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)

  Cinderella157, I wouldn't go around Aussie or Aborigines topics and rewite the infobox, because it's sensitive stuff and I'm not part of the discussion. Pls show the same type of restraint with a painful topic from the opposite side of the planet, still kept under wraps by the powers-that-be, disputed among historians, and definitely not yet dealt with by the country's justice system, which has postponed the trials for 35 years now. So please. There are MANY things that matter to those in the know, Wiki experience isn't enough to handle it all. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

  Arminden, an image is used to support text. It should be relevant to the text it supports. The caption establishes context between the image and the prose in the body of the article that the image supports. The caption should only be as long as necessary to fulfill this purpose. How is it that the tanks are facing the palace (which can't be seen) germane to what is said in the lead (where it is not mentioned) or that the photo was taken from a particular hotel, which doesn't appear to be mentioned in the article at all? How does the longer text significantly improve a readers understanding of events, which is the ultimate acid test. You wanted a shorter name for the Romanian Army in the infobox? Romanian National Army AFTER (right column)? What is mentioned in the right column is the Romanian Armed Forces - not the army. How is Romanian army worse than The Army? The commanders and leaders parameter in the infobox is for individuals. Stating that protesters had no key leaders is redundant. When I added Ion Iliescu, the edit summary stated: we could add a couple more if their inclusion is supported by the body of the article. Reinstating Members of the National Salvation Front Council is not an improvement to the infobox. The National Salvation Front Council is not mentioned in readable prose of the body of the article. A hat note listing the main article is not part of readable prose. Please see WP:OWN. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me try and add my 2 cents to this discussion. I will stay away from the whole RSR Army vs RO Army debate and only comment on the picture in the infobox, and its caption. First, I think the photograph is really gripping, and well captures the palpable tension of the moment; kudos to User:Neoclassicism Enthusiast for providing this photo. I also find the caption in the infobox (which, by the way, closely matches the Wiki Commons file description) quite germane, bringing more information than the visuals can, as in, what is the vantage point of the shot (those broken windows at the storied Athénée Palace), and where are the tank barrels pointing at (the Royal Palace, which is not in the frame). If one would have more space for details there (and clearly, that's not feasible in the infobox, but perhaps could be done in the body of the text), one could also note that the tanks fly the flag with the hole cut out in the middle (thus, they are RO Army tanks, not RSR Army tanks!), that the building in the middle (damaged by the fighting there) is that of the Central University Library, and finally, that the building all the way to the back and slightly to the left was the headquarters of the PCR, from where Ceaușescu gave his last speech a few days prior. Turgidson (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Turgidson. Cinderella157, that's exactly what I meant: I don't know what brought you here, but people who know about the revolution, of whom there would be many, react to lots of highly significant details you wouldn't even guess are there.

The picture is amazing. I hope I'm not waking up any sleeping dogs, but my guess is that it's been taken by a professional press photographer, not mentioned and not credited, and posted here by someone with good intentions, but who's not the copyright holder (he started posting long after, in 2019, and only correct, straightforward documentary architecture photos. I'd be excused to believe that he's not the author of the dynamic, well-composed 1989 image.)

Maybe worth a quick mention: I've worked for many years as a photographer and image agent, mainly for book publishers, often for international reference books, and half of the work is writing the captions, so I know a bit about that. It's not about me, it's about the issue at hand: if there's something of importance left out of the frame, either intentionally, due to technical limitations, or other constraints, the caption must mention it.

I agreed that the full name of the Army (with capital A, as it means the entire armed forces as an institution, not just the land forces) should be left there as an element of contrast: the ridiculously long Army of the Socialist Republic of Romania on the left, with the SRR flag, and the short Romanian Armed Forces, with the cut-out flag on the right. I'll even move the ASRR lower down in the column, closer to its post-22 Dec. self.

