Talk:Adrian Năstase

Translation

This is a tough one to translate; I could use some help. Here are the known open issues:

• "Ideea politică a Schimbării" - This goes beyond my ability to deal with a highly inflected language. "The idea of political change"? "Changing the idea of politics?" I can't tell.

"The political idea of change".

• OK - JM

• "Reglementari" in International Law. I assume "reglementari" here means "settlements" as in "settling out of court." If that's right, we still need to come up with the right English-language word, because "Settlements in International Law" sounds like it would have to do with something like Israeli settlements on the West Bank.

reglementare = regulation, so it's "Regulations in International Law"

• OK - JM

• "Adunării Internaţionale a Parlamentarilor de limbă franceză". I believe I'm pretty much on the mark with "International Assembly of Francophone Parliamentarians" but I'm sure it has an official French-language name and a semi-official one in English.

"International Assembly of the Francophone Members of Parliament"

• "Members of Parliament" is the same as "Parliamentarians". I looked around the web a little and sites seem about 50-50 on "...Francophone Parliamentarians" and "...Francophone MPs", so I stuck with what I had. - JM

• "Raportor al Comisiei parlamentare pentru probleme juridice şi drepturile omului în problema activităţii ilegale desfăşurate de sectele religioase" - Is the "Raportor" of a commission the Secretary? Or something else?

"A raporta" means "To make a report", so it should be "reporter", someone that reports facts.

• I"ve gone with "Recording Secretary". - JM

• Also, does "desfăşurate" refer to activities in general or specifically to proselytizing? Or specifically to something else entirely? And this could really use a context. What was going on that there would be such a commission?

desfasurate = (most likely) "that took place"

• so the tranlation I gave is on the mark. This could still really use a context. What was going on that there would be such a commission? -JM

• I finally posted this on the Wikipedia:Reference Desk and got an answer:

(Copied from Ref. Desk:) "The only commission about sects which I can link Adrian Nastase to seems to be a European Parliament one (rather than, say, a Romanian one). I think that must be the one that the article refers to. Its report is available here, and seems to indicate (section II A) that it was prompted just by general concern, rather than specific problems. I don't know whether that's of any use to you, but it's all I can seem to find. -- Vardion 09:35, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)"

I will edit the article accordingly -- Jmabel 08:02, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

• "Biroului Permanent" ==> "Permanent Bureau"? Or something else? I'm trying to tie it to some concept I know.

I think so.

• I'll leave it for now; does someone know more? - JM

(continuing previous bullet point) "Biroului Permanent" is obviously not "Standing Committee" if there is only one of them. And while "asigura legătura Biroului Permanent cu..." is certainly literally "Assured linkage of the Permanent Bureau to (or, more literally, 'with')", it doesn't seem to mean anything clear. What exactly did he do?

no idea here.

• Leaving it for now. Anyone else know? - JM

"Biroul permanent" is "Standing Bureau" -- check this page, the left side menu lists "Biroul permanent" in Romanian and "Standing Bureau" in English (use the top-right dropdown to switch the language). Regarding "asigura legatura cu", I think that's more along the lines of "organise the relationships with", at least that's what they say at point h here. --Gutza 14:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• & it would be nice if someone could clarify PDSR vs. PSD. Is the latter a successor party of the former, or is there a different relation?

PDSR was the old name of the current PSD. Bogdan 10:04, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• OK - JM

As I said, this was a tough one. Any help will be appreciated. -- Jmabel 01:06, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Bogdan 10:04, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Thanks, Bogdan, that was very helpful. Jmabel 19:05, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Given that "Raportor al Comisiei parlamentare..." for one item (the cult thing) turned out to be Council of Europe, not Romanian parliament, is it possible that some of the following are also Council of Europe?

