Talk:1946 Romanian general election

Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech

This is a tangential issue, to be sure, but perhaps worth pursuing. The speech that Sir Winston Churchill delivered at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri on March 5, 1946 was a milestone in the history of the Cold War. Among other things, it popularized the term Iron Curtain. The speech can be found at [1]. Here is the passage relevant to this article:

From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an "iron curtain" has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.

Keep in mind that the speech was delivered on the eve of the March 6 elections in Romania. It's not clear whether Churchill had that in mind, but clearly he referred to Bucharest as falling on the other side of the Iron Curtain. Also, I would imagine that the connection between Churchill's "Iron Curtain" speech on March 5, and the Romanian elections on March 6 (which proved Churchill's point, I'd say) was made much before Macuc. I can't prove that, but my hunch is that the connection was made by Churchill himself. Sounds plausible? Turgidson 16:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And here is one more (seemingly relevant) quote from that speech.

The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control.

I don't know if this is useful, but perhaps one could expand on this Churchillian speech (beyond the present half sentence), in setting up the context for the March 6 , 1946 elections in Romania. After all, Churchill was one of the three signatories of the Yalta Agreement (which formed at least in part the basis upon which these elections were supposed to be conducted), so his opinion on what was going on at the time behind the rising Iron Curtain seems quite important to me. Turgidson 17:00, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry -- oops, I realize now I made a mistake with the dates: I was thinking of the March 6 establishment of the Petru Groza government, and mixed it up with the November 19 elections. So scratch that -- but perhaps there is enough in the above to justify metioning Churchill's speech in more detail. Turgidson 17:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not have room to expand on this in the edit summary, but my actual point was that, of all the sources I had, this one was the only to mention the speech in connection to the elections. I suppose there are more around, and more for the article in general, but this format was to get us started (and to have only the various details to fill in). What I had meant about the link perhaps needs some explaining as well: a link to a section (with the "#" format) is dependent on the title that section has on the page, and this is very likely to change faster than anything (compromising the link in the process, and making necessary corrections hard to detect). I think that having an article on the speech is an excellent idea, and we should look forward to that. Dahn 21:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The explanation about not linking to a section makes plenty of sense -- I'd seen other people doing it, so I assumed it's the thing to do, but now that you put it this way, it sounds logical. Again, sorry about the temporary confusion about the dates, I hope it did not muddle my point too much. Let me try to summarize, and add a bit. First, I think it's a very good idea to have a section on "Context" -- as the article does have. After all, these events did not occur in a vacuum, but in the wider context of the aftershocks of World war II, the incipient Cold War, the aftermath of the Yalta Agreements, and the creation of the Eastern Bloc -- with many specific characteristics due to the local situation, to be sure. Of course, to discuss at length the wider context would take the article too far afield, so I would not advocate such a tack. But my inclination would be to look more closely at these global aspects, and see if one can say a bit more about that, as regards to this election. Off the top of my head, the first (and so far, the only) idea that came to mind after reading this very informative article was to say something more about the "Iron Curtain" speech. After all, Churchill was right there in the thick of things at Yalta, and for him to come out and ring that alarm bell, loud and clear, on March 5, 1946, was quite dramatic — and prescient — I think. So yes, I think his speech deserves an in-depth article — surely there are good references out there, if one were to look. Turgidson 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The section could and perhaps should be expanded further. I believe that this should, however, be based on references that connect events abroad with events inside Romania, not just on references that comment events abroad. Otherwise, we would be the ones establishing the connections (which is original research, as plausible as those connections are -- and I too believe that they are). If this is desirable and accomplished, and if Churchill's speech turns out to be a topic of comments on Romania beyond one mention in one source, we could expand and clarify some more (of course, we wouldn't need to be that careful if Churchill had made an overt reference to Romania in the spech itself). In this context, I did not mean to imply that the info should be included in an article on the speech and only there; far from it -- I actually meant to express solidarity with the notion that an independent article on the speech is desirable (in fact, when I was editing, I was quite surprised that it did not have one already). Dahn 10:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Nicolae Lupu or Anton Alexandrescu

I wonder if the chief of splinter group of PNT was Nicolae Lupu (as written currently in the article). I thought it was Anton Alexandrescu.--MariusM 22:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It was both of them, apparently. (Two separate groups - one in the BPD, one allied to the BPD.) Dahn 22:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

I think this article would be excellent for a featured article nomination. Is it stable yet, or are there any controversies or stuff to add? If yes, it shouldn't be nominated yet, but I think it would make a great FA. Ronline ✉ 08:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because it has a liberal POV (Cioroianu), but not a communist one. I reserve my right to add the latter in the next one or two weeks. Anonimu 09:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of historians (be they, beyond their actual field of expertise, liberals like Cioroianu, nationalists like Ţurlea, Russian citizens like Pokivailova, and [presumably] left-leaning liberals like Tismăneanu and Ţârău) have not only investigated the matter and concluded that the elections were forged, but also implicitly and explicitly rejected all notion that communist historiography was and is anything other than bullshit. (Btw, all of these investigations have been subject to peer review, and there is no controversy regarding any of them.) If you are referring to contemporary [neo-]communist historiography, I am yet to find a single source from that side would make mention of the elections, let alone theorize on whether they were fair or not (that is to say that, if some obscure PCR successor party blabbers about it, I doubt it is encyclopedic material under any possible definition of the term). If you want to quote PCR propaganda of say, the 1970s, it will be equivalent to rewriting the Holocaust article on an equal--base comparison between the arguments of Holocaust deniers and Holocaust survivors (i.e.: it will be equivalent to embarassing crapola). As for actual PCR sources from the time, it appears I have quoted them at length with all the messages that they passed around, be they public or confidential. If indeed you want to introduce the version of facts you cherish, or one you could argue for because you are an imaginative guy, I'm sure not a single editor is even going to look twice at your contributions before reverting them. As we stand, the more scholarly this article is or will get, the less "communist POV" it will have. Dahn 10:05, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policy is to include all POVs, as long as they are well referenced. deleting info based on communist books of the 1970's would make the one who does it just another vandal. So, you don't have to right to say what to include and what not. I wouldn't expect an anti-communist or a political whore (someone who converted from communism to a right leaning ideology just to get some advantages) to say anything good about communism. Anonimu 12:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding NPOV. We don't give the same importance to the POVs for which there is a consensus that they are false. Solar System says nothing about Geocentrism, General relativity has no descriptions of the variety of fringe theories based on it and most articles on Holocaust don't mention the opinions of the Holocaust deniers. bogdan 12:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

