Talk:Romanian revolution/Archive 1

message: There's a duplicate to this article with other contents at Romanian riots. Bogdan | Talk 17:37, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

message: OK, since I started this chaos I should clear it up by giving explanations and answers...
big merge
First of all, I had to translate the entire text from Romanian, and there it said "securişti în civil", and I naively translated it as "civil securists". Literally it would mean "securists from civilian ranks" or something like that... it probably means civilians recruted to the Securitate voluntarely...
The coat of arms is very disputed anyway. Our communist flag featured sheaves of wheat, a mountain landscape or so and a red star. That was the coat of arms I was reffering to. During the Revolution, because of this red star, the flag was desacrated: the entire coat of arms was forcedly cut off or ripped off, giving the famous December flag, with a large hole in the middle of the yellow stripe.
Yes, there were protests and riots in Cluj, Lugoj and Sibiu, I have pictures of them. 
"After 11 A.M., Victor Stănculescu, now head of the army... orders them to withdraw, and then reports that the crowd has invaded the Palace Square". "Palace Square" is a naive translation of the Romanian "Piaţa Palatului" which literally means, Palace Square.
"Drumul Taberei" literally means, "The road of the camp" in English.
I don't know how to translate "TAB", but my family describes it as a sort of tank that has wheels instead of tracks, and that's the reason I've said it was "a tank with wheels".
I don't know how to define "copyright" or anything related, so that's why I caused all this chaos on Wikipedia. I should have said, 'Contents inspired/borrowed from the book...'
I hope my explanations are enough.
I sincerely apologize for causing (although not deliberately) this entire chaos.
And my name is Cristi Ştefănescu, I live in Bucharest and I am a 13-year old student.
Again, I apologize.
UPDATE: I made a mistake in the article: "The jeers and whistles... after a rocket explodes". It's not a rocket. I just forgot how the Romanian word "petardă" is translated to English, but I think it's "firework"
:Thanks. A few comments (and questions), the less important ones first
* Yes, I understood the literal (and irrelevant) meaning of Drumul Taberei (though, unsruprisingly, I would have assumed it to be the name of a road, but not of a neighborhood). My question was whether the post office there might be (unbeknownst to me) Bucharest's main post office.
* Bogdan correctly understood "civil securists", I edited accordingly.
* "Palace Square" is a naive translation of the Romanian "Piaţa Palatului" Aha! I was uncertain if it might be the name of somewhere in Centrul Civic by the Casa Populorului...
* I worked out "TAB" correctly: "armored personnel carrier".
* Protests and riots in Cluj, Lugoj and Sibiu: the most important thing would be the dates. I'm pretty certain there were protests in Sibiu before there were in Bucharest; maybe in these other cities, too. We should mention that.
* Copyright: this is the biggie. Cristi and I have exchanged a couple of emails, but the best thing would probably be for someone there in Bucharest — any volunteers? — to sit down with him (and ideally with the book in question), give him a good explanation of copyright, and work out whether what he did is fair use or not, and then sort this out accordingly.
:BTW, Cristi, given your age, I'm really impressed, both with the general coherence of your writing and with the fact that you can do this in a language that is not native to you. At the same age, I'd have had a hard enough time buying groceries in any language other than my own. -- Jmabel 19:50, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I think that a better translation of "securişti în civil" would be "securists in plain cloths" or "securists in civil cloths". Something like the detectivs from the US police force.MihaiC 09:12, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanations 

