Talk:Romanian revolution

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Latjenni. Peer reviewers: Latjenni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Old talk is archived:

• Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989/Archive 1
• Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989/Archive 2 contains all of the talk related to a now-resolved dispute.

big merge

Full discussion was archived; part of my summary after merge still seems relevant, so it's here with some updates interspersed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

1. There should probably be a lot more discussion — with citations — of different views of what may have been going on among the leadership of the old regime, who defected when, etc.
   • There is some of this now, but as of this writing the citations are a mess: it's very unclear who claims what. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)
2. With reference to the seizure of the national TV station by the insurgents, there should probably be some discussion of what was broadcast; I've seen the footage, it's pretty amazing, but I can't recount in any detail television footage I saw exactly once, several years ago, in a language that at the time I was only about two months into learning.
3. There should probably be a mention of monuments to the revolution: the cemetery at Eroii Revoluţiei and the memorial at Piaţa Universitaţii among others in Bucharest; the monument in the Piaţa Mare in Sibiu (and I would presume there must be a more important monument in Timişoara).
4. Also, we should really mention the extent of damage to the library, art museum, etc. in the center of Bucharest, and probably a bit about what it's taken to repair these and other damaged buildings.

Jmabel 18:18, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Dispute, now resolved

Virtually all discussion on this page Nov 22, 2004 through Feb 2, 2005 was a (successful) effort to resolve a dispute. That is now archived at Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989/Archive 2.

So why is the "Disputed" tag still on the article?

Flag of Communist Romania

Here it is version of the Communist Romania flag Image:Steagul Republicii Socialiste Romania.png

Should it be included in the article? I know somebody asked about it some time ago. Bogdan | Talk 15:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not particularly. The issue was to have a photo (unencumbered by copyright) of one of the flags with the Communist coat of arms ripped out. We currently link to one as an external link, but everything I've found has rights issues. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:07, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)

Revolution?

Ask historians and poltical scientists and they will tell you there was no revolution, but a coup d'etat combined with a popular revolt. (anon 23 July 2005)

• I think out article is reasonably clear that the combination was exactly that, but that the end result amounted to a revolution. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:28, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it was a revolution, certainly not a coup. A coup is when a tyrant takes power, not when he loses it. - Zorobabele

Article neutrality

This article has no sense of neutrality. It is very clearly written in favor of the revolutionists. Does anybody else notice this? I don't want to make changes yet since i don't know if i'm alone on this one but i seriously suggest that an article revamp should be considered.

It's not a matter of neutrality, but of truth. Ceausescu was a murderous dictator and had to be overthrown, that's all. - Zorobabele

Umm...Should we address this?

It's particularly interesting because it's a Securitate Colonel saying it, but I figured I should ask first before unilaterally making such a major change. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What I believe is the truth.

I personally believe this was not a revolution at all, It was a coup d'etat organized mainly by the Soviets and the Americans ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.120.182.91 (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It was a revolution, against one of the worst dictators in history.--Vernel222 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

More like "The Romanian Coup of 1989"

Communist descendants still are in control of the Romanian government. A lot of information is censored, that's why you probably won't learn anything from this. 2001:569:5685:F00:596C:BC4A:6689:8DCB (talk) 03:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

What you say is utterly false, Rumania is undoubtedly a democracy now.--Vernel222 (talk) 22:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Bulk reverts are always wrong. This one also reintroduced factual mistakes.

Cinderella157, hi.

You seem like an experienced editor, what happened here? Bulk revert?

And the motivation, aka edit summary: it was fine as it was, go to talk-page? A. No, that's not a must (be "bold", remember?), and B. It's in part factually wrong, just click on the wikilinks and convince yourself! I mean the name of the army: the Romanian People's Army had been history for 33 years by then! And NOBODY outside the official propaganda system ever called it by that ridiculously long name, Army of the Socialist Republic of Romania: it was simply "the army", or "the Romanian army" for EVERYONE.

I can see why one can disagree about the degree of political autonomy from the Soviets the country had reached. So revert that. But again: bulk revert, really? Wrong in every possible way.

I'm not sure we've met before around here, so I don't know about your topics of interest. I have experienced that regime for a long, long time and it will never leave my mind, even if I try. I can claim some familiarity with it.

Have a nice day. Arminden (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

• Arminden, if you are familiar with WP:BOLD, you should also be familiar with WP:BRD. While you have initiated the discussion here per BRD, that does not mean it is OK to reinstate the material per WP:ONUS. The army, could refer to one of many armies around the world. Where prose establishes context, it may then be appropriate to refer to the Army of the Socialist Republic of Romania as the army. However, the prose must first establish the context by an unambiguous reference to Army of the Socialist Republic of Romania. An infobox does not do this. We should use the appropriate name in full in the infobox. Having taken a closer look at things, this is Army of the Socialist Republic of Romania and not Army of the Romanian People's Republic, for that particular time. Furthermore, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we would not capitalise "the Army". Referring to "army tanks" is a redundant description and a somewhat juvenile phrasing. Regarding removing your second edit, it was unintended. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  Hi ​. I know a retreat when I see one, so I won't start refuting your reply point by point :) Just that much: there was no other army in Romania in 89, but the Securitate troops also had armoured vehicles; as I said, I know the subject, so "juvenile" it's not, but you wanted to take a swipe at me and you did. Good for you. Of course, you're a native-speaker and I'm not, so I'm sure to miss a nuance here or there. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  It was not a swipe at you but an accurate perception of the construction "Army tanks", in that the construction is commonly observed in juveniles. Consequently, it is not seen to be encyclopedic style. Whether or not the Securitate had tanks is immaterial to how this is perceived. Similarly, listing "the army" is not encyclopedic and context is not establish. Just because you know doesn't mean that everybody else does. "Romanian army" might be an alternative. You have not established a consensus for your edits. You apparently don't know a retreat when you see it. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

  There was a clear point there in the infobox in listing the army under its new post-Dec. 22 name (right vs left column), and I still don't think the full official pre-Dec. 22 name is required in the left column, but whatever, I'll make it visible.

  As to the tanks, I'll try to rephrase there in the text; again, Securitate or MoI troops were perceived as the enemy, had armour, and there was fire directed from one side against the other, so juvenile or not, mentioning the army (capitalised to point out it's precisely about the institution, not just the generic, common noun?) is required. I hate bureaucracy and over-the-top formalism & conventions, but here they might be a good thing, as one single cap can avoid a consequential misunderstanding.

  It's not about substance, as in iterpretation of historical facts, nobody in the know had any complaints yet, so no discussion is required. I'm very grateful for your native-speaker input, of course, but I'll try to prioritise correct info over style if no good compromise is available. I hope you'll agree. Arminden (talk) 15:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)