Talk:Ion Iliescu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] Promoted new constitution ?

In 2003, he promoted a new constitution designed to facilitate the goal of Romanian entry into the European Union, and despite low voter turnout it was approved in a referendum by 90% of the vote.

What's wrong with this paragraph:

  1. the new constitution was not expresly needed in order to join the EU
  2. Ion Iliescu had nothing to do with the new constitution: it was made by the Parliament.

Bogdan | Talk 08:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not really. He promoted the draft, publicizing it, and inviting people to vote it. In regards with the EU, the EU said not to change the constitution until an EU one was drafted. It's main role was to bypass a referendum for accession (that happened all over Eastern Europe, even Bulgaria will have one), Romania will not, due to this constitution. The main reason was fear of a very low turnout following the integration costs. --Xanthar 1 July 2005 18:48 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

The protesters wanted to overtherew the democratic governmment and the president had no choice but to call the miners to Bucharest in order to restore peace.

POV and absurd. "Had no choice"? Hardly. Also, the miners did not restore peace, but brought chaos and violence.

The controversies regarding the numbers of terms in office were started by the CDR( the Romanian Democratic Convention) in 2000 in order to stop him from running for a second constitutional term. The Supreme Court of Romania validated his candidature under Romanian law in 2000. His statement regarding this controversy is famous:"What can I do if the people want me for president?"; He won by a landslide in december 2000 receiving the vote of more than 66% of those who voted.

Absurd. What has the will of the people to do with the constitution ?

What 2nd term? It was his third/fourth! The constitution was to apply from 1991 on. That meant that the president "in term", that was under NO constitution, was to follow the 1991 constitution. Many people did not want him for president. They were simply faced with the prospect of an ultra nationalist dictator-like, mad man. And between Hitler and Khruschev (this was a comparison in fashion back then), everyone chose Khruschev. If Stolojan/Isarescu made it that far (it did not because of poor campaigning - in the villages no-one even knew that they ran, or were accused by the rural SPD/PDSR clique) they would have won. The will of the people IS the constitution, and therefore IT cannot be mocked. And what he did was not take into accout the will of the people, as expressed through the constitution, but disobey it. --Xanthar 1 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

In the years that he was in office he contributed to the foundation of the post communist Romania by supporting much needed reform in all institutions, the new constitution and the amendments made to it in 2003. The terms he served are synonym with reform ,democratization and economic support for the poor. The most important events in post 89 history of Romania took place under his leadership: Romania’s accession to NATO and closure of negotiations with the EU, to name only a few.

No, he did not did reform. In fact, he delayed most of the reforms, during the Roman and Nastase governments, because they did not matched his communist views. Bogdan | Talk 23:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reform, huh... After 11 years of Ilescu, Romania is poor, filled with corruption, got into Nato only due to luck, and after serious negotiation and sacrifice (Bulgaria got out easier), ended talks with the EU only to be a show for Nastase on TV in his confrontation with Basescu (thank God Basescu won), by signing whatever the EU demanded (if they demanded 3 steel factories and 2 refineries closed by 2007, he probably would have signed it, OH, HE DID SIGN EXACTLY THAT!). God save Romania and the Romanians inside it... --Xanthar 1 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)

Newcomer comment: whereas the English version of Iliescu's biography tends to go towards an objectivity of some sort, the Romanian article on I.I., when someone or other tried to bring some objectivity in, is constantly changed to a whole page of accusations (which I'm not saying they cannot be real), instead of a regular biography of a former chief of state. Can Romanians not be objective?

[edit] Good job

This article is now the first link on searching for Ion Iliescu on google, even above the presidency site. :-) Bogdan | Talk 16:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Not here, hm. What's even odder is that from the exceprt Google gives, it seems the page was updated for Traian Basescu now, but I can't see to what extent, since the site isn't working. I don't know how Google's PageRank works exactly, but I'm guessing it takes into consideration only direct links, not links to the same domain. Compare how many links both have: presidency.ro and WikiPedia
Of course, there's the relevance thing it also takes into account, and that's wrong, as he doesn't belong there anymore. :-) --Gcbirzan 06:18, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Iliescu accused of crimes against humanity

I don't have enough time to write right now. Maybe I'll try later. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 09:05, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ilici

Hello, I thought Ilici is a nickname given by political opponents. Please document the systematic revert of his name to Ilici as middle name.

