Talk:Ceauşima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did You Know An entry from Ceauşima appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 7 November 2006.
Wikipedia
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.

Wikipedians in Bucharest may be able to help!
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] POV

Of course it's pretty obvious, but because an IP complained, here are some proofs

  • pov-pushing hyperbole "vast empty field" "giant monumental[sic!] buildings " "colossal “House of the People”" "gigantic House of the People"
  • clear pov: "structures dating from the communist era hold out surprisingly well" " the gratuitous demolition " "the oversized “Socialism’s Victory” Boulevard" "The final result evokes both Pyongyang of Kim Il Sung and Hitler’s Germania."

(and these are just the most obvious from the "Preliminaries"... a lot more things from this paragraph need citations) Anonimu 17:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)



Every word you cited as POV was used pertinently:

  • razing 500ha of city cannot produce but "vast empty fields"
the empty surface was never 500 ha because they where continuosly building new structures on the empty land...Anonimu 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • building the second-large edifice in the world is pretty giant, colossal and gigantic enough

(as for your implicite irony regarding the formulation "giant monumental", you should know that not everything giant should be monumental and viceversa :))

monumental=large, grand and imposing. (source: wiktionary)Anonimu 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • in other contexts you would be probably right criticising the use of "surprisingly well""; you should however know, that in the aftermath of the 1977' earthquake everybody was indeed surprised by the good performance of the new buldings compared to the old ones - this was generally known in that time. Please understand that it would be much to costly for me to provide written sources for everything younger generation didn't directly witness. You could however investigate by yourself, how thigs really were. (More generally, I suspect that much of your communist POVs are due to lack of information - but this is another story)
Maybe i could search an encyclopedia... but wait, this is an encyclopedia... who's that everybody? original research is not allowed on wiki (neither personal attacks are)... and even if you could find a resource for this "surprise", it would still be pov. Anonimu 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • "gratuitous demolition " is the least one could say about the bulldozing of the Enei church and Casa Cerchez - about the screamingly illegitimcy of these measures you can read in the works recommended under "Further Readings"
that's what you think.. remember the original research policy? As for sources, unless you give the exact pages, i won't accept them. Anonimu 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • the "Socialism’s Victory Boulevard" is evidently oversized - this is the general opinion of architects and urbanists - please read the cited literature
bring a reference please Anonimu 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ceausescu's centru civic is in line with the most outrageous manifestations of totalitarian architecture, such as those ordered by Kim Il Sung and Hitler - this is the unanimous opinion of architects, sociologists and other qualified observers in the "civilized world"
they might say it, but you didn't prove it.Anonimu 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

All the formulations you qualified as POVs are resting upon facts and/or expert opinions. I barely can find a tone deviation in my article and I think that your critique is too partisan.

no, all are based on original research (of someone who has a strong bias against one of the parties involved)... Anonimu 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, nobody hinders you from writing an article about the "achievements" of the Ceausescu's era, just as nobody can prevent the reporting of his crimes. --Vintila Barbu 19:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

