Talk:Criticism of Traian Băsescu

Allegations with questionable sources

A large portion of the article was composed of very dubious affirmations, envolving glow-bugs and similar nonsense. They were indeed soucred, but their sources are of questionable objectivity and validity: most of the news publications (Adevarul, Cotidianul, Gandul, etc.) belong to the media empires of Dinu Patriciu and Dan Voiculescu. It's in their best interest to smear Basescu as much as possible in order for their bosses to get off scot-free.

Some of the sections in this article are indeed true "controversies" (ex: Dosarul Flota, allegations from various interest groups that Basescu collaborated with the Securitate, getting behind the wheel after having a few drinks at the Golden Blitz...), in that they were openly discussed in the media and generated a lot of heat in the public opinion. All well and good. However, some of the crapola that I removed barely fell under the category of "controversies" ! Anybody can write any rubbish in a newspaper, allegating this and that, especially if said paper is owned by a guy such as Voiculescu. Does it mean anything ? Was it ever brought to widespread public attention, did it create legit discussions in the media ? Everybody's heard about Dosarul Flota, who has heard anything about what Basescu said to a journalist around a glass of beer, unless said person routinely purchases rags like Cotidianul ? Given the current atmosphere in Romania, with publications being paid to smear Basescu, can we hold their articles as the Scripture ? If I'd quote something from Scandal National, would it be a very believable source ? At the present moment, 90% of Romanian papers have become emulators of Scandal National. If Patriciu tells his editor-in-chief to write a piece about something that Basescu said envolving glow-bugs and bedroom activities, he'll write it. Not very credible from where I stand. I went to Adrian Nastase's article, and there isn't ANYTHING referring to "Count my eggs !", or about the time he told some journalists that if they still think he's gay, they should bring their wives to him and he'll prove how gay he is. Doesn't belong there ? Doesn't belong here. Period.

And the portion about Stolojan's retirement, what is it doing here ?! From the way it's written, it makes the reader think that Basescu was in some way envolved with the blackmail that made Stolo retire. Basescu and Stolojan have always been peeps, Stolojan's party was the only one other than the Democrats who spoke out against Basescu's impeachment. What makes you think that Basescu would have had the interest of forcing Stolojan to retire, only to replace him with a guy like Tariceanu ?

Oh, and next to what I mentioned above, the section referring to Basescu's alleged vulgarities is written in broken English ("Politeness...Civility"). Let's not enter Borat territory, citizens. --Voievod 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian newspapers Adevarul, Gandul, Cotidianul were never accused for writting false information. None of these papers is owned by Voiculescu; only Adevarul in owned by Dinu Patriciu. Cotidianul is controled by SC Catavencu SA. Regarding Adrian Nastase, it would be usefull to enter a chapter civility to his article. Regarding Stolojan, I never intended to suggest that Basescu was blackmailing Stolojan; the idea was just about his discourse.Dl.goe 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a newspaper article that stated which news publications belong to whom, but I don't know where I put it. Once I find it, I'll get back to you on that. Still, the gist is: we just can't write every questionable info about so-and-so politician that we find in a paper, or it'll never end. One must consider the ulterior motives behind an article, and right now it's the crusade gainst Base. Counterpoint, the SRI directors; indeed, Base had promised to do something about it and he didn't. Problem, controversy; it was talked about in the mass-media and was brought to the President's attention. But what Basescu did or did not say to so-and-so journalist is entirely a matter of shock press. --Voievod 16:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophically speaking, we may think that only the enemies of a public person would write bad things about him, but, as long as the fact is true, as long as the factual accuracy of a quote was never contested, we have no reason to neglect it just because the person who printed it was not a freind of Basescu. Basescu was repeatedly accused for not behaving as a President, and I think the civility chapter is relevant to ilustrate controversies regarding his behavior. It would also be usefull in understanding why our presindent is so isolated.

Similar information are present in other articles, for example, it is written that George Bush didn't spell correctly the word nuclear [1].

I am by no means the only one to observe that Traian Basescu refused the visit of Tariceanu. For example, Doina Cornea wrote about this controversed behavior of our President.[2] Dl.goe 07:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any enyclopedic value to all this. The affirmations may be sourced, but few of the sources are credible and nobody can validate that they're really true. So revert. --Voievod 19:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is this:

-Dan Voiculescu's media empire: Jurnalul National, Antena 1, 2 & 3.

-Dinu Patriciu's media empire: Adevarul, Ziua, Averea, Gardianul.

-Adrian Sarbu (also a hater): Gandul, Pro TV.

