This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles–and, where it hasn't, adding it.
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Children's literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Children's literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Children's literatureWikipedia:WikiProject Children's literatureTemplate:WikiProject Children's literaturechildren and young adult literature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hungary on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HungaryWikipedia:WikiProject HungaryTemplate:WikiProject HungaryHungary
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsVisual arts
A fact from Tudor Arghezi appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 January2026(check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that Tudor Arghezi(pictured), "perhaps the strongest personality in all of 20th-century Romanian literature", claimed that he could identify people with cancer by their smell?
Did you read the article of Sorin Toma in Scanteia,organ of the Communist Party, about Tudor Arghezi in year 1948 or 1949 with the title "Poetry of putrefaction or putrid poetry"? Then do it! For many years Arghezi fell in disfavour with the communist regime.
I.-N. Petrovici
>Did you read the article of Sorin Toma in Scanteia, organ of the Communist Party, about Tudor
>Arghezi in year 1948 or 1949 with the title "Poetry of putrefaction or putrid poetry"?
Even encyclopedic entries rely, out of necessity, on generalizations. Arghezi's relationship with and within the Romanian Communist Party is rather complex, filled with ups and downs. If one were inclined to conduct the appropriate research, the resulting information might, perhaps, warrant a Wikipedia entry of its own. Broadly speaking, however, Arghezi did provide a wealth of propagandistic content to early leaders of Communist Romania. That fact is well known and, to a significant degree, resented by a majority of Romanians.
Nonetheless, the point that Arghezi cannot be simply classified as a literary hack client to the Romanian Communist Party is well taken....
_________
How about his humorous writings? The man had real talent for such things.
Why is stuff like "putrid poetry" always remembered, but stuff like his excellent humoristic stories not remembered?
It's well worth noting that Arghezi was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a one-note type of author--but, as noted above, he is mostly remembered in light of #1) is devotional pieces #2) his political stances, & then his involvement w/ the Romanian Communist Party and #3) his very popular contributions to children's literature.
If anybody is interested in writing brief commentaries for Arghezi's topical output (for example, reasons as to why his humorous writings are, for the most part, ignored) please do so. I know I look forward to any and all Wikipedia contributions.
Latest comment: 20 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
It is incredible that the entry on "one of the foremost writers in Romania" (Encyclopaedia Britannica entry) obsesses over his "collaboration" with the Romanian Communist Party. We'd be better off just putting a link to the EB article on Arghezi.
I does not "obsses", it is in accordance with most assessements. This article is supposed to be complete, and it makes a point of his image in Comunist Romania. Read again, and you will see: that the crude attack of the communists is presented in full detail, including Arghezi's rejection and his period of living in extreme poverty; he is not made himself responsible for what Gheorghiu-Dej thought was an asset, and it is not implied that he Arghezi had become a communist. As usual, the answer to any information that does not ammount to "this Romanian was God incarnate" is a call for censorship... Dahn23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Dahn, defining Arghezi through his relationship with the Communist regime is as absurd as defining Hegel as an admirer of Napoleon Bonaparte. Those connections exist, but they are not defining. This article blows out of proportions what should be a mere footnote.
Well, let me see: was Hegel a favorite of Napoleonic propaganda? Was Hegel awarded distinctions by Napoleon's regime? Did Hegel celebrate Napoleon in his philosophy? Don't get me wrong: I respect Arghezi, I don't think that his connections make him "bad". I dislike the tone of the last paragraph of the article as is (after I have remedied its even more prominent POV), but I thought if anyone finds it controversial other than me, he could change it further. However, if you think that it is "a footnote" to stress that most distinctions given to Arghezi were on the basis of his committment to the regime (percieved committment, at the very least)... Frankly, a call for restricting info is absurd on wikipedia (which has by now a comprehensive article on Leonor Varela): if you feel that it is unbalanced with the rest of his life, then add more of the rest (although I don't see how much more you possibly could). Let me add that I respect Arghezi and I do not see his personal ideals as necessarily wrong (nor do I believe that his objective links with the Party should and could be read as part of a blacklist). Dahn15:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
I suggest such issues are restricted to the section on the relationship between Arghezi and the Communist government. But let's not mix politics and poetry. There's a lot more to Arghezi than this issue.
Aren't they already "restricted to the section on the relationship between Arghezi and the Communist government"? Unless you're referring to his works a left-winger in the 1940s, which only sophistry could attribute to "communism". Of course there is more to his life, but that is well-covered. Addition: I cannot for the love of me see why you chose to call the article "rubbish". Dahn17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
No, not really. Unless he was a hieromonk (hieromonah) or a deacon. I rather doubt he achieved that position in the space of four years. Dahn11:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
KRANKER CHERUB
Mein Engel kann bei tiefem Sich-Versenken
Der Seligkeit von ehedem gedenken.
Wie bittre Milch und Herlingsbeeren hat
Schon im Geschmack er seinen Himmel satt.
Und seine Sterne läßt er schon seit langem
Nicht als gemalte heilige Barmer prangen;
Der Abendwind beschwingt ihn auch nicht mehr
Mit seinem Duft von Wein und Öl so schwer;
Wiese und Feld, mit Blüte, Frucht und Laub
Und Farbe, wurden längst des Winters Raub;
Der Lauf der schwarzen Wasser überwallt
Von heißem, trägem, schlammigem Asphalt.
Wo immer er sein Hapt zur Ruh will legen,
Schießt Dornen gleich der Ast und das Gras Nägel.
Und seine Kraniche von einstmals ziehn
Durch ihren Himmel, aber ohne ihn.
Das ewige Leben, sein Spitzbogennest,
Sind beide ihm zuwider wie die Pest.
Zum ersten Male spürt er, ganz im stillen,
Sieht er die Zeit zerbröckeln, Widerwillen.
Denn aus dem weißen Leibe keimt herfür
Ganz ungeahnt ein irdisches Geschwür.
(Alfred Margul-Sperber)
HERUVIM BOLNAV
îngerul meu îşi mai aduce-aminte
Din fericirile-i de mai nainte.