i preffer removing anti-communist bias from articles that already exist.Anonimu 21:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with anti-Communist bias? Communism is inherently evil. More to the point, I thought you said Ceauşescu wasn't a Communist. Biruitorul 18:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a bias.. thus is wrong. Capitalism is the way of animals. Since humans aren't animals they need another organization: communism. Of course, some would argue that evil comes with conscience, but that's the only argument that could be brought for your statement. I prefer being evil, if this means i'm human. Ceausescu wasn't quite a communist, but the system was the closest thing to communism, and a political revolution would have made a true socialist one.Anonimu 19:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Humans are, biologically animals, and some fairly advanced societies practice capitalism with no need for communism: the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, etc. Ex-communist countries like Romania and Poland have rushed to abandon capitalism and embrace communism. Ceauşescu imprisoned people for their beliefs. He denied the people the free exercise of their political, social and cultural rights. He nearly starved them. That's evil, and a good thing his rotten system was discarded in favour of Western-style liberalism as soon as practicable. He now rests on the ash-heap of history, and any further scorn we can pour on his mad schemes is more than welcome, since nothing good can possibly be said about what he did. Biruitorul 06:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you really know how people live in those "advanced societies"? I doubt it. And about Ceausescu, unless you consider pornographic productions (movies, shows... books) a social and cultural right, in those time the people had easier acces to culture... and even to social life... and your statement is very useful: next time you add something to a topic regarding communist romania i can remove it as intentional bias.Anonimu 12:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they live pretty well, much better than anywhere Communism has been attempted. It's true that certain things like opera have become marginally less accessible since 1989, but Romanians are now free to read, for instance, dissenters' literature. Marin Preda. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Arthur Koestler. Vasile Militaru. Grigori Zamyatin. These authors and more were either banned or quite difficult to obtain; now they are freely available. The Manchurian Candidate: banned; now available. The truth about Aiud, Piteşti, Gherla, Sighet, etc.: suppressed, now openly discussed. Scînteia vs. Evenimentul zilei, Jurnalul Naţional, Ziua, Adevărul, etc.: no comparison. None. Look at the variety of products now available. Religion freely and openly practised. Breathe the air of a free man who no longer has to eat chiftele made of horse meat, make do with two hours of electricity a day, and watch that madman on television. Come to your senses.
You can't compare capitalist countries with communism since there isn't any communist one (Cuba was quite close, but it was sabotaged by the US... i hope you don't want source for this)... And "marginally" isn't a good word.. the current audience is less than 10% of the one in the late 70s... And about those "banned" books.. they weren't really... at least during Ceausescu.. of course, some writing of Marin Preda were censored (but not Morormetii 2, who presented armed interventions against peasant refusing colectivisation).. as for solzhenitsyn.. he isn't an eductaive thing to read anyway... he just wants to revenge his imprisonment.. i know next to nothing about the others.. do you really want me to talk about "the manchurian candidate"? Yeah, Scinteia didn't have a "Fata de la pagina 5"... they must have been very bad. Religion (excepting greek catholics, minor sects and yoga movements) was freely and openly practised. New churches were built (!). Horse meat meatballs, 2 hours of electricity a day?!? where did you live? in siberia? Anonimu 16:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the old canard: let's keep trying Communism until it succeeds.
Communism in Romania could have succeded. Yesterday a guy from PSD (memory lapse) told Turcescu that he joined the Communist party in 1989 because there was a plan for a political revolution (to bring down ceausescu and install a real socialist system)... the party had a lot of educated people who knew what to do to repair the system... but bureaucratic collectivist (capitalists of a socialist economic system) and foreign secret services (as turcu told yesterday to tuca) already concured and now we have this shit... Anonimu 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories everywhere. Simply put, how? With Communism swept away in BG, HU, CZ, PL, DDR, and soon to be in AL, YU and the USSR itself, how on earth could Romania have done it by itself? And why? Things are going very well in Romania today; I refer you to the GDP figures. You want s___? See pre-1990 Romania. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I din't say it... Liviu Turcu did... and he knows some things we don't.... Anonimu 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Still a conspiracist. I think we'd know for sure by now if he really knew something. Biruitorul 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure... and it's not the first time he says it anyway (and other like plesita and merce also hinted at it) Anonimu 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hints, shadowy guesses, excuses for remaining in the employment of TV stations.., bah! I want proof before I believe such nonsense. Anyway, as I said, how could it have worked? Communism was collapsing everywhere else, and rightly so. Biruitorul 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia accepts them if they are published somewhere (almost anywhere)... a lot of thing should be removed from wiki if you want everything to be proved... including most of your claims and an important part of this article... Anonimu 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Communists lie. Capitalists speak the truth. Biruitorul 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
You sound like Stalin... Anonimu 14:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Except he would have said the exact opposite... Biruitorul 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not about what you've said, it's about how you've said it. Anonimu 14:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
And no, I see no evidence of the US sabotaging Cuba; Castro is still(?) in power.
How would you call a (failed) invasion and a de-facto embargo? What do you think would happen if Romania signed an economical agreement with Cuba? (of course these arse lickers would never do that) Anonimu 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
First, Cuba does trade with some Western countries (see Venezuela). Second, Cuba recovered pretty quickly from the Bay of Pigs fiasco, and the USSR kept it afloat until 1991, after which it has remained standing thanks to a combination of dollars from Cuban-Americans and trade with countries like Venezuela and China. But the Communist Party of Cuba remains the only real party there. Biruitorul 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Venezuela is not quite a capitalist state (the oil company that supports all economy is owned by the state) and it had a lot of problems because they trade with Cuba (including a suspect coup, whose leaders where promptly recognized as leaders of Venezuela by the US). And i think tourism brings much more money than the cuban diaspora in the US.Anonimu 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, tourism: I'd forgotten. But what's your point here? Cuba is still Communist, despite the US' justified attempts to overthrow the evil tyrant Castro. And Chávez should have been ... liquidated in 2002; it would have saved a lot of problems. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is that Cuba couldn't develop proper socialism because the US embargo. Castro is not more evil than Bush anyway. Now what's wrong with Chavez? (Are you sure you're a christian?) Anonimu 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

