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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For now, I've returned to my version for two reasons. First, a an article that fits comfortably into three paragraphs does not need to be broken up into nine mini-paragraphs and seven mini-sections. I think readers won't get lost in the current text. Besides, see WP:LAYOUT: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose... The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Second, the way the text was broken up meant that some paragraphs were unreferenced; now, it's clear what comes from where.
I'd not said anything about his studies abroad; I've now mentioned them, but since they're not really degrees but more the sort of thing you put on a CV, I personally don't think we need more detail. Same with the full name of his Phare projects: this is of course derived from a CV, but we should make it sound a little less like one. About the number of books he wrote: I've seen "seven", "over seven" and "numerous". Given the discrepancies, I just went with the vague but reliable wording of Realitatea. However, if we have a reliable source saying "seven", good, let's put that in.
About the chronology: this could go either way. Of course no solution is perfect: it's nice to know what he did in sequence, but also nice to follow by field. My own preference is for the former, and I believe this is more standard in biographies. None of this is set in stone, and I'm sure the article will evolve as events move forward. Let's discuss our options here. - Biruitorul Talk 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and further details on Olteanu, yes -- but in the Bogdan Olteanu article! - Biruitorul Talk 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just combed through the article and mostly preserved your changes. The one thing I did cut was the editorials: while they are interesting, I don't know that a) we usually cite opinion pieces b) the individuals expressing those opinions are that important or relevant to the discussion. Obviously, in a country with a free press, lots of opinions are going to be expressed. Our job (as I see it) is to report the facts and keep opinions to a minimum. Of course, we do say what Geoană and Antonescu think: that's relevant. Soviani, maybe not. Let me know what you think. And good work, both of you gentlemen. - Biruitorul Talk 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
These are my latest small modifications. Any issues? Dc76\ talk 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
May I take issue with your latest edit summary? In the ZF article, which reproduces Băsescu's remarks, we find: "Unele partide mi l-au propus pe Klaus Iohannis... Relatia mea cu domnul Iohannis este foarte corecta.... Optiunea mea pentru functia de prim-ministru este pentru un om cu expertiza economica, de asemenea un om cu experienta relatiilor cu bancile si institutiile financiare internationale. Avem nevoie de un premier capabil sa coordoneze toate institutiile de care depinde indeplinirea oibligatiilor cu finantatorii externi". To me, that's pretty clear: he rejected Iohannis, and proposed Croitoru, because the latter has economic experience and the former does not. - Biruitorul Talk 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not how I read it. He proposed Croitoru, because the latter has economic experience. That is perfectly true. But that is not why he rejected Iohannis. I added a sentence explaining (in his words, not mine) why he rejected Iohannis. That sentence does not have much to do with Croitoru's biography, though. Dc76\ talk 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Further objections. First, whatever we may think of him, Olteanu has practiced law. Second, the quote I put in was in fact from "one" financial analyst (Bogdan Baltazar). Third, this is a biography of Croitoru, not a thorough analysis of Olteanu's appointment. At some point, it may make sense to have articles like Ukrainian political crisis or Thai political crisis, or one could even write this stuff at 2008 - present legislature of the Romanian Parliament (although that's an awful and likely unnecessary article). But let's please stay focused on the subject of this biography. - Biruitorul Talk 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