While it is true that it was used by the press as a nickname, Ilici is *really* his middle name. bogdan | Talk 18:43, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
[...] Ion Ilici Iliescu, fost secretar de partid, lider comunist pregatit la Moscova. Tatal sau l-a idolatrizat pe Lenin, motiv pentru care i-a dat fiului sau numele Ilici. Jurnalul Naţional
It doesn't seem to me that the source is credible enough to create the majority oppinion. I will revert to the version without Ilici, while adding a text with the controversy. I propose you find a second, independent source for this before we go on and put it in the first line of the article.

[edit] Poorly written

"In 2005 investigations began that should eventually lead to his being put on trial for a number of accusations, including crimes against humanity, related to the bloody abuses of power he committed during the years 1989-1990, especially during the 1989 Romanian Revolution and the Mineriads."

Overexaggerated and utterly presumptuous statement. The fact is, he has never been put on trial. Another fact is, he has not been officially indicted of any of the above counts. Especially not of 'crimes against humanity', which is a fantasist and preposterous charge. Moreover, the word 'should' does not turn statements into facts.

"He was responsible for calling the miners of Jiu Valley to Bucharest on 28 January and June 14, 1990"

A highly contested issue in Romanian politics, actually. But if one drops Wikipedia's 'neutral point of view' policy, then one can squeeze this issue into a hard fact and we're fine. Who needs neutral points of view anyway?

Quote from Iliescu, 1990, after the events:
"Dragi mineri, vă mulţumesc că aţi răspuns la chemarea noastră!"
"Dear miners, I thank you for answering to our call!"

But he himself, and his supporters, contested hotly that version of the facts. Wouldn't it be in the interest of fairness to state that? Maybe even contrasted critically with the above quotation, why not?

"In 1995, the Ziua newspaper published an interview with an ex-KGB officer in which he declared that Ion Iliescu was a member of the KGB"

Ziua may have a political slant, but does it really matters when this was an interview with a high rank KGB officer? bogdan | Talk 09:36, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about political slant, I'm talking about professionalism.

Maybe one should specify the fact that 'Ziua' is not exactly 'The New York Times' of Romania's mass media, in case some well-meaning reader is inclined to think 'newspaper' means 'newspaper with serious deontological standards'. These allegations, even though made as long ago as 1995, are still at the insufficiently founded allegation stage: one starts to wonder why.

But no, I'm sorry, I'm utterly wrong! Here comes the solid proof:

"However, a few days later, some journalists of the Ziua discovered they were being watched by the Romanian Intelligence Service -- the official explanation was that the secret service was in fact watching a spy that lived nearby."

As I said before: one starts to wonder why. And by the way: does anyone else feel a scent of conspiracy theory in the air, or is it only me?

[edit] Dispute tag

User:128.36.87.85, you put the disputed tag on the article, but did not say what exactly you dispute. So, I'm removing it. 83.103.181.182 16:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Homophobic remarks

If anyone is willing to write about them in the article, here is the series of articles from Evenimentul Zilei, the first one being the interview and the others being reactions to it and the last one he apologises and attacks EvZ for not letting him "correct" the interview.

bogdan 21:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Iliescu Bashing

It seems that this article is focused primarily on all the bad things about Iliescu (and I agree there are many), rather than taking a balanced approach that sounds in any way objective. What about NATO accession under his leadership? Planned EU accession? Economic growth under his last presidency? There was a lot of history during the eleven years he was in office -- much of it which he played a part in. Given realities in Romania, it is highly unlikely he will ever be prosecuted for his role in the miner's riots or during the Revolution. Yet this is placed near the front of the article, indicating somehow that an indictment is imminent.

That said, the article is a very good start thus far (although some of the language is awkard). It would also be worth noting Iliescu's remarks denying the Holocaust in Romania, which prompted international pressure that forced him to found the Wiesel Commission for the study of the Holocaust in Romania. Iliescu subsequently accepted the Wiesel Commission's recommendations on Holocaust education in Romania and accepted official responsibility for the Antonescu regime's direct involvement in the Holocaust and the death of several hundred thousand Romanian Jews. Arguably Iliescu's turnaround on the Holocaust was politically motivated, it is nonetheless commendable.

It is easy to bash Iliescu, but the man was elected on multiple occasions to lead his country and he still remains a popular political figure in some parts of the country (particularly rural areas). I'm not suggesting that his record in Romania be whitewashed, just that the uninformed be given a broader picture with at least some objectivity of what Iliescu did and still does represent.

