Jump to content

Talk:CNCD Decision 323/2006

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

St Joseph's

[edit]
Construction east of St Joseph's Cathedral (May 2006) will soon block this view of the church.

We mention a shopping center being built right by St Joseph's. Is it this project, now under way (crane in photo)? - Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Altermediaro's contributions

[edit]

Hi. User:Altermediaro (presumably a representative of the far right-wing "guerrilla" media agency, Altermedia Romania), keeps reverting to a POV version of the "Civic Media petition" section of this article. As it stands, I have a number of issues with this version:

  • Organisations vs NGOs - I think "organisations" is better than NGOs. NGOs is a term used in Romanian that immediately connotes a sense of representing "civil society", struggling against the "hegemony of the goverment"; the term also has an anti-communist connotation. I think it's being heavily misused, to the extent where every single organisation and pressure group starts calling itself an "NGO". I really don't see the point of calling the 150 associations which signed the petition "NGOs", when it is already clear that they are non-government. A lot of them are too small to qualify as "NGOs" as part of contemporary usage.
  • The inclusion of anti-abortion organisations: I have no problem with including these organisations per se, but what strikes me as POV is their classification as "child-care and children rights organisations". The anti-abortion movement in Romania is rather small, much smaller than in the US, for example. These organisations hence represent fringe views, and are in no way "children rights organisations" (in English, "children's rights" almost always refers to the rights of born children, not to pro-life organisations).
  • The inclusion of Napoleon Săvescu, president of Dacia Revival Society - again, no problem per se, but Savescu in no way represents a mainstream view, and I don't think it's justified to call him a "high-profile personality" (maybe in right-wing Altermedian circles, but definitely not in broader Romanian society).
  • The classification of the ROST Association, Altermedia Association and the Romanian Association for Heritage as just "right wing" - I think calling these organisations "right-wing" is too general, considering their rather extremist, fringe position. ROST Association is a Christian-nationalist association, and it was described by Evenimentul Zilei as "marked by the ideals of Romanian interbellum legionarism". Just read ROST Magazine to see what their views are - see [1], for example, a homophobic article titled "Why homosexuals don't have a right to be on the street". I think views like this can be described as "far-right (nationalist)" rather than just right wing. Altermedia, despite its neutral-sounding name, is the Romanian division of a worldwide white supremacist media agency self-describing as "Worldwide news for people of European descent". In both Romanian and English versions, it frequently makes anti-Semitic, anti-gay and anti-minority statements. The Romanian Association for Heritage, led by Artur Silvestri, is perhaps the most moderate of these, although its bulletin, Analize şi fapte, also adopts a Christian-nationalist point of view, and it has advocated far-right positions before. For this reason, I think the label "far-right nationalist organisations" is fair.

Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

response to Altermediaro's contributions

[edit]

Hi!

Although i see you and i have different points of view that most probably cannot be brought togheter, I'll try to explain the issues in a few words.

1. In Romania, NGO (Organizatie Non-Guvernamentala) signifies an associative group of people, which is more or less the same as "association" or "organisation". I really don't understand where did you learn that the romanian NGOs are "struggling against the 'hegemony of the government'", and "the term also has an anti-communist connotation". Also I don't think someone who states that he cares for neutral points of view should appreciate so easily that a group is "too small" to qualify as NGO; according to romanian law, an NGO must have at least 3 members to exist. But anyway, since there is small difference, i agree with the term you used.

2. You are misinformed. In the 3 organisations included by me, only one (Provita for the born and the unborn) has in its activity the aim of combating abortion, but all 3 of them develop social activities like caring orphans, abandoned or HIV-infected children. So, we are talking about born children, i hope you agree. Besides this, at least one of the NGOs mentioned shall appeal in court the CNCD Decision we are talking about here, on behalf of the children it cares about - who are affected by the Decision, as they are part of a very religious community and they brought, at their own will, icons and crucifixes in the public schools they go to. That's why i find relevant the inclusion of them in the article. Also, Romanian Children's Appeal Foundation is one of the most important organisations of its kind in Romania. Please check.

