Talk:Sofia Rotaru

message: The article looks in quite bad shape at the moment, due to following errors:
1)The lead section identifies the nationality and the occupation of Rotaru based on the imagination of her fans editing the article. Proposal: to use the nationality and occupation what she herself uses to identify herself on her official biography.
2)The article includes dubious claims that are unsourced. Proposal: to either source the claims or remove them.
3)The biography section is poorly written and too long to digest. Most of the info is insignificant and the significant info could be concentrated to half the size of the current biography section.
4)The 'Fans of Sofia Rotaru' section is unencyclopedic and insignificant. I mean, If I wanted to read a whole section about her stalker or her impersonator, I'd go to Russian gossip sites. The people who created her websites are highly irrelevant in an encyclopedia and will be removed.
Dear fans of Sofia Rotaru. Please make these corrections yourself. If you don't, somebody else will in close days to come. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what you mean by a "source for my suggestions". 1) You can find the source right after the proposed change, which is http://www.sofiarotaru.com/life/facts; 2)Per WP:VERIFIABILITY, all material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source, or be removed.I have done exactly per WP:BOLD; 3) I and Lvivske have made very little changes to the Biography section, however, I placed the WP:CLEANUP tag because it is written in an excessively detailed matter which can be avoided. Remember, the article is intended for humans, not fans. Here's an example. The section:"After the tragic death of Volodymyr Ivasyuk in 1979, a number of songs by Moldavian composers appeared in her repertoire (namely, songs by the brothers Teodorovici). By that time Sofia Rotaru had ceased collaboration with Moldavian authors, primarily Eugene Doga. The latter, actively created rumors that the voice of Sofia Rotaru was created note by note on a computer. Singing in different languages became the source of fierce arguments regarding which culture Sofia Rotaru belonged - Moldavian or Ukrainian. She was also considered as a "fellow" in Russia, and in Armenia the question was debated whether to award her with the Meritorious Artist of Armenian SSR. As the USSR collpsed in 1991, a joke became popular: during talks at Belovezhskaya Puscha the question was raised "how will we divide Rotaru". The singer, who always lived in the Ukraine, considered herself to be a Ukrainian citizen, while not denying her Moldavian roots," wouldn't loose any notable info, if it read:"Losing her songwriter Volodymyr Ivasyuk in 1979, she stopped collaboration with Moldavian authors. One of the reasons was a Moldavian composer, Eugene Doga, spreading rumours about her voice being created on computers. Her ban of Moldavian songs while continuing to sing in Russian, Ukrainian, Armenian, and many other languages, and receiving merits from the representatives of the Soviet republics, raised the issue of her nationality." Otherwise, nobody will ever read this. 4) The 'Fans of Sofia Rotaru' section was a violation of WP:Notability (web). --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

text: A nation doesn't own a person, vice versa. Per WP:Citizenship and nationality:"Nationality denotes informal membership in or identification with a particular nation." It goes without saying that the membership is voluntary and the identification unilateral. None of your references state, what Rotaru herself identifies herself with. Or, by "Russian, Moldovan and Ukrainian" you mean citizenship? None of your sources say anything about her citizenship. On this page, Sofia Rotaru identifies herself as Ukrainian, not Soviet, Russian nor Moldovan. The article will reflect her self-identification. Feel free to introduce other current self-identifications. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: You've left my other remarks uncommented. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Her're some comments from the history of the article, which you've failed to discuss:
1) Krugozor was not a label but a magazine where Melodiya published flexi-discs.
2) removed the WP:PEACOCK
3) Russian edition of Postimees is not 'the press' and the article does not say 'This Is All We Have'.
4) replaced the mess of an opening statement with the opening statement from her official biography.
Please comment before reverting! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

text: And one more from Lvivske: that doesnt make sense. Please check out what's behind the comments and give your counter arguments  before reverting. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Change of content