from WP:NPOV: The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.[...] Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in.[...] Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.. And about the Solar system and geocentrism: "There is a difference between facts and opinions." The present article presents only opinions, ie "a piece of information about which there is some dispute." (see example given in the policy: "That the United States was wrong to drop the atomic bomb over Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a value or opinion."). Anonimu 14:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in that to even begin to make a semblance of the point you think you are making. Dahn 14:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's because those fragments in bold. Use some accesibility tools (an on-screen reader or something). Anonimu 15:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The point of view you present, Anonimu, does not even exist. There is no comment on 1946 in Communist Romanian historiography that would be relaible on its own. Even if you would want to cite propaganda works for some obscure reason and present them as "scholarly works", you would have to circumvent the fact that the POV is already cited, in its many Machiavellian contexts (which is to say: the Communist Party contradicted itself, because it had one message for its activists, another one for its detractors, and a third one for its travelling companions). You will note that I cited Communist sources not shying away from manipulating the elections results. What you will thus be "citing" is the smoke screen, and its relevancy would be purely trivial. Dahn 15:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Some are just dubious citations of citations ("Communist sources show that the BPD counted on 60 to 65% of its projected gains to be obtained from the Front's electorate" is referenced not with a Communist source, as someone would expect, but with an article written by soem russian girl in a romanian magazine; the smae case with "Other Soviet documents, dated November 6 and 12, summarize a conversation with the Bodnăraş, " ) or even third hand sources (the articles cites the russian girl citing soviets citing romanian communists and another time it cites giurescu citing a yankee who cites an alleged conversation with Groza; and again: reference to cioroianu citing another yankee citing an alleged recorded conversation -wtf? if it's recorded, why is it "alleged- with a soviet). In the other citation, communist don't contradict themselves.

The article is actually a series of reports rendered verbatim. They are primary sources. And calling someone "a Russian girl" does not make her less of a historian. As for the conversation, it was recorded in documents (the report is an account of the conversation), and I used "alleged" precisely to establish that it is theoreticaly posible that the paraphrase is flawed (this is why when the ambassador indicates Groza had said is not given as "Groza, in Giurescu", but as "Berry, in Giurescu"). Giurescu's article is the report itself, with an introduction and notes (and I have marked his contributions to the text as "Giurescu", not as "x in Giurescu"). In fact, Giurescu's article in Magazin Istoric even has a facsimile of the document it cites. Just as well, all "other documents" cited are rendered verbatim in the texts in question, and most of them commented (I have differentiated between comments and primary sources in citations, by indicating precisely who said what, precisely so as there would be no question as to what is original statement and what is comment). Dahn 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What soviet documents and communist sources (see quotes above) does the article render verbatim? Anonimu 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

They are actually referred to in the text: various staff at the Embassy writing to Moscow (when Kavtaradze was writing, I cited him by name); if you read the text, you wil se that their context is indicated not only upon first mention, but also in various other places in the text. The only way to cite them precisely would be to write down the date for each citation, each report. If you really want me to do that, I'll see about it (I'm not at home right now). Dreary as that is, I'll do it especially for you. By the way, some of them are cited verbatim or by several of the sources used. Dahn 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You said that these contradict the POV expressed in books of the 70s. So i want the reg no and date of those soviet reports and communist "sources". And since you're at it, put also the reg no and date of that "confidential report" you made the map from. Maybe someone wants to verify it. Anonimu 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to bet that one does not have access to the files of the Soviet Embassy and the PCR more than to past issues of Magazin Istoric and Dosarele Istoriei (therefore, your reasoning flawed, but what else is new?). If you insist, I'll add the report data tomorrow or thereabouts (as I mentioned before, I am not near them right now). Dahn 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

How much? (I noticed that every time when people don't agree with you, you forget about WP:CIV. Biruitorul it's much better when it comes to discussing about disputed domanins). I insist. Anonimu 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, goodie. Dahn 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S.: In regard to "While there is disagreement over the exact numbers with which the PNŢ had gained a majority of the vote (or as much of the vote as needed to govern the country), it is contended that the BPD and its allies did not receive more than 48% of the total". how could pnt have gained majority when, accepting the anti-communist estimation of 48% for BPD and considering the official 4% for PNL, it gained a maximum of 48%? Anonimu 16:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

or as much of the vote as needed to govern the country. Dahn 16:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry, but that's an non-NPOV opinion. I believe that if BPD and PNT both got 48%, the allied comission (the one to de facto name the prime minister) would have preffered the commies.(BTW, could you think more before writing your replies.. cause i hate all these edit conflicts that appear with your minor edits)Anonimu 17:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

What you believe, is, of course, of no relevancy to the article. Dahn 17:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

so you have nothing against a dubious tag on that statement?Anonimu 17:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Read me the two sentences: "In general, commentators agree that the grouping carried the vote through widespread intimidation tactics and electoral fraud, to the detriment of both the PNŢ and the National Liberal Party (PNL). While there is disagreement over the exact numbers with which the PNŢ had gained a majority of the vote (or as much of the vote as needed to govern the country), it is contended that the BPD and its allies did not receive more than 48% of the total." That is to say that those commentators, the majority of all commentators, form all sorts of political backgrounds, argue that the BPD did not win more than 48% of the vote. Of course, commentators mean "authorized commentators" (otherwise, they would not be mentioned). You are not one. Historians are. I fail to see how and why a tag would apply. Dahn 18:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

