. But, as AdrianTM says (if I understand correctly), it does not seem reasonable to make that into a sine qua non requirement. Turgidson 04:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I wanted to say. It would be nice to find English references, but it's doubtful we'll find many. -- AdrianTM 05:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

A scan over entries returned by a Google search shows a number of English references for the controversies section. It would be helfpul to add these to the citations. 70.114.132.23 11:39, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added two English references. I hope more will be added. — ERcheck (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

circumstances of Goma's dismissal from the Tismaneanu commission

According to Tismaneanu Armand Gosu, "N-am avut de-a face cu Securitatea", in 22, nr.849, June 2006, it appears that there were two reasons for Goma's dismissal:

• having questioned the moral and scientific asuthority of Tismaneanu. It appears that Goma, after wronlgy attributing to Tismaneanu an attack on himself, had written that Tismaneanu "after all, is just a Bolshevik offspring", and had expressed doubts about VT's scientific credibility.
• having published on the Internet a private letter from VT, in which the latter criticised harshly his father.

So it is inaccurate to say that Goma was dismissed because he questioned the scientific credibility of the board; instead, it was a quiproquo between VT and Goma and mutual accusations of moral wrongdoings, which lead to the dismissal. It seems that both Tismaneanu and Goma declare it was a personal dispute between the two of them.

I suggest changing "who justified the exclusion based on Goma's implicit and later explicit refusal to recognize the board as a valid instrument" either to "because of a personal dispute", or to a more accurate description of the circumstances. Icar 10:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I copied that from Tismaneanu article without much inspection, but the reference supports indeed the "personal dispute" explanation. -- AdrianTM 20:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The interview is from June. It is always good to research things in full: this is Goma harshly criticizing the Commission on May 6 (also note that he indicates he disagreed with membership of the Commssion as early as April 5). Furthermore, VT, in the interview with Goşu, makes mention of the implications of Goma's scandal with other intellectuals, including (per Goma) members of the board, as the source of the other scandal, and the latter beginning with Goma questioning his status as a scientist. Also note that VT indicates that Goma did not, in fact, object to the membership of the Commission at the time he was invited, and this is actually backed by the interview Goma gave to Cotidianul; it was the scandal over his (alleged) antisemitism which first brought his attacks on the Commission, and this did not implicate VT in the least until Goma dragged his name into it.

To dismiss this as "a personal matter" is POV-pushing, trying to make Goma look like a person who was marginalized, not as a person who wonders why he is not welcomed by people he kept cursing at. Now, one may think that Goma either discredited or glorified himself by writing himself off the Commission, but, under any circumstance, he did do that. Dahn 11:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In Goma's 2006 Journal here we find Tismaneanu's invitation e-mail (page 88) dated April 4, 2006, as well as the "dismissal" e-mail (pp. 110-111) dated April 14 (so 9 days later). In the second message the two causes for the break (Goma's unauthorised posting of a personal letter from VT and Goma's questioning in his Journal of VT's scientific credibility) are invoked. There is absolutely no mention at that time of the other members of the bord. User:Dahn has entirely fabricated that information. In fact, Tismaneanu writes to Goma on April 11: "I appreciate your position regarding the Commission members" (my translation from Goma's 2006 Journal, page 101).

In light of evidence, I expect this pointless argument to end. Apologies for the obstructionism would also be appreciated Icar 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, all circumstances need to be made clear in the article, not hidden in a vague comment, and not half-quoted in a sophistical debate on the talk page. Second of all: Goma, as stated by this person I have to engage in conversation, denied scientific merit to VT (which in itslef means that he denied merit to the Commission, headed by the person with "no scientific merit"), as well as - clearly indicated by VT's interview - dragging him into a debate over anti-Semitism (which, as indicated by Goma's letter to Ziua, he was carrying with, among many others, members of the Commission). No more spin, Icar, and cut the personal attacks (at the very least, because your history shows that you are walking on thin ice). Dahn 19:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think that pushes any POV, it's a personal issue because Goma called Tismaneanu "pui de bolshevic" and he published Tismaneanu's private letter (I think that counted more and Tismaneanu explains that very clearly). This looks more like a personal issue than a conflict over the Commission or other members. I don't think the present form makes Goma look better or worse, it reflects what happened... one could add more details about those "personal issues", but somehow I don't think it would be quite encyclopedic material... -- AdrianTM 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

