Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This archive contains all of the talk related to a now-resolved dispute.

Contents

Disputed

I am not so much necessarily saying that this is false, as that recent information that may or may not be true, and is certainly not obviously true, was added by User:Ratza without decent citation.

  1. Is there documentation of the involvement of (presumably Romanian Orthodox) "religious romanian students" in the initial protests on behalf of László Tőkés? If true, this is fascinating, but I've never heard it before and would like to see documentation.
  2. The entire paragraph beginning "A group of conspiring generals in Securitate used the opportunity to launch a coup in Bucharest. The coup, prepared since 1982..." strikes me merely as one of dozens, if not hundreds, of unprovable theories of what was going on behind the scenes that week. It is here without even citation of who claims this. As I suggested before on Talk:Nicolae Ceausescu, I believe theories like this belong in a separate article with one link from here, much as (for example) 9/11 domestic conspiracy theory gets a separate article.
  3. "the book of Col. Dumitru Burlan" without even the name of the book is hardly a citation.

I could go on, but what is needed here is attention from a solid scholar who knows this history a lot better than I do. I have no idea what parts of the recent additions are true, what are rumors, how seriously to take the stories from Lumea Magazin, etc., so I am just flagging this. If no one else takes this up, I guess I will start doing some serious research, but I am at a liability because my Romanian-language skills are merely decent, not expert; similarly my knowledge of this history. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:26, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I can see why the accuracy of this article is disputed. The problem is that nobody (except the presumed) conspirators knows quite what happened and how it was planned. I think the article at present concentrates too much on the details of events in Bucharest and not enough on the theories about what lay behind it. Was there a conspiracy or not? Not only in Romania, but also in the West, nearly everybody who knows even a little about the Romanian 'revolution' thinks there was a conspiracy and that Iliescu was involved in it. Whether the conspiracy had been planned since 1982 is, I think, more controversial.

Incidentally, I'd dispute the statement that Iliescu became the first democratically elected president of Romania in 1990. The elections were rigged. It was precisely to stop the student protests about the hijacking of the 'revolution' that Iliescu called in the miners to break up the protests. Simon d 02:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

21 december meeting turns to riot

[Nica Leon claimed that, instead of a firework, something else made them flee: whilst Ceauşescu was stumbling on his words, Nica placed himself near a microphone and shouted: "Jos Ceauşescu!" "Trăiască Timişoara!" "Huă!" ("Down with Ceauşescu", "Long Live Timişoara" and "Boo!"] - Nica Leon is considered a kind of an Impostor. if somebody watches the tv record of the 21 december 1989 meeting, will see there was the sound of a bomb(firework) and a sudden movement from the direction of Athenee Palace that got people into chaos. the TV records of 21 december meeting were recently shown by OTV television. Criztu 10:32, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What you say sounds likely enough to me. Can you cite anyone saying something like this? Or do you think we should just delete the passage? Or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 21:37, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
I can't cite sources speaking of N.L. being an impostor... i can hardly find anybody talking about N.L. at all. Can you cite where is it proven/aknowledged that N.L. set the crowd in motion ? i think if names are to be given in the articles about romanian history, they have to be at least as significant as Balcescu, Avram Iancu, Vladimirescu, heroes of romanian history. i don't agree notoriety should be offered to a man that writes a book(?)/gives interviews(?) in wich he claims he set crowds in motion by shouting "Boo" :) Criztu 09:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I didn't add this, I just edited it into good English. I have no sources at all, although it is not the first time I heard the name. I'd be glad to see it gone. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
i didn't say you added this. the name of N.L. is as famous as Dumitru Dinca and Dan Iosif, revolutionaries that have an association of the revolutionaries Criztu 11:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would like to point out that this is roughly my view of Burlan, whom you seem by a few of your remarks to consider a good source. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:51, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
there are many authors writing about the december 89 events, i think Burlan should be mentioned on a list of romanian authors about december 89 revolution/coup d'etat, and not as a source Criztu 11:14, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Securitate General Victor Stanculescu, the main advisor of Ceausescu, the mastermind of the coup d'etat of 1989, the first defence minister after the Revolution, used to be (during communism) the only man to handle the payments of Arab countries for the secret commerce with weapons (according to the book of Col. Dumitru Burlan). Prior to the coup, Ceausescu was in an international trip to Iran country and this was the moment when millions of dollars paid by Arabs for weapons were entering Romania in cash. Stanculescu was in charge of handling these money into banks and paying the weapons factories. Stanculescu chose the moment of the coup as the moment when he had a large amount of cash on him, to secure the capitalist continuation of his life. Immediately after the coup, the unpaid factories of weapons made fast bankrupcy. Soon, the revolutionaries captured the TV stations.
this paragraph deals with Stanculescu's life and trajectory, instead of the revolution. perhaps an article on who was Stanculescu could clarify the claim that he was a mastermind -- Criztu 11:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trying to resolve the dispute

