Talk:Bacău/Archive 1

Archive 1

---

no talk? de ce nu?

+ Article about Romeo Stavarache, Bacau current, annual and past events.

name in Hungarian

I see no reason to put the name of the city in Hungarian.bogdan 15:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody add some pictures from Bacau! It's a lovely city!

Could somebody please add some new info and pics to my LOVELY city,, i miss you bacau ....

File:Complexul muzeal Iulian Antonescu Bacau.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Complexul muzeal Iulian Antonescu Bacau.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Universitatea George Bacovia edited.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Universitatea George Bacovia edited.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Bacau Mercedes bus 1.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bacau Mercedes bus 1.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bacau Mercedes bus 1.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Crime and Economy?

This section was added by a user in January 2013 and cites an article in the Daily Mail. Although some of the facts presented in this article might be true, it also contains wrong information, such as the fact that proceeds from crimes perpetrated by thieves from Bacau make up 70% of Bacau's economy. I sent the following message to both Wikipedia and the Daily Mail:

"Dear Daily Mail team,

my message regards the article "Rolling in it: Romanian gangs behind nine in ten cashpoint robberies rake in £30m a year" by NICK MCDERMOTT published in the online edition on 25 May 2012 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2120049/Romanian-gangs-cashpoint-robberies-rake-30m-year.html).

I am appalled by the crimes described but also by the baseless exaggerations presented here.

The article states that: "£30million is stolen through the crimes each year" and "Proceeds of crime now makes up 70 per cent of Bacau's economy". Please have a look (using a translation software, if necessary) at the most authoritative source of information for economic data in Romania – the Romanian National Institute of Statistics. http://www.bacau.insse.ro/main.php?id=444

You will find here the annual GDP (Produsul intern brut) for Bacau for the years 2004-2009 in millions of RON at current prices (milioane lei (RON) preţuri curente). For the year 2009, this is of 11784.8 million RON which represents 2304765120.80 British Pound Sterling (over 2 billion pounds). How can 30 million pounds stolen by these gangs represent 70% of 2 billion pounds? No, dear journalists, the result is 1613335584.56 GBP, so if these guys steal 30 million each year, they will need 53.7 years to reach that amount (supposedly representing 70% of Bacau’s GDP in one year).

Could Mr. McDermott tell me what were the sources he used in his calculations? If they are true, I humbly apologise for daring to "defend the honour" of so many honest hard working people who felt offended when reading the article and who feel ashamed and revolted by what a tiny minority of fellow countrymen do around the world.

I hope that these arguments would make you consider removing the article from your website or at least correcting/admitting the wrong information presented. Everybody makes mistakes but I think it’s inexcusable to perpetuate such mistakes when you are presented with true real data and calculations. I would really like to place all my trust in what I read on your website and we should all do our best to achieve this goal."

Wikipedia refused to remove the article in question, so I took the liberty to make some additions to it on 13 February. I hope they will be maintained and that all parties involved in this "dispute" could reach an agreement. I invite all those interested to join the debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanenis (talk • contribs) 11:48, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Daily Mail reference

Many are removing the reference to the Daily Mail - based on the fact it's a tabloid - tabloid means "small format", it has nothing to do with quality of the articles. The DM is a very old and well established UK newspaper (see the article) and as such can easily be described as a reliable source. Editors are free to discuss here or even here, as to the usefulness of the inclusion of that paragraph. Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy and data should not be removed because it is not liked.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Ronhjones, please let's not confuse terms here. The problem isn't "not liking" DM, and neither is its format - certainly no one would object to citing, say, The Times or The Independent. No, the problem is that it's a practitioner of tabloid journalism. It may be 117 years old, but it could be 20 or 500 years old, it could be in broadsheet or online only - the core issue is the type of reportage it produces. Christopher H. Sterling's Encyclopedia of Journalism (A-C), p. 219 defines this as "aimed at a prosperous working and lower middle class audience, with some serious news and commentary, a limited amount of overseas news and commentary, and extensive treatment of health and personal finance, mixed in with the classic tabloid formula of scandal, celebrity, and human interest." A publication geared toward this kind of sensationalism, and one amply criticised by Leveson, has no place in a serious encyclopedia. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Then the answer is to just have a discussion as to what editors want in the article. That's the purpose of a talk page - to gain a consensus about the issue - remember it's Bold, Revert, Discuss, not bold, revert, bold, revert... If one person just takes it out, then in 2 months time, someone else will put it back. Now if you wish, you can keep coming back to the page to keep changing it, that's up to you. If there is a consensus that it should not be here - and it should really be about disputing all the information - then that helps you and other editors make sure that it stays removed, and other editors can see why it has been removed.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OK Ron, I understand that we need to come to an agreement regarding the elimination of the reference from the Daily Mail-this is your policy and you need to defend it. I invited User:208.54.45.145 who added that section in January to join the discussion and to have a look at our arguments. What if he does not want to or refuses to do that? What does Wikipedia do in such a case? Also, how many users or editors should ask you to remove that nonsense after giving valid reasons? One of them is the utter irrelevance of such information about a city along with the defamatory character of the article. You can say that the 70% might be a typo, but people who read that article will take it for granted, nobody will start looking up for more info and making the calculation. Please let us know how we go from here. Many thanks.Fanenis (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)