First. Corrected about Olteanu. Second. The source you provided showed paramount criticism from the economic community. And you chose to say "one financial analyst said ..." It is very representative of the paragraph in that article where Bogdan Baltazar is mentioned. But it is not representative even of the article. Not to mention that there are a lot more. There was not a single word of praise from anybody regarding Olteanu. We are in a sense faced with the dilema "All ships in Scotland are black" vs. "There is one ship in Scotland whose one side is black." :) Third. I agree. The same goes about Iohannis non-appointment. We have to say something, though. How much is too much? Dc76\ talk 16:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just replying and noticing a mistake I made... edit conflict. I lost my comment here, so I will first rectify what you say, then comment. Dc76\ talk 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Are there any other issues? Dc76\ talk 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I did find in one sourse (Roncea) 1978, but I see all other sources 1979, so I guess it's a misprint. Let's keep 1979, per most sources, as you say, until some other data comes out. Dc76\ talk 17:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
References
As I understand it, the Parliament of Romania appoints the Prime Minister, and the President can nominate people for the office, just like the opposition parties can nominate people. [1] ("He added that Parliament is the one who appoints the premier, but it is the prerogative of the President and anyone else to propose"). Hence, Croitoru is not appointed as Prime Minister, but has the same status as Johannis. As the opposition has stated their intention not to vote for Croitoru but for Johannis, it seems unlikely Croitoru will become Prime Minister [2]. Urban XII ( talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Also see this comment by PSD leader Mircea Geoana: "In the absence of a majority for a prime-ministerial candidate, Traian Basescu’s move is in fact political bluffing." "It is obvious that you cannot secure a majority when you represent the Democratic-Liberal Party (PD-L) exclusively, which is now a 30 percent minority in the Romanian Parliament. "
"The PSD chief said that as far as he is concerned, the nomination of Lucian Croitoru without parliamentary backing ‘is a risk against a loss of face for this good specialist.’ ‘Mr. Croitoru cannot possibly become Romania’s prime minister because he has no majority backing" [3] Urban XII ( talk) 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be made a little more clear that he has little chance of taking office. Using the infobox prime minister, for instance, almost gives the impression he's already the PM. Urban XII ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I.e., the situation is that the parliamentary majority insists on Klaus Iohannis as Prime Minister and demands the withdrawal of Croituro's candidacy, which means Lucian Croituro has no way of being elected PM. There's a meeting between the majority parties and Croituro today (20 Oct) where they will tell him "what is already known" (that they won't elect him). Urban XII ( talk) 23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remind you that this is the article of Lucian Croitoru, not Klaus Iohannis. Adding info totally about Iohannis in the lead of the article about Croitoru, when done repeatedly is a subtle form of vandalism, IMHO. Please, be constructive, and add what you have to add in the correct place. Dc76\ talk 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.
Why not mention in the lead his activity at the IMF but mention a very remote detail that someone opposes him? His professional activity is more important than what x thinks about aspect y concerning his nomination. Why not add in the lead what z thinks about aspect t concerning the same nomination? I believe only the nomination has to be mentioned in the lead, and all other details can safely go in the text below.
Wait 4 more days, he will have to go in the Parliament, and you can say his cabinet has been approved or not. Right now, he is Prime-Minister designate. There are a lot of opinions about that. You added a con opinion, but you didn't add any pro opinion. Why con opinions are more important than pro opinions so that only con opinions are allowed in the lead? Why not leave the lead neutral and mention all opinions below?
Not to mention that legally there is no majority. The word "majority" is misused, it is a controversy. You are taking a controversy as a fact, and add it in the lead! Come on, let's be rational.
Did I oppose the mention of any detail in the text? Why don't you make a tiny step towards reconciliation: let's edit properly the main text, then you propose a summary sentence that you consider necessary to add in the lead, and let's ask a third opinion about the presence of that sentence in the lead. Come on, this is very easy to settle. You just need to want to settle. I hope you did not jump into this article looking for confrontation. Just think logically: you still can have the text your way with a third opinion! Dc76\ talk 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"However, the majority parties in parliament continue to oppose his candidacy and insist on Klaus Iohannis as Prime Minister.[1] In order to take office, a Prime Minister will need to be confirmed by parliament."