First "majority of all(???) comentators" is in fact the "majority of the comentators supporting the opposition that suffered an unequivocal defeat". Second, you're insulting a whole generation of historians who wrote about the history of Romania before reaction got back in power; they aren't mentioned is just because you didn't want to mention them. But you're no greater piece of shit than am I, so your options are irrelevant. Third, and the only point related to the subject, it adds a POV opinion ("PNŢ had gained a majority of the vote (or as much of the vote as needed to govern the country)")Anonimu 18:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, do point out who those historians are. Mihail Roller perchance? I'm also sure I would be insulting a lot of Nazi historians if I were to look down oon info about how the socialists betrayed Germany upon the close of WWI, and a lot of Zhdanovs if I were to say that Trotsky was not planning to destroy the Soviet Union together with the fascists and Zinoviev and whatnot. As to the rest: I cannot answer in terms of your peculiar brand of Leninist dogma ("reaction"), and I will not; the opinion is that of historians who have researched the facts as they were presented in a country that did not have as its single ruling party the one group to "carry" the elections, and where the writing of history was being officially censored. Furthermore, the result of the opinion is as follows, regardless of how you segment the sentences to obscure their meaning: all historians agree that the BPD lost the elections, they do not gre by how much (mind you, they are not arguing over it: some simply evidence the scandalous fraud, and others try and reconstruct the effects of the fraud). Dahn 19:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really into historiography. Except Giurescu, one of the Bratianus and the bald guy on the 1 leu note i don't know any. (Do the "cronicari" count?) All those historians were right. Socialist did betray imperialist Germany and Trotsky did want to destroy Soviet Union as Zhdanov knew it. Leninist dogma? "Reaction" was used since the first burgeoise revolution, long beofre Lenin was born. Yes, but they wrote in a country where the party that won those elections is considered the work of the Devil (if not the Devil himself) and where writing something favourable about it equals suicide (a country where the national television put a leader of the said party on the 11th place because it knew that no scholar would have had the courage to say something marginally good about him on TV). I wouldn't say that 48% means to lost some elections. In the capitalistic world (except the ones with two-party systems), whatever party get over 45% is considered the winner. And since nobody brought solid proofs that PNT was even close to winning the election, that fragment should be removed (you can keep the fragment that says some historian claim that BPD didn't receive more than 48%)Anonimu 20:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I can live with that change. As for the rest: commentators are those people who comment on the subject at hand (the statement is obviously meant to include historians plus ultra, if there is any ultra, all of whom are relating to this subject, not another - so, the theory about chroniclers and Iorga is wordplay). As for your other speculations: I consider it a waste of time to engage in a debate over issues as vast as these, especially when it is implied that I should invest energy in paying attention to totalitarian cliches; suffices to note that, whatever the ideological drive advertised, most of your arguments actually take the form of traditional and parochial national-communism. It is in absolute bad taste to equate Communist Romania with post-1990 realities (I'm sure you've got a lot of sophistry to elaborate on this issue, but I'm also sure I will not be continuing this debate just to read some more of it). Dahn 20:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

