Battle of Honey Springs

Page contents not supported in other languages.

Comments

perhaps Scanteia should have a page of its own? Dahn 16:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


like most articles were PSD is mentioned, this article has a disturbing anti-PSD bias

Could you be more specific? I don't think it's wrong the way it is now, I just think it needs some references. bogdan 09:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
could you find references to "After PSD lost the 2004 election, Ana Maria Tinu (daughter of Dumitru Tinu, Adevărul owner and close friend of PSD leaders) intended to change the newspaper policy and editorial leadership, because the newspaper spoke against PSD" other than tabloids and traditionally righ-wing press (or the ones that ussually change their political orientation to match the one of the ruling party)?
Actually, it was Cristian Tudor Popescu who said that in an editorial "Atacul guzganului rozaliu". Of course, it would be better for this article to write that it was only Popescu's opinion, denied by Hrebenciuc and PSD. bogdan 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
i guess it should be rephrased to say something like this. that would be more neutral, unlike the present text wich states it as an undeniable fact Anonimu 17:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV cleanup

This article is listed on the NPOV backlog. Minor text edits. Since disputed text also appears to have been edited previously, and there's no discussion suggesting disagreement, the tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the disputed section with {{NPOV-section}} (or the article with {{NPOV}}) and post to Talk. -- Steve Hart 22:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiability of the "Racist manipulation..." section