US embargo, but plenty of Soviet subsidies - they had 30 years. Why was socialism not achieved in that time? And anyway, what good would that have done? Castro has enslaved his people since 1959. Bush has liberated the Iraqi and Afghan people from oppression (or at least attempted to); that's a pretty big difference. Chávez is an enemy of freedom because of his authoritarian tendencies. I approve of pragmatic murder, and I see no conflict with Orthodoxy in that stance. Biruitorul 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet subsidies were insignifiant... however they(and CAER) helped Cuba by buying the products that were'nt bought by the capitalist countries because the US embargo. And in a monopsony the buyer dictates the price... this along with US sabotage prevented a normal development. yeah, i'm sure that iraqis and afghanis preffer being opressed by the US instead of a local ruler. By your logic, Basescu should also be killed. And what about the decalogue? Remember Jesus never preached the killing of the caesar.Anonimu 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
So, yes, other Reds did help Cuba stay afloat, and after 1991 Cuba went into a deep depression. But now it can trade with lots of (semi-)capitalist countries like Venezuela and Iran. If Communism is that great, then why is the capitalist US needed to keep it running? (By the way, this is also true for the USSR, which needed US grain.) Iraqis and Afghans are not being oppressed by the US. They are being treated quite well, and anyway they now rule themselves; they have sovereignty and can ask the US to leave at any time. If one killing saves lots of lives, then it could well be justified, although it would still be a sin. For instance, if someone had emptied a pistol into Stalin in March 1937, God may well have forgiven him. Biruitorul 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
They wouldn't have needed help form soviets if it had't be for the US embargo. And all this countries you claim quasi-capitalistic are on the bush' "axis of evil" or close to it. US is not needed by the Communist... on the contrary (a lot of countries in america who tried to make socialist reform suffered because of the US)... it would be perfect if US got back to non-interventionism... de jure they rule themselves.. de facto they're US colonies... those puppet governments would never do anything not aproved by the US... only God can take the live of a human being... if he would have wanted Stalin dead, he could have done itAnonimu 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
But the Soviets also gave a lot of help to Eastern European countries that were not under embargo. Face it, Communism just doesn't allocate resources efficiently. Yes, the US should get back to non-interventionism, but then again, Venezuela and Bolivia are ruled by some pretty far-left thugs. Actually, ever heard of capital punishment? Of course a man can kill another man under certain circumstances. Killing Stalin after (or even before) the Great Purge would have been a noble deed; just ask the Ukrainians. Biruitorul 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
That was the least thing they could do after almost 20 years of plunder (i think you've heard about sovroms.. every country in the block had similar companies to sack their economy.) what's with Bolivia and Venezuela? Capital punishment is simply wrong. A christian wouldn't support you... so you aren't a christian Anonimu 14:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, plunder by the Soviets. But again, compare East with West: no comparison; the West simply does things better, which is why all the former Communist states (except demented Belarus) have now embraced the free market. Bolivia and Venezuela have Castroites in power, and help keep Castro afloat (though he is dying). Actually, you don't get to tell me whether or not I am a Christian. Capital punishment is supported by both the Old and the New Testaments. Biruitorul 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Since there was no fair competition between East and West, you can't know for sure. I think the East is in many ways better. What's wrong with helping Cuba? Ok. Go to your local priest and tell him you want someone dead... see what he says... Some examples from New Testament? (Old Testament is pretty obsolete since Jesus).Anonimu 14:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, audiences have declined, but ultimately, so what? That's their choice. They're free to be uncultured. And culture of the operatic sort in a vacuum is somewhat worthless: it ought to exist within a free society, not in the artificial mode that it did pre-1989.
It was their choice back then too... but they were encouraged to do it.. nowadays most people don't know what is an opera for... and the few that know don't have enough money to enjoy it... Anonimu 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
First, an opera ticket isn't that expensive. Second: it isn't the government's job to tell people what forms of recreation they should pursue. That's for people to decide on their own. If opera can't sustain itself in a free marketplace without government intervention, that's unfortunate, but such is capitalism. Biruitorul 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
1: It's expensive enough not to be on the short list. 2:Why not? People are generaly ignorant and they need someone to show them alternatives. You'd preffer Becali or Vijelie to tell you what to do with your free time? 3.That means a capitalist world will be a world without culture... that's why we need socialism. Anonimu 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Then why do very poor people have mobile phones? Clearly they could have different priorities if they so chose. 2. I'd prefer no one to tell me how to spend my leisure time, but rather to discover these things on my own. Liberty means having no government to decide what's best for you, and I appreciate liberty. 3. You're drawing some rather silly conclusions. Opera still exists in Romania, and it flourishes in capitalist states like Austria, England, the US, and Japan. Plus, if I had to choose between a culture-saturated socialist model and a culture-less capitalist one (which anyway is a false dichotomy), I'd pick the latter because personal freedom is more important to me. Biruitorul 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

1 Because that's what they're manuipulated by the mass media (and ultimately by the goods producers) to change their priorities. 2.What's wrong with telling people what they could do? Some people would be happy to do some things if the knew about their existence. Government decides a lot of things for you... that's why we created governments in the first place... 3.It may florish but is pretty exclusivistic and snobbish... very few of the ones going to opera in capitalist countries go for the art... Anonimu 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
1.Not manipulation, advertising. It's called capitalism: get used to it. 2.That's what we have advertising for. Cultural institutions can advertise by themselves. The government should mind its own business. Governments are bad and that's why we should start getting rid of them. 3.Maybe, maybe not. Statistics? Biruitorul 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
1. I'm not talking only about ads... i'm talking about outright manipulation. 2. How do you expect the cultural institutions to pay for advertisting when they can barely survive... they're not fooling "customers"...unlike others... Governments aren't bad.. the humans are so evolved because they organized themselves and created governments... the interest of a society as a whole are more important than the interest of the individual... a government is the one who must find the best combination of these interests... 3. Would you expect a snob to say he goes to opera just to show his wealth? Anonimu 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
1.What manipulation? 2.If they can't survive, that's their problem. That is the nature of capitalism: survival of the fittest. Individuals' best interests can also be found through anarchy, and in the aggregate, these translate into society's best interests, although as Baroness Thatcher said, "There is no such thing as society." 3.It's possible. He might also buy a car or a house with the money. Biruitorul 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
1."Becalizarea" would be a good example... 2. Why have social security, then ? if babies, old and disabled people can't survive on their own, should we let them die? Interests of the individuals and interests of the society will never be the same. THis is the human nature.3. Ussualy they already have both... Anonimu 14:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
1. I don't see that as manipulation. Gigi's a good guy, a good Orthodox soul. Actually, you forget the two largest remaining bulwarks against total state power: the church and the family. Those can provide charity functions quite nicely. 3. Or a yacht, or jewelry. Biruitorul 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Jesus would condemn Becali (see Matthew 6). Church can't provide charity on her own (they even receive(and always had) money from the state to support itself). As for the family... if the world would be perfect, maybe. 3. And what if they had these things too?Anonimu
A lot of books were, in fact, banned, and typewriters had to be registered. There was no opposition, no freedom. Don't you enjoy being a free man? Don't you love liberty? Solzhenitsyn is extremely informative and had a huge impact on perceptions of the evil of Communism. Would you say the same thing about Wiesel? He suffered and has a right to speak out about the terrible injustices inflicted on him and on the Russian people. The Manchurian Candidate is a great film, and even if it isn't, why shouldn't people be able to see it?
I still want to see a proof of this "banning"... (and even if they did, wiki banned far more people than communist romania). And solzhenitsyn's was just a mystifycation of communism fed to stupid westerners (and supported by US)... i didn't read his works so i can't have a real opinion of his works.. but from what i've heard he states that stalinism=communism... and that's wrong, and unethical
Ah yes, the Wikipedia = Communist Romania comparison. Stalin was a Communist ideologue, a very strict (though dull) Leninist, and Solzhenitsyn helped expose his crimes and those of the system Marx helped germinate. I'll give you a citation for The Manchurian Candidate having been banned: see here. Biruitorul 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
He didn't expose nothing... he just wrote what he tought it was about (and added exagerations to sell his books more easily). Porn films were also banned. Anonimu 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there were exaggerations. Remember, the USSR killed 66 million people. That's about three times the current population of Romania wiped out by Marx' little book. And why should pornographic films remain illegal? Why shouldn't we be able to indulge in our lusts (granted, not a very Orthodox sentiment, but I am a champion of liberty above all)?
66 millions? where did you get these figures? soljenitsin? And what had Marx to do with the Soviet Union (except the use of his name by the latter to get some kind of legitimacy)? why do we need porn films? Anonimu 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