As of 20:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) no formal dispute remains. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to work on trying to resolve the disputes here. I believe the following is a reasonably comprehensive list of my issues with the article. This is a lot of issues, enough that I assume it is clear to one and all why I currently consider this article enough of a mess to merit the dispute tag. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:19, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

it's a mess I agree... Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Issues apparently resolved

  • Let's start with one sentence that is simply confusing. The Bucharest section begins, "The event was largely mediated by the popular Voice of America radio and by the Timişoara students returning home for Christmas holidays." Does this mean to say "From the point of view of Bucharesteans, knowledge of the events of Timişoara was largely mediated by the popular Voice of America radio and by the Timişoara students returning home for Christmas holidays"? Or does it mean something else? -- Jmabel | Talk 23:20, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
the events in Timisoara weren't present in romanian media that's for sure, rest to find out how "largely" did Europa Libera and Vocea Americii mediated them, about "students going home for holidays".. there was this University in Timisoara, with a lot of students from allover the country, so it may have been possible, but i'd expect that no one to have been allowed to exit Timisoara after 17 december 1989. Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I copyedited that sentence to read "The events in Timişoara were widely reported by the popular Voice of America radio and by students returning home for Christmas holidays." "Mediated", by which I think the original author meant "Reported in the media", is usually understood as "resolved (as in a conflict) by a disinterested third party." JHCC 19:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It can also mean that knowledge was available only through an intermediary (e.g. "a mediated experience", but I agree that here that more obscure meaning was not likely to leap to the mind of the reader. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:27, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
This issue seems to be resolved -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • "One view is that in Romania a scenario similar to that in the rest of the Eastern bloc Communist countries was attempted, but failed." This is unclear: "scenario" is somewhat ambiguous here, but more importantly the verb "attempted" has no subject, so it is not at all clear who is said to have been attempting this scenario. Could someone please try to expand on this and say what you mean? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
I wrote this, excuse my english, by "attempted" I meant "to try/to put into practice". There was a "scenario" by which the communist leaders of East Germany and Bulgaria resigned: The Communist Polithic Commitee gathered, the Chief of State gave dispositions, the Ministers of Army and Internal Affairs objected and asked the Chief of State to resign. Gorbachiov and URSS Polithic Bureau would be the "authors" ...while the trialed members of CPEX(Polithical Executive Commitee) claimed(testified) Ceausescu had offered to resign Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • See next section, this looks like more than can be taken up in the middle of a bullet list. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue seems to be resolved to the best of our ability at this time. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • We need to separate out which things are clearly factual from which were said by single, possibly self-serving, sources. I think that very early in the situation we should summarize the areas of difference, then go into a single narrative, placing in sequence (with clear attribution) the various unprovable claims. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:49, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • I tried taking a shot at this, but I've mostly backed off. The current article simply contains unsourced conflicting versions. I can't sort them out. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:24, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
      • With the aid of various answers here, this seems to be under way, but not complete. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • With reference to the 17 December CPEx meeting, what is known from the minutes, what is merely claims made in sworn testimony not backed by the written record at the time, what (if anything) comes from other sources? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
yes, the minutes containing Ceausescu's words of resignation were declared "missing" by the Prosecution, so the testimony of Cpex members are not backed by available documents Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • That doesn't answer my question. I guess I'll start another section below to take up this question in detail. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue seems to be resolved to the best of our ability at this time, but it is short on sourcing. Anyway, separately discussed below. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:48, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • Our article says Ceauşescu returned from Iran 20 December. Elsewhere, I'm sure I've read 19 December. Does someone have a source on this? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:04, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
http://www.jurnalul.ro/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2230& - Ceausescu returned from Iran on the evening of 20 december 1989 Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue seems to be resolved -- Jmabel | Talk 08:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • The part that starts, "...a group of conspiring generals in Securitate used the opportunity to launch a coup": who is the source on this? Burlan? Whoever it is, we need to say. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:09, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • The material here seems vague and/or contradictory as to exactly when and where Ceauşescu made speeches in his final days in power.
    • There is a reference to a "televised speech", but no date is given. Was this a speech made only on television, perhaps on the evening of December 20? Or is this the same speech as the "public speech" then referred to? (We've got all of this stuff claiming to know what happened in back rooms, but we can't even get the basic narrative clear!) -- Jmabel | Talk 08:28, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
http://www.jurnalul.ro/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=18132 http://www.cafeneaua.com/node/view/614 Ceausescu held a "televised speech" from a TV Studio inside the CC(CEntral Commitee) Building at 19:00 on 20 december 1989 Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue seems to be resolved -- Jmabel | Talk 08:31, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • "...Ceauşescu, having hastened back from Iran, made a public speech from the balcony of his palace, the Casa Poporului in Bucharest, to condemn the uprising of Timişoara. As he addressed the crowd from the balcony of Central Commitee building..." Quite a feat, given that the two are about a kilometer apart. Am I correct in understanding that there were two speeches, one on the December 21 from the balcony of the Casa Poporului, the other the next day from the (rather lower) balcony of the Central Commitee building? And if so, would someone please help sort out which events go with which speech, it is very confused right now. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:24, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
made a public speech from the balcony of his palace, the Casa Poporului this is B.S. . The Casa Poporului wasn't made operational until years after 1989. Ceausescu spoke on 21 december 1989 to the meeting gathered in front of CC building, and hid inside CC building after the meeting turn to riot. the morning of the next day 22 december 1989 he fled by helicopter from the CC building rooftop Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue seems to be resolved -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • "Bucharest airport": does this mean Otopeni? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:39, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
