Talk:Socialist Republic of Romania/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archived

We're all familiar with the arguments over title and content. I thought it was worth archiving the stale polemics from more than a year ago for a fresh start in 2011. And let's please not use this as an empty slate just to regurgitate the last 6 years of contentiousness. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Date starting et al.

@Anonimu, the abdication of the monarchy is separate from the installation of the communist government. That's no basis for your synthesis that "Communist Romania" begins in 1947 only with the forced departure of King Michael--or that it has anything to do with that event. Indeed, Romania was already subordinated to the Soviets as of the armistice agreement of 1944. Same to be said for rather a number of your recent edit-warring (my perception) changes. I thought it might be worth a conversation before starting in on reverting each other. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no difference between Romania before 1938 and Romania between 1944 and late 1947. Both entities used the same constitution (of 1923), albeit in the post war ears it was slightly more democratic (as women were allowed to vote). No communist aim enshrined in the constitution, no special role assigned to the communist party by any law, free market, no nationalisation, almost no collective farms (the ones existing at the moment dated mostly from the interwar) and so on. The presence of Soviet troops after they helped expel Nazis was just another Allied military occupation, the same as in every other former Axis country in the world, and their presence only prevented the repression of communist sympathisers by the state authorities, as it was common in the interwar (OK, the commies also took the occasion to revenge their sufferings... they had lived in a world of violence, so they knew nothing better). Of course the presence of foreign troops affected the politics (there's a reason why France and Italy didn't get communist gvts in the late 40s, despite the large popular support), but that didn't make an hereditary kingdom what is commonly (albeit wrongly) referred to as a communist state. Michael Hohenzollern not only was allowed to keep a position he was never elected into (compare this with the fate of other "kings" in Eastern Europe), but was even one of the few people to receive the highest Soviet dcoration from Stalin.

What about my other edits? Unless you're gonna replace all references to the Soviet Union with "the Evil Empire" and all references to communists with "the heathen", I see no reason to introduce tropes in a historic text that has to conform to NPOV. As for the removed link: Even if Mr Caraza would have not been identified by the mainstream (right-wing) Romanian press as "one of the Iron Guard", the "source" is simply a volume of memoirs, and no serious scientific work would use it as a reference for anything but the author or the book itself. Yours sincerely, Anonimu (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

@Anonimu, the origin of Communist Romania is in no way linked to what constitution was in effect or when. There are far too many similar examples, for example, the Baltics, which ostensibly still had their sovereign constitutions in effect at the time they became Soviet puppet states prior to their annexation.

Reputable scholarship puts the start of Communist Romania at March 6, 1945, with the (Soviet) installation of the Communist-dominated government led by Groza. So let's start by agreeing on that. I regret that neither my opinion that communist domination started in 1944 with the armistice nor your opinion that the start of Communist Romania is constitutionally determined or linked to the monarchy count in this matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that "Communist Romania" is just a denominator, and not a concept, (and that no other country in Eastern Europe has an article about "Communist X-land"), I doubt that there's a consensus about when the entity called "Communist Romania" started. If there's any, most likely they put "the start" at the moment when Romania acquired the characteristics of what capitalists called "communist state", ie either December 1947 (the proclamation of the republic) or April 1948 (when the leading role of the communist party is enshrined in the Constitution).Anonimu (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my point about reputable scholarship other than to opine some other "consensus" is "most likely". That's not the case. This isn't a debate between you, myself, and other editors on achieving consensus divined from an amorphous mass of historical uncertainty—sources are clear on 1945. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

May we see those fabulous "sources"? (hoping they're not just memoirs of right-wing extremists)Anonimu (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I take it from the above (my perception) that any Romanian source will be denounced as right-wing extremist.

Phinnemore, D. The EU and Romania: Accession and Beyond

"...With Soviet backing communists increasingly took control of Romania using a combination of intimidation, manipulation of the democractic process and outright violence. The first communist-dominated government was formed in March 1945..."

Encyclopedia Americana, Grolier

"The Communist Period (1945-1989)..."

Carey, H. Romania since 1989: Politics, Economics, and Society

"As early as 23 March 1945, the coalition government of Petru Groza issued a decree on land reform, eliminating, at a blow, the wealth of the minority Churches of the Germans and Hungarians...." — so much for your contention nothing changed

Grancea, F. Inside the Mechanisms of Romanian Modernization

"...all the matters had to be public in a communist state, so that the party could control the lives and thoughts of its cogs. Iosif Chişinevschi, the first idealogue of Romanian Communist Party after 1944 said in 1945 that there is no private business that is not a matter of party business..."

Frucht, R. Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture

"Now, the presence of the Red Army gave a tremendous boost to the Communist party....the Allied Control Commission, dominated by the Soviet Union, demanded a leftward reconfiguration of the government. That happened in March 1945 with the appointment of the leftist Transylvanian Petru Groza as prime minister..."

Skipping to 1946, showing Communists already firmly entrenched and faking elections...

"Archival records have now confirmed contemporary suspicion that the results of the elections of November 1946, awarding leftist parties 80 percent of the vote, were falsified."

I expect you would discount Romanian sources (which pretty much all say 1945 if not earlier), even if not the product of so-called right-wing extremists; however, here is one referenced by a non-Romanian author:

Stolarik, M. The Prague Spring and the Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovakia

"For a conceptual framework concerning the process of nation-building in communist Romania, see Dragoş Petrescu, “Communist Legacies in the 'New Europe.' History, Ethnicity, and the Creation of a 'Socialist' Nation in Romania, 1945–1989"

Based on our past interactions, I expect you to respond these prove nothing, but I would welcome being disappointed in that regard. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Romanian People's Republic"

Currently we have "RP Chineză" translated as "People's Republic of China", which the correct, idiomatic translation. We should have "People's Republic of Romania" as well: "Romanian People's Republic" is a verbatim translation of "RP Romînă" that does not reflect the political system of that age (probably a product of times when physically and knowledge-wise we were living in the confines of our own borders with no exposure to the outer world). Have made the change throughout - please advise if any objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.98.155 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1946 "elections"

@Anonimu, the elections of that year are reported in reputable scholarship far and wide as being falsified (that specific word). Let's please not push the POV that it's some post Soviet plot to smear the integrity of the election results. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The elections where democratic by Romanian pre-WW2 standards (voter's intimidation, ballot manipulation et al being standard practice in Romania ever since people were allowed to vote; the government generally changed just before elections took place, and, not surprisingly, the new government was always confirmed with a large margin by the "popular" vote). Considering that women were allowed to vote for the first time in the history of Romania, the 1946 elections could be considered even more democratic. The claim that political "assassinations" took place during the campaign or election is just pure propaganda. Also, how are "Giurescu, "«Alegeri» după model sovietic", p.17 (citing Berry), 18 (citing Berry and note); Macuc, p.40; Tismăneanu, p.113; Giurescu, "«Alegeri» după model sovietic", p.18; Rădulescu-Motru, in Cioroianu, p.65" supposed to be reliable sources that readers can verify?Anonimu (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This all your personal conjecture. If only English language sources were valid, half the articles on WP would not exist. If you believe a source has been misrepresented/misquoted/mistranslated, please bring evidence forward. 1946 elections were "falsified", and not just per Romanian or so-called "Cold War" sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw men again. What have English language sources to do with my comment? "Macuc, p.40" is verifiable nowhere on Earth (or the Solar System, for that matter). My formulation in the article precisely described the historiographical discourse about the subject. And nobody can prove either way, since nobody (witch-doctors and other divination practitioners excluded) can verify the sources in the form they are presented in the article.Anonimu (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As you are fully fluent in Romanian, perhaps a visit to a library might be in order. In my solar system, at least, Macuc has authored or co-authored a number of books both in English and Romanian, so it is no surprise he has been cited in another source (Giurescu). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1945

We have been through this argument ad nauseum before, "Communist Romania" begins with March 6th. 1945. When an official name was given is immaterial. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We didn't. The last time you just brought some random cherry picked quotes, most of them not even supporting your point. There was no argument, as I refused to have an "argument" with someone who didn't even attempt to present a sound case (but a compilation of straw men, just like the last sentence in your comment above) Anonimu (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes we did, you simply ignored the numerous non-Romanian sources (I avoided Romanian sources to avoid your immediately deriding them as partisan) which all point to 1945 as the inception of Communist Romania. EB also states the same, including that Stalin gave his approval in January 1945 for the Communists to seize power in Romania. There is nothing "cherry picked" about the sources I cite, all of which indicate 1945. Please provide more substantive support for your editorial position than simply deriding any source that don't disagree with your personal opinion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Satellite et al.

Let's not then forget the change to Communist police state. And let's not accuse editors of inserting bogus references when they have not. It's also time to set the clock back to 1945, yet again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It happens they are several volumes named identically, and as the editor didn't mention the exact volume, I checked the wrong one, and the claims weren't here. Mea culpa.Anonimu (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know the proper action is to simply ask a question on article talk instead of reverting editors with inflammatory accusations that editors are liars. Such actions only drive off editors looking to contribute positively to Wikipedia, nor do they reflect positively upon yourself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing lots of single purpose IPs and new editors insisting on one specific line in the infobox is reason enough to stop AGF-ing. While I might have been wrong in qualifying the addition of the ref here as false, the same editor added the same ref in a context where it was 100% false (and I've checked all volumes, to be sure). So I was not wrong, I've just missed the actual target.Anonimu (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the problem you refer to is one of citation, as the same work does include reference to the same-mentioned Eastern European sphere and list of countries as the "Soviet Empire." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested split

After considering reorganizing the content to better resemble other articles on countries, I've come to believe it would be a better idea to split the article in two, as has been done on the Romanian Wikipedia: [1][2]. This would be justified by the existence of multiple Romanian constitutions during the Cold War, and also by differences between the two incarnations of the Communist state, which are quite extensive AFAIK. Unfortunately, I do not possess significant knowledge on the subject, nor do I have the necessary free time at the moment. I still believe though that the issue should be seriously considered, an article on "Communist Romania" makes just about enough sense as one on "Soviet Russia". CaptainFugu (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Soviet Russia" (for the entire Bolshevik and USSR period, for that regime) would work, so poor example. I don't see value to bifurcating the time period, if we want to draw some contrasts between pre- and post-Ceaușescu taking control and Romania becoming more of a personal police state, that should be in a single article. Constitutional changes would be less meaningful to non-Romanians and artificially chop up the time period. Sources are clear on the overall time period. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the split and propose the latest name be used overall. -- Director (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with a split: while the regime did give itself two names, and these more or less coincided with two different dictators, it was clearly one regime with two different faces, rather than two regimes different enough that they warrant two articles. Splitting would constitute a content fork, and as is often the case, ro.wiki is here an example of how not to do things.

I also disagree with a title move, as the current term is both used in the literature and has the advantage of encompassing both the country's names used during the period, but by all means feel free to use WP:RM for that.

Given that this article has been in largely the same shoddy state for about 5 years now, our energies would be better spent improving the content than fussing over trivialities.

Here's an interesting tidbit: the Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes in Romania has as its mandate "to analyse the nature, the purpose, and the effects of the totalitarian regime in Romania during 1945-1989". Note, 1945 not 1947. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Romanian version also ignores that Communist Romania began in 1945 following Stalin's "approval" in January, power grab in March, and culminating in the falsified (confirmed by archives) election of November. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Satellite state

I removed the description of Communist Romania as a "Satellite state of the Soviet Union" from the infobox with the notation, "Fails verification".[3] The source used (History of the Literary Cultures of East Central Europe) does not appear to make the claim. Even if it did, it is not a relevant source - it is about literature, not politics. The field does not even exist in the Template: Infobox country. I do not understand the obsession with taxonomy, which in this case appears to violate WP:LABEL, but if we do provide categories we need to establish that there is a consensus for it in third party sources. Ideally we need to find a book about satellite states explaining what the term means, the degree of acceptance of the term and a list of satellite states. Incidentally, Romania pursued policies independent of the USSR from 1965. TFD (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I too find the phrase a bit simplistic. It disregards, or at least underplays, the significant independent line at times taken by the state vis a vis the USSR. RashersTierney (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The propensity of sources which call it a satellite state is more than enough to show a consensus in academia that it was in fact, a satellite state. Perhaps you have a source which says it was in fact independent? Free to do as it wished? With no threat of soviet repercussions? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any shortage of sources that emphasise the independent foreign policy line adopted by Romania at times, and likewise sources that highlight its dominance by the main regional power when that narrative suited or reflected 'common sense'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Se also Talk:East Germany - 'satellite state' is a subjective term, and as such doesn't belong in an infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Or it does. It's not subjective if it is based on objective criteria. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If was, it wouldn't be. It isn't, so it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I do still owe you the sources there. Don't be so self-assured of your POV. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The fact that Romania was a satellite state of the USSR is constantly being removed from the article. Should the article state the obvious fact the Romania was a satellite state? Some sources. Communist terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State, 1948-1965 pp244 Ceauşescu and the Securitate: coercion and dissent in Romania, 1965-1989 pp387 The American Past: A Survey of American History pp853 History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and disjunctures in the 19th and 20th centuries. Volume I pp29 The twentieth century world pp68

• Support As it is just common sense. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose First, the RfC question is misleading and should be re-factored. The question is actually whether or not Romania should be described in the info-box as a satellite. Second, WP:LABEL and WP:NEUTRAL preclude us from labelling topics based on opinions. Third, Romania persued an independent line after 1965, criticizing Soviet foreign policy and forming close relations with Western powers. TFD (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Such a characterisation is intrinsically POV. It has no place in an Infobox. RashersTierney (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The term is not specified at Template:Infobox former country#Status, for good reason, as it is highly subjective. RashersTierney (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The NPOV policy dictates we should not use propaganda terms in our articles, be it US or Soviet propaganda. If you really want to mention such claims, either do it the in the article about the term itself, or explicitly attribute the claim ("According to X, <propaganda_claim>") in the body of the text, not in parts that should be bias-free, such as the lead or the infobox.Anonimu (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - aside from the general problem with the term, this is patent nonsense with regard to Romania, where Ceausescu often openly expressed opposition to the Soviet line and acted accordingly. Mewulwe (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Whatever Romania's chafing and Ceausescu's (later) pronouncements, Romania was still limited in its expression of sovereignty. Any member of the Warsaw pact (until its dissolution) objectively fits the bill. Claims that "satellite state" is a propaganda term and not a scholarly term describing a specific type of sovereign relationship are misplaced. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you asserting that membership in the Warsaw Pact is sufficient grounds to call it a satellite state, regardless of whether or not they fulfilled their obligations? TFD (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 'limited in its expression of sovereignty'? What state isn't? RashersTierney (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • @TFD, Yes, actually, scholarship does use "joining the Warsaw Pact" as indicating becoming a "Soviet satellite."
    • @RashersTierney, aside from unsubstantiated allegations of inherently POV and your rather pointless (but POV) question (are you really asking what state is not specifically limited in its sovereignty by a formal agreement with the Soviet Union?), do you have something more substantive to offer? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The information may be used in the article (with a proper attribution), but not in the infobox. The "status" parameter of the Infobox former country template should mention things like "colony", "protectorate", etc (in other words, it applies only to territories that have a legal relationship of subordinance, not to countries that are declared as suveran nations). Razvan Socol (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Its a rather tricky question since pre-Ceauşescu the term might be applied (if we set aside all its inherent problems), but post-Ceauşescu there is really no question that the term is inappropriate. -- Director (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A subjective term, rather than an objective criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per User:DIREKTOR`s comment. I would say something very similar :). Adrian (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Everyone should calm down and pay attention to the discussion at Talk:East Germany, material has been found to indicate that the term "satellite state" is not a Western-biased term as some have suggested, the term was used before the Cold War by the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, in one of the immediate predacessor documents that were responsible for the founding of the United Nations, that describe what they called "Axis satellite states". Also, modern historians have used the term satellite state to refer to states in the 16th century. It is widely recognized that the Soviet Union had satellite states. Now, Andy has claimed that it is a "subjective term" and a "metaphor" with no substance, I have found a source - that while not directly related to Romania or other states widely recognized as Soviet satellite states - it is based on a study of Scotland in the 17th and 18th century - but it does describe in detail what a satellite state in general is - and uses it as a technical term, here is the definition (I quote it in its lengthy full to insure no confusion):
• "Firstly, a satellite is a poor country that depends on exporting a small range of goods to one richer area from which it draws the bulk of its imports: such exports ten to be agricultural and mineral products affected by volatile demand conditions because the dependent country is only a marginal producer in the world market for a given good: the imports are usually a wide range of manufactures and other consumer goods for which there is constant hunger in the satellite. Secondly, the satellite depends on imported technology from the richer areas, since research and development is carried out in developed nations and undeveloped nations are insufficiently sophisticated to develop their own. Thirdly, the need both for technology and for manufactured imports leads to dependence on injections of foreign capital from the richer area: these though probably necessary for any form of development, may bring with them unwelcome political ties or determine the direction of short-term economic growth in a way that will not be conducive to long-term economic development. Fourthly, dependence is reflected in cultural relations, so that what happens in the dominant area seems more real and satisfying to the elite inside the satellite than anything they can do themselves - 'imported products are valued more highly than local goods, foreign degrees more than local degrees, foreign consultants more than local experts. This cultural bias enhances and increases the total dependency relationship'. The implication is that if these four factors are present in a country they will tend to hamper its growth. The historian may accept them as defining dependent status yet feel they may not necessarily be causes of a poor growth performance. Rather they may be symptoms of what an economy will be like in the early stage of development. Variations in the rate of population growth, the nature of land tenure, the level of education and the character of sub-elite culture probably do more to determine whether opportunities that arise through trade with the developed core launch a peripheral economy into growth or have no benign effect." (Stale Drvik, Knut Mykland, Jan Oldervoll. The Satellite State in the 17th and 18th Centuries. English edition. Bergen-Oslo-Tromso, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1979. Pp. 11-12.)--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Since none of that remotely applies in the context we are discussing here, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - here is another source on the terminology of satellite state: "On Satelliteship” by George G. S. Murphy, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 21, No 4 (Dec. 1961), pp. 641-651. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2114424.

The author mentions that the term “satellite state” is a metaphor but (Andy in particular, pay attention to the following) the author demonstrates that it ALSO is a relevant technical term that the author describes in the article. The author specifically refers to Soviet satellite states. Here is the author's description of a satellite state:

• "The regime in the satellite state...must, and wants to, model itself on the regime in the protecting country; its aim is to develop the satellite state under policies that will eventually make it homogeneous in social composition, economic characteristics, and political institutions with the state in whose orbit it moves. It regards the fulfillment of such policies as a desirable process of catching up." (Murphy, Pp. 641-642)
• "Satelliteship consists of the exercise by a single decision-maker of a dominant country of complete authority over a smaller country. This authority is used to engineer broad and sweeping programs of social change in the smaller country to suit the preferences of this decision-maker." (Murphy, Pp. 642)
• "the average Soviet satellite is distinguished from the average colony by the fact that it tends to develop at fast rates of growth" (Murphy, Pp. 642)--R-41 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, so I can't comment on the specifics, but I'd point out that a Journal article dating from the height of the Cold War might not be seen as particularly relevant to contemporary perspectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that during Cold War some not-so-disinterested authors attempted to rationalize propaganda terms don't make such terms neutral. The usual Soviet political science article about the West went to great lengths to prove the US was the last and most aggressive colonial empire, and NATO countries were just pawns in US hands, with conceptualizations et al. And let's not forget there's lots of literature in support of eugenics written by "neutral" pre-WW2 Western authors, yet we don't present their claims as objective facts.Anonimu (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems that this may very well be the case here. I've found a review of Murphy's Soviet Mongolia: A Study of the Oldest Political Satellite (in the same journal that R-41 cites above) [4] which criticises him for (amongst other things) using phrases like "naive puppets" and "tool of the Comintern". Hardly a disinterested neutral stance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

1989 trial

Would anyone oppose the re-labeling of this as show trial instead of kangaroo court? (Unless of course a source can be found for this particular assertion.) -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A source has been found, I have initiated an edit request below to have the reference inserted. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

They are both POV descriptions. TFD (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Show trial" is normal English usage for a show trial, i.e., one with a predetermined outcome. What's POV about that? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

In the "Braşov Riot" section (the comment about it needing a separate article is out of date, it was probably written when the "Downfall" parent section was called "1989" or something similar, so i suggest removing that too), the first "Citation needed" can be replaced with:

<ref>Emil Hurezeanu, as quoted (see note below) by: {{ro icon}} "Ziua care nu se uita. 15 noiembrie 1987, Brasov", Polirom, 2002, ISBN 973-681-136-0.<br/> This is documented by the book's revision, available at {{ro icon}} [http://www.librarie.net/carti/17126/Ziua-care-nu-se-uita-15-noiembrie-1987-Brasov-Marius librarie.net]</ref>

Ty. Actually, i wanted to source the Radio Free Europe quote, thinking that should be fairly easy. Maybe someone else will have more luck with that. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected protection expired. Anomie⚔ 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 2

The section Romanian Revolution has at it;s end the following statement Ceauşescu soon fled in an helicopter from the rooftop of the CC Building, only to find himself abandoned in Târgovişte, where he and his wife Elena were finally formally tried and shot by a kangaroo court on 25 December A source has been requested for this, please add the following reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 January 2012‎

<ref name=Laughland>{{cite book|last=Laughland|first=John|title=A history of political trials: from Charles I to Saddam Hussein|year=2008|publisher=Peter Lang|isbn=978-1906165000|pages=185}}</ref>

Just a note that this book reference is available here: [5]. I'm not adding it as a reference for that content, because, whilst I can see a mention of "kangaroo" as the author's opinion of the trial, I don't see Helicopter/rooftop/Târgovişte mentions in there. If this is just a citation for the date, or one opinion of "kangaroo", then I'll let someone else add it. Note, however, that page 186 and 190-191, 193-194 aren't available at Google Books, so I may be missing some supporting text there. Apologies if I missed something else, I read it twice... Begoon ^talk 05:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kangaroo court is a POV term. The court btw did not shoot him - he was shot by a firing squad. TFD (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, I should have also said that one author's "opinion" of this is insufficient to support such a "loaded" term, even if it was done as a "quotation". My main problem is that the source doesn't seem to support anything in the content other than that term and the date, unless the relevant parts are in the unavailable pages. Only someone with access to the book could answer that, I think. Barring that, I think the real question here should be: Do we just remove that passage as uncited? Begoon ^talk 08:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You may not remove it as uncited as I have provided one. And who says kangaroo court is a POV term? It was a kangaroo court. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I only just noticed that this is full protected - so you are correct - I may not remove it. Begoon ^talk 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source BTW [6] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that covers a bit more of it, but not quite all, I can't see "abandoned in Târgovişte" - but that's probably too picky. The point above about the court not performing the shooting is worth fixing - it's not quite as pedantic as it sounds. But anyway, as I've now realised, I thought I'd come here from a semi-protected request list, but I must have clicked the wrong link, so I couldn't do the edit anyway and I'll need to leave it for an admin to decide about all that, and the POV or not question, for now. Begoon ^talk 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Laughland and his (at one time) British Helsinki group have been pilloried for coming to the defense of Eastern European dictators, apparently being even generously funded by Milosevic at one point. Whatever Laughland contends in anything he writes anywhere is completely unreliable as an objective source.(one of many accounts regarding Laughland's unsavory associations) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected protection expired. Anomie⚔ 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Informal move discussion

Before actually posting an RfM I'd like to see what everyone thinks regarding the possibility of a move to Socialist Republic of Romania? We are fully aware of the large-scale constitutional reforms Ceauşescu introduced when the country was renamed from "People's Republic of Romania". However, if we accept that Romania in the 1947-89 period is a historical state separate from modern Romania and the Kingdom of Romania, and if we agree that this was one country (that underwent reforms in 1965) - then I submit that it is general practice to use the latest official name of a country as the title. Communist countries changed their names frequently with the addition/removal of various adjectives such as "Socialist" or "People's" or "Federal" etc., yet Romania seems to be the only country that does not use the latest official name. Other examples are, of course, the Soviet Union, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and People's Socialist Republic of Albania. -- Director (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly were those "large-scale constitutional reforms" of 1965? References to the great Soviet Union were dropped, and talk of "exploitation" was replaced with proclamations of "independence". But other than that, did anything really change?

As for the assertion that "Communist countries changed their names frequently", let's look at that a little more closely. Bulgaria, East Germany and Hungary never changed their names. Neither did the USSR, from the time it was formed in 1922 until its collapse in 1991. Poland was merely late, sticking to one name from 1952 to 1990, while Czechoslovakia was a bit later, adding "Socialist" in 1960. Thus we only really have two comparable cases, with Yugoslavia switching names in 1963 and Albania in 1974. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. "Communist Romania" has a distinctive Cold War feel to it and gives no confidence to readers about the article's neutrality. TFD (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It may have a "distinctive Cold War feel" for you, but the number of scholarly works written well after the end of the Cold War that use the term belie that assertion: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].

Having a title point out that the country was Romania and was communist (or at least ruled by a communist party) is not of questionable neutrality, especially when a slew of reliable works refer to it that way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, let me also note the term's routine use in Romanian reliable sources: [39], [40], [41] and [42], just for a sampling of titles using "România comunistă". - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Since when have we used unofficial names for articles about countries? If someone wants to create a 'communist Romania' redirect, they can, but this is silly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Look around, Andy. Neither Vichy France, nor Portuguese India, nor Congress Poland, nor the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, nor indeed the Byzantine Empire was ever called that, and Burma has not been called that since 1989. We don't go by official names, but by the most common name used in reliable sources. For that matter, Belgium, Germany, France, Finland and Luxembourg are also "unofficial", but we don't call the articles Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, Republic of Finland or Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Biruitorul, so you're saying that the only countries that didn't change their names were Bulgaria, East Germany and Hungary? And that, apart from Yugoslavia and Albania, we also have Poland and Czechoslovakia who changed their name with various "communist adjectives"? Frankly, I don't know if you're arguing "against" or "for" the move :). People's Republic of Poland is a very good example. I'll also add that I agree "Communist Romania" seems distinctly unencyclopedic. -- Director (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Poland and Czechoslovakia don't really count, since there, it was simply a matter of a delay in adding a Communist identifier, rather than changing a pre-existing one. Albania and Yugoslavia are the only true analogues. I'm just pointing out that "frequent" name changes were not in fact the norm.

I've always opposed such a move because for 42% of its existence, Communist Romania was not known as "Socialist Republic of Romania", and because the current title is more encompassing and simpler without sacrificing accuracy (indeed it enhances accuracy).

And by the way, since I do like to consider the wider implications of any move, what about Category:Communist Romania and its subcategories? To take just a couple of examples, Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu is under Category:People executed by Communist Romania; he was indeed, but he was not someone executed by the Socialist Republic of Romania. And the Bărăgan deportations are in the main category, and rightly so, but it would be inaccurate to place them under a "Socialist Republic of Romania" category, since they had nothing to do with that entity. Not to mention something like Five-Year Plans of Romania, which spanned both periods. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Biruitorul I think we understand that, for whatever reason, you are opposed to the possibility of a move. However, please do not present false arguments. Note: Poland and Czechoslovakia do count. It does not matter whether or not they changed their communist prefix or added a new one: the point is that those two articles use the latest name even though it does not apply to the entire period of communist rule, just like the other two cases. In short, all Eastern European countries that did change their name during the period of communist government have articles that use their last name - except "Communist Romania". The title frankly sounds childish, and probably stems from a misunderstanding here on Wiki.

It is pointless to list dozens of links here, when we can simply Google search. Its just empty showmanship. If one wanted to, one could easily find double or triple the number of links you posted above that use "Socialist Republic of Romania" or "People's Republic of Romania". I have no doubt that sources most frequently refer to this state as "Romania", plain and simple. That is probably the WP:COMMONNAME, as is almost always the case - the simpler name is always . The misunderstanding here most likely lies in English grammar: the adjective "Communist" is capitalized in English, not so in many other languages. The sources by and large simply refer to "Romania" as being "Communist" and do not use the phrase "Communist Romania" as some sort of sourced "alternative" state name. -- Director (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't oppose a move for "whatever reason", but for the reasons I've outlined, plus the fact that the term is more commonly used in reliable sources.

The argument I'm making is anything but "false". In general, whenever a communist regime has come to power, it has changed the name of the previous "bourgeois" regime, either immediately or after some years. (Cuba is one exception that comes to mind.) Rarely have two changes been made, Romania, Albania and Yugoslavia being the only ones I know of. Even if, for argument's sake, we accept the addition of a communist signifier to the names of Poland and Czechoslovakia as a "change", that's irrelevant for the article titling. Poland was also called "Republic of Poland" from 1918 to 1939 and since 1990, while Czechoslovakia was also called "Republic of Czechoslovakia" from 1918 to 1939. Thus, it would be inadvisable to use the first name of Communist Poland and the first name of Communist Czechoslovakia as article titles for the periods 1944-52 and 1945-60 because of the inherent ambiguity. "Romanian People's Republic" and "Socialist Republic of Romania" were never used other than in 1947-89, so there can be no ambiguity there.

By the way, looking not just at other countries but also at other eras of Romanian history, note that Romanian Old Kingdom and Greater Romania were also never official, but we use them as article titles because historians use those terms.

If "Communist Romania" is "childish", are all these scholars writing peer-reviewed publications being childish?

Pre-1990, sources probably did call it "Romania", you're right. Nowadays, given the need to distinguish between Romania (which happens to be the official name of the current republic) and the 1947-89 entity, we do need a more specific identifier. "Communist Romania", which is succinct, all-encompassing and used with consistent regularity by modern sources, is not a bad choice.

I'm sure you've participated in enough move discussions to know that the way arguments are most convincingly carried in such discussions is through the presentation of reliable sources using a particular name. That's what lies at the heart of a move discussion, and it is not "empty showmanship". If you want to explain why source A or B isn't relevant, you may, but simply waving away three dozen sources isn't very convincing. Furthermore, when "Socialist Republic of Romania" is used, it tends to be used only in the very narrow context of treaties and other agreements: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Actual discussions of the entity tend to call it "Communist Romania" far more regularly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, nobody here should be at all impressed by your ability to copy-paste internet links here in excessive number. Our discussion concerns thousands of sources, not the few dozen you've apparently posted here for dramatic effect.

Again, to repeat, the most common name for this state in published sources is "Romania". This is the case with virtually every country. When someone wants to describe Romania as "Communist", they use the phrase "Communist Romania" - but this should in no way be taken as an endorsement of that adjective as being part of some new name the source is proposing. Often "Communist Romania" is part of a phrase like "post-communist Romania", or the adjective is left without capitalization. The mistake that was made on this article, in my opinion, is the misapplication of WP:COMMONNAME to a common two-word phrase that should not even have been considered as an actual candidate for an encyclopedic Wikipedia title for a sovereign country (combined, apparently, with colorful usage of links :)).

In support of the above, I submit once more that every single communist country on Wikipedia that happened to change its name with the addition or removal or replacement of a communist prefix - simply uses the latest official name. "Communist Romania" is the single solitary exception. Biruitorul, thank you for the history lesson, but it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion whether a communist prefix was added or replaced - the point is that the name was changed. -- Director (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from imputing false motives to my action and please comment on content, not on the contributor. In case it wasn't abundantly clear, the reason I have presented those references is in support of my contention that the "Communist Romania" title should be kept (in part) because that's what the country during that period is called by reliable sources.

When combing through the sources I identified, I specifically excluded instances of "post-Communist Romania", so that's a red herring. There are plenty of scholarly works using "Communist Romania" with a capital "C" to refer to the entity, and if books published by Oxford University Press can do it, then potentially so can we, without worrying about appearing unencyclopedic.

It is in fact (marginally) relevant whether the name was changed once or twice, because we only have three cases of a name changing twice, and ideally, our articles on the other two should be at Socialist Yugoslavia and Communist Albania. No, I'm not going to try and push for that, but that would be the most proper solution. The reason, other than usage, that I continue to insist on retaining this title is because the entity had two names for roughly equal lengths of time, and that it is simply inaccurate to cover content from the 1947-65 period under a title that does not apply. And yes, it's the only Communist country using an unofficial title (along with East Germany and the rather major case of the Soviet Union), but as I pointed out, plenty of other countries' articles do not use official names for their titles, among them Belgium, Germany, France, Finland and Luxembourg.

Oh, and what about Category:Communist Romania? I still want to look at the big picture. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Communist Romania" is the title required by, and used in, scholarship as it needs to account for the entire period starting with 1945 regardless of the "official" title of the country, constitution in effect, etc., etc. And the "'Cold War' terminology" argument is a red herring. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said two times already, it is a simple two-word phrase. It is used in scholarship, just like in any text, but not as a title/name for this state. It is common due to it being a common grammatical occurrence. The vast majority of publications where this phrase is found do not in actuality endorse it as some alternative name for the Socialist Republic of Romania. It is a misapplication of WP:COMMONNAME, in that the phrase in question is not used by the sources as an actual name for the state.

Here are the four other, comparable cases in East Europe where states added or replaced various communist prefixes: People's Republic of Poland, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Each article title is the latest official name of the communist state. Reviewing other communist states in Eastern Europe (that did not change their name), one will not find a singe state that uses the "Communist [name of state]" format. In fact, I cannot find a single article about a communist state here on Wikipedia that uses the "Communist [name of state]" format in its title, have look for yourselves at Category:Communist states. Only "Communist Romania". One gets the impression that some local political considerations might come into play in this issue. -- Director (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, let me state that while Director is free to have whatever impressions he wishes, he is also bound to assume good faith, to comment on content, not on the contributor and, absent any definite statement to that effect (something like "let's call this article 'Communist Romania' because that makes the PSD look bad!"), to assume that arguments against a move are based on what I and others say they are based on, not whatever motivations he may think lurk behind our plain words. Otherwise, the well is poisoned and civilized debate cannot proceed.

Now, to respond to your first paragraph. What about Belgium, Germany, France, Finland, Luxembourg, East Germany, Soviet Union, Burma, Malawi, Togo? Rarely are official names of countries used in titles: of 193 UN member states, other than those (like Romania or Hungary) that have no other prefix in their names, we use official names in the titles of just a handful: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Federated States of Micronesia and Kingdom of the Netherlands — all of them for disambiguation purposes.

And what about the Romanian Old Kingdom or Greater Romania? Neither of those names was official either, and works may refer to them in somewhat offhanded fashion. (Here, here and here are examples of "greater Romania" occurring.)

Admittedly, I've done it too, including right in this comment, but "look at those other articles" isn't invariably a compelling argument — after all, this encyclopedia isn't peer-reviewed. "Communist Romania" happens to be more appropriate for reasons stated above, even if it's an outlier among its two dozen or so peers.

By the way, what about Category:Communist Romania? I'm still wondering what plans (if any) you have for that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a straw man you're bashing. My argument is not that we must use the full official name all the time. My point is that the current format is unencyclopedic and without real basis in sources as an "alternative" name for this state, and is, subsequently, not used anywhere but here. The most common name for this country in sources is, without a doubt, "Romania". I propose using the latest official name, since that is used in every single similar case as the more appropriate method of disambiguation from the article on the modern country. I have no idea what that category has to do with this issue, it sounds like a red herring. -- Director (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

When you clear away the irrelevant cases (at any rate the ones I've called irrelevant), the only countries for which we've applied the "second official name" rule are Yugoslavia and Albania, and as I've opined before, those two would be much better placed at Socialist Yugoslavia and Communist Albania, since sources, other than those strictly legalistic ones that cite treaties and such, most often tend to refer to them as such. As for the "unencyclopedic" bit, to repeat what I said earlier, "there are plenty of scholarly works using "Communist Romania" with a capital "C" to refer to the entity, and if books published by Oxford University Press can do it, then potentially so can we, without worrying about appearing unencyclopedic."

I do see what you're trying to argue, but the thing is, given that we can't call the article Romania; given that the entity did have two names, each covering a substantial part of its existence, and that in the interests of accuracy we should seek to use a name covering both periods; and given that, with varying degrees of formality, the term is used in reliable sources to refer to the entity in question, and is not simply something we're inventing, this is why it seems to me the best option for a title.

When you propose moving an article with 1500+ incoming links, an article linked as "Communist Romania" in countless articles, and one after which an entire category is named, the assumption is that if you're a responsible editor (and I do assume that of you), you're going to think about the wider implications of a move, and not just move and wash your hands of the matter. I've mentioned a couple of examples, and will do so again. Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu is under Category:People executed by Communist Romania; he was indeed, but he was not someone executed by the Socialist Republic of Romania. Do you propose keeping the current category, moving to Category:People executed by the Socialist Republic of Romania, or moving there and in addition creating a Category:People executed by the People's Republic of Romania? What about the Bărăgan deportations? They're under Category:Communist Romania. If you move that to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania, you introduce a blatant inaccuracy, since the deportations ended well before 1965. What about Five-Year Plans of Romania? Moving to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania introduces further inaccuracy with regard to the first three plans. Or do you perhaps create a Category:People's Republic of Romania and put the article in both categories? You see, this isn't that simple, and there are ramifications to a move proposal of this magnitude. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What more can I say? You're "eliminating" the fact that this is the only article on Wikipedia that uses the prefix "Communist" to refer to a state in the title. And I think I've already established that it is general practice to disregard the name changes and use the latest name.

In addition to all of the above, this state officially designated itself "Socialist" in 1965 rather than specifically "Communist", so this current title carries a distinct political message as well (apparently aimed at the Ceauşescu government). Why not use "Socialist Romania" (24,800 hits) which is, incidentally, about three times more common than "Communist Romania" (7,360 hits)? Its a rough test, to be sure, but I don't think such a significant distance will disappear after any kind of filtering. Just to be clear, I endorse neither for reasons I explained above. Nevertheless I'm sure another reason will be heard, now that WP:COMMONNAME is out, as to why "Communist Romania" should stay on. Something is definitely wrong here.

(Concerns about categories are hardly an issue relevant to WP:NAME. It can be handled, I assure you.) -- Director (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very easy to conduct a Google search for one's preferred term and find what one wants, but it is not the correct approach if one wants to be neutral. "Socialist Romania" also gets thousands of hits. But your sources do actually usually talk about "Romania" and use the word "communist" as a description. TFD (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple, "Communist Romania" is the name of the article per reputable scholarship, covering a period from the start (1945) through the end of Communist domination and control. @Direktor, the names of the state are irrelevant. There is nothing "wrong" here which requires any correction whatsoever. This is the same reason why splitting this article into individual ones by name of state, as has also been proposed, is a POV content fork, as such a split would eliminate the 1945-1947 period as part of the narrative. This dialog is a total and utter polarizing waste of time. The very reasons being used to assault the title (1945 to next state name change to next name change, Ceaucescu et al.) are the very reasons

1. the article title needs to stay and
2. the time period needs to remain intact (1945, commencing with Stalin's personal go-ahead in January for a Communist takeover)

The case is not crystal clear only by editors advocating for content and organization which ultimately obfuscate simple facts.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, its not "quite simple", and I do not at all appreciate your haughty, "declarative" tone. You are not the "Grand High Arbiter" in charge of this discussion, User:Vecrumba, so I recommend you respond properly to arguments presented by other users, and present relevant arguments of your own in support of such "declarations" as the above. You apparently did not even read the exchange or take note of what I stated in my response to you. Applying WP:COMMONNAME to two-word phrases that present themselves often simply as a grammatical occurrence - is a misapplication of policy. The phrase must be used as a name for the state, and that is not the case in the vast majority of cases. In other words "Communist Romania" is not a "name" at all, per its usage in sources, let alone a "name per reputable scholarship" as you claim. The names of the state are not irrelevant by any means, as is evidenced by their usage in every single solitary comparable article about a historical communist state, except this one. They are certainly not "irrelevant" simply because you "declare" them to be "irrelevant".

In addition, "Socialist Romania" is a far more common grammatical occurrence than "Communist Romania", and I would certainly like to see the verbal acrobatics that would justify supporting the latter but not the former. Finally, I have to say I refuse to be bullied on this issue. An RfM will be posted in the future and it will be listed on several noticeboards. The serious flaws in the reasoning behind this article's title need to be addressed. -- Director (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't project your declarations and haughtiness on me. There is no comparable article on Communist states because Romania's path was less monolithic that that of others, not to mention a host of unique circumstances: occupied by the Allies but only the Soviets, that occupation taking place with special and unique terms and conditions, et al. but in the end no less (Soviet and police state style) Communist. Your invoking of "every other..." article displays your abject lack of consideration of Romania's history and your blinders-on insistence to conflate the name of a state with the title of an article. If that were indeed the criteria, then your only option is to lobby for three separate articles to cover the time period, not to change the title. Such lobbying, I would argue, would be completely misguided and historically inappropriate for reasons already discussed ad nauseum. There are no flaws whatsoever behind the title or the period represented by the current title, as it is the only title appropriate and applicable to the entire period. Not agreeing with you because of grossly fundamental flaws in every last bit of your editorial position is not bullying, it is simply disagreeing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia broke with the USSR entirely, changed its name twice, and formed its own bloc, Czechoslovakia was literally occupied by the Soviet Union mid-existence and forced to change its name, Albania broke with the Soviets and joined China and changed its name, Hungary was also occupied, etc. etc. All these changes and reforms carried with them different living conditions and regimes. It is a blatant fact that there are very many comparable cases, Vecrumba. Romania is not a special case in any way.

The point is that you are not really discussing here. You're just ignoring arguments and posting "declarations of fact" as if we are supposed to accept your view because you say so. I am not at all interested in what you think are my "options". You've managed to write three posts without responded to any of the arguments for the move in any way. -- Director (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, how about that subsequent to the fall of "Communist Romania" (a reference to the country and period whose usage was steadily building throughout the duration), actual "grammatical occurrence" in books rankings are:

1. Communist Romania, first place (and clearly refers to the country and period, capital "C" Communist)
2. communist Romania
3. socialist Romania
4. Socialist Romania, last place

As for your preferred "Socialist Romania," I would add that usage peaked only for the time the official title was in use, and not for the entire historical period of Communist Russia (nor was it used for the initial period), so "Socialist Romania" is a misnomer, at best, for this article.

I have responded. I reject your entire thesis that two words are being cobbled together into a misapplication of WP:COMMONNAME which is attempted to be applied to the {optional-name of a country and therefore} title of the article. I also reject your thesis that the formal title of the country matters at at all for the period in question, ergo title of the article. Does that cover it? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your examples of what you consider similar regime and name changes also ignore that Romania was "Communist Romania" for two years prior (1945-1947) while ostensibly still a parliamentary monarchy prior to the forced abdication of King Michael and declaration of the people's republic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@User:Vecrumba. Your claims above are contrary to Google testing I performed earlier. As you did not post any diffs and I question their veracity. Once again you demand we take your word for some claim or other you declare. Please note for future reference that capitalization of adjectives such as "communist" and "socialist" in any context is optional in English, and does not indicate anything in particular. I shall list the arguments here point by point, and I request that you please respond in kind.

• As even a cursory glance can show, "communist Romania" is but a common grammatical occurrence, and has virtually no support whatsoever in sources as a name for this state. WP:COMMONNAME hence does not apply. This is so universally obvious that such a phrase is not used anywhere.
  • Even if we were to argue that such grammatical coincidences should be considered for article titles, then "Socialist Romania" is three times more common than "Communist Romania". While it is a somewhat higher-quality title than the current one, I do not, however, endorse "socialist Romania" as a title, since it shares the flaws of "communist Romania" (I had said so explicitly and User:Vecrumba would know this had he actually read the discussion).
• Even though there are very many comparable states, even states with greater diversity of governmental changes and reform (with accompanying name changes), virtually every single comparable article on a communist state applies the latest name of the state it covers. The reasoning behind this is that it is the most most common sources-supported name for such states, and an efficient way to disambiguate from their previous or modern counterparts that are all (just like the communist state) most commonly known under their simplest name form (e.g. "Romania" or "Poland").

-- Director (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic, but let me just point out that Director's history is a bit off. Czechoslovakia added "Socialist" to its name in 1960 because its leaders considered that the country had achieved socialism. It had nothing to do with the Soviet invasion, which came in 1968. Albania changed its name in 1976 in order to emphasize that it was the only country in Europe building socialism along Marxist-Leninist lines. The alliance with China began around 1961 and while it did not end until 1978, it had already started to cool off after Mao's death almost four months prior to the constitution's adoption. So this name change had little to do with China. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Google testing

• Socialist Republic of Romania yields 918,000 hits
• People's Republic of Romania yields 226,000 hits
• Socialist Romania yields 23,400 hits
• Communist Romania yields 17,100 hits

Apparently I was wrong. "Communist Romania" is not even a particularly common grammatical occurrence. WP:COMMONNAME is decidedly in favor of Socialist Republic of Romania. When the proposed title is fifty-four times more common than the current one, then one expects the issue should be settled. As a long-term Wikipedian, I know better.. :) -- Director (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DIREKTOR, and your "Google results" are completely contrary to mine of Google books. I end at 2010 so we don't get any "books" that are just WP content.

As for your prior examples, now that you bring it up, Hungary is also a problem, as "Communist Hungary" currently inappropriately redirects to the people's republic and omits the prior Soviet-installed regime. So, "Communist Hungary" applies there, similarly, to what is currently an obvious and jarring Wiki-inflicted bifurcation of a single historical period. Oh, and I get the same usage patterns for Communist Hungary as for Communist Romania. Fancy that. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Socialist Republic..." is only good for part of the period, so your overwhelming count is irrelevant, unless, of course, you propose to split the article into more than one, which, of course, I oppose, as the article is about a single contiguous period of Communist rule. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you're misreading your own results :). Secondly, I could not possibly care less about your continued declarations. What else can I say except that the result is NOT "irrelevant". If the article were split (which would be utter nonsense), then your "evasive maneuver" might make sense. However the article is not split and we are not going to split it. This is one (1) state. And Socialist Republic of Romania is the most common name for this one (1) state, by a factor fifty-four times. The fact that it adopted this most common name later in its existence is has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you deem has "no bearing whatsoever" lies at the very heart of the matter. This article talks about (or should talk about) events in 1949, in 1953, in 1958, in 1961 — a time when the Socialist Republic of Romania did not exist, and a time which is referred to in scholarly works by another name which there is no reason we too should not use. (Not to mention discussion of events in 1945, 1946 and 1947, when the state was called "Kingdom of Romania".) It's the all-encompassing nature of "Communist Romania" that makes it preferable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Raw hits don't mean all that much. You need to look at trends, at context, at dates, at authors to get a better sense. As I've already pointed out at least twice, we shouldn't give much weight to occurrences like "Treaty between the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Kingdom of Morocco" because that's liable to occur in a primary source, and is a legal document rather than a scholarly work. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Well, no, the results are quite clear as to where they end up at the right side of the graph, i.e., current usage. I'm glad you don't advocate splitting the article. So the last point is the common name for the state. Since your suggested common name completely omits twenty years of history, I can't agree that those twenty years have no bearing on the issue whatsoever. I am sure you feel you are being rigorous, but I see your position as a classic case of precise but wholly inappropriate and how editors of good will take completely wrong turns never to extricate themselves, responding to their sense of being set upon ("bullied") by only digging deeper and more furiously rather than considering the obvious.

I've acquired and read the best sources on the region, its kingdoms, its principalities, its peoples—meaning books considered the seminal texts in their field, not just hunting for online snippets to justify some preconceived prejudice. It's unbecoming to argue over a title based on a contest of Google searches instead of a serious discussion of the history of the period—which in every case in past discussion has led to an affirmation of the current title. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Biruitorul, what can I tell you? Your main argument up until now was commonname, now "raw hits don't mean that much". Well firstly, they're not "raw" hits, its a standard Google test. Secondly, we are talking about the difference between a million and 18,000 hits: there is no room at all for discussion as to which name is decidedly more common in English language sources. Thirdly, as I said before, "communist Romania" isn't even a name for this state.

A standard Google test provides raw hits, which then need to be interpreted somehow. Yes, by raw numbers, there are 54 times more hits for SRR than for CR. But that's only a starting point. Once one filters out certain results by certain criteria (age, context, relevance), one starts to get a sense that CR is more common - at least I did. And, truthfully, I have no preconceived bias - I simply want to use the most common name and the most accurate. Happily, they seem to coincide under "Communist Romania".

Just to give some examples of sources using SRR that need filtering: too old ([51], [52]), propaganda ([53], [54], [55], [56]), primary sources ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61]).

As for the contention that "'communist Romania' isn't even a name for this state" - well, neither is Greater Romania, neither is Romanian Old Kingdom, neither is East Germany or Soviet Union - but you seem to be fine with those. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Vecrumba. There is no provision in WP:NAME concerning when the most common name came in use, or whether it always referred to the subject of the article. Hence such considerations most certainly have no bearing on the issue whatsoever. This, also, is not subject to interpretation. As Biruitorul pointed out, countries like the Byzantine Empire were never called by their title names during their entire, millenia-long existence. Indeed, when you talk about what is "appropriate" you put your finger squarely on the problem: your personal perceptions as to whether the title form used universally on Wikipedia, and mandated by its policy(!), is "appropriate".

You fellas can't have your cake and eat it too. If you think these were two states, the article needs to be split (and, yes, I think that would be nonsensical). If you think this was one state, then apply the most common name - just like in every single other such article. It is not relevant at all when the most common name was introduced, and please lets not talk about our personal perceptions about what is "appropriate". -- Director (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So what now? Do we need an RM? -- Director (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to move the article, given that such a move would be contentious, I ask that it be done following an RfM finding consensus for a move. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Biruitorul, the point of this discussion was to see whether a consensus can be achieved prior to, or even without an RM. I can't imagine what kind of filtering would diminish an advantage of 900,900 hits. Nevertheless, while it would not matter much as far as the test results are concerned, I must point out that 1) we do not filter hits on the basis of age ("too old"), 2) we are not the ones who decide whether something constitutes "propaganda" or not, and 3) primary sources are also relevant for WP:COMMONNAME.

Even if none of that were the case, "Communist Romania" is actually the least common of the researched terms, and it renders large numbers of false hits as well. In fact, when one eliminates the phrase "post-communist Romania" alone, the number of hits goes down by half (9,570 hits). One wonders how low it would go if the lowercase "communist Romania" were to be filtered as well. Frankly I'm puzzled as to what serious objections can possibly be raised against the proposed title.

• Can we at least agree that Socialist Republic of Romania is more common than "Communist Romania"? That at least seems blatantly obvious, since the advantage can be viewed in orders of magnitude (900,000 and 9,000).
• Do we agree that there is no provision in WP:NAME that requires us to use a term that was used throughout the existence of the state (or even one that was used at all)?
• Do we agree that this article is about one historical country?

If so, we should get this over with by the quick procedure. -- Director (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If I was too dismissive with my one-word comments on sources I said should be filtered out, allow me to expand on that:

1) By "too old", I simply meant that works from (in this case) 1979 or 1982 aren't relevant when one considers the substantial scholarly work that has been produced on the subject since the early 1990s, from a vantage point of both post-Communism and, specifically, post-Socialist Republic of Romania. Scholarly works from (say) 2001-2011 are entitled to more consideration than those from (say) 1975-1985, not because the latter are useless, but because the former better reflect current usage.

2) By "propaganda", I meant the works of a dictatorial regime condemned in 2006 by the president of Romania (speaking in an official capacity) as "criminal and illegitimate". What the regime called itself is relevant. What its official publications say (whether we choose to call them propaganda or not) is not especially relevant, since by their nature they breach WP:RS.

3) Per WP:RS, "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Our focus should be on scholarly works that comment on the subject, not on treaties, laws and the 1965 constitution, all of which come up in searches.

1) To your first question, if "Socialist Republic of Romania" is more common than "Communist Romania", I answer that that depends on the premise of your question. By raw count, yes, but I reject the legitimacy of that metric for reasons just stated. WP:GNUM may be instructive. Google searches are a starting point, not an end.

By the way, much as you may have maligned "Communist Romania" or "communist Romania", those do at least occur, but I don't see many post-1990 scholarly works using "Socialist Republic of Romania".

2) That's correct, we don't have to use an all-encompassing name, but it's an option, an option I believe we should embrace in the name of accuracy. Conversely, I might add, no provision requires us to use the final name of a regime, although that is indeed current practice for some Communist countries.
3) Yes, while there were changes along the way (especially in 1965, when the leader and then the constitution changed), we are dealing with a single entity. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I seem to have a different way of responding which probably still goes in the same direction, @DIREKTOR,

1. no, you are comparing apples (period = Communist Romania) and oranges (name of a specific constitutional entity that existed for part of the period in question)
2. no, same apples and oranges problem, the article is about a period, and similar to the same problem as I have already pointed out for Communist Hungary, but I'll deal with that later
3. no, the article is about one historical period encompassing several separate discrete sovereign (regardless of to what practical degree) and/or constitutional entities; "country" is ambiguous at best in this context and not synonymous with "territory"

There is also no reason to exclude "post-Communist Romania" as indicative of the use of "Communist Romania" in scholarship as that is clearly referencing "post-that period", not "post-that name of sovereign entity". If anything, the exclusive use of that term to refer to after that period validates the use of "Communist Romania" for that period. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sake... if there ever was an obvious move its this one. @Biruitorul, I agree that secondary sources should primarily be viewed, but I reject your other filters as they appear to be without basis in Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not by any means focus solely on sources published in the past 20 years. If they are English-language sources, they count towards English usage. That's policy, its not up for modification here as part of the continuous "raising of the bar" we're witnessing. Obviously we need to go for an RM. @Vecrumba, I don't know what to say to you. Your response seems plainly illogical. This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Director (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I see it equally obvious ("for goodness' sake") that your desire to rename the article demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of article scope, content, and historical context. What (on earth?) "raising of the bar" are you talking about? You're certainly free to pursue additional venues to push your POV, but recognize any such action for what it is: you don't like the response you've been given (given for good reason), so now you'll try to subvert the direct feedback you've been given here that your proposed article renaming is inappropriate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your flaw is that you genuinely believe this is about uniform application of policy. It's not, and as it's not, you are producing nonsensical proposals with regard to the appropriate title for the period and content in question. (You say illogical, I say nonsensical, at this point we can agree that only one of us can be reasonably held to be supporting the more appropriate title.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I advise you to be very careful indeed not to cross the line with regard to WP:NPA. -- Director (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, go easy on the WP:ALPHABETSOUP warning crap. I am merely looking to analyze your deep-seated desire as to your refusal to accept the title as being that appropriate to the period per reputable scholarship, bringing up WP:APLPHABETSOUP which does not apply to make your argument. Quite frankly, your characterization of my editorial opposition elsewhere is much closer to a personal attack, so do please let me know if you're here to engage in spirited debate or to quash opposition through threats. I react very poorly to threats. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I'm here. I'm asking you to be civil - or else :). And if you look carefully you might notice I did not, in fact, "characterize your editorial opposition" in any way. I merely commented on the fact that "Communist Romania" is, in addition to all its other problems, also POV in that it labels a country "communist", when it designated itself "socialist". I did not state this is why you're opposing the RM, how could I possibly know that. You yourself stated that you simply do not find the proposed title "appropriate", whatever that means. I see no point in continuing this thread. -- Director (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your WP:SYNTHESIS that it's POV. It's grossly POV to propose a title that only accounts for one of three regime/constitutional periods of a country for a historical period. You're the one who's choosing to avoid ("no point") measured discourse on the topic, making pointless and polarizing contentions about right wing Romanians, etc. 02:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)