Talk:Traian Băsescu

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

Current Office[edit]

Basescu is only the elected President of Romania and doesn't currently hold office, he currently is Mayor of Bucharest. He will be sworn in later this month. I've edited the fact box to reflect this, but I don't know how/if it can mention he will become President of Romania soonish. Gcbirzan 11:06, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Where are you getting results from these mayoral elections? It would like to get hold of the full results.

Election results in Bucharest mayor elections, in Romanian but it should be pretty understandable. Gcbirzan 12:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Basescu isn't President, yet[edit]

According to the Romanian Constitution, the President holds office until the newly elected one is sworn in (article 83, third paragraph).

What happened on the 16th of December was the validation of the election results by the Constitutional Court, according to article 82, paragraph one. Paragraph two says that he will then be swron in before the reunited houses of Parliament. That hasn't happened yet.

I'm not sure if he's still Mayor of Bucharest, but I don't remember hearing anything on his resignation, or the appointment of a provisional (or whatever the term may be) Mayor. Gcbirzan 21:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

minor cleanup, outstanding issues[edit]

I did a minor cleanup on this; there are two issues I'm not sure how to fix:

  • "As a navy officer and captain..." "Captain" in English can have several meanings; among other things, it is a military rank, but I suspect that what is meant hers is "ship's captain", commander of a ship. Is that correct?
  • "...and that a previous article regarding MP's immunity over matters regarding their votes or statements made while holding office." Incomprehensible. No principle verb. Can someone have a look at this in context and work out what it means to say? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:31, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Descendence from Gheorghe Pop de Basesti[edit]

is this supposed to be in an encyclopedia? firstly, gheorghe pop de basesti is completely anonymous, even in romania

No, he's not anonymous: read this. He was the president of the National Romanian Party of Transylvania (which later won the election of Greater Romania), he lead the Memorandum movement and he was the president of the Assembly of 1 December 1918 of Alba-Iulia.
OK, I agree with this one.

second: this is only basescu's claim (although not even this is for sure), not a proved fact third: it seems quite irrelevant to me

The family background is relevant in the context of a person's biography. Bogdan | Talk 09:30, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
True, but what I said was that he only claims to have this descendency, I don't know about real proofs of it. Do you have any?
Lacking anything else, we could just say that he claims to be of the same family, but I bet a bit of research would clarify the relationship. I don't think he claims to be a descendant, just a relative, so it may be a little tricky. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:53, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)
The only place to search for real proof are the national archives of Bucharest. I don't know anybody willing to do the search (Most of the documents are not indexed, even fewer are indexed on computers - For a member of my family it took a month of being shoved around different locations and forced to deal with a lot of bureaucracy to find a simple land deed from 1939, and this is considered standard practice. One could try... But this will require lots of patience.

POV[edit]

While the recent edits by User:195.7.0.159 seem to introduce some relevant material, they also seem to be very POV (pro-Băsescu). I've fixed the English. I hope someone else will deal with the POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:16, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

Stray dogs[edit]

reduction (...) in numbers of ownerless dogs (...) roaming freely among the streets of the city from 1,500,000 in 2000 to 25,000 in 2004 and thus in the number of dog bite injuries from 1500/day to under 200/day;

He did reduce the number of dogs, but I am not very sure about the estimations... We would need a citation for these. Bogdan | Talk 22:20, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The estimations are given by the reports of "Agentia pentru Supravegherea Animalelor" (Agency for animal control) of the mayor's office in Bucharest, first in 2000 and then, shortly before it was shut down by the Municipal Council in 2003. They may be exaggerated, but they are the only one available. I couldn't find any of Vier Photen's reports on stray dogs in Bucharest (Vier Photen was the animal-protection NGO that brought Bucharest's stray dogs to western attention and that opposed Basescu's plans the strongest.) 195.7.0.159

Profession[edit]

Bogdan, why do you want to say that his profession was "sailor" rather than "Merchant Marine Officer"? The latter seems more precise and in his case correct. He certainly was not an Ordinary Seaman. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:06, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

I left it that way to be in concordance with the other articles. For example, Colin Powell has listed simply "soldier", no "General of the US Army".
And the word "sailor" includes every seaman. From the sailor article:
A sailor is a member of the crew of a ship or boat. The term may comprise anyone from an admiral in the navy to a person who goes out yachting at weekends as a hobby. A sailor is also specifically an enlisted member of a naval force. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:51, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's been added that he was a Career Officer in the Romanian Navy. That is not true, he never served in the Navy, he was an officer of the Romanian Merchant Marine.
An officer is different from a sailor; an officer must go through higher education (university) while a sailor doesn't. There's no connection between these two professions, apart from both being supposed to work on a ship. IulianU 09:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Context and gay marriage[edit]

The following was recently anonymously removed with the summary "Not correct. Mr. Basescu's remarks were taken out of context":

In October 2004, at the peak of this election campaign, in answer to a question on a talk-show, he voiced his support for legalization of same-sex marriage. He was the first political candidate in Romania to support the gay cause to that extent. Later in the campaign, the PSD used this affirmation against him.

