Talk:2012 Romanian protests

Opening heading

Hi everyone, I am in the process of combining the previous edits and talk page suggestions. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 08:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening heading2

I see the only Romanian sources being used are ones notorious for their rabid, fact-free opposition to president Basescu and the current administratition. That's like writing about American politics while only citing Fox News and Human Events. I hope some professional editors can eventually clean up this very biased article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.198.77 (talk) 13:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The article has been extended with many respectable references to international news agencies, that have confirmed the facts stated here. Also, the Romanian news agencies presented are some of the most respected in the country, so it cannot be said that there is no professional input on the matter. It cannot be said that all these agencies are biased without concrete facts. And although the article has some passages that tend to be biased, and should be reformulated and revised, the overall information is just factual and not stating personal opinions. Andreiscurei (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I tried to use sources outside Romania but most of those that I managed to find were simply blatantly wrong in term of facts. I'll take just one example: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/world/europe/romanians-protest-austerity-measures.html?_r=1 . It's a a couple of hundred words and wrong on many levels. It claims an emergency meeting was called by the interior minister -- which not only didn't happen, but was even denied by the representatives of the Gendarmerie. The article claims Traian Basesc withdrew the law, which is also wrong; under Romanian constitution, he is not allowed to do so -- what he did was ask the government to withdraw the initiative. Like in most such cases, it usually takes two or three days until reliable information reaches international press. I'll try to replace the Romanian references with English-language ones that are more accessible, as reliable references appear. When selecting the Romanian references, I always ignored information that could not be backed up by hard data. 95.76.26.232 (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

A further edit in order to clarify some of the issues (now I noticed where the "neutrality disputed" signs are). I don't have time to do all the required edits now and the article may need to be significantly expanded, but I'll do my best to explain how things are here in the hope that it will be useful to other editors:

A first passage (marked as "Clarification needed") is this one: "President Traian Basescu subsequently engaged in a campaign intended to ruin Raed Arafat's image, but he did not succeed as Arafat's public image and trust is that of a professional and specialist in his field, as it was proven by the intense social protest movements following this incident.". The second passage (whose neutrality is disputed) is this one: "The population was especially hostile to the new law as it comes on the background of a legal system that will already require patients to pay for their basic medical consults even if they have an insurance."

Raed Arafat is a very respected figure. He has the reputation of an exceptional professional, and is the founder of SMURD -- an interdisciplinary medical intervention team which provides international-quality emergency intervention. It is mostly volunteer-driven and intervene in extremely difficult situations like fire and natural disaster.

Starting from February 1st, Romanian law (under Law 220/2011 -- unfortunately I have no official translation of it at hand), institutes a service known as co-pay. Even though Romanian citizens pay health insurance, the co-pay system means that they will also have to pay for basic consults and only emergency healthcare remains free. In other words, the compulsory health assistance (which is also provided by the Romanian state) will not cover non-emergency interventions below a certain threshold. There is also no legal way to opt out of this system or reduce your contribution.

The new public health law allowed for the state to sponsor private medical institutions that provide emergency health care. Raed Arafat publicly warned that this law provides no guarantee to the patients (it does not stipulate any concrete minimum standards required for providers of emergency healthcare) and that it will divert the very few funds that the state provides towards private companies, while the current emergency healthcare system works very well in spite of its low public funding. He also warned that, due to the law providing a framework for financial competition of private emergency healthcare companies, it could also provide a potential danger for patients' lives. A good overview is here: http://www.zf.ro/eveniment/ce-inseamna-noua-lege-a-sanatatii-faptul-ca-statul-preda-sectorul-declarandu-si-neputinta-sau-un-pas-spre-eficienta-9141891 . Unfortunately, I couldn't find any foreign source that covered this issue.

Traian Basescu attempted to bash Raed Arafat's opinions and publicly launched the accusation that the people who oppose the law (including Arafat) were actually against the reform of the public healthcare system (which is a major problem in Romania). He also did nothing to address the fears that SMURD would lose its already feeble funding, thus depriving citizens of one of the few institutions that actually works. This sparked immediate protests on Friday, initially in sympathy towards Raed Arafat.

As for the thirds notice of disputed neutrality, I'm not sure what I ought to clarify there. The fact that peaceful protesters were denied access was reported by all media agencies (it was a group of almost 400 students, organized by the Romanian Students League), and there are video recordings available on the second issue.

I hope this clarifies some of the issues. 95.76.26.232 (talk) 16:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The protests have ended in the 6th of February, when the new Prime Minister was designated. For the past two weeks, no media channel has reported any protests related to this issue. I believe this counts as the end of the protests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.114.43.204 (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The recent protests in March have got nothing to do with these ones. They are completely unrelated, and I do not believe they fall under the same category as this one. For instance, the one against shale gas falls under environmentalism, and the last ones are not protests, but rather street fights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.114.43.204 (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Image

I've removed the hotel image as not particularly informative in the hope that one of the actual protests will be uploaded. RashersTierney (talk) 15:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. RashersTierney (talk) 01:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

July anti-government protests

Over the past few days, there have been demonstrations in several cities against Victor Ponta, requesting his resignation in light of the plagiarized PhD scandal. Shouldn't we mention this in the article as well? TheGanea (talk) 10:20, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Captain Fugu. The article is predominantly about the January events but it is not clear whether 'all' protests of 2012 are to be listed. Would you like to provide a reference and we can create a new section in the article? What do other people think? Regards, Myrtle.

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Myrtle. So far, there are news sources available about protests in Bucharest[1] and Cluj-Napoca[2]. There was also a 2,000-man anti-government demonstration organized by the opposition in Bucharest[3]. True, these events are on a smaller scale than the January protests, but given the current political situation in Romania there's a distinct possibility that they will grow in size and intensity in the coming weeks. TheGanea (talk) 15:29, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Let's add it, making a section that makes it clear it is a different issue from January, (I'll get to that asap) then, at the end of the year, if protests other than the January ones need a separate article they can be dealt with at the time. Would that be ok? Myrtle.

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I've changed the sections around a little to distinguish the January protests from the others and expanded the Ponta section with some English language references. Hope this is ok, Myrtle.

Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the page

I propose to rename the page 2012–2013 Romanian protests, inasmuch as protest actions were reported in the current year.

Kr1st1deejay97 (talk) 16:42, January 16, 2013

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 02:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• 2012–2013 Romanian protests → 2012 Romanian protests
• 2012–2013 Romanian political crisis → 2012 Romanian political crisis

– Yes, there has been at least one protest in Romania in 2013, just as there were protests there in 2011, in 2010, in 2009, and so forth. And yes, 2013 has seen corruption scandals and friction between the president and the government, just as, with slightly different players, the same sort of events played out in 2011, in 2010, in 2009, and so forth.

But this is not a running chronicle of ongoing Romanian history. The "protests" article refers to a specific group of protests - the January 2012 protests that led to the fall of Emil Boc. The "political crisis" article refers to a specific political crisis - the July-August events, the change in parliamentary speakers, the presidential impeachment, referendum and subsequent invalidation of that referendum.

Both articles are already atrocious coatracks/syntheses - people shouting during the wedding of the president's daughter, for instance, is not really an example of "political crisis", and random football hooligans are not the sort of "protest" we generally notice. We don't need to worsen the articles by using them to cover fairly routine events of the current year. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

• Move as requested Well, at least we don't have them under "2012–" :). The thing is that even the then-opposition acknowledges that the protests are over (according to this, any further talk of the president's deposition is dismissed as "a dud" by National Liberal bosses), and the People's Party-Dan Diaconescu, which was the maverick player in the hubbub of last year, is now in parliament. Please people, let's call this a day. Dahn (talk) 19:02, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.