message: The discussion has turned into a monologue once again, so I'll present it in a nutshell. Most of the material here is a violation WP:VERIFIABILITY, which says:"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed," and: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." My request for sources has been up on this talk page since April 28 (see Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Change of content, so I suggest anybody who is interested in keeping some specific info in the article, to start inserting citations right this moment! 
Another major issue was the content of the "Fans of Sofia Rotaru". It's obviously sourced, but its topic is not the singer herself nor even her reception, but the leading fans and the webpages they've created. This was a violation of WP:Notability, specifically WP:Notability (web) and has been ruthlessly removed. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which information exactly is "cotroversial unproven information"? WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:PEACOCK, WP:Notability (web)? Or perhaps her official biography? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: The proposal in a nutshell

message: I'm in agreement with Jaan Pärn on this. As it stands right now, the Fan Scene section of this article suffers from extensive original research and lack of notability. Just because a bunch of fan sites exist does not mean that they get to be included - or that you can use them as references. For example, it's inappropriate to say "There are fan clubs in (x), (y), (z)" and then have refs to fan clubs in those areas. The rest of the section has no reliable sources on it, and it needs a huge cleanup. I'd support a huge, huge paring down of this section to only what's verifiable by secondary sources. For an example of a section that's at least marginally better, look at Twilight (series)#The Twilight Phenomenon. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not really a solution... and I don't really think you understood what I was talking about. I think that the Fan Scene section needs to be made much, much smaller than it is, and it must be sourced by secondary sources. But hey, let's see what you come up with. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just started a new section below to talk about this; see #Fan scene cleanup. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third opinion 

message: The source for the claim appears to be the oral statement made by Deputy Chairman of the State Tax Administration Serhii Lekar. The summary statement, as communicated by the Ukrainian News Agency can be found here: http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/137362.html . According to it, Rotaru did declare the highest income of the Ukrainian celebrities, but does not give anything on the sum. Even if he did, an encyclopedia like Wiki cannot base such a contentious claim (Rotaru earning more than any other entertainer in the world besides The Police) on an oral statement (mis?)interpreted by newspapers before it is included in a comprehensive report like the one by Forbes. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sofia Rotaru $100,000,000?

message: I've removed a whole lot of text from this section. It's sort of a violation of WP:EL to have links to all the fanclubs in reference tags. Also, I've added fact tags after every sentence. I have no idea why Alimzhan Tokhtakhounov or Dionis Kelm are notable enough to be listed here, so we need some clarification there. I don't even understand Dionis Kelm's role in this - is he/she a tribute act? Other text can be added to this section, but it must be referenced. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 05:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan scene cleanup 

message: The prose of the current Early life an career section is difficult to follow. This is due to an extremely loose time frame of the section which generally should be in a strict time order. I have tried to improve that by moving general remarks about her artistry, legacy, nationality, and personal life to appropriate sections, but the Early life and career section still needs a great deal of work.
Another concern is the total lack of inline citations, which make the text unverifiable. Also please note that per WP:ALBUM and WP:SONGS, original album and song titles should be presented, not their translations. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned on your talk page, you need to clean up your additions. You've been adding entire sections to this article without any sourcing. It's not appropriate to add unsourced text and then mark the section as needing improved references; you have to provide the references when you add the text. The next chance I get, I'm going to go through the article and scrub it to remove stuff that is entirely unsourced. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The material I added to the Sofia Rotaru#Legacy section was copied from the existing body of text in Sofia Rotaru#1986–1989: New wave - Europop and hard rock, re-written into a much more neutral prose. I'm trying to avoid deleting portions of the current article (which is in a shape of a poorly written fan site, I agree completely), and to move and re-write them instead. This may look confusing, I agree, but all of the peacockery was already there before me. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. One other thing you might want to do is remove the peacock text as you're splitting up the sections. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography cleanup