...or if you insist to that variant use a different reference because that ones details personal issues not the conflict over Commission validity. -- AdrianTM 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? "nu poti face par­te dintr-o comisie in momentul in care con­testi presedintelui acestei comisii, omu­lui care te invita, credibilitatea morala si stiintifica. Punctul intai. Si atunci ii poti da dreptul acestui presedinte de comisie, care nu stiuse ca ai publicat aceste lu­cruri, sa spuna: sorry, nu cred ca putem co­labora. Mai ales ca nu era vorba de mine, eu am o responsabilitate pentru in­­­ca 20 de membri ai Comisiei, nu vorbesc numai de mine. Daca cu fiecare s-ar pe­tre­ce asa ceva, unde ajung in final?" Dahn 19:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say "personal issue with the President of the Commission". Yes, the President of the Commission has all the right to consider that this is something that is damaging to the whole Commission and he has the right to dismiss somebody who contests him (especially that he invited Goma in the first place), but to me it still looks like a "personal issue with the President of the Commission" at least that was the primary factor, right? -- AdrianTM 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, Adrian: my version clearly states it was VT who justified it this way, not the at one is to see it. I wish you would have pasted more from the article you took this from, since it was indicated there that VT referred to "Bolshevik offspring", and the sentence in there indicated that it was through and because of what Goma said about the Commission (no, I do not find that unencyclopedic - if the controversy is encyclopedic, than so is an overview of its most important issues; this especially in biographical articles about the people involved). I can see several rephrasings possible, but "personal conflict/issue/squabble", in reference to attacks that Goma went out of his way to publicize at the time and ever since, strikes me as whitewashing. Dahn 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To make it more clear how I saw this issue: I wanted to present pure fact: "personal issue with the President of the Commission" not its spin (justified spin, by the way) "you can't be in a Commission if you contest the President of the Commission"... but here we try to present facts not their spin. If you choose to present each person opinion (spin) then please feel free to add more info from that article. But let me say I don't feel very strongly either way, I don't think it's white or blackwashing either way... -- AdrianTM 20:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

In short: this article needs to clarify in full detail: the controversy over Goma's antisemitism (with its implications for the scandal with VT), what Goma initially said about the Commission, what Goma said about VT, what VT replied, what Goma ultimately said about other Commission members. Not clarifying these issues is a serious enough problem; addessing them as "personal issues" is more so (consider an article about a teacher who verbally attacks the principal of the school and, related or unrelated, other members of the school board; then imagine the wikipedia article on him saying that he was thrown away from school "for personal reasons"). Dahn 20:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe User:Dahn would consider translating that passage and explaing where it comes from and when it was published. In my oppinion, the dismissal letter is explicit. There is no futher point in the discussion after that. Icar 20:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It comes from the goddamn interview you claim to have read yourself. Dahn 20:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I regret that I have to answer. In any case: the interview is 2 month older than the facts. It does not support User:Dahn's claims. In fact this user tries to wear our patience thin here by being absurd. It the passage quoted, as far as I get all the subtelties, it is never claimed that Goma had questioned the Commission memebrs other than Tismaneanu. So User:Dahn's position is simply unexplainable. i have had enough of this bad faith and cursing. I call a vote on the issue of wheter to maintain the absurd POV of User:Dahn or replace it with the version by Icar as supported also by AdrianTM. Icar 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This is my version, Icar: "he was dismissed by the Commission's president, Vladimir Tismăneanu, who justified the exclusion based on Goma's implicit and later explicit refusal to recognize the board as a valid instrument". It is in perfect line with the text I have rendered above. I don't know what the hell you are talking about, but you are obviously not paying attention. Dahn 20:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all calm down, take a deep breath... count to 10... whatever helps. Second, if you keep this version at least you should say something like "refusal to recognize Tismăneanu moral and academic authority... etc" not the board because it looks like primary issue was Goma's personal problem with Tismăneanu, not with the board. (and Tismăneanu says the same thing as far as I gather) -- AdrianTM 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I have said, I can see it being rephrased on such a way. Only if detail on the previous scandal is specified, with the connections indicated, and only if Goma's repeated attacks on other members of the Commission, around and after that date, are also mentioned.