It seems to me that if this was, indeed, a misportrayal of his remarks by his opponents, then (accurate) discussion of the incident belongs in the article. It's still an interesting tidbit about the campaign, and an opponent's false statements about a candidate can be quite worth mentioning as such. Can someone sort out the facts of this, preferably with citations and exact quotation of what (if anything) he said and what he was alleged to have said, and then get that into the article? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Here is a recording of the named talk-show. It includes a transcript. I just googled for it :D. --194.232.128.102 (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polemic[edit]

The passage about Băsescu's apartment in Bucharest lacks citation and reads like an anti-Băsescu polemic. It also seems to exaggerate its case by not mentioning the date of purchase for "the equivalent of US$19,301", comparing against a "current market value" around 300,000 euros. Bucharest real estate has been going up pretty fast: this factor of 15 is clearly beyond that increase but if (for example) he purchased the apartment in 2001, a factor of three or four would be no surprise even if he paid fair market value. Also, how can our article assert "The Law 122/1995 specifically prevented the sale from occurring…" if "…the prosecutors investigating the matter concluded Băsescu did not breach the law"? As I said, this seems like an anti-Băsescu polemic. I'll give at least a few days for someone to turn this into something more evenhanded and cited, but if it isn't fixed within a week or so, I will probably cut it to the talk page pending cleanup. - Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The apartment was worth on the free market between 250.000 and 300.000. If you can find some other sources with a value of 60000 for that house, pleae tell me. I think you should provide some facts that the numbers are not real.
http://www.gandul.info/2005-12-15/actual/nup_pentru_basescu
http://www.jurnalul.ro/articol_41334/strada_mihaileanu___basescu_vede_legal_ce_e_ilegal.html
http://www.gardianul.ro/index.php?a=actualitate2005121502.xml
I realy think you have no idea what are you reading. It's called "Controversies". And THAT is the 'controversy': the law said he was not allowed to buy that house and he did. The prosecutors stopped the investigation and "concluded Băsescu did not breach the law". But the controversy remains. If you read some news papers about that affair you will see that the vast majority say it's not legal.
Just to be sure we talk the same language:
controversy: A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views. (please, don't ask me what the sides are)
But hey, don't let me stop you deleting stuff that you don't agree and don't care to document yourself about.

Portrait[edit]

Replaced the weird looking portrait with the official one. I think this is more suitable. --Steve Latinner 00:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added proper copyright tag this time. --Steve Latinner 03:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivity of the article[edit]

I read in the article:

His performance as Bucharest mayor was considered by many to be the best since the Bucharest earthquake in 1977. He is credited for the reduction (albeit using very drastic measures such as large scale euthanasia) in numbers of stray dogs (euphemistically known as câini comunitari, "community" dogs) roaming freely among the streets of the city from approximately 200,000–300,000 in 2000 to 25,000 in 2004, and thus in the number of dog bite injuries from 1500/day to under 200/day; (source : The Administration for Animal Control (ASA) of the Mayor's Office of Bucharest, 2003) for improvements to the water and lighting systems (which were in a very bad state) (source: Bucharest's Mayor's Office)

The first sentence is outrageous, as it does not provide any poll as reference. Also, presenting Basescu's version on his achivements is propaganda and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia. I also remember that dog euthanasia was a big schandal (many of those who were feeding stray dogs regarded them as their pets and protested). The authorities were also accused of just moving the dogs from the center to the outskirts. After this success a japanese was killed by a stray dog in Bucharest.[1]

I removed the first line. For the second observation, if we agree that Bucharest has a problem with stray dogs (and, giving the event you are citing, that can hardly be denied), and if we agree that Basescu, as Mayor, did take actions to reduce their numbers (and, as far as I know, no one is saying otherwise) then I guess that should be credited to him. It is true that the numbers cited in the article are coming from his own Office, but that is explicitly said in the article, and the editor states, somewhere in discussion above, that there are no other sources available.--Miron Damian 20:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added to chapter Controversies subchapter Băsescu refuzed to condemn communism. I added more than one refference to some statements, but please let all of them, as they can be used for further reading. Especially when saying that Basescu was condemned by almost all Romanian society, more than one refference is needed.

I don't think that we can talk of a refusal here, the title is somehow misleading. What generated that particular controversy was the fact that the president was not willing to proceed without any delay with this condemnation; instead he made this act dependent on the study and conclusions of an official commission - as your text is mentioning. Also, another source of controversy was that he expressed doubts that the comunist regime is condemnable as a whole.
Also, in fairness, the last quotation from the interview should be completed; asked if the president is trying to trick the civil society by creating the commission, Tismaneanu answered: Let's give Mr Basescu the credit he deserves. I believe he is trying to propose a sollution to satisfy everybody. He knows very well, being a top politician, that this is impossible. He will never convince the local komsomolists, and those we call, in the manner of Daniel Cohn-Bendit, "vielles crapules staliniennes", that the regime in which they and their relatives thrived was one of abject crimes and widespread wickedness. And this brings us to the next point,
"Especially when saying that Basescu was condemned by almost all Romanian society, more than one refference is needed." This is quite an overstatement; yes, more then one reference is needed: a few millions. Surely, there still are many Romanians which hold that the communist regime should not be condemned at all, with or without any commission. Fact is that the manner in which Basescu treated this issue generated sharp criticism, from several columnists, public figures and fellow politicians. We do not know the reaction of the general public, save from the level of confidence the president had before and after that event; level which, as far as I know, did not change.--Miron Damian 22:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would "Basescu hesitated to condemn communism" be OK?.
I interpret Tismaneanu's words like he doesn't subscribe to the opinion that Basescu tries to trick the civil society. He defended Basescu just because this special accuse was wrong; but in the interview he criticised him. Mabe we shouldn't mention nor that Basescu was accused of trying to trick the civil society, (as it wasn't a widespread accuse), nor the counter-arguments.
Would "In response most civil society stated that communism was condemned as a criminal regime by Romanian people during the anti-communist revolution." Be OK?
sorry for the delayed response,Dl.goe 09:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is almost impossible to say anything confidently about "most of civil society". Any statement like this would have to be attributed to who made it. This sort of thing does not belong in Wikipedia's narrative voice. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I eliminated the word most. "Civil society" is how BBC referes to a group of near 40 non-governmental organisations and more than 400 VIP of civil society.[2]Dl.goe 09:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have the proof that dog bite injuries reduction from 1500/day to under 200/day is incorrect.