message: AnnYong's suggestion was not to copy the title of Twilight (series)#The Twilight Phenomenon but to take a look at it as an example of a better written fan section. In Twilight (series)#The Twilight Phenomenon, the term 'phenomenon' is sourced whereas in Sofia Rotaru#Sofia Rotaru Phenomenon it is not, therefore the header is WP:OR at its least and furthermore a WP:PEACOCK term. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. I didn't mean that we should literally copy over that use; it's just an example. And in that case, like Jaan said, the word 'phenomenon' has a source attached to it. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: As I suggested, the material about her financial affairs belongs to the Personal life section. And the title does not have to be literally sourced, just the term 'phenomena' here is way too strong. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you say the term "phenomenon" is strong here? --Rubikonchik (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The word phenomenon has two meanings: philosophical - and cultural - phenomenon (SUCCESS) someone or something extremely successful, often because of special qualities or abilities: The Beatles were a phenomenon - nobody had heard anything like them before. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

text: This is not about HER financial affairs, but about people making money with her name, people who have studied the way she tours and her true producers act...--Rubikonchik (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Then it fits no section at all and it is too small for a section of its own. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It perfectly fits the section about her fans as it existed before you deleted it: with references to Galina Starodubova and Taivanchik links.--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you genuinely feel, mobsters who abuse her name for deceipt, belong to her fan section, so be it. In a twisted way they do. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: "Sofia Rotaru Phenomenon"?

message: Here we go again. Rubikonchik, please show sentence by sentence, where exactly did we reach agreement on adding the info in your newest edits on this article? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubikonchik, you do not appear to be grasping the idea voiced in numerous times on this talk page, that a fan page as a reference does not constitute notability for the fan page itself. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh come on, I thought we had these issues dealt with. Rubikonchik, your edits are really not good. These huge changes you're making to the lead are hard to read and are making it way, way too long. The fan club stuff is still original research, and things like YouTube should never be used as references. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is it difficult to read the lead as it is currently edited. Check for the lead of Mina (Italian singer), where Jaan Pärn is actively involved. Should we inspire from that one as a good example?--Rubikonchik (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Ok, propose a lead here, let's discuss it and make a good one.--Rubikonchik (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's just one issue; there are a lot more problems in your edits that you haven't addressed, like the fan club stuff. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Okay. First, this isn't a fansite, and all of this text makes her seem to be the greatest person ever to live. We don't need to mention every single language she's ever sang in. It's totally POV to say "She is known for combining a lyrical deep rich voice, sex appeal, and social or religious themes." All of her awards should be listed in the Awards section, not in the lead. Either way, it's not just the lead; you readded pretty much the entire Phenomenon section, which is rife with inappropriate references such as YouTube links. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: May be you are right, and I am most willing to change it for the better. Should we inspire from the lead of Mina (Italian singer), where Jaan Pärn is actively involved, as a good example?--Rubikonchik (talk) 16:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That page is none of my concern. We should really go based on articles that have been deemed good, like Celine Dion and Gwen Stefani (FA class). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rubikonchik, you need to start listening. If several people say that the contents you are relentlessly pushing are biased and make the article sound like a fan site, then probably you need to do something. I have tried my best to change the contents towards neutrality. This has involved removing several POV and peacock statements. The burden of evidence lies on you, so start providing solid sources for your statements. Likewise, the burden of neutral tone lies on you, so please re-write your desired statements that were removed and post them here for discussion. Posting the entire lead in your version is not constructive. -- Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Generally looks good to me, apart from the fact that the only cited source that calls her Queen of Pop is the Russian edition of Postimees which to my opinion does not constitute enough notability for a lead. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, why not? Is it not reliable? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is but it is a minor news channel with just a few tens of thousands of readers. -- Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. It's notable enough to have its own Wiki article. Seems okay to me.. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then. -- Jaan Pärn (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Contents pushed by Rubikonchik

