Talk:Lucian Croitoru

Structure

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)

Question 1. You introduced, then you removed this. Should I remove it? Dc76\^talk 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I looked better at the history. This is no longer a question. I removed that sentence here, and I also believe it is not addressing the point:

• Social Democrat leader Mircea Geoana stated: "Despite invoking the need for a legitimate government, Basescu put forth a candidate that has no support in parliament. It's political blackmail that targets keeping the Boc government in power until the presidential elections in order to influence their outcome".

Note 1. I have split the article in 3 sections: 1) Biography, 2) Prime-Minister designate, and 3) Publications, Prizes. 2) is bound to increase significantly over the next days, hence I hope you would agree we can safely have a separate section. If you want, I would merge 3) with 1) in a second, just say it.

Note 2. Olteanu - just a minute, it's coming to him. :) Dc76\^talk 20:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.

Note 3. About the chronology. I would definitively follow everything by years if there weren't so many concurrent things. Now I split the first section into 7 pragraphs:

1. place of birth
2. studies
3. academia
4. work, chronologically
5. work, chronologically
6. work, chronologically
7. personal life

I guess 1) and 7) can safely go apart. 2) and 3) can be merged or can be separate - again, I have no problem. 4), 5), 6) also can be merged or can be separate at other benchmarks.My only point is that by separating academia from work we have made each run chronologically without any concomitant interferences. Normally, for a politician this would be a wrong approach, but he is not really a politician. I am suggesting this, and I believe this way it reads smoother. But I definitively do not insist. You just need to push "hard" enough if you want to persuade me. :) Dc76\^talk 21:12, 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)

No, it doesn't. That's why I think the "citing the need for an individual well-versed in economic policy to steer Romania through the ongoing crisis" is sufficient, and we don't need to go further into why he rejected Iohannis. That can be done at Klaus Iohannis, if need be. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Understood. I'll do that. Same for Olteanu, right? Dc76\^talk 16:45, 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)

Absolutely fine. Dc76\^talk 19:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Great. I don't anticipate we'll have to do more work until he's voted on in Parliament. At least from a Wikipedia perspective, I hope he loses the vote, since then there will be a lot less to write than if he stays as PM for three years. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

-) I hope he gets approved, because then for the price of one WP article we can get more other good, and less other evil in real life. Dc76\^talk 20:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

References

Designate/candidate

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)

Correct. Thank you. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope. The Parliament nominates nobody. The President just nominated one Prime Minister (there aren't any "candidates", that term is not in the Constitution or in any law), who now is seeking confirmation from the Parliament. Iohannis has the status of the mayor of Sibiu. Period. The "opposition" can state any intention, that is why it is an opposition in a democratic country. A personal intention does not preclude the law. Period. Dc76\^talk 09:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

As per the above, I removed the prime minister info and succession boxes as he is not currently the prime minister and there are two candidates, not one. Urban XII (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

There were some problems with the content of the infobox. You should have corrected them, not remove the infobox. He is Prime-Minister designate seeking confirmation. That is a logally defined situation. "Candidate" is not legally defined. BTW, the precedent of the last 20 years shows that most if not all nominatioon end in confirmations. No reason to assume differently in this case. Dc76\^talk 09:27, 16 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)

It is only natural in a democracy to criticize. Dc76\^talk 09:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Little chance of taking office

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 wouldn't object to removing that myself. There is, however, a fine line between saying what's been said (ie, that the opposition opposes his confirmation) and predicting he won't be confirmed, and we should be sure to keep that in mind. Anyway, let us know what you think. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to predict anything, but stating that the parliamentary majority parties continue to oppose Croituro as Prime Minister, after " was nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania", would prevent any readers from being misled that he is already or almost the Prime Minister. Also see sources below. Urban XII (talk) 23:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

A few sources on recent developments

• http://www.jurnalul.ro/stire-editorial/johannis-versus-croitoru-confruntare-electorala-prin-interpusi-524533.html
• http://www.mediafax.ro/politic/iliescu-nu-crede-ca-iohannis-poate-face-guvern-fara-seful-statului-5010789/
• http://www.antena3.ro/stiri/politica/parlamentarii-pnl-trimit-presedintiei-o-scrisoare-oficiala-de-sustinere-a-lui-johannis-ca-premier_82992.html
• http://www.zf.ro/politica/opozitia-catre-premierul-desemnat-du-te-acasa-guvernul-tau-nu-trece-de-parlament-5012747/ ("Opposition to Prime Minister designate: Go home, your government does not pass Parliament")

