Jump to content

Talk:Socialist Republic of Romania/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

New move

Now this is a fine kettle of fish.. I go through the trouble of a preliminary move discussion, and only when the RM is actually posted and half-way done does someone come-up with "this is a period article" (which I still personally think is not true and kinda looks like a lame excuse). Nevertheless, had I known such was the consensus I would have proposed a different title. The point is that "Communist Romania" is obviously not acceptable, no matter how you look at it, and when are we going to fix it? "History of Communist Romania" is just the same thing repackaged and equally pushes forward the concept of a country or political entity that Wikipedia should refer to as "Communist Romania". That is the one period title I myself find unacceptable for a wide variety of reasons, but most others seem alright to me. I propose History of Romania (1945-1989), to start the discussion off. -- Director (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Support per above (as nominator) -- Director (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would take History of Communist Romania if that feels less country title, as has been suggested by someone else. I still don't understand why the current title and article scope are "obviously" unacceptable. That's just a POV if you say something is "obvious", "self-evident," "slam dunk," and so on.
      I have never found the construct "History of X (nondescript period)" encyclopedic. Why there is a WP:FETISH for such utterly context-free titles is beyond me. Have you considered one article which contains two former countries and associated former-country info-boxes? Communist Hungary requires a merge of two country articles, as an example, to make one encyclopedic article.
      I would like us to ultimately settle on a solution here that can work for Hungary as well rather than wind up in a position to replay all the pros and cons already stated. Regardless of title, we need to deal with the issue of histories of two or more "former countries" appearing in one article without creating content forks because we "must" have an article about a former country titled as the former country and with one former country infobox. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
@ DIREKTOR, IMO you are taking two things which are the same and attempting to separate them in a manner that simply does not work. Whether an encyclopedic "era" requiring a unity of article content consists of a period which encompasses more than one formal country entity or it consists of a formal country entity which encompasses more than one period, the driver is: what is the content which, to be encyclopedic, needs to be together in a single appropriately titled article? That we wish to have a former country article for each with the infobox et al. is a metric; and so we have a case where metrics drive editorial behavior when it is content which should do so. That there is an "either"..."or" is a fundamentally flawed premise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
For anyone new to this conversation, there has been no compelling evidence presented that "Communist Romania" is not the appropriate title for the period/country/territory/period/country (you get the idea). It is fully supported as the currently most used scholarly term. I'll spare us rehashing that conversation, however. Neutrality does not demand we abandon the most common term for the period. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
As most of the argumentation "for" is based on personal perceptions, let's return to sources for a moment. Per this, "Communist Romania" takes precedence over "Socialist Romania" circa 1988. (The huge numerical advantage for Socialist Romania pretty much corresponds to while the title was in use, and certainly not to the entire period.) In fact, "Communist Romania" also outstrips "history of Romania" as of the early 1980's. Even if we use all capitalization combinations, "Communist Romania" takes the lead in the early 1990's. The graph makes absolutely clear the ascendancy of "communist/Communist Romania". Well before any influence of WP mirrors duplicating the current title. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. Speaking of "contentious", controversial, etc. please produce sources which indicate there is any such contentiousness in current reputable scholarship on the period in question. Editors being contentious alleging "contentiousness" does not constitute any scholarly contentiousness. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:40, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I disagree that the present title is "obviously not acceptable, no matter how you look at it". It's one option of several:
Communist Romania
Socialist Republic of Romania
History of Communist Romania
History of Romania (1945–1989)
History of Romania under Communism, and maybe others.
Myself, I'm open to any of those possibilities except Socialist Republic of Romania, for reasons I'm sure no one wants to hear restated. (Well, I'm also open to SRR if recent scholarly sources not in raw Google hits format can be shown to have used the term more often than others.)
What is also relevant is that for some other Eastern Bloc countries, we have articles like History of Poland (1945–1989), History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989), History of East Germany, History of the Soviet Union (1964–1982) in addition to People's Republic of Poland, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, East Germany, Soviet Union. If we choose a "History of..." title, we do away with any sort of "state" article on Communist-era Romania. Which might not be a big deal, but we should keep that in mind.
As of now, if there is to be a move, I lean towards History of Romania (1945–1989). That title may not say who ran Romania during those years, but that doesn't mean we can't say it in the text. It's not as though readers of History of Poland (1945–1989) (a featured article) are left in the dark as to who ran Poland in those years. It also avoids controversy about when precisely the country became Communist: many sources point to 1945, but even if one disagrees, the installation of a Communist-dominated government on 6 March 1945 was still a clear break from the past and a major turning point. - Biruitorul Talk 19:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support "History of Romania (1945–1989)", removes POV from title and preserves consistence with other Eastern Block countries, as shown by Biruitorul. Although I think we could move the start to 1944, to fit after the previous article in the series.Anonimu (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • 1944 would be (inappropriately) changing the scope, which is not at issue. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • So you suggest we have a separate article for 1944? Otherwise we'd have Romania during WW2 (1940-1944) - ? (1944-1945) - Romania during 1945-1989. I see no reason to separate 1944-1945 from 1945-1947: the Soviet-dominated Allied Commission could veto Romanian decisions, the country was a monarchy, Communists were allowed to express their ideas without fear of getting interned, and moreover had key posts in the gvt (vice-premier, justice). Anonimu (talk) 10:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I agree, but perhaps that detail can be amended later? -- Director (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
          • How about History of Romania (6 March 1945–22 December 1989)? I am of course being facetious, but the fact is that there is always room for some flexibility within an article regarding its scope, even if the title is a bit rigid. For example Romania in World War II covers and should cover back to 1939, even though Romania did not formally enter the war until 22 June 1941. There need not be a fear of having the 23 August 1944-6 March 1945 period fall into a gap: well-developed articles on the war and on the Communist period are naturally going to cover that half-year in "aftermath" and "background" sections, respectively. One can't appreciate what happened in Romania during the war if one isn't to be told what happened after the armistice (and in any case, Romanian troops went on fighting, now on the other side, at least into late October), while one really can't understand how a Communist government came to power without being told what happened during the preceding months. - Biruitorul Talk 16:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
      • @Anonimu, Stalin gave the go-ahead for a full takeover of Romania's government—recall, a whole pile of "Romanian" communists were imported with the occupying Soviet forces—in January of 1945, so there is an absolutely clear distinction, per scholarship, of 1945 versus 1944. Scholarship should be our guide, as always. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
        • Er... You clearly have no clue about what happened in that period...Anonimu (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