1500bites/day*365=547,500 bites a year. I can suppose that 1500bites/day lasted a year as otherwise it wouldn't be a good statistic. But, according to my source, the number of bites form 1984 to 2005 is 269,558, which is less than 547,500.

also, Basescu is credited for reducing stray dogs number by 47,916. Not from 200,000 to 25,000. Source 1.Another source states that there are still 200,000 stray dogs in Bucharest.Source 2

Heh, it seems to me that the editor of that particular statistic got a little carried away; it should have bites/month not day. The source you mentioned gives 21,105 dog bites in 2000, the year Basescu ascended into mayoral office; this gives mean value of ~1,700 bites/month; somewhere around the 1,500 value the article is mentioning, and only 57bites/day. The source you are citing says that in one year (2001) the number of dogs put away was 47,916; adding for the four years Basescu was mayor it gives a value close to that mentioned in article. Also, 269,558 is, of course, not the yearly mean value, but the sum for all years 1984 to 2005; with values increasing with each year, until 2000. I do not know if the number given by the second article is valid (no source cited for that estimate); however is certain that the number of the stray dogs was on the rise again after 2004; this has two main reasons: first, the municipality policy against stray dogs went to the dogs, I mean it seems to have been seriously relaxed; and second, yes, the damned beasts are multiplying. --Miron Damian 21:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added information to the stray dogs project Dl.goe 08:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be added that Băsescu, while Minister of Transportation, repaired Gara de Nord, Bucharest main railroad station. This success increased his popularity and helped him winning Bucharest Major ellections. Unfortunately I don't have any refference; I just remember.Dl.goe 15:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this phrase "He was re-elected president for a second 5-year term in 2009,[1] amidst allegations of electoral fraud[2] that were dismissed by the courts" ? I don't consider it's normal to have a summarized introduction to this article so biased. The author imply the idea that the President has won the elections through fraud(suspicious) not by a narrow margin(fact). Please reformulate it or move it to "Criticism and controversies". "allegations of electoral fraud" were coming from opposition parties claiming "trucks of evidences" but they failed to provide in court, reliable evidences to prove the allegations of fraud — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmtro (talk • contribs) 06:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsession with American presidents[edit]

Why is it that ALL wikipedia articles on Romanian postcommunist presidents depicts them with US presidents?

I mean, Iliescu's article shows his smiling with Bush, Constantinescu's article has him together with Clinton and Basescu has not one, but two pictures of the Romanian president talking to George W. Bush. I do not believe this reflects accurately the foreign policy of a country that will join the European Union in a month. Some pictorial diversity would be interesting here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tnapoleao (talk • contribs) 12:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Answer: because the U.S. government is one of the best sources of public domain images. The Romanian goverment, and most of the postcommunist governments, retain copyright on all official photos, so we can't use them freely. When they meet a U.S. president, the U.S. government inevitably releases a photo to the public domain.
For very similar reasons, a lot of photos of entertainers show them performing on U.S. military bases. - Jmabel | Talk 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating. Thanks for clearing that up, Jmabel! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SaulPerdomo (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
By the way, I raised this some time ago as an objection to our policies on always favoring "free use" over "fair use" of images. Similar issues have arise even with UK politicians. - Jmabel | Talk 05:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering[edit]

Is he in fact 5th? That's if you count Ceauşescu, Iliescu, Constantinescu, Iliescu, Constantinescu. But you could skip Iliescu the second time, or you could (their different title notwithstanding) count Parhon, Groza, Maurer, Stoica. So why does the first counting method gain precedence, and why, dare I ask, didn't 89.137.36.86 fill in ordinals for the other presidents? Biruitorul 08:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1.Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej, 2.Ceausescu, 3.Iliescu, 4.Constantinescu and 5.Basescu. Fifth. And I'm not Romanian and I know this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bm79 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that simple. What about Parhon, Groza, Maurer and Stoica? Biruitorul 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know Ceausescu was the first to assume the title president of state.
I agree. If we count "chiefs of state", then Parhon, Groza, etc, are also in the list, as well as the Kings of Romania (and maybe Antonescu, but we must take a look into the official data of the time). If we count "Presidents of Romania", then Ceausescu is the first. The previous were presidents of the state council, etc. Dpotop 11:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But do we count Iliescu twice? If we look at Australia, the answer is no. If we look at the US, then it's yes. Biruitorul 09:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dpotop and Biru, I urge you to give this moire attention. The ultimate relevancy of the article and template for the outside reader would be establishing who the republican heads of state of Romania were (consider that we have a separate article for kings and Domnitor, and consider having to fill out the Antonescu/Mihai issue - I could tell you why looking into official data would not help, but it would take too long). This is to say that the article and template should not become bigger (articles would step all over each other, and we would be back to the general feel of Romanian wikipedia articles being conceived for people in 5th grade, who want to know who was "master" of Romania, not what office they held).
The other would-be issue is about dividing the lists and template of Presidents, which is also a bad idea (it would result in minuscule inane articles, without hope of growing, and without sufficient context that would not be a fork).
Having said that, one should either: (1) rename the template to "Republican Heads of State of Romania", only if, upon reflection, that has proven to be really necessary (I argue it is not); in any instance, the article for "Presidents" would not need to be changed (wikipedia conventions would not allow it), but simply, if necessary, the period 1948 to Ceauşescu's crowning as President (was it in 1971?) could be highlighted as clearly different, introductory, section; (2) keep things as is.
There is one essential thing: before Parhon, the provisional office was held by Mihail Sadoveanu, Ion Niculi, and Parhon. I've been avoiding proposing this earlier, as Niculi seems to be a non-entity and will likely remain a redlink for long (if not a pitiful stub).
In that instance, you could introduce the formula "x was president number y, and zth republican head of state". About how many times we should count: I could go either way, but the world at large seems not to count Iliescu several times (or at least, does not bother with the issue). Dahn 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that perhaps Iliescu should only be counted once, in which case, since Ceauşescu was the first "President", Băsescu would be fourth: Ceauşescu, Iliescu, Constantinescu, Băsescu. And if we count the Council of 5 as one entity, and then Parhon by himself as the second republican head of state, he would be tenth: Council, Parhon, Groza, Maurer, Dej, Stoica, Ceauşescu, Iliescu, Constantinescu, Băsescu. Right? Biruitorul 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my oppinion: regardless of what we include in the list, I'd say Iliescu should be counted twice, because we do not count persons, but "president" instances of persons. In math, this is clear: Iliescu was 1st and 3rd. Simply saying "Iliescu was the first president" is misleading. Dpotop 07:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to the heads of state of Romania, we don't have that many, so we could simply put them together, alongside with their title, and give up this "presidents of Romania" article (we only need a redirect page). The real issue is deciding whether to include Antonescu or not. Was he the head of state, or simply its leader (conducator)? Dpotop 08:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns Antonescu, I took a look at Conducător, and it says Antonescu was head of state. However, the article is not that bright, because it mixes Antonescu's (official?) title with Ceausescu's propaganda "iubitul conducator". Dpotop 08:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
D, that template would, again, be grossly illegitimate. Why fuse it, when you can do as they seem to like it everywhere else on wikipedia, and divide according to constitutional changes (especially when these are clear-cut, at the very least between republic and monarchy)? This will also: 1) spear us of having to theorize and (since Mihai is and would be on a template of Romanian kings); 2) prevent us from adopting, willy-nilly, provisional solutions just to make a point. It does not matter how small or big the templates are, as long as they help the outside user understand what the template is for, and not confitrm to the prior knowledge that we have of the matter! And, again: a template for heads of state is a solicism. Dahn 08:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment[edit]