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)

Legally, Croitoru is Prime Minister designate. Mr. Geoană's personal opinions don't count. Dc76\^talk 20:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Wikipedia reflects the realities whether you like it or not. The opinion of the majority parties do count – stating otherwise makes as much sense as stating the opinion of Traian Băsescu doesn't count because he has no parliamentary majority supporting his actions. Also, do not engage in personal attacks as you did with this edit summary. For your information, stating that the majority parties oppose his candidacy, a fact sourced by countless sources, is neither a BLP issue nor "vandalism". I suggest you make yourself familiar with what is described as vandalism at Wikipedia — if anything was vandalism, it was your removal of information pertinent to understanding the current political situation in Romania with an hilarious edit summary (that was immediately reverted by another editor). Urban XII (talk) 01:21, 21 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)

Please see the first and second paragraphs of WP:LEDE – namely:

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.

Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no controversy about Lucian Croitoru. The information you added is irrelevant to his notability. It's a tiny detail. And it IS ALREADY present below in the article. Please, DO make a minimal effort to read the entire article. I beg you. Expand it if you like, and then let's ask a third opinion if you want to move a sentence to the lead. Let's be constructive. Dc76\^talk 19:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I firmly disagree. Indeed, it is directly relevant: it establishes context, explains why the subject is interesting, and summarizes an important dispute going on right now. You seem to deny that this material fits WP:LEDE:

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 leading section should probably be expanded even beyond the current issues with Croitoru's nomination. But you are simply reverting, suggesting that this information is not relevant according to WP:LEDE. You are not, however, establishing why. The very firm opposition of the majority parties is a significant piece of information, and the point of the leading paragraph of an article is to act as a helpful summary of such notable information in bite-sized form. If, despite all the current gravity of things, in the long run the political situation does prove itself insignificant as far as Croitoru's trajectory in politics, it can be removed. I must again clarify, however, that it is not sufficient to unhesitatingly deny or simply revert another user when a dispute over relevant content arises. It is also necessary to elaborate and explain what you are doing when asked for an account of that, because I think I've provided a solid rationale here. (I also note Urban XII's above comments on the changes you've tried to promote.) Anti-Nationalist (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I'm sorry, Dc76: I just don't see what "opinion" here you're talking about. The only thing I added to the lede was

"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."

That isn't an opinion: that's news on the majority parties' opposition to his candidacy (a darn important part of the situation, and pretty important for Croitoru). There is no opinion here. You keep saying that this isn't important, but aren't explaining why. Since both Urban and I think that this is important to mention, why not just kinda relent and yield for a tiny bit?

Look, "In order to take office, a Prime Minister will need to be confirmed by parliament." is correct (BTW, Parliament with capital "P"). I think that adding this part to the lead would be absolutley ok.

Now look, the legal procedure in Romania is that majorities are determined when a Prime Minister designate requests confirmation in the Parliament. The legal terminology is "He has managed to acquire a majority in the Parliament", respectively "He has failed to acquire a majority in the Parliament." Before a PM designate seeks a vote in the Parliament, there is a lot of talk who will have a majority: those that support him or those that oppose him. Members of the Parliament are not obliged to vote as their party leaders tell them. Many vote according to the mood in the territorial constituency they represent. It is like in the US, when you never know that all Republicans and all Democrats will vote a predetermined way. Needless to mention every side claims it has a majority. That's just part of the democratic game. What is incorrect is to assign the word "majority" to one side before his cabinet is voted up or down.

The current situation is very politicized. Leaders of the opposition parties want to derail his candidacy, and promote the view that all their MPs should be considered as opposing Croitoru. They have 280 potential votes, yet today they only gathered 252 for the informal declaration. The declaration today has no legal implication, but it serves to close the ranks of those that oppose the nomination, as repeated again and again by the leaders of the 4 parliamentary groups (3 parties + 1 group, don't say "4 parties", that is technically incorrect): they did explicitly admit it has not legal implication per se.

