Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Director (talk | contribs) at 23:53, 22 September 2009 (→Meatpuppeteering). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Romania Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Misplaced Pages Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Misplaced Pages Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks

Former countries Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Military history: Balkan / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) European military history task force

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on December 30, 2004, December 30, 2005, and December 30, 2006.

I suggest having Securitate in italics within the text to make it differentiate from names of people. Right now it is a bit confusing for people who skip right to the - say - last paragraph from the Downfall section.

"Experts said"

Recent edition to the article: "Experts said that this policy was akin to economic ploicies followed by Kim Il-sung's North Korean regime." What the heck kind of citation is "Experts said..."? What experts are claimed here to have said looks neither obviously true nor obviously false to me, but if someone has not actually cited one or more of these "experts" within a week, I am liable to delete. -- Jmabel 03:50, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

A week has gone by, no citation, I'm deleting. -- Jmabel 23:06, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

again the December 1989 episode

the protest of hungarian protestant priest Laszlo Tokes didn't spread across the country in a general uprising

no protest outside Timisoara until the Flight of Ceausescu following the 21 December 1989 meeting in Bucharest that represented the turning point. -- criztu

Let's not try to have the same discussion on two talk pages. Can we keep the discussion on Talk:History of Romania since 1989, since that's where we've both written most, and assume that whatever is resolved on that talk page can be propagated to all relevant articles? --

Downfall of communism

In consequence, when the wave of revolution in 1989 hit Romania, it did so with an unmatched fury

this should be reformulated. the "unmatched fury" has deeper causes (the Transylvania matter, the independence of Romania within Communist Block, Gorbaciov and Bush meeting at Malta, the Foreign Secret Services media/ electronic/ terorist warfare, etc.) that need to be explained

After cutting short a 2-day trip to Iran, Ceauşescu on December 21 addressed a hand-picked crowd of 100,000 in the center of Bucharest. Even here, the crowd began shouting against him

this should be reformulated. 100 000 can't be handpicked, they were simply workers, and they didn't begin to shout agains Ceausescu, but went bezirk after a series of sounds resembling that of bombs and gunfire

Securitate opened fire, but the military, under Secretary of Defense Vasile Milea generally refused to join them

this should be reformulated. it should be explained the involving of Foreign Secret Services, the Transylvania matter, simulated electronic warfare, the allegiance of the army to its Commander(in this case Ceausescu) there for it can't be neutral, nor turn into an enemy.

Milea's execution turned the army from a neutral into an enemy.

this should be reformulated. no Tribunal/Martial Court trialed any "executioner" of Milea. -- criztu

i removed the following statements:

• In consequence, when the wave of revolution in 1989 hit Romania, it did so with an unmatched fury.

please reformulate -- Criztu 14:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The issue was over the regime's planned arrest of Protestant minister Laszlo Tokes, who was an outspoken opponent of Ceauşescu. The first protesters were ethnic Hungarians, but within days they had been joined and outnumbered by ethnic Romanians.

this is a POV version of the events taking place in Timisoara. please provide reference to the Trials regarding the Events in Timisoara in december 1989 that suggest a foreign secret services intervention -- Criztu 14:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Even here, the crowd began shouting against him. Securitate opened fire, but the military, under Secretary of Defense Vasile Milea generally refused to join them.

please provide a reference to Trials regarding the Events in december 1989 that suggest the intervention of foreign secret services -- Criztu 14:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Milea's execution turned the army from a neutral into an enemy. They and the Securitate fought street battles in Bucharest, and hundreds, perhaps thousands, were killed in the crossfire.

please provide referenece to the Trial regarding the Events in december 1989 that suggest an electronic war waged by foreign secret services -- Criztu 14:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Their lives might have been spared if the Securitate had been willing to lay down their arms; as it was, they were subjected to a rapid and dubious trial, and shot on December 25. With their deaths, the Securitate began to surrender and soon dissolved itself, and the violence came to an end.

please provide reference to the Trial regarding the Events in december 1989 that suggests Securitate through its general Iulian Vlad colaborated with the Revolution . there were not fighting from securitate since 22 december, only confuse fighting due to "terorist intervention" desinformation -- Criztu 14:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ceausescu's regime

In the 1980s, he went even further: compulsory gynecological examinations sought to identify women who were dodging their patriotic responsibility to breed; the tax structure was revised to penalize the single and the childless

I don't know of such thing, does anyone knows of such thing, and if so, could you provide a reference to where was such thing stipulated ? what law ? -- (Criztu 22:08, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC))

Anyway, the years of Ceauşescu were favourable to Gypsies, because of his demographic policy

Ethnic Hungarians were pressured to give their children traditionally Romanian names

can you provide any substantial data on this thing ? Criztu 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Criztu, I'm with you on this one, I think someone was confused with policies that existed in Bulgaria. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Jews and Germans fared relatively better: they were useful bargaining chips with the West German and Israeli governments

please reformulate in a NPOV way Criztu 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, probably all of this needs to be reworded, but would you agree that ethnic Hungarians generally had a bad time of it under Ceauşescu and that Hungarian culture was generally suppressed? And that (West) Germany and Israel managed to gain advantage (and, ultimately, to buy departure) for many of those they considered their co-nationals? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:59, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

In the 1980s, Ceauşescu became simultaneously obsessed with repaying Western loans and with building himself a palace of unprecedented proportions, along with an equally grandiose neighborhood, the Centru Civic, to accompany it. There was also a revival of the doomed effort to build a Danube-Black Sea Canal.These led to an unprecedented level of poverty for the average Romanian. There was no meat to be had, because it was all being exported for foreign exchange. There was no marble to be had for tombstones, because it was all going to build the palace and the Centru Civi

Romania massively exported everything, from apples to furniture, people in Romania had money, but not too much to buy with them. so the unprecedented level of poverty doesn't fit it. Criztu 22:23, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you have money but nothing to buy with them, then the money have no value or there is a hidden (high) inflation. MihaiC 21:14, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Having paper in your pocket is meaningless. I see nothing wrong in this passage and would like to restore it. I suppose the sentence "These led to an unprecedented level of poverty for the average Romanian" isn't crucial, if we keep the examples about meat and marble. Criztu, are you objecting just to that sentence (it's your only stated objection) or is there more of this you are contesting? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:02, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

it wasn't nothing to buy but having to enlist in order to buy - like buying a color TV, or a Car, or Refrigerator, you had to enlist and wait for sometime. this doesn' mean unprecedented level of poverty. People had to wait for days for cheese, eggs, milk, meat to become available in the stores(Alimentara), but when the products arrived, they were bought by people with money with value. other situation were the rations: Sunflower Oil and Sugar were distributed on rations. also exotic goods were only imported on New Years Hollydays and so on. so it is shortage of available goods that were massively exported -- Criztu 04:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following:

• In the 1980s, he went even further: compulsory gynecological examinations sought to identify women who were dodging their patriotic responsibility to breed; the tax structure was revised to penalize the single and the childless.

please provide reference to this information -- Criztu 14:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is a US gov't country study with the claim about taxes and (much to my surprise, actually) about the gynecological thing too. Do you have any problem with that as a citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:50, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

do you agree that compulsory gynecological examinations sought to identify women who were dodging their patriotic responsibility to breed is provocative and at least POV ? as for the countrystudies.us: it should provide excerpt from laws, or provide reference to the law in discussion, if it is a study, otherwise it might be propaganda. I don't have information on this, so let have the name of the Law first, like this: Legea Avortului(Law on Abortion) - Decret-lege nr. 1/1989 (in romanian) http://www.avocatura.com/modules.php?name=Spete&mod=viz&pid=44&pg=1-- Criztu 01:37, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the wording (not mine, BTW, I don't know who wrote it) was provocative, but it appears that the substance was correct. Either of us could try further research; still, while I am no fan of the US gov't on most fronts, in my experience the country studies tend to be very well researched and rarely mistaken on facts (although they may be slanted in emphasis). -- Jmabel | Talk 02:38, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

a study provides reference, countrystudies.us uses U.S. Library of Congress as source, well, Library of Congress contains many things, at least reference to the Romanian Law on Abortion issued 1980 should be provided here. Ceausescu prohibited abortion, I don't deny that, but compulsory gynecological examinations to identify women is POV 100 % ... any young man is gynecologicaly examined before going to army, any young married couple is medicaly(gynecologicaly) examined before making a baby, this is normal standardd in W Europe too -- Criztu 03:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, actually, no, by definition a man is not gynecologically examined. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

you right gineceus means female organ, but men's intimate parts are medicaly examined before being accepted in the army -- Criztu 11:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Where Gheorghiu-Dej's attitude toward the Hungarian minority had been two-faced, Ceauşescu's was simply oppressive. Hungarian-language schools, publishing houses, and cultural institutions were largely shut. Ethnic Hungarians were pressured to give their children traditionally Romanian names. The treatment of the Gypsies was comparably bad. Anyway, the years of Ceauşescu were favourable to Gypsies, because of his demographic policy. Jews and Germans fared relatively better: they were useful bargaining chips with the West German and Israeli governments.

please provide reference to these informations -- Criztu 14:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, probably all of this needs to be reworded, and as remarked above I think the thing about names is wrong, but would you agree that ethnic Hungarians generally had a bad time of it under Ceauşescu and that Hungarian culture was generally suppressed? I believe the statement "Hungarian-language schools, publishing houses, and cultural institutions were largely shut" is simply true. Are you actually doubting this, or just making an arbitrary request for citation? And do you doubt that (West) Germany and Israel managed to gain advantage (and, ultimately, to buy departure) for many of those they considered their co-nationals? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:13, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

we could say Germany prefered to bring in romanians than to bring in africans. i don't know how this "trade" between Germany and Romania should be regarded, i consider both did an illegal thing. as for hungarians culture being supressed: i think there were hungarian programs on romanian national radio station. as for TV, you know that it became a 2 hours program presenting Ceausescu's visits and speeches. It all might be an image achieved by hungarian loby, this "ethnic hungarians having a bad time under Ceausescu".. unless you back this with solid reference, it might be considered propaganda. any romanian "had a bad time" under Ceausescu -- Criztu 01:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll certainly agree with the last sentence. Do you believe that Hungarians weren't singled out for particular ill treatment, or do you just think it needs stronger citation? Similarly, do you think ethnic Germans and Jews were not helped out by the respective involvement of West Germany and Israel, or do you just think it needs stronger citation? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Between Israel and Federal Germany on one side, and Romania on the other side a secret "trade" of romanian citizens with certified jewsh or saxon ancestry going from ROmania to Israel and Germany took place seems NPOV to me while "jews and saxons were used as bargaining chips" is 100% POV... why did Israel and Germany care only for those romanians of jewish/saxon pedigree(certificate) and not the rest of romanians ? you know this is a delicate matter for all Israel, Germany and Romania as well, we can't present it as Romania's fault. by staying in Romania, no jew or saxon was jeopardised more than any other romanian . N. Ardeal(that was taken by Hungary in the beginning of WW2 and recovered at the end of it had Autonomous status for couple of years after. I think Ceausescu ended this teritorial autonomy(i don't know the date), this certainly can be regarded as a step back from hungarians former status, but hungarian Publishing Houses being shut-down... what about Mircea Dinescu, a romanian(and a few others like him) that wasn't even allowed to publish his poetry ? if Ceausescu was opressive towards hungarians more than towards romanians, it has to be substantiated by showing how the hungarians were treated worse than romanians (refference to a Law/Act/Decree that prohibited hungarian culture, names of hungarian Publishing houses being closed by guvernamental decree, anything oficial, a UN/Haga protest from Hungary(not american congressmen, please) or other evidence, yes, this is what i'd ask for -- Criztu 03:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Demolished areas in Bucharest

• Entire towns and, ultimately, a large portion of the capital, Bucharest, were torn down and either replaced by bland concrete buildings or (when money ran low) by nothing at all.

please provide reference to what towns were torns down entirely -- Criztu 14:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not towns for sure. Villages. For sure it was a village that was completly destroyed and inhabitants moved to town. Unfortunatelly I don't remember the name. MihaiC 20:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yes, let's find that village and insert it in the article. being more specific, A large portion of Bucharest was indeed torn down to make way for the Centru Civic, but the Revolution left the complex unfinished, buildings like National Library and Natinal History Museum left unfinished to this day -- Criztu 23:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Well, here's from a US gov't country study, which we usually consider citable: "Some villages on the outskirts of Bucharest were destroyed, ostensibly to make way for projects such as the Bucharest-Danube Canal and airport expansion. Meanwhile about eight square kilometers in the heart of Bucharest were destroyed, leveling some of the nation's finest architectural heritage." Admittedly, this does not actually name a village, either. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:15, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

  yeah, but this happens in Germany or Netherlands too, we don't see presidents of Netherlands flooded entires villages to make way for their water sytems do we ? -- Criztu 00:27, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  Well, as much of a stink has been made about dam projects in India and China. As for the Netherlands, I think the existence of a clear system of judicial review and compensation makes it a different matter. There was clearly nothing og the sort in Communist-era Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

there were compensations following judicial system. 1947 and the spoliation of former ruling class was far from 1980es communist Romania, when there were no more "chiaburi" that could have been ripped off illegaly -- Criztu 00:45, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• (from a US congressman) suggests that right at the end of the Communist era there was reason to at least anticipate mass razing of villages, and strongly suggests that Hungary was very concerned. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

hmmm... an US Congressman is not GOD, he is an interface between Groups of Interest and the Decisional Apparatus of US, his report in march 1989 fits the last days of Communism in E. Europe, when everybody was rushing to bring Ceausescu down by any means, asap... which was a good thing if you ask me. BUT -- Criztu 03:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• This document on the UN's site also makes the assertion about villages, but again does not name names. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:35, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

quote from unpan1.un.org: the unorganized stret rioters who had contributed decisively to the end of the regime. do you agree that the decisif contributors to the end of the regime weren't the rioters but the heads of the army and securitate ? aka the kangoroo court that decisively executed him and his wife ? social engineering policies were carried out the distruction of villages under the slogan of systematization in the late 1980's is a general formulation. I (user:criztu) can testify that Ceausescu's policy compromised entire villages by unrealistic industrialisation and urbanisation, the young generations abandoning their villages and heading to towns, but how many villages(or even towns) in US didn't suffered from similar shifting in population's employment in industry ? -- Criztu 03:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

from what i know, entire saxon villages were deserted, due to that secret trade between Romania and Federal Germany, by wich the lattest "bought" romanian citisens proving saxon ancestry. these saxon villages might have been used by Hungary as a utensil. I point you the Jugoslavia and Ceskoslovenska, other neighbour states in wich Hungary had interest, that desintegrated during the '90es. the Targu Mures chapter in 1991 and Timisoara chapter in 1989 can be regarded as similar Pattern according to wich parts of Romania would have aquire status similar to Voivodina -- Criztu 00:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• looks to me to be a solidly researched academic paper (it also has a lot of info on Laszlo Tokes, and at the very least should be mined for that). Again, though, no specific claims of villages actually razed, just of impending intent to do so.
• Based on all of this, I'm perfectly willing to let go of the claim that any villages were actually razed, at least pending that someone can provide specific place names. On the other hand, I assume we are basically agreed on what was done to Bucharest, having seen it with our on eyes. Are you willing to let the article talk about the systematization plans to raze villages having been in place at the time of Ceausescu's downfall, or do you consider even that to be dubious? And if documents like the above don't count as documentation of that, what sort of documentation would you consider acceptable? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:46, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

Communist Romania article should present the impact of the Communist Doctrine, not the natural modernisation process of a country, by which villages are buldozed to make way for Strategic National Projects; perhaps you know that Casa Poporului is more then a Palace, it is an equivalent to Pentagon, an underground complex of Fortresses -- Criztu 00:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, this is not simply an article about "the impact of the Communist Doctrine", it's an article in the History of Romania series. It is our primary article covering a period of Romanian history. And you really didn't answer my question here, you went off on a tangent. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:06, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

if you mention the buldozing of villages in order to make way for Strategic National Projetcts it is ok to me, but please also add info on the fact that Romania was becoming the second largest exporter of Tulipes(flowers) after Netherlands, developing a National System of Agricultural Irrigations and GreenHouses matching the Westerners, oh, and also VItification Industry(wines) and Furniture, and that Romania had the biggest number of Houses(apartments) per capita in East Europe -- Criztu 01:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Now it's my turn to ask you: do you have documentation on the tulips, etc.? Wouldn't surprise me, I saw a lot of tulips and lilies in Romanian markets, but since you are being such a stickler for everyone else's documentation, I think you should be documenting your own prospective additions. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

no, I don't have available documentation to sustain this, that's why I don't add such info. do you agree that presenting the Modernization of Romania under Ceausescu as a series of "entire towns razed" suggesting Ceausescu was demolishing Romania can be considered as bringing prejudice to Romania's image, while not presenting it's achievments, like Portile De Fier on Danube, the Metro in Bucharest, the Hidraulic Power stations and Dams or Nuclear Plant at Cernavoda, that were meant to secure Romania's energetic independence from Russia is also POV ? Romania securing its energetic independence was the reason why USSR was so concerned for romanians future, not the romanians didn't have meat available at any time of day :) -- Criztu 01:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• There was no meat to be had, because it was all being exported for foreign exchange. In the era of glasnost, this was increasingly unacceptable to both the Soviet Union and the Western alliance.

please provide reference to this information -- Criztu 14:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"In the era of glasnost, this was increasingly unacceptable to both the Soviet Union and the Western alliance" strikes me as so obvious that I can't even think how one would cite for it. What are you contesting here, Criztu? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:05, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

you mean Gorbachiov was concerned for the faith of the romanians, and that they didn't have meat available at any time of day ? -- Criztu 01:17, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statement may have been ill-placed (again, I didn't write it), but I think that it is safe to say that Ceauşescu had torn down some of the most historic sections of Bucharest, was intending to raze villages, was cracking down on individual and ethnic-community liberties to an extent rivalled in Europe only by Albania, and that this sort of conduct which might at one time have been tolerated or even embraced by Moscow was anathema to Gorbachev, who had stood by and let regimes to which he was actively allied topple for less. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:45, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

i hope you understand i don't take sides here. Ceausescu was not good, but neither was he evil. some of the most historic sections of Bucharest weren't torn down at all, the Tremour in 1977 had torn many interbelic(betwen the world wars) buildings down causing many deaths, as a result a reconsideration of all unfit buildings in Bucharest, and consequent buldozing of them. others, like Lipscani, an historic area in Bucharest were preserved, altho' neglected. Historic buildings like CEC, Old Museum of History, Magheru Boulevard, etc.etc. where preserved, only the unfit, and miriads of tiny ramshackled orthodox churches were buldozed(some of them displaced to other locations), the only area of Bucharest that i know of to have been healthy and being buldozed was the area that gave way to Casa Poporului and Centru Civic... but remember, Dealul Mitropoliei(HQ of Orthodox Church) was left untouched, right in the path of Unirii Blvd. and Casa Poporului. Again, URSS and US had their business and treated E Europe as assets. the Energetic and Financial Independence of Romania were far heavyer arguments for replacing Ceausescu then ethnic minorities being neglected -- Criztu 03:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I would certainly agree that Lipscani and the area a bit east toward the CEC were merely neglected. On the other hand, much of the historic Jewish neighborhood just west of Lipscani -- and not only that which was embraced by the Centru Civic -- was targeted. Yes, definitely Dealul Mitropoliei was spared, and in some places the juxtaposition is strange. For that matter, Antim monastery was also spared. Yes, certainly the most blatant destruction was for the Centru Civic and and Casa Poporului. Still, the contrast to other central and eastern capitals is illustrative: Prague and Budapest painstakingly restored many historic buildings; Budapest not only restored but often recontstructed historic buildings (e.g. much of Castle Hill). Ceauşescu's attitude on this clearly contrasted even to those of other communist rulers, and while I'm not sure exactly how, that has somehow got to find its way into the article. His contempt for his own capital seems to have been unique. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:23, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

well, Bucharest never had the architectural status of Prague or Budapest(capitals of Habsburg Empire)... the only historic castel in Bucharest that i know of was Vlad the Impaler's castel, a ruin. while Peles Castle in Sinaia, for example, was kept in excelent condition by communists, altho' it was King Carol's heritage. actually in Bucharest mainly slums were buldozed, for example, the northern part of Bucharest wich suffered a "systematisation" during Kingdom of Romania, was preserved intact by the communists, being to this day the most beautiful part of Bucharest. I hope you know of Arcul de Triumf area -- Criztu 10:56, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, beats hell out of what is now growing up slightly farther north. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:21, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

The Dealul Mitropoliei was to be bulldozed. Only very strong opposition of Patriarch Teoctist spared the area. In the original plans, the hill was to be part of the new HQ of the police (you may consult the plans - contact the union of architects in Bucharest). So was the Lipscani area in 1990-1991. And one of the most beautiful areas in Bucharest wasn't to be spared - the Stefan Furtuna, Lipovei, Piata Virgiliu, Stirbei Voda, up to Cismigiu Parc was also to be bulldozed. Part of it were already done, on Stirbei Voda, from Eroilor to Virgiliu. The lipovei area, near Gara de Nord, and Gara de Nord itself was to be demolished in late 91 early 92. Lipovei street already received a red number (orders for eviction for May '90). I lived in the neighbourhood and know what I am talking about. The block next to mine was to be torn down as well and it was built in 1961. Some houses in the area still have the eviction markings on them (a red X over IAL numbers). And interbellum Bucharest DID have the status of Prague or Budapest. Do you really want interbellum pictures Criztu??? I have some, made in colour, in the '30's. Just look at the Ambasador Building on Magheru, or the Royal Palace or the beautiful building of "Palatul CFR" or the tens or hundreds of Bauhaus blocks of the 1930's and so on... User:xanthar

Stefan Furtuna, Gara de Nord area, Stirbei Voda were low density residential areas with little architectural value (certainly not one of the most beautiful areas in Bucharest), these areas would have been buldozed by a capitalist regime too - in order to upgrade them, so we can't claim it was "the evil Ceausescu intending to destroy something beautiful", but rather "a low density residential area was upgraded to a medium density residential area". YES, i want links to interbellum pictures, can you show how did the Magheru area looked like before being buldozed to make way for the Ambasador Building on Magheru, or the Royal Palace or the beautiful building of "Palatul CFR" or the tens or hundreds of Bauhaus blocks of the 1930's and so on... ? :) ... can you explain why didn't Ceausescu demolished the Ambasador Building on Magheru, or the Royal Palace or the beautiful building of "Palatul CFR" or the tens or hundreds of Bauhaus blocks of the 1930's and so on... that still stand today right where they were built in the 1930's ? Criztu 20:56, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Towards Bucharest there were two policies, one of demolishing all that could be demolished (even monuments of historical significance or architectural masterpieces) such as Văcăreşti Monastery, Sfânta Vineri Monastery, The Palace of Justice – built by Romania's foremost architect, Ion Mincu –(scheduled for demolition in early 1990 according to the systematisation papers), the other of abandoning and neglecting the buildings that could not be demolished and bring them into such a state that they would require tearing down. Even the Gara de Nord, one of the most beautiful train stations in the world, listed among The Romanian Architectural Heritage List, was scheduled to be torn down and replaced by a new one in early 1992. Either systematic neglect or outright demolition affected 70% of historic Bucharest, including areas such as Magheru-Universitate (the heart of Bucharest), Lipscani, Halelor, Domenii, St. John's Cathedral, Grivitei, and the Gara de Nord, systematization being halted only by the Revolution in 1989.

please reformulate in a NPOV way :

Towards Bucharest there were two policies - what about the other policies towards Bucharest ? the ones aiming to upgrade Bucharest by designing award winning projects like the Drumul Taberei quarter/district (inm place of a historic slum district of Bucharest, or the aim of aquiring an underground transport sistem for Bucharest, or the creation of a presumably benefic Bucuresti-Dunare channel that would have boosted the status of Bucharest, connecting it to the riveran cities of Europe ?

demolishing all that could be demolished - this sentence is pure journalism

abandoning and neglecting the buildings that could not be demolished - what do you mean by bulidings that could not be demolished ???

Even the Gara de Nord was scheduled to be torn down and replaced by a new one in early 1992 - so this was scheduled to be done because Ceausescu wanted to obliterate the past, or because the railway terminal wasn't fit for the railway traffic and in itself generated further car traffic problems ? perhaps you know the problems generated by Gara de Nord still need solutions, one solution as of our days beeing the abandoning of Gara de Nord and moving the terminal at Basarab, creating a highway at Basarab in order to close the Bucharest inner circle of auto routes, and creating an underground parking in Gara de Nord area to solve the immense problems generated by the obsolete Gara de Nord station, solutions supported by Traian Basescu - elected president of Romania, former minister of Transportation. the 1989 Revolution perhaps "saved" Gara de Nord from this "scheduled for 1992 tearing down", but it also prolonged the "inferno" in which the city-dwellers from Gara de Nord area live in.

systematic neglect or outright demolition affected 70% of historic Bucharest - do you have a refference to where this percent is sustained by an advised authority ? does historic Bucharest means "buildings that should never be demolished even if there's a need for higher density zones or the buildings were simply slums" ?

please reformulate in a NPOV way, i don't support Ceausescu's megalomania, the Casa Poporului i consider it aestethically monstruous, but during his "rule" the Dambovita river was sistematizated, and now we have a relatively cute looking river instead of an ugly stinking "historic Dambovita river" Criztu 00:35, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Answer : No city begins to bulldoze if there is a need for higher density structures. Changing the landscape in a civilized environment happens gradually, as people buy -> demolish -> build. And that area is mid-density, in no way low density, and is designed to be as such. People build big in the outskirts, see Warsaw and Prague, for successful urban planning (even in the dark communist days). The Gara de Nord area was a way of dealing away with the past. Railway traffic in Bucharest is a problem, due to the "terminus" situation of Gara de Nord. But the new train station, that would have been in Orhideelor area (carrefour), would have also been a terminus (16 tracks instead of 14), not bringing substantial benefits, nor permitting the construction of a ring (the closing down of Grozavesti Road was a sign to that) - and traffic was no issue in 1989. Basescu suggests building ANOTHER station, to partially take off the load, and allow for pass-through services for Bucharest (and will probably be positioned on the outskirts of Bucharest), while maintaining the current one as a intercity station and a railway museum (that Romania needs). I agree with the idea of building dormitory neighbourhoods and suburbs (most were built not over slums, but rather over former villages or mahalale, outside the city), Drumul Taberei is the case. Some of them were particularly successful (basically the first ones built) : Drumul Taberei, Militari, 1 Mai while others (especially those later built) are terrible : Ferentari, parts of Rahova, etc. I was speaking about re-shaping the city center, and demolishing historic Bucharest, to clean it of its history, that is the area comprising the center of the city, where there are no slums (only derelict buildings due to the policy of neglect). The 70% figure is based on a study by the Union of Architects. Oh and the townships first demolished were : Otopeni, 48 hours notice, Scornicesti, 24 hours notice, half of Ciolpani, 3 days notice. There were others too, but I do not know their name. Big cities "systematised" : Targoviste (center demolished, most of the city rebuilt), Pitesti. --Xanthar 6 July 2005 04:24 (UTC)

Chronology

Was Romania the first country to do away with communism? I think it might have been, but I shouldn't be too sure of it. ] 12:44, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) PS: Nicolae Ceaucescu - oops, Ceausescu - was such an idiot back in his time. Was he the first Romanian to go to Hell, apart from some of his colleagues?

• Ignoring the silly follow-on question: No, Romania was actually among the last Eastern European countries to oust its Communist regime (although Yugoslavia and, I believe, Albania were later). And of course the Soviet Union lasted another year-and-a-half. But, other than the Soviet Union, it all happened very fast, a matter of months altogether. See 1989 for chronology on the bulk of them. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:02, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

The Romanian Jews...

The Romanian Jews had initially helped Communism as a reaction to the anti-Semitism of Fascists.

That is an unneeded generalization. It is true that many of the leading members of the Communist Party in the 1940s and 1950s were Jews (Maurer, Pauker, Brucan, etc), but not all the Jews supported the Communists, like this phrase might suggest. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | 13:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

As I said in the comment, I'm ok with revisiting the text, and obviously not all Jews supported Communists, just like not all Romanians supported the Iron Guard. However, there has been relatively large support for Communism among the larger Jewish communities, as far as I know. While today this might look like an anti-Semitic statement in retrospect, because we know what Communists ended up doing, at the time many Jews simply opted for the lesser evil, I don't know why this is such a big deal. --Gutza 14:20, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I've changed this to "most", which is certainly true, but we could still use citations. I've been looking for (and so far not finding) a good book on Moses Rosen; most of what's out there is almost hagiography. A well-researched book on Rosen would probably be the key thing in terms of the situation of Jews in Communist Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:03, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm ok with the new version. If objective proof comes to light (and, with all due respect, I'm not sure if a good book on Moses Rosen can be called objective, given the intrinsic topic, but anyway), I can even be ok with "many" instead of "most" (although I strongly feel towards "most"). --Gutza 20:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not sure if we'll ever find a reasonable amount of truth about the good and the bad regarding Romania's Jews. They were discriminated against since just before WWII (at least), until 1989 -- and we know how good communists were at destroying evidence. Unfortunately the destroyed evidence contains both atrocious acts and good deeds, therefore neither the worst nor the best case scenario regarding Romanian Jews can be accepted. Truth is somewhere in the middle, but we'll probably never know where in the middle... --Gutza 20:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

From what I understood, the discrimination became more severe around the late fifties. Jewish apparatchiks were replaced, even after the purge against Moscowists like Pauker. --Error 00:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel has deleted my addition about the Ioanid gang. Actually, the whole "Romanian Jews" paragraph was just to allow me to link to the gang. About the reason behind the robbery (supposing there was an actual one), the Misplaced Pages article says:

The reason of robbery is still unknown: there were rumours that they intended to donate the money to Zionist organizations that would send Romanian Jews to Israel.

From one of the Securitate men interviewed in The Great Communist Bank Robbery, I understood that one of the hypothesis were that they wanted to pay somebody to fly away from Romania (one of them was a aeronautic engineer). Another hypothesis was that Israel had sent them to extract Romanian Jews and the money would fund such activities. It may not make a lot of sense, but the robbery itself does not make sense.

So, can we have a link to the gang somewhere in the article? --Error 00:38, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Given that this is at the level of a 42-year history of a country, and there is no other discussion of crimes (except those of the regime), and only about two paragraphs on the rather complicated situation of Romanian Jews in this period, I have to question the appropriateness of including one of the few notorious crimes committed by Jews in Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I found that the gang article lacked inlinks and this article seemed the best place. There is no discussion of crimes because, as a police state, Romania had little crime, I understand. It's probably the biggest bank robbery in a Communist country and it was made by Communist Jews, and it was reconstructed with the original authors. All that makes it noteworthy to me. The angle of "Jewish gangsters" is not very remarkable but their Jewishness is important to try to understand the reasons and the consequences.

If you want to include this bit of trivia (which may or may not be appropriate in the article, I'm neutral on that), then do convey the sense of the respective Misplaced Pages article, that is the Ioanid Gang allegedly committed this crime (the third paragraph in the Ioanid Gang article says "The unusual aspects and the disrespect for truth of Romanian bureaucrats has led some to doubt that the robbery took place.") --Gutza 12:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I added that sentence. --Error 23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that even the facts are in doubt (hey, I live halfway around the world from Romania), and I still think it doesn't belong in the article, but, yes, if it's to be restored we should not be stating only one side of a controversial matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

From TGCBR, the son of one of the executed (whose name I forgot, but who lives now in London) checked the files of Securitate and was not convinced. I don't know how widespread is the doubt. Actually, it seems that the Romanians of today have forgotten about this. The problem is that the side from the gang is not known, so we are left with the Securitate files and speculation. --Error 23:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Xanthar's recent additions...

...are mostly great. I've toned down POV a little (let the facts speak for themselves) did some copy edits (probably a little more of this to do). I have one question and one remark:

• "Life expectancy became the lowest in Europe…": lower even than Albania? I'd like to see a citation on that.
• Just in general, this could use some citations. From everything I know, the general picture is correct, but there are a lot of specific facts here (ratios of overbuilding, specific rations of food, etc.) All of these things could use citations. -- Jmabel | Talk July 7, 2005 05:11 (UTC)

For life expectancy I've used the National Statistics Institute Report for 1989 (published May 1990), that gave 65.8 (male) and 72.4 (female) at birth. For Albania, according to http://unstats.un.org/unsd/cdbdemo/cdb_years_on_top.asp?srID=14830&crID=8&yrID=1988 (Un Statistics) the numbers were 69.6 male and 75.5 female. The closest to Romania was the Soviet Union with 65.4 and 74.6. There was no data regarding Romania on the site. After doing the math (using gender repartition given by the World Bank) Romania scored worse (69.3 vs. 70.01). Regarding infant mortality, there were no official data before July 1990. For rationing data, I've used a set of unused January 1990 ration coupons that I still have (the 1990 coupons were given in november). I tried to scan them, but, because they are red colored on light red paper, the scan gives poor results, and these coupons were only locally valid as most counties did not issue such coupons, but rather lists in shops (each person was assigned a shop), where all persons were written down, with their ID card numbes. Rations for each year was given in a governmental decree (I think they were called "Decret al Consiliului de Ministri privind Alimentatia Rationala", but I'm not sure), but were not fixed, as many counties had fixed export quotas, and imposed even stricter rations, in order to fulfill the export quota or to provide for the more profitable black market. Laws regarding electricity (searching the net) : Decret nr.310 din 11 octombrie 1988, DECRET NR. 259 DIN 3 SEPTEMBRIE 1988 (regarding how to approve new rations and transmit them down the line) DECRET nr.259 din 3 septembrie 1988, ORDIN nr.5 din 11 ianuarie 1988, regarding approving the means to implement new gas ration cards. The law regarding rationing was HOTARARE 5/2.07.1984 privind aprobarea programului de alimentatie stiintifica a populatiei, whereas DECRET NUMAR: 98 DIN 28/03/83 reglemented the ownership of typewriters (it was harder to own such a machine than it is to own a gun in most of the US - it required government checkups and approval, followed by yearly checkups by the militie). There were many others, but they're not available on the net, such as the law regarding emigration and paying back for schooling and medical assistance, in foreign currency while you were not allowed to own foreign currency - thus creating a vicious circle, and the such. --Xanthar 7 July 2005 18:35 (UTC)

I would definitely like a picture of a food queue in Ceausescu's Romania. Prefferably free and in colors, in order to add it on this page. --Xanthar 7 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

Just to let you know that Albania's life expectancy has never been much of a problem - it's around 74 years at the moment. Romania's is also now not that bad. Russia, Ukraine, Moldova currently hold the record for the lowest life expectancy in Europe and it was probably that way during Communism too (though Russia's record on this matter did become worse after 1990). Ronline 08:58, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename suggested to the "People's Republic of Romania"

Similar to how the People's Republic of Poland, Ukrainian SSR, Moldavian SSR articles are now called (rather than Communist PL, Soviet UA or Soviet MD, respectively) I suggest to rename this article accordingly to reflect the country's name rather then an informal name with a more limited use. I would like to informally suggest this idea here first before submitting it to WP:RM. Regards, --Irpen 21:16, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the name "People's Republic of Romania" only lasted until the late 1960s, when it was changed to "Socialist Republic of Romania". "Communist Romania" is encompassing both periods. bogdan | 21:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense. Should then the article itself reflect the name change somewhere in the text? Currently it olny speaks about the creation of People's Republic. --Irpen 21:36, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai has now moved this, against the consensus here. I am moving it back, for exactly the reason Bogdan gives above. - Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't notice this talk (I even didn't know that there were two names; I took the one bolded in the intro). Since the title refers to several names, these must be prominently stated in the intro. Please add the appropriate Romanian names and dates. Also, the "intro"/summary part is unfinished (I'd also say, too detailed, but this is probably the matter of taste). mikka (t) 10:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Fertility restrictions

I am a bit unsure about the neutrality of characterizing restrictions on abortion and contraception as "human rights abuses." I am not a defender of Ceauşescu and I am sure that he restricted the prior actions only with the most cynical of motivations (although, from what I have heard, the natality rate of Romanian women HAD fallen dangerously low and there was a serious possibility of impending population crisis), but from the standpoint of many anti-abortion activists, failure to prosecute one who procured an abortion would be the human rights abuse.

The bottom line: I think it is at least a matter of debate whether abortion qualifies as a legitimate "human right" and so the article's language should not blithely assume that it is. Thoughts?--TheMcManusBro 02:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• I guess that it was labelled as "human rights abuses" because it was an administrative decision, without concerning about the moral part of the situation. The natality rate of Romanian women had indeed fallen, but it was because of poor economy. That was very clear because after a very high natality registered in that year and in the following one, the natality drooped back to the previous rate.MihaiC 07:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

• • I see your point. Thank you for the input.--TheMcManusBro 01:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Iron Guard after WWII

This recent edit ("No Iron Guard ministers after WWII") makes exactly the change its summary suggests (thanks!). I know that the Iron Guard weren't yet totally out of the picture at that time, because they played a role in the 1946 elections. Does anyone know more about this? Our article Iron Guard ends with their unsuccessful January 1941 uprising and its suppression. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

THe article needs a timeline of major events: Mihai abdication, formal pronouncement People's Republic, of Socialist Republiec, etc. mikka (t) 19:05, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

If someone wants to do a timeline, you can see History of New York City (near the bottom) for a good example of how to do it. - Jmabel | Talk 18:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

Justinian Marina, the new chosen Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church with the help of the Communist government disbanded the Romanian Greek-Catholic Uniate Church and merged it with the Orthodox Church. sounds like the patriarch urged the communist gvt to disband the Greek-catholic church, and the comm gvt decided to comply with his wish. maybe Justinian Marina is the one to blaim for the dissolution of the Greek-catholic church in ukraine and in other areas controlled by the soviets too. Anonimu 00:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph that begins "Romania was proclaimed a communist state under the direct military and economic control of the USSR" is also rather POV. I don't necessarily disagree with what it says, but it strikes me as polemical rather than encyclopedic. - Jmabel | Talk 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, this is my formulation, i mean by it "romania was transformed in a comunist state by USSR" and "it became de facto a state under military control of the uSSr (which kept an army on the teritory of RO) and under the economic control of USSR (through the famous sovroms, and i am not sure how they were called, economic directives from USSR by which USSR dictated like "how much steel, or grain, or wood, romania needs". It is evaluated today that those sovroms "exporting" raw materials and goods to USSR actualy were robbing ROmania, acting in the sense of "additional war compensations of romania to Ussr" . the sentence could be formulated better i agree, in that mention of Sovroms robbing romania and soviet army occupying romania should be given Criztu 07:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can work out a way to rewrite this NPOV - citing for the opinions - fine. Otherwise, I think it should be removed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Newly added link

Someone recently added a link as Fascinating escape story from Communist Romania. I'm not sure this should be here. For starters, "fascinating"? A bit POV, no? I followed the link. It looks like the site is pretty full of copyvio pictures and is written for about a 12-year-old reading level. I'm not going to remove it unilaterally, but I am weighing in against it, and would appreciate if others would follow it up & chime in. - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Poorly sourced and weasel words

I don't doubt most of the facts in this article, and most of it is well-written. But it is very poorly sourced and uses some weasel words rather than backing up its facts. Are there folks interested in a major clean-up of this article? Thankfully, there are a lot of good sources available online to back up facts on the history of Communist Romania, including in the Open Society archives of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, accessible through Central European University at http://archivum.wsNYDCSP 17:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and then we'll begin to source US history with the archives of Radio Moscow... Anonimu 19:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Before you judge the sources, I recommend you read through them. There are hundreds of background reports produced by researchers of significant events that were monitored in Romania, or from Romanian news reports in print, radio and television. These reports were produced and circulated to staff at RFE/RL for their reference about what was taking place, and in many cases they contain a treasure trove of first-hand information on who spoke at party conferences and government meetings, what key officials said in public speeches and published reports, what the official or party-controlled news agencies were saying about world events, or about neighboring countries, or fraternal socialist organizations in the Eastern bloc or the communist world. If Radio Moscow did the same, and had all of its material available in a similar open archive, then absolutely yes I would say they'd be a great resource too. (I doubt they did.) I recommend you read the material before judging it.NYDCSP 10:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Mess of a paragraph

During the early years, Romania's scarce resources after WWII were drained by the "SovRom" agreements: mixed Soviet-Romanian companies established in the aftermath of World War II to mask the looting of Romania by the Soviet Union, in addition to excessive war reparations paid to the USSR. Also a large number of people (estimates vary from 137 to tens of thousands ) were imprisoned for political, economical or other reasons. There were a large number of abuses, deaths and incidents of torture against a large range of people, but mainly political opponents .

The first sentence seems fine. I'm putting the latter part of this here inside a so you can see the markup and footnote as well: <blockquote><nowiki>Also a large number of people (estimates vary from 137 to tens of thousands <ref>"", in the prison of Aiud alone there were 625 political prisoners who were starved to death from 1945 to 1964 </ref>) were imprisoned for political, economical or other reasons. There were a large number of abuses, deaths and incidents of torture against a large range of people, but mainly political opponents <ref>"", testimonies from 1945 to 1964</ref>.

I made one edit here myself (it used to say "hungered to death", which made no sense, and which I presume had to mean "starved to death"). But:

• There first citation is a blind URL, the other two use cite.php (Yea!), but the citation itself is just a blind URL in quotation marks. Notes should include an indication of the language of the source document (not to mention, oh, its title and authorship).
• There is no clear indication which different estimates come from where (not just in terms of our source, but whether they are original research by that source or they are citing someone else).
• It is not clear whether the extensive passage inside the second citation is a quotation from that source, an abstract of the source, or what. Similar issues for the third citation.
• "Economical" is almost certainly wrong; "imprisoned for economical reasons" would mean "imprisoned to save money". I would guess "imprisoned for economic reasons", but I can't work out what that would mean in this context. What does it mean to say that someone was imprisoned for economic, as against political, reasons?

There might even be more at issue here; this was enough that I thought I'd bring it here to point this out. - Jmabel | Talk 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oddly cut

The following was cut some time in the last few months: 'Seduced by Ceauşescu's "independent" foreign policy, Western leaders were slow to turn against a regime that, by the late 1970s, had become increasingly harsh, arbitrary, and capricious.' I'd say that is precisely true, and shouldn't be hard to cite for. - Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarly, with reference to 1946, the present wording "opposition parties claimed electoral fraud" is incredibly mild. As far as I can remember, everything I've ever seen from a non-Communist source (not just opposition parties) says this was one of the most fraudulent elections in world history. Surely we can find something citable to say this. I previously had the following from the Rough Guide to Romania: "Virtually every device ever used to rig an election was put into play." I agree that the Rough Guide is a weak source here—I put this in when the article was still a very rough draft—but I would think it should be replaced by something solid to the same effect, not removed.

I'm not going to go on listing item by item, but it seems to me that between late December 2006 and late February 2007 there were a series of edits to this article most of which amount to a whitewash. I'm probably not the best one to plunge into this, but I think someone should, and I'm calling this to people's attention. - Jmabel | Talk 18:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Relations with the West post-'68

I've found a good citation for most (though not all) of what the article says about good relations with the West based on independent foreign policy: Robert Bidelux and Ian Jeffries, A History of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Routledge, 1998. ISBN 0-415-1611-8, p. 552:

This... courageous stand ... considerably enhanced Ceausescu's domestic and international reputation in the immediate aftermath of 1968 There was also a temoporary relaxation of the censorship of books, films and plays, an upsurge in the screening of Western films and a more enduring rehabilitation of non-communist literary classics. Consequently, Ceausescu was courted not merely but China and Israel, but also by the West, which for a time mistook his nationalism for liberalism and regarded him as a useful thorn in the Soviet Union's side. All the while, however, Romania remained essentially a hard-line Stalinist regime in terms of its domestic policies and priorities.

They go on (same page) to refer to "a particularly venal, inbred and incompetent 'socialism in one family'". - Jmabel | Talk 00:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Move proposal

We should move this article to Socialist Republic Romania. Most of the information about the 1945-1990 period of Eastern European countries are under the official name of their country during the period. See People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. In the case of the first three, "Communist X-country" redirects to these articles, while in the case of the forth, it links nowhere. Moreover Romania never declared itself a communist country, "Communist Romania" being just a colloquial name. It's not a problem that the country used two official names. The one used longer gets priority, see the cases of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia.Anonimu 20:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is debatable. One problem with the proposal is that "Socialist Republic Romania" gets only 35 Google hits, whereas "Communist Romania" gets 60,200. One can surely try all sorts of variations and get all sorts of numbers, but basically, "Socialist Republic Romania" never quite caught up, at least not outside official speeches by Nicolae Ceauşescu and such. In the West, the most common usage was still "People's Republic" for many years after the official switch: e.g., Romania +"People's Republic" will yield 2,160,000 Google hits, even more that Communist Romania (with no quotes), which yields 1,850,000. Basically, at least in the West, it was either "People's Republic of Romania" ("Romanian People's Republic", which is the ad-literam translation in the article, was much less common) up to the mid 60s, or plain "Romania" after that. "Communist Romania" seems a good way to capture all this in a short title, instantly understandable to almost anyone reading WP. I would have to analyze more carefully the relevant literature to give a more complete answer, but based just on my understanding of usage, and the above considerations, I would advise against such a switch. Turgidson 21:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

If we use Google Books (which notes usage in the scientific world, not on forums, blogs, personal pages etc), both "Socialist Republic of Romania" and "Socialist Republic of Rumania" get more results than "Communist Romania" -"pre-communist" -"precommunist" -"post-communist" -"postcommunist" and its variant using Rumania.Anonimu 22:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That sure is interesting. In my search, "people's republic of Romania" gives 1,700 results (942 with "Rumania"), "socialist republic of Romania" gives 2,296 (955 with "Rumania"). "Communist Rumania" and "Communist Romania" (which should be considered together) give, respectively, 3,410 and 3,348. Both searches have a lot of marshy terrain between them (yes, "communist" and "Romania" gives ambiguous results, but so do the other). Dahn 00:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

You should note i eliminated 'pre(-)communist' and 'post(-)communist' from my search. Especially the latter gives a lot of false results.Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose, and not for any grand ideological reason, but because RPR existed for about 20 years and RSR for about 22, so the article would be inaccurate for just about half the existence of Communist Romania, whereas it now applies to the whole time period. True, RSR & RPR might be more commonly used by scholars, but the pure Google test can be useful as well because it indicates popular usage (which does matter). Finally, are you willing to fix 500+ redirects? Biruitorul 22:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

About 20, that is 17 years of RPR... about 2/3 of 24 of RSR (and not 22... it seems that idealism an maths don't match). Look at Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia... they had no problem with it. Oh, and just yesterday the same thing happened with Albania. Also "History of Communist Bulgaria" was moved to "History of the People's Republic of Bulgaria" by an user unrelated to me. . We should have a kind of uniformity... and Romania is now the only one that doesn't fit the pattern.Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

it seems that idealism an maths don't match : please comment on content, not users. Personal attack noted. I thought the change came 1968, because that's when the judeţe were restored. You could have pointed that out without slandering me. Regardless, the RPR lasted for 6444 days; the RSR for 8889. That's a 42-58 split. There's no need to spike the first 42% when we already have a fairly suitable title covering 100%.

What personal attack? Yet the current title is inaccurate and different from the similar articles about other Eastern European countriesAnonimu 17:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Such dissimulations fool no one; I pointed out the personal attack right above. Biruitorul 06:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. What we would have with that is two articles with insufficient context. Whatever was "different" about the People's Republic can be easily handled in one paragraph, whereas the continuity is instantly obvious. Let's spare ourselves the clutter and pointless changes in millions of articles over an artifice. Dahn 23:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't propose a split.Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait up. If the proposed change is to move this to "Socialist Republic of Romania" (not, erm, "Socialist Republic Romania"), and not to create split articles, though I would definitely prefer "Communist Romania", I guess I couldn't possibly care that much about it - we won't get clutter, and the redirects won't need to be changed. Dahn 00:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer the status quo -- something is to be said for inertia. For one thing, "Communist Romania" can be used as such in the text, with no redirects -- who would use "Socialist Republic of Romania" with a straight face when referring to Romania at that time, except in some kind of oficialese (and perhaps some nostalgics of the good ole days)? And, as I said, if anyone in the West actually used something besides Romania/Rumania/Roumania in every day speech, it was "the People's Republic", which I think kind of caught on to some degree in the 50s, though I have no direct experience or reference for that, just circumstantial evidence from talking to various people. Finally, here is a title talk that argues for maintaining the current title. Anyone can find a talk given by an academic after, say, the year 2000, where "Socialist Republic of Romania" is used in the title, instead of "Communist Romania"? Turgidson 00:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

We have the precedents of all other East European states. Note that the current title is inaccurate( Romania never said it's communist, and, according to the Marxist criteria -cause who knows better the meaning of a word that the ones who invented it-, it never was in the modern era) and also offensive to non-pro-Soviet communists. Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Not offending "non-pro-Soviet communists" isn't exactly a priority of mine, or of Misplaced Pages's. It was Communist in the sense that the Communist party held a monopoly on political power, which is an accepted academic definition of a communist state. Biruitorul 16:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The point remains: we have some articles only dealing with 1968-89 events, but lots deal with 1947-68 or '47-89 or different combinations (like Ceauşescu, who after all ruled the RPR for three years and the RSR for almost a further 22). Why create confusion where none exists? Let's find more productive things to do. In any case, as this is controversial, if you decide to pursue the matter, please use WP:RM. Biruitorul 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

RM is used usually when the page is protected or there's already an article at the proposed destination. Basically, it's a discussion, exactly what we're doing, just a bit more official.Anonimu 09:41, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I oppose this move. "History of communist X-country" rolls off the tongue. It's simple, concise, descriptive and at the same time general (i.e. you can use it on countries who had multiple official names during communist rule). NikoSilver 22:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 137 people imprisoned in Communist Romania?

The article contains the following assertion (right there, in the lead): "Also a large number of people (estimates vary from 137 to tens of thousands ) were imprisoned for political, economical or other reasons." I view the lower estimate as patently absurd: just at the Danube-Black Sea Canal there were tens of thousands of prisoners working at hard labor at any single time in the early 1950s. How about Sighet, Piteşti, Gherla, Jilava, Aiud, etc, etc? Just 137 prisoners in all? OK, so let's look at what the quoted source actually says: "The scale of executions proved quite similar in the other East European countries: 178 in Czechoslovakia between October 1948 and the end of 1952, 137 in Romania from 1945 to 1964, and 20 in Poland between 1950 and 1953." Ah, executions, not imprisonments. Even there, that's an extremely low, unrealistic figure, even if we're only talking about the number of deaths in custody -- maybe it refers only to judicial executions, by firing squad? But that's not how the vast majority of prisoners died at the Canal, at Sighet, at Piteşti, etc -- rather, through beatings, exposure, starvation, lack of medical care, etc.

At any rate, I think what we need here (or perhaps even better, in a companion article, only summarized here) is to have more careful definitions, and much more precise figures, backed by a variety of reliable sources, carefully reported and put in context. (The Black Book of Communism comes to mind, and of course, the report of the Presidential Commission for the Study of the Communist Dictatorship in Romania -- how come this is never mentioned, except as a "see also" at the bottom?). Take as an example Great Purge#Victim toll of how things can be done (and are being done) in other articles. Note that the figure of 681,692 of people shot by the NKVD during the Great Purge in the Soviet Union is matched both in the WP article and in reference here -- but all agree that's just shootings. (Though, as the article notes, Robert Conquest suggests that the actual figure is 2.5 times higher, as the Soviet secret police was covering its tracks regarding the actual number of executions.) For comparison, the total number of Great Purge victims is "950,000 to 1.2 million, which includes deaths in detention and those who died shortly after being released from the Gulag as a result of their treatment in it." I'd say we should seek to emulate the standards at the Great Purge article, and show the same kind of historical accuracy here.

Finally, the next sentence in the lead reads: "There were a large number of abuses, deaths and incidents of torture against a large range of people, but mainly political opponents". Ah, I love that "but". What is it supposed to do there -- whitewash abuses, torture and death as somehow justified, because "they got what was coming to them," as counter-revolutionaries? At any rate, the source given here is just a list of 6 books at "Procesul Comunismului" -- how does that support the inescapable conclusion that that "but" conveys? Turgidson 03:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

After waiting for a few weeks, to see if anyone had better numbers to put in the article, I went ahead and edited that sentence, making it clear(er) that low-ball estimate of 137 refers to just those people executed during the Communist regime in Romania -- the total number who died in custody is orders of magnitude higher. For lack of a better estimate, I just used the one from the source already in place, who talks about "hundreds of thousands of people killed". User:Anonimu replaced that with 650, with the charming edit summary: "that's the only thing that article written by a fascist could support". I don't know where he gets that 650 number from, but I know that his edit comment is (yet another) clear violation of WP:NPA. I ask him for a retraction of the attack, and an apology for such a grievous breach of civility. Turgidson (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Then remove the but. This will leave the fact that the Communist government did, like most tyrannies, kill its opponents most often, without implying that this is an excuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Unwise move

Out of the blue, and with no preliminary discussion on this talk page, someone moved the article from Communist Romania to Socialist Republic of Romania. This is not right, since the article covers both Romanian People's Republic (Republica Populară Romînă) and the Socialist Republic of Romania (Republica Socialistă România), as has been explained and debated at length in previous discussions on this talk page. Furthermore, the article title is linked to in dozens or perhaps hundreds of pages, where SRR instead of CR would create either a huge problem with timing (if it refers to RPR), or to grammar, or to both. So I think the move should be speedily reverted. Turgidson (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Soviet satellite states

Given that Romania pursued an independent foreign policy, especially under Ceausescu (relatively friendly relations with Israel and the PRC, retention of diplomatic relations with Chile even after Pinochet's coup, refusal to participate in the invasion of Czechoslovakia, condemnation of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and close relations with the West), does it really belong in this category? Granted, it was a member of the Warsaw Pact, but its foreign policy was still independent. Josh (talk) 11:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This article refers to Romania both before and under Ceauşescu. Before Ceauşescu, especially during the Soviet occupation, but also after it, Romania was a full-fledged satellite, all of its foreign and internal policies being according to Soviet Union's interests. bogdan (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, some people like to use the term "satellite state" to refer to all of the countries of the Warsaw Pact. It's much simpler when one considers the entire Eastern Bloc as a single entity rather than a collection of countries within a military alliance, and the idea of the Soviet Union completely dominating its neighbors helps aid the perception of that country as a villain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.43.182 (talk) 09:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not a WP:SOAPBOX, even for such widely held views as the tyranny of the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the view of Ceausescu as a satellite with an eccentric orbit was held at the time; some analysts even held that this was convenient for the SU, which could use Ceausescu as a deniable channel when they liked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Change of article name

Why was the name of the article changed? The topic of the article is not just about the "Socialist Republic of Romania" as Ceauşescu called it but about the communist period in Romania, which started well before Ceauşescu. So that's why in my opinion the article should be renammed back to "Communist Romania". What do you think? Laurent (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously. Move back as it was. There are several other implications not taken into consideration during the move, for example the associated categories. To those who do such moves: Please, whenever you do moves, do consider researching the structure of articles and categories. Don't make a mess after yourself just because you did not have enough time to look more thoroughly. Please! Dc76\ 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Laurent, feel free to undo the move. Dc76\ 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Another problem with the move is the dreaded Misplaced Pages:Double redirects, for example, for all articles linking to the names during the other periods, e.g, check out what this brings you to now: Republica Populară Romînă.

I'm sure the editor meant well, but such a move is fraught with issues in an article like this.Mosedschurte (talk) 15:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused a problem with the redirects.

imho, the name of the article simply makes no sense. This article is not on two countries, but on one country that changed its name (slightly). We should simply determine the most common name of the two and use it, making a note of the change. Why should we use the unencyclopedic and arguably POV name of "Communist Romania" just because the state altered the prefix to its name at one point during its history? --DIREKTOR 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The request to rename this article to Socialist Republic of Romania has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Communist Romania → Socialist Republic of Romania — This is de facto standard name used for the articles about former states under communist regimes. This can be seen at People's Republic of Bulgaria, People's Republic of Poland, People's Republic of Hungary, Mongolian People's Republic, People's Republic of Benin, People's Republic of the Congo, People's Republic of Mozambique etc. The fact that the state was called "Romanian People's Republic" in the early days of communist regime doesn't affect this: Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Socialist People's Republic of Albania and Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia all had a different name in the 1950s, yet we use the latest and longest used name for the title of the articles about their whole period of communist party rule. The claim the "Communist Romania" is also common is irrelevant, since much more common names such as Soviet Russia and Communist China are just redirects (to the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic and People's Republic of China respectively). Several users have agreed on the necessity of the new name, yet a single user reverted most of these rightful moves. Anonimu (talk) 18:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support as nominator.Anonimu (talk) 18:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

In addition, the name "Socialist Republic of Romania" is FAR more common than "Communist Romania" (see links below). WP:NAME applies, I believe. Here are the Google test results: "most common name" is coming from. It is not a name this country ever used, and it is NOT the most common.

• Google Books
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,539 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 762 hits
• Google Scholar
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,840 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 1,560 hits
• Google
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 285,000 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 33,100 hits

I want to make this point 100% clear since some users have repeatedly hinted at "Communist Romania" being the most common English term. --DIREKTOR 23:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Why should we use the unencyclopedic and arguably POV title of "Communist Romania" just because the state altered the prefix to its name at one point during its history? This article is not on two countries, but on one country that changed its name (slightly). We should simply determine the most common name of the two and use it, making sure the alternate one is clearly pointed out. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia also changed its name during its history (Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia), and so did the Socialist People's Republic of Albania (People's Republic of Albania). These are details in the big picture. We should simply use the last name, or the most common of the two Romanian names, but not this. --DIREKTOR 18:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany (which, by the way, is at East Germany) are not relevant to the discussion, as they only had one name under Communism. Given that Albania and Yugoslavia did change their names, "Communist Albania" and "Communist Yugoslavia" might be a good way to title those articles, especially as the names are used by scholars. But the question here is whether "Communist Romania" should be retained or whether "Socialist Republic of Romania" is the better title. I argue for retaining "Communist Romania", for four reasons:

1. For fully 42% of the Communist regime's duration, the country was known as the "Romanian People's Republic", not the "Socialist Republic of Romania". The title simply ignores that.
2. "Communist Romania" is simpler and more all-encompassing; "Socialist Republic of Romania" is more cumbersome and unduly restrictive.
3. No plan has been presented for moving or otherwise dealing with Category:Communist Romania and its numerous sub-categories.
4. Despite what's been insinuated, the term "Communist Romania" has been used by multiple, reliable, scholarly sources. Here's a sampling: , , , , , , , , , , , . Clearly, this is not some Misplaced Pages-invented term. Respected scholars writing in the last two decades about the regime, whether referring to June 1948 or November 1989, persistently refer to it as "Communist Romania". So should we. - Biruitorul 19:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Play on words. A title "ignoring something" is not a problem. The question is whether or not the article ignores information. In either event by the above logic, the current title ignores both state names.
2. Same argument as above, actually. The article is "all-encompassing", but its name is unencyclopedic. The "decrease in simplicity" from a title containing two words to a title containing three is obviously negligible, and anyway "simplicity" is not the issue. The title is clearly not at all "restrictive", as nobody is proposing the article be restricted to covering Ceauşescu's Romania.
3. That is not the issue here, the category does not even have to be renamed if it is so decided. Please stay on-subject.
4. on Google Scholar, "Socialist Republic of Romania" has 1,840 hits, "Communist Romania" has 1,560. Even if this were not the case, we would be obliged to measure the usage of both the terms "People's Republic of Romania" and "Socialist Republic of Romania" combined against the term "Communist Romania", since the point here is that an actual name for this country be used to refer to this country.

"Communist Romania" is unencyclopedic and arguably even POV. The title "Socialist Republic of Romania" encompasses the entire (history of that) state - these are not two countries. A partial change in the prefix to a country's name does not mean we suddenly have a new country on our hands. --DIREKTOR 20:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You've not stated why you consider "Communist Romania" to be "unencyclopedic and arguably even POV". I, on the other hand, have brought in a dozen neutral, peer-reviewed, published scholarly works using the term "Communist Romania". I think the record speaks for itself. As for what "Socialist Republic of Romania" yields on Google Scholar, I invite participants to look for themselves. "Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Defense Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Grand National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Statistical Pocket Book of the Socialist Republic of Romania". Well, obviously, in that sort of context, one refers to the 1965-89 entity by its official name. In no way does that imply that when scholars today refer to the 1947-89 regime they also call it "Socialist Republic of Romania". Quite the contrary, as my dozen examples have shown. - Biruitorul 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a very common name for Romania under ruling by the Romanian Communist Party.Biophys (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

"Romania under ruling by the Romanian Communist Party", you mean the Socialist Republic of Romania? :) "Communist Romania" never existed. Very common? Google it. "Communist Romania" has has 33,100 hits , "Socialist Republic of Romania" has 285,000 --DIREKTOR 20:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On Google books, which is a better metric, "Communist Romania" has 2350 hits , while "Socialist Republic of Romania" has 936 . Note that all these searches, both regular google and google books have problems and should be refined further.radek (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Further to Radek's point, what matters here is context. When Ceauşescu signed a treaty, of course he did so in the name of the "Socialist Republic of Romania". But when scholars today write about his regime (and it is to them we should look for deciding the proper title), they rather consistently prefer "Communist Romania". - Biruitorul 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Try using quotation marks while Googling for a specific term. You'll get more accurate results. --DIREKTOR 20:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Biruitorul and Biophys. Also, "Communist Romania" is the one more used by English language sources.radek (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Biruitorul. Tymek (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Very nice guys. Except that what you should be doing is explaining why WP:UCN policy does not apply ("Title an article using the most common English language name of a person or thing that is the subject of the article."). Because unless there's some plausible reason to excuse this article from it, the article has to be moved. I don't know where all this jive about "Communist Romania" being the "most common name" is coming from. It is not a name this country ever used, and it is NOT the most common.

• Google Books
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,539 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 762 hits
• Google Scholar
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,840 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 1,560 hits
• Google
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 285,000 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 33,100 hits

--DIREKTOR 20:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Google hits alone aren't enough. I continue to await sources of the same calibre I showed (recent, peer-reviewed, published, scholarly) that refer to "Socialist Republic of Romania" in a manner my examples refer to "Communist Romania". Specific examples, please. - Biruitorul 20:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Google hits alone are enough according to WP policy (unless a very good reason is listed). If you insist on specific sources, I believe I've provided a link to the Google Books search on "Socialist Romania". I'm sure you're not expecting people to go through one-and-a-half thousand links just so we can provide 13 diffs to specific sources compared to your 12? That's why people google Google Books, that's the purpose of the Google test. --DIREKTOR 20:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Well, surprisingly enough I have to agree with Anonimu. By the way, many of your Communist Romania ghits make part of the post-Communist Romania sequence. And socialism, whatever the difference is, is not a candy either, being much more often mistaken for one, so my egregious sense of POV is also satisfied. Colchicum (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC) On a second thought, I am leaning towards oppose. The proposed title would likely encourage some strange stubborn people from WikiProject Former Countries to split Romanian People's Republic from this. However, for the sake of consistency Communist Albania and Communist Yugoslavia should also be renamed. Ghits aren't conclusive. 547, 2030, 191, 327.

Colchicum (talk) 21:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why anyone suggesting to split the article. (The matter is more complex than that. Post-WWII Yugoslavia was not a communist country for most of its existence, but transformed from full communist to socialist state, employing market socialism.) --DIREKTOR 21:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You may find the (as yet) unrelated split/merge discussion at Talk:Provinces of the Grand Duchy of Finland and the subarticles illuminating. The user in question is hopefully retired, but who knows? Colchicum (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I worry that it's this kind of rationale about ideologies and their meaning that gets in the way. Without going into the problems posed by the definition of "market socialism", I would like to point out that the supposed distinction between the two systems is not really there. Yugoslavia made a purely political move out of the Eastern Bloc, though some have even argued that it later returned as the silent partner. That move was also made by Communist Romania for a while, albeit not as energetically. Economically, Romania and Yugoslavia were comparable in respect to their positions on Marxist theory: they both theorized "automanagement" - an empty notion borrowed from neo-Marxism, but which the Yugoslav used as a means to explain why they were allowing bureaucrats to behave like capitalists, and the Romanians in the contrary sense. They shared other buzzwords, and, for a while, Romania was also very open to capitalist partnerships. It did not however allow its citizens to feed the labor demands of Western Europe and kept some screws always tight (while the "liberal" Yugoslav leaders played with them until they lost control). But that's certainly not an ideological difference: it's a political nuance that was not even officially acknowledged. Both states continued to be designated as "communist" by outsiders throughout these periods, and always proclaimed or at least did not retract that their ultimate goal was "communism". They also both proclaimed that the path to communism was national, and therefore approached this guideline in the same way. And incidentally, while Yugoslavia and Romania both played ideological mavericks their different ways (with a de facto independence in Yugoslavia and a ridiculous experiment in Romania), Yugoslavia was much closer economically to the "market socialism" quietly experienced by Hungary, Czechoslovakia and even Poland (all of which were being supposedly held tight by the Soviet Union), while the anti-Soviet Romania prolonged a form of Stalinism that even the Soviets had come to regret. So your argument, with all due respect, is flawed. Dahn (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Leaning toward oppose. It ultimately isn't that important what of the two names this article has, but "Communist Romania" is widespread enough and does address both the pre-1964 period and the one after. Per Biruitorul, this is actually a model that I could see enforced in other such ambiguous cases, not the other way around. This also needs to be taken into account when assessing the results: not only are the two option not that far apart from each other in number of hits, but note that much of the comparison is made between apples and oranges - the hits for "Socialist Republic" tend to address a period, while "Communist Romania" covers both periods. Also, many of the various hits for "Socialist Republic of Romania" may simply not address the point of definition, since they are likely to parrot the regime's own self-references (as in "raising bees in the Socialist Republic of Romania", which makes no point about the regime, but a generic one about the country). And for the love of me, I don't see what could possibly be POVed about the present title, unless we go into that sophistry about how "a state can't be communist" and "communism was never actually applied" - both of which are actually the introduction of a POV. All in all, we're spending way to much time and energy on this issue, and if it ain't broke don't fix it. Dahn (talk) 20:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The Google hits on "Socialist Republic of Romania" outstrip "Communist Romania" by eight and-a-half times. Combined with those on "People's Republic of Romania", we're probably talking about something like eighteen times more usage. There really isn't any debate here, if WP:NAME is to be taken into consideration. --DIREKTOR 21:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the problems I mentioned only quadruple with google (sterile stuff like "bee raising in the Socialist Republic of Romania", "published in the Socialist Republic of Romania" etc.). Biruitorul's point about a certain level and nature of references is quite justified. And my point was exactly that we don't conflate with "People's Republic" - either it or "Socialist Republic" do not cover the umbrella term nature of "Communist Romania", and there is simply no competitor for that umbrella term nature. Dahn (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not following you... this is one country we're taking about, not two countries we need an "umbrella term" for - this is why nobody split the article in the first place (and is not proposing it now). All I'm suggesting is that we use the most common name for this one country. Unless someone here thinks these are two countries (and I don't think anyone does), I can't see how we can circumvent policy on this. --DIREKTOR 21:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The country we're talking about is under here. This article refers to a historical period. "People's Republic of Romania" covers points A to B, "Socialist Romania" points B to C, and "Communist Romania" is the one designation clearly covering A to C. The comparison between a bigger segment and a smaller segment is flawed.

In addition: the legal distinction between A to B and B to C is minimal, and the subjects overlap. The issue however is that "Socialist Romania" would also be a misnomer, since it specifically was the name used only during the second sub-period discussed in this article. In contrast, "Communist Romania" is not specifically attached to any of the two sub-periods. Since the change invoked is on a technicality and the proposed name has this obvious imperfection, I really don't see why we're spending so much time on this.

As I've said, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. But I can't help but point out where the weak spots in arguments brought in favor of changing. Dahn (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

You would be right if this article was on a time period. This article however is about a former country. The most common name for which is "Socialist Republic of Romania". --DIREKTOR 21:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No, that's how you would rather read it. Again, the country is this one. Admittedly, all such articles are ambiguous and reflect ambiguities and varying approaches in real life. But we live with those ambiguities. Dahn (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Its not a question of "reading". The Roman Empire, the Kingdom of Prusia, the Republic of Ragusa, and the Socialist Republic of Romania are all former countries. At first glance one can see that this article is clearly on a country, not a time period. imho, there is very little ambiguity on the issue of whether Romania and the Socialist Republic of Romania are one and the same country. --DIREKTOR 22:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't much like these sectarian definitions - these articles have the privilege of serving both the notion of a country and the notion of a regime, and I for one see benefits in that global approach. I also consider any attempt to divide the matter neatly beyond that a kind likely to go down like Loki's wager. So I'll avoid the theoretical debate, if you don't mind, without opting for any definition of what "Communist Romania"/"Socialist Republic of Romania" is supposed to be to Romania in exact terms. There are no exact terms.

I will just mention (not to imply that you're necessarily wrong, but to hopefully show that it's more complicated) several issues which address the analogy with the Roman Empire etc.: post-communist Romania is legal successor to communist Romania, which was a legal successor to the kingdom. Some laws passed during communist are still being enforced, with no legal effort beyond basic confirmation; some others have merely been amended. Romania has the same borders, the same administrative system and, unlike all of the examples you cite, it was neither divided nor annexed. And, incidentally, Ceauşescu is still considered the first of (currently) four presidents of Romania. And so on, and so on. Dahn (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll grant that the article is "serving both the notion of a country and the notion of a regime" ("regime" meaning "period"?), but now is obviously the time to firmly decide which one it represents more. Is it 51% country/49% period, or is it 49% country/51% period. That was my point below. Obviously its not "clear-cut" either way, or there'd be no issue to write about, its simply that now we really have to come to a decision about the focus of this article. Is it about the period, or is it about the country itself. One of the facts I tried to point out with the Google test, is that "Communist Romania" is not a term that can encompass both meanings. The English name for the country is "Socialist Republic of Romania". --DIREKTOR 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To the opposing users (what a surprise!):

1. 1. "Communist Romania" may be common, but "Communist China" or "Soviet Russia" are even more so, yet they are just a redirect.
   2. "Socialist Republic of Romania" is twice as common "Communist Romania" in Google-indexed books vs and more than four times as common in Google-indexed scholarly articles vs . So, according to the main guideline about naming articles (most common English name), this article should be titled "Socialist Republic of Romania".
   3. "Communist Romania" is certainly POV, since it was never used in that period by Romania itself. Also it ignores the fact that a lot of the sources use it as "communist thus not-western-democracy-like Romania", just to inform the readers the country is "communist" (compare to the quite common collocation "buddhist Tibet"), and not as a specific reference to Romania between 1948 and 1989. This is the case for virtually all sources before 1989, thus all these ghits: . Just consider the absurdity of calling the article about today's Romania "Post-communist Romania" just because there are about 600 ghits using that phrase (about the same as "communist Romania"), including several top scholars.
   4. The point about "Communist Romania" being more simple is spurious. If we would adapt such convention, the article about the 35th US president would be titled JFK.

"Socialist Republic of Romania" may bot be the perfect title, but is better than "Communist Romania" , both NPOVwise and by WP naming guidelines. A compromise solution may be History of Romania (1948-1989) (to follow the Polish model), but keeping "Communist Romania" would only make WP look rather messy in its treatment of this type of articles. This would be the only article in WP were a political adjective name is used as title (there's no other Communist X-country that is not a redirect; as there's not any for "capitalist", "imperialist", "liberal", "socialist", "theocratic" etc). Why should Romania be an exception among thousands?Anonimu (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I think you know both those issues are more complicated. I for one would have favored a separate article on Bolshevik Russia before 1922, but whacha gonna do. As for Communist China, between its pre-1949 existence and now, it's all a can of worms.
2. I replied to this argument already.
3. "'Communist Romania' is certainly POV, since it was never used in that period by Romania itself" - that's just as good a rationale to suggest that it is not POVed. I fail to see the nuance you're advertising as a clash between the collocation and the name of this article - it's basically the same thing, only you make one seem bad. The distinction one type of collocation makes ("communist thus not-western-democracy-like Romania") is, give or take, the same distinction this article's title will unavoidably make, and, beyond euphemisms, it is the same distinction the "Socialist Republic" title would make. And changing the article about today's Romania to "Post-communist Romania" is not at all absurd, especially since the article's title now says the same thing, only with more words. It would be absurd if it said "pre-Eastasia Romania" or "pre-colonial Romania" or whatever to imply anticipation of some future event - but such a "post-something" reference to the past is entirely acceptable. The only people I could see objecting to such a name on principle are those who think that communism did not end in Romania upon the Revolution - does that serve your point much? That said, it don't mean that there's any need to change the title, but neither is there a magic reason not to. It just happens not to be named that.
4. As I've said, I don't object if other such articles follow this lead (I remember a time before all these articles were renamed on a technicality, and I don't recall them asking me what I thought about that - so the supposed "rule of thumb" about not naming articles "Communist something", which was not transparent, might just as well change as far as I care). And incidentally, such articles are named after their ideologies no matter what variant you chose from the two, because the practice with communist states was to name themselves with ideological shibboleths (as in "Socialist Republic of..."). Dahn (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not going to talk about ideologies or whatnot. This is a technical discussion, and what we are talking about here is English language and WP guidelines. RSFSR and PRC are watched by many more people than this article, yet the consensus developed there to name the articles by the official long names, even if the use of the "simple" form in English could be much more convincingly supported than it was the case here. I see no reason to create here a microcosm where we go against all the rest of WP (especially when we see how farcically this is created - see the above 3 argument-less consecutive votes, posted less than 15 minutes apart).
2. That's not really an actual reply. Numerous recent reliable sources use RSR in a perfectly valid way: , , , , , , , , . The fact that phrases of the type "Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Defense Council of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Grand National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Romania" use RSR instead of simply Romania just further confirms the scholars preferred this form. On the other hand, among the so "perfect" "Communist Romania" sources we find laughable "support" quotes such as " a national communist . Romania began to oppose Soviet" (paraphrased irrelevant parts of the phrases).
3. It's surprising how you seem to not see the difference between a purely descriptive adjective (ultimately rooted in Homeric epithets) and a denotative collocation, between a phrase that explains some characteristic of the subject and the name of the subject itself. "Socialist Republic of Romania" is no just a descriptor (like Republic of Ireland), but the name of the state. Also, while it can be argued that both "Communist" and "Socialist" may be ill-fitted to describe the regime in Romania, "Communist" is a blatant mislabelling, so ideologically wrong that even the authorities refused to use it, preferring to it phrases devoid of meaning, such as "multilaterally developed socialist society". This lack of use by the authorities shows only that the "Communist" descriptor is only valid from a certain POV. From the other POV, it would have been exactly what you mentioned in your message: an anticipation of some future event.
4. The problem of "Post-communist Romania" is not that simple. Considering its usage and the "Oppose" argumentation above, everything safe the Geography and History section of the article Romania should be moved to this new title. Of course that would be a major breach of WP guideline, but since we are already on breach here, I guess we can go ahead and make Romania a really special WP topic.
5. That's quite an odd logic. So, if you ever get a flat tyre, you would rather cut another one or two instead of having the broken one fixed? And about the fade among countries ruled by communist parties of having fancy long names... the Venetians invented them centuries before, yet these countries (or at least Romania) were pretty consistent in using the long name in every official and semi-official context (virtually all non-literary publications).Anonimu (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. As I've said, it's another issue entirely, and not really my cup of tea to discuss how consensus was or wasn't achieved there. I'm also unsure as to why you would want to address what I gather are your comments to other users through me.
2. I have replied to this argument: I have repeatedly stated that I don't believe comparing apples and oranges is validated. This incidentally addresses your claim that out-of-sentence collocations also occur in the searches: I don't care, since it's not an issue of quantity for me, and since I hold the quantitative comparison to be inherently flawed. Feel free to disagree with my assessment, feel free to disagree with my conclusions, I'm not gonna drag forever moving between links of google books.
3. Now, that particular reply makes no sense to me. You earlier told me that you were not going to discuss ideology, and now you tell me that I should accept the regime's own ideological definitions as a tentative guideline. Not only do I not think we should do that while determining what name is most appropriate, but I also notice that you squeeze in the "communism is always something in the future tense" equivocation I referred to earlier. This rather Jesuitic argumentation ignores the fact that the world outside the dogma we're referring to always referred to communism as in the sense of communist policies, which were in the political present, and which have been applied. Again: not being in exact concordance with the supposed POV of Romanian communist propaganda does not a thing POVed. It quite often makes it the exact opposite.
4. No, not really. First of all, the article on Romania ideally would include only summaries of more focused articles. This article (which has a special title problem, incidentally - it is for some reason the only one in the series introduced by the word "History"... but that's another matter) is one of them. It's like hm and hmmm (Jesus only knows why they made the republic articles "country then number" - it reads like crap... but that's another matter).
5. Here's a better analogy. Suppose I have an old tire that doesn't flow with all the roads, but does its job. Then suppose you come to me and tell me that you have a new tire, which works equally good for all roads, but is unfortunately slashed in half.

Anyway, Anonimu, as I have indicated from the above, I see little merit in the change, and object to the arguments supposed to be validating it, but I also clearly indicated I personally don't see it as that big a deal. I will reluctantly follow a differing consensus, but it looks like that is not in the making. The thing I am least looking forward to is an endless debate with you over the issue of how many rocks does it take to make a pile. You are probably not going to convince me that the move is validated, since I consider that all my points still stand. If you want to persuade others through your rhetoric skill in replies addressed to me, I think you may find it more efficient to address them directly. I know these debates can drag on forever and until the issue at hand is beaten to a pulp. Let's please not make this a Tweedledee and Tweedledum epic. Dahn (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Remember that WP wants to be a serious encyclopaedia. By ignoring the consensus in closely related articles you're saying you don't care about building an encyclopaedia, just about making your thoughts known to a large audience. What will be next, you'll write an article and self-promote it to the main page just because the consensus reached by other people about other articles is not "really your cup of tea"?
2. It may not make sense to you, but it is the official guideline of naming WP articles: use the most common English-language name. And as flawed as Gg books and scholar results may be, they are a better indicative about how common a particular name is than anything else. Both searches contain irrelevant result, but when the result are 2:1 it's pretty clear which is more common.
3. Really, skipping half a reply and jumping to the part that is inherently subjective. And hey, hope you aren't going to talk about what "Communist" policies really are: nationalisation, censorship, over-centralisation, cultural oppression ? Now if you want to write an article about mid-Cold War Communist France or mid-crisis Communist US I'm not the one to stop you. But again, let's ignore the ideological part. The part relevant to WP is that "Socialist Republic of Romania" is the name most commonly used for this period, no matter the ideological appropriateness of this name.
4. By the argumentations above yes, really. And the fact that virtually no other country does it it's just another proof that the current name of this article is essentially flawed.
5. Now, you at analogies.

If you scroll up you'll see that my arguments were addressed to everybody who !voted "oppose", and not particularly at you. You're just the only one to care enough to reply (and probably you're the only other one who cares at all about the current title). However it's curious how you didn't seem to care a month ago when the page was moved to its rightful name. As page moves are not decided by votes, it is important to debunk every wrong claim, so that the closing admin can have a clear picture.Anonimu (talk) 13:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Please don't misconstrue my points. A set of changes with or without transparency carried out somewhere from examples that may or may not have been that different is not necessarily consensus - just because an issue was never brought up don't mean everybody agrees about it. What I have told you is that it's really not my cup of tea to discuss or even imagine a discussion about all these issues at once. The main reason for that is that it would be exhausting. I still stand by that.
2. Please don't misconstrue my points. For starters, I have repeatedly told you not that the google books results themselves are flawed, but that the principle of invoking them in this case is - because the analogy was tailored to compare the name of a half with the name of a whole.
3. Ah, where to begin... let's just leave it that, shall we?
4. Yes, if you repeat the same thing several times, you'll be more right.
5. Whatcha gonna do, we aren't all natural born polymaths.

Be that as it may, you have by now been focusing on debating with me personally about issues that are not no longer that relevant to the discussion - the batter part of your last (three? four?) replies. "However it's curious how you didn't seem to care a month ago when the page was moved to its rightful name." If that insinuation really deserves an answer, I took the page off my watchlist a while back, because I was getting to annoyed with this sterile warring; I decided to give it an interval before I took more interest in it. I happened to notice the change back, and then the renewed activity, and I'm back here. I'm also telling you plainly (and repeatedly): you are right to say I "didn't seem to care a month ago", in the same sense I still don't care about it now. I hold the reasons for the page move you support as essentially flawed and unconvincing, but the move itself is really not that big an issue. It's putting a stop to this atrocious trench warfare one way or the other that's really important, and I for one view the current title as a workable solution to address all problems, whereas your alternative is pretentious and short-sighted. Dahn (talk) 16:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I'm not misconstruing nothing. You decide to ignore Wp-wide consensus, using some straw man such as the supposed lack of transparency. Sorry, but a simple look at the history of those articles shows no recent attempt to move them, so consequently they represent an established consensus.
2. Everyone following your argumentation can note the contradiction: using ghits is wrong, not because they are flawed, but because they are not relevant, which is the case because they are flawed.
3. You decide to ignore the WP naming guideline, so at least you're kind of consistent.

That's simply because nobody else tried to disprove the validity of my points. You insist you don't care about this, yet you contributed more than a third of this discussion. If this is you not caring, I surely don't want to see your care about smth. Again, "Socialist Republic of Romania" is in line with both WP use and WP prescriptions, while "Communist Romania" is an exception, actually the only such type of title in the whole of WP.Anonimu (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Again, Anonimu: what I'm telling you, yet again, is that I can't possibly be expected to look up, let alone debate, each individual case you claim establishes consensus. An that I frankly don't want to. This is not a straw man (I have to wonder if you even know what that means), it's a fact regarding my willingness to debate how appropriate those changes where and test the supposed consensus. Now, we all know that various of those articles too went through various title changes (in fact, some articles appeared and disappeared altogether), and I don't want to have to trouble much with why that is. Was the consensus determined in, Ida know, a wide debate that you can cite? No. It's most likely just that somebody upped and did the change they saw fit. That, whichever way you look at it, is not a rationale in itself, and you can go on debating this point with whomever is still interested or yourself.
2. Anonimu, you are introducing your own deduction into what I've said. While you care about the number of erroneous hits, I don't, because how many hits RSR gets in comparison with Communist Romania is a flawed analogy. The analogy is flawed because they don't define the exact same thing, and because I think we should be looking for more than simple use - particularly in contexts where the scholarly overlaps with the trivial. Feel free to continue debating other points, but rest assured that you'd be answering not to my arguments, but to their projection. That, my friend, is what a straw man is.
3. As above.

"You insist you don't care about this, yet you contributed more than a third of this discussion." a) Yes, and if you tickle me, I laugh. Will you hold that against me too? b) I think I have told you in detail what it is I care about. The rest: yes, we know. Dahn (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Your message just proves that your actually have no idea about WP use. None of the articles mentioned in my opening statement was ever moved to change the title (of course slight style change such as "Federal" vs "Federative" and (Russian) SFSR vs the extended form can't be considered real title changes). So this isn't the case of some guy going around and randomly changing titles. This is how those articles have been rightfully created, some of them in the early days of WP, and nobody has ever contested their appropriateness ever since. On the other hand the log of this page shows that "Communist Romania" was constantly contested, and probably will continue to be until the guideline conforming title is adopted.
2. WP doesn't go for "the simplest", but for "the most common in English", so that has really no relevance. The same goes for the "trivialness", which goes against OR. On the other hand we have a faulty descriptive name, that isn't more of a valid denomination (and thus article title) than "Orthodox Romania" or "Easter-European Romania" in pre-1989 sources.
3. You seem to like my user name very much. Sorry, it's not for sale at the moment.

Did you just confess you're doing this just for the sake of arguing and not because you want to achieve some encyclopaedic goal? If that's really the case, I'm sure you can spend the non-mainspace-editing time on some blog or forum.Anonimu (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Again, I don't want to get tangled into this mess, but you may consider looking into it from the other side. The articles on Czechoslovakia have also switched content from here to there like crazy, and they're still duplicated for some reason I can't and don't want to fathom. I would go on, but I think I've already told you I don't want to waste my time going through this over and over again. I also don't want to go through records upon records and years upon years of every possible redirect in that very general category just because you have proclaimed I'm lying.
2. What the hell are you answering to now? I don't recall having brought up the issue of "simplest" in relation to hits, so you're alone with the straw man again. As for "trivial": I brought up this non-essential issue simply because the hits involved are likely to contain simple references to the name in basic records of stuff that has not bearing on this discussion. For example, a book on lizards that was published "in the RSR" can hardly be invoked as a criterion in assessing the name the article should have. The essential point I was making is that, either way, the analogy between the two terms is flawed. I honestly don't believe you're not capable of understanding that distinction, so please stop trying to make me and your readers think that you do not. As for "Orthodox Romania" or "Eastern-European Romania", I would be discussing them if there was a point to it. Unless you're suggesting renaming some articles with those names, I'm not going to.
3. Like it? I positively love it. It's highest on my list, together with Nu ştiu/nu răspund, Idem, Şamd and V. Mai Sus.

You got me. There's nothing I enjoy more answering to puerile charades and countering your half-truths. Either way, since you seem to desperately keen on having in the last word in this debate, I hereby grant it to you. Gentlemen, please stand by for a very important message from Anonimu. Dahn (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

1. That has no relevance here. It was just a stub article, while the RSFSR was a fully developed one, so it's obviously why the first became a redirect. Again, this is not about content, this is just about the title... and the title was always the same, nobody contesting it. Redirects don't have anything to do here. When this article will be moved to RSR, Communist Romania will also become a redirect. The fact is quite simple: there is a years-long tacit agreement about the correct titles about such articles, which you wilfully ignore.
2. You should watch your language now. You can't just play dumb every time you can't decide what your arguments actually are. In one message you claim your argument is not based on the supposed "faultiness" of the source, in the next you claim the opposite. Sorry, but how is someone supposed to believe your arguments, especially when you claim you don't care about the page move.

You can use all the sarcasm you want, that doesn't hide your hypocrisy. After all, why does someone who confesses he doesn't give a dime about the result of a discussion have to be so combative in supporting one side?Anonimu (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

"In one message you claim your argument is not based on the supposed 'faultiness' of the source, in the next you claim the opposite." One last time: the argument I make is not based on the faultiness of the source, it is based on the faultiness of the opposing argument. Rather than change the article's name based on incorrect rationales, I would oppose changing it at all. That is something I do give a dime about. One option is better than the other, even if the issue as a whole doesn't matter as much for me as another such change would. And it would matter for me less were I not being led to discover more and more loose ends in the arguments opposing me. Something I've said from the start - I know you can't really be having much difficulty interpreting that info. I shouldn't really dignify with an answer arguments like "It was just a stub article, while the RSFSR was a fully developed one". They read very much like a No true Scotsman, So I won't.

As for sarcasm, hypocrisy and changing arguments as we go, puh-lease. Dahn (talk) 23:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(unindent)
So: you don't care, except the fact you do... which you actually don't really? Sorry lad, but now you're becoming incoherent, and that's a pity, since otherwise you're a rather intelligent editor. We've already understood you oppose the new name for some ultimately irrelevant motive, but what you ignore it's that you're going not only against WP practice, but even against long-established WP guidelines. It's not that hard to see the facts: an article has to have the most common English name (which, as proved above and below is "Socialist Republic of Romania"), which not surprisingly is also exactly what the community has chosen in each and every other article about a similar subject, with nobody ever contesting that choice (see People's Republic of Bulgaria, Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and countless other similar articles). And who was the one who wanted to have the last word here?Anonimu (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. Dahn (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

In the enlightening discussion with User:Dahn above, it has come to my attention that the heart of this problem is most likely its subject:

• If this article is on two countries, we can possibly ignore the Google test results and call this article "Communist Romania" on the basis that its an "umbrella term" for these two countries.
• If this article is on a time period, the infobox has to go, parts of the article have to be rewritten, and the title "Communist Romania" is again inappropriate - it doesn't hint at a time period being the subject of the article.
• If the article is, however, on ONE country that changed its name, then the most common name for this country simply has to be used - by Wiki policy (WP:NAME).

--DIREKTOR 22:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

See my comment above. Dahn (talk) 22:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I made my argument, I think its a valid one, and I find the counter-arguments in the face of Wiki policy rather vague. However, if you guys feel this is the way to go, I'm not gonna annoy everybody by repeating myself over and over again. :) Regards, --DIREKTOR 12:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Radek and others. Together with the additional proposal of "History of..." it appears more an attempt to remove "Communist" from the title. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  16:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering Radek's sole argument is contradicted above, this is pretty weak. On the other hand, thanks for pointing it out. I just want to confirm it: is not only an attempt to remove "Communist" from the title, but also to add "Socialist", "Republic" and "of" to it.Anonimu (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering refutation is your editorial opinion, I'll stick to mine. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  19:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably you forgot we're not voting here. How do comments like "per X-user" help an argumentation for a certain title?Anonimu (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support. (I would also support Cold War Romania, or any other reasonable indication of the period.) I will be adding this independent source to the discussion].

• I personally fail to see why you would reject "Communist Romania" on grounds of it being unused in x or y source, but then suggest "Cold War Romania", which seems neither here nor there (and which incidentally has got be weirder, more irregular and vaguer than any variant proposed so far or used elsewhere). What's more, the regime/period this article discusses was inaugurated after the start of the Cold War and ended before the end of the Cold War, so that option would really not result in more finesse. Dahn (talk) 23:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• "Cold War Romania" is a rather unwelcome idea. The only major work to use that formulation, this one, begins its narrative in 1945; this article starts at the very end of 1947. Some of the most salient aspects of Romanian Cold War history happened at the very beginning of that period (see e.g. this book); it was the outcome of those events that led to the regime discussed in this article, but that regime did not actually exist (in full) until 30 December 1947. - Biruitorul 00:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  If I were Jimbo, this article would also begin in late 1944 - or there would be an article on the renewed monarchy, although that might be disproportionate. As it is, the events of 1946 and 1947 fall between two stools; the summary here is shorter than the summary of Antonescu, but there is nothing about the period in Kingdom of Romania. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Make that Very strongly support. I do not care whether the invalid arguments below are failure to understand English syntax or bad faith; communist Romania is very largely an invented term, consisting of two words that happen to fall together; not a proper name. At best, it is a descriptive title; and we should use a proper name instead when one exists and is common usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That's what I've been discussing above: the current title is just a description, like "Labourite Tony Blair", and it's the only such case of naming a country article in WP.Anonimu (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't even use Tudor England; do we use any such term where we could use the name of a state? But if we are going to use a descriptive term, we could use History of Romania under Communism or History of Romania under communist rule; Communist period, after Tudor period, would have to be disambiguated from the rest of Eastern Europe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Biruitorul and Dahn. Dc76\ 00:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment for the closing Admin: considering the current developments of Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list, I request that admins postpone the closing of the discussion until the ArbCom reveals whether this article was the object of meatpuppeting by Biophys, Radek (parties to the case) and Tymek (pertinent to the case too). Their comments, few minutes apart, do look like hit-and-go vote stacking, without real arguments, and not taking any interest in this discussion after they placed their votes. I should mention that I am allegedly one of the objects of the discussion of this secret mailing list, and thus this may be part of the supposed harassment campaign going on. Of course, we should assume good faith, and keep the issue open until an ArbCom resolution.Anonimu (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Update:As the ArbCom disclosed the full list of participant on that secret list, it's now known that the list also included Biruitorul, Vecrumba and Dc76. So more than 70% of the ones who voted oppose are on a secret list. Coincidence?Anonimu (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm a meatpuppet too, even though I've moved this article half a dozen times in the past? Or Dc76 and Vecrumba, with their long interest in Communist Romania -- something with which you are intimately familiar? I do suggest you drop the matter; the "charges" look absurd already. - Biruitorul 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I've been accused of being a "Communist" on WP:AN/I . After a sockpuppet of a user I reported created the "Croat Gang" thread on WP:AN/I, User:Dc76 immediately showed-up to claim that I am trying to "white-wash Communist rule in Eastern Europe" by supporting the rename of this Misplaced Pages article. User:Dc76's enlightening post also revealed how the opposing users here are politically motivated, and believe they are defending the "moral truth". Clearly, there are elements of a "political clique" opposing this move, perceiving that the rename from "Communist Romania" to "Socialist Republic of Romania" is "white-washing Communist rule in Eastern Europe". --DIREKTOR 10:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I have been editing this article already in 2007, and I am interested in the title. "Communist Romania" is how it is referred in English in most sources. The main point to support this title is its paramount usage; nothing else competes with it. The main additional point against "Socialist Republic of Romania" is that it would only refer to 1965-1989. What will then refer to 1945-47 and 1947-65? Do you want 3 separate articles? If yes, then please propose that, but not renaming.
  • Second, I indeed have anti-Communist views. Is that wrong? When I saw the AN/I title "Communist Croat gang" I was very-very curious. But I discovered that the user who complained did not have a solid point other than simply claiming "white-wash Communist rule in Eastern Europe", which I do believe is reason you request this move (am I wrong?), but not something that breaks any WP policy. I expressed my agreement, but recommended that user to calm down and discuss content not editors. I believe only by discussing content not editors it is possible to prevent while-washing of Communist rule in Eastern Europe. If you are a Communist, that is a lot wrong with you from the moral point of view, but there is nothing wrong with you as an editor. So, yes, I can tell you the human that you support a highly immoral ideology, but to you the editor I repeat strictly what I said at the previous bullet-item above. Dc76\ 11:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I won't be draw into this again. I've conclusively shown by three Google tests that the term "Communist Romania" is FAR less used than "Socialist Republic of Romania". I'd appreacite it if people stopped repeating that false argument. Having anti-communist views is not "wrong" in itself. It is when you allow your personal bias to influence your objectivity and damage the neutrality of this encyclopedia that I must raise my voice in protest. I did not request this move. I certainly do not have "communist" or even "pro-communist" bias. I am trying to improve this article by supporting a proper, more common name.
      I am certainly NOT trying to "white-wash communist rule in Eastern Europe" by renaming a Romanian article :P. That has got to be the most nonsensical accusation I've heard in quite a while. You, on the other hand, have admitted that 1) you have a strong bias in this issue (as you've yourself admitted), 2) and that you have been working under the (false!!) impression that you are defending the "moral truth" against those who are trying to "white-wash Communist rule in Eastern Europe". This entire vote is flawed, as a WikiClique was "defending the free world" instead of arguing objectively. --DIREKTOR 12:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I respectfully disagree with your arguments. On the contrary, Biruitorul and Dahn have IMHO proven beyond reasonable doubt exactly the opposite.
      • I am sorry, I thought you did have communist political views. I apologize. I was under the impression that you did try to white-wash communist rule in Eastern Europe, but now that you explicitly say not, I am confused: IMHO, your edits, proposals and content arguments show one thing, but your characterization of them are the opposite. Therefore I would like to say I am sorry I associated you with communism. I have got a wrong impression. Let's discuss only content, pls. I will refrain from making conclusions about you from your arguments about content.
      • With all due respect, please allow myself to judge my objectivity. I have not damaged the neutrality of this encyclopedia. In fact I have not made a single edit to this article since the start of the discussion, although other editors did, just because I decided to show more respect to this discussion. I have a strong political and moral view on this issue as an individual, but I do not have any bias, neither as an individual, nor as an editor. I have enough brains to distinguish between an ideological stand on some issue and the faithful presentation of that issue (I definitively won't agree with the communist interpretation of an issue, but I can faithfully write "according to communist ideology ...")
      • This is not a vote, this is a discussion. Arguments pro and con count, not how many people are pro and con. If n-1 people say yes/no without serious arguments, and 1 editor says no/yes with a serious argument, the latter is correct, even if n=100. Dc76\ 13:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not make this about the philosophical implications of this or that ideology. You are continually offending editors with your comments, simply dismissing the policy of WP:NPA, and you are trying to make WP a political forum. If you're having moral problems, write a blog, or create some closed mailing list like the guys above, where you can fully express your personality. We're trying to build an encyclopaedia here, and if you only motive for keeping around is to fight some imagined political options of fellow editors, please make Misplaced Pages a service and leave. As for the name of this article, the evidence above and below undeniably established what is rightful name for this article, and that is surely not "Communist Romania".Anonimu (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Your description of my motives and actions is totally wrong. I am entitled to my views as an individual and please do not tell me about my morality - you have no right. Please discuss content, not editors. It is offensive to me when you out of the blue call me an offender. Please, discuss content, not editors. As an editor I have expressed my understanding of the issue of renaming, and I repeat it again: "Communist Romania" is how it is referred in English in most sources. The main point to support this title is its paramount usage; nothing else competes with it. The main additional point against "Socialist Republic of Romania" is that it would only refer to 1965-1989. What will then refer to 1945-47 and 1947-65? Do you want 3 separate articles? If yes, then please propose that, but not renaming. There is nothing ideological in this argument.

Anonimu, now officially, please never discuss (or attempt to discuss) with me ideology, political or personal opinions or impressions (especially about me). I would also not discuss such things with you. I would talk with you strictly as an editor with another editor about content. Are you interested? If not, please never talk to me agian about anything. Thank you very much. Dc76\ 13:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Never discussed your morality or political options. But when you openly claim that some users (including me) are immoral, whitewashing Communist regimes and spreading propaganda, I can't just stand by. An user with a political agenda trying to push it in mainspace is more dangerous to the encyclopaedic spirit of WP than a vandal who introduces profanities in random articles. And when an user issues a call to "exploit this in an intelligent way" to impose "morally the truth" against editors who may "have committed crimes" diff, then, as WP:AGF puts it, the "guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence".

If we're going bold: According to Misplaced Pages use (proved in the opening statement), and guidelines about naming articles (as has been proved both above and below), the correct name of this article is "Socialist Republic of Romania". As WP precedents show, there is no need to split the current article.Anonimu (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You said to me: "If you're having moral problems, write a blog, or create some closed mailing list like the guys above, where you can fully express your personality. We're trying to build an encyclopaedia here" You questioned my morality. You have no right to do this. Go away, please!

I have no political agenda neither as a user nor as a person. I have political opinions as a person, but they do not guide me when editing. Please, stop throwing mud at me. I forbid you to discuss me. Have anything about my edits, be my guest. Otherwise - NO.

Allow me to give third parties whatever advise I want. They don't refer to you, less so to you as editor. They refer to communist propaganda in general which is real. Communists "have committed crimes" (over 100 million dead), but I was not referring to you, this has nothing to do with you (at most you are an ideological supporter, but that is your problem not mine). Please do not misinterpret my words (esp. since they are not addressed to you).

I no longer want to discuss anything with you here. I will discuss with DIRECTOR, but not with you. I have had enough of your personal attacks. I forbid you to talk discuss me. If you have complains about my edits, use proper channels. Dc76\ 14:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Google test on the requested move

In spite of repeated comments to the contrary, the name "Socialist Republic of Romania" is indeed significantly more common than "Communist Romania" (see links below). WP:NAME applies, I believe. Here are the Google test results:

• Google Books
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,539 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 762 hits
• Google Scholar
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,840 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 1,560 hits
• Google
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 285,000 hits
  • "Communist Romania" 33,100 hits

I want to make this point 100% clear since some users have repeatedly hinted at "Communist Romania" being the most common English term. --DIREKTOR 23:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Communist Romania refers to 1945-1989. Socialist Republic of Romania refers only to 1965-1989. Hence renaming is wrong by default. Do you want to have 3 articles or just one?
• There are a lot of problems with these Google hit. Many of them are as Dahn pointed out about "bees in the SRR". How about recent, peer-reviewed, published, scholarly sources? At least a couple. Scholarly sources refer more often to "Communist Romania".
• I repeat for the third time: If you want 1 article, "SRR" simply does not cover the entire period. If you want 3 articles, "SRR" is absolutely legitimate. How many articles do you want? Dc76\ 14:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: how about a major article "Communist Romania" (1945-1989) and two smaller articles about political entities such as "PRR" and "SRR". The latter two would be strictly about the political organization of these states and their leaderships. Info should not be repeated. Does it make sense to you? Even if you disagree with it, tell me at least if it makes sense to you, please. Dc76\ 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, Anonimu, but your attempts to cancel the vote discussion (something you've tried before when things weren't going your way) just won't fly. Even if (and obviously there's zero evidence) three users were involved in "meatpuppeting" (and the allegations are strange, considering their long and well-nigh exclusive interest in Eastern Europe), and even if for some reason their opinions are discounted, that still leaves volumes of objections from Dahn, Dc76, Vecrumba and myself, and in no way can the present state of discussion be adjudged a "consensus". This request is set to expire very soon; I trust the closing administrator will exercise proper decision-making based on the preceding discussion. - Biruitorul 15:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct. But this is not a "vote" (something judged upon the count of votes), it is a request for move (something judged based upon pro/con arguments presented by editors). The closing admin, of course, does not have to judge the content of arguments, but he/she can judge whether the presented pro/con arguments are serious based on WP policies (for example if WP policy says county names must start with capital letters, and one of the arguments was Google frequency of the country name starting with small letter, he/she can dismiss that argument.) Dc76\ 15:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The very fact that you are considering this move discussion a "vote" is perplexing, and doesn't put you in a good light. Also the fact that you consider that by sheer numbers you can overcome long-established WP use and guidelines is stupefying. Only you and Dahn have tried to seriously argument an opposition, but you both ignored precedents and the guidelines. Again, I request any closing admin to wait for a decision from the ArbCom. The contributions of those three editors to this area are way different than their almost exclusive Poland-Baltics-Russia editing habits, and the fact that their votes were less than 15 minutes apart from one another is very dubious. Any decision at this point will only act as an enabler. If they are innocent I'm sure the ArbCom will exonerate them, and then the closing admin will be able to get to a fair, informed decision on this matter.Anonimu (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Whoever voted as opposed to have give an argument, that simply doesn't count. I totally agree that Biruitorul and Dahn have given serious arguments. At first I only supported their arguments. Afterwards I added one other aspect: is the proposal to have 1 or 3 articles? If the proposal is to have 1 article, then Dahn's and Biruitrul's arguments are 100% solid (IMHO). If the proposal is to have 3 articles, then one of them would obviously be "SRR". Dc76\ 15:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Data

WP:NCGN recommends following the usage of general reference works in English. These include the Library of Congress Country Studies, where there exists; there is one for Romania; and it does not use Communist Romania at all. Other such sources should be listed here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The LOC study is dated July 1989. It's quite natural that someone writing while the regime was still in place would use its current name in contexts like this one. Authors writing since that time have, however, tended to prefer "Communist Romania" when referring to the 1948-89 period, given the term's all-encompassing nature. - Biruitorul 00:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

That would appear to be a defense of the present name on the grounds that it is an anachronism; examples (in English, and not polemics) would be welcome, however. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

For your convenience, I'm reproducing a dozen links I provided above: , , , , , , , , , , , . Most are by Western authors; all are in English; none are polemics. - Biruitorul 01:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Many of those books use communist Romania once or twice; almost all lower-case (as here). This is not a proper name; this is an adjective. By the same reasoning, we could move this article to totalitarian Romania, which most of these same books also use - sometimes more often. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where "totalitarian Romania" is "more often" used, let alone by "these same books". It appears to be marginally used, and not really by the same sources (though it is admittedly impossible for me to check your hypothetical example). Also, not that would even consider "totalitarian Romania" a serious suggestion, but: incidentally, the term is POVed (not because it's contentious, but because it attributes a trait to policies), unlike "Communist Romania" (which simply describes the regime in terms that aren't in all honesty polemical); in addition, and alas, "totalitarian Romania" would fail to distinguish between Romania's three or even four (depending on the definition of Carol II's late rule) totalitarian regimes, which I picture is not something that those hypothetical books don't have to address. Dahn (talk) 16:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the capitalization issue: as long as it's employed as a syntagm (and it is), the issue is not really there. It's like saying that there is a fundamental difference between "French Republic" and "French republic" or between "Kingdom of England" and "kingdom of England", or between "fascist Italy" and "Fascist Italy". Dahn (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference, which is enough. On the one hand, Fascist Italy is a proper name, meaning Italy between 1922 and 1943/4; fascist Italy is a term of abuse, which can be flung at the Italy of 1970 (or 1870) as easily as at Mussolini. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're avoiding my point. We're talking the same kind of sourcing, and obviously the same period/regime, not "terms of abuse" that may theoretically be used. Now, is there a fundamental difference between "fascist Italy" and "Fascist Italy"? Dahn (talk) 16:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I deny that you have a point. Sometimes use of fascist Italy is a typographical choice; but when it is not, even about Mussolini, there is a difference between Fascist Italy (ruled by the National Fascist Party) and fascist Italy (ruled using castor oil and jackboots); Badoglio could have continued one but not the other (and apparently considered doing so) . If it were merely a matter of typography, it would have resolved as lower case by now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• But the application to Romania distinguishes otherwise:
  • Was Romania communist between 1947 and 1989? Yes, in the sense of being ruled by the Communist Party - not in the sense of having adopted the hypothetical economic system they called "communism"
  • Is "Communist Romania" a proper name? No, largely not - any more than "Totalitarian Romania" is a proper name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is speculative special pleading. You may cherish this supposed nuance, and you're entitled to it, but please don't impose it on this discussion and the sources themselves like it's an unavoidable reality. Dahn (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Not special pleading at all; ordinary construction of a standard English idiom: the distinction between capitalized and uncapitalized words. Using Google Books to find two words used together (once in most of these books; never more than half-a-dozen times) does not make them a proper name. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a obviously a distinction between capitalized and non-capitalized words: some are capitalized, and some are not. In this case, the "reason" why some are and some aren't is your special deduction, which claims special knowledge that I can only describe as esoteric. that said, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion, at least until someone finds valid point for further discussion. Dahn (talk) 17:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is a commonplace of English grammar that proper names, including the adjectives in proper names, are capitalized. Indeed, the only reason to capitalize adjectives in running text, as opposed to titles or headers, is that the adjective is part of a proper noun or (like Romanian) derived from one. (Some of the second class, like fascist and communist, don't have to be capped; that's the typographical question above.)
• Therefore communist Romania is not a proper name, indeed not a name at all, and the phrase , used once or half-a-dozen times in a volume, does not constitute usage for this purpose; it's one of many descriptions of this place and time. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Dahn claims, in this edit, that I have invented the distinction between capitalized and uncapitalized words. I recommend that his opinions be discounted accordingly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I can't really prevent you from invoking my name and related discussions on this page, nor from spreading infantile allegations about me. I will however urge those who may be naive enough to believe for a moment your representation of what I have said to make sure they actually read what I have stated. It's the same thing I have stated above: Pmanderson has created a supposed distinction between uses of a syntagm and inferred it on the sources used to determine the name. The usage is identical, the context is identical, the syntax is virtually identical beyond the difference in capitalization, yet he claims that only one of two alternatives indicates the intention to distinguish a regime, the other being I suppose a coincidence. As for the "many descriptions of this place and time": aside from coming up with the feeble versions above ("Cold War Romania" and "totalitarian Romania"), both of them concocted by him for the purposes of equivocation and relying on unsupported claims of supposed use in academia, he is yet to show one syntagm that would have a sizable impact on what we are discussing here. Dahn (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• • The usage of an editor who is, even in a passion, capable of using inferred upon should be given several grains of salt; but this is another flat denial that capitalization is meaningful in English. Is Dahn from Romania, or from Mars?
  • If he looked up syntagma, he would (after the dab page) find how we mere anglophones spell it; but he would also find that it comprises two or more linguistic signs or elements. I have implied nothing; I have asserted what any literate reader of English should know: that there is a difference between "United States" and "united States" or "united states". The first is a proper name, the others (unless in a text so poorly proof-read as to be unreliable) cannot be - the difference depending entirely on the one lexeme "United". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Look, Pmanderson, if you want to use my real or imagined mistakes, you can continue doing it on your talk page, right after the personal attacks you aim my way. I'm not sure what you're set out to prove this way, other than drag me back into your ignoratio elenchi. The same goes for the flawed "United States" analogy. For one that address the point, we have the use of "fascist Italy" in the phrase: "The cultural trends in more industrialized countries similarly dominated the public realm of urban areas in fascist Italy" (Simonetta Falasca-Zamponi, Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini's Italy); and the use of "Fascist Italy" in the phrase: "Mussolini shared the Spenglerian view of a declining West and believed that a demographically and politically expanding Fascist Italy might lead the way to its resurgence" (Carl Ipsen, Dictating Demography: The Problem of Population in Fascist Italy). There is admittedly no difference in how these two terms are used, so the reference to other aspects is a dull attempt at splitting the point. Now, even in the case where I am entirely wrong, even in the case where I would be the one constructing an elaborate theory to avoid a simple fact, even in the case where my English would be ridiculous (and where the state of my English would begin to matter for this simple point), I don't believe I should be fair game for the type of abuse in several of the posts above. Dahn (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Descriptive title

Needless to say, I agree with Septentrionalis completely up there. I don't know what we're going to use, but "communist Romania" is a joke of a title and has to go. --DIREKTOR 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's not descend to the level of polemic. The formulation may not be perfect, but it is used repeatedly by modern-day scholars to describe the Romania of 1948-89. It's hardly a "joke", and the proposed replacement is itself unsatisfactory, for reasons that have been detailed. - Biruitorul 19:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It is occasionally so used as a description; not, it would appear, more often than a dozen other descriptions. But why should we use a descriptive title at all? Either of the names of the State would be better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "descending to the level of polemics", my argument is fully elaborated above. The formulation is not only imperfect, but far less-used than other ones. When we take into consideration Septentrionalis' argument, there's no doubt we're using an obscure and flawed title for the article on this former country. As I said, I've (recently) become very weary of repeating the same argument in different wording 15 times to get it through, so I won't bore you by reiterating it. --DIREKTOR 22:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, the proposal is to rename the entire 1945-89 period as "Socialist Republic of Romania". Which should be obvious as wrong to anybody. If the proposal would be to split it into 3 articles (1945-47, 1947-65, 1965-89), then no doubt "Socialist Republic of Romania" is the correct title for the latter. But the question is, do we need 3 articles? Does any one of you, including those supporting renaming, advocate for 3 articles? It appears no. So, my personal conclusion is you are just making a storm in a cup of tea. "Communist Romania" is NOT the PERFECT TITLE. Simply, all other titles are much worse. Dc76\ 11:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Meatpuppeteering

It seems quite likely at this point that this discussion was influenced by a WP:CLIQUE, politically motivated under the impression that moving this article is (quote) "Communist propaganda". At first I was just surprised at how quickly User:Anonimu's proposal had been voted down with (blatantly false) claims that the current title was the "most common name" and without anyone really addressing the reasons for the move. However, since then a number of events popped up pointing towards a clear violation of WP:MEAT in this move request. When this became clear, I withdrew from the discussion, seeing that it had degraded from rational discourse. These are the events that convinced me of suspicious goings on behind the discussion:

• After I voted, having been previously involved on the talkpage, I was surprised at the rapid succession of "Opposed" votes on September 12
  • User:Biruitorul at 19:37 ,
  • User:Biophys at 19:56 ,
  • User:Radeksz at 20:10 ,
  • User:Tymek three minutes later at 20:13 , etc.
• As I've already mentioned on this talkpage, a (confirmed) sockpuppet of a banned user I reported tried to get me banned with a naive "report" on me being part of a "Croat Gang" on WP:AN/I. User:Dc76 (opposed to the move) promptly appeared and accused me of being a "Communist" trying to "white-wash Communist rule in Eastern Europe" by supporting the rename of this Romanian article. As I've said earlier, User:Dc76's post also revealed a political motivation, and a belief that the "moral truth" is on the side of the opposition.
• Finally, I've noticed this. I am now convinced WP:MEAT was indeed violated on this talkpage, and that this discussion was not objective. Regards, --DIREKTOR 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Should I vote again? Let me assure you user DIREKTOR that I would vote in the same way, no matter what you might think. Tymek (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I've wrongfully accused anyone, but you've got to admit it does look suspicious. --DIREKTOR 08:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I repeat again, I have this article in my Watchlist since long-time ago. I also repeat that I have AN/I in my Watchlist, and if the word "Communist" is in the title, I see red. :) DIRECTOR, I commented that you are a "Communist" trying to "white-wash Communist rule in Eastern Europe" and that Communists do not have "moral truth" addressing specifically the user in AN/I who started that thread, explaining to him that although he is ideologically right, you are are editorially right. I did not use that as an argument here, as you present things now. Moreover, once you said you are not a communist, I promptly apologized. Yes, that was assumption of bad faith on my part (that you were acting as a Communist). I repeat again: I apologize for that assumption of bad faith. Sincerely. I would suggest to review only the arguments pro/con the move. It does not matter how many people supported or opposed, it's not a vote. Whatever the result, I will accept it, honestly. Dc76\ 11:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Director, I suggest you to do a summary of the arguments pro move, and Dahn to do a summary of the arguments against the move. How is that? Dc76\ 11:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Innocent until proven guilty or, if you prefer, assume good faith. And as I've said before, even if a couple of users didn't present arguments of their own, several of us did, which more than outweighed those made by the other side. There's no consensus for a move under such circumstances. - Biruitorul 14:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Director, be as you wish. Ignore all editors you see on the "witch hunt list". How about Dahn's arguments? His arguments are strong like stone and (with all due respect) 100 times stronger than yours. Judge content, not editors. Dc76\ 23:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "ignoring" anyone. Like I said, I may be wrong, "innocent until proven guilty", etc., but I am convinced this has been transformed into a political issue by a WP:CLIQUE. I have no desire to waste my time trying to have an objective debate on an issue where objectivity and neutrality have been already compromised. If someone cannot yield even the smallest part of his argument because he is politically engaged ("sees red"), what's the point of trying to present arguments? --DIREKTOR 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

1. "", in the prison of Aiud alone there were 625 political prisoners who were starved to death from 1945 to 1964
2. "", testimonies from 1945 to 1964

• Unassessed Romania articles
• Unknown-importance Romania articles
• All WikiProject Romania pages
• Unassessed former country articles
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class Balkan military history articles
• Balkan military history task force articles
• Start-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• Selected anniversaries (December 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (December 2006)
• Requested moves