the episode of army recruits(airborn troops -parasutisti) shooting other army units occured at Otopeni Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue seems to be resolved -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • "The whole sympathy Romania gained from the outside world with the Revolution was lost during the days of 13-15 June 1990." Several things here
    1. I assume this is a reference to the mineriad, but this will be lost on the average English-language reader.
      yes, 13-15 june is the Mineriada Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    2. I am not absolutely sure what "the whole sympathy" is supposed to mean (it's not correct English; I'm guessing "all of the sympathy").
      in romanian "intreaga simpatie"(whole sympathy) is sinonimous to "toata simpatia"(all of the sympathy) Criztu
    3. Assuming I have understood correctly, then the statement is simply wrong. The government may have lost a great deal of sympathy, but there is not particular reason to think the country did; in any event, to say that even the government lost all of the world's sympathy is inevitably an exaggeration.
    4. I think the mineriad does deserve mention here (as probably do the student demonstrations that occasioned it), but this quick, coy, half-mention is not appropriate. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:03, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
well, Romanian Revolution of 1989 gained huge positive media notoriety for Romania, while the 13-15 episode(an assault on the police HQ was instigated/staged by occult networks, resulting in consequent street-fighting and calling in the Miners to Bucharest) (unsigned, but apparently Criztu 01:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC))
  • I presume that "occult" here means "clandestine" or "secret"; in English, "occult" means "dealing with the supernatural or with esoteric practices". -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue seems to be resolved -- Jmabel | Talk 08:13, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • We give conflicting versions of Milea's death — suicide, assasinated by Ceauşescu, killed by the plot under the guise of a suicide — without giving any indication as to what source claims each of these things. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:36, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    Milea was announced "dead by suicide" by the communist authorities. to this day no official documents changed the "cause of death", the rest are debates wether he was assasinated/executed Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Yes, but if we are going to give anything other than the official version, we should cite someone who makes these other claims. Otherwise, every idle rumor can make its way into the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:17, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
    There's an article from Jurnalul National on this. Bogdan | Talk 14:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • This issue seems to be resolved, but someone may want to check my work. Having only moderate Romanian, that article was very tough going for me. I hope I have correctly summarized what is salient here. Someone else might want to mine that article for a Wikipedia article on Vasile Milea. Also, if anyone has the date of original publication of that article in Jurnalul Naţional, please add that information to the references section. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
  • "...detected by other sources..." makes almost no sense. Can someone try paraphrasing (either in English or Romanian)? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:37, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • Somewhere along the way this was edited out, so presumably a dead issue. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • The link on the "Au trecut 15 ani..." article does not go anywhere relevant.
    • Resolved...: I've found a more relevant link. The article itself is not on line, unfortunately. ...but... Does anyone have any idea how I might find the article? Not exactly likely that I can turn up a back issue of a Romanian magazine in Seattle. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:13, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • "In a case discussed on Romanian TV in 1989..." So that would be within days of the event. I see no reason to doubt this, but it's not exactly a verifiable citation. Does anyone have an additional source for this? Or at least (I know this is unlikely after 15 years unless this has been recently rebroadcast) specifics on when it was discussed on TV? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:43, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    What hapened was the following: the national TV station "informed" romanians about the course of the "revolution" ... a sort of a "news report". the "revolution" went on well after Ceausescu fled the CC building, until at least after his execution on 25 december 1989. "Advices" were given to the population, such as "don't drink water, we are informed that the terorists poisoned the water supplies of Bucharest", or "terorist are sniping from block x on street x, don't show yourselfs in the windows" or "the commanders of the military garrison x, prepare for an imminent terrorist attack, we are informed terorists in sporting clothes are heading towards you", etc. etc. Criztu 19:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    Fine, but utterly unrelated to the passage I'm questioning. I'll quote at greater length: It's the passage that begins "In a case discussed on Romanian TV in 1989, a garrison of Securitate-affiliated soldiers (they were draftees in 18-month service related to Securitate) received orders to go and defend a city against Ceauşescu's terrorists..."
  • And, on that same passage, "...defend a city..." What city? If we can't say, this is pretty dubious, little better than urban legend. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:45, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's been 7 weeks, no one has responded, I have cut the following. "In a case discussed on Romanian TV in 1989, a garrison of Securitate-affiliated soldiers (they were draftees in 18-month service related to Securitate) received orders to go and defend a city against Ceauşescu's terrorists (that were believed at that time to be a disobedient faction of the Securitate, since the Securitate openly fraternized with the revolution), while in the city it was announced that the Securitate soldiers are coming to attack the regular garrison. Hundreds of people volunteered to fight against the expected Securitate. In that particular case, the chief of the Securitate garrison felt that something was wrong and refused to enter the city." As far as I am concerned, this removal resolves this issue. If no one responds within 48 hours, I will move this to the list of resolved issues. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:07, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently resolved -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • The link "The Politicians and the revolution of 1989" appears to be just to someone's personal web site. If I go up a level in the directory structure, it says, "What do YOU want here ???? DICK HEAD I'll take you to the right place, don't try look in here, is not for you." Sorry if my quoting that offends anyone: it offended me plenty to run across it when trying to get context for the document (which has no indication of authorship). It does not exactly suggest the sort of source one trusts for an encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
    • It's been 7 weeks, no one has responded, I have cut the reference that I consider unacceptable. For whatever it is worth here it is: Politicienii şi revolutia din 1989 "The Politicians and the revolution of 1989" (in Romanian). If no one responds within 48 hours, I will move this to the list of resolved issues. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:35, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Apparently resolved -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Remaining issues of dispute

