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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a tough one to translate; I could use some help. Here are the known open issues:
As I said, this was a tough one. Any help will be appreciated. -- Jmabel 01:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Given that "Raportor al Comisiei parlamentare..." for one item (the cult thing) turned out to be Council of Europe, not Romanian parliament, is it possible that some of the following are also Council of Europe?
-- Jmabel 08:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should we add {{wrongtitle|title=Adrian Năstase}}? Or is he well enough known in the English-speaking world by this slightly wrong spelling that the title should be "Adrian Nastase"? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Bogdan | Talk 18:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've put these properly into the article -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
The tone in which the section "Allegations of homosexuality" is written seems to me to give undue credence to the allegations. Corneliu Vadim Tudor claiming he has evidence of something but hasn't actually shown it does not strike me as a reason to believe it: he is not exactly famous for his honesty or his ethics. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
A text is currently circulating on the Internet, allegedly a statement made to the Miliţie (Police) by a writer and history professor. In it, professor Suciu testifies his own homosexuality and names other alleged homosexuals, Năstase among them. I've added a mention to it in the article, with the appropriate remark.
IulianU 01:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nu il simpatizez pe Adrian Nastase dar articolul asta este scris ca si cum ar fi bagat la puscarie. Si apoi chestia cu homosexualitatea nu e in regula: 1. daca este, este problema lui si 2. felul cum este formulat textul lasa impresia ca homosexualitatea ar fi o chestie inspaimantatoare, ceea ce pentru un cititor de prin alte parti ridica niste semne de intrebare
I'm sorry, but I still find the section regarding homosexuality to be incredibly offensive. While Nastase clearly has many faults, so what if he's gay or bisexual? And quite honestly, if he were open about it he could never be elected to office in modern-day Romania. The bombonel comment is akin to using the word faggot or fairy in English.
I don't buy the argument that there is a controversy here in that Nastase attacked Basescu on the issue of gay rights and marriage. Basescu himself retreated on his comments made on MTV in support of gay marriage, and one year after DA led government there are still no plans for domestic partnership. I imagine there will be a lot of additions to this article in coming days following the indictment on the Zambachian property. As these things are added, I urge that the homosexuality section be deleted. Or if others agree, I will remove this myself. MisterMan 22:00, 07 Feb 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article is turning into a bit of a hatchet job. It's not just what's been added, it's what's been removed, to wit:
These next three are a bit problematic, because we never properly worked out whether these relate to the Romanian parliament or to an organization of European parliamentarians. I'd be inclined not to restore these unless we can get better citations.
It's as if there is an effort to drop everything that shows him in a human light or displays his actual involvement in parliamentary politics in any respect other than just the fact that he rose to the top of his party. Especially, if we are going to take a (well-deserved) shot at his writings on human rights in the Communist era, we should show his generally positive post-'89 involvement in this area. I'm not a fan, but we should be evenhanded.
I'm inclined to restore all of this material in one or another form, unless someone can give a good argument in the next 24 hours why it should not be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Bogdan, you seem to have restored the most substantive parts of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Do you really think that it is neutral to talk in 30% of the article about corruption allegations and make the contest look like they are actualy 50%?
For one thing they are "allegations", not facts; and I think wikipedia should _concentrate_ on facts.
And on the other hand some of them seem to mentioned just because they are "fun". For example the homosexuality allegation reads like: "Ever since 1990 there are rumors that he is homosexual... But those were started by a guy not to be trusted".
One simple thing to do would be to remove the headlines under "Allegations...". A second-level headline for a three lines paragraph surely looks excesive to anyone neutral (say, someone who knows nothing about AN before reading the article): and this happens not once but several times in a raw.
You should note that, in contrast, articles about other romanian politicians (most notably Traian Basescu) contain _no_ information about corruption allegation... although they do exist. -- rgrig
And something else. The only important thing said about the prime-minister period is that economy has grown. I do not find this to be particularily informative since it implies a correlation (between him being prime-minister and economy evolution) that is not supported in any way. Much better would be to give a list of actual things he done (i.e. law A, law B, etc..) and, if deemed important, things he hadn't done.
To further clarify my opinion about facts I'd like to add that information about the content of articles published by him before 1989 is very appropriate for the content of the article (although it looks that the choice of presented articles is biased too).
I hope someone who specializes in politics / sociology would take time to improve the current mess (that means, not me and... no, writing software for organizing mp3s doesn't qualify). -- Radu
Not true. For example, Romanians still need visa to enter UK, which is a European western countries. Bogdan | Talk 23:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I see Bogdan disagrees with one of the recently anonymously added statements; I suggest he make the minor edit needed to correct it, since it is close to accurate.
