Talk:Trial and execution of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu

Removal of referenced information

Please do not remove properly referenced information from the article. Calling viewpoints of the BBC as "wildly biased" is ludicrous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Bias

[Note by Tgeorgescu below is in response to an editor claiming that

"18:22, 25 March 2013‎ 200.120.210.115 (talk)‎ . . (4,685 bytes) -4,272‎ . . (Undid revision 546942152 by Tgeorgescu (talk) the BBC is certainly capable of bias, and here it's certainly the case that the text as written is biased, regardless of the sources used.)]Malaiya (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no bias. This is apparent when you consider that the time the process took wasn't enough for one judge to read the whole file with the evidence required for this case (assuming that such file ever existed, since there are press reports that a file with evidence was compiled after the Ceausescus were executed in order to give the trial an appearance of legality, however, today such file has been lost). When the BBC says that it was a kangaroo court, it was a kangaroo court. Perhaps this seems biased to those who never heard the story before, but I assure you that this is common knowledge among Romanians, the press (of all stripes and colors) tells them every Christmas to be ashamed of how Ceausescus were killed. Because it was a shameful trial and a mockery of the rule of law. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A little exercise before accusing us of bias: cite a single reliable source which denies the above. One single source would suffice. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The facts may be largely agreed upon. It is still not neutrally written. It's clearly written by Ceausescu apologists and the tone is not acceptable. 200.120.210.115 (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Would it be possible to have a discussion of specifics here? How should it be rewritten, are there additional sources we can cite, what specifically needs to be addressed, etc., - the edit war is pointless and might lead to users being blocked and the article being protected. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

First, I am no Ceausescu apologist, pretending that I would be so is a personal attack. I recognize that Ceausescu was a bad dictator, but this does not mean that he wasn't judged by a kangaroo court. Perhaps if he had a fair trial, he could still be sentenced to the death penalty, I did not say that he did not deserve it, I said there was no rule of law in the trial. Even Ion Iliescu, who signed the decree for organizing the court does not pretend that it was a fair trial. He affirms instead that it was politically necessary in order to stop the terrorists, he does not claim that the process was a fair trial, because nobody is dumb enough to buy that. Besides, there was 1 (one) person sentenced for terrorism during December '89 events and this person claims that the man who he allegedly killed (he only had one victim, if any), was seen alive by multiple witnesses in asylum seeker camps from foreign countries after December '89. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a source about that one terrorist: [1]. And there was no corpse, the corpse being presumably incinerated (there is no hard evidence it happened). Anyway, I'm not taking sides about Mr. Veverca, all I'm saying the evidence against him was rather flimsy. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

"Summary trial"

How could it be a "summary trial"? I thought "summary" meant without a trial, so "summary trial" would be an oxymoron. Mrs. Olson from the Folgers commercials (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

"Exceptional Military Tribunal, .. created at the request of the Council of the National Salvation Front"

The formation of the National Salvation Front was only announced on 22 December 1989 by Ion Iliescu. It may have existd as a clandestine group in the past. At the time of the trial, there were apparently only a few individials who were responsible for organizing the trial, mainly Victor Stănculescu, the then defence minister and Ion Iliescu also a high ranking communist official. Thus it looks like a coup from within the ranks of the Communist party. Malaiya (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a surprise... Who else would have had the opportunity ? Autokefal Dialytiker (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

"Trial" section

This section uses the term "offense-name," which I have not been able to find through google. Is this a legal term - if so maybe it could be hyperlinked itself - or a typo?PurpleChez (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Genocide

306 people killed in a country of 22 million is not a genocide, i.e. it is not killing people based upon their ethnicity or religion. It may well have been unlawful repression of rioting, but it wasn't genocide. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

That was the official indictment, AFAIK never overturned.Anonimu (talk) 17:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Date of Burial

The date of burial stated in the article (Dec 25th, 1989) conflicts with the with the video recordings published immediately after the described incidents, which can be watched here. The Ceaușescus were buried on Dec 30th, 1989. —viciarg⁴¹⁴ 09:28, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Revert

About [2]: I'm not saying Iliescu should get condemned. All I'm saying is "these are the charges against him". I'm not taking sides. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)