Talk:Communist Romania

Archived

We're all familiar with the arguments over title and content. I thought it was worth archiving the stale polemics from more than a year ago for a fresh start in 2011. And let's please not use this as an empty slate just to regurgitate the last 6 years of contentiousness. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Date starting et al.

@Anonimu, the abdication of the monarchy is separate from the installation of the communist government. That's no basis for your synthesis that "Communist Romania" begins in 1947 only with the forced departure of King Michael--or that it has anything to do with that event. Indeed, Romania was already subordinated to the Soviets as of the armistice agreement of 1944. Same to be said for rather a number of your recent edit-warring (my perception) changes. I thought it might be worth a conversation before starting in on reverting each other. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There was no difference between Romania before 1938 and Romania between 1944 and late 1947. Both entities used the same constitution (of 1923), albeit in the post war ears it was slightly more democratic (as women were allowed to vote). No communist aim enshrined in the constitution, no special role assigned to the communist party by any law, free market, no nationalisation, almost no collective farms (the ones existing at the moment dated mostly from the interwar) and so on. The presence of Soviet troops after they helped expel Nazis was just another Allied military occupation, the same as in every other former Axis country in the world, and their presence only prevented the repression of communist sympathisers by the state authorities, as it was common in the interwar (OK, the commies also took the occasion to revenge their sufferings... they had lived in a world of violence, so they knew nothing better). Of course the presence of foreign troops affected the politics (there's a reason why France and Italy didn't get communist gvts in the late 40s, despite the large popular support), but that didn't make an hereditary kingdom what is commonly (albeit wrongly) referred to as a communist state. Michael Hohenzollern not only was allowed to keep a position he was never elected into (compare this with the fate of other "kings" in Eastern Europe), but was even one of the few people to receive the highest Soviet dcoration from Stalin.

What about my other edits? Unless you're gonna replace all references to the Soviet Union with "the Evil Empire" and all references to communists with "the heathen", I see no reason to introduce tropes in a historic text that has to conform to NPOV. As for the removed link: Even if Mr Caraza would have not been identified by the mainstream (right-wing) Romanian press as "one of the Iron Guard", the "source" is simply a volume of memoirs, and no serious scientific work would use it as a reference for anything but the author or the book itself. Yours sincerely, Anonimu (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

@Anonimu, the origin of Communist Romania is in no way linked to what constitution was in effect or when. There are far too many similar examples, for example, the Baltics, which ostensibly still had their sovereign constitutions in effect at the time they became Soviet puppet states prior to their annexation.

Reputable scholarship puts the start of Communist Romania at March 6, 1945, with the (Soviet) installation of the Communist-dominated government led by Groza. So let's start by agreeing on that. I regret that neither my opinion that communist domination started in 1944 with the armistice nor your opinion that the start of Communist Romania is constitutionally determined or linked to the monarchy count in this matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Considering that "Communist Romania" is just a denominator, and not a concept, (and that no other country in Eastern Europe has an article about "Communist X-land"), I doubt that there's a consensus about when the entity called "Communist Romania" started. If there's any, most likely they put "the start" at the moment when Romania acquired the characteristics of what capitalists called "communist state", ie either December 1947 (the proclamation of the republic) or April 1948 (when the leading role of the communist party is enshrined in the Constitution).Anonimu (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't responded to my point about reputable scholarship other than to opine some other "consensus" is "most likely". That's not the case. This isn't a debate between you, myself, and other editors on achieving consensus divined from an amorphous mass of historical uncertainty — sources are clear on 1945. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

May we see those fabulous "sources"? (hoping they're not just memoirs of right-wing extremists)Anonimu (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I take it from the above (my perception) that any Romanian source will be denounced as right-wing extremist.

Phinnemore, D. The EU and Romania: Accession and Beyond

"...With Soviet backing communists increasingly took control of Romania using a combination of intimidation, manipulation of the democractic process and outright violence. The first communist-dominated government was formed in March 1945..."

Encyclopedia Americana, Grolier

"The Communist Period (1945-1989)..."

Carey, H. Romania since 1989: Politics, Economics, and Society

"As early as 23 March 1945, the coalition government of Petru Groza issued a decree on land reform, eliminating, at a blow, the wealth of the minority Churches of the Germans and Hungarians...."  — so much for your contention nothing changed

Grancea, F. Inside the Mechanisms of Romanian Modernization

"...all the matters had to be public in a communist state, so that the party could control the lives and thoughts of its cogs. Iosif Chişinevschi, the first idealogue of Romanian Communist Party after 1944 said in 1945 that there is no private business that is not a matter of party business..."

Frucht, R. Eastern Europe: An Introduction to the People, Lands, and Culture

"Now, the presence of the Red Army gave a tremendous boost to the Communist party....the Allied Control Commission, dominated by the Soviet Union, demanded a leftward reconfiguration of the government. That happened in March 1945 with the appointment of the leftist Transylvanian Petru Groza as prime minister..."

Skipping to 1946, showing Communists already firmly entrenched and faking elections...

"Archival records have now confirmed contemporary suspicion that the results of the elections of November 1946, awarding leftist parties 80 percent of the vote, were falsified."

I expect you would discount Romanian sources (which pretty much all say 1945 if not earlier), even if not the product of so-called right-wing extremists; however, here is one referenced by a non-Romanian author:

Stolarik, M. The Prague Spring and the Warsaw Pact Invasion of Czechoslovakia

"For a conceptual framework concerning the process of nation-building in communist Romania, see Dragoş Petrescu, “Communist Legacies in the 'New Europe.' History, Ethnicity, and the Creation of a 'Socialist' Nation in Romania, 1945–1989"

Based on our past interactions, I expect you to respond these prove nothing, but I would welcome being disappointed in that regard. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Romanian People's Republic"

Currently we have "RP Chineză" translated as "People's Republic of China", which the correct, idiomatic translation. We should have "People's Republic of Romania" as well: "Romanian People's Republic" is a verbatim translation of "RP Romînă" that does not reflect the political system of that age (probably a product of times when physically and knowledge-wise we were living in the confines of our own borders with no exposure to the outer world). Have made the change throughout - please advise if any objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.98.155 (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

1946 "elections"

@Anonimu, the elections of that year are reported in reputable scholarship far and wide as being falsified (that specific word). Let's please not push the POV that it's some post Soviet plot to smear the integrity of the election results. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The elections where democratic by Romanian pre-WW2 standards (voter's intimidation, ballot manipulation et al being standard practice in Romania ever since people were allowed to vote; the government generally changed just before elections took place, and, not surprisingly, the new government was always confirmed with a large margin by the "popular" vote). Considering that women were allowed to vote for the first time in the history of Romania, the 1946 elections could be considered even more democratic. The claim that political "assassinations" took place during the campaign or election is just pure propaganda. Also, how are "Giurescu, "«Alegeri» după model sovietic", p.17 (citing Berry), 18 (citing Berry and note); Macuc, p.40; Tismăneanu, p.113; Giurescu, "«Alegeri» după model sovietic", p.18; Rădulescu-Motru, in Cioroianu, p.65" supposed to be reliable sources that readers can verify?Anonimu (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This all your personal conjecture. If only English language sources were valid, half the articles on WP would not exist. If you believe a source has been misrepresented/misquoted/mistranslated, please bring evidence forward. 1946 elections were "falsified", and not just per Romanian or so-called "Cold War" sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Straw men again. What have English language sources to do with my comment? "Macuc, p.40" is verifiable nowhere on Earth (or the Solar System, for that matter). My formulation in the article precisely described the historiographical discourse about the subject. And nobody can prove either way, since nobody (witch-doctors and other divination practitioners excluded) can verify the sources in the form they are presented in the article.Anonimu (talk) 22:57, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