On a similar note, as I distributed these sentences to appropriate paragraphs and cut some pure POV, I was wondering enough about the following to bring it here instead for discussion:
Whose numbers? If this is something authoritative, it certainly merits mention, that would be about 17% of the population. There was no citation, so I was wondering if this might be pulled out of thin air. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:30, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
The reference: [3] - quoted from a Mercer Human Resource Consulting company report. Bogdan | Talk 23:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to this newspaper article, Geoană admitted that the transcripts were genuine, period; not that "parts of it seem to be genuine". A link to a statement of Mr. Geoana on this matter would be welcome. IulianU 01:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've copy-edited the recent additions by User:195.7.0.159. For the most part, I haven't addressed POV, beyond inserting the word "alleged" in one place where it seemed clearly called for. Someone else may want to take a look at these edits, which were clearly by someone hostile to Nastase, and lacked any citations, but did seem to me reasonably close to what I believe to be the truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
I've erased "surpassing the number allowed by Romanian law." While the carnage was immoral in many respects, it took place on a private domain, owned and maintained by Ion Ţiriac. Private hunting domains do not fall under official regulations. It was immoral, but not illegal.
I also added the facts about Ion Ţiriac because I think it broadens the perspective. Năstase is not alone in what he does...
Can anyone explain what this change is about? In any case, we cannot start by mentioning only one highway and then at the end of the paragraph refer to "both highways". This needs to be sorted out. - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be quite a bit of unsourced derogatory information in this article, which violates Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons. I'll give at least a few days for someone to get this in order, but after that I intend to remove material that goes against policy. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Psd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There is NO evidence that Nastase's suicide attempt took place. In the Austrian, Swiss and German Press ( print and online) the rising doubts regarding this attempt are very well documented and recherched:
Krone [4] - Die Presse [5] - NZZ NeueZürcherZeitung [6] - Welt [7] - Spiegel Online [8] and many more sources ....
Quote Spiegel Online: "Um der Haft zu entgehen, inszenierte Nastase einen theatralischen Selbstmordversuch, was ihm jedoch nur einige Tage Aufschub verschaffte - inzwischen sitzt er im Gefängnis." To escape the arrest, Nastase staged a theatrical suicide attempt, which gave him only a few days' delay - now he is in prison' [9] - Elysander ( talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'm new to this kind of discussion, so excuse me if I'm off topic. What do you mean that there is no evidence? As far as I know, the Romanian press covered this for days and they even showed the man on a stretcher with bandages and all. Is this discussion here implying it was a farce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.148.35 ( talk) 20:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adrian Năstase. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
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: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a tough one to translate; I could use some help. Here are the known open issues:
As I said, this was a tough one. Any help will be appreciated. -- Jmabel 01:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Given that "Raportor al Comisiei parlamentare..." for one item (the cult thing) turned out to be Council of Europe, not Romanian parliament, is it possible that some of the following are also Council of Europe?
-- Jmabel 08:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Should we add {{wrongtitle|title=Adrian Năstase}}? Or is he well enough known in the English-speaking world by this slightly wrong spelling that the title should be "Adrian Nastase"? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Bogdan | Talk 18:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've put these properly into the article -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
The tone in which the section "Allegations of homosexuality" is written seems to me to give undue credence to the allegations. Corneliu Vadim Tudor claiming he has evidence of something but hasn't actually shown it does not strike me as a reason to believe it: he is not exactly famous for his honesty or his ethics. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
A text is currently circulating on the Internet, allegedly a statement made to the Miliţie (Police) by a writer and history professor. In it, professor Suciu testifies his own homosexuality and names other alleged homosexuals, Năstase among them. I've added a mention to it in the article, with the appropriate remark.
IulianU 01:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nu il simpatizez pe Adrian Nastase dar articolul asta este scris ca si cum ar fi bagat la puscarie. Si apoi chestia cu homosexualitatea nu e in regula: 1. daca este, este problema lui si 2. felul cum este formulat textul lasa impresia ca homosexualitatea ar fi o chestie inspaimantatoare, ceea ce pentru un cititor de prin alte parti ridica niste semne de intrebare
I'm sorry, but I still find the section regarding homosexuality to be incredibly offensive. While Nastase clearly has many faults, so what if he's gay or bisexual? And quite honestly, if he were open about it he could never be elected to office in modern-day Romania. The bombonel comment is akin to using the word faggot or fairy in English.
I don't buy the argument that there is a controversy here in that Nastase attacked Basescu on the issue of gay rights and marriage. Basescu himself retreated on his comments made on MTV in support of gay marriage, and one year after DA led government there are still no plans for domestic partnership. I imagine there will be a lot of additions to this article in coming days following the indictment on the Zambachian property. As these things are added, I urge that the homosexuality section be deleted. Or if others agree, I will remove this myself. MisterMan 22:00, 07 Feb 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article is turning into a bit of a hatchet job. It's not just what's been added, it's what's been removed, to wit:
These next three are a bit problematic, because we never properly worked out whether these relate to the Romanian parliament or to an organization of European parliamentarians. I'd be inclined not to restore these unless we can get better citations.
