Talk:Traian Băsescu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article is part of WikiProject Maritime Trades, a group of editors working to improve Merchant Shipping topics. To learn more or join the project, please visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-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.)


Contents

[edit] Political Association

http://gaybucuresti.ro/t/s/news/show_headlines.php?subaction=showfull&id=1102007798&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=

I removed this link, because the article (in Romanian) attributes the opinions of some supporters of Băsescu to him. Bogdan | Talk 18:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If this guy is "center-right," why is his party, the Democratic Party, described as "social-democrat," a fairly left-wing designation, as I understand it?

The D.A. alliance which supported him is "center-right" (PD - center-left + PNL - right-wing); the "guy" is undoubtedly a Social-democrat. IulianU 10:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Just a few clarifications ; the Democratic Party is centre-left and the National Liberal Party is centre-right, not right wing like the New Generation Party and others. The D.A. Alliance is centre and Traian Basescu is centre (not "social-democrat" like the PSD). -Voievod 00:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Office

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)

http://www.gaybucuresti.ro/forum/postari.php?cat=Politica&subcat=7

[edit] Basescu isn't President, yet

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)

[edit] minor cleanup, outstanding issues

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)

[edit] Descendence from Gheorghe Pop de Basesti

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.

[edit] POV

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)

[edit] Stray dogs

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

[edit] Profession

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)
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)

[edit] Context and gay marriage

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)

[edit] Polemic

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)

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.

[edit] Portrait

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

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

[edit] Objectivity of the article

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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

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)

[edit] Obsession with American presidents

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).

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)
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)

[edit] Numbering

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)

1.Gheorghe Gheorghiu Dej, 2.Ceausescu, 3.Iliescu, 4.Constantinescu and 5.Basescu. Fifth. And I'm not Romanian and I know this! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bm79 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC).
It's not that simple. What about Parhon, Groza, Maurer and Stoica? Biruitorul 19:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/r/a/Talk%7ETraian_B%C4%83sescu_7957.html"