To Ronline: thank you (again). However, as we stand, this article could do with some more tuning, IMO. For starters, I think it needs some pictures (I for one have access to some great ones which are at worst fair use and at best PD, but I lack the technology - I'll do something about that in the [near] future). There are also some techical matters: it is possible to add even more references which would bring in valuable info; we should explore Turgidson's proposals as to expanding on some issues which are now merely mentioned; I would like to find a third source for the official results, which would explain why recorded data varies (or at least point out when one of the sets of data was recorded). Also, I meant to cite Maniu's protest as rendered in Dosarele Istoriei, but then forgot to (I don't have the magazine with me right now, but I'll get rid of that error in due time). Dahn 10:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, NPOV does not mean presenting all points of view. To quote a comment on Joseph Goebbels' talk page:
"...any historically accurate article about Goebbels must leave the (non-Nazi) reader believing that he was an evil man, since that is the fact of the matter. An article which did not lead to that conclusion would not be accurate. Of course the article cannot say 'Goebbels was an evil man,' but it can and should demonstrate his evil by describing what he did and quoting, in context, what he said."
And, more pertinently, Traian Băsescu, speaking as the embodiment of the Romanian state:
"afirm cu deplină responsabilitate: regimul comunist din România a fost ilegitim şi criminal."
The article as it stands encompasses a wide range of viewpoints. It has no need of pseudo-scientific, sophistic, criminal, illegitimate, anti-Romanian fabrications that were consigned to the ash-heap of history by a popular uprising of the long-suffering Romanian people seventeen years ago, and indeed the inclusion of such material (other than as a historical curio) would risk rendering the entire article a farce. Biruitorul 19:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You see Dahn, that should wikipedia be: a relaxing place where people have fun while spreading knowledge... You should learn more from Biruitorul Anonimu 20:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Eh, never mind that - what do you think of my "arguments"? Biruitorul 20:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The first quote it's weak. The second: if the system was criminal, doesn't this make him at least an accomplice (and even more, considering he had a ruling position)? if it was illegal, should he return all the money, goods and diplomas he received for working for it? What are those POV? We have an oversized anti-communist POV, and an official POV reduced to a table. History is by definition un-scientific and sophistic.. that's why it's part of the humanities. I don't know what does it mean for a fabrication to be "criminal" and "illegitimate". Anti-Romanian? As some(^) would say: you're a nationalist legionary. Romanian people have always suffered... that's why they don't care too much about it...Anonimu 21:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the first quote is good, because Goebbels is quite similar to Ana Pauker, so the same lesson can be applied. Băsescu didn't have a "ruling" position, but yes, I agree, he was (in a small way) a Communist accomplice. But at some point you need to create a "pacto del olvido" - prosecuting Iliescu would be fine, but a ship's captain can be forgiven. Actually, history can be scientific, if based on facts, as this article is. Furthermore, we include anti-Communist points of view because they are right - it's important to understand the difference between right and wrong. It's for that reason that we don't include Nazi POVs either - both systems of government have been proven - after they killed 120 million people - to be wrong. The election was stolen - this was a crime - hence, the results were illegitimate, as was the whole regime that followed. The people who perpetrated this fraud were objectively anti-Romanian. They despised the Romanian people, as evidenced by what they did to them, and by their own statements. I'm not a Legionary, but compared to Communism, I greatly prefer the National Legionary State, whose leaders at least loved (most of) the people they ruled. And I think you are dreadfully wrong about the last statement: people who suffer want better lives, and once they obtain better lives - as Romanians have since 1989 - they want to punish those guilty for repressing them, or at least to know the facts. So I think Romanians do care. Biruitorul 21:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a weak argument, no matter whom is it used against. I'm not talking just about his possition as a ship captain, but as well as about his position of representant of the "criminal and illegitimate regime" at Anvers, during what is said to be the worst period of Ceausescu's reign. Probably Iliescu should have let Romania in the hands of Nicu... now he would have a had a happy life. Scientific history?!? Facts in this articel? you reffer the authors that can't agree on the official numbers, or to the opinions of the supporters of the opositions parties? Right and wrong? That's an obsolete dichotomy. Not even the church uses it anymore. It would be ludicrous to use it in an encylopedia. if killing 120 million people is wrong, what's killing 150 million like capitalism did? Is there any election in Romanian history that wasn't stolen? What did it do to them? Stephen, Vlad and Michael treated them worst but they are now considered heros. Legionnaries loved them so much that they sent them to sure death in tee russian plain. I doubt that Romanians have better lifesAnonimu 22:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a weak argument just because you say so. Some people are evil (except for a few fanatics), and readers should know that. Ah yes, Belgium. Well, as I said, I'm willing to forgive a lot. True, he represented a criminal and evil regime, but he didn't kill anyone - if Franz von Papen could get away with no jail time, then so should he. There is a debate about exact numbers (which were forged anyway), but there is no debate (again, outside an irrelevant fringe) that they were forged. Right and wrong is absolutely not obsolete, certainly not in the Romanian Orthodox Church I know. Ever heard of the Ten Commandments? Following them is right; not doing so is wrong. Simple enough, and never obsolete. While injecting such moral terms into encyclopedia articles might be undesirable (though hardly "ludicrous"), we should let the facts speak for themselves and show readers that the Reds did indeed do something very, very wrong. Murdering people is wrong no matter who does it, but "capitalism" alone never murdered anyone. Perversions of it did (like in the Belgian Congo), but when capitalism runs on its own, it's a benign force. Yes, elections in Romania since 1990 and until 1937 have not been stolen. What did Communism do to Romanians? Need you even ask? Ştefan and Mihai, while not (I was going to say "while not saints", but Ştefan is a saint) perfect, never had a Piteşti prison, a Canal, a Gherla, an Aiud, a Sighet, a Securitate, pervasive censorship, systematization... As for Vlad Ţepeş, he was closer to the Communists' cruelty, but he also vigorously defended Wallachia's sovereignty in a tangible way, not in the fake way Ceauşescu did. The standard of living has gone up exponentially since 1989 - a year when the sky was forever grey, quickly turning black with hopelessness, as C. Tudor Popescu has said. And now, Anonimu, don't try any tricks. You know full well that the Legionnaires were not Antonescu, who was Conducător and had full control over the military. Of course he was right to retake Bessarabia (and wrong to push on), but Romania did not join the war for five months after the Legionnaires were suppressed, so in this case I have called your bluff on your attempt to blur history. Biruitorul 23:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Man, you're always forgetting... I'm the messenger of God, of course i'm the only one holding the truth. Thou shalt not disrepect me! Few communist high officials had effectively killed people. Why Basescu should be forgiven? There's no debate among anti-communists. The Bible and Patristics are filled with exceptions from those "divine laws" i.e. killing is wrong only when done by certain people, in certain conditions and when it has certain result. Killing is even blessed sometimes. The right vs wrong works only in fairy tales. Capitalism killed lots of people... i'll remember just the African slave trade, the extermination of native americans, the ww1 and the gulf war (all were motivated by capitalist ambitions). How can you explain then that the party pointed by the king to organise the election won every time, without exception? As for post 1990, the golans and their supporters say that weren't free. Even basescu said that the 2004 election were forged, but he strangely forgot about these declarations after he was declared winner. What did Communist to Romania? Stefan and Mihai didn't need camps, prisons, securitate or censorship... everyone who didn't agree with them (or seemed not to agree with them) was killed on the spot (as ureche said, they were "mânios şi de grabu vărsătoriu de sânge nevinovat, de multe ori la ospéţe omorâea fără judeţu"). Statistics and a lot of people don't agree with you. Some days ago, i saw on realitatea tv a statistical report about wages that showed the current real medium salary (considering purchasing power) is nowadays 97% of the 1990 one. And this after 6 years of economic growth!!! Most romanians would fall for that.. i assumed you'd fall for it to. Anonimu 12:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You have the truth, but it's coming out garbled. Now, let's not debate semantics. How many people did Stalin, Hitler, and Mao kill with their own hands (including by shooting)? Probably under a dozen. But they're responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, whether or not they "pulled the trigger". I think he should be forgiven because if you target everyone of his relatively low rank, you'll end up with thousands of trials, thousands of prisoners ... it's better to reserve big trials for a very guilty few (inlcuding the 93-year-old Gheorghe Apostol) and let the rest deal with their own consciences. There is a debate - that's why we have two sets of numbers. Once again, you are trying to deceive me, but it won't work: the Bible (in the original ancient languages) says "thou shalt not murder", not "thou shalt not kill". Yes, some killing is allowed. But never murder, which is always wrong, never right. Period. No "fairy tale", just good old Judaeo-Christian morality. As I've said, some of these were perversions of capitalism. Under capitalism, the autonomy of the individual is supreme, so obviously the slave trade was illegitimate. There was no deliberate plan to "exterminate" the Indians, some of whom are still around, but again, capitalism, working properly, doesn't slaughter people, as the right to life is paramount. WWI was caused by excessive nationalism, while the Gulf War happened because Kuwait was invaded and the international community no longer recognises the validity of the right of conquest. It could be a happy coincidence, but I honestly haven't studied the Kingdom's electoral politics in detail. However, it does make sense to me, since the King is Divinely anointed to rule. Well, the 1990 elections had problems, and Băsescu forgot about the first-round problems since he won the second round, but while I admit that the first round was probably significantly forged, by and large, other elections (including on the local level) have been OK. I've said above what Communists did to Romania (it included, for example, imprisoning some 2000000 innocents and killing 200000 of them). Well, of course, human rights were a bit more spotty back then, but at least you could hide out in the woods for a while or go to another kingdom - something that was basically impossible in the Fortress Romania of communist times. Of course, people throw around a lot of numbers on TV - but really, look at all the store shelves, the new buildings, the clothes, the hypermarkets - everything has improved, all things considered. Or do you miss your one hour a day hot water and horsemeat chiftele? Biruitorul 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Only chosen people can understand the truth. Ceausescu killed just one people and was directly responsible for less than 10 deads in a kulak revolt in Vrancea in the early 50s, as representant of the gvt. Why wasn't him forgiven? We have two sets of numbers because of the incompetence of one (or both) author. let me quote someone i know: "Now, let's not debate semantics" (and yes, murder = intentional killing is excused in a lot of circumstances and even blessed). Man, any real marxism would say that all communist states (not that none of the states proclaimed to be communist societies), maybe except the paris commune and early soviet russia, applied an extremeley perverted form of socialism (remember what iliescu also said in the early 90s). No deliberate plan? Few mass murders had a plan... capitalists like improvisation... nationalism is a burgeoise capitalist invention. There was no nationalism in feudalism and it wasn't supposed to exist in communism either (lenin and trotsky accused great russian nationalism in the soviet union several times). i meant the second gulf war... the "iraqi freedom". It's a well known fact. Of course, now some capitalist historians try to elude that, but this was an artificially accepted fact in the interbellum. The "Divinely anointed King" might have worked in ancient middle east and feudal europe. But nowadays no one believes that. All kings broke at least half of the decalogue. You know whats fundamentally wrong with the 2 million figure? Space! It would have been impossible to imprison that much people. The immense Canal camp could only host 40,000 according to the highest estimates of capitalists historians (anything above is just fantasy). If we add another 45,000 in all other penitentiaries (and this would mean extremely crowded ones) and 45,000 temporarily displaced (for 4 years) people from banat, we get a maximum of 130,000 (including "not-political" prisoners). less that 1/3 died.. so your numbers are irresponsible. You could stay hide in the woods or go to another country if you didn't get caught. If those tyrants has the technology avaible to ost ww2 romania, you can be sure that few would have escaped. Statistics can't lie. Anonimu 20:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you understand the truth but can't deliver it properly. First, even if he didn't kill that many people, Ceauşescu caused lots of suffering, which is why he was despised (although Romanians generally don't like their leaders - unless they wear a Crown on their head). Second, we mustn't forget those who died while building Casa Poporului, various hits he ordered on opponents (inside and outside Romania), the malnutrition he caused in the 1980s, etc. Essentially, he was a pretty crooked guy, which is why he was killed in the way he was - the soldiers in Târgovişte were all very eager to get rid of him, whereas Zhivkov was spared execution. Plus, just being in the early Red regime placed blood on his hands - he could have led Dej away from his crimes, but stood silently by, becoming complicit in them. We have two sets of numbers because the Reds had trouble forging correctly - but you'll note that the numbers are basically equal. I think we should debate semantics. If I point a gun at you and you shoot me before I shoot you, that's killing, and while tragic and unfortunate, is probably not a sin. But if you shoot me in the back for no reason, that's murder. Clear difference. Yes, "communism" in, say, North Korea is probably not what Marx or even Lenin had in mind. However, the important thing is this: communism, because it goes against human nature, is perverted basically everywhere it's tried - it's doomed to fail. Capitalism, since it coincides very well with human nature, tends to succeed much more often and make everyone happier. Actually, Stalin had a plan, as did (see Mein Kampf) Hitler, an arch-socialist. Sometimes mass murder happens more by accident than with those guys. Nationalism expresses reality: for instance, Romanian nationalism informs us that we are all related, all descended from the Dacians and Romans, whose blood flows in our veins, which is supported by facts. They attacked Great Russian nationalism because they hated their country, but that didn't make them right. Russian culture and the nationalism that goes with it, as championed by Saint John of Kronstadt, is a beautiful thing. Actually, the second Gulf War took place in order to topple Saddam, a gathering threat to the Free World. I would like a citation on that, not just you using "capitalist" as a slur instead of the beautiful name it is. First, when Kings are crowned, I believe ointment is indeed applied to their brows. And anyway, it makes sense - Who else might be the source of their authority? Plus, the King can do no wrong - it's the fault of his ministers who give him bad advice if he strays from the path of rightheousness. Actually, read Tismăneanu. You can no longer hide from the truth. My figures are much more accurate, as they are supported by legitimate historians. It's true that, if the state apparatus had been as advanced in the 15th century as now, they probably would have been more violent, but first, you can't prove counterfactuals, and second, they were good Christians (Ştefan is a saint), so maybe not. Remember, even Julius Caesar (a pagan priest) pardoned a great number of his enemies. Biruitorul 05:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't just understand the truth, I AM THE TRUTH! You're the one who cant understand (or better said, don't want to accept) the truth. In every huge construction project people die, no matter it's capitalist or bureaucratic collectivist. What hits? The one that that traitor invented to be accepted in US and to get CIA protection? The soldiers in Targoviste just guarded him. They didn't let him go because they were afraid they would be attacked by the secu-controlled armed forces. So they just waited to see what happens. Yeah, wih the soviet army on romanian soil, i'm sure he would have been very succesfull in that. If you didn't notice, both authors quoted are anti-communist. Man, you changed your mind very quickly. Again we get into semantics: what's reason enough to kill, so that it isn't considered murder? No value judgements please... they're always biased. What do i care that Stalin had a plan.. he wasn't a commie anyway... (BTW, godwin was right). If nationalism expresses reality, i wonder why Jesus never mentioned it. Yeah, we are a nation born from a mass rape... Soviet Union was not the country of Russian, but of all its nationalities... only an imperialist extreme right-winger could defend Great Russian nationalism in such a state. Yeah, he threatened the capitalist world by not giving it iraq's petrol reserves. Just find a book about Romanian interbellum election in your local library. "Ointment" is applied on your brows every Sunday and on holidays(if you go to your local orthodox church). They don't have any source of authority.. that why even i capitalist world, they lost their powers. The King is stupid for listening at every shit his minister says.. and he choses his ministers anyway, so he's morally guilty. No true historians would support your numbers, simply because they are technically impossible. Volodea may support them, but he's not a historian. But you neither can prove that if Dej would have ruled in the middle ages, people couldn't have escaped by hiding the woods. Stefan may have been a muslim saint (beacuse if i remember well, poligamy isn't pretty christian). Maybe in 50 years or so we'll also have a saint Becali. So what? Anonimu 19:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I pulled my Bible off the shelf and turned to Jn. 14:6, where I found, "Eu sunt Calea, Adevărul şi Viaţa". Is there some deeper reason you remain "Anonimu"? Because some say that the Bible is a profoundly Communist work... Anyway, unusually large numbers died in Ceauşescu's mad schemes, many more than in the Free World. Ion Mihai Pacepa, a hero who knew the truth. They also shot him, with alacrity. First of all, it was worse in Romania than in other Red-occupied countries: Poland abandoned collectivisation in 1956, for instance. Second, Romania did not have Soviet troops on her soil between 1958 and 1965, and Ceauşescu continued to say nothing. Both are anti-Communist - who wouldn't be? Who wouldn't be against Communism as much as against Nazism? They're just two sides of the same totalitarian coin. Do you have your own numbers? It depends on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, murder involves things like malice aforethought or at least happens in the heat of passion. Killing might be accidental, or done to preserve other lives. For instance, if I'm about to open fire on a crowd with a machine gun, and someone in the crowd shot me before I began firing, he would be killing, not murdering, and in fact preventing further murder. Value judgments are biased, but so what? We need values in society. Stalin was in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He was a true believer in Marxism-Leninism, and faithfully applied their teachings to Russia and Eastern Europe, killing tens of millions in the process. Jesus left us a blueprint, not a detailed guide - He never mentioned, for instance, how church architecture should look. And Saint Nicholas of Japan did express nationalism, as did, again, Saint John of Kronstadt. You don't know that the Romans raped the Dacians; perhaps they married them; but that is who we are. Ah, but remember that the Soviet authorities strongly promoted nationalism in the other republics through methods like korenizatsiya, and in fact invented several nationalities out of thin air - the Kazakhs, the Kyrgyz, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the Turkmens, the Belarusians and, most odiously, the "Moldavians". So why not promote glorious Great Russian nationalism? Actually, he threatened it by seeking to expand his stockpile of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Maybe, but we'd like citations. Ointment is indeed applied to us, but not in coronation services. It's in the context of those services that authority is conferred by the Church and, in fact, by God, whence kingly power is derived. And anyway, monarchs still do have powers, like the Prince of Liechtenstein. The King listens to his ministers and chooses them because that's what his constitution requires of him, but sometimes he acts independently and shows great wisdom in doing so - see for instance Carol II's decision to fire Octavian Goga. Volodea has credentials, as do Tismăneanu, Ornea, Ţiu, etc. Dej would not have ruled in the Middle Ages because he did not belong to a noble family - that's the good thing about monarchy: it keeps bad people out of power. Admittedly, Ştefan didn't follow the teachings of the Church 100%, but everyone except Jesus and Mary has sinned, so that doesn't take away from the great and glorious deeds he accomplished on Moldova's behalf. Maybe we will have a Saint Becali - he certainly might deserve it - and I would venerate him in that case. But let's not speculate about such matters. Biruitorul 04:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