As of 20:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC) no formal dispute remains. These few issues were never properly addressed. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:15, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

  • Citation: In all cases, citation to something from a periodical that happens also to be on a web site should make clear the date etc. of original publication, not just provide a link. That is, these should be cited like normal periodical references, with the link being effectively supplementary to a correct bibliographical citation. - Jmabel | Talk 09:15, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)
  • Something is weird about the English-language text of the first two external references. Dumitru Burlan wasn't claiming to be Ceauşescu's double, he was his bodyguard, right? S
    • Since the first link just goes to the site of Adevarul, not to any particular articles, this is very hard to sort out. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC)

Competing narratives

Right now we have a sentence, "There are several conflicting views on the events in Bucharest that led to the fall of Ceauşescu in 1989," that I think should be the beginning of a paragraph summarizing the main competing narratives of what may have occurred in December 1989. Criztu, can you tell me if you believe the following would be accurate, and if not what would you change? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

There are several conflicting views on the events in Bucharest that led to the fall of Ceauşescu in 1989. One view is that a portion of the Romanian Communist Party CPEx (Political Executive Council) tried and failed to bring about a scenario similar to that in the rest of the Eastern bloc Communist countries, where the Communist leadership would resign en masse, allowing a new government to come about peacefully. Another view is that a group of officers successfully conspired against Ceauşescu. The latter view is buttressed by a series of interviews given 2003–2004 by former Securitate Lieutenant Colonel Dumitru Burlan, Ceauşescu's long-time bodyguard. The two theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
one thing appears to be certain: in november Ceausescu visited Gorbaciov whom asked him to resign, so Ceausescu was prepared for such a scenario to occur. I seen a documentary showing video recording sequences of the Trial of CPEx members in which Niculescu-Mizil and Dinca, both members of CPEx, declared that Ceausescu offered his resignation on 17 december when two members of CPEx or State Ministers refused to obey him during the CPEx meeting, but I forgot who, and i couldn't find who those two were yet, i found only the names of Oprea and Dascalescu who asked him not to resign. Criztu 01:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
From what i know, if a group of officers is succesfully conspiring against a Head of State, they should logically install themselves in his place, otherwise any former secret services officer can claim he conspired agains the President :) Criztu 01:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If we can agree to that, or some variant thereupon, then we can go on from there. And might there be other "master narratives" that deserve the same level of presentation? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:54, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

