Talk:Vladimir Cavarnali

Did you know nomination

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by BorgQueen (talk) 11:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Licurici magazine, May Day 1948 issue

• ... that Vladimir Cavarnali, who edited a communist children's magazine (May 1948 cover pictured), had previously been a member of the fascist Crusade of Romanianism? Source: "Dela Cruciada Românismului", in Adevărul, September 10, 1936, p. 7 on his Crusade membership; the exact nuance of the Crusader ideology is a matter of some dispute, though a vast majority of sources (one quoted in this article as well) point to it being at least heavily inspired by Italian fascism. On his editing Licurici (and other such publications): Mihai Stoian, "Evocare tîrzie", in Gazeta Literară, Vol. XIII, Issue 31, August 1966, p. 7.
  • ALT1: ... that the Bulgarian–Gagauz poet Vladimir Cavarnali, who sang his love for a Nogai Tatar woman, was once affiliated with the fascist Crusade of Romanianism? Source: On his ethnicity: Anatol Măcriș, Găgăuzii, pp. 104, 128–129. Bucharest: Editura Paco, 2008 (a reasonable source, though not the most prestigious, Măcriș cites on this topic a previous study by scholar Eleonora Hotineanu, as well as his own research. The Nogai-themed poem in Alexandru Burlacu, "Istoria literaturii. Vladimir Cavarnali: poezia faustică", in Metaliteratură, Vol. X, Issues 1–4, 2010, pp. 125–126.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Casum sentit dominus
  • Comment: Special holding area suggestion: It would be great if the picture hook, if selected, gets a slot on May Day, which is what the cover illustrates.

Created by Dahn (talk). Self-nominated at 07:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Vladimir Cavarnali; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

•  Reviewing... Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
• Recently created, easily surpasses stub length, all paragraphs and quotes are cited, no evidence of plagiarism.
• Both hooks are short and sufficiently interesting. Each hook makes the Crusade claim and one other claim; all such claims are supported with inline citations in the article.
• Image appears in the article, is relevant, captioned, high quality, and in the public domain.
• QPQ is done.
• Was unable to check offline sources, but is otherwise ready to go. I prefer ALT0 (especially since it has the photo), but if ALT1 is used, then I suggest changing "lady" to "woman" unless she was actually of nobility. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ethnicity

WP:OCEGRS, people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career.

He should not be categorized as Russian descent. It is not mentioned anywhere in the article. WP:EGRS: Inclusion of people in a category related to GREDS must be based on reliable sources. Any person merely from the Russian Empire does not acquire Russian ethnicity nor Russian descent. Moreover, anybody who is Russian nationality is not also of Russian descent.

He should not be categorized as Gagauz descent. This is speculative based upon derivation of surname, per "Gagauzian Onomastics: Mapping Cultural Hallmarks through Names, Surnames and Orthodoxy". WP:COP-HERITAGE: Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors. The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable.

He should not be categorized as Bulgarian descent. WP:COP-HERITAGE: historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single heritage. Again, The heritage of grandparents is never defining and rarely notable.

He is Bessarabian Bulgarian.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dahn pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson This is extremely tiresome.

The issue of his Russian descent is base on the practice of adding descent categories to place-of-origin cats, such as when we include people of Ukrainian Jewish descent in the People of Ukrainian descent intersectional categories. I am agnostic on this issue, I just added the article in that cat because it seems to reflect a practice.

The Gagauz ethnicity is not "speculative". Please read and understand the text: Măcriș's monograph, specifically on the Gagauz, lists his bio under "Gagauz figures", and calls him a "Bulgarian-Gagauz" (him, not his grandparents -- though note that the current practice seems to favor mentioning descent of a politician or whatever even when it is third-generation). Măcriș does a level of investigation not found in other sources, which mention but one of his two ethnicities, without excluding the other -- particularly since, at the time, the two identities were seen as complementary and sometimes conflated. Măcriș, and the additional source he cites, are what is being used for identifying Cavarnali as a Gagauz, per the wording used there. Can I make it any clearer?

