Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu/Archive 1

Removed Feb 2003

I have removed this from this article for obvious reasons - it's not about Nicolae Ceausescu. Somebody might want to move this to another arthicle though. Zocky 12:06 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Iliescu's period in power was marked by widespread corruption and a failure to apply much needed economic reforms. The centrist coalition, which replaced his presidency in 1996, also failed to take the country forward, and expended much time and effort to internal quarrels. Mr. Iliescu has been enticing Romania's poor and disadvantaged - including the industrial working class. But he has also attracted votes from centrists, desperate to keep out the far-right candidate, Corneliu Vadim Tudor. Mr. Iliescu says he wants Romania to join the European Union - but "with dignity".

"Interbelic"

I'm sorry but I don't think that "interbelic" is an English word. Apologies if I am wrong. From the context and from things like "Missa in tempore belli" (Haydn) I am guessing it means between the wars. If this is wrong please correct me. Nevilley 18:36 Feb 16, 2003 (UTC)

Yup. The English equivalent is "interbellum," but it's not as common a word in English as in Romanian. Jmabel 05:35, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"Horrendous, tragic" POV

Removed the following from the article. I don't necessarily disagree, but it's very POV. "The horrendous state of Romania by 1989 illustrate the tragic outcome of a totalitarian, single party political system, as promoted by the Communist doctrine." I'd have no objection to an appropriately attributed quotation to the same effect. -- Jmabel 21:23, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Abortion, etc.

Recent edit by User:Critzu. Old text:

A key element of this was the decree that all women must bear at least 5 children. To enforce this, "birth squads" were organized to examine women of childbearing years by taking monthly pregnancy tests and questioning any women who were not pregnant.

New text:

A key element of this was the decree that didn't allowed abortion.

Other than the grammatical error (which I'll fix), Criţu: that's a pretty substantive deletion. Are you saying that it is false? (It may be; we can look through the history, see if we can find who wrote it, and seek citation.) Because if it's not false, it's certainly relevant to the article. -- Jmabel 22:31, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

The anti-abortion stance does appear to have been a policy.

Elena Ceauşescu

Could the Elena Ceausecu entry be merged with her husband's?

212.85.6.26 16:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

About Elena Ceaushescu there are many things to be said, as she was a quite important character in communist Romania. I think it's better to let the things as they are. Bogdan | Talk 17:33, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

At present there is but a brief note about Elena. I have put in a link from this page - perhaps there could be more reference to her here.

Jackiespeel 17:54, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Death photo

Should we really have a picture of "Ceauşescu just after his execution" in the article ? Isn't this a bit sick ? I think a photo during the trial (ie. before he was killed) would be OK. Bogdan | Talk 15:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I'd be glad to lose the gory photo. We don't do this to (say) Che Guevara. -- Jmabel 17:26, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

• • Agreed. That photo is disrespectful to say the least. Only if it were some widely circulated photograph would it be relevant. VV 07:15, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I disagree. I think that the picture is not disrespectful (for anybody except the murderers). Murderers (quite a set of people through their joy at the death, inclusively) would like that the crime be forgotten. At least this punishment should be acceptable (namely to not forget the crime). I do not intend to equal any human evildoer with Jesus. Anyhow, do you want to claim that the picture of Jesus on the cross is disrespectful? The majority clearly disagree even if they feel guilty through their so called "sin" (with the except of a few that also still feel guilty, but do not repent). I plan to restore it. Please answer. User:Ratza Dec 14 2004.

• I stand by my previous remark. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:38, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Not including this photo-- and it was widely circulated-- is not consistent with editorial principles elsewhere on Wikipedia. For example, note that we feature photos of dead prisoners from Abu Ghraib. Ratza will have my suppport if he adds it. 172 04:15, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What editorial principles ? Unlike in the article of Abu Ghraib, this does not improve at all the article. At Abu Ghraib, the photos were the central theme: they generated the whole scandal. Bogdan | Talk 09:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And Ceausescu's ouster and execution is central to his biography. 172 09:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Every picture should add some extra information to the article. How does this photo improve the article? Bogdan | Talk 09:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not rotten.com. It is entirely misleading of you to imply that the Wikipedia community has decided that it is acceptable to include photos of dead bodies within articles. That is not the case. It remains a controversial topic in Wikipedia, and has caused significant disagreement with regards to the Abu Ghraib and Nick Berg articles. If I recall correctly, the final result on the Nick Berg article was to provide an unclickable URL of the execution video. It most certainly was not to include an image, despite the fact that his kidnapping and killing was central to his biography in Wikipedia. - Mark 10:01, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

