
''For other people named Ceausescu or Ceauşescu, see Ceausescu (disambiguation).'' Nicolae Ceauşescu (International Phonetic Alphabet ), or approximately ''nik-oh-LA-ye cha-ow-SHESS-koo'') (January 26, 1918 - December 25,1989) was the leader of Communist Romania from 1965 until shortly before his execution in 1989. ==Early life and career== Born in the Scornicesti village of the Olt county, Ceauşescu moved to Bucharest at the age of 11 to become a shoemaker's apprentice. He joined the illegal Communist Party of Romania in early 1932 and was first arrested in 1933 for agitating during a strike. He was arrested again in 1934 first for collecting signatures on a petition protesting the trial of railway workers and twice more for other similar activities earning him the description "dangerous communist agitator" and "active distributor of communist and anti-fascist propaganda" on his police record. He then went underground but was captured and imprisoned in 1936 for a two year sentence at Doftana Prison for anti-fascist activities. While out of jail in 1939 he met Elena Ceausescu (they married in 1946) - she would play a growing role in his political life over the decades. He was arrested and imprisoned again in 1940. In 1943 he was transferred to Targu Jiu concentration camp where he shared a cell with Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, becoming his protégé. After World War II, when Romania was beginning to fall under Soviet Union influence, he served as secretary of the Union of Communist Youth (1944-1945). After the Communists seized power in Romania in 1947, he headed the ministry of agriculture, then served as deputy minister of the armed forces under Gheorghiu-Dej's Stalinism reign. In 1952 Gheorghiu-Dej brought him onto the Central Committee months after the party's "Muscovite faction" led by Ana Pauker had been purged. In 1954 he became a full member of the Politburo and eventually rose to occupy the second highest position in the party hierarchy. ==Leadership of Romania== Three days after the death of Gheorghiu-Dej in March 1965, Ceauşescu became general secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party. One of his first acts was to rename the party the Romanian Communist Party and declare that the country was now the Communist Romania rather than a People's Republic. In 1967 he consolidated his power by becoming president of the State Council. Initially, he was a popular figure, due to his independent policy, challenging the supremacy of the Soviet Union in Romania. In the 1960s he ended Romania's active participation in the Warsaw Pact (though Romania formally remained a member); he refused to take part in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact forces, and actively and openly condemned that action. In 1974, Ceauşescu added "President of Romania" to his titles, further consolidating his power. He followed an independent policy in foreign relations—for example, in 1984, Romania was one of only two Communist-ruled countries to take part in the United States-organized 1984 Summer Olympics. Also, the country was the first of the Eastern Bloc to have official relations with the European Community: an agreement including Romania in the Community's Generalized System of Preferences was signed in 1974 and an Agreement on Industrial Products was signed in 1980. However, Ceauşescu refused to implement any liberal reforms. The evolution of his regime followed the Stalinist path already traced by Gheorghiu-Dej. Their opposition to Soviet control was mainly determined by the unwillingness to proceed to destalinization. The secret police (Securitate) maintained firm control over speech and the media, and tolerated no internal opposition. Ceauşescu had made state visits to the People's Republic of China and North Korea in 1971. He took great interest in the idea of total national transformation as embodied in the programs of the Korean Workers' Party and China's Cultural Revolution. Shortly after returning home he began to emulate North Korea's system, influenced by the Juche philosophy of North Korean President Kim Il Sung. Korean books on Juche were translated into Romanian and widely distributed in the country. Beginning in 1972, Ceauşescu instituted a program of systematization (Romania). Promoted as a way to build a "multilaterally developed socialist society," the program of demolition, resettlement, and construction began in the countryside, but culminated with an attempt to completely reshape the country's capital. Over one fifth of central Bucharest, including churches and historic buildings, was demolished during Ceauşescu's rule in the 1980s, in order to rebuild the city in his own style. Palace of the People (Romania) ("Casa Poporului") in Bucharest, now the Parliament House, is one of the world's largest buildings, after The Pentagon. Ceauşescu also planned to bulldoze many villages in order to move the peasants into blocks of flats in the cities, as part of his "urbanization" and "industrialization" programs. An Non-governmental organization project called "Sister Villages" that created bonds between European and Romanian communities may have played a role in thwarting these plans. ==The Pacepa Defection== In 1978 Ion Mihai Pacepa, a senior member of the Romanian intelligence service (Securitate), defected to the United States. According to the official declaration made by president Ion Iliescu when Pacepa asked for the return of his properties and position, Pacepa was "a confused man" who gathered illegal properties in Romania by using his influential position. His treason was a powerful blow against the regime, forcing Ceauşescu to overhaul the architecture of the Securitate. Pacepa's 1986 book ''Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy Chief'' (ISBN 0895265702) reveals details of Ceauşescu's regime such as his collaboration with Arab terrorists, his massive espionage on American industry and his elaborate efforts to rally Western political support. After Pacepa's defection, the country became more isolated and the economic growth stopped. Ceauşescu's intelligence agency became subject to heavy infiltration by foreign intelligence agencies and he started to lose control of the country. He tried several reorganizations in a bid to get rid of old collaborators of Pacepa, but to no avail. ==Personality Cult and Authoritarianism== Ceauşescu created a pervasive personality cult, giving himself the titles of "Conducător" ("Leader") and "Geniul din Carpaţi" ("Genius of the Carpathians"), with help from Proletarian Culture (Proletkult) poets such as Adrian Paunescu, and even having a Kings of Romania-like scepter made for himself. Such excesses prompted the painter Salvador Dalí to send a congratulatory telegram to the "Conducător." The Communist Party daily ''Scinteia'' published the message, unaware that Dalí had written it with tongue firmly in cheek. To avoid new treasons after Pacepa's defection, Ceauşescu also invested his wife Elena Ceausescu and other members of his family with important positions in the government. ==Ceauşescu's Statesmanship== Under Ceauşescu, Romania was Europe's fourth biggest exporter of weapons. Nevertheless, several of Ceauşescu's actions suggest that one of his ambitions was to win a Nobel Prize for peace. In pursuing this goal, he made considerable efforts to act as a mediator between PLO and Israel. He organized a successful referendum for reducing the size of the Romanian Army by 5%. He held large rallies for peace and wrote a poem that was part of each literature manual. His poem was (in a word for word translation): :''Let us make from cannons tractors'' :''From atom lights and sources'' :''From nuclear missiles'' :''Plows to labour fields.'' Ceauşescu also tried to play the role of a father to poor African countries. He was one of the friends of Mobutu Sese Seko of Congo, sending them money and technology, and used to be acclaimed as a hero by the people of these countries when he was visiting them. ==Foreign debt== Despite his increasingly totalitarian rule, Ceauşescu's political independence from the Soviet Union drew the interest of western powers. Ceauşescu was able to borrow heavily from the west to finance economic development programs, but these loans ultimately devastated the country's financial situation. In an attempt to correct this situation, Ceauşescu decided to eradicate Romania's foreign debts. He organized a referendum and managed to change the constitution, adding a clause that barred Romania from taking foreign debts in the future. The referendum yielded results typical for Communist states of that era: a nearly unanimous "yes" vote. In the 1980s, Ceauşescu ordered the export of much of the country's agricultural and industrial production in order to repay its debts. The resulting domestic shortages made the everyday life of Romanian citizens a fight for survival as food rationing was introduced and heating, gas and electricity black-outs were becoming the rule. There was a steady decrease in the living standard (and especially the availability of food and general goods in stores) between 1980 and 1989. The official explanation was that the country was paying its debts, and people accepted the suffering, believing it to be for a short time only and for the ultimate good. The debt was fully paid in summer 1989, shortly before Ceauşescu was overthrown. During that period, the state TV often showed Ceauşescu entering well stocked stores. The constitutional prohibition of debt was the first thing changed, without any referendum, by the leaders of the National_Salvation_Front as they assumed power after the Romanian_Revolution_of_1989. ==Leadership weaknesses== Ceauşescu's social policies further aggravated the situation. For instance, forcibly maintaining the population growth rate became a top political priority. A key element of this process was the 1966 decree that prohibited abortion and contraception and made divorce more difficult to obtain. 