Talk:Bucharest student movement of 1956

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

political analist and romanian orthodox church contesting the accuracy of tismaneanu's report (no vadim, no goma):

Contraatac al BOR la Raportul Tismaneanu ,

Raportul Tismaneanu – o incercare de falsificare a istoriei Romaniei

Impostura la varf de Comisie prezidentiala ,

Ucis de Comisia Tismaneanu Anonimu 08:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see, the BOR does not cite inaccuracies - just supposed POV (ie: the information is not wrong, it is misused). The information about Dobre that the other source likes to pretend is in the Report isn't actually in the Report. The "source" itself is not reputable, not subject to peer review, and, as pointed out just now, it does not furnish accurate information to be credible enough for contesting the accuracy of another. Reading the statement Civic Media makes, it also appears that they are politically involved up to their necks (they are apparently under constant persecution from the Democratic Party authorities etc.). Dahn 09:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also interesting to note: Civic Media is a platform for the BOR, as stated in the first article. Therefore, criticism provided originates with the spectacular number of one source. And, again, only one claim is about accuracy... and it is inaccurate. Dahn 09:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not quote anything regarding the orthodox church. I have difficulties understanding your reference to North Borneo. Are you sure that the discussion has anything to do with the object of the article?

Afil 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afil, broken link or no broken link, I think you should read again what I have posted and note what I was answering to. Dahn 21:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

shitty and POVish wording in the article (note also the journalistic style of this "encyclopedic" article and its strange wording):

  • the majority of Romanian students knew something of the situation in Hungary
  • Many students there saw the events as a
  • a model which showed that, under communism, students were the group that had to initiate such actions, and that, once begun, the revolt would be joined by the masses at large.
  • Aware that any organisation they formed might attract the notice of the state security apparatus
  • Students' reactions were far more subdued at the majority of technical learning institutes
  • Romanians generally saw communist leaders
  • Romanian students expected more than mere words and were quite sceptical
  • Students believed that the lack of
  • seemed to be a more plausible interlocutor
  • The questions they asked were provocative and seemed more like a protest.
  • The goal was not to receive answers to such questions; rather, the intent was to gauge whether at least some members of the communist leadership were prepared to begin a dialogue
  • But it was clear that neither artificial Bulgarian wine nor electricity meters for Vietnam represented a major concern for Romanian students
  • As many student leaders expected,
  • But the invitation served as to demonstrate to those who hesitated to join the movement that the protests had not begun as a confrontation and that the more energetic actions which were to follow were a consequence of the authorities' negative attitude. (awful wording
  • Finding themselves overtaken by events, some UTM chapter leaders tried )
  • Still, bad news continued to arrive.
  • Enthusiasm for a student protest had begun to diminish
  • Aware that time was not on their side and that if a protest were to take place, it could no longer be delayed,
  • Although aware of the brutal repression in Hungary and conscious that their chances for success had dropped dramatically, the organisers nevertheless believed
  • Given the brutal repression of the Hungarian Revolution by the Red Army, organising another protest in Bucharest was out of the question. Anonimu 20:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I agree that this article could be written more neutrally and scholarly. But theories about the Tismăneanu Report and quotes from Civic Media have no relevancy whatsover. Dahn 21:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel words[edit]

If we talk about weasel words, should we not avoid words like shitty? Maybe using academic language would be more appropriate for this forum.

Afil 21:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we should avoid them in articles. This is not a forum, is an informal discussion. People reading wikipedia don't usually read talk pages (most of non-contributors don't even know these discussions exist). As long you don't insult people, you can use any words you want on talk pages. Anonimu 21:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timisoara student movement of 1956[edit]

In Timisoara also was a student movement in 1956, with many people arrested. Should we create a separate article or a chapter of this article, who should be renamed "Romanian student movement of 1956"?--MariusM 02:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been corrected[edit]

The article has been corrected to take care of the objections. Therefore the note at the beginning of the article has been removed. The article is similar to the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 which also covers anticommunist student protests. Afil 15:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bucharest student movement of 1956. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bucharest_student_movement_of_1956&oldid=1200415943"