As you are fully fluent in Romanian, perhaps a visit to a library might be in order. In my solar system, at least, Macuc has authored or co-authored a number of books both in English and Romanian, so it is no surprise he has been cited in another source (Giurescu). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:00, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

1945

We have been through this argument ad nauseum before, "Communist Romania" begins with March 6th. 1945. When an official name was given is immaterial. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

We didn't. The last time you just brought some random cherry picked quotes, most of them not even supporting your point. There was no argument, as I refused to have an "argument" with someone who didn't even attempt to present a sound case (but a compilation of straw men, just like the last sentence in your comment above) Anonimu (talk) 22:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes we did, you simply ignored the numerous non-Romanian sources (I avoided Romanian sources to avoid your immediately deriding them as partisan) which all point to 1945 as the inception of Communist Romania. EB also states the same, including that Stalin gave his approval in January 1945 for the Communists to seize power in Romania. There is nothing "cherry picked" about the sources I cite, all of which indicate 1945. Please provide more substantive support for your editorial position than simply deriding any source that don't disagree with your personal opinion. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Satellite et al.

Let's not then forget the change to Communist police state. And let's not accuse editors of inserting bogus references when they have not. It's also time to set the clock back to 1945, yet again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It happens they are several volumes named identically, and as the editor didn't mention the exact volume, I checked the wrong one, and the claims weren't here. Mea culpa.Anonimu (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You've been here long enough to know the proper action is to simply ask a question on article talk instead of reverting editors with inflammatory accusations that editors are liars. Such actions only drive off editors looking to contribute positively to Wikipedia, nor do they reflect positively upon yourself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeing lots of single purpose IPs and new editors insisting on one specific line in the infobox is reason enough to stop AGF-ing. While I might have been wrong in qualifying the addition of the ref here as false, the same editor added the same ref in a context where it was 100% false (and I've checked all volumes, to be sure). So I was not wrong, I've just missed the actual target.Anonimu (talk) 21:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the problem you refer to is one of citation, as the same work does include reference to the same-mentioned Eastern European sphere and list of countries as the "Soviet Empire." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggested split

After considering reorganizing the content to better resemble other articles on countries, I've come to believe it would be a better idea to split the article in two, as has been done on the Romanian Wikipedia: [1][2]. This would be justified by the existence of multiple Romanian constitutions during the Cold War, and also by differences between the two incarnations of the Communist state, which are quite extensive AFAIK. Unfortunately, I do not possess significant knowledge on the subject, nor do I have the necessary free time at the moment. I still believe though that the issue should be seriously considered, an article on "Communist Romania" makes just about enough sense as one on "Soviet Russia". CaptainFugu (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Soviet Russia" (for the entire Bolshevik and USSR period, for that regime) would work, so poor example. I don't see value to bifurcating the time period, if we want to draw some contrasts between pre- and post-Ceaușescu taking control and Romania becoming more of a personal police state, that should be in a single article. Constitutional changes would be less meaningful to non-Romanians and artificially chop up the time period. Sources are clear on the overall time period. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the split and propose the latest name be used overall. -- Director (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I strenuously disagree with a split: while the regime did give itself two names, and these more or less coincided with two different dictators, it was clearly one regime with two different faces, rather than two regimes different enough that they warrant two articles. Splitting would constitute a content fork, and as is often the case, ro.wiki is here an example of how not to do things.

I also disagree with a title move, as the current term is both used in the literature and has the advantage of encompassing both the country's names used during the period, but by all means feel free to use WP:RM for that.

Given that this article has been in largely the same shoddy state for about 5 years now, our energies would be better spent improving the content than fussing over trivialities.

Here's an interesting tidbit: the Institute for the Investigation of Communist Crimes in Romania has as its mandate "to analyse the nature, the purpose, and the effects of the totalitarian regime in Romania during 1945-1989". Note, 1945 not 1947. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Romanian version also ignores that Communist Romania began in 1945 following Stalin's "approval." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Satellite state

I removed the description of Communist Romania as a "Satellite state of the Soviet Union" from the infobox with the notation, "Fails verification".[3] The source used (History of the Literary Cultures of East Central Europe) does not appear to make the claim. Even if it did, it is not a relevant source - it is about literature, not politics. The field does not even exist in the Template: Infobox country. I do not understand the obsession with taxonomy, which in this case appears to violate WP:LABEL, but if we do provide categories we need to establish that there is a consensus for it in third party sources. Ideally we need to find a book about satellite states explaining what the term means, the degree of acceptance of the term and a list of satellite states. Incidentally, Romania pursued policies independent of the USSR from 1965. TFD (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I too find the phrase a bit simplistic. It disregards, or at least underplays, the significant independent line at times taken by the state vis a vis the USSR. RashersTierney (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The propensity of sources which call it a satellite state is more than enough to show a consensus in academia that it was in fact, a satellite state. Perhaps you have a source which says it was in fact independent? Free to do as it wished? With no threat of soviet repercussions? Darkness Shines (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any shortage of sources that emphasise the independent foreign policy line adopted by Romania at times, and likewise sources that highlight its dominance by the main regional power when that narrative suited or reflected 'common sense'. RashersTierney (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Se also Talk:East Germany - 'satellite state' is a subjective term, and as such doesn't belong in an infobox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Or it does. It's not subjective if it is based on objective criteria. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If was, it wouldn't be. It isn't, so it is... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I do still owe you the sources there. Don't be so self-assured of your POV. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

The fact that Romania was a satellite state of the USSR is constantly being removed from the article. Should the article state the obvious fact the Romania was a satellite state? Some sources. Communist terror in Romania: Gheorghiu-Dej and the Police State, 1948-1965 pp244 Ceauşescu and the Securitate: coercion and dissent in Romania, 1965-1989 pp387 The American Past: A Survey of American History pp853 History of the Literary Cultures of East-Central Europe: Junctures and disjunctures in the 19th and 20th centuries. Volume I pp29 The twentieth century world pp68