3. If Napoleon Savescu is "not representing a mainstream view", how come you included Valentin Hossu-Longin (ex-collaborator of romanian communist secret service) and Cozmin Gusa, an obscure politican?! Are they "high-profile personalities" and do they represent "broader romanian society"? I think it's objectionable. Anyway, as you could observe, I didn't delete these two names you included, i just added Mr. Savescu. He is definitely a personality among cultural and historical-related circles! Regarding your wicked "maybe in right-wing Altermedian circles", i see it as a joke.

4. A look at your profile makes clear for me why did you label Altermedia, Rost and Romanian Association for Heritage as "far-right" and extremists, when they are in fact right-wing christian-nationalistic. You wrote in your profile: "I'm a liberal in the social sense and a centrist in the economic sense. Therefore, I support quite strongly things like minority rights, abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia as well as individual liberties, and I'm against the death penalty. I'm atheist and strongly support the separation between the church and state, and I abhor it when the law involves itself in moral issues, particularly victimless crimes." That is in my opinion the profile of a far left-wing person, which explains your interpretation. Well, it's your choice, but don't give me please your biased views as "neutral points of view". What if I would label Indymedia, in "history" section of the disputed article, as "far-left media outlet"? I could give you examples why I think that, as you did concerning the three organisations, but it's not my purpose ever to start a dispute about what is left, what is right and how far goes "far". What if (I am also involved in Provita Association so i work with pro-life issues) I would label you as a nazi, just because the nazis supported and promoted euthanasia, just like you. Wouldn't be so stupid?

Just a special mention regarding Altermedia, who i (also) represent here: as in the Indymedia case, Altermedia has many branches, who work and develop independently. Romanian section is in no way responsible for what the other section are writing, spreading and their admins are thinking, and never did romanian section promote such concept as "white supremacy" - a nonsense from the christian point of view.

In conclusion, i consider my version fair. I don't know what is the wikipedia procedure for resolving disputes, but i state firmly my position. Greetings, Altermediaro ✉

09:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Altermedia :) First of all, I appreciate your response. I think it's good that we can engage in constructive dialogue. In fact, I hope you don't mind if I ask you some questions regarding the Altermedia Association and what it stands for, I would actually like to know, and perhaps in this way we can understand each other better. So, I will start by addressing your points:
1. OK, fair enough. I mean, having an edit dispute over NGO vs "organisation" is pretty futile. But I still believe that the term NGO has a certain connotation, a certain cultural meaning, which implies opposition or at least alternative to government (simply because it takes care to specify "non-government").
2. Firstly, I think we should remove the pro-vita agency from the list. I don't see the relevance of an anti-abortion agency signing a petition about religious symbols in schools. Including the other two organisations is OK, but I believe we should clarify the doctrine and ideology of these organisations. Do you have a link to their website? Are these organisations right-wing, conservative, "Christian-nationalist", whatever you want to call them, or are they more mainstream? If they are the former, I believe this must be specified.
3. Napoleon Săvescu is a controversial personality. I concede that this doesn't mean he is not "high-profile". But I think we must mention the fact that he is also controversial, significantly more controversial than Hossu-Longin or Cozmin Guşă (who isn't really an "obscure" politician, but rather well-known, even though I don't agree with his politics, so I have no reason to include him there other than the fact that he exists and signed the petition). Read the Napoleon Săvescu article, particularly "His theories are however disregard by historical journals and most historians, who label these theories as pseudoscience and consider that there is not enough scientific evidence to support them." So, I think we should write "the controversial historian Napoleon Săvescu".
4. There are several sources that label these organisations as far-right, and this is clear from their ideology and press statements. These organisations are vehemently opposed to gay equality, they campaigned heavily for the banning of the gay pride march (something which the moderate right supports or is indifferent to), a fundamental human right, and they frequently make anti-Roma, anti-Hungarian, Codreanu-supportive, racist and in some cases anti-Semitic and Holocaust-revisionist statements. By European standards, by Romanian standards included, this is considered a "far-right" position. In the same way, Indymedia would be considered far-left if it supports policies like collectivisation, leftist anarchism, anarcho-communism, but it doesn't. ROST Association's magazine was described by Evenimentul Zilei as "Publicatia crestina, puternic colorata in verde cum se poate vedea si de pe site-ul www.rostonline.org, este marcata de ideile legionarismului romanesc interbelic." Now, that is far-right by any standards, and I think you agree with me that ROST Association does not represent a mainstream view. A rather mainstream right-wing view is promoted by the PNŢCD, for example. ROST and Altermedia are "fringe" associations, and from what I can see on your website, you are quite proud to be seen as a "fringe" (that is what "alternative" implies) association fighting against "widespread political correctness". For an appraisal of Altermedia, see this source. Silvestri's ARP is the most moderate of these organisations, but it does collaborate very closely with Altermedia, and the opinions stated in its Analize şi Fapte bulletin coincide very closely with a "far-right" position.
Finally, if you don't mind, I would like to ask you some questions about your organisation. What is the structure of Altermedia globally? What is it that brings together all of the Altermedia divisions of the world? Labels like "alternative media" are too obscure and euphemistic - why is it that all of the Altermedia sites are against minorities, against abortion, etc? If you're really claiming to be an "alternative media" organisation, would you publish news about gay rights or Roma rights? Are things like Holocaust denial not considered "far right" by your standards? I personally don't support the criminalisation of Holocaust denial, but revisionist positions are very fringe and "extremist" in a European context. Do you honestly believe that photos such as this would not be objectively considered far-right? Do you believe that your very overt support of the ex-gay movement (http://www.homosexualitate.ro), including Bogdan Mateciuc's articles, as well as your support of seeing homosexuality as a "disease" is not far-right/"fringe right"? You're sitting here telling me that Altermedia isn't far-right or "extremist", and yet your organisation is supporting a lot of policies shared by the parties of the Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty group in the European Parliament, catalogued as far-right by nearly every mainstream press agency. I don't ask these questions tendentiously, but all I am seeing by looking at your site is overwhelming evidence of Altermedia's "far-right" leanings. I would like to be proved wrong. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 12:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