I agree with the above comments by Anti-Nationalist. Why is this guy notable, i.e. why was this article created? Because the President nominated him for Prime Minister. His candidacy is the primary reason for why he's notable. It so happens that the majority parties in parliament oppose him and have a different candidate. This information is just as relevant as Traian Băsescu's nomination of him for the office. Removing this information makes the lead directly misleading, i.e. it gives the impression he will become Prime Minister when this matter is very uncertain. Also note that Lucian Croitoru's nomination is mentioned in the lead of the Klaus Iohannis article. It's irrelevant that the information is also mentioned below because the lead section is intended to be a summary of the article. Urban XII ( talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, describing the fact that he has no way of being elected PM as "a very remote detail", when his candidacy for the PM office is the only reason this guy is notable, is just ridiculous. Urban XII ( talk) 00:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the situation will be resolved in the coming days anyway, but, even so, I think the lead paragraph should steer clear of too much discussion of complex political events - which are best covered in the main article - and instead focus clear facts about the man. Perhaps something along the lines of:
This statement should be fairly uncontroversial and the full details of the controversy are covered in the body of the text. Obviously this opening should be ammended once events have played themselves out, but I think that the lead paragraph should stick to clear facts relating specifically to Croitoru rather than the general controversy. What does everyone think? Rje ( talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ a little bit. I believe this:
would be better. You see, it is not the nomination that was controversial, but the confirmation by the Parliament. One side says that he has no chance to pass, and should withdraw instead. The declaration they adopted today explicitly asks him to withdraw without seeking confirmation in the Parliament. The other side says they can foster a majority if the MPs are not pressured very much by the party leaders how to vote. If you call the nomination controversial, one side would totally dispute it, half of the other side won't use that word, and the other half will cease the opportunity to politicize more. It is however absolutely ok to call the chances for his confirmation controversial. Dc76\ talk 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is exactly what I said before: "the other half will cease the opportunity to politicize more". This is exactly what you did. According to Romanian law, the President, not the parliament proposes a Prime Minister. The Parliament approves or rejects. They tried to force the President's hand before the nomination, but it did not work. It's all part of a political game. For us to side with half of one side is not correct. Why in general do we need to add questionable words in the lead? Can't we work out a simple and neutral wording of the lead?
Allow me also to differ with "The leaders are the official representatives of their parties, pure and simple." According to Romanian Constitution, Members of Parliament, and not party leaders form the legislative power in the state. You can not ask only the leaders their personal oppinions and add as many votes as their parties are supposed to have. I have given a clear example: expected 280 became real 252. 28 people have voted differently from their party leaders!
Please, note that my version differs from Rje's version in two ways: 1) the word "controversially" is not present, 2) "In order to take office, a Cabinet proposal needs to be confirmed by the Parliament." is added. I added the last sentence as a step towards compromise. I can go without it, if that's what others want. I am totally open to other alternatives. Dc76\ talk 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Urban XII: 1) I didn't use the term "made it very clear". What I wrote, was that "the four majority parties made it clear that they would not vote for a cabinet headed by him" which is perfectly neutral in English. - I see. The problem is exactly the same words were used today by some excentrical Romanian politicians in pejorative sense. Now I see where we got on the wrong foot. I thought all along you know Romanian. 2) The exact wording is not a big deal to me. How about "the four majority parties conveyed to Croitoru that they would not vote for a cabinet headed by him"? - Oh, that's absolutely fine. 3) When did he "win"? The one who in the end gets elected is the one who wins. Iohannis has the support of the Parliament and Croitoru has the support of the President. - I agree that none of them is Prime Minister yet. But Croitoru is nominated by the President, which is a legal procedure. Iohannis, although having more support in the Parliament (some believe that all 5 political groups could vote for him!), was not one formally nominated. Iohannis is not in the position to propose a cabinet to the Parliament. Croitoru is. Iohannis was very careful about words. He always called himself a candidate, and never misinterpreted the formal quality of Croitoru. It is the Romanian politicians that support Iohannis, who compete about who gets more support for Iohannis that went out of their way and misinterpreted things. Iohannis himself was very correct every time. 4) But it won't help him because you cannot become Prime Minister of Romania without parliamentary backing. So far, there's no winner. - He has the chance of the vote. His chances are slim, but not zero. Let's wait to see what happens. 