I am only saying that this whole situation with the approval or not of his nomination is very politicized, and we can present the details in the text, while in the lead a cold sentence "In order to take office, a Prime Minister will need to be confirmed by parliament." would perfectly clarify the situation. Dc76\^talk 23:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I find your take a little biased on this (no personal offense meant). You insist on referring to Iohannis as a "non-economist" [4], while claiming (as in this next edit summary) that saying that the majority's opinion was being "made very clear" to Croitoru should be deemed as a "personal attack" [5]. (We see you slipping the same leading material in this edit.) Would you think that your own perspective and personal feeling on this matter are playing out a little to strongly here? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes, I do have a personal opinion in the real world. But I believe I managed to prevent it from getting into WP. However, please do criticize me; it will only help me, I welcome any criticism of me, as long as it is expressed in civilized terms and allows me to address a response.

When Basescu nominated Croitoru, he mentioned that he has no negatives about Iohannis, but he wanted an economist, and Iohannis isn't one. The adjective "non-economist" is meant in this sense: it is the reason why Croitoru and not Iohannis or someone else was chosen. If you think that the way I formulated is not a faithful presentation of this fact, you know, you might be right. If you can re-formulate it, I'd welcome!

"made it very clear" are word by word translation from Romanian. It sounds very unpleasant in Romanian. Similar to Russian "emu ukazali ego mesto". It's very pejorative, and extremely rude. I am afraid Urban XII meant it pejoratively, this is why I asked him to not use such words in BLPs. The same information can be expressed with a more civilized choice of words. No need to resolt to such language. Dc76\^talk 23:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no recollection of where I used the expression "made it very clear". I speak English. I don't understand Romanian and couldn't possibly know what would sound pejorative in Romanian. I'm not aware that "making something very clear" is pejorative in English. Urban XII (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

You used it here. Since you tell you did not watch these development in Romanian, I believe you did not know the context of "made it very clear", in which case I am sorry I assumed you did. I should have explained you the meaning and origin. Sorry that I did not provide that explanation. The expression is used by several controversial politicians. It sound s very pejorative in the context they use it. Perhaps you could please reformulate using alternative words. That would solve the whole thing. Can you, please. Thank you very much. Dc76\^talk 00:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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. 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"? Urban XII (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Excuse me???? This is a top Romanian economist! This guy is SUPER notable. He did not have a WP article because 100 other very notable Romanians don't have articles yet. Second, I do not oppose to mention in the lead that his nomination is contested by a part of the Parliament. I only want it to be mentioned in a factually correct way. The difference between Lucian Croitoru and Klaus Iohannis is that Croitoru was nominated, while Iohannis was not. Suppose we compete for a position, and you win. In the report about your win, noone has to mention me. But in the report of my loss it's natural to mention to whom I lost. Dc76\^talk 00:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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. But it won't help him because you cannot become Prime Minister of Romania without parliamentary backing. So far, there's no winner. Urban XII (talk) 00:58, 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)

First of all, he has a way to be elected. No vote has been held yet. Why are you pronouncing about the future? Second, what x thinks about his chances to be approved about the Parliament is remote detail compared to his nomination, which itself is less notable than his activity in IMF. If you did not hear about this guy before, don't assume he is not notable. Dc76\^talk 00:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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. Urban XII (talk) 01:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion about the lead paragraph

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:

Lucian Croitoru (born February 13, 1957) is a Romanian economist who was controversially nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania on October 15, 2009 amidst the political fallout following the collapse of Emil Boc's government.

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 like your compromise, Rje. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

More or less OK, but I still think a mention of the opposition of the Parliament majority would be helpful to the casual reader. As for who/what/why details, I agree this should be mentioned only in the body of the article.Anonimu (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ a little bit. I believe this:

Lucian Croitoru (born February 13, 1957) is a Romanian economist who was nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania on October 15, 2009 amidst the political fallout following the collapse of Emil Boc's government. In order to take office, a Cabinet proposal needs to be confirmed by the Parliament.