• Support As it is just common sense. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose First, the RfC question is misleading and should be re-factored. The question is actually whether or not Romania should be described in the info-box as a satellite. Second, WP:LABEL and WP:NEUTRAL preclude us from labelling topics based on opinions. Third, Romania persued an independent line after 1965, criticizing Soviet foreign policy and forming close relations with Western powers. TFD (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Such a characterisation is intrinsically POV. It has no place in an Infobox. RashersTierney (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The term is not specified at Template:Infobox former country#Status, for good reason, as it is highly subjective. RashersTierney (talk) 09:24, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The NPOV policy dictates we should not use propaganda terms in our articles, be it US or Soviet propaganda. If you really want to mention such claims, either do it the in the article about the term itself, or explicitly attribute the claim ("According to X, <propaganda_claim>") in the body of the text, not in parts that should be bias-free, such as the lead or the infobox.Anonimu (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - aside from the general problem with the term, this is patent nonsense with regard to Romania, where Ceausescu often openly expressed opposition to the Soviet line and acted accordingly. Mewulwe (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Whatever Romania's chafing and Ceausescu's (later) pronouncements, Romania was still limited in its expression of sovereignty. Any member of the Warsaw pact (until its dissolution) objectively fits the bill. Claims that "satellite state" is a propaganda term and not a scholarly term describing a specific type of sovereign relationship are misplaced. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Are you asserting that membership in the Warsaw Pact is sufficient grounds to call it a satellite state, regardless of whether or not they fulfilled their obligations? TFD (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • 'limited in its expression of sovereignty'? What state isn't? RashersTierney (talk) 12:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
    • @TFD, Yes, actually, scholarship does use "joining the Warsaw Pact" as indicating becoming a "Soviet satellite."
    • @RashersTierney, aside from unsubstantiated allegations of inherently POV and your rather pointless (but POV) question (are you really asking what state is not specifically limited in its sovereignty by a formal agreement with the Soviet Union?), do you have something more substantive to offer? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:22, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - The information may be used in the article (with a proper attribution), but not in the infobox. The "status" parameter of the Infobox former country template should mention things like "colony", "protectorate", etc (in other words, it applies only to territories that have a legal relationship of subordinance, not to countries that are declared as suveran nations). Razvan Socol (talk) 08:00, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Its a rather tricky question since pre-Ceauşescu the term might be applied (if we set aside all its inherent problems), but post-Ceauşescu there is really no question that the term is inappropriate. -- Director (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. A subjective term, rather than an objective criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - per User:DIREKTOR`s comment. I would say something very similar :). Adrian (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - Everyone should calm down and pay attention to the discussion at Talk:East Germany, material has been found to indicate that the term "satellite state" is not a Western-biased term as some have suggested, the term was used before the Cold War by the Soviet Union, the United States, and the United Kingdom, in one of the immediate predacessor documents that were responsible for the founding of the United Nations, that describe what they called "Axis satellite states". Also, modern historians have used the term satellite state to refer to states in the 16th century. It is widely recognized that the Soviet Union had satellite states. Now, Andy has claimed that it is a "subjective term" and a "metaphor" with no substance, I have found a source - that while not directly related to Romania or other states widely recognized as Soviet satellite states - it is based on a study of Scotland in the 17th and 18th century - but it does describe in detail what a satellite state in general is - and uses it as a technical term, here is the definition (I quote it in its lengthy full to insure no confusion):
• "Firstly, a satellite is a poor country that depends on exporting a small range of goods to one richer area from which it draws the bulk of its imports: such exports ten to be agricultural and mineral products affected by volatile demand conditions because the dependent country is only a marginal producer in the world market for a given good: the imports are usually a wide range of manufactures and other consumer goods for which there is constant hunger in the satellite. Secondly, the satellite depends on imported technology from the richer areas, since research and development is carried out in developed nations and undeveloped nations are insufficiently sophisticated to develop their own. Thirdly, the need both for technology and for manufactured imports leads to dependence on injections of foreign capital from the richer area: these though probably necessary for any form of development, may bring with them unwelcome political ties or determine the direction of short-term economic growth in a way that will not be conducive to long-term economic development. Fourthly, dependence is reflected in cultural relations, so that what happens in the dominant area seems more real and satisfying to the elite inside the satellite than anything they can do themselves - 'imported products are valued more highly than local goods, foreign degrees more than local degrees, foreign consultants more than local experts. This cultural bias enhances and increases the total dependency relationship'. The implication is that if these four factors are present in a country they will tend to hamper its growth. The historian may accept them as defining dependent status yet feel they may not necessarily be causes of a poor growth performance. Rather they may be symptoms of what an economy will be like in the early stage of development. Variations in the rate of population growth, the nature of land tenure, the level of education and the character of sub-elite culture probably do more to determine whether opportunities that arise through trade with the developed core launch a peripheral economy into growth or have no benign effect." (Stale Drvik, Knut Mykland, Jan Oldervoll. The Satellite State in the 17th and 18th Centuries. English edition. Bergen-Oslo-Tromso, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1979. Pp. 11-12.)--R-41 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Since none of that remotely applies in the context we are discussing here, it is totally irrelevant to the discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment - here is another source on the terminology of satellite state: "On Satelliteship” by George G. S. Murphy, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 21, No 4 (Dec. 1961), pp. 641-651. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2114424.

The author mentions that the term “satellite state” is a metaphor but (Andy in particular, pay attention to the following) the author demonstrates that it ALSO is a relevant technical term that the author describes in the article. The author specifically refers to Soviet satellite states. Here is the author's description of a satellite state:

• "The regime in the satellite state...must, and wants to, model itself on the regime in the protecting country; its aim is to develop the satellite state under policies that will eventually make it homogeneous in social composition, economic characteristics, and political institutions with the state in whose orbit it moves. It regards the fulfillment of such policies as a desirable process of catching up." (Murphy, Pp. 641-642)
• "Satelliteship consists of the exercise by a single decision-maker of a dominant country of complete authority over a smaller country. This authority is used to engineer broad and sweeping programs of social change in the smaller country to suit the preferences of this decision-maker." (Murphy, Pp. 642)
• "the average Soviet satellite is distinguished from the average colony by the fact that it tends to develop at fast rates of growth" (Murphy, Pp. 642)--R-41 (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source, so I can't comment on the specifics, but I'd point out that a Journal article dating from the height of the Cold War might not be seen as particularly relevant to contemporary perspectives. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The fact that during Cold War some not-so-disinterested authors attempted to rationalize propaganda terms don't make such terms neutral. The usual Soviet political science article about the West went to great lengths to prove the US was the last and most aggressive colonial empire, and NATO countries were just pawns in US hands, with conceptualizations et al. And let's not forget there's lots of literature in support of eugenics written by "neutral" pre-WW2 Western authors, yet we don't present their claims as objective facts.Anonimu (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems that this may very well be the case here. I've found a review of Murphy's Soviet Mongolia: A Study of the Oldest Political Satellite (in the same journal that R-41 cites above) [4] which criticises him for (amongst other things) using phrases like "naive puppets" and "tool of the Comintern". Hardly a disinterested neutral stance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

1989 trial

Would anyone oppose the re-labeling of this as show trial instead of kangaroo court? (Unless of course a source can be found for this particular assertion.) -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

A source has been found, I have initiated an edit request below to have the reference inserted. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

They are both POV descriptions. TFD (talk) 02:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Show trial" is normal English usage for a show trial, i.e., one with a predetermined outcome. What's POV about that? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 January 2012

In the "Braşov Riot" section (the comment about it needing a separate article is out of date, it was probably written when the "Downfall" parent section was called "1989" or something similar, so i suggest removing that too), the first "Citation needed" can be replaced with:

<ref>Emil Hurezeanu, as quoted (see note below) by: {{ro icon}} "Ziua care nu se uita. 15 noiembrie 1987, Brasov", Polirom, 2002, ISBN 973-681-136-0.<br/> This is documented by the book's revision, available at {{ro icon}} [http://www.librarie.net/carti/17126/Ziua-care-nu-se-uita-15-noiembrie-1987-Brasov-Marius librarie.net]</ref>

Ty. Actually, i wanted to source the Radio Free Europe quote, thinking that should be fairly easy. Maybe someone else will have more luck with that. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected protection expired. Anomie⚔ 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 2

The section Romanian Revolution has at it;s end the following statement Ceauşescu soon fled in an helicopter from the rooftop of the CC Building, only to find himself abandoned in Târgovişte, where he and his wife Elena were finally formally tried and shot by a kangaroo court on 25 December A source has been requested for this, please add the following reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness Shines (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 January 2012‎