Cerul la gust i-ajunge ca un blid
Cu laptele amar şi agurid,
Stelele lui nu şi le mai trimite
Ca nişte steaguri sfinte zugrăvite,
Si vântul serii nu-i mai dă îndemn
Cu-aromele-i de vin şi undelemn.
Livada, câmpul şi-au pierdut şi floarea
Si roadele si frunza si culoarea.
Apele negre duc subt cerul cald
Nămoluri fierte, grele, de asfalt.
Oriunde capul caută să-şi puie
Locu-i spinos şi iarba face cuie.
Cocorii trec Tăria fără el
Si nu-1 mai cheamă zborul lor defel.
Viaţa veciei, cuibul din ogivă,
Inimii lui ajuns-au deopotrivă,
Si-ntâia dată simte, cât de cât,
In dumicarea timpului, urât;
Căci neştiută-ncepe să-ncolţească
Pe trupu-i alb o bubă pământească.
Just felt the need to paste this. I think the german version could be copyrighted. Cheers.
interesting. I have a bilingual English-Romanian anthology of some of his most important poems, published by Princeton University Press. I wonder in how many languages has he been translated so far?--VMSolo21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Image copyright problem with Image:Susara-Baba.jpg
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The image Image:Susara-Baba.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tudor Arghezi. 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:
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.
Latest comment: 6 months ago23 comments3 people in discussion
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.
... that Tudor Arghezi(pictured), "perhaps the strongest personality in all of 20th-century Romanian literature", claimed he could identify cancerous people by their "smell"?
Source: Eugen Simion, "Arghezi, Tudor", in Dicționarul general al literaturii române. A/B, p. 369. Bucharest: Museum of Romanian Literature, 2016. ISBN978-973-167-381-3: El este, probabil, personalitatea cea mai puternică din literatura română a secolului al XX-lea. ("He is perhaps the strongest personality in all of 20th-century Romanian literature."). Ovid S. Crohmălniceanu, Amintiri deghizate, p. 26. Bucharest: Editura Nemira, 1994. ISBN973-9144-49-7: "Tot învîrtindu-mă printre canceroși, am început să-i recunosc după miros, domnule Crohmălniceanu", mă asigură Arghezi. [...] "Profesorul Bagdasar susținea că trebuie să am un cancer. Eu îl miroseam la el, de cum intrasem în cabinet. A și murit peste puțin timp de asta. ("'I spent so much time around cancer patients that I came to recognize them by their smell, Mr Crohmălniceanu', Arghezi would assure me. [...] 'Professor Bagdasar was of the opinion that I myself must have gotten cancer. I, on the other hand, smelled cancer on him, as soon as I walked into his practice. And he up and died a short while after.'")
Overall: So, first, this is an amazing work, and I was surprised that it is being nominated as a 5x expansion and not a Wikipedia:Good Article. I would recommend going for that if not FA. The issues below are many, but each is small, I think you can fix most of them and I'll approve.
A few parts of the article are hard to understand (not technically a DYK failure) and possibly POV (this is a DYK failure). Other parts of the article use quoted statements, which need either unquoting or specific attribution. Examples:
"...his teachers included historian Alexandru Odobescu, who was "one of the most beautiful things I ever gazed upon"." What is this trying to say? That Arghezi was romantically attracted to Odobescu? That wold be very controversial, possibly POV. That A admired O's teaching, emulated his style, what? Odobescu is never mentioned again in the article, after such a powerful yet mystifying quote.
An only slightly less mystifying quote: "Wherever Arghezi decides to be, bankruptcy soon follows." What is this referring to? I would expect either the preceding or the surrounding paragraphs to describe some bankruptcies Arghezi was involved in, but I don't see any.
Finally appearing in May 1927, the volume received "unusual praise from a majority of the critics",[113] marking his "reception as a great poet".[114] - these read like scare quotes. Either we are taking responsibility for these opinion statements, in which case we can remove the quotes, or we are possibly disagreeing with them, in which case we need to say who says so. Notice that we don't use quotes for similar other opinion statements like this throughout, starting with the very first sentence, "widely considered one of his country's greatest poets".
Similarly "After pronged hesitation", "launched modern journalism in our country", "rather sullen"
Presumably the first is meant to be "After prolonged hesitation"? Or is the intention to convey that Lovinescu was hesitating due to being gored by an impala?
"("The Prince") is most certainly one of Arghezi's first monarchist political poems" - Not quite scare quotes, but why "most certainly"? Whom are we arguing against? If we need to argue against someone, we should be specific whom.
"Also then, he relaunched Bilete, specifically to mount the counterattack. In one of its issues, he provided a belated response to Crainic, casually revealed as a sycophant." - what? Crainic is last mentioned many, many paragraphs and 7 years above; is that really what Arghezi was responding to, and what does "casually revealed as a sycophant" even mean? Casually how? Sycophant of whom, in what way? Was Bilete really launched to respond to 7 year old attacks?
"It was embarrassingly dedicated to an industrialist, Nicolae Malaxa," Embarrassingly? We are saying in Wikipedia's voice that someone should be embarrassed? Who, Arghezi, Malaxa, the reader? More importantly, this doesn't seem a proper use of Wikipedia's voice.
"He also believed that his lingering disease was only by a secret injection from a newcomer, Dumitru Grigoriu-Argeș," - he believed his disease was caused by an injection?
"an inflammatory piece called Voinicul ("Big Fella") resulted in his detainment for a 24-hour period.[187] Baroane ("Thou Baron"), carried by Informația Zilei of 30 September 1943, was Arghezi's thinly veiled attack on the German ambassador, Manfred von Killinger, and said to have been received with "immense satisfaction" by the general public" - in what way inflammatory? in what way an attack? I mean, I understand just from reading this far that Arghezi attacked everyone and anyone, but in what way? Was he anti-German in general now, after having been pro-German for most of his life, or didn't like something about Killinger specifically? In what way were these two pieces attacks?
