Talk:Nicolae Ceaușescu

Execution video

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

Bias Article

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

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

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

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

ValenShephard 09:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

STL Skit

Removed from the article:

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

Given the high profile of STL, and the people appear on it, this might be worth mentioning. -OberRanks (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

This Article is a Disgrace

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

The photo with Iliescu

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

crime?

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

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

Atheist?

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

Ceauşism or Ceauşesism?

I think that the word Ceauşesism sounds better than Ceauşism, because we should make more accent on the name of the politician. We just got used to short (usually monosyllabic or disyllabic) surnames such as Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao etc. and so thereby the term Ceauşism was created