Do me the favor of refraining from coaching me next time (after all, you had no "advice" to give the person who keeps trolling on this page). Dahn 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you were out of the line in this discussion. Icar used normal language. -- AdrianTM 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, good that you're not an admin then. Dahn 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AdrianTM, I did not even talk directly to User:Dahn! He still managed to threaten me twice and to spew out profanity, also twice. He also mistreated you. More sadly, he trolled us the whole evening. He is pushing unsourced info which contradicts all available sources and which we should remove without further ado. Icar 21:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, more of this. Dahn 21:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The version pushed by User:Dahn is in contradiction with all the texts quoted here. Goma's membership lasted for 9 days. On day 6, Tismaneanu thanks Goma for his views on the commission. On day 7 he finds old texts by Goma. Day 9: he dismisses Goma because of the two reasons I explained, both of them strictly personal, having nothing to do with the commission members. Icar 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, what are you on about? Dahn 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

and I do not talk to people who use the vocabulary User:Dahn seems to enjoy. Icar 20:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good for you. I'm pretty sure that more than makes up for the gazillion personal attacks you aimed at me, the for all the nonsense you keep claiming about me. Dahn 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about User:Dahn so profanity is to be left at the door. Icar 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there an admin reading the above remark, or does this warrant a complaint? Dahn 21:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that what User:Dahn has been doing on this talk page fully qualifies as trolling. User:Dahn pretends not to understand the obvious facts, just to prolong the discussion needlessly. Profanity is what User:Dahn has used twice in this talk section in the past hour. Any complaint would be as absurd as this whole discussion. In fact, I would welcome it as it would expose the abject trolling we were subjected to here. Icar 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I modified the page detailing to the two causes that appear from the sources cited and also in the e-mail of VT to Goma of 4/14/2006. The POV pushed by User:Dahn is unsourced and will be immediately removed. Icar 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ostinato published in Romania first?

Can anyone find some info about Ostinato being published first in Romania? -- AdrianTM 05:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Is not the same with "Camera de alǎturi, Bucharest, 1968.", right? -- AdrianTM 05:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Nonsensical revert by User:Khoikhoi

honorary citizen is mentioned 3 times in the current version and twice in the last by Khoikhoi, who protests aginst alleged lack of sources. Maybe one should first read an article one is told to revert... Icar 14:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Timişoara

I do not want to get caught up in the dispute concering reverts to this page. But, for the record, I checked a couple of months ago (when I worked for a while on this article) that the information about Goma having been made a honorarary citizen of Timişoara is correct. There are many sources for this. Instead of listing them, let me provide a transcript of the actual decision by the mayor of Timişoara, Gheorghe Ciuhandu, as found here:

ROMÂNIA JUDEŢUL TIMIŞ PRIMĂRIA MUNICIPIULUI TIMIŞOARA CABINET PRIMAR

Bd. C.D. Loga nr. 1, Timişoara, tel: 0040256 – 409363, fax0040256 – 409635 ,

e-mail: gheorghe. ciuhandu@primariatm.ro internet: www.primariatm.ro

Către Domnul Paul Goma

Stimate domnule Paul Goma,

În conformitate cu prevederile art. 50 din Legea nr. 215/2001 privind administraţia publică locală, modificată şi completată de Legea nr. 286/2006;

Vă comunicăm:

HOTĂRÂREA NR. 1/30.01.2007 – privind conferirea Titlului de Cetăţean de Onoare al Municipiului Timişoara domnului Paul Goma.

Hotărârea a fost adoptată în şedinţa Consiliului Local al Municipiului Timişoara din data de 30 ianuarie 2007.

Hotărârea menţionată poate fi accesată şi pe site-ul HYPERLINK "http://www.primariatm.ro" www.primariatm.ro.

