Talk:Dan Voiculescu

message: Seems to me this article is highly biassed in favour of Mr Voiculescu. I strongly recommend reviewing the international press on the subject. 82.210.250.194 15:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bias for

message: This article is biased against Voiculescu. Notice how it says that Voiculescu uses journalists such as Ion Cristoiu, implying there is something fishy with the fact that Cristoiu is employed by the Intact group. Also, the owner of the Intact group is not Dan Voiculescu but his daughter, Camelia Voiculescu, as far as I know. That's a significant issue for an encyclopedia...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.156.11 (talk • contribs) 22:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree.  That portion was not accurate so deleted. But the rest, including Securitate involvement, is well-documented so it should remain. MIsterMan 20:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias against

message: The acronym PCR is used incorrectly in a couple of places (instead of PC). PCR used to stand for the Romanian Communist Party, the ruling party during Communism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.35.156.11 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PC not PCR 

message: I must register my unhapiness with a long sequence of edits and reverts to this article by User:86.120.232.207 (whose only contributions to WP seem to be precisely this sequence of edits/reverts).   
*First of all, some of these edits completely messed up the formatting of the article (including loss of all wikilinks and external links), to the point of making it simply unreadable.  When I (and other editors) pointed this out, the user kept reverting to that unreadable mess, using abusive (and rather weird) edit summaries such as "what reference do you want to plain logic? Aristotle? rejection of this version is proof that requests of formatting and refrences were pretextes for rejecting a fair contents of the article", "dont disturb WP to make a point, but for the truth and to avoid distortion of the same by gossip and innuendo. if you are really interested in formatting , why don't you format my version?", "version eminently readable, if worse formatted. fairness of contents comes first. you use the pretext of bad formatting to avoid the contents problem."  
* And, second, I don't know what the "truth" is here -- we go here by published sources, and reliable quotations. Adding stuff like "The accusations are indeed absurd, since the "laundered money" involved were actually perfectly legally obtained money, which needed no laundering - a cicumstance which makes the political motivation hypothesis eminently credible" just doesn't make sense here (not to say, the English is sub-standard).  Also, sentences like "Voiculescu has been accused by the political oponents' media of other corruption scandals", with reference to , is plainly absurd:  Is the International Herald Tribune part of "[Voiculescu's] political oponents' media"?  I mean, let's be serious here.  
Clearly, the article can be further developed, but this needs to be done the right way.  Edits and reverts like the ones described above don't really help -- more likely, they disrupt the process.   Turgidson 18:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by [[User:86.120.232.207]] 

message: Leaving technicalities aside , the bottom line here is that the official corruption accusation against Dan Voiculescu is that of laundering money. The money he is accused of laundering is the amount earned by his party colleague George Copos by selling some assets to the State-owned National Lotery and invested in one of Voiculescu's affairs. Now, whether that money was lawfully earned or not, morally earned or not, it was "white" money, money earned in the open, since it was paid with due forms by the State; so it was no "black" or "grey" money that needed laundering. You launder money you can't explain where it came from, not money paid by the State.
Therefore the accusation against Voiculescu of laundering clean, white money, is absurd. What reference is needed for such a logical , common sense assertion? 
The entire Dan Voiculescu article is full of innuendo, gossip, retained selectively under the pretext of "reference": however, the references are systematically selected from the media hostile to DV either on political grounds, or on grounds of economic rivalry. Of course International Herald is not among these, but it only quotes or refers to inner Romanian media , such as "Evenimentul zilei", the main rival in the printed press of (formerly) Voiculescu's "Jurnalul national". I will counter-reference all the biased assesrtions that tend to distort DV's image by selectve references as soon as I will learn the technique of introducing references (as I have finally learned to format correctly and to enter the discussions section). However, I don't think weighing the number of references and couter-references is an absolute criterium of truth for the reader of Wikipedia, and he or she should still rely on logic and common sense in order to select between the two.
I will therefore ask anybody interested in the contrary to abstain from reverting from this, logically valid position on the facts. The more so since the very "references" invoked to vilify DV by innuendo about his re-selling energy to the state for an enormous profit are consistent with my final addendum: "but no proof thereof has been presented". What pretext can be found to explain the systematic deletion of THIS final observation?
JUDEX73  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDEX73 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting to truth 

message: According to TheFreeDictionary http://www.thefreedictionary.com/implicated, implicated = culpably involved
As far as I know, there is no proved culpability of Mr. Voiculescu in the described scandals, other than various verbal accusations, despite of the opinion of some editors here, so the word "accused" is more appropriate here.
Please everyone, check with a lot of care the policy of wiki for biographies of living persons especially the section about potentially libelous articles.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.76.72.68 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Implicated" vs "accused" 