<ref name=Laughland>{{cite book|last=Laughland|first=John|title=A history of political trials: from Charles I to Saddam Hussein|year=2008|publisher=Peter Lang|isbn=978-1906165000|pages=185}}</ref>

Just a note that this book reference is available here: [5]. I'm not adding it as a reference for that content, because, whilst I can see a mention of "kangaroo" as the author's opinion of the trial, I don't see Helicopter/rooftop/Târgovişte mentions in there. If this is just a citation for the date, or one opinion of "kangaroo", then I'll let someone else add it. Note, however, that page 186 and 190-191, 193-194 aren't available at Google Books, so I may be missing some supporting text there. Apologies if I missed something else, I read it twice... Begoon ^talk 05:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kangaroo court is a POV term. The court btw did not shoot him - he was shot by a firing squad. TFD (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my bad, I should have also said that one author's "opinion" of this is insufficient to support such a "loaded" term, even if it was done as a "quotation". My main problem is that the source doesn't seem to support anything in the content other than that term and the date, unless the relevant parts are in the unavailable pages. Only someone with access to the book could answer that, I think. Barring that, I think the real question here should be: Do we just remove that passage as uncited? Begoon ^talk 08:10, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

You may not remove it as uncited as I have provided one. And who says kangaroo court is a POV term? It was a kangaroo court. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I only just noticed that this is full protected - so you are correct - I may not remove it. Begoon ^talk 14:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Here is another source BTW [6] Darkness Shines (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that covers a bit more of it, but not quite all, I can't see "abandoned in Târgovişte" - but that's probably too picky. The point above about the court not performing the shooting is worth fixing - it's not quite as pedantic as it sounds. But anyway, as I've now realised, I thought I'd come here from a semi-protected request list, but I must have clicked the wrong link, so I couldn't do the edit anyway and I'll need to leave it for an admin to decide about all that, and the POV or not question, for now. Begoon ^talk 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Laughland and his (at one time) British Helsinki group have been pilloried for coming to the defense of Eastern European dictators, apparently being even generously funded by Milosevic at one point. Whatever Laughland contends in anything he writes anywhere is completely unreliable as an objective source.(one of many accounts regarding Laughland's unsavory associations) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Unprotected protection expired. Anomie⚔ 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Informal move discussion

Before actually posting an RfM I'd like to see what everyone thinks regarding the possibility of a move to Socialist Republic of Romania? We are fully aware of the large-scale constitutional reforms Ceauşescu introduced when the country was renamed from "People's Republic of Romania". However, if we accept that Romania in the 1947-89 period is a historical state separate from modern Romania and the Kingdom of Romania, and if we agree that this was one country (that underwent reforms in 1965) - then I submit that it is general practice to use the latest official name of a country as the title. Communist countries changed their names frequently with the addition/removal of various adjectives such as "Socialist" or "People's" or "Federal" etc., yet Romania seems to be the only country that does not use the latest official name. Other examples are, of course, the Soviet Union, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and People's Socialist Republic of Albania. -- Director (talk) 14:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

What exactly were those "large-scale constitutional reforms" of 1965? References to the great Soviet Union were dropped, and talk of "exploitation" was replaced with proclamations of "independence". But other than that, did anything really change?

As for the assertion that "Communist countries changed their names frequently", let's look at that a little more closely. Bulgaria, East Germany and Hungary never changed their names. Neither did the USSR, from the time it was formed in 1922 until its collapse in 1991. Poland was merely late, sticking to one name from 1952 to 1990, while Czechoslovakia was a bit later, adding "Socialist" in 1960. Thus we only really have two comparable cases, with Yugoslavia switching names in 1963 and Albania in 1974. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. "Communist Romania" has a distinctive Cold War feel to it and gives no confidence to readers about the article's neutrality. TFD (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It may have a "distinctive Cold War feel" for you, but the number of scholarly works written well after the end of the Cold War that use the term belie that assertion: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38].

Having a title point out that the country was Romania and was communist (or at least ruled by a communist party) is not of questionable neutrality, especially when a slew of reliable works refer to it that way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, let me also note the term's routine use in Romanian reliable sources: [39], [40], [41] and [42], just for a sampling of titles using "România comunistă". - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Since when have we used unofficial names for articles about countries? If someone wants to create a 'communist Romania' redirect, they can, but this is silly. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Look around, Andy. Neither Vichy France, nor Portuguese India, nor Congress Poland, nor the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, nor indeed the Byzantine Empire was ever called that, and Burma has not been called that since 1989. We don't go by official names, but by the most common name used in reliable sources. For that matter, Belgium, Germany, France, Finland and Luxembourg are also "unofficial", but we don't call the articles Kingdom of Belgium, Federal Republic of Germany, French Republic, Republic of Finland or Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Biruitorul, so you're saying that the only countries that didn't change their names were Bulgaria, East Germany and Hungary? And that, apart from Yugoslavia and Albania, we also have Poland and Czechoslovakia who changed their name with various "communist adjectives"? Frankly, I don't know if you're arguing "against" or "for" the move :). People's Republic of Poland is a very good example. I'll also add that I agree "Communist Romania" seems distinctly unencyclopedic. -- Director (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Poland and Czechoslovakia don't really count, since there, it was simply a matter of a delay in adding a Communist identifier, rather than changing a pre-existing one. Albania and Yugoslavia are the only true analogues. I'm just pointing out that "frequent" name changes were not in fact the norm.

I've always opposed such a move because for 42% of its existence, Communist Romania was not known as "Socialist Republic of Romania", and because the current title is more encompassing and simpler without sacrificing accuracy (indeed it enhances accuracy).

And by the way, since I do like to consider the wider implications of any move, what about Category:Communist Romania and its subcategories? To take just a couple of examples, Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu is under Category:People executed by Communist Romania; he was indeed, but he was not someone executed by the Socialist Republic of Romania. And the Bărăgan deportations are in the main category, and rightly so, but it would be inaccurate to place them under a "Socialist Republic of Romania" category, since they had nothing to do with that entity. Not to mention something like Five-Year Plans of Romania, which spanned both periods. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

@Biruitorul I think we understand that, for whatever reason, you are opposed to the possibility of a move. However, please do not present false arguments. Note: Poland and Czechoslovakia do count. It does not matter whether or not they changed their communist prefix or added a new one: the point is that those two articles use the latest name even though it does not apply to the entire period of communist rule, just like the other two cases. In short, all Eastern European countries that did change their name during the period of communist government have articles that use their last name - except "Communist Romania". The title frankly sounds childish, and probably stems from a misunderstanding here on Wiki.

It is pointless to list dozens of links here, when we can simply Google search. Its just empty showmanship. If one wanted to, one could easily find double or triple the number of links you posted above that use "Socialist Republic of Romania" or "People's Republic of Romania". I have no doubt that sources most frequently refer to this state as "Romania", plain and simple. That is probably the WP:COMMONNAME, as is almost always the case - the simpler name is always . The misunderstanding here most likely lies in English grammar: the adjective "Communist" is capitalized in English, not so in many other languages. The sources by and large simply refer to "Romania" as being "Communist" and do not use the phrase "Communist Romania" as some sort of sourced "alternative" state name. -- Director (talk) 18:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't oppose a move for "whatever reason", but for the reasons I've outlined, plus the fact that the term is more commonly used in reliable sources.