message: Recently added: "The whole sympathy Romania gained from the outside world with the Revolution was lost during the days of 13-15 June 1990" I do not know what this means. I assume that "The whole sympathy..." means "All of the sympathy..."? It doesn't say why. Is this when the miners routed the student protestors in Bucharest? Even so, I think this (1) overstates the case: surely Romania did not lose all sympathy and (2) is rather POV. A statement like this requires quotation and citation, not statement in the narrative voice of the article. -- Jmabel|Talk 08:05, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
1. I don't know what POV means;
2. The international opinion was outraged at what happened those days
3. Yes, those were the days of the mineriad... Watch the Mineriad article for more.
(unsigned, but it's User:Revolutionary)
"POV" means "point of view". Wikipedia articles are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. Yes, I agree that international opinion was outraged. The wording is still an overstatement, and it's also exactly the kind of thing where, in order to keep the narrative voice of the article to a neutral point of view one wants to quote some specific outside source to this effect, rather than just assert it.
Again, I renew my call: is there someone in Bucharest who can be a bit of a mentor? We have an obviously extremely capable young person here, but his contributions will be a lot more valuable with a little guidance in aspects of scholarly work that it would simply not be reasonable to expect even a very bright 13-year-old to fully grasp on his own without guidance. I was a plenty sharp 13-year-old myself once, and I know I would have needed some mentoring on this kind of thing. -- Jmabel|Talk 21:11, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
Well, I could try.If he wants, he can contact me at mihai8400@yahoo.com MihaiC 11:10, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  "sympathy" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "paramilitary" or "paratroopers"? 

message: I propose to restore the article until someone can sustain modifications with arguments and quotations. 
: 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)
thread_title:  restore 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations really needed 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Books about the Romanian Revolution of 1989 ]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  Other 

message: 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)
thread_title: Pictures from Revolution?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  60,000 dead??? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unsourced Rubbish  

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Non-neutral wording

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gorbachev 

message: 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)
replies: text: What's the problem? Not dull enough for you? - Jmabel | Talk 04:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This is not how one writes "encyclopedia" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This article has really deteriorated 

message: Is this really the name of the operation (with the American English "Trucks" in the name)? If not, the name should be given in the original Romanian, with the translation given parenthetically. - Jmabel | Talk 04:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably, the text refers to the Braşov Tractor Plant, which was for decades the place where Romanian tractors were manufactured. - Biruitorul Talk 02:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that the same as Roman (vehicle manufacturer) / Steagul Roşu? Because I've now found and linked Braşov Rebellion, which gives that as the location. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "Trucks Braşov" would seem to be Roman/Steagul Roşu. (Întreprinderea de Autocamioane Braşov = Braşov Truck Company.) So never mind what I said about the tractor plant; it looks like Braşov made both trucks and tractors, but it was the truck factory that was involved in 1987. (To be precise, the protest started at the truck factory and was joined by the tractor plant.) - Biruitorul Talk 14:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Trucks Braşov" 

message: I removed these unsourced paragraphs as they're not really the mainstream view.
:December 1989 was the last act of a sequence of events that started with the anti-Ceauşist riot in Braşov on 15 November 1987. The revolt started at the enterprise of the truck manufacturer Steagul Roşu, where a strike began in the night of 14 November, on the night-shift, and continued the next morning with a march downtown. Romanians had heard about this event through Radio Free Europe. Emil Hurezeanu recounts: "I remember that Neculai Constantin Munteanu, the moderator of the show, started the broadcast: 'Braşov! So Braşov! Now it started!' This was the tone of the whole broadcast. We had interviews, information, interpretations of some political interpretations, older press articles announcing open street protests against Ceauşescu."
:The reprisals against strikers were rapid. The workers were arrested and imprisoned and their families terrorized, but this act  on the part of the workers of Braşov set the stage for future mass revolts. In this sense, from Radio Free Europe, Emil Hurezeanu says: "... All these have been turned into an offensive. The reaction of the regime was expected... Very soon it was seen that the regime wants to hide it, to cancel it, practically not to respond to claims, not to take measures, to change anything, not to turn this protest into a public debate or even inside the party, in the Political Executive Committee. And then, the recipe of street confrontations with the regime became the only...possible [response]. It became the leitmotif of all the media analysis. [...] It was the beginning of an action against the system that comprises more items. It was a labor protest in a citadel of Ceauşescu, it was an antidictatorial message, it was a clear political context: the pressures of Moscow, Ceauşescu's refusal to accept the demands of Gorbachev, the breaking with the West, who changed the views towards the regime – all these have made us to believe that the beginning of the end was coming”.
bogdan (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Braşov rebellion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Factual Inaccuracies  