          • There's no need for insults as the last word if you don't have a cogent response based on historical fact. I can give you the exact date in January, 1945 for Stalin's go-ahead if you like. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
          • BTW, Petru Groza was installed as premier on March 6th specifically at the insistence of Vyshinsky, per sources, ending the last government that could be considered democratically elected. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
            • Again proving you have no idea what you're talking about. The last "democratical" elections (i.e. democratic by Romanian standards, not by Western standards of the time) had taken place in 1937, and fascists got 25%. The first post-war elections in Romania were in 1946. So all governments between 1944 and 1946 (including Groza's) were decided by the hereditary monarch (who was under the pressure of the non-democratically elected Allied Commission). This is really no place for propaganda.Anonimu (talk) 21:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
              • As a student of Romanian/Moldavian history, I'm just quoting sources. You are correct that technically Groza was appointed by the monarchy—as I mentioned. That also stamped out any vestiges of elected government and established Communist hegemony, subsequently cemented in forged elections. Apparently, anything that doesn't match your personal belief system is ignorance or propaganda. (Shall I remind you of your more interesting past contentions, for example: "The Treaty says Romania was under occupation until 1947, thus the sources who say it lasted until 1958 lie." ) I'd suggest a reading list for you, but you'd likely dismiss it out of hand, based on our past interactions involving sources. Don't push your luck on the personal attacks. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
                • I doubt you're quoting any sources. Most probably you're just applying Cold War era stereotypes, and the result is obviously propaganda. As Biruitorul shows below, there was no such thing as elected government since 1937 (and anyway, in Romania the governments were decided before elections, and, not surprisingly, the government's party always won the elections it organized). (As for your parenthetical off-topic comment, I was perfectly right. It's not my fault that some authors have double standards and, when the US uses foreign bases with immunity from the local laws for base personnel, it's called defense guarantees, but the SU does it and it's called occupation). And again, there's no personal attack. Probably you're not acquainted with scientific peer review, but pointing out when an author's claims have little to do with established facts is considered good practice, as it prevents the editor from damaging its reputation and encourages the author to actually study the subject, and not rely on stereotypes and hearsay.Anonimu (talk) 10:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
                  • More of your personal equating of apples and oranges. As for sources, we can't even agree on 1945, in regard to which I did cite some for you, which conversation went nowhere. And let's not do the perhaps we're ignorant of standards in scholarship dance. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • My recollection is that this was the sequence of events:
    • December 1937 elections are held. King appoints fourth-place winner to form government.
    • February/March 1938: King dissolves parliament, holds plebiscite wherein new constitution granting him dictatorial powers is approved by near-unanimity.
    • June 1939: elections are held. King's party, the only legal one, wins all seats.
    • September 1940: King abdicates, son comes in as figurehead. General who becomes prime minister with dictatorial powers dissolves decorative parliament, forms government of non-partisans and the Iron Guard. Rule by decree.
    • January 1941: Iron Guard revolts. General forms non-partisan government.
    • March and November 1941: General holds to plebiscites to approve his government's policy, wins both with near-unanimity.
    • August 1944: King deposes General (by now Marshal), commissions new government. Three multiparty governments led by two generals follow (August-November, November-December, December-February 1945).
    • March 1945: Communist-led government is installed.
    • November 1946: rigged elections are held giving Communists a convincing majority. First legislature of any kind since September 1940 takes office.
    • December 1947: King abdicates, people's republic declared.
    • March 1948: elections give Communists 91% support and all but 9 seats in the legislature.
    • April 1948: Soviet-model constitution ratified.
  • No government between February 1938 and May 1990 was elected in any conventional sense: they were either composed of a sole legal party, or appointed by decree, or appointed following fake elections. - Biruitorul Talk 00:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose. Direktor, you are making it very hard of others to WP:AGF about you. Please stop WP:PUSHing, and try to contribute instead. Also, about that "obviously not acceptable, no matter how you look at it" statement... How does this "Communist Romania" differ from Nazi Germany?! Anyway, please DO SHARE with us some of the "wide variety of reasons" for which you find the current title to be unacceptable. (i'm expecting "wide variety" to be at least 15-20, so 5 or 6 would suffice, IMO.) -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
    • User:Jokes Free4Me, I am not at all interested in your opinions on whether I am "contributing" or "POV-pushing". I resent your belligerent tone and your SHOUTING!!!!. I find it very offensive that you should take it upon yourself to judge whether "others" can AGF about me. I will, however, briefly answer your inquiries and then I would be grateful if you discontinued communication between us.
The difference is that "Nazi Germany" is very strikingly the commonname, and the last official name ("Greater German Reich") is very uncommon and riddled with problems (such as the use of the German word "Reich"). And even so, many are opposed to the current title over there (including myself for that matter), and there have been more than a few attempts to put forward a more encyclopedic name. As for the "wide variety", I direct your attention to the fact that there was a lengthy discussion above, where I believe I have outlined moire than once the many problems I am referring to. I recommend that in future you familiarize yourself with the issue before becoming involved (with distinct, pre-formed opinions that mirror exactly the claims of another user). I am not a fan of repetition so I will not list them here for you again, though I do hope their numeric quantity meets your expectations. Regards -- Director (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Your response and accusations of "pre-formed opinions" is not helpful. Your apparent insult alluding to myself ("another user") is not helpful either. Stick to the topic and don't assault new participants who happen to not agree with you. They might not agree for valid reasons differing from your editorial opinion. WP:AGF appears to apply only to editors who agree with you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • You can surely refrain from such cheap rhetorical "tools" as labeling every comment I make an "insult" or whatever, I'm sure noone's buying it. The "new user" (he participated before) was aggressive to begin with above, and the harshness of my response (while it certainly did not include any "insults") was very much provoked and warranted. -- Director (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, "pre-formed" is most certainly absent of any positive connotation whatsoever. You avoided confirming or denying myself being "another user." The conversation would be well served without allegations that editors are provoking you and without allegations that editors who don't agree with you are participating here only to inflict their prejudices and preconceptions on others. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Considering that not even "SHOUTING!!!!" could make Direktor think about the level of intensity of the request, to actually provide (as a token of good faith) merely one clearly stated problem; and considering that he keeps hand-waving his way out of such requests; and considering that he wishes me to discontinue communication between us... Guess i have nothing else to do than understand that this is an emotional vendetta of his, which i do not find acceptable. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 04:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
PS As WP:TITLECHANGES says, "the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense." Besides, why is this phrasing not NPOV? Can't be worse than Romania's Golden Age, which itself wouldn't be that bad if it wasn't disputed...