At this moment, the vote appears to be 4–2 against, but the picture is in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

www.ceausescu.org

http://www.ceausescu.org/, despite being an anonymous addition, and despite a somewhat anti-communist slant, appears to be a serious scholarly site. I hope we can agree to keep the link. -- Jmabel 17:26, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Constructing the Casa Poporului

"Many people died during the erection of The People's House ("Casa Poporului") in Bucharest, now the Parliament House, the world's second largest building after The Pentagon." How did these people die, exactly? - Kefka 05:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

probably work accidents. Unlike the Danube-Black Sea canal, this was not an extermination site. Bogdan | Talk 08:59, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

mostly work accidents as it was made in an extreme rush with unqualified labour force. The canal wasn't either an extermination site during Ceausescu, it was during Gheorghiu Dej (he made a failed attemt to build it using soviet style extermination camps - over 24.000 died then). Death camps during Ceausescu were psychiatric hospitals such as poiana mare. The canal was built out of grandeur, using soldiers, students, some common-law prisoners, mostly arrested for theft, that were released after 3 months, and in a proportion of 40% paid labor (wages were VERY high).

the Danube-Black Sea would've make the Danube canal at the border with Ukraine less important, hopefuly the USSR would've lost the reason for which it occupied Suthern Bessarabia... this is my view, ofcourse -- Criztu 19:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legacy

Recent edit by User:Geausescu: I question whether terms like "a truly great man" and "murdered by evil, treacherous KGB agents" are NPOV? (anon)

Well, after a few edits I think the Legacy section is no longer out of the bounds of reality; however, it is one-sided and without citations. I would very much welcome someone coming up with actual citations on contemporary pro-Ceausescu views (and, for that matter, with contemporary condemnations) and possibly most usefully discussion of exactly who of importance in present-day Romania held what role in the Ceausescu regime. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:18, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Ceausescu and Juche

The article could use some mention of Ceausescu's visit to North Korea and how his subsequent programs were inspired by Juche. Gazpacho 23:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You're right. And it's not mentioned at all at Systematization (Romania), either. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:37, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

diacriticals

Shouldn't the Communist-era newspaper be Scânteia or Scînteia rather than Scinteia? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "Scînteia". Bogdan | Talk 11:32, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rata's recent additions (which Jmabel reverted)

Too much of this is unattributed eyewitness account, first-person account (absolutely unacceptable by Wikipedia standards), rumors, unclear citation, etc. I think there may be some useful material here -- although probably mostly not for this article, which is a solid article as it stands, and on net this material as added weakens it. Please let's try to work out what here can be used and where. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

>>>>I added citations to support all the claims (and added them back). Since I found all needed citations, there is no need to anylonger cite my relations.

After the chief of his information agency, Ion Mihai Pacepa, decided to flee to USA and reveal all his secret international contracts to CIA, the country became more isolated and the economic growth stoped. Cf. articles published in romanian newspapers (see references), following the treason of Pacepa, his intelligence agency started to be strongly infiltrated by foreign agents (probably KGB and/or CIA) and he started to lose the control of the country. It seems that he tried several reorganizations in a bid to get rid of old collaborators of Pacepa, but this was unsuccessful.

There was already a paragraph on Pacepa. This material needs to be integrated with that. Also "Cf. articles published in romanian newspapers (see references)" is no citation: we need web links to the individual articles and/or a normal citation with author, date of publication, etc. Yes, Adevarul is a good source, but the citations need to be such that people can find the article and verify, or the citation is useless. And "probably" according to whom? "It seems" according to whom? If you have citations, great, but these things don't belong in the narrative voice of the article.

>>>>I added them

In the next passage, non-italicized text was already there; I'm taking the liberty of making some presumably non-controversial copy edits:

The demonstrations were triggered by the government-sponsored attempt to evict a popular Hungarian church minister accused of inciting ethnic hate. His congregation surrounded him in sign of support. Many religious Romanian students (cf. what an eyewitness found among them explained me shortly afterwards), not knowing the details and being told by supporters that this is an action of state against religion, spontaneously decided to join the manifestation.