Cutuma Consiliului Local Timişoara este ca, după acordarea lor, titlurile de Cetăţean de Onoare să fie înmânate direct, în şedinţele Consiliului Local. Dată fiind situaţia excepţională în care vă aflaţi, ar exista două variante pentru a vă înmâna acest titlu: ori să aflteptăm până la o dată la care veţi putea să veniţi în România şi să vi-l înmânăm într-o şedinţă a Consiliului Local, afla cum facem de obicei în astfel de cazuri, ori să vă trimitem Diploma de Cetăţean de Onoare printr-un serviciu de curierat. Aşteptăm propunerea dumneavoastră vizavi de modul în care doriţi să intraţi în posesia acestui titlu.

Cu respect,

Gheorghe Ciuhandu,

Primarul Municipiului Timişoara

I didn't check the link www.primariatm.ro but I guess, if one wants to make 100% sure, one could look for this email from Ciuhandu to Goma there. Turgidson 14:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess that sources it. Note, however, that this should go hand in hand with a mention of the Jewish Community's protest (which is, incidentally, the main topic of the link you provide). This article is still filled with half truths: I have provided sources in the hope that someone else would help me clarify certain issues, but it seems that no such story gets to have two sides until I intervene (and, when I do, there's the usual scandal and vicious personal attacks). Dahn 14:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, both sides of the story should be given. In fact, the article has the sentence "In February 2007, the Federation of Jewish Communities of Romania and the Israeli Embassy protested against the distinction, arguing that Paul Goma is the author of multiple antisemitic articles" which pretty much balances things out (as it stands now), though of course, one could conceivably expand on it (especially if more info is added about the honorary citizenship). In the meantime, I checked that Gheorghe Ciuhandu is indeed a known public figure, with a wikipage (sorry, never heard of the guy before), so I think I'll go ahead and mention this in both the article on Goma and on him (after double checking things on the www.primariatm.ro to make 100% sure, I don't want to make a mistake), since it looks newsy enough to me. Before I spend too much time on this, does anyone see any reason not to mention this story in more detail in respective articles (again, one can add countervailing points after that, if one wants, I have nothing against it---in fact, I think it's the right thing to do in such a situation)? Turgidson 14:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I for one do not object. In fact, I would like you to intervene in expanding or rephrasing other issues in the Controversy section, if you should want to. I have confidence that you can provide a neutral overlook. I can and will provide more detail myself in the future (i.e.: if I am allowed to). Dahn 15:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do. But there is that much one can do at once -- and there are competing interests both here at wikipedia (and in real life) that I find more gripping. I need some time to look at this, and to familiarize myself better with the subject before contributing further, but if anyone appreciates it, I'll do it. And I'll be happy to collaborate, and seek whatever thougthful compromise can be found on this touchy subject -- within the time constraints that I mentioned. Turgidson 15:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

As in the article on Tismăneanu, the description of contrversy puts Goma in a bad light (worse than actually it is). For once, one of the reasons of his dimissal was going public on a private correspondence. The sources say it, Icar tried to add it, he was reverted. The other issue is that summarizing the conflict Goma's POV is briefed under "personal issues". As this article is about Goma, as he's a living person, I find it very unfair to him. He has detailed in his site and in interviews much more than "personal issues". As it is, his dismissal seems rather moody from his side. Maybe it was, but he doesn't claim that way, and you're ignoring totally his view ("Nu trebue sa scrie[t]i: ati scris ce trebuia scris" or "Nu, Vladimir Tismăneanu nu este deloc omul potrivit la locul potrivit." - using the same source which used to reference "personal issues" - it's a serious case of misrepresentation and OR). This is unacceptable in an article dedicated to him. Since there's an edit war and no apparent chance of an immediate solution, I believe that section deserves a POV-tagging. You may remove it when you'll actually start to get that section moving and stop reverting each other.

