Talk:Nicolae Densușianu

Dan Alexe

Dan Alexe's work has been published by the prestigious Romanian publishing house Humanitas. It is therefore WP:RS. The statement is attributed to its author, it is not stated in the voice of Wikipedia. But this being said, it is in perfect conformity with all serious Romanian historians who have read Densușianu's Dacia preistorica: endorsement of his work by a serious historian is seen as a symptom of Alzheimer's disease. All major Romanian historians from the past 100 years have rejected that work as fanciful pseudohistory and internationally he is no longer read, so forget about being taken seriously. This is Wikipedia: according to WP:ARBPS we don't do WP:GEVAL (see principle 16 of the final decision). So WP:PARITY does apply and Alexe and Ciurtin are perfectly to the point. This is a WP:FRINGE/PS article since Densușianu has a following in Romania only among nationalist wackos: serious nationalist intellectuals consider his work an embarrassment. There were luminaries of Romanian historiography, who were nationalists and found his book appalling. Example: he has stated that Orăștie is the place where lies buried Orestes. How does he know? Well, they sound similarly (which is a symptom of delirium, Alexe's claim is not rocket science). Other examples: "Atlas=Alutus=Olt=Muntii Oltului; Pharanx=Paring; Colchis=Colti (Buzau); Phasis=Buzau; Terrigenae=Tirighina; Ardalos=Ardeal; Zalmoxis=Zeul Mos; Latona=Letea; Selene=Sulina; Saturn-Noe-Novac etc. etc." (Mircea Babeș, [1]). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

pe de altă parte, iubirea de adevăr se opune și mă împiedică a lăuda lucruri pe care dreapta judecată mă îndeamnă să le critic. Cred că este mai bine pentru țară să fie puse deschis sub ochii locuitorilor ei mulțimea de păcate pe care le au decât să se lase înșelați prin lingușiri amăgitoare și prin dezvinovățiri iscusite, și astfel să fie încredințați că tot ce fac ei fac bine, în vreme ce toată lumea care are moravuri mai ales critică asemenea purtări.

— Dimitrie Cantemir, [2]

English speakers, use Google Translate to get an idea what it says. Never mind, here is the translation:

on the other hand, the love of truth opposes and prevents me from praising things the right judgment urges me to criticize. I think it is better for the country to be openly opened, under the eyes of its inhabitants, the multitude of sins they have but to be deceived through deluded complaints and skillful misunderstandings, and so be confident that whatever they do they do well, while everyone who has morals especially criticizes such behavior.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Dan Alexe is a blogger, journalist and filmmaker, NOT a historian (as you can see even in his wiki entry). Whether his book was published by a "prestigious" publishing house is irrelevant since he's not a professional historian/academic. Furthermore, if his view is "in conformity with serious Romanian historians" then the views of those "serious Romanian historians" should suffice. We don't need a quote for every joe who has an opinion on the subject. Lastly, Densusianu's views have NOT been rejected by ALL major historians-- case in point, Vasile Parvan (his last works), or Conf. Univ. Dr. Gheorghe D. Iscru (actual academics/historians). If we allow a blogger's views into this article then we surely must present opposite views by actual academics.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Been there, done that: Iscru is a Protochronist, therefore Iscru is WP:FRINGE/PS, while Alexe has expressed WP:MAINSTREAM scholarly views. Let Parvan speak: "his fantastic novel Dacia preistorică, crammed with absurd mythology and absurd philology, which since its publication arose an unbounded admiration and enthusiasm among the Romanian archaeology dilettantes". Alexandru D. Xenopol: "The theory of this author that Dacians would have coagulated the first civilization of the humankind shows that we deal with a product of chauvinism, not a product of science". Source: Mircea Babeș, "Renașterea Daciei?", Observatorul Cultural, 9 September 2003. I do remind you that WP:PARITY applies to WP:FRINGE subjects, so all reasonable mainstream sources are permitted, the bar is much lower since serious scholars no longer discuss about Densușianu in peer-reviewed publications. I do not know if it is intentional or only because of being gauche, but your edits are an embarrassment for the Romanian national cause. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion on another article (Origin of the Romanians) so it's useless to go over it again. As you should well know, Parvan changed his mind about Densusianu towards the end of his life (which is why I said Parvan's last works). Anyway, Parvan or Iscru are irrelevant to the inclusion of Alexe in this article (Iscru is not even mentioned in the article and, since we have a quote from early Parvan I'll make sure to add some later ones too, for balance). I only mentioned them to illustrate the ridiculousness of including a quote from this individual. THE POINT IS: Dan Alexe is NOT an expert and his opinion is irrelevant to this article, as he's not WP:RS. Does Dan Alexe teach history at a University? Where? Has he published any academic work on the subject? Name them. To bootIovaniorgovan (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC) we already have WP:RS opinions of actual historians in this article, all along the same lines, so why do we also need a blogger's opinion on this? That's redundant at best. If you can't answer those questions then these edits will be removed from the article. Feel free to ask for a third opinion, etc.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexe isn't "just a blogger". He is a notable intellectual, published by Humanitas and WP:PARITY does apply, since he expresses WP:MAINSTREAM views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, he's an "intellectual"? Whatever that means... So you haven't been able to answer any of my questions. Please ask for a third opinion or make any recourse you might like, or else the edits will be reverted.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:PARITY is a content guideline. So it trumps local WP:CONSENSUS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

