Talk:Romanian revolution

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)

Terrorists

The discussion at Talk:Romanian Revolution of 1989/Archive 1#Terrorists also raises some interesting matters we haven't fully explored in the article; someone may want to write a section on the controversy over who the "terrorists" were (or if there were none at all and it was just a matter of confusion). Again, because there are so many conflicting theories, citiation is important. -- Jmabel Oct 2004

"Terrorists" were mysterious snipers, at time claimed to be a Securitate die-hards and/or Ceausescu's Libyan mercenaries. "The loyalists are assisted by terrorists from the Palestine Liberation Organisation, Syria and Libya, who are in Romania to receive training." [1] --HanzoHattori 09:33, 2 June 2007 (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)

"paramilitary" or "paratroopers"?

A recent, extensive and mostly good anonymous edit made one factual change that I have no idea whether was correct (or even deliberate); Previously, the article asserted that at 9:00 p.m. on December 23, tanks and a few paratroopers arrived to protect the Palace of the Republic. "Paratroopers" became "paramilitary units", which is an entirely different thing. ("Paratroopers" use parachutes. "Paramilitary" are things like militarized police, semi-official forces, etc.) Does anyone know clearly which of the two were actually involved? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

It was actually paratroopers --should I make the change? Eugen Ivan 21:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 26 April 2006 (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)

The last gasp etc

I'm confused by this paragraph, in the section entitled "The last gasp etc":

At that time, fierce fights were underway at Bucharest Otopeni International Airport between troops sent one against another under claims that they were going to confront terrorists. According to a book by Ceauşescu's bodyguard, Securitate Lieutenant Colonel Dumitru Burlan, the generals who were part of the conspiracy led by general Victor Stănculescu were trying to create fictional terrorists scenarios in order to induce fear, and to push the army on the side of the plotters.

The impression I get is that two different groups of soldiers were sent to the airport by Stănculescu and his generals, and were told to fight each other. This does not seem utterly implausible, but it seems odd. Was it in fact actually a case Stănculescu sending his troops to the airport to fight pro-communist troops on the pretence of fighting communists? Or vice-versa? Answer in the article if possible.-Ashley Pomeroy 17:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

This is a matter of controversy, and is unlikely ever to be cleared up. There is no question that two military groups were fighting one another at the airport. There is no question that after the fact, both claimed to be on the side of the revolution. Beyond that, really all we have is different people's theories. This article probably gives more space (and perhaps more credence) to Burlan than I think is correct (I think he's rather self-aggrandizing, very oriented toward conspiracy-based explanations, and not entirely reliable even on events where he was present), but that's partly because no one has really done the legwork to cite what others have had to say about the matter. I would love to see someone do the work to integrate some others' interpretations into the article, equally well-cited as to who makes these claims. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:19, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

The otopeni incident resulted from confusion:

What happened there is: there was a lot of confusion. The troops ordered to guard the airport were told that terrrorists would try to attack the otopeni airport. So the military had 2 field machineguns posted near the airport, at the end of a narrow road. A truck filled with 30 soldiers was send from Bucharest to the airport to relieve the troops that had been guarding the airport for a while. The soldiers at the airport saw the truck approaching, and because of the confusion and because they were told or they believed that terrorist could be in that truck, opened fire with the two field machine guns, posted at the end of the road on which the truck was going. Because there of the sudden intense fire from two directions, all the soldiers in the truck were almost instanlty killed (or 28 dead, 2 badly wounded and dead afterwards). Blakut —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blakut (talk • contribs) 7 March 2006

Do you have a citation for this? In is a matter of controversy, another uncited version doesn't really add much to the picture. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

In “Misterele revolutiei romane-revenire dupa ani” by Aurel Perva and Carol Roman ISBN 975-97751-5-2, on page 130 there’s a summary of an article in the “Romania Libera” newspaper (no. 11/January 5, 1990) by Victor Dinu ,called “O tragica eroare” which apparently pastes together memories of the officers from the group that got shot at.

From what I understood it says that on December 23rd the commander of the Securitate troops located at the Baneasa barracks received a request from the military to take part with forces the size of a company in the defense of Otopeni airport, a mission that he entrusted to a company (commanded by lt. Vladimir Barbu) belonging to a military unit from Campina (UM 0865), which was at the time also stationed at the Baneasa barracks.

They left from Baneasa in three military trucks and headed on DN1 towards Otopeni. Along the way they were stopped at several road-blocks but were allowed to pass after being identified. As they got at the junction with the road that leads to the airport, they were met by an army officer, lt. Constantin Ionescu, who was supposed to guide them into the airport’s defensive structure and who boarded the first truck.

