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)

The hoops ARE bigger than his opponant's (FACT) - "presumbably" cuts it in the academic university world - it is a way of saying "I'm not sure" but it looks almost certain to be the reasdon. Wikipedia is so obsessed with not upsetting people with decent comment: that is its problem and why Wikipedia is not academic in the proper sense. "Hitler was a nice man" will be next because we do not wish to offend. Wikipedia reckons it is so grown up and clever when in academic terms it is so naive and mechanical. No thinking, no bravery, no colour...

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.183.213 (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually it has more to do with Romanian euphony and Romanian name formation. The -escu suffix became common when the Romanian state forced its citizens to have "proper" surnames in the late 19th century, many having their nicknames "ennobled" with the -escu particle. Thus, the escu suffix is still perceived by Romanians as something not part of the name as a defining characteristic of an individual. And that's how you get things like Ceausism, Basism (in reference to Traian Basescu). Euphony however prevents this treatment from being applied to every surname ending in -escu, so mostly the name having an 's' or an 'ş' before -escu get such adjectivation. Thus "something proper to Ion Iliescu or to his rule" is never referred as Iliism or Iliesism, but rather as Iliescian(ism), and most of the time just as "of Iliescu". Similar treatment gets, for example, Mihai Eminescu.

On the other hand, the use of "Ceausism" as an English term in this article is rather a personal preference of the editor who wrote the section. The concept is not well established even within Romanian historiography. Some Romanian historians, translating their works into English, have "exported" it, but it didn't quite catch up. I'd say that the use of Ceausism here doesn't fully respect wikipedia's policy about WP:NEOLOGISMs.Anonimu (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"Kangaroo court"

I see this ugly phrase has reared its head again. However, I have several reservations about this phrase:

• The main one is that it isn't sourced, despite Anonimu's claims when reverting me (in fact, nothing about the trial or execution is sourced). Accusing something of being a kangaroo court, even if it's true (and it may be, given how the trial panned out), is a serious attack on a country's judicial system and really needs to be backed up.
  • And on this note, I fear that said sources may have a political slant. In this case, we need to examine whether said sources contribute the entire school of thought on the subject. It's often the case that articles are comprised of reliable but biased sources; Arab-Israeli articles and post-war US military articles are infamous on Wikipedia for this. Articles about Central and Eastern Europe also share this problem (especially in communist vs. capitalist bickering).
• The use of the phrase is very rare, and limited to historically famous kangaroo courts (e.g. the Star Chamber) or is otherwise attributed to the person who accused the court of being one-sided (e.g. Assata Shakur). Hell, we have a few trials almost universally seen as one-sided where that phrase is not and does not need to be used, e.g. the Scopes Trial. The 1989 Romanian Revolution, strangely, is one of the few articles where the use of the phrase is both unattributed and unsourced, and I fear it's too early to say there's a historical consensus on this matter.
• And finally, I note that the editor who reintroduced it recently, ValenShephard (talk · contribs), seems to solely edit articles related to socialism or communism (I'm including Palestine articles here, as most pro-Israelis are right-wing and most pro-Palestinians are left-wing). The editor also has several warnings for NPOV violations, which suggests that the editor's political views are clouding their tone of writing.

I'm also going to refer this to WP:ROMANIA for further discussion; I came across this article randomly and I don't want to get entrenched in further disputes (especially as I was in a dispute about this years ago, which Anonimu will surely remember). I respectfully request that we don't edit war on the inclusion of the term any further, until we have a consensus either way. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

2010-07-21 --- I know that, in several TV documentaries, they mentionned that the entire court process was more for show than anything else. From what had been said in the documentaries, many people involved in the process were trying to save their own necks (clearly I'm freestyling on the wording) and so it was more for show than anything... Can I back up my claim? No, the documentaties in mind I saw a few years ago... don't remember the names and I don't know where they got their sources from either. I'll try to keep my eyes and ears open to find those titles for reference purposes. (Mrs. Perez)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.245.2 (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a source handy, but every account I've seen has agreed on this. How else can one characterize a capital trial lasting part of a day, with no time to prepare a defense and with execution following immediately upon the "guilty" verdict? Should be easy enough to cite for. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  We could link to show trial instead. "Kangaroo court" throws doubt on the entire judicial system, while "show trial" throws doubt on only the trial (which, by the way, I'm not even disputing). Sceptre ^(talk) 17:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry, a show trial is a trial in which the letter of the law is generally respected, but the result is set beforehand. Ceausescu's trial didn't respect even basic rules, such as the defence attorney acting as a prosecutor (we had the script on commons some times ago, you can check for youself) or no time for appeals. Neither of the terms implies that all the judicial system is flawed (although, considering that his "judgement" - not the process - was based on a penal code signed into law by Ceausescu himself, I'm surprised that you try to defend the system itself). Sources are enough: GBooks results (on my PC, the first source is a HRW report - pro-Communist?!!?). Also, I thought you had learned by now not to comment editors, but content.Anonimu (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not defending the judicial system; just that, without a historical consensus, we can't really, in our words, accuse any judicial system of wrongdoing for ethical reasons (although, admittedly, authoritarian states often have a high incidence of show trials); otherwise, we seem to be "vindicating" the people seen as the villains in the story.

  As to the "show trial"/"kangaroo court" distinction: I see the first term as a verdict of a singular trial, and the second as a verdict of a judicial system (i.e. the People's Court of Nazi Germany). And the article on "show trial" contradicts you: it says that due process and the rule of law aren't even followed in most cases. Additionally, Ceausescu's trial fits all of the criteria listed in the article from a purely objective point of view, as well as being an accurate and more neutral term than "kangaroo court".

  On the sources, I'm pretty wary about using human rights NGOs as impartial sources. They're not communist, but have institutional biases (famously, HRW, Amnesty, and the UNHRC all have come under criticism for their reports on the Arab-Israeli conflict). However, I will concede that the school of thought does show a consensus that the trial was a travesty of justice.

  Sidenote: if you're trying to establish the existence of a consensus on a contentious issue, don't just search for one side. Search for a neutral term; instead of "Ceausescu kangaroo court", I used "Ceausescu trial" instead.

  And finally, on the subject of "comment on the content, not the contributor". You are right that, in general, we should not make comments on the contributor and assume good faith, however, it does not mean we can't make said comments when it's acceptable. Valen has, unfortunately, a history of solely editing articles associated with left-wing politics, and a history of non-neutral editing. It's not inappropriate to say there may be evidence of non-neutral editing given past behaviour.

  Sceptre ^(talk) 20:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  Is that a widespread view, or it's just yours? I'm not a native English speaker, but I've never found such a distinction between the two terms. I don't know about our article, but from what I know from the classic show trials (the Stalinist ones in the late 30s in the Soviet Union and early 50s in Eastern Europe), a simulacrum of due process was preserved, and if someone survived to trial, he was given all the instruments to defend himself (of course, all were sham, but they were preserved for the show part of the show trial). Ceausescu's was not like that, its duration (less than an hour) being a prime indicator of that.

  Ok, so I understand that you agree on the concept, but dispute the wording. I still consider "kangaroo court" is the best wording, so I guess we'll have to wait for further input before changing the article.

  Sidenote: The standard reply in some circles of Wikipedia you were acquainted with a couple of years ago would be: show me sources saying the Ceausescu's trial was not a kangaroo court. However, I understand the absurdity of such a request, and I won't press for it (however, if you find such a source, please leave a note).

  He has a clean block log, so he surely hasn't been disruptive. About him being left-leaning, I see no problem with that, as I see it as normal for an editor to contribute in a subject area he is more acquainted with, through education, life experience and yes, political options. (Considering the recurring theme of the Middle East conflict and our past history, I infer you are right wing... is this enough to dismiss your arguments?). As for Valens allegedly non-neutral editing, you should have strong proofs to back such accusations, otherwise it could be construed as a personal attack. I for one can't see any sign of non-neutral editing in his last 10 edits (i.e. not more than the usual content contributors, as any editor who doesn't limit himself to copyediting can be suspected of some conflict of interests).Anonimu (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

  I'm not sure how widespread my interpretation of the two terms is, but the terms themselves, to me, indicate two similar-but-distinct terms: one for the proceedings, and one for those undertaking them. I draw my understanding of show trials from institutions such as the Star Chamber, as opposed from your understanding from the communist sphere of influence. Neither's wrong, of course.

  Re the question of sources: I'm approaching the question of the use of the term from a blank slate: i.e., I'm building from the concept "Ceausescu was executed after a brief televised trial", which raises no possibility of political bias: everything is undeniably factual. The addition of such terms as "kangaroo court" adds politics into the matter, and I'd prefer to keep Wikipedia as apolitical as possible. I believe the absence of the term does not indicate that the term does not apply; rather, that we did not need to use the term in our encyclopedic coverage.

  Re Valen: before reverting him the first time, I did a check on his editing history. From the history, I could infer that Valen was interested in left-wing politics, and that this may be a cause for concern: mostly because the Gaza flotilla article was in the history, and earlier, Israel's borders with the Palestinian territories and Egypt. Without these articles, I would've seen it as simply someone interested in Soviet/national histography, but the inclusion of Middle East articles made me cautious. I then checked his talk page, where he has several warnings for non-neutral editing on the Gaza flotilla article. The message several sections up from this also gave me cause for concern. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, as a native English speaker, I would say "kangaroo court" does not imply a lasting institution. For example, in the U.S. we would refer to an ad hoc pseudo-trial before a lynching as a "kangaroo court". Conversely, I wouldn't call what happened to the Ceauşescus a "show trial", which tends to suggest more a trial in which all the normal forms are followed, but the evidence is faked (often including coerced confessions) and the sentence is decided in advance. An example would be the trials of supposed Trotskyists in the Stalinist Soviet Union or, arguably, the trial of the Rosenbergs in the U.S. in the same era. The Ceauşescu trial did not follow even the formalities of a normal trial. - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If any of you had doubts over my intentions why didnt you simply ask me instead of wholesale guessing? I think Ceausescu is as bad as all good sources say and my intention for wanting to include that the trial was 'unfair' or something along these lines is because thats what I had read and heard. Here are some sources:

Here one of the three executioners of the dictator in the Times says:

'it wasn’t a trial, it was a political assassination in the middle of a revolution'

In this same source a transcript of the trial is also present. The chief prosecutor says:

'I have been one of those who, as a lawyer, would have liked to oppose the death sentence, because it is inhuman. But we are not talking about people.' This doesnt sound like the wording of a fair and unbias trial does it?

In the trial, the accused had no real defence, as can be seen by their defender never opposing what they are charged with and stressing that the trial should be totally legal, hinting that this trial could be double guessed later as we are discussing now. <

This hints at the trial not including a due process: http://articles.latimes.com/1990-01-03/local/me-126_1_andrei-sakharov-street

This article discusses it as being a 'kangeroo court': http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091224/romania-nicolae-elena-ceausescu

Other sources are not hard to find and I could supply them but I dont have the energy now. You should have all consulted me instead of guessing my intentions and politics. ValenShephard 13:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Well if its that simple, lets say unfair trial or show trial. Both I think are pretty accurate. I think we should also include somewhere that quote from one of the executioners and also the transcript of the 'trial'. Its very interesting information and I think it would add quite alot to the article (which on another note, I think needs a bit of work). ValenShephard 07:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any of what I've said has to do with your intentions. It has to do with what the article should say, and whether this particular phrase is the appropriate one to use, vs. "show trial". I happen to agree with you that "kangaroo court" is a better choice, but this is more a discussion of appropriate phraseology than anything else. We all agree that he didn't get anything approaching a fair trial. - Jmabel | Talk 05:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Bodies to be exhumed

2010-07-21 The bodies are Nicolae Ceausescu and his wife are to be exhumed today. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100721/ap_on_re_eu/eu_romania_ceausescu_exhumed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.245.2 (talk) 12:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"The image of Ceauşescu's uncomprehending expression..."

In reference to this line: "The image of Ceauşescu's uncomprehending expression as the crowd began to boo and heckle him remains one of the defining moments of the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. " - does anyone have a pic of that? I think that's the one picture of him that I would really like to see here. Jedikaiti (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've saw only a video on Youtube. If I'll try to make a pic from it, the resolution will be remarkably low —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.183.213 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why there are two different pictures of Nicolae Ceauşescu cemetery monuments?

The one in the article claims to be from 2008. The current one here (http://img.lenta.ru/articles/2010/07/21/ceausescu/pic002.jpg) looks like has been taken in 2010. Was it changed between 2008 and 2010? Yurivict (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Did SOMETHING happend to Ceauşescu in 1983?

I've found this video, and I was very suprised. At first, what's with that scar on his nose? And why his hair is so unusually short? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.194.119 (talk) 16:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nicu built a church? In the middle of a civil war, which was claimed to be a 1989 revolution?

After the death of his parents, Nicu Ceauşescu ordered the construction of an Orthodox church, the walls of which are decorated with portraits of his parents.

Are you sure about this? It was Nicolae, who built that church in the memory of his parents (Alexandrina and Andruţă Ceauşescu) in 1970! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.194.119 (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)