Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:30, 21 December 2006

i'm sorry Jmabel if I'm not discussing with you first before making edits, but the articles on key moments of Romania's are formulated in a pro-hungarian POV.

the Fall of Ceausescu is not the result of a Hungarian priest Protest, but a result of the events in Bucharest.

the protest of hungarian catholic priest Laszlo Tokes didn't spread across the country, but the gathered population in the manifestation from 22 december, swept Ceausescu from power after his deplorable speech, like when he promised another 4 bucks to a worker's salary.

Iliescu didn't "took over as president in 22 December" this is nonsens. only in 1990 was he elected as president. in 22 december Ceausescu wasn't even dead.

I'll wait for your reply or others reply before editing back the 22 december paragraph. -- criztu

On Ilisecu declaring himself acting president I'm not sure. The information has sat unchallenged for a very long time, so its removal without comment seemed inappropriate. He certainly took over effective leadership on that date. Could you (or someone) try to sort out exactly in what was the theory of succession, in what capacity he took over de facto rule prior to elections?

the information sat unchallenged because there weren't too much contributors -- criztu

As far as the demonstrations spreading: by December 22, there had been a week-long a state of anarchy in Timişoara. I have reliably heard that the situation was similar in Sibiu, and have been told that it was in Cluj, and Lugoj as well. Every commentator I've ever read, and every Romanian with whom I've ever discussed this (certainly dozens, probably hundreds) has seen the events in Bucharest as a continuation of this sequence of events. If you don't think this is what happened, I am confident in saying that you are in a very small minority. If you can find a reputable source that holds your view, it would probably be worth mentioning in Romanian Revolution of 1989, but certainly does not merit removing the prevailing view from this article. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:37, Oct 25, 2004 (UTC)

the chronology of the events in december 1989 are as follow:

• 16-20 december the protests in Timisoara
• until 21 december there were no protests outside Timisoara.
• in the evening of 20 december Ceausescu held a televised speach to the nation about the events in Timisoara
• on 21 december the meeting summoned by Ceausescu in Bucuresti breaks into riot. Ceausescu hides inside CC building. TV transmision breaks off. all across the country groups of protesters gather on the streets.
• in the morning of 22 december is announced on TV the "suicide" of army general Vasile Milea. the protesters in Bucuresti "assault" the CC building. Ceausescu flees by helicopter.

online reference - http://www.ceausescu.org/ceausescu_texts/revolution/ http://www.primariatm.ro/timisoara/index.php?veziCat=91 (Timisoara city hall site) http://www.evenimentul.ro/local/article/67400,12,baseArticle.html (journal) http://www.jurnalul.ro (journal) http://www.pntcd.ro/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=3496&Itemid=59 (party) http://www.infotim.ro/memorial89/articole/articole/art001.01.htm (Ceausescu's speech on 12-20-1989)

please share your sources that attest the spread of protest from Timisoara prior to Ceausescu's TV speech on 12-20-1989 and Bucuresti meeting 12-21-1989

you should acknowledge the supressed Workers Strike in Brasov 1987 -- criztu

• I "should acknowledge...?" Have I ever commented either way on the matter? I know little about it.

I appologise, I meant "you should find out now if you didn't know until now that there was a"(supressed workers strike in '87), I am romanian, I see "acknowledge" implies "don't deny it, admit it" ... sorry, my fault. I just intended to inform you, not to fight you. -- criztu

• I've been trying to contact various people who are much more expert than I on the events of December 1989. Give them a few days to chime in. Many of them have worked on this and related articles in the past, but they obviously haven't got as much time as I have this week, so they haven't gotten in here immediately. I'm sitting in Seattle right now, which doesn't exactly give me access to a Romanian library. If no one jumps in within a week or so, I'll try to do some library research here, but to be honest I have no idea what resources the Seattle Public Library has on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:58, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

If you know romanian you can read it in those links I shared you, I'll give you exact path to the info -- criztu

From what I know, there weren't any demonstrations outside Timisoara before 21 december. We heard some rumors and we listen to radio "Europa Libera" (Free Europe). At the time, I heard that initially Ceausescu intended to crush the revolt in Timisoara by useing workers from other towns armed with clubs, but they renounce to the idea because the workers gathered weren't in a "fight mood" :) MihaiC 08:32, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

2 things: (1) Criztu, I read Romanian pretty well, not like a native but well enough. Don't hesitate to put your links here for me (and for others). In fact, if they are your source material, they should be cited in the article. (2) Mihai: Do you then concur with Criztu that all mention of "Timişoara against the forced relocation of a Hungarian minister" should be dropped from the article? I've literally never before heard someone propose a narrative of the events that does not start with Timişoara. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:42, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

allow me, the paragraph as I edit it sounded as follows: 1989 represented the Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe. In December 22nd, Ceauşescu fled before an angry crowd his own apparatus gathered in Bucharest -following the Timisoara unrest- as an evocation of the 1968 manifestation of support for his stand against soviet invasion of Prague. -- criztu

so Timisoara is mentioned as the initiating moment. -- criztu

you can see i wasn't questioning that, I reformulated the protest against forced relocation of a hungarian catholic priest grew into a country wide uprising sweeping Ceausescu from power - romanians are 1.orthodox, 2.romanians. Ceausescu's TV speech on 12-20-1989 was the "drop filling the glass" ... romanians just wouldn't sweep their rulers from power for the sake of a catholic hungarian priest. this is the issue here. i provided full path to the info , see above -- criztu

I'm surprised that the several Romanian contributors who've mainly been involved in this over the last year have not weighed in. I've even pinged two of them, and they haven't said anything one way or the other on this discussion yet, although one of them has indicated that he eventually will at least look through how these articles have been changed.