This is not in any way meant to be crticism. Just some suggestions for making the piece even stronger. Congratulations to all who have worked on it.

Thank you for the contributions to the article, as well as for the comments and appreciations. The presidency section is indeed not detailed enough, unlike the controversy section. I'll try to add some more information on that. bogdan 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Here's an idea: what say you get yourself a signature and start work on it yourself?Dahn 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Dahn, please do not bite the newcomers! :-) bogdan 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not Category:Romanian communists ?

He was a member of the Communist Party, a Central Committee member, a minister in a Communist government, the president of a County Council, etc. bogdan 14:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess. But keep him where he is as well (I mean: "socialists").Dahn 14:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Since the Revolution, he revised his attitude on Communism. bogdan 14:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But what purpose is served by "Rom. politicians"? I think it should lead to subcats, and have no article leading directly to it (if possible). Since Iliescu is already in 2 (3) subcats, I think he's safely out of the vague one. Should I get him out of "politicians"? Dahn 14:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General quality of the article

  • the article is too long and should be cleaned-up
  • important events are not doccumented: the founding of PDSR, the achievements of his mandates, his relationship with other leaders of PDSR-PSD
  • the criticisms should be tempered, maybe created within a special section "criticism" -that would allow the critiques to be told in one part, not scatered among the article
  • I have other more specific comments about some long phrases, circular judgements etc

--Eumc 00:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poor phrasing

  • "Swedish model (most likely, a reference to large-scale state ownership)" -Swedish model is a model of high taxes, not state ownership
  • the whole paragraph is illisible "As the leader of the provisional authority, Iliescu declared that he wished for Romania to become an original democracy. This is widely held to have meant the adoption of Perestroika-style reforms rather than the complete removal of existing institutions; it can be linked to the warm reception the new regime was given in Mikhail Gorbachev and the rest of the Soviet leadership, and the fact that the first post-revolutionary international agreement signed by Romania was with that country. In later yers, he amended and further explained this initially vague statement by expressing his distrust for the clear, no in between choice of Capitalism versus Socialism, evoking the possibility of a Swedish model (most likely, a reference to large-scale state ownership).|" -is this about what Iliescu wanted? What "original democracy" really means? Or is it a description of the intellectual journey of Ion Iliescu?
  • "Also pardoned other 46 convicted criminals" -the pardoning is available only to convicted criminals, hence no other data is needed.
  • "On account of revoking pardons, it serves to point out that it is not legally possible to issue a new presidential edict that would revoke the previous one, as the Constitution of Romania and specific criminal laws do not allow it." -this paragraph poorly restates what was already written.


--Eumc 00:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Phrases that lack relevance or exactness

  • "The National Salvation Front (FSN: Frontul Salvării Naţionale) was originally meant to be organizing the free legislative elections on 20 May 1990, and afterward disband itself - however, it eventually ran in the elections, which it won with over 85% of the votes" -it inaccurate: FSN won about 70 % of the votes, Iliescu had 85%. FSN was originally meant (in December 1989) to create a state authority, not to organize any elections. It disbanded itself when it gave power to the CPUN in January-February 1990 and recreated itself as a political party.
  • "According to Romanian political analysts such as Daniel Barbu or Dan Pavel, his election was based almost exclusively on the rural population and disoriented lower class industrial workers, controlled through manipulation from the state-controlled media (Televiziunea Română, the state television, was the only widescale TV channel until 1993). He ran for a third time in 1996 but, stripped of media monopoly, that of virtually all urban citizens and even of some traditional votes, he lost to Emil Constantinescu." -Daniel Barbu and Dan Pavel are both proffessors, the former was dean of the Political Science Faculty, University of Bucharest. Their original analysis is not one of Iliescu being "almost exclusively" voted by ...etc . Sociology is no place for exclusivity. It is inconsistent with the results of the voting: 49 % on the first ballot (1992) is much more that the mentioned social categories. Again, during the 1996 election, Iliescu had most votes on first ballots, even "virtually all urban citizens" In conclusion, the whole paragraph is undocumented, and is partially irrelevant: the National TV station and the Dan Pavel -part
  • "The center-right was severely defeated during the 2000 elections due largely to public dissatisfaction with the harsh economic reforms of the previous four years as well as the and political instabilty and infighting of the multiparty coalition. Tudor's extreme views also ensured that most urban voters either abstained or chose Iliescu" -this is quite irrelevant for Ion Iliescu. I would like to protest for two opinions: it seems thorughout the article that urban voters are good and rural voters are bad; I think one should be careful with that. Secondly, the Iliescu Era was dominated by the regional voting, not on the urban-rural clash. Moldova usually voted for Iliescu and Ardeal for the Convention and nationalistic parties.
  • "For the pardon to be legal, it had to be countersigned by Adrian Năstase, the incumbent Prime Minister. However, when asked by the press, Năstase first stated that he was not aware of the planned pardon, then that he did not approve of it and that his signature was ultimately a mere formality. Upon returning from Brussels, he stated that he wasn't aware of what he had signed, and that he placed his trust in the President, to the point of approving papers without reading them." -the whole phrases are about Adrian Nastase, not about Ion Iliescu. It's long to explain the history of counter-signing, but counter-signing is no cooperative decision. Adrian Nastase would have signed that decree or quit his office.
  • "The EU Delegation's head in Bucharest, Jonathan Scheele, said I am as surprised as anyone by the President's last decision!." -this is not a memorable quotation, not a relevant one. Mr. Scheele could be suprised as anyone by the New Year Eve party organized by the National Television, it is not relevant for the pardonning decrees. As far as I know, you might cite the advices formulated by the American Embassy in bucharest
  • "On 17 December, Iliescu and Adrian Năstase, while still in Brussels, 'signed' a revocation of the pardon." -the revocation decree was signed (not 'signed') by Iliescu alone
  • "The legality of the pardon decree is still under scrutiny." -this is outdated--Eumc 00:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ilici