message: See  . --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Erikupoeg, please stop pushing your unsupported by any source nor citation POV and please stop insulting me. Using defamation does not add any weigth to your would be "argument". You have clearly shown, to me at least, bad faith in the foregoing debate regarding Sofia Rotaru's revenues. First you provided unexisting interpretation of clear sources, including providing a false translation. Second you have clearly said what was your goal here: "any reason is good for the exclusion". So I guess any further debate regarding this matter should take in the appropriate place on Wikipedia with you, but also other users who will appreciate your "good faith". Third, the quote of User:HelloAnnyongn you have provided does not mean anything as 1) the reason why the provided sources are considered as unreliable was not provided, 2) no comparison with other artists is made, as a matter of fact. So, as you can see, these assertions are false.--Rubikonchik (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You know, I put a second break in this section so we wouldn't have to keep scrolling all the way down to the bottom. Jaan, it's a little incorrect to call Rubikonchik's edits vandalism. Having said that, I still agree with the removal of those edits. I just went to http://aif.ru/culture/article/23952 and kept getting hit with popups. I'm pretty sure that invalidates any sort of reliability the site has. And I'll reiterate what I said, even though Jaan gave you a link to it: in my opinion, your addition to how much money she earned is pushing entirely too much weight. Rubikonchik, Jaan and I have previously agreed that a sentence stating "Sofia Rotaru, for example, reported the highest income of all celebrities." would be acceptable. (At least, I thought that would be okay?) We're trying to resolve this issue, but you just keep pushing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You are contradicting to what you have said earlier. You didn't want to make any comparisons, didn't you? Now, Erikupoeg simply and plainly deletes all references, whereas you suggest something else. There comes his bad faith editing again.--Rubikonchik (talk) 08:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, HelloAnnyong is suggesting exactly the same thing for you to stop pushing your ideas which have reached no agreement from any other editors. Instead of pushing new ideas to the articles, you could be citing sources for the old ones. The article, mostly written by you, virtually lacks citations which has been pointed out since April while your effort has been elsewhere and has produced few results.  --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User HelloAnnyong is not suggesting what you edited. Please stop inetntional bad faithed editing and personal attacks, how many times should one ask you this?--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here are quotes of HelloAnnyong that say otherwise: "Jaan and I have previously agreed that a sentence stating "Sofia Rotaru, for example, reported the highest income of all celebrities." would be acceptable." and "We're trying to resolve this issue, but you just keep pushing." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating what the government guy said, and only that, is sufficient for me. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat, even here, User Erikupoeg keeps bad faith editing. It results clearly from the posts of user HelloAnnyong and from the last one in particular that he wants to keep the reference and namely to quote the statement of the official, which I have already done (in Russian only though, but translation is not a problem). User Erikupoeg, keeps on blindly deleting the whole thing again and again for invented unexisting reasons. --Rubikonchik (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break, again 

message: I can't believe this conversation is still going on. This entire thing is about adding "more than 500 million hryvnia." Seriously? That's really worth days and days of fighting? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a simple in or out question and has to get settled somehow, hasn't it? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's say, for argument's sake, that I accept that the source is reliable. Even if that were true, I still wouldn't want the text included on the page, as I believe it's adding way too much WP:WEIGHT to the topic. Yes, we know that she made more money than everyone else on the entire planet. But it's dipping too much into resembling a fan site and starts us down a slippery slope of comparing her to other recording artists, which we should not do. If you look at the featured-class articles for performing artists, by and large they don't ever mention how much income someone made. That is why I oppose the inclusion of her income. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as any reason is good for the exclusion. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Break 2 

