Talk:Dan Voiculescu

Bias for
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)Bozo

Bias against
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)
 * 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)

PC not PCR
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)

Edits by User:86.120.232.207
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). 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)
 * 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.

Reverting to truth
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)

"Implicated" vs "accused"
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)

Again reverting to truth
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)


 * 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)

Allow me to clarify things for anyone reading this: Turgidson's version clearly does not say or imply that Voiculescu is guilty of anything, and the references used simply state what the allegations are. In contrast, Judex has added a complete paragraph of his own design, in which he provides us with his own assessment of whether the allegations are justified or not. This is revertible per WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:WEASEL and WP:RS. The theories about whether referencing was properly done in Turgidson's version may be discussed separately, because, in any case, two wrongs will not make a right. Dahn 16:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

1+1=2
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

1+1 STILL EQUALS 2
The last comments are, I believe, for any un-biased reader, clear proof of ill-will and deliberate introduction of confusion.

I never said there was an ""evaluation" as to Voiculescu's guilt in Turgidson's version." I clearly said "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?".

In order to support the accusation "There is a huge personal one (evaluation) in yours (my version)", Mr Dahn has to either find an error in my logic (repeatedly presented above), or to claim openly that logic is not a source of truth in Wikipedia. What "wikipedia guidelines" ban logic, please?

Nobody contests the part, mentioned in the Evenimentul zilei, that there is an investigation against DV, but besides that reference [6] Evenimentul zilei claims that DV IS guilty of buying cheap energy and selling it back dearly to the State, which IS A BLUNT LIE, since DV is no more the owner of the incriminated for the fact company, Grivco. I never said that DV is or is not guilty: I simply pointed out that some of the accusations against him cannot hold water, logically.

But the bottom line here is the source and assessment of truth. Is something true simply "when multiple, credible sources mention it"? I have proven that in the case of the allegation of speculation with electric power there is only one source / Evenimentul zilei / which is not credible since it bases its allegation on a blunt lie, and the second source openly relies on the first, while the third speaks about entirely differend matters. But even if the sources were multiple and "credible" ( in the sense that they couldn't be proven to lie, as in this case), still logic and common sense have a say in the assessment of truth, cannot be banished and are not bannished by the Wikipedia guidelines. Which seem to be invoked here only for the purpose of distorting the truth.

I am however constructive and disposed to put an end to this stupid dispute, if either Mr Turgidson or Mr Dahn or anybody from their teams will explain the following: - how can somebody be guilty of laundering money, when the money in question are perfectly clean, coming with all due papers from the very State? - what reference can I bring to support the assertion that "no proof thereof has been presented"?

These questions are the kern of the dispute, which you have tried to avoid by introducing parasite themes. Until you answer them, for the sake of truth, for the credibility of Wikipedia, please let the relevant phrases for these two questions stay. If you don't, it will be clear for everybody that your purpose is not the truth, but to libel an individual by selecting the hostile references about him and preventing by censorship the assessment of the credibility of the sources.

JUDEX73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDEX73 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, read the wikipedia policies, familiarize yourself with them, and stop introducing your own deductions into articles. Dahn 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policies clearly state: "Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous." Referencing only on "Evenimentul zilei" and on a verifiable lie within it is clearly poorly sourcing, therefore the potentially libelous versions should be removed. Unlike you two, I don't delete any piece of text, I only explain them logically, although WP policies would entitle me to delete the poorly sourced ones, especially when libelous.