No commment. Any source for that? (BTW, happy birthday nea Nicu). Before leaving Romania, the traitor commited numerous crimes in the name of the regime... should we forgive his crimes just because he betrayed Ceausescu? They just followed orders. I don't think Poland abandoned collectivisation... if it did, it was a huuuge mistake. Everyone who knows what's good for the people. If you compare Communism with Nazism, you msut be very... "ignorant". What if I had a toy gun and take it out, and you kill me... what's that? The only true values are the original christian ones... and the early christians were internationalist and pretty socialist. So what... Basescu also was in the Romanian one. If it would have been, it wouldn't have invented stalinism (remember Lenin wanted party-members to remove Stalin from power). Probably because he never wanted churches to be temples. Neither of them are saints for BOR... the latter became saint for Russian orthodoxs only in 1990, under the pressure of awakened Great Russian nationalism. Those measures were invented by Lenin, but Stalin slowly eliminated them. Yeah the glorious russian nationalism... championed by Peter I (remember his will). There are no proofs for that, except for some claims of traitors. You must have a public library in you city. Kings forced (or bribed) the Church to annoint them... nothing godly in that. Man, you contradict youself. yeah, Lichtenstein. Volodea and Tismaneanu have credentials? you're vety, very... "ignorant". So nobility is a good thing? i thought you knew some history.. now i doubt it. What did he do for Moldova? Yeah, everyone who makes fortune by stealing from the state (ultimately from the people) should become a saint if he gives enough money to the church... and i thought indulgences are a catholic thing... Anonimu