"according to Bogdan, all Arghezis were fully supportive of the "Anglo-Americans"" - what does "all Arghezis" mean? Other family members? Their politics haven't been mentioned in the article before this point, it's a surprise that they were even active in politics. If they were, we should say that, and how. Or does this refer to all pieces written by our Arghezi?
"rejected by its still-conservative majority, who viewed him as a pornographer" - er - what? I don't see anything above this in the article that says he wrote about sex. Did he? Is this a mistranslation or some new use of "pornographer"?
had "broken out of what we believed was his path in life" - what does this mean?
"the process of recovering links with the interwar literary tradition",[257] evidencing de-Stalinization, or "the fizzling out of [communism's] fundamentalist stage". More scare quotes. If we believe that most experts would agree with this, we should rephrase and use Wikipedia'svoice. If we are in doubt we should say who says this, and possibly who disagrees and why.
Unrelated issues to POV or quotes still needing fixing:
"Nae was annoyed when he caught glimpse of Ion at a Symbolist coffeehouse, " the last mention of "Ion" was "influential dramatist Ion Luca Caragiale," and yet I think this Ion refers to Arghezi?
Similarly, "As "Iosif", young Theodorescu ingratiated himself " the same paragraph starts by referring to him as Arghezi. We should make up our minds. I recommend going through the article for Theodorescu and changing what we call him to Arghezi throughout.
Similarly I see a few "Arghezi Sr"s, but never any "Arghezi Jr"s, I think just "Arghezi" is going to be unambiguous in most if not all of these
"tuition funds from his Nae Theodorescu" - either "his father" or "Nae Theodorescu", not "his Nae Theodorescu"
"Eliazar had left the family home, breaking of almost all contact" - should be "breaking off"
poet Octavian Goga, who was leader of the led the National Agrarian Party - Department of Redundancy Department
"he would continuously write on anti-communist texts " - remove "on"
Thank you for the review. Fuller reply pending, but please let me note three things for now: 1) the article had (probably still has) a number of obvious typos, which can be fixed directly -- feel free to intervene in the actual text, which is surely easier than bringing them up here, one by one; 2) what you deem "scare-quotes" are often direct quotes from Arghezi or other period witnesses, with specified or implied attribution, which provide their exact statements, sometimes (if not always) stronger than a summary -- there is no intent of "fighting" with other sources, no implicit wink that Arghezi had this and that in mind when he said this and that -- just plain rendition of what was actually said; the other quotes are from critics and literary historians, summarizing authoritative opinions that either claim to reflect a larger consensus or interpretations that are themselves noteworthy, in a manner that is always stronger (and more advised by wikipedia) than me saying "Arghezi really was great at writing" or "Arghezi's novels were not really novels"; 3) much of the above strikes me as nitpicking, though constructive even as such. I will return with a reply and will incorporate suggestions later today. Dahn (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@GRuban: I am numbering the replies for easier reading.
1) Your reading of the Arghezi-Odobescu quote hinges on the aforementioned assumption about quotes being "scare quotes" -- please note that very few quotes in general are "scare quotes", and none in this article; perhaps I can convince you not to work with that assumption. As for the quote itself: the source includes this as Arghezi's direct recollection of school (one of the few times he actually spoke about it), and may indicate an early literary influence; I generally provide such detail simply because it seems noteworthy, rather than the bland "he was probably Odobescu's student". I don't assume that it refers to any kind of physical attraction (not least of all, because Arghezi was not just straight, but repulsed by the homosexuals he met in prison), but simply to deep admiration. I do not see a problem in how that portion of the text is written, though I could see it being construed as a problematic text if (and only if) the quote is read as a "scare quote".
2) That is a clearly attributed opinion, which follows an observation about Arghezi getting in too deep with his love of the Central Powers. I don't imagine it is unclear what kind of bankruptcy came with that sort of commitment, but anyone mystified by this can read on, and will come across Arghezi's time at Văcărești. Pandrea builds a general observation, amounting to: it was not just incidental that Arghezi would be this imprudent in choosing sides. (Similar observations were made by others, quoted at various points in the article.)
3) Same as 1). These are direct quotes from critics and experts, and quoting them does not imply disagreeing with them (nor necessarily agreeing), but rather giving the reader the verbatim verdicts that claim to summarize a larger body of opinion. The attribution can be picked up in the footnote, and it would burden the text to add "according to X and Y" for such obvious context.
4) Typo, as I'm sure you had figured out. (I revamped the whole text, and in the process misspelled some words. I think I deserve some slack. Though the effect is indeed funny, as is the image of Arghezi being "chocked-up" by Count Chockula.)
5) "Most certainly" is used because the opinion of the source used (again: attribution in the footnote) clearly identifies this piece as the start of Arghezi's monarchism. Such claims cannot be fully verified, but they're the closest we get to a chronology.
6) Rephrased, though I think it was clear that this was about a counterattack by Iorga and other right-wingers; he also answered to Crainic while he was at it.
7) Two sources refer to it being a ridiculous aspect of his career. But fine -- rephrased.
8) Missing word -- this refers to it being cured. Fixed, thanks for noticing.
9) Added more detail on why he challenged Killinger -- you're right, it should have been mentioned. However: the paragraphs before that mention Arghezi's mounting conflicts with the Antonescu regime; the paragraphs after mention that some members of Antonescu's regime probably instructed him to attack Killinger. So it is incorrect to suggest that we provide no context -- though I can see how reading through the lengthy account can become taxing, and I thank you for your great patience. (Also note: Arghezi's politics are detailed in the section on "ideology", where you can see more about how his ideas evolved, including when it came to Germany and Nazism. Baroane's text is also mentioned again in the "Arghezian prose" subsection of "Literary work". The readers can pick up more from there.) I could not locate exact detail on what Voinicul was about, but yes, it was clearly something that riled up the Antonescus.
10) Rephrased to a clearer indication that it was about his Romanian children (i. e. not Eli Lotar). This is not about their political activity, but about their opinions as citizens; there is no earlier record of these, since they were teenagers. However, the son went to prison shortly after because of a political activity.