-Sorin Ovidiu Vantu (more nuanced)

Jurnalul National: Ion Cristoiu, formerly a respectable journalist with good logic, has changed radically: all his editorials are driven by the desire of biting Basescu in the ass.

Ziua: Sorin Rosca Stanescu, one of Tariceanu's flunkies, kept writing about how Basescu should be eliminated no matter what.

Pro TV: Cristian Tudor Popescu has reached Vadimesque levels of incoherence in his rants and raves against Basescu.

Cotidianul is more nunanced and transparent, with arguments from both sides (source: "Pagini Romanesti", 28 Apr. 2007, page 5, "Doua tabere in razboi").

Many of the sources come from publications listed above. Thus, their credibility is questionable, to say the least. Note how I didn't erase every fucking section in the article, I kept the credible and SERIOUS "controversies" that were DISCUSSED IN THE MEDIA and that have VALIDITY as opposed to SENSATIONALISM and vendetta writing. The SRI chiefs, the nomination of Vantu, all are problems that have created LEGIT controversy and have been talked about in the media; Basescu even publically repented for his nomination of Dobrea. Pardon my French, but HOW THE FUCK did Basescu's alleged "politeness" problems create any "controversy" ?! The only places you'd read about them is in the friggin' rags that "Felix the Cat" Voiculescu and Patriciu put out ! Does the general populace even know, let alone care, about this ? Than how the devil is it "controversy", what controversy is there when only a select few have even heard about it ? This is just sensationalism for sensationalism's sake and the vendetta of Dinu & co.

Now, I don't know what machinations drive you, "Mr. Goe", but you're not really improving Wikipedia in any way, shape or form with your "smoking gun" style of writing. I mean, who died and made you the smoking gun, authority on every seedy thing that goes on with politicians ? You are turning Wikipedia into a friggin' tabloid. Maybe you're a PNL drone and/or member of the lunatic fringe who want to turn Romania into a parliamentary republic or parliamentary monarchy, but your edits reek of vendetta and partisan writing. Thanks to all the garbage you added to this article, Basescu has likely become THE Romanian politician with the most "controversy" surrounding him. I don't see half as much controversy in the articles of Nastase (who does have a fair deal), Geoana (who has none) or Tariceanu (who'se likely behind all this shit). You are operating on shady purposes, sir, J'accuse ! If I am wrong, defend yourself. Until then, I'm putting at least a POV tag on this tabloid article. -Voievod 18:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not intend to respond to personal attacksDl.goe 21:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Dl.goe, until today I considered you a respectable editor. What is wrong, did you wake up on the wrong side? Why are you suddenly becoming so agressive? Voievod has a stong point in the above argument, IMHO. If you want to keep the volume of this article as is, then I have a counter-proposition: rename it "Anti-Basescu propaganda". :Dc76 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can rename it Criticism of Traian Băsescu, on the model of Criticism of George W. Bush.

Voievod questioned the factual accuracy of articles in Adevarul, Cotidianul, Gandul. I believe newspapers are not allowed by law to present false information, and I don't remember either of these newspapers having been accused of such practices.
1. For example, at European face subchapter, I feel it is useless to question the factual accuracy of a quote, as long as it was recorded life at television
2. Another example, regarding Phones to the Chief Attorney of DNA subchapter, the reference I provided is to the TV record where Daniel Morar makes that statement.
I've been criticised that some content was not brought to widespread public attention or discussed in the media
1. What does discussed in the media mean? I took the information from press.
2. I have been told "Does the general populace even know, let alone care, about this ?"Even if not in public attention, some concernes may be of juridical technical nature, and thus very important.

Dl.goe 14:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new title sounds ok with me.

1. Newspapers are not required by law to never present false information. They are required to do their best to verify it. By citing, you link the credibility of the statement to the reputation of the sourse. That is absolutely ok, and that is all we can do. Say, "according to an article in Adevarul etc". I see no problem with that. I personally don't believ all the "crap" they say, but if someone wants to believe, be my guest.

2. I guess what Voievod ment was, there are people that have said 100 times more things that Basescu, and have two paragraphs. And here 50KB. WP should not reflect all non-notable incidents, just as you and me will never have bibliographies on WP, we are non-notable.

2.2.b. :-) don't even think to mention "juridical technical" again, or the next time it will a box match, not referndum :-) I hope you understand the humor. :Dc76 14:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added those two paragraphs to Adrian Nastase. I don't think such statements are non-notable. I would say that this level of dialoque in Romanian public life is most damaging, and in some countries, any of these statements would have meant retirement from politics.Dl.goe 18:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... of the oligarchs. :-) :Dc76 19:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]