message: Mr Turgidson again reverts to a distorted and , essentially, libelous version of the "Corruptin investigation" section of the article on Dan Voiculescu, under the pretext that "wikipedia is not for making personal assessments". That, with reference to the appeal to logic and common sense I previously made: is is not a personal assessment to notice the obvious fact that you cannot launder clean, openly-earned money. Such an operation cannot fall under the provisions of any law against laundering dirty money. Of course, having no counter-arguments, he sticks to labels.  He claims references for logic and common sense, as well as he claims references for the assertion that "no proof thereof has been presented", concerning the piece of innuendo regarding a dirty deal with energy atributed to Dan Voiculescu. If there is proof, let's see it; if not, what reference can there be to its not existing?
The same Mr Turgidson, however, regards wikipedia a perfect place for making personal assessments of his own, labelling with no argument other people's comments as "too weak" or not being npov or wiki style (""absurd" is not npov or wiki style"). Who appointed him the Supreme Judge on Style?
Mr Turgidson only knows one tune: "Give me references". However, little he cares about the quality or impartiality of the references. For instance the innuendo about the dirty energy trick is based on ref [6], from the "Evenimentul zilei" journal, of 29 March 2007. As I pointed out this is the main competitor of one of the journals founded by Dan Voiculescu. This in itself is of course no proof of misconduct: but what actually the article in "Evenimentul zilei" says is that DV's company Grivco "earns dozens of millions of euro from cheap energy bought from Rovinari". This is a blunt lie: notoriously, Dan Voiculescu has long ago ceased to be the owner of Grivco, and he certainly wasn't its owner at the time the article was written. Reference [7] explicitly says that it extracts its information from reference [6] (Evenimentul zilei), and reference [8] (International Herald Tribune) says no word about any energy deal, but is nevertheless quoted as a reference in support if this libelous innuendo.
With false references and censoring out logic and common sense you can of course prove that white is black. But is this the purpose of Wikipedia?
JUDEX73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDEX73 (talk • contribs) 16:13-16:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, refrain from personal attacks against fellow editors, as per WP:NPA.  I will respond to the substance of the above comments if we can assume first that every editor here acts in good faith, as per WP:AGF; the tone of the above remarks seems to imply that I don't -- an assumption that I really don't like, and emphatically reject. Also, note that I am a different user than User:Dahn, some of whose edit summaries you seem to quote. Finally, the accepted practice here at WP is to sign comments on talk pages by using four tildes:  ~~~~.  Sincerely,  Turgidson 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Again reverting to truth 

message: As it can be checked, Mr Turgidson accused me of a bunch of sins; now he accuses me of "personal attacks on fellow editors".
I was repeatedly accused by Mr Turgidson of "makind personal assessments", although mine were pure logic and common-sense, while Mr Turgidsons were, as I proved with two examples, arbitrary evaluations (this is not to offend Mr Turgidson, but to clarify on a method of obtaining the truth by many-brains-collaboration). Now Mr Dahn makes the same accusation, in the same words, and equally without arguments. Why is my appeal lo logic a "personal assessment", and Mr Turgidson's arbitrary evaluations are not, Mr Dahn? 
"Whether references was properly done in Turgidson's version" has been clearly established in my above comment: it was not. It was based on a false assestion in "Evenimentul zilei", a journal in fierce competition with the ones founded by Dan Voiculescu. If you have a counter-argument, please deliver it (only you haven't!), but don't send the matter to a separate time and place, which would induce confusion.
And I have a lot of other, deeper comments, but just now I have to go shave in order start my working day, so I'll postpone them for later.
JUDEX73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDEX73 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: there is no "evaluation" as to Voiculescu's guilt in Turgidson's version. There is a huge personal one in yours. The matter of reporting facts based on Evenimentul Zilei is moot, since neither the newspaper or Turgidson's text state that Voiculescu is guilty, but that he was alleged to be guilty and investigated by an institution of the state. I personally don't care if he is guilty, but introducing a text that claims, no matter how tenable its arguments, the notion that Voiculescu is not guilty because Judex has made this assessment is contrary to wikipedia's principles. Go ahead and cite a source saying this, indicate that a source has said it (if you do find one, and yes, it can be Jurnalul Naţional), but do drop this charade whereby wikipedia guidelines are wrong and you are right. Dahn 09:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just to make a point clear here, since it seems hard to have a constructive discussion with JUDEX73. He complains at some point of my using references [8] (hotnews.ro) and [9] (IHT) in the "Corruption investigation" paragraph.  In fact, those references have been in place much before I ever looked at this article. Since there were questions about these references (and I'm still not clear on what the beef against them is, but I'm willing to look at them again if JUDEX73 is willing to engage in a constructive dialog), I added my own reference -- the Evenimentul Zilei article -- which, as Dahn says, reports the facts as stated in the article.  And yes, these are allegations (which is a term I prefer to "accusations", though I still think "implicated" can be used, but I dropped that, due to JUDEX73's objections) -- and presented as such.  This is done all the time at WP for biographies of living people that get caught up in controversies.   I agree, it needs to be done carefully, and said the right way -- again, I'm willing to work on improving the text, if this can be done in a constructive way.  But simply ignoring the controversy (when multiple, credible sources mention it), or adding rebuttals and/or JUDEX73's own conclusions/interpretations which are not based on citable quotations is not the way to go, I think.  Turgidson 11:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, are JUDEX73, User:86.120.232.207, and perhaps also User:82.76.72.68 one and the same?  I'm not sure who I'm supposed to reply to.  By the way, all edits from these three accounts pertain to a single article -- this one...  Turgidson 16:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1+1=2 

message: THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS! NOW I AM BEING PREVENTED FROM EDITING ON WIKIPEDIA, FOR THE SIMPLE REASON OF WANTING TO TELL THE TRUTH! THIS IS WORSE THAN COMMNUNIST CENSORSHIP! GAGGING IS USED INSTEAD OF ARGUMENTS! IS THIS THE WIKIPEDIA SPIRIT? 
26. 06.07
JUDEX73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDEX73 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TRUTH. Dahn 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. Sancho 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OUTRAGEOUS! 