11) The fact of his works being regarded as obscene, not just annoying, by the cultural conservatives, is in fact mentioned at length, over and over again. The exact claim that they were "pornographic" was made by Sfarmă-Piatră, which you can read in the section titled "Carlist protegé". This technically contradicts your claim: "I don't see anything above this in the article that says he wrote about sex". (The "Literary work" section, which is located below in the text, clarifies exactly what aspects were regarded as obscene or pornographic, though not in fact erotic.)
12) It is a verbatim rendition, but I have paraphrased it to clarify what Beniuc meant by that.
13) As previous: it is always best to render such wide-ranging assessments with direct quotes. They're also fun: the wording they use is much less drab than wikivoice, and offers some lexical variety while capturing the same nuance. Dahn (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The unrelated issues:
14) Fixed.
15) This is not about "making up our minds", it as about making the text less monotonous. I disagree that we should change all such mentions to "Arghezi", as the text would be maddening to read through with such repetition. It is precisely why I chose to alternate.
16) By that point in the text, we are introduced to the two Arghezi Jrs, who are generally referred to by their given names. In fact, "Arghezi Sr" is always used immediately after one of the other two Arghezis is mentioned. It clearly reduces confusion in that context.
Thanks for the response and the places you did fix, but I think I can now identify what troubles me about the places you did not fix. The article reads like we are not only trying to write about a poet, but are trying to emulate one, between the putting in elegant variation of the subject's name to the "fun" quotes that do not carry their weight in actually conveying meaning. That is not WP:NPOV, and being NPOV is a DYK requirement. If you can write entertaining text without obscuring meaning, great, do so. But here, you are obscuring. I am not claiming literary mastery but I do know how to read as well as the next person; if I find something difficult to read, I am not the exception. The quote about his instructor being beautiful is not clear; admiring someone's teaching style is not the most common usage of calling someone beautiful. The quote about bankruptcy is not clear; being sent to prison is not the most common meaning of bankruptcy. The quote about him being a pornographer is similarly not clear. The fact that he associated with poets and politicians does not mean we need to describe him in poetry and hyperbole by quoting them directly. I sympathize with you about having a dry encyclopedic voice sometimes being boring, but, it turns out, we are, in fact, an encyclopedia. In addition, in this case, however, there is no need to over-egg the pudding the way you do here, the man had a dramatic life, between being a great poet, to continuous quarrels with other poets and literary figures, to politics and multiple prison sentences. Describing just the facts of his life without embellishment will not be boring, trust me. And even if you do not so trust me, it is a requirement. --GRuban (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Let me do chapter and verse. WP:NPOV: WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV "Biased statements of opinion can be presented only with in-text attribution." That goes to what I referred to as the "scare quotes", throughout (if you want to question them being called "scare quotes", I'll accept that, and will accept them being whatever you like, perhaps "quotes without obvious in-text attribution"). It is not sufficient to write "one of the most beautiful love poems of the interwar", and the attribution can be picked up in the footnote, the attribution needs to be in-text. We need to write 'Dr. Heimlich Fahrvergnügen called it "one of the most beautiful love poems of the interwar"[ref]'. I agree that it would burden the text to add "according to X and Y" so I recommend reducing the use of such quotes to only those that are strictly necessary, but that will be your choice as writer. Not attributing in-text, however, is not an option, per WP:NPOV. --GRuban (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Don't get the part about why "most certainly" is used. Because that's clearly the opinion of the source? Well, yeah, I should hope so, I hope we're accurately stating the opinions of all the sources we're using for every sentence in the article, that doesn't mean we add "most certainly" to every other sentence either. Or is this a quote of the source without the quotation marks? --GRuban (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The "elegant variation" isn't an NPOV violation as such though the line in our article elegant variation says "gratuitous synonyms" are called "povs", an acronym of "popular orange vegetables"—a phrase that was removed from the draft of an article about carrots, it's just confusing writing, and DYK isn't required to have good writing. However I would hope you would want the reader not to be confused? For demonstrating that it is confusing, I can quote this paragraph: After World War II had broken out in 1939, Arghezi was somewhat critical of the FRN. In a discussion with Cristian Sârbu and other young poets of the Adonis circle, he claimed to have mocked the series of army mobilizations by a still-neutral Romania, since he viewed the military commanders as expanding their opportunity for graft. This resulted in his being visited by a general, who demanded that he present proof of his claims; Arghezi obliged him by printing a fake classified ad for an overpriced villa, and receiving offers to buy from a long list of sub-officers.[22] In 1940, which also witnessed Baruțu's own beginnings as a typographer[22] and writer,[135] Arghezi Sr was a prominent participant in Carol's personality cult, with encomia that spoke of his having descended from the skies to rescue his people.[136] That year, his entire activity as a journalist only covered three articles, all of which were about Carol.[108] The FRN regime crumbled soon after it had enraged Romanians, Arghezi included, by agreeing to withdraw its administration from Bessarabia and northern Bukovina, which were then annexed by the Soviet Union.[137] Is it really obvious that the "Arghezi Sr" in sentence 4 is the same person as the "Arghezi" in three other places in the paragraph? I'd argue it is not. Yes, technically "Barutu" in that sentence is "Barutu Arghezi", but he isn't referred to as "Barutu Arghezi" anywhere earlier in the whole article, and since Arghezi wasn't even Arghezi's legal name until 1956, the reader should be forgiven for not realizing Barutu (born 1925) also assumed that name. In fact, now that I think about it I would strongly recommend stating somewhere that Barutu assumed that name (in honor of his father, perhaps?) and when. --GRuban (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
As patently absurd, myopic, time-consuming and indifferent to how countless articles have been written, I will add in-text attribution to every such statement in my next edits, no matter how much it would burden the text. I will indeed take suggestions on what quotes are needed, but only from someone who makes a good-faith effort to familiarize themselves with the literature that I had to go over before making choices on what quotes summarize which position. Dahn (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please do not send me on wild goose chases for who assumed what name and when. Learn to accept that referring to Arghezi as Arghezi Sr in those paragraphs is just as good a choice as your suggestion -- and thank you for at least noticing why it was used. (As a side note: the sources casually refer to all of them as Arghezis long before the 1956 legalization.) Dahn (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Whoah. Did I mention how much I was impressed by your article? I think I started the review with that. I can understand you are unhappy with even the smallest criticism, but please realize these are small criticisms, compared to the impressive work you have already done, and please don't think I'm attacking either it or you. --GRuban (talk) 17:10, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I think I have incorporated much of what has been suggested, including things that are not DYK requirements, in my edits, so I don't see where you would assume I do not take well to criticism. I would however like you to differentiate between stylistic preferences (including the notions you found confusing, which is not an objective standard), and stuff that is actually required by DYK. Dahn (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Please don't think I am attacking you. That is not the intent. I am not stating you do not take well to criticism, I am, instead saying that your unhappiness is understandable. I am very impressed by your work, and I am glad to have you as a fellow Wikipedian. --GRuban (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