message: So Olahus made this change from Moldavian to Romanian. According to Moldovan language, "the language spoken in Moldova is identical to Romanian... but for political reasons both names Moldovan and Romanian are used inside the country." We can argue about how to describe the language, but changing "Moldavian heritage" to "Romanian heritage" is a pretty heavy change, it seems. I guess the question is what the sources say. Olahus didn't provide any references when he or she made that change, but there's a quote from her in the article that says "that the Moldavian family name". That seems as good as anything to me to show that she is of Moldavian heritage. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not neet to argue about that. We have already plenty of useless arguing here. If you find a source where she is referred to as Romanian, then go ahead and cite it in the article.--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  made this change again today, but it seems like all three of us - that is, Rubikonchik, Erikupoeg (presumably) and I - are all in agreement on the fact that it should say Moldavian. Again, no sources were given, so I don't really see why the change is needed. And the fact that the three of us are in agreement on something is pretty incredible in itself, I'd say. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Romania, the things related, as far as I know, to it are : 1) sister of Sofia - Aurica Rotaru told in her interview that the village they were born belonged before to the territory of Romania, 2) Sofia Rotaru toured Romania in 70's with Chervona Ruta, for more info on that issue please check Billboard 27 January 1979 (146 pages, page 88 section "INTERNATIONAL" by Octavian Ursulescu from Bucharest)) ISSN 0006-2510, published by Nielsen Business Media, Inc. quote: "...ARIA [the Romanian Artistic Management Agency] has also arranged for visits to Romania of leading foreign performers. Included are: Sofia Rotaru and her group Chervona Ruta from Russia, ..." , 3) the language of performance of some of Sofia Rotaru's songs was indicated as Romanian on some of her albums (which exactly, I don't remember, good luck checking more than 40 albums' covers...)--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Olahus, I gave you exact reference for the Romanian tour to insert into the article, instead you suggest to insert what? "User Omahus thinks that "Sofia Rotaru only cited what the Soviet authorities said about her family name. Not what she believes about it"?--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, I hope the issue is closed now. --Olahus (talk) 09:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue isn't closed. You still haven't cited any sources or anything. It's your original research that she said only what the authorities said and not what she believes. There is nothing on the page that suggests that she changed her name from Rotari to Rotaru - or that Rotari is a Romanian name. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It would take solid reference to change it either way. Before such material is presented, it should rest in the original form which was probably Moldavian. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Can you explain why it should be readed "Moldavian" instead of "Romanian". Which point of view it actually? Sofia Rotaru's ? I doubt it. There is also no consensus to use the designation "Moldavian". --Olahus (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a source on it called 'Romanian' instead of 'Moldavian'? Before you don't, it will rest as is. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

text: We use http://www.senat.org/integ4/txt11.htm as a reference right now, and on there, it says "Sofia Rotaru: I was born and raised in Ukraine, the Moldovan family here - my home and I - a citizen of Ukraine." At least, that's how Google Translate translates it. I'm pretty sure that means that she's Moldavian. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian vs Moldavian 

