Talk:Călărași steel works

The ethnicity of the people involved is irrelevant

We should be careful with using sources that are racially biased. The majority of the people involved in the destruction of the steel works were not of Roma origin. Therefore its not relevant to name the relatively small participation of Roma. Either we are consequent and name all ethnicities by all responsible people involved or we don't name ethnic origin. The source mentioning the Romas is clearly racially biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chez alexito (talk • contribs) 11:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

We should be reporting what reliable sources have to say, not hiding the facts. That the metal thieves were Roma is attested by none other than Adevărul, perhaps Romania's premier newspaper. We're not going to be obscuring that fact just because you invoke absurd charges of "racial bias". And if you want to name other ethnicities, by all means - but first find the quotable sources that do so. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Just because Romanian media has a tendency to name the ethnicity ONLY when dealing with the Roma minority it is not the way we should describe things in Wikipedia. If you see any documentary about the steelworks or read any in-depth article you will see that all the main responsible people have been ethnic Romanians. But the ethnicity of the people involved in this is not relevant. If you want to insert the ethnicity you should explain first why you think this is relevant for describing the story of the steel mill. What difference does it make if the person stealing steel is ethnic Romanian or Roma? None.Chez alexito (talk) 13:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

You are not only clearly breaking the Wikipedia rules by creating an editing war without respecting the discussion forum. Your way of insistence in only naming Roma law-breakers and not other ethnicities shows your racial biasing and prejudices. Chez alexito (talk) 09:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

For months I have tried to enter a serious discussion to find a solution on this matter. Your response is to enter into an editing war. You use Adevarul's reputation to justify racial bias, the same newspaper that continuously writes articles pointing out Roma criminals while not using ethnicity when discussion other criminality. Or like the example of an Adevarul article presented in "The enemy Within: Roma, the Media and Hate Speech" by the well-respected activist and advisor to the European Council Valeriu Nicolae: On 24 November 2008, one of the biggest circulation non-tabloid newspapers in Romania, Adevarul, published in its section on the Spanish Press an article signed by Roxana Pall under the title "The map of the gypsy Romanian thieves from Madrid's metro".[1] The article quoted the security company that produced the map to the effect that "the majority of those stealing in the metro are Roma (Gypsies) of Romanian citizenship". The original article in El Pais,[2] on which the article in Adevarul was based, made no use whatsoever of the term "Roma" or "Gypsies" but referred only to "Romanians" For everyone reading Romanian press on a daily basis its obvious how media on a massive scale continues to reproduce the image of the Roma as the criminal explained by ethnicity while pointing at other factors when its about Hungarian minority or the Romanian Majority. Or like Nicolae concludes: Massive "popular support" for anti-gypsyism in Romania and Bulgaria continues to guarantee a receptive audience and a warped justification for blatantly racist articles and broadcasts in the media. A good number of journalists continue to seem unaware of or unconcerned by the consequences of their actions, in what amounts to the cultivation of xenophobia and incitement to ethnic hatred. There appears to be a substantial consensus in much of the print and broadcast media that Roma are to be represented not just as pariahs but as the enemy within. The mass media seems to accept and promote a dangerous Roma-citizen dichotomy, and in the process risks transforming itself into a vehicle for the promotion of ethnically motivated violence. Chez alexito (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Lets try to restart a constructive discussion. Its true that Adevarul is one of the most respected newspapers in Romania, but also Adevarul (and Romanian press in general) continues to reinforce ethnic biasing when reporting news. To keep it easy to understand and pedagogic I can show you some random examples from the last month. In November the newspaper reported on a group of criminals in Craiova that were arrested after a brutal fight in a Bar in Craiova. . The ethnicity of the criminals is not mentioned in the article. When two people in Galati in September destroyed the door of a morgue the article talks about "a group of gypsies destroying the door" . When a Romanian tribunal in july condemns a well known criminal the newspapers describes the condemned as "member of a Gipsy clan" . When another (ethnic Romanian) well known criminal is condemned in November in the city of Alba the ethnicity is not mentioned. . These are only four examples from Adevarul that illustrates ethnic biasing.

In these examples above the ethnicity of the criminals is not important. Still, the newspaper only mention ethnicity when talking about criminals of Roma origin. The article on the Calarasi steel plant follow the same pattern, ethnicity is only mentioned when Romanians of Roma origin are involved, although most of the people that profited on the dismantling of the steel plant were ethnic Romanians. My point is that although Adevarul is a respected newspaper in Romania it maintains some negative aspects of journalism that are not compatible with Wikipedia standards and philosophy. Chez alexito (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

References