The issue of his surname is indeed from "Gagauzian Onomastics: Mapping Cultural Hallmarks through Names, Surnames and Orthodoxy"; the source and the citation are not there to make guesses about Cavarnali's ethnicity, but to indicate a biographical fact about him -- as in: the origin of his (very rare) surname. He could indeed be Bulgarian even with a Gagauz surname (we would still indicate the origin of his surname), but we have a source, the one you keep dancing around, explicitly calling him a Gagauz (and a Bulgarian), and that is not something we ignore. Dahn (talk) 10:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Please read and understand the guidelines. Folks who fail to follow policy and guidelines are indeed tiresome.

1. All categorization must be WP:CATDEFINING.
2. WP:CATSPECIFIC: do not add categories to pages as if they are tags for every possible datum.
3. WP:COP-PLACE place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual.
4. Again, long established and documented practice is only one generation (WP:COP-HERITAGE cited above). Not grandparents. Great-grandparents is right out.
5. Again, there is only one heritage category per non-living person. Neither count thou two. Three is right out.
6. This person has a single category that is directly related to his notable works: Bessarabian Bulgarian.
7. There could be hundreds of sources saying that the derivation of his surname means there is some Gagauzian heritage in his past, but categorization guidelines require that be ignored.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:04, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson Do you understand that the mention of his Gagauz ethnicity is not based on onomastics, not on great-grandparents, not on etc., but on a source (two in fact) explicitly calling him a Gagauz?

Incidentally (and I do mean "incidentally", because I don't intend to waste a lifetime on this issue): "there is only one heritage category per non-living person. Neither count thou (?) two" -- this seems to be your on-the-spot concoction! As an absolutely random example, Harold Macmillan is in two such categories, Gaston, Duke of Orléans is in three, as is Zaida Ben-Yusuf; not to mention people in intersectional categories. If you want to change policies by stealthy adding your POV on what we should(n't) have, please pick some other article for your experiment. Dahn (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I've cited the current explicit WP:COP-HERITAGE guideline. As to my "on-the-spot concoction", you've personally attacked the worst possible person: I'm the original editor of the guideline in 2006. Since then, I'd split this current guideline text from Wikipedia:Category names, where I'd written the Heritage section after months of discussion at CfD and VPP in 2006. It is very long established that (as originally written in 2006) historical persons may be identified by notable association with a single race or ethnicity. Since then, "race or ethnicity" has been renamed "Heritage". (I've also named the WP:EGRS guideline in 2009.) It now so well established, that "grandparent" verbiage is currently mentioned twice for emphasis. I'll visit Macmillan et alia in a moment.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You may have written it, but allow me to not credit you as the oracle on how it should be (re)interpreted, nor sit and watch as you dance around the issue at hand. I will repeat the question: do you understand that the mention of Cavarnali's Gagauz ethnicity is based on the source which calls him a Gagauz? Yes or no? Dahn (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

You kept implying that the inclusion in the Gagauz category is based on a WP:SYNTH of the onomastics article. It is not. It is based on the definition in Măcriș, and, indirectly, Hotineanu. Did I manage to get this point across, at long last, or will you just keep ignoring it and give me lectures on side topics? Dahn (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Don' forget to give me your 2 cents on John Gielgud and Elvis Presley (not to mention the admittedly idiotic heritage categorization in Harriet Tubman) when you do get back to me with more humbling instructions about how I should tailor articles I contribute around your personal preferences. Dahn (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson Also, the claim that his being of mixed heritage necessarily refers to his grandparents is a leap of logic: it could (and likely does) refer to one of his parents being Gagauz, or even both being Bulgarian-speaking Gagauzes, and this simply not being recorded in any but the more detailed sources. Can you grasp that notion? And can you understand that as long as there is a source listing him as a Gagauz, and no sources explicitly contradicting it, we do in fact follow the source? Dahn (talk) 11:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

• William Allen Simpson, this kind of nitpicking does not produce any actual improvement to the article. The strict irrational following of rules has never helped anyone in Wikipedia. We should be able to analyze each case individually rather than follow through everything exactly the same like a robot. No Wikipedia reader is going to benefit from getting factually appropriate categories removed from this article. I would also advise against wasting the time of prolific content-writers in the encyclopedia with these kinds of petty disputes. I think WP:Ignore all rules applies here. Super Ψ Dro 16:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)