I don't think that we can speak of an "impeachment" of President Băsescu (on April 19, 2007). This word (in Romanian "Punerea sub acuzare") appears in the article 96 of the Romanian Constitution and reffers to a different thing (high treason), which would require the vote of two thirds of the number of deputies and senators. Today, we are simply talking about the suspension from office (article 95 in the Romanian Constitution), which should be followed by a referendum to remove the President from office (or his resignation, if he acts like he said two days ago). The text of the Romanian Constitution is available (in English, Romanian and French) from this page on the website of the Chamber of Deputies. Razvan Socol 15:05, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment right now on the precise wording of the Romanian Constitution, but let me just say that "impeachment" in English is more-or-less neutral -- it does not carry the "high treason" connotation that you seem to have in mind (though I'm not quite sure I read correctly your concern). Rather, impeachment can be invoked in more mundane circumstances, pertaining to the conduct of a government official while in office. See Impeachment in the United States, and, as concrete examples, Impeachment of Andrew Johnson and Impeachment of Bill Clinton. Turgidson 17:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, what happened to all the references from the article? Up to a few hours ago, there used to be a dozen numbered refs, plus 7 others; now there are none. Is there a reason for such a massive deletion of references? Turgidson 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the previously deleted paragraphs. Mentatus 08:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What, specifically, in English, are the "statements that were considered unconstitutional"? Chris 08:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. Normally one talks about unconstitutional actions, not statements... Turgidson 09:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Add a third person to the list of English-only people who wants to know about these statements :-) Nyttend 18:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well he insulted the parliment and called politicians corrupt (which ofcourse they are but that won't go into an encyclopedia :p). The Constitutional Court didn't find him to have done anythin g to justify suspension but the parliment only has to consult the court, not abide by it's ruling. Right now from polls it dosen't look like there's any chance he'd be removed legally through a referendum as he has like 80% support, but there are some indication that the parties behind it are trying to find loopholes in the constitution or if needed do some emergency tinkering to it.
Anyway should the suspension be overturned a new impeachment is unlikely as the parliment is required to give a vote of confidence to his new governemnt (an implicit recognition of his supporters) or the president has the right to disolve it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Helixdq (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
While the President is suspended, he/she is still President of Romania. The term of the President ends in the following situations: end of the term (not reelected or last term), resignation, or dismissal. Currently we are not in either of this situations, Băsescu being still in office. ES Vic 07:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should modify the impeachment part oft the article. It is highly biased by any standards, let alone by wikipedia's. Also it contains many unproved and unsourced accusations to other politicians and businessmen. I , also, being a romanian, don't agree with the president's impeachment, but that doesn't mean that this kind of unprofessional writing and POV should remain o wikipedia.

There are persons who tried, but it seems that the text reverted to a previous pro-Basescu version; and I really think it is useless to revert again and work on the text since people with such passionate views infect wikipedia: there were removed: references to popular vote for dismissal since Parliament alone cannot do anything about it but suspend the President until popular vote; the law and fact that MP's had final say on the matter, regardelss of consultative avis by the Constitutional Court; reaction of those concerned with fantasy allegations for electoral law modifications to justify President decision to give up the "five minutes" resignation plan; et.c.

"Drinking problems"[edit]

The "drinking problems" section is exactly the opposite of what should be found on wikipedia, it's a political game, and it serves a clear propagandist role. :) Thus, I'm removing it right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirc mirc (talk • contribs)

Just don't forget that Wikipedia is not censored. The statement was not POV, as it is well sourced, so it has nothing to do with propaganda (look at sections about controversies on other politician's pages). You see, the negative propaganda is bad, but the whitewashing is bad too. It should remain. --86.125.180.178 08:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, the name is not correct imo. Drinking Problems sugests alcoholism, and there is no basis for that. Something along the lines of Drinking and driving would give a far better description AdamSmithee 15:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There are no impartial sources confirming he is an alcoholic. Mentatus 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"To many, it was more important that the president went home from a private party driving his own car, like any other citizen." To whom was it important? And this statement makes it sound like it is normal for the majority of Romanians to drink at a party and drive home afterwards "like any other citizen". Mentatus 07:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basescu has returned[edit]

According to the poll results from today's referendum ( May 19 ), President Traian Basescu will continue his mandate. The people wanted him !