• Member of parliamentary commission on problems of law and human rights
• Member of parliamentary commission on rules of procedure
• Member of parliamentary sub-commission commission on human rights

-- Jmabel 08:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Title

Should we add {{wrongtitle|title=Adrian Năstase}}? Or is he well enough known in the English-speaking world by this slightly wrong spelling that the title should be "Adrian Nastase"? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:25, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

All Romanian names are usually written without diacritics in English-speaking world, but that doesn't mean that is the correct way. The same way it is rather common to write "Francois Mitterrand" instead of "François Mitterrand". However, Romanian diacriticals are even less used because unlike the French diacritical characters, the Romanian ones cannot be found in ASCII. Bogdan | Talk 17:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So do you think we should take the "wrongtitle" mark off of all of these, such as lautari and Stefan cel Mare? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:16, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

References on the articles mentioned

• "Human rights - a retrograde concept" - Concepţii şi controverse în domeniul drepturilor omului, în viitorul social. revista Academiei Ştefan Gheorghiu, jan-feb 1983, pg. 45-50, reprinted by Academia Caţavencu, on 16 November, 2004 in its "Scînteia" supplement. Catavencu link

• interview in the "Komsomolskaya Pravda" of 25 November, 1989, as quoted by Evenimentul Zilei, EvZ link

Bogdan | Talk 18:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've put these properly into the article -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Allegations of homosexuality

The tone in which the section "Allegations of homosexuality" is written seems to me to give undue credence to the allegations. Corneliu Vadim Tudor claiming he has evidence of something but hasn't actually shown it does not strike me as a reason to believe it: he is not exactly famous for his honesty or his ethics. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

A text is currently circulating on the Internet, allegedly a statement made to the Miliţie (Police) by a writer and history professor. In it, professor Suciu testifies his own homosexuality and names other alleged homosexuals, Năstase among them. I've added a mention to it in the article, with the appropriate remark.

Subsemnatul Suciu Ioan Dumitru, fiul lui Dumitru si Ofelia, nascut la 3 august 1917, de profesie scriitor - membru al Fondului Literar al Soc. Scriitorilor Români, domiciliat in Bucuresti, Str. Pompiliu Manoliu, nr. 13, sect. 3, declar urmatoarele: in anul 1973, luna februarie, am fost arestat, iar in luna iunie am fost condamnat pentru inversiune sexuala la 2 ani si 4 luni, eliberindu-ma pe data de 9 ianuarie 1975. In prezent, fac formele pentru pensionare medicala, fiind bolnav de diabet zaharat, epidimita, TBC si inceput de boala lui Parkinson. In limita sanatatii si posibilitatii am de gind - de comun acord cu conducerea Institutului - sa-mi public cele 3 carti ce trebuiau sa apara in 1973-1974 si sa-mi continui activitatea stiintifica prin colaborari la revistele de specialitate, cu studii, recenzii si articole istorice. Fiind intrebat despre relatiile mele anterioare, si anume: Radu Ionescu, Adrian Nastase, Negoitescu, Sorin Titel, Ion Dinescu, Alexandru Demetriad, precizez ca stiu despre ei ca sint pederasti, cu exceptia lui Sorin Titel, despre care nu am auzit niciodata ca ar practica aceasta boala. Aceasta imi este declaratia pe care o dau si o semnez. I.D. Suciu 21.II.1975"

IulianU 01:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nu il simpatizez pe Adrian Nastase dar articolul asta este scris ca si cum ar fi bagat la puscarie. Si apoi chestia cu homosexualitatea nu e in regula: 1. daca este, este problema lui si 2. felul cum este formulat textul lasa impresia ca homosexualitatea ar fi o chestie inspaimantatoare, ceea ce pentru un cititor de prin alte parti ridica niste semne de intrebare

I'm sorry, but I still find the section regarding homosexuality to be incredibly offensive. While Nastase clearly has many faults, so what if he's gay or bisexual? And quite honestly, if he were open about it he could never be elected to office in modern-day Romania. The bombonel comment is akin to using the word faggot or fairy in English.