All the tanks are trading their guns in one direction: that of the palace. Those familiar with the topic would know, others need to know. That the lead doesn't touch on the fighting and destruction in that square and elsewhere is a shortcoming, which will be fixed in time, and not a restraining element for doing so. The Palace houses the National Art Museum and invaluable art was plundered there, shot at at close range, burnt with napalm and shelled from outside, as part of, or consequence of, a cynical diversion move.

The Central University Library was burnt down to mask the destruction of Securitate archives in the adjacent villa. The manuscript collection including MSS of Eminescu and Caragiale, some or all not photographed or properly documented as far as I know, are forever lost.

The entire article is a whitewash of what happened, with this photo maybe the only element reminding us and hinting at what is still being hidden from the public.

The fundamental, unmentioned fact is that there were two distinct events going on, a popular uprising, in part spontaneous (like the Tökes event), in part pushed and directed (tapes played over loudspeakers whipping up the spirits during Ceausescu's last public speach), and a messy palace coup led by Iliescu, who put up various smoke screens, first and foremost the "terrorists" as a justifying diversion. They all ended at once after the coup gov't had secured power and ordered a stand down. These were considered proven facts, documented by the more thorough journalists not too long after the events. 35 years of "transition" run by the coup forces and their direct descendants have led to - well, this enWiki article.

So Cinderella, please, stay out of this wasps' nest and can of worms. It's a not the French Revolution, it's still fresh and unresolved and this is reflected in every detail, with lots of booby-traps only those who've dealt with it would notice and try to avoid, while at least attempting to widen the discussion towards essential elements swept under the carpet by those interested in covering their tracks. Thanks, Arminden (talk) 10:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Arminden, it was taken by a professional photographer, Christoper Pillitz and the image is a crop from that available from getty images, which removes the watermark/credit. The dog did get kicked but it was by Turgidson in mentioning the file description. Sorry, but it is clearly a copy right violation - as you suspect. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oops, I did kick a sleeping dog, indeed (I was too taken by the photo to think clearly about who took it). In the original, one can see the Royal Palace (and the Telephones Palace all the way in the back) through the half-broken glass. This photo should have won a prize! Turgidson (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel. Your comments remain largely unaddressed 20 years on. No surprise, given who's been in power ever since. Arminden (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I forgot: "no centralised leadership" is quite essential. Poles had Solidarity, East Germans had Church-based groups; Romania had nothing. It's an essential element, requires explicit, central, highly-visible mention. The repercussions are felt until today. Arminden (talk) 10:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Since I was pinged: in the context, "army" is unambiguous, just like in the U.S. we would refer to "navy helicopters" vs. "army helicopters" without any need to say "U.S. Navy."

Other than that: I haven't had a chance to visit Romania in a decade (though I hope to be there later this year), I can't say I've kept up with the politics in sufficient detail to write well about it, but it is clear that (1) things have probably not gone the greatest direction and (2) things have certainly not gone the worst direction. Yes, we still should discuss the major controversies about what happened in December 1989 (and perhaps several months after), with clear citations as to who says what among the conflicting views.

FWIW, my own take as a foreigner: there was a simultaneous attempted revolution by broad sectors of society and attempted coup within the Communist elite. In the short run the latter largely succeeded and the former largely failed (pretty clear by the time of the Mineriad), but in the long run (anything longer than a year or two) it is very unclear, especially because each of these has fractured, and there has even been some crossing over. Also, that at the time no one knew on an hour-to-hour basis who was on what side, and counting Ceauşescu and his family, there were at least three sides, maybe more. - Jmabel | Talk 14:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Removed from lead until proven wrong

", also known as the Christmas Revolution (Romanian: Revoluția de Crăciun),..."

Maybe the BBC called it that at some point, but virtually nobody in Romania did, this retrotranslation to Romanian is pure fantasy. I've never heard it, and Google has 1 (one) hit for "Revoluția de Crăciun", a newspaper article. Typically, any conflict starts with many attempted names, but only one or two catch on. Arminden (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Non-POV, academic & encyclopedic sources

To fix the current desaster constituted by this enWiki "article": pls. check out the RS mentioned in this article. Just as a start. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 11:07, 29 April 2024 (UTC)