Once it is confirmed by the constitutional office, can someone with talent for writing update the main article ? Tnx.

Adrian Băsescu was not a joke, was a jenuine mistype. I am sorry.:Dc76 18:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The part with suspension until parliament decides is no longer true - the Constitutional Court upheld the modifications of the Referendum Law, and decided on April 3rd that no matter how many people were present for the referendum, it will be valid. Even before, it was NOT up to the parliament to decide what exactly will happen in a constitutional void, but rather up to the constitutional court. Since the constitutional court has issued a decision already, I will modify the said statements and reference it.

Please, sign your edits.
ref
Obviously, the edit of this article would be controversial, but can we, please, decide which version is to stay during the discussion process?
see here :Dc76 20:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Picture?[edit]

No picture?--Tones benefit 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, reliable source. Can someone add it?[edit]

It's not only on Base (Geoana is targeted, too), but the paragraph on Base is pretty factual, and I'm sure you can find other sources on the matter, too:

http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/afara-din-vile/335002

Dpotop (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In the same area, there's also a nice piece in RL, but I don't know where it could go:

http://www.romanialibera.ro/a113549/limuzine-doar-cu-geamuri-verzi-pentru-demnitari.html

Dpotop (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stolojan[edit]

"Although the reasons for this sudden withdrawal were not completely clear, from Stolojan's declarations and answers the press inferred that he might have been subject to blackmail in regards to psychological treatment that he had undergone 15 years prior.[original research?]"

I could find no source to back this statement up, and I also noticed that it's been tagged as original research since May 2007. If nobody has a reasonable objection, I would suggest to either remove the (otherwise irrelevant to Basescu) statement or replace it with something like:

"Although Stolojan claimed to have withdrawn because of health concerns, Băsescu denounced to the press that the reason behind this decision was blackmail from political opponents." (BBC interview)

Note also that the article on Stolojan mentions no such nonsense either. — Daniel Mahu · talk · 01:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basescu removed his debts at several banks while in office[edit]

Someone should translate this article from an Romanian mainstream newspaper and include it in this article. http://www.jurnalul.ro/articole/119573/basescu-si-a-sters-datoriile-la-banci


un paragraf. va rog...[edit]

William Manchester "Adio intuneric!" -Editura Politica-1986 pagina 161, r. 26-32 

V-as ruga daca aveti timp sa o cititi integral. 
        cu tot respectul, lucaci dorin
                  gura humorului, sv. lucaciaurica@yahoo.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.44.57.174 (talk) 20:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates[edit]

Infobox says "In office December 20, 2004 – April 20, 2007". This reads as if his (month-long) suspension were the end of his term. - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removals[edit]

These removals (and in one case a reversal of an adjective) by Fountainviewkid strike me as being more about pushing a pro-Băsescu point of view than improving the article. But I leave it to someone who is more actively working on the article to make the call, and especially to view them in the context of any other recent activity on the article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relations with Moldova[edit]

"Băsescu has tried to improve Romania's relations with Moldova... Furthermore, he has expressed several times his belief in the future unification of the two countries".

In that context, given that Moldova is viewed as an independent state, it sounds rather weird that an attempt to unify countries politically is an improvement of relations, doesn't it?93.183.246.206 (talk) 03:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section[edit]

Currently the "Criticism" section is larger than the rest of the article. I have never seen a BLP with such proportions, not even GWB can come close. :) I see two solutions:

  • A separate "Criticism article"
  • A trimming down of the section so that it does not exceed 20%.

Thank you very much for providing any opinions. Dc76\talk 23:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A separate criticism article would be a POVFORK and is discouraged by WP guidelines. I don't know if 20% is a good target (the man after all is quite criticized in Romanian media), but yes, the section should be shortened and thoroughly sourced.Anonimu (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20% is a rough target, just based on what is there in other BLPs (now, you don't want to claim GWB wasn't criticized as much? :-) ). 10% or 30% would be also ok. The biggest problem I see is that this section is much more poorly written than the rest of the article. That was the reason I moved it into a separate article: because I realized it's very hard to trim it down, and since at the time nobody but me seemed interested in the article, trimming it too much would have been unilateral on my side. But now it should be easier: I can cut as much as I see necessary, knowing that you will be there to correct me. There is no risk of me erasing something valid by mistake, since you will immediately put it back. Although I do not share your belief that a separate article is a POVFORK, I believe editing here would be better than in a separate article, because the issues of that section would have to be addressed anyway: in a separate article or in a mere section. So we might as well do that. Dc76\talk 00:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimu, I do want to know your feedback on my changes. Even if you are restricted from editing somehow, if it does not bother other editors, I would like to ask you to edit here so that one can see the real or potential issues if there are any. Only one common-sense request: take a deep breath. Obviously, I won't cut short your edits, even if they would be biased, at least because I feel it is imperative we clean this article a bit and identify all issues, so feel free to analyse the issues at ease and at large. Obviously, I won't promiss to agree with everything you say, but I promiss to think in good faith about everything you propose and edit. If you have any editing restrictions for this article, pls tell me, I would request an admin to remove them so that you can edit, at least until we arrive at something more clean. Dc76\talk 12:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into your edits later. You don't have to agree with me, you have to correctly represent the sources. Although it may sound like newspeak, "Verifiability, not truth" is a core Wikipedia precept.Anonimu (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who was accused by various with supporting Băsescu (even though I don't go on wikipedia to discuss my voting preferences), I have to say that there is, generally speaking, absolutely nothing problematic in the principle of having a criticism section in the article. This is however a last resort, and, for those of us who actually care to read wikipedia policies and endorse its practices. Even more so is having a separate article on criticism. Why? Because it shows an inherent inability of editors to produce what is asked of them: a fair and balanced account of events, where conflicting opinions are neither advertised not tucked away, and where they are always attributed to the reliable sources producing them. Accounts positive or negative. That also means that, with or without the criticism section, with or without the separate criticism article, all accounts have to provide both sides, where both sides have expressed themselves in reliable sources. Having a "criticism" section/article is surely not equivalent to a text only mentioning criticism of TB, "if you want praise or even reactive arguments go elsewhere" - in whatever scenario, accounts have to go hand in hand. It also doesn't mean, as is annoyingly interpreted by both sides, that facts which the editor has interpreted as negative are listed there for keeping. No, criticism means just that: opinions expressed around the facts, which are not your, but those of authors cited and quoted.