5) I disagree. While he is no doubt a high-ranking civil servant and economist of his country, his nomination for the office of Prime Minister is what really makes him notable, as demonstrated by the fact that Wikipedia articles was created in several languages as a direct result while he previously didn't have any Wikipedia biographies (not even in the Romanian Wikipedia). How much press coverage did he receive prior to his nomination compared to the press coverage after the nomination? If i remember correctly, he was described by the press as not particularly well-known in Romanian politics, as a surprise nomination, unlike Johannis a largely unknown candidate. - Let's agree to disagree. We can edit the article without agreeing on this. Croitoru is not a politician at all. But as economist he was very-very notable. Not to politicians. Just like Herta Mueller. Most Romanians never heard about her until 2 weeks ago. Yet she was very-very notable in literature. The existence of a WP article is not a proof of notability or non-notability. There are many people who don't have articles yet. Dc76\ talk 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to call it a night, but if no agreement can be reached I might suggest having a completely apolitical lead:
This is also very fine with me. Dc76\ talk 01:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we already reached an acceptable compromise above. For reasons previously explained, I oppose a lead section that doesn't address the political realities, because the casual reader will get the impression that he is certain to become Prime Minister. Some English-language sources already misleadingly reported his nomination as an "appointment". Urban XII ( talk) 01:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record, my first choice would have been this solution. But I definitively can go with the version we just arrived at above! :-) Dc76\ talk 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lucian Croitoru. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/quotsingura-majoritate-pe-care-o-are-basescu-este-minoritatea-pdlquot-871650.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.realitatea.net/care-sunt-ministrii-propusi-de-lucian-croitoru_656152.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 8 January 2018 (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 C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
For now, I've returned to my version for two reasons. First, a an article that fits comfortably into three paragraphs does not need to be broken up into nine mini-paragraphs and seven mini-sections. I think readers won't get lost in the current text. Besides, see WP:LAYOUT: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose... The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized, since they can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, paragraphs that exceed a certain length become hard to read. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." Second, the way the text was broken up meant that some paragraphs were unreferenced; now, it's clear what comes from where.
I'd not said anything about his studies abroad; I've now mentioned them, but since they're not really degrees but more the sort of thing you put on a CV, I personally don't think we need more detail. Same with the full name of his Phare projects: this is of course derived from a CV, but we should make it sound a little less like one. About the number of books he wrote: I've seen "seven", "over seven" and "numerous". Given the discrepancies, I just went with the vague but reliable wording of Realitatea. However, if we have a reliable source saying "seven", good, let's put that in.
About the chronology: this could go either way. Of course no solution is perfect: it's nice to know what he did in sequence, but also nice to follow by field. My own preference is for the former, and I believe this is more standard in biographies. None of this is set in stone, and I'm sure the article will evolve as events move forward. Let's discuss our options here. - Biruitorul Talk 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and further details on Olteanu, yes -- but in the Bogdan Olteanu article! - Biruitorul Talk 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've just combed through the article and mostly preserved your changes. The one thing I did cut was the editorials: while they are interesting, I don't know that a) we usually cite opinion pieces b) the individuals expressing those opinions are that important or relevant to the discussion. Obviously, in a country with a free press, lots of opinions are going to be expressed. Our job (as I see it) is to report the facts and keep opinions to a minimum. Of course, we do say what Geoană and Antonescu think: that's relevant. Soviani, maybe not. Let me know what you think. And good work, both of you gentlemen. - Biruitorul Talk 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
These are my latest small modifications. Any issues? Dc76\ talk 09:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