The argument I'm making is anything but "false". In general, whenever a communist regime has come to power, it has changed the name of the previous "bourgeois" regime, either immediately or after some years. (Cuba is one exception that comes to mind.) Rarely have two changes been made, Romania, Albania and Yugoslavia being the only ones I know of. Even if, for argument's sake, we accept the addition of a communist signifier to the names of Poland and Czechoslovakia as a "change", that's irrelevant for the article titling. Poland was also called "Republic of Poland" from 1918 to 1939 and since 1990, while Czechoslovakia was also called "Republic of Czechoslovakia" from 1918 to 1939. Thus, it would be inadvisable to use the first name of Communist Poland and the first name of Communist Czechoslovakia as article titles for the periods 1944-52 and 1945-60 because of the inherent ambiguity. "Romanian People's Republic" and "Socialist Republic of Romania" were never used other than in 1947-89, so there can be no ambiguity there.

By the way, looking not just at other countries but also at other eras of Romanian history, note that Romanian Old Kingdom and Greater Romania were also never official, but we use them as article titles because historians use those terms.

If "Communist Romania" is "childish", are all these scholars writing peer-reviewed publications being childish?

Pre-1990, sources probably did call it "Romania", you're right. Nowadays, given the need to distinguish between Romania (which happens to be the official name of the current republic) and the 1947-89 entity, we do need a more specific identifier. "Communist Romania", which is succinct, all-encompassing and used with consistent regularity by modern sources, is not a bad choice.

I'm sure you've participated in enough move discussions to know that the way arguments are most convincingly carried in such discussions is through the presentation of reliable sources using a particular name. That's what lies at the heart of a move discussion, and it is not "empty showmanship". If you want to explain why source A or B isn't relevant, you may, but simply waving away three dozen sources isn't very convincing. Furthermore, when "Socialist Republic of Romania" is used, it tends to be used only in the very narrow context of treaties and other agreements: [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]. Actual discussions of the entity tend to call it "Communist Romania" far more regularly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

As I said above, nobody here should be at all impressed by your ability to copy-paste internet links here in excessive number. Our discussion concerns thousands of sources, not the few dozen you've apparently posted here for dramatic effect.

Again, to repeat, the most common name for this state in published sources is "Romania". This is the case with virtually every country. When someone wants to describe Romania as "Communist", they use the phrase "Communist Romania" - but this should in no way be taken as an endorsement of that adjective as being part of some new name the source is proposing. Often "Communist Romania" is part of a phrase like "post-communist Romania", or the adjective is left without capitalization. The mistake that was made on this article, in my opinion, is the misapplication of WP:COMMONNAME to a common two-word phrase that should not even have been considered as an actual candidate for an encyclopedic Wikipedia title for a sovereign country (combined, apparently, with colorful usage of links :)).

In support of the above, I submit once more that every single communist country on Wikipedia that happened to change its name with the addition or removal or replacement of a communist prefix - simply uses the latest official name. "Communist Romania" is the single solitary exception. Biruitorul, thank you for the history lesson, but it is entirely irrelevant to this discussion whether a communist prefix was added or replaced - the point is that the name was changed. -- Director (talk) 21:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly refrain from imputing false motives to my action and please comment on content, not on the contributor. In case it wasn't abundantly clear, the reason I have presented those references is in support of my contention that the "Communist Romania" title should be kept (in part) because that's what the country during that period is called by reliable sources.

When combing through the sources I identified, I specifically excluded instances of "post-Communist Romania", so that's a red herring. There are plenty of scholarly works using "Communist Romania" with a capital "C" to refer to the entity, and if books published by Oxford University Press can do it, then potentially so can we, without worrying about appearing unencyclopedic.

It is in fact (marginally) relevant whether the name was changed once or twice, because we only have three cases of a name changing twice, and ideally, our articles on the other two should be at Socialist Yugoslavia and Communist Albania. No, I'm not going to try and push for that, but that would be the most proper solution. The reason, other than usage, that I continue to insist on retaining this title is because the entity had two names for roughly equal lengths of time, and that it is simply inaccurate to cover content from the 1947-65 period under a title that does not apply. And yes, it's the only Communist country using an unofficial title (along with East Germany and the rather major case of the Soviet Union), but as I pointed out, plenty of other countries' articles do not use official names for their titles, among them Belgium, Germany, France, Finland and Luxembourg.

Oh, and what about Category:Communist Romania? I still want to look at the big picture. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

"Communist Romania" is the title required by, and used in, scholarship as it needs to account for the entire period starting with 1945 regardless of the "official" title of the country, constitution in effect, etc., etc. And the "'Cold War' terminology" argument is a red herring. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said two times already, it is a simple two-word phrase. It is used in scholarship, just like in any text, but not as a title/name for this state. It is common due to it being a common grammatical occurrence. The vast majority of publications where this phrase is found do not in actuality endorse it as some alternative name for the Socialist Republic of Romania. It is a misapplication of WP:COMMONNAME, in that the phrase in question is not used by the sources as an actual name for the state.

Here are the four other, comparable cases in East Europe where states added or replaced various communist prefixes: People's Republic of Poland, Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, People's Socialist Republic of Albania. Each article title is the latest official name of the communist state. Reviewing other communist states in Eastern Europe (that did not change their name), one will not find a singe state that uses the "Communist [name of state]" format. In fact, I cannot find a single article about a communist state here on Wikipedia that uses the "Communist [name of state]" format in its title, have look for yourselves at Category:Communist states. Only "Communist Romania". One gets the impression that some local political considerations might come into play in this issue. -- Director (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

To begin with, let me state that while Director is free to have whatever impressions he wishes, he is also bound to assume good faith, to comment on content, not on the contributor and, absent any definite statement to that effect (something like "let's call this article 'Communist Romania' because that makes the PSD look bad!"), to assume that arguments against a move are based on what I and others say they are based on, not whatever motivations he may think lurk behind our plain words. Otherwise, the well is poisoned and civilized debate cannot proceed.

Now, to respond to your first paragraph. What about Belgium, Germany, France, Finland, Luxembourg, East Germany, Soviet Union, Burma, Malawi, Togo? Rarely are official names of countries used in titles: of 193 UN member states, other than those (like Romania or Hungary) that have no other prefix in their names, we use official names in the titles of just a handful: Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo, Republic of Ireland, Republic of Macedonia, Federated States of Micronesia and Kingdom of the Netherlands — all of them for disambiguation purposes.

And what about the Romanian Old Kingdom or Greater Romania? Neither of those names was official either, and works may refer to them in somewhat offhanded fashion. (Here, here and here are examples of "greater Romania" occurring.)

Admittedly, I've done it too, including right in this comment, but "look at those other articles" isn't invariably a compelling argument — after all, this encyclopedia isn't peer-reviewed. "Communist Romania" happens to be more appropriate for reasons stated above, even if it's an outlier among its two dozen or so peers.

By the way, what about Category:Communist Romania? I'm still wondering what plans (if any) you have for that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a straw man you're bashing. My argument is not that we must use the full official name all the time. My point is that the current format is unencyclopedic and without real basis in sources as an "alternative" name for this state, and is, subsequently, not used anywhere but here. The most common name for this country in sources is, without a doubt, "Romania". I propose using the latest official name, since that is used in every single similar case as the more appropriate method of disambiguation from the article on the modern country. I have no idea what that category has to do with this issue, it sounds like a red herring. -- Director (talk) 12:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

When you clear away the irrelevant cases (at any rate the ones I've called irrelevant), the only countries for which we've applied the "second official name" rule are Yugoslavia and Albania, and as I've opined before, those two would be much better placed at Socialist Yugoslavia and Communist Albania, since sources, other than those strictly legalistic ones that cite treaties and such, most often tend to refer to them as such. As for the "unencyclopedic" bit, to repeat what I said earlier, "there are plenty of scholarly works using "Communist Romania" with a capital "C" to refer to the entity, and if books published by Oxford University Press can do it, then potentially so can we, without worrying about appearing unencyclopedic."