On the removal of Timişoara's honorary citizenship, the reverts were at least double-standarded as that information already exists in the article in this section of controversy. Daizus 14:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I remember providing a source in which Goma admitted that his appointment covered the approval a written text, not the authoring of texts, and clearly stated that it was not his job to write the text. Regardless of how moody he may be, it seems that Goma argues that VT dismissed him on the basis of personal issues between the two of them, and considers this to be unfair. Whatever one may contend VT answered Goma, it is not what Icar (and AdrianTM) dismissively contend it was - rephrase the version I gave, if you will, detail on what you consider the issues to be, but don't pretend Goma and VT had a quarrel about some secondary issue and VT sent Goma home because he couldn't stand "acceptable" criticism. Btw, the quote you give clarifies, if needed, that Goma wanted the Commission without VT on it, which means both that he dismissed its expertise and that he changed his mind (not to mention that he changed his mind while personally attacking VT). And, Daizus, I remember urging you to the same for the VT article (reason why I sandboxed it a while ago).

I don't even know where to start picking at this article, given that so much of it needs to be detailed and/or rephrased. If you want real POV, check out the way in which the discourse surrounding his [alleged] Holocaust denial is basically tagged as "some people say about some articles", while I could easily write two paragraphs from respected academic sources that comment about which writings, why, and how. One should also expand on Goma's criticism of other members of the Commission, also a controversial issue. I have also provided sources for other controversies involving Goma, and no one seems to care.

I am willing to revisit the sources and complete this article in the future. The question is: will I be allowed to? Or will I have to stand all sorts of inane accusations such as being "a Trotskyist"? Dahn 15:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The text which is in this page is copied from Tismăneanu's article and I remember it was objected to, as well (but those discussions were heated and probably many arguments were lost between insults and rather irrelevant rhetoric - I'm not trying to put a blame on someone - please note the impersonal tone -, so let's refrain from that). I don't remember the source you're mentioning, Goma was (in the occurences I remember among those sources) troubled by the fact he was excluded from writing in this report (he indeed has an interview "nu am amănunte de studiat", but I believe it's rather a matter of semantics - and Goma seems to cares about that! - he says he won't elaborate but at the same time he stresses he's a writer, but he writes what he has lived; I believe "elaborate" is rather semantically connected to "writing politics" than "writing"; I know it's OR, but also it's OR to consider he admitted he won't write in that report based on that; either quote him for what he actually said or not at all!)

Also, if you want to be fair, let's keep separate what Goma thinks of this dismissal and what VT thinks. Beside some opinions in newspapers, Goma gives also those 11 points referenced as source. Do not judge a change of mind, unless the words are the same except for a "not" particle (I'm exagerating perhaps a bit, but please be careful on tricky synonymies). I believe we should value a bit more those 11 points and neither from your reply, nor in that text, I can't figure out how those 11 points are reductible to "personal issues". Some of the points are about personal issues, but some are obviously not.

I'm picking on this section and not on others simply because on this issue I've read already the sources. Provide more sources and as I'll have time I'll read them and agree/disagree with your interpretations, comments or the content you'll provide. I'm supporting any edit you make as long as it improves what we have or at least it opens a promising path for it. Daizus 15:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's establish this, for both this page and the one on VT, Daizus: the version I gave provides both points of view, and does not favor any of them. You may object to the way in which I summarized them, but let us note that: after I had edited the text, I was told by some users that I was providing too much detail, and by others that I was not providing enough. I would think that the best compromise is to indicate what both sources said, with the least of paraphrases - will this be a reasonable approach? Furthermore:

The source I made reference to about Goma's job to write the report is his interview in Cotidianul (currently cited on VT's page). Note that I did not draw any conclusion in the text, and not even added this detail (just commented on it on the talk page there); its use is to establish that one should refrain from quoting Goma indiscriminately - not only is the fact that he publicized VT's letter controversial, but one can easily note that VT did not "casually explain" to him that he was to do nothing on the board (at worse, Goma knew that he was going to do nothing on the board). What I am saying is that there is a tendency to present Goma's conclusions about the facts as the accurate representation of facts. As a consequence, I had to paraphrase, not meaning to dismiss Goma in the process. This is how "personal issues" came about, and I still believe it is legitimate: he argued that VT removed him(or whatever the word is) from the board because he took issue with this and this comment he made, not because he had a valid reason that would hold in court. If you ask me, in doing so, Goma is contradicting himself and building himself a straw man, but this is not present or implicit in any of my edits. I simply avoided the finer deatils here, since insisting on them would favor Goma's unverifiable statements, instead of the issue at hand.

