This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Title is not changing, article is not splitting, let's move on to 1945 versus 1947
I would suggest that we are all well aware by this point that the article title is not going to change, that the article is not going to be split. If you like we can discuss 1945 (what the start year should be) versus the current frozen article state (1947). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the lede so the period is properly represented. We can continue to debate the title. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't stick the first time, either
DIREKTOR, referring to your article move of August 11, 2009, incidentally, the only other contribution you've made to this article since its inception, aside from the recent tag housekeeping.
You cast aspersions that editors are here for one purpose only (a campaign to stick "Communist" in article titles), yet the one purpose shoe appears to fit your campaign to remove mention of "Communist Romania". If at first you don't succeed, try, try, again? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an attack thread?-- Director(talk) 22:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. You alleged I was at the article only to insert my POV "Communist" in the title, but I'm not here to debate the less collegial of your commentaries. I have contributed to the article in the past outside the title dispute, not to mention considerable wider contributions on the territories encompassed by today's Romania and Moldova, so I have a demonstrated history of interest in the topic.
However, in browsing through article history, I found that you summarily moved the article back in 2009 (as proposed here, now), which, as far as I can see, has been your only contribution here. From my standpoint, per your prior article move and all our discussions to date here, I see your proposal as rooted in your personal dogma about rules regarding titles, regardless that the resulting title is far less appropriate than the one the article already has.
You've already gone through a contentious renaming exercise once, except in a more abbreviated form, that is, the article was eventually moved back. Since moving the article has been your only demonstrated interest here, I'm just curious as to what circumstances you believe had changed that merited another shot at it, as your basis—erroneous, I maintain—for renaming the article has not changed. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you strike this thread or move it somewhere more appropriate lest you get reported. You've been instigating a conflict here since post one, but this is really crossing the line. Should I write a thread about my opinion of your thoughts, feelings and motivations? Either way I will not permit myself to be insulted further, nor will I participate in this ridiculous thread. -- Director(talk) 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've already said more than plenty about my thoughts, feelings, and motivations. But I'm not here to grind an axe.
I haven't been agreeing with you since my first post here. I don't see how not agreeing with you is "instigating conflict." And I have not called your motivations for attempting to move the article again into question, if anything, your argument 3 years ago and now has been a paragon of consistency. But having gone through the exercise, a change in expectations is usually brought on by a change in circumstances. There has been no such change I'm aware of; and based on your prior experience you should have been prepared for dissent regarding your suggestion instead of positioning it as an obvious slam-dunk and anyone who disagrees is POV and instigating conflict. IMHO, if you had come into this better prepared to discuss dissent constructively, the tone of conversation would have been much improved. It still can be, of course. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Requested move 2012
Not Moved
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: Not moved, I thought about relisting this, but clearly there's no burgeoning consensus between interested editors. However, two things have been very clear in the discussion below and are backed up by the article itself. The current name isn't very representative of the article content and the article is clearly about a period of Romanian history, not a specific country or officially named regime. Given that, the proposed title is equally unrepresentative of the article content. I would encourage editors to contemplate, as they have done below an alternative title that clearly indicates this article is about a period of history, not a country in toto and work out an acceptable, consensus based title before requesting the next move. Mike Cline (talk) 17:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COMMONNAME. Google tests (posted above in their entirety) show "communist Romania" is in fact the least common phrase considered for the title. Usage in English-language sources very distinctly favors Socialist Republic of Romania. "Communist Romania" yields 17,100 hits, and when we exclude the phrase "post-communist Romania" the number goes down to 9,800. Socialist Republic of Romania yields in the neighborhood of 918,000 hits. So we're talking about two orders of magnitude. In fact, every single WP:SEARCH ENGINE TEST turns out in favor of Socialist Republic of Romania. Even if we accept various POV demands (for which I can find no basis in policy!), and for some reason search only post-1989 English-language sources, we get: Socialist Republic of Romania 3,840 hits, Communist Romania 2,930 hits.
Even when the phrase "communist Romania" is used in some sources, it is very rarely as an actual name for this state. The sources most often simply refer to the country as "Romania" and wish to state that it was "communist", hence the phrase is a common grammatical occurrence, and very few sources actually qualify as supporting such a naming option.
Subsequently, the name form "Communist [name]" is not used anywhere as an article title on this project. Perhaps also because it is, in addition to all of the above, arguably unecyclopedic. Romania underwent changes during this period, but no more profound than in many other very similar states. All similar Eastern European states, many of which have also changed their names and underwent profound reforms, all of them use the latest official name [1][2][3][4] - which in this case is Socialist Republic of Romania.
It is important to note that the current consensus is that this article is about one state (see the proposed split above), that is to say, that the reforms in the '60s did not create a new historical state, but rather a different period of the same country. Many Eastern Bloc countries, when they underwent reform, felt it necessary to replace, add, or remove a particular "socialist prefix" in their official name. This is the case with several EB countries, the articles of all of which use the last official name of the state, which in this case happens also to be the WP:COMMONNAME.
As if WP:COMMONNAME wasn't enough, there is an inherent simplistic political message in deciding to call a country which designated itself "socialist" - as "communist". I submit that the current title makes a political statement on the part of Wikipedia, and for that reason alone it should be amended. I speculate local political considerations come into play. Two users have expressed reservations against the move (and no doubt will do so again), but I personally found that their objections were not based on policy, and presented strong personal conviction more than any objective reason not to follow WP:NAME. -- Director(talk) 23:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above (as nominator). -- Director(talk) 23:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Director, above. The current title sticks out like a sore thumb as a peculiar hybrid. Is it supposed to indicate a formal name? It doesn't. Is it supposed to be descriptive? It isn't (as far as I'm aware none of the 'socialist' states have ever claimed to be 'communist' - not least that Marx for one seems to suggest that under communism there would be no state). Is it supposed to be a shorthand common name? It isn't that either, in that the shorthand in almost all contexts would be 'Romania'. Perhaps a better title might be 'Romania under socialism' (at least to those who consider what went on there as 'socialism' - not an universally-held perspective), but that has its problems too. One could I suppose rename the article 'Romania 1947–1989' (or '1945–1989'? - I'll not offer an opinion), and avoid any label at all. Per what seems to be the norm for similar articles though, I cannot see any serious objections to Director's proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support changed to Neutral. The formal name of the state seems the correct choice, and I'm willing to ignore the fact that this only one of the formal names during the time period covered by the article. Interested parties should note that this was previously suggested in 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communist_Romania/Archive_2) and closed as "no consensus"). I'm just mentioning it in case anyone wants to re-use the same arguments for or against. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, what is the name of the period 1945-1989 as referred to in current scholarship, not which one of three state names should take WP:UNDUE precedence over others in choosing a title. Do you feel it's proper that you are "willing to ignore" that the proposed name only partially applies when the existing name wholly applies? How much do you know about Romanian history? Not asking to be pointy, if the answer is not that much, some reading is likely to lead you to understand while the title is a period, not a formal country name. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article should cover the whole period 1945-1989. I understand Peters' point that this particular renaming might push people to split the article inappropriately. I think that none of the titles Communist Romania, Socialist Republic of Romania or Romania (1945-1989) is absolutely perfect. They all have pros and cons. My personal preference has come around to the last of the three. But as this is a minority view (possibly a minority of 1), I won't push it. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - to begin with, Director's contentions are invalid.
The raw Google count is indeed (substantially) higher for "Socialist Republic of Romania", but that's not especially relevant (see WP:GHITS for that). I don't expect participants or the closing administrator to weigh through the entirety of the exhaustive informal move discussion, but let me reiterate that many if not most hits for "Socialist Republic of Romania" fall into one of three categories:
Scholarly work from ca. 1980 ([5], [6]). Needless to say, this is superseded by work from the last few years, if we're trying to determine current usage.
Official publications of the regime ([7], [8], [9], [10]). Beyond our normal skepticism about government sources, we're talking about a strongly authoritarian regime that systematically abused human rights — these don't exactly qualify as reliable sources.
Primary sources like treaties, laws and the constitution ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15]). In determining usage, we look at contemporary scholarly works, not legal documents from 22+ years ago.
As I have repeatedly pointed out to Director without receiving acknowledgment, sources also refer to Greater Romania and to the Romanian Old Kingdom without claiming these as a name for the state. The name may be slightly informal (then again, so are East Germany, Soviet Union and Congress Poland), but it has the virtue of being all-encompassing, as well as being used by, inter alia, Oxford University Press.
WP:WAX is also not a valid argument. Only two other Communist countries in Eastern Europe changed their name from one "Communist" name to another, and as I've said several times, Communist Albania and Socialist Yugoslavia would be far more appropriate titles for those articles.
The state was not communist in Marxist-Leninist terms, but it was both striving for communism (on paper) and governed by a communist party. However, that's not so relevant as the salient fact of more consistent use of "Communist Romania" in scholarly works.
The end of Director's message displays a startling absence of good faith, verging on a personal attack. I cannot speak on Vecrumba's behalf, and I know he will respond ably, but for my own part, let me state emphatically that I find this kind of witch-hunt distasteful and demeaning, and that this is the third time it happens in several days. I have objected time and time again based on policy. I have never tried to use this discussion (or indeed this encyclopedia) to send a "political message". I have never claimed "personal convictions" as a basis for keeping the present title. I demand that Director keep his speculations to himself, commenting on content, not the contributor.
Finally, I would like to state my own reasons for wishing to keep the present title:
It occurs most frequently in reliable sources — more specifically, in the reliable sources germane to a discussion on a title.