However, after only 300 meters down the road the trucks were fired upon, at first from the roof of the Civilian Aviation Department building parallel to the road and immediately after from the troops located in front of the airport - the trucks halted.

The firing stopped when the soldiers in the trucks started screaming, yelling and coming out with their hands up, but unfortunately at the same time a bus carrying airport employees showed up from behind the trucks and accelerated towards the airport. At this point the troops defending the airport opened fire again, both on the soldiers and on the speeding bus. The result was 37 military personnel and 4 civilians from the bus dead. -Axi 19:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a citable, if not a definitive, version. It might be a bit excessive in terms of detail for the article. Does someone want to take on working out what's worth adding? - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed revamp of the article

I would like to make a proposition to completely revamp the article. This means clearing the article of any controversial issues such as: Who was the leardership in the coup d'etat? and what the role of the securitate and army were. The article Romanian Revolution of 1989 should only encompass verifiable facts about the events on that date, as were seen by people on the streets and by the media.

The discussion about who the leadershp was in those days, what their plans were, why there was a bloody massacre throughout the country and who the current political figures are should be moved to a different article. I know this has been suggested but the suggestion was to move it to an article similar to 9/11 Conspiracy theories. This is innapropiate, as the controversial issues in this matter are more than just a simple conspiracy theory. They are the dilemas which face romanians each day, dilemas that still resound in daily political life. Many romanians have simply given up on trying to research the events in question. But I believe writing an article about theories that exist and circulate, presented in a neutral fashion, in the space of a wikipedia article can be very constructive, and I think we can quickly build an image of the theories presented since 1989 to date, even perhaps unearth some forgoten ones.

Presenting them in a neutral fashion as cited facts (statements, doctrine, ideas) could serve as a refference for many young romanians and foreigners who will want to research the truth behind the lies of the Romanian Revolution of 1989.

Also, an effort could be made, and I could pledge to this and hope that others do, to get the various civil groups such as the Timisoara revolutionary group and Liga Studentilor to contribute their own, published and publicly available version of events so as to construct a meaningfull documentation of the reports that are widely spread out in the media.

This article should be given the meanigfull name 21-22, cine-a tras in noi? (21-22, who shot at us? - the emblematic question that was posed after events unfolded, and has become a symbol of discontent a frustration) Warfare utf 05:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there is something to your suggestion, but I don't think we could do well to put only what is universally agreed into the main article. So much is disputed by participants, scholars, and the Romanian public, that it's hard to think what would be left. Certainly, this article should identify, broadly, where are the areas of significant controversy. Then another article (or articles) could deal with the various controversies, each in as broad and balanced a way as possible. And, everywhere, we should cite like mad, because this is a controversial matter.

I'm not sure 21-22, cine-a tras in noi? is a very useful title for an English-language encyclopedia. It won't be understood by even 1% of native English-speakers. And who fired on the crowds is by no means the only controversy. Other controversies range from the extent to which the bulk of the crowds in Timişoara were even aware of the László Tőkés incident that had ignited the initial protest to whether to give any credence to Dumitru Burlan's statements about lengthy conspiracies before the fact. I'd more see an article called Controversies about the Romanian Revolution of 1989, which could take these up one by one, in each case attempting a survey of scholarly and popular opinion, as well as claims by prominent participants. If any gets large enough to clearly merit an article of its own, we could refactor that out. - Jmabel | Talk 20:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Seemingly arbitrary edit

[2]: changes made. No citations provided. One citation removed. And no edit summaries.

I'm sick of the skirmishing over this, but was this edit a move forward? Probably, in some respects, but almost certainly not in others. I'll keep to the talk page, at least for now.

Removed:

The rioters forced open the doors of the Central Committee building in an attempt to get Ceauşescu in their grip, but the dictator managed to reach the helicopter waiting for him on the roof of the building; why he chose to flee by helicopter, instead of using the intricate tunnel system beneath the Central Committee building, also remains a mystery.

The latter part ("why he chose…") was conjecture, perfectly good to lose it.

Modified:

The most widespread opinion is that Milea was assassinated in response to his refusal to follow Ceauşescu's orders. Alternative theories, however, include the possibility that Ceauşescu's communique announcing Milea's death was a forgery, and that conspiring generals might have killed Milea either in retaliation for his remaining loyal to Ceauşescu or simply in order to get rid of a potential rival. As of 2004, no assassin had been identified. [3]

…became…

The most widespread opinion at the time was that Milea was assassinated in response to his refusal to follow Ceauşescu's orders. In 2005 an investigation confirmed that the minister killed himself. It seems though that his intention was only to get incapacitated in order to be relieved from office but the bullet hit an artery and he died soon afterwards.