I agree with adding "Hungarian". Do you have a citation on "accused of inciting ethnic hate"? (Sounds perfectly likely, but it's news to me.) As for the rest of this, "(cf. what an eyewitness found among them explained me shortly afterwards)" is absolutely not an acceptable citation. See Wikipedia:Auto-biography and Wikipedia:No original research. Sorry, I've found this one inconvenient, too, at times, but those are the rules. If this is true — and it would make more sense than some other versions I've heard — I'm assuming someone has written about it somewhere in reasonably citable source. Find it and cite it.

>>>Added citations to support this. I heard this often in the last years and, even if I do not remember all citations, the presented version is much more supported and plausible than the previous one. The Wikipedia policy says that you should not revert if the previous version was not better!!!!

"On December 22 the army fraternized with the demonstrators," became (again, I am copy-editing, although there are some sentence fragments I can't quickly see how to fix):

On December 22 the army was without a leader, since Ceauşescu (the official chief of the army) disappeared, being sent by his (probably conspiring) advisors to the countryside, and since the minister of Defence Vasile Milea was dead (the standard conspiracy theory in the Romanian newspapers suggests that Milea was probably assasinated by the plot under the guise of a suicide). Confused, the army officers decided to avoid conflicts by simulating that they would fraternize with the demonstrators (cf. eyewitnes that was soldier at the sites of the major events in Bucharest).

Fierce fights occured at that moment at Otopeni, Bucharest's international airport, between troops sent one against another under claims that they are going to meet "terrorists". There is a famous case of a garrison of Securitate-affiliated soldiers who received orders to defend a city against Ceauşescu's terrorists, while in the city it was announced that the Securitate soldiers are comming to attack the regular garrison. (Cf. eyewitness) hundreds of people volunteering to fight without armament against the expected Securitate. In that particular case, the chief of the Securitate garrison felt that something was wrong and refused to enter the city. The conspiracy theory version suggested by many newspapers in 1990s and never validated or proven false is that the generals that were part of the probable conspiracy tried to create such fictive terrorists to instigate fear, to draw the army on the side of the plot. The reality will probably remain a mistery for the next centuries, since the involved persons are now top officials of Romania and the investigations were closed without any conclusion.

First, a lot of this would fit more at Romanian Revolution of 1989 (which is where we already talk about Milea), and insofar as it's appropriate at all, I think it belongs there, not in a biographical article on Ceauşescu.

>>>> I just added them there as well, as you suggested (why do you complain now)? Anyhow, this event was an essential cause what led to the death of Ceausescu, so that it should also be mentioned here.

"Probably conspiring" certainly needs citation and also clarification: what exactly is the nature and extent of the alleged conspiracy, and who alleges it?

>>> Added it. Why do you complain now?

On Milea: if it's a "standard conspiracy theory in the Romanian newspapers", you should have no trouble finding specific citations.

>>>> Added it! Whay do you complain now?

Fraternizing: (1) again, unpublished eyewitness accounts are not acceptable citation in Wikipedia. (2) What is the basis for claiming this was "simulated"?

>>> This was the order that the soldiers received in Bucharest. The issue was long discussed on TV, long after 1989.

I'm guessing that "garnizon" here is meant to be "garrison" ("garnizoană") and have copy-edited accordingly. "Famous case"? What city? Sorry, but this still sounds like the conflicting rumors I've heard from almost every Romanian I've ever heard talk about that week. It might be worth having some sort of article covering these theories in all of their variety, but unless we can cite someone quite authoritative as holding the theories, they don't belong in the main-line articles on the people and events.

>>>>> The citations were added! And the place of these theories is clearly here!

As for "Securitate-affiliated soldiers... received orders to defend a city against Ceauşescu's terrorists..." who were those "terrorists" supposed to be if not the Securitate themselves.

>>>> Looks like you are an extra-terester to the romanian system and 1989 events. During the 1989 "revolution", the leaders of Securitate were transmitting at TV that the Securitate fraternizes with the revolution. It was supposed that some special troops not known by the main body of the Security would be the terrorists. Now it is known that there were no terrorists, but that the shots were from automated guns installed by the leaders of the revolutions themselves. More, these Securitate-affiliated soldiers were not part of the paid Securitate, but some normal soldiers in standard compulsory duty that were affiliated with the Securitate but were usually passing for normal soldiers.

"The reality will probably remain a mistery for the next centuries..." Indeed, which is why most of this belongs in an article on conspiracy theories, and certainly not in a biographical article.

>>> col. Burlan revealed some of these misteries, but centuries will take before officials could agree on them without risking their positions :)

The series of 3 articles in the romanian newspaper Adevarul, 2003, [1] (see archives) titled "I was the sosia (copy) of Ceausescu". (There also exists a Romanian book with the same title)

Again, Adevarul is a good source, but we need web links to the individual articles and/or a normal citation with author, date of publication, etc. Especially on a book, we need author.

>>>> Added them!

Jmabel | Talk 08:50, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Disputed

User:Rata, having changed his user name to User:Ratza, has restored all of what I was contesting and then some. Per these comments and others at Romanian Revolution of 1989, where essentially the same information has now been added, I am disputing the accuracy of this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:38, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

It is poorly cited at best, uses highly POV terminology (e.g. "treason"), and in general seems to rely on rumour and legend more than verifiable fact. The English needs significant improving as well. Jayjg 15:00, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Then, edit in the doubts you have! But deleting and reverting is not a polite approach. People put a lot of effort in editing, not for somebody to just cut if off. We do our best to be neutral. If something seems biased to you, then you can simply add a parantheses saying: (some people doubt this)!

I would like to know God's eye truth, but I write what I concluded after years of pondering over claims, etc. It is unacceptable that an extra-terrester from Seattle that does not seem to know much about the issue desides what is factual or not. Except if you were undercover agent at those times and know classified data. But in this case, say it!

Do not forget that most eyewitneses in this problem ended soon ofter 1989 in strange suicides. Col. Dumitru Burlan succeeded to publish his book before he revealed his identity, and was strongly menaced afterwards. Therefore his story is the most plausible. It is normal that doubts exist in this conditions. But NPOV principles requires that all possible and not refuted versions should be equally described. Ratza

Ratza, you put too much credit on a single person - this col. Dumitru Burlan. We don't have to forget that every person has his own agenda, his own prejudices and his own enemities. I have heard about some high officials that tried to organised themselves against Ceausescu since 1982, but fear of microphones, traitors and punishments made that nothing resulted from this. They didn't started and organised the whole thing, they just took advantage of what happend. They knew each other, they had connections, they had money and above all they knew how to manipulate people. The rules on Wikipedia are that only the certificated facts will be written. All other theories will have at most a separate place where it will be mentioned that there is a theory.

The edit above is mine. MihaiC 23:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just in case anyone thinks this is a "dead dispute": The work toward resolving all of this is taking place at Romanian Revolution of 1989 and Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989, where most of the same edits (and more along these lines) were made. I figure we don't need to argue it all in two places. Some progress is being made there, but this is really complicated. Once that article is coherent, I plan to come back to this one, but if anyone wants to "port" the partial fixes from there to here sooner, go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

I know very many people that were not at all afraid of criticising and doing illegal things in those years. I do not doubt Burlan, as it is the only coherent and logic version I heard so far (and coherent with what I was told from all people involved in those events, or claiming to have heard things from knowledgeble people). User: Ratza (undated, but it's Dec 25, 2004)

Perhaps you don't doubt Burlan, but plenty of people do, and it's important that the article make clear what are his claims vs. what is more broadly sourced. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:46, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed summit

Just the references:

• AP, 30 Sep 1989
• Reuters, 25 Oct 1989

(they're Usenet transcripts of the articles -- I don't have access to the AP/Reuters archives :) Bogdan | Talk 14:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ceauşescu's official salary

Recent anon change from "Ceauşescu's official salary was 18000 lei (300$)," to "...(3,000$)." I don't know the exact exchange rate of the time, though the latter sounds more likely, assuming this means U.S. dollars. And if it does, it should probably be rewritten as USD 3,000 or US$3,000. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

The official exchange rate was 6 ROL/USD, but that was only to rip off the foreign turists. The real exchange rate (on the black market - the only avaible to romanians) was about 100 ROL/USD. MihaiC 14:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

So should we say "Ceauşescu's official annual salary was 18000 lei (equivalent to 3,000 U.S. dollars at the official exchange rate)" or something else? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:33, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

That would be a very corect and impartial way to say it. MihaiC 19:49, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if this is worth mentioning in the article, but in the late 1980's the average salary in Romania was about 2-3,000 lei. MihaiC 20:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would give an appropriate perspective on the number. Go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:08, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

The information in my previous post was for recent times, so I edit it out. However, I founded a good information. "Following the November 1987 outbreak of riots at the Red Flag Truck and Tractor Plant in Brasov--precipitated by low wages, food shortages, and poor working conditions--Ceausescu announced that pay raises for all industrial workers and larger pensions would be phased in by the end of 1990. After the raises, the average worker theoretically would be earning 3,285 lei per month, and average monthly pensions would pay some 2,000 lei." This quote is from here http://countrystudies.us/romania/55.htm. MihaiC 12:34, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Depends, salaries for low qualified underground mine workers were 7,000 - 12,000 lei (in 1985-1989), (and fluctuated function of the achievement of some work plans). Intelectuals working in safe conditions were paid less. Retirement pensions computed in that time for that particular class of workers was 5000-6000 lei. User:Ratza

Miners were somehow special due to hard working conditions. They received great bonuses not only for hard work, but also to compensate the fact that (in most cases, like in the Jiu Valley, where most of the miners were), in those regions women have no jobs - simply there was no industry that would assure jobs for them. So, the miners' wages were the only incomes for the whole family. The quote I provided it is close to my own experience (my parents wages). MihaiC 11:35, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Continual insertion of conjecture

User:Ratza continues to add uncited conjecture to this article, e.g. "Since by that time the debts have been fully paid, this can suggest that funding for the coup might have been provided by beneficiaries of these debts..." One might as well say that because Ceauşescu was tough on the German and Hungarian minorities funding for the coup might have been provided by Germany and Hungary. (No I don't subscribe to that theory.) Unattributed conjecture about controversial matters should have no place in an encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:10, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

I have learned from Germans that whenever there is a crime, one asks "Whom does this good?". I just tried to cover all possible alternative answers (logical), in order to remain neutral. I personally do not believe that alternative more than the others. It is just a display of all alternatives for fairness reasons. If you think about other alternatives, please add them. I doubt that Germans would have particular bad feelings about Ceausescu, but the story with Hungary is possible. You may add that as an additional alternative. I think I clarified that this is a set of theories aiming to complete the alternatives. And stop with the attacks to persons (this is a place meant to logic debate, not to miss-behaved children)! An by the way, thanks for your work on the website. You are doing a good job, even if sometimes there is place for improvement. User: Ratza

Your comment ignores my point, replying instead to a rhetorical example. And I did not attack you as a person, I objected to your edits in the article.

My point is that Wikipedia is not a place to list idle conjectures. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:22, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Could you offer a citation for this last claim (about what Wikipedia is for)? First, history is not an exact science and almost everything in history (if correctly presented) is a conjecture or a claim. Now what is an idle conjecture? Probably a historical theory that you personaly dislike. It is your right. Keep it for yourself until you have a strong contrary proof! To continue the discussion next year (hoping to take holiday). Merry Christmas! User:Ratza

See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Without citation, this falls at least close to What Wikipedia articles are not #8 (Personal essays) and #9 (Primary research) -- Jmabel | Talk 03:44, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Mothers

I guess the following recent addition makes at least as much sense as much of the rest of this rather messy article, but I have some questions:

Mothers of at least 5 children received significant stimulents, while mothers of at least 10 children were declared heroic mothers receiving a golden medal, a free ARO 4x4 car (currently CrossLander SUV), free transportation on trains, and a free holiday travel each year at a resort.

Stimulents is obviously wrong, and the closest English word Stimulants means amphetamines and the like; I'm not sure what is intended. "Currently" confuses me completely in referring to a regime that fell 15 years ago. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:53, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Stimulents is a bad translation of Romanian Stimulente. It means bonuses. Currently reffers to the brand of the car being given to the heroic mothers, as that car is still being produced under a different name. User:xanthar

---

i have the folowing information, but i cant formulate it properly in english : The law allowed a mother of at least 5 children (initialy 4), or above the age of 42 to abortion. -- Criztu 15:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Two ways to word this (I'll go for extremes: you can mix and match): "The law permitted an abortion for a woman who was at least 42 years old or who was already the mother of at least five (initially four) children." "The law allowed abortions only for women who were at least 42 years of age or who had already borne at least four (later five) children." Jmabel.

The second phrase sounds better.MihaiC 06:20, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Systematization

"Beginning in 1972, Ceauşescu instituted a program of systematization". This is mostly false. Systematization in 1972's decree was something of a plan for the future, and did not involve complete destruction,demolition and reconstruction. The real systematization truly started after 1977's earthquake masked as an effort to repair and rebuild. The first village raized to the ground was Ceausescu's Scornicesti in 1981, and the first town Pitesti in 1979-80.

Trying to resolve dispute & POV issues

I've done some reorganizing of material, moving together material that was basically on the same topic.

1. As you can see if you read sections Foreign debt, Leadership weaknesses and Tensions Grow.
   • We never state the date of the constitutional referendum banning foreign debt, nor the date at which he began to pay back the debt. This should be easy to find out, and should be in the article. And what was the vote on the referendum? Was it a "real" election, or some sort of pseudo-election where everyone voted yes?

     AFAIK, the elections had no secret vote. People voted at their workplace: there was a big piece of paper with a table with three headings: Name, Yes and No. You'd have to put a checkmark on the appropriate heading. However, there were others to check your vote. My dad said that he saw this scene when he voted for the "reduce the army spending" referendum: a guy wanted to vote "no". The organizers asked him whether he was really sure he wanted it. The guy answered "yes", he believed that we needed a strong army to fight the imperialist capitalists. They asked him one more time to think about it, telling him which was the opinion of the party. He refused to vote "yes". He was eventually taken by two people and convinced via other means (I assume it was the Securitate). Bogdan | Talk 09:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

     • That's about what I figured. Has someone got a citable source on this? Or can we just agree to say something to the effect that the referenda were mere formalities? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

       Only found this Dutch site on referenda (in Dutch). It says that in a 1986 referendum concerning the army, the outcome was 100.0% 'yes', with a 99.9% participation rate. Bogdan | Talk 21:57, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   • the article contradicts itself: people were happy and things were getting better in 1989. No, people were miserable and things were getting worse. There are no citations on either. Probably we could find someone worth citing on both sides of this, and undoubtedly someone in Romania, who is a native Romanian speaker, has better access than I to the relevant sources. Right now, this is simply a mess.

     It was not getting better. Although the debts were payed, more products were beginning to be rationalized. Bogdan | Talk 09:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

     • Certainly fits with what I've mostly heard, and certainly fits the events of December. I am inclined to delete the statements to the contrary unless someone has citations. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

     On this last point, I want to point out: these contradictions have been in the article for months. All my recent edits did was to put the material into some semblance of organization so that the internal contradictions become visible. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

2. This article and Romanian Revolution of 1989 seem to disagree on the name of Dumitru Burlan's book. Here it is called Sosia lui Ceauşescu se destăinuie. Since this mentions a particular publisher and date, I'm guessing it is probably right. The other article says it is called "Eu am fost sosia lui Nicolae Ceauşescu". Can someone in Romania with access to the book please sort this out?

   After a google search I found "Dupa 14 ani sosia lui Nicolae Ceausescu se destainuie", Editura Ergorom, Bucuresti, 2003 Bogdan | Talk 09:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

   • Thanks. So it was wrong in both places. I'll fix it if someone hasn't beaten me to it. Really makes me doubt that whoever added it to the list of references actually had his hands on it, though. I'm going to assume that [2] has the title exactly right, and there is actually a dash between "ani" and "sosia", which makes more sense for a book title. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

3. Really, though, the reason I have this article tagged as dispute and POV is now isolated to the section Revolution or/and Coup, which his several problems:
   • The largest problem is that it presents Burlan's controversial account of events (a generals' conspiracy dating back to 1982) as if it were uncontroversial fact.
   • Almost as big a problem: the final paragraph of this section, beginning "The motivation of the coup, as can be inferred from facts, seems complex..." seems to be nothing but unattributed POV.

It is pretty clear that it began as a revolution, at least the Timisoara and the day of 21 December in Bucharest. It is also quite clear that Ion Iliescu had some connections with Moscow since the time he studied there. The first thing he did after getting the power was to make a phonecall to Moscow. Bogdan | Talk 09:18, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So... does someone want to sort this out? At least one person has objected above to someone from the U.S. trying to be the arbiter, so I'm doing my best to be just process-oriented, but if no one else takes responsibility for turning this back into an encyclopedia article, I'm hardly going to sit here and let it be a formless lump or a POV mess. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Since no one else seems to be working through the issues here, I am simply going to edit. It is obvious that the authors of the current version are not making any attempt to deal with the matters I have disputed. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:30, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have now rewritten the "Coup" section. It is deliberately vaguer in terms of claims of fact where facts are disputed, and those specific claims that are made indicate (insofar as possible) who made them. I have no illusion that this is final, but I think this is a better foundation than before: other cited claims can be added. If no one objects within 48 hours, I will feel free to remove the "disputed" tag, which I originally placed on the article. (The NPOV tag is a different matter).

