Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu

Execution video
I have a question. Is the footage made on his trial and execution in public domain or is it copyrighted? Thanks. --Vitilsky (talk) 14:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Bias Article
Noone in their right mind would support or defend Ceausescu because there is much evidence for his crimes, but this article is really taking the anti-left POV bias too far.

It is totally littered with claims which are 100% POV and are very rarely cited and very dubious. For example the description under one picture which shows him playing a game using hoops bigger than his opponant says this is 'presumably so that Ceauşescu's prowess would be demonstrated.' That is insane, 'presumambly' doesnt cut it on wikipedia.

This article needs to be gone over and have all this kind of stuff removed, otherwise its academically useless. Please discuss.

If I go over it in the future and try to balance it a bit by removing some of the wilder POV statements, please dont accuse me of supporting the subject or something like that..

ValenShephard 09:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The hoops ARE bigger than his opponant's (FACT) - "presumbably" cuts it in the academic university world - it is a way of saying "I'm not sure" but it looks almost certain to be the reasdon. Wikipedia is so obsessed with not upsetting people with decent comment: that is its problem and why Wikipedia is not academic in the proper sense. "Hitler was a nice man" will be next because we do not wish to offend. Wikipedia reckons it is so grown up and clever when in academic terms it is so naive and mechanical. No thinking, no bravery, no colour... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.12.160 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Though there is a lot of BIAS, there are many points in the article that make sense.... HOWEVER ---IT IS NOT ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS TO ALLOW INFORMATION THAT IS UNSOURCED!!!! Please, please, if you are an expert on Romania, please update with proper sourced materials!!! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.72.155 (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

SNL Skit
Removed from the article:

"Shortly after the Ceauşescu executions, Saturday Night Live performed a skit where a new brand of dog food was available, known as "Puppy Ceauşescu" (a parody on the common dog food name "Puppy Chow") seemingly to imply that the Ceauşescu's remains had been used as dog food after their death."

Given the high profile of SNL, and the people appear on it, this might be worth mentioning. -OberRanks (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * "seemingly to imply that the Ceauşescu's remains had been used as dog food after their death" is pure original research of a Wikipedia editor. Also STL is known to make fun of lots of important people. I doubt this one skit (which may very well not be the only one about Ceausescu - the guy was quite important for a lot of time) is relevant for Ceausescu's biography.Anonimu (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be a highly polarized article right now with some users making deep statements about POV issues. Probably not the best time for this right now in any case. -OberRanks (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This Article is a Disgrace
Read above. This article is a bias, POV, dubious and unsournced nightmare, its the worst article i've seen on wikipedia so far. for example the whole section on his depature from power doesnt have even a single citation. I will delete all uncitied information because there is nothing you can do with it, its not right to go looking for sources for highly dubious claims, that would only finding support for some very POV claims, which are too dubious in the first place, they dont deserve evidence because even with citations they are too POV. Unbelievable. Even Ceausescu would have blushed at this level of propaganda. ValenShephard 00:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)


 * well, I would not say it is a "disgrace" but it's full of POV unsourced information. THAT IS NOT ACCORDING TO WIKIPEDIA STANDARDS. Please, please, if you are an expert on Romania, please update with proper sourced materials!!! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.131.72.155 (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There is certainly false information here. For example: Failing to control the crowds, the Ceauşescus finally took cover inside the building,. Well, the speech is on youtube, in two parts. He did regain control of the crowd, and finished his speech. It went on for another ten minutes or more after the disturbance.88.167.22.75 (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with the previous comment, though the article as a whole is not entirely "a disgrace". It's obvious that the version of events I (and probably most of us in the West) grew up with - that the speech was cut short by demonstrators, followed by a confused look and a rapid retreat from the building by the Ceausescus, isn't borne out by the film of the entire speech, which puts a very different complexion on what has been seen as the seminal moment in the Romanian revolution. But presumably the youtube videos are primary rather than secondary (analytical) sources, and Wikipedia prefers the latter. But I can't find a reliable source (of sufficient impregnability, given the importance of the event) that has bothered to comment, even 23 years later, on how the Western media's presentation at the time, which has subsequently become the "official" version, differs from the (apparent) reality. I'd be very grateful if someone could find a way to redress the balance. Ghughesarch (talk) 23:23, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I want to echo the thoughts of those above who like me believed the version of events to be more or less: 1) Ceausescu loses control of the crowd; look of incredulity in response to the heckling. 2) Hasty retreat inside the building. 3) Moments later, helicopter containing the Ceausescus lifts off from the roof of the building. If you watch the two videos on Youtube you will see the fairly lengthy interruption in the speech caused by a disturbance that has not to date been properly understood or documented; Ceausescu attempting to calm the crowd; order being restored; Ceausescu confidently finishing his speech to an enthusiastic, flag-waving crowd. Surely these videos can be introduced as reliable sources to improve this fundamentally important part of the article and therefore improve our understanding of exactly what happened? Bennycat (talk) 04:39, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The photo with Iliescu
A little comment on that photo in the article and about the nagging that Ceauşescu has bigger quoits. I've saw him throwing small quoits as well. Maybe they just didn't had enough small qoits, so they were using big ones also. I doubt that Ceauşescu just tried to demonstrate his superiority over that traitor Iliescu (cuz it was obvious). Others also threw the big red quoits, I've saw it ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.183.213 (talk) 23:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

"Seen it" - anyway - there's nothign wrong with comments on photographs; that is a true academic approach. If we do not have comments then Wikipedia becoems a bland "Hitler could be nice man"  useless thing. Yes too much wild comment is wrong but pointing th way for people to make up their own minds is something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.12.160 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

crime?
why is his death categorized as a 1989 crime? who says it was a crime? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.24.229 (talk) 01:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Because he was executed by a ruling which is generally accepted to have been taken in a a kangeroo court. ValenShephard 15:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Yes, he was murdered by scumbag rebels who didn't give him a trial, those who murdered him were no better than his Securiate in my opinion. Scum and vermin Feeblezak (talk) 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It was no "kangaroo court" at all, Ceausescu was just a brutal and murderous dictator and deserved death. His execution was the end of a nightmare for the Rumanian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.41.227 (talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Such worthless propagandistic statements have no room on Wikipedia. Go run a political blog if you feel forced to spew such mendacious, opinionated bile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.93.91 (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Mine is no bile, but the truth. - Zorobabele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.41.12 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Atheist?
Are there any sources confirming that Ceauşescu either was, or was not, an atheist? An infobox notation identifying his religion as "atheist" was recently removed, but a "Romanian atheists" category annotation remains. There are a couple of references to him in the article in relation to religion, but they don't sound at all like he had explicitly, openly renounced religion or had made any sort of concerted effort to suppress the Orthodox Church in Romania. If the only basis for calling him an atheist is that he was a Communist (and that all committed Communists are presumed to be atheists by definition), that would be WP:OR / WP:SYNTH, and the claim shouldn't be in the article. On the other hand, I could easily believe that he was in fact an atheist — I'm just saying we need to document this with sources if it's true. I'm going to remove the "Romanian atheists" category membership from the article; if anyone has a reliable source specifically identifying Ceauşescu as an atheist, please feel free to put this info back (along with an inline citation to said source). Richwales (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a communist he would need to be an atheist in public. 10:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.105.89 (talk)

Well if he would need to appear an atheist in public I would assume he would have to make suggestions about his lack of belief- which as far as I can tell he didn't. His wife apparently was vehemently anti-religion, though he himself seemed not to promote a particular attitude towards it (to follow the logic of Marx, the conditions that required the illusion had not yet been removed). Here is an interesting article relating to it- http://www.rri.ro/art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=33257. Ninahexan (talk) 07:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ceauşism or Ceauşesism?
I think that the word Ceauşesism sounds better than Ceauşism, because we should make more accent on the name of the politician. We just got used to short (usually monosyllabic or disyllabic) surnames such as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. and so thereby the term Ceauşism was created —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.183.213 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually it has more to do with Romanian euphony and Romanian name formation. The -escu suffix became common when the Romanian state forced its citizens to have "proper" surnames in the late 19th century, many having their nicknames "ennobled" with the -escu particle. Thus, the escu suffix is still perceived by Romanians as something not part of the name as a defining characteristic of an individual. And that's how you get things like Ceausism, Basism (in reference to Traian Basescu). Euphony however prevents this treatment from being applied to every surname ending in -escu, so mostly the name having an 's' or an 'ş' before -escu get such adjectivation. Thus "something proper to Ion Iliescu or to his rule" is never referred as Iliism or Iliesism, but rather as Iliescian(ism), and most of the time just as "of Iliescu". Similar treatment gets, for example, Mihai Eminescu.
 * On the other hand, the use of "Ceausism" as an English term in this article is rather a personal preference of the editor who wrote the section. The concept is not well established even within Romanian historiography. Some Romanian historians, translating their works into English, have "exported" it, but it didn't quite catch up. I'd say that the use of Ceausism here doesn't fully respect wikipedia's policy about WP:NEOLOGISMs.Anonimu (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Kangaroo court"
I see this ugly phrase has reared its head again. However, I have several reservations about this phrase: I'm also going to refer this to WP:ROMANIA for further discussion; I came across this article randomly and I don't want to get entrenched in further disputes (especially as I was in a dispute about this years ago, which Anonimu will surely remember). I respectfully request that we don't edit war on the inclusion of the term any further, until we have a consensus either way. Sceptre (talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The main one is that it isn't sourced, despite Anonimu's claims when reverting me (in fact, nothing about the trial or execution is sourced). Accusing something of being a kangaroo court, even if it's true (and it may be, given how the trial panned out), is a serious attack on a country's judicial system and really needs to be backed up.
 * And on this note, I fear that said sources may have a political slant. In this case, we need to examine whether said sources contribute the entire school of thought on the subject. It's often the case that articles are comprised of reliable but biased sources; Arab-Israeli articles and post-war US military articles are infamous on Wikipedia for this. Articles about Central and Eastern Europe also share this problem (especially in communist vs. capitalist bickering).
 * The use of the phrase is very rare, and limited to historically famous kangaroo courts (e.g. the Star Chamber) or is otherwise attributed to the person who accused the court of being one-sided (e.g. Assata Shakur). Hell, we have a few trials almost universally seen as one-sided where that phrase is not and does not need to be used, e.g. the Scopes Trial. The 1989 Romanian Revolution, strangely, is one of the few articles where the use of the phrase is both unattributed and unsourced, and I fear it's too early to say there's a historical consensus on this matter.
 * And finally, I note that the editor who reintroduced it recently,, seems to solely edit articles related to socialism or communism (I'm including Palestine articles here, as most pro-Israelis are right-wing and most pro-Palestinians are left-wing). The editor also has several warnings for NPOV violations, which suggests that the editor's political views are clouding their tone of writing.

2010-07-21 --- I know that, in several TV documentaries, they mentionned that the entire court process was more for show than anything else. From what had been said in the documentaries, many people involved in the process were trying to save their own necks (clearly I'm freestyling on the wording) and so it was more for show than anything... Can I back up my claim? No, the documentaties in mind I saw a few years ago... don't remember the names and I don't know where they got their sources from either. I'll try to keep my eyes and ears open to find those titles for reference purposes. (Mrs. Perez) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.245.2 (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have a source handy, but every account I've seen has agreed on this. How else can one characterize a capital trial lasting part of a day, with no time to prepare a defense and with execution following immediately upon the "guilty" verdict? Should be easy enough to cite for. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We could link to show trial instead. "Kangaroo court" throws doubt on the entire judicial system, while "show trial" throws doubt on only the trial (which, by the way, I'm not even disputing). Sceptre (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, a show trial is a trial in which the letter of the law is generally respected, but the result is set beforehand. Ceausescu's trial didn't respect even basic rules, such as the defence attorney acting as a prosecutor (we had the script on commons some times ago, you can check for youself) or no time for appeals. Neither of the terms implies that all the judicial system is flawed (although, considering that his "judgement" - not the process - was based on a penal code signed into law by Ceausescu himself, I'm surprised that you try to defend the system itself). Sources are enough: GBooks results (on my PC, the first source is a HRW report - pro-Communist?!!?). Also, I thought you had learned by now not to comment editors, but content.Anonimu (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not defending the judicial system; just that, without a historical consensus, we can't really, in our words, accuse any judicial system of wrongdoing for ethical reasons (although, admittedly, authoritarian states often have a high incidence of show trials); otherwise, we seem to be "vindicating" the people seen as the villains in the story.
 * As to the "show trial"/"kangaroo court" distinction: I see the first term as a verdict of a singular trial, and the second as a verdict of a judicial system (i.e. the People's Court of Nazi Germany). And the article on "show trial" contradicts you: it says that due process and the rule of law aren't even followed in most cases. Additionally, Ceausescu's trial fits all of the criteria listed in the article from a purely objective point of view, as well as being an accurate and more neutral term than "kangaroo court".
 * On the sources, I'm pretty wary about using human rights NGOs as impartial sources. They're not communist, but have institutional biases (famously, HRW, Amnesty, and the UNHRC all have come under criticism for their reports on the Arab-Israeli conflict). However, I will concede that the school of thought does show a consensus that the trial was a travesty of justice.
 * Sidenote: if you're trying to establish the existence of a consensus on a contentious issue, don't just search for one side. Search for a neutral term; instead of "Ceausescu kangaroo court", I used "Ceausescu trial" instead.
 * And finally, on the subject of "comment on the content, not the contributor". You are right that, in general, we should not make comments on the contributor and assume good faith, however, it does not mean we can't make said comments when it's acceptable. Valen has, unfortunately, a history of solely editing articles associated with left-wing politics, and a history of non-neutral editing. It's not inappropriate to say there may be evidence of non-neutral editing given past behaviour.
 * Sceptre (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that a widespread view, or it's just yours? I'm not a native English speaker, but I've never found such a distinction between the two terms. I don't know about our article, but from what I know from the classic show trials (the Stalinist ones in the late 30s in the Soviet Union and early 50s in Eastern Europe), a simulacrum of due process was preserved, and if someone survived to trial, he was given all the instruments to defend himself (of course, all were sham, but they were preserved for the show part of the show trial). Ceausescu's was not like that, its duration (less than an hour) being a prime indicator of that.
 * Ok, so I understand that you agree on the concept, but dispute the wording. I still consider "kangaroo court" is the best wording, so I guess we'll have to wait for further input before changing the article.
 * Sidenote: The standard reply in some circles of Wikipedia you were acquainted with a couple of years ago would be: show me sources saying the Ceausescu's trial was not a kangaroo court. However, I understand the absurdity of such a request, and I won't press for it (however, if you find such a source, please leave a note).
 * He has a clean block log, so he surely hasn't been disruptive. About him being left-leaning, I see no problem with that, as I see it as normal for an editor to contribute in a subject area he is more acquainted with, through education, life experience and yes, political options. (Considering the recurring theme of the Middle East conflict and our past history, I infer you are right wing... is this enough to dismiss your arguments?). As for Valens allegedly non-neutral editing, you should have strong proofs to back such accusations, otherwise it could be construed as a personal attack. I for one can't see any sign of non-neutral editing in his last 10 edits (i.e. not more than the usual content contributors, as any editor who doesn't limit himself to copyediting can be suspected of some conflict of interests).Anonimu (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how widespread my interpretation of the two terms is, but the terms themselves, to me, indicate two similar-but-distinct terms: one for the proceedings, and one for those undertaking them. I draw my understanding of show trials from institutions such as the Star Chamber, as opposed from your understanding from the communist sphere of influence. Neither's wrong, of course.
 * Re the question of sources: I'm approaching the question of the use of the term from a blank slate: i.e., I'm building from the concept "Ceausescu was executed after a brief televised trial", which raises no possibility of political bias: everything is undeniably factual. The addition of such terms as "kangaroo court" adds politics into the matter, and I'd prefer to keep Wikipedia as apolitical as possible. I believe the absence of the term does not indicate that the term does not apply; rather, that we did not need to use the term in our encyclopedic coverage.
 * Re Valen: before reverting him the first time, I did a check on his editing history. From the history, I could infer that Valen was interested in left-wing politics, and that this may be a cause for concern: mostly because the Gaza flotilla article was in the history, and earlier, Israel's borders with the Palestinian territories and Egypt. Without these articles, I would've seen it as simply someone interested in Soviet/national histography, but the inclusion of Middle East articles made me cautious. I then checked his talk page, where he has several warnings for non-neutral editing on the Gaza flotilla article. The message several sections up from this also gave me cause for concern. Sceptre (talk) 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, as a native English speaker, I would say "kangaroo court" does not imply a lasting institution. For example, in the U.S. we would refer to an ad hoc pseudo-trial before a lynching as a "kangaroo court". Conversely, I wouldn't call what happened to the Ceauşescus a "show trial", which tends to suggest more a trial in which all the normal forms are followed, but the evidence is faked (often including coerced confessions) and the sentence is decided in advance. An example would be the trials of supposed Trotskyists in the Stalinist Soviet Union or, arguably, the trial of the Rosenbergs in the U.S. in the same era. The Ceauşescu trial did not follow even the formalities of a normal trial. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If any of you had doubts over my intentions why didnt you simply ask me instead of wholesale guessing? I think Ceausescu is as bad as all good sources say and my intention for wanting to include that the trial was 'unfair' or something along these lines is because thats what I had read and heard. Here are some sources:

Here one of the three executioners of the dictator in the Times says:

'it wasn’t a trial, it was a political assassination in the middle of a revolution'

In this same source a transcript of the trial is also present. The chief prosecutor says:

'I have been one of those who, as a lawyer, would have liked to oppose the death sentence, because it is inhuman. But we are not talking about people.' This doesnt sound like the wording of a fair and unbias trial does it?

In the trial, the accused had no real defence, as can be seen by their defender never opposing what they are charged with and stressing that the trial should be totally legal, hinting that this trial could be double guessed later as we are discussing now. <

This hints at the trial not including a due process: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-03/local/me-126_1_andrei-sakharov-street

This article discusses it as being a 'kangeroo court': http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091224/romania-nicolae-elena-ceausescu

Other sources are not hard to find and I could supply them but I dont have the energy now. You should have all consulted me instead of guessing my intentions and politics. ValenShephard 13:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)


 * Well if its that simple, lets say unfair trial or show trial. Both I think are pretty accurate. I think we should also include somewhere that quote from one of the executioners and also the transcript of the 'trial'. Its very interesting information and I think it would add quite alot to the article (which on another note, I think needs a bit of work). ValenShephard 07:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of what I've said has to do with your intentions. It has to do with what the article should say, and whether this particular phrase is the appropriate one to use, vs. "show trial". I happen to agree with you that "kangaroo court" is a better choice, but this is more a discussion of appropriate phraseology than anything else. We all agree that he didn't get anything approaching a fair trial. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bodies to be exhumed
2010-07-21 The bodies are Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife are to be exhumed today. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_re_eu/eu_romania_ceausescu_exhumed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.245.2 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"The image of Ceauşescu's uncomprehending expression..."
In reference to this line: "The image of Ceauşescu's uncomprehending expression as the crowd began to boo and heckle him remains one of the defining moments of the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. " - does anyone have a pic of that? I think that's the one picture of him that I would really like to see here. Jedikaiti (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've saw only a video on Youtube. If I'll try to make a pic from it, the resolution will be remarkably low —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.183.213 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why there are two different pictures of Nicolae Ceauşescu cemetery monuments?
The one in the article claims to be from 2008. The current one here (http://img.lenta.ru/articles/2010/07/21/ceausescu/pic002.jpg) looks like has been taken in 2010. Was it changed between 2008 and 2010? Yurivict (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Did SOMETHING happend to Ceauşescu in 1983?
I've found this video, and I was very suprised. At first, what's with that scar on his nose? And why his hair is so unusually short? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.194.119 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicu built a church? In the middle of a civil war, which was claimed to be a 1989 revolution?
After the death of his parents, Nicu Ceauşescu ordered the construction of an Orthodox church, the walls of which are decorated with portraits of his parents.

Are you sure about this? It was Nicolae, who built that church in the memory of his parents (Alexandrina and Andruţă Ceauşescu) in 1970! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.194.119 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Laughter
I was reminded when listening to the BBC that perhaps a powerful impetus was given to Ceauşescu's downfall when, during an as usual lengthy and boring speech, one particular item brought an outburst of unintended laughter from the assembled citizens. At present I have nothing that is sufficiently well sourced to be included in the article but I suggest this very human reaction played a small but significant role in his downfall. --Damorbel (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Conflicting information with another article
In the article about the Economy of Romania is stated that the "Economic growth was further fueled by foreign credits in the 1970s, but this eventually led to a growing foreign debt, which peaked at $11–12 billion;[28] the latter was largely paid off during the 1980s..." and in this article it is stated that the debt was paid back in full. Just wondering if the dabt was actually paid back to last penny or just largely paid back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.55.65 (talk) 14:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC) - Note: None of the "operas" he is credited with were actually written by him. In the latest years there was a large apparatus dedicated to writing his speeches, books and Elena's too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.114.67 (talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Where are the archives?
Earlier parts of this page have been archived off, but there's no link to them that I can see. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

More detail
More information should be given about any bank accounts in Ceausescu's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The golden plates should be substantiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 17:03, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ceausescu's height

 * Romanian state television was under strict orders to portray him in the best possible light. Additionally, producers had to take great care to make sure Ceauşescu's height—he was 5 feet 5 inches (1.65 m) tall—was never emphasized on screen.

Romania, like every country in the world except the USA, uses the metric system. Therefore Ceausescu's height should be presented in metric first and Imperial second. But do we have a precise figure for his height in metric? J I P &#124; Talk 13:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Why shall it be presented in inches if it is an international enciclopaedia? I have to take a look if the speed of light for instance is presented in miles/s too, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.30.92 (talk) 08:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

The 'S' in his name
Can someone please explain why this page is at 'Nicolae Ceaușescu' and not 'Nicolae Ceauşescu'? [On my computer at least] The 'S' in the previous version seems to be of a different font and not an appropriate size compared to the rest of the text. In fact, throughout the text, the second, better typeset version appears. Can somebody explain the difference to me please and why the page is at its current title? Thanks,  Oreo Priest  talk 20:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems because the character is and should be an S-comma, i.e. the specifically Romanian "ș". Previously a S-cedilla - an "ş" - was used, because the S-comma was a character not available before Unicode 3.0. It seems that the page was moved to the correct name spelling last year, but the page text was not changed accordingly. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Timişoara
This sentence has serious grammatical problems: "There was more, than one thousand killing and many wounding men, women and children."

There also appears to be some dispute about the numbers killed at Timişoara. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/timisoara-massacre/

However I have no expertise on this subject, so am loath to make a correction. --DecBrennan (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Early Life and Career Gaps
Did Ceaușescu go to prison for some offence between "becoming an apprentice shoemaker" (circa 1929) and "Soon after being freed" (circa 1940)? There is a reference to "captured in 1936" and Doftana Prison only on the accompanying image caption but details of neither crime nor sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.176.118 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

nuts to no bias
a major problem with wikipedia in general * outside of the glacial slowness of revisions * is that it is totally bloodless * somehow the excellent and admirable insistance on in line references in some cases allows extreme bias of a much SUBTLER sort to creep in * it is one thing to mention genocide in the abstract * the full truth is that MOST OF THE POPULATION WERE LIVING IN MEDIEVAL CONDITIONS * LITERALLY IN MUD HUTS * repeat * MUD HUTS * and the there was a CONSCIOUS AND WRITTEN POLICY TO PRODUCE A LITERAL SLAVE STATE BASED ON ORPHANAGES * VIDEOS CIRCULATED WORLD WIDE OF SHAVED HEADED TODDLERS SITTING IN ROWS OF WOODEN TOILETS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING FORCE FED BY BABUSHKAS WITH LARGE WOODEN SPOONS * THEY RECEIVED NO OTHER CARE AND WERE DESTINED FOR THE FACTORIES * this man was in no way a communist * however one may feel about comunism * no other deposed dictator * either in central america or even the former eastern bloc * was so sumarily executed * without some way of presenting this the essential point is missed that this man was more insane than hitler * making the article useless as a truthfull representation of history * 74.78.2.94 (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)GRUMPY

Facial expression
The article says: "Ceaușescu's facial expression (perhaps reflecting realisation) as the crowd began to boo and heckle him remains one of the defining moments of the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe."

It seems to me that if it is that defining we should try and procure and include a picture of this if a suitable one is available? That sentence has certainly left me extremely curious... GoddersUK (talk) 08:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Seven years on, an either nobody bothered, or his friends & heirs saw to it that it doesn't stay in the article. Arminden (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comments
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Date of birth correction
Romanian WP is now showing him born on 23 January 1918, based on a birth certificate discovered after his death. His birth was registered on 26 January, three days after his birth, and the date of the registration somehow became the birth date that appeared in all sources. This needs now to be corrected to 23 January 1918. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, because this was recorded in 1918 when Romania was still using the Julian calendar (it didn't switch to the Gregorian until 1919), we should note that 23 January 1918 is a Julian date that's equivalent to 5 February 1918 Gregorian. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The difference between official & real date of birth is said to have been caused by his father's drunkedness: he missed for 3 days to register the newborn. Maybe good sources (RS) can be found. Apart from that: the difference between Julian and Gregorian is of 13 days, so that has no bearing here, is a different issue altogether. N.b.: when calculating the exact age, as done automatically by the infobox code, one must use Greg. dates for both birth & death. Arminden (talk) 10:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word "regime" vs Alternative words (NPOV breach? Opinions please)
As can be seen in the article history, I made an edit to this page whereby I removed 19 references to the word "regime" and this contribution has attracted criticism. The subject was briefly broached here (this is the closing edit). The matter in unsettled and so I am transferring the notes here.

User:X4n6 has taken exception to my removal of "regime" by citing that reliable sources widely use this term. He also described my substitute words as POV. In response, I tried to explain to this user that "regime" is loaded language, and I sought to enquire what the problem had been with my substitutions which had been deemed POV by asking a few questions which he was welcome to answer in his own words. He responded with a retort informing me that:
 * I have a fundamental misunderstanding of the project
 * I believe Wikipedia encourages editorial opinion
 * Wikipedia is not a forum to promote my views
 * The project only uses reliably sourced material

He then conceded that the words I used did not violate WP:NPOV but my removal of "regime" for my own reasons did thereby I missed the point. He then added:
 * Nobody cares about my views on Obama or Ceaușescu
 * If I am only prepared to push POV beliefs then the project is not for me
 * All here

I have no idea how to respond to a set of remarks which are right on the knife edge of ad hominem. I merely suggested that despite the wide usage, it was a clear example of loaded language which I believe corroborated the amendments, but the opposing editor hasn't offered proof that I am wrong in my assertion and that the term is neutral.

During the short time this debate was on the FRINGE theory discission, User:Sławomir Biały remarked in support of the word "regime" with this point: he noted a 10:1 ratio in favour of "regime" over "government" and affirmed that this term should not be removed due to editorial preference.

My response to Sławomir Biały's observation is that whilst the statistics he provided are correct, the point is ignoratio elenchi because it does not address the concern that "regime" constitutes loaded language. If this sounds repetitive or is not clear, consider the following details: 1. "Saddam Hussein was a leader" 18 results 2. "Saddam Hussein was a president" 2 results 3. "Saddam Hussein was a tyrant" 27,000 results (from all types of source)

Number of sources does not provide a licence to favour loaded language over inoffensive NPOV words.

One more thing on the statistics: "Ceaușescu regime" and every one of its companions (i.e. Ceaușescu's regime, the Communist regime, 'regime' by itself, or Romanian regime for contemporary purposes) are comprehensive terms which - when used unsparingly - not only substitute "government" but just about any single legislative aparatus (e.g. authorities, rule, administration, presidency, Ceaușescu alone if enacting something, leadership, cabinet, ministry, directorate, council, several others). When adding all of these numbers, the figure suddenly jumps up. To examine my edit, I did not apply "government" every time. In fact if you look, you'll see I carefully deliberated on each amendment.

I know the term "regime" is popular and I welcome all thoughts from everybody. --OJ (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since your clear intention is to diminish my comments by calling them "knife edge of ad hominem", I have no incentive to engage you further. But, just so any other editors who follow will be aware: I will note that your responses to editors who are concerned about your NPOV edits, have been to attempt to wear them down with WP:POINTy screeds, tedious tangents, tortured polemics and transparent non sequiturs. But none of that distracts from your agenda, as espoused on your user page. You are a pro-Eastern defender/apologist/sympathizer for the Ceaușescu regime. Again, I don't care. But you may not sanitize articles on this project to conform with your brand of politics. That is your clear intent. Should subsequent editors reach that same conclusion, they may use my comments in support. X4n6 (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This time, you are the one that missed the point. We tried to discuss it on the FRINGE page but the conversation was removed for being in the wrong place. I had been unavailable to comment for about two full days. I am interested in wider opinions of course, and this is why I brought the discussion here. I found that the easiest thing was to lay out a synopsis on what had been stated so far across the various pages where all had commented. It was not my intention to misrepresent you and I apologise if I left out something you stated, or misconstrued something else. When I said on the knife edge of ad hominem, I didn't mean there was a personal attack or uncivil language, but I did sense some nerves and tension in the reply. As for my politics. The way I see it is that many users are free to trumpet their support for western regimes by claiming to live "in the European Union", supporting Israel over Palestine, supporting the US militarily, opposing Moscow, and so on. There are also templates created for these sentiments. I am from pre-1992 Yugoslavia and I happen not to share the views of many others but never do I ram this down people's throats. You and I have made a joke of the word "regime" by linking it straight after qualifying it with personally unfavourable items. I doubt you would use the term for any US aparatus, but as a Wikipedian, neither do I: I just made this edit to prove it. In fact of you check my history, I've done this a few times where it has been western bodies that were disparaged. The west as a whole makes enemies in various parts of the world. The mainstream media spread the information on their behalf, and suddenly we have countries and leaderships who are "blacklisted from the gang", their names turned to trash and you become a shill if you speak positively about Asad, Gaddafi, Saddam, Putin, or many others past and present. I'm far from being an apologist for Ceaușescu and the like, but I am here to write an encyclopedia and I know loaded language where I see it. Had it been the case that I was the sympathiser, it wouldn't have just been "regime" I changed but I might have rewritten the entire article. One glance at the article even as it stands and it is patently obvious that it is a negative figure that is being written about. 27 years on and there are still significant people in Romania who favoured the pre-1989 system and this has increased with certain young people and others who have become disillusioned with the new system. Regardless of the derogatory labels these people will be given, they are still human, and they still portray the events differently, and are backed up by other writers/scholars. Politics is not "everybody stand to the left please, persons still on the right are subhuman". --OJ (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop writing long-winded essays. Like most editors, per WP:TLDR, I won't read them. Please be concise. Also, I have restored most of your unilateral removals of "regime," because their removal lacks CONSENSUS. You may certainly launch an RfC, or request additional opinions as, to your credit, you already have. However, I believe you need to achieve that consensus before undoing the work of so many editors who have contributed to the article for so long, using the term you alone find problematic. X4n6 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've not going to repeat the points of the last paragraph. Consensus is a non-starter for both of us since very few people are interested in one article alone. In all honestly, our dispute is of a generic nature and this is why I had actually stopped looking to making these changes months ago. These days, I only make the amendment if I encounter it. My reason for having been at this article was because I was interested in the subject's incarceration at the same time as Gheorghiu-Dej. Either way, since we are talking about a loaded term, I feel it needs to be added to MOS:WTW so I will focus in that direction. --OJ (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, you continue to claim the word regime is a "loaded term" with no consensus for that claim. If/when you are successful at WTW then the changes may be made. Not just here, but project-wide. X4n6 (talk) 23:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry X4n6, whether a word is loaded boils down to whether the speaker/writer uses it positively/negatively, either way, not neutrally. Consensus has nothing to do with it. If a collective decided that "tyrant" is a neutral term then this wouldn't become the case simply because some people agreed. Looking at the way you used the word when addressing me (You are a pro-Eastern defender/apologist/sympathizer for the Ceaușescu regime.), you have proven beyond reasonable doubt that you are well aware of its overtone. --OJ (talk) 01:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that, as long as you've been here, you still lack a basic understanding of how this project works, Oranges Juicy. We do not do original research and we don't edit according to personal biases. That's non-negotiable. You are not the arbiter of terminology here. Everything require consensus. So your claim otherwise demonstrates your refusal to abide by the policies of this project. Other editors will take note.X4n6 (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Discarding your first sentence, the rest of your passage (beginning "we do not") is 100% correct and I could not agree with you more. That comment however attacks the straw man since I never engaged in OR, did not introduce personal bias, nor proclaimed myself an arbiter of terminology. As a matter of fact, I have no say in the matter since the conventions were set before my time. --OJ (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A régime is any undemocratic system of government, beginning with the ancien régime commonly in use to describe the absolute monarchy present in France before 1789. This can be used for a comparatively-moderate system of undemocratic rule (the Schuschnigg régime) or something extremely brutal, like the Nazi régime.

Is "dictatorship" or "tyranny" neutral? Hardly. Of course it is hard to consider Ceausescu in any way a democrat. Pbrower2a (talk) 09:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your assertion that a regime is "any undemocratic system of government" denotes the manner in which it is used specifically by detractors of the system. Nothing can be simpler than Washington parroting "Putin regime" and Moscow returning "Obama regime". One does not believe that the other is truly democratic. The question of what is democratic and what isn't boils down to one's opinion. IMHO, so-called "representative democracy" is a grand deception and therefore I am sceptical of all governing systems. But to accept that we can use "regime" if the system is ruled "undemocratic" in "WP:RS" and then remove the word once the system is replaced by an apparatus more favourable to "WP:RS" publishers is problematic. This implies that (giving an example here) Iraq was led by a regime until 2003, but now it is no longer a regime. This line of thought is beyond WP:OR. Either way, "regime" is a loaded word and its list of substitutes are in no way biased nor do they somehow report the content differently. --OJ (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Nicolae Ceaușescu. 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/20140726194246/http://www.realitatea.net/un-ceausescu-pe-care-nu-il-stiati-cret-cu-ochii-blonzi-si-nasul-borcanat_858565.html to http://www.realitatea.net/un-ceausescu-pe-care-nu-il-stiati-cret-cu-ochii-blonzi-si-nasul-borcanat_858565.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040302191209/http://badraie.com/guests.htm to http://badraie.com/guests.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150712075605/http://www.gov.ph/1975/05/05/presidents-week-in-review-april-7-april-13-1975/ to http://www.gov.ph/1975/05/05/presidents-week-in-review-april-7-april-13-1975/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204211613/http://www.lumeam.ro/nr12_2001/politica_si_servicii_secrete.html to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr12_2001/politica_si_servicii_secrete.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071015050852/http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/ to http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041210042547/http://www.timisoara.com/newmioc/Politic.htm to http://www.timisoara.com/newmioc/Politic.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030919012700/http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ceausescu.html to http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/ceausescu.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nicolae Ceaușescu. 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/20120203014906/http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/53-1-68.shtml to http://www.osaarchivum.org/files/holdings/300/8/3/text/53-1-68.shtml
 * Added tag to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041013005234/http://www.jurnalul.ro/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=14985 to http://www.jurnalul.ro/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=14985
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041230003913/http://clipa.com/pagpolitica638.htm to http://www.clipa.com/pagpolitica638.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

On the infobox
, his party is the Romanian Communist Party, not "Romanian Communist". One is a proper noun, the other is an adjective. He was born in a specific Romania, and died in a specific Romania. puggo (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Why only official, "nice", Securitate-approved pictures? Shameless whitewashing!
The entire set of pictures look like they've been approved by him & his wife. Continuing his personality cult on WP? Shameless beyond comprehension. Arminden (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Are there any other photos available ? Remember, the country's policies and pervasive police presence would not exactly be an advantage for anyone who were seeking an opportunity to get less formal pictures... Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Politicide
Ceaușescu was a politicide perpetrator RAMSES$44932 (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Death date?!
Why is the death date and place removed from the infobox? ColorfulSmoke (talk) 19:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Ceausescu's relationship with the Iron Guard
Hello all, I've heard from someone a while ago that Nicolae Ceausescu was favorable of the Iron Guard, encouraged nationalism in schools and other institutions, and that his political beliefs were similar to National Bolshevism. I asked a similar question here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Drum_bun#Nicolae_Ceausescu_and_Nationalism. If any of y'all can help answer my questions that would be appreciated, thanks. NoahMusic2009 (talk) 13:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)