No citation. What investigation? And how much consensus was ther on believing it? "It seems" to whom?

Modified:

With Ceauşescu out of town and Milea dead, Victor Stănculescu emerged as the head of the army. After 11 a.m., Stănculescu ordered the troops to withdraw, and then reported that the crowd had invaded the Palace Square. Troops fraternized with the demonstrators with the consent of and support from their commanding officers; again, it remains a matter of controversy whether this gesture was sincere, or rather an opportunistic move on the part of the officers.

…became…

Learning that Milea killed himself, Ceauşescu appointed Victor Stănculescu as Minister of Defense, who accepted after a brief hesitation. But Stănculescu ordered the troops back to their quarters without Ceauşescu's knowledge and moreover persuaded Ceauşescu to leave by helicopter and so to become a fugitive. By refusing to carry out Ceauşescu's repressive orders, Ceauşescu still being the commander-in-chief of the army, Stănculescu played a central role in the overthrow of the tyrant. "I had the prospect of two execution squads: Ceauşescu's and the revolutionary one!" confessed Stănculescu later. In the afternoon Stănculescu "chose" Iliescu's among other political groups which were striving for power in the aftermath.

Again, no citation. What is the sequence here? Is it uncontroversial that Ceauşescu appointed Stănculescu? (I have no idea, and there is no citation.) "Stănculescu played a central role in the overthrow of the tyrant": whose opinion is this, unattributed (not that I disagree, but Wikipedia itself isn't supposed to have opinions). "…confessed Stănculescu later", no citation. And why "confessed"? And why "chose" in (what I presume are) scare quotes? And why did we lose the part about "Troops fraternized with the demonstrators with the consent of and support from their commanding officers"? And I bet there are more questions that could reasonably be asked. - Jmabel | Talk 05:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

restore

I propose to restore the article until someone can sustain modifications with arguments and quotations. {{subst:Warfare utf|19 August 2006}}

As I made clear above, I would welcome the reversion, but I'm not going to be the one to do it this time. - Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

60,000 dead???

When I just looked at this article, the lead paragraph claimed that "It is speculated that at least 60,000 people were killed during the riots, although the exact number of casualties remains unknown." Speculated by whom? This is 20 times higher than the highest estimate I've ever heard. Removing for lack of credibility and lack of citation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Same IP address, as one of its few other edits reduced German casualties in the Battle of Romania by a factor of 10, also without citation. - Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've put the official number of deaths and wounded, as the data of Military prosecution. In the article the link I added is written [1], while at the "Refference" section the same link is featured [6]. I don't know how to correct this.--MariusM 11:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

cite.php is having problems. Not your fault. There is a workaround involving "action=cache". If that doesn't mean anything to you, let me know and I'll try to give you a specific example of how to apply it. - Jmabel | Talk 01:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

3,000 was your highest? [4] says 5,000. --HanzoHattori 09:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But WHO KNOWS? By some reports 40% of the Bucharest population were KILLED! But now, let's just calm down and confirm: It was just horrible, because a lot of people were killed. Even if one person is killed - it is a very horrible thing. Every time you think of the events of 1989, you put a brick to the mental clinic, that you are building for yourself(((((((((((((((((((((((((

Citations really needed

I think that at this point the article is decent, could be better; while further expansion might be good, one of the biggest issues is that it really needs more citation. - Jmabel | Talk 19:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989

I created this new article. Those who know books about this subject which are not in the list, please add them.--MariusM 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Other

The intro says that while Romanians were dieing to defeat communism, other countiries were "peacefully" becoming non-communist which simply IS NOT true.. the reason why all those countries became non-communist was the fact that communism FELL, otherwise they wouldn't have had a chance... and communism fell in 1991, thats when all those other countries became non-communist, while Romania had the guts to overthrow the communists in 1989.. I find that offensive, annoying, and incorrect, probably written by some communist or something.. i'm deleting it, if someone wants it on there and can prove me wrong, we need to word it differently because it sounds like crap now. and it sounds unfair, as if the revolution and all those people who died in it were fools.. agree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.154.34.19 (talk • contribs) 23 November 2006.

What the heck? Communism in (for example) Poland didn't just "fall" like a man off a ladder. In contrast to Romania, the Polish Communists weren't ultimately willing to attempt to hold onto power by massive force. (If they had tried, the results would certainly have been far bloodier than in Romania.) Faced with the evident will of the populace, they stepped aside. This is exactly what Ceauşescu did not do. - Jmabel | Talk 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures from Revolution?