It is more accurate and more comprehensive than any alternative. If Communist Romania lasted from 30 December 1947 to 22 December 1989, by calling the article by the entity's second name, we exclude the name it had for 42% of its existence. There is no justification for this when a perfectly acceptable name that is all-encompassing is available. Moreover, if we consider that the Communist era in Romania began on 6 March 1945 (and there are ample sources making this very claim), then the new title is labeling a monarchy — which Romania was until 30 December 1947 — as a "socialist republic". I need not underscore how blatantly inaccurate that would be. - BiruitorulTalk 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also confirm per scholarship of the period that "Communist Romania" starts in 1945 at Stalin's behest in January of that year, not with King Michael's abdication and declaration of the people's state in 1947. Biruitorul is correct in this regard; this is another POV issue on the part of some editors who insist on 1947 in preference to the more appropriate 1945. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose The formal name of the state proposed refers to only a fraction of the time period. The proposal that the title must be the name of a state ignores that the historical circumstance and scope of the article refers to a contiguous period, no part of which should be given WP:UNDUE weight over the other, which is precisely what the proposed title accomplishes. That current scholarship is universal in its preference for "Communist Romania" and also "post-Communist Romania" validates the use of "Communist Romania" to refer to the multi-regime multi-constitutional multi-sovereignty period from 1945-1989. There was no consensus before on a rename for valid reasons. The Google searches presented as evidence purport that the requested move is in regard to the title of an article about a country and attempt to present the proper country title choice. Unfortunately, DIREKTOR's proposal poses a wholly inappropriate question based on a completely faulty premise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I resent DIREKTOR's speculations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT (in prior discussion), "presenting personal conviction" and completely ignoring that the title is a period not a country and ignoring all scholarly evidence in support. That he needs to resort to personal attacks to deride those that disagree with him as part of his proposal rather points to the weakness of his editorial position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And, quite frankly, the absence of "Communist XYZ" as period in wider use (or "Socialist XYZ") has led to all sorts of artificial bifurcations of content along formal name of state lines. Communist Hungary, for example, is inappropriately split to Republic of Hungary (1946–1949) and People's Republic of Hungaryand inappropriately redirects to the latter. The former article drops right off a ledge instead of leading to anything. WP is a poor precedent for itself in this case. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support None of the maps I ever looked at had a place called Communist Romania (although they had different spellings for the country) and it was never called that during the period. TFD (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, there has been a misguided attempt to (IMHO) guide discussion to country name by inappropriate expansion of the article. All those holes are of recent making. I suggest you review this earlier fairly stable version and see what you think. Until such stable content grows to more than is appropriate for a single article, there's no particular need to make multiple articles for the period. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vecrumba here. I think this article can cover the period adequately. -- Director(talk) 04:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link to the earlier version. Based on that, I feel that this is not an article about a state but about a historical period (once again, cf.History of East Germany vs. East Germany). As such, I no longer support the move proposal. I support a renaming to History of Romania (1945- [or 1947-]1989) (preferred) or History of Communist Romania to clearly show that this is a history and not a full accounting of a state. I would also support a new separate article on the Socialist Republic of Romania if content warrants it (once again, along the lines of other similar cases). — AjaxSmack 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll consider History of Communist Romania, as this could set an appropriate precedent for other Eastern European countries whose history of the equivalent is currently split in multiple articles because of the must-be-declared-name-of-regime non-WP:RULE. Since Communist Romania is not a country but a period covering multiple regimes and constitutions, the title is a bit of a tautology from my perspective, but I'm not unreasonable. I'd be interested to hear what other proponents of the current title think. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I support renaming the article - "Communist" seems faintly POV and inaccurate if the state itself used "Socialist", and I don't have overwhelming objections to the proposed name, but, if there is serious objection because the state had differing names during the period, and we are groping for a term for the period, an off the wall suggestion might be "Cold war" - but I'm sure that might start as many arguments as it solves - as I say, just a passing thought, and possibly not useful. Begoontalk 06:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, there is no "groping," the title has been stable for a long time. To yours and others here, the title is not the name of a country. And of course "Communist Romania" does not appear on a map, that's the ultimate misdirection regarding what's under discussion here. Please all raise your hands to indicate whether you're expressing your opinion based on:
interpretation WP policy and standards regarding "name of country",
"Communist" is a "bad" defamatory word, or
knowledge of Romanian history.
I regret I have to wonder how the most common name applied to a period in Romanian history as the title regarding that period can be considered "bizarre." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support As per Director & Andy the Grump. "Communist Romania" is just, frankly, bizarre. Walrasiad (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I already presented my arguments in the 2009 RM (which I had started). Basically the current title is inconsistent (see all other East European countries, and the treatment of "common" names such as Soviet Russia), POV (goes against the self perception of the state, which never considered itself "communist", and presents an exclusively Western Cold War era perception), and fails most Google tests. No reason to use an attribute (just like "Buddhist Tibet", "Communist Soviet Union" or "Post-Communist Romania") instead of the country's name as article title.Anonimu (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, "Communist Romania" and "post-Communist Romania" are scholarly usage after the death of the USSR and end of the Cold War. The title is regarding a period, not the name of a country. The same misnaming as is proposed here exists for other post-WWII Communist/Socialist states. The proposed naming does not bring the title in line with some mythic standard, it impedes the ability to create informative historical articles. If the rename is approved, I predict the next action will be to propose splitting the article so that the rest of the historical period is not mis-named. This renaming effort here is a gross disservice to serious, objective, scholarship of post-war Eastern Europe. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A period? I thought this was an article about a defunct state. If it's "a period", then it should be "History of Romania, 1947-1989" or something like that. I know the difference sounds subtle, but it makes a difference. It's like the difference between "Duchy of Burgundy" and "History of the Upper Rhone". Many articles relating to historical topics refer to defunt states and consequently need to link to articles titled the "Duchy of Burgundy" and the "Socialist Republic of Romania". The shouldn't be directed to some densely-written prose chronology of the "History of Romania, 1947-1989" or "History of the Upper Rhone". A page on the old state is needed. And the state's name should be used. It should be clear enough once in the article that the same state had a cosmetic change in its title along the way. Walrasiad (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vecrumba does not want an article split and thinks the proposed title will somehow force it, so he's opposing it with a whole variety of constantly changing objections, none of which have much to do with policy. Now he contends that this article isn't about a historical country, which I think is obviously not the case. -- Director(talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, again, your policy-based argument is totally misguided, see my section below. As to what happens after, that's just experience talking, and the law of entropy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Walrasiad, it's not about a (single) defunct state, as it includes (1945...) a constitutional monarchy prior to declaration of a people's republic prior to declaration of a socialist Romania and including socialist Romania. These separate entities, bound by Communist control of the state, are best grouped under the period "Communist Romania" and not under the name of a particular defunct state. I hope that helps. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "Communist Romania", while accurate, is a remarkably unencyclopedic title - it sounds like the title of a child's 8th grade history report. The name of the country during this time period should be used - as at, for instance, French Third Republic. - The BushrangerOne ping only 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which name? It had two or even three, if one includes 1945-47. And what about Vichy France, East Germany, Greater Romania or Romanian Old Kingdom? We use the most common name in reliable sources, not necessarily the official one. As for the "unencyclopedic" claim, if you don't care to wade through the preceding weeks of discussion, at least see my comment just below. - BiruitorulTalk 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's quite telling that when one performs a propersearch (books with preview, descending date order, extraneous phrases removed), one finds a plethora of occurrences for "Communist Romania" (or "communist Romania"), but one finds essentially no results (particularly post-1990) for "Socialist Republic of Romania", outside a narrow legalistic or official context ("Monograph of the Social and Political Sciences Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 With Respect to the Socialist Republic of Romania", etc). It's also telling that for works from 2009-11, i.e. those reflecting current usage, "Communist Romania" has ~150 hits, while "Socialist Republic of Romania" has ~50 hits. Does this scholarly evidence not matter, or are we going to move based in part on one editor's personal opinion that the current title is "just, frankly, bizarre"?
Some sample phrases of what I mean: "Ana Pauker, communist Romania's foreign minister"; "Born in Communist Romania of parents who were Holocaust survivors"; "Egon rose to high positions in postwar Communist Romania"; "Although he is not, as the literary critics of Communist Romania considered him"; "Communist Romania tried to introduce regular working hours", "while also creating important disturbances in the power machinery of Communist Romania"; "In communist Romania, Sora never held a teaching appointment"; "writers from Communist Romania were allowed to participate in the International Writing Program";"the authorities in charge of food distribution in communist Romania".
A wealth of recent works - scholarly in nature, published by respected presses, peer-reviewed, you name it - freely and unreservedly applies the "Communist Romania" label when discussing this state or (not that the distinction matters a great deal) this time period. That is simply not the case when it comes to "Socialist Republic of Romania", and I challenge anyone to disprove me on these grounds. - BiruitorulTalk 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes apparently even if, for some very strange reason, we were to decide to exclude all publications Google Books cannot preview, "Socialist Republic of Romania" still has an advantage over "Communist Romania". Biruitorul, I'm sure that if one puts in a lot of effort, one can surely find some settings and new "criteria" that favor "Communist Romania" - or just about any title one personally favors for that matter. Imo what is "telling" is that you put in all that effort, and still haven't managed to produce such a test result. On the other hand, here are the Google Scholar test results: Socialist Republic of Romania 2,600 hits, Communist Romania 942 hits. It goes without saying that you are also consistently ignoring or brushing aside all other numerous objections to the current title. -- Director(talk) 20:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, you are consistently ignoring that the article is about a period not title-of-country and dismissing all evidence regarding "period" as immaterial to "title-of-country". Well, of course it's immaterial, the two are completely different concepts. Your accusations of denial are a syllogism at best. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm consistently ignoring your claim that has no "evidence" at all. And besides, you may be shocked to learn that the scope of Wikipedia articles is determined by user consensus, not by your personal interpretation of its current article title. -- Director(talk) 21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does the notion of contextual relevance - being able to tell the relevance of a phrase in context, in other words not looking just at snippets - not resonate at all with you? Regardless, I'm going to perform the same search again, including no-preview results, and repost my comment in modified form.
Oh, and how about, since we're supposed to reflect current usage, searching for papers from 2000 on? Communist Romania not only surpasses Socialist Republic of Romania by 723 to 384, the latter results are uniformly extraneous - things like "6th WP Military Medical Conference held in Socialist Republic of Romania during September 18–27, 1967" or "Treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic". We already knew the official name; a focus on context would be very welcome, even at this late stage. Contrast with meaningful results (those actually discussing the entity, not reprinting official documents) like "one of the most notorious camps for political prisoners in communist Romania" or "Practically every monograph on Communist Romania deals with the destruction of the urban elite". Quite a difference. - BiruitorulTalk 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's quite telling that when one performs a reasonably propersearch (books, descending date order, extraneous phrases removed), one finds a plethora of occurrences for "Communist Romania" (or "communist Romania"), but one finds essentially no results (particularly post-1990) for "Socialist Republic of Romania", outside a narrow legalistic or official context ("Monograph of the Social and Political Sciences Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 With Respect to the Socialist Republic of Romania", etc). It's also telling that for works from 2009-11, i.e. those reflecting current usage, "Communist Romania" has ~150 hits, while "Socialist Republic of Romania" has ~50 hits. Does this scholarly evidence not matter, or are we going to move based in part on one editor's personal opinion that the current title is "just, frankly, bizarre"?
