Talk:Andrei Pleşu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

[edit] Incomprehensible phrase

"…he assits in the 1980s along with Gabriel Liiceanu at Constantin Noica's seminaries in Păltiniş." "Assits"? Perhaps attended (a asistat)? But I still can't parse this. "Seminaries" are places you study to become a member of the clergy. Perhaps "seminars"? So perhaps "in the 1980s, along with Gabriel Liiceanu, he attended Constantin Noica's seminars in Păltiniş." Could someone please confirm whether that is what they meant to write? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, I looked at the original Romanian and, yes, my guesses were correct. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More strangeness

I don't understand why the paragraph about having supper with Băsescu is of encyclopedic importance. And I can't make head or tail of "Andrei Pleşu never denied his reconciliation with Traian Băsescu." What odd wording. Why would he be expected to deny it? Obviously something unstated is going on here, but I have no idea what. - Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I started a discussion about the encyclopedic character of Dinescu's statement at Discutie Andrei Plesu (Romanian Wikipedia)Dl.goe 13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not about to comment on it, either here or there. I have clicked the link, and noticed what the last sentence wanted to say: with or wothout the preceeeding statement by Dinescu, the last line made absolutely no sense - now I see its point, and it strikes me as just plain wrong (of the "if he does not deny it, he agrees with it" type). I don't know if the article could do without Dinescu's theories, but it can and should do without that sentence. Dahn 13:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)