message: I propose deleting this article and starting afresh. This is ridiculous. Read the section under Ceausescu's speech.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting this article 

message: The last paragraph of the "Background" section reads rather like an opinion piece; except for repeatedly pointing to one and the same speculative piece in "Freakonomics", no references are provided to back up the main claims made here. In the interest of keeping with the tone and style of an encyclopedia, I suggest that this paragraph be deleted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.26.99 (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Decretei

message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF-LSrsd0fw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oY0eT9Czy4I&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1l8qjX4SzBY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we32VdNA5l4&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpU8_in2kqI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6nrV21o_yQ&feature=related
*note that that that documentary is still a Western propaganda that just hints at some parts of the story.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.199.23 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mood of the people was against Ceausescu due to economic crisis that is true but the "revolution" would never have been anything more than a crushed street demonstration had the key people in the army and police not been bought out by NATO (as was the case throughout Eastern Europe). Who located arrested and execute the Ceausescus? - the army. And the Eastern block was indeed broken by the CIA (and affiliated Western-European intelligence agencies) that also had it's hand in Solidarity movement in Poland and many more movements that opposed the US interests (for instance the Otpor that helped bring down Slobodan Milosevic in Yugoslavia). However the necessary precursor to successful CIA operations was sufficient discontent with the ruling regime within the targeted countries. CIA had its share of failures such as the Bay of Pigs Invasion. That is why it did not break up the Eastern bloc at once. It took time for them to gain favorable position before striking successfully through both resources invested and opponents' mistakes.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.110.246.238 (talk) 19:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  It was a CIA organized putsch 

message: 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."  --HanzoHattori 09:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorists

message: When people think "Romanian Revolution", do they really think of any other event in history? Charles Essie (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There were several Romanian uprisings against the Ottomans during the 18th century that might be called revolutions, since they involved the revolt of locals against Romanian leaders (albeit ones appointed by a foreign power). There have also been a number of other violent changes of Romanian government which, while not actually revolutions, are sort of revolution-esque. For example, the events surrounding the communist consolidation of power in the late 1940s or King Micheal's Coup. The date is helpful in distinguishing between these.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.106.111.2 (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There were also many revolutions in Belgium, Cuba, France, Haiti, Iran, Mexico, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Tunisia and Yemen but when people think "French Revolution" or "Russian Revolution" they think of the most famous ones, which are acknowledged as such by wikipedia. After all, "Romanian Revolution" already redirects here. Charles Essie (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's remove the date

message: I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
::This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
::#There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
::#It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
::#In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because no one has been talking about for a while dosen't mean it's not still a problem. Charles Essie (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing POV tag with no active discussion per [[Template:POV]] 

message: "The austerity program started in 1981 and the widespread poverty it introduced made the Communist regime very unpopular. The austerity met little resistance among the Romanians and there were only a few strikes and labour disputes, of which notable were the Jiu Valley miners' strike of 1977..." - 1977 is before 1981, right? Right? 109.72.98.153 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 17:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong dates? 

message: The Romanian revolution, I remember very well those days on TV, was from the beginning suspected of being organised and orchestrated, at least in Bucharest, by a group of party officials led by Iliescu and masterminded and helped by the Soviet Union. This was rumoured in Romania by the opposition since January 1990. Indeed the same day of Ceausescu's flight the would be insurgents had already set up a network with international ramifications: a representative named Arbore Popescu was commenting events on our TV. It was first announced that the provisional leader would be Manea Manescu, who was in the inner circle of Ceausescu. The TV even read his biography. But in less than an hour's time it was announced that the lead had been taken by Iliescu. And it is a well known fact that Iliescu had a long standing friendship with Gorbachev. One way or another all the regimes of eastern Europe were overthrown in that period of time. In Chekoslowakia it is known that the Soviet secret services started the protests. In Bucharest, if one reads the present article carefully, it appears that the the incidents which took place on December 21 during Ceasescu's speech were prepared in advance: it is stated that someone from behind the crowd started to use megaphones and to throw stun bombs to incite chaos, this seems to be a certain proof of the assumption. The eastern bloc countries were the first to recognize the new authorities and acclaim the "revolution". Who is so naive as to believe that all these fact are mere coicidences? The Romanian opposition has since that time started to cast discredit on the "revolutionary" authorities and to demand that former communist leaders should be barred from holding any official position. As Ceausescu himself saw very clearly, it was a coup directed against him by his old foe, the Soviet Union. Unlike the other leaders who were Moscow's stooges he was reserved a less polite treatment.Aldrasto11 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign plot 

