Talk:Monica Macovei

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

[edit] Criticism

Well, I presume we all agree in saying that most Romanian politicians have done heavily illegal stuff. The word "civil society" is still a joke in Romania, used by many hypocrites to get western support while doing nothing (or stealing) and still avoiding criticism.

I'm sorry, but for Macovei the evidence is clear, and everyone of us knows it. Regardless of how "civil" she was and/or is, she is a thief and this must be said. BTW, you en-4 guys, how do you translate "trafic de influenta" and "abuz de autoritate"? Dpotop 14:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no clear evidence against Macovei. Indeed, the case was judged by a different set of judges than the initial one. But there is no evidence that Macovei is linked to this change. There are clues that the other family involved in the case (Popa), may be the cause of the change (the husbant of the judge Luana Stancu was a pacient of Dr.Bogdan Popa), see: [1]. In March 2006, the Superior Council of Magistracy (CSM) has decided to exclude judge Danuţ Cornoiu (the chief of Luana Stancu) because of his actions in this case. The CSM's investigations, as well as those of National Anticorruption Department (DNA), indicate that Luana Stancu has requested this case to do a favour to the doctor that operated her husband, according to the testimony of Margareta Ionescu, the initial judge of the case. See: [2] and [3]. Razvan Socol 16:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the evidence was NOT clear against Macovei and everyone does "not know it." It is more obvious in the cases which Macovei and her team have begun to prosecute. Now that Romania is in the EU, it is easier for her to be targeted by those who opposed her reforms.MIsterMan 20:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism, part 2

Some Macovei crackpot fan continually wipes all criticism into the last section of the article while pushing laudatory prose into the lead. Due to lack of time I only required the "controversial" adjective in the lead. But no, the Macovei fan wants to delete it saying that "This adjective is not used for Iliescu, Tariceanu, Basescu -- who have also had controversies." This is blatantly POV and obvious bad faith because:

1. For Iliescu you have a full paragraph in the lead on his "crimes against humanity" investigation.
2. For Basescu there is no laudatory lead. Just the facts (president, previously mayor), and a huge "Criticism" section following.
3. The CPT article is not yet structured, unlike this one. And, BTW, the article does not contain quasi-religious praises.

So: either you accept a full paragraph on critique in the lead, or you remove all the propaganda from the lead, and leave just the simple facts, or you leave my "controversial" mark in place. Dpotop 15:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Propoganda? They are facts:

1. Minister Macovei did disband the Justice Ministry's secret service;
2. She did create the National Integrity Agency;
3. She was publicly credited by EU officials (and much of media inside and outside of Romania) of reforming the Justice Ministry, thereby allowing Romania to enter the EU -- Justice was credited as being the toughest chapter;
4. She did oppose the Parliament when it sought to remove authorities from the DNA (previously PNA), which has the mandate of investigating MPs and other high officials;
5. While she was Minister, the DNA did undertake more high profile investigations and issue at least one high profile indictment.
6. And she is politically independent, regardless of which officials may or may not support her.

To leave out these facts would be presenting an inaccurate and incomplete picture.

Non-NPOV was previously a more serious of problem when the article included primarily criticism and hearsay presented as fact. Comments such as "Basescu's pawn" or "drinking buddy" are hardly NPOV. The discussion of NGOs only demonstrating on her behalf because of MOJ contracts is also a dangerous stretch -- they much more likely demonstrated on her behalf because she used to work with them in civil society, and they support her reform efforts. But one journalist did make this allegation regarding the MOJ contracts, so it remains in the criticism section.

In the spirit of NPOV, if you'll notice the DIICOT paragraph in the criticism section was expanded and cleaned up.

I'll not use names like crackpot. I think it's time for others to focus more on this article so this impasse can end.MIsterMan 18:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is the "National Integrity Agency" active? Anonimu 19:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, propaganda. The fact that the parliament voted against Macovei is also a fact, but you chose to hide it later in the article. As to "Basescu's pawn", this is exactly like text you added on Macovei as a butterfly. :):):) Dpotop 20:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

See attached link on National Integrity Agency. [4]

So it doesn't exist. The article should be modified to state ANI is just a proposal, not a creation of this lady. Anonimu 20:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

A center exists but the agency is being prevented. [5]

The centre and the agency are 2 different thingsAnonimu 22:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)