A matter stands as obvious: at some point, Goma did reject the entire commission, not just implicitly (by attacking its president), but explicitly (by speculating about the alleged lack of expertise of all its members, and by urging the country's President to appoint a new Commission around, well, him and his friends). I intend to source this through both the primary source and the secondary ones (for example, Bedros Horasangian's comments on Goma's allegations about Alexandru Zub).

One final point. If the two sides were separated in all my versions, it is as clear as a summer day that, of the two, one has the official capacity, the other has the allegations. Therefore, the relation is not "what VT thinks, what Goma thinks", but rather "VT dismissed him on the basis of___, Goma contends that the real reasons were____". Additional accusations by Goma are merely additional accusations by Goma. If you think the issue should be detailed further, I have nothing against it, as long as it is done on the basis of this. Dahn 16:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually it would be interesting to know how exactly VT dismissed Goma, was it a letter? What did it say? That's more relevant then some ulterior interviews in press. -- AdrianTM 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he had to dismiss him in any particular way. His explanation is the reason. Dahn 19:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought you talk about official dismissal "VT dismissed him on the basis of___" if it was official it would have need an official explanation, I guess... although in Romania things are done like this, you read in papers that you've been dismissed. -- AdrianTM 19:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AdrianTM, let's not get into another pointless argument. VT was in an official capacity, Goma was not. Dahn 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into any argument, I just wished to present such official dismissal letter if it exists... if it doesn't then we can't present it, can we? -- AdrianTM 20:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see any relevancy in that comment. Dahn 20:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

We were talking about dismissal, I asked if we have an official letter to use the info from that. How is that not relevant? We don't have -- then it's end of discussion. -- AdrianTM 20:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What discussion? The one about the reason for him not being accepted? Just how does that make sense to you? And, in fact, how do Goma and VT disagree on the reasons? Goma says, apparently, that VT's reason is not good enough, right? But how does that even begin to affect the reason? And how does that begin to explain the fact that Goma considered VT incompatible with his office? Just what are you talking about, after all? Dahn 21:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant: "the end of the discussion that I opened". I thought it was clear from context, sorry if my English is not that clear. -- AdrianTM 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, my original comment was in reference to VT's reasons, not to any procedure that we should apparently assume he needed to comply with. Dahn 22:01, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, I also argued the VT article violates NPOV also because the section on Goma. My objection is to the way the POVs are presented. And it's not a matter of great detail but of an unfair summary. Also you are wrong on that tendency, all what is required is that Goma's view in the debates he participates to be indeed his view and not yours, or VT's or anyone else's. Because the way I see it VT represents his own view, but also Goma's (rather from VT's interview in 22 one can draw the conclusion the reasons invoked by Goma are just "personal issues").

The article from Cotidianu is exactly the article I mentioned "Eu nu am amănunte de studiat". It contains no such statement that he won't write (the term he uses is "elaborate" which is a different semantics and in a different context - "ucenici" - and you can't accuse Goma of changing his mind on your interpretation); moreover if we're to stay in semantics, in his 11 points paper, he argues he was offended by the position the Commission had when they told him not to write and not by the simply by the fact he was forbidden to write, so even if he'd say somewhere bluntly "I didn't want to write in that report anyway", it's not quite a contradiction, it doesn't appear he changed his mind. He says "Distribuirea rolului mut m-a rănit, dar nu m-a determinat să-l trimit pe distribuitor la plimbare.". You may hate semantics, you mate hate to weigh word by word, but it's about making potentially harmful accusations and characterizations on a living person. Goma hasn't changed his mind because you view it that way, Goma is not moody because you view it that way. You have to get a source to admit that or get an obvious denial, without being endagered by tricky semantics. So for the main article, at this moment, Goma is not moody, regardless of what we believe. Also you claiming that without summarizing by "personal issues" you'd have to show Goma moody or launching straw men I find it disingineous. I don't think it's so hard to realize Goma criticizes the members of Commision while he perpetuates a self-image of persona non grata (please note also all those dichotomies in the Cotidianu interview). After all Goma doesn't say explicitely in that paper why the Commission dismissed him. He gives a polemic rebuttal to VT's interview.

