Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:17, 8 December 2007

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 | 12 | 13

Romanian wikipedia and the liberties it takes - please look into this

Hi, Bogdan. I was hoping you'll have a look into this, as you are in a position to review this conflict. I recently intervened in respect to ro:Vladimir Tismăneanu, where sources such as the Civic Media forum and Tricolorul are still being used, in defiance of rules. I explained my position on the talk page, and referenced the rules that make those sources be untenable on wikipedia (including the cornerstone "Verifiability, not truth"). The first part of the conversation was with Gutza, who first admitted that the source was dubious. My assessment was shared by Plinul cel tanar, who noted that Civic Media does not appear to have credentials. Gutza alleged, without presenting any proof, that I am somehow connected to Vladimir Tismăneanu - an accusation that should raise concerns in itself - and that there is a conflict of interests. MariusM intervened himself, expressing support for the link, and claiming that it should be kept because it expresses a relevant viewpoint. In one of his edits, he introduced what it turns out was a self-published source, contributed to the neofascist site Altermedia - this is a conflict of interests! He also keeps pushing back the link to Tricolorul, claiming that it is reliable enough, because Tismăneanu never contested it (I asked him to show me the rule that said he should, and, of course, there was no such thing). He also accused me of lacking "deontology" because I said Victor Roncea lied and MariusM thinks he did not - I told him that I am not a journalist and that I only edit on the basis of rules of conduct on wiki. He repeated the claim that I am related to Tismăneanu, based on Gutza's earlier allegations. Gutza himself returned with similar comments: together, they posted and reposted false warnings on the talk page I was using, even though I told them it was harassment; MariusM threatened me (he received no warning). Please, please, would you please have a look at ro:Discuţie:Vladimir Tismăneanu and intervene? It's getting out of hand, and am left facing ad hominems, insinuation and what seems to be a coterie. I have no energy to go through the higher stage of the process there, especially since they all seem to be backing each other when it comes to issues such as this one. I could really use an authoritative voice who has experience in editing there and has clearly a better grasp of the WP:RS issues than those guys. Dahn 04:39, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

And check this out! Dahn 04:48, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bogdan, please look here, Dahn is making untolerable personal attacks against me, he is accusing me of vandalism and of other things (in fact, I think he don't like that I dare to have a different opinion than him). Regarding the so-called "threat", I already gave an explanation to AdiJapan, is good also for you.--MariusM 16:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Be still, my trembling heart! After one erases sourced info on the basis of it "not being relevant" just because it exposes the nature of attacks against Tismăneanu, one cannot be said to have engaged in vandalism. Oh, my. Would Marius prefer if I took him to WP:AN/I right now?

As for the rest: Bogdan, I trust your judgment. I invoked the clear guidelines of WP:V and WP:BLP for all my arguments, and this person has claimed, well, his own opinion. As for the threat, he has actually been warned about it, whether he "explained" it afterwards or not. Dahn 17:09, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not manage yet to read the rather long discussion on Romanian Misplaced Pages, but here are a few thoughts after a first glance over the debate:

First of all, the rule about reliable sources is a core rule and it's not negotiable.

It's quite clear that Tricolorul should not be used as a source. That newspaper has an amazing record of slander/calumny and of publishing made up information and there's absolutely no reason to call it "reliable" by any definition of that term. Vadim publishes virtually everything he gets from his "informers" and while there might be *some* true information, most of it is bull. We can't personally check each article whether it's true or not.

The site of Civic Media appears to be an one-man show of a journalist, Victor Roncea and since it's some kind of a blog, it lacks editorial control, so it's also not considered a reliable source. I don't know how notable is Victor Roncea or his website, but if they're rather notable, I think some information could be used by attributing it to the website/article, but not being taken as truth. bogdan 23:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you perchance following this? Dahn (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but from what I see, it's quite futile trying to argue with them. bogdan (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre

Hi. Please check this article Khojaly Massacre as currently it contains strong Azerbaijanian POV. Thanks. Steelmate (talk) 03:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Notable" student society members

Hi. I noticed that you have removed the word "notable" in the title of a list of members of a student societiy. For consistency, I would request that you do the same for the four or so other organizations with the word "notable" in the titles of their lists shown here: Category:Lists_of_chapters_or_members_of_United_States_student_societies Thanks. 4.235.156.158 (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. bogdan (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)