1. WP:PARITY states that "Parity of sources may mean that certain fringe theories are only reliably and verifiably reported on, or criticized, in alternative venues from those that are typically considered reliable sources for scientific topics on Wikipedia. [...] Views of adherents should not be excluded from an article on creation science solely on the basis that their work lacks peer review." So, if accepting that we're dealing here with a "fringe theory" we should be able to include views of authors (not necessarily academics or published by "reputable" publications) that support it. Thanks for clearing that up! I'll get to it and any further disputes re. the inclusion of more material will refer back to this.

2. Back to the point of the dispute. As for the street philosopher in question here, his comments are simply REDUNDANT. As per this Wiki guideline on content, we should "Maintain scope and avoid redundancy". This other "guideline" states that "as a rule; if the material is factual, and if it's not entirely irrelevant to the topic, it should not be excluded.". However, the comments you included are NOT FACTUAL, but only contain frivolous "name-calling", which adds nothing of worth to the content of the article.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

So, do you deny that Densușianu was factually delirious? Because, yes, this is how his work appears to aware intellectuals: a product of delirium. Parvan disagreed only because he thought the genre of the book is fantasy (this is why The Da Vinci Code is not delirium). So, we know what Parvan thought about Densusianu because Marinov has spelled it out for us. Brill is much more prestigious than Humanitas, Brill is a scholarly publishing house of high worldwide reputation. See WP:IRS for details. So, yes, this means that publication by Humanitas or by Brill satisfies one requirement for being a WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

My opinion doesn't matter. You are again deflecting. Dan Alexe's quotes are REDUNDANT AND NOT FACTUAL, hence they don't belong here, as per wiki guidelines (see above). This is my last comment here, please ask for a third opinion or I will. Also, please refrain from adding similar stuff while we're in the middle of a discussion. Or are you purposely trying to provoke and muddy the waters?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Refrain from adding WP:VERifiable information from high-quality sources? You must be joking, right? No serious scholar takes Prehistoric Dacia seriously, it is as WP:FRINGE/PS as it can be and Wikipedians do not like editors who push WP:PROFRINGE POVs. Violate WP:FRINGE and you will end blocked or banned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You again misunderstand or purposely misstate the nature of this debate. The argument is not over whether Densusianu is fringe, but rather if we should allow REDUNDANT AND NON FACTUAL comments (see Wiki guidelines above) from a blogger/filmmaker into an article that already violates WP:PARITY ("Inclusion and exclusion of content related to fringe theories and criticism of fringe theories may be done by means of a rough parity of sources.)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

If you think that citing Alexe would violate WP:PARITY, you have misread it. I suggest reading it again, very carefully. Not only that being published by Humanitas ensures that it is a WP:RS, but WP:PARITY allows us to use lower-quality WP:RS which render the WP:MAINSTREAM position. So, Alexe is not a WP:RS in respect to the history of the Romanians, but he is a WP:RS in respect to Densusianu. If you have any doubts about that, ask at WP:FTN.

Wikipedia is mainly a venue for expressing views supported by established science and peer-reviewed scholarship (and perhaps reputable press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.

Supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is, therefore, required of all editors. Failure to respect mainstream science leads to the loss of disputes, and may result in being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, your claims must be backed by reputable science or peer-reviewed scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then you must refrain from making a particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar; Wikipedia is not the venue for revising scientific opinion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:30, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You may want to read my last comment again. My main contention is that Alexe's "comments" are REDUNDANT AND NON FACTUAL (as per Wiki guidelines). My secondary contention is that his comments are redundant and non factual in an article that already violates WP:PARITY. Since I've gotten to a point where I have to repeat my statements, I think it's time for 3O (feel free to list for 3O, since you started this, or your edit will be removed).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

You have a quite peculiar reading of WP:PAGs. That's why I told you to ask at WP:FTN. Your view that our article would violate WP:FRINGE, WP:PARITY, WP:DUE and so on is not supported by facts, it is based upon your misreading of policies and guidelines. So, go ahead, violate WP:RULES and I will ask that you get blocked or banned. WP:AE is pretty close from here. “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

If you're so cocksure about all things Wiki why are you afraid to call for 3O?Iovaniorgovan (talk) 05:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, local consensus cannot trump a content guideline, so a third opinion cannot trump a content guideline. So, getting a third opinion is in the best case useless and in the worst case it just muddies the waters. Also, you're in no position to give me ultimatums. If you or anyone else deletes the sourced information which is now in the article, WP:AE is the way to go, I won't ask for a third opinion. And, indeed Ciurtin was right: about Densusianu's book there is almost nothing available on JSTOR and EBSCO (Academic Search Alumni Edition and Business Source Alumni Edition). So: his "famous" work was indeed forgotten. Scholars have plonked him. His theory does not even get rejected, let alone approved of. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