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)

No, the nomination was controversial from the beginning, as the President nominated him after the Parliament majority proposed Iohannis. There is a majority (the 21 October declaration says "The Parliament [...] acknowledging the transparent majority") and only one guy contests its existence. Also, none of the MPs of the majority expressed a dissenting opinion, so the talks about what some majority MPs may "really" want are just speculations. The leaders are the official representatives of their parties, pure and simple. And their position was supported not just by declarations from other party members (including non-MPs), but also by a legally adopted official declaration. Thus, Dc76's version is worse than both the current lead and Rje's proposal. Anonimu (talk) 23:41, 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)

This person is notable primarily for being a political appointee, so it would be wrong not to present the political opinions of the main Parliament parties. The President has the right to nominate a Prime Minister, but according to the Constitution he has to support one of the proposals of the majority (and here we only have one clear proposal, which is not Croitoru). According to party statutes and Parliament internal regulations, which are both legal documents, the president and the group leader are the legal representatives of the parties, so their opinion is not personal when they make it in the name of their parties. Yes, 252 voted, simply because the other 28 MP were not present (for various reasons, among them the lack of legal binding of the declaration). The important fact is another: only 2 MPs opposed the declaration. That's supermajority.

I agree with the current lead, as proposed by Rje at 01:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC). Anonimu (talk) 06:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that the sentence "In order to take office, a Cabinet proposal needs to be confirmed by the Parliament." adequately covers the situation and might even be misinterpreted to mean that the confirmation is a fait accompli. I would contend that the nomination has been controversial, which is why Parliament won't ratify it, but perhaps we could go down the route of:

Lucian Croitoru (born February 13, 1957) is a Romanian economist who, on October 15, 2009, was nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania. Amidst the political fallout following the collapse of Emil Boc's government, the nomination was opposed by the majority of Parliament. The situation has yet to be resolved, with Parliament refusing the ratify his proposed cabinet, as is required for him to take office.

I don't really know if that's an improvement, what do you guys think? Not sure about my last sentence. Rje (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

It is definitively better. But not entirely factually correct. The nomination has not been yet opposed and his cabinet has not been rejected yet. For all we know, it can be approved. He did not present the cabinet in the Parliament yet. This will happen in 3-4 days. How about "the nomination is contested by ..." instead of "the nomination was opposed by..." ? And how about "with Parliament still having to vote up or down his proposed cabinet" instead of "with Parliament refusing the ratify his proposed cabinet"? Past tense is not good, because no vote on his cabinet has occurred yet. Basically:

Lucian Croitoru (born February 13, 1957) is a Romanian economist who, on October 15, 2009, was nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania. Amidst the political fallout following the collapse of Emil Boc's government, the nomination is contested by a majority of Parliament. The situation has yet to be resolved, with the Parliament still having to vote up or down his proposed cabinet.

Dc76\^talk 00:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Rje's proposal is definitely better, but I think Iohannis' candidacy should be briefly mentioned as well (note that Croitoru's nomination is mentioned in the Klaus Iohannis lead). Many readers only read the introduction, not the whole article. It's possible to describe what this controversy is about in a few sentences.

Lucian Croitoru (born February 13, 1957) is a Romanian economist who, on October 15, 2009, was nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania. Amidst the political fallout following the collapse of Emil Boc's government, the nomination was opposed by the majority of Parliament, which adopted a resolution asking for his withdrawal. The opposition parties insist on Klaus Iohannis as Prime Minister. The situation has yet to be resolved, with Parliament refusing the ratify his proposed cabinet, as is required for him to take office.

Urban XII (talk) 00:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

We're almost there I think. It would perhaps be best to change the last sentence to "The situation has yet to be resolved, with Croitoru determined to use his full 10 days to try to assemble a cabinet acceptable to Parliament." It probably needs to be along those lines as it would otherwise suggest that Parliament have already won, which is not the case. This is certainly getting there. I would urge one side to compromise on Iohannis, the way I see it this is going to come out in the wash anyway (see my post below). Rje (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Dear Urban XII. Your proposal is much a very good one! Allow me to point to a few words where IMHO is it factually incorrect, but let me repeat, these are just a few words. The general organization is ok.