From what I can read of the article, Arghezi was a great writer, but also a prickly and generally unpleasant human. Hopefully I can succeed to emulate only one of those two qualities. --GRuban (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
He was actually described by most sources I came across as a lovely conversationalist (not an info that would make it into the article, especially since it is mostly my inference); the problem with him was that was unreliable, and people who thought he was on their side would from time to time discover what he really thought of them, usually in a public setting that they could do nothing about. It must've been spectacular in those few instances where it translated as him speaking truth to power, but usually it was just him embarrassing people who could no longer serve his interests. Dahn (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I will also add that another part of the above exchange is frustrating. I presented a case for using quotes with metaphoric or subjective language that belongs to the quoted sources, since they summarize a relevant opinion in terms that are more interesting (hence, more "fun") than the dry paraphrase of wikivoice. As an example: dry paraphrasing would not allow for "the fizzling out of communism's fundamentalist stage" in defining the cause of Arghezi's final recovery (even though this is the uniquely expressive language used by the source, with "fizzling out" perfectly capturing the exact way in which Stalinism disappeared from Romanian communism, one verb for what other authors have described across entire books), but would call for a verbal cliche about de-Stalinization.
This direct quoting is generally allowed, and I do understand that attribution may need to be clearer. However, I must object to this plea being rendered as "embellishment of facts", which, if taken at face value, implies that I advocated for distorting the historical record to make the text more captivating. [I obviously have nothing against paraphrases, even dry ones, but an article of this length that constantly uses the same few patterns of paraphrase will likely become borderline illegible.] Dahn (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@GRuban: Aaanyways, I have attributed the quotes, including those where I still believe attribution was already evident. I will not follow your suggestions regarding other rephrasing, primarily for this reason: I could (and did) come across reviewers who would just as passionately argue about doing the exact opposite of what you're recommending, and at this point I must insist that we learn to live with each other's stylistic choices. In fact, I vaguely remember articles where I had clearly used "X" for main subject of the article, only to have very pedantic users come in and instruct me that "X" also refers to X's wife and kids, and that clarification should be added wherever they are mentioned together. It is annoying as hell that I'm being told a standard exists, and that it's always another standard. That said, please update your review to let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing. Dahn (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dahn: I'm sorry for returning you to an operation you must now view as akin to a root canal, but you did not get them all. And like a root canal, necessary to fix. Basically I just search for " and see if these are quotes of a debatable statement of opinion, and the attribution is not obvious from the sentence text, and I'm afraid there are a number. Here are the first three:
Eventually singled out as a "decadent"
His "immense body of work" has a "scarcity of intimate detail", and he "did not leave a diary". (Honestly, does "did not leave a diary" really need quoting? I'd even unquote "immense body of work", I think the many works you list are uncontroversially an immense body. Your call, of course.)
As I am sure you know from WP:LEAD, we generally do not cite in the lead. Now go to the relevant section of the text: you will fond "decadent", verbatim, cited and attributed to one of TA's communist accusers, with the secondary source, the one reporting on this, briefly summarized as saying that other accusers also took up that exact charge (additionally verified by the section on Toma, which cites Toma saying stuff that amounts to the same idiocy, and by the quote from Stancu, regarding "decadence"). This is frankly the same as citing an allegation made by prosecutors (it is in any case on par with how we would use "wrecker" and "rootless cosmopolitan" and other uncanny political crimes as defined by Stalinism); I think it should be rendered in (scare?) quotes in the lead because the editorial voice should not agree with it -- not using quotes is almost the same as agreeing with it. I frankly do not see the problem there. I also note that this is like the "pornographer" issue above, where you say you do not see backing for a claim that is in fact detailed over and over in the text.
The "modest standing" claim is in fact attributed to a primary source -- i.e. to a group, of which the cited author, Sperantia, was an exponent. Please make some effort to read that in context, and note why it was contextually important to cite that POV from within the movement.
I will address the other objection in my next edit, even if it is clear that it is a specialist stating a verifiable claim. Incidentally: yes, we do need to detail and quote that he did not leave a diary, because there are fragments of a quasi-diary, published by his son in the 1990s, which cover several days (we use that strange text, combining the father's raw text and the son's commentary, in the fragments on TA and the 1944 coup). Dahn (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Very informative, but what I was asking is: how do you make the editorial choice between what is left in this article and what goes into the spinoffs? What part of Tudor Arghezi's early life belongs here, and what goes into the expansion/spinoff? Mind you: this article is already a condensed narrative of hundreds of sources that go into much lengthier detail. Please have a stab at actually considering that point before tagging an article that is due on mainpage. Dahn (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I did. The editorial choice involved is very similar to that involved in deciding what goes in the lead of an article versus its body. The lead of a Tudor Arghezi's early life article could be what is left here to summarize that content, excepting its first sentence. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
That is outstandingly vague, especially since, unlike the lead, the summary is supposed to have citations and quotes. Meaning we choose which citations and quotes belong in the summary. As you will note from the discussions in sections above (20 years ago, but still relevant), most objections are of the type "this article covers this, but not that", meaning that you're basically encouraging a return to that state of affairs.