message: I tried to update the article with as much information as needed along with inserting citations. Any help would be MUCH appreciated. Thanks. Myownworst (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction Improvement 

message: : 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. 
…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)
thread_title:  Seemingly arbitrary edit 

message: „economic reforms have been largely ineffective, with Romania possessing one of the largest child poverty rates in the developed world”.
Romania had child (and adult) poverty problems even before the revolution, the fact that such problems still exist is not a proof that economic reforms were largely ineffective. All economic data show that now Romanian economy is better than before the Revolution. I will remove that line, as it is in contradiction with NPOV.--MariusM (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic reforms 

message: Please somebody add information about mass graves found in Timisoara. There's Wikipedia aricle in french: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affaire_des_charniers_de_Timi%C8%99oara , newspaper article: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-03-13/news/9001210292_1_grave-nicolae-ceausescu-bodies
Later appeared a fact, that it was just a great falsification - there was no mass graves there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.118.49.176 (talk) 15:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass graves found in Timisoara (journalist scandal)  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Romanian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120310202711/http://www.adevarul.ro:80/life/dupa_20_de_ani/Crimele_Revolutiei-_Masacrul_de_la_Otopeni_0_171583443.html to http://www.adevarul.ro/life/dupa_20_de_ani/Crimele_Revolutiei-_Masacrul_de_la_Otopeni_0_171583443.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060619080849/http://timisoara.com:80/timisoara/revoluti.htm to http://timisoara.com/timisoara/revoluti.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:58, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The edit made by 217.65.120.181 (talk) on 30 January 2017, at 18.26, is questionable for the following reasons:
1. Failure to cite any reliable sources.
2. Possible violation of the neutral point of view by means of exaggerating the death toll.
But this is not the right place to bring out disputes about Nicolae Ceaușescu or the Socialist Republic of Romania, no matter how these subjects are described (the dictatorial character is obvious anyway.
Furthermore, the information given in the infobox collides with the Casualties section. --89.173.36.108 (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death toll 

message: Can somebody try and add citations to this section? I'd like to improve this article as much as possible. Myownworst (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crackdown 

message: According to the article on the defense minister, Vasile Milea, suicide was not his intention, but rather incapacitation. I suspect the article on the man contains the correct information, but I am uncertain. Thoughts?
 Cap'n Tightpants (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of Milea's death 

message: 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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RomanK79 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article neutrality  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Romanian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619080849/http://timisoara.com/timisoara/revoluti.htm to http://timisoara.com/timisoara/revoluti.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070206054457/http://www.silencio.ro/revolutie/documentary/ to http://www.silencio.ro/revolutie/documentary/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Romanian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041120022146/http://adevarulonline.ro/ to http://www.adevarulonline.ro/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050209133319/http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.html to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2004/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041204211613/http://www.lumeam.ro/nr12_2001/politica_si_servicii_secrete.html to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr12_2001/politica_si_servicii_secrete.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Was Manea Mănescu "one of the vice-presidents"? The Wikipedia article on him suggests he was merely the former PM>122.59.213.223 (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manea Mănescu, vice-president? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Romanian Revolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041111070108/http://www.infotim.ro/memorial89/articole/articole/art001.01.htm to http://www.infotim.ro/memorial89/articole/articole/art001.01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The file  on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the . Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I believe that Ceaușescu's final speech should be merged into this page as it is a small unnecessary fork from this page that is already covered here.Mztourist (talk) 08:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal Ceaușescu's final speech 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Umm...Should we address this?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  More like "The Romanian Coup of 1989"