- 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 Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Ștefan Baciu edit
- ... that Romanian exile Ștefan Baciu lost his executive job at the Congress for Cultural Freedom because the CIA determined he was too anti-communistic?
- Reviewed: Khar Bii
5x expanded by Dahn (talk). Self nominated at 15:57, 13 July 2014 (UTC).
- Can you quote the text from the article re "too anticommunistic" (which I think should be anticommunist BTW). I can't find it. EEng (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Heh. "Such ideas alarmed the CIA, since they risked alienating the anticommunist left. John Hunt and Keith Botsford repeatedly asked Baciu to focus on anti-Casto, rather than "right-wing", propaganda (Hunt referred to Baciu as "a right-wing democratic socialist", a Betancourt associate, and a "maniac")." And: "Allegedly, Baciu found himself threatened by the Cuban Intelligence Directorate. However, it was Baciu's extreme anticommunism that prompted Hunt to demand his resignation and appoint Vicente de Paulo Barretto as the new CCF General Secretary. Baciu later commented that the CCF had committed "suicide" by moderating its tone, noting that its "constructive dialogue with proven communists" was a moral victory for "Eurocommunism"." These quotes, you will note, have several citations right after the fact(s). On the "anti-communistic": since this is as an adjective, I thought it would make more sense to use the clearly adjectival form. I get 83 hits for "too anti-communistic". But yes, whatever works. Dahn (talk) 06:56, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's always best if the article text supporting the hook can be located via a search for at least one of the obvious keywords in the hook -- in this case either CIA or anti-communist. EEng (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe, but in this case it was utterly impractical, since the story is rather longish, contains several important facts, and intertwines with other significant events in Baciu's life. I don't feel that it can be argued here that the slightly different wording of my hook vis-a-vis what I put in the article adds subjectivity or unreliability, or even interpretation: the fact is that Baciu was fired because the CIA felt his anticommunism diminished the importance of the CCF, which was supposed to be inclusive of the anti-Stalinist left. (The hook should be interesting regardless of how we feel about the CIA. I personally commend it for initiatives such as the CCF, and I find that being paid by the CIA to express oneself freely was always a better choice than to have been paid by the KGB to spew out lies.)
- In any case, I feel it's a technicality, and encourage reviewers not to expect the hook to parrot the text -- that would greatly reduce the fun of it, on both sides.
- For the CIA quote: "The [Brazilian chapter of the CCF] was in part funded by the Central Intelligence Agency, through its Paris agent, John Hunt (with whom Baciu corresponded), and answered directly to the Spaniard Julián Gorkin." Though, frankly, it appears that Mr. Hunt was only ever culturally relevant as a CIA liaison -- that is the only thing history remembers him for. So it's not that big a secret in 2014. Dahn (talk) 07:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's always best if the article text supporting the hook can be located via a search for at least one of the obvious keywords in the hook -- in this case either CIA or anti-communist. EEng (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Full review needed. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Hook and article are well cited. A long and very detailed biography. There is a powerful image in the article that if clipped to the top square would be eye catching. The article is nuetral and I cannot see any close paraphrasing but it is very detailed. Thank you for this - should make GA if it is put forward. Victuallers (talk) 10:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