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. Mothers of at least 5 children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least 10 children were declared heroic mothers receiving a gold medal, a free ARO 4x4 car, free transportation on trains, and a free holiday travel each year to a resort. However few Romanian women acquired such "heroic mother" status, the average Romanian family having 2-3 children (see Demographics of Romania). While the population growth rate was maintained, poverty and poor sexual education led to thousands of children being abandoned by their families at state-run orphanages (many of those were undesired children abandoned at birth or shortly thereafter, because poor parents could not support them). These institutionalized "decree babies" lived in squalid conditions, with a high mortality rate as one of the many consequences. Another disastrous policy was Ceauşescu's refusal to acknowledge the spread of AIDS within Romania's closely guarded borders. HIV-testing for blood donors was neither required by law, nor was it being practiced at that time; this fact, along with the government-sanctioned practice of using shared transfusion needles for orphans, propelled Romania to second place in the list of childhood HIV infections in Europe. In 1987 an attempted strike at Brasov failed: the army occupied the factories and crushed the workers' demonstrations. Throughout 1989, Ceauşescu became even more isolated in the Communist world: in August 1989 he proposed a summit to discuss the problems of Eastern European Communism and "defend socialism" in these countries, but his proposal was turned down by the Warsaw Pact states and the People's Republic of China. ==Tensions Grow== In 1989 Ceauşescu was showing signs of complete denial of reality. While the country was going through extremely difficult times with long bread lines in front of empty food stores, he was often shown on state TV entering stores jampacked with food supplies and praising the "high living standard" achieved under his rule. In the fall of 1989, daily TV broadcasts were showing endless scrolling lists of CAPs (kolkhozes) with alleged record harvests, in blatant contradiction with the shortages experienced by the average Romanian at the time. Some people, believing that Ceauşescu was not aware of what was going on in the country, were attempting to hand him petition and complaint letters during his many visits around the country. However, each time he was getting a letter he would immediately pass it on to members of his security detail, and whether or not Ceauşescu ever came to read any of them, will probably remain an unsolved mystery. According to the rumors of the time, people attempting to hand letters directly to Ceauşescu had to take upon themselves a high risk of adverse consequences, "courtesy" of the secret police Securitate. People were strongly discouraged from addressing him and there was a general sense that things had reached an overall low. ==Revolution== ''See main article Romanian Revolution of 1989.'' Ceauşescu's regime collapsed after a series of violent events in Timisoara and Bucharest in December 1989. In November 1989 the XIVth Congress of PCR (Romanian Communist Party) saw Ceauşescu, now aged 72, reelected for another 5 years as leader of PCR. Demonstrations in the city of Timişoara were triggered by the government-sponsored attempt to evict Laszlo Tokes, an ethnic Magyars church minister, accused by the government of inciting ethnic hate. Members of his ethnic Hungarian congregation surrounded his apartment in a show of support. Romanian students spontaneously joined the demonstration, which soon lost nearly all connection to its initial cause and became a more general anti-government demonstration. Regular military forces, police and Securitate fired on demonstrators on December 17, 1989. On December 18, 1989, Ceauşescu departed for a visit to Iran, leaving the duty of crushing the Timişoara revolt to his subordinates and his wife. Upon his return on the evening of December 20, the situation became even more tense, and he gave a televised speech from the TV studio inside Central Committee Building (CC Building), in which he spoke about the events at Timişoara in terms of an "interference of foreign forces in Romania's internal affairs" and an "external aggression on Romania's sovereignty". The country, which had no information of the Timişoara events from the national media, heard about the Timişoara revolt from western radio stations like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, and by word of mouth. A mass meeting was staged for the next day, December 21, which, according to the official media, was presented as a "spontaneous movement of support for Ceauşescu", emulating the 1968 meeting in which Ceauşescu had spoken against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by forces of Warsaw Pact. On December 21, the mass meeting, held in what is now Revolution Square, degenerated into anarchy. A stunned Ceauşescu couple, failing to control the crowds, finally took cover inside the CC Building, where they remained until the next day. The rest of the day saw a revolt of the Bucharest population, who had assembled in University Square, and confronted the police and the army on barricades. These initial events are regarded to this day as the genuine revolution. However, the unarmed rioters were no match for the military apparatus concentrated in Bucharest, which cleared the streets by midnight and arrested hundreds of people in the process. Although the broadcast of the "support meeting" and the subsequent events on the national television had been interrupted the previous day, Ceauşescu's senile reaction to the events had already become part of the country's collective memory. By the morning of December 22, the rebellion had already spread to all major cities. The suspicious death of Vasile Milea, the defense minister, was announced by the media. Immediately thereafter, Ceauşescu presided over the CPEX meeting and assumed the leadership of the army. He made an attempt to address the crowd gathered in front of the CC, but this desperate move was rejected by the rioters, who forced open the doors of the building, by now left unprotected by the army, police and Securitate. The Ceauşescu couple fled by helicopter from the top of the CC building in a poorly advised decision (since they would have had safer refuge using existing underground tunnels) [see Burlan]. ==Coup== ''See main article Romanian Revolution of 1989.'' The events of December 1989 remain controversial. Many, including Filip Teodorescu, a high-ranking Securitate officer at the time, allege that a group of conspiring generals in the Securitate took advantage of this opportunity to launch a coup in Bucharest. Some have made more specific claims about the nature of the conspiracy. Colonel Burlan asserts that the coup had been prepared since 1982, and was originally planned to take place during the New Year celebrations, but it was spontaneously adapted to the new developments. It remains a matter of controversy whether there had been any advance conspiracy to stage a coup, and, if so, who was precisely involved. The two main alternative possibilities are that these events were simply a combination of genuine revolutionary drive and inherent confusion, or that various figures in the military simply took opportunistic advantage of public protests, in an effort to capture power for themselves or for others whom they supported. According to Burlan, the plot leaders were generals Stănculescu and Neagoe, Ceauşescu's closest security advisors; Burlan claims that they convinced him to hold the first mass rally in the Square by the Central Committee building, and that it was prepared in advance with remotely controlled automatic guns. During Ceauşescu's speech, the remotely controlled guns were set to fire randomly over the crowd and agitators started to cry anti-Ceauşescu slogans through loudspeakers. Scared by these developments, the people first tried to run away. However, given the loudspeaker messages stating that they were being shot at by Ceauşescu's forces and that a "revolution" was underway, the people were compelled to join the "revolution". The rally turned into a protest demonstration. The machine-gun fire and the messages over the loudspeakers appear to be universally acknowledged; the other aspects of this remain controversial. On December 22 the army found itself without a leader: Ceauşescu (the official commander-in-chief of the army) had vanished, being sent by his (possibly conspiring) advisor Stănculescu to the countryside, and defense minister Vasile Milea was dead. (Initially the "revolutionary" leaders claimed that Milea was assassinated on behalf of Ceauşescu. This is possible, but other possibilities abound, notably that he might have refused to join them and been killed on that account. The (still) official account that he committed suicide has almost no credibility.) Confused, the army leadership in Bucharest decided to avoid conflicts and ordered their troops to fraternize with the demonstrators. Fierce fighting occurred at that time at Henri Coanda International Airport between troops sent one against another under claims that they were going to meet terrorists. There are various reports of other similar events. Filip Teodorescu claims that a number of instigators—possibly a small number, and probably Russians—started various incidents (including the violence in Timişoara); he also alleges that the level of violence was greatly exacerbated by elements within the military who propagated a myth of "securist-terrorists". According to Colonel Dumitru Burlan's book, the generals who were part of the conspiracy (led by general Victor Stanculescu) did their best to create such terrorist stories in order to induce fear and to draw the army on the conspirators' side. Generally, there is a consensus that there were some people instigating terror, and that others effectively caused incidents out of confusion. The relative magnitude of the two factors is not agreed upon, and no individual has ever been charged with or convicted of participating in deliberate acts of terror. There are any number of popular theories about the motivation of the coup. Some point out that the first law passed by the incoming leadership abolished (without any referendum or legal basis) the constitution article that forbade external debts. At that time, the debts had been fully paid, and there are various allegations about the intended beneficiaries of these new desired debts: corrupt politicians, or international banks. There is no question that some individuals who were active in the December events greatly profited in terms of money and power (especially in the form of ownership in privatized industries), fame, advancement in rank, or merely the settling of personal grievances; it is also possible that any number of foreign interests may have been involved, possibly including the KGB and/or other Soviet interests. ==The End of Ceauşescu== [[Image:Ceausescu2005.jpg|thumb|A Romanian holds a book with the portrait of the late Nicolae Ceauşescu at his grave in a Bucharest cemetery on January 26, 2005 to mark his eighty-seventh birthday. Every year, Romanians nostalgic for the Ceauşescu years gather to mourn him at this cemetery.]] Ceauşescu and his wife Elena fled the capital by helicopter together with Emil Bobu and Manea Manescu. They headed for Ceauşescu's Snagov residence, from where they fled again, this time for Targoviste. The presidential couple kept moving through the countryside more or less aimlessly. Near Târgovişte they abandoned the helicopter, which was ordered to land by the army, which by that time had already declared Romania to be restricted air space. The flight included grotesque episodes: a car chase to evade citizens attempting an arrest, leaving behind of their aides, a short stay in a school. The Ceauşescus were finally held in a police car for several hours, while the policemen listened to the radio, presumably in an attempt to get a clue as to which political faction was about to win. Police eventually turned over the presidential couple to the army. On December 25, the two were condemned to death by a military kangaroo court on charges ranging from illegal gathering of wealth to genocide, and were execution by firing squad in Targoviste. During their trial and before the firing squad the couple recited from the "Internationale". They were shot dead after they sang the 4th word. The firing squad was not well-prepared for the execution. One of the guards accidentally shot Ceauşescu in the foot before then firing the fatal shot. The "trial" and execution were videotaped. The footage was promptly released in France and other western countries. Several days later, the footage of their trial (but not of their execution) was released on television for the Romanian public. ==Other== The Ceauşescus had one adopted son, Valentin Ceausescu (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 Ceausescu (born 1950) and a younger son, Nicu Ceausescu (born 1951). 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. Nevertheless, he used to receive presents (e.g., a golden plated door handle) from countries and organizations that he was visiting, the misappropriation of which was one of the accusations against him at his trial. While he tried to keep account of his finances, his biological son Nicu was much less restrained and rumors abounded that he paid a gambling debt incurred in Las Vegas with a herd of horses belonging to the Communist Party. Ceauşescu's security detail was relatively small compared to that of the current Romanian government, numbering only 40 people for his residences and for his whole family. His security chief was Col. Dumitru Burlan who claims that his troops had only 2 guns (insufficient for any serious defense). Col. Burlan claims that Ceauşescu was overconfident that the Romanian people loved him, and believed that he did not need a protection. This explains much of the ease with which Ceauşescu was deposed and captured. ==Bibliography== * Edward Behr, ''Kiss the Hand you Cannot Bite'', ISBN 0679401288 * Dumitru Burlan, ''Dupa 14 ani - Sosia lui Ceauşescu se destăinuie'' ("After 14 Years - The Double of Ceauşescu confesses"). Editura Ergorom. July 31, 2003 (in Romanian). * Marian Oprea, "Au trecut 15 ani -- Conspiratia Securitatii" ("After 15 years -- the conspiracy of Securitate"), in [http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.html ''Lumea Magazin'' Nr 10, 2004]: (in Romanian; link leads to table of contents, verifying that the article exists, but the article itself is not online). * Viorel Patrichi, "[http://www.lumeam.ro/nr12_2001/politica_si_servicii_secrete.html Eu am fost sosia lui Nicolae Ceauşescu]" ("I was Ceauşescu's double"), ''Lumea Magazin'' Nr 12, 2001 (in Romanian) * Stevens W. Sowards, [http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/ ''Twenty-Five Lectures on Modern Balkan History (The Balkans in the Age of Nationalism)''], 1996, in particular [http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect24.htm Lecture 24: The failure of Balkan Communism and the causes of the Revolutions of 1989] * Victor Stănculescu, [http://www.jurnalul.ro/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=14985 "Nu vă fie milă, au 2 miliarde de lei in cont"] ("Do not have mercy, they have 2 billion lei [33 million dollars]"), in ''Jurnalul National'', Nov 22, 2004 * John Sweeney, ''The Life and Evil Times of Nicolae Ceauşescu'', ISBN 0091746728 * Filip Teodorescu, et.al., wikisource:Stenograma_sedintei_de_audiere_din_14_decembrie_1994, featuring the remarks of Filip Teodorescu. ==External links== * [http://www.nicolaeceausescu.ro A website where romanians write their opinions about Nicolae Ceauşescu] * [http://www.timisoara.com/newmioc/Politic.htm The Politicians and the revolution of 1989] * [http://www.clipa.com/pagpolitica638.htm Clipa 638: How Milea was killed, probably by Stanculescu, and the life of the Ceauşescu family] * [http://www.timisoara.com/timisoara/rev/trialscript.html Ceauşescu's trial transcription] * [http://www.ceausescu.org/ Ceauşescu Nicolae - Romania's Dark Age under Communism] * [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=26903%40iuvax.cs.indiana.edu&output=gplain AP, 30 Sep 1989] * [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8910260017.AA03230%40hkucs.HKU.HK&output=gplain Reuters, 25 Oct 1989] 1918 births 1989 deaths Presidents of Romania Romanian communists Executed presidents Executed people