It's also quite telling that the individual requesting this move is still pushing raw Google counts on us, without even pretending to grapple with contextual issues.
A wealth of recent works - scholarly in nature, published by respected presses, peer-reviewed, you name it - freely and unreservedly applies the "Communist Romania" label when discussing this state or (not that the distinction matters a great deal) this time period. That is simply not the case when it comes to "Socialist Republic of Romania", and I continue to challenge anyone to disprove me on these grounds, rather than throwing diversions our way. - BiruitorulTalk 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... Didn't I address all this before 13 times already? Fine, you oppose the move and probably won't stop posting various objections until the RM is done. I think people got the message. -- Director(talk) 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, this objection has never been addressed, and it lies at the very heart of this discussion. A plethora of recent scholarly works freely and unreservedly applies the "Communist Romania" label when discussing this state or this time period. That is simply not the case when it comes to "Socialist Republic of Romania", and I continue to challenge anyone to disprove me on these grounds, rather than throwing diversions our way, or pretending to get around this fatal flaw in the "move" argument without actually even trying to get around it. - BiruitorulTalk 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The article is about "[...] the period in Romanian history (1947–1989) when that country was a Soviet-aligned communist state in the Eastern Bloc." Are you seriously asking to name that period as "Socialist Republic of Romania"? Because all through your request you kept saying "country" instead of "period". Well the country is Romania, and this article isn't. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments for the "Supporters":
AndyTheGrump, why don't you ask the sources whether what they use is supposed to be a formal name, a descriptive one, or a shorthand? The title should "[serve] to give an indication of what the article is about, and to distinguish it from other articles". How is Communist Romania not doing that?
TFD, maps don't tend to show periods.
AjaxSmack, the History of Communist Romania seems a valid choice, but i still wonder what does the "Communist Romania" in that title refer to.
The Bushranger, the French 3rd Republic only had one name. This isn't the case here.
Jokes Free4Me, I can see someone told you otherwise, but I have only one thing to say: this is article is not about the period. Period. :) And I submit that fact is plain obvious from the article itself: the infobox, the lede, the structure ("Ceauşescu government", "Demographics", "Military", "Downfall", not to mention the fact that Socialist Republic of Romania redirects here. Apart from the very first lede sentence, which of course had to be engineered around the phrase "Communist Romania", the entire article centers on the country.
This is just the latest in a loong line of completely bogus arguments used by the two opposing users to try and have their way. I invite everyone to read through the discussion in the above section and you will see Biruitorul talking about this as a country article and how "Communist Romania" is the WP:COMMONNAME title for this (quote) "country". Now that we know the latter isn't the case, suddenly "raw hits" aren't important and this article is a bout a "period". Vercrumba, on the other hand, does not realize Wikipedia articles are about what we decide they're about. In my view, their shifting position cost them a lot of credibility in this issue. -- Director(talk) 01:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody told me anything, i am perfectly capable of reading the article (and the debate) myself. Infobox mentions both states, so it's not about SRR; the history template mentions it as CR in a list of other chronological entries; the sections you name are empty and thus pretty much irrelevant. As for your stated interpretation, it is (quote) "completely bogus", and does not agree with what i HAD read in the above section. Actually, i went further and checked the archives too, to be sure i'm not missing anything, and all i can say is: my position is not changed. I still oppose the suggested move. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, the infobox simply mentions both names of the same state. And if you ask the other two fellas who support the "period" idea you may note that they heartily oppose the notion that these were two states. In fact, Br specifically stated this article is about was about one state. They're just trying to shoot this down by any means necessary. I repeat: the infobox, the lede, the structure ("Ceauşescu government", "Demographics", "Military", "Downfall") all point to the fact that this is a former country article. I can see no consensus anywhere that would point to this article's scope having been changed to a "period". B&V simply came up with the claim in the past several hours, and started repeating it loudly over and over again. Whereas before they explicitly stated this was a country article. -- Director(talk) 02:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In such a case, i'll be in disagreement with them when they'll try to state such facts (that Communist Romania was a state) in the article. I'm willing to accept your infobox argument when you'll provide a version of what the lead should really look like, supporting the country viewpoint. Also, please stop talking about B&V, my assertion that the article is about a period instead of a country was independently reached from simply reading the lead, trying to check if your only stated reason, WP:NAME, had merit. You need to make a case for the name change, preferably without using ad hominems on each paragraph. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should meet Yesterday Biruitorul and Yesterday Vecrumba :). In writing up a modified lede for the suggested title one need only look to every other similar article. As I said, numerous countries, even numerous Eastern European countries changed their names in this period. Virtually all communist country articles use the last official name as the title. Only Romania has to use this childish name format. We can simply write-up a lede that will be consistent with the rest of Wiki. -- Director(talk) 03:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Putting smiley faces after deriding editors doesn't improve it. In fact, other Eastern European countries have multiple articles (per more than one title of country during the period) which should be united in a similar fashion for the post WWII period. Romania is the model, not the exception. (I've already noted bifurcation of content regarding the Communist period in Hungary as a specific example.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly seem to be the expert on derision. And writing something doesn't make it true, nor are people supposed to take your word on anything at all. Romania is the exception, not the model. [56][57][58][59]. -- Director(talk) 20:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you let other editors speak for themselves. WP is not a monolith of rules, it is a wondrous and diverse amalgam of informative and appropriately titled narratives. Appropriateness is determined by content, not by invoking WP:RULES based on on-the-surface comparisons to other cases you contend apply. I expect Romania to be the model, not the exception. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Biruitorul sources and argument. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per arguments set forth by DIREKTOR. It is absolutely absurd to manipulate the google test results as PETERS V has done to apply arbitrary date limits and limiting the search to apply only to titles of books. --◅PRODUCER(TALK) 23:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Limiting to book titles was not my own first impulse — in my own ideal search, I lookedthrough the full text. But paying attention to the date of publication, if not actually excluding works from before a certain date (1990 or 2000 both work), is vital. You need to understand that basic principle if you are to have an informed opinion on the matter: this encyclopedia reflects current usage, not usage over all time. In the last three years, not only have published scholarly works used "Communist Romania" three times as often as "Socialist Republic of Romania", they have done so many times more often when one looks at actual discussions of the state and eliminates purely legalistic or official occurrences; and moreover, the pattern holds steady when looking at the earlier 2000s, and even the 1990s. - BiruitorulTalk 00:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a factual dispute - this is an RM. Research is a good thing in general, but what does you reading a few texts have to do with WP:NAME and the most common English-language term? I've already explained to you twice that we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of sources not the few you happen to prefer, and that posting a dozens of links for dramatic effect seems to be entirely for show. Furthermore, due to the fact that you have switched your argument three times already in support of this title, as the occasion may warrant, personally I seriously question your objectivity in this issue. -- Director(talk) 00:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you've demonstrated an apparent lack of interest in what constitutes academic scholarship on this subject doesn't mean that scholarship doesn't exist. Simply invoking claims of "hundreds of thousands of sources" and throwing around allegations of your content opponent acting for "dramatic effect" shouldn't impress anyone. The fact remains that recent scholarly works far prefer "Communist Romania" to describe this entity, and you cannot get around that; indeed, you have never even tried. You are entitled to your own opinion about what the best title for this article may be, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts — and the facts demonstrate a clear preference for "Communist Romania" in scholarly discussions of the subject published in recent years. - BiruitorulTalk 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - lest I be accused of canvassing, I'd like to disclose that I've posted a note at ro.wiki: "For those interested, there is a discussion on moving the article on CR to SRR. Your opinions would be appreciated." I believe such notifications are permitted under WP:CANVASS, and I also believe that Romanian editors might have pertinent insight into this topic. - BiruitorulTalk 00:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought as much. You will, however, be accused. Nice try with the preventive measure though. -- Director(talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's see how that accusation plays out for you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to be intimidated by your threats and posing as my prosecutor. Allow me to quote WP:CANVASS: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following... A central location such as the Village pump... Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". If you believe I have violated any provision of that guideline, please report me to an appropriate forum. If not, please drop the insinuation of misconduct. - BiruitorulTalk 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Split into People's Republic of Romania and Socialist Republic of Romania.--— ZjarriRrethues —talk 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You lose 1945 to 1947 in proposing a split. Not to mention that where such splits have been done for other content--an issue I hope to address--it has resulted in confusing discontinuity in historical narrative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I honestly never believed such an obvious RM as this one would get this this ugly, apparently it takes a lot of desperate effort to make it so. There has been some WP:CANVASSING at roWiki concerning this issue. Imo that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Wikipedians who oppose the move are almost exclusively Romanian and mirror the views of User:Biruitorul. -- Director(talk) 00:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you strike your clear accusation that ethnic background means bias against neutral and accurate content. You're the one being ugly here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested in what you consider "clear accusations". I suggest you strike your personal attack above. -- Director(talk) 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've stepped over the line. Telling that you maintain that personal attacks are in the eyes of the beholder, but only if it's you and not the editors whose integrity you call into question. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please substantiate allegations of canvassing, especially taking into consideration the wording of WP:CANVASS - "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following... A central location such as the Village pump... Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Otherwise, please refrain from making such allegations.
