User talk:Anonimu/Complete Works/Tom 5 (2016)

Tovnicceau
Salut. Sper sa nu vorbim impreuna si sa ne-ntelegem separat: doamne feri sa crezi ca vreau sa scot Romania dinainte de Goga-Cuza drept democrata sau chiar curata de fascism. Sint ultimul care s-o faca. Dar in 1936 mi se pare exclus ca un tribunal sa condamne pe cineva de "antifascism". De comunism, da, ca PC era PC din Romania, nu "Roman", adica o particica din Comintern, nu un partid national, si era pe buna dreptate acuzat de tradare. Parte din activitatea dictata de la Moscova era antifascista, dar Tovnicceau facea orice i se zicea, si nu antifascismul il tinea ziua pe picioare si noaptea treaz. Daca ai o sursa buna, primara, iti multumesc daca mi-o impartasesti si ma las convins. Daca nu, lasa te rog legenda aia asa cum e, ca asa e categoric corecta, pe cind varianta "antifascista" e speculativa rau de tot. La multi ani buni, si sa ne bucuram c-am scapat si de fascisti, si de Odiosu', pacat doar c-a durat asa de mult. Si sa raminem vigilenti :-) Arminden (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The oficial indictment spoke about propaganda against state order and membership in secret organizations. The Romanian secret police had already identified anti fascism with communism during the previous years. And indeed, even if fascists had assassinated the Romanian prime-minister three years before, the only ones openly supporting anti-fascism were communists and they sympathizers (along with a handful of left-leaning intellectuals). The point is that in the era the CP had abandoned much of the talk about revolution and proletarian dictatorship in its public appeals, concentrating on propaganda against war and the rise of fascism (in line with its internationalism, it warned about the dangers of fascism around the world, not just its Romanian incarnations). To sum up, the caption is unsourceable either way, while the propaganda work in which Ceausescu participated was not communist per se, but rather anti-fascist (if it had happened half a decade earlier, it would have been strongly condemned as defeatist by the official line of the Comintern).
 * Regarding your thoughts about the CP, please note that most of the mainstream parties of the era (and of today, indeed) didn't call themselves "Romanian" in their official either, thus, by your logic, were/are not national, whatever that would mean.Anonimu (talk) 10:44, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

We're about to agree. First, since the caption is unsourceable either way, we're wasting our time here. Second, since that's the case, safety goes first, so since the indictment refers to him being part of the CP (that's the "secret organisation" you cited), you going the next step and saying that the authorities had identified anti-fascism with communism is, with all due respect, your personal comment and nothing more. Anyhow, they didn't "equate" CP with anti-fascism, as the caption writer did; the main issue they had with Communism was (apart for most everything it stood for) its support for the revolution and the USSR. That's exactly why I said "the anti-fascism version is thoroughly speculative". Third, you're not fully correct - the National Liberal Party (PNL) and the National Agrarian Party (PNŢ) did very much have the word "national" in their name, if not "Romanian" as such, and were directly connected to the pre-WWI Transylvanian National Party. All other parties farther to the right were at least as "national". If your issue is with "national" as opposed to "Romanian", well, that's shallow semantics if you don't mind. As to the CP being the only anti-fascist party in the 30s-40s, you're preaching to the choir here, I have first-hand knowledge of it (for the early 40s, if not 30s), close relatives, so no news there.

My real worry was seeing that ALL of the pictures in the article are "official", hand-picked ones, they even put at the top of the page the famous retouched "earless" one for Marx' sake! - I'm sure there are piles of much more revealing pictures available by now - and the captions tend to come from the whitewashing faction, very much in contrast to most of the text. In this context, an "anti-fascist" is always a "good guy", while a "Communist"... well, far less people would sympathise. It's so blatant and obvious that it's making me cringe.

Less relevant, but anyhow: the article mentions only typically Communist activities from his early years in the party, like supporting strikes and, well, pushing around CP members who weren't showing enough conviction during their "self-criticism sessions". Not much about picketing the Legion's HQ or starting street fights with the Legionnaires or Lancers, as the Red Front colleagues were doing with the SA in Germany until 1933. So that in the end both the WP info, as well as what is generally known about the CP in Romania (just a tiny handful of members until 1944, unlike the various and massive fascist movements), does not support what looks like, as I said, a clumsy whitewashing attempt.

Enough of this. This character has cost me enough years of my life, no need for more wasted time. I just acted out of an impulse. Cheers, noroc si numai bine, Arminden (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)ArmindenArminden (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find any source explicitly saying the secret organization was the PC. In the aftermath of Grivita, several left-wing organizations were disbanded by the state, many of them front organizations for the communists, but also ones which only included left-leaning anti fascists (some of them fellow travelers) and even the ones associated with the non-Comintern affiliated Socialist Unitary Party. One of these was the National Antifascist Committee, at whose CC meetings we know Ceausescu had participated before its previous arrest in 1934. And Siguranta reports of the era did equate any anti-fascist organization with communists (reportedly, in 1938 the pretty much fascist gvt of Carol II decided to silently release some communists leaders in order to counter the violently fascist Iron Guard).
 * Considering the copyright problems, it's not surprising most photos are official ones (which are in the public domain). Furthermore, I see no problem with picking aesthetically pleasing photos if they represent the subject of the article (even if the subject has done something terribly wrong during their life).Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

jimmy
http://www.romania-insider.com/wikipedia-founder-comes-to-romania-this-march/166263/ --Cei Trei (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thought you were talking about this one.Anonimu (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

http://postimg.org/image/c075794vl/ --Cei Trei (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict
It would be more contructive if you explain the last removals separately. Removing some haplogroups and leaving others is arbitrary and not neutral. Read WP:POINT. 87.227.209.96 (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deportation of Germans from Romania after World War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tito. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Mentioning Dacians in the introduction to Getae
Please see my comments at Deletion of mention of Dacians in intro. Grant &#124;  Talk  07:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Nicolae Ceaușescu
Anonimu,

If you were genuinely interested in WP:CONSENSUS, you would have discussed your concerns on the talk page, rather than restoring one editor's POV edits, which unilaterally reversed the prevailing consensus. X4n6 (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)