Talk:Tudorel Toader
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Regarding recent edits to this person's page, specifically the first paragraph
editThe introduction to this person's page (which I am trying to remove) is a case study on how not to write a Wikipedia page. In the guidelines for biographies of living persons, it is clearly stated that these "should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement". Please explain to me how is a phrase like "the most reviled Minister of Justice in post-Communist Romania" neutral, cautious and dispassionate? Moreover, this isn't even true: the sources referenced for this "fact" only talk about a segment of the public, the fact that some people clearly don't like him doesn't mean all people have the same opinion (which is just an opinion anyway, which has no place in an encyclopedia).
The words "highly controversial" used to describe the person have a negative connotation and, again, are very misleading. Any political figure is "highly controversial", some people like them, others don't. This phrase has no place in an encyclopedia.
Other "facts" like his "dispute" with a former high ranking prosecutor or whatever the professors and students at his university think about him have no place in the introductory paragraph of his biography, which is supposed to be neutral and present relevant information. Anybody could cherry-pick facts which could show this person in a positive or a negative light, but the introduction should stick to what is uncontroversial and important.
The problem with that paragraph isn't that it's negative, it's that it's not neutral and informative at all. Please keep politics out of Wikipedia, if you want to write editorials about politicians you don't like start a blog or go on social media. --B.cx5ccm (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)