Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Apparently, before listing this at ], I must first have a discussion on the talk page. I'm loth to talk about this more than necessary, since the issue is so sterile, but let's do so.
First, Fsol, do you seriously not understand that ], or are you just pretending not to notice? If you're not into reading style guidelines, have you at least never looked at ], ] or, heck, this very article, and documented yourself as to how such things are done? Did my thrice-repeated comments on "blind links" just fall on deaf ears? Your imperviousness to rectitude on this issue is staggering.
Second, to the main point. "]. Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Now, it's true that primary sources—in this case, two PDFs purporting to demonstrate Ponta's plagiarism—are not strictly forbidden. But there is, at the same time, no possible reason to include them when what we have to say about the matter is already said through secondary sources. In this case, we do just that, through ''Adevărul'', ''Gândul'', ''România Liberă'', and so forth. So what exactly is your case for including them, pray tell? - ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 14:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages'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 Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. 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 Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Apparently, before listing this at WP:DRN, I must first have a discussion on the talk page. I'm loth to talk about this more than necessary, since the issue is so sterile, but let's do so.
First, Fsol, do you seriously not understand that there is an accepted way to cite sources on Misplaced Pages, or are you just pretending not to notice? If you're not into reading style guidelines, have you at least never looked at a featured article, a good article or, heck, this very article, and documented yourself as to how such things are done? Did my thrice-repeated comments on "blind links" just fall on deaf ears? Your imperviousness to rectitude on this issue is staggering.
Second, to the main point. "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Misplaced Pages articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Now, it's true that primary sources—in this case, two PDFs purporting to demonstrate Ponta's plagiarism—are not strictly forbidden. But there is, at the same time, no possible reason to include them when what we have to say about the matter is already said through secondary sources. In this case, we do just that, through Adevărul, Gândul, România Liberă, and so forth. So what exactly is your case for including them, pray tell? - Biruitorul14:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