May I take issue with your latest edit summary? In the ZF article, which reproduces Băsescu's remarks, we find: "Unele partide mi l-au propus pe Klaus Iohannis... Relatia mea cu domnul Iohannis este foarte corecta.... Optiunea mea pentru functia de prim-ministru este pentru un om cu expertiza economica, de asemenea un om cu experienta relatiilor cu bancile si institutiile financiare internationale. Avem nevoie de un premier capabil sa coordoneze toate institutiile de care depinde indeplinirea oibligatiilor cu finantatorii externi". To me, that's pretty clear: he rejected Iohannis, and proposed Croitoru, because the latter has economic experience and the former does not. - Biruitorul Talk 15:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
This is not how I read it. He proposed Croitoru, because the latter has economic experience. That is perfectly true. But that is not why he rejected Iohannis. I added a sentence explaining (in his words, not mine) why he rejected Iohannis. That sentence does not have much to do with Croitoru's biography, though. Dc76\ talk 16:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Further objections. First, whatever we may think of him, Olteanu has practiced law. Second, the quote I put in was in fact from "one" financial analyst (Bogdan Baltazar). Third, this is a biography of Croitoru, not a thorough analysis of Olteanu's appointment. At some point, it may make sense to have articles like Ukrainian political crisis or Thai political crisis, or one could even write this stuff at 2008 - present legislature of the Romanian Parliament (although that's an awful and likely unnecessary article). But let's please stay focused on the subject of this biography. - Biruitorul Talk 16:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
First. Corrected about Olteanu. Second. The source you provided showed paramount criticism from the economic community. And you chose to say "one financial analyst said ..." It is very representative of the paragraph in that article where Bogdan Baltazar is mentioned. But it is not representative even of the article. Not to mention that there are a lot more. There was not a single word of praise from anybody regarding Olteanu. We are in a sense faced with the dilema "All ships in Scotland are black" vs. "There is one ship in Scotland whose one side is black." :) Third. I agree. The same goes about Iohannis non-appointment. We have to say something, though. How much is too much? Dc76\ talk 16:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I was just replying and noticing a mistake I made... edit conflict. I lost my comment here, so I will first rectify what you say, then comment. Dc76\ talk 16:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Are there any other issues? Dc76\ talk 16:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I did find in one sourse (Roncea) 1978, but I see all other sources 1979, so I guess it's a misprint. Let's keep 1979, per most sources, as you say, until some other data comes out. Dc76\ talk 17:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
References
As I understand it, the Parliament of Romania appoints the Prime Minister, and the President can nominate people for the office, just like the opposition parties can nominate people. [1] ("He added that Parliament is the one who appoints the premier, but it is the prerogative of the President and anyone else to propose"). Hence, Croitoru is not appointed as Prime Minister, but has the same status as Johannis. As the opposition has stated their intention not to vote for Croitoru but for Johannis, it seems unlikely Croitoru will become Prime Minister [2]. Urban XII ( talk) 22:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Also see this comment by PSD leader Mircea Geoana: "In the absence of a majority for a prime-ministerial candidate, Traian Basescu’s move is in fact political bluffing." "It is obvious that you cannot secure a majority when you represent the Democratic-Liberal Party (PD-L) exclusively, which is now a 30 percent minority in the Romanian Parliament. "
"The PSD chief said that as far as he is concerned, the nomination of Lucian Croitoru without parliamentary backing ‘is a risk against a loss of face for this good specialist.’ ‘Mr. Croitoru cannot possibly become Romania’s prime minister because he has no majority backing" [3] Urban XII ( talk) 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be made a little more clear that he has little chance of taking office. Using the infobox prime minister, for instance, almost gives the impression he's already the PM. Urban XII ( talk) 23:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I.e., the situation is that the parliamentary majority insists on Klaus Iohannis as Prime Minister and demands the withdrawal of Croituro's candidacy, which means Lucian Croituro has no way of being elected PM. There's a meeting between the majority parties and Croituro today (20 Oct) where they will tell him "what is already known" (that they won't elect him). Urban XII ( talk) 23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I would like to remind you that this is the article of Lucian Croitoru, not Klaus Iohannis. Adding info totally about Iohannis in the lead of the article about Croitoru, when done repeatedly is a subtle form of vandalism, IMHO. Please, be constructive, and add what you have to add in the correct place. Dc76\ talk 15:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.