I don't understand what you mean by "casual explanation". It's obvious VT told Goma "you shouldn't write, you already wrote what it should have been written". From Goma's point of view (defining himself as a writer) that suggests him he should do nothing. Again, you should represent Goma's view and not what "one can easily note".

Since Goma was not officially invited in the Commission, addressing an official dismissal is absurd. He received a private letter to participate and he was later dismissed. He was dismissed by the the one who asked him to participate in Commission in a private conversation. So it was rather a personal dismissal. Or at best he could tell the case to his colleagues and together reject Goma's participation in Commission. Though again, not Goma asked for it. Moreover, the Commission is not authorized to judge in any way the controversy between VT and Goma or between any member of the Commission and an outsider; it was authorized only to study Communism. Of course, it has some control over its members, but no more than that. Let's not create illusory authorities and demonize all who oppose them. Daizus 22:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Only for good faith editors

Please, do not engage in sterile arguments. The reasons for the dismissal were given by Tismaneanu in e-mails to Goma. I repeat: In Goma's 2006 Journal here we find Tismaneanu's invitation e-mail (page 88) dated April 4, 2006, as well as the "dismissal" e-mail (pp. 110-111) dated April 14 (so 9 days later). In the second message the two causes for the break (Goma's unauthorised posting of a personal letter from VT and Goma's questioning in his Journal of VT's scientific credibility) are invoked. There is absolutely no mention at that time of the other members of the bord. User:Dahn has entirely fabricated that information. In fact, Tismaneanu writes to Goma on April 11: "I appreciate your position regarding the Commission members" (my translation from Goma's 2006 Journal, page 101). Now we have an editor who wants to do original research and dig for reasons other than those invoked by Tismaneanu. It is his right, but not here. Any such activity is highly unwelcome and constitutes trolling. The current version implicit and later explicit is a showcase of bad-faith. How can you dare to justify a dismissal by a posteriori reasons? Icar 08:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Icar, in the section above I've been trying to criticize the wording of that paragraph, inherited from VT's article. a) It was not noted that Goma's written material is actually a reply to VT's interview, so the apparent reasons are actually the reasons given by VT himself, Goma only replying to them. b) From the version which was reverted I agreed with at least two edits, given the current sourcing of the page b1) yes, the private conversation had a role, as admitted by VT himself in that interview ("au fost doua argumente" section) b2) no, Goma does not maintain "personal issues" played the bigger part.

Indeed you raise a fine point, as even in that interview VT argues the reason for dismissal is only that Goma questioned his credibility (though VT makes a mention he has a responsability for all the members of the Commission, so maybe that should be mentioned somehow). The questioning of the other members is a fact (Goma does so even in the interview where he announces he will probably be part of the Commission: "Cei care studiaza istoria pe felii, se asaza si isi scot note nu sint istorici, vor fi niste functionari.", "Mai inainte fusese un alt surogat de comisie, cel al lui Oprea. Cine este acest Oprea? [...] N-o sa fiu coleg cu el. Sa fie sanatos daca va face si el parte din comisie. Eu nici nu sint sigur ca voi fi acceptat acolo."), but it is yet to be proven that actually played a role in influencing VT to dismiss Goma. Daizus 08:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Since I see the revert war continues...

I checked again the reference "Tismăneanu, in (Romanian) Armand Gosu, "N-am avut de-a face cu Securitatea", in 22, nr.849, June 2006" and to me it seems that Tismăneanu said very clearly what the reasons were for dismissing Goma, he even enumerate them.

What User:Dahn keeps reverting is a pretty close version to what Tismăneanu himself said. Dahn uses in this case an interpretation of what Tismăneanu said instead of using what actually Tismăneanu said, I'm a little bit disappointed since Dahn in other cases made special point of promoting the exact information, not the interpretation of it, while in this case he acts exactly in the opposite manner. As I said before, I don't care much, I think both variants are kind of OKish, but to end this revert war I suggest Dahn read again the reference and accept the version with what Tismăneanu said, not what he implied. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 16:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to make it sound more like what Tismăneanu said, if this doesn't work maybe we should just translate and quote him, can we do that, at least in that case there's no place for our POVs. I still like better my former variant with "who explained the exclusion based on Goma's questioning of Tismaneanu's moral and scientific credibility" than "who explained the exclusion based on Goma's questioning the moral and scientific credibility of the president of the Commission", but the later one is probably closer to what has been said. -- AdrianTM 17:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