Sure, Cotidianul: "La ridicarea giganticei cladiri au lucrat peste 20.000 de oameni din toata tara. Numarul celor care au murit in accidente de munca din cauza heirupismului nu-l stie nimeni cu exactitate." But it's probably quite high. First, "traitor" to whom? To an illegitimate, criminal communist regime? Yes. To the Romanian people and nation? Not at all - a hero, in fact. Second, yes, we should forgive him, because he undertook an act of bravery and courage that in a very real sense atoned for his earlier sins. No, they were not "just" following orders; they were desperate to shoot him. From Britannica [2]: "A government collectivization campaign begun in 1949 was abandoned in 1956" - and rightly so, because collectivization was unjust, it killed millions, and no one's doing it today, for a good reason. No, communism is not good for the people: it delivers poorer services, contradicts human nature, can only be imposed by armed force and terror, etc. There's a good reason practically no country is communist today. Remember, Nazism was Nationalist Socialism. Hitler was a socialist through and through, albeit with a nationalist flavouring. If I killed you when you were pointing a toy gun at me, and I thought it was a real gun, that would still be killing, because it's what I (truly) believe that matters, not what the actual truth is. You can't readily compare the politics of people in 1st century AD Judea with those of today, particularly as ideologies such as socialism had not yet been articulated. Ah, but Băsescu wasn't a true believer; he was just in it for the advantages. Stalin ran the whole show. Stalinism is actually a faithful application of Leninism, not a new invention, and it's unclear what exactly Lenin wanted in his last days. First, we must assume that Jesus did want churches to be temples, because "Numai Biserica poate să tâlcuiască Sf. Scriptură fără greşeală, pentru că numai Bisericii i-a dat Mântuitorul făgăduinţa Sa sfântă, prin Sfinţii Apostoli, că va rămâne în ea pâna la sfârşitul veacurilor". I just picked church architecture as an example, though: He never told us how to canonize saints, how to baptize children, or even Who He was - fully man, fully God, or both (remember that the early Church spent centuries debating such questions). First, I remind you that in the Orthodox Church, all saints are recognised by all Churches. For instance, if the Russian Orthodox Church makes someone a saint tomorrow, he will (within weeks) be recognised as a saint by the BOR and by all the other Churches. Second, Saint John of Kronstadt became a saint because of the many glorious deeds he performed, the great love of the people for him, the miracles ascribed to him, and the way he lived. I assure you that if the Russian Revolution hadn't taken place, he would have been made a saint much earlier than 1990, but the Reds were afraid of him, which is why it took so long. Stalin played around with them, but never eliminated them: there were still Kazakh, Uzbek, etc. SSRs when he died, and anyway he was commisar for nationalities, in charge with inventing all these groups, including the "Moldavians". The will is a forgery, as Dimitry Lehovich showed in 1948. And anyway, Peter was a deviation from the true glorious Great Russian nationalism, as embodied by figures such as Saint Alexander Nevsky. Those are not claims of traitors (again, traitors to whom?), but rather reality. No, the Church did not have to anoint, let us say, King Ferdinand (the Great); rather, she did so because it was the right thing to do. Yes, Liechtenstein - a member of the UN, a full participant in the international system. Volodea does have credentials, not to mention the incorruptible Tismăneanu, himself a professor. Yes, nobility is good - first, it keeps people like Dej and Stalin out of power, and second, it brings into power people like Carol, Ferdinand, Mihai, Victoria, Louis IX, Frederick the Great, etc. First, Ştefan was Moldova - remember that in Medieval times, the monarch embodied the nation. But if you mean what did he do for the people, he preserved their freedom from Ottoman rule. And he didn't become a saint by stealing, he did so by building churches, winning battles for Christ, and performing miracles from beyond the grave. The BOR is free of corruption, unlike the Roman Catholic Church. Biruitorul 20:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