At the moment, the article (and the "criticism" section, which I think should not only be merged in the article, but in the account itself) does indeed obsess over facts which are blown out of proportion, with much personal interpretation and serious amounts of nonsense. But that's another matter.

One final thing, gentlemen on both sides: if you insist on getting your info from blogs and the gutter press, with absolutely no analytical (let alone scholarly) content both negative or positive, and if you hold an article subject to those whims instead of determining the prevalent relevant opinions (again, positive and negative) in the real world, if you continue to find your priorities not in providing a competent text, but in giving as much visual clues as possible as to which position you support, you are smothering this article. For those of you who have yet to familiarize yourself with how wikipedia works: WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOT are waiting to be read. Dahn (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I consider myself a long-time editor who knows to some extent WP policies, I did take another look at the links you just provided. Thank you for reminding.
Now to the matter, I perfectly agree with the first paragraph you wrote.
Secondly, I would like to state that my interest in this article was only because I saw it was in a disdained state. I never expressed in WP my opinion about Basescu. I did not attempt to actually bring content to this article, I only tried to copyedit what was already in there, to ensure that the existing info was presented in readable English. A lot of it was in "Englromanian" (and as readable as this word is :) ). Originally I moved content to a separate Criticism article because there was too much work to do (and I concentrated on the rest of the article), but I did that work now that Anonimu moved that content back here. I am not saying the version I left is good, I am just asking to compare it with the jeberish that was before. Any improvement would be more than welcome, and I whole-heartedly support Dahn's request (to all editors) to re-familiarize with WP:RS, WP:SYNTH, WP:NOT, as well as to follow Dahn's suggestions made in the first paragraph above.
Last but not least, I want to tell that I am not that interested in this article as much as to search and bring content (I find it very difficult to write biographies in general, it's not my style), hence by no mean I am a party (I was simply interested in stylistic edits). Dc76\talk 17:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Coatrack in BLP is a very serious matter. Here is what's wrong (IMHO) with Anonimu's insertions:

  • The "apartment affair", where among other things Anonimu puts in the interpretation of the law by one particular journalist.
  • Basescu-Tariceanu dispute
  • When Basscu was a mayor he acted to reducen the number of stray dogs roaming freely through the streets of Bucharest (not through euthanasia, but by building numerous shelter). The danger was very real, as pointed out by the sentence Anonimu keeps erasing: "Over a year after Băsescu left the office of the Mayor to becomes Romania's president, on January 29, 2006, a Japanese tourist was killed by a stray dog." (There were hundreds of cases of children mutilated by pack of dogs, but this case of the Japanese tourist got more attention because it actually resulted in human death).

P.S. This edit of mine is very far from a "blind revert" as Anonimu claims [3]. To see that, just look here.

Dc76\talk 09:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the article before the above editor whitewashed it was certainly not a coatrack, every accusation being attributed to a reliable source:
  • The part about the house is thoroughly sourced from not one, but two of the most reputable Romanian mainstream newspapers (i.e. no blogs, no tabloids, no marginal publications like Tricolorul). The article never said all those journalists were right, it just attributed their opinions about why affair was breaking the law (A quick look at the law would prove them right, anyway, but quoting the law directly would be OR, so we'll stay to attributing journalist from reliable newspapers)
  • During the conflict Tariceanu was the acting prime-minister, while Basescu was the acting president. This is a high level as an accusations can get. Even if Tariceanu would have been an opposition politician, his accusations may still have been necessary... but these two guys were both ruling Romania and had access to information means not accessible to the usual politician... as long as each accusation is attributed, mentioning them is not only OK, but even necessary.
  • That's the classic fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Sourcing doesn't mean taking random sourced facts and mixing them in a way you like just to imply causality... Unless you find a reliable source specifically linking the death of a tourist to Basescu, that's just an anonymous editor using WP as a blog for his opinions and personal feelings.
  • What the above editors fails to mentions is several factual inaccuracies he introduced: he claims Voiculescu is/was a shareholder at Petromidia, a fact that has no real base whatsoever, and refuses to allow a mainstream source to be attributed... while the source pretty clearly says "drinking" a glass (the article is called "Basescu drank and drove"), Dc76 significantly changed this to "holding" a glass (even if the newspaper was actually considered at the time one of the few openly pro-Basescu ones)
If nobody else reads this discussion by then, I'll revert to the sourced and more neutral version of the article tonight.Anonimu (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to accuse your edits of failing the exactly same things. :) It is very interesting how you do: you say exactly what is wrong, but you point the finger in the opposite direction, not at your edits. I suggest we ask for third opinion or mediation. How about Dahn? Or a random user? If you prefer to revert, go ahead, it is on your conscience and record. I will withdraw from editing this article at that point, because IMHO you are preventing people from working. Dc76\talk 13:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following this, I am withdrawing from editing this article until there is proper intervention from more people. I have had enough. Good buy! Dc76\talk 13:13, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioning for criticism[edit]