POV tag

What needs to be removed/added to get rid of that tag? I'm not sure I understand in which way is that biased. (please edit the section to your desire, instead of adding POV tag, I think that's the best option) -- AdrianTM 02:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have said what needs to be added: an exhaustive treatment of the controversy involving his antisemitism, where professional sources abound; a clear mention of the fact that he also rejected the Commission as a whole. If I were to work on this article, I would add, rephrase, and apply the MoS profusely, all of which would take up a lot of my time, and would be made especially difficult by the activities of a certain POV-pusher. I'm willing to do that in the future, just as I'm willing to work on many such articles (I'm sure the said POV-pusher knows of them), but, until such time, the tag stays, per WP:Undue weight and WP:Attribution. Dahn 02:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree that info needs to be added I fail to see where the undue weight is placed since both points of view are presented I think in a fair light (although not complete light). Anyway, I guess I'm fine with the tag as long somebody will add the needed info at some point in time... -- AdrianTM 03:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also concerned about one thing regarding undue weight, the 1977 fight for human rights where Goma made his name is treated in couple of measly sentences while the controversy might end up being a huge paragraph, while the controversy is more current the history will remember (or should remember) Goma for what he did in 1977, that's also what is he known for, not for controversy, if he were just an antisemitic POV pusher nobody would really care. So I think the controversy paragraph has to be developed in parallel with developing the part about his anti-communist and pro human right actions. -- AdrianTM 03:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

AdrianTM, I have said it several times by now: the article as a whole should be developed (if I were to look only through what was used to source the article at this stage, I could still milk it for relevant detail about his entire biography - if you remember, I already tried to). In my search for sources, I came across ones that deal with his entire life - both his fringe theories about the Holocaust and his activities as a dissident; they are published by third-party sources (or, at least, sources that were third-party until Goma started implying that everyone was against him).

In short, this article is sloppy. Aside from its unique take on the MoS, it does no justice to Goma's biography - whatever attitude one may have toward him. It is also outrageous, IMO, that no real effort was made to source it with anything outside of what Goma has said about himself (the few outside sources generally sing in his tune). Dahn 03:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it's not (only) my fault the article is sloppy when I started to add info the whole article was only two-tree paragraphs almost without any sourced info. As always feel free to add, I added whatever I could find in my free time. -- AdrianTM 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a jerk, but most of the article still isn't sourced, and the disregard for MoS guidelines still isn't accounted for. Dahn 03:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Romanian citizen

Dear Sirs, Paul Goma is a Romanian citizen, as shown here. The blog is of a Romanian MP, former Minister of Economy and Finance in Tariceanu government. The english translation of the article (google): „A laudable action has been started recently to request the return of Romanian citizenship writer Paul Goma, one of the most courageous dissidents of communism. This initiative was supported by a petition addressed to Parliament and signed by hundreds of personalities of Romanian culture and a political statement in the Chamber of Deputies. I made ​​the necessary arrangements with the Ministry of Justice - National Authority for Citizenship and the Ministry of Interior - General Directorate of Passports. By letter no. 689084/21.10.2011, MIA - DGP communicate, following our request, as Mr. Paul Goma included in the records of the authoritative status of Roman citizen, according to art. 34 of Law 21/1991 Romanian citizenship, in other words, his Romanian citizenship was never withdrawn. This does not mean, however, that steps on granting respect and support owed ​​to a great Romanian patriot, as Goma should not continue”.--Mahetin (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Freely lincensed images

For better quality freely licensed images of Mr. Goma, consider taking snapshots of this interview --damiens.rf 08:56, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paul Goma. 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/20071012140044/http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=169748&data=2005-02-17&ziua=2bd5b7026bde1020c81c2fd5eb84e9c0 to http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=169748&data=2005-02-17&ziua=2bd5b7026bde1020c81c2fd5eb84e9c0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008065724/http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?art=2802&nr=2006-06-16 to http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?art=2802&nr=2006-06-16

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)