Can we have more pictures? For example can anyone find a free image from 22 December with the people on streets (1 million? anyway more than 500,000)? Or picture from 21 December with fighting with the army and police? -- AdrianTM 03:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

This is not how one writes "encyclopedia"

Although the army failed to establish order, it succeeded in turning Timişoara into a living hell: gunfire, casualties, fights and burning cars, Transport Auto Blindat (TAB) armored personnel carriers, tanks and stores. After 8:00 p.m., from Piaţa Libertăţii (Liberty Square) to the Opera there was wild shooting, including the area of Decebal bridge, Calea Lipovei (Lipovei Avenue) and Calea Girocului (Girocului Avenue). Tanks, trucks and TABs blocked the accesses into the city while helicopters hovered overhead. After midnight the protests calmed down. Ion Coman, Ilie Matei and Ştefan Guşă inspected the city, in which some areas looked like the aftermath of a war: destruction, ash and blood.

etc. --HanzoHattori 09:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the problem? Not dull enough for you? - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Anybody with half a brain would notice that the wording in this article is completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Pristino (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral wording

This requires a NPOV template. Calling someone "tyrant" must be saved for newspaper, not encyclopedia articles.

Also, there is not a single word about the "ad hoc tribunal"'s legitimacy. Which in fact didn't exist at all. 213.91.164.103 17:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed wording from "tyrant" to "dictator". Ceauşescu being a dictator is not contested by any reliable source as far as I know. There's no reason to use NPOV tag because there's no more info about the process, feel free to add reference material about the legitimacy or lack of it -- to me "ad hoc military court" is pretty descriptive, but again there's not a fault of the entire article even if there is a need for more info in that section. -- AdrianTM 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally...the closing sentence of the "Ceauşescu falls" section is totally inappropriate, as it suggests that the POV of Ceauşescu sympathizers is unquestionably the correct one. PurpleChez (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article is an anti-communist pamphlet. Very far from NPOV. Dpotop (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Reality has an anti-communist bias. Sorry. -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:NPOV. Alslo, there is a difference in style between a non-partisan historical presentation and a satire (the last promotes a moral value, which is not the business of WP). Dpotop (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. The article is ridiculously biased. Many of the statements in this article are written with a decidedly anti-communist style and sources are cited only rarely. Whatever peoples' opinions about previous communist regimes, wikipedia is simply not the place for propaganda and bias.

Half of it is written like a story intended to invoke sympathy and inspire the reader. Needs a rewrite for NPOV. 92.8.246.121 (talk) 22:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(Warning: controversy). IMO: this article is mostly biased towards "modern communists" (e.g: Iliescu). Qoou.Anonimu (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Rubbish

The Background section includes such loaded language such as:

By 1989, Ceauşescu was showing signs of a complete denial of reality... All the people really got was a lifetime of propaganda....

This kind of gibberish is not acceptable in a popular encyclopedia or civilized discourse anywhere. It's precisely this kind of filth that serves to undermine Wikipedia's credibility.

--RZimmerwald (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Factual Inaccuracies

There is the overstatement: "Romania had never undergone even limited de-Stalinization."

But scholars have taken a more nuanced approach. The Library of Congress study on Romania points out:

Gheorghiu-Dej made Pauker, Luca, and Georgescu scapegoats for the Romanian communists' past excesses and claimed that the Romanian party had purged its Stalinist elements even before Stalin had died.

RZimmerwald (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section

...too large compared to the rest of the article.--Mazarin07 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This article has really deteriorated

This article has really deteriorated. Lots of purple prose, such as "December 1989 was the last act of an end that started in 1987". Lots of unsourced and vaguely sourced material, such as a passage beginning "Emil Hurezeanu tells…"

I'm going to try a little cleanup, but much more is needed here than I can quickly do. This article deserves a major pass by someone who really knows the topic. - Jmabel | Talk 04:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Not quite as bad as I thought: the problems are/were mainly in the "Background" section, although in general a lot of the article could use more explicit citations. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

  ----------------------------------------- 
    I understand  your  concerns ....,  unfortunately  your  little  pink  cleanup  is  not  so  welcome  . I  know  the  topic  and  I  will  use   more  explicit citations
   the  source : history1989 .eu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asimo1989 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC) 

Gorbachov

I read somewhere that I cannot find (International Herald Tribune) that one of the reasons the Romanian Revolution was so bloody, in comparison with the rest of the Bloc, was that Romania had no Soviet troops and hence the repression could go on without fear of Gorbachov.

If you could identify who sponsors this opinion, it would merit be mentioned. --Error (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)