Talk:Socialist Republic of Romania/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

"No consensus"?

Arguing for or against particular positions aside, are we prepared to continue discussion or have we exhausted ourselves and are prepared to agree to disagree for the time being? In the interim, I propose moving to History of Communist Romania so we at least close the loop on the original (failed consensus) proposed move to "last chronological name of former country". PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Nice try. As if that's some sort of "compromise" - its what you've been relentlessly angling for all this time. Your agenda is introducing the concept of a "Communist Romania" at all costs. The title you propose suggests the existence of a state or political entity that should be referred to as "Communist Romania", the history of which is the subject of this article. Political POV-pushing. -- Director (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was soliciting a discussion, not another litany of Support and Oppose. I'm not introducing anything, "Communist Romania" was already here. You have been championing an agenda to remove it. You say "state", I say "state of affairs." Please desist from tiresome accusations of "political POV pushing." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion"? You mean rehashing for the umpteenth time your old demands to have "History of Communist Romania" as the title? And repackaging it as some sort of "compromise"? -- Director (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You misinterpret my inquiry. It is merely to suggest, while discussion continues (the "interim" part), that others have indicated "History of..." would address some of the "not the official name of a state" concerns which have been stated. You don't appear to believe it makes any difference. Perhaps we might disengage long enough to see what others have to say as the dialog above has run out of steam. I have no interest in making this into some sort of personal confrontation over competing allegations over who is "POV." I'm not the one trucking out allegations of a cabal—that being a code word for >1 person that does not agree with you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about: History of Romania as an Eastern Bloc state. Nothing inaccurate or POV about that as Eastern Bloc is well defined and Romania was clearly a part of the Bloc. It doesn't tie it to a rigid timeline, to ideology, or specific state names. Just some food for thought and compromise. --Mike Cline (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just about any title variant that doesn't use presumptuous political labels (for no reason) - is fine with me. -- Director (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the suggestion, but I believe that's too verbose and just sounds like a compromise for its own sake. We have History of Poland (1945–1989), we have History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), and if there's really an insistence on moving, I can't think of a better title than History of Romania (1945–1989). - Biruitorul Talk 22:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially agree. I prefer Biruitorul's suggestion but would not mind the other option either. -- Director (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can see History of Romania in the Eastern Bloc as a potential compromise. I prefer something descriptive as opposed to a range of years which readers "know" "means" "something." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@ Direktor, you could have simply stated: "Just about any title variant that doesn't use presumptuous political labels (for no reason)...". It's easier to deal in good faith without the editorializing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll say again, assuming good faith is something you do at the start of an interaction, which I very much did. If its obvious someone is acting in bad faith, however, you're not going to keep doing so. That sentence you're quoting isn't meant as a personal remark, though, and has nothing to do with AGF. I fully intend to keep expressing my opinions whenever I think it necessary, as I feel they are well founded in objective reasoning. I certainly don't see you refraining from editorializing, I might add. -- Director (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, as you are not commenting on any particular editor, what is "presuming" about the term "Communist Romania"? and why would scholars use the term "Communist Romania" "for no reason"? Perhaps we might yet get to the root of our editorial disagreement. Meanwhile, to the discussion here, what do you think of History of Romania in the Eastern Bloc as a more succinct version of another editor's suggestion as a path forward? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'd add that "History of XYZ in the Eastern Bloc" might be an informative alternative to some of the other nondescript titles floating about. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly when did we lose AGF? (Your "cabal")? Perhaps we might discuss that in user talk as opposed to here, we've gone off topic enough already. Let me know if you have any interest in a conversation away from the venue here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Romania in the Eastern Bloc works as well, the "History of..." is not really required. (No retorts necessary, just making the observation.) Less "POV" than Romania behind the Iron Curtain. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 14:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's wrong to call it "Communist Romania", as it was never communist country! Unlike what it's often said in the west, Communism is a system WITHOUT ANY STATE. The system without any social unequality is called Socialism, and that's why it's called the SOCIALIST Republic of Romania! The Socialist People's Republic of Albania, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia all changed names over the year, and the last name used is used as the name of the articles, so why is it different for this article then? Why shouldn't it be called Socialist Republic of Romania? --188.113.91.110 (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree completely, but I would not want to get into this nonsense again. This weird title is very important to some folks. -- Director (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about History of Romania during the Communist Party rule (1945-1989)? To the best of my knowledge, all political and economic power during the period in question was concentrated in the hands of the Communist Party, a political body founded on marxist-leninist ideology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.26.99 (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy

Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but why does it say that monarchy was abolished in 1965 (in the info box)? --Cei Trei (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem is that the title of the article only covers half of the period in question, hence your confusion. The article was formerly (more appropriately) named "Communist Romania" covering the entire communist era. Now there's more than one article, so the monarchy was abolished at the "prior." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 13:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I'm still lost. I haven't read the discussions above, but even if several articles were compiled into one, what does that have to do with the info box saying that monarchy was abolished in 1965? Or is it meant to say that monarchy was abolished prior to 1965 ... but then why would it say it like that? --Cei Trei (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it has nothing to do with the renaming, whatever your question and/or complaint - Vecrumba, the resident disgruntled Romanian nationalist, would inevitably try to frame it as having been somehow caused by the title he dislikes. Even if its just a report on an infobox error. He's just sittin' around, waiting for any issue to pop up here that he might skew it in that direction..
But where exactly does the infobox say the monarchy was abolished in 1965? As far as I can see, it clearly states "Monarchy abolished - 30 December 1947". You might have been confused by the "New Constitution adopted" entry? It should probably read "Constitutional reform" rather. -- Director (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox "Status" Section

I omitted the "during the Cold War" part of the former label due to its redundancy, as the Warsaw Pact existed until the end of the Cold War. Thus, its existence during the Cold War is already implied.

If there are any digressions please let me know.

Additionally, does anyone know why there is no mention of the Socialist Republic of Romania's status as a satellite state? The Satellite state page mentions it as one. Thanks

BUjjsp (talk) 08:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some administrator has been adding the label "satellite state" to the article over and over again. This seems to only reflect his own opinions. I know that it's sometimes called so, but that's because it was a member of the Warsaw Pact. Romania was NOT a Soviet satellite state! I hate Ceausescu, but he was not a satellite. He refused to take part in Warsaw Pact operations, including the Invasion of Czechoslovakia (he condemned the invasion strongly). He condemned the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. He supported the Zionists' treatment of the Palestinians. He even supported Somalia's invasion of Ethiopia - where Soviet troops fought against the Somali troops! I don't think the US would have allowed any NATO country to back North Vietnam. Fact is, Romania was a whole lot more independent country than any of the members of NATO - and none of these are labeled "satellite states". I live in Norway, and I can guarantee that no government in this country will ever criticize the US close to how Ceausescu criticized the USSR. --Te og kaker (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Romania wasn't a satellite during Ceaușescu's period (who got chummy with Non-Aligned countries), but pretty much was before that. That's as far as I know. But be that as it may: military alliances do not pertain to the "status" of a country and do not belong in that parameter.

Further, use just one name in the header of the infobox, and elaborate on other full official names in the body of the article. Same goes for the flag and emblem, the infobox is not the place to go into such details - note that there are wikilinks there (Flag, Emblem), which take the reader to articles where he can find out more about them, if he cares. -- Director (talk) 12:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.s. I think the wheat in the communist emblem (in the flag as well) is much too dark compared to what I saw in actual photos. -- Director (talk) 12:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuild?

This has to be one of the worst articles on Wikipedia, it makes grave and frankly libellous claims without any sources. In christ-knows how paragraphs, it cites only 18 sources (despite this being a major part of modern history). There are unbuilt sections without any explanations, and some of the sentences look like they have been written by someone with a vehement anti-Communist agenda rather than someone with an encyclopaedic perspective. We couldn't verify most of the claims in this article from reliable sources. Does anyone object to (or like to assist in) a complete rebuild, deleting most of this page? Mtaylor848 (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you perceptively note, there are Romanian users here who are apparently vehement anti-Communists. Not that I necessarily disapprove of their ideology as such, but I do disapprove of the intense bias of this article. I'd whole-heartily support your proposed measure. The title was the main point though. It itself is biased, unencyclopedic nonsense, probably stemming from the same ideological POV permeating the article. -- Director (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can ignore Direktor's broadside, except to note that "Communist Romania" (whatever he might claim) is the preponderant term used in the most reliable scholarship of the past decade, and that I and others make no objection to History of Romania (1945-1989), despite there being no serious objection one can raise against the present title.
Now, to the main point. Yes, by all means, rebuild this dreck from the bottom up. Only it won't be easy, if you want to do something worthwhile. For one, you'll have to think about how to structure this in relation to Romanian Communist Party, Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Nicolae Ceausescu (itself in dire need of work), and myriad other articles. For another, any serious treatment of the subject will require sources in Romanian. There's Cioroianu's book to start, while CNSAS and the Communist Crimes Investigation Institute barely touch the surface of a rather rich historiography that has emerged over the past decade, for instance the work of Dorin Dobrincu. Whether to cite the Tismaneanu Report is debatable, but Tismaneanu, on his blog, has a nice introduction to the implications and methods of studying the regime. So it's doable, but writing a good article (or a Good Article) on this topic is a tall order. - Biruitorul Talk 02:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I have to note that from my experience, many Romanian-language sources on the communist era (including Cioroianu) are not even trying to be neutral, quite often they try to push their own ideological ideas, mixing their own opinions with facts, etc. This does not appear to be as common in Western books on the era, but I guess this is a matter of historiographic traditions as well. bogdan (talk) 08:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose the main way to counteract that would be to have editors capable of filtering it out. Our article on the Ploughmen's Front, for example, draws heavily on Cioroianu, but doesn't appear unduly biased. - Biruitorul Talk 14:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Biruitorul, if you recall our previous debate, it has been conclusively shown that "Communist Romania" is not the most common name in literary usage - not even close, in fact. The most common name for this state is "Socialist Republic of Romania". The excuse to avoid following policy, if I recall, was that this name somehow "does not refer to the whole state" or whatever nonsense. -- Director (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Come, now. That was indeed part of the motivation for keeping the present title. But once you look at scholarly English-language publications since 2000 (i.e., current academic usage), you find an abundance of prose references to "Communist Romania", while results for "Socialist Republic of Romania" are mainly the texts of treaties, court cases and the like. Sure, if you do a raw search encompassing everything from 1947 onward you may receive different results, but this isn't 1986 anymore. A lot has happened since then in terms of writing on Communist-era Romania, and it's our responsibility to reflect that. - Biruitorul Talk 14:29, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not presume to lecture others on history and/or Wikipedia ethics. As I said before, I reject outright the proposition that we should reject such an overwhelming majority based solely on your subjective "impression" and generalization on the "sort" of sources that use the term "Socialist Republic of Romania". A great many high-quality publications use the latter term, there is no question of that. Whenever Google testing results do not suit a user's position, some convoluted argument appears based on which they're supposedly to be rejected. Had it not been this, it'd be something else. Happens every time. -- Director (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any "lecturing" is purely a figment of your imagination and I will treat it as such, refusing to be intimidated by baseless allegations.
I will also not allow the goalposts in this discussion to be shifted without drawing attention to that, nor will I permit mischaracterizations of my stance to be distorted without comment from me. If we were having this discussion in 1986 (or 1979, or 1967), then I suppose I would agree with SRR as the title. But may I draw your attention to the fact that not only did the regime in question collapse nearly 23 years ago, but also that historians' and political scientists' approaches to writing about it have also shifted in the intervening period? Do you not agree that Wikipedia usage reflects current usage? Indeed, it's not even a matter of your agreement: WP:TITLE states clearly that "Wikipedia describes current usage". Given that, it's neither unreasonable nor subjective to focus on recent publications. I would say post-2000, but I'm perfectly willing to listen to why it should be 2005 or 1995 or what have you. That is a terrain where I am willing to give ground; I am not willing to play out this discussion where the results you cite include snippets of mimeographed carbon copies of official UN reports from 1981, or publications of a similar ilk.
Within that eminently reasonable framework (post-2000 scholarly books and articles) I have produced a wealth of corroborating evidence in support of "Communist Romania" being the common name. You have persistently ignored whatever occurrences I have shown. You have also persistently failed to show modern scholarly usage of SRR, only speaking of "a great many high-quality publications" without a shred of evidence to back that up. The time has come to say that the game is up, and that this is no longer going to work. Either you come up with rational criteria for determining current usage and show conclusive evidence for your position, or your whole argument dissolves for lack of credibility. - Biruitorul Talk 19:38, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bah, humbug. I choose not to start this again, but I will repeat that your entire argument is based entirely on your own subjective perception and "interpretation" of research data. Words. "Socialist Republic of Romania" is the more common name in every respect, especially in terms of usage in respectable scholarly publications. And if it weren't for the above excuse, others would be invented, no doubt even more "eloquently" laid out. Ultimately this appears to be an ideological issue. -- Director (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is getting us nowhere, but I will note in closing that you are the one emanating words upon meaningless words. However, not all the verbiage at your command will hide the fact that supporting my argument I have this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and much else besides, while you have mere assertions. There is nothing "subjective" about the data at my command; if anything is subjective, it's your fact-free assertion that SRR is "especially" the more common name used in respectable scholarly publications. Still not a shred of evidence for that; a glaring hole at the center of your "argument". Indeed, you have never even attempted to show concrete examples of SRR being used and why those usages should be given weight, relying instead on diversions that have led nowhere.
And no, no matter how much you say it, my presentation of data in support of a logical argument is not and never has been an "excuse" to mask "ideological" motivations. You can repeat that ad nauseam, and I will call out this falsehood every single time.
See you at the next move request. - Biruitorul Talk 17:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I remember you appeared to be very fond of showmanship. Such as listing a pointless succession of links links links links links links links and links and links and links. I'll be sure to mention that next RM. -- Director (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As two failed move requests demonstrate, simply waving away a mountain of evidence doesn't get you very far. Do the hard work to show convincing usage of SRR in respectable scholarly publications, and you might get further next time. - Biruitorul Talk 18:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. People do like showmanship. -- Director (talk) 19:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We added a section about cadres, expanding on what they were and we also talked about Paulker and Dej and the politics that went behind their efforts in collectivization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sv115 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Romanian Revolution 1989 Corpses.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The file Romanian Revolution 1989 4.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atheist state

SRR was not an atheist state, it was a state which formally made atheistic propaganda, but has found far more useful to tolerate and infiltrate/subdue religion than to ban it altogether. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2022

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

The result of the move request was: Not Moved. Per its RM history and the lack of consensus in this discussion, WP:Deadhorse has some applicability here. Per most opposers below, if the article content is deficient re: the Communist aspect, then fix the content. Mike Cline (talk) 13:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Republic of Romania → Communist Romania – This article's scope is all of Romania's communist period (1947–1989), but the title only refers to the Socialist Republic of Romania (1965–1989). As far as I know this is an unique case among former communist countries, at least in Europe, so we don't have any precedents to go by on how to act here. However, I believe it'd be better if we renamed this article to the more general proposed title. Super Ψ Dro 19:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Been there, done that, several times back and forth. I think the discussion started in 2005, gained steam in 2007, after which I lost track of what happened before the name of the article changed to the current one. But it's certainly an issue worth revisiting. Turgidson (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support — echoing my stance in two previous move discussions, I welcome this opportunity to move the article back to its proper title. “Communist Romania” has three advantages: it reflects the entire period of the dictatorship, not just its latter phase; it’s concise, to the point, and neutral; and it’s widely used in scholarly sources. — Biruitorul Talk 19:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. This is certainly not an unique case, as this is exactly the same as Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Socialist Republic of Albania and Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. Per WP: CONSISTENT, the current title should stay. Furthermore, the proposed name violates WP:NPOV, as it was never used by the country itself and originated in Cold War propaganda. Scholarly sources use both terms, thus there's no need for change.Anonimu (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If ”never used by the country itself” is an NPOV violation, then Nazi Germany, Quisling regime, 4th of August Regime, Francoist Spain and many others are in trouble. “Originated in Cold War propaganda” is a bogus claim and, even if true, is irrelevant as long as reputable sources are on the side of the proposed name, which they are. — Biruitorul Talk 20:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've said below, there seems not to be a Wikipedia policy saying what should we do in these cases. The page for Albania's communist period seems to be quite random, as the last name of the country was "Republic of Albania" and the first was used for the longest, yet the article uses the second one. Agree with Biruitorul regarding the rest of your comment. Super Ψ Dro 21:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If two separate articles aren't warranted, then the later name is what the title should be. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any policy saying this? It's not what we do in Czechoslovakia (not titled Czech and Slovak Federative Republic) or Yugoslavia (not titled Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). Super Ψ Dro 21:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of country articles where the country used to be known as one thing and is later called something else. Iran (Persia), Cambodia (Kampuchea), Eswatini (Swaziland), Sri Lanka (Ceylon), DR Congo (Zaire), etc. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've only given examples of currently existing countries. Of course that we are going to use the most recent name for them. But this isn't a still existent country, for that, see Romania. And we've got pages for a few of those countries using their past names anyway, see Democratic Kampuchea and Zaire. So not a valid comparison. Super Ψ Dro 08:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've also provided examples of countries not existing anymore: Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. As I have shown above, we do have articles titled Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, just like this one, even though the legal name of the two countries was not the same for the whole period covered by the article. Thus your argument was not valid from the beginning.Anonimu (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is the point to compare non-existing countries with other non-existing ones. I've went through SFR Yugoslavia's talk page and there seems not to have been a formal move discussion to get to the current article. It appears there used to be two separate articles for both names but the first used one was merged into the second [1]. There was also not a formal discussion in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic's talk page (although someone tried to address this recently without a discussion, but it was reverted [2]). Therefore we have no policy or established consensus to rely on. And even if we did, exceptions could be made, depending on how the discussion here develops. Super Ψ Dro 09:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It's not a unique case, so no unique solution. This type of rename should be considered only in conjunction with like cases. Srnec (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean support. The common name of the entity under discussion was and is undoubtedly "Romania", and so the title under consideration here is an attempt to disambiguate that to focus on the particular topic at hand. That topic appears to be the state as it was under communist government, and the article indicates the switch in formal names within this period was little more than a name switch and did not reflect a significant shift in the form or structure of the state (meaning a split would divide a cohesive topic). With that in mind, I do not think picking one particular official name meets the WP:CRITERIA any better than the more descriptive "Communist Romania", and the more descriptive term is both shorter and perhaps a bit more natural and recognisable to readers unfamiliar with the formal state names at the time. CMD (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just that "Communist Romania" is quite imprecise; seeming "natural" due to overuse in certain political contexts is not a reason to use a technically wrong and possibly POV title. Compare to using "Indians" to refer to the Indigenous people of the Americas: it is shorter and certainly more recognisable to English readers, yet we don't use it as title and choose a slightly longer and more precise term. "Socialist Republic of Romania" on the other hand, beside being the official name and being WP:CONSISTENT with other such titles in Wikipedia, is also descriptive and recognizable (socialist republics were historically ruled by communist parties or communist-dominated alliances) and concise (compare to a more descriptive Romania under communist party rule). Since reliable sources do not indicate a strong preference for the new proposed name, I don't think this warrants a title change.Anonimu (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your last point, please read one of my comments below. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Ceaușescu was not a real communist, and neither was this state. So the proposal is to rename an article from the official name of the state to a politically charged appellation. Nothing could be more contrary to Wikipedia's purpose. Abductive (reasoning) 00:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the old “not real communism” chestnut. Let’s not get into that, but simply contemplate WP:NC. This official policy requires titles be recognizable, natural, precise, concise and consistent. The proposal meets all the requirements. It also “generally prefers the name that is most commonly used”, again something that is fulfilled by the proposal. Whoever sees something “politically charged” here is reading too much into this. — Biruitorul Talk 07:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, if the proposed title means that people will "read something into it", then it is POV and cannot be used. Abductive (reasoning) 15:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • NPOV doesn’t take into account FRINGE viewpoints. Apollo 11 assumes men landed on the moon, despite a conspiracy theory stating otherwise. September 11 attacks accepts the official narrative as true without catering to conspiracists. “Communist Romania” is a neutral, academic term for the regime that governed Romania between 1947 and 1989, and the existence of the “buT it wAsn’T REAL coMmuNisM” crew does not render it “POV”. — Biruitorul Talk 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The current title is recognizable (all socialist republics were countries characterized by single-party or limited multi-party systems with at least basic planning of the economy, with the local communist party generally playing a prominent role, thus the reader can get an idea about the topic from the title), precise (there was no other Socialist Republic of Romania except the one covered by this topic), concise (it has just 4 words) and consistent with all other articles on Socialist Republics. There's no reason for a name change that violates WP:CONSISTENT.Anonimu (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Communist Romania" still gives 9,090 results in Google Scholar [3]. More than "Socialist Romania" with 3,590 results, if we are to discuss this [4]. By the way, the current title only gets 3,550 results [5] (and "Romanian People's Republic" gets 498, if anyone is wondering [6]). Thus, "Communist Romania" is backed by WP:COMMONNAME and per WP:OFFICIALNAMES, "Official English names are candidates for what to call an article, because somebody presumably uses them. They should always be considered as possibilities, but should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used." That's not the case here. So this proposed title also receives backing from that policy. And even if we couldn't accept "communist" in the title, "Socialist Romania" would still be more common than "Socialist Republic of Romania". Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I checked again and saw many of those 9,090 results were inflated because of "post-communist". If we remove this phrase and search articles only with "Communist Romania" on the title, we get 277 results [7]. If we do the same with "Socialist Republic of Romania", we get 224 results [8]. I think this comparison was actually unfair for "Communist Romania", as I am not sure if I formatted the search right or if I searched results completely avoiding the use of "post-communist" in their content or only in their title. By the way, "Communist Romania" still gets more results than "Socialist Republic of Romania" nowadays in Google Ngrams [9]. Super Ψ Dro 14:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mate, but Ceaușescu was a communist. Dunutubble (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • People opposing this move request fail to address the most important issue: the title still ignores the period during which "Romanian People's Republic" was used, which was more than 40% of the lifespan of this state. This doesn't follow any Wikipedia rules or conventions and is based on a consistency that has not been formally agreed upon through consensus and which only affects two other pages. "Communist Romania", on the other hand, does follow Wikipedia rules and solves this issue. Another title could also do this but I can't think a better one honestly, as this is probably the shortest and simpliest title we can get. Super Ψ Dro 14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consistency is that many such states used "People's Republic", "Socialist", and the like, and those're the names Wikipedia should use. Anything else is POV. Abductive (reasoning) 15:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In many cases it's countries that only used one single name during their existance, such as communist Poland (Polish People's Republic), Hungary (Hungarian People's Republic) or Bulgaria (People's Republic of Bulgaria). We're discussing states that used several different names, such as communist Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Albania (which doesn't use the last official state name). Super Ψ Dro 16:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Oppose. The Socialist Republic of Romania was a Marxist–Leninist state that never achieved communism. It, like other such regimes never described itself as communist but rather as socialist state in the process constructing it. Calling it "Communist" is inaccurate because communism is stateless. Charles Essie (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review WP:UCN: “Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)”.
    • Our job here is to determine the most common usage, not to delve into the fine points of Leninist theory. — Biruitorul Talk 07:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Iliescu as president of SRR

It is WP:FRINGE and unverifiable in sources given. Completely made up original research.

Reply to Yeah, no, you revert my sourced edit, you come up with actual arguments: your edit isn't sourced in the meaning of WP:PAGs. It is your own original synthesis of two different sources, one of them being a WP:PRIMARY source.

Namely, that he were the president of SRR is your own inference not an inference which has been performed by WP:RS. I'm afraid that position no longer existed on 26 December 1989. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion of sourced information

The IP described what they were doing, but no reason was given for why they were doing that deletion. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_Republic_of_Romania/Archive_6&oldid=1219555671"