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
- Heh. Dahn (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
