Talk:Socialist Republic of Romania/Archive 2

Archived Thursday, December 30, 2010

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\^talk 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Another problem with the move is the dreaded Wikipedia: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 ^(TALK) 19:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was no consensus to move. @harej 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

---

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 [1]
  • "Communist Romania" 762 hits [2]
• Google Scholar
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,840 hits [3]
  • "Communist Romania" 1,560 hits [4]
• Google
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 285,000 hits [5]
  • "Communist Romania" 33,100 hits [6]

I want to make this point 100% clear since some users have repeatedly hinted at "Communist Romania" being the most common English term. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 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 ^(TALK) 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: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. Clearly, this is not some Wikipedia-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 ^Talk 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" [19] has 1,840 hits, "Communist Romania" [20] 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^Talk 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 [21], "Socialist Republic of Romania" has 285,000 [22] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

On Google books, which is a better metric, "Communist Romania" has 2350 hits [23], while "Socialist Republic of Romania" has 936 [24]. 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 ^Talk 20:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Try using quotation marks while Googling for a specific term. You'll get more accurate results. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 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 [25]
  • "Communist Romania" 762 hits [26]
• Google Scholar
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,840 hits [27]
  • "Communist Romania" 1,560 hits [28]
• Google
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 285,000 hits [29]
  • "Communist Romania" 33,100 hits [30]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 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 ^Talk 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". [31] 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 ^(TALK) 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. [32] 547, [33] 2030, [34] 191, [35] 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^(TALK) 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 [36] vs [37] and more than four times as common in Google-indexed scholarly articles [38] vs [39]. 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: [40]. 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: [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]. 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 "[Dej became] a national communist . Romania began to oppose Soviet[s]" [50](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 [yet] 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 [some synonym of "suck" that couldn't possibly construed as a personal attack] 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^Talk 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)

To the readers of this page: but we do use Nazi Germany. See below. Dahn (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Comment for the closing Admin: considering the current developments of Wikipedia: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 ^Talk 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I advise again any closing admin to wait. If evidence presented in the arbitration is confirmed by ArbCom, we have a clear cut case of meatpuppeting. No matter how one or two of the possible meatpuppets may have made edits to related subjects, their excuses for arguments here prove that there's more to it than just general interest.Anonimu (talk) 13:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I've been accused of being a "Communist" on WP:AN/I [51]. 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 Wikipedia 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 ^(TALK) 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\^talk 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 ^(TALK) 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\^talk 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 Wikipedia 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\^talk 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 Wikipedia 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\^talk 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 [52]
  • "Communist Romania" 762 hits [53]
• Google Scholar
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 1,840 hits [54]
  • "Communist Romania" 1,560 hits [55]
• Google
  • "Socialist Republic of Romania" 285,000 hits [56]
  • "Communist Romania" 33,100 hits [57]

I want to make this point 100% clear since some users have repeatedly hinted at "Communist Romania" being the most common English term. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 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\^talk 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\^talk 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 ^Talk 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\^talk 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\^talk 15:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

• Opposed. WP:TLDR above, but here's my quick take. As this article's lead correctly states, the "Socialist" designation does not encompass the entire communist history of Romania, because it was called a Popular Republic before that, but it was communist during that time nonetheless. This is my opinion. Please no badgering on my talk page about this. Pcap ping 15:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per WP:D and WP:NC. Long official designations notwithstanding, the most common name used to refer to this country has always been Romania. Of course, Romania has already been taken as an article title by the main article about this country. The subject of this article is also that country, but in particular the period 1947-1989. What was notable about that period was that was when it was ruled by a Communist regime. WP:D is very clear about what to do in cases like this: "When there is another term (such as Pocket billiards instead of Pool) or more complete name (such as Delta rocket instead of Delta) that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used". The current name, Communist Romania, not only complies with WP:D, but it achieves the principles laid out at WP:NC much better than the proposed alternative. It is more recognizable, easier to find, just as precise (and no more precise than necessary, which the alternative is), and certainly more concise. The argument can and has been made that the alternative proposed is more consistent with the names of other similar articles, but that's only 1 out of 5. It seems to me Communist Romania wins hands down. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How did you decide that is more recognizable and easier to find? The Google Book Search and Google Scholar results prove the contrary. Not to mention that it fails WP:NPOV. Maybe use the N-word for African Americans since we're at it: It's common, extremely recognizable, easier to find, precise and very concise. That's 5 out of 5. Why the double standards?Anonimu (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Anonimu will not elaborate on his claim that the current title breaches the NPOV policy, but merely throw it around like it's matter of fact. Anonimu knows that the only position from which this can be argued is the extreme point of view according to which Eastern Bloc communism was not really communism - it is something he has mentioned in passing, when he implied that the only way to ensure NPOV here would be to follow the supposed official practice (thereby resting his argument on a speculated nuance). This why his analogy with the "N" word (which, unlike "Communist Romania", is fringe, entrenched and offensive) is bogus. The catch 22 here is that Anonimu knows he would entirely discredit his point by explaining why Communist Romania "is POV", so he'd rather repeat it in passing, whenever there's a rollover in the debate, but never substantiate it. Dahn (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but unless you take the US point of view as granted, that POV is not really extreme. From Paris to Vladivostok reputable scholars have repeatedly explained why "Communist Romania", "Communist Russia" and "Communist China" are not at all "communist". This was the case even at the height of Cold War, when Soviet governments and French university professors agreed on this, even if for different reasons. The last time I checked WP wasn't supposed to be Americentric (and if it were, it would only make the N-word more adequate).Anonimu (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note how Anonimu now proceeds to equate the ideologized and sectarian POV (whereby "in communism there is no state, and this should matter to people who are not communist") with the scholarly perspective, and labels the latter as one part of a debate. A non-existing debate, mind you. So it seems I was wrong: he will expose his own POV at the risk of discrediting his argument, but he will use euphemism. It's because he imagines that everyone who has read the above either shares his POv or was born gullible. Dahn (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note also how the above user, lacking serious arguments, prefers to jump to ad hominems to support his case. Also note how he uses his undisputed talent at reading minds (i.e. undisputed because nobody cares enough to dispute it) to perform character assassination on his perceived opponent.Anonimu (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Somewhere above, Anonimu was stating that: "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. This is what I have paraphrased, I believe objectively so, in my last messages here. Anonimu has cited a variant of the argument that "it's not communism if I don't want it to be" as relevant for this naming discussion, and has indeed labeled a POV that which opposes this POV (i.e.: the world). Reason enough to consider his claims of character assassination and misinterpretation an attempt to dodge the point. I am, as shown, referring strictly to his point - I have not made a single statement concerning his character, nor will I. I assure him that I do not find him despicable, nor do I think that someone else should - I just happen to think that he is wrong, and can explain why I think that is. Yet again, Anonimu prefers to throw around passionate words that he does not account for. Dahn (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • And I stand by my point. That example is one of the reasons why the current title is POV. Again, the not "communism" character of communist states is not a fringe view, but is a significant point of view in Europe and Asia, even more in the academia of these regions. Note that while "Communist state in Romania" may be NPOV to a certain degree, due to established English usage (the hypercorrect term being "deformed workers' state"), this is certainly not the case for "Communist Romania", which is an incorrect POV description of the state of facts in the Socialist Republic of Romania, the name the majority of the sources use. As for the user's argumentum ad personam, anyone can easily see how he purports to expose my "true" thoughts (see the rant in the final part of his 22:22 comment)Anonimu (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• • I remind readers of this page that this pocket of the conversation refers to Anonimu's claim that naming this article the way it is is POV. This he proceeds to be prove by citing the term "deformed workers' state" (not the most unintelligent definition, but clearly one borrowed from anti-Satlinist communist, therefore fringe, apologetics) and some concocted theory about the supposed rules at universities in "Europe and Asia" (something which I don't even plan to discuss myself, since it opens like and likely will end like, a diversion - in any case, just like he can claim it's "tru", I can claim it's "bollocks", and we leave it at that). This is not argumentation within the confines of common sense, it's an attempt to masquerade a POV for the NPOV solution, and to claim that a definition shared by scholars the world over is in effect fringe. The argument about "the majority of sources", which he yet again brings up like it's not been challenged before, is a false analogy - it conflates the number of references to one aspect of Communist Romania (which are likely to be, for reasons explained, more abundant than others) and deems them references to the entire period, when neither the sources nor, in effect, he claim that they do apply to the whole period. That's pretty much where Anonimu's argumentation gets stuck, and the circular argument resumes. In 5, 4, 3, 2... go. Dahn (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The above user is obviously misinterpreting my point: I just mentioned that "deformed workers' state" would be the perfect term for such a polity, but I didn't advocate it, expressly because of the fringe position the term currently has. (that would be a straw man, isn't it?) Also, I never spoke about rules, but about opinions in the scholar world, generally the non-US scholar world. He is right when he says that sources don't use RSR to refer to all the period, but he fails to mention that a lot, if not most of the sources using "Communist Romania" don't do it either, but use "communist" just as a (flawed) descriptor, just like one would say Catholic Poland - not a name, but a description, and even wrong for that matter.Anonimu (talk) 00:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Anonimu, whether a given commonly used name is "correct" or appropriate is not for us to decide - only whether it is commonly used. You know what is meant by Communist Romania, and that is the point. As to your comparisons with the N-Word, please. That's offensive. Unless you're arguing that "Communist Romania" is offensive. To someone besides you? Any reliable sources for that? If not, please stop making this absurd argument.

        You also asked how "Communist Romania" is more recognizable or easier to find than "Socialist Republic of Romania". I'm sorry, I assumed that was self-evident. For one thing, I can remember "Communist Romania". Every time I want to write "Socialist Republic of Romania" I have to go find it, copy, and then paste, because I can't even remember it after reading this inane debate, much less would I know it before coming here. That's really annoying, shows that it's not easily recognizable, and makes it hard to find. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

        • Sorry, but WP:NPOV is policy, WP:NC is just a guideline. And "Communist Romania" is not NPOV. For your second "argument": there's another policy called WP:OR that says we shouldn't use things that we personally find OK, unless there are sources to support us. And sources use "Socialist Republic of Romania" more commonly than "Communist Romania". You may not be aware, but WP has a guideline that allows for easy finding of articles, by using lesser used and more liberally developed ("simple") terms to refer to specific things. It's called WP:REDIRECT, and that's why when you enter Communist China in the search box, you are instantly taken to the article about PRC.Anonimu (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:NC is policy. What sources support the assertion that you personally find OK: "Communist Romania" is not NPOV? --Born2cycle (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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 ^Talk 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: [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. Most are by Western authors; all are in English; none are polemics. - Biruitorul ^Talk 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 [mildly] 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 [a person] inferred upon [a text] 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^Talk 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 ^(TALK) 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\^talk 11:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply use Romania (1947–1989) or History of Romania (1947–1989)? DrKiernan (talk) 12:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Those two are alternatives to consider, but I have to ask yet again why not use "Communist Romania"? Whose sensibilities are harmed, what rationale does one cite in not using it, and for what reason? Even if its an euphemism we're looking for, why bother searching for one? The main arguments I've heard so far are that the term is not ideologically correct (which is marginal POV), that the term is not "English English" (which is another marginal POV, stemming from the idea that wikipedia editors are here to regulate an unregulated language) and that it is not exact (which is reasonable, but irrelevant, and which could of course be said for any alternative proposed or imaginable). Other than that, "Communist Romania" is used, addresses a specific reality and is common sense. Sure we could replace it with many things, but why? Dahn (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

And, btw, this should have come up before in the conversation: Nazi Germany. Do we care that it was not "officially" known as such? Do we opt for "3rd Reich" (not to say "National-Socialist Germany") based on that rationale? Do we aim for a "neutral" title there (say, History of Germany (1933-1945))? Do we theorize a supposed difference between "adjective" and "name"? Nah, we're good. Dahn (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Technical remark only: for 1945-1947 Kingdom of Romania and Communist Romania overlap. Articles pertaining to this period (at least all those strictly not going outside this interval) IMHO should be in both categories (or perhaps be in a cat of its own, itself subcat of both). That said, I would like to retire from this discussion for a while. Who disagrees with what I argumented, pls just comment you disagree (with or without reason as to why). But, pls, don't phrase in such a way as if asking me to respond or elaborate. Thank you. Dc76\^talk 12:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Simple: WP use and long time agreed consensus on naming guidelines. These, along with other arguments, which you unjustly dismiss as "marginal POV", prove yet again that "Communist Romania" is fundamentally flawed as a title for this particular article. Also, you're the last guy on WP I expected to fall back on Godwin's law.Anonimu (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing of that sort is "proven", and there's nothing in the naming guidelines that you can cite for this analogy. As for Godwin's law (which I've seen you use indiscriminately over and over): your accusation is inconsequential and paradoxical (the only application I can see here is when a person imagines that everything said about Nazi Germany is a reductio ad Hitlerum, and turns Godwin's law into the equivalent of not saying "God's real name"); it's also a burdensome attempt at blurring the point - which is that articles with this form do exist and will exist. It's not my fault that they named that article with that name (it's not actually my fault that they named this article with this name), but to imply a contrary consensus (predetermined consensus, no less!) over such issues is proof by verbosity. Dahn (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no need for WP:NC to provide an analogy for every possible case (after all, WP has 3 million articles, and making a separate point for each case would make the guideline unusable). But the basic prescription of the guideline, i.e. use the most common name in English language reliable sources, make the current title unusable. I thought here, at en.WP, discussions were above the childish "but you did it first", but guess I was wrong. Also, the commonness of "Nazi Germany" in English language sources is incomparable to the seldom use of "Communist Romania". Furthermore, I don't want to go on this path, that resembles those debates brought up by pseudo-scholars who use "red Holocaust" to refer to the Stalinist purges, just to make the Shoah more palatable. I'm sure you can bring more scientifically honest arguments.Anonimu (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

What?! Dahn (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that Communist Romania is a descriptive title rather than a name. The name is Romania to be sure, but that needs to be disambiguated. Personally, I would prefer Romania (Communist) or even Romania (1947-1989), because I think all titles with a disambiguated name should have the disambiguating info clearly separated in parenthesis. But consensus prefers (as documented at WP:D) to include the disambiguating terms in the title when that makes for a recognizable name. Fine. So we have Communist Romania - that's the name Romania with a descriptive disambiguating qualifier. I find that far preferable to the long and cumbersome official name being proposed (which I still can't remember) which few but scholars and specialists in the English world even know. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:45, 25 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 [70],
  • User:Biophys at 19:56 [71],
  • User:Radeksz at 20:10 [72],
  • User:Tymek three minutes later at 20:13 [73], 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 ^(TALK) 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 ^(TALK) 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\^talk 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\^talk 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 ^Talk 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\^talk 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 ^(TALK) 23:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

No matter if canvassing happened (and there's strong signals that it did), the arguments of the opposing side go against WP guidelines and use. So unless that side goes to change the long established consensus on naming guidelines and begin pointy mass renames, the arguments to oppose don't stand scrutiny. Not to mention that some are rather incoherent, with people unable to decide why they support an argument.Anonimu (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

"the arguments of the opposing side go against WP guidelines and use" - I have consistently (and repeatedly) shown that this argument is bogus, that the supposed guidelines either non-existent or inapplicable here, and that what you call "long established consenus" is neither long, nor established, nor consensus. You keep repeating your spin, keep picking at side issues - but I'd imagine the simple point I'm making stands as it did from the beginning of this debate. It is unrelated to the mailing list issue (which I believe you can by now start discussing elsewhere), and it does not fall for your sophistry. Dahn (talk) 14:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't say that guidelines don't apply just because you don't want them to. As for your assertion that there' s no consensus, you've failed to bring evidence for that (redirects are not in discussion here). If you want to keep discussing the strength of your arguments (which are becoming more and more feeble IMHO), please use the other sections created specifically for that.Anonimu (talk) 14:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I have consistently brought evidence for that, which you have solely contested around new and invented criteria, most of which are absurd or unrealistic. I have also said, in detail, what the (perhaps subtle) difference is between the analogies you keep inventing and the case here, and have provided counterexamples that refute or at the very least dilute your supposed claim for consensus - counterexamples of which some are glaring. In addition to this argument you've concocted regarding consensus on other pages, you have repeatedly dragged me around the resurfacing and utterly sectarian half-truth that Romania did not designate itself communist - which is a likely to clue to who has an agenda to follow here, and what moves are and aren't judicious. This is what your argument amounts to. You may wrap its stale core in rhetoric about how you've "addressed" my points etc., but it's still a frivolous argument from a dubious position. Dahn (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My reply may look overly simple, but it nevertheless warranted: No, you didn't. The analogies with the far more common Communist China and Communist Russia (not to mention Communist Poland, Communist Hungary and so forth), which are all redirects, are all perfectly valid, and can't be reasonably refuted. I'm seriously disappointed by your new line of argumentation: it wasn't enough your dubious comparison above, now you resort to base argumentum ad hominem to try to sustain your point.Anonimu (talk) 15:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

To the basic point you're repeating over and over again, I have answered - I have done just this just above. You're talking past me and to yourself. As for the ad hominem: huh? Dahn (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I am not politically engaged. Second, I honestly admitted that as an individual I have deep dislike for anything communist-related. Third, I said this several times, and I would like to remark now that you ignore it, I do not let my real life opinions undermine the soundness of arguments given in WP by me as an editor, especially when I can produce very sound arguments. Forth, I repeat again, because you ignore it, I said, please, forget my arguments, compare your arguments with Dahn's ones. Is it not crystal clear that I simply want out of this discussion? Dc76\^talk 11:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Your edits here, at ANI and everywhere else prove you see editing WP as political warfare. Otherwise how could someone explain your insistence in calling editors "Stalinists", "Communists", "immoral" or "criminals", even after they requested you to stop several times.Anonimu (talk) 13:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)