Talk:De-satellization of the Socialist Republic of Romania

Minority POV presented as an undisputed fact in the lead section

"Romania was one of the three countries of the Eastern Bloc which managed to shake off Soviet control, the others being Albania and Yugoslavia." - this claim has a source, however, it definitely isn't a universally accepted view. These kinds of minor "ruptures"/conflicts/deviations were not that rare in the socialist bloc (Hungary for example pursued some limited free market reforms, East Germany under Ulbricht showed stubborn independence etc.). The article exaggerates the differences.Potugin (talk) 16:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't care what's an "accepted view", I care about the facts. And all the facts pointed to this conclusion, except that for some reason they don't just say it explicitly. I only needed one reliable scholarly source to put Romania in league with Albania and Yugoslavia, and I was good to go. So let's briefly review the facts. Your example, you mentioned Hungary. Hungary, didn't induce the Red Army to leave its territory and then barred them from coming back in. Hungary, did not defy the Soviet boycott of the 1984 Olympics. Hungary, did not vote against the Soviet Union at the UN. Hungary, did not maintain relations with Israel. Hungary, did not back the Khmer Rouge. I can go on forever. But let's hear your arguments, and I do mean real, actual arguments please. Not stuff like "accepted view" and such. Kindly tell me how all of this doesn't amount to a split. And please, don't bring up Warsaw Pact membership. The Soviet-Albanian split, for instance, is just as valid even though Albania left the Pact only years later. Transylvania1916 (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No-one cares about your (cherrypicked?) factoids and personal interpetations. The term "Romanian-Soviet split" has 9 (!!!) Google hits if you add "-wiki" to the search field. It's clear as day that you're pushing Original Research. If you have a better title, feel free to suggest it. I just chose a neutral title that hurts no-one.

Also your edit [1] was extremely stupid and provocative, because I also added information about Chile-Romania relations (yes, this fact also supports the view, that Romania had more independent policies, but this no way cements your OR title).Potugin (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"factoids and personal interpetations" - literally what the sources say "It's clear as day that you're pushing Original Research" - The source groups Romania with Albania and Yugoslavia as countries which managed to shake off Soviet control, the two countries with acknowledged splits. The implication is obvious.

Also, insulting won't get you anywhere. Also, please add year and publisher to your sources. Romania didn't have more independent policies, Romania was independent, for all intents and purposes. I felt that adding that source would be overkill, but I do also have a book that quite explicitly says that the rest of the world did not hold Moscow accountable for decisions made in Bucharest. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:53, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Transylvania1916 - you've been longer here as a registered user than me, so you should know basic policies and guidelines. The current title is simply not supported by sources. You can't just pick out a random phrase and start googling for whatever information you find to support your own thesis. Please suggest a decent title.
You are also unconstructive because you still reverted and removed the Chile-Romania relations passage I added.
That being said, I support a separate article on Romania's autonomy ambitions/deviations from the Soviet line, but you seem to be greatly exaggerating this. Also, if you want this article to be kept, rather than merged with the general article on Romania-Russia relations with lots of details removed, please make it readable: Format it properly, add subheadings (e.g. diplomatic issues should be highlighted: the official Great Soviet Encyclopedia of 1970s admitted these issues, despite emphasizing that Romania was a brotherly socialist nation. Right now your article is more of a cherrypicked collection of anecdotes than a serious encyclopedic article.Potugin (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How am I exaggerating, exactly? Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Potugin, I fully support you, don't give up. The thesis can be argued, but it can hardly win or remain as it is presented now. The article is hugely biased and misleading. Arminden (talk) 01:26, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Romania was not like Yugoslavia or Albania

I believe this article is wrong, including its title.. An extraordinary claim that Romania achieved to shake off Soviet control the same way Yugoslavia and Albania did is based on a single source. Romania (unlike Yugoslavia or Albania) was a member of the Warsaw Pact, which was under total Soviet rule and control. This single fact dismisses the claim entirely. No, Romania was not like Yugoslavia or Albania, and it was not a split as far as I’m aware. I'm tagging and requesting a quotation of that single current source, and I would like to see more sources confirming that extraordinary claim. If none arrive, I'll ask for a merger (some information may still be saved) or deletion of this article. - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. The article is a poorly written crap: WP:SYNTH of random Google Books quotes that actually merely support the view that Romania was trying to assert a more independent stance. Just renaming the article to Romanian-Soviet policy differences could make the trick. That's something I was suggesting above.

Also, a thorough clean-up, grotesque misrepresentations like In its "declaration of independence" of 22 April 1964 [...] to be removed (this so-called "Declaration of Independence" was actually merely such a Communist Party statement: [2]). Etc. The author of this article should generally adopt a more constructive approach and begin with a partial self-revert [3], in order to re-add Romania-Chile issue which actually IS relevant to Romania-Soviet differences: above all, these were just Ceausescu's foreign policy ambitions which indeed met considerable Western appraisal. Potugin (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Look, guys. The entire purpose of this article was to legitimize Romania's status as a non-satellite of the Soviet Union, a notion which some people - against all facts and logic - still dismiss. I believe I have found the sollution, but I am currently too busy to do major reconstruction of an article. I will leave the sources here, but first, I would like to criticize GizzyCatBella for your improperly informed statement. It gives undue credit to the Soviet Union and too little to Romania. No, Romania was not like Yugoslavia and Albania, I came to agree. However going from this to saying that the Warsaw Pact was "under total Soviet control" is beyond a fallacy, considering, well, everything. Have you actually read my article? Read again: does all of that amount to "total Soviet control" to you? Anyway I digress. As I said, I think I have found the actual sollution, and it is a term which is indeed quoted by multiple sources: "Desatellization". Or "Romanian desatellization", as a more proper title for the article. I will list them here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6. Work with these to give the article its proper name and framing. I have IRL work right now. Transylvania1916 (talk) 11:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Potugin What do you mean "trying to assert"? How didn't it succeed? When you send your team to the Olympics over the head of the Soviet boycott, when you back different sides in a war (IE Kampuchea), when you send the Soviet troops packing and then successfully refuse to let them back in even for exercises, when you vote against the Soviet Union in the UN Assembly, when the West lavishly recognizes your achievements - well, I'd say that we're well beyond "trying" at that point. Transylvania1916 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Romania was not like Yugoslavia and Albania, true. It was also not like Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary or Poland. Its distance from the USSR lay somewhere in-between.

The phenomenon of distancing (de-satellization, if you will) is worth exploring, if only because a number of authors have done so. But let’s do it carefully, with proper handling of sources, presentation of relevant context and avoiding dramatic claims. For those of us who read Romanian, here are two good starting points: a popular history article dealing with the pre-Ceaușescu period and a scholarly introduction to the issue.

I support a title change to something like De-satellization of Romania. — Biruitorul ^Talk 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Since apparently such a term exists and is mostly used to refer to Romania in these times by scholarly sources, I also support "De-satellization of Romania", although the title is ambiguous and should make more allusion to the historical situation, maybe "De-satellization of the Socialist Republic of Romania" or "De-satellization of Romania from the Soviet Union" would be better options. Potugin, there indeed was an independence declaration from Soviet rule done by the Romanian Communist Party, and it is quite usually mentioned by sources (way more than the actual independence one from 1878), so I don't see any problem with mentioning it on this article. Also, let's please not call other people's works "crap". Super Ψ Dro 16:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PRECISION, I think “of Romania” is sufficient for defining the topic. For one thing, Romania was never really a satellite state at any other period, so I don’t see much ambiguity. (Arguably in 1940-44, but that’s covered by the WWII article.) For another, we have the rest of the article to explain what it’s about. Finally, similar articles generally use “Romania” or “Communist Romania” although yes, four of them do have the full country name. Maybe “De-satellization of Communist Romania”? — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Biruitorul Definitely use "Communist Romania", since it began under Dej, years before it was declared a Socialist Republic. Transylvania1916 (talk) 18:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Transylvania1916

1. You just acknowledged that Romania was not like Yugoslavia and Albania, but you wrote contrarily in this article. So did Romania shake off the Soviet control the same way as Albania and Yugoslavia or not? Please provide the full quotations from the source you delivered to begin.
2. De-satellization would work, giving this term is backed by multiple RS.

PS. I think you should strike or remove the portion of your comment where you write about the nature of my mentality, please.(thank you) Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella Alright, I'm sorry, I got a little heated. I'm just getting tired of explaining over and over that the Soviet Union wasn't the end-all be-all of the Warsaw Pact. Were it not for Ceaușescu's colossal blunders in handling the 1989 uprising, his regime could have well outlived the Pact. Transylvania1916 (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is not a forum page, but as you added some personal considerations, you'll get my 2 cents, too. Romania since late 1970s was the most disgusting communist regime in Europe. This regime didn't have any support left by 1989. The demographic idiocy, where people were reduced to breeding animals, eventually the HIV epidemic on top of the horrible sight of abandoned children (you didn't have such a picture in neighbouring Bulgaria for example), miserable living conditions for most of the population whilst a small nepotist "elite" could live in luxury. A country from which people fled not only to Hungary, but also to Soviet Union (!)...Potugin (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I started the overhaul

I am currently remaking the article with the 5 sources listed above. Please do not interfere, so I can better keep track. At the end, I shall rename it to "Desatellization of Communist Romania", and use this new title in all Wikilink instances. Thanks. Transylvania1916 (talk) 20:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Update: It is done. In the article, and all (I hope) redirects. Now that the existence of the article is no longer in dispute...hope it will only see improvements. Transylvania1916 (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Transylvania1916 - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The lingering issues: I'm concerned about the future

There's a reason I came up with this article. As you can see on the Socialist Republic of Romania infobox, it has no "satellite state" tag. Judging by said article's talk page, it seems to have been an informal/unwritten consensus not to add that tag. But...I wanted it to make it written and formal. Not least because there are plenty of sources for this. I started with a paragraph on the Satellite state article. But then the paragraph grew so large, it practically took over the article! A brand new one was necessary. I simply went with a "split" to emulate Albania and Yuogslavia, as these were existing templates, unaware of the actual uniqueness of Romania's position. And it truly was unique: per the sources in the heading of this article, Romania was the only country to undergo desatellization and remain in the Warsaw Pact. I only resisted change until I could find an appropriate title, a term quoted by multiple RS. I simply needed a few days. But...the issue this article is supposed to treat still lingers. As long as we have here on the Wiki maps that simply portray Romania as yet another satellite like all its Warsaw Pact peers, the job is incomplete. What can be done to change these maps in order to reflect Romania's aforementioned unique position? Give Romania a different color, perhaps a lighter shade of the existing one, such as the image I chose for this article? Frankly, I am pessimistic. Lethargy? Complacency? I do not think we can get the authors of these maps, after all these years, to exact the changes needed for this newly-affirmed accuracy. Not to mention the years in which it had been ingrained in common knowledge that Romania (at least Romania under Nicolae) was a Soviet satellite, however wrong it may be. I am passionate about this because I used to think the same! Because I've been lied to! Always given the impression that the Warsaw Pact was just "Moscow & friends", and I had to intensely research Romania's case to realize just how much bunk BS this notion is! And I do fear, fear that my singular efforts are too little, too late to debunk the BS. Transylvania1916 (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the images, we can just fix them ourselves, it hasn't to be their authors nor we need their consent to fix them. I would give Romania a lighter shade, lighter than other Warsaw Pact members but darker than Yugoslavia and Albania. And regarding the other issues, one idea would be to make a WP:Did you know entry out of this article, just so it is displayed on the Main Page and many people notice this article. Super Ψ Dro 09:52, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Some further suggestions

Biruitorul's suggestions were fine and the current title works. I'd suggest the following things now: restructuring, creating subsections for the "distancing"/"desatellization" efforts in various fields (you cannot really treat economy and diplomatic relations together). Definitely create a subsection concerning the foreign policy. The article already has some information, but more could be done (Romania's role as a mediator in the Israeli-Arab conflict). I'd be willing to join in provided that my edits don't get blindly reverted (obviously Romania's refusal to sever relations with Pinochet's Chile is relevant!).Potugin (talk) 10:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The deep misunderstanding here is the focus on what Communist Romania did do in order to gain some distance from the Soviets, and loses sight of the major aspects in which it stayed within the USSR's sphere of influence. If a beaten wife manages to do the shopping and decide the children's school by herself, but never divorces nor leaves the family home, how do you see her? As emancipated and free? Arminden (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)