  • Support We should use neutral descriptions for all articles. TFD (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support History of Romania (1945–1989) per the above arguments. Articles should have neutral titles, and the very fact that the existing article title is contentious (and just plain wrong, IMO, for reasons I've already explained[1]) is a clear indication that it isn't neutral. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose as too broad, as the article focuses upon the political regime that existed at that time, which was communist and per WP:TITLE: "The title serves to give an indication of what the article is about". The argument of "POV title" is a furfy, as WP:POVTITLE allow POV titles to exist if the term is in common usage, as the previous discussion has shown and indicated by other article titles such as Nazi Germany instead of History of Germany (1933–1945) or Francoist Spain instead of History of Spain (1936–1975). Per WP:SPADE there is no need to obfuscate. --Nug (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Oh for goodness sake.. the current consensus is that this article is about a period of Romanian history, not about a political regime. One sure way to keep this title is to keep switching claims regarding the article's scope in every RM. Nazi Germany and Francoist Spain are 1) former country articles, and 2) both titles are well grounded in WP:COMMONNAME. This is not a country article, it covers a period of history, and the title is decidedly not the commonname of either (see WP:SETs above). Even if we were to switch arguments yet again and claim this article is "really" a country article, it would still have to be moved from this uncommon (and hence POV) title. -- Director (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
      • There's no inconsistency over time. Changes in official country name/status, constitutions make it abundantly clear this is not about one "former country" and it never has been, owing to its commencing in 1945. It is you who insisted on a misinterpreted application of WP:COMMONNAME. What is "uncommon" here? It is the most common term in scholarship. That there is something here that does not fit the all is WP:PABLUM model doesn't make the title "POV", ipso facto. The real issue is that "History of" signifies nothing, and, indeed, it has been proposed as a title for completely different content in the past, therefore proving it will cause more confusion than it will cure. That is why History of Communist Romania is the best and most appropriate choice if there is going to be any rename. "Communist Romania" usage is well-grounded in WP:COMMONNAME. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
        • I know we're discussing Romania and not Poland, but since we do want consistency, I wonder where People's Republic of Poland and History of Poland (1945–1989) should be. Communist Poland and History of Communist Poland, perhaps? - Biruitorul Talk 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
          • To the point earlier, IMO, the clarity of topic of both articles would be greatly improved. Another case where "Communist Poland" is WP:COMMONNAME in current usage versus the "official" name of one of the regimes (there being two official names of the country during the period in question). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
          • And you only have to read the two separate country articles for Communist Hungary to see what sort of bifurcation of content occurs when "rules" are followed. What is quite clear is that in some cases, content is chopped up, in other cases, not all names of a state are appropriately reflected (the "last name in use" "rule"). In both cases, (inconsistent application of) "rules" result in IMO sub-standard titling and/or organization of content. Not that consistent application would also not fall short of the most appropriate titling/organization. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose to move. Communist Romania is the right name, even the article is about the (only one) communist country in Wikipedia.
1) By moving the article, the Wikipedia looses its last communist country.
2) Romania was "more communist" than other eastern countries. It should not be compared with countries that maintaned communist regimes sustained by the soviet army deployment.
3) Communism is not what a bunch of Woodstock hippies believe, but communism is what billions of people leaved and many of them are still living. Do not change one more time their history ! pls, show some respect to them. - Nicolae-boicu (talk) 16:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. There are dozens upon dozens of communist country articles on Wikipedia [2].
1) What in the world are you talking about? This is a period article.
2) It most certainly was not.
3) Yes, thank you for shedding some additional light on the underlying nationalist motivations for supporting this title.
It is quite clear that no matter what, whether we're talking about a period or a historical country, whether we take WP:COMMONNAME into consideration or ignore it - there is in existence a Wiki WP:CABAL that wants to keep this title precisely because it is POV and includes a political label (in addition to being the least common in sources, inappropriate for a period article, simplistic, etc..). -- Director (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Dear Director, there is a ”simple” way to quantify the communism, which is to evaluate the ratio between private property and the public property in one country. To access such figures means also to access information about what happened to the public property in 1990 and after. Before such figures will be publised, I will probably die and also, until then, you will be right. Instead of publishing real information, one must follow the guidelines you sustain.