SOV's paper says nothing about high numbers of deaths. That's only your malicious interpretation. A traitor it's a traitor, no matter that he betrays Hitler or Saint Peter. Anyone who profits from being close to someone and then goes and sells information to his enemy is a capitalistic piece of shit with no dignity or morality, and should be shot on sight. A hero? What did he do for the Romanian people? He first exploited it as part of the pseudo-communist bureaucracy and then exploited it again, denigrating it to get more money from the hypocrite capitalist media. Sorry, but by your standards, Ceausescu would be a thousand times more hero just because he refused to join Warsaw pact troops in Czechoslovakia and improved the image and life quality of the Romanian people, and should be put among your "saints" gallery, between Stephen the playboy and Becali. They could have shoot him imediately.. but they didn't. Another stupid interpretation. Britannica says only that the collectivistaion campaign stoped, not that collectivistaion was abandoned. Collectivism is the only just form of land property. It killed nobody, and people do it today, especially in western europe. Even EU encourages romanian peasants to associate and form collective-like farms to survive on the European market. No, it's not. The reason is that big capitalists have enough money to buy everyone and sabotage any attempt to institute capitalism. So what? Remember East Germany was a Democratic Republic! So if i think you want to kill me tommorow and i stab you tonight, it isn't murder... Socialism didn't appear with Marx... socialism is the highest form of human civilization, and people tried to reach it from Antiquity... How can you prove that all other dignitaries of the deformed workers' state (including Ceausescu) were not in the party for the advantages too? As Uzzi said "Nu vorbi fara sa stii"... and you know nothing about Lenin's ideology. Yeah, i agree that "Stalin [...] becomes intolerable in a Secretary-General. That is why I suggest that the comrades think about a way of removing Stalin from that post and appointing another man in his stead who in all other respects differs from Comrade Stalin" is pretty ambiguos. To be continued... Anonimu 22:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not malicious or mine. Lots of people did die - three a day, in fact. Right, a traitor is a traitor, but there are noble traitors and ignoble ones. Erwin Rommel, to the extent that he betrayed Hitler, was a noble traitor. Judas Iscariot was an ignoble traitor. To my mind, Pacepa is a noble man. He actually does have morality - he is, one assumes, Orthodox. And dignity: he tried to help his country. No, he should not be shot, because the man he betrayed was himself evil. He helped expose the thoroughly corrupt nature of Ceauşescu's illegitimate, criminal, murderous regime, and gave dissident Romanians hope for the future. True, it was wrong of him to serve in the Securitate, but he atoned for his error by writing Red Horizons. Ceauşescu's refusal to send troops to Czechoslovakia, while a good move, was unfortunately not done for honest reasons. Ştefan was not a playboy, he was a warrior and a man of God; Becali is still alive and thus not a saint. They didn't, because there needed to be a trial first, but once that was over, the bullets flew fast and furious into that wretched couple. Guess what, genius? When the dictatorship stopped campaigning for collectivisation, no one voluntarily continued collectivising. But, just for the heck of it, let's dredge up a more definitive quotation: "Poland abandoned collectivization, eschewed the bureaucratic purge, and gave the Catholic Church a freedom and a role in society unparalleled elsewhere in the Bloc" (Philip Longworth, The making of Eastern Europe: from prehistory to postcommunism, p. 43). Happy now? Actually, inheriting property is also just, and owning your own land by yourself is just. How can you say with a straight face that it killed nobody? Ever heard, for instance, of the Holodomor? I don't mind voluntary collectives like in W Europe; it's the forcible Red terror variety that sticks in my craw. No, no! Enough madness! Never mind the conspiracy theories about "big capitalists"! Communism killed 125 million people! How much longer do you want to go on with such madness? And don't feed me the nonsense about capitalism killing larger numbers. It kills no one in the civilised world, for instance; communism killed many, many people wherever it was tried! Right, but Hitler actually was a socialist - a class warrior to the core. He was thoroughly in favour of dethroning the large industrialists and in redistributing wealth. Actually it is murder: the threat has to be imminent, the decision of a split-second nature. No, capitalism is an even higher form of civilisation. Just compare Tanzania with Germany, or even Tanzania with Kenya, and you'll see what I mean. Ceauşescu was partly in it for the advantages - they all were, probably - but a look at his speeches, for instance, shows that he really believed Stalinist drivel. I do know about Lenin's ideology, and in any case, even if the will isn't forged, Zinoviev, Kamenev and Trotsky had pretty much the same plans. Biruitorul 22:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Either-or

Law of excluded middle. Dahn 16:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is that the PNŢ could have formed government in either of those alternatives, and not even that it would have formed it. Whereas most references say that the PNŢ won the elections outright, others point out that, since the BPD intimidated and conned its way into a relative majority, it may have obtained a relative majority. In either case, the BPD, in addition to mishandling the elections, robbed them, as clear as day (as evidenced by the PCR itself at the time). Both series of historians also qualify the elections as a fraud, given that, in official results, the PNŢ was not in position to partake in a non-Communist government. It is intellectually honest not to impose an alternative, and to specify yet again that there is no disagreement over the fact that the elections were robbed. The only variety in actual opinion is about the question "with what effects?". Anything else is sophistry. Dahn 17:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You still didn't bring internal proofs of that "robbing" (the only things that could have supported that are no better than the usual weasel words until you point out the documents). As i already said, the agreement it's only in your mind. The official (communist) POV should be represented as strong as the anti-communist one. And about the communique: it doesn't prove nothing.. the snagov declaration was signed by most political forces that mathered, but this doesn't mean pntcd will ever ally itself with prm.Anonimu 19:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You have little right to intervene in the opinions historians have expressed. I'm very much afraid that, in fact, it is the "communist POV" that exists only in your mind - it was either vague mention to serve a secondary purpose, or completely abhorrent propaganda that did not rely on and did not comment any facts. As with comments on the Holocaust vs Holocaust deniers, the consensus of the academic community, coming from all backgrounds and expressing itself in complete freedom, is that the elections were subject to fraud. Simple as that. I am also leaving aside the fact that, between an officially-sanctioned source that wrote 30 years ago without commenting on the actual evidence, although this was available to them at the time (and not discovered since), and various sources writing today without any censorship apparatus, intelligent people always select the latter.

The Communist POV really exists... It might contain propaganda but most of the curent anti-communist authors cited use tendentious interpretations based on circumstantial facts... so it wouldn't be under the general level of the article. As i said earlier, it's irrelevant what is the consensus of the moment. If tommorow the regime would change, the consensus would also change. So, it's fair to include all POVs with substantial support, no matter what is the temporary (artificial) consensus. No new source have been found. These "new historians" just interpreted the sources from the opposite POV. Not that you'd know what inteligent people would think... (btw, according to godwin's law you've lost this debate several times by now) Anonimu 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dahn 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Beyond that point, I don't even need to "present proof of robbing", since editors on wikipedia are not supposed to be detectives, and the since an article is not a judicial verdict (as wikipedia clearly states: "not truth, but verifiability"). Nevertheless, most of the article does actually detail what historians have commented on regarding the way in which the fraud was carried out (including Communist officials who admit to it). Dahn 19:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but "communist sources" and "other soviet documents" are not verifiable. Anonimu 20:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dahn 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

iapua Anonimu 22:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sticks and stones. Dahn 22:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Map

It seems to me that the map includes the Hertza region, which was part of the USSR at the time. bogdan 09:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It may include part of it. I did the thing by hand, and had to approximate for that section of the border (I may have "cut out" too little compared to what was needed). In any case, a user to whom I remain indebted has designed a new and much better version of the entire map. Dahn 03:19, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I just upload a new version here. I hope now it's better (I still try to improve my work).

