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.
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)
I would argue that I understand the accepted way to cite sources on Misplaced Pages. But I fail to see how implying that I am "just pretending not to notice" is helpful for an honest discussion.
According to Misplaced Pages policy, as seen in WP:PRIMARY, reliable primary information may be used in Misplaced Pages. I quote: "unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Misplaced Pages" and also "a primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts".
Furthermore, in the same policy, an example is given to describe when primary sources and when secondary/tertiary sources are to be used. The example is of a passage that may be cited but not interpreted through a primary source. Secondary or tertiary sources are required for the interpretation of that passage.
In our case, the case of Mr. Ponta's plagiarism accusation, we have exactly what the policy recommends: (1) reliable (in my opinion) primary sources which only show the text that is allegedly plagiarised and the text that has been copied, without any interpretation, and (2) interpretations (that you have added along with other editors) that are based on secondary and tertiary sources according to Misplaced Pages policies. -- Fsol (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