message: Following Rubikonchik's edit here, I think I should state this plainly, in case it wasn't already obvious: what I said in this edit - "Stating what the government guy said, and only that, is sufficient for me." - does not mean "In 2008, she declared revenue significantly higher than 500 million hryvnia (about $100 million)." — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's what said the official.--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not. Here are the direct quotes again as reported by Ukranews: "Lekar noted that Sofia Rotaru, for example, reported the highest income of all celebrities." and "the State Tax Administration registered three persons with income exceeding UAH 1 billion in 2005." --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please stop deliberately bad faith editing. This has been already discussed and exact citation was given numerous times from one of the world's largest news agency, respectful press sources as well. The number was given. It is useless to try to give it personal interpretation, otherwise this remains a mere lie.--Rubikonchik (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not go as far as using the word 'lie' here but surely enough, RIA Novosti quotes Lekar saying that Rotaru declared the biggest incomes while Ukranews reports Lekar saying: "Sofia Rotaru, for example, reported the highest income of all celebrities". One of the news agencies is citing a false quote. What makes you so sure it is Ukranews? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we allowing this text in now? Or perhaps you'd like to explain why the text approved by me and Jaan - "In 2008, Rotaru reported the highest income of all celebrities in the Ukraine." - is unacceptable. You've avoided answering that for quite a long time now. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Erikupoeg is exactly lying.  http://kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=915810 and http://rian.com.ua/economy/20080718/77966106.html clearly give quotes of Sofia Rotaru's revenues indicating the number. No source says that anyhtong is wrong with these citations, except certainly personal "analysis" of User:Erikupoeg, moreover, the source he quotes cites only half of the quote cited by the first two mentioned sources.--Rubikonchik (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I translated the first link and got this: "Sofia Rotaru declared the highest incomes in the Ukraine in 2007, said deputy chairman of the State Tax Administration of Ukraine Sergiy healer. He did not specify the amount of declared, but noted that revenue People's Artist of Ukraine "is much higher than 500 million hryvnia (about $ 100 million)."  And the second link says the exact same thing. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: RIA Novosti reports two quotes. First of them: "Sofia Rotaru declared the highest incomes in the Ukraine in 2007," and second: "The largest income significantly exceeds 500 million (hryvnia) (about $ 100 million)". Kommersant reports the identical first quote while it modifies the second, saying:"that revenue People's Artist of Ukraine "is much higher than 500 million hryvnia (about $ 100 million)."" (note the double quotes). The first quote by Ukranews is not half of anything but matches exactly what RIA Novosti and Kommersant report as their first quote. The only reasonable thing to do is to include the first quote reported by each of the news agencies, and leave the rest of the shambles out. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you lie. Here is the simple rough translation by http://translate.google.com of
1) http://rian.com.ua/economy/20080718/77966106.html
"...People's Artist of Ukraine Sofia Rotaru declared the highest revenue for the year 2008, said deputy chairman of the State Tax Administration of Ukraine Sergiy healer at a press briefing on Friday. 
In doing so, he did not specify the amount of declared, but added that "the most revenue significantly exceeds 500 million (hryvnia) (about 100 million dollars)...."
2) http://kommersant.ru/doc.aspx?DocsID=915810
"...The singer Sofia Rotaru declared the highest incomes in the Ukraine in 2007, said deputy chairman of the State Tax Administration of Ukraine Sergiy healer. He did not specify the amount of declared, but noted that revenue People's Artist of Ukraine "is much higher than 500 million hryvnia (about $ 100 million)...."--Rubikonchik (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here we go with the outrageous claim of Sofia Rotaru being the highest earning entertainer on the planet getting  added again and again. We did not agree to allow this in the article. Why is it there? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The only truly "outrageous claim" here is your fake translation and all the "hard work" you perform to push it through... Also, regarding your last edits where you specify who exactly calls Sofia Rotaru Queen of Pop or Queen of Russian Pop, you may add this http://www.radioportal.ru/news/5173/pyatiletie-festivalya-legendy-retro-fm-otmetili-bolee-20-000-zritelei and this http://legendyretrofm.ru/press/2009/89. But honestly, I think the article looks silly when you add to Sofia Rotaru called Queen of Russian / International Pop "by Mr. X, Mrs. Y; Mr. W; Mrs A;" and so on and so forth...--Rubikonchik (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh 

message: Hi. I protected the article page today for 3 months due to the edit war that is going on. This is a very long period of time; I chose it because this has been a longstanding battle on the talk page and article, and I don't want any of you to simply wait for the protection to end.
Okay, my advice boils down to C and C.
The first C is civility. The reverts, edit summaries, and talk page have been less than civil. Remain civil. Step away from the keyboard if necessary.
Secondly, consensus. Please reach a consensus on what text should be included and what isn't important. This should be done BEFORE any editing happens. Even if someone was to post to the article page, this is when you could (and should) use dispute resolution, NOT engage in an edit war.
Hopefully this only takes a few days and begins after this post in a civil, adult, manner.
I won't be watching this page- too much drama for me. If obvious incivility or personal attacks take place, let me know. If you reach consensus, also let me know and I'll happily unprotect the page. If I happen to be off Wiki when you are done, just go to WP:RFPP and point them at this message. However, they'll want to see that you asked me first, since I'm the one who has stepped in.
Okay? Good. Now, apologize, stay cool, stay civil, and drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. tedder (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I step out for the day and look what happens. I'm inclined to just step away from this article altogether and let another party get involved. Three months is way too long for me to stay active here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this gives everyone a chance to calm down. It's a good thing. Perhaps we should start a clean discussion, with everyone assuming good faith and checking out the rules on WP:NOR and WP:RS? There's no need to get so angry over this article. Irbisgreif (talk) 06:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring, full protection, C and C 