anyway I don't think there is a clear and final official romanian version of what happened in december 1989 yet, so we can't aim to be more informed than the romanian historians, who still have to finish documenting the december 1989 chapter. so there will be further corrections to this article :) Criztu 01:42, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Certainly there is no one consensus version of the events, but that doesn't mean we can't evenhandedly and clearly lay out the competing narratives. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:11, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I believe that the scene-setting paragraph is now basically OK. I won't be surprised if it changes further, but I think we can count it as removed from the dispute.

  • (I notice I forgot to sign this remark from a few weeks back.) Jmabel | Talk 20:39, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

17 December CPEx meeting

I'm trying to sort out what is verified by minutes vs. what was merely claimed by defendants on trial. Are all of the following statements correct? If not, where am I deviating from what is known? The current article is very confusing here, and a lot of this is conjecture, but we need to get it all correct and clear. Also, can we cite any sources about this meeting? It's not clear offhand which of our listed references, if any, pertain to this.

  • The 17 December CPEx meeting occurred.
there was a 17 december CPEx meeting. Ceausescu left to Iran on 18th, after he was assured the situation in Timisoara will be resolved by the time he returns Criztu 00:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • A stenograma of the meeting existed.
there was a stenograma(minute) of the meeting. It was the official procedure Criztu 00:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The stenograma, as presented at the trial, was incomplete.
It was unavailable and finaly was found, but there were more versions of it Paul Niculescu-Mizil imi demonstra recent ca stenograma din decembrie 1989 a dezbaterilor din CPEX unde s-a pus problema atitudinii fata de miscarile de strada abia incepute, s-a dat publicitatii in mai multe variante, dovada ca s-a “lucrat” pe ea – in ce scopuri? [...] EUGEN FLORESCU senator 2003 1 Criztu 00:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It is clear that this was not a matter of incomplete notes being taken at the time of the meeting: a page or pages were clearly missing.
as alleged by Niculescu-Mizil, trialed as a member of the CPEx; his request that the Prosecution to consult the Page of the Stenograma of the CPEx meeting where "Ceausescu bursted into asking the CPEx members to find another Leader if they don't agree with him, at which moment a few other members of CPEx pleaded Ceausescu not to resign" the Prosecution claimed the page was not found Criztu 00:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • The existing portion of the stenograma records that two of the members of CPEx disagreed with Ceauşescu's intent to quash the Timişoara uprising (side question: is it clear who these were?)
I can't find reference to who those members were
  • Ceauşescu's response is missing from the stenograma.
  • Former members of CPEx who were put on trial (again, names would be nice) testified, with no material evidence, that Ceauşescu offered his resignation, asking the members of CPEx to elect another leader.
a few CPEx members put on trial: Nici unul dintre cei 24 de apropiaþi ai lui Nicolae Ceauºescu care au fost inculpaþi în celebrul Dosar CPEx nu se mai aflã de mult timp în închisoare. Dumitru Popescu, Paul Niculescu Mizil, ªtefan Andrei, Silviu Curticeanu, Mihai Gere, Ion Stoian, Ioan Toma, Lina Ciobanu, Ana Mureºan, Susãnica Gîdea, Nicolae Constantin, Gheorghe Oprea, Constantin Olteanu, Gheorghe Panã, Constantin Radu ºi Iosif Szasz au beneficiat de clemenþa fostului preºedinte Ion Iliescu, fiind graþiaþi în perioada 1994-1996. Alþii, mai puþin norocoºi, au murit înainte sã beneficieze de bunãvoinþa fostului ºef al statului. Aceºtia au fost: Ioan Totu, Ludovic Fazekaº, Ion Radu, Miu Dobrescu ºi Gheorghe David. Constantin Dãscãlescu ºi Gogu Rãdulescu au murit înainte de a fi trimiºi în judecatã, iar Ion Ursu nici nu a mai trebuit sã beneficieze de graþiere, pentru cã nu a fost niciodatã trimis în judecatã. 2 Criztu 03:03, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It was further asserted at the trial, but there is no record in the stenograma, that other members of CPEx asked Ceauşescu not to resign.
as the trialed members of the CPEx testified, at least Niculescu-Mizil, and i seen a recorded sequence of Dinca testifying the same thing. Dinca and other 3 (three) members were trialed separately. I'm not sure what offices they held, or if they were CPEx members Criztu 00:10, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It was further asserted at the trial, but there is no record in the stenograma, that those "other members" also urged Ceauşescu to sack the two who opposed his decisions.