Here or here are the borders of 1940 Romania Administrative Territory (dark blue) and in yellow are Dorohoi (Ţinutul Herţa), Rădăuţi and Tulcea Counties (actually what became part of USSR from them). For the North half of Bucovina and Ţinutul Herţa I'm sill not sitisfied. I try to build a more accurate approximation (that's why I did not uploaded the SVG version on Commons).  Cornel Ilie – my talk 09:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Now it doesn't include Ostrov and Garlita (SW Constanta county) Anonimu 12:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Remake done. Sources were this one and this one. Cornel Ilie – my talk 16:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

An immense thank you. Dahn 21:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Quoting sources

The "notes" section would be better if it includes quotes from the source that validate the fact being sourced. Especially since I can't just click and read it off the internet. Context makes a difference. And with a quote I have something I can do a search on and maybe find an internet source. 4.250.168.119 04:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this request makes absolutely no sense. For one, it is very unlikely that you will find the non-Anglo-Saxon sources on the internet, in English or in Romanian or any other language. Secondly, most of the sources are quoted, with the precise quote, unless the notion defined by them is as banal or as direct as to render this futile (you will note that most notes are to citations, not the other way). Let me add: it is an extremely tiring process to translate (instead of paraphrase) each and every statement made by a source, especially when the latter are repetitious and lengthy, and especially when the reason behind that is pretentious. Btw: when I translate a source in Romanian into English, the chance that you will find the resulting quotation in an internet search is equivalent to the chance I have of falling off my balcony and surviving. Dahn 07:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romanian general election, 1946/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA comments copied from WT:GAN

I'd appreciate it if a more experienced editor took a look at this article. It was nominated by Nergaal on November 22, 2009, so it's been in queue for quite some time now.

I'm honestly not sure exactly where to begin with this. There appears to be ample citations. There's two images there, they are tagged and captioned appropriately. The major problem appears to be the introduction and the organization. Reading it, it's just not introducing the election and its major players very well. And the sections aren't flowing very well, either. I've also found several typos in early reading as well.

I really hate to fail an article that's been nominated almost three months ago, but I'm not sure what else to do. Another concern I have is that there hasn't been much recent editing activity in the article at all, based on the edit history. It appears to have been nominated somewhat arbitrarily in November after Nergaal added two images. Plus, you can still see edits from 2008 and 2007 showing up in the last 50 edits of the page. I know we need articles to be stable and all, but this one seems to be practically dead!

So, if someone could take a peek, that would be great! Thanks! WTF? (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It's very poorly written, a clear fail. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, not well written, lead fails WP:LEAD. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems like one of several nominations that Nergaal made on behalf of Dahn; the others are Ion Antonescu (currently under review, although not updated in a month) and Ion Luca Caragiale, which is so exceedingly long -- 400+ citations! new record? -- there's even a template at the top of the page saying as much. Dahn is the major contributor to all three articles, and as can be seen with the one stalled review, doesn't seem to agree with recent changes. All three have been queuing for a while, and all have their issues from what I can tell. Three massive articles at GAC at the same time seems like overkill, especially since it will strain already tight reviewer resources; if they need intensive help to pass the criteria, that's even more time wasted. I don't know what to suggest, really. If nothing else, both editors should be informed of this discussion. María (habla conmigo) 17:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Those two articles are 117 and 101kb or prose, respectively. That is a big fail of GA criterion 3b, so it could theoretically be quick-failed. Maybe find a way to fork some of the info into a new article (early life of x, death of x, etc.) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I ran AWB on the Ion Luca Caragiale article and managed to cut the citations down from 486 to 413, along with other fixes. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Review

Reviewer: Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm giving this a review as best I can. The consensus on the GAN talk page (now archived above this review) is to fail the article per issues with how it's written. Here's a few I noticed to start with, aside from what others have:

• You throw a lot of political party names out there in the first paragraph of the lead, and for someone not familiar with Romanian politics, it's overwhelming. I'd reword the lead and try and reduce the naming, since a lot of them are in the results box below anyway (you can add the abbreviations there too). It would probably be better for the lead to be rewritten completely.
• By extension, That second sentence becomes a run-on. "Officially, it was carried with 79.86% of the vote by the Romanian Communist Party (PCR), its allies inside the Bloc of Democratic Parties (Blocul Partidelor Democrate, BPD), and its associates — the Hungarian People's Union (UPM or MNSz), the pro-government splinter group from the opposition National Peasants' Party (PNŢ), formed around Nicolae L. Lupu, and the Jewish Democratic Committee (Comitetul Democratic Evreiesc)." This could be summed up simply by saying the Romanian Communist Party and its allies for 79.86% of the vote, and readers can see who the allies are in the table and prose below.
• "the 1946 Romanian election has drawn comparisons to the similarly flawed elections held at the time in most of the emerging Eastern Bloc (in Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, and Poland),[5] being considered, in respect to its formal system of voting, among the most permissive of the latter" Most permissive of what, exactly? Most permissive of fraud, of allowing voting, or what?
• Note the issues that the other people have had in reading the article.

Per my attempt in reading it as well as others on that talk page, I'm failing this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Party totals within the BPD

When formatting the results table today, I noticed that the figures given in Nohlen & Stöver for the makeup of the BPD are incorrect – the BPD won 347 seats, but the total of the individual parties is 348 (Social Democratic Party 81, PNL–Tătărescu 75, Ploughmen's Front 70, Romanian Communist Party 68, the National Popular Party 26, PNȚ–Alexandrescu 20 and independents 8). Does anyone have access to a source that might clarify which of the aforementioned figures is wrong? Cheers, Number 57 16:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Based on the nominal list of deputies at 1 December 1946, SDP had 79, PNL-T 74, PF 70, RCP 68, NPP 26, PNT-A 21, Independents 7 and the Jewish Committee 2. Since they used a common list, probably the exact composition varied, as some renounced their seat, others died, and the next eligible candidate on the list was generally not from the original party. Also, Independents may have registered with parties during their tenure, while Jewish deputies may also have been members of the SDP or RCP. This is further complicated by the fact that some SDP and RCP members ran on the Magyar Union list. Thus, there's some variation in sources regarding party totals, especially when it comes to SDP and RCP.Anonimu (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)