==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. User: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. User: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. User: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. -- User: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. -- User: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? User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 15:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) * I'd be glad to lose the gory photo. We don't do this to (say) Che Guevara. -- User: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. User:VeryVerilyUser talk:VeryVerily 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 09:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::And Ceausescu's ouster and execution is central to his biography. User:172 09:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::Every picture should add some extra information to the article. How does this photo improve the article? User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 09:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::Wikipedia:What 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. - User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User: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? - User:Kefka 05:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) : probably work accidents. Unlike the Danube-Black Sea canal, this was not an extermination site. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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 -- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User:Gazpacho 23:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) :You're right. And it's not mentioned at all at Systematization (Romania), either. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:37, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC) == diacriticals == Shouldn't the Communist-era newspaper be ''Scânteia'' or ''Scînteia'' rather than ''Scinteia''? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 01:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) : Yes, "Scînteia". User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 Laszlo Tokes ''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, [http://www.adevarulonline.ro] (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! User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User: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. user: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. User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 03:46, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) == Proposed summit == Just the references: * [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=26903%40iuvax.cs.indiana.edu&output=gplain AP, 30 Sep 1989] * [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8910260017.AA03230%40hkucs.HKU.HK&output=gplain Reuters, 25 Oct 1989] (they're Usenet transcripts of the articles -- I don't have access to the AP/Reuters archives :) User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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 U.S. dollar 3,000 or U.S. dollar3,000. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User: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? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 19:33, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) That would be a very corect and impartial way to say it. User: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. User:MihaiC 20:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) : Yes, I think that would give an appropriate perspective on the number. Go for it. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User: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). User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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) -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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.'' -- User: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.User: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. #As you can see if you read sections Nicolae Ceausescu#Foreign debt, Nicolae Ceausescu#Leadership weaknesses and Nicolae Ceausescu#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). User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 17:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) #*:*:Only found this [http://www.referendumplatform.nl/product_info.php?products_id=55#roemenie 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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) # 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 User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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 [http://www.ziarulcn.com/index.php?pid=print_version&aid=9707] has the title exactly right, and there is actually a dash between "ani" and "sosia", which makes more sense for a book title. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 17:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) #Really, though, the reason I have this article tagged as dispute and POV is now isolated to the section Nicolae Ceausescu#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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 04:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) ::It's been 48 hours, no one has responded; removing the "dispute" notice. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 Nicolae_Ceausescu#Foreign_debt section. I am making exactly two changes there, both based on discussion above: # 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." # 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. --User:GcbirzanUser_talk:Gcbirzan 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? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 the theory of a Plot against Ceausescu was prepared since 1982, involving Stanculescu and other generals." ** Mostly agree, except I'd say "Dumitru Burlan alleges that a theory of a plot against Ceausescu had been prepared since 1982, involving Stănculescu and other generals." -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 -- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 [http://www.pntcd.ro/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4281&Itemid=59 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.''-- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 -- User: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.) -- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 -- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 -- User: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 [http://www.lumeam.ro/nr4_2000/politica.html only this] User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 16:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) : [http://www.jurnalul.ro/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=15020 and this] and [http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:BnzAjRxj_bwJ:www.magazin.ro/articole.cfm%3FNumar%3D28%26An%3D2000%26Domeniu%3DTerra%2BX+%22Propaganda+due%22+Ceausescu&hl=en also this] ==knighthood== He was some sort of English knight for awhile. Of the Bath, according to Order of the Bath. User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:41, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) == Stenograma == I've done my best to do an interspersed English translation at wikisource: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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, 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.User: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). -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 00:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) :I never heard of it. Neither in English or Romanian. I will check the Romanian "DEX" dictionary.User:MihaiC 07:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Here's the [http://www.dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=proletcultism DEX definition] User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: ''PROLETCULTÍSM s.n. Curent cultural (apărut în Uniunea Sovietică după Revoluţia din Octombrie) ale cărui principii estetice se reduceau la ideea formării unei culturi „pur proletare“ şi care respingea întreaga moştenire culturală a trecutului. – După rus. proletkul'tovşcina.'' ::: 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.User: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. – From the Russian ''proletkul'tovşcina''." 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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")…"; "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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. Ceauşescu 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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" -- User: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. ..." User: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" -- User:Criztu 13:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :* I'm going with DrFlo1's suggestion. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) On my other point — "typical for Communist states of that era" vs. "typical for all contemporary Romanian constitutional revisions" — no one has replied. I am restoring the former. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Nicolae_Ceausescu:
Nicolae_Ceausescu
Nicolae_Ceausescu
Nicolae Ceausescu
''For other people named Ceausescu or Ceauşescu, see Ceausescu (disambiguation).'' Nicolae Ceauşescu (International Phonetic Alphabet ), or approximately ''nik-oh-LA-ye cha-ow-SHESS-koo'') (January 26, 1918 - December 25,1989) was the leader of Communist Romania from 1965 until shortly before his execution in 1989. ==Early life and career== Born in the Scornicesti village of the Olt county, Ceauşescu moved to Bucharest at the age of 11 to become a shoemaker's apprentice. He joined the illegal Communist Party of Romania in early 1932 and was first arrested in 1933 for agitating during a strike. He was arrested again in 1934 first for collecting signatures on a petition protesting the trial of railway workers and twice more for other similar activities earning him the description "dangerous communist agitator" and "active distributor of communist and anti-fascist propaganda" on his police record. He then went underground but was captured and imprisoned in 1936 for a two year sentence at Doftana Prison for anti-fascist activities. While out of jail in 1939 he met Elena Ceausescu (they married in 1946) - she would play a growing role in his political life over the decades. He was arrested and imprisoned again in 1940. In 1943 he was transferred to Targu Jiu concentration camp where he shared a cell with Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, becoming his protégé. After World War II, when Romania was beginning to fall under Soviet Union influence, he served as secretary of the Union of Communist Youth (1944-1945). After the Communists seized power in Romania in 1947, he headed the ministry of agriculture, then served as deputy minister of the armed forces under Gheorghiu-Dej's Stalinism reign. In 1952 Gheorghiu-Dej brought him onto the Central Committee months after the party's "Muscovite faction" led by Ana Pauker had been purged. In 1954 he became a full member of the Politburo and eventually rose to occupy the second highest position in the party hierarchy. ==Leadership of Romania== Three days after the death of Gheorghiu-Dej in March 1965, Ceauşescu became general secretary of the Romanian Workers' Party. One of his first acts was to rename the party the Romanian Communist Party and declare that the country was now the Communist Romania rather than a People's Republic. In 1967 he consolidated his power by becoming president of the State Council. Initially, he was a popular figure, due to his independent policy, challenging the supremacy of the Soviet Union in Romania. In the 1960s he ended Romania's active participation in the Warsaw Pact (though Romania formally remained a member); he refused to take part in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia by Warsaw Pact forces, and actively and openly condemned that action. In 1974, Ceauşescu added "President of Romania" to his titles, further consolidating his power. He followed an independent policy in foreign relations—for example, in 1984, Romania was one of only two Communist-ruled countries to take part in the United States-organized 1984 Summer Olympics. Also, the country was the first of the Eastern Bloc to have official relations with the European Community: an agreement including Romania in the Community's Generalized System of Preferences was signed in 1974 and an Agreement on Industrial Products was signed in 1980. However, Ceauşescu refused to implement any liberal reforms. The evolution of his regime followed the Stalinist path already traced by Gheorghiu-Dej. Their opposition to Soviet control was mainly determined by the unwillingness to proceed to destalinization. The secret police (Securitate) maintained firm control over speech and the media, and tolerated no internal opposition. Ceauşescu had made state visits to the People's Republic of China and North Korea in 1971. He took great interest in the idea of total national transformation as embodied in the programs of the Korean Workers' Party and China's Cultural Revolution. Shortly after returning home he began to emulate North Korea's system, influenced by the Juche philosophy of North Korean President Kim Il Sung. Korean books on Juche were translated into Romanian and widely distributed in the country. Beginning in 1972, Ceauşescu instituted a program of systematization (Romania). Promoted as a way to build a "multilaterally developed socialist society," the program of demolition, resettlement, and construction began in the countryside, but culminated with an attempt to completely reshape the country's capital. Over one fifth of central Bucharest, including churches and historic buildings, was demolished during Ceauşescu's rule in the 1980s, in order to rebuild the city in his own style. Palace of the People (Romania) ("Casa Poporului") in Bucharest, now the Parliament House, is one of the world's largest buildings, after The Pentagon. Ceauşescu also planned to bulldoze many villages in order to move the peasants into blocks of flats in the cities, as part of his "urbanization" and "industrialization" programs. An Non-governmental organization project called "Sister Villages" that created bonds between European and Romanian communities may have played a role in thwarting these plans. ==The Pacepa Defection== In 1978 Ion Mihai Pacepa, a senior member of the Romanian intelligence service (Securitate), defected to the United States. According to the official declaration made by president Ion Iliescu when Pacepa asked for the return of his properties and position, Pacepa was "a confused man" who gathered illegal properties in Romania by using his influential position. His treason was a powerful blow against the regime, forcing Ceauşescu to overhaul the architecture of the Securitate. Pacepa's 1986 book ''Red Horizons: Chronicles of a Communist Spy Chief'' (ISBN 0895265702) reveals details of Ceauşescu's regime such as his collaboration with Arab terrorists, his massive espionage on American industry and his elaborate efforts to rally Western political support. After Pacepa's defection, the country became more isolated and the economic growth stopped. Ceauşescu's intelligence agency became subject to heavy infiltration by foreign intelligence agencies and he started to lose control of the country. He tried several reorganizations in a bid to get rid of old collaborators of Pacepa, but to no avail. ==Personality Cult and Authoritarianism== Ceauşescu created a pervasive personality cult, giving himself the titles of "Conducător" ("Leader") and "Geniul din Carpaţi" ("Genius of the Carpathians"), with help from Proletarian Culture (Proletkult) poets such as Adrian Paunescu, and even having a Kings of Romania-like scepter made for himself. Such excesses prompted the painter Salvador Dalí to send a congratulatory telegram to the "Conducător." The Communist Party daily ''Scinteia'' published the message, unaware that Dalí had written it with tongue firmly in cheek. To avoid new treasons after Pacepa's defection, Ceauşescu also invested his wife Elena Ceausescu and other members of his family with important positions in the government. ==Ceauşescu's Statesmanship== Under Ceauşescu, Romania was Europe's fourth biggest exporter of weapons. Nevertheless, several of Ceauşescu's actions suggest that one of his ambitions was to win a Nobel Prize for peace. In pursuing this goal, he made considerable efforts to act as a mediator between PLO and Israel. He organized a successful referendum for reducing the size of the Romanian Army by 5%. He held large rallies for peace and wrote a poem that was part of each literature manual. His poem was (in a word for word translation): :''Let us make from cannons tractors'' :''From atom lights and sources'' :''From nuclear missiles'' :''Plows to labour fields.'' Ceauşescu also tried to play the role of a father to poor African countries. He was one of the friends of Mobutu Sese Seko of Congo, sending them money and technology, and used to be acclaimed as a hero by the people of these countries when he was visiting them. ==Foreign debt== Despite his increasingly totalitarian rule, Ceauşescu's political independence from the Soviet Union drew the interest of western powers. Ceauşescu was able to borrow heavily from the west to finance economic development programs, but these loans ultimately devastated the country's financial situation. In an attempt to correct this situation, Ceauşescu decided to eradicate Romania's foreign debts. He organized a referendum and managed to change the constitution, adding a clause that barred Romania from taking foreign debts in the future. The referendum yielded results typical for Communist states of that era: a nearly unanimous "yes" vote. In the 1980s, Ceauşescu ordered the export of much of the country's agricultural and industrial production in order to repay its debts. The resulting domestic shortages made the everyday life of Romanian citizens a fight for survival as food rationing was introduced and heating, gas and electricity black-outs were becoming the rule. There was a steady decrease in the living standard (and especially the availability of food and general goods in stores) between 1980 and 1989. The official explanation was that the country was paying its debts, and people accepted the suffering, believing it to be for a short time only and for the ultimate good. The debt was fully paid in summer 1989, shortly before Ceauşescu was overthrown. During that period, the state TV often showed Ceauşescu entering well stocked stores. The constitutional prohibition of debt was the first thing changed, without any referendum, by the leaders of the National_Salvation_Front as they assumed power after the Romanian_Revolution_of_1989. ==Leadership weaknesses== Ceauşescu's social policies further aggravated the situation. For instance, forcibly maintaining the population growth rate became a top political priority. A key element of this process was the 1966 decree that prohibited abortion and contraception and made divorce more difficult to obtain. 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. Mothers of at least 5 children would be entitled to significant benefits, while mothers of at least 10 children were declared heroic mothers receiving a gold medal, a free ARO 4x4 car, free transportation on trains, and a free holiday travel each year to a resort. However few Romanian women acquired such "heroic mother" status, the average Romanian family having 2-3 children (see Demographics of Romania). While the population growth rate was maintained, poverty and poor sexual education led to thousands of children being abandoned by their families at state-run orphanages (many of those were undesired children abandoned at birth or shortly thereafter, because poor parents could not support them). These institutionalized "decree babies" lived in squalid conditions, with a high mortality rate as one of the many consequences. Another disastrous policy was Ceauşescu's refusal to acknowledge the spread of AIDS within Romania's closely guarded borders. HIV-testing for blood donors was neither required by law, nor was it being practiced at that time; this fact, along with the government-sanctioned practice of using shared transfusion needles for orphans, propelled Romania to second place in the list of childhood HIV infections in Europe. In 1987 an attempted strike at Brasov failed: the army occupied the factories and crushed the workers' demonstrations. Throughout 1989, Ceauşescu became even more isolated in the Communist world: in August 1989 he proposed a summit to discuss the problems of Eastern European Communism and "defend socialism" in these countries, but his proposal was turned down by the Warsaw Pact states and the People's Republic of China. ==Tensions Grow== In 1989 Ceauşescu was showing signs of complete denial of reality. While the country was going through extremely difficult times with long bread lines in front of empty food stores, he was often shown on state TV entering stores jampacked with food supplies and praising the "high living standard" achieved under his rule. In the fall of 1989, daily TV broadcasts were showing endless scrolling lists of CAPs (kolkhozes) with alleged record harvests, in blatant contradiction with the shortages experienced by the average Romanian at the time. Some people, believing that Ceauşescu was not aware of what was going on in the country, were attempting to hand him petition and complaint letters during his many visits around the country. However, each time he was getting a letter he would immediately pass it on to members of his security detail, and whether or not Ceauşescu ever came to read any of them, will probably remain an unsolved mystery. According to the rumors of the time, people attempting to hand letters directly to Ceauşescu had to take upon themselves a high risk of adverse consequences, "courtesy" of the secret police Securitate. People were strongly discouraged from addressing him and there was a general sense that things had reached an overall low. ==Revolution== ''See main article Romanian Revolution of 1989.'' Ceauşescu's regime collapsed after a series of violent events in Timisoara and Bucharest in December 1989. In November 1989 the XIVth Congress of PCR (Romanian Communist Party) saw Ceauşescu, now aged 72, reelected for another 5 years as leader of PCR. Demonstrations in the city of Timişoara were triggered by the government-sponsored attempt to evict Laszlo Tokes, an ethnic Magyars church minister, accused by the government of inciting ethnic hate. Members of his ethnic Hungarian congregation surrounded his apartment in a show of support. Romanian students spontaneously joined the demonstration, which soon lost nearly all connection to its initial cause and became a more general anti-government demonstration. Regular military forces, police and Securitate fired on demonstrators on December 17, 1989. On December 18, 1989, Ceauşescu departed for a visit to Iran, leaving the duty of crushing the Timişoara revolt to his subordinates and his wife. Upon his return on the evening of December 20, the situation became even more tense, and he gave a televised speech from the TV studio inside Central Committee Building (CC Building), in which he spoke about the events at Timişoara in terms of an "interference of foreign forces in Romania's internal affairs" and an "external aggression on Romania's sovereignty". The country, which had no information of the Timişoara events from the national media, heard about the Timişoara revolt from western radio stations like Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, and by word of mouth. A mass meeting was staged for the next day, December 21, which, according to the official media, was presented as a "spontaneous movement of support for Ceauşescu", emulating the 1968 meeting in which Ceauşescu had spoken against the invasion of Czechoslovakia by forces of Warsaw Pact. On December 21, the mass meeting, held in what is now Revolution Square, degenerated into anarchy. A stunned Ceauşescu couple, failing to control the crowds, finally took cover inside the CC Building, where they remained until the next day. The rest of the day saw a revolt of the Bucharest population, who had assembled in University Square, and confronted the police and the army on barricades. These initial events are regarded to this day as the genuine revolution. However, the unarmed rioters were no match for the military apparatus concentrated in Bucharest, which cleared the streets by midnight and arrested hundreds of people in the process. Although the broadcast of the "support meeting" and the subsequent events on the national television had been interrupted the previous day, Ceauşescu's senile reaction to the events had already become part of the country's collective memory. By the morning of December 22, the rebellion had already spread to all major cities. The suspicious death of Vasile Milea, the defense minister, was announced by the media. Immediately thereafter, Ceauşescu presided over the CPEX meeting and assumed the leadership of the army. He made an attempt to address the crowd gathered in front of the CC, but this desperate move was rejected by the rioters, who forced open the doors of the building, by now left unprotected by the army, police and Securitate. The Ceauşescu couple fled by helicopter from the top of the CC building in a poorly advised decision (since they would have had safer refuge using existing underground tunnels) [see Burlan]. ==Coup== ''See main article Romanian Revolution of 1989.'' The events of December 1989 remain controversial. Many, including Filip Teodorescu, a high-ranking Securitate officer at the time, allege that a group of conspiring generals in the Securitate took advantage of this opportunity to launch a coup in Bucharest. Some have made more specific claims about the nature of the conspiracy. Colonel Burlan asserts that the coup had been prepared since 1982, and was originally planned to take place during the New Year celebrations, but it was spontaneously adapted to the new developments. It remains a matter of controversy whether there had been any advance conspiracy to stage a coup, and, if so, who was precisely involved. The two main alternative possibilities are that these events were simply a combination of genuine revolutionary drive and inherent confusion, or that various figures in the military simply took opportunistic advantage of public protests, in an effort to capture power for themselves or for others whom they supported. According to Burlan, the plot leaders were generals Stănculescu and Neagoe, Ceauşescu's closest security advisors; Burlan claims that they convinced him to hold the first mass rally in the Square by the Central Committee building, and that it was prepared in advance with remotely controlled automatic guns. During Ceauşescu's speech, the remotely controlled guns were set to fire randomly over the crowd and agitators started to cry anti-Ceauşescu slogans through loudspeakers. Scared by these developments, the people first tried to run away. However, given the loudspeaker messages stating that they were being shot at by Ceauşescu's forces and that a "revolution" was underway, the people were compelled to join the "revolution". The rally turned into a protest demonstration. The machine-gun fire and the messages over the loudspeakers appear to be universally acknowledged; the other aspects of this remain controversial. On December 22 the army found itself without a leader: Ceauşescu (the official commander-in-chief of the army) had vanished, being sent by his (possibly conspiring) advisor Stănculescu