66 million is fairly standard: this is a nice right-wing source for that number, and note 7 here is from a slightly more impartial source. Marxist-Leninism was the guiding ideology of the USSR until the very end. Marx' ideas intimately influenced all Soviet policy decisions. We don't need pornographic films, but some people like them, they harm no one, so why not have them? (Granted, this sort of weakens my arguments against legalised sodomy, but anyway.) Biruitorul 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not have a free press and open dialogue and all those components of a flourishing free society? Why keep the lid on people's voices? There are some truly gifted journalists working in Romania today; nu se compară cu hârtia de closet care era Scînteia.
No it's not standard at all.. ther are just some guesses... when you ussualy want to bash something you always took the worst estimates, even if they don't have any base... you must be really naive to believe it... stalinism was just of mix of tsarist absolutism and "ivanism", hidden under a marxist discourse.. and not even the others followed marx's ideas.. that why trostsky called USSR a degenerated workers' state. And about porn, it depends what you mean by harm.. cause a lot of psychologist think that it causes some harm. Anonimu 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll give you the "best" estimate: 50 million, the population of Burma. Still unfathomably evil. Stalin was a Marxist-Leninist ideologue; that's why he ran a dictatorship of the proletariat that he eventually intended to transform into a communist state. I know some people who view pornography consistently and they seem OK to me. Biruitorul 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It's going well.. in 3 day you'll drop to the more realistic 25 million figure... anyway you should begin to count people which died all over the world because of the western countries (and i'm talking just about direct killings)... i really don't know how do you get those ideas... i expected you to think, not just accept thoughts of others... probably i was wrong for expecting this from someone who thinks monarchy is a good system. I was right after all... you're still a teen...Anonimu 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm not going below 50 million, and I still believe the 66 million figure. By the way, 25 million is still more than the population of Romania: not exactly a shining record of decency. Hitler "only" has 11 million dead to his name. And this isn't even counting the Communist Mao. Face it, Stalin and Mao (along with the socialist Hitler) were among the biggest genocidal maniacs ever. Not nearly that many have been killed by Western countries. I do think for myself, and I know monarchy is a great system (worked just fine for Romania). And no, I am not a teen, despite what you think (nor am I younger than that, for the record). Biruitorul 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you also believe in martians? Hitler only had 11 million? Here are some neutral estimates : [1]Anonimu 14:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a numbers game, ultimately. Just admit that all three were monsters on an unimaginable scale, and I'll be happy. Biruitorul 23:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
SO what if they killed a lot of people... not even one of them was a real communist. And here's a timid estimate of the victims of capitalism: [2]. Monarchy didn't work fine for Romania.. where did you get that idea?!? If you aren't a teen, you must have some really strange friends (normal people stop watching pornography "consistenly" after their teens)... Anonimu 14:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said the system in Romania was perfect (on the contrary)... as for gifted journalism.. could you name a few... cause i could characterize so only 1,5-2 journalist...Anonimu 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure: CT Popescu, Emil Hurezeanu, Robert Turcescu, Miruna Munteanu, Ilarion Ţiu, Sorin Roşca Stănescu, Mircea Dinescu, etc. Who were the journalistic stars working for Scînteia? Adrian Năstase? Biruitorul 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Rosca Stanescu, Hurezeanu and Dinescu good journalist?!? Can I call you Traian? Anonimu 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'd be ashamed to be associated with the dastardly Băsescu. That doesn't take away from the journalistic talents of those fellows, though. Biruitorul 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree... you can't take from somebody something they don't haveAnonimu 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