I do see what you're trying to argue, but the thing is, given that we can't call the article Romania; given that the entity did have two names, each covering a substantial part of its existence, and that in the interests of accuracy we should seek to use a name covering both periods; and given that, with varying degrees of formality, the term is used in reliable sources to refer to the entity in question, and is not simply something we're inventing, this is why it seems to me the best option for a title.

When you propose moving an article with 1500+ incoming links, an article linked as "Communist Romania" in countless articles, and one after which an entire category is named, the assumption is that if you're a responsible editor (and I do assume that of you), you're going to think about the wider implications of a move, and not just move and wash your hands of the matter. I've mentioned a couple of examples, and will do so again. Lucreţiu Pătrăşcanu is under Category:People executed by Communist Romania; he was indeed, but he was not someone executed by the Socialist Republic of Romania. Do you propose keeping the current category, moving to Category:People executed by the Socialist Republic of Romania, or moving there and in addition creating a Category:People executed by the People's Republic of Romania? What about the Bărăgan deportations? They're under Category:Communist Romania. If you move that to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania, you introduce a blatant inaccuracy, since the deportations ended well before 1965. What about Five-Year Plans of Romania? Moving to Category:Socialist Republic of Romania introduces further inaccuracy with regard to the first three plans. Or do you perhaps create a Category:People's Republic of Romania and put the article in both categories? You see, this isn't that simple, and there are ramifications to a move proposal of this magnitude. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

What more can I say? You're "eliminating" the fact that this is the only article on Wikipedia that uses the prefix "Communist" to refer to a state in the title. And I think I've already established that it is general practice to disregard the name changes and use the latest name.

In addition to all of the above, this state officially designated itself "Socialist" in 1965 rather than specifically "Communist", so this current title carries a distinct political message as well (apparently aimed at the Ceauşescu government). Why not use "Socialist Romania" (24,800 hits) which is, incidentally, about three times more common than "Communist Romania" (7,360 hits)? Its a rough test, to be sure, but I don't think such a significant distance will disappear after any kind of filtering. Just to be clear, I endorse neither for reasons I explained above. Nevertheless I'm sure another reason will be heard, now that WP:COMMONNAME is out, as to why "Communist Romania" should stay on. Something is definitely wrong here.

(Concerns about categories are hardly an issue relevant to WP:NAME. It can be handled, I assure you.) -- Director (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It's very easy to conduct a Google search for one's preferred term and find what one wants, but it is not the correct approach if one wants to be neutral. "Socialist Romania" also gets thousands of hits. But your sources do actually usually talk about "Romania" and use the word "communist" as a description. TFD (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It's quite simple, "Communist Romania" is the name of the article per reputable scholarship, covering a period from the start (1945) through the end of Communist domination and control. @Direktor, the names of the state are irrelevant. There is nothing "wrong" here which requires any correction whatsoever. This is the same reason why splitting this article into individual ones by name of state, as has also been proposed, is a POV content fork, as such a split would eliminate the 1945-1947 period as part of the narrative. This dialog is a total and utter polarizing waste of time. The very reasons being used to assault the title (1945 to next state name change to next name change, Ceaucescu et al.) are the very reasons

1. the article title needs to stay and
2. the time period needs to remain intact (1945, commencing with Stalin's personal go-ahead in January for a Communist takeover)

The case is not crystal clear only by editors advocating for content and organization which ultimately obfuscate simple facts.PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

No, its not "quite simple", and I do not at all appreciate your haughty, "declarative" tone. You are not the "Grand High Arbiter" in charge of this discussion, User:Vecrumba, so I recommend you respond properly to arguments presented by other users, and present relevant arguments of your own in support of such "declarations" as the above. You apparently did not even read the exchange or take note of what I stated in my response to you. Applying WP:COMMONNAME to two-word phrases that present themselves often simply as a grammatical occurrence - is a misapplication of policy. The phrase must be used as a name for the state, and that is not the case in the vast majority of cases. In other words "Communist Romania" is not a "name" at all, per its usage in sources, let alone a "name per reputable scholarship" as you claim. The names of the state are not irrelevant by any means, as is evidenced by their usage in every single solitary comparable article about a historical communist state, except this one. They are certainly not "irrelevant" simply because you "declare" them to be "irrelevant".

In addition, "Socialist Romania" is a far more common grammatical occurrence than "Communist Romania", and I would certainly like to see the verbal acrobatics that would justify supporting the latter but not the former. Finally, I have to say I refuse to be bullied on this issue. An RfM will be posted in the future and it will be listed on several noticeboards. The serious flaws in the reasoning behind this article's title need to be addressed. -- Director (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't project your declarations and haughtiness on me. There is no comparable article on Communist states because Romania's path was less monolithic that that of others, not to mention a host of unique circumstances: occupied by the Allies but only the Soviets, that occupation taking place with special and unique terms and conditions, et al. but in the end no less (Soviet and police state style) Communist. Your invoking of "every other..." article displays your abject lack of consideration of Romania's history and your blinders-on insistence to conflate the name of a state with the title of an article. If that were indeed the criteria, then your only option is to lobby for three separate articles to cover the time period, not to change the title. Such lobbying, I would argue, would be completely misguided and historically inappropriate for reasons already discussed ad nauseum. There are no flaws whatsoever behind the title or the period represented by the current title, as it is the only title appropriate and applicable to the entire period. Not agreeing with you because of grossly fundamental flaws in every last bit of your editorial position is not bullying, it is simply disagreeing. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Yugoslavia broke with the USSR entirely, changed its name twice, and formed its own bloc, Czechoslovakia was literally occupied by the Soviet Union mid-existence and forced to change its name, Albania broke with the Soviets and joined China and changed its name, Hungary was also occupied, etc. etc. All these changes and reforms carried with them different living conditions and regimes. It is a blatant fact that there are very many comparable cases, Vecrumba. Romania is not a special case in any way.

The point is that you are not really discussing here. You're just ignoring arguments and posting "declarations of fact" as if we are supposed to accept your view because you say so. I am not at all interested in what you think are my "options". You've managed to write three posts without responded to any of the arguments for the move in any way. -- Director (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, then, how about that subsequent to the fall of "Communist Romania" (a reference to the country and period whose usage was steadily building throughout the duration), actual "grammatical occurrence" in books rankings are:

1. Communist Romania, first place (and clearly refers to the country and period, capital "C" Communist)
2. communist Romania
3. socialist Romania
4. Socialist Romania, last place

As for your preferred "Socialist Romania," I would add that usage peaked only for the time the official title was in use, and not for the entire historical period of Communist Russia (nor was it used for the initial period), so "Socialist Romania" is a misnomer, at best, for this article.

I have responded. I reject your entire thesis that two words are being cobbled together into a misapplication of WP:COMMONNAME which is attempted to be applied to the {optional-name of a country and therefore} title of the article. I also reject your thesis that the formal title of the country matters at at all for the period in question, ergo title of the article. Does that cover it? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Your examples of what you consider similar regime and name changes also ignore that Romania was "Communist Romania" for two years prior (1945-1947) while ostensibly still a parliamentary monarchy prior to the forced abdication of King Michael and declaration of the people's republic. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

@User:Vecrumba. Your claims above are contrary to Google testing I performed earlier. As you did not post any diffs and I question their veracity. Once again you demand we take your word for some claim or other you declare. Please note for future reference that capitalization of adjectives such as "communist" and "socialist" in any context is optional in English, and does not indicate anything in particular. I shall list the arguments here point by point, and I request that you please respond in kind.