And a further question:

  • Was anyone apparently sacked at this time? If so, whom? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

Since no one is answering this, I have used my best understanding. Citation on this would be extremely valuable to verify the points above. It would not astound me if our article as it stands is wrong on some point here, and I am sure a good reference could make it clearer. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:52, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)

I could find a link to the stenograma of the hasty trial of Ceausescu, but no trace of the text of the Stenograma containing Ceausescu's words of resignation at the CPEx meeting in 17th december Criztu 00:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems like we are pretty much in agreement on what is known and what happened. Could you have a look again at what we now say about this meeting in the article & let me know if you think I got anything wrong? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:05, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Attempted escape, execution

Critzu, I've copy edited your recent addition. Three questions:

cri Z tu :) it is like Christ (Cristos in romanian), but following the dacian linguistic rules :p Cristu evolves into CriZtu (there still are Dacians in our days you know ... a few hundred Devans declared themselves "dacians" at the 2002 census :) )Criztu 22:33, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, as you see above I usually get it right but so many Romanians use tz for ţ that it turns into a finger macro for me. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Am I correct in assuming that Bobu and Poestelnicu (sic) are Emil Bobu and Tudor Postelnicu?
yes
  • "the aerial space of Romania being declared by the army under interdiction for airunits" doesn't make sense, mainly because "airunits" is not an English word. Do you simply mean "aircraft" or something else.
sorry for my english, i'm romanian :"> ; indeed i meant aircrafts Criztu 21:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey, it's a lot better than my Romanian. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:52, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
  • All of this looks correct to me, but given the level of detail you presumably have a source; can I ask you to cite it? Much easier now than someone trying to reconstruct it later. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:07, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
mmm... Ceausescu couple left by Helicopter together with E.Bobu and T.Postelnicu, the helicopte's pilot was named Malutan(died later misteriously in an "aircraft accident"); they stationed at Snagov briefly, and were abandoned near Targovishte, being grounded by Army flying interdiction, this is well known, i'll search for online sources, www.Jurnalul.ro Investigation series on the RO Revolution would be a good site to verify all this

the "Ceausescu fled by helicopter with an aid pointing a pistol to the pilot's head" is simply hillarious :0) Criztu 21:31, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

100 lei

Currently in the article: "His miscomprehension of the events and incapacity to handle the situation were further demonstrated when he promised to raise the salaries of workers by 100 Lei (about 4 US dollars at the time) and praised the achievements of the Socialist Revolution when a social revolution was taking shape right in front of him." Besides what seems to me to be excessive POV in the first phrase (which I leave it to someone else to fix), this is unclear. 100 lei per month? 100 lei per year? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

The part that follow "and praised the..." could be interpreted. But the story of 100 lei is true. In Romania the wages were and still are considered in per month. So, Ceausescu promised a 100 lei raise (at an average wage of 3000 or so) and also a raise of child allocation from 100 lei to 110 lei. He idea that the pissed off people would go home happy with a few % raise just enraged the people. And is wasn't the problem of money per se, but the fact that you couldn't find the products.MihaiC 13:04, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

oc, so what Ceausescu said, when he saw the people were not applauding as expected was basically "the monthly salary will be increased by 100 lei, and kept repeating (paraphrase/quote from memory): "we achieved high levels of development, the working class in romania has did great things, and will stand united defending the ideals of the socialist revolution". he was captured, and on his chair he recited from the "Internationala" socialist song. he was sentenced to death, and recited again from the "Socialist Anthem"(Internationala Socialista" -- Criztu 21:16, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolved?

As far as I am concerned, this article is no longer disputed, and I have removed the dispute tag. If no one reopens these issues in the next 48 hours, I will archive a great deal of what is above, since it mostly pertained to that dispute. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)