• the nomination was opposed by the majority of Parliament It is still being opposed. The vote has not taken place yet. There is no "the" majority. There is "a" majority. It is an add-hoc majority formed specifically for this issue. For other issues, parties can and did organize differently. Romanian law requires a coalition to be formally registered by a court. But the leaders of the opposition have repeatedly explicitly said that they do not want to form a formal majority. They only want to have a majority for this issue of the Prime Minister. Do I make sense to you?
• The "resolution" they adopted is a declaration, not a resolution, it is informal. "Resolution" has a legal meaning. This is not the case. But I have nothing against mentioning it.

How about this:

Lucian Croitoru (born February 13, 1957) is a Romanian economist who, on October 15, 2009, was nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania. Amidst the political fallout following the collapse of Emil Boc's government, the nomination is opposed by a majority of Parliament, which adopted a declaration asking for his withdrawal, and vowing support for the candidature of Klaus Iohannis. The Parliament has to vote up or down Croitoru's proposed cabinet in the coming days.

Dc76\^talk 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear Rje, I absolutely agree with you: we are almost there. As you can see above, i have just conceeded: I agree to mention Iohannis in the lead as a gesture of good will to Urban XII. I think Urban and me has started on the wrong foot, and I would like to work to improve our collaboration. I also can go with your apolitical proposal below. I leave it to the other "camp" to chose between the two possibilities. Dc76\^talk 01:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that that ought to be acceptable to both sides. It'll need to be altered in three or four days - once we know Croitoru's future - but I think it is a good interim compromise. For stylistic reasons I'd change "up or down" to "for or against", but other than that I think it's fine. I'm happy to help any of you guys if there are any more problems. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The last proposal by Dc76 is a good solution (although maybe the last sentence should be changed to the most recent proposal by Rje ("The situation has yet to be resolved, with Croitoru determined to use his full 10 days to try to assemble a cabinet acceptable to Parliament" or something along those lines) mainly for stylistic reasons, but "for or against" is also adequate. Urban XII (talk) 01:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is probably more sensible actually. Shall we go with:

Lucian Croitoru (born February 13, 1957) is a Romanian economist who, on October 15, 2009, was nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania. Amidst the political fallout following the collapse of Emil Boc's government, the nomination is opposed by a majority of Parliament, which adopted a declaration asking for his withdrawal, and vowing support for the candidature of Klaus Iohannis. The situation has yet to be resolved, with Croitoru determined to use his full 10 days to try to assemble a cabinet acceptable to Parliament.

Is everyone happy with that? Rje (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. Urban XII (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally fine with me! :-):-):-) Dc76\^talk 01:48, 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)

The other choice

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:

Lucian Croitoru (born February 13, 1957) is a Romanian economist who was nominated by President Traian Băsescu as Prime Minister of Romania on October 15, 2009 amidst the political fallout following the collapse of Emil Boc's government.

leave the discussion of the controversy to the article and wait for the situation to resolve itself - the current situation is, after all, only a temporary set of events. In a couple of days we can have "Lucian Croitoru is the Prime Minister of Romania" or "Lucian Croitoru was nominated as Prime Minister of Romania on Octover 15, 2009, but his candidacy failed due to the opposition of the majority of Parliament" or something along those lines. Obviously this would be a last resort and I don't think we are far from an acceptable compromise. Rje (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

I think you are right, this was really just an "if all else fails" solution. I have produced what I think is an acceptable lead paragraph in the thread above. Rje (talk) 01:28, 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)

Plain and simple works best for the lede. Once there is a concrete change in events it can then be further reflected (succinctly) in the lede. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  04:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.evz.ro/detalii/stiri/quotsingura-majoritate-pe-care-o-are-basescu-este-minoritatea-pdlquot-871650.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723033225/http://www.livenews.ro/politic/antonescu-despre-numirea-lui-croitoru-iresponsabilitate-politica-este-vorba-de-dictatura-unui-om.html to http://www.livenews.ro/politic/antonescu-despre-numirea-lui-croitoru-iresponsabilitate-politica-este-vorba-de-dictatura-unui-om.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.realitatea.net/care-sunt-ministrii-propusi-de-lucian-croitoru_656152.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091110182538/http://www.cotidianul.ro/croitoru_mandat_de_fraier-102529.html to http://www.cotidianul.ro/croitoru_mandat_de_fraier-102529.html

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) 02:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)