The info in the "Racist manipulation..." it cannot be considered as poorly backed up. We have the original Spanish article, the Romanian article, and a primary source with the open letter from the Media Monitoring Agency that points out the "mistranslation". A secondary source is required when some interpretation is needed, which its not the case here, it's just a simple observation that anybody can do. To say that the section is OR is just a lawyerlike trick to remove an info that is obviously true, and THAT is POV. Kenshin (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you know that we see eye to eye on the general issue, however I believe you're wrong in this instance. For one, the incident itself is attested, per your edits, only in a mailing list - these are simply not WP:RSes. You are also wrong about an exception where primary relates to something observable - someone else has to notice it for it to be discussed. And lastly (please don't hold this against me): the fragment you added is written in a POVed essay-like language and is utterly unformatted (with its embedded lk etc it seriously clashes with the rest of text, which is not that good itself). The title is especially problematic - an accusation is not a description, even if we both agree that what Adevarul did was disgustingly unprofessional.
Don't get me wrong: per what Biruitorul seems to argue, adding a whole section on this incident in an article that misses much more important detail (including, but not limited to, that on Adevarul's other forms of populism and xenophobia, as more thoroughly attested in the past). However, I don't believe it is unimportant. It sometimes helps to go the extra mile: note that the incident is discussed in a reliable source (not the most neutral source in this case - AC doubles as the mouthpiece for AMP). You could pick it up from there, you could even quote Mircea Toma (a link to be filled someday...) with what he says - he is a prominent journalist and a most respectable anti-discrimination activist. That would cement the data and would make it instantly notable. Also consider looking over the format used in other parts of the articles, and replicating it. Dahn (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow me to explain my reasoning. The section violated the policies Dahn pointed out, so I need not repeat his arguments. It also, I thought (and he briefly noted), placed undue weight on this one incident. Adevărul has existed (with interruption) since 1888. By having just one section on one controversy, we create the impression that the paper has had just one controversy in its history, and also blow that one out of proportion. There is a place in this article for a general comment on how Adevărul has covered Roma topics (presumably since 1989). But it's as part of a much larger, more thorough tapestry including mention of other salient points of controversy since 1888, not in the isolated format of that section. - Biruitorul Talk 16:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So the problem is not really the info presented, but the way that it was written. I can accept that critique. But.. I didn't said that a primary source has to relate to something observable, just that a secondary source has to give some analysis of a primary source, which is hardly the case here. The title of the section is the one from the open letter. I don't know about other xenophobic and/or racist deviations in Adevarul, I just happened to come across this one. But I know of similar "mistranslations" in the media and, in fact, I intent to write a section at Roma in Romania about this phenomena.
Just so that you know I've searched for an answer from Adevarul on this, to put their side of the story, too, but I couldn't find any. If you think that the section was written in a POV manner than please rewrite it yourself (maybe put it under the "Controversy" section). Kenshin (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two things. 1) There is ample coverage from the AMP president in AC - if the claim is attributed, I see nothing wrong with citing AC as the main (only?) source. Also note that it does give very ample incident to what Adevarul did to the Spanish article. 2) I wouldn't recommend a separate "controversy" section - it's better and more neutral writing to just reference the controversy as they fit into the chronology section, per a "fact-opinion" pattern (I notice that wikipedians have started blending the few existing "criticism" sections of various articles into the main text, and, having used this pattern consistently myself, I endorse that). The ideal here is to have an overall equal coverage of all events in the paper's history, from it being the main left-wing venue, through being sympathetic to the avant-garde and being shut down under Carol II for being "Jewish", to its scandalous endorsement of the Mineriad. This should be done with and from relevant sources - something I've been contemplating for a while now (I have at least three very substantial sources on each of the periods, to serve as the background; as you may know, I'm all tied up in other article projects - I'll move it up on my to do list). If and when this article is revamped, the info will have its due weight (not insignificant in its context, but marginal to a century-long history). If you want it in before such a time (which I don't object to), consider rephrasing the info, using a proper source, and finding a place for it in the chronological succession. Either way, I'm gonna add info on this incident in my version; if you "cement" it in that way beforehand, I'll just keep and work around it in my version. Dahn (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree (now) that a single section just for this is improper. I'm not sure about removing the entire Controversy section, but if you say that this is the trend, than it's ok, too. As I said earlier, I don't know much about other criticism related to Adevarul, as I don't pay much attention to mass-media. When I came across this incident, I couldn't believe that this could really happen, though I heard a lot of bad things about the press. I will let you write this section (or what will be) and give proper weight to each event. Kenshin (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section should be blended in the text (note this template). "In 1990, Adevarul... which raised criticism/praise from..." etc. Btw, for a while now, and after a hiatus, I've only been checking selective diffs to see changes in the article. Having glanced over it just now, I realize it seriously needs cleanup and a revamp. I am clearly making it my priority after I'm done with this. And I also owe you an apology. Dahn (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the letter was reproduced on Romaworld: http://www.romaworld.ro/presa-locala/amp-dezinformare-ori-ba.html
Is this a better source? Kenshin (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks self-published (or, at least, it won't say who publishes it), and it is written like a blog. For consistency's sake, we should go with better sources. But what's wrong with AC's Toma article? Dahn (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Toma's article is OK, I presented the Romaworld article cause it re-publishes the letter send by MMA as it was send. I don't think that there is any relation between Romaworld and MMA. Kenshin (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but it doesn't really make the cut reliability-wise, so if the communique did not get coverage at a higher level it's probably not worth discussing it in the article. Btw, this also got coverage in Eurozine - what's weird (not in a bad way) is that the article starts with criticism of AC for an unrelated issue and one of the Eurozine partners is Dilema Veche (among the basic facts this wikipedia article doesn't yet cover is the relationship between Adevărul and Dilema Veche). Dahn (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is even more complicated because, as far as I know, MMA is an institution initiated by AC. On the other hand, Dilema Veche has been criticized for some anti-Romani attitudes. Adevarul, in turn, had some anti-rasist articles (for example Rasismul de la tastatură). So, basically, no institution/publication has an absolute direction.
An even greater problem, that I wanted to point out a long time ago, is that a pro-Romani position is condemned at being un-popular. If the guys from Adevarul would have tried such a scheme with the Jews, then, probably, a huge scandal would've come out of that. But because it is the Roma, than "who the hell cares about the Roma?". Kenshin (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

common-law wife

AFAIK, there is no equivalent for "common-law marriage" in Romanian law. There is some legislation about unregistered cohabitation ("uniune consensuală"), so that children of cohabiting couples have the same rights as children resulting from marriage and there have been some attempts to pass laws giving more rights to such couples, but none passed yet.

PS: Excellent rewrite, Dahn! It's an article well-worth reading! :-) bogdan (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Praise from Caesar, B.
About the issue at hand: I'm sure what's in there could be improved upon. While Tinu's "marital" status was at best a secondary concern I had during the rewrite, I did glance over terms that would describe the situation without potential controversy. I mean, Romanian goes with the likes of "concubine" and "mistress", but these terms carry the [vague] risk of being perceived as defamation. I'm positive there's a more adequate term, but, back then, I had grown tired of scouring wiki articles I never read before. Please, please don't hesitate to intervene directly in the text where such detail catches your eye: we know each other's style very well by now, so you know that if it looks like I've made a mistake, it's most likely because I did make a mistake. Dahn (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"20% of the section"

To further explain myself. For one, the article cites at length all sort of sources on all sorts of events and opinions, pros and cons alike. The event itself is what guides the text, and the opinions expressed are negative to the measure where such was the impact on the real world. The event in question is first of all discussed in a source close to the newspaper, which is nonetheless critical of the move - that in itself should mean something about the validity of the argument made about "adversity". Tapalagă's article I cited because it is relevant, and the argument against it only works if we are to invent positive assessments of Patriciu's campaign, none of which exist (there are plenty of negative ones, but I stuck to one of the most prominent so far). The notion that something should be done with it (it should be cut? removed?) because it takes up 20% of the section is ridiculous: the section itself is rather small, and covers a small set of significant events to what is, I do believe, a near-exhaustive article. 20% of a section does not actually mean much at all, under any circumstance, and, in any case, establishing that 20% (as opposed to, say, 5 or 30%) is "above the limit" is mind-numbing. And, in any case, that whole issue would be "solved" by simply moving the title of the section up to incorporate more text, in which case it would not be 20%...