message: I archive the peer review - the article is fully protected and cannot be edited by most editors, plus it is full of major cleanup tags (references needed). These make it inelegible for PR. When is unprotected and has more refs, please feel free to nominate it for PR again, thanks and sorry, Ruhrfisch  ><>°° 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer archive

message: Please, change transcription to [sɔˈfʲijɑ mɪˈxajlʲivnɑ rɔˈtɑru]
BTW, I also suggest adding a Russian variant of her name, "София Михайловна Ротару" [sɐˈfʲɪjə mʲiˈxajləvnə rɐˈtaru] somewhere in the article, because she is also well-known in Russia as well.
Dmitry 93.84.164.245 (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription 

message: As nobody seems to give a hoot of what is going on with the article, I hereby permit Rubikonchik to decisively turn the article into the definitive fan site of Sofia Rotaru for English readers. This includes clearance to remove all the maintainance tags, add more weasel words (why are we still missing: "Sofia Rotaru has been considered the greatest pop singer ever"?), and more unencyclopaedic content (the article could use some more info on her impersonators and friends). The fan site would also need more synthesis of hearsay information by Russian news reporters (we need more stuff like "Rotaru is the first ever rapper in history" and "she is the biggest earning artist in the universe"). The permission is valid until somebody disagrees with what is going on here. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: no comment--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Why stop in the middle? 

message: As two editors have recently expressed their opinion that the issues I am trying to raise have not been discussed enough, I will post a Best of of them once again. Most of this has been up since 20 April 2009 (see Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Change of content).
*90% of the material has no citation, violating WP:VERIFIABILITY, which says: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed," and: "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." 
- this is a mere lie.  How do you count the percentage? Really, such false statements sound again like a good old bad faith editing.--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I and User:HelloAnnyong have posted versions of the section on numerous occasions like this, this and this. You have blindly reverted all of them. I and HelloAnnyong have raised issues with the section on several times, for instance Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Fan scene" section is missing notability and Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Fan scene cleanup. You have reverted every effort we have made to improve the article accordingly. A fortiori, you have poured even more goshing tabloid material into the section. The only reason why this can be possible on Wikipedia in year 2010 is most likely that no editor cares to make an effort to improve a messed up article on a C-category Eastern European artist. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is in English so you are talking nonsense. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and so have I already pointed out that attributing the words of the Russian edition of Postimees and a Ukrainian journalist to the whole "Russia and countries of the former USSR" constitutes wp:weasel and wp:synth. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: I like Rubikonchik's comment on Jaan Pärn's bad faith about Rotaru making $100,000,000 annually. Hilarious! FYI Rubikonchik, wikipedia is not based on press of different countries and different journalists but on WP:RS. Hope that it helps!--Termer (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Termer is already the third editor on this page (after HelloAnnyong in Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Break 2, Talk:Sofia Rotaru#Sigh, here, here and here) who objects the statement of the exact sum, while Rubikonchik is the only one still favouring it. Reads like a consensus to me. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Yes, the matter truly is simple. The world is set against Sofia Rotaru becoming the greatest person that ever lived. And Wikipedia is in it with the world, not with Rubikonchik. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The issues revisited

message: I suggest leave it without specifying who and when named her this way, otherwise the introduction will be too long. Besides, the given references clearly provide this information.Rubikonchik (talk) 11:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These are rather sorry excuses for keeping the wp:or, wp:syn, wp:pov and wp:weasel. Postimees has even nothing to do with Russia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