The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead, if possible.
Why not mention in the lead his activity at the IMF but mention a very remote detail that someone opposes him? His professional activity is more important than what x thinks about aspect y concerning his nomination. Why not add in the lead what z thinks about aspect t concerning the same nomination? I believe only the nomination has to be mentioned in the lead, and all other details can safely go in the text below.
Wait 4 more days, he will have to go in the Parliament, and you can say his cabinet has been approved or not. Right now, he is Prime-Minister designate. There are a lot of opinions about that. You added a con opinion, but you didn't add any pro opinion. Why con opinions are more important than pro opinions so that only con opinions are allowed in the lead? Why not leave the lead neutral and mention all opinions below?
Not to mention that legally there is no majority. The word "majority" is misused, it is a controversy. You are taking a controversy as a fact, and add it in the lead! Come on, let's be rational.
Did I oppose the mention of any detail in the text? Why don't you make a tiny step towards reconciliation: let's edit properly the main text, then you propose a summary sentence that you consider necessary to add in the lead, and let's ask a third opinion about the presence of that sentence in the lead. Come on, this is very easy to settle. You just need to want to settle. I hope you did not jump into this article looking for confrontation. Just think logically: you still can have the text your way with a third opinion! Dc76\ talk 22:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
"However, the majority parties in parliament continue to oppose his candidacy and insist on Klaus Iohannis as Prime Minister.[1] In order to take office, a Prime Minister will need to be confirmed by parliament."
I agree with the above comments by Anti-Nationalist. Why is this guy notable, i.e. why was this article created? Because the President nominated him for Prime Minister. His candidacy is the primary reason for why he's notable. It so happens that the majority parties in parliament oppose him and have a different candidate. This information is just as relevant as Traian Băsescu's nomination of him for the office. Removing this information makes the lead directly misleading, i.e. it gives the impression he will become Prime Minister when this matter is very uncertain. Also note that Lucian Croitoru's nomination is mentioned in the lead of the Klaus Iohannis article. It's irrelevant that the information is also mentioned below because the lead section is intended to be a summary of the article. Urban XII ( talk) 00:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, describing the fact that he has no way of being elected PM as "a very remote detail", when his candidacy for the PM office is the only reason this guy is notable, is just ridiculous. Urban XII ( talk) 00:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the situation will be resolved in the coming days anyway, but, even so, I think the lead paragraph should steer clear of too much discussion of complex political events - which are best covered in the main article - and instead focus clear facts about the man. Perhaps something along the lines of:
This statement should be fairly uncontroversial and the full details of the controversy are covered in the body of the text. Obviously this opening should be ammended once events have played themselves out, but I think that the lead paragraph should stick to clear facts relating specifically to Croitoru rather than the general controversy. What does everyone think? Rje ( talk) 22:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ a little bit. I believe this:
would be better. You see, it is not the nomination that was controversial, but the confirmation by the Parliament. One side says that he has no chance to pass, and should withdraw instead. The declaration they adopted today explicitly asks him to withdraw without seeking confirmation in the Parliament. The other side says they can foster a majority if the MPs are not pressured very much by the party leaders how to vote. If you call the nomination controversial, one side would totally dispute it, half of the other side won't use that word, and the other half will cease the opportunity to politicize more. It is however absolutely ok to call the chances for his confirmation controversial. Dc76\ talk 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This is exactly what I said before: "the other half will cease the opportunity to politicize more". This is exactly what you did. According to Romanian law, the President, not the parliament proposes a Prime Minister. The Parliament approves or rejects. They tried to force the President's hand before the nomination, but it did not work. It's all part of a political game. For us to side with half of one side is not correct. Why in general do we need to add questionable words in the lead? Can't we work out a simple and neutral wording of the lead?