Finally, I cited Tapalagă's fragment in detail not because I like it (though I do consider it a fine point, if my opinion should interest you), but because it is an integral idea from beginning to end, and I at least found no way of and no real reason for cutting it shorter. Dahn (talk) 12:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tapalaga's long quotation is the problem, not the other pros and cons. Tapalaga openly assumed his support for one of candidates and he constantly libelled those who opposed that candidate. I don't say that you should remove critics, just don't give undue weight to conspiracy theories about how this moved supposedly was directed at a certain candidate (as if he was the only politician in the country, and the others candidates were... who knows?). That is fringe, and fringe opinions attributing the editorial policy to Patriciu's supposed fear that attacking Basescu or supporting his counter-candidates in the newspaper will lead to political trials also exist(here, the author is in no way less (or more) neutral or objective than Tapalaga, so if Hotnews is RS, so is Cotidianul).Anonimu (talk) 13:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but do you read? Dahn (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missed this one, probably made in the interval between I pressed undo and I actually hit submit (mobile internet has a certain lag) - since the undo didn't see it either.Anonimu (talk) 13:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE:this is were consensus was attained, and the dispute should have theoretically ended. Further down it's just debating for debate's sake)Anonimu (talk) 15:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pay the man :). For future reference, please don't spend my and your time objecting to how I might not have caught sight of all published material on x or y issue, ergo undue weight blah-blah. Particularly since you chose to conveniently omit the fact that this was a follow-up to an objection stated by Giurgiu, from inside the Adevărul group. If you have something quotable to add, add it, instead of feeding me your creative interpretation of what is and isn't fringe. Dahn (talk) 13:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I placed the tag, the section was undue indeed, no it's not that undue anymore. Again I have no problem with Giurgiu's opinion, my problem was with the fact that just one side of the media openly supporting a candidate had its POV presented.Anonimu (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to my posts below, do me the favor of noting that the Giurgiu quote was already in the text, and for long had been the only one there. The difference between Tapalagă and Giurgiu's opinions eludes me: other than the speculations that you make about one of the two, just what part of wikipedia policies would invalidate citing him? Dahn (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About Giurgiu's, did I ever say it wasn't or that I find its placement in the article contrary to policy or common sense? WP:NPOV is the policy that makes the difference, specifically "In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity." Tapalaga was a view supported by the "orange talibans", as Nistorescu's was by the "jukeboxes on euros", contrary to Dilema that presented both options, keeping it common sense. Presenting just Tapalaga was a grave distortion of neutrality.Anonimu (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is entirely your supposition, which does not address the point and asks me (and everyone else) to accept your claim, ergo your POV, as factual: there is absolutely nothing disqualifying Tapalagă's opinion from being included on its own that wouldn't also disqualify Giurgiu. Needless to say, neither is disqualified by your spin: just stating a political option does not make one unquotable or less reliable, and there is nothing in the wikipedia rules or guidelines that would say otherwise. As for Dilema, it did not actually present both opinions, and in any case it would not affect Giurgiu, who is still just one in those supposed two opinions! Giurgiu's is opinion journalism, Tapalagă's is opinion journalism - as long as there is no other objection to their activity, both sources remain as reliable, as relevant. Dahn (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you refuse to accept my point, it is quite simple: as long as you put the opinion of a die-hard pro-Basescu, the only thing to do to keep the NPOV would have been putting the opinion on the matter of an anti-Basescu journalist. There's no WP policy that would make Tapalaga unquotable, but there's a clear WP policy that prevents quoting him as the only significant opinion. In the first round at least Dilema was not wholly pro-Basescu, and in the second round it was almost objective compared to the other pro-Basescu venues. Giurgiu's was opinion journalism, Tapalaga's was political propaganda.Anonimu (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Die-hard pro-Basescu" - your projection, your claim. Unsubstantiated and besides the point, since not even if it were true would it subtract reliability or relevancy from Tapalagă's attributed opinion. As for Dilema - again avoiding the issue, which is purely and simply that none of those arguments about supposed bias (all of which are traced back to your personal observations, substantiated or not) has to do with either Giurgiu or the article or the magazine's overall reliability or how it compares to Tapalagă. Dahn (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And incidentally, for those reading this: it is not the assumption of a political option that disqualifies a journalist (an opinion journalist!), and any person living in the Western hemisphere would need no explanation as to this being the case. A