They are quite talented, unlike anyone who worked for Scînteia. That's the beauty of the free market: the good rises to the top while the mediocre sinks and goes out of business. Biruitorul 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I could bet you never read scinteia... it's understandable.. you were too young then... probably you didn't even know to readAnonimu 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It was pure propaganda and simply nothing compared to the newspapers of today. I ask again: why not have more voices, more viewpoints? Dialogue is always healthy. Biruitorul 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You're ust repeating what others said... bah... And i never said that we shouldn't have multiple viepoints, i even criticized this policy of the degenerated workers' state... this is also one of the main reason i don't contribute to rowiki Anonimu
Well, it was propaganda. What other purpose did Scînteia serve? Biruitorul 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
It had some interesting information too... of course you couldn't know that... you've never seen a Scanteia. Anonimu 14:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
No, religion was not freely practised. Orthodox priests had to violate the secrecy of confession and report to the Securitate. Religion was strongly discouraged. And yes, the chiftele and electricity stories are true, if you ask around. Cristian Tudor Popescu, for instance, could corroborate such stories. Biruitorul 18:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it was. Priest (not only orthodox ones) had a choice... if they did it, that's their problem and the sytem can't be blaimed (i'm talking about the post '64 era). Religion was discouraged, but not banned (unlike holocaust denial in some countries). I don't know about you, but i lived in pre-89 romania (and specifically in the period considered the worst) and i don't remember any of this (and neither my parents do, or if they do, they never mentioned it to me... tha would be quite strange) Anonimu 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
80 to 90% of priests collaborated; I have a citation if you need that. That doesn't seem very voluntary. Some priests ended up in prison even in the 1980s. If you want horror stories, I'll try to dig up some citations for those too. Biruitorul 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
That would be very hard to prove. Only CNSAS can say this. And priest didn't go to prison for refusing to give information (and anyway, most of the priest satyed in prison only for very short periods)Anonimu 12:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
CNSAS is totally compromised; I have independent sources. It's unacceptable to imprison priests (or anyone else) for political crimes, even if for "very short periods". And may I introduce you to Father ro:Gheorghe Calciu-Dumitreasa? Biruitorul 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What would be that "independent source"? Is it acceptable to be imprisoned for denying holocaust or supporting fascist ideas? And BTW, i'll NEVER read an article from rowiki... there's too much bullshit (and anti-communism is just one of its lesser flaws)Anonimu 22:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Source: p. 673 of The Devil’s Confessors: Priests, Communists, Spies, and Informers, by Lavinia Stan and Lucian Turcescu, East European Politics and Societies, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 655–685.; their own source for that number was Roland Vasilievici, ex-Securitate officer. No, imprisonment for Holocaust deniers or fascists is unacceptable. They should be able to freely and openly publish, express, and disseminate their ideas, just as their opponents should be able to freely counter them. It's not like ro.wiki is radioactive, so your refusal to visit that site is odd, but here is a non-ro.wiki piece, if you insist. Biruitorul 21:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The old securiate officer thingie... if you ask 100 former securitate officers they'll all say different things...accusing the regime of something abominable is the easiest way to distract atention from your illegalities. I'm sure that "green" magazine was the most impartial source you could find. Anonimu 14:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, in this case he's telling the truth; to be a priest, you essentially had to collaborate. I don't think that that magazine is associated with the Legion, but the point is: Father Calciu was in prison as late as 1983! Do you deny this?? Biruitorul 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because you say so!?! You have no proof.. go ask a priest.. they'll criticize communism for being atheistic and Ceausescu for destroying churches... but they won't say they had to collaborate... the only ones who do, are those who collaborated for personal gains and now try to find excuses... I dont deny it... i just doubt that he was in prison mainly for politcal reasons... if one steals, rapes or kills, he goes to prison, even if he's a priest... Anonimu 13:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
80 to 90% -- 80 to 90%. All that needs to be said. Father Calciu was in prison mainly because he criticised Ceauşescu; why else would he be there? Obviously, criminal priests go to jail, but that wasn't the case here. Biruitorul 21:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
your "80 to 90%" doesn't have more base than "0,0001 to 0,0002%"... You don't have first hand sources, so what you say it's what you've been manipulated to say... Anonimu 14:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm a hardline anti-Communist and proud of it. But that gives you no automatic right to revert my contributions. If they violate Wikipedia policy, yes, but not otherwise. Biruitorul 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I could do it if they were anti-communist, because they would violate NPOV. Anonimu 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you could not. You would have to prove that they are factually wrong or tendentious (ie: in contradiction with established views on the topic). Because the implication that you reverting edits by an anti-communist on the basis that he or she has a POV leaves you in a position to be reverted - given that you are a communist. On the other hand, although I disagree with many of Biru's opinons, I have not seen a more neutral editor than he. Dahn 20:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Who decides what's the established view on a topic? I just have to persuade an admin that a particular edit is biased (not a very hard thing if you know where to go). Since i don't add anything, and just remove a new edit, it's likely that admins would agree with me. As a romania guy said on the noticeboard, this is not about truth, it's about reaching a consensus (no matter how close this consensus is to reality) Anonimu 20:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Dahn. Anonimu: this is silly. Let's just wait until I do add something "biased" and then discuss it. Biruitorul 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, you should check this Anonimu 19:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Biruitorul 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
ENOUGH! This thread is not about improving the article, it's not appropriate for the talk page of this article.NYDCSP 18:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "World Monument Found"?

"World Monument Found" makes no sense. Is this "World Monument Foundation", "World Monument Fund", or something else entirely? - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

done--Vintila Barbu 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, is "Isvor" really right? Not "Izvor"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

the Romanian orthography reform of 1948 generalized the phonetic principle, so that words traditionally written with "s" like isvor or filosofie had to be written with "z"; actually you encounter the same situation in British vs. American English ( not to speek about the British "ou" replaced by the American "o" - see behaviour) Now, Isvor is an historical name and I prefer to write it the way it was. Feel free to change it if you want to.--Vintila Barbu 09:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactor?