• As even a cursory glance can show, "communist Romania" is but a common grammatical occurrence, and has virtually no support whatsoever in sources as a name for this state. WP:COMMONNAME hence does not apply. This is so universally obvious that such a phrase is not used anywhere.
  • Even if we were to argue that such grammatical coincidences should be considered for article titles, then "Socialist Romania" is three times more common than "Communist Romania". While it is a somewhat higher-quality title than the current one, I do not, however, endorse "socialist Romania" as a title, since it shares the flaws of "communist Romania" (I had said so explicitly and User:Vecrumba would know this had he actually read the discussion).
• Even though there are very many comparable states, even states with greater diversity of governmental changes and reform (with accompanying name changes), virtually every single comparable article on a communist state applies the latest name of the state it covers. The reasoning behind this is that it is the most most common sources-supported name for such states, and an efficient way to disambiguate from their previous or modern counterparts that are all (just like the communist state) most commonly known under their simplest name form (e.g. "Romania" or "Poland").

-- Director (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is slightly off-topic, but let me just point out that Director's history is a bit off. Czechoslovakia added "Socialist" to its name in 1960 because its leaders considered that the country had achieved socialism. It had nothing to do with the Soviet invasion, which came in 1968. Albania changed its name in 1976 in order to emphasize that it was the only country in Europe building socialism along Marxist-Leninist lines. The alliance with China began around 1961 and while it did not end until 1978, it had already started to cool off after Mao's death almost four months prior to the constitution's adoption. So this name change had little to do with China. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Google testing

• Socialist Republic of Romania yields 918,000 hits
• People's Republic of Romania yields 226,000 hits
• Socialist Romania yields 23,400 hits
• Communist Romania yields 17,100 hits

Apparently I was wrong. "Communist Romania" is not even a particularly common grammatical occurrence. WP:COMMONNAME is decidedly in favor of Socialist Republic of Romania. When the proposed title is fifty-four times more common than the current one, then one expects the issue should be settled. As a long-term Wikipedian, I know better.. :) -- Director (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @DIREKTOR, and your "Google results" are completely contrary to mine of Google books. I end at 2010 so we don't get any "books" that are just WP content.

As for your prior examples, now that you bring it up, Hungary is also a problem, as "Communist Hungary" currently inappropriately redirects to the people's republic and omits the prior Soviet-installed regime. So, "Communist Hungary" applies there, similarly, to what is currently an obvious and jarring Wiki-inflicted bifurcation of a single historical period. Oh, and I get the same usage patterns for Communist Hungary as for Communist Romania. Fancy that. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

"Socialist Republic..." is only good for part of the period, so your overwhelming count is irrelevant, unless, of course, you propose to split the article into more than one, which, of course, I oppose, as the article is about a single contiguous period of Communist rule. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you're misreading your own results :). Secondly, I could not possibly care less about your continued declarations. What else can I say except that the result is NOT "irrelevant". If the article were split (which would be utter nonsense), then your "evasive maneuver" might make sense. However the article is not split and we are not going to split it. This is one (1) state. And Socialist Republic of Romania is the most common name for this one (1) state, by a factor fifty-four times. The fact that it adopted this most common name later in its existence is has no bearing on the issue whatsoever. -- Director (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you deem has "no bearing whatsoever" lies at the very heart of the matter. This article talks about (or should talk about) events in 1949, in 1953, in 1958, in 1961 — a time when the Socialist Republic of Romania did not exist, and a time which is referred to in scholarly works by another name which there is no reason we too should not use. (Not to mention discussion of events in 1945, 1946 and 1947, when the state was called "Kingdom of Romania".) It's the all-encompassing nature of "Communist Romania" that makes it preferable. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Raw hits don't mean all that much. You need to look at trends, at context, at dates, at authors to get a better sense. As I've already pointed out at least twice, we shouldn't give much weight to occurrences like "Treaty between the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Kingdom of Morocco" because that's liable to occur in a primary source, and is a legal document rather than a scholarly work. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR: Well, no, the results are quite clear as to where they end up at the right side of the graph, i.e., current usage. I'm glad you don't advocate splitting the article. So the last point is the common name for the state. Since your suggested common name completely omits twenty years of history, I can't agree that those twenty years have no bearing on the issue whatsoever. I am sure you feel you are being rigorous, but I see your position as a classic case of precise but wholly inappropriate and how editors of good will take completely wrong turns never to extricate themselves, responding to their sense of being set upon ("bullied") by only digging deeper and more furiously rather than considering the obvious.

I've acquired and read the best sources on the region, its kingdoms, its principalities, its peoples—meaning books considered the seminal texts in their field, not just hunting for online snippets to justify some preconceived prejudice. It's unbecoming to argue over a title based on a contest of Google searches instead of a serious discussion of the history of the period—which in every case in past discussion has led to an affirmation of the current title. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

@Biruitorul, what can I tell you? Your main argument up until now was commonname, now "raw hits don't mean that much". Well firstly, they're not "raw" hits, its a standard Google test. Secondly, we are talking about the difference between a million and 18,000 hits: there is no room at all for discussion as to which name is decidedly more common in English language sources. Thirdly, as I said before, "communist Romania" isn't even a name for this state.

A standard Google test provides raw hits, which then need to be interpreted somehow. Yes, by raw numbers, there are 54 times more hits for SRR than for CR. But that's only a starting point. Once one filters out certain results by certain criteria (age, context, relevance), one starts to get a sense that CR is more common - at least I did. And, truthfully, I have no preconceived bias - I simply want to use the most common name and the most accurate. Happily, they seem to coincide under "Communist Romania".

Just to give some examples of sources using SRR that need filtering: too old ([51], [52]), propaganda ([53], [54], [55], [56]), primary sources ([57], [58], [59], [60], [61]).

As for the contention that "'communist Romania' isn't even a name for this state" - well, neither is Greater Romania, neither is Romanian Old Kingdom, neither is East Germany or Soviet Union - but you seem to be fine with those. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Vecrumba. There is no provision in WP:NAME concerning when the most common name came in use, or whether it always referred to the subject of the article. Hence such considerations most certainly have no bearing on the issue whatsoever. This, also, is not subject to interpretation. As Biruitorul pointed out, countries like the Byzantine Empire were never called by their title names during their entire, millenia-long existence. Indeed, when you talk about what is "appropriate" you put your finger squarely on the problem: your personal perceptions as to whether the title form used universally on Wikipedia, and mandated by its policy(!), is "appropriate".

You fellas can't have your cake and eat it too. If you think these were two states, the article needs to be split (and, yes, I think that would be nonsensical). If you think this was one state, then apply the most common name - just like in every single other such article. It is not relevant at all when the most common name was introduced, and please lets not talk about our personal perceptions about what is "appropriate". -- Director (talk) 23:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So what now? Do we need an RM? -- Director (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to move the article, given that such a move would be contentious, I ask that it be done following an RfM finding consensus for a move. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

@Biruitorul, the point of this discussion was to see whether a consensus can be achieved prior to, or even without an RM. I can't imagine what kind of filtering would diminish an advantage of 900,900 hits. Nevertheless, while it would not matter much as far as the test results are concerned, I must point out that 1) we do not filter hits on the basis of age ("too old"), 2) we are not the ones who decide whether something constitutes "propaganda" or not, and 3) primary sources are also relevant for WP:COMMONNAME.