Please read WP:NPA - "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is an obvious example of a personal attack. Disparaging references to ethnic background of editors is strictly forbidden. "Opinions" about non-existent misconduct create a poisonous editing atmosphere. Accusations of desperation are another personal attack. So is the thinly veiled accusation of meatpuppetry. Please stop. - BiruitorulTalk 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody who has kept an eye on Romanian topics knows that usually posting a message on a ro.wiki resulted in massive support (generally without arguments or very weak ones) for the message poster over here. As WP:AGF states that it "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary", and there are precedents of "non-canvassing" messages on ro.Wiki provoking a massive response over here, I think it's safe to assume that the authors of such messages are not at all disinterested, and are clearly in violation of the spirit of WP:CANVASS (indeed, not in its letter). Anonimu (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split or Rename to History of Romania (1945–1989). I would support the Socialist Republic of Romania name only if the article is Split into People's Republic of Romania and Socialist Republic of Romania. If splitting is considered inappropriate, then Rename to History of Romania (1945–1989). It seems to me that this article is not about a former country; it's rather about a specific period in the history of Romania. It is mentioned above that "it is general practice to use the latest official name of a country as the title". This would apply if we would merge the contents of this article in the Romania article, because this is the latest official name of the country. Of course, this would probably be inappopriate, because the history of Romania between 1945 and 1989 is rather distinct from the post-1989 history (although it is the same country). Comparing Socialist Republic of Romania with Czechoslovakia is not correct, because Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, while Socialist Republic of Romania changed it's name to Romania. The article People's Republic of Poland covers only the period while the country had this name. The #History section only provides some context about the period when the 1952 Constitution was adopted. The main article about the entire period is History of Poland (1945–1989), where the 1945-1952 period is covered in the #Stalinist era (1948–1956) section. Razvan Socol (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I think only the very first lede sentence can arguably give the impression this article is about a "period" - and that is because it of course had to be engineered around the faulty title. Imo if we had a different lede sentence nobody would get the impression this is a period article. This article is I think quite plainly about a historical state. And even if it were not, we would still need the Socialist Republic of Romania article for it. -- Director(talk) 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The lede describes the content, which (1947 being inaccurate) refers to Communist Romania from its inception with Stalin's personal go-ahead January 1945 (two full years before the monarchy was forced out) to its end. Three historical states (regimes/constitutions) makes for a period, not for the name of the last state. History of Communist Romania has been suggested elsewhere; while a bit of a tautology, it may prove useful. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, it seems you prefer any title that imposes said political label on a country which designated itself "Socialist" (not "Communist"). There is a marked difference between those two terms, you know. And "Socialist Romania" is still three times more common than "Communist Romania", lest we forget. And both are completely unnecessary in a period article title. But I'm certain elaborate "arguments" can surely be concocted once again to advocate the political label you apparently wish to impose at all costs. -- Director(talk) 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned multiple times, your results do not factor in timeframes of usage. You ascribe "political" motivation. There is no motivation in ascribing political control. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not interested which timeframe you demand we use so that the results turn out in your favor. Particularly since I've heard no such demands when you thought the current title is more common. There is a political message in unnecessarily emphasizing political control. -- Director(talk) 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so you can derisively contend I'm stuck in yesterday, while it is you whose results are stuck in the self-same past. As the article is precisely about the period of political control, nothing is being "emphasized." Personally, I am not advocating for any "message", just a title reflective of content and of current scholarship. I cannot speak to your personal feeling of a negative sensation in this regard. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha.. You have some skill "interpreting" what I "really" mean, Vecrumba. :) After every post I write you feel the need to construct these obvious straw men. But then, who am I to spoil your fun? Its not like anyone could possibly not see through them. "Ah, I see what you really mean is you're Napoleon Bonaparte and you want us all to swear allegiance to you, interesting..." -- Director(talk) 20:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only the lede sentence. The entire article is about the history of Romania in a certain period of time. Adding a few empty sections won't change this. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Clearly the Socialist Republic of Romania existed only between 1965 and 1989, while this article spans the period 1947 to 1989. --Nug (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I respect your vote, I feel I must point out that the consensus (see above) is that the "People's Republic of Romania" and the "Socialist Republic of Romania" are one historical state. Many Eastern Bloc countries, when they underwent reform, felt it necessary to replace, add, or remove a particular "socialist prefix" in their official name. This is the case with several EB countries, the articles of all of which use the last official name of the state [60][61][62][63], which in this case happens also to be pretty much mandated by WP:COMMONNAME. Many of these countries underwent equally thorough and profound reforms at the time their name was changed. -- Director(talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but they can hardly be considered one state being separated temporally. I do not see the analogy -- Director(talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The name of "Communist Romania" actually covers two distinct periods: "Romanian Popular Republic" (December 30, 1947-August 21, 1965) and "Socialist Republic of Romania" (August 21, 1965-December 1989), with diferent coats of arms. In the article about "Communist Romania" is shown only the latter coat of arms. For the first period, the coat of arms is here. Renaming the article "Communist Romania" involves to split it into two distinct articles, titled People's Republic of Romania and Socialist Republic of Romania, accessible from a disambiguation page. From the same page (Romania (disambiguation)) should be accessed also the article Kingdom of Romania.Miehs (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the periods are so distinct that they necessarily require an article split. In other words, there are two periods - but two periods of history of the same historical country. As I said above, many Eastern Bloc countries, when they underwent reform, felt it necessary to replace, add, or remove a particular "socialist prefix" in their official name. This is the case with several EB countries, the articles of all of which use the last official name of the state [64][65][66][67], which in this case happens also to be pretty much mandated by WP:COMMONNAME. -- Director(talk) 20:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral First, this is much ado about nothing. Personally, I think that the title Communist Romania is more descriptive, regardless of the political persuasion of the readers, but other titles, like Communist Hungary and Communist Bulgaria are redirects to the Republic... name of that time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes indeed. I never expected this much ado about this thing, I suspect people think the proposed title will cause a split. Some sources do indeed use the term "Communist Romania", and a redirect is adequate, but WP:NAME mandates we use the more common term, and that's Socialist Republic of Roimania by a wide margin. In my personal opinion, I can't see how the closing admin could overlook such a basic policy requirement. -- Director(talk) 01:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Director, I see you're busily pushing the Big Lie yet again. But no matter how many times you'll blindly insist it is so, I will be here to counter your assertion that your preferred title is "more common by a wide margin". By raw hits, yes; but by a reasonable measure, one taking into account context, relevance, the date of the work, the sort of thing that's essential in determining usage: well, Communist Romania is by far preferred in recent scholarly work over the alternative. No matter how hard you pretend that isn't so, no matter what irrelevancies you throw up to disguise that reality, facts are stubborn things, and don't give way so easily. - BiruitorulTalk 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Utter offensive nonsense. "Big Lie"? It is you, and not I, who keeps making unsupported claims in hopes of them gaining credibility through repetition. In spite of you having worked tirelessly to invent some sort of angle by which WP:COMMONNAME actually supports this childish title, even now all you can do is try to "impress" people by copy-pasting excessive numbers of links, a practice completely irrelevant with respect to determining common usage. Every single WP:SEARCH ENGINE TEST turns out decisively in favor of "Socialist Republic of Romania". Even if we accept your fanciful POV demands (which we are by no means obligated to with regard to policy!), and search only post-1989 English-language sources, we get: Socialist Republic of Romania 3,840 hits, Communist Romania 2,930 hits. Your own links belie your claims. And all this is completely ignoring the other problems with this politically-charged title, as outlined in the move proposal, which should (among other things) invalidate a great number of additional sources as unsupportive of this title. -- Director(talk) 04:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First, I should clarify that I didn't mean to use "Big Lie" in a specifically Nazi context, but merely to characterize your tactic of constantly repeating the same inaccurate information. Anyway, sorry if I caused offense, although you've caused your fair share of it during this discussion as well.
I thank you for the WP:SET link, in particular to the very instructive WP:HITS link: "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive. A manageable sample of results found should be opened individually and read, to actually verify their relevance." Yes, yes and yes. Contrary to the guideline, you have relied upon a raw hit count to prove your case. Contrary to the guideline, you have not paid attention to what you have found. Contrary to the guideline, you have not analyzed your hits case-by-case for relevance. Contrary to the guideline, you have considered raw hits as definitive and conclusive. Contrary to the guideline, you have not opened and verified the relevance of a manageable sample of results. Tut, tut.
Similarly, your repetition of the notion that "Communist Romania" is a "childish" label, whether or not we label it a "Big Lie", is certainly tendentious, as dozens of adult scholars, including scholars of Romanian history, seem to have no problem using it.
The rest of your comment is pure ignoratio elenchi. Labeling a perfectly reasonable wish that current usage (what this encyclopedia's titling scheme is based on) be determined by, well, current sources is hardly a "fanciful POV demand". It's normal practice. Ignoring the texts Vecrumba and I have cited, ignoring the further texts linked at the search results, ignoring any rational measure to try and determine modern scholarly consensus on this topic — these need no further comment.
And really, in what universe it "politically-charged" to call, per reliable sources no less, a Communist dictatorship "Communist"? Can you find even one source (even by a bona fide Communist, WP:FRINGE notwithstanding) alleging "Communist Romania" to be a "politically-charged" name? You seem to believe this is an issue outside Wikipedia, so I think that's a reasonable request. - BiruitorulTalk 05:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is no objective reason whatsoever why the hits under "Communist Romania" should be favored over those yielded by "Socialist Republic of Romania". None whatsoever. That is just your biased POV claim, or at best, a personal impression and misapprehension of policy. Both searches render equally relevant English-language scholarly publications. Are you seriously asking people to take your word for your claims such as this? Or are you going to cherry pick some links and copy-paste them here as a supposed "reference" on several thousands of sources?
Look Biruitorul, not only did you (1) "eliminate" over 900,000 English-language sources based on nothing but your own demands and clearly biased arbitrary definitions of "current usage", now you also claim (2) that you have reviewed over 5,000 sources (which no sane person could believe), and you demand that we essentially (3) take your word that several thousand of these "do not count" (4) based on your own personal (and very biased) "estimates" (which, even if we were to take your word, are misinformed). That is just nonsense, plain and simple.
All you do is list excessive numbers of cherry-picked links and demand we take your word regarding 5,000-900,000 sources. And yet you completely ignore, on the other hand, the fact that very many sources from your stack, even when they scholarly (and many are not), do not use the phrase "communist Romania" to endorse another name for this state, but merely describe "Romania" as being "communist".
Your argument is so utterly and completely flawed and full of holes that insistence on it, coupled with personal attacks, merely reveals the depth of your bias and POV in this matter. I should not even dignify it with a response. -- Director(talk) 06:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your tone of (feigned?) outrage cannot mask the rather gaping hole in your argument. Whatever I have or have not verified, by the same token, you cannot be expected to have verified "over 900,000 English-language sources". Moreover, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, so this is your responsibility, if you expect your laughable claims to be taken seriously.
Contrary to the guideline, you have relied upon a raw hit count to prove your case. Contrary to the guideline, you have not paid attention to what you have found. Contrary to the guideline, you have not analyzed your hits case-by-case for relevance. Contrary to the guideline, you have considered raw hits as definitive and conclusive. Contrary to the guideline, you have not opened and verified the relevance of a manageable sample of results. Thus, do not expect your claims of "over 900,000 English-language sources" to be taken seriously.
Tellingly, also, you have presented zero evidence—quotes, publication data, links to pages in books—to back up your claim that searches for "Socialist Republic of Romania" gives "equally relevant English-language scholarly publications".
"Clearly biased arbitrary definitions of 'current usage'"? Post-1990, post-2000, post-2008 — all yield similar results. Do you have a better definition, perhaps?
Tossing around phrases like "biased POV claim" cannot be expected to score you any points with the closing administrator. I have been fair to both sides of the debate and have come to my own objective conclusions. You may challenge those with sourced material (i.e., not raw hits), but now you're just flailing. Your underhanded move request is on life support and sinking fast. - BiruitorulTalk 17:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a "gaping hole in my argument"? Biruitorul, assuming none of us can verify these hundreds of thousands of sources (and I do not make such wild claims), the hits always turn out in favor of the new title. Always. WP:BURDEN has absolutely nothing to do with this, and even if it did, as I said, the SETs are always very decisively in favor of the move - hence the burden is on you. All we have against them is your ability to continuously repeat nonsense claims of having "researched" 5,000 sources. In such concerns, with thousands upon thousands of publications very much relevant to WP:COMMONNAME, to post a few links to a dozen cherry-picked sources is just for show.-- Director(talk) 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't understand all this commotion for this title. But I oppose the idea simply because the article covers both the People's Republic of Romania (1947-1965) and the Socialist Republic of Romania (1947–1989). In addition it provides a broader context with the Soviet Occupation section. If you want to split or rather expand the article into Socialist Republic of Romania and People's Republic of Romania that is fine, but that requires some work. You can't just simply rename this article since you will confuse the readers. And even if you split and expand to such articles to cover two different periods, I would still keep Communist Romania as a portal/entry point/parent article which summarizes both periods. From Communist Romania I would then point the users to the specialized articles using {{Main}} template/links. But I don't think that at this point the article is that large as to require a split. To those who spend so much time on this talk page: if you would only use half of your talk time, you could expand the empty sections instead or even the entire article up to the point where a split would make sense.--Codrin.B (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the consensus is those are not two states, but one state. See above. I would not have proposed this move if the consensus were that these are two states. Many Eastern Bloc countries, when they underwent reform, felt it necessary to replace, add, or remove a particular "socialist prefix" in their official name. This is the case with several EB countries, the articles of all of which use the last official name of the state [68][69][70][71], which in this case happens also to be pretty much mandated by WP:COMMONNAME. -- Director(talk) 21:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, this one-hit IP is from Split, Croatia. The initiator of and main driver behind this move request is also from Split, Croatia. I'm not alleging any malfeasance—perhaps more than one resident of Split takes an interest in this matter—but this does seem rather curious. - BiruitorulTalk 21:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think I know who this is, it is likely a colleague of mine from medical school with whom I discussed current issues on Wikipedia. He's a contributor on hrWiki. He said he was interested in this and would review the matter and comment on it. That said, I would not object to this comment being disregarded on those grounds. -- Director(talk) 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support follow the nominator -Ilhador- (talk) 10:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Period versus country
Really, the charges of "unencyclopedic", "bizarre", etc. regarding the current title are unfathomable to anyone deeply familiar with Romanian history. (There's Anonimu who disagrees, but then we pretty much disagree about everything regarding Romania, so the exception proves the rule, there.)
If you do a book title search since 1990, post cold-War, post-Communist Romania, which encompasses scholarship during and after the period in question, you get:
1,270 book titles regarding "Communist Romania" and "post-Communist Romania" referring to the period and after-the-period
6 book titles which include "Socialist Republic of Romania", which, of course, would not discuss the entire period; and two of those are Wikipedia clones (so, 4)
and, to be fair, I checked "Socialist Romania", that's another 6 titles, again, of course, nor necessarily of the entire period
Using the DIREKTOR Method, that's still more than 100 to one (1,270:10) in favor of retaining the current title (even ignoring that the alternates do not apply to the whole period in the first place). The wailing and gnashing of teeth that this is the only article about a country that doesn't have the proper name of a country (patently false contention at any rate) is entirely misguided, that misguided position best expressed by TFD, paraphrased, that "'Communist Romania' doesn't appear on any map, anywhere, ever." Well, that's utterly and completely not the point. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And why should we use the VECRUMBA Method and exclude pre-1990 English publications in the first place? Are you saying all English-language publications before 1990 should be considered communist until proven otherwise? I refuse to even begin discussing something under the premise of some nonsense personal "criteria" you're attempting to impose to have your way. When you filter sources in all these various ways, provide a policy-relevant basis or don't bother. All English-language sources are relevant to determine common usage. (And, for the record, I'm not buying those unsupported "test" results for a second.)
Look Vecrumba, you stated you oppose the proposed title and you explained your reasons, what's the point of this new thread of yours? -- Director(talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lost on (ec), to keep the conversation about a title needing to appropriately reflect the entire period versus pick-closest/last-title-of-country misrepresenting the period in question in one thread as opposed to responding to multiple editors multiple times. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are misreading the results. The Google Book search may show 1,270 hits, but actually returns only a few dozen results, most of which are about "post-communist Romania". The books about "Communist Romania" appear to be all written by anti-Communists, mostly ouside academic publishing. So it is definitely a POV term and therefore fails as an article title. TFD (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Director. We focus on newer sources because these reflect current usage, which is what this encyclopedia is supposed to do. - BiruitorulTalk 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you go ahead and find the period that best supports your view, and we can pretend that hundreds of thousands of English publications don't exist. Perhaps we can only take this month's publications into consideration and ignore all others? Btw, I would appreciate it if you did not disrupt my posts in future. -- Director(talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @ TFD: Whether "Communist Romania" or "post-Communist Romania", all refer to the 1945-the end period as "Communist Romania."
Scrolling through results appears to return 43 titles versus 10 none of which apply to the whole period. Google works in mysterious ways. You have to do better than allege that anything you don't agree with is POV, that anything about "Communist" Romania or after is written by anti-Communists, etc. But thanks for checking. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. "Communist Romania" is descriptive, not derogatory. There is no POV involved. That you appear to believe the word "Communist" applied to anything during the Soviet era is derogatory is, in fact, the POV position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Direktor, that there are gizillions of sources including primary source documents that name Romania by its specific title for a specific time span doesn't mean it applies to a longer period which already has a perfectly accurate name used in scholarship (as even confirmed by those that still agree with your proposal because they accept your underlying thesis that the article title MUSTbe the title of a country, which thesis I contend does not apply to this article). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, WP:TALK forbids "editing or deleting the comments of other editors"; it says nothing about inserting a relevant comment between paragraphs.
That said, this encyclopedia reflects current usage. It is not a matter of cherry-picking dates. You cannot seem to understand why focusing on sources from 2000-2011 makes more sense than lumping them in with sources from 1965-1989. I am trying to make it as clear as possible: it's because those sources reflect current scholarly norms. Am I clear enough? My assumption is that we are both trying to gauge what historians and political scientists use most often today (i.e., in the last 5-10 years), not to win a battle. - BiruitorulTalk 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Since we all like pretty pictures, if you look at
mountain at the center supports DIREKTOR's gizillions more mentions of "Socialist Republic of Romania" (only starting when it was named, of course, we're missing nearly two decades prior) versus "Communist Romania", while...
current scholarship, most often refers to the entire "Communist Romania" period.
Again, whether used in the context of "post-Communist Romania" or "Communist Romania", both uses refer to the contiguous period of Communist dominance/control from 1945 to 1989, passing no value judgement ("POV") on "Communist." Both uses validate "Communist Romania" as the only scholarly term which refers to that contiguous period of 1945-1989. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vecrumba, I am not calling them "anti-Communist" because I disagree with them but because that is how they describe themselves or are normally described in reliable sources. Incidentally, "anti-Communist" refers to someone whose opposition to Communism is so intense that they fall outside mainstream consensus. One of the authors, Nicolae Rădescu, for example, was leader of a far right party that broke from the Iron Guard. Once stripping away the self-published books and Wikipedia reprints, there are only about half a dozen books, all by anti-Communists. There is no evidence that a mainstream scholar would use this title. TFD (talk)
The graphs reflect popularity of term, not having to do with your contentions that all books with "Communist Romania" in the title are authored by anti-Communists. They support DIREKTOR's mountain of evidence (the hundreds of thousands), but also show that the mountain has come and gone. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You also have to do better than tarnish all sources as anti-Communist by invoking one example which suits your purpose. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well again you need to look at how it is used. The first Google book hit and a significant number of hits for example are for a re-print of this article. Could you please provide examples of books by mainstream writers that have "Communist Romania" in the title. TFD (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Reeducation Trials in Communist Romania, 1952-1960 Mircea Stănescu 2010 212.183.128.38 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another Romanian source? TFD, I suggest you not waste too much effort in this venue. If you read through the preliminary discussion you'll notice that the two users shift their argument continuously and always look for new angles to keep this specific title, even though there is no real objective reason why it should be superior to any of the three proposed terms (in fact it is decidedly inferior). When they thought it was the most common, all you could hear is WP:COMMONNAME, now they're trying to disregard "gazillions" of sources. Their activities do not focus on real sources research, but rather anything that would support the current title. A title which, as has been stated, among other things also carries a distinct unencyclopedic political POV. -- Director(talk) 23:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also just independently ran across this source. So, to be clear, you would black-list it based on the author's name, ignoring that it is published by Columbia University Press? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Shall I quote from my own user page? "Everywhere Wikipedia policy states that articles must be written based on reputable sources. Yet in the Baltic and Eastern European sphere, sources are apparently immaterial. Here, 'nationalist' is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction. Sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Director, can Romanians a priori not be trusted to write about their own history? And are you constitutionally incapable of holding a debate without some underhanded trick, in this case poisoning the well by asking TFD to ignore opinions contrary to yours?
TFD, I'm addressing this comment mainly to you, and I would ask that you spend a moment to look it over. Earlier today, I came up with a search of my own, not just for titles, but also for text. The search is for books, and goes in descending order of date. Here are results for Socialist Republic of Romania and for Communist Romania. You'll notice that for works written in 2009-2011 (which are most relevant, since they reflect current usage), "Communist Romania" gets about 150 hits and "Socialist Republic of Romania" about 50. As you go back toward the early 1990s, you'll notice this pattern mostly holding — perhaps you'll find that "Communist Romania" is neither unencyclopedic, nor an anomaly, nor the product of a Cold War mentality. You'll also notice that "Socialist Republic of Romania" is almost exclusively used in legalistic or official contexts (laws, treaties, names of government departments), while "Communist Romania" is used by contemporary scholars using ordinary prose to refer to, well, Romania under Communism.
I'm not particularly expecting to sway your opinion, but I do hope you'll at least see my thinking. There may be something wrong with my approach, but I believe it's at least worth some rational consideration. - BiruitorulTalk 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I am not fooled for a second into thinking this article is about a "period" (which seems to be their latest line), and I would not support such a change, still in such a case the article would have to be renamed to fit that subject. "Communist Romania" is no name for a historical period, and that I think is obvious from the very fact we're having this discussion. This title, "Communist Romania", which Biruitorul in his Pre-"Period" Period had previously compared to that of "Vichy France", is about a country - "Romania".
Not only that, but such a perception would change nothing: we would still need to create (and it would be my pleasure) a Socialist Republic of Romania article to cover the country. Thankfully, we would already have all the material written down and ready to go - in this article. :P Its just silly... -- Director(talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, Director, people's thinking does evolve - there's nothing unusual about that. I've been grappling with this question for four days. I've remained consistent in support of the current title, but have kept an open mind about other titles. And as I discovered new material, I brought it up. Yes, the article is about a country, but what's your point? We need not use the last official name, but the most common one - and I've found a reasonable metric to determine what that is. I know your bad-faith claim that I'm twisting data to fit a preconceived agenda, but you've got it all wrong: I've fine-tuned what I consider the most relevant search in order to determine current scholarly usage. You're free to present your own metric, one that I've consistently shown to be irrelevant, but please stop casting aspersions on my motivation here. - BiruitorulTalk 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Your thinking however evolves in whatever way is necessary to keep this title you personally prefer. In fact, I've never seen someone's thinking "evolve" so much in such a brief period. -- Director(talk) 02:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick reminder that this isn't quite "history". It is current living memory. Most of us were alive and well during this period, many of us quite familiar with that Romania in our adult lives. Walrasiad (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And I'd additionally urge editors to please focus their comments on the arguments, and not on other editors, or their backgrounds. It won't help anything if this descends into personalized bickering. Walrasiad (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. I am aware that its living memory. And I believe that fact has more than made itself felt in this discussion. -- Director(talk) 23:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(od) @DIREKTOR and "While I am not fooled for a second into thinking this article is about a "period"", really, when it's about a contiguous time-frame spanning three separate regimes and/or constitutions from 1945-1989, what else, exactly, would that be? @TFD, about self-referential WP results included in searches, per the GoogleLabs ngrams presented, "Communist Romania" takes precedence as the #1 term before leeches start republishing Wikipedia as overpriced books to the unsuspecting. Your contention that the results are biased by WP content here (which IMHO is not bias, at any rate) is in error. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the majority of books are self-published and those that are not are primarily written by right-wing authors. Bear in mind that when neutral readers (i.e., people whose main source of news is not Fox talk shows) come across an article called "Communist Romania", they question its neutrality and truthfullness. TFD (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed. "Communist Romania" seems to be a title preferred by the right in Romania (namely the PDL which is currently in power). That is possibly where politics enters this straightforward editorial issue, and very likely the reason why "Communist Romania" is the only article with such a title on Wikipedia. Its as if every possible means is being expended in a desperate effort to try and ignore WP:NAME in this matter. -- Director(talk) 00:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I suppose that all the authors who now write about post-"Communist Romania" are all right wing Vulpe Ştiri viewers. WP:NAME per your contentions is not at issue here. Let's avoid speculations regarding Romanian right wing anti-Communist consipiracy theories. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might instead consider some of editor AjaxSmack's comments. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such are the nuances of language - "post-Communist Romania" is seen by readers as a neutral description, while "Communist Romania" is not. TFD (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Such are your ruminations. Same suggestion to you as to DIREKTOR just above. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather your "ruminations". Only in your "ruminations" does "post-communist Romania" constitute the same phrase as "Communist Romania". -- Director(talk) 01:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's post-(Communist Romania). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the use of brackets in any of the books in your Google book search. Can you provide any examples? TFD (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merely an illustrative device that "something" and "post-(something)" does not mutate "something." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. You are dissecting words. The term is "post-communist" + "Romania", not "post" + "communist Romania". "Post-communist" ≠ "communist". There are different words, no matter how much 'emphasis' you use. -- Director(talk) 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, for a period, it's commutative, "(post-Communist) Romania" and "post-(Communist Romania)", both divide today (after) from "yesterday" (before), before being Romania for the entire period of Communist control. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(od) Might have to buy this book, sounds interesting...
Eastward to Tartary: travels in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus
Robert D. Kaplan - 2000 - 364 pages - page 19
"Because of Hungary's market- oriented reforms in the period from the late 1960s through the 1980s known as goulash communism, Communist Hungary had always been far more developed than Communist Romania. But now the gulf seemed permanent ..."
Kaplan is a well-known foreign correspondent and author. And not a right wing Romanian as far as I know. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are obviously not familiar with his writing. This is someone who's looking forward to a new Cold War with China followed by all out war. TFD (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With his latest diversion, Director has veered into full-scale baiting, but I will not take the bait; I will respond calmly and logically. If there's just one thing I've been consistent about during this debate, it's that I have grounded my reasons for keeping this title on policy, not politics. You may not believe that I have arrived at my conclusions through apolitical lines of thinking, but I don't care. All I care is that you stop making this sort of baseless accusation before I am forced to seek administrative intervention.
Anyway, these quotes expose the absurdity of your claims without needing further comment:
"Communist Romania: Building the Socialist Nation - In communist Romania no major protests 'from below,' on the model of Polish Solidarity...", by right-wing Romanians Konrad Hugo Jarausch and Thomas Lindenberger, Conflicted Memories: Europeanizing Contemporary History, p.38, 2011.
"Ana Pauker, communist Romania's foreign minister...", by right-wing Romanian Judith R. Baskin, The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, p.114, 2011.
"Born in Communist Romania of parents who were Holocaust survivors...", by right-wing Romanian Sheila Jasanoff, Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age, p.163, 2011.
"Just four years earlier, when the IMO was held in Communist Romania, the Soviet Union had fielded no team at all", by right-wing Romanian Masha Gessen, Perfect Rigour: A Genius and the Mathematical Breakthrough of the Century, p.32, 2011.
"The status of communist Romania within the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) differed significantly from that of any other of its allies", by right-wing Romanians Jurgen Kuhlmann and Jean Callaghan, Military and Society in 21st Century Europe: A Comparative Analysis, p.142, 2011.
And TFD, I refuse to sink to the sort of reverse McCarthyism where anyone with the taint of the Right (the horror!) is dismissed as unworthy of consideration, as if the only unbiased stance is a leftist one, but let's just look at one of the authors I quoted, Judith Baskin. I can't say for sure, but there is a vanishingly small chance that a Jewish-American feminist who is in the humanities and in university administration, who went to Yale and has taught at both UMass Amherst and UOregon, is right-wing. And yet she uses "communist Romania" without seeming hesitation, and Cambridge University Press (among the most prestigious academic presses on earth) publishes it. Interesting. - BiruitorulTalk 05:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not McCarthyism, just that the terminology "Communist Romania", while extremely rare as the title of a book or article is used almost exclusively by right-wing authors, mostly from Romania. There is nothing wrong with having a point of view, it is that we should not be adopting terminology which is not neutral. In the same sense while some rs talk about "American imperlalism", we would accept that the term is more commonly used by writers with a certain viewpoint. Your first example btw was not written by Jarausch and Lindenberger, but is part of an article by the Romanian DRAGOŞ PETRESCU called "Communist Legacies in the 'New Europe': History, Ethnicity, and the Creation of a "Socialist' Nation in Romania, 1945-1989". You are obviously just Google mining for examples to support your views and this first example shows that you have already made up your mind. Just say that, because it is a waste of my time to follow up sources which you have misrepresented. TFD (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is "Socialist Republic of Romania" more common for book or article titles in recent years? Are Judith R. Baskin, Sheila Jasanoff, Masha Gessen, Jurgen Kuhlmann and Jean Callaghan also right-wing Romanians?
I find your ethnic-based attitude entirely revolting. Petrescu has a PhD in history from Central European University. He is an expert in the field and teaches at Romania's most prestigious history faculty. His recent publications list is not unimpressive — note, for instance, that all have been published abroad. And yet you deem his writing unacceptable because of his country of origin? When you start to exclude legitimate scholars because they have the wrong kind of blood, that calls to mind a certain something.
Here's a thought experiment: "we can't rely on the Jew HILLEL COHEN to be objective on Israeli history"; "we can't accept the work of the Black HENRY LOUIS GATES on Black Literature"; "we need to ignore what the Japanese JACK FUJIMOTO has to say about the Japanese language". Any of those would be disgusting, and so is your disparaging reference to "the Romanian DRAGOŞ PETRESCU", and your implicit assumption that he cannot be neutral about his own country's history, regardless of his training and record. If you're going to discount academics based on their ethnicity, there are other places that do that. - BiruitorulTalk 16:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You present a source and claim for some reason that the author is not Romanian and when I point out that he his you say, "I find your ethnic-based attitude entirely revolting". So you have shown that not only do you misrepresent sources but you misrepresent what other editors say. None of this is persuasive or conducive to constructive discussion. If you prefer a certain description, that is fine, but please do not fill this page with untruthful claims. And now you have moved from projection, accusing other editors of McCarthyism, which btw is an extreme form of anti-Communism, to full blown Godwin's Law. I see no further purpose of this discussion. TFD (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly not unheard-of in considerations concerning national history (esp. recent history!) to place foreign, international sources above local ones on grounds of distance and objectivity. Indeed it is common sense that a person of one nationality is far more likely to develop a less-objective stance towards said nationality than one who is not. This is a general fact, but of course with many exceptions. The more controversial an issue, and the more connected it is to a national mythos or sense of pride, the less reliable do national sources become as a general rule. This does not apply to all authors, certainly, and not to all issues, but it is a trend nevertheless. To answer your questions, while I certainly would not dare to dismiss any scholarly source without support, in the case of a sources conflict I would far sooner trust a non-African American scholar on African American history, or a non-Jewish historian about Jewish history. Though I find it very telling that you chose these two persecuted ethnic groups to attempt and take the moral high ground. -- Director(talk) 16:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in that case, let's make sure to discount Dr. Audrey Smedley as an anthropological expert on race and race relations, African Americans in America in particular. (Race and intelligence being another contentious article area I'm familiar with.) That will certainly lead to more objective content. Perhaps we can institute new WP alphabet soup, say, WP:GBPOV, "genetically biased point of view." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Amusing. :) Though you will note that I said this does not apply to all scholars, certainly not to word-renowned experts. -- Director(talk) 17:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what you're proposing. Guilty of genetic bias unless proven otherwise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, is it now? :D -- Director(talk) 17:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of us take your attitude seriously even if you don't. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If I were you I'd be a lot more concerned about these strange "genetic" perceptions of nationality, rather than with the suggestion that people generally prefer their own country over those of others. It would be hard to imagine someone would construe that as meaning there is a "genetic" predisposition to personal opinions. Hopefully you were just trying to nazify me and don't really subscribe to such ideas. Now if you would kindly cease with the ad hominems. -- Director(talk) 18:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Nazify" you? WTF? And why are you attempting to turn around your contention that ethnic group X is less trustworthy a source than not ethnic group X? I'm just holding up the mirror here, don't put your ad hominems in my mouth. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where did I use the word "ethnic", Vercrumba? You know there is a difference between the terms "nationality" and "ethnicity"? In matters that concern the national history of national group A, where there is a conflict of sources, I would far sooner trust the professionalism of an author from national group K on the other side of the globe - because there is no conflict of interest. -- Director(talk) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argumentation is disingenuous as it is quite clear you distrust Romanian (cultural extraction = ethnic group) authors, not Romanian (a national of Romania regardless of ethno-cultural-linguistic background) sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it is "super quite very clear" to you. I can't stop you from putting words in my mouth, I can just point out to others that this what you're doing. -- Director(talk) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The bias here is that an identifiable ethno-national group on the part of an author is a conflict of interest (negative, not as trustworthy, historical axes to grind) as opposed to such authors holding themselves to a higher standard (positive, superior level of scholarship) precisely because those authors know they will need to overcome prejudiced and insulting perceptions such as yours. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We determine objectivity by how writing is received in the broader academic community, not the ethnic background of the writer. However terminology used may vary between scholars of different nationalities, e.g., Malvinas/Falklands, Holodomor/Great Famine, Great Patriotic War/ Eastern Front. A term that is considered neutral in one country may not be in another. A common example is the use of the name "America" to describe the U.S., which is generally used by writers across the political spectrum in the U.S., but is not as widely used in Latin America and Canada, except ironically. Our challenge is to use terminology that is widely considered to be neutral. The fact that Romanian writers across the political spectrum may use the term does not detract from the fact that it is more generally used outside Eastern Europe by Cold Warriors. TFD (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Communist Romania is descriptive of the period regardless of Cold War or post-Cold War. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are your ruminations, Vecrumba. It is "descriptive" yes, but less descriptive than other, more common terms that might, for another thing, be one hell of a lot less politically charged. -- Director(talk) 18:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned earlier, during the Cold War the country was normally referred to as "Romania". Only China was routinely called "Communist China" and still is by Lou Dobbs and other right-wingers. TFD (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@DIREKTOR, There's nothing "politically charged" about factual Communist control. Certainly the Romanian people weren't in control. Perhaps if Stalin and the Communists were Smurfs you'd be less inclined to object? Smurfist Romania? You say your Google results trump mine; I say my Google results explain yours and indicate that as of the mid-90's "Communist Romania" came to the fore. You're one to pass judgement on "politically charged" after accusing me of attempting to "Nazify" you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Communist" is a label with an inherent political charge, that is something it would make no sense to debate. Some sources use it in connection to Romania, the vast majority do not. -- Director(talk) 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to cut off conversation whenever your personal contentions are challenged. I've already explained your mountain of Google results elsewhere as not being relevant to current scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Irrelevant"? :) to you, perhaps. Not so with Wikipedia policy. -- Director(talk) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You fail to acknowledge that it is your term of choice which is stuck in your so-called "yesterday" while my term of choice has enjoyed a steady, if unspectacular, climb for the duration, surpassing yours since the mid-90's. Therefore, policy favors the status quo regarding title. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
TFD, in the 1686 days since you started editing here, have you never read WP:AGF? How about, instead of automatically assuming that I deliberately "misrepresented" a source by claiming the wrong author, and moreover making that assumption public — how about not assuming anything? The reality, not that it matters, is that I didn't bother to look at the source closely enough — but that neither invalidates Petrescu's scholarship, nor that of his Romanian peers, nor that of dozens of other scholars, Romanian and non-Romanian, right-wing, left-wing, centrist or apolitical, who have used the term "Communist Romania" in academic discussions of the state in recent years.
Oh, and there is such a thing as left-wing McCarthyism. It's a term that's been used not just by the right-wing Weekly Standard, but also by the decidedly center-left Independent.
And Director, while there certainly are controversial areas in Romanian history — the identity of Radu Negru, the Holocaust in Romania and the precise nature of the Romanian Revolution of 1989 all come to mind from recent years — I can assure you that what to label this period has not been a hot topic. By and large, it's called regimul comunist ("the Communist regime"). The standard high school text on the subject is called O istorie a comunismului din România ("A History of Romanian Communism" or "A History of Communism in Romania"). - BiruitorulTalk 18:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biruitorul, you've admittedly switched your argument several times, you've even blatantly contradicted yourself - and somehow always in support of one particular proposition. It is hard to AGF under such circumstances. I did AGF at first, certainly. But after you've abandoned WP:COMMONNAME to push this title, after days of only citing that policy over and over again, you must understand that brings your good faith into doubt with the objective observer.
All you've done is validated my point, since apparently Romanian scholars hold a view that is not shared in the vast majority of publications. I was not referring to an issue that is controversial in Romania, Biruitorul. Most Croatian scholars, in fact practically all of them, contend that I speak the Croatian language. Most international scholars state that I speak a variant of the Serbo-Croatian language. Who would you trust? The issue is not controversial in Croatia, but it is controversial nevertheless. "Croatians know best which language they speak", or "Romanians know best about Romanian history" is a non sequitur. In fact the opposite applies, since both are far more likely to have a vested conflict of interest than non-Croats or non-Romanians. -- Director(talk) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Having found what I consider to be an accuratemetric for determining current usage, I have stuck to that metric and to the claim that "Communist Romania" is the most common name used in contemporary research by experts in the field. If evidence (and no, raw Google hits without context don't count) to the contrary is presented, then I'll gladly have a different opinion. - BiruitorulTalk 21:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Biruitorul, I find irritating, because it is time consuming, when editors present incorrect information in support of their arguments. That btw is what Joseph McCarthy did. You present a source which you claim was not written by a Romanian, when in fact it was. You call the Independent "decidedly center-left", when the very name of the publication shows that they have decided no such thing, and you claim that they use the term "left-wing McCarthyism", but the source turns out to be an opinin piece by a columnist. Inevitably, fact-checking by myself uncovers the errors, and then you present another round of arguments leading to more fact-checking and whole cycle begins anew. This is a waste of your time and mine. If you want to present arguments, please check your facts first. Do you think that arguments based on false information can be persuasive to people who take the time to check facts? Incidentally, the accurate portrayal of facts is essential for improving articles. TFD (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presented five sources (and linked to dozens of others), one of which I accidentally claimed was written by Germans, not that the ethnicity of the writer should matter one iota. Latching on to a small error while ignoring the rest of the argument isn't a valid way of grappling with an argument; it's character assassination. If you want to make a legitimate argument that Communist Romania is not used far more often in recent scholarly publications than Socialist Republic of Romania, in particular in contextually relevant discussions, please do so. But diversions like the Dragoş Petrescu one are not going to carry you very far.
Of course that was an editorial, but newspapers tend to print editorials they agree with. Anyway, if The Independent doesn't lean to the left, then please please modify the list of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom accordingly. - BiruitorulTalk 21:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least four inaccuracies in your posting. Whether or not the ethnicity of the writers matters, you made a point of it in your previous posting. The list of left-wing publications in the U.K. is not a reliable source and no, the Independent cannot be compared to the Morning Star, which is Communist. I never argued that "Communist Romania is not used far more often in recent scholarly publications than Socialist Republic of Romania". Finally, mainstream newspapers newspapers do not "tend to print editorials they agree with", but publish a range of viewpoints. Your fifth source btw was not written by Kuhlmann and Callaghan, but by Adriana Stanescu in a book they edited. The book btw was supported by the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies and published by Irving Louis Horowitz's Transaction Publishers. If you want me to take your arguments seriously, could you please make sure that you have your facts straight. TFD (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Left-wing" is a rather broad umbrella, encompassing not just Harry Pollitt but also people like Nick Cohen and George Monbiot, both of whom have regularly appeared in The Independent and The Guardian. Before removing them from that list, you would have done well to look here and here and learn a bit more about their stances, if not from the Wikipedia articles then from the sources. No one accused them of being Communist, but they're both comfortably on the centre-left, as any literate Briton will be able to tell you. As is, by her own admission, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, the individual who used the phrase "left-wing McCarthyism" in an Independent editorial.
Anyway, back to the topic at hand, whatever the flaws in my original posting (and regrettably, because they sidetracked us needlessly, there were some), the salient fact remains that Communist Romania is used far more often in recent scholarly publications than Socialist Republic of Romania. Even taking out books by authors of "unhealthy" ethnic origins or from "unhealthy" presses, you're still left with far more use of the former term than the latter in post-2000, probably post-1990 scholarship, with use of the latter largely confined to reprints of treaties, legal documents and the like, as opposed to actual discussion of the subject.
To add something somewhat new to the discussion, let me note that the same pattern holds true (Communist Romania surpassing Socialist Republic of Romania for post-2000 works) on Google Scholar — with results for the former again also being more substantive than for the latter. Even if one doesn't prefer it for a title on this article, there's simply too much academic use of "Communist Romania" to argue that it's somehow fringe or suspect. - BiruitorulTalk 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to disagree over where the center lies. Judging from your user page, you appear to have views that would not appear to me to be centrist, and may not appreciate that the choice of terminology may show implicit bias. For example, while you may believe that the capital of China is temporarily located in Taipei, we cannot write neutral articles with KMT terminology. TFD (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to be somewhere on the right (no, not the far-right) on most issues, but that hasn't particularly impaired me from editing from a neutral point of view these last 5¾ years. I don't recall editing China-related articles very much, but I don't have any difficulty in separating my private belief that the illegitimate Red Chinese regime is a perfidious tyranny I hope comes crashing down the sooner the better, and the fundamental principle that NPOV must be respected in the mainspace.
With regard to the current title of this article (since that's what we're here to talk about), I truly do not see an issue, and it's not a question of wearing ideological blinkers. If the only instances using the terminology were books written by right-wing Romanians and/or published by right-wing presses, then that would make it problematic. Similarly, if the term had gone out of style by the early 1990s, then that too would pose a neutrality problem. But — and you seem to have trouble admitting this, despite my insistence that you check my Google links yourself — that is simply not the case: scholars across the political spectrum seem to have used it, and with increasing frequency since the end of the Cold War. That's one reason I prefer it, the other being that it's all-encompassing, unlike the proposed target. Something like History of Romania (1945-1989) would also work — the point is to be accurate and neutral in our descriptions. I think "Communist Romania" does that best, but it's not necessarily the only solution.
I'm sure Peters will agree that this is starting to remind one of the long, arduous and pointless struggle in 2007 to move Soviet occupation of Romania from that title, based on the spurious notion that Romania was not occupied by the USSR between 1944 and 1958. - BiruitorulTalk 07:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neither DIREKTOR nor TFD have responded to my direct inquiries regarding AjaxSmack's title History of Communist Romania. The push to use years to avoid mentioning who was in political control when it is Communists is what is non-neutral POV pushing here. And, yes, I recall all the endemic arguing all over Eastern Europe that "occupation" is a bad and "judgmental" word. Where in WP is it enshrined in policy that you can't call anything by its appropriate descriptive name per widespread scholarship on name-your-period if it's attached to the Soviet legacy in Eastern Europe? The significance of a range of years in a title is lost on the average user, but not lost on the champions of these so-called "neutral" titles which are, in fact, so non-descriptive, so absent of and in avoidance of the topic of discussion, as to be POV. (I even recall being called a liar when I had corresponded with an author and confirmed an obvious error regarding Soviet occupation of Romania in their book.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, I agree with that: just as we use Nazi Germany for another party-state with two official names ("German Reich" followed by "Greater German Reich"), so should we not shy away from mentioning in the title who was in control. After all, plenty of respectable sources mention it as well. I don't insist on "Communist Romania", but there's no reason any alternative should avoid the word "Communist". Compromise may be a good idea, as long as the essence isn't compromised, and given that the Romanian Communist Party lay at the very foundation of this state, there's no reason to avoid stating that. - BiruitorulTalk 03:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pardonnez-moi, but I believe I was very clear regarding such a title.
Firstly, it would solve nothing. Should you actually manage to force the nonsense notion that this article is "really" about a "period", I for one would in such a case immediately create a Socialist Republic of Romania historical country article.
Secondly, historical period articles are by default named "History of [country] ([year]-[year])", there is no objective reason whatsoever to include your favored political labels. No title that includes the phrase "Communist Romania" will have my support, since as I said, it is contrary to COMMONNAME and carries a completely and utterly unnecessary politically-charged POV label. Most of the people in charge were communists, yes, but does that automatically make the country "communist"? Certainly not. Though I am sure such a contention would be favored from the POV of certain political affiliation.
It becomes quite plain indeed that your only goal in this issue is to push the POV label "communist" into Wikipedia article titles. -- Director(talk) 18:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, "completely and utterly unnecessary politically-charged POV label" seems a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Scholarship is quite happy referring to the multi-sovereignty/constitution/regime 1945-1989 period as "Communist Romania." Your asking whether every administrator was a communist is WP:OR. It's a "political" label only because you prefer to disparage it as such and to ascribe political POV motivations to editors where no such motivation exists. On the contrary, it is a simple question of editorial value. The title for which you advocate misrepresents the article, lessens its encyclopedic value, and invites further inappropriate editorial actions (such as the split already proposed by one editor). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That you've resorted to "I will never support XYZ..." statements, have reduced your attack on the current title based on personal ascribing political POV agendas, have questioned scholarship based on authors' surnames, and have completely moved away from sources all seem the best litmus test for who is being dogmatic here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and on failure to rename, promise to immediately create a POV content fork. Q.E.D. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You will have a very hard time explaining how a new article on a historical country, which does not have one of its own, is a "WP:POVFORK". I look forward to citing all your previous statements here in such a discussion and watching you spin them. -- Director(talk) 04:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because such an article, should you create it, leads to a tri-furcation of a single period (1945-1989) of Communist control of Romania. You are proposing an article regarding a specific constitutional regime which is a subset of a larger continuousperiod, thereby inappropriately fragmenting the whole into its constituent piece parts.
You yourself, however, have indicated that there is insufficient volume of content to merit splitting the article, so the only issue here, where you and I are concerned, is whether or not to appropriately title the existing content, your "appropriate" and my "appropriate" being in disagreement.
You have no Google results to back the appropriateness of your requested move, as my more detailed Google ngrams analysis clearly proves while at the same time accounting for what you purport to be your overwhelming numerical search advantage. I have nothing to "spin," my position is characterized by complete consistency. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn. Like I said, it won't be easy for you to explain why Socialist Republic of Romania does not need an article on this project. -- Director(talk) 22:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn back at you, like I said, it won't be easy for you to explain why Socialist Republic of Romania needs an article of its own; if it does, so does the prior People's Republic, and you then still need Communist Romania to provide the appropriate overview including the 1945-1947 period while Romania is ostensibly still the Kingdom of Romania. If there is no value to splitting the current content, there is no value in creating a separate article dedicated to the latter half of Communist Romania. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, it may be necessary to split the article. I don't like it but it seems that's the consensus (you certainly seem in favor of such a solution). The 1945-47 period can very elegantly be incorporated in the Kingdom of Romania article. -- Director(talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Curious that you would consider it an encyclopedic improvement to splinter content about a single topic into three articles. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would not call it "splintering", but either way, I agree that it would be better to have one article on the subject. You insist that we need three. First you insist that the country does not have an article on this project, and then you insist just above that such a country is actually two countries. I'm afraid you don't understand that period articles and country articles are not the same thing and are certainly not mutually exclusive. Also if this is a period article we will of course still have to rename it appropriately. -- Director(talk) 23:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you misunderstood my point that there is no content-driven need to split the article (which I believe we've agreed on before). Your "last known as country X" title is, again, not appropriate because it does not span the entire period, which also includes 1945-1947 as the lead-in prior to extinguishing the monarchy. The country (3 guises) and the period are a unity. You only have to redirect the People's Republic and Socialist... to this article. And the Kingdom of Romania article needs a pointer here as well as it leaves off with King Carol. At issue is that you've sworn to oppose anything with "Communist Romania" in the title, which rather leaves us at an impasse regarding other potential options. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is about a period (which imo is obvious nonsense), then we need a historical country article. If this article is about a historical country, then its up to us whether we need a period article. That's why I like to organize history as a succession of historical states. Your problem, of course, is that, if this article is about a country, then its all the more clear which name is the WP:COMMONNAME. You need to make contentions like "this is a period article" or "these are two countries" because they help your case with the current title, even though they make no sense and are potentially detrimental to Wikipedia's coverage of this period of Romanian history. Your problem of course, is that you apparently don't really want what that entails. That is to say, two additional former country articles. To keep this title, you will likely make that which nobody really wants necessary. -- Director(talk) 00:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Communist Romania" spans the end of the (restoration of the) Kingdom of Romania, the People's Republic of Romania, and the Socialist Republic of Romania. If we must have an article for every state, real or imagined, past or present, then redirection of the official names of states to the appropriate section of Communist Romania solves the problem. The usual hierarchy of national histories is periods within country; that hierarchy is turned on its head a bit here, but the result is no less valid if the ultimate goal is to organize history to be readable, approachable, understandable.
If editors insist there must be an article for each former state, we already have examples of resulting content fragmentation elsewhere, for example, Communist Hungary, which cries out for a unified narrative. If I propose a merger there, I can't in good faith simply subsume the earlier state under the later state and call it all the later state. So rather than argue over titles, I suggest we take a moment to discuss, how do you organize a period article regarding a single territory which undergoes multiple regime changes during that period with potentially different official country names? IMO, simply choosing the name of the chronologically last regime regardless of tenancy in power is as much "obvious nonsense" as "Communist Romania" appears to be to you. Scholarship is quite clear on what "Communist Romania" is. How you choose to create a historical taxonomy versus how I choose to create a historical taxonomy (period, country, which is subservient to the other,...) is rather immaterial as, again, scholarship is quite clear on what "Communist Romania" is. If this presents the classic challenge of fitting a square peg (the full end to end historical account of Communist Romania) into a round hole (WP:COMMONNAME, every former state has an article, etc.), the answer is not to keep pounding on the square peg while invoking WP:ROUNDHOLE. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
