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)

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)