Talk:Laura Codruța Kövesi

message: This article is a surprisingly decent summary (compared to many other topics re:Romania), but should get longer and more detailed. Kovesi is one of the most significant Romanian govt officials, both at home and abroad. Routinely cited as the most powerful woman in the country. Plenty of good in-depth sources to use (EN & RO), so this could be a mighty fine article with enough work.
Past work (eg stint as prosecutor-general) should be fleshed out. Previous roles and actions therein are highly notable, especially in the Romanian political environment.
§Criticism: There is no shortage of available material here, to put it mildly. We can do much better than a 2-line Facebook post.
A "Controversies" section would probably be better than "Criticism", since Kovesi is a high-profile prosecutor and criticism/controversy is generally raised case-by-case. -- bornLoser (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eval and Future 

message: I believe there are several problems with the Controversies section of this article: 
(1) The articles by David Clark and Henry Jackson Society are the result of the lobby of Alexander Adamescu, the son of Dan Adamescu, a romanian businessman who was himself arrested 1-2 years ago, as explained here: http://english.hotnews.ro/stiri-top_news-21526327-british-media-hosts-sustained-campaign-discredit-romania-39-fight-against-corruption-sentenced-businessman-and-indicted-son-who-fights-extradition-depicted-political-victims.htm  There are probably other secondary articles that cite these.  
(2) It seems that similar controversy sections have also been added to the DNA and SRI articles. These sections are very similar to each other and look like their purpose is to discredit persons such as Laura Codruța Kovesi or Romanian institutions fighting against corruption. 
(3) Some of the statements come from unreliable sources. These include opinion articles that do not represent the mainstream view of the subject (e.g. http://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/opinion/romanias-anti-corruption-services-are-reminiscent-of-securitate/ or tabloid journalism (mostly the ones related to Ghiță, who is being prosecuted by the DNA e.g. http://www.nineoclock.ro/sebastian-ghita-in-a-new-explosive-recording-ponta-was-blackmailed-to-appoint-kovesi-to-dna-leadership-prosecutor-general-says-persons-invoked-in-the-recordings-must-be-heard/). 
(4) The statements regarding the collaboration with SRI are probably more suitable for the DNA article, where I've added a section on this. However, the material is still not objective, and facts need to be separated from suppositions. For example, it is widely known that SRI performed phone tapping for the DNA, as the DNA did not have the necessary technical equipment. However, statements that the SRI head Florian Coldea had an office at the DNA, that the DNA head used to take part in weekly videoconferences with SRI, or that the SRI used to meet with DNA prosecutors in secret houses are most likely just fake news.
I would like to ask what is everyone's opinion on this, and help selecting which sentences to keep and how to re-write them to make them more neutral. I look forward to your suggestions. Razvan Valentin Marinescu 17:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with the Controversies section 

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) 15:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion