Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu/Archive 2

When did the Army turn against him?
There seems to be a gap in this article's discussion of events. When the Ceausescus flee by helicopter, the security forces are clamping down on anti-government protesters. When they land, the police and army arrest them, and they are executed after a (very summary) "military trial".

When and how did the military and police turn against them? Kingal86 (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Stenograma
I've done my best to do an interspersed English translation at Stenograma_sedintei_de_audiere_din_14_decembrie_1994. (Someone else also did some very good work anonymously.) It's largely translated, and the sense of it is certainly clear. However, there is about 10% of it I haven't been able to translate, and I'm sure I made a few mistakes, especially because some of Filip Teodorescu's sentences really aren't sentences. Not as bad as trying to translate George Bush speaking off the cuff, but similar. Help sought. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:20, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Ceausescu the oblivious?
From the "Tensions Grow" section:

''People were divided on whether he pretended not to know the reality of the shops, or he was really unaware and cheated by his informers. The subsequent data seems to support the latter supposition.''

What subsequent data? There's nothing in the text of the article that serves to bolster this claim. I find the idea that Ceausescu knew nothing about the real state of Romania's standard of living to be doubtful and nobysmical, to say the least. That said, I am (and I think most people are) willing to be proven wrong if that makes the reality of the situation known. But this assertion is made without any qualification beyond a reference to non-specific "subsequent data" that is neither linked to nor cited and it seems to have gone entirely unchallenged here until now. Can anyone provide some reputable source beyond personal conjecture to back up this statement? (anon 22 March 2005)


 * Some people believe(d) that, but is not like there were polls on that subject under the communist regime :). If had to be said in the article, it should be something like "There are some opinions that ...". But that wouldn't very too much in the Wikipedia style.MihaiC 07:34, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proletcultist
To the best of my knowledge "proletcultist" is not an English word. Is this the precise Romanian word? (Never heard it in Romania, either, but I was never in Romania before 2001, and I gather that it would be a Communist-era term). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * I never heard of it. Neither in English or Romanian. I will check the Romanian "DEX" dictionary.MihaiC 07:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Here's the DEX definition bogdan &#676;ju&#643;k&#601; | Talk 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * PROLETCULTÍSM s.n. Curent cultural (ap&#259;rut în Uniunea Sovietic&#259; dup&#259; Revolu&#355;ia din Octombrie) ale c&#259;rui principii estetice se reduceau la ideea form&#259;rii unei culturi &#8222;pur proletare&#8220; &#351;i care respingea întreaga mo&#351;tenire cultural&#259; a trecutului. &#8211; Dup&#259; rus. proletkul'tov&#351;cina.
 * Doh! I didn't thought to search for DEX online :(. I checked it at home. I think that I was sleeping at the communism education class :). I am not sure how to translate it, maybe Joe Mabel will do it.MihaiC 06:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Translating that: "PROLETCULTISM (noun) Cultural current (which appeared in the Soviet Union after the October Revolution) whose aesthetic principles reduce to the idea of forming a "purely proletarian" culture and which totally rejected the cultural inheritance of the past. &#8211; From the Russian proletkul'tov&#351;cina." Unsurprisingly, as far as I know we don't have a equivalent English word, or at least not a cognate or one of much currency. (I think I have seen "prole-cult", maybe in Orwell?) The concept probably deserves an article, at which point we could link. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Only a handful of Google hits for "prole cult" or "prole-cult", but they are all in this sense. "Prolecult" gives 86 hits, but only about a third of them English-language and relevant (apparently some DJ did a mix called "Red Jerry's Prolecult Mix"; given "Red", this is probably an allusion to the same). "Proletarian Culture" gets over 800 hits, mostly on the mark, including using it to translate a title of a work by Leon Trotsky. Britannica has an article "Proletkult", which begins, "Proletkult (Russian: "Proletarian Culture")&hellip;"; "Proletkult" gets 5,940 hits, but a lot are French or German, and some seem to be a proper noun for an actual early Soviet cultural insitution. It looks to me like a toss-up between "Proletarian Culture" and "Proletkult"; I'll use both here, as should the article on the topic when someone writes it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:08, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Recent reversion
I just reverted an undoubtedly well-intentioned, but ill-conceived, removal of all redlinks from the article. I left the editor in question a note on his talk page. I apologize for not leaving a clear edit summary; I have trouble on my connection editing large pages except one section at a time, but rollback works fine. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:44, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please let's discuss...
...rather than edit-war.

Timothy687 changed "The referendum yielded results typical for Communist states of that era: a nearly unanimous "yes" vote" to "The referendum yielded results typical for all contemporary Romanian constitutional revisions: a nearly unanimous "yes" vote." Given that the October 2003 referendum received 89.7% support -- overwhelming, but far from the 99+% typical in Communist states of that era -- it seems to me that the "Communist states" version is more accurate. Unless someone can state a clear case for the other text, I intend to restore.

Timothy687 also changed "He forbade HIV-testing of blood donors..." to "He did not foresee HIV-testing of blood donors". I have no idea whether the former statement is accurate; however, the latter is certainly misleading at best. Ceau&#351;escu was in power until almost the end of 1989, by which time there was no question of "foreseeing" HIV-testing of blood donors. By the mid-1980s, this testing was common practice almost everywhere in the world. Romania made a choice to dispense with a precaution that was common practice elsewhere. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:07, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * i can add that the problem of Aids was well known in Romanian media, but it was presented as "the plague of the decadent capitalist countries" -- Criztu 05:40, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There was no need for any law to prevent HIV-testing from happening, since the overwhelming majority of the hospitals/blood banks were lacking the necessary equipment to begin with. Is any of you guys really aware of the existence of such a law? The real problem is that there was no law requiring that blood donors be tested for HIV, and no interest from the government's part to make this possible. Hence, I would suggest the following compromise: "HIV-testing for blood donors was neither required by law, nor was it being practiced at that time. ..." DrFlo1 18:35, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * i think what the communist system did was to ignore medical statistics (there were people infected with aids, but this fact wasn't made public) and treat the problem as "aids hapens only in the capitalist countries" -- Criztu 13:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm going with DrFlo1's suggestion. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

On my other point &mdash; "typical for Communist states of that era" vs. "typical for all contemporary Romanian constitutional revisions" &mdash; no one has replied. I am restoring the former. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The recent change of pronunciation&mdash;from nik-oh-LA-ye cha-ow-SHESS-koo to neek-oh-Lai chee-O-SHESS-koo&mdash;seems wrong to me. Any other opinions before I revert it? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

it's wrong - revert it. the correct pronounciation is ni-koh-lah-yeh cha-oo-shess-koo Stefan Udrea 11:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

The Revolution
The section named "The Revolution" should have its named changed into "The Events of December 1989" since what happened is very controversial in Romania.Calling those events "revolution" is a POV and many romanian intelectuals don't accept it. Stefan Udrea 11:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Death
An anonymous editor recently changed "a firing squad" to "an army officer with a submachine gun". I have no idea of the facts of the matter, but this is an uncited change to a longstanding passage, so I thought I'd flag it. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:15, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Death: Think again, please !
---Dear comrade, there exists a video of the Ceausescus' execution. One single army officer liquidated them, whit his MP, sadisticly (one might say 'typicalfy' balkan-cruel) he first fired at Ceausescus' ....(lower abdomen)- Anyhow, I've seen it on TV, here in Germany. Anonymous, 31. August 2005 - Here more info: the telecast was on German 'PHOENIX', 27/11/2004 - "Henker. Der Tod hat ein Gesicht" (23.05-0.35). It was one single romanian officer named Ionel Boeru, who shot the Ceausescus. The video of the execution was shown in this telecast. No firing squad (several men !) at all. Thank you very much - See: http://www.wdr.de/tv/wdr-dok/archiv/2005/050225_02.phtml (with Boeru's photo at the top). IT COULD BE SEEN ON THE VIDEO: IT WAS BOERU ALONE, NO FIRING SQUAD ! CAN ONE MAN BE A FIRING SQUAD !!!? -- Other two members of the firing squad (Ovidiu Gheorghiu and Dorin Cîrlan) claim -in gruesome details- that they fired too.

Someone needs to look at this recent removal of several paragraphs
Uncommented anonymous removal of several paragraphs. Some of what was removed looks POV, so I'm not simply reverting, but it looks like most of what was removed belongs here. I'm about to stop for the night, could someone else look at this? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:50, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Abortion entirely missing??
I did a find against the page, looking for discussion of the infamous policy of outlawing abortion, and the word "abortion" doesn't occur at all in the article?? Fallthrough 16:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Box
I find the recently added box ugly: much too wide, poorly styled. What do others think?

Also, I think "Profession: shoemaker" is downright condescending. Yes, at the age of 11 (11!) he apprenticed to be a shoemaker. By this standard, my "profession" is newspaper delivery boy. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * yes but you moved on from newspaper delivery.. did ceausecu ever had a different job than shoemaking? (i'm asking, i'm not certain)
 * Well, he was an army general... Dahn 03:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Anecdote
Something I heard from a Romanian around 1980 might make a fitting anecdote for the article. It's a joke that reflects popular opinion under his rule.
 * "One day Ceauşescu decided he wanted to learn what the people really thought of him. So he disguised himself in a factory uniform and went to a bar.  After sharing a few drinks with an average worker he leaned over and said, 'We're drinking buddies now.  We can trust each other.  Tell me, what do you think of Ceauşescu?'  The worker's face turned white with fear.  He didn't dare answer in public.  So they retreated to several safer locations.  Finally in the middle of a corn field the worker managed to whisper, 'I like him.'"

Would this be fitting? Durova 04:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL, funny joke :) Bonaparte   talk  22:37, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * haha.. good one.. :))


 * This was a popular joke in the DDR as well, told slightly differently about Erich Honecker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.129.116.155 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a sad joke, especially today, during the capitalist nightmare. BTW, there were a lot of jokes from DDR, because in DDR there was democracy or at least an advanced freedom of speech, comparing to other Warshaw Pact states and modern «democratic» Europe -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.156 (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

S-comma or S-cedilla
I read on S-comma that:
 * ''Ș ș (S-comma) is a letter which is part of the Romanian alphabet, used to represent the Romanian language sound /ʃ/ (sh).

This letter however was not part of the early Unicode versions, which is why Ş (S-cedilla) is often used in digital texts in Romanian.''

So, shouldn't it rather be Nicolae Ceaușescu instead of Nicolae Ceauşescu? Berteun 17:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No, it should not. Many computers (including most pre-Windows XP systems and some with Windows XP, as well as some Linux distributions) can't display it correctly. (i.e. they display it as the famous "square" character) bogdan 19:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Official portraits
Well... it would be great if we had one of his official portraits to put in the article. The kind of portrait that was found everywhere, from the first page of all school books to the walls of every official institution.

There was a standard such portrait in the mid-1980s, which was slightly from a side and one could see only one ear. That picture became widely known as the "poza într-o ureche" ("The picture in one ear"), a name could be translated as "the mad picture". Eventually, all those pictures had to be changed to a picture in which both his ears were shown. :-) bogdan 18:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A rough sketch of "Ceauşism": Misc issues/questions
The newly added section "A rough sketch of 'Ceauşism'" has much good material, but it also has many issues. I'll make some cleanup edits to this section, but there are things that need clarification before they can be cleaned up: Jmabel | Talk 04:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. "This feature can be explained&hellip;": what "feature"? The failure to gain an academic toehold? (I'd guess that is what is meant but it's unclear, I figured I'd ask before editing).
 * 2. "Ceauşescu attempted the inclusion of his views in mainstream Marxist theory, to which he added his belief in a "multilaterally developed socialist society", as a necessary stage between the Marxist concepts of Socialist and Communist societies (a critical view reveals that the main reason for the interval is the disappearance of the State and Party structures in Communism)." This is very confusing. Does the first phrase mean "Ceauşescu wished to have his views accepted as part of mainstream Marxist theory"? Insofar as "attempted" carries any weight, of what did this attempt consist? I believe the rest of this before the parentheses means that he argued that between socialism and communism would come a distinct phase he called a "multilaterally developed socialist society". Right? But we don't give the slightest clue what that would mean. Then we have parenthetically "a critical view"&mdash;whose? if it can't be cited, it doesn't belong&mdash;"reveals"&mdash;that presumes the truth of this view, which even if it is a citable opinion we should not do&mdash;"that the main reason for the interval is the disappearance of the State and Party structures in Communism." So do I understand this as someone (who?) saying that he advocated an additional stage because, having claimed to establish socialism he wished to postpone any question of the "withering away of the state"? If citable, this is worth saying (more clearly).
 * 3. "An Encyclopedic Dictionary entry in 1978" (meaning a Romanian Encyclopedic Dictionary, I presume? Title, publication info? "underlines the concept" (of the "multilaterally developed socialist society", I'm guessing on about a third reading? There's way too much text between the first mention of the expression and its definition, but before I try to fix anything I want to make sure I've understood correctly). "hellip;the 1971-1975 [sic] Five-Year Plan": why "[sic]"?
 * 4. "The main trait observed&hellip;" observed by whom? Or do we just mean "The main trait of Ceauşism&hellip;
 * 5. "&hellip;even alluding to an unlawful Soviet presence in Bessarabia" Meaning the Moldavian SSR? Or meaning something else at some other point in history?
 * 6. "Alexander Dubček's version of Socialism with a human face was never suited to Romanian goals." Meaning, I presume Ceauşescu's goals (since there were certainly Romanians who would have favored this)? Have I understood correctly?
 * 7. "The system exacerbated its nationalist traits&hellip;": "the system" is vague, what are we talking about here? and what is the referent of "its"? Ceauşism?
 * 8. "The regime continued its cultural dialogue with ancient forms": I don't think "dialogue" is the term you want to use here: "dialogue" suggests a give-and-take. To have a "dialogue with ancient forms" would suggest a serious intellectual inquiry in which those ancient forms are somehow given voice of their own. I'm sure we can agree that nothing of the sort was happening here. Are you perhaps meaning to say "The regime incorporated ancient forms into its cultural propaganda", or do you mean something else?
 * 9. "A new generation of commited supporters on the outside confirmed the regime's character." On the outside of what? of Romania? Who would those supporters be? A generation of commited supporters suggests that there were many, but in my memories of the period there were few, and they were nearly all ethnic Romanians, this in an era when Maoists abounded, the cult of Che Guevara loomed large, and even self-proclaimed Hoxhaists were not hard to find.
 * 10. "This meant that the final 1980s became marked by a pronounced anti-Hungarian discourse, which owed more to nationalist tradition than Marxism, and the ultimate isolation of Romania on the World stage." Does this mean (1) "This meant that the later 1980s were marked by a pronounced anti-Hungarian discourse, which owed more to nationalist tradition and the ultimate isolation of Romania on the World stage than it owed to Marxism" or (2) "This meant that the later 1980s were marked first by a pronounced anti-Hungarian discourse that owed more to nationalist tradition than Marxism, and ultimately by the isolation of Romania on the World stage"?
 * 11. "In a tragic twist&hellip;": is there someone to whom to attribute that adjective "tragic"? Otherwise this is unwarranted POV.


 * Hope you don't mind, I numbered your questions so that answering would be easier.


 * 1. Yes, that feature (did I mention any other?)
 * 2.a. The attempt consisted of him being a Marxist leader of a Marxist country, following Marxist principles... which he amended. That should mean that a thing introduced by Ceausescu had become part of the official dogma, alongside "Marxist-Leninist thought". It is not an obscure gesture. b. The text sound this awkward because I did not want to repeat things already said in the article (see the first section). The critical view is, in fact, any critical view. Before you think that I am biased, consider that Romania had "built Socialism" around 1964, and it was supposed to rapidly head for a classless/stateless/beaurocracyless society.
 * 3. You're right, that was an unfortunate quagmire of grammar. Sorry. However, you got the meaning right. The dictionary is Romanian (named in the references section). The sic is there because the Five-Year Plan isn't exactly five years: 1971-1975.
 * 4. Yes.
 * 5. The Moldovan SSR and the Budjak. Perhaps I should've said "Russian presence" (since it was carried out ever since 1812), but the text was aimed at the Soviets foremost. Aside from the fact that the "Moldovan SSR" is not Bessarabia (it's part of it), "unlawful Soviet presence in the Moldavian SSR" would've been nonsensical (since, without the USSR, there would be no Moldavian SSR").
 * 6. Yes.
 * 7. I had tried to avoid repetition. The political system in Romania. Its own traits.
 * 8. Your phrasing.
 * 9. I don't think "new generation" implies many. It just implies "nearer in time". Fine, your way is better.
 * 10. The second option.
 * 11. Ok, not tragic. You find an unbiased adjective for the fact that Ceausescu, who had been supported by people who believed him anti-Soviet, had come by then to ask for the USSR to stop kidding around. That adjective should also explain that this is the reason why he himself started shooting his own people. Is it reallyb pov to say that advocating mass violence is tragic?Dahn 07:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. Where is there any evidence that he rehabilitated Antonescu? Why would he do this when he himself was put into a concentration camp. At least get your history straight before you start throwing around ridiculous accusations with nothing to back it up. In fact the only information I have found about anyone attempting to rehabilitate Antonescu is ultra-nationalists, after the execution of Ceausescu. This implies that no attempts were made to rehabilitate him before. I think this part should be removed, as it is a serious accusation with no factual evidence to back it up. (RedFront)


 * 1) That is not a question. It's a statement.
 * 2) It was not a "concentration camp". He was interned. I mean, following this logic, why would he have still been a communist if he had to rehabilitate all those people killed in the 1930s etc.? He did both to suit his interests.
 * 3) True, most allegations belong to the Post-Revolution realm. However: the Marin Preda novel - Delirul; Istoria militara a poporului roman; the rhetoric that alluded to Bessarabia etc. The thing has been discussed in such books as Miturile comunismului romanesc. Again, it doesn not mean that Ceausescu had become convinced that Antonescu was good - just that he was useful (and he was - look at the number of people who still claim that Delirul "opened their eyes" or "made justice for a great man". Many of them are among the 70% of the population that are casual and/or complicit Holocaust deniers. One cannot forget Ceausescu's (even incidental) contribution to preserving older prejudice - he might fall out of favor with older people who say "We used to have a country, then the Jews, Gypsies, and Communists took it away". But he does not with their sons and daughters.
 * 4) The article clearly states that he did not turn Antonescu into a myth. If you feel like rephrsing, go ahead. But don't erase.Dahn 11:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda Due
It has been alleged that Ceaucescu was a member of Propaganda Due (P2), the outlawed masonic lodge involved in Italy's strategy of tension and closely related to the Gladio "stay-behind" Nato paramilitary organizations during the Cold War. Can anybody give info about that, or/and translate this source. It is marked as reference under P2's page, but nobody over there has translated yet. An introduction to Lumeam would also be welcome, as to know where the ref comes from. I don't know the value of this info, but P2 certainly is a major part of Cold war history. Santa Sangre


 * Frankly, I wouldn't give a dime for what Lumea states. At best, it is a counter-reference of sorts. I'm willing to bet the connection was deduced from the (very likely true) idea that Iosif Constantin Drăgan was connected to Gladio. As such, it looks to me like the prevalent Romanian attitude that Free Masons are behind anything. I recommend caution. (Not to say that you did not display it, Santa Sangre. But I think even "allegedly a member" is an overstatement.) Personaly, I think what happend to Ceauşescu in the 1980s shows that his connections to anything Western were mere facade. Dahn 19:21, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I first heard of this connection from a Romanian freemason several years ago, but I didn't paid much attention on what he was saying, so I can't tell you any conspiracy theory. :-) bogdan 19:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hope I didn't seem rude, Bogdan. I did not mean to say that you advocate conspiracy theories, far from it. However, I for one do not think this is credible. Lumea speculated, and I guess so did the freemason. If I'm wrong and they aren't, than, since membership is supposed to be secret, we will never have reliable info on this. I myself have to ask: would it make any difference? Where was the masonry in 89? I'm sure Lumea would say "oh, he was out by then". Facts point to another conclusion or to the insignificance of thisun if true. Dahn 19:53, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have checked the link. The mention should be removed altogether:


 * It is an interview with Securitate general Nicolae Pleşiţă, who (besides being semi-illiterate) has repeatedly made biased allegations against dissidents and broadcasters of the Radio Free Europe, and claimed that the West was tricked by the USSR (and the Jews, of course...) into getting rid of an ally. This is to say that any reference to Gladio should imply that it was doing a good job, until peaceniks took over in Washington etc. Surreal.
 * As far as I have read, Lumea goes against journalism ethics. The title says "Ceauşescu was a mason", but what Pleşiţă seems to say is (again, as far as I have read) vague (and mediocre) sentences such as "nothing moves without help from the Freemasons" (when asked a direct question!).
 * His thinking is on par with conspiracy theorists. Amongst the "everything" that was helped along by the Freemasons, he cites the October Revolution. Surely, he would have a long way to go in order to explain how come they initiated Bolshevism and ended up helping anti-Soviets. I mean, even if they would really "move everything", they can't seem to be able to reconcile on what "everything" is.Dahn 22:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Word-by-word (ie: in the Pleşiţă interview): Indirect, masoneria l-a imbrobodit mult pe Ceausescu prin Propaganda Due.. Which is to say: Indirectly, the freemasonry TRICKED Ceauşescu a lot throgh Propaganda Due. Dahn 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

My idiotic query
I thought of this in my relaxation time: should I add him to Category:Romanian poets for the "weapons into plows" thingie? Dahn 20:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think so. He's not noted in any way as a poet. You won't include a novelist in the category poets just because he wrote a poem to include in one of his novels, so we shouldn't include Ceauşescu in the category poets just because he wrote a poem for his political speeches. bogdan 21:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

abou ceausescu's publications, i don't know if the titles of the publications are translation of the romanian ones, or the original ones. i put the name under wich they appear on uk amazon, so maybe those were the original titles Anonimu 21:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * but they're so... flawed... Dahn 21:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Scandalous (a shocked french reader)
These article is quite scandalous. Every information about Ceausescu's DICTATORSHIP, the Decreet 770 on abortion for exemple (so horrible), everything like that in this text is carefully hidded. If you can read french, I do recommand you to read the WikiFrench's article on him. If you read Ceaucescu's life you'll find out everything you find in Shakespeare's theatre on terrible kings who took power and could not manage to keep it, because they were blatantly unable to lead a country. I'm stunned that american people, who find usually that red is very red, haven't discussed the neutrality of this text. I'm totally offended by the whole content of this page. STUNNED. OFFENDED. FULL OF SADNESS. You just need to see the french page and see the picture. You will see Nicolae and Elena in a propaganda picture that is shame in front of our democracy systems. I don't base my judgments on this book, but I see more what Ceaucescu is, reading the beginning paragraph (ch. IV) of Freakonomics written by Steven D. Levitt than in all the detailed but so partial article here. I discuss too the neutrality of what this fine econonist had written, but I think he's more convincing. In Europe, what you do here is called, on the subject of the denial of the Shoah, is "négationisme" and as our countries of Europa are very touchy, we couldn't imagine here that anyone can write Ceaucescu's story and erase all what he doesn't want to see. Please correct this article.


 * You did not live in Romania. I did and my parents did.. He was a cruel ruler, an ANIMAL! You my friend are a complete idiot.. you need to read a little more, books written by people who lived under his rule.. How would you like to get 1/4 of bread each day, and no more than that??? They came in your house at 11 p.m., 2p.m. or ANY TIME they wanted and searched and took whatever they liked.. they beat the crap out of you if you even dared to say something bad about them.. you are one of the people who would deserve to live under his rule..


 * From what I understand, the French and German versions of this article are unremittingly hostile, beyond the requirements of neutrality. The article needs a lot of work, I imagine, but it shouldn't turn into the French or German pieces. ArekExcelsior 19:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

URGENT REWRITING OF VERY PARTIAL TEXT
How can I change the status of this page, to be not neutral. Please tell me. I begin on Wiki. (I have written the precedent comment) Fred82 03:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * don't change it you retard.. what kind of person would take ceausescu's side? you need to have been shot along side him and his wife..

This article must be discussed
Very very scared by some comments written here. Is anyone will to something to discuss truly this article... I cannot accept to let ignore that so many of our european brothers starved to death by a man whose lady said : "The worms never get satisfied, regardless of how much food you give them". Please, please learn french and read this article written by "communist" newpaper : L'humanité http://www.humanite.presse.fr/journal/1999-12-28/1999-12-28-301747 Fred82 03:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Fred, nothing was hidden. This article has been written in pieces, each contributed by one person. People might have omitted things, or felt that they had not researched them enough (for example, my contributions only fovcused on his ideology). Please, do not consider this article biased - nothing ommitted is ommitted on purpose, and to say that it is not-neutral is to indicate that it is in "favorable" (which, I assure you, it is not). Feel free to contribute the section: if you feel unsure about the info presented, write a draft on this talk page. Word of warning: as a person that has lived inside Romania, and has felt the full weight of shortages in his time, I have to tell you that a comparison with the Shoah is still exaggerated beyond belief; also, the abortion thing was horrific through consequences more than intentions (it's not as if someone who believes that banning abortions would increase the population would also "plan" for miscarriages that killed women). Ceauşescu was indeed a grotesque and murderous dictator, but toute proportion gardée. As to the Humanité being objective... well... far from it. I remember hearing that it was quite enthusiastic during the Revolution, and had joined the press campaign for exaggeration that, incidentally, probably contributed to there being many people dead in gunfights after Ceauşescu was shot (because it had made armed people fear each other). A Eurocommunist party would've had all reasons to spit on Ceauşescu (don't get me wrong, that's also what I do in my spare time), the last relic of Stalinist Europe. Hell, if the PCF was backing Gorbachev... See where this is going? A lot of propaganda has been flowing from the other side in the days of 89, and people like a good story more than the very grim, but less caravalesque reality. Again, this is in no way motivated by a sympathy any of us would have. It is about balance. Dahn 05:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I just noticed text referring to abortions has been removed a while back (when I was not yet watching this article). I'll have a look and bring it back. Dahn 06:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Nicolas Ceausescu "encore"
How can I not be touched by the milk and the honey of your answer, dear Dahn? But I do assure you that it is, to be brief, a bit rhetorical and it's just a way to ensure you're right to keep this page as it is. So, I see, you don't discuss seriously about my observations, that are very strong. First, it's a terrible problem to begin an article on Ceausescu not telling he's a dictator. Two, people won't read the discussion, you know it, and I find amazing the someone DARE erasing the chapter on Abortion.
 * So do I, but, if they do it again, I'll report them for vandalism. Dahn 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot bear the tenderness you use yourself to tell a story where were denonced the female aborters by the governement's pressure on aborted woman, where low-fecondated women must pay a tax not to have enough children. I cannot stand to think that a country can do that to any woman, and you know as well as me that these birth politics lead to two things that are binded : 1° women aborted illegally in scary conditions 2° the abortion become a tradition deeply anchored in the romanian wives' psychics. You suggest that this problem is weaker than it seems, but I answer who that it is so important that this kind of denial can be interpreted as violation of Human rights. Moreover, the tale of Levitt is interesting in the fact that a very simple deduction comes to mind, thanks to him : Ceausescu had been killed by the children he forced to birth. So, in the term on consequences, even if this story is not moral, and even it seems biblical or Shakespeare-like, it should be satisfying. But this explication is some a "vue de l'esprit", some peculiar view with peculiar purposes. I prefer telling that he is, as you tell it, a poor man, a mediocre man who ordered the women of his country to repopulate it, forgetting he must make peope able to feed the new generations. And that's the point.
 * You are mostly right, and that is in the article now. Dahn 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I deeply feel that Ceausescu was a sort of "pauvre type", a poor guy, that he's nothing in front of his brothers Staline, Hitler and Mao. But if we shouldn't make of a "bouc émissaire", a poor guy, we musn't forget that if this king of guy had lead a state like China, perhaps would he be himself a bit bigger, perhaps he could be man whose name sounds today as horrific as Staline's name. That's the only point where I can follow you. I think, even if you're an unable guy, you're responsible for it and for the History to judge and sack you. Hitler has been sacked, so he must be. Staline has been sacked, so he must be. Ceaucescu, "toutes proportions gardées", so. I wrote nothing revolutionnary here, everything you have read under my fingers is a sort of "consensus", a common view that is shared in the western-europe. It's a very continental point de view and I do assure you that this point of view comes from the gigantic tiredness issued of three mondial wars. So, I repeat my argument : it's not been because Ceausescu was a poor dictator that all the facts that prove he was should be occulted. Seriously, the average reader of this article will think that this man was a president like any other one. It's not true, it's false; how can it not be false? When you read an article on Bush, you know that there was a problem with the numbering of the votes, when you read an article on our former president Mitterand, you know that he worked, when he was young, for what we call now the worst ennemy of France : le Régime de Vichy. Reading Ceausescu's article on wikipedia.org just cut my breath. You see that I cannot write an article or articles because of the lack of writing a perfect english. But all my ideas are here and I hope some people will discuss the objectivity of this article, that I find dangerous.
 * I cannot account for what you read in between the lines of an article. This one mentions he was authoritarian-dictatorial, opportunistic-nationalist (and an able corrupter of public opinion, a Stalinist, a producerist, a man responsible for the murder of his own people, etc.) It would perhaps need some explaining of the personal weal6th he ammassed, as well as of his gigantor and inhuman building projects (it only has a reference to systhematization as it is). That would be adding, not erasing. Dahn 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Concerning L'humanité, you don't get it, dear Dahn, you haven't read the paper, you mix an old idea about the newspaper (I don't prize very much l'Huma) and a 1999 paper that objectivity could be found anywhere : Le Monde as Le Figaro.
 * To be fair, all Western newspapers have "enhanced" the evil of his dictatorship, for various purposes (including journalism). Note the number of victims they presented, one based on hearsay. Again, this is not to say that Ceausescu was much less evil than than that, it is to point out that the press of all colours had a field day, and that info coming out of Romania was available in an exaggerated form. Dahn 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's very very sad that some romanian people have always a "feeling" for Ceausescu. Moreover it makes think that people, when they starve, long for a dictatorship, that is to say : to obey to a guy, to admire him and to let him deprive you not because he's doing anything for you, but because he's bringing "hope" to you. When you are hungry, your eyes are focuses on your stomach and on your children's stomachs, you cannot see what's in front of your eyes. I don't blame much people to act like that, but historian musn't fall in this trap. If the whole community set up to condemn Ceausescu in some grotesque way, you can find unfair to focus on the evil things of his reign. It's kinda fair, I think, but what you don't tell is Ceausescu had accepted to play this game, that his interest was power and that his ambitions were too high in front his skills; that lead the country to his disaster. With your reasons you can think, in extending your point of view, that Hitler and Staline could be peace nobel prize and "bienfaiteurs de l'humanité".
 * How the hell do you figure? Do you even read what I post? Note: I have written the section about Ceausism. Read it, and tell me if I'm biased in his favor. Please, don't put any more words in my mouth. Dahn 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I cannot think like that, because I'm a democrat and I don't worship democracy, because democracy doesn't condemn me to worship it. You know, you must absolutely keep Shakespeare in mind when you consider Ceausescu. All his dictatorship don't learn very much more that Shakespeare's theatre. It's not only that power is evil, in its essence, it's that mediocre dictator always lead countries to death and desolation. Just see Macbeth and think of Lady Macbeth. A last thing, if you read Elena's article, you will find quite a good portrait of Nicolae's woman etc. THIS ARTICLE CANNOT STAY LIKE THAT. SORRY. IT CANNOT.
 * It can and it will. If you want to go shakesperean, write I play. Make it a good one, and I'll applaud it. Dahn 16:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Reading the modification, too quickly. I've wrote the precedent bill this morning... See you next week Fred82 21:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

DISSATISFYING ARTICLE
Thanks for the modification Dahn, but I do regret that it's not enough. It IS always scandalous. The "poem" of Ceausescu, the photo of a child holding Ceausescu's photo, the depicition of the death of the couple. All that seems very orientated to me. VERY ORIENTATED. You know why people like Ceausescu? because he ruined so well his country that there's only a dictatorship that could put some order in this mess. People are not as intelligent as you and don't think about Ceausescu's ideology or ideological choices. I do repeat. I maintain the long bill I've written, word for word. THIS ARTICLE IS NOT NEUTRAL. Sorry. "Je suis désolé"

Fred82 22:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

the article as of 9th march was pretty neutral. now it has some questionable info.. but anyway, what would be a "satisfying" article for you, one that reads "C. was a despicable dictator who killed millions of people and deserved the way he died"? Anonimu 23:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think that depicting the manner in which he died is offensive or biased. The article about the trial has some words which may be easily taken out of context, but nothing makes his trial be any less of a kangaroo court. The details have reference provided for them, and the fact that his death was defined even by Western politologists as "the last Stalinist show trial" should be relevant. Ceausescu is no less evil (or whatever the word may be) because he was tried by an illegitimate court. Nor is he disculpated etc., nor does the article depict him as a hero. The account of his death befits a biographical aricle, and so does the kid's photo (it is nowhere established that all Romanians worship him or something, and it also gives an indirect glimpse into how extended his personality cult was - as people can see the fact that his face was on the front page of books). The mention of whether "people are as intelligent as us" is sophistry, and they should be stupid indeed if they think an article is favorable to Ceausescu when in fact it quotes the idiotic poem he wrote, his many crimes, and his grotesque ideology. Bottom line: THIS ARTICLE IS NEUTRAL. Dahn 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the manner in which he died is offensive or biased. Anyway, what is evil? Defining a person as evil is very subjetive. if you take the number people who died in 6 years during the rule of ceausescu, because of ceausescu, and compare to the number who died in the 6 years of bush administration, because of bush, probably the latter number would be bigger. yet, i've seen nobody saying bush is more evil than ceausescu. Anonimu 22:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I was not arguing in favor of him being evil, and I was not arguing in favor of him being benign. Note that I was replying to someone who considers him evil, and what I wanted to point out was that the article does neither prevent someone from, nor encourage someone to consider him evil (i.e.: it leaves the interpretation to the reader, as any good article should do). I have opinions on the matter, and they both differ and resemble yours - if we are to debate this, let's use talk pages. Dahn 01:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do think the article could actually go more into a list of atrocities or allegations and stress a bit more the bad side (but I actually like the current attempt to discuss HISTORY, not histrionics and polemics). However, I must admit that the images that show Ceausescu dead do seem to arouse sympathy. It also can easily be interpreted that, since the court was a kangaroo court, its evidence was bad, QED. The article should explicitly note that, while most people agree the trial was a show trial, most observers agree that NC could have been tried fairly with the evidence that was out there, or something else obvious. And a good article can't just pretend that his actions had no moral content aside from the reader will read between the lines to pick up: That's not neutral, that's not acknowledging the elephant in the room. It's important to list atrocities, especially confirmed ones. ArekExcelsior 01:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

THIS ARTICLE IS STILL PARTIAL
I maintain firmly that this article is partial. Don't think that just only one ironical sentence from you will condemn all the arguments I've written. A friend of mine read the article : he find it scandalous, and I can assert you that's he the most objective person in the world. I contest the objectivity of this article. I invite everyone to correct this article. Fred82 15:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

i should accept as NPOV the view of a guy who says his friend is "the most objective person in the world"? :)) And i agree. the article needs a revert to be impartial. Anonimu 17:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

A DANGEROUS ARTICLE BIASED THAT DEFENDS CEAUSESCU
I maintain everything I say. Everything. I never judge myself someone telling he's "good" or "bad". But I defend Human Rights and all the article make me sick. Read the english article about Elena and the french article on Ceausescu: they're honnest. You know very well that in history no one is objective and I deeply feel that this article is subjective and "evil" (as you like to be shocked) because he pretends to be objective. But I see that I'm writing with people who agrees and have kinda "fascination" for Ceausescu. I'm very sad to see it and that's "la loi du plus fort" who will wins. You will crush me as Ceausescu crushed Romania. THIS ARTICLE MUST BE REWRITTEN BECAUSE IT HIDES THE INTENTION TO JUSTIFY CEAUSESCU'S POLITICS. THIS ARTICLE IS DANGEROUS AND YOU KNOW IT. I will do my best to write the french article, the most objectively possible. Fred82 14:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So because people haven't been objective, we shouldn't even try? You contradict yourself by then trying to claim objectivity for your viewpoint. The man was a horrendous dictator and another one of the rogue's galleries of US-backed swine, but "objectivity" is not WP's objective, neutrality and cogency is. It's not a neutral article representing the whole of human knowledge and opinion on a subject unless it includes the perceptions of those who supported him. ArekExcelsior 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Bo-o-o! Securitate is still watching you, Fred82))))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.176.156 (talk) 22:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ceausescu was the best leader Romania ever had...and...as they way things look now...ever will
he was a GREAT MAN.

he maintained PEACE in the country.

he got us out of debts.

he gave a me job, and a home.

You weren't afraid to walk on the streets.

The only, i repeat, ONLY bad thing about him was his wife.

Romania today is ruined because they killed him and because we have idiot presidents that steal money and support Bush. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.172.138.146 (talk • contribs) 27 August 2006.

Ceausescu ruled... ;) Anonimu 14:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it again you Dahn. You don't frighten me and you even seems me very sympathetic. But I maintain my point of view, that's not mine especially, that a consensus in Western Europe. Let's speak. I will study well this case next week and we'll see. Fred82 14:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Friend, I did not aim to frighten you in any way. I was just pointing out that it didn't matter if Ceausescu was evil or not, as this would be a personal point of view, whether justified or not. Hell, it is my point of view as well, but I don't go in here to convince people. Nor do I think that the article as is does give a biased view of any kind. Read it again, read all of it, and tall us what you object to (or, if need be, what your friend objects to). Frankly, I don't think any objectionable gesture of his is whitewashed in the article. The "consensus" of Western Europe is not really that - if we are talking about regular opinion, my feel is that most Westerners have taken a very skeptical view of Romania in general, not just Ceausescu (for example, most condemn Ceausescu AND his executioners for being barbaric, and they attribute barbarism to Romania itself or to the Balkans at large). In any case, it shouldn't matter, since knowledge is not based on polls that include "what people on the street, with or without knowledge of the subject, consider to be right and fair". Also, you might want to check out the aricle for Reductio ad Hitlerum. Dahn 15:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * i think you guys that support him were the people that sucked up to the authorities, secret police, and ceausecu and ate his sh*t and kissed his a**... while the whole country was starving, that bas**rd had some of the best clothes, cars, and houses in the WORLD..
 * I have never supported the man, and have only asked that this article is not to be written from a volatile and zero-sum perspective, which is what wikipedia does not, and should not do. I would consider it beyond indecency that you would write such base attacks without even bothering to read (or without seeming to able to understand my posts), but I'll let it pass given that you seem to be suffering from delirium tremens. (Btw, I added large sections of sourced criticism to the article, but you may not have been able to understand those as well.) Dahn 03:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * wasn't refering to you, i was talking about "anonimu" and the other guy (*hint, hint: "you guys that support him", which is not you)


 * are you jealous that we were and even nowadays we are more wealthy than you?... :))Anonimu 12:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * were? yes.. are? most of you not.. ati ajuns niste animale, inainte de revolutie, numa sa parati stiati.. si ceausescu va dadea firimiturile lui voua, securistilor.. dar dupa revolutie, cand trebuie sa'ti folosesti creierul sau trupul sa ajungi cineva, nu numai rautatea, muriti de foame.. si de asta ziceti ca o fost cel mai bun conducator, ca acuma ati ajuns gunoaie, si pe vremea lui ati fost "mari oameni"
 * cine crezi ca sunt cei ce conduc Romania azi? capitalisti noi rasariti dupa revolutie!?! cui ii spunea dom ofiter de secu basescu sa traiasca bine?... la milogii astia de capitalisti? tot securistii conduc tara si acum am devenit si mai bogati... ca inainte daca erai prea batator la ochi iti faceau baietii de la directia intai o vizita... ce UE, ce PNA/DNA/blablabla... acu, daca stii un'sa sari cu banu nici in cot nu te doare...

Some Observations
This is a good article and I don't see much bias. Maybe the section "Ceauşescu's statesmanship" could be re-phrased? I think his pursuit of the Nobel prize must be presented in a more cynical way. Can we believe the referendum for reducing the size of the Romanian Army by 5% was a free vote? Possibly include a reference for the poem also.

I think more should be included in the section "Early life and career". No mention is made of his date of birth (26 January, 1918), or the names of his parents (Andruta & Alexandra). Maybe change "shoemaker" to "cobbler"? His early arrests are mentioned, but I believe this is Party History - Maybe a note should be added to state that this information came from offical communist history? I'd like to see a reference for the Marriage to Elena in 1946 - I thought no documentation existed for this.

When he first became party leader, he shared power with Prime Minister Ion Maurer and Head of State Chivu Stoica. Ceauşescu's outmaneuvering of his rivals should be mentioned.

More should be said in the section "Personality cult and authoritarianism". I'll try to think of some examples to include here.

In the section "The end of Ceauşescu", a reference is needed for the line "The Ceauşescus were executed by an officer named Ionel Boeru who shot them with his sub-machine-gun". Other accounts mention a firing squad - we need to clarify which version is true, or include them both for the reader to decide.

I liked the article "A rough sketch of "Ceauşism". In all this is an informative article. Steve-g 16:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Backed by the USA
Should there be any mention of the USA supporting his regime almost to the end, despite the fact that people don't like to talk about that anymore(though Ceausescu himself was probably playing the US and the USSR at the same time, the point still stands, no?)


 * Umm, no he wasn't supported by the U.S.. the "securitatea" (secret police) hated Americans and the West, and so did Ceausescu.. where do you people get these ideas??


 * How about this: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ . Document $56 features a letter from Nixon regarding Brennan/Mitchell's plans to buy Romanian military uniforms. Or Chomsky's claims, here as elsewhere: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3712 . Or the December 1989 Washington Post article that says, "it is nice that President Bush has offered to establish diplomatic relations with [Romania's] hastily organized Council of National Salvation, but does that does not absolve the West for its role in helping to maintain this tyrant in recent years" . Or in 1983, when Bush expressed admiration for the tyrant's "respect for human rights" . Or two years later when Schultz called him a "good Communist" and gace him economic favors and a visit. I could easily go on. Fact is, even if you don't find these sources convincing, it still forms part of the debate in public scholarship, and has to be included for NPOV purposes. ArekExcelsior 19:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been happily surprised to see that the section, "Supported by the US", has remained. I would like to see this expanded, though, with counter-argument included as well (since it's clearly a bit controversial). I just added the section I wrote to get the elephant out of the room, and the new data is surely helpful but still not substantive enough. I'll try to add some more; anyone else up for expanding? ArekExcelsior 00:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleted the section in question. Instead of Chomsky, what about using serious historians and scholar specializing on Romanian history? The section - or rather Chomsky - is full of errors. Compare with Steven D. Roper, "Romania - the unfinished revolutin", chapter 3, in particular pages 52-53, 56-57 and 109ff. The US (and Western Europe) had reasonably friendly relationships with Ceauşescu's Romania in the 1960s and 1970s, thanks largely to the refusal to participate in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and his relatively independent foreign policy. But by the 1980 these relationships had detoriated to the point were Romania was completely isolated - contrary to Chomskys ignorant claims. Furthermore, the "support" was in the trade sphere, i.e. GATT, IMF membership and MFN status - calling that "backing" or "overt or covert support" as Chomsky is quite misleading. Stepopen (talk) 02:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Pacepa
I have changed the section header back from "The Pacepa treason" to "The Pacepa defection": we consistently use this word, "defection", when speaking of people who changed sides during the Cold War (in either direction). The word treason is still one place in the section, but I have a question: was Pacepa formally convicted, in absentia, of treason? If not, we should change the term there, too, because "treason" is a crime, and should not be used except in its proper meaning. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Wrong. He is a traitor and will remain so until Romanian official persons and institutions will say the opposite. --213.254.183.228 20:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pacepa is still formally convicted, in absentia, of treason? That's why he doesn't dare to come back. SRI is watching him...--213.254.183.228 20:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverted anonymous change without citation
The following paragraph…


 * The Ceauşescus had one adopted son, Valentin Ceauşescu (he was adopted in order to give a personal example of how people should take care of orphans, a big problem in Romania), a daughter Zoia Ceauşescu (born 1950) and a younger son, Nicu Ceauşescu (born 1951).

Was anonymously modified to:


 * The Ceauşescus had one son, Valentin Ceauşescu who was the illegitimate son of Elena Ceausescu and was later adopted by Nicolae Ceausescu and claimed to be the biological son of both, a daughter Zoia Ceauşescu (born 1950) and a younger son, Nicu Ceauşescu (born 1951).

There was no citation. The Romanian-language Wikipedia article on Valentin Ceauşescu makes no such claim. I have reverted to the previous version, which is what I have heard elsewhere. Does someone have a good citation for either version of this? If both are well cited, we should indicate that there is controversy. - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up
These sentences are in the "Other" section:


 * Ceauşescu's official annual salary was 18,000 lei (equivalent to 3,000 U.S. dollars at the official exchange rate). Of this, some 5,000 lei was deposited in a bank every month for the use of his children.

Should that read "monthly salary was 18,000 lei," since "of this", 60,000 lei was going into a bank annually, according to the second sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.253.149.171 (talk • contribs) 7 May 2006.

Better than French and Romanian Versions
This article is far better, from the point of view of an encyclopaedic source, than its French or Romanian versions. Just take a look at the French article, where Ceausescu's profession is specificly named 'cordonnier / shoe-maker'. Do they imagine this detail fits in an encyclopedy? ... all these attacks alledging English article would not be 'tough' enough are simply pathetic... it is time to remind people wikipedia principles and practices. If they are looking for a pamphlet, gossip caricature of Ceausescu and his régime, they should look for some other source rather than Wikipedia! --dio 15:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. This article needs to be closely watched by all regular members of Wikipedia to prevent it from becoming the POV it is in the other languages. Editing of this article has been mainly done by a few. Many romanians themselves see Nicolae as a hero. 69.107.89.190 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Is this article for real?
And do the editors of the entry honestly feel Ceacusescu's totalitarianism (sector "personality cult and authoritarianism") only warrant a mere... passing mention of four lines' length, total? 89.210.46.140 07:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you read the paragraphs that start "Beginning in 1972, Ceauşescu instituted a program of systematization…", "In 1966, the regime decreed a ban on contraception and abortion on demand…", and "The government also targeted rising divorce rates…"? It's not like his meddling in people's lives is played down. But one doesn't need to say "evil totalitarian" at every turn. The facts speak for themselves. Perhaps more is needed, but the article is hardly a whitewash. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A ban on abortion on demand is totalitarianism!!!??? God you are wrapped up in your own narrow world view. 82.18.125.110 20:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

POV problems
This article has a definitely POV problem where only the negative aspects of Ceauşescu's legacy is mentioned. It makes him seem like a criminal, when in fact even most Romanians realized that he was a controversial figure not to be reviled, but to be seen in a more comprehensive way. For the sake of truthfulness, the man was not executed. He was assassinated, since there was no fair trial. If you want some truth about how present dat Romanians, he was polled among the top 10 greatest Romanians of all time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.107.74.72 (talk • contribs) 11 September 2006.

Wrong, he isn't among the "10 greatest Romanians".And I (and most Romanians) would hardly call him controversial. Sure, there are some nostalgics among those who lived well before 1989 (some by ass-kissing, some by other means) but he is regarded as a negative character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.79.88.253 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He's 11th among 100. see 100 greatest Romanians — 81.198.44.174 (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

no he is not regarded as a negative guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonimu (talk • contribs) 10:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Debt

 * The constitutional prohibition of debt was the first thing changed, without any referendum, by the leaders of the FSN as they assumed power after the December 1989 revolution.

I doubt they were thinking about borrowing money in that moment. The first decrees of the FSN were about mentaining their power. If anyone has a reference... bogdan 09:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Helicopter
I tought ceausescu's helicopter "ran out of gas" (seems unlikely, but i think thats the official story) who knows it was ordered down by the army?

Other
i removed the following bull crap: Ever since his death, the Romanian perception of Ceauşescu has improved. FALSE, MOST TRUE ROMANIANS HATE HIM TO THIS DAY.. and i changed that he was named one of the "greatest" romanians to one of the "most influential" which is true..
 * You go find a source that says most Romanians hate him to this day. Until then, shut up and read Wikipedia's policies for neutral POV. 69.107.89.190 03:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed
Removed:

However, in Romania it is forbidden to publicly praise Nicolae Ceauşescu. According to the journal Gândul, Dinel Staicu received a 250 milion lei (approx 75,000 United States dollars) fine for praising Ceauşescu and displaying his pictures on his private television channel (3TV Oltenia).

Please cite untrue bullcrap like this.. Oh wait, you CAN'T! I've lived for 13 years in Romania, and there is no way it is publicly forbidden to praise Ceausescu.. its just that if you do, you will probably end up in the hospital, NOT because of the autorities but because the romanian citizens will beat the crap out of you

Dahn, it IS NOT CITED.. it just says that it came out of "gandul".. there is no proof, NO LINK to the accual page where it said that.. NOT CITED.. what if i told you "BBC" said george bush is really gay, and just gave you a link to the official BBC website.. is that CITED???


 * Let's read:

Întrunit in sedinta publica in data de 7 februarie 2006, Consiliul National al Audiovizualului a sanctionat SC FORUM PRIVAT PROD OLTENIA SA ce opereaza licenta audiovizuala postul de televiziune "Oltenia" din Craiova cu amenda in cuantum de 25.000 RON pentru incalcarea dispozitiilor Deciziei C.N.A nr. 204/2005, prin care se interzice apologia crimelor regimurilor totalitare si denigrarii victimelor lor in cadrul serviciilor de programe audiovizuale. Sanctiunea a fost aplicata intrucat in data de 26 ianuarie 2006, postul de televiziune, "Oltenia", a difuzat un material apologetic la adresa lui Nicolae Ceausescu, insotit de secvente din spectacole omagiale, din vizitele de lucru si din cele internationale efectuate de sotii Ceausescu. De asemenea, Consiliul a decis sanctionarea cu somatie publica a SC Super Nova SRL din judetul Vrancea, pentru nerespectarea dispozitiilor privind retransmisia serviciilor de programe de catre distribuitorii de servicii, care se poate face doar in baza avizului eliberat de Consiliu, conform art. 74 din Legea Audiovizualului nr. 504/2002, cu modificarile si completarile ulterioare. Sanctiunea a fost aplicata si pentru incalcarea dispozitiilor art. 50 si art.58 din Legea Audiovizualului nr. 504/2002, cu modificarile si completarile ulterioare, intrucat SC Super Nova SRL, difuzeaza programul "Zabala"in localitatea Nereju, fara sa detina licenta de televiziune prin cablu. S-a acordat termen 1 saptamana pentru intrarea in legalitate.


 * From the CNA official communique.

"Rasvan Popescu (GDS): Sunt membru al Consiliului National al Audiovizualului. Noi am avut recent o situatie in care o televiziune din Craiova, in proprietatea d-lui Dinel Staicu, mare magnat al Craiovei si cu un trecut comunist substantial, a difuzat doua ore si ceva de omagii la adresa lui Nicolae Ceausescu. Era un material despre cat de bine a fost, il vedeai acolo pe Ceausescu dand mana cu toti sefii de stat care l-au primit sau care au fost aici. Noi am sanctionat aceasta emisiune in baza legii, care opreste apologia regimurilor totalitare. Legea in Romania, deocamdata, dupa 16 ani, interzice aceasta apologie. Dar trebuie sa facem pasul urmator si sa ajungem sa avem chiar o condamnare a regimurilor comuniste."


 * From a 22 inquiry. Dahn 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * ok, first of all, there was no link to the website above, thus no citation.. now there is, but not for "PRaising ceausescu" but rather: apologia crimelor regimurilor totalitare si denigrarii victimelor lor in cadrul serviciilor de programe audiovizuale.

apologia crimelor, nu "PUBLIC" ci in PROGRAMELE AUDIOVIZUALE.. apology "for the CRIMES".. does this mean praising ceausescu?? NO! and it says in programs on TV, NOT PUBICLY.. the police wont do nothing to you if you call ceausescu a "god" in public.. agree? i think we can work together to word it differently
 * Please, spare us the theories. It's not like the man went on television praising Ceausescu for killing people! "doua ore si ceva de omagii la adresa lui Nicolae Ceausescu", "material apologetic la adresa lui Nicolae Ceausescu, insotit de secvente din spectacole omagiale, din vizitele de lucru si din cele internationale efectuate de sotii Ceausescu". Clear? Dahn 04:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

ok, forget everything about that.. the law says it is FORBIDDEN to apologize for the crimes, ON TELEVISION! thus the statement "However, in Romania it is forbidden to publicly praise Nicolae Ceauşescu" is FALSE AND MUST BE REMOVED.. i don't care about the other stuff, but that statement is OFFENSIVE TO ME as a Romanian and to all romanians everywhere.. you can leave the part about the guy getting fined for praising ceausescu on TV (which he should get fined for in my opinion)
 * agree?
 * What you are asking for is superfluous, since everybody should know by now that freedom of expression is the rule in Romania, so "public" could not have really been understood to mean anything else. I have rephrased it, but I'm very sure that a similar provision is made for public praise while in public office, while attending a public meeting etc. - ie: all the meanings "public" has in a democratic society. Dahn 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

bine mah, lasa cum vrei tu.. hai ca nu m-ai am chef de un comunist ca tine, dute si te plimba (e pe internet smechere, nimeni nu scrie corect)
 * I shouldn't even be taking stuff like this from you, especially after being the target of that abject attack you wrote above. This last reply constitutes trolling, but you are obviously paranoid. And you're not worth the attention. (Oh: I'd like to believe that a person who can coach me on being Romanian should at least learn how to spell in Romanian) Dahn 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is indeed true that in Romania, it is forbidden to praise Nicolae. Just like in Germany, it is STILL illegal to have Nazi insignia. This is a breach of free speech which is encouraged by current politicians who find it necessary to demonize Nicolae for their own politican gains and their roving bands of gangsters.

Another
"Ever since his death, the Romanian perception of Ceauşescu has improved". Were there any surveys or polls? This is an opinion, but i'm not going to delete it because dahn will just put it back ^^^
 * He came 11th in the goddamn poll for Mari Romani! If you were not able to read,let me clarify it here: I deeply resent Ceausescu, and I introduced referenced criticism of him in the article (an entire section, in fact, as well as re-adding a fragment about the abortion ban - which had been lost to vandalism). But I don't use the article for experimenting an ideal Romania, where people loathe the man. I'm not going to play nice for some person who has cursed me on this very page. Shoo, troll. Dahn 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * lol dude, chill.. CURSED?? um i said you were a communist, and I told you I was leaving the page as you wanted it cuz i was getting fustrated trying to show you its incorrect.. but OK, you have to jump up and get an attitude about it.. whatever
 * You wrote this just after one of my posts:

"i think you guys that support him were the people that sucked up to the authorities, secret police, and ceausecu and ate his sh*t and kissed his a**... while the whole country was starving, that bas**rd had some of the best clothes, cars, and houses in the WORLD.. you guys should have been shot along him and his dog or wife, whatever you want to call her."
 * And a one, and a two... Dahn 04:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

hehe, you just said you dont support him, so its not even about you.. and up there, i was talking about the guys that said he was the best leader romania had, NOT YOU

where is anything on the persecution of the Hungarians?
I tried to add something on the persecution of the Hungarian minority in Romania, a key part of Ceauşescu's legacy, but this has been instantly edited away. Could we find a way to insert a sentence about his policies towards the largest minority in Romania?
 * Proper and neutral academic research (Tismăneanu, Frunză, Chirot, Boia etc.) mention two separate aspects: Ceausescu's anti-Hungarian discourse (which was still largely deduced from context and doubled by an internationalist rhetoric) and the systematization process, which he applied to the entire country (even if people with certain sensitivities allege that it was specifically aimed at Hungarians, and although the Communists certainly came to see the "bonus" value of the process, it affected other areas of the country in a much more serious way). Both topics are referred to in the text. I think, however, that we could do with a mention of the Saxon and Jewish exodus, which Ceausescu condoned. Dahn 19:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Trying to say that the Hungarians were persecuted during the Ceausescu regime because of the urbanization process is nothing but discrimination against all the other ethnic groups in Romania (including the Romanians themselves). This is why your edits were reverted. The urbanization (good or bad, actually mostly bad) was not at all directed towards the Hungarian minority. And its aim (or effect) was not the decrease of Hungarian influence in any part of Romania, but forced artificial industrialization of a largely rural and agricultural country. Try to see the whole big picture.Alexrap 23:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How were the Hungarians persecuted in Ceausescu's time? and how is that his legacy. Not my intention on defending him, GOD forbids, I had my grandfather in the communists jails for 13 years. but as a half Romanian, half Hungarian I hadn't experienced any persecution like you mention. there where separate Hungarian courses, for the Hungarian minority kids ...actually, in all the "fakeness", but Communism was (allegedly) about equality between races, etc ...so at least in theory it didn't matter what were you as long as you were a good Communist! as a matter of fact there were enough Hungarians in "brown-nose" positions so one can conclude, as long as you "agreed' with the power, nationality didn't matter!

What a lovely man!
I had no idea this guy was such a nice chap. Father to African nations, poet dedicated to peace, and low-paid with it. Shot by a kangeroo court as well. How tragic. He sounds like the Martin Luther King of Eastern Europe. What an article!


 * Your statement, however sarcastic you meant it to be, is actually closer to the truth than the current incarnation of the article. 69.107.89.190 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not that funny when you had to grow up in a coutry ruled by such an idiot! but what do you guys know, you take everything for granted ...even the freedom to make jokes on other's expenses.

Friendship with Tito?
"Ceauşescu found himself briefly aligned with Dubček's Czechoslovakia and Josip Broz Tito's Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The latter friendship was to last well into the 1980s, with Ceauşescu adapting the Titoist doctrine of "independent socialist development" to suit his own objectives."

the latter friendship? with Tito? well into 1980s? A bit difficult considering that Tito died in May 1980. Dead-cat 13:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps could be better put, but it says friendship with "Tito's Yugoslavia", not with Tito personally. - 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Good question -- I missed that. I've been arguing elsewhere against using phrases such as "Ceauşescu's Romania" (or, for that matter, "Antonescu's Romania", etc). For one, I think it's self-evidently not correct stricto sensu: even dictators such as Ceauşescu (or Antonescu, or Tito, or Stalin or Hitler or whoever) did nor really "own" a country, like one would own a piece of property.  And second, even if used in popular parlance (such as "Robert Bork's America", or "George Bush's America", etc), it's almost invariably as a putdown, both on the person and on the country (though Dahn found a counterexample, something like "Churchill's Britain", but I think that's more of an exception that proves the rule).  At any rate, to be consistent, I propose changing the wording to something unarguably factually correct and neutral.  Not quite sure how to do it here, briefly and to the point—what with all those Dubček/Prague Spring and Tito/Yugoslavia connections, spanning the period 1968-early 1980—but it may be worth trying to rewrite the paragraph, if others agree.  — Turgidson 21:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * While noting that the article has become rather repetitive and some issues have, IMO, gotten out of hand (ain't it a shame that Chirot, who wrote an entire book largely dealing with NC, is cited here only for the issue of NC's death, just because that quotation was available?), I have no objection whatsoever to any such rephrasing. In fact, if you consider that, to avoid repetition or to restructure the text, we should merge the ideological section into the others, i would not think of objecting. Also: this article still needs sources that are to be properly and fully cited, but the work seems just to massive for now. Dahn 21:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you put it that way, it does sound rather daunting, all right. But this is an important article within the Romanian history series, it would be worth revisiting it at some point with renewed energy.  (BTW, I agree 100% -- some of the article is simply too repetitive; looks like some edits have been added without regards to the article as a whole.  Bring rewrite!)  In the meantime, I don't have any huge objections to that wording about Tito (and Dubček), besides what I said above, which I think is just mild criticism -- if anyone finds a beter way to rephrase that paragraph, please do so.  If not, I'll give it a shot one of these days, when the muse inspires me :)  Turgidson 21:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of the trial transcript in Romanian: public domain?
The trial transcript at says that the US Government translated the Romanian text, so it should be in the public domain except that Austrian TV comentary should be considered copyrighted by default. By the way, is the trial transcript in Romanian subject to copyright in Romania? Even with automated translator, I cannot easily understand the law while I cannot read Romanian, though a very bad machine translation may suggest that it is not copyrighted. Stenograma procesului Ceauşescu is the transcript hosted at Romanian Wikisource. If anyone can answer my question, I would like to post American governmental translation of the trial transcript as well while I cannot find it at English Wikisource.--Jusjih 14:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (admin here and at English Wikisource)


 * The texts of political speeches, political debates and other such things are public domain, according to the Romanian copyright law. bogdan 14:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your answer. I got the link to the Romanian Law from commons:Template:PD-RO-Symbol. Once I post the English translation of the trial transcript at English Wikisource that I consider historically important, I will add a template link to Wikisource.--Jusjih 18:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, from commons:Template:PD-RomaniaGov accessed from commons:Commons:Image_copyright_tags_visual. I asked here as the translation from that template was partial.--Jusjih 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added the English transcript to Wikisource. While Austrian TV comentary should be considered copyrighted by default, removing it may cause fragments, so it seemed that the US Government included it as fair use within the article.--Jusjih 16:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Seinfeld
Is the fact that Ceausescu was the subject of a conversation in an episode of Seinfeld really necessary or relevant? It is a triviality which adds nothing to our understanding of the man - his political career, character, personal life etc. However as soon as I deleted it, it was restored. Why? Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious reference source, isn't it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.99.219.161 (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Overthrow
Is there any evidence for the variety of conspiracy theories presented as fact in this secton? There are certainly no references or citations. I have deleted the more outlandish claims. Mindstar 16:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture of Ceausescu's body
Do we really need the picture of Ceausescu's body? I find it shocking and unnecessary. &#91;&#91;User:apancu&#124;apancu]] &#124; &#91;&#91;User talk:apancu&#124;Talk]]]] 19:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I was just wondering that myself, I was looking through the article and then all of sudden--eww, there he is lying sprawled dead on the street with a pool of blood around his head. Yuck. I know it's an iconic image and historically very relevant, but...I dunno, I just hesitate to put pictures of dead bodies on a public encyclopedia (and, ewwwww, his eyes are still open!!) Anyone else have any thoughts on this? K. Lásztocska 18:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it should stay. Some people get weirded out by pictures of human genitalia, but their personal feelings are not enough to remove it from the appropriate pages.  The same should go in this case.  Just Another Fat Guy 15:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but isn't a picture of a murdered human corpse a little different than a picture of a normal part of human anatomy? K. Lásztocska 21:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not needed and it's just too graphic. 1.21 jigwatts 05:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree, that picture is completely unecessary in this article, and far too graphic...geez, when i first saw it I was in shock! Honestly, get like a picture of his tomb or a picture from his trial if stressing visually on his last day is important. Please someone take that down, I'd do it myself but I've got no idea how.. :| 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aksana (talk • contribs)

Fair use rationale
I removed Image:Ceausescu5.jpg from this page, because it does not have a unique fair use rationale for this image. If you want to put the image back, please add to the image description page. Thank you. – Ilse@ 11:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Valentin
On this article, it says that it's NOT true that his son Valentin was adopted, and on all the other articles that metion his children, it says that he WAS adopted (and there's an explanation too). Isn't this a little silly for Wikipedia?
 * Yes, I agree, this should be resolved. I proposed a compromise solution on Talk:Valentin_Ceauşescu -- any opinions on that? Turgidson 12:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

This entire page demonizes the man
It is the duty of all editors to write neutrally about the man. A few extreme anti-Ceauşescueists have dominated the editing of this article. If the man were so evil, he wouldnt have become one of the most admired people in Romania which polls repeatedly confirm. To all the rabid anti-Ceauşescuists, you may hate him but not all do, and a neutral perspective is needed including putting in the mostly positive aspects of his presidency and not bury the obvious positive inferences of him in a few short sentences. 69.107.89.190 02:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you calm down a bit before making such wild accusations against WP editors? While at it, try to read the edit summaries, and grasp the logic behind them.  Once this is done, we can talk.  Turgidson 05:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

1st president...
How can the first president have a preceeded by line?

foreign debt
<<>> this implies that the romanian people were into "it", completely brainwashed and unanimous in his endeavours. as a romanian, growing up in Romania in those times I can tell you all the referendums were a joke, yielding always "unanimous" results (in the dictator's favour, evidently). I think it should be revised.

Citing Pacepa's book
Well!.. If part of the text in "The Pacepa defection" section was an excerpt out of his book, the citiation better to be "qouted" as used to be in WP. Otherwise, terms like "..his collaboration with Arab terrorists,.." is biased. What someone see as terrorists others may see as freedom fighters, and vice versa. My suggestion is to replace that biased propagandic unpleasant word with "leftists" with interwiki link to Left-wing politics. Hope this explain, Dahn! Regards, Ralhazzaa 18:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it actually does not. Though i fully agree that this article needs proper and full citations, your comment misses the point. Since I presume there were some terrorists to be found somewhere in the Arab world, and since no organization is named, those anonymous people are simply defined by the fact that they engaged in terrorism. Thus, the article indicates that, among the people NC supported, there were some who favored terrorist tactics, and refers to this fact and none other. You would make a point if the text would mention the OLP or even, to be the devil's advocate, Hizballah. In fact, what you propose is even more problematic, since it implies that we "know" who those unnamed organizations are. If and when the article is more precise, I agree that a direct quote, with a "whom Pacepa defines as etc.", is the way to go.
 * So, yes, the text could be amended in many ways, but your argument, I'm afraid, is a non-sequitur. Dahn 19:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, wait, it's LESS biased because no group is mentioned in the citation? That would seem to amplify the bias, since we don't even know what group is being talked about! Perhaps many are, and none can fairly be called terrorist! ArekExcelsior 22:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not at all the case. As far as anyone can tell, Pacepa indicates that the people backed by NC were "terrorists" - i.e. people who engaged in terror tactics - and Arab. It is not used for Arabs as a whole, and, at this stage at least, it is not used to pass judgment on any particular group. Since no culture is terrorist-free, we could presume that Pacepa (whose perspective I do not take for granted) simply noted that NC sponsored terror tactics in/from the Arab world. This says something about NC and those terrorists, whomever they may me - it says nothing about the "freedm fighters" controversy (as coherent as incoherent as the latter may be). Perhaps the phrase could be reworded to emphasize that it is his own verdict, but I see no problem with the term under these circumstances. Dahn 23:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an incredibly naive argument. "Arab terrorists" does not break down in the mind, given the reigning culture, as "a person of Arab descent, not all Arabs, which used terror tactics". The distinction between terrorist and freedom fighter is vital: Basically, the side that ostensibly uses terror tactics (say, the United States) rarely likes to be called terrorist. And the fact that no culture is terrorist free could be used to say that, since some money may have come from some dictator's pockets to the former Yugoslav Republics, those dictators supported Arkan. It's inherently prejudicial argument. Definitely it needs to be listed as Pacepa's argument and there needs to be counter-argument in the vein that people have been identifying, else most people will think that a reasonable scholar has said that NC backed terrorism and no one else disagrees. And if the claim has absolutely no evidence behind it, it shouldn't be used either, so it'd be helpful if Pacepa specified who exactly. An acceptable example could be, "According to Pacepa, Ceausescu collaborated with Hezbollah, sending material aid. This has led to allegations of supporting terrorism". It's a bit weasel wordish, but I think the evidence DOES support that. ArekExcelsior 00:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As far as can tell, what Pacepa is saying is that he supported terrorists, with the goal of terror. There are such things as purely terrorist acts: attacking civilians, attempting mass murder, etc. I have no idea if this is what cases Pacepa is talking about, but modifying the text to imply that we know and we know he is wrong (without even looking at the text) is manipulation. You infer that he is talking about NC supporting Arab countries or certain mainstream organizations. I have no idea if this is the case. If the cited text backs the notion that he was funding people who used the money to kill civilians in random terrorist acts, whomever those people may be, then at least that part of the sentence is fine. If the reader inferred his own view of what Pacepa is saying, then it should be changed. However, the proposal to change it because he "may" be talking about "certain" people whom we could also call "freedom fighters" or "left-wing" relies on interpretation and is ultimately misleading. That was my actual point. Dahn 19:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well! As ArekExcelsior said, it hasn't come to my mind when I read "Arab terrorists" all of that analysis and the association of the ideas told above! Saying so needs simply to go within two ways: quoting the text according to Wikipedia's rules of quoting along with citing it through a valid copy of the original source, or to delete it! I appreciate what Dahn said, but you should know my friend it is not really as you are looking to it from your corner... it is clear and direct racial insult as it is used here. I may ask to put this part of the section under a request for deletion. This part of the section is apparently not compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia. To be compliant, it must be written from a neutral point of view and must not include unverifiable or unsuitable material, or original research. Ralhazzaa 18:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "racist" about the remark. I would apply the very same treatment no matter what the people named, since it would not refer either to the people or to a particular organization. That said, I repeat myself saying have nothing against introducing more and more specific citations. While noting that the arguments against it are beside any rational point. Dahn 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

"Kangaroo court"
I will revert anyone who uses the term to suggest that his trial is a kangaroo court. WP:NPOV and WP:V are not mutually exclusive. Will (talk) 21:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We have RS1 + RS2 + RS3 saying X, and Anon1 + Anon2 (+ Anon3 +...+ AnonN) saying notX. Wiki rules say X gets into the article. I'll also restore what 3 RSs say, no matter what an anonymous guy harassing me thinks about it.Anonimu 21:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can only state facts as facts, not opinions as facts. Stating an opinion as fact can run afoul of NPOV. Will (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Anonimu, since you don't want to be warned on your talk page, you're currently on the verge of violating the WP:3RR. Just so you know.  --Haemo 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To be honest, he probably doesn't care. Will (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You reverted just as many times. And if Anonimu is able to bring sources that term this two-hour trial - and- followup- execution a "kangaroo court," you are not allowed to revert without genuine discussion and willingness to listen to the other side; you are not allowed to report him for vandalism; seeming platitudes which, in a would-be authoritative tone (and rather sophomircally-sounding, in my view), cite Jimbo Wales, and so on, do not magically give you dominion over what counts as npov. I have no idea why other admins here were letting it slide. Perhaps because you're more well- known, appear to be a native-English speaker, with a grasp of WP:Nomenclature, but it is disappointing, nonetheless. El_C 09:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is difficult to term this haphazard, two-hour trial - and- followup- execution as anything but a "kangaroo court." And especially when we take into account the list of charges, which includes genocide. I'm not saying that because I disagree with the verdict, but Adolf Eichmann's trial, by comparison, lasted for five months; more recently, Slobodan Milošević's trial lasted two years. El_C 09:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

When the so-called "Conusel for the defense" tries to "defend" the couple by saying "You have acted in a very irresponsible manner; you led the country to the verge of ruin and you will be convicted on the basis of the points contained in the bill of indictment. You are guilty of these offenses even if you do not want to admit it " "I would like to refer once more to the genocide, the numerous killings carried out during the past few days. Elena and Nicolae Ceausescu must be held fully responsible for this." it's clear to everybody that its trial wasn't a real one. (quotes taken from the transcript linked from the article; i don't say it was wrong or right, but, hey, the prosecutor should bring accusation, not the lawyer who's supossed to defend you)Anonimu 11:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Putting such a loaded term in the lead violates NPOV regardless of whether it's true. Now, it's fine to say "People A, B, and C contended that he was tried in a kangaroo court, due to statements..." and then sourcing that, but saying definitively it's a kangaroo court makes it look like Wikipedia is pushing that view itself. We should leave it to say "he was placed on trial and convicted for crimes against the state...", as that's true and NPOV (regardless of how much of a sham the court was, he was still found guilty). Take a look at the article on Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein and Joseph Stalin, for example. There isn't a POV term nearly as bad as that. Keep facts in the lead, then introduce opinions later in the article, but be sure to balance the opinions and not to make Wikipedia look like it's advocating that position. And yes, if the defence lawyer did say that, the trial is most likely a sham, but we've got to give POVs equal weight. Will (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If the scholarly consensus is that this two-hr trial-execution was a kangaroo court, then that's the position Wikipedia should be espousing. El_C 12:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the only position Wikipedia should be espousing is a neutral point of view. Will (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And the neutrality of this neutral point of view is measured by whom? Consensus among scholars, or User:Sceptre, unilaterally? El_C 13:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the scholarly consensus, then we write something to the effect of 'is largely viewed as a kangaroo court.' I'm not sure how many history-related articles you've written on Wikipedia, perhaps you ought review more closely a few of the ones you cite above. El_C 13:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus does not make a loaded term neutral. I've said we can say that it is viewed as a kangaroo court, as long as we don't give that POV ourself. Will (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to intrude. For starters, I find it discrediting to wikipedia that a book largely about Ceauşescu is used to source only one fact of his life - it basically sends the message that all wikipedians have to do for research is get a gmail account (the same goes for all other such citations in the text).

Inferring that it is scholarly consensus is unsubstantiated by evidence: yes, it is the conclusion in several books, but piling up scholarly info to simulate verdicts falls under the WP:OR requirement that there is to be no original synthesis of published material (especially so when the point was picked only from pages google made available for viewing). The opinions on either side should be elaborated in the text, not in the lead, and attributed - I honestly encourage Anonimu or anyone else to elaborate on this at the proper place (since, no matter what I happen to think of NC's policies and about the Realpolitik dynamics of his execution, I believe it is obvious that the court was unlawful for several reasons). More so, I believe that, in the future, we should have a separate article on his trial - linked as a main article from this one and other related pages. And I insist that sources should be treated with more responsibility and interest, no matter what they say (i.e.: instead of casually flipping through them and pinning down random citations).

This article is messy, and the sources available for more proper viewing are present in great numbers. I have two of the most authoritative around (I'm sure Anonimu knows them, and I don't want to hear what he has to say about them) - I can look into them to source this article entirely, and I can easily find more. But it will take time and require the users' good faith.

As for this exact problem: wikipedia guidelines indicate to begin with the fact, and then trace opinions. In this case: have the lead say that he was executed (perhaps "executed after a controversial trial") and elaborate wherever. My two cents. Dahn 13:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection
I've protected the page for 1 week in response to the ongoing edit war and a request at WP:RFPP. Please try to reach consensus on the talk page. If you do before the week is up, you can go to WP:RFPP and request that it be unprotected early. MastCell Talk 22:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, this edit, made just prior to the protection needs to be undone; it removed a well-referenced characterisation and broke a link further down. FYI, I am not part of whatever edit war was occurring here. --Jack Merridew 13:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologise for breaking the link - blame whoever broke the spamlist on Thursday. Will (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, Jack, it would be best to read and join the discussion above. Your userpage does give a link to stuff on the Episode discussions, which both myself (pro) and Matthew (anti) are in, and we've both reverted on the article. Will (talk) 17:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Five year plan
"... begun by the 1971-1975 [sic] Five-Year Plan, prolonged over several [succeeding and projected] Five-Year Plans"

Why "sic"? 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975 - that's five years to me. Or is it anything else that is wrong? In that case, that should be more precise. --Igetakickoutofyou 10:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The plan was supposed to begin in 1971 and end in 1975. This would make it less than five years. Dahn 11:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo of the dead Ceausescu
I couldn't edit the page since it's protected, but I think the image of him right after he was executed is rude. There are enough photos of him in the article, we don't need this. Wikipedia should respect human dignity even in the case of a dictator. – Alensha   talk  19:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

BTW is the eldest son adopted or not? The article says it's just an urban legend but his own article says he was adopted. – Alensha   talk  19:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I generally agree about the picture. It's unnecessarily shocking, IMO (and the comparison that someone drew earlier to some people not wanting pictures of genitalia in anatomy articles is inaccurate: there's a big difference between body parts we all have, and the bloody corpse of a dictator who's just been executed by a revolutionary mob.) I would vote for taking that picture out, but I'm open to discussion. K. Lásztocska 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)