Talk:National Anticorruption Directorate

Controversies - unreliable sources and non-neutral point of view
I believe there are several problems with the Controversies section of this article about the Romanian anti-corruption institution:

(1) Most of the statements come from unreliable sources. These include opinion articles that do not represent the mainstream view of the subject (e.g. ... In particular, the same media outlet has several other articles with opposing views and )or tabloid articles (e.g. ). Moreover, in some places exagerated statements are made that are not present in the referenced sources (e.g. Laura Kövesi, the Chief Prosecutor for the DNA, was "forced to deny" that the arrest of Alina Bica was a result of personal conflict. Instead the referenced article simply mentions that Laura Kovesi "denies" that the arrest was a result of personal conflict.)

(2) The way the information is expressed is not neutral, and the sources themselves are biased or come from biased media outlets (e.g. neo-conservative Henry Jackson Society think-tank ).

(3) (later edit) A lot of these articles 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: Many of these articles are therefore not reliable. Razvan V. Marinescu 22:46, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

(4) (later addition) I moved the statements regarding the collaboration with SRI to a different section. 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 not true and just conspiracies. Razvan V. Marinescu 16:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I would like to ask what is everyone's opinion on this, try to reach a consensus, and decide on a course of action. Should we remove the contested statements (if so, which ones)? For the ones we keep, how shall we re-write them to make them show a neutral POV? I look forward to your suggestions. Razvan V. Marinescu 16:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on National Anticorruption Directorate. 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/20120124041015/http://www.pna.ro/ghidul_just.jsp to http://www.pna.ro/ghidul_just.jsp

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) 00:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)