It's as if there is an effort to drop everything that shows him in a human light or displays his actual involvement in parliamentary politics in any respect other than just the fact that he rose to the top of his party. Especially, if we are going to take a (well-deserved) shot at his writings on human rights in the Communist era, we should show his generally positive post-'89 involvement in this area. I'm not a fan, but we should be evenhanded.
I'm inclined to restore all of this material in one or another form, unless someone can give a good argument in the next 24 hours why it should not be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, Bogdan, you seem to have restored the most substantive parts of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
Do you really think that it is neutral to talk in 30% of the article about corruption allegations and make the contest look like they are actualy 50%?
For one thing they are "allegations", not facts; and I think wikipedia should _concentrate_ on facts.
And on the other hand some of them seem to mentioned just because they are "fun". For example the homosexuality allegation reads like: "Ever since 1990 there are rumors that he is homosexual... But those were started by a guy not to be trusted".
One simple thing to do would be to remove the headlines under "Allegations...". A second-level headline for a three lines paragraph surely looks excesive to anyone neutral (say, someone who knows nothing about AN before reading the article): and this happens not once but several times in a raw.
You should note that, in contrast, articles about other romanian politicians (most notably Traian Basescu) contain _no_ information about corruption allegation... although they do exist. -- rgrig
And something else. The only important thing said about the prime-minister period is that economy has grown. I do not find this to be particularily informative since it implies a correlation (between him being prime-minister and economy evolution) that is not supported in any way. Much better would be to give a list of actual things he done (i.e. law A, law B, etc..) and, if deemed important, things he hadn't done.
To further clarify my opinion about facts I'd like to add that information about the content of articles published by him before 1989 is very appropriate for the content of the article (although it looks that the choice of presented articles is biased too).
I hope someone who specializes in politics / sociology would take time to improve the current mess (that means, not me and... no, writing software for organizing mp3s doesn't qualify). -- Radu
Not true. For example, Romanians still need visa to enter UK, which is a European western countries. Bogdan | Talk 23:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I see Bogdan disagrees with one of the recently anonymously added statements; I suggest he make the minor edit needed to correct it, since it is close to accurate.
On a similar note, as I distributed these sentences to appropriate paragraphs and cut some pure POV, I was wondering enough about the following to bring it here instead for discussion:
Whose numbers? If this is something authoritative, it certainly merits mention, that would be about 17% of the population. There was no citation, so I was wondering if this might be pulled out of thin air. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:30, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
The reference: [3] - quoted from a Mercer Human Resource Consulting company report. Bogdan | Talk 23:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to this newspaper article, Geoană admitted that the transcripts were genuine, period; not that "parts of it seem to be genuine". A link to a statement of Mr. Geoana on this matter would be welcome. IulianU 01:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've copy-edited the recent additions by User:195.7.0.159. For the most part, I haven't addressed POV, beyond inserting the word "alleged" in one place where it seemed clearly called for. Someone else may want to take a look at these edits, which were clearly by someone hostile to Nastase, and lacked any citations, but did seem to me reasonably close to what I believe to be the truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)
I've erased "surpassing the number allowed by Romanian law." While the carnage was immoral in many respects, it took place on a private domain, owned and maintained by Ion Ţiriac. Private hunting domains do not fall under official regulations. It was immoral, but not illegal.
I also added the facts about Ion Ţiriac because I think it broadens the perspective. Năstase is not alone in what he does...
Can anyone explain what this change is about? In any case, we cannot start by mentioning only one highway and then at the end of the paragraph refer to "both highways". This needs to be sorted out. - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be quite a bit of unsourced derogatory information in this article, which violates Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons. I'll give at least a few days for someone to get this in order, but after that I intend to remove material that goes against policy. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Image:Psd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
There is NO evidence that Nastase's suicide attempt took place. In the Austrian, Swiss and German Press ( print and online) the rising doubts regarding this attempt are very well documented and recherched:
Krone [4] - Die Presse [5] - NZZ NeueZürcherZeitung [6] - Welt [7] - Spiegel Online [8] and many more sources ....
Quote Spiegel Online: "Um der Haft zu entgehen, inszenierte Nastase einen theatralischen Selbstmordversuch, was ihm jedoch nur einige Tage Aufschub verschaffte - inzwischen sitzt er im Gefängnis." To escape the arrest, Nastase staged a theatrical suicide attempt, which gave him only a few days' delay - now he is in prison' [9] - Elysander ( talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I'm new to this kind of discussion, so excuse me if I'm off topic. What do you mean that there is no evidence? As far as I know, the Romanian press covered this for days and they even showed the man on a stretcher with bandages and all. Is this discussion here implying it was a farce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.148.35 ( talk) 20:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Adrian Năstase. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)