to the countryside, and defense minister Vasile Milea was dead. (Initially the "revolutionary" leaders claimed that Milea was assassinated on behalf of Ceauşescu. This is possible, but other possibilities abound, notably that he might have refused to join them and been killed on that account. The (still) official account that he committed suicide has almost no credibility.) Confused, the army leadership in Bucharest decided to avoid conflicts and ordered their troops to fraternize with the demonstrators. Fierce fighting occurred at that time at Henri Coanda International Airport between troops sent one against another under claims that they were going to meet terrorists. There are various reports of other similar events. Filip Teodorescu claims that a number of instigators—possibly a small number, and probably Russians—started various incidents (including the violence in Timişoara); he also alleges that the level of violence was greatly exacerbated by elements within the military who propagated a myth of "securist-terrorists". According to Colonel Dumitru Burlan's book, the generals who were part of the conspiracy (led by general Victor Stanculescu) did their best to create such terrorist stories in order to induce fear and to draw the army on the conspirators' side. Generally, there is a consensus that there were some people instigating terror, and that others effectively caused incidents out of confusion. The relative magnitude of the two factors is not agreed upon, and no individual has ever been charged with or convicted of participating in deliberate acts of terror. There are any number of popular theories about the motivation of the coup. Some point out that the first law passed by the incoming leadership abolished (without any referendum or legal basis) the constitution article that forbade external debts. At that time, the debts had been fully paid, and there are various allegations about the intended beneficiaries of these new desired debts: corrupt politicians, or international banks. There is no question that some individuals who were active in the December events greatly profited in terms of money and power (especially in the form of ownership in privatized industries), fame, advancement in rank, or merely the settling of personal grievances; it is also possible that any number of foreign interests may have been involved, possibly including the KGB and/or other Soviet interests. ==The End of Ceauşescu== [[Image:Ceausescu2005.jpg|thumb|A Romanian holds a book with the portrait of the late Nicolae Ceauşescu at his grave in a Bucharest cemetery on January 26, 2005 to mark his eighty-seventh birthday. Every year, Romanians nostalgic for the Ceauşescu years gather to mourn him at this cemetery.]] Ceauşescu and his wife Elena fled the capital by helicopter together with Emil Bobu and Manea Manescu. They headed for Ceauşescu's Snagov residence, from where they fled again, this time for Targoviste. The presidential couple kept moving through the countryside more or less aimlessly. Near Târgovişte they abandoned the helicopter, which was ordered to land by the army, which by that time had already declared Romania to be restricted air space. The flight included grotesque episodes: a car chase to evade citizens attempting an arrest, leaving behind of their aides, a short stay in a school. The Ceauşescus were finally held in a police car for several hours, while the policemen listened to the radio, presumably in an attempt to get a clue as to which political faction was about to win. Police eventually turned over the presidential couple to the army. On December 25, the two were condemned to death by a military kangaroo court on charges ranging from illegal gathering of wealth to genocide, and were execution by firing squad in Targoviste. During their trial and before the firing squad the couple recited from the "Internationale". They were shot dead after they sang the 4th word. The firing squad was not well-prepared for the execution. One of the guards accidentally shot Ceauşescu in the foot before then firing the fatal shot. The "trial" and execution were videotaped. The footage was promptly released in France and other western countries. Several days later, the footage of their trial (but not of their execution) was released on television for the Romanian public. ==Other== The Ceauşescus had one adopted son, Valentin Ceausescu (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 Ceausescu (born 1950) and a younger son, Nicu Ceausescu (born 1951). 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. Nevertheless, he used to receive presents (e.g., a golden plated door handle) from countries and organizations that he was visiting, the misappropriation of which was one of the accusations against him at his trial. While he tried to keep account of his finances, his biological son Nicu was much less restrained and rumors abounded that he paid a gambling debt incurred in Las Vegas with a herd of horses belonging to the Communist Party. Ceauşescu's security detail was relatively small compared to that of the current Romanian government, numbering only 40 people for his residences and for his whole family. His security chief was Col. Dumitru Burlan who claims that his troops had only 2 guns (insufficient for any serious defense). Col. Burlan claims that Ceauşescu was overconfident that the Romanian people loved him, and believed that he did not need a protection. This explains much of the ease with which Ceauşescu was deposed and captured. ==Bibliography== * Edward Behr, ''Kiss the Hand you Cannot Bite'', ISBN 0679401288 * Dumitru Burlan, ''Dupa 14 ani - Sosia lui Ceauşescu se destăinuie'' ("After 14 Years - The Double of Ceauşescu confesses"). Editura Ergorom. July 31, 2003 (in Romanian). * Marian Oprea, "Au trecut 15 ani -- Conspiratia Securitatii" ("After 15 years -- the conspiracy of Securitate"), in [http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.html ''Lumea Magazin'' Nr 10, 2004]: (in Romanian; link leads to table of contents, verifying that the article exists, but the article itself is not online). * Viorel Patrichi, "[http://www.lumeam.ro/nr12_2001/politica_si_servicii_secrete.html Eu am fost sosia lui Nicolae Ceauşescu]" ("I was Ceauşescu's double"), ''Lumea Magazin'' Nr 12, 2001 (in Romanian) * Stevens W. Sowards, [http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/ ''Twenty-Five Lectures on Modern Balkan History (The Balkans in the Age of Nationalism)''], 1996, in particular [http://www.lib.msu.edu/sowards/balkan/lect24.htm Lecture 24: The failure of Balkan Communism and the causes of the Revolutions of 1989] * Victor Stănculescu, [http://www.jurnalul.ro/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=14985 "Nu vă fie milă, au 2 miliarde de lei in cont"] ("Do not have mercy, they have 2 billion lei [33 million dollars]"), in ''Jurnalul National'', Nov 22, 2004 * John Sweeney, ''The Life and Evil Times of Nicolae Ceauşescu'', ISBN 0091746728 * Filip Teodorescu, et.al., wikisource:Stenograma_sedintei_de_audiere_din_14_decembrie_1994, featuring the remarks of Filip Teodorescu. ==External links== * [http://www.nicolaeceausescu.ro A website where romanians write their opinions about Nicolae Ceauşescu] * [http://www.timisoara.com/newmioc/Politic.htm The Politicians and the revolution of 1989] * [http://www.clipa.com/pagpolitica638.htm Clipa 638: How Milea was killed, probably by Stanculescu, and the life of the Ceauşescu family] * [http://www.timisoara.com/timisoara/rev/trialscript.html Ceauşescu's trial transcription] * [http://www.ceausescu.org/ Ceauşescu Nicolae - Romania's Dark Age under Communism] * [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=26903%40iuvax.cs.indiana.edu&output=gplain AP, 30 Sep 1989] * [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8910260017.AA03230%40hkucs.HKU.HK&output=gplain Reuters, 25 Oct 1989] 1918 births 1989 deaths Presidents of Romania Romanian communists Executed presidents Executed people
Nicolae Ceausescu
==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. User: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. User: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. User: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. -- User: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. -- User: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? User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 15:06, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) * I'd be glad to lose the gory photo. We don't do this to (say) Che Guevara. -- User: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. User:VeryVerilyUser talk:VeryVerily 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User: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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 09:26, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::And Ceausescu's ouster and execution is central to his biography. User:172 09:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::Every picture should add some extra information to the article. How does this photo improve the article? User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 09:34, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::Wikipedia:What 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. - User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User: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? - User:Kefka 05:34, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC) : probably work accidents. Unlike the Danube-Black Sea canal, this was not an extermination site. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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 -- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User:Gazpacho 23:16, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC) :You're right. And it's not mentioned at all at Systematization (Romania), either. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:37, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC) == diacriticals == Shouldn't the Communist-era newspaper be ''Scânteia'' or ''Scînteia'' rather than ''Scinteia''? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 01:32, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC) : Yes, "Scînteia". User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 Laszlo Tokes ''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, [http://www.adevarulonline.ro] (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! User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User: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. user: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. User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 03:46, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC) == Proposed summit == Just the references: * [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=26903%40iuvax.cs.indiana.edu&output=gplain AP, 30 Sep 1989] * [http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8910260017.AA03230%40hkucs.HKU.HK&output=gplain Reuters, 25 Oct 1989] (they're Usenet transcripts of the articles -- I don't have access to the AP/Reuters archives :) User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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 U.S. dollar 3,000 or U.S. dollar3,000. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User: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? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 19:33, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC) That would be a very corect and impartial way to say it. User: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. User:MihaiC 20:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC) : Yes, I think that would give an appropriate perspective on the number. Go for it. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. User: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). User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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) -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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.'' -- User: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.User: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. #As you can see if you read sections Nicolae Ceausescu#Foreign debt, Nicolae Ceausescu#Leadership weaknesses and Nicolae Ceausescu#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). User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 17:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) #*:*:Only found this [http://www.referendumplatform.nl/product_info.php?products_id=55#roemenie 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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:24, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) # 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 User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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 [http://www.ziarulcn.com/index.php?pid=print_version&aid=9707] has the title exactly right, and there is actually a dash between "ani" and "sosia", which makes more sense for a book title. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 17:40, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC) #Really, though, the reason I have this article tagged as dispute and POV is now isolated to the section Nicolae Ceausescu#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. User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 04:05, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC) ::It's been 48 hours, no one has responded; removing the "dispute" notice. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 Nicolae_Ceausescu#Foreign_debt section. I am making exactly two changes there, both based on discussion above: # 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." # 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. --User:GcbirzanUser_talk:Gcbirzan 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? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 the theory of a Plot against Ceausescu was prepared since 1982, involving Stanculescu and other generals." ** Mostly agree, except I'd say "Dumitru Burlan alleges that a theory of a plot against Ceausescu had been prepared since 1982, involving Stănculescu and other generals." -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 -- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 [http://www.pntcd.ro/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=4281&Itemid=59 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.''-- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 -- User: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.) -- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 -- User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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 -- User: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 [http://www.lumeam.ro/nr4_2000/politica.html only this] User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 16:27, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC) : [http://www.jurnalul.ro/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=15020 and this] and [http://216.239.59.104/search?q=cache:BnzAjRxj_bwJ:www.magazin.ro/articole.cfm%3FNumar%3D28%26An%3D2000%26Domeniu%3DTerra%2BX+%22Propaganda+due%22+Ceausescu&hl=en also this] ==knighthood== He was some sort of English knight for awhile. Of the Bath, according to Order of the Bath. User: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 06:41, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC) == Stenograma == I've done my best to do an interspersed English translation at wikisource: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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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, 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.User: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). -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 00:35, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC) :I never heard of it. Neither in English or Romanian. I will check the Romanian "DEX" dictionary.User:MihaiC 07:37, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) : Here's the [http://www.dexonline.ro/search.php?cuv=proletcultism DEX definition] User:Bogdangiusca | User talk:Bogdangiusca 10:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) :: ''PROLETCULTÍSM s.n. Curent cultural (apărut în Uniunea Sovietică după Revoluţia din Octombrie) ale cărui principii estetice se reduceau la ideea formării unei culturi „pur proletare“ şi care respingea întreaga moştenire culturală a trecutului. – După rus. proletkul'tovşcina.'' ::: 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.User: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. – From the Russian ''proletkul'tovşcina''." 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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")…"; "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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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. Ceauşescu 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. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 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" -- User: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. ..." User: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" -- User:Criztu 13:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :* I'm going with DrFlo1's suggestion. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:14, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) On my other point — "typical for Communist states of that era" vs. "typical for all contemporary Romanian constitutional revisions" — no one has replied. I am restoring the former. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:56, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
N
NA | NB | NC | ND | NE | NF | NG | NH | NI | NJ | NK | NL | NM | NO | NP | NR | NS | NT | NU | NW | NX | NY | NZ |Words begining with Nicolae_Ceausescu:
Nicolae_Ceausescu
Nicolae_Ceausescu
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
