Talk:Victor Ponta

Thesis links

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 Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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? - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I would argue that I understand the accepted way to cite sources on Wikipedia. But I fail to see how implying that I am "just pretending not to notice" is helpful for an honest discussion.

According to Wikipedia policy, as seen in WP:PRIMARY, reliable primary information may be used in Wikipedia. I quote: "unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia" and also "a primary source may only be used on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policies. -- Fsol (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

Linking to copyright material in this way appears to violate WP:COPYVIO. Dougweller (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2014

Between 1997 and 2001 he was undercover agent of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SIE), which is a serious violation of the Constitution which provides that a prosecutor may not have any other function. Ascodaniel (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Not sure what the source you've provided is, but per this, it seems he is accused of being such, and has denied it. per WP:BLP, need very high quality sources for any controversial information Cannolis (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Ancestry

I'm a bit confused. It seems as if his family is relatively recent to Romania. Is he seen as fully ethnically Romanian? I ask, because the category tags mention nothing of his Albanian and/or Italian ancestry, which I think would be something worthy of note in the tags, if even already mentioned in the main body of the page. I also find it curious, then, that critics of his opponent in the recent presidential election would make note of his ancestry seeing as how it seems Ponta's family are more recent arrivals to the country. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

He is seen as an ethnic Romanian in the sense that he doesn't identify as a member of a minority group and in fact stressed the fact that he's Romanian, a not-so-subtle dig at his opponent. On the other hand, given his comments about his ancestry, people are also now aware that he is at least partly of non-Romanian descent, although that's not extremely unusual in his region. And, yes, people have noted the irony: Iohannis can trace his family's presence in Romania for some 500 years, while at least part of Ponta's arrived much later. (This probably would have been a non-issue had Ponta not chosen to make one about Iohannis.)

In terms of the categories: I have no particular objection to including him in Category:Romanian people of Italian descent. The Albanian side is a bit trickier. He's claimed ancestry from Moscopole, which isn't any old place in Albania; it used to be a great center of Aromanian culture. And there are sources that comment on this aspect - linking his Moscopole descent to probably being Aromanian -, although thus far I haven't found any very good ones. So I suppose for now, we could use Category:Romanian people of Albanian descent and, should anything more solid come up, change that to Category:Romanian people of Aromanian descent. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan, to me. Perhaps, we could add the information about the Aromanian ancestry to the main article and leave out the tag until there is something confirmed. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Criminal charges' notability

As this is the first time in Romania that state prosecutors seek criminal charges against an incumbent prime minister <http://www.lepoint.fr/monde/roumanie-le-chef-de-l-etat-demande-la-demission-du-premier-ministre-soupconne-de-corruption-05-06-2015-1933921_24.php>, the case deserves better documentation and a separate (sub)heading. The issue is also, in my view, relevant enough to merit a brief reference at the top of the article.

Please also note that (at least) two senior editors here (Biruitorul & Dan Mihai Petea) come across as heavy-handed when dealing with other users' contributions. While their interventions are usually well-informed and well-intentioned, and while I do not suspect them of being in breach of neutrality, their dismissive attitude is not particularly encouraging to junior contributors such as myself. Sb2s3 (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

LATER EDIT: I just noticed that one of the above named gentlemen (Biruitorul) removed, yet again, one of my contributions, calling it a "tidbit" [of] information, and suggesting lack of national press coverage. This comes across as not only gratuitous (even if it were a 'minor' detail, which it is not, it would still merit inclusion), but also wrong in itself. The information has been expressly cited by the reputable 'ziare.com' source, here: http://www.ziare.com/victor-ponta/dna/scandalul-premierului-roman-urmarit-penal-in-presa-internationala-romania-a-intrat-in-criza-1366990.

In any case, as I feel I am wasting my time here, I will try not to advance any further arguments or contributions on this topic. Sb2s3 (talk) 13:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2015

Hi

I need to add an update for Ponta's recent accusations of committing fraud.

Thank you

Aflabetagamateta (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)