A fact from Nicolae Pleșiță appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 October 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that former Romanian secret police chief Nicolae Pleșiță, notorious for his dealings with Carlos the Jackal, admitted dragging dissident writer Paul Goma around his cell by his beard?
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
Nicolae Pleșiță is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
To answer Anonimu's edit and misleading edit summary: though I take no issue with the way he reformulated the sentence (it's not that relevant here), let me point out a couple of issues gone ridiculously wrong in his rationale. For one, this is clearly not an RS issue: for all the sophistry, both the journalist and venue meet the basic criteria in that area (and more). Pora was not "fired for plagiarism"; she was accused of plagiarism by various bloggers, and her supposed employer HotNews (in fact the affiliation is described as "collaboration") made a point of stating that their relationship ended for other, undisclosed, reasons. Talk about BLP. (And, at the risk of being picky, how would anything in this charge reflect on her reliability?) Also, the "BLP issue" concerning Iliescu is moot, since the text did not claim that he was guilty (or found guilty) of the supposed deed, but simply that he was investigated for it. Whether this was or wasn't specifically "found in the source" is not that relevant, since it is basically why the prosecutors were formally interested in Iliescu's case. Dahn (talk) 12:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why are you writing here? The employer acknowledged the plagiarism by the "journalist", and just said that this was not the "main" issue that led to him firing her (the clear POV position of the "journalist" being well-known anyhow). Every potential libellous statement against living people should be attributed and sourced from reliable source, no matter whether you write smb is claimed to have saved Earth from doom or is accused of having told some people to beat others. Again, as you acknowledged there's no problem with my formulation, I see no reason for this section. Next time please use your time more efficiently.Anonimu (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
