Talk:National Liberal Party (Romania)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


any proofs of continuity except the claims of the party and the similar name? we don't say PSD is founded in 1910, even if they would be the only ones who could have continuity throught PCRAnonimu 11:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Let's not forget that the PNL was dissolved by the communists, which starting with 1945, banned all political parties. --Eurocopter tigre 11:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
exactly, that PNL dissapeared in 1947. This is a new party founded in 1990, that has no real connections with the pre-1947 one except it's name. even its ideology it's just marginally similar to the pre 1947 one.Anonimu 11:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It is not a new party, it is the same PNL, which was banned from 1947 to 1990. --Eurocopter tigre 12:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No proofs, of course...Anonimu 12:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
No proofs also that the "actual" PNL it's not the "historical" one. So I think we should leave the article exactly how it is now. --Eurocopter tigre 12:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
A strong proof: pnl dead in 1947.. no underground organizations, nothing.. then 1989.. yupie, ceausescu gone... some minor members of pre 1947 pnt: hey, let's make a party, people with surely vote with us... then some random guys who wanted power: oh man, we're not important enough to get in the high positions of fsn... but hey, those mummies are right, let's make ourselves a "historical party"... what to choose?... pnt is taken, iron guard won't get american support... i know, i know, let's choose pnl... heck, they were better than pnt... thus pnl was born. no continuity.Anonimu 12:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a science fiction story which reflects your communist political views. Of course I can also invent dozens SF stories. --Eurocopter tigre 12:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably you don't know the meaning of "science fiction". This is just a simplified dramatization of the real story. The main idea is a well known truth. Isn't it strange that "history of pnl" on the official site ends at the 1890s? Please stop with the personal attacks or i'll have to report you.Anonimu 13:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Which personal attacks? You have communist views, I have liberal views. Is this a personal attack?? Maybe I'm attacking myself... go ahead and report me.:)) --Eurocopter tigre 16:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You'd better read WP:NPA.Anonimu 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I did read it many times. Still that is not a personal attack. You recognized yourself as a communist. Isn't this true? --Eurocopter tigre 17:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views -- regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.". What i've said and what you're try doing are two different things.Anonimu 18:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
That's true only to a certain extent: see here. Since Communism is worse than Nazism (as measured by death toll), surely such a stance ought to apply to Reds (although we do have Communist administrators...). Biruitorul 21:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Capitalism killed more people. So maybe we should have admins from pre-modern cultures that haven't still invented ideologies.Anonimu 11:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I have lost patience for the type of idiocy you usually spout, and we've covered this ground before (in debates I won handily). Your preposterous claims don't give you a sophisticated rebellious edge; they consign you to irrelevance. If you want to bring some reliable source that backs up the laughable claim that "Capitalism killed more people [than Communism]", go ahead. Otherwise, don't waste our time. Biruitorul 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from personal attacks. You won no debates. I was just getting tired of hearing the same thigns again an again and i stopped replying to your blabbering. Of course i can bring one: Le livre noir du capitalisme. It's currently out of print, but you may find it if you search in soem libraries.Anonimu 11:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I was not attacking you, but the "ideas" you espouse. I certainly did win all our debates, but you may continue believing what you will. The Live noir makes two mistakes: it conflates states (which actually kill) with capitalism (a benign force), and it glosses over the fact that disease actually killed a high percentage of the "victims of capitalism" - ie, it was a natural force and not intentional. And, I'm sorry, but saying, for instance, that all who died during WWII are "victims of capitalism" is utter nonsense. The relationship between Communism and its victims is far more direct, and any attempt to show otherwise is bound to be sophistry. Biruitorul 13:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
How did you win them. By talking all by yourself? That's sophistry. Imperialism was born because of capitalism. Disease was also directly responsible for the Holomodor, but as with the tens of millions of deaths in the colonial empires, those disease were supported by the regimes (capitalism in the third world, stalinist in ukraine). So claiming that those are not victims of capitalism just because a capitalist guy didn't take the knife and hack them is just another proof of capitalist hypocrisy. Who started the main 2 fronts? Two capitalist countries: Germany and Japan. They're morally responsible for each and every death.Anonimu 15:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I won them by facts, logic and persistence. Capitalism also created many lives and bettered many others: for instance it gave you the computer you use, the house you live in, the car you drive (or else the cars others in Constanţa drive), the music you listen to, the beer you drink, etc. Communism too provided some of those things, but in vastly inferior quality and for a far shorter period of time (unless you want to move to Belarus and keep experiencing the glories of Brezhnevite Communism). Communism made a few very happy and very many miserable or dead; capitalism has tended to lift the poor out of poverty. You'll have to define "imperialism". How did taking Siberia help Russian capitalists? How did taking Cambodia help French imperialists? Or taking the Algerian desert? They didn't, really - conquest can happen for other reasons, like national security or a desire for Lebensraum. The connection between, let us say, the death of the American Indians and capitalism is quite weak: the monarchs of Castile and Aragon send Columbus on a voyage of discovery, which may involve commerce, he finds the New World, his sailors' diseases get picked up by birds, which kill Indians -- something neither the sailors, nor Columbus nor his patrons had any idea would happen. The connection between Stalin and Ukrainian peasants' death, by contrast, is as follows: Stalin orders local party functionaries to withhold grain, "kulaks" die. That is murder; the first, while not pretty, is far more accidental in nature.
As i said, you didn't won them. You just said the same thing again and again. After i explained to you why you're wrong several times, i decided to stop telling you. Cine'i mai destept cedeaza primu. Ceausescu's Romania also had computers. A friend even programmed a game on it (actually he copied the code from "Stiinta si tehnica" magazine) The house was built during the communist period where during the bourgeoise-latifundial regime stood scorched earth, as a large part of the houses in romanian cities and towns. The old Mamaia beer was much better than the hopfen konig of the 90s made in the same factory (actually i think the new beer was so bad that they had to close it down). I don't know what music are you listening, but the one I do was present before 89 too. Communism made a lot happy, and much less miserable people that capitalism (remember that limited happines in western europe and america comes at the expense of the exploited third world and even of their exploited brothers). Most of those who died during communism, died while learning to work, because all their life they had slaves to work for them. The number of people assasinated is comparable to the one in the capitalist states. Fur commerce was a very productive commerce when Russia took Siberia. Cambodia along all Indochian provided a route to the wealths of China. The Algerian desert was never conquered. The French occupied the coast to use the corsairs in their own advantage. Cambodia and Algeria were no treat for metropolitan France. Columbus was sent to find a shorter route to the Indies to give the spanish capitalist a simpler way to exploit the other europeans (Although they actually exploited other capitalists, because the masses could never get those products). So, even if the death because of new diseases was accidental, it was ultimately caused by the capitalists moneygrubbers. And don't worry, most indians died massacred by conquistadores and "cowboys", or of hunger when their land was taken and their food sources were hunted to extinction.. for capitalist to show off trophies. That's exactly was Stalin did.Anonimu 22:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
If I'm playing chess with you and you walk away, I win. Same idea: winning by exhaustion. And by the way, sometimes I clearly pwned you: see for instance this thread for a more inglorious example of you going down in flames. Don't start feeding me garbage. I'm sure computers "existed" in Romania pre-1989; there's just no comparison with Steve Jobs' (or even Bill Gates') capitalism-generated products. Communist-era houses are ugly, as opposed to capitalist-built ones, and the soil is a sacred object, so I commend the King for keeping development away from as much of it as possible. Please stop trotting out the same tired criticisms of the monarchical era: overall, a fine time was had by everyone, certainly better than under the Reds. I'm not qualified to comment on alcohol quality, but let's just say the variety capitalism generates is far greater (see eg English beer and German beer), and greater variety naturally leads to better quality. Again, with music: a) variety is much greater and, what I really care about, b) music can criticise the government in capitalist democracies, something not too easy under Communism (see Vladimir Vysotsky) and impossible in Romania.
No, actually in those situation( cf. king to king), me leaving would have been considered a draw. Sorry, when i saw you brought the same trite arguments i decided that you are either stupid or you're not really reading what i write. So, why waste my time.Anonimu 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I don't actually know anything about chess, but if you didn't get the point, let me mention a sport I do know, wrestling. If we were in a wrestling match and you decided to quit, then I'd win by default. Clear enough? I read very closely but saw only Stalinist drivel, which shrivels rather quickly when exposed to the light of reason. Biruitorul 07:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The next phase is filled with ridiculous lies. Communism made a lot happy, and much less miserable people that capitalism. False. Communism, for most of its existence, generated either acute misery (eg 1940s-50s) or dull, dreary, gnawing misery (1980s). Capitalism has created entire societies of affluent individuals. limited happines in western europe and america comes at the expense of the exploited third world and even of their exploited brothers. False. Trade patterns are largely north-north, the developing world is mostly left alone, and poor workers have strong state protections. Most of those who died during communism, died while learning to work, because all their life they had slaves to work for them. Utterly false and despicable. Romania abolished slavery in 1856. The victims of Communism were killed in cold blood. Shame on those who deny this. The number of people assasinated is comparable to the one in the capitalist states. A lie. Communists thoroughly liquidated their class enemies at all levels. Show me a British, or an American or a New Zealand Great Purge and I shall be amazed.
Actually bulgarian computers rocked, even according to western standards. Nop, communist houses (i.e. not gvt buildings built in some of the communist regimes) are functional, with nothing wasted on kitsch exterior decorations. Yup, soil should remain underdeveloped so that you can control easier the peasants. Normal peasants and proletarians had a much better time during communism than under capitalism (both before 1948 and after 1990). The agriculture was mechanized, irrigation was implemented on large scale, new, better plants were brought. Even after giving their quota, cooperativist peasants kept much more products than during the interbellum. Peasant and proletarian sons could at last enter the inteligentsia by access to higher education. Naturally the bourgeoisie had a bad time, since it could exploit the peasants and workers no more. A new class, the bureaucracy, was unfortunately born, and that destroyed the equilibrium in the society. Sorry, but this must be analysed in a historical perspective. Without explotation of colonial empires, the western empires wouldn't be what they are today. They exploited their colonies until 50 years ago, and this gave the metropolis enough resources and time to develop new technologies. Even today, most industries producing raw materials in the world are in the hand of western capitalism, and, given the third world countries don't have the economic resources (or those are concentrated in the hands of the few indigenous capitalism) to protect their masses, the western companies have a free hand in exploiting the workers. And when a third world country wants to protect it's resources, irremediably a "liberation movement" supported by the western capitalists appears. De jure in 1856, but de facto in 1948. Workers and a lot of peasants were practically slaves of the bourgeoisie and the latindundiars. Nop, they died when they tried to do the same amount of work the workers and peasants did in the interbellum. Sorry, but when you take Stalin's paranoia for communism, there's something wrong with you. Note that i don't have to bold or underline my arguments to make them stronger. 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If Bulgarian computers "rocked", one wonders where they are today. Sorry, exterior decorations matter, and besides, they're too small, lack central air conditioning, are too thinly partitioned, have terrible elevators, etc. Plus they're falling apart just a couple of decades after being built. No, soil should remain underdeveloped so society can remain more agrarian in nature and closer to God (with a small beneficent élite watching over the holy peasantry). No, because they lost freedoms (speech, assembly, religion), millions (including Russia and China) were imprisoned and killed, etc. I won't respond to every line in that ridiculous fairy tale, but suffice it to say: a) peasants hated having their plots of land stolen, and in the most restive of Communist states, Poland, there's a reason why collectivisation was halted in 1956. b) education was always open: see for instance the Transylvanian School, or our old friend CZ Codreanu, who rose up from the land to go through the University of Iaşi before conquering millions of hearts. c) improvements in agriculture do not require freedom-destroying totalitarianism. d) bureaucracies naturally form in states, but the Reds were too stupid to anticipate this. More nonsense: the third world has largely itself to blame for its troubles (except on the matter of agricultural subsidies), so enough with the "evil capitalists" garbage. Besides, I don't see resource-rich poor nations like Venezuela or Iran being taken over. Can you name such "liberation movements"? Maybe Panama seceding from Colombia, but in reality, that had rather deeper historical roots than the simplified version portrays.
It is a lie to say that slavery in Romania ended "de facto" in 1948. Please stop peddling such Rollerite garbage. Romania's citizens had equality before the law, as per Art. 8 of the 1923 Constitution. Was not the Canal a massive slave labour operation???
It is an outrageous lie to blame the effective slaughter of untold numbers of political opponents on their supposed inability to work. These were the victims of a horrific system and I condemn you for such facile dismissal of their needless, cruel and unjust judicial murders.
I don't give a fig what you see as the "true definition" of Çommunism; Stalin was a Communist, as everyone but the irrelevant fringes. I bold my arguments in order to express outrage and disgust. Biruitorul 07:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Much of Siberia remained largely untouched. China could be accessed from the east. On Algeria: see the map here. Now, now, always the class analysis. He was, it is true, sent to the Indies, but for spices, for treasure, for the glory of Spain and of Catholicism! Why inject nonsense about "capitalism" and "exploitation" into the mix? The rest is more madness: men are not responsible for disease, which is a negative externality unrelated to their actions (except in the rare case of germ warfare). Most actually died of disease and famine, so come off it. The comparison to Stalin is baseless, given their intent to convert the Indians to Christianity vs. Stalin's intent to exterminate large swathes of Ukrainian society, etc. Biruitorul 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Siberia was always the main source of non-alimentary resources of Russia. So they should have conquered japan instead? It's clear that those straight borders were drawn arbitrarily. France never controlled Sahara. Oh man, that lame excuse.. "the glory of Catholicism". Where in the Bible Jesus says you should force people to convert and kill the ones who don't want to? What happened to the religion of peace/love? Columb's and most (all) other expeditions to the new world were driven by capitalist greed. Famine was deliberately provoked by european invaders, and famine made them vulnerable to diseases, just like during the holomodor. The "intent to convert X to Christianity" is one of the most perfidious use of the church by the state. And by the 15th century, the western european states were capitalist.Anonimu 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Not all of Siberia. No, by sea. France never controlled the Sahara? Then what's this? Ah, remember, I'm an anti-Catholic, and I don't agree with such methods. But they saw it that way. Certainly, lust for gold played a part, but you don't need priests on board ships propelled by "capitalist greed". More conspiracies: birds spread most of the disease, and a lot of the famine came naturally in such primitive societies. Actually feudalism persisted in some areas. Biruitorul 07:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Your claim that Germany and Japan are "morally responsible for each and every death" is bizarre and ignorant. If true, that makes Antonescu 100% innocent. Moreover, your claim supposes that a war, once begun, is like a man dropping out of a skyscraper -- that it acquires a momentum totally its own, free will is lost and nothing but an act of God can stop it. That is patently false. We can say Truman was justified in bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but he took that decision -- a decision he didn't have to take -- and thus (even if it ended up saving lives in the context of the war) he is at least somewhat responsible for those deaths. Even if the Attack on Mers-el-Kébir was justified, it didn't have to happen, making Churchill partly to blame for the resultant deaths. Same with the Bombing of Dresden and the Coventry Blitz (where for strategic reasons Churchill deliberately failed to warn residents of Coventry they were about to be bombed). Arguably, FDR is partly to blame for not divulging what he knew about what was going to happen at Pearl Harbour, and not delivering fuel to the Japanese. Joseph Stalin is totally and unequivocally to blame for the Katyn massacre, an act that had no strategic value and was done out of pure evil. So, no, not every death can be blamed on Hitler and Tojo. Millions can, but not all.