And neither are you in a position to give me an ultimatum. Obviously we have different views on how Wiki content guidelines are being applied here. A 3O cannot trump but it can verify that content guidelines are being followed (or not, as is my opinion in this case). You are not the be-all and end-all of Wikipedia to lord over these pages and make edits willy-nilly. So if you think your edit abides by Wiki guidelines then stand by it and, since you're the one who's trying to shoehorn those comments in here, you should go ahead and ask for a 3O that can verify whether your view is correct or not. But since you're afraid to do that for some reason, I'll do it myself. I mean, I'm not completely sure about my views, which is why a 3O might clarify things. Worse comes to worse, we'll all learn something. If no 3O is rendered I will delete your "Dan Alexe" edit and then feel free to go to arbitration, if necessary, I have no problem with that.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I have repeatedly told you about WP:FTN. I will start a topic there. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu; I have asked for a 3O. Hope we can settle this amicably.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I had already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Nicolae Densușianu. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, we're getting there. Now, if you could find a quote from Alexe that's factual, that refers to an actual valid criticism of the book or an idea from Densusianu's book, rather that simply name-calling (which we already have enough of from actual historians), we're good. And, of course, the quote, if you can find it, should go where his current quote is (and I think one sentence should suffice). p.s. do that then feel free to delete the 3O listing.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "factual". Alexe states that from the first page of ND's book, it is clearly delirium. As far as Alexe is concerned, it is a statement of fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

By "factual" I mean criticism along the lines of "Densusianu is wrong here because of these facts...", where Alexe factually explains why he thinks Densusianu's theory doesn't hold water (either for the theory in general or any idea in particular). In other words, criticism that has content. You can only call someone names ("crazy", "phantasmagoric", "delirious" etc) so many times in one article. We get it. We don't want to end up with a catalogue of synonyms for the same thing and no actual/factual criticism. That's what I mean by redundancy in the article. It's like beating a dead horse.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 09:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Alexe offers a quote from ND's first page in support of the view that ND was delirious. It is a simple analysis of text, and indeed ND makes there patently absurd claims about the Dacians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Can you boil that down to a sentence? I mean, I don't think Alexe should get more space here than Parvan and other actual historians.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I take it that the agreement at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Nicolae Densușianu (permalink) has resolved this matter and a third opinion is no longer requested? – Reidgreg (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg The matter is resolved, as far as I'm concerned. I take it on good faith that Tgeorgescu will replace the 2 Alexe quotes currently in the article with one that satisfies the condition mentioned above. Thanks for your consideration.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu So you've combined the two sentences into one but didn't actually insert anything more substantial (though the part in the middle is fine). Currently that sentence reads "Dan Alexe stated that the book is "mystical delirium",[14] called its author "an occultist notary without schooling in history and linguistics"[15] and "a clinical case of self-delusion". Why do we need both "mystical delirium" and/or "a clinical case of self-delusion."? That's overkill. How is that not redundant? I think we can do without either of those statements and just have it read "Dan Alexe called its author "an occultist notary without schooling in history and linguistics"" (with the proviso that if you come up with a better synthesis of Alexe's views you may insert it in its place later)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

p.s. alternatively, you may remove Țurcanu's quote if you're so keen on Alexe. Else we have "mystical delirium" + "a clinical case of self-delusion" + "tireless creator of phantasmagorias" within two lines. One of those should suffice.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:49, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

If it is concise and makes the point clearer, redundancy is not a sin, it's a virtue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One of those quotes was removed; you got a problem with that feel free to ask for 3O or make any recourse you think is necessary.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 00:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Note to the reader When Iovaniorgovan got topic banned, he was told nicely to become productive editing upon other, less controversial, subjects, but he did not oblige. So, redoing his removals could be seen as proxying for an editor which is not in good standing. Also note that he did not edit for the past years. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have reverted WP:PROFRINGE vandalism.

About Florin Țurcanu see https://www.amazon.com/Mircea-Eliade-Prisonnier-Florin-Turcanu/dp/2707129542

Andrei Oișteanu is a Romanian full professor.

Humanitas is the most prestigious publishing house from Romania, i.e the Valhalla of intellectuals.

Dan Alexe is not in the same league with Charles Austin Beard but he is a Romanian version of Bill Nye.

Observator Cultural and Revista 22 are two Romanian reviews for intellectuals.

These being said, ND had notable contributions to the history of Romania, recognized by other Romanian historians, but no such contributions in Ancient history. He was wholly unprepared to write about Ancient history. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Lazartudr: I don't care about Gimbutas. The article isn't about her anyway, and the information is not sourced. I marked the information with {{citation needed}}. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)