I don't buy the argument that there is a controversy here in that Nastase attacked Basescu on the issue of gay rights and marriage. Basescu himself retreated on his comments made on MTV in support of gay marriage, and one year after DA led government there are still no plans for domestic partnership. I imagine there will be a lot of additions to this article in coming days following the indictment on the Zambachian property. As these things are added, I urge that the homosexuality section be deleted. Or if others agree, I will remove this myself. MisterMan 22:00, 07 Feb 2006 (UTC)

It's still in there. I don't think it should be. - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hatchet job?

It seems to me that the article is turning into a bit of a hatchet job. It's not just what's been added, it's what's been removed, to wit:

• married with two children.

  I added it.

• President of parliamentary group "Friends of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" 1992-1996.

  I thought that's not really that important. The Romanian Parliament appears to have lots of these 'friends' groups (each having about 7-17 members, that don't appear to be doing anything :)

• 1996 - Founding member of International Assembly of Francophone Parliamentarians

  I looked on the internet, but I found that "The AIPLF (International Association of Francophone Parliamentarians) was founded in 1967." [1] Strange.

• 1996 - Member of the Romanian parliamentary delegation to the gathering of parliamentarians of the Council of Europe

  This wasn't removed. See the article.

• Recording Secretary of Council of Europe commission on judicial problems and human rights with reference to illegal activities by religious sects [2]

  re-added

• 1996 - Vice-president of Chamber of Deputies, member of Standing Bureau.

  This wasn't removed.

• Organized the relationships of the Standing Bureau with the following permanent commissions: Judicial Commission, Commission on Discipline and (Parliamentary) Immunity, Commission for Foreign Politics, Commission for Culture, Art, and Mass Media

  I am not really sure what it means.

These next three are a bit problematic, because we never properly worked out whether these relate to the Romanian parliament or to an organization of European parliamentarians. I'd be inclined not to restore these unless we can get better citations.

• Member of parliamentary commission on problems of law and human rights
• Member of parliamentary commission on rules of procedure
• Member of parliamentary sub-commission on human rights

I think it could be the Romanian parliament. <comments at this level of indent are responses by <Bogdan>

It's as if there is an effort to drop everything that shows him in a human light or displays his actual involvement in parliamentary politics in any respect other than just the fact that he rose to the top of his party. Especially, if we are going to take a (well-deserved) shot at his writings on human rights in the Communist era, we should show his generally positive post-'89 involvement in this area. I'm not a fan, but we should be evenhanded.

I'm inclined to restore all of this material in one or another form, unless someone can give a good argument in the next 24 hours why it should not be restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Bogdan, you seem to have restored the most substantive parts of this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:57, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

POV by choice of material?

Do you really think that it is neutral to talk in 30% of the article about corruption allegations and make the contest look like they are actualy 50%?

Yes. For example, look at Silvio Berlusconi, it has more than 50% about his shady deals, trials, allegations, etc. When there is a controversy, we use the NPOV and have to give every side an oppinion. If you want to improve anything on his activity which is not well-covered, you may.

OK, so you are saying that because there is an article were allegations are 50% of the article it is legitimate do so here too? I think I don't follow your logic. You know, there are articles that talk 70% about academic achivements of some person. Should we de the same here? I don't thing so. Maybe it helps if I rephrase the question. I think that an article about a person should accurately reflect one's personality. Do you think that corruption is such an important trait of AN? If so, then why? ("There are lots of allegations", doesn't qualify as an answer; I would prefer facts: see below.)

For one thing they are "allegations", not facts; and I think wikipedia should _concentrate_ on facts.

How can you distinguish between a fact and an allegation ?

Simple, use a dictionary. Let's see what MW has to say. Alleging = "to assert without proof or before proving". Allegation = "an assertion unsupported and by implication regarded as unsupportable". Fact = "an actual occurrence; a thing done". If the difference is still not clear I'll be glad to explain.

The "Allegations" part is only based on facts.

That is the negation of a tautology. See the definitions again.

And on the other hand some of them seem to mentioned just because they are "fun". For example the homosexuality allegation reads like: "Ever since 1990 there are rumors that he is homosexual... But those were started by a guy not to be trusted".

A rumour can be true or not true. However, these allegations are pretty well-known in Romania and deserve mentioning.

One simple thing to do would be to remove the headlines under "Allegations...". A second-level headline for a three lines paragraph surely looks excesive to anyone neutral (say, someone who knows nothing about AN before reading the article): and this happens not once but several times in a raw.

Headlines are used when we are talking about a different subject and here they are used according to the Manual of Style of Wikipedia.

A text has a hierarchical structure (phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections...) What you say is roughly valid at each level (just replace "subject" by "idea"). That doesn't mean that it is sane to start a new paragraph after each phrase, put a sub-heading before each paragraph or put a heading before each sub-heading. It is just bad style. Oh, and about the Manual of Style, here is a quote: "Avoid overuse of sub-headings". If this article doesn't overuse them I don't know what does.

You should note that, in contrast, articles about other romanian politicians (most notably Traian Basescu) contain _no_ information about corruption allegation... although they do exist. -- rgrig

I'll improve that one too. However, I'll do Ion Iliescu first (you know, KGB-connections and calling the miners to do a mineriad :-) Bogdan | Talk 21:02, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice, you are laughing when thinking about mineriads. That gives your POV a lot of credibility.

And something else. The only important thing said about the prime-minister period is that economy has grown. I do not find this to be particularily informative since it implies a correlation (between him being prime-minister and economy evolution) that is not supported in any way. Much better would be to give a list of actual things he done (i.e. law A, law B, etc..) and, if deemed important, things he hadn't done.

Nastase's site has little information on his government's achievements. However here's in brief what could be said:

1. negotiations with the EU
2. regional development programs ((EU pre-aderation: Phare
3. the government had no coherent agricultural policy -- however, no government since 1989 had one.
4. in 2004, the National Bank (whose leadership was replaced with PSD members, such as Florin Georgescu) failed to intervine in the appreciation of the leu, which affected strongly Romanian exports. Bogdan | Talk

I'm not sure what exactly you call "little information". Five minutes of browsing revealed at least 10 documents with sizes of about 500 pages. However a nice synthesis of what happened in the last year can be found in the beginning of the anual report of the european commision. Here are just a few ideas (much more specific than those listed above: "negotiations".. what's that? you mean they talked? how interesting.. WHAT did they talked about?):

1. major reorganization of the justition system was started
   • By "justition" do you mean "judicial"? or something else? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
2. the statute of the public functionary was revised
3. progress on freedom of information and legislative transparency
4. the anti-corruption legal framework is now relatively well developed; it is not well applied
5. important progress in respecting human rights
6. there are initiatives for police modernization, improving life-quality for persons with handicaps, reduction of social exclusion, improving social dialog
7. eforts are needed to improve freedom of speech!
   • This is vague, could you expand? Is this an issue of freedom of speech or of the press? From everything I here, the latter is more of an issue than the former. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:50, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

A lot of other relevant details are available if you read on. For example you can find evaluations of the economy. As I said there are other documents that give a lot of other details on what exactly was done. Given that a 5 minutes google search and 10 minutes of reading& browsing the documents revealed a LOT of information (of which the above is only a small excrept) I find the reason you provided for not giving facts (i.e. "his site has little information") to be ridiculuous.

We're getting nowhere by arguing. If you want, you may edit article yourself and if you dispute any affirmation already written, I'm ready to back it up. Bogdan | Talk 19:24, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To further clarify my opinion about facts I'd like to add that information about the content of articles published by him before 1989 is very appropriate for the content of the article (although it looks that the choice of presented articles is biased too).

"Human rights" were his speciality, even after 1989 (but with a reversed perspective)

I hope someone who specializes in politics / sociology would take time to improve the current mess (that means, not me and... no, writing software for organizing mp3s doesn't qualify). --Radu

Visa restrictions

Under the four years of his term all visa restrictions with the European western countries have been lifted.

Not true. For example, Romanians still need visa to enter UK, which is a European western countries. Bogdan | Talk 23:20, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Poverty

I see Bogdan disagrees with one of the recently anonymously added statements; I suggest he make the minor edit needed to correct it, since it is close to accurate.

On a similar note, as I distributed these sentences to appropriate paragraphs and cut some pure POV, I was wondering enough about the following to bring it here instead for discussion:

"the number of Romanians that live below the poverty line dropped by an estimated 4 million"

Whose numbers? If this is something authoritative, it certainly merits mention, that would be about 17% of the population. There was no citation, so I was wondering if this might be pulled out of thin air. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:30, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)

The numbers are probably not far off. Poverty is generally in rural areas, especially of Moldova, Oltenia and Baragan. The difference is that after the visa changes it was much easier to get to work in the EU, so many of the poor people left to work in the EU (working at some low wages for the EU standard, but high on the Romanian standard) and brought money in the country. Bogdan | Talk

So do you think we should put it back in the article? If the number in poverty has gone down, it really would be quite an achievement, because this article from Ioana Dan, an economist at Babeş-Bolyai University shows the number below the poverty line consistently increasing from 1989 to 1999. It could be, because the World Bank shows 28.9% below the poverty line in 2002, the latest I can readily find. If that is comparable to Ioana Dan's 41.20 in 1999, it's quite a drop. And it probably is, since she cites the World Bank. I'd still like to have a source for the specific claim of 4 million during his term of office, but on what we've got it seems plausible. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:24, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

The source is, probably, Adiran Nastase's electoral speeches which can hardly be called a 'turstworthy' source. --Gcbirzan 07:15, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Certainly not a trustworthy source. Still, more recent World Bank numbers (at least through 2003) should be available, even if not yet on line, and we should be able to find and cite those along with his claims reported accurately as claims. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:52, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

Wage growth

The reference: [3] - quoted from a Mercer Human Resource Consulting company report. Bogdan | Talk 23:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PSD transcripts

but several party members, including Foreign Minister and PM candidate Mircea Geoana, said that some parts seem to be genuine.

According to this newspaper article, Geoană admitted that the transcripts were genuine, period; not that "parts of it seem to be genuine". A link to a statement of Mr. Geoana on this matter would be welcome. IulianU 01:34, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

POV again

I've copy-edited the recent additions by User:195.7.0.159. For the most part, I haven't addressed POV, beyond inserting the word "alleged" in one place where it seemed clearly called for. Someone else may want to take a look at these edits, which were clearly by someone hostile to Nastase, and lacked any citations, but did seem to me reasonably close to what I believe to be the truth. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, Dec 26, 2004 (UTC)

I am sorry for being POV (Personally, I am Pro-Basescu, I admit it - I am a student in Political Science, but I admit I can't help myself on this matter). But I can give sources for the two statements. Highway construction right can be easily checked with Evenimentul Zilei, Academia Catavencu, o even the ex-pro-Nastase Jurnalul National magazine,or even with Bechtel. Check this out Evenimentul Zilei, December 16th 2003. It states "Bors Brasov Highway Is Being Built By Bechtel - Public Contract Evaluated at $ 2.5 billion granted without auction". On the other hand, with the subjugation of the media, you are free to check the following sources : US Ambassador's Speech to The Students of The Political Science Departament of The University Of Bucharest, pointing out this problem (I still have a copy of the speech transcript, you might find it on the net), or the media scandal at Evenimentul Zilei regarding its anti-PSD line, in October 2004. You can also check Antena 1's news scripts before and after its alliance with PSD.

Yes, I'm generally familiar with what's been going on with the Romanian press: hunger strikes, protests and all. As I said, what you wrote was "reasonably close to what I believe to be the truth": I'm not questioning your basic facts, just the tone. By the way, it is really a lot easier if you indicate your sources in the article when you add material (see Wikipedia:Cite sources). It is so much harder to identify and add them later. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:33, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

On poverty in Romania as this is disputed. I will only point out the two very different means used to assert poverty in Romania. The first of them, used by the National Institute for Statistics, was introduced in 2001? and consider the poverty line about half the minimum monthly wage / person (they use a more complicated formula). As minimum wage is considered 2.800.000 lei (96$), the poverty line considered by using this system is 1.400.000 lei/month or 48$. The second system uses what we refer to as "Cosul Minim de Consum Lunar", that is the minimum requirements for decent living per month (it is considered underestimated anyway, both in terms of products and services), that is set to around 3.000.000 lei/person/month (I have no up-to-date info. on this - I may be rong). This usually result in very big differences between the results. A fellow student has made a poverty assessment for Romania using US and EU-member-country standards, and the results where staggering (if we would use Norwegian standards we would skyrocket to 75%). For poverty in Romania, consider the minimum wage is 2.800.000 lei, average wage is 7.800.000 lei before taxes and about 6.000.000 after taxes, a US$ is 29.000 lei, a kilo of meat 180.000 lei (a kilo is about 2 pounds for those who still use Imperial measurement systems), a kilo of potatoes 15.000 lei and my electricity bill was for November 600.000 lei. Thank you, yours truly, xanthar also known as 195.7.0.159 (I forgot to login). I am not shure how the World Bank calculates poverty levels.

I'd tend to want to use the World Bank numbers on this when possible because they are comparable across countries; any official national numbers are also useful. In either case, though, citation is important, because these are such easy things for someone to make up out of thin air. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:35, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Hunting

I've erased "surpassing the number allowed by Romanian law." While the carnage was immoral in many respects, it took place on a private domain, owned and maintained by Ion Ţiriac. Private hunting domains do not fall under official regulations. It was immoral, but not illegal.

I also added the facts about Ion Ţiriac because I think it broadens the perspective. Năstase is not alone in what he does...

Highways

Can anyone explain what this change is about? In any case, we cannot start by mentioning only one highway and then at the end of the paragraph refer to "both highways". This needs to be sorted out. - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP

There appears to be quite a bit of unsourced derogatory information in this article, which violates Wikipedia's rules for biographies of living persons. I'll give at least a few days for someone to get this in order, but after that I intend to remove material that goes against policy. - Jmabel | Talk 06:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Psd.jpg

Image:Psd.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

No Evidence Of Nastase's Suicide Attempt

There is NO evidence that Nastase's suicide attempt took place. In the Austrian, Swiss and German Press ( print and online) the rising doubts regarding this attempt are very well documented and recherched:

Krone [4] - Die Presse [5] - NZZ NeueZürcherZeitung [6] - Welt [7] - Spiegel Online [8] and many more sources ....

Quote Spiegel Online: "Um der Haft zu entgehen, inszenierte Nastase einen theatralischen Selbstmordversuch, was ihm jedoch nur einige Tage Aufschub verschaffte - inzwischen sitzt er im Gefängnis." To escape the arrest, Nastase staged a theatrical suicide attempt, which gave him only a few days' delay - now he is in prison'[9] -Elysander (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I'm new to this kind of discussion, so excuse me if I'm off topic. What do you mean that there is no evidence? As far as I know, the Romanian press covered this for days and they even showed the man on a stretcher with bandages and all. Is this discussion here implying it was a farce? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.52.148.35 (talk) 20:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Adrian Năstase. 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 archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041207004921/http://www.politic.ro:80/adriannastase.php to http://www.politic.ro/adriannastase.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)