journalistic opinion stated as support for a camp is not made fringe/unreliable/unquotable by this fact, as Anonimu knows full well, and in many case such an opinion is validated by this fact ("listen to the both sides" would be impossible in any other scenario). What would invalidate the opinion would be the unprofessional nature of the source, which can be documented either by proving that it is defined as such by its peers or that it is unquoted by professional outlets. Neither of these objections apply to either Hotnews or Tapalagă. The rest of Anonimu's theory about parity in sourcing is preaching to the choir, only I wish to be excused from time to time if I don't have the energy and interest to go out on my own and look into every goddamn piece of paper that was ever published on a subject. That one such source, real or imagined, is not quoted at a certain moment does not invalidate the quoting of another - as long as the opinion is attributed. Here's to clearing away the smoke screens. Dahn (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those reading this: I want to remind you that WP is not a forum, and article talk pages is not the place to express opinion not pertaining to the mainspace article, especially when some form of consensus was already reached. If some (especially an experienced) editor thinks it's not his duty to prevent WP:UNDUE weight given to an opinion, he should remember that we are here to build an encyclopaedia based on WP:NPOV and WP:V. If he thinks only one opinion he "incidentally" agrees with should be presented, I'm sure there are enough other Wikipedia-wannabes that could accommodate him.Anonimu (talk) 13:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very interested to know what part of the policies you cite applied in this case, beyond filling this place up with links. Quote it, and tell me how it validates your suspicion of opinion journalism and how 20% is "too much". And please spare me the venomous remarks about what opinions I agree with: not that it would be relevant what I believe in, but I have actually said no such thing. Dahn (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV which is "an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow." states that "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." and "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news" and "undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." You may want to read that policy in full again.Anonimu (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for Christ, Anonimu: your objection would have perhaps begun to apply where Tapalagă's the only opinion cited, but it was not, not at any moment in editing the text. In fact, Giurgiu's opinion was the only one cited previously. Despite having tagged the article for "undue weight" and stated your objection around the fact that Tapalagă's opinion was supposedly awarded too much exposure, your entire argument was about what supposedly disqualified Tapalagă from being quoted at all. In fact, by including Tapalagă, I had moved closer to including precisely "all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source". Moreover, you did not state that there were other significant points worth quoting, not even as much as speculated that there were yet other such points, until such moment as when they were already quoted, by me, alongside Tapalagă's - you stated your undue claim in the absence of evidence. And excuse me, but all four points of view currently quoted, from Giurgiu to Rogozanu, actually take more or less the same view of the campaign, which is the object and the subject of that text - so, if this really had been a valid "undue" claim, the only way to "remedy" it would have been to quote some supposed positive review of the campaign! Dahn (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was the only opinion introducing a conspiracy theory about evil Patriciu who wants to destroy an archangel, as opposed to Giurgiu's opinion about the effect of such policies on the Romanian society. Tapalaga's "opinion" was pure campaign evangelism, and the only way to remove undue weight would have been inserting the opinion of the other campaign (or removing Tapalaga's, the whole incident being trivial in a 100 years old newspaper's history, and just an example of zealous recentism). When did you learn to read minds, cause I can't understand how could you have known what was on my mind when I places the tag. Either that, or failure to AGF, which would be even more unfortunate coming from an experienced user.Anonimu (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that is entirely your own supposition about what validates one and invalidates the other, there's nothing substantial or binding to consider in that post. Nothing at all. As for what you "had in mind" when you placed the tag: the mention of other comments and what they supposedly said was not in your edit summary, and, be that as it may, an "undue weight" claim was not validated by any of those new comments - since they all say basically the same thing about the Adevărul campaign (i. e., that it sucks). So, the point? Dahn (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About your opinions, you just said above you agree with Tapalaga's point, did you lie?Anonimu (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I have said is that the man makes a fine point. I know you will only relate to things in a binary pattern, but have the decency not to drag me into it every time it suits your fancy - stating that a person makes a fine point does not mean agreeing with that point. But that's probably the reason why you can't identify the difference between a decent partisan press and an indecent partisan press to begin with: you lack the understanding of what is respectable. The circle of things I respect is always larger than the circle of things I agree with; with you, judging by your arguments about Vadim and respectability, something becomes respectable only when you agree with it. A matter of character. Dahn (talk) 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you've resorted to personal attacks to defend your point. That makes it easier for outside editors to see who's the one caring more about beefs than building an encyclopaedia.Anonimu (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, son, always obscure the point under "hurt pride" claims. And, above all, never, but never, apologize... Dahn (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Nyway, Anonimu, it appears that your prime tactic now is to flood the scene with words, regardless of whether they make any sense or not. I'll therefore leave you to your fantasy debate with yourself, and hope that, if someone other than me and you was reading this, they got a sense of how frivolous your entire claim was. Dahn (talk) 15:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and the whole world has to answer right now, just to tell you once again: who's bad?...
Merry Christmas!Anonimu (talk) 15:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the self-victimization after I was the one getting hell for simply stating that, like more than half of voters, I supported (not married, not cuddled with) Băsescu, and that I believe (and can show) that the pro-Băsescu press had been generally up to professional standards, whereas the anti- one had not. I make this one statement while I am always the one who, unlike the editors who used to get their entire vision of the world from The Blackmail on Sunday or who openly state that they vote PNL/PSD (and none of whom gets the bullshit I have to put up with), I actually make an effort to cite the relevant sides. I am the one who, for instance, cited Ciutacu on Voinescu (with a statement that I would "privately" call neam-prostie) and a source saying that Berceanu may have trafficking stuff in his wild youth, but as long as I don't fall for Mircea Badea and the gang, I'm a suspect... No, dude, I'm the enemy here: I'm, to quote, brainwashed and lacking in human qualities for simply having this opinion, this opinion which would not disqualify me even if it were an actual bias in my editing! And you know what? I wrote this entire article just so that I could quote my god Tapalagă with a meanie right at the end... (I wonder if I would have had to stand the shebang where that article the one by Nistorescu, where we are shown that Băsescu is to blame for this too.)
But, alright, Merry Christmas. If they could do it... Dahn (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, no respect for Christmas, I see... As this seems to be evolving into a who's the greater victim contest, here, I concede... you're the biggest victim here. Happy now? If you say so, the pro-Basescu press must be the quintessence of free press worldwide, while the non-pro-Basescu are just some rabid rags, who sell universal classics to their readers to make them vote against Basescu. There's no doubt you can prove it... what's more RS than 22 praising EvZ, and EvZ praising 22, both praised by VT (ignore the COI of being paid by both) not to mention the inflation of free Europes who can all stand witness to the high standards of the part of the press supporting Basescu. I've already understood there's no civil away to debate current politics with you, as the only thing I get in return is personal attacks about how I'm being an irrational, single minded, manichaeist simpleton... so here's it: you're always right.
I don't care where other editors' Weltanschauung originates from, and you should not either, since WP talk pages are for discussing content, not editors. Nor do I care what other editors think of you, and if someone ever called you brainwashed, I'm sure it was the result of that person's thought process in response to some action of yours and not just some random out of blue attack. I've always tried to keep other editors outside my discussions (remember my reaction when Dc76 was bad-mouthing you in a discussion on my talk page you weren't aware of?), but I see you have no problem with that. Just to make it clear: I ain't my brother's keeper, and whenever you want to discuss opinion (as opposed to content and mainspace edits) with me, please keeps other fellow editors out of it.
About content: just because you significantly contributed to an article in the past doesn't give you the right to police it or to give it a certain editorial line. WP is a collab encyclopaedia, if you want nobody to doubt the appropriateness of content you have contributed, there are other projects, like Citizendium and Knol (or even Enciclopedia Romaniei, if you get over their ideology) that give you more "respect" than WP. Since I have no access to the sources you used in other sections of the article, I have to take your word for it, which I do per AGF. But when I see a matter that is covered in widely accessible sources presented here just from a single viewpoint, in what I could call tendentious editing, it's my right to express my concerns and to present my view on how the article should be edited to adhere to WP policies. Your refractory attitude towards anyone who, instead of praising your work all the time, "dares" to criticize some of your contributions, exemplified above when you are calling constructive criticism "ridiculous" or below in your reply to Pcap's comment, estrange other editors from yourself, leaving you with just an echo chamber, where interesul poarta fesul. Rejection of criticism can result in nothing good, as the recent EEML case proved.Anonimu (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Dahn (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr above

If someone cares to explain the issue in 100 words or less I might chime in... Pcap ping 19:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the whole issue is whether Tapalagă's opinion should be given so much prominence, i.e. half a paragraph. bogdan (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems WP:UNDUE as far as length goes, and that applies to the next full paragraph on the reaction of the guys from Cotidianul to the same issue. Of course, the competition took the opportunity to lampoon them; it's typical of the squabbles between Romanian journalists. I'm not sure why the obviously COI/biased reaction needs more space than the act itself. You'd think the entire Romanian press condemned them. (Rhetorical: should we add what Mircea Badea says about Cotidianul to that newspaper's article?) What about reaction from the readers? Was the circulation affect by this decision? Pcap ping 21:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To put this latest development in historical perspective, the departure of CTP and his team, which is a far more important event in the newspaper's history, is covered mostly in terms of bare facts and circulation figures in Adevărul#Changes in management. I'm sure there was a lot speculation and commentary by other journalists at the time on all that (can't be bothered to search much, here is one), but practically none of that is included here. By the way, this story has some interesting demographic profiles of the readers in 2005. Pcap ping 00:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. For one, how's about un-tl;dr it if you wish to comment on it. Secondly, per the above and the message you left on my talk page, you seem to be either endorsing or promoting a traditional knee jerk reflex by assuming that, since some guy alleged that I had a POV in writing this or anything else, it must be so, and that various things in the article need to be read like that. The "I'm sure you could have done more" argument is both unfair and irrational: I have explained in detail why I think Tapalagă's statement is to be quoted in full (I'll say it again: because he makes a complex point), and that explanation is poorly addressed by pointing out how other parts of the articles could also be cited. Yes, I could have done plenty of [other] things, but just because I did them this way doesn't mean I had an ulterior purpose. The claim that there is a COI issue (and an "obvious" one no less) is ridiculous. The "bias" point is both moot (the opinion is cited as an opinion and attributed) and actually a slippery slope (any source has some "kind" of bias, but that does not make them unreliable or unquotable, so let's stop before we think of testing this with a witch hunt). As for Mircea Badea, as long as the opinions are traceable to a reliable source (not just published on his blog or simply voiced on his show), the answer is yes - not because he is right, not because he is unbiased, but because he is relevant; I don't consider him a decent journalist, and he may not actually pass the criteria demanded from news and opinions here on wikipedia (i. e., he isn't really a journalist in most definitions), but as far the other issues go, and on principle, I don't see why not. Dahn (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, in general, let's please stop inventing new criteria about what is and isn't relevant or quotable. As long as an event is covered by several outside sources, it is relevant, and the "what did it do for the circulation?" issue pointless. You see, in writing the article, I did not try to find a way to introduce my POV about the events, but coverage of the events, any events, as it came with the sources, positive or negative. My contribution to listing and quoting those sources was to the best of my abilities, and there's always "the one" missing. And sure, I myself find Tapalagă's article well-argued (which, again, is not the same as guiding oneself after it); but adding it was not done on the basis of that personal assessment, it was done because the piece is, no matter how Anonimu spins the deal, relevant enough, and the opinion was not and is not substituted for a fact. There is nothing in the rules that would even begin to define anything in this as bad practice, but quite the contrary. Dahn (talk) 04:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One final point: so they're "typical" and "squabbles" - meaning: so this is not just your single-purpose definition, but the undeniable truth. Let's work with that hypothesis. But how does that address the point about their relevancy to the text and even to the real world? Even in that definition, we're left to work with them because this is the country we put up with. Claiming that the claims are dismissible as such is just as logical as the newspaper's decision not to publish news on politics. And, needless to say, wikipedia is not subject to such restrictions of content. Dahn (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your post above is why I generally didn't and don't edit articles on Romanian topics: to avoid having to deal with editors like you. (1) You assume that what I said to the (topic-banned) Biruitorul somehow was directed at you— that's your choice of identifying with him. (2) You claim that any commentary, as long as it's attributed, is not WP:UNDUE—only when it suits you. You posted a long rant on my talk page about how unbalanced another article was based on the same concern I raise here. Surely one can include any speculation/attack piece from Vadim in any article based your standard here. And I wasn't the one to write WP:UNDUE either. Having said that, I don't care about your reasons for adding silly speculation to this article from commentators who's newspaper went broke—which shows how much people really cared to read their opinions. Good day. Pcap ping 05:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incredible... One of two relevant and still worth answering to part of your message is the argument made about Vadim: there would be an issue of WP:RS, not one of UNDUE in his case (and not just). In this particular case, no matter how many times you repeat it, it is neither, and I have never said nor implied that any commentary advantageous to any position is automatically good or up to the standards wikipedia requires. And after all, we will have to put with all sorts of claims extracted from Ziua etc. in Idunno how many articles. The other is the "when it suits me" argument, which is phantasmagorical - have a good look over this article, at the very least, and you'll see why it's quite the opposite of what you claim. Special pleading is your game, not mine. And it's reaching a level of audacity when you intimate assessments of such commentary as being "silly", "squabbles", "lampoon" while claiming to expose my own POV. Dahn (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe just one more thing: I have never in what you call my "long rant" referred to a similar argument. You kept reading that into it, even though I explicitly told you that it is not the case: the goal is to have commentary from all relevant sides, pro and con, but from reliable sources and properly attributed. Nothing similar with anything in this discussion, where you are suggesting we should remove comments that are attributed, significant and published in reliable sources. Dahn (talk) 05:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on Adevărul. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Adevărul. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adevărul. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adevărul. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adevărul. 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: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Adev%C4%83rul