It seems to me that a lot of what is here belongs either at Centrul Civic or Systematization rather than at a title that refers to a derogatory nickname. - Jmabel | Talk 06:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Before starting this article I had the same thought. However, I opted for this solution because of its simplicity and directness. My aim was to document a lost part of a city, places, streets, monuments and edifices most (younger) Romanians (not to mention not-Romanians) didn't even hear of. Call it a memory duty. It was a whole world and a certain life style which have been destroyed. All this had to have a name. I don't feel Ceauşima to be derogatory to this world, but to those who destroyed it. Meanwhile, Ceauşima is cruel, tragicomic, very sarcastic, very Romanian. Ceauşima is like an outcry: "look what they've done to my town !"
Besides, technically, "Systematization" refers to the entire campaign consisting of demolitions, relocations and construction, while "Centru Civic" refers to the last stage - construction. What I needed, was a name for the demolitions, for what was destroyed. Ceauşima is catchy and poignant. I know, I know, this is not a newspaper, but a NPOV encycl (!). OK, if this will really poses a problem, let's find something neutral and more serious/solemn like "Demolition campaign, Bucharest" or "Demolished districts, Bucharest" or so. I, for one, I still believe, Ceauşima is not a bad choice--Vintila Barbu 10:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


By the way, though: great stuff. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Thank you very much indeed for your great help here--Vintila Barbu 10:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


...and I really appreciate the help of Dahn and Biruitorul ! (Dahn, you're right with "Speranţia". For me it's still but a street name, we all called "teodorsperanţă"...)

...as for Anonimu, he seems to be surprisingly reasonable and civilized for a ... communist ;) Sanatate

--Vintila Barbu 19:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. Dahn 19:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


sorry, it seems i missed something: all i'm trying, is to make it easier for the readers to access the very relevant aquarelles of the architect Gh. Leahu; if we relocate the aquarelles to the "Lierature" section, they will be less accessible than in the "Notes" section; not a big deal....--Vintila Barbu 20:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Layout

sorry, it seems i missed something: all i'm trying, is to make it easier for the readers to access the very relevant aquarelles of the architect Gh. Leahu; if we relocate the aquarelles to the "Lierature" section, they will be less accessible than in the "Notes" section; not a big deal....--Vintila Barbu 20:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


Dahn, thanks for your last edits (relocating 1940s earthquake in the main text & murals of tattarescu), it's really better now, but I still don't understand why readers should't have the most direct access to the aquarelles of Leahu.
Please consider taht this work (Leahu's aquarelles) is a very important piece of documentation, done by an important architect in the eve of the destructions. I could easily provide photos of almost every destroyed edifice, but I preffered the aquarelles, 'cause it's a unique piece of witness.
Please try to find a solution for the Leahu's aquarelles to be accessed as easy as possible. Thank you.--Vintila Barbu 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I would agree that, one way or another, I'd like to feature that link more prominently. It's really rather excellent. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have always though of notes as less prominent than references myself, but I made the change accordingly. Dahn 22:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture request

Per heading, it would be very userful here; particularly 'before, than, today'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing before... after...". --Error 21:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] if I were a communist

I would think twice before asking for even more sources for almost every assertion in the article: the more sources are displayed, the more unflattering will appear the image of Ceausescu's regime. The last example: instead of my estimation of some 40 cities affected by systematization, I had to quote the authoritative Giurescu, who doesn't mince matters and uncompromisingly mentions much more destruction.

I tried to present facts in a moderate way compared to the brutality of the reality. (For instance, I didn't mention one single word about the human costs of the Ceausima) I also could let speak directely arch. Leahu, hist. Giurescu, arch. Lykiardopol, hist. Behr, geogr. Danta and many other salient voices and the result wouldn't have been so nice for the image of Ceausescu's regime. Sanatate, --Vintila Barbu 11:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I i would want to delete this article I could claim that the references are biased or have dubious reliability.. and I could find sources for this (especially for sources like Formula AS). Anonimu 12:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the use of Formula As as a source myself - its use poses some problems. I would like to see this article under a more professional title, with "Ceaushima" as a trivia fact (related to "what Romanians called it" - as it was used on the main page). I would, in fact, even propose moving all of it under the "Systematization" title, as a section - especially since Vintila Barbu has recently begun introducing information on things discussed in that article (it bothers me to see that contributors are shifting interest away from other articles - as I have mentioned in an edit summary, I always check to see if articles on a certain topic exist, and where my links ought to lead).
That said, Anonimu, what you expand on in your last comment is a logical fallacy. Dahn 12:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [citation needed]

There is no source for the very word ceausima. Since so many of you have the (bad) habbit of using google as a proof, I've searched this word on google. With a mere 250 number of hits on google from wich only 79 are in Romanian (search for ceausima and bucuresti) - this looks more like a prank to me. Even a google bomb would attract more hits. I am Romanian and never heard of this word. Does this article even fit the scope of an Encyclopaedia? It is an invented word, after all. Maybe it should be renamed or deleted. -Paul- 15:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

While I am myself in favour of moving the article to systematization (and mentioning the term folkloric term in passing on that page), your post should also take into account the 86 hits for "Ceaushima" (where the Hiroshima part took over the word, even in Romanian examples). It also matters naught that the hits you get are in Romanian or English.
In any case, the concern to have here is about the colloquial nuance of the term, not about whether it is or isn't used: btw, I shall remove your citationneeded tag, since it is irrelevant to even the very point you are making (a.the google hits, and not only, do show that the term is in use; b.if you are contesting that the word is in use, then you should first and foremost do something about the title!). Dahn 16:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
To make things more clear, this authoritive source (PDF file) uses the term and indicates what it signified (see the HTML version). Dahn 16:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
The citation(s) should be included within the article, not in the talk page. Please do so, or cancel your revert. Right now there is no citation there for the word ceausima/ceaushima. -Paul- 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historic vs. historical