message: Just to get out of this infinite loop (and the discussions with our friend Anonimu tend to the same state, no matter what the initial conditions are -- it's called a stable equilibrium, or a sink, in dynamical systems), I'd be interested in finding a wider variety of sources for this article. By curiosity, I checked Jurnalul Naṭional, since most everyone seems to agree that's a reliable journal (even Anonimu!).  Of course, the journal is owned by a member of the Voiculescu family, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be impartial in this matter.  I found though there was a controversy there, involving Dorin Tudoran, and an editorial he wrote, "Felix, Mircea ṣi Dorin, that apparently got him fired.  So, couple of questions:  (1) How come we don't have an article on Tudoran?  I thought he's a rather well-known figure in Romania, and, besides, he rates a page on ro.wiki.  (2)  Should the controversy surrounding that editorial (see also here and here) be mentioned, either in this article, or in the (putative) article on Tudoran (or both)?  Turgidson 00:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I think we should have an article on Tudoran (though I'm not jubilant at the though of creating it myself, at least not just now). And, yes, we should mention that issue here as well. Dahn 00:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, let me start a stub (hopefully soon), and we'll take it from there. (I took the liberty to move the previous two comments into a new section, and reindent them -- starting a fresh thread can be useful sometimes. :))  Turgidson 01:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What happened to the "discuss content, not editors" thing?Anonimu 08:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dorin Tudoran

message: Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Miramar_University
and
http://detc.org/downloads/publications/2009-10%20DETC%20Directory%20-%20June%2015%202009.pdf
HOG
: Yes, but it wasn't accredited back in 1991 when Voiculescu got his PhD. Clarified that. Pcap ping 21:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pacific Western University of California, now called California Miramar University, has become accredited by the DETC 

message: Is he still the CEO and/or the majority owner of that company? Did he transfer away only the media group or the whole company? Pcap ping 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently he transferred most of it: his declared net worth was only 12 million in 2008. . By the way, the info on his fortune is only in the lead; it should have a section. Pcap ping 21:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Grivco]]? 

message: It's a mess. Needs to be put in historical order. Pcap ping 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political activity section 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dan Voiculescu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070523073155/http://www.danvoiculescu.net:80/en/ to http://www.danvoiculescu.net/en/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070321043642/http://www.evz.ro:80/categ.php?catid=7 to http://www.evz.ro/categ.php?catid=7
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dan Voiculescu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928171038/http://www.csees.net/?page=country_analyses&country_id=6&ca_id=2181 to http://www.csees.net/?page=country_analyses&country_id=6&ca_id=2181
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Dan Voiculescu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20000518013126/http://www.aoar.ro/cv/voicules.htm to http://www.aoar.ro/cv/voicules.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921100713/http://english.hotnews.ro/MPs-decide-President-Basescu-breached-Constitution-articol_pda_1_-1_44554.htm to http://english.hotnews.ro/MPs-decide-President-Basescu-breached-Constitution-articol_pda_1_-1_44554.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718225754/http://stiri.kappa.ro/politica/19-04-2007/traian-basescu-suspendat-128644.html to http://stiri.kappa.ro/politica/19-04-2007/traian-basescu-suspendat-128644.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090325095513/http://www.sfin.ro/articol_15678/guvernul_dat_in_judecata_pentru_neaplicarea_%E2%80%9Elegii_voiculescu%E2%80%9C.html to http://www.sfin.ro/articol_15678/guvernul_dat_in_judecata_pentru_neaplicarea_%E2%80%9Elegii_voiculescu%E2%80%9C.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930043840/http://www.expres.ro/article.php?artid=298384 to http://www.expres.ro/article.php?artid=298384
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929111530/http://english.hotnews.ro/What-the-newspapers-say-March-29-2007-articol_44608.htm to http://english.hotnews.ro/What-the-newspapers-say-March-29-2007-articol_44608.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327192258/http://stiri.rol.ro/content/view/34889/2/ to http://stiri.rol.ro/content/view/34889/2/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070516064617/http://english.hotnews.ro/Romanians-are-the-ones-to-decide-what-sort-of-state-Romania-should-be-articol_44960.htm to http://english.hotnews.ro/Romanians-are-the-ones-to-decide-what-sort-of-state-Romania-should-be-articol_44960.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110208140517/http://www.dailycotcodac.ro/author/dan-voiculescu/ to http://www.dailycotcodac.ro/author/dan-voiculescu/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified