Talk:Călin Popescu-Tăriceanu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
More information about this article... The following comments have been left for this page: It's good that pictures and infobox are here, very nice, but the info needs to get organized with subheaders, etc. Green caterpillar 00:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (edit)

I added IPA. I am by far not an expert in IPA, maybe someone with more insight into it can take a look and correct any possible errors. Andrei Stroe 14:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I would question four things — the transcription of the word-internal N's as /ŋ/ (as in English "sing"); the different transcription of the O's (I didn't really think they were different); the representation of the palatalized vowel sound (it's not really a full /j/); and the length mark on the last /a/ vowel. I would propose /kə'lin kɔnstan'tin an'tɔn pɔ'pesku təri'tʃʲanu/, but I'm not a native speaker and would feel better if some native speakers could comment on this. Richwales 07:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tariceanu, a Greek?

Hello,

I've just read recent edits on the article and noticed that Tariceanu is considered a "romanian greek". I find this a bit exaggerated, given that he never stated being one.

Maybe what you want to say is "of partially greek ancestry".

Nothing bad in being a greek, but maybe it's simply not true. Dpotop 09:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unclear section

The whole Criticism section is about this one court case involving someone else, but it in no way makes clear how the case amounts to criticism of the subject of the article, and it isn't referenced well at all. As far as I can tell, there was a note and a phone call, and the rest of the section is basically about someone else, which is somewhat inappropriate for a biographical article. MSJapan 06:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, Tariceanu has been accused by the President he forms an oligarchy with Patriciu, and for interfering with justice in Patriciu's favour.[1].

IMHO, the paragraph

U.S. Department of State wrote about possible abuses against Patriciu, and allegations that prosecutors detained him for longer than the 24 hours allowed by law(on 27 May 2005).[11] Regarding the same event, the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest statad that if it turns out to be something else than a legitimate investigation, it would have a harmfull efect on Romanian business climate

is necessary to show the internationall oppinion, and the allegations that prosecutors detained Patriciu for longer than the 24 hours might be the reason for Tariceanu's phonecall to Botos.

See here the article before I made the major change.Dl.goe 11:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Premiero Tariceanu e soccio in affari con una spia ungherese,Rudas Erno.

[edit] Criticism

The discussion regarding the first registration tax is far more complex. The whole section is biased. The effects of canceling this tax could be very adverse given the poor Romanian infrastructure, especially in the major cities (main "engines" of Romania's young economy). I think that the entire section should be either removed or should be completely reconsidered. It's called “Criticism” but it only discusses a special tax (most probably a frustrated non-talented payer wrote it). I never saw so much dubious, citation needed marks in a single one section. A "Criticism section" about Tariceanu should include some real issues (and one can easily find some).

[2]http://www.gandul.info/masina/daca-se-renunta-la-taxa-in-6-luni-capitala-va-fi-blocata.html?3892;1075462

RCatalin (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The section's language should be rewritten but it should definetly stay. The EU zone is a free-trade zone, the tax's only excuse is that it is supposed to help the enviroement (which for most second hand european cars made in the last 7 years or so is nonsense compared to what people already drive in Romania). We can't have a protectionist tax for our car industry (both manufacture and the speculative dealerships), because being in EU means you have some obligations that don't allow that. The argument that "if decent cars were cheaper we wouldn't have enough roads for them" is pretty hilarious BS. --Helixdq (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The above counter-arguments miss completely my remarks. I have stated:

- the section is biased as content. Not form (language).

- the counter-argument is based mainly on the justification of the tax. My comments are not about the nature of the tax, which clearly is ambiguous and in contradiction with EU norms and principles. My comment says only that, from some point of views is probably better (for Romanian economy overall, not only for some “limited groups of interests”) to keep the tax for the time being (at least until infringement procedure gets too advanced), in whatever form and dimensions can be found.

- the section is very limited (content vs title) – there is no counter-argument for this. Basically, we have a discussion on a simple tax in the context of a general presentation of one country’s prime-minister. We are talking about the same prime-minister that enforced and maintained the “cota unica”, which proved to be a small miracle for the Romanian economy. A criticism section should probably approach the whole fiscal system, or even the entire macro-economic state. I am sure however that our frustrated non-talented payer will have no interest to treat such dull issues.

RCatalin (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note's Translation

Who made the translation of the note?

It seems to be very well done. Maybe it could be added to Wikisource? diego_pmc (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)