There in no doubt in my mind about who comrade Ilici Iliescu really is and what kind of thoughts and ideas go through his mind,no matter where he is and what time of day it is.I was quite involved in what happened during the revolution of 1989,going out in the street and participating to many anticommunist meetings during the 90s.I remember very clearly,as if it were yesterday,that one day, immediately after Ceausescu had run away,Ilici and general Guse were on foot in front of the Council of Ministers building,close to the subway entrance.I was very close and I could hear Ilici tell the general that "we must call Moscow and tell them who we are and what we want". In fact,the first time I saw Ilici ,I asked what is he doing among the revolutionaries and why don`t we send him where he deserved to be - in jail,where all communists should have beeen sent those days.Had we done that,today Romania would not be today the last country to join Europe and the red stigma would have been long ago definitely wiped away from the face of the people.

All the answers to the questions concerning the revolution can be found in the archives of KGB and CIA, but as usual, they'd be released when they won't be relevant at all, probably after a generation, 50 years or so. bogdan 23:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think a citation is needed when the article claims that 1 million votes were cancelled at the 1996 elections. 1 million out of about 17 million voters is 5-6%, quite much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.197.223.44 (talk • contribs) 12 October 2006.

[edit] Mineriad

How can it be merely "alleged" that "The miners descended on the capital, armed with wooden clubs and bats and attacked the protesters." If we are going to split this into what is alleged and what is known, we should not classify something this indisputable as merely "alleged". - Jmabel | Talk 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a fact that "the miners descended on the capital, armed with wooden clubs and bats and attacked the protesters". This is written as a fact in the article. The allegation is that Iliescu called them. The fact that Iliescu thanked them (after they did what they did), is not a clear proof that he called them (before they did it). Razvan Socol 12:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English version is fair compared to Romanian or French

I took a look at the French and Romanian Iliescu articles... they are very poor, POV, and contain biaised statements, they're merely pamphlets. This one is amendable, but still complies with neutrality and objectiveness principles of wiki. Let me congratulate you for your job, pals, since Iliescu is still such a 'hot' subject. --dio 11:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Atheism

Originally, he claimed to be a "freethinker" (liber-cugetător), which in Romanian is used as a synonym for "atheist". (see the dictionary definition)

Later, before the 1996 elections, during the TV debate with Emil Constantinescu, when asked whether he believes in God, Iliescu avoided the question, but he claimed that while he is a "believer" (credincios), he disagrees with the idea of "crede şi nu cerceta" ("believe and don't question"). These two affirmations are contradictory (and that's what Constantinescu replied to him), but Iliescu probably meant "morality" rather than "faith". bogdan 12:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

i don't think that's enough to call him an atheist... but anyway, we are not here to comment what he said... Anonimu 13:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/o/n/Talk%7EIon_Iliescu_a7d5.html"