User:Dc76 keeps removing the sub-sections in criticism because he doesn't agree with the tiles. But sections are badly needed there because of the multiple issues. Please propose more appropriate titles, but don't remove them outright. "Dosarul Flota" means nothing to English readers that don't grok Romanian. Pcap ping 03:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK and this explain that it is better to avoid lumping criticism and controversy in one section in a WP:BLP. Instead, respective issues should be dealt with chronologically. For example in this case, the merchant fleet case is relevant for the early political career, and so on. However, some things do not have where to go, yet. For example, there is no (sub)section about the 2009 Presidential Elections campaign, but there is already one para about controversy related to that. That para can stay in the "Criticism and Controversies" section until a specific (sub)section about the 2009 campaign is written. Please, look at the current version, and honestly tell yourself: is it better or not than having all controversies lumped together? Which way it reads nicer, with criticisms/controversies all together, or with them separately by period with the relevant section? Thank you for your cooperation. Dc76\talk 04:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pease, allow me to site from there:

Criticism and praise of the subject should be represented if it is relevant to the subject's notability and can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to take sides; it needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation is broadly neutral; in particular, section headings should reflect areas important to the subject's notability.

Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association. Look out for biased or malicious content about living persons. If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

Dc76\talk 04:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? I see common practice to add sub-sections to the controversies section. Pcap ping 04:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do I sense some irony? Hello! We are EDITORS here, not political fans. Don't point me to Ion Iliescu, please, I haven't read that article for very-very long time. I certainly have no interest in editing BLPs of presidential candidates and their major political opponents during electoral campaigns. But I would react, as I have reacted toady, if I see something weird going on. Why didn't you edit this article 1-2 months ago before the campaign, or 1-2 weeks later after the campaign? Dc76\talk 05:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before things get too out of hand here, can Dc76 and Pcap agree to stop commenting about each other for a while and start thinking about article content? How would you each propose to improve this article? Can you each wait for outside comment before making your preferred changes and instead discuss them here first? Franamax (talk) 05:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict with Franamax) Where's the good faith? I pointed you to the Iliescu article because it seemed the obvious one to use for comparison with another (former) president of Romania that wasn't loved by a certain part of the media (different from the part that doesn't like Basescu), and certainly not because I'm a fan of either. Actually, I had only read both articles today, and was rather unpleasantly surprised by their poor quality. The sad fact is that middle-of-the-road journalism (MOR) is almost entirely absent in Romanian press, so the most NPOV thing one can do on any topic related to Romanian presidents is to cite sources on both sides, which is what I've done. And you claim that is "something weird going on" and revert!? I edited Basescu's article now because it struck my fancy to update some Romanian biographies (I also updated Mircea Badea's and Gigi Becali's just before in case you wonder). As for why edit "during the campaign", well, this article doesn't even have a section for his 2009 campaign, so I'd say it needs editing. I hesitated creating a 2009 campaign section just with this "child hitting" incident, as it clearly would have been WP:UNDUE weight as the only issue there. But editing the bio during a campaign is not the crime you make it, especially when the article could use work in covering said campaign... Since you seem a have worked on this article for while, why don't you add something to it? Pcap ping 06:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Franamax, I'll refrain form editing on this article for a while. I'm tired of this silly discussion questioning my motives. Pcap ping 06:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well rather than walking away, I'd rather see you and Dc (who is away for most of the next day I thinkk) just speak here on the talk page on how you wish to improve the article. Both of you, do you want to change (sub-)section headings? Why? Do you want to move text around? Do either of you want to find reliable sources to fill in all those {{fact}} tags? You should both stop questioning motives - what suggestions do you have for improving the article? Franamax (talk) 08:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Franamax, thank you very much for your time and effort here. I sincerely appreciate that. I assure you that I will always be civil, and I will not comment negatively and personally on my fellow editors (I reserve the right to comment positively about them personally), even if there would be serious issues about some of their edits. I have the record of over 3 years of editing WP, including a ton of controversial articles, but my record is clean because I separate between real life and editing WP, and between content disagreement (who doesn't disagree occasionally?) and civility. (Everybody must be treated with civility, even the extremists and the irrational people. In this case, on the contrary, Pohta is not an extremist and is rational, only that in this instance he looked at WP edits from a political perspective. But I am almost sure this would stop once the election campaign is over.)

Back to the issues at hand. I am not saying Ion Iliescu's article is good, but if that article has problems, one should not repeat the same problems here, one just needs to correct them there. I hope everybody is in agreement on that. I made some edits now: I moved the "2009 presidential campaign" section after "president of Romania" section. I think this is totally uncontroversial. If Basescu looses, this order of sections is correct, if he win, one simply needs to change the title "First terms as president", and start a new section "Second term as president". I also reordered two subsections of section "president" because policy should be discussed first, disputes and controversies - second. I believe this change would also be totally ok with other editors.

So, now we can concentrate on the section "2009 presidential campaign". (If someone wants to improve other sections now, be my guest. Personally, I don't want to do that before the elections are over in order not to raise more real disputes or simple misunderstandings that can poison the wheal. I totally agree with anyone who says that the article in general is in poor state, and would throw my support to help, but I don't have time and enough references to try this on my own.) In this section now, I did a rather bold edit, using in much more detail two sources. Obviously I would welcome any further changes, just please assume good faith and let's be calm, and concentrate on content issues. There is always a way to express things in a language acceptable to everybody if we trust each other as sincere editors simply wanting to improve WP. Everybody, thanks for your cooperation and dialog here. Dc76\talk 08:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow editors, you might be curious to see this: [4]. Dc76\talk 08:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have made 2 notes: here and here. Dc76\talk 05:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reluctantly reverting to an earlier version because there is no reaction to the BLP violations note I put priorly. User:Anonimu has reverted to an earlier version, after which he edited a bit. I re-done his edits (except when he erased sourced material) in Romanian presidential election, 2009. Unfortunately the above mentioned editor has done changes inconsistently, resulting in the same material being in two places. Therefore, as I said I am reverting to that earlier version which simply sends the reader to the article Romanian presidential election, 2009, per WP:FORK. That's not the perfect solution, but I claim it is the best solution to the dispute, since we can then concentrate on the latter article, and then create a resume to go here. About the sourced material that the user erased, I would like to point out that it is needed so that the article/section would not give undue weight to (in this case it was focusing around) criticism. See the other article. Dc76\talk 11:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated removals of alleged boy hitting video[edit]