I have some questions for you. There is the original Romanian variant to this article, named "România comunistă", and there are also original historical period articles, "Republica Populară Română" and ”Republica Socialistă România”. Why the Anglophone variant of Wikipedia does not follow the original articles ? Would you agree, after a name shifting, to translate the original "România comunistă" article to the new free name slot ”Communist Romania” ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolae-boicu (talk • contribs) 23:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Director, that's yet another assumption of bad faith on your part. With all due respect to Nicolae-boicu, he has all of 20 edits outside his user space. What he says represents what he and he alone believes, and he speaks for no one else. Using his comment to speak of "underlying nationalist motivations for supporting this title", and then launching wild accusations of "a Wiki WP:CABAL that wants to keep this title precisely because it is POV and includes a political label", in the face of numerous reasoned, well-argued contentions made in line with Wikipedia policy by Vecrumba and Nug (neither of whom, I might add, is a Romanian nationalist) and Codrinb and me and a number of other users is disingenuous at best. I've even said that although I see no valid reason for moving, I'm fine with History of Romania (1945–1989) if a consensus for that emerges. If you're going to engage established users making rational arguments, you should start by assuming good faith (WP:AGF being a fundamental principle on Wikipedia) and staying away from mudslinging. - Biruitorul Talk 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
As I pointed out before, Biruitorul, I am not "assuming bad faith": we have been discussing for weeks now. I am not throwing "wild" accusations, and I have very good reasons for what I say. I believe I can show a profound rhetorical inconsistency on the part of a few participants, who's only constant in this lengthy discourse is - the desire to keep the label "communist" in the title of this article. I am not necessarily referring to you, I am instead pointing what everyone is perfectly aware of: that the current title seems to be preferable from an anti-communist political point of view. I am no communist, or even a socialist for that matter, and I have nothing against "anti-communism" as such - but I absolutely detest it when the quality of this encyclopedia must suffer because of political feeling, such as through the enforcement of childish, "labelistic" article titles like this one.
The claim that contentions brought against two successive moves are "reasoned", "rational", or "well-argued" is just that - your claim. I do not share your opinion. I found objections to be inconsistent with sources research, I found them addressing only part of the move rationale, being based on wild claims and personal feelings, lacking in understanding of the subject of this article, and in general seriously flawed. (Incidentally, Biruitorul, I must say that, while you certainly are the more senior editor of the two of us, with just under 40,000 edits I do consider myself to be "established" as well.) -- Director (talk) 20:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course you're an established editor. So are AndyTheGrump, The Four Deuces, Begoon, The Bushranger and a number of other editors supporting a move of this article. My point was that you shouldn't place on the same level the opinion of someone who is new to en.wiki (and indeed to ro.wiki, having only started editing there on December 29) with that of individuals who have been around for years and have an idea about the various policies in play. You may find our arguments seriously flawed, but they at least make an attempt to relate the debate (which in any case should be and for the most part has been non-ideological) to policy considerations. Plus, as far as I know, no participant here had ever heard of Nicolae-boicu prior to today, so it's a bit of a stretch to say we're in a cabal together. - Biruitorul Talk 20:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
@DIREKTOR, then should I contend there is a WP:CABAL seeking to POV eradicate "Communist" from an article title by quoting whatever WP:ALPHABETSOUP they can hurl at the title? Please desist from accusations of bad faith and deal with the topic at hand. There are no "personal feelings" or "wild claims" in my defense of the current title, which I feel is solidly grounded in current scholarship. Don't disparage editors who don't agree with you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
P.S. "I find your contentions X" or "I find my contentions Y" are pointless arguing as they don't actually mention any content. I maintain, per sources, that "Communist Romania" is the most appropriate title for the time frame and scope of the content, and while I believe it's a bit repetitive, "History of Communist Romania" works fine for me. (Although I should note that editors maintaining the Soviet Union never occupied Romania, "occupy" is a bad word, etc. have also suggested "History of Romania (years)" as the proper "NPOV" title for the article about the Soviet occupation of Romania.) I see no objective reason backed by scholarship to cleave "Communist" from "Romania", in its various official guises, from 1945 to 1989. WP serves scholarship, not scholarship serves WP. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Regarding your last phrase, de facto it's more about propaganda rather than scholarship. Anonimu (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
That's the great thing about WP, we can disagree completely. Obviously our editorial estimations of "propaganda" and "scholarship" travel in different circles. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Support History of Romania (1945–1989). The consensus in the last proposed renaming only weeks ago was that contentwise this article is about a period of history more than an article describing a state. The natural name for such an article would be History of Romania, not Communist Romania - notice the presently awkward lede beginning "Communist Romania was the period in Romanian history (1945–1989)..." An article about the state would be an article following the convention of WP:COMMONNAME: that's not "Communist Romania", as Direktor above demonstrated. Incidentally, Romania was not a "communist state" in 1945-1947 - although Soviet troops entered Romanian soil in 1944 and Romanian communists enjoyed an increasing role in government, Romania remained a monarchy under a coalition government with King Michael as head of state until he abdicated in 1947. The People's Republic was proclaimed as the new state on 30 December 1947, and not in 1945. See History of Poland (1945-1989) for a comparable article. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Communist control commenced in 1945. It is a bit specious to argue that Romania was not officially a "communist" state at that time. What is true on paper is not true in practice; Communists—at Stalin's specific bidding—took control in 1945. Moreover, sources specifically state that Soviet troops forced a change in government upon King Michael on February 27, 1945 and imposed Groza several days later. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

File:IICCR FA186 Dej post 1946 elections meeting.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IICCR FA186 Dej post 1946 elections meeting.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ARBCOM

Codrin.B has submitted a request to ARBCOM to ban User:Anonimu for conduct among other things in his editing of this article.[3] TFD (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 20:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Communist Romania → Socialist Republic of Romania – The title of the page should be the final lasting name of the State - the Socialist Republic of Romania. Just as is the case with the People's Republic of Poland, the People's Socialist Republic of Albania, etc. The opening paragraph should read as follows:

The Socialist Republic of Romania (Romanian:Republica Socialistă România, RSR) was a single party socialist state that existed from 1947 to 1989. From 1947 to 1965, the state was known as the Romanian People's Republic (Romanian:(Republica Populară Romînă, RPR). The country was a Soviet-aligned Eastern Bloc state with a dominant role for the Romanian Communist Party enshrined in its constitutions.

--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I wish we could go through this routine less than once a year, but here we go anyway. For one thing, it seems preferable to have a name that refers to the whole state, rather than the name used for just half of its existence. But that's only my take, as is the proposer's preference for the final name. A far more cogent reason for keeping the current title is grounded in WP:COMMONNAME. If you look at recent scholarly sources (this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this, for example), you will find "Communist Romania" being used with far more frequency than the official name. In fact, looking at it that way, our policy more or less mandates "Communist Romania" be used.
  • However, I have said previously, and now reiterate, that I have no objection to History of Romania (1945-1989), if anyone wants to take me up on that. - Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strong support per nomination (oppose "history of Romania"). I've often seen Birtorul posting impressive and "daunting" successions of links ("and this and this and this and this..."). The showboating can effectively hide the fact that "Socialist Republic of Romania" [4] is orders of magnitude more common in English-language sources than "Communist Romania" [5]. The ratio is frankly staggering (cca. 1.4 million vs. 9,000), which is perhaps to be expected, seeing as how its a real, official name of a state - not a strange made-up term.
    Furthermore, a couple additional facts must be noted: #1 sources that use the term without capitalizing the "c" ("communist Romania") are actually referring to the state as "Romania", and cannot be interpreted as endorsing the current title. So that cuts that number down even further. #2 "Communist Romania" is actually an incorrect and misleading term (which might be the whole point), as the state was decidedly "socialist".
Of course, when the WP:SET doesn't provide desirable results, the usual string of excuses follows (e.g. "its not really common, look at my ability to copy-paste links", etc.). The 1,400,000 publications using the proposed term do most certainly include thousands upon thousands of top-grade scholarly publications [6][7]. I shall be blunt: the only problem here is the fact that the current name is more acceptable to Romanian nationalist sensibilities, who close ranks and WP:VOTE-down every attempt at amending the childish title, and bringing this article in-line with every other comparable article (People's Republic of Bulgaria, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, People's Republic of Hungary, People's Socialist Republic of Albania, People's Republic of Poland). -- Director (talk) 19:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm going to ignore the ethnic-based attack (I've requested administrative intervention on that) and the attempts to dismiss the points I raised. I will go straight to challenging your own assertions.
One, raw Google hits are meaningless in this context: see WP:GHITS for that. Your "orders of magnitude" comment is thus irrelevant.
Two, no matter how much you insult me, you cannot hide the gaping hole at the core of your argument: you cannot point to actual sources using your preferred title. By "actual sources" I mean the standard we would use in any similar context, i.e. modern scholarly publications. For my part, I can bring forward dozens of such occurrences. You, on the other hand, are stuck with propaganda, a treaty text, another treaty text, a treaty title, a coin catalogue, more propaganda, even more propaganda, a 1971 newsletter, and so forth.
Three, your accusation that I'm creating a diversion is itself a diversion. I have looked for the common usage among top-grade current publications: scholarly books and articles from roughly the past decade. You, on the other hand, have no compunction about using random, unchecked bits of text from 1965 to the present. Who's the one peddling garbage, I wonder?
To conclude, you, unlike I, are unable to point to modern scholarly works using the proposed title, and so you are forced to resort to insults and diversions to hide that deficiency. Rest assured, though, that I will keep hammering at it until and unless actual valid sources using the term are brought up. "Valid" according to standard practice at similar move requests, not your or my opinion. - Biruitorul Talk 19:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Oh sure. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of publications, but your posting 10 links here in succession is what WP:COMMONNAME is all about. Of course. And my not imitating said absurd practice is certainly indicative of my "inability to point to modern scholarly works" (even though I did just that in the post above). All you have to do is post another 10 links and the 1,400,000 publications should be disregarded for good. I name that meaningless showboating.
No matter how one turns and shuffles the parameters, "Socialist Republic of Romania" turns out on top every single time, and by a massive margin. Yes, that is in good part due to the fact that its a real, official name - and that's exactly what this is about: its more common because its real. That's the research. Of course, we could just look at the ten links posted by User:Biruitorul and decide that his unsubstantiated, subjective claims are actually more reliable. -- Director (talk) 20:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Nice try, Director, but the hole at the center of your argument remains. The way you carry a move request (at least, if you want to do so legitimately) is by pointing to specific sources bolstering your argument. You can't point to "1.4 million publications" and expect anyone to take you very seriously, since, unless you're a robot (and, as you're registered as a bot, I have to assume you're not), there's no way you actually assessed for quality or relevance more than a minuscule proportion of that 1.4 million.
What is at issue is not "imitating me" (I ask that of no one); it's a matter of substantiating one's claims in the normal fashion. If you want to point to specific sources backing you up (I don't even care if they're modern or scholarly, it would be great just to see specific examples of what you claim constitutes common usage), fine. If you want to keep talking about "hundreds of thousands" or "1.4 million", though, that won't get you very far. Successful move requests involve specifics. The first two lacked specifics and failed, while I produced them and carried the argument. Maybe you'll come up with them this time around and succeed. - Biruitorul Talk 20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, look, I'm not trying to engage in some ideological battle or whatever you're choosing to interpret this as. It doesn't matter if some external sources refer to the republic as "Communist Romania". This is Wikipedia, and on all other former Eastern Bloc states, the official names of state are used, to which Romania should not be an exception. Other pages linking to this page should also be altered into conformity. Else, we should change the People's Republic of Poland to "Communist Poland", Albania to "Communist Albania", or even the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic to "Communist Russia". (On top of this, referring to the state as "Communist" is somewhat factually dubious being that Romania did not achieve communism and was de-jure AND de-facto a Socialist state.)--Michaelwuzthere (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not "choosing to interpret this as" anything but a move request. Since I object to the proposal, I'm also using all arguments at my disposal to try and block the move. I hope that's understandable.
Actually, external sources do matter - see WP:COMMONNAME and WP:V. Official names matter less - see Burma, Nazi Germany, Soviet Union, North Korea, and so on. It's the common name as established by usage in reliable sources that matters most. - Biruitorul Talk 01:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment when the opening line has the phrase in quotes ("Communist Romania") and refers to the phrase as "describes the period" I think the proper phrase would be "communist-era Romania". Which makes me doubt that "Communist Romania" is an accurate article name. I would like to see a breakdown if possible of small-c "communist Romania" phrase against capital C "Communist Romania" and if possible accounting for its use where title case would normally be used eg book titles and chapter headings,GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to try and do that. I won't include author, page number, etc., but will link in every case.
  • Usage 1: "Communist Romania", section heading. (2006)
  • Usage 2: "patriarchal pro-natality discourse in communist Romania", chapter title, and "extremely few newspapers and magazines printed in communist Romania", in-text. (2002)
  • Usage 3: "the international image of Communist Romania was curiously positive", in-text. (2006)
  • Usage 4: "one could easily grow up in communist Romania, Hungary, Czechoslovakia or Poland", in-text. (1998)
  • Usage 5: "Doing Fieldwork in Communist Romania", chapter title, and "analysis of fieldwork undertaken in communist Romania", in-text. (2008)
  • Usage 6: "her diary was unpublishable in communist Romania after the war", in-text. (2009)
  • Usage 7: "a writer from communist Romania, currently", in-text. (2002)
  • Usage 8: "the general situation of economics in communist Romania", in-text. (2009)
  • Usage 9: "the dissident movement in communist Romania was weak", in-text. (1992)
  • Usage 10: "The Representations of American Stars’ Death in Communist Romania", article title. (2010)
  • Usage 11: "In Communist Romania, 9,452 women died" and "some pregnant women who considered abortion in Communist Romania defied", article text. (2011)
  • Usage 12: "The Radio, Exiled Voice, and the Mute Poet in Communist Romania", article title. (2011)
I'm sorry, but your entire post is again entirely without relevance. Its hard to believe anyone could consciously make and defend an argument that cherry picking 10 among tens of thousands of publications can show anything with regard to general trends thereof - and then repeatedly use the same absurd concept to prove just about anything. That's not a "breakdown", its just Pile #3 in your succession of useless piles of links. I wish you'd take a break there. I am categorically opposed to needlessly changing this articles scope from a former country article to a period article. The remainder of this half of Europe seems to have no problem with the current format.
What I can tell you, is that "Communist Romania" renders cca. 17,400 hits in standard search engine research [8]. But when I exclude "post-communist" from the search - we lose almost half (9,310 sources are left [9]). And we still didn't get them all, mind you I'm still getting lots of "post-communist Romania" hits (as is plain from the first page). And that's just one refinement. Disregarding "pre-communist" shaves off another 500 or so. Those sources are neither actually using the term "communist Romania", nor are they even referring to this former state at all. -- Director (talk) 01:33, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Attack, divert and obfuscate all you want, but you still cannot hide the fact that you have utterly failed to provide specific examples of "Socialist Republic of Romania" being used in a way that supports your argument — my own reasonable preference being for modern scholarly works, but feel free to ignore that if you have a better yardstick. Unlike you, I've given some examples, and unlike you, I have shown that my preferred title, or at least the phrase, has occurred in scholarship in the past two decades. Where are the examples from your side?
I'd once again advise you to have a look at WP:GHITS and at some successful move requests, where you will find that specific examples are used to make a case - not generalizations about thousands or millions of hits. (See here, for starters.)
If we're to talk about hits, we've been omitting Ngram up to now, but that's about to change. Voilà. "SRR" was indeed more common until 1997, but since then, "Communist Romania" has been more common every year. Ergo, it's the preferred usage in the English language.
Finally, I'd also 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. - Biruitorul Talk 03:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Biruitorul, I do not "attack", "divert", or "obfuscate" - I keep to research and policy. I reject utterly your own strange idea that users should engage in silly link-posting contests to determine the WP:COMMONNAME. I would find it personally humiliating to actually start competing with you in our ability to copy-paste links from Google Books. It is precisely because such a practice is pointless that WP:SET is the main method of research. As you say, it would take a "robot" to actually copy-paste and review all of them, but that is not an excuse to only look at those sources that are individually brought-up - that is, in fact, the main reason why we do search engine research in the first place. We do actually use - a robot.
A Google search produces a number that is automatically generated based on a general assessment of a term's usage. A search rendering 1,400,000 hits, for example, will only list about 100 specific sources. The 1.4 million number, however, is the relevant assessment - the number we want. What you propose is that we determine the commonname by rummaging through the 100 or so publications actually listed, and compete who can "post the most". That is entirely alien to the whole concept of search engine research. The only thing I'm concerned with - are the numbers. Not "raw" numbers, but refined search engine tests. That's how we get our commonname.
Nevertheless, here's a pile of 10 links for you: [10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. I will not under any circumstances post any more, nor will I discuss the many "flaws" you will doubtless find in the listed sources. I am satisfied with the research - as should you be, if you cared about this project's adherence to sources and its own policies. -- Director (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
You may not be interested in such a discussion, but I'm sure other participants will be curious, so here goes. To start with, we have three from 1982, 1988 and 1991. Not that I'm some kind of iconoclast, but given that the regime was falling 23 years ago (as we speak), and given the plethora of material written on it since then, I think we can safely discard material generated during its existence. (Of course it had fallen by 1991, but that source seems to imply it still exists.) A decree title? Pretty weak. This and this I can't assess - there's not even a snippet. This, this and this simply inform us of the 1965 name change - a relevant fact, to be sure, but it's telling that's the context the term is being used in. I'm sure there are plenty of works noted that Burma was changed to Myanmar in 1989, but that in isolation doesn't necessarily make the latter the more common usage. Finally, this looks like it's from a vanity press, but in any case the handful of usages are as part of official titles or again about the 1965 change.
All right, so you have a different approach - no one's forcing you to do otherwise. It's simply that it rather lacks credibility to wave around WP:GHITS without any serious attempt to filter out junk data. I think a more refined approach of actually looking at the sources as much as one can and assessing them on an individual basis, without preconceptions, is more rewarding (in terms of getting to a better title) and less open to being swayed by irrelevant results.
In any case, as my Ngram chart shows, "Communist Romania" became the more common term in English usage in 1997. - Biruitorul Talk 15:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Biruitorul, the ratio in usage is 150:1 - we're way beyond "filtering junk data", though you're naturally welcome to refine the research. I reject your proposition that only post-1997 sources are relevant for commonname considerations. Its just another means of doctoring the research to provide desired, pre-conceived results: simply pick the time span in which your term is more common. Please tell me what makes only post-1997 English sources reliable? That's just ignoring sources for no real reason, and its contrary to the most basic Wikipedia policy.
Even disregarding the above, once one has a look at the stats you provide - its obvious you're not presenting the whole picture in a number of ways. Here's a far more appropriate graph depicting the past 50 years [20], which shows the very significant overall predominance of proposed name in published material. And here's a your very same Ngram graph without any convenient, unnecessary smoothing [21]. It shows that the terms are used more-or-less equally during the past couple years, with "Socialist Republic of Romania" being more common in 2003, for example. -- Director (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
There's so much junk using "SRR" that it needs to be filtered out, analyzed by interested editors - treaties, communiqués, official (i.e. propaganda) materials, and so forth.
I do hope you realize we base our titles on recent usage. The question is not "overall predominance"; otherwise Peking is the clear winner. The question is what do sources use now, not in 1978, and the answer is clear. And let's not distort your unsmoothed graph, either: "Communist Romania" was more common in 11 of 12 years from 1997 to 2008. That's quite decisive. - Biruitorul Talk 15:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Well, if there is a "post-communist Romania" then that can only prove there is, a priori, a "Communist Romania". Vai de mine! We have hashed this to death in the past, there are specific reasons for this title, in particular, for Romania, in particular, under Communist regimes. I invite editors to review prior discussions and post any cogent questions for response. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    Regarding "C" versus "c", sovereign Romania was subsumed under post-war "C", that's sufficient. Analyzing "C" versus "c" is rather missing the forest for the trees. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Ugh.. that's called WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH, and please keep it to yourself in future. Its not up to you to "interpret" what the source really means or draw any conclusions from it. If the source does not use the term "Communist Romania" (capitalized) - its a false hit, plain and simple. If its not capitalized, its referring to this state as "Romania", that's basic English grammar. Not that these nuances matter much when the term is 156 times less common in English publication. But I do recall the fruitlessness and lack of regard for logic in our previous discourse, Vecrumba, so I'll generally try to avoid making that sort of mistake again. -- Director (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Ugh, do tuck your vacuous accusations of original research back under your pillow. "Socialist Romania" only refers to a portion of the interval of sovereign Romania covered by the article. And even the official sovereign Communist regimes do not span this entirety of Communist control covered by the article. So if there is a lack of logic being displayed, that is not on my part but on yours. Regarding very strong support below, again, the proposed rename is utterly inappropriate for the reason I mention here. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
And since we've been doing the useless arguing over Google results, I'll add these showing "C" (large C) trumps "c" (small c), it's specific Communist, not generic communist--although no one would argue Romanian "c"ommunism had anything to do with Italian or any other western European originated communism. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • very strong support Thecountry had an official name, and we use the common English version of it. Ity was never known a Communist Roumania"-- the examples given above are for communist used as an adjective, DGG ( talk ) 02:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support We should use neutral titles and not "take sides" in disputes over history. Communist Romania was not the most common name used to refer to the country during Communist rule, except among a tiny minority of people with extreme views. TFD (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    I am completely confused by your allegation of "taking sides." "C"ommunist Romania was widely used for this part of its existence, it's as simple as that. There's no morality (feigned or genuine) attached to the current title, it merely reflects scholarship and circumstances. It is when you make vague unsubstantiated accusations that there is some evil POV at work to support your own position that we lose objectivity. There's no "propaganda" or "agenda" or "sides" here. And we've discussed ad absurdum why the name of state during only a portion of the article scope (Anonimu, below) is completely inappropriate and POV. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per TFD above, and because I don't think Wikipedia should be used for propaganda purposes. Let the facts speak for themselves, and let the reader decide. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, per overwhelming evidence I have presented in previous discussions, a large part of it already mentioned above by other editors. I would also support History of Romania (1947-1989), however it appears the de facto standard for "former states" is using the most used official name (i.e. Socialist Republic of Romania in this specific case).Anonimu (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. There is no reason for this loaded attribute in the title, particularly since the "Communist Romania" is/was not a common way to address the state in English: it was simply called Romania. We routinely use the fully spelled official names of countries to denote their historical periods. Yes, there is East Germany, but the analogy is false: German Democratic Republic was commonly called "East Germany"; Socialist Republic of Romania was not commonly called "Communist Romania". No such user (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - TFD or AndyTheGrump, do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Communist Romania", either before 1989 or (more relevant to this discussion) since then, has been used by "a tiny minority of people with extreme views" for "propaganda purposes", or are you just making stuff up?
  • What exactly are you implying here - that Sabrina Ramet is a closet McCarthyist? Or perhaps Denise Roman too? Or maybe Dimitris Papadimitriou and David Phinnemore. The point is, if you're going to make an argument, try sticking to the "common usage" one, because the "used only in fringe extremist propaganda" one is not going to take you very far.
  • And DGG and No such user, if you actually look at how historians and political scientists of the past decade or so have called it, they've far more regularly referred to "Communist Romania" than to any other name. While the state existed, "Socialist Republic of Romania" may well have been more common, but 23 years later, a new name has taken hold. - Biruitorul Talk 15:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. Follow the normal procedure for naming countries in the relevant time and area. It is obvious that "communist" is used as an informal retrospective adjective, and not as an alternative to the official name of the state, except by some kooky nationalists. Shrigley (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
    • I was with you almost to the end (that is to say, I disagree with your reasoning, but I wasn't going to say anything), until the "some kooky nationalists" part. Why? There is zero evidence to support any ideological motivation for the current title, no matter how many surreptitious whispers suggest that. Zero evidence suggests a preference for this term by such "kooky nationalist" groups as may exist in Romania. The term has been used by an abundance of perfectly respectable political scientists, historians, sociologists, anthropologists and other scholars. It's also been the term quite consistently preferred in books since 1997. You may argue we should disregard that or explain it away, but injecting an ideological element where none exists is not helpful.
    • There actually was a Cold War-era term for the country used not necessarily by "nationalists" (that convenient catch-all bogeyman), but certainly by opponents of the regime: "Captive Romania". Not "Communist Romania", which has as untainted an intellectual pedigree as "East Germany" or "North Korea". - Biruitorul Talk 20:29, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Far be it from me to side in any way with the PCR or Ceaușescu, but used in its current function the term is indubitably unencyclopedic, inaccurate, and slanted. As you agreed, the term (when used!) is used as an informal retrospective adjective, and not as an alternative to the official name (like the above examples). Here we're using it as the actual name for the state. (And of course: no, its not the most common.)
Biruitorul, I think you made your opinions very clear indeed by this point. Would you care to stop harassing every individual participant that comes out against your position? -- Director (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
By raw count, SRR is indeed more common; once the results are finessed to account for recent developments and discard junk data, Communist Romania comes out on top. What I agreed is that "Communist Romania" is how modern scholarly works tend to call the state/regime/period - very few works of the last decade or so use SRR, and even then usually do so in a strictly legalistic manner. Actual contemporary discussions of the period invariably refer to "Communist Romania". So I don't think "unencyclopedic" is a valid concern. It's not "slanted" either - the citations I've dug up are all from respected authors published by respected presses. As for "inaccurate" - yes, it was a country where "in close collaboration, the working class - the leading class in society - , the peasantry, the intellectuals and the other categories of working people, without regard to nationality, build the socialist order, creating conditions for the transition to communism", i.e. it was not yet "communist", but it was a Communist state as defined by political scientists, one where the Romanian Communist Party (thus renamed, I might add, in 1965) held absolute power.
You've made a very serious allegation, namely that I'm guilty of breaching Wikipedia:Harassment. If you really think that's the case, please do file a report at WP:ANI. Of course I find the notion absurd, and I will not be cowed into silence. When I have something to say, I will make my point. When I don't, I will let the comment stand without a response. (For example, I have no particular remark to make on GraemeLeggett's contribution below.) That is normal procedure for discussions here. - Biruitorul Talk 23:03, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Spare me the repetition, please, Biruitorul. It would be hard to find any research results that you couldn't "finesse" into providing the desired results (I see you're again posting the smoothed-over graph).
You've made a "very serious allegation", namely that I'm guilty of claiming you're guilty of breaching Wikipedia:Harassment. When I say you're "harassing" users who post comments contrary to your position (including myself), I mean you're harassing users - in the sense b(1): "to annoy persistently". You've made your position on this issue very clear indeed - several times. Now its just annoying (for me anyway); not that I at any point thought you might give it a rest... -- Director (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Why? If they are based on the same sloppy 'NGRAM' arguments, there is little reason to bother. It took me all of two minutes to show that much of the data (if one can call it that) refers to 'post-Communist Romania'. Google NGRAMS are simply useless in cases like this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Utterly meaningless. What is the margin of error? What is the sample size? How is this data arrived at? Can you cite a source that says that Google NGRAM results are of any more validity than random numbers pulled out of a hat? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
...And incidentally, would you like to hazard a guess as to how many of those 'NGRAMs' are actually for 'post-Communist Romania' - should we rename that article accordingly? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Of the first 10 hits for "communism romania" on google books for 2008, 6 are "post-communist romania" and one is this article.[23] TFD (talk) 19:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
Um.. I see no reason whatsoever to conclude that. "Communist Romania" is a term denoting a country, not a period. Period articles do not use former country infoboxes, and do not have sections called "Politics", "Demographics", "Economy", "Culture", etc.. This is a former country article.
In my perception, the current (non-consensus) lede sentence evolved simply as a clumsy attempt at reconciling the fact that this country (that is the subject of this article) had two different full official names. If not in great part as a "defense measure"(!) by the WP:OWNers against just this sort of RM.
If you believe we need a "History of Romania (1945–1989)" article, do create one. In the (unlikely) event that this article actually does have its scope changed to a period article by consensus - we should be prepared to strip it of its non-period-article content. Additionally, I intend in such a case to create a Socialist Republic of Romania former country article; we cannot have that kind of a hole in Wikipedia's coverage. However, until this article's original scope and title are changed by an actual WP:CONSENSUS (rather than fanciful lede edits), I intend to oppose what is, in essence, an unnecessary article split. -- Director (talk) 06:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Now who's the one "harassing" dissenters, eh? Anyway, you seem a little confused on the notion of state versus regime. The fact of the matter is that the Romanian state has existed continuously since 1862 - to be sure, under different forms of government, within different borders, even (briefly) in a different capital - but it's been a single entity throughout. Indeed, the fall of communism in Europe ended just three states - East Germany, the USSR and Yugoslavia. The Polish, Bulgarian, Romanian, Hungarian, Albanian and Czechoslovak states existing in 1992 were precisely the same as those extant in 1988. Their regimes were quite different, but regime death does not equal state death. And no, this isn't original research - there's a new book on the topic which tells us that the four forms state death can take are conquest, complete and prolonged military occupation, federation/confederation/unification, and dissolution. None of these applies to Romania in 1989 (and in any case, the country isn't on the author's list of 66 states that have died since 1816); given that, Communism was a period in Romanian history rather than a distinct state.
Furthermore, there is no rule that "history of" articles cannot touch upon politics, government, the economy and the like: indeed, these are what makes up history. Having two articles on substantially the same entity is what is called a content fork, which is precisely what People's Republic of Poland is to History of Poland (1945–1989). - Biruitorul Talk 17:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. I previously opposed this move due to the different name (People's Republic vs. Socialist Republic), but I'll support it for the sake of consistency with the other Soviet bloc states. Which is the most common name is hard to say. Many people used the official names or their initials, RPR / RSR, while the name "Communist Romania" was used during the era by opponents of the regime. bogdan (talk) 09:08, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

You do realize...

...that the article title aka "country title" only applies to one of three contiguous periods of Communist control over Romania's sovereignty encompassed by the article. The consistency argument is misinformed. At best, the "History of..." alternative is the only proper term if editors disapprove of "Communist Romania" (whether rightly or wrongly). Really, why are article title decisions being made by those whom, as far as I can tell from prior activity or total prior non-participation here, have not made a study of Romanian history? VєсrumЬа ►TALK 05:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is how Wikipedia works - though I very much doubt that all those who argued for the present title are as ignorant of the subject as you imply. If you wish to engage in dead-horse-flogging, find somewhere else to do it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Socialist_Republic_of_Romania/Archive_5&oldid=1219434109"