text: The sources are not really strong enough to make a general statement about how she is referred to in the wider public - especially as the word appears to be in the headline only for one and briefly in the other. I advise attributing it ("she has been called the Queen of pop by... and ...") I am unconvinced the usage is notable enough to mention in the lead - maybe in the article somewhere(maybe) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 11:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with User Errent and User Jaan, claim clearly needs atributing to who said it and should not be presented as if fact. Also the article is a bit of a mess, the citations need tidying and the uncited content either needs citing or removing. Off2riorob (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been voicing these concerns for over a year now. It is impossible to me as an editor with no access to a Ukrainian, Moldavian or Russian library to find reliable sources on the artist. My requests for reliable sources have given zero results, with only more dubious material getting pushed instead. My proposal is to get this article into a provisory shape by deleting the unsourced and dubious statements, to make it possible for a capable editor to enter the process. It is always harder to edit a mess than a decent stub. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest the following: Jaan Pärn retrieves from the archives of this very talk page, were I have presented a good number of references with exact citation "Pop queen", from a variety of sources, including many Russian sources. We may also very well include all these references after the "Pop queen", why not? If Jaan Pärn has any difficulty doing this, I may always help and even provide new references. As for the given reference, in the very beginning, if I'm not mistaking, the wording I have proposed initially was "called on the territory fo the former USSR", as indeed Postimees is an Estonian source, as there are sources from other countries. Now, as for the provided this time additional source: Channel One (Russia) - it is one of the, if not the most, viewed TV Channel on the territory of the former USSR, today a Russian TV channel. I wonder how and based on what do you consider this source as not strong enough? As far as allegations of violation of wp:or, wp:syn, wp:pov and wp:weasel are concerned, a mere list of numerous rules without explaining exactly how and where they were violated seems rather an abuse of right to appeal to Wikipedia rules, some type of wikilegal harassment. As you know, when one suggests that a rule was violated, the burden of proof lies on that same person, namely the proof of how and where exactly each rule was violated. This was not done. So, to sum up, I'm ready to hear your constructive suggestions.Rubikonchik (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately we need a source that says "people/media refer to her as pop queen" and not lots of sources calling her pop queen (per WP:SYNTH. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 12:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you go: http://openbiz.com.ua/summary/biography/show/Sofiya_Rotaru , http://www.vmdaily.ru/article/8436.html . Feel free to use http://translate.google.com in case you have a doubt.Rubikonchik (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: These are still based on no research and hence too general and brief in their expression. The openbiz.com.ua newsflash does not specify, the press of which country is in question. The vmdaily.ru does not even attribute the POV to any specific group, using only passive voice ("is called a pop queen"). This is insufficient for such an audacious claim. It goes without mentioning that this kind of praise is hardly suitable style for an encyclopedia. If such gushing were really necessary, which I do not think is the case here, it should be attributed to the group/person who actually thinks that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, the only person who has recourse to POV and subjective interpretation of sources here is Jaan Pärn. As requested, the aforementioned sources clearly and unambiguously litterally cite "the press calls Sofia Rotaru the Pop Queen" and "she (people) is called (by) the Pop Queen". Again, as requested, these sources 1) Ukrainian "Openbiz" - a serious source of business analytical and statistics information and 2) Russian "Вечерняя Москва" (Vechernyaya Mosckva / Moscow at Night) - one of the oldest Russian dailies (since 1923). Agagin, and to sum up, whatever the personal opinion and personal interpretation of Jaan Pärn may be, in no way do they constitue a source or a reference, nor is such reasoning accepted by Wikipedia rules.Rubikonchik (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop queen 

message: Local name of Sofia's village is Marşinţi.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.19.52 (talk) 07:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please settle that at the talk pages of the locations first. This is not the place to settle geography. The villages have their own talk pages. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:28, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marşinţi 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Sofia Rotaru. 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/20091002224201/http://www.rynok.biz:80/a/2009/09/25/Rejting_samih_uspeshnih_uk to http://www.rynok.biz/a/2009/09/25/Rejting_samih_uspeshnih_uk
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100413185345/http://music.itop.net:80/Articles/1444 to http://music.itop.net/Articles/1444
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 02:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Sofia Rotaru. 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/20120802085951/http://www.trumptaj.com/photos/index.cfm to http://www.trumptaj.com/photos/index.cfm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201183342/http://rotarusofia.ru/ to http://www.rotarusofia.ru/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071223200031/http://megalyrics.ru/main.php?mod=src to http://megalyrics.ru/main.php?mod=src&find=%D0%EE%F2%E0%F0%F3+&B1=Search
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) 11:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion