This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nicolae Ceaușescu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 22, 2004, December 22, 2005, December 25, 2010, December 25, 2012, and December 25, 2014. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Nicolae Ceaușescu from it.wikipedia. |
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)
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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.12.160 ( talk) 20:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
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 SNL, and the people appear on it, this might be worth mentioning. - OberRanks ( talk) 23:36, 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)
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)
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)
"Seen it" - anyway - there's nothign wrong with comments on photographs; that is a true academic approach. If we do not have comments then Wikipedia becoems a bland "Hitler could be nice man" useless thing. Yes too much wild comment is wrong but pointing th way for people to make up their own minds is something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.12.160 ( talk) 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Yes, he was murdered by scumbag rebels who didn't give him a trial, those who murdered him were no better than his Securiate in my opinion. Scum and vermin Feeblezak ( talk) 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It was no "kangaroo court" at all, Ceausescu was just a brutal and murderous dictator and deserved death. His execution was the end of a nightmare for the Rumanian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.41.227 ( talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Mine is no bile, but the truth. - Zorobabele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.41.12 ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
Well if he would need to appear an atheist in public I would assume he would have to make suggestions about his lack of belief- which as far as I can tell he didn't. His wife apparently was vehemently anti-religion, though he himself seemed not to promote a particular attitude towards it (to follow the logic of Marx, the conditions that required the illusion had not yet been removed). Here is an interesting article relating to it- http://www.rri.ro/art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=33257. Ninahexan ( talk) 07:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
I see this ugly phrase has reared its head again. However, I have several reservations about this phrase:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I was reminded when listening to the BBC that perhaps a powerful impetus was given to Ceauşescu's downfall when, during an as usual lengthy and boring speech, one particular item brought an outburst of unintended laughter from the assembled citizens. At present I have nothing that is sufficiently well sourced to be included in the article but I suggest this very human reaction played a small but significant role in his downfall. -- Damorbel ( talk) 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In the article about the Economy of Romania is stated that the "Economic growth was further fueled by foreign credits in the 1970s, but this eventually led to a growing foreign debt, which peaked at $11–12 billion;[28] the latter was largely paid off during the 1980s..." and in this article it is stated that the debt was paid back in full. Just wondering if the dabt was actually paid back to last penny or just largely paid back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.55.65 ( talk) 14:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: None of the "operas" he is credited with were actually written by him. In the latest years there was a large apparatus dedicated to writing his speeches, books and Elena's too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.114.67 ( talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Earlier parts of this page have been archived off, but there's no link to them that I can see. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
More information should be given about any bank accounts in Ceausescu's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Ceausescu - Queen Elisabeth II - 1978.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Ceausescu Anul Nou.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Steaua Cupa Campionilor Europeni.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Bokassa with Ceausescu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:008.Portret Nicolae Ceausescu. (1936).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:011.Portret Nicolae Ceauescu in 1939.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:019.Vacanta-pentrecuta-in-Moldova-1976 (1).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:CeausescuKim1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Ceausescu receiving the presidential sceptre 1974.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Ceausescu & Gorbachev 1985.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Nicolae e Juan Carlos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:059. Tito and Ceausescu at the Romanian-Yougoslav friendship meeting.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:IICCR A273 Communist party leaders Gheorgheni.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:IICCR G156 Ceausescu in Sibiu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Romania, like every country in the world except the USA, uses the metric system. Therefore Ceausescu's height should be presented in metric first and Imperial second. But do we have a precise figure for his height in metric? JIP | Talk 13:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Why shall it be presented in inches if it is an international enciclopaedia? I have to take a look if the speed of light for instance is presented in miles/s too, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.30.92 ( talk) 08:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this page is at 'Nicolae Ceaușescu' and not 'Nicolae Ceauşescu'? [On my computer at least] The 'S' in the previous version seems to be of a different font and not an appropriate size compared to the rest of the text. In fact, throughout the text, the second, better typeset version appears. Can somebody explain the difference to me please and why the page is at its current title? Thanks, Oreo Priest talk 20:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This sentence has serious grammatical problems: "There was more, than one thousand killing and many wounding men, women and children."
There also appears to be some dispute about the numbers killed at Timişoara. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/timisoara-massacre/
However I have no expertise on this subject, so am loath to make a correction. -- DecBrennan ( talk) 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Did Ceaușescu go to prison for some offence between "becoming an apprentice shoemaker" (circa 1929) and "Soon after being freed" (circa 1940)? There is a reference to "captured in 1936" and Doftana Prison only on the accompanying image caption but details of neither crime nor sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.176.118 ( talk) 22:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
a major problem with wikipedia in general * outside of the glacial slowness of revisions * is that it is totally bloodless * somehow the excellent and admirable insistance on in line references in some cases allows extreme bias of a much SUBTLER sort to creep in * it is one thing to mention genocide in the abstract * the full truth is that MOST OF THE POPULATION WERE LIVING IN MEDIEVAL CONDITIONS * LITERALLY IN MUD HUTS * repeat * MUD HUTS * and the there was a CONSCIOUS AND WRITTEN POLICY TO PRODUCE A LITERAL SLAVE STATE BASED ON ORPHANAGES * VIDEOS CIRCULATED WORLD WIDE OF SHAVED HEADED TODDLERS SITTING IN ROWS OF WOODEN TOILETS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING FORCE FED BY BABUSHKAS WITH LARGE WOODEN SPOONS * THEY RECEIVED NO OTHER CARE AND WERE DESTINED FOR THE FACTORIES * this man was in no way a communist * however one may feel about comunism * no other deposed dictator * either in central america or even the former eastern bloc * was so sumarily executed * without some way of presenting this the essential point is missed that this man was more insane than hitler * making the article useless as a truthfull representation of history * 74.78.2.94 ( talk) 01:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)GRUMPY
The article says: "Ceaușescu's facial expression (perhaps reflecting realisation) as the crowd began to boo and heckle him remains one of the defining moments of the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe."
It seems to me that if it is that defining we should try and procure and include a picture of this if a suitable one is available? That sentence has certainly left me extremely curious... GoddersUK ( talk) 08:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Romanian WP is now showing him born on 23 January 1918, based on a birth certificate discovered after his death. His birth was registered on 26 January, three days after his birth, and the date of the registration somehow became the birth date that appeared in all sources. This needs now to be corrected to 23 January 1918. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
As can be seen in the article history, I made an edit to this page whereby I removed 19 references to the word "regime" and this contribution has attracted criticism. The subject was briefly broached here (this is the closing edit). The matter in unsettled and so I am transferring the notes here.
User:X4n6 has taken exception to my removal of "regime" by citing that reliable sources widely use this term. He also described my substitute words as POV. In response, I tried to explain to this user that "regime" is loaded language, and I sought to enquire what the problem had been with my substitutions which had been deemed POV by asking a few questions which he was welcome to answer in his own words [1]. He responded with a retort informing me that:
He then conceded that the words I used did not violate WP:NPOV but my removal of "regime" for my own reasons did thereby I missed the point. He then added:
I have no idea how to respond to a set of remarks which are right on the knife edge of ad hominem. I merely suggested that despite the wide usage, it was a clear example of loaded language which I believe corroborated the amendments, but the opposing editor hasn't offered proof that I am wrong in my assertion and that the term is neutral.
During the short time this debate was on the FRINGE theory discission, User:Sławomir Biały remarked in support of the word "regime" with this point: he noted a 10:1 ratio in favour of "regime" over "government" and affirmed that this term should not be removed due to editorial preference.
My response to Sławomir Biały's observation is that whilst the statistics he provided are correct, the point is
ignoratio elenchi because it does not address the concern that "regime" constitutes loaded language. If this sounds repetitive or is not clear, consider the following details:
1. "Saddam Hussein was a leader"
18 results
2. "Saddam Hussein was a president"
2 results
3. "Saddam Hussein was a tyrant"
27,000 results (from all types of source)
Number of sources does not provide a licence to favour loaded language over inoffensive NPOV words.
One more thing on the statistics: "Ceaușescu regime" and every one of its companions (i.e. Ceaușescu's regime, the Communist regime, 'regime' by itself, or Romanian regime for contemporary purposes) are comprehensive terms which - when used unsparingly - not only substitute "government" but just about any single legislative aparatus (e.g. authorities, rule, administration, presidency, Ceaușescu alone if enacting something, leadership, cabinet, ministry, directorate, council, several others). When adding all of these numbers, the figure suddenly jumps up. To examine my edit, I did not apply "government" every time. In fact if you look, you'll see I carefully deliberated on each amendment.
I know the term "regime" is popular and I welcome all thoughts from everybody. -- OJ ( talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
A régime is any undemocratic system of government, beginning with the ancien régime commonly in use to describe the absolute monarchy present in France before 1789. This can be used for a comparatively-moderate system of undemocratic rule (the Schuschnigg régime) or something extremely brutal, like the Nazi régime.
Is "dictatorship" or "tyranny" neutral? Hardly. Of course it is hard to consider Ceausescu in any way a democrat. Pbrower2a ( talk) 09:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Nicolae Ceaușescu. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nicolae Ceaușescu. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Illegitimate Barrister: @ Roger 8 Roger:, his party is the Romanian Communist Party, not "Romanian Communist". One is a proper noun, the other is an adjective. He was born in a specific Romania, and died in a specific Romania. puggo ( talk) 19:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The entire set of pictures look like they've been approved by him & his wife. Continuing his personality cult on WP? Shameless beyond comprehension. Arminden ( talk) 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Ceaușescu was a politicide perpetrator RAMSES$44932 ( talk) 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Why is the death date and place removed from the infobox? ColorfulSmoke ( talk) 19:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, I've heard from someone a while ago that Nicolae Ceausescu was favorable of the Iron Guard, encouraged nationalism in schools and other institutions, and that his political beliefs were similar to National Bolshevism. I asked a similar question here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Drum_bun#Nicolae_Ceausescu_and_Nationalism. If any of y'all can help answer my questions that would be appreciated, thanks. NoahMusic2009 ( talk) 13:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nicolae Ceaușescu article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 22, 2004, December 22, 2005, December 25, 2010, December 25, 2012, and December 25, 2014. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article contains a translation of Nicolae Ceaușescu from it.wikipedia. |
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)
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... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.12.160 ( talk) 20:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
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 SNL, and the people appear on it, this might be worth mentioning. - OberRanks ( talk) 23:36, 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)
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)
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)
"Seen it" - anyway - there's nothign wrong with comments on photographs; that is a true academic approach. If we do not have comments then Wikipedia becoems a bland "Hitler could be nice man" useless thing. Yes too much wild comment is wrong but pointing th way for people to make up their own minds is something else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.12.160 ( talk) 20:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
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)
Yes, he was murdered by scumbag rebels who didn't give him a trial, those who murdered him were no better than his Securiate in my opinion. Scum and vermin Feeblezak ( talk) 11:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
It was no "kangaroo court" at all, Ceausescu was just a brutal and murderous dictator and deserved death. His execution was the end of a nightmare for the Rumanian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.41.227 ( talk) 13:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Mine is no bile, but the truth. - Zorobabele — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.41.12 ( talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
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)
Well if he would need to appear an atheist in public I would assume he would have to make suggestions about his lack of belief- which as far as I can tell he didn't. His wife apparently was vehemently anti-religion, though he himself seemed not to promote a particular attitude towards it (to follow the logic of Marx, the conditions that required the illusion had not yet been removed). Here is an interesting article relating to it- http://www.rri.ro/art.shtml?lang=1&sec=9&art=33257. Ninahexan ( talk) 07:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
I see this ugly phrase has reared its head again. However, I have several reservations about this phrase:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
I was reminded when listening to the BBC that perhaps a powerful impetus was given to Ceauşescu's downfall when, during an as usual lengthy and boring speech, one particular item brought an outburst of unintended laughter from the assembled citizens. At present I have nothing that is sufficiently well sourced to be included in the article but I suggest this very human reaction played a small but significant role in his downfall. -- Damorbel ( talk) 15:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
In the article about the Economy of Romania is stated that the "Economic growth was further fueled by foreign credits in the 1970s, but this eventually led to a growing foreign debt, which peaked at $11–12 billion;[28] the latter was largely paid off during the 1980s..." and in this article it is stated that the debt was paid back in full. Just wondering if the dabt was actually paid back to last penny or just largely paid back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.55.65 ( talk) 14:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Note: None of the "operas" he is credited with were actually written by him. In the latest years there was a large apparatus dedicated to writing his speeches, books and Elena's too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.114.67 ( talk) 15:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Earlier parts of this page have been archived off, but there's no link to them that I can see. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 20:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
More information should be given about any bank accounts in Ceausescu's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 ( talk) 16:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Ceausescu - Queen Elisabeth II - 1978.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:09, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Ceausescu Anul Nou.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Steaua Cupa Campionilor Europeni.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Bokassa with Ceausescu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:008.Portret Nicolae Ceausescu. (1936).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:011.Portret Nicolae Ceauescu in 1939.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:019.Vacanta-pentrecuta-in-Moldova-1976 (1).jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:CeausescuKim1971.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Ceausescu receiving the presidential sceptre 1974.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Ceausescu & Gorbachev 1985.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:Nicolae e Juan Carlos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:059. Tito and Ceausescu at the Romanian-Yougoslav friendship meeting.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:IICCR A273 Communist party leaders Gheorgheni.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
An image used in this article,
File:IICCR G156 Ceausescu in Sibiu.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 23:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
Romania, like every country in the world except the USA, uses the metric system. Therefore Ceausescu's height should be presented in metric first and Imperial second. But do we have a precise figure for his height in metric? JIP | Talk 13:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Why shall it be presented in inches if it is an international enciclopaedia? I have to take a look if the speed of light for instance is presented in miles/s too, or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.76.30.92 ( talk) 08:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why this page is at 'Nicolae Ceaușescu' and not 'Nicolae Ceauşescu'? [On my computer at least] The 'S' in the previous version seems to be of a different font and not an appropriate size compared to the rest of the text. In fact, throughout the text, the second, better typeset version appears. Can somebody explain the difference to me please and why the page is at its current title? Thanks, Oreo Priest talk 20:41, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
This sentence has serious grammatical problems: "There was more, than one thousand killing and many wounding men, women and children."
There also appears to be some dispute about the numbers killed at Timişoara. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2010/08/30/timisoara-massacre/
However I have no expertise on this subject, so am loath to make a correction. -- DecBrennan ( talk) 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Did Ceaușescu go to prison for some offence between "becoming an apprentice shoemaker" (circa 1929) and "Soon after being freed" (circa 1940)? There is a reference to "captured in 1936" and Doftana Prison only on the accompanying image caption but details of neither crime nor sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.176.118 ( talk) 22:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
a major problem with wikipedia in general * outside of the glacial slowness of revisions * is that it is totally bloodless * somehow the excellent and admirable insistance on in line references in some cases allows extreme bias of a much SUBTLER sort to creep in * it is one thing to mention genocide in the abstract * the full truth is that MOST OF THE POPULATION WERE LIVING IN MEDIEVAL CONDITIONS * LITERALLY IN MUD HUTS * repeat * MUD HUTS * and the there was a CONSCIOUS AND WRITTEN POLICY TO PRODUCE A LITERAL SLAVE STATE BASED ON ORPHANAGES * VIDEOS CIRCULATED WORLD WIDE OF SHAVED HEADED TODDLERS SITTING IN ROWS OF WOODEN TOILETS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY BEING FORCE FED BY BABUSHKAS WITH LARGE WOODEN SPOONS * THEY RECEIVED NO OTHER CARE AND WERE DESTINED FOR THE FACTORIES * this man was in no way a communist * however one may feel about comunism * no other deposed dictator * either in central america or even the former eastern bloc * was so sumarily executed * without some way of presenting this the essential point is missed that this man was more insane than hitler * making the article useless as a truthfull representation of history * 74.78.2.94 ( talk) 01:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)GRUMPY
The article says: "Ceaușescu's facial expression (perhaps reflecting realisation) as the crowd began to boo and heckle him remains one of the defining moments of the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe."
It seems to me that if it is that defining we should try and procure and include a picture of this if a suitable one is available? That sentence has certainly left me extremely curious... GoddersUK ( talk) 08:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Romanian WP is now showing him born on 23 January 1918, based on a birth certificate discovered after his death. His birth was registered on 26 January, three days after his birth, and the date of the registration somehow became the birth date that appeared in all sources. This needs now to be corrected to 23 January 1918. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 22:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
As can be seen in the article history, I made an edit to this page whereby I removed 19 references to the word "regime" and this contribution has attracted criticism. The subject was briefly broached here (this is the closing edit). The matter in unsettled and so I am transferring the notes here.
User:X4n6 has taken exception to my removal of "regime" by citing that reliable sources widely use this term. He also described my substitute words as POV. In response, I tried to explain to this user that "regime" is loaded language, and I sought to enquire what the problem had been with my substitutions which had been deemed POV by asking a few questions which he was welcome to answer in his own words [1]. He responded with a retort informing me that:
He then conceded that the words I used did not violate WP:NPOV but my removal of "regime" for my own reasons did thereby I missed the point. He then added:
I have no idea how to respond to a set of remarks which are right on the knife edge of ad hominem. I merely suggested that despite the wide usage, it was a clear example of loaded language which I believe corroborated the amendments, but the opposing editor hasn't offered proof that I am wrong in my assertion and that the term is neutral.
During the short time this debate was on the FRINGE theory discission, User:Sławomir Biały remarked in support of the word "regime" with this point: he noted a 10:1 ratio in favour of "regime" over "government" and affirmed that this term should not be removed due to editorial preference.
My response to Sławomir Biały's observation is that whilst the statistics he provided are correct, the point is
ignoratio elenchi because it does not address the concern that "regime" constitutes loaded language. If this sounds repetitive or is not clear, consider the following details:
1. "Saddam Hussein was a leader"
18 results
2. "Saddam Hussein was a president"
2 results
3. "Saddam Hussein was a tyrant"
27,000 results (from all types of source)
Number of sources does not provide a licence to favour loaded language over inoffensive NPOV words.
One more thing on the statistics: "Ceaușescu regime" and every one of its companions (i.e. Ceaușescu's regime, the Communist regime, 'regime' by itself, or Romanian regime for contemporary purposes) are comprehensive terms which - when used unsparingly - not only substitute "government" but just about any single legislative aparatus (e.g. authorities, rule, administration, presidency, Ceaușescu alone if enacting something, leadership, cabinet, ministry, directorate, council, several others). When adding all of these numbers, the figure suddenly jumps up. To examine my edit, I did not apply "government" every time. In fact if you look, you'll see I carefully deliberated on each amendment.
I know the term "regime" is popular and I welcome all thoughts from everybody. -- OJ ( talk) 21:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
A régime is any undemocratic system of government, beginning with the ancien régime commonly in use to describe the absolute monarchy present in France before 1789. This can be used for a comparatively-moderate system of undemocratic rule (the Schuschnigg régime) or something extremely brutal, like the Nazi régime.
Is "dictatorship" or "tyranny" neutral? Hardly. Of course it is hard to consider Ceausescu in any way a democrat. Pbrower2a ( talk) 09:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Nicolae Ceaușescu. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Nicolae Ceaușescu. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
@ Illegitimate Barrister: @ Roger 8 Roger:, his party is the Romanian Communist Party, not "Romanian Communist". One is a proper noun, the other is an adjective. He was born in a specific Romania, and died in a specific Romania. puggo ( talk) 19:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
The entire set of pictures look like they've been approved by him & his wife. Continuing his personality cult on WP? Shameless beyond comprehension. Arminden ( talk) 09:15, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Ceaușescu was a politicide perpetrator RAMSES$44932 ( talk) 15:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Why is the death date and place removed from the infobox? ColorfulSmoke ( talk) 19:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, I've heard from someone a while ago that Nicolae Ceausescu was favorable of the Iron Guard, encouraged nationalism in schools and other institutions, and that his political beliefs were similar to National Bolshevism. I asked a similar question here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Drum_bun#Nicolae_Ceausescu_and_Nationalism. If any of y'all can help answer my questions that would be appreciated, thanks. NoahMusic2009 ( talk) 13:11, 7 February 2024 (UTC)