I am not sure how much of this belongs here, versus at Romanian Revolution of 1989, but that is another matter. I'm focused here because this article is the one where the content disputes have not been resolved. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

It's been 48 hours, no one has responded; removing the "dispute" notice. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, Nicolae Ceausescu#Revolution should only cover the parts of the Revolution which concern Ceauşescu. [unsigned, but it's User:Gcbirzan, Mar 4, 2005]

Following the "be bold" maxim, I am going to try to take on the NPOV issue as well, which was entirely in the Foreign debt section. I am making exactly two changes there, both based on discussion above:

1. With reference to the referendum that banned foreign debt, I have added the sentence, "The referendum proceeded in the manner typical of Communist states of that era, producing an nearly unanimous 'yes' vote."
2. I have replaced the following two sentences—"People were very happy when in summer 1989 Ceauşescu announced that all debts were paid, expecting that the situation would improve. An improvement of the situation was indeed claimed on the TV where Ceauşescu was shown entering well stocked shops."—with "Ceauşescu was shown on television entering well stocked shops."

   That doesn't make much sense now. There should be at least a mention of why the stocked shops are relevant. --gcbirzan^talk 17:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

   Feel free to edit. My main point was to get out of there the unsourced "People were very happy" claim. BTW, I'd be perfectly glad to see an appropriately sourced claim to that effect. Also, Gcbirzan, is this an objection to removing the NPOV tag, or jsut a side remark? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:09, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, this would resolve the NPOV dispute. If no one objects within 48 hours, I will feel free to remove the "NPOV" tag, which I originally placed on the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:03, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

The tag is coming off. Obviously, if someone feels it is now slanted in a different bad way, they can re-tag it. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

concision on Revolution/Coup

i think thsi paragraph should offer details on how was Ceausescu related to, and affected by the Revolution/Coup. not presenting each and every detail on the revolution and the coup; say:

• allegedly there was a plot against him being prepared since 1982, ok, but The motivation of the coup, as can be inferred from facts, seems complex. The first law abolished (without any referendum or legality) by the incoming leadership was the constitution article that forbade external debts. ??? what's the relevance of detailing the plot like the article was about the "Plot against Ceausescu", not about the "Ceausescu was affected by a plot" ? - i'd formulate: "allegedly a Plot against Ceausescu was prepared since 1982, involving Stanculescu and other generals."
  • Mostly agree, except I'd say "Dumitru Burlan alleges that a plot against Ceauseşcu had been prepared since 1982, involving Stănculescu and other generals." -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
• there was confused street fighting after 22 december, ok, but adding Fierce fights occurred at that moment at Bucharest Otopeni International Airport between troops sent one against another under claims that they were going to meet terrorists which hapened after 22 december, is totaly irrelevant for Ceausescu's biography ... On 22 December the army was without a leader, since Ceauşescu (the official chief of the army) had disappeared - irrelevant for Ceausescu's biography -- Criztu 23:14, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree on the former (airport), unsure I'd drop the latter because part of why there was on clear chain of command was Ceauseşcu's own absence. But no problem dropping it, I suppose, all of this is detailed at Romanian Revolution of 1989, might as well keep it down to what is biographically important here. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:43, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

This has now been reworked and almost everything I have an issue with is now in the section on the coup. So let me take up my one remaining issue in the section "revolution" first: "Allegedly the number of citizens of USSR that entered Romania during this period was higher by 40,000 persons than the average." Alleged by whom? Is there any citation on this? If not, it's idle rumor-mongering and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:39, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

search google "turisti rusi 1989", the romanian media vehiculates the ideea that there was an unusual increase in the number of russian tourists in december 1989. this PNTCD party official site 1 has a declaration of Filip Teodorescu, colonelul in Directia de contraspionaj roman to the Senatorial Comission : In legatura cu acesti teroristi care au fost in tara: se pare ca a fost o armata, fiindca din datele care exista au fost vreo 40.000 de rusi in plus, in decembrie 1989, fata de anii precedenti. Filip Teodorescu: Asa se pare.-- Criztu 19:52, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• For the benefit of anyone tracking this who doesn't read Romanian (and someone please correct me if I've misunderstood), that's "a declaration of Filip Teodorescu, colonel in the Romanian Directorate of Counterespionage to the Senatorial Comission: 'About these terrorists who were in the country: it looks like they were an army, given that the data that exist show some 40,000 extra Russians, in December 1989, relative to earlier years'. Filip Teodorescu: 'that's how it looks like'"
• Criztu, I've skimmed it: it's not clear to me that it's much more than conjecture on the part of someone highly placed. Do you see it as more than that? It might deserve extended discussion in Laszlo Tokes, which is where we have the fullest version of the Timişoara events, or Romanian Revolution of 1989.
  Meanwhile, as far as this article, can we say "In a 1994 parliamentary hearing, Filip Teodorescu, colonel in the Romanian Directorate of Counterespionage alleged that 40,000 more than the usual number of citizens of the USSR were in Romania at this time, and expressed his conviction that they played a major role in escalating the level of violence and confrontation in Timişoara"? (citing the web site from which we got it)
  In any case, since it appears to be uncopyrighted material from a parliamentary hearing (do you agree?) we could put it in Wikisource, and do a full translation into English there as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

oh, that official site of National Peasant Party (PNTCD) took the material from Jurnalul National, i see at the bottom of the page. Publicam astazi, in exclusivitate, extrase din stenograma sedintei de audiere din 14 decembrie 1994. - 'We publish today, in exclusivity, extracts from the "minute of the hearing session of 14th december 1994"(of the Senatorial Comission of Inquiry on the events of Romanian Revolution 1989)' - then this colonel is asked for his opinnion on this increased number of russian tourists in Romania in december 1989 above average. so it's the senators who found out that there was an increase (aparently from a report of SRI (romanian secret services/serviciul roman de informatzii) and this colonel simply confirms, so why mentioning his name ?... then again, if these tourists were more than tourists, this would point to a Coup, or an instigated Revolt of the population -- Criztu 10:57, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

this newpaper/journal http://www.gardianul.ro/articol.php?a=reportaj2004052001.xml comments on this "Marvu report, TImisoara, 16-18 december 1989" : Incepand cu data de 9 decembrie 1989, a crescut substantial numarul intrarilor de "turisti" sovietici - majoritatea "in tranzit" spre Iugoslavia - cu autoturisme particulare, de la o medie de 80 la peste 1.000 de masini pe zi. (starting whith 9th december 1989, there was a substantial increase in the number of the entries of soviet "tourists" - majority "in transit" toward s Jugoslavija - with personal autos, from an average of 80 to over 1000 cars a day.) -- Criztu 11:24, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Teodorescu is relevant because the mere presence of Soviet citizens in Romania means nothing. The issue is his (persumably at least somewhat informed) statement that they had some connection to the Timişoara events.

Again, though, do you agree that since this is from a parliamentary hearing, it can't be copyrighted? I don't know Romanian copyright law, but that's pretty universal. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:26, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

since it is based on "Romanian Secret Service report on the Events in december 1989" i'd say it is available for anybody, i'm not an expert in copyright though -- Criztu 21:52, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've placed the original at wikisource:Stenograma_sedintei_de_audiere_din_14_decembrie_1994. Unfortunately, the original didn't use any of the specifically Romanian letters. I've done my best to clean it up, but it could definitely use review by a native Romanian speaker. I'm sure I made many mistakes, this task exceeds my comfort level with the language. And I will start on an English translation of that document some time within a month, but maybe not sooner. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:41, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

oh, i see, the increased number of russian tourists isn't relevant in itself, unless this can be connected to the revolution, indeed. i have no objection on removing the info on "40 000 russians mor", until we find a formulation comprising te connection between teh increased number of soviet tourists and the revolt in Timisoara and Iasi, in early december 1989 -- Criztu 22:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda Due

There were some allegations about Ceausescu's "special relations" with the Masonic Lodge Propaganda Due and Licio Gelli. Is anything clear about it?

After a google, I found only this Bogdan | Talk 16:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and this and also this

knighthood

He was some sort of English knight for awhile. Of the Bath, according to Order of the Bath. Kwantus 03:36, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Yes, the British revoked his knighthood only days before his execution. If anyone knows the details, it's probably worth adding to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:41, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)