Romania was occupied since october 1940. So Antonescu was also responsible, as a Nazi Germany's subordinate. The Japs were in no position to defend themselves. More lives would have been saved if the war would have continued with conventional weapons. But the capitalist didn't have time to wait. They wanted to fully exploit their new slaves to recover money spent on researching nuclear weapons. Anyway, the German and Japanese governments along the wealthy bourgeois supporting them are still morally responsible for all those deaths. If their hunger for wealth wouldn't have started the war, their citizens would have survived. Actually the german and japanese masses are no less victims of their governments and economical elites than jews or gypsies. Anonimu 22:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, and this plays into our Soviet occupation game, Romania was never occupied: the troops were there by the consent of His Majesty the King and of His Government. It was thus not an occupation, unlike the Soviet one, which had no basis in international law. Antonescu was subordinate to no one but the King (and he forgot about that too for most of the war). You're talking nonsense about Japan. See Operation Downfall: the Japanese would have mounted a fierce resistance, and guess what? America was tired of fighting and in no mood to sacrifice tens of thousands more men of hers, so she dropped the bomb. Can we really fault that? They wanted to fully exploit their new slaves to recover money spent on researching nuclear weapons. Er, right. The Japanese were America's "new slaves"? Talk about wild-eyed conspiracies. And no, once again, man has free will. Even if Germany and Japan set the ball rolling for WWII (which, putting aside arguments about Versailles for the moment, they did), the Allies are not totally blameless for their decisions, even if they were bad means for a good end. Such are the pitfalls of your Manicheanism. You fail to conceive that responsibility for evil may be shared, even among otherwise good men. And of course you ignore Katyn. I'd like to try and see you defend that one. Biruitorul 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
500,000 troops to a population of about 11 millions (that's about 1 german soldier to less than 25 romanian citizens) it's clearly an occupation, and a considerable number of western sources call it that way. the King and his gvt also accepted the armistice that brought Romania under Soviet occupation. So actually the Soviet occupation of 1944-1947 was much more legal, and was supported even by the western capitalist states. Did the king ask him to fight over the Dniester? Nop. Did Hitler? Of course. A fight with conventional weapons would have brought Japan's capitualtion with much less civilian victims. Tipical capitalism thinking: why fight them, when we could use the remote control to kill em all. Yup. Japan and Germany are morally responsible. Allies had legal responsability,unfortunately ignored. Katyn was just an act of revenge. The same thing Antonescu did in Odessa. 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
More sophistry: there was no occupation agreement, while the Soviets clearly overstayed their welcome. Still, I challenge you to start a "[Nazi] German occupation of Romania" article. Well, Antonescu was still subordinate to no one but the King, but as I said above, he forgot about that too for most of the war. That he took advice from Hitler was his affair, but was illegal (although, given the absence of a Constitution, what was and was not legal is a bit unclear). We're talking about civilian and military deaths, which may well have been higher. I'm sorry, but there's nothing "capitalist" about wanting to cut short a war that's thoroughly exhausted and depleted you for nearly four years rather than (in this case, needlessly) sacrifice tens of thousands more troops. It's human nature. I won't repeat: the Allies still had free will, and they at least share moral responsibility for certain of the things they did wrong, of which I listed some above. Please shelve your absurd Manichaeanism. No, Katyn was not "just" an act of revenge, it was genocide, as recognised, for instance, by the Polish Parliament. Just out of curiosity: for what was it was "an act of revenge"? We know why Antonescu did what he did at Odessa; why would Stalin do that to the Polish officers? Biruitorul 07:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally, no, Germany and Japan were not capitalist, no matter how often that canard is repeated. True capitalism requires unfettered access to the free market. In Germany, Jews and others lacked such access. Moreover, state intervention remained high in both places. They were mixed systems at best, but hardly what reliable historians would deem capitalist. Biruitorul 21:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
That works for me too. Soviet Union and Eastern European countries were not true communist countries. Not to talk about the feudal juche or the khmer regime reminiscent of the old mesopotamian empires. As I've already said, over and over again, no so called "communist" state ever claimed to be communist. Anonimu 22:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing or discrediting your view. What I'm trying to say is that your communist views shouldn't have anything to do with a Liberal Party article, and they'll never improve it. --Eurocopter tigre 18:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come off it. Yes, so "true Communism" was never achieved. Guess what? A) Those states were ruled by Communist parties, which is why they were (and in North Korea's case, as well as Cuba, Vietnam, Laos and Red China) they are "Communist states" to reliable scholars. B) If "true Communism" wasn't achieved after so many tries, it never will be, so you may as well give up the dream. Biruitorul 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
This whole discussion is absurd. 1. The majority of sources will not make or establish any difference between the "two parties". 2. The PNL has been dissolved several times in its existence (1938 ring a bell?). 3. The reader should not have cryptic links because users decide they know better. 4. The party is recognized as a direct successor by the international bodies it is part of. 5. The continuity was also stressed by the party's membership, and its (anemic) existence in clandestinity. 6. There are already thousands of links pointing this way.
This whole argument comes from a man who does not have great respect for PNL policies before or since. It is an appeal to common sense. Dahn 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, perhaps I rushed in: once we got rid of the "separate parties" linking, I fully agree with the two dates of foundation. I hope this clarifies it for everyone. Dahn 12:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So how could the same party be founded twice? You can't compare the de jure inexistence of the defunct PNL in the late 30s and early 40s with it's disestablishment in 1947. The team of the defunct PNL remained more or less the same until disestablishment in 1947 and the party keept the same royalist and nationalist position throughout its existence. The party with the same name founded in 1990 had no real connection with the team of the 40s, condemned the nationalist positions of the first post-coup governments, and (as opposed to the PNTCD) never expressed a monarchist stance. I checked the liberal international and the european liberal group. They don't mention any continuity. I checked the pnl site... no word about it, the history section being about all forms of liberalism in the 19th century, not just PNL.Anonimu 13:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
1989 was a Revolution, not a coup. Please stop profaning the memory of its hallowed dead. Yes, something like a coup took place alongside the Revolution. But you disgrace their memory by lowering those heroic days to mere "coup" level. Biruitorul 23:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's pretty clear from the video showing Ceausescu's last discourse that it was an organized event to take him down. Thus a coup.Anonimu 11:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
"It's pretty clear" - why? Because you say so? Anyway, any revolution could be described as "an organized event to take down" a leader. Was the Glorious Revolution a coup against King James II? Was the American Revolution a coup against King George III (insofar as his American colonies were concerned)? Was the French Revolution a coup against King Louis XVI? Was the Russian Revolution a coup against Tsar Nicholas II? Was the Cuban Revolution a coup against Batista? Was the Carnation Revolution a coup against Caetano? The point is: an entire régime was overthrown both by a small second-rank clique within the PCR and by a popular revolt. That last part made it a revolution. Biruitorul 16:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Probably you didn't see the video. From the examples you gave, only two are real revolutions (french & cuban); the others are either coups, insurections, or independence wars. Except the guys who died in the revolt of Timisoara, most died becuase of mass histeria. (No proofs of "terrorist" has been brought until now). Generals already refused to listen to him. Like the guy that in the morning of his last discourse stopped tanks from entering bucharest and then faked a leg injury to escape nomination as defense minister. The leaders of the coup were all under strict Securitate surveillance, but they somehow managed to arrive safe at the national TV. Is this a revolution? No, just a coup.Anonimu 16:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
A revolution, as commonly accepted, makes an effort to transform institutions or the justification for authority. Let's see:

Glorious: capped the transition of power from King to Parliament (Bill of Rights). Armies at all levels involved.
American: quasi-constitutional Monarchy to democratic Republic, if more in theory at first. Large-scale popular involvement.
Russian: absolute to quasi-consitutional monarchy (1905) to democratic socialist republic (February 1917) to totalitarian dictatorship (October 1917). At least in Moscow and Petrograd, civilian and military masses involved.
Carnation: illiberal corporatist régime transformed to a democratic socialist state within two years. Led by lower-level elements in the military, with significant popular support.
Ergo, these are all revolutions.

Sorry, but except the 1905 and the october revolution, none was a real revolution (i thought that you were refering only to the insurection of 1917).
I dare you to move February Revolution to February Coup. Otherwise you're just talking tough. Biruitorul 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I gather that your next avatar is going to be Anonimu the Anarchist :). Dahn 23:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Nop, still a commie. just that state centralism seems more and more unfit for a perfect system. Guess that i went futher left (but still not a hardline marxist or fourierist). Probably that i'll eventually write a book to consolidate my system (until now i've written just articles criticizing capitalism & dw states) ;)Anonimu 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I need more paper to clean up spills; I hope your book is thick and provides me an ample supply. Biruitorul 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll make it sure that the one delivered to north eastern US have some mild biological agents.Anonimu 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from terrorist threats and please end speculation on Wikipedians' whereabouts (unless they announce them directly) - but as I've indicated before, I'm still in Antananarivo (fine example of colonial exploitation in its day). Biruitorul 07:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

There was no "mass hysteria"; many people all over Romania died so they could be free of tyranny. That is something to cherish, and one reason to hope Communism never returns to Romania, given bloodshed happened nowhere else in Eastern Europe in 1989. Ask Iliescu: terrorists killed by the hundreds, with many bodies still missing. Romania made a transition from a Stalinist dictatorship to a democracy within a few short years, with the people backing the leaders. It had elements of a coup, but was at heart a Revolution. Biruitorul 21:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Who killed them? Other people who thought they were fighting to "free theselves from tiranny". No proof has been given of the existence of these terrorists, not one captured, not even a photo with these terrorist. It was a coup, and btw, romanians always backed their leaders, no matter the political system.Anonimu 22:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
More obfuscation: Iliescu will pay one of these days, but stop being his dupe. Can you grasp this notion: coup and' Revolution. The two are possible in tandem. And no, Romanians did not back Cuza or King Carol II or Ceauşescu, so again you are wrong. Biruitorul 06:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Wheren't you the guy who said I should believe his terrorist story? He should pay, but for the bad thing he has done, not for driving drunkards and drug addicts out of university square. A coup my disguise itself as a revolution, but it's still a coup. Romanian masses actually forced the election of Cuza in Bucharest. Also, the numerous legends about his honesty and shit show a great support for him. Carol also had popular support by people with obsolete beliefs like yours (the king is God's messenger and the other bs you occasionally spread on talk pages). Ceausescu also had extensive support until the 80s (he would have kept that support, if he wouldn't have decided to quickly return the money Romania had borrowed)Anonimu 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
He also knows who the Revolution's terrorists were. The Mineriad heroes were students demanding democracy. I openly defy you to move to "Romanian coup d'état of 1989". For the last time: both occurred, but by far the most significant was the popular revolt. I dare you to take a trip to Timişoara, visit the little room kept as a shrine to the Revolution by a few of its beleaguered, forgotten but still quietly heroic veterans, and tell them to their face that they fought in a coup. Humble though those men may be, you may not emerge in one piece. Right, but other Romanians brought in Carol I. Please do not accuse me of "spreading bs". A King is indeed anointed by God through His minister, in this case Patriarch Miron Cristea. Carol II was also chosen by God, but, like other kings before and after him, lost his way. Sorry, but because he didn't allow for polls, we can't know that. Moreover, debt or no, there's no way Romania could have held out. In 1989, liberty was the name of the game, and all was swept away before its mighty, glorious tide. Biruitorul 07:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Simple: a party can be founded and re-founded. The rest is your deduction. I simply do not understand what problem you see with the history section at the PNL site. Furthermore, if you want to talk about consistencies in policies, the pre-1938 PNL was: republican then monarchist; antisemitic then open to Jewish integration; protectionist then laissez-faire then protectionist then laissez-faire ; irredentist then anti-irredentist then "the builder" of Greater Romania; anti-Carlist then pro-Carlist then anti-Carlist. Not that assessments of ideology add anything to this debate. Are we done? Dahn 13:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

English refs[edit]

This is English-language wikipedia. Please improve the article verifiability by adding more English-language sources. `'Míkka 18:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sigla pnl.png[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sigla pnl.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"the neutrality of the state in moral and religious issues"?[edit]

How can anyone claim that such a religionist party,filled among others with the Christian-Orthodox legionnaires who once infested the former Communist Party,supports the neutrality of the state in moral and religious issues ? During the former Tariceanu government PNL proved to be one of the most religionist fascist parties in Europe. Didn't Tariceanu government erase the Evolutionist Theory from Romanian public schools ? Didn't Romania become the only European country where Evolutionism was banned in public schools under Tariceanu's government ? Didn't the Minister of Education refuse to take away the legionnaire Christian-Orthodox icons from public schools ? Didn't PNL oppose the decriminalization of prostitution ? Didn't Norica Nicolai declare that prostitution is a sin and her party is enforcing the Christian morality ? How can a party that takes away Evolutionism from schools,puts Orthodox icons and Orthodox sermons in public schools,puts prostitutes in jail because they are sinners,force non religious students to abandon the public schools and remain without education and diplomas,how can such a religionist party be described as supporting the neutrality of the state in moral and religious issues? Azdfg (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The lede[edit]

I know that liberal has different connotations in different parts of the world, but this is very confusing for North American readers, for whom the word liberal means something different entirely (i.e., left-leaning). Could we please choose a different word that will be understandable to the maximum number of people?

This isn't about my country vs. your country; this is about making the article the most comprehensible to the most people. Magog the Ogre (t c) 03:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, no one's edited this talk page in 5.5 years, so I'm just going to change it. Magog the Ogre (t c) 03:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
This is an English language wikipedia, not American English wikipedia. European liberal parties are described as liberal on Wikipedia, 'despite' being on the centre-right, and rightly so as that is factually and technically accurate. Also, the cited source states that the PNL is a liberal party without the conservative- prefix, and we should not misrepresent the content of referenced sources. I agree that the PNL is mostly a conservative-liberal party, and have doubled-up the Nordsieck reference into the opening sentence of the article.--Autospark (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Autospark, you are wrong. Change liberal to conservative because all EPP parties are either conservative or christian democratic and PNL is NOT a leftist party. Dude, this is English language Wikipedia, not Romanian.

Liberalism is only viewed as a left-wing ideology in the United States. Wikipedia is not Americentric. All that matters is that the PNL identifies itself as liberal. Charles Essie (talk) 23:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)


PNL is now a member of EPP. So PNL is a CONSERVATIVE political party, not a liberal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Identifying as Liberal does not mean that others cannot make an objective assessment otherwise based on implementation. Party politics themselves are in a state of flux in Romania, look at the number of mergers and demergers going on, so this is a question that can be asked of other parties as well. If the PNL should be described only as 'Liberal' then what is the new Alliance of Liberals and Democrats party? Endrū Hejs (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Liberal Party (Romania). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)