follow-up

[edit]

Hello, back in town after a long break.

As the issue continues to draw attention and also many things happened since our last meeting here, i am going to prepare a follow-up of the article in the next weeks.

Sorry for being out such a long time, my professional and family duties kept me away.

First of all a short explanation about my last change in the article. Although, due to my duties i do not have the time and personal energy needed for launching a discussion on such a topic as 'is Altermedia far right or not', especially with a person who is ~180 degrees my opposite i must take care that such an important online resource as Wikipedia does not defame the organization i run and i have founded. I understand you position and your points of view; we are very different so i think we can argue forever - which i am not willing to do. I have deleted the word 'far' in front of 'right-wing'. In my opinion the phrase is now much more accurate.

If you do not agree with the change, i propose plain and simple to delete the mention to Altermedia, how much more so we did not have an important contribution to this issue. There is no way i can admit a tricky reference to our NGO on Wikipedia. Even in English. (Also, i would say that to name ROST and R.A. for Heritage as 'far right' is absolutely ridiculous, but it is not my business to defend them.)

I saw that unfortunately you deleted the reference to Asociatia Provita Bucharest, a charity NGO for child care; as you shall see for yourself in my follow-up that the mention was right in.

Finally, let me introduce myself: Bogdan I. Stanciu, founder and vicepreseident of Altermedia, co-editor of ro.Altermedia.info, co-founder and coordinator for Provita Bucharest. I would be glad to know your name. If possible, of course.

Altermediaro ✉ 20:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to meet you, Bogdan. I fail to see the relevance of mentioning names, however, or what contribution this will have to improving the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm Mihai. Just to comment on two points raised above:
1. I have restored the "far-right" description with regard to Altermedia. What I think doesn't really matter, but there are other sources which talk about Altermedia's links to the far right. For example, this article from Curentul, where Altermedia is mentioned as one of the organisations which promotes "manifestari ultranationaliste si ascensiunea unor idei si miscari radicale" and is in fact described as a "organizare neo-fascista" (neo-fascist organisation). The article continues:
De fapt, Altermedia nu este decat unealta de propagare a ideologiei fasciste a Noii Drepte: presedintele Altermedia, Dan Adrian Ghita este si vicepresedintele Noii Drepte si portavocea filialei legionarilor din Bucuresti.
The article above is a source that can be used to support the description of the organisation as "far right" or "neo-fascist". Another source is this Indymedia article, which mentions the organisation's links with Noua Dreaptă and neo-fascism. Maybe Indymedia isn't the most reputable source for this, but it supports Curentul's assertions. This Cotidianul article also mentions Altermedia in a piece about online hate speech, associating it with antiziganism, homophobia and anti-Hungarian sentiment. This Dilema Veche article describes Altermedia in the exact words "extremă dreapta" (far right).
So, all in all, this is not about what I think, but about what secondary sources say about Altermedia. If you believe that the situation is more complex than what the above sources say, then perhaps we can collaborate on an article about Altermedia which will give the reader a NPOV account of what the organisation is. If you can provide sources saying that Altermedia does not have links to the far right, that it is simply standing up for free speech on the internet, these are welcome and can be included. I would also like to add that there are many English-language sources identifying the global Altermedia as a far-right organisation. (This source, developed for an OSCE conference, calls it a "neo-Nazi organisation"). I understand that the Romanian chapter is not directly linked to the US chapter, and may not advocate white supremacy, but it does advocate a lot of the things associated with this political position.
2. The reason I removed Provita is because you described it as a "children's rights" and "childcare" organisation. As evident from its name, as well as its activities, Provita is an anti-abortion (or pro-life) organisation. One of its objectives is "lupta împotriva avortului în conformitate cu principiile creştin-ortodoxe" (the battle against abortion in accordance with Christian Orthodox principles). I'm not denying that it also does work in the field of childcare, but if we're going to mention it, it is important to contextualise it properly.
I would just like to make it clear that my intention is not to misrepresent Altermedia or to tar its image. If you feel that Altermedia has been misunderstood or distorted by the sources I have given above, then please provide counter-sources which dispel these allegations. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again.

1. I see you tried hard to find on the internet mentions linking "Altermedia" to "far right". In fact:

  • The "Cotidianul" article mentions Altermedia as "publicatia online de gindire si atitudine ortodoxa Altermedia". Nothing about extremism. No facts, just allegations. Do you think that orthodox means far right?
  • Regarding the "Curentul" article, i have to mention that Dan Ghita is not the vice-president of Noua Dreapta. The author was mislead and simply did not verify the facts. This isn't quite a professional attitude.
  • In "Dilema" i have read only a personal opinion of Lucian Mandruta, angry most probably that his company shares the name with our NGO. Too bad for him, but his words are only a personal opinion. No facts, just allegations.
  • If Altermedia is not a reliable source, then this is the case with Indymedia also.
  • I know the Jugendschutz report. I don't see in it any reference about the Asociatia Altermedia in Romania and our activity.

To support my position i shall give you only one information, and this is a real fact: Altermedia coordinator, Bogdan Ioan Stanciu (me!) has been awarded with the "Ordinul Ziaristilor" (Journalist's Medal), for his activity in Altermedia, by the Union of Professional Journalists of Romania (UZP), the most respected organization of its kind in Romania. Here is one source Here is another one. I don't think UZP would award a far-right activist.

I shall start writing an article about Altermedia when i will feel like, but seriously your attitude puzzles me and makes me wonder if that worths the effort.

2. About pro-vita:

First of all, Provita Association has been created in order to structure and legally shape an activity, that started several years ago, of saving from material disappearance as well as of psychical and moral recovery of several children placed on the periphery of society and denied by the same. The total number of assisted in this moment are 216 persons, especially children born due to giving up abortion and let in the care of the Association, in full confidentiality conditions, on a shorter or longer period of time. Here is the source.

Second, Pro-vita filled a lawsuit in march this year against CNCD's Decision 323/2006. The trial is going on in Bucharest Appeal Court. Do you find that as a relevant information, relevant enough to keep mentioning Provita in the article? I hope so.

Anyway, it is my fault, i failed to update the article, which i should do, but i prefer to wait for the trial to go on a little bit more. I have to mention that i lead Provita also. Altermediaro 08:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my last talk edit

[edit]

Hello again,

It's almost one year since i didn't log in to my en.wp account.

I hope you know by the date that the case trial is over, the Supreme Court dismissed CNCD's decision. See here ICCJ: Prezenta simbolurilor religioase in scoli este legala and here Comunicat al “Coalitiei pentru Respectarea Sentimentului Religios”. Maybe you could update the article accordingly.

In the meantime i have learned who really WP is, who has the hands on it and that explains to me this harsh leftist, pollitically correct attitude. I am not interested anymore in it. Have a nice life. Altermediaro (talk) 06:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on CNCD Decision 323/2006. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CNCD Decision 323/2006. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:CNCD_Decision_323/2006&oldid=1205202804"