JUDEX73 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JUDEX73 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't want to get involved in this, but i must note that ""Evenimentul Zilei" is one of the least reliable romanian newspapers when it comes to politics. Anonimu 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Surprise, surprise -- look who's here! Comme par hazard, yes?  Care to give a solid reference for your assertion, Anonimu, or are we to take you reliability rankings in the Romanian media at face value?  Why would I put any great weight on the opinion of someone who cannot learn that I (pronoun) is written I, not i, and Romanian is written Romanian, not romanian?   Turgidson 01:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop harassing me.Anonimu 06:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop saying nonsense: (1) commenting on your "reliability rankings" of newspapers is not "harassment", and (2) pointing out spelling errors in your prose is not "harassment". Simply repeating ad nauseam frivolous accusations on various talk pages does not make them valid, just exposes your lack of seriousness as an editor here at WP.  Please try to confine your comments to the subject of the article at hand (do you have anything of substance to say about it, or content to contribute?), or else refrain from unduly cluttering the talk page with spurious charges. Have a nice day.  Turgidson 12:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The i thing has no connection to content. So, by following me almost everywhere to put your unnecessary comment you're harassing me (your insistence may even be a personal attack, but i have to ask an admin first). and anyway, you're the one going off-topic every time. Anonimu 16:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu, I think it should be pretty clear to you by now that you are the new guy on this page, which Turgidson has been editing for a while now. Have a go at posting whatever you want on talk pages for all I care; but, when you theorize people are following you around, one would have to wonder just how you got here. As for posting off-topic things, that is the very definition of your original comment here. Dahn 16:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey i don't look at the page history when i edit an article. I generally look for contradictions between articles on related subjects about Romanian politics. Now i have to check if turgidson is editing a page before posting a comment related to content? cause reliability of a source is a matter of content.Anonimu 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I have said, you may do as you will - there is a code of conduct to be obeyed on wikipedia, but, if you should feel so, you can risk breaking it at your convenience for all I care. The point was a quite simple one: if you feel like making allegations of stalking over x "evidence", at least make sure that x "evidence" does not apply to you. As for the "not checking the edit history": I'm sorry, but I find it unconvincing, since Turgidson had signed comments on this very page before you even got to enlighten us with your grasp of Romanian media reliability. From my part, you could have come here with whatever means of transportation, and you could've ultimately even been following Turgidson or me around, since you did not actually invest your energy into anything disruptive (though it may be said that you invested it into something annoying).
 * Maybe i didn't use the best words, but i didn't accuse him of stalking (following someone excessively), but of harassing me (annoying and upsetting smb over a period of time), the nuances are quite important. And it's pretty clear that by putting that unrelated comment everywhere he's just trying to annoy me. (And that's pretty annoying, especially when that's the only argument to refute my point.)Anonimu 08:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure, your words (best or not) were: "So, by following me almost everywhere to put your unnecessary comment you're harassing me". Dahn 10:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And i still think he's harassing me.Anonimu 10:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good for you. Dahn 11:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me stress again: the comment you made on this page is completely absurd and poison thrown into a well. My reaction was to ignore it, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't have posted it, just as it does not mean that Turgidson's koan was inappropriate (in the worst case, is what as appropriate as anything you posted on this page).
 * No, it's not absurd. An editor doubted the truthfulness of a claim present in only one specific Romanian newspaper. My comment was put in support of that user's view. And i think everyone who reads the Romanian press is au fait with the reliability of that specific newspaper.Anonimu 08:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, an editor doubted the truthfulness of a path pursued by a public authority, as reported in that newspaper. I read the Romanian press, and I find Evz among the most reliable (the Evz of today, not the Evz of Cristoiu's time), together with Cotidianul - if anything, they attribute opinions and strive to distinguish between fact and comment on fact (Gândul may also do this, but ot a lesser degree, and JN is generally close to that standard); these are my opinions on the Romanian press, just before you start assuming that, because you and other users get your news from the gutter press, the latter did is either reliable or respected. Furthermore, if the criterion is "who lost most suits for publishing libel", well, in the under-Romare category, we have Ziua - this much more objective than what you assume about people being "au fait". Dahn 10:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't say that when you were discussing with judex. Evenimentu.. Cotidianu... Why not Romania Libera too? after all, it's from the same series... "praise the all-mighty Basescu and if you don't have something good to say about him, attack the opposition"... As for facts vs. comment on facts.. when was the last time you read evenimentu ?(cause the last time i did it seemed like a basescian Scinteia)Anonimu 10:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * When you'll read a post of mine saying that I like them because they are pro-Băsescu, I'll allow you to make such speculations. What I have said is that they are the most professional, and that is the thing being discussed - i.e. they do not publish lies, as newspapers like Ziua are known to have done. I tried to bring into focus these objective criteria, just so the festival of "me no likey Băsescu, therefore Evz=bad" doesn't somehow become mistaken for a yardstick to measure reliability by.