But really, have a stab at it: how would you summarize the issue of his origins, and the controversy surrounding it, in the paragraphs that are left here?
Mind you, I have conceded below that a spinoff on his political ideas may be more feasible, though it would require a headache of an overhaul (duplicating references, restructuring both articles -- since the spinoff would require mentioning the biographical context, etc.).
It may be that I care about articles being properly written and complementary to each other -- not just written because "the other article is too big". Dahn (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
As we stand this spinoff is a content fork, which presents no chronology of his work (as this is presented here in the biographical section), loses vital links (which would have been duplicated here, but not there), and manages to make this article about a poet lose all samples of his poetry. It is perfect example of how not to write such spinoffs. Dahn (talk) 06:39, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is also bewildering that the influence section was completely removed from the legacy section! The prime legacy of a writer is their influence, and we no longer have even a mention of that in an article that is due on the main page! "Let some other editor clean up the mess", right, Nikkimaria? Dahn (talk) 08:29, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
It's not a content fork and it does include a chronology, though it's certainly not complete at this point. As to the influence section, it hasn't been completely removed here - it was moved up. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Nikkimaria: this article is far too detailed, preventing readers from actually reading the text. I suggest that information be spun out into new articles and information be summarised more effectively to only include the most important aspects of this biography. Z1720 (talk) 04:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
It has... But if you mean that it should be whittled further, including in matters of sheer biography, you would be effectively imposing an editorial voice: we are under an imperative not to omit biographical facts mentioned by sources; there is certainly no imperative to decide which biographical facts are "important" in the complex life of a man who died age 87 and began his career at 14. Which life experiences, career steps, interactions with other literary figures, controversies etc. are unimportant and should be suppressed from the main article? Dahn (talk) 13:20, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dahn: Yes, Wikipedia editors impose editorial judgments when writing articles. Those editorial decisions are guided by what the sources highlight as the most important aspects, Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and editors summarising the sources before adding the prose to the article. WP:SS and WP:AS have excellent ideas on how to do this. If something is cut from this article that another editor thinks should stay, they can post about it on the talk page. As the article's main writer, you are probably in the best position to decide what is the most important information to keep and what can be spun out or removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
That selection has already taken place, this article's biographical section covers the basic facts of his life, far less than what the sources have to say, with only as much context that would identify the issues that are not expected to be instantly familiar, or that establish what are basic disagreements between the sources.
You can make a quick quantitative assessment of this by noting that Ferenczes, who only deals with Arghezi's origin and childhood, covers 11 pages (on two columns, octavo), or that the quoted entries in Dicționarul general al literaturii române. A/B span 28 pages (also two columns, octavo, in small print). Maybe you can take the time to ground your critique in that sort of accessible info. Dahn (talk) 15:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dahn: The article is still too large and a more strict selection criteria will have to be implemented for this article. WP:TOOBIG recommends an article size of about 8,000 words: this article is currently 15,500 words, so about half of the article should probably be spun out and removed. And no, this article cannot justify the extra article size: W. B. Yeats and Maya Angelou are good examples of influencial poets whose articles are able adhere to the article size guidelines. As for my participation, we are all volunteers and we can choose where to spend our time: I have my own articles of interest and won't be taking significant time editing this article, although I am happy to answer any questions. Z1720 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I am not asking you to participate, I am suggesting that you form an argument from facts rather than impressions. Otherwise, yes: opinion noted. My opinion is that both Yeats ans Angelou are poorly written articles (for instance, Yeats' biography fails to provide the reader with any context, and it is rubbish next to any introduction to his collected work). Dahn (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dahn: Both of those articles are featured articles, in which multiple editors have identified them as among the best articles on English Wikipedia. Multiple editors have come to a consensus to limit the size of Wikipedia articles, as explained at WP:AS. If you disagree with that consensus, you will need to propose a new consensus about this article's length either on this talk page (with several other editors stating that they agree the article can be larger) or at WP:RfC. In the meantime, I'll post a yellow "potentially too large" banner at the top of the page which might draw more editors to this discussion. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I see all splits of bio content in bios as inherently POV, and the results as always sloppy, regardless of how self-congratulatory this community has become. I have stated that I do see potential for spin-offs out of the Ideology section (which can result in a tighter summary here), and the Legacy section might also be trimmed down a bit, together bringing this article close to the suppused threshold. I have also worked even with Nikkimaria's solution to split from the Literary section, and have spent a day ediring and expanding that spin-off from the basic content fork they had created -- I also found the summary they left here competent and decent, because it was actually feasible. But any "Childhood of" spin-offs are a bad idea in whatever context.
Either way, do whatever. I am losing interest in defending content I added here, as it seems other editors know better. Please stop tagging me, I am unfollowing this thread and will not return to this article in a long while. I have spent too much time editing it and its spin-off, and it seems my time is viewed as infinite.Dahn (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
These three sectioned comprised the biography section, which I split into these three sections to make the split articles more focused. As I'm not familiar with the subject of the article, I'm open to further suggestions on the best way to split up the article in a way that would reduce its length. Gramix13 (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Can I say again that splitting the Ideology section as a new article on his political views (Political views of Tudor Arghezi?), which would also include some aspects of the biography that will be shortened here as a result (for instance, his relations with Carol II of Romania, which are mainly detailed in the bio section here, would be summarized here and detailed there), makes much more sense than an absolutely random split of a man's life into chapters? Dahn (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Well the problem is that Tudor Arghezi §Ideology is only 1,844 words, while the three sections above total to 10,706 words. Splitting out the ideology section would not address at this moment the length of the article. Now if there was reorganization done to move most of the text in those first three sections onto this one, and if that section became a significant portion of the size of the article, I could see myself supporting ideology being split. Gramix13 (talk) 04:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Readers want to find out about a man's life in one article, and we are specifically instructed by the guidelines to keep that info in one place. Especially since they relate to each other: the man did things that had continuity over those periods, and, in writing this article, I have made a point of showing that continuity -- any such split would not not just be awful stylistically, but it would divide his career into portions that, as anyone reading through the article will note, are not actually divided. The discussions on this page, by readers objecting to this article as it looked 19 years ago, are precisely that "it covers this aspect, but not that other aspect" -- and the objections were indeed correct. Incidentally, it also seems absolutely confusing to make "Post-War life" (and the point of capitalization?) as a separate article in the life of a man who lived through both world wars, and was active at the top in both. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dahn and Gramix13: I think splitting out his ideology into a new article is a great start, and would support doing that first. The rest of the article can be evaluated when that is completed. Z1720 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I support splitting ideology into a new article pet Z1720's recommendation. That would also be a more coherent subject than splitting life events that I suggested, and we can revisit this afterwards if more splitting is necessary. Gramix13 (talk) 04:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
It is actually my recommendation. My original instinct was to write it as a separate article while I was expanding this one, and I should have trusted that instinct had I known my work would be immediately exposed to this scrutiny. Dahn (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I'll admit that the subdivisions I added where rather arbitrary, if you have a much better way of dividing those sections then feel free to do so. Beforehand, the biography section was 10,706 words, which seemed far too large for a single section to contain, hence why I made the split proposal that I did. Gramix13 (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
As I am sure you can pick out from what I have wrote above, that move would entail moving portions from the biography. Including one I have exemplified. Dahn (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I must say I find it very frustrating to have expanded this article, which seemed to bother no one when it was half-baked, and to instantly asked to change its content within days of publication, while countless articles on pop trivia reach the same size and they do not get this urgent, gung-ho scrutiny. As I have observed from the Literary work of Tudor Arghezi split, the work done by others seems to include cutting off content here, dumping it there, and waiting for me to come along and redo my own work, the work I enjoyed doing once but not so.much twice (thrice etc.) to actually make the new article readable, when I personally was unbothered by the length. I resent that approach and that attitude. Please have some understanding for that situation. Dahn (talk) 04:22, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I do apologize for the frustrations your going through. I presume all of the focus here is from the fact that this article is showcased in the DYK section of the main page, giving it more attention from the last couple days as more eyes can look at the article (that is how I found this discussion). I think what others are trying to say is that the content issues on the article went from the under baked extreme to the over length extreme, its two different sides of an issue. Part of the problem too is that DYK requires a five fold increase in the size of an article to meet the new requirement (unless it goes through being a good article), and doing that is discouraged if the pre-existing article is already quite large. The article was at 2,772 words before your edits, so the required size to meet DYK would have to be 13,860 words, which is quite close to the 15k word count that recommends Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed per WP:TOOBIG. I think if this had gone through a good article review instead, which I do think this article should at some point be nominated should it meet the criteria or be close to doing so, this length issue might have been addressed sooner and this time have been raised by a reviewer who would have an investment (as the reviewer) to see the article be concise to meet the good article criteria. Gramix13 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The leading issue that I am expected to do that work (in fact, to redo it), or, at the very best, see it done in a very sloppy manner by someone else. My priority was to write good content that made sense in one article -- even if I were a fan of splits (I am not), I would still want the bulk of the info properly summarized in the article, which would generally mean that I would still begin by writing it in one place. I also did not know how long the article would turn out to be while writing it (part of the fun of writing is discovering info in the sources), nor, indeed, did I care (since I do not view length as a stringent issue, at least not when weighed against completeness). Dahn (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
It also stikes me as odd that the splits are assumed to be simple work, when in fact they require not just a rewrite of two resulting texts (for instance, because events and connections that do not need context or repetition in the main will require them in the spinoff), but a duplication and retrieval of references, a rearrangement of internal links, etc. If we care about the quality of the resulting articles, which I do. Dahn (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Not the point. The point is that I cared enough about the article to expand it. I, and anyone else who cares about the resulting articles being coherent and complementary to each other, is implicitly asked to do the additional editorial work -- or stand by as this article risks being basically butchered, and the resulting splits are, at best, content forks (they only have to satisfy the criterion of making this article shorter, even if they just paste and dump content).
That is, statistically speaking, what tends to happen when a decent article is split by editors who have no familiarity with the topic, and are unbothered if the resulting splits are awful (since they are also volunteers with limited time etc.). Dahn (talk) 05:37, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
@Dahn:No editor owns a Wikipedia article. After you press publish, other editors may edit, add to, or remove content. While your viewpoints have been noted above, three editors have disagreed and stated that the article needs to be reduced in word count. I would support any editor undertaking that task as I think there is enough support for that action, and suggest spinning out content first. Z1720 (talk) 05:57, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The lecturing needs to stop, though, I have been editing for some 20 years and I am well aware of the policies.
It also appears that you are simply not reading my comments, as I have repeatedly indicated that I do not in fact oppose splits -- I want them properly considered and properly done, which is also in accordance with policies and content requirements.
While I do not oppose splits as a principle, I obviously do not view them as imperative or urgent, nor do I understand why you would regard them as such. On the other hand, creating sloppy splits and reducing this article to a poor summary would require urgent editing to preserve a standard of quality. Something I seem to be the only one here actually bothered about (at least until other users have a say).
As we stand: the article content was already split once, with Literary work of Tudor Arghezi. What happened was that content taken from here was simply dumped into a formless new article, with countless errors that the editor who performed the split did not even seem to care about. While they left a rather good summary of that content here, they made only a basic effort with the split -- something which is understandable, as the effort required is massive (another readon why I ask that we think before jumping in).
And who was it that edited the newer split to bring it up to standards? Why, me. Because, by all accounts, I am currently the best positioned to do that, having expanded this article with that precise info.
Take some time to contemplate the situation here. Is this what is being asked here, based on that experience? "We will split this article in any random way, and then someone else will do the cleanup"? When "someone else" means, in practical terms, precisely the guy who added the content you're splitting? Dahn (talk) 06:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Let's try this: get yourself a sandbox and paste one of the sections of this article into it. Then watch what happens to the footnotes. This will give you a basic idea of just one of the headache-inducing aspects of the workload you're so generously dumping on your fellow editors. Dahn (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I too find this hectoring of Dahn quite unseemly. He’s agreed to the principle of a split. But as he keeps emphasizing, apparently to no avail, a split is more than just copying and pasting. It’s about harmonizing footnotes and internal links, reviewing the sources, adding text in the new article to make it coherent, polishing the old article to make sure that still makes sense, potentially digging up new material to flesh out the text, properly structuring matters. These things take time (from otherwise busy lives) and cannot simply be decreed into existence. As no core policy is currently being violated, the least we can do is to give Dahn a little space to think through how to proceed. (Remember, the world will not end if the split happens on February 16 as opposed to January 29.) That is, unless one of you wishes to undertake this task, which isn’t as trivial as may appear. — BiruitorulTalk08:08, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
I should perhaps also add that articles such as Cecil B. DeMille made it to GA (or even FA) status without apparently being held up to this supposedly rigurous standard, and without the suggestion that they need to be trimmed down, and soon -- let alone the proclamations about what wikipedia mandates in length (just length: not competence, not detail, not good writing, not coverage of all viewpoints, not proper referencing etc.). Without necessarily objecting to splits, if they are done right, I have to ask: what applies to Arghezi, a topic that most of those endorsing urgent splits have admitted knowing next to nothing about, that does not apply to DeMille and countless other examples? Dahn (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Any editor can bring up concerns on the talk pages of articles. For GAs like the ones mentioned above, the articles can be nominated at GAR if length concerns cause the article to no longer meet the GA criteria. The quality (or lack thereof) of other articles is off-topic for this discussion. Concerns about editor conduct can be posted on the appropriate editor's talk page or noticeboard if desired. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
The actual point being that if you were able to live with the thought of those articles existing at that length, and reaching GA status, there is probably no urgency of pushing for splits of this article. Particularly not when the risk of botching decent content (I am yet to encounter an objection on quality grounds to this article) to satisfy this burning desire -- burning here, and only here. Consider how, just above, a bold, sweeping, illogical split was proposed on grounds that the proponent himself acknowledged as arbitrary, minutes after proposing them. Had I not issued an objection, this article would have already dissolved into nonsense, while DeMille and Nyerere would continue to just be, and nobody here would be losing any sleep over them. When the mindset is "let's split it, it's too long, and that is all I have to care about", the results are a downgrade. Dahn (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
And no, this is not an issue of WP:OWN. While the claim that anybody can edit the article in any way, with no input from others (or with input from just two others) ignores basic courtesy and collegiality, since we generally ask from input from other involved editors before massively rearranging or removing content, not even that is the point. Had I had exactly zero contributions here, I would still not endorse random, careless, splits in the text, that leave content in a chaotic form; and I would deserve to be able to present that case against editors who have zero involvement with the topic, yet are brought here by the single issue of seeing this article split, and are absolutely sure (until being persuaded otherwise through a time-consuming process) about how the content can be split, should be split, and eventually "must" be split. Dahn (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
Reducing the size of this article will make it more readable for the average Wikipedia editor, making the article a net-improvement. The split does not have to happen immediately, but it should happen eventually. If Dahn wants to ensure that the split is done to their satisfaction, they will have to conduct the process as other editors cannot read their mind and might misinterpret their intention when reading the above posts. However, other editors may proceed with a split before Dahn, and might not produce their desired outcome. Dahn has proposed some suggestions above of what to spin out, so those are good places to start. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
They should not have to "read my mind", they should have to discuss the splits they wish to create before creating them (for instance, they can create a Tudor Arghezi and Nicolae Iorga split, as the content theoretically allows for such an essay -- but will that split be reasonable, just because it could be done?), and generally they should have to care about the state of the articles they create. As we stand, none of the editors who endorsed the split seems to even bother with that issue. And when I express care about that issue, it is certainly not because I "own" the article. It is because I want this project to have good content, rather than "we managed to split a long article with a cleaver and we are being very helpful" content. Dahn (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
WP:SPLIT includes a lengthy section on how the process is to be carried out, which I advise you guys to reread, as the split that was already done is already in clear breach of it (I have accepted the split and worked with it, but still). The outlined process imposes discussion and careful assessment, not an "anything will do" approach. It seems like some effort is being put into obscuring that portion.
Additionally, have a thorough look over WP:CORRECTSPLIT, which actually mandates that the split be very carefully done, not just "done". It explicitly demands of users who perform splits to follow-up with intricate editorial work to harmonize content, not the "I'll do the bare minimum and then someone else will clean up after me" approach that's being pushed here as "an improvement". (This is presumably the actual reason why many GAs and FAs have not been split). We will talk some more once splitting proponents make a note of that fact.
(The section of the policy I link to above also contradicts the claim that any split is a "net improvement", which is not grounded in policy, clashes with the conditional "may" in the proposed split template, and in fact is also against the acknowledgement, also found in the replies above, that other users may disagree, and as such may delay or cancel the split. It looks more and more like this article is being used as a soapbox for very radical readings of the split guidelines. Even though I do not object to splitting if done right, on less awful criteria than proposed above, I am very much perplexed by this approach.) Dahn (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
And I cannot emphasize this enough: the standard I (and WP:CORRECTSPLIT) hold you to is "my personal satisfaction", as is insinuated over and over again. It is the WP:MOS, which takes precedence over any gung-ho split initiative. The editor who dumped content in the split Literary work of Tudor Arghezi had not improved, and was not going to improve, the article to where it meets the basic standards of quality; I came along, despite having been skeptical about the split, despite having already contributed the forked content, and despite having warned that this would be a problem, and fixed it, as seemingly the only person who even bothered to make the article readable. As a random example, the spin-off article mentioned "[Arghezi's] love for Paraschiva", without ever clarifying for the reader who that Paraschiva was -- since, in the main article, it would have already been clear, from the preceding sections, that she was his (second) wife. That's what I mean (and resent) about the "I'll just do it, congratulate myself, then let others fix it" approach. The whole experience is not just tiresome, not just personally humiliating in its indifference, but also against what editors are actually advised and instructed to do in content-split situations. Dahn (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