Allow me also to differ with "The leaders are the official representatives of their parties, pure and simple." According to Romanian Constitution, Members of Parliament, and not party leaders form the legislative power in the state. You can not ask only the leaders their personal oppinions and add as many votes as their parties are supposed to have. I have given a clear example: expected 280 became real 252. 28 people have voted differently from their party leaders!
Please, note that my version differs from Rje's version in two ways: 1) the word "controversially" is not present, 2) "In order to take office, a Cabinet proposal needs to be confirmed by the Parliament." is added. I added the last sentence as a step towards compromise. I can go without it, if that's what others want. I am totally open to other alternatives. Dc76\ talk 00:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
@ Urban XII: 1) I didn't use the term "made it very clear". What I wrote, was that "the four majority parties made it clear that they would not vote for a cabinet headed by him" which is perfectly neutral in English. - I see. The problem is exactly the same words were used today by some excentrical Romanian politicians in pejorative sense. Now I see where we got on the wrong foot. I thought all along you know Romanian. 2) The exact wording is not a big deal to me. How about "the four majority parties conveyed to Croitoru that they would not vote for a cabinet headed by him"? - Oh, that's absolutely fine. 3) When did he "win"? The one who in the end gets elected is the one who wins. Iohannis has the support of the Parliament and Croitoru has the support of the President. - I agree that none of them is Prime Minister yet. But Croitoru is nominated by the President, which is a legal procedure. Iohannis, although having more support in the Parliament (some believe that all 5 political groups could vote for him!), was not one formally nominated. Iohannis is not in the position to propose a cabinet to the Parliament. Croitoru is. Iohannis was very careful about words. He always called himself a candidate, and never misinterpreted the formal quality of Croitoru. It is the Romanian politicians that support Iohannis, who compete about who gets more support for Iohannis that went out of their way and misinterpreted things. Iohannis himself was very correct every time. 4) But it won't help him because you cannot become Prime Minister of Romania without parliamentary backing. So far, there's no winner. - He has the chance of the vote. His chances are slim, but not zero. Let's wait to see what happens. 5) I disagree. While he is no doubt a high-ranking civil servant and economist of his country, his nomination for the office of Prime Minister is what really makes him notable, as demonstrated by the fact that Wikipedia articles was created in several languages as a direct result while he previously didn't have any Wikipedia biographies (not even in the Romanian Wikipedia). How much press coverage did he receive prior to his nomination compared to the press coverage after the nomination? If i remember correctly, he was described by the press as not particularly well-known in Romanian politics, as a surprise nomination, unlike Johannis a largely unknown candidate. - Let's agree to disagree. We can edit the article without agreeing on this. Croitoru is not a politician at all. But as economist he was very-very notable. Not to politicians. Just like Herta Mueller. Most Romanians never heard about her until 2 weeks ago. Yet she was very-very notable in literature. The existence of a WP article is not a proof of notability or non-notability. There are many people who don't have articles yet. Dc76\ talk 01:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm going to have to call it a night, but if no agreement can be reached I might suggest having a completely apolitical lead:
This is also very fine with me. Dc76\ talk 01:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think we already reached an acceptable compromise above. For reasons previously explained, I oppose a lead section that doesn't address the political realities, because the casual reader will get the impression that he is certain to become Prime Minister. Some English-language sources already misleadingly reported his nomination as an "appointment". Urban XII ( talk) 01:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
For the record, my first choice would have been this solution. But I definitively can go with the version we just arrived at above! :-) Dc76\ talk 01:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lucian Croitoru. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/quotsingura-majoritate-pe-care-o-are-basescu-este-minoritatea-pdlquot-871650.html{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.realitatea.net/care-sunt-ministrii-propusi-de-lucian-croitoru_656152.htmlWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)