In any event, for the record, here's my version of the sentence that seems to be most in contention:

A mid-December protest in Timişoara against the forced relocation of a Hungarian minister grew into a country-wide protest against the Ceauşescu regime, sweeping the dictator from power.

criztu, with no one else weighing I'm not going to insist on my version over yours; feel free to change this accordingly, and I will not immediately revert like I did before. However, I hope you will accept it if several other knowledgable people weigh in on my side of this -- a more direct continuity from the spirit of what was happening in Timişoara to what ultimately happened in Bucharest -- and the sentence is changed back. I agree, by the way, that even by day two in Timişoara the protests were not particularly about László Tőkés (and I gather that it didn't take long until ethnic Romanians were joining the Magyars in the streets of Timişoara), but I think that there was continuity of an ever-expanding sense of grievance and of agenda: that the governments harsh repression, starting with that original incident in Timişoara, and the people's resistance, also starting with Timişoara, led more or less directly to a revolutionary situation. And, obviously, all of this played out against what was happening throughout Central and Eastern Europe. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:45, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think what exactly hapened at Timisoara can be detailed in Timisoara Wiki page. The key moment for the fall of Ceausescu in 1989 seems to have been either his TV speech on december 20, or his panic during Bucharest meeting in december 21, when he begun promising the addition of couple of bucks to a worker's salary. 10% of the country live in Bucharest -- criztu

Confusion in recent edits

"Technical University of Bucharest": would that be the Politehnica, or something else? Red link.

"In April 1990 a sit-in demonstration against the FSN began in the University Square, Bucharest, which rapidly grew to a continuing mass demonstration, contesting the results of the recently held parliamentary elections from May 1990…" How can an April 1990 sit-in be in protest of the results of the May 1990 election? Wasn't the demonstration against allowing ex-Communists as candidates? This was the Golaniad, right? I had added it in chronological order as I was editing, and then ran into this. Could someone who knows the history in more detail please sort this out? The chronology from April-September 1990 is simply a mess. Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Joining EU

isnt Romania scheduled to join the EU on 1 January 2006 instead of 2007?

BS Guus 19:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Iliescu's call to the miners to come to Bucharest

Why is that marked as "Citation needed"? There are recordings of Iliescu calling them to "defend democracy" and "Romania", or some such. I've removed that. 01:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sources: http://www.onlinenews.ro/detaliere.php?id=257175, http://www.editie.ro/mod.php?mod=stiri&idstire=27710, http://web.archive.org/web/20040309221137/http://www.gardianul.ro/print.php?a=reportaj2004012901.xml, http://ro.wikipedia.org/1990 ( :-) ), http://www.edrc.ro/docs/docs/cartea-alba05.pdf, http://www.edrc.ro/docs/docs/ruleta.pdf (Google says there is some stuff, but I can't search in that. Silly DRM, I guess.), http://www.ziua.ro/prt.php?id=184871&data=2005-09-17&ziua=87a88c6955e5b8f2f093d438a8a267fe

And I think that's enough. gcbirzan 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

nici una nu e o dovada directa... doar supozitii... plus ca raportul comisiei tismaneanu e parfum pe langa pdf'urile de la edrcAnonimu 16:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop pushing your POV. Provide citations claiming Iliescu didn't say that, I provided citations to my POV. If anything, say that "there are a number of sources that cite Iliescu as calling the miners". But, as it is, I don't see _any_ reason to give citations, as there are quite a few sources independently claiming that. gcbirzan 17:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

if he really called the don't you think there would be proofs... where are your recordings? Sorry, but what some people think... wikipedia should stick to the facts.. this article is not about what people think of the events, but about what happened and what is verifiable.. provide citations for something that didn't happened? ok, now i'll go to basescu article, write he's a fag, and then i'll ask for sources claiming he isn't Anonimu 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Christ... Are you blind, like all the Russians? Really, I provided sources. One of those newspapers (Ziua) has (had) a rather large markershare (Can't check now, on GPRS.). A recording isn't the only 'reliable' source? Citations, provided. I will now go and add a NPOV view of that, with all citations. Also, please try to restrain your homophobic tendencies. Please be aware that reverting that will definitely make you break the three reverts rule. Also, you are gravely mistaken. Misplaced Pages shouldn't 'stick to the facts', read the NPOV policy again. gcbirzan 22:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)