Re: the new title, Demolition of historical parts of Bucharest by Nicolae Ceauşescu, shouldn't this be "historic" rather than "historical"? The issue is presumably that they were closely tied into, and represented, the city's history, not that had been historically part of the city. In fact, "historical parts of Bucharest" carries something of an implication that these areas are no longer part of the city. - Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The title is wrong. First, the title implies that those areas were destroyed and were let empty. Second, it implies that Ceausescu took his buldozer and began demolishing. A NPOV title is needed.Anonimu 13:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see the problem with Ceauşima. But how about Ceauşescu-era demolition of historic parts of Bucharest? Biruitorul 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Biru. Dahn 21:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm (obviously) happier with Biruitorul's suggestion than with what we've got. And would be happy with Ceauşima, but for close variants on the current title, I'd probably go with Ceauşescu-era demolition of historic districts of Bucharest rather than parts. - Jmabel | Talk 06:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "districts" does sound better. Time to move? Biruitorul 07:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I still think that the title shouldn't emphasis the demolition part. Remember that a signifiant part of those "historical districts" were slums and those demolitions actually brought them to the 20th century... Anonimu 13:39, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You are correct. However, demolition isn't necessarily a bad thing, right? We can state in the article (not in these exact words, but giving this sense) that he tore down decrepit old buildings and replaced them with something much nicer. Biruitorul 23:00, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another confusing phrase

What are "representation buildings"? I'm a native English speaker, and the term is entirely unfamiliar to me. - Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What the...

Please note what has been done to the Systematization article, were somebody has hijacked the text to enforce some theories he did not bother discussing (worthy to note that the added text is not at all referenced). Dahn 21:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The initial title (Ceauşima) should be restored

The initial title of this entry has been changed into Demolition of historical parts of Bucharest by Nicolae Ceauşescu. This was a wrong move out of at least three reasons:

  1. Wrong procedure. Renaming an entry is an important step, which cannot be taken without previous consultation. Except clear/simple cases, a consensus-seeking procedure (e.g. a RfC) should precede such an action, which must be the result of well-considered deliberation. Unilaterally undertaking such a consequential measure is fully unacceptable. (Just as an example: experienced and significant contributors like JMabel or Dahn, though initially expressing some concerns as to the adequacy of “Ceauşima” as an entry title, never took the liberty of such a drastic intrusion like title renaming)
  2. Wrong arguments . The very scarce reasons given in the summary for this important move are simply fallacious:
    1. invoking discussions on the talk page for this renaming is abusive, since there are neither discussions nor conclusions on the talk page which could be interpreted as authorizing such a measure
    2. the only argument invoked for the renaming is that “Ceauşima is definitely not a word commonly used”. In order to substantiate this allegation, the user responsible for it inserts a fake info: “the term appears to be have been used mostly abroad, by Romanian emigrees, than in Romania itself”, which I have to delete at sight. Nevertheless, this is already the second user vehemently challenging the legitimacy of the word “Ceauşima”. It appears that this controversy regarding the term “Ceauşima” is much more of generational and geographical than of stylistic or conceptual nature: younger generations and/or non-Bucharestians seem not to have heard of this word and are quite surprised about it. However, regarding the own knowledge horizon as the general standard is not without risks. The term “Ceauşima” was invented and used by hundreds of thousands of Bucharestians during a very unhappy time and it reflects a piece of history of the city and a crucial virtue of Romanians and Bucharestians, namely the humour of the desperation.
  3. Wrong new title. The issue has been already addressed by JMabel and Biruitorul. The present title is misleading:
    1. stating that only historic parts have been thorn down, while in fact “only” a third of the destructed areas belonged to the real old Bucharest
    2. suggesting that Ceauşescu was the only responsible for this

I strongly suggest restoring the initial title. After restoring it, should anybody be interested in renaming this entry, a regular procedure must be started (I suggest a RfC). I’d like to reiterate that I am not opposed to a renaming , provided, of course, that a better title is found. --Vintila Barbu 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the problems that may have existed with this article before, I'd say compared to most others, it really is an good article today. Reasonably well sourced, encyclopedic, and well-written. It's a shame that the final sentence is so POV; it's sentiments, I'm sure, can easily be referenced to an third-party, verifiable source, though.
However, can we get a better sourcing to justify the current title of Ceusima? I am not doubting the veracity of the term; I remember when I was in college in the late 80s, there was plenty of talk in the press whenever describing Ceausescu's madness, they'd often refer to what was happening in this region of the city. And after the revolution, the giant palace was a widely-reported symbol of his Stalinist, North Korean-style megalomania in the western press. But I'm not sure this reference to a research paper at the University of Pittsburgh cuts it. There seem to be some Romanian editors involved with this page -- isn't there anything you can dig up to bolster this title's verifiability so we can really make this article shine? (also, let's fix that ending sentence) NYDCSP 18:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is not the destruction of Bucharest which is not disputed. The discussion simply disputes the term of Ceauşima. The article does not indicate any Romanian reference regarding the use of the name in the way it is described in the article. The only reference is to an article by Vladimir Tismaneanu who is an american professor born in Romania but who did not reside in Romania during that period. The title of an article in Wikipedia should refer to a term which most people would be likely to look up. Except a few persons who still insist that the term is funny, there is no proof that the term is widely used.

The entire issue is misleading. Instead of focusing on the destructions of historic buildings durign the Ceausescu area, which should be discussed in an academic manner, showing what really happened and the various positions taken on the issue - it is absurd to put the blame on a single person - instead of making political statements. For instance, if so many churches have been destroyed, what was the position of the Romanian Orthodox church. Was is, and to what extent able to save some of the churches (or at least part of the objects which were in those churches). What happened after the fall of Ceauşescu.? There was a promise that some churches would be rebuilt. At least one was, others were not. Does this not prove to a certain extent that the Romanian orthodox church tacitly accepted the destruction as it did not take the necessary steps to restore some, such as the Sfânta Vineri church.

There is nothing said about the property problems and how they were solved. Private properties were nationalized, but corporate properties (including church properties) were not. These are only part of the issues, which are related to the destruction of old Bucharest but not to the term of Ceauşima.

It is probably wrong to claim that this was an intention of the author, but the title directs the article to a very limited approach. It ignores the whole complexity of the problem. Therefore, the title is wrong and the article is biased.

Afil 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you really use this word (Ceausima)?

I am Romanian. At the time an adolescent, living in Central Bucharest. I do remember people criticising the regime and the demolitions, but I don't remember people using the term "Ceausima". It's completely strange to me. I don't say nobody used it. I'm simply saying that it's probably not notable enough, compared with the demolitions. I fear this "Ceausima" stuff is post-1989, when everybody tried to look anti-communist. Dpotop (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And for our younger colleagues: Did you hear your parents use this word before the 1989 events? Dpotop (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, what can you do?
I am reliably informed by various guide books that the Metropolitan Cathedral in Liverpool is known locally as Paddys wigwam, And that the buildings at the Pier Head are called The Three Graces (even though there are four of them):
I have never heard anyone call it Paddy’s Wigwam; and the only person who ever referred to the Three Graces was a publicist for the City Council.
But it’s notable, because it’s been published; it has a reputable source. All you can do (As has happened on those pages) is to record the fact that the usage isn’t as popular as it might appear.
Swanny18 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
PS If it’s any help, the Rough Guide to Romania, which is written by a regular visitor to there, refers to:-
“the eastern extension ( of Bulevardul Unirii) is still blighted with unfinished projects, most notably a colossal building that was to have been a cultural centre (a wasteland now referred to by locals as “Hiroshima”)”
Swanny18 (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right. According to the references of the article, the word was invented by Vladimir Tismăneanu who was not in Romania at the time of the events. It was not currently used in Romania.Afil (talk) 04:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dpotop and the rest: I couldn't care less what this article is called, or even if it exists. But I would like to point out two things: 1) I do believe that the article was created and named by one of this project's most active Tismăneanu-bashers (who should have received administrative sanctions for what he did on other pages, but now appears to have retired) - this means that arguing the name was "invented by Tismăneanu" borders on the absurd; 2) Whether this article keeps its current name is irrelevant to the name being in existence - whatever the implications are (btw, Afil, a reference cannot "attest" something about its use as a reference); for the name's existence, we have a perfectly valid source in Tismăneanu, whether the name should be or shouldn't be used as a title for the article; implying that he "invented" the term just because a couple of wikipedia users claim not to have heard it before is ludicrous. Dahn (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC) And, btw, before standing around speculating about it, what say you look for sources? I googled "Ceaushima", and, among the many sources I found in just a couple of seconds, there's Robert Cochran, " 'What Courage!': Romanian 'Our Leader' Jokes", The Journal of American Folklore, Vol. 102, No. 405 (July-September 1989), citing a 1984 study. It discusses the word as coined in Romanian political jokes (which I'm willing to bet most Romanian wikipedians knew already). Note the dates. Does one need more to prove that the term existed? (Rhetorical question, Dpotop.) Dahn (talk) 12:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Argument 1 is irrelevant. Argument 2 is also irrelevant. My intent was to show that the article is entirely founded on one source from a person not connected to the Romanian realities. My intent was not to remove information. Maybe that term was coined in Romanian diaspora, I don't know. Of course, if you have more sources, add them and we finish the discussion (however, your second source is also bizzarre. I don't see what sort of 1984 study it is citing...).
I heard many political jokes (barely old enough to understand them), but never the word "Ceausima". Hence, my question. Of course, that question is not for you. You were probably too young at the time, and then you were fed with the post-1989 propaganda (basically, everybody claimed they fought the regime in some way). I was waiting for remarks from older wikipedians. Maybe I am wrong, and I'm willing to change my POV. Dpotop (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Dpotop, the fact that the info is based on a reliable source is all that interests wikipedia. In my previous post, I have brought up another reliable source - it should be irrelevant what it cites, given its reliability, but FYI I do believe it is a text by Morton Kaplan (I don't have JSTOR access at the moment, and I don't intend to get one, so I worked up from the google snippet. What you consider bizarre or cut up from Romanian realities is validated by top sources, which should be the end of this discussion (another search for "Ceausima" will show you that it is frequently used in travel guides). So, yes, for all that interests wikipedia, you were wrong; and if you were just asking questions for the sake of asking questions - wikipedia is not a forum.
As I have said, I don't intend to add further info to the article sometime soon. This is also because of a matter of principle: the one source already there is enough; I don't intend to go about sourcing just because editors who contest some piece of info will not carry out the simple exercise of verifying their own statements. It's also because the article is in a sorry state overall.
If you want to discuss my age and experience, find yourself another venue, and make sure I actually allow you to discuss them. Right? Dahn (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong church picture

The church in the picture is New Saint Spiridon Church, which still exists, not Old Saint Spiridon Church. Please replace the picture with a correct one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.40.69 (talk) 08:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)