This story has now been at least mentioned if not detailed in Western media, like Associated Press [5], Financial Times [6], and the Wall Street Journal [7]. If Dc76 still considers mentioning this a BLP violation, we should start a RfC on the matter to gain wider input. Unless this RfC is done, and considering that one other editor, Anonimu supports inclusion, with nobody besides Dc76 objecting, I consider any further en bloc removals NPOV and consensus violations and shall revert any such removal by pointing you to this talk page. We can discuss the level of detail etc. Pcap ping 00:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Stinking gypsy" incident[edit]

Speaking of criticism in general, I find that too much space (4 paragraphs) are allotted to this brouhaha. I think one paragraph should suffice to cover that. We don't need full a paragraph inline quotation from Nicolae Păun, his position can be easily summarized etc. Is anyone objecting to condensing that story to one paragraph? Pcap ping 00:52, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that needs to be trimmed down. Taking half of the controversies section is overboard, considering it was a relatively minor incident.Anonimu (talk) 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much emphasis on suspension/impeachment in the lead?[edit]

I think too much emphasis is put on that in the lead (1 full para), including the full procedure and poll numbers. I'd leave one or two sentences. Pcap ping 11:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More WP:RECENTISM[edit]

I agree with User:Biruitorul's comment that the lead now needs further rewriting to summarize the article instead of being "latest news". Pcap ping 22:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election Results 2009[edit]

Could you please accept that you are not allowed to express political sympathies in wikipedia postings ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crissim99 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and User:Jackjoboto need to stop edit warring. Băsescu was declared the winner by Romanian electoral authorities. It's also true that opposition has 48hrs to challenge those results to the Supreme Court, if I recall correctly. Pcap ping 17:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Constitutional Court will examine the complaint of the challenger's party in the next days. However, this information was not available at the time of the edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crissim99 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of name?[edit]

Can a native Romanian speaker please comment on the correct placement of stress in the name "Traian"? The article currently shows stress on the last syllable ([traˈjan]) — but my impression is that, in fact, people either stress the first syllable ([ˈtra.jan]), or else they say his full name as if it were a single word with both syllables of "Traian" equally unstressed ([tra.jan.bəˈses.ku]). Richwales (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[traˈjan] is definitely closer to native pronunciation than [ˈtra.jan], but equally unstressed syllables is a close second; my WP:OR :-) Pcap ping 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wtf[edit]

why isn't this page protected? wtf he's a freakin president. i'll vandalize it all over town unless u protect freakin rascist romanians, not gypsies!!! only name issimliar and i'm tired of everyonethinking they are wtf wtf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.177.111.120 (talk) 03:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag[edit]

As a POV tag was applied yesterday on this article, it would be nice for the user who did it to explain his decision in a proper way (i.e. in more than the 200 characters allowed by the summary box).Anonimu (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reassess as C class[edit]

I'm not going to jump into such a heavily watched and contentious article out of nowhere, but I can't help but note that the many "citation needed" tags throughout the article would normally mean it doesn't qualify as a B-class article. Anyone see any good reason it shouldn't be demoted to C-class? - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Impeachment referendum declared invalid[edit]

Romanian impeachment vote ruled invalid Can the lede now be rewritten? -- megA (talk) 10:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, the Supreme Court "reinstated" him, but he is still "suspended"? Could someone please clarify? -- 11:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can clarify: 1. It is not he Supreme court, but the Constitutional Court which is quite different! 2. He is still suspended, because the Court decision takes effect the moment it is published in the Official Gazette; before publishing it, the decision has to be presented to the Houses of Parliament, in a joint session. That session is called for Monday, 27 August 2012. So, Basescu is still "Suspended President of Romania". --ES Vic (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. -- megA (talk) 11:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second reasumption of office[edit]

For Basescu to re-asume office, the following has to occur, in this particular order:

  1. The Chamber of Deputies and the Senate are summoned to meet in a joint extraordinary session on 27 August 2012, around noon;
  2. The verdict of the Constitutional Court on the impeachment referendum has to be read to the houses by one of the constitutional judges;
  3. Parliament acknowledges the verdict by passing a motion;
  4. That motion is published by The Official Gazette under the signature of the official presiding the joint session (in this case Valeriu Zgonea, President of the Chamber of Deputies.

As one can see, there are a lot of variables to this procedure. So, it might be 27 August 2012 somewhere in Australia or New Zealand, but nobody knows what is going to happen once the sun rises for 27 August 2012 EEST! So please wait! in the mean time, he continues to be Suspended President of Romania. --ES Vic (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRAIAN BASESCU-. .ELEGANTA IN GANDIRE SI BUN SIMT IN ABORDARI PARTICULARE ALE VIETII.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Traian Băsescu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Traian Băsescu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Traian Băsescu. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2016[edit]

91.250.246.135 (talk) 12:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Preceeded by Ion Iliescu, not Crin Antonescu!

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Traian Băsescu. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:25, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Traian Băsescu. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 06:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.D. party or Communist party[edit]

Would it be correct to say that in the shadow of Traian Basescu presidency , P.S.D has stolen another two mandates .5 years plus five years of presidency are 10 years. In total , from 1989 ,30 years.More than 25 , which is a quarter of a century.So what s the catch.Question mark.Is Romania under Russia control and romanians have to swallow any new invention of parties , presidents.2003:CF:BF2F:6411:801F:E474:46DB:6B66 (talk) 01:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Razu[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Traian_Băsescu&oldid=1205785990"