 * they were very professional when they published a news that a russian mason discussed with the liberals to facilitate the intervention of russian secrets services to bring down basescu... and this is just an example of their "professionalism". Sorry, but when all the press states basescu was wrong when he did this or that and evenimentu ignores it or defends him by claiming a  conspiracy of the "black quadrilateral", it's clear there's smth wrong with evenimentu.Anonimu 11:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not discussing that with Judex because I didn't even consider answering to his projections, just as I intended not to do with yours. I'm having this conversation to establish that your original comment was irrelevant to me or this discussion, and that it was so for just cause - you were simply poisoning the well, and you were being misleading. Furthermore, as I have said before, the conjectures you make about Evz's perspective on things do not have any connection to what was and is the article, since reporting fact and stating opinion are separate issues. Overall, I'm not interested in any chat about which newspaper I like (especially since what I like is of no relevancy here). So I will not be dragged into any such scenario. Also allow me to point out the apparent hypocrisy of the Scânteia analogy. Dahn 11:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * How come evenimentu is the only one stating that "fact"? all the other newspapers are controled by "moguls"? I can't see any hypocrisy...Anonimu 11:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There are many Romanian newspapers that I find profoundly unreliable, and many of them, unlike Evz, have been proven so by courts in this country. One of them is Ziua, which we still use as a source (I don't even want to get started on what shit it has published over the past years, but I do not call for not using it). The whole issue as you present it is aberrant - even if Evz were unreliable because you say so, you would still have to find a source that contradicts it in this instance. Furthermore, from what I can see, what Evz is reporting is a statement made by a public authority, not its own investigation - it is also not quoted for endorsing that assessment (and I can't be bothered to see if it does); lastly, the whole debated section of text failed to cite any additional source, and was some user's answer to what the public authority in question has advanced - even though neither the DNA, nor this article, and probably not even Evz claim that Voiculescu is guilty of anything.
 * As i've already said, i didn't want to get involved in here, so i'm not aware of the exact content of that article. I only know that's the only newspaper to support that point.Anonimu 08:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you were posting nonsense. Furthermore, such statements make it even less likely that you came to this article because you were concerned ("I was concerned about the debate, but I do not know what was being debated"). Dahn 10:04, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, i was answering the concerns of user judex. His comments where the only ones who were actually discussing, politely or not, the matter (the others were like "stop doing that", "that's pov", "we're right, you're wrong")Anonimu 10:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * One final time: wikipedia is not interested in what the matter is according to Judex, it is interested in what the matter is according to sources. The source was reporting an allegation from an authority that we all pay to make allegations and pursue them (perhaps not reliability incarnate, but close for all purposes here); the report could have been featured in any newspaper, and no potential conclusion drawn by the secondary source was being discussed in the article; no source said Voiculescu was guilty of anything; Judex provided no secondary source that claimed to refute any of the allegations (and, if he would've had, there was nothing preventing anyone from adding another source that would say the allegations are based on evidence etc.).
 * So, you see, neither Judex nor you were making any sense, and neither of you was addressing a relevant issue in connection to the goals of this project. If you have to go on debating this, you can debate it on your own; I have said all that I had to say on this matter. Dahn 11:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wiki has a strict policy about biographies of living persons. Since that was a serious claim supported only by a newspaper known to be very favourable to basescu (the same who called Voiculescu "Felix the cat" and his party "the immoral solution"), me and judex had all the right to intervene.Anonimu 11:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wasting my time explaining such obvious things was what I intended to avoid in not replying to your first post on this page. It seems avoiding the aggravation was impossible; and trust me, I'm well accustomed to such streams of sophistry by now (courtesy of some other users). Dahn 23:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Dahn, for intervening in this -- I was just about to post my own reply, but got an edit conflict. So here it is, I still need to get it out of my system -- hopefully, Anonimu and I can get this straightened out once and for all, and move on, for crying out loud!
 * Anonimu, you got it all wrong -- I am not following you, it's the other way around: I've been editing this page for a while, and, as far as I can tell, you came to this talk page out of the blue, without anything of substance to contribute to the article.  Furthermore, if you insist on conducting these discussions (which I do not enjoy at all) in an incorrect grammatical style, I think I have every right to point out to you this is annoying to someone like me, who loves and treasures the English language (as well as the Romanian language), and correct your English, accordingly.  After all, this is English Wikipedia, so correct English should be used at all times, as much as possible; certainly, English should not be deliberately mangled, as you appear to do.  So please stop calling this "harassment" or "personal attack" -- it is emphatically not.   Turgidson 17:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, i was not here out of blue. It's a Romanian topic related to current politics and there was an ongoing edit war that seemed quite serious (i have bogdan's talk page on my watchlist by chance). That's enough reason for me to intervene. And i didn't came here to contribute new content to this article (it's not even on my watchlist), i came here to make a comment related to a content dispute (that's why it's called "talk page"). Since talk pages are not articles and aren't read by wiki readers i don't have to respect capitalization. It's my right to express my personality.. i'm not one of the guys procusted by mediocrity of the bourgeois society... Until now nobody complained about how i write, but then you came and began harassing me with this minor thing, implying everywhere that my points aren't valid just because i don't use the capitalistic egocentric "I"... And this is how another talkpage got hijacked.Anonimu 19:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are wrong again. "I" is capitalized not out of "capitalist egocentric" reasons; rather, "I came to be capitalized [in the 13th century], not through any egotism, but only because lower-case i standing alone was likely to be overlooked, since it is the most insignificant of the letters of the alphabet." (Pyles and Algeo, Origins and Development of the English Language, 4th ed., p. 187.) Trust me, writing "i" does not mark you out as "expressing your personality" and not being "procusted by mediocrity of the bourgeois society", but rather as being sub-literate. Biruitorul 23:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Your stance is in perfect agreement with the ideologies you support. At least you're consistent.Anonimu 08:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fine. The point remains: "I" being written "I" has nothing to do with "egocentrism" or "capitalism", and I just wanted you to be aware of that. It's good to learn something new every day. Biruitorul 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

OUTRAGEOUS!
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)


 * WP:TRUTH. Dahn 21:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * General disclaimer. Sancho 00:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Pacific Western University of California, now called California Miramar University, has become accredited by the DETC
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)

Grivco?
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)
 * 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)

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links 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 II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)