User talk:Dumuzid

Andrew Tate

Hey; I stepped back from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_386#New_potential_issue with the hopes that other editors would chime in, but the discussion was unfortunately archived with no further comments. You initially said this was an "easy keep", though seemed more non-committal as the discussion progressed. I'm inclined to remove the passage per WP:ONUS due to the lack of consensus for inclusion, and per the fact that I feel the sentence could reasonably be read as falsely implying an intent to commit crimes (when the real context was clearly different). But I wanted to reach out first, since you were (apparently) the only once voicing support for inclusion, to see if you reached any firm conclusion, or have any other thoughts on the matter. Cheers DFlhb (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DFlhb, I appreciate the heads up. I still support keeping the sentence, as it garnered quite a bit of attention, is uncontestedly factual, and I believe a reader could interpret it as they see fit--I don't believe it's our place to force meaning on things that are otherwise ambiguous. All that said, I think your reading of WP:ONUS is correct, and I don't object to removal based on it. Perhaps that will spark some discussion on the talk page or elsewhere, but perhaps not. Either way, I won't caterwaul! Have a nice day. Dumuzid (talk) 15:24, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do hope it'll spark some discussion. Also, I just learned what "caterwaul" means, so thank you for that. Have a great day too! DFlhb (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to contextualize? The first two sentences of the long transcript you posted are clear enough context (cut before the last phrase which has an unnecessary expletive). This could be in a footnote attached to the reference's superscript number, or better yet in the text that precedes the 40% quote. But what's the point? Is it even accurate? It doesn't really address "why Romania, instead of another country with less guilty-until-proven-innocent climate?" So I think it's not useful to include the quote. And it's belied by the verifiable-but-rumor-based section on Criminal Investigation. Martindo (talk) 00:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful for your input, but I'd rather you comment over at the article talk page than here, that way people can chime in, and decide whether they agree or disagree. DFlhb (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Martindo, thank you for stopping by, but your input would be better on the talk page, where it would be clear your position has a consensus! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:17, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar

		The Peace Barnstar
		Thank you for your comments. Andre🚐 01:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]