Even if none of that were the case, "Communist Romania" is actually the least common of the researched terms, and it renders large numbers of false hits as well. In fact, when one eliminates the phrase "post-communist Romania" alone, the number of hits goes down by half (9,570 hits). One wonders how low it would go if the lowercase "communist Romania" were to be filtered as well. Frankly I'm puzzled as to what serious objections can possibly be raised against the proposed title.

• Can we at least agree that Socialist Republic of Romania is more common than "Communist Romania"? That at least seems blatantly obvious, since the advantage can be viewed in orders of magnitude (900,000 and 9,000).
• Do we agree that there is no provision in WP:NAME that requires us to use a term that was used throughout the existence of the state (or even one that was used at all)?
• Do we agree that this article is about one historical country?

If so, we should get this over with by the quick procedure. -- Director (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If I was too dismissive with my one-word comments on sources I said should be filtered out, allow me to expand on that:

1) By "too old", I simply meant that works from (in this case) 1979 or 1982 aren't relevant when one considers the substantial scholarly work that has been produced on the subject since the early 1990s, from a vantage point of both post-Communism and, specifically, post-Socialist Republic of Romania. Scholarly works from (say) 2001-2011 are entitled to more consideration than those from (say) 1975-1985, not because the latter are useless, but because the former better reflect current usage.

2) By "propaganda", I meant the works of a dictatorial regime condemned in 2006 by the president of Romania (speaking in an official capacity) as "criminal and illegitimate". What the regime called itself is relevant. What its official publications say (whether we choose to call them propaganda or not) is not especially relevant, since by their nature they breach WP:RS.

3) Per WP:RS, "articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Our focus should be on scholarly works that comment on the subject, not on treaties, laws and the 1965 constitution, all of which come up in searches.

1) To your first question, if "Socialist Republic of Romania" is more common than "Communist Romania", I answer that that depends on the premise of your question. By raw count, yes, but I reject the legitimacy of that metric for reasons just stated. WP:GNUM may be instructive. Google searches are a starting point, not an end.

By the way, much as you may have maligned "Communist Romania" or "communist Romania", those do at least occur, but I don't see many post-1990 scholarly works using "Socialist Republic of Romania".

2) That's correct, we don't have to use an all-encompassing name, but it's an option, an option I believe we should embrace in the name of accuracy. Conversely, I might add, no provision requires us to use the final name of a regime, although that is indeed current practice for some Communist countries.
3) Yes, while there were changes along the way (especially in 1965, when the leader and then the constitution changed), we are dealing with a single entity. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I seem to have a different way of responding which probably still goes in the same direction, @DIREKTOR,

1. no, you are comparing apples (period = Communist Romania) and oranges (name of a specific constitutional entity that existed for part of the period in question)
2. no, same apples and oranges problem, the article is about a period, and similar to the same problem as I have already pointed out for Communist Hungary, but I'll deal with that later
3. no, the article is about one historical period encompassing several separate discrete sovereign (regardless of to what practical degree) and/or constitutional entities; "country" is ambiguous at best in this context and not synonymous with "territory"

There is also no reason to exclude "post-Communist Romania" as indicative of the use of "Communist Romania" in scholarship as that is clearly referencing "post-that period", not "post-that name of sovereign entity". If anything, the exclusive use of that term to refer to after that period validates the use of "Communist Romania" for that period. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh for goodness' sake... if there ever was an obvious move its this one. @Biruitorul, I agree that secondary sources should primarily be viewed, but I reject your other filters as they appear to be without basis in Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not by any means focus solely on sources published in the past 20 years. If they are English-language sources, they count towards English usage. That's policy, its not up for modification here as part of the continuous "raising of the bar" we're witnessing. Obviously we need to go for an RM. @Vecrumba, I don't know what to say to you. Your response seems plainly illogical. This is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Director (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I see it equally obvious ("for goodness' sake") that your desire to rename the article demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of article scope, content, and historical context. What (on earth?) "raising of the bar" are you talking about? You're certainly free to pursue additional venues to push your POV, but recognize any such action for what it is: you don't like the response you've been given (given for good reason), so now you'll try to subvert the direct feedback you've been given here that your proposed article renaming is inappropriate. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Your flaw is that you genuinely believe this is about uniform application of policy. It's not, and as it's not, you are producing nonsensical proposals with regard to the appropriate title for the period and content in question. (You say illogical, I say nonsensical, at this point we can agree that only one of us can be reasonably held to be supporting the more appropriate title.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I advise you to be very careful indeed not to cross the line with regard to WP:NPA. -- Director (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ummm, go easy on the WP:ALPHABETSOUP warning crap. I am merely looking to analyze your deep-seated desire as to your refusal to accept the title as being that appropriate to the period per reputable scholarship, bringing up WP:APLPHABETSOUP which does not apply to make your argument. Quite frankly, your characterization of my editorial opposition elsewhere is much closer to a personal attack, so do please let me know if you're here to engage in spirited debate or to quash opposition through threats. I react very poorly to threats. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I'm here. I'm asking you to be civil - or else :). And if you look carefully you might notice I did not, in fact, "characterize your editorial opposition" in any way. I merely commented on the fact that "Communist Romania" is, in addition to all its other problems, also POV in that it labels a country "communist", when it designated itself "socialist". I did not state this is why you're opposing the RM, how could I possibly know that. You yourself stated that you simply do not find the proposed title "appropriate", whatever that means. I see no point in continuing this thread. -- Director (talk) 16:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Your WP:SYNTHESIS that it's POV. It's grossly POV to propose a title that only accounts for one of three regime/constitutional periods of a country for a historical period. You're the one who's choosing to avoid ("no point") measured discourse on the topic, making pointless and polarizing contentions about right wing Romanians, etc. 02:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Title is not changing, article is not splitting, let's move on to 1945 versus 1947

I would suggest that we are all well aware by this point that the article title is not going to change, that the article is not going to be split. If you like we can discuss 1945 (what the start year should be) versus the current frozen article state (1947). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2012

Communist Romania → Socialist Republic of Romania – The current title is simply terrible, take your pick:

• WP:COMMONNAME. Google tests (posted above in their entirety) show "communist Romania" is in fact the least common phrase considered for the title. Usage in English-language sources very distinctly favors Socialist Republic of Romania. "Communist Romania" yields 17,100 hits, and when we exclude the phrase "post-communist Romania" the number goes down to 9,800. Socialist Republic of Romania yields in the neighborhood of 918,000 hits. So we're talking about two orders of magnitude.
• Even when the phrase "communist Romania" is used in some sources, it is very rarely as an actual name for this state. The sources most often simply refer to the country as "Romania" and wish to state that it was "communist", hence the phrase is a common grammatical occurrence, and very few sources actually qualify as supporting such a naming option.
• Subsequently, the name form "Communist [name]" is not used anywhere as an article title on this project. Perhaps also because it is, in addition to all of the above, arguably unecyclopedic. Romania underwent changes during this period, but no more profound than in many other very similar states. All similar Eastern European states, many of which have also changed their names and underwent profound reforms, all of them use the latest official name [62][63][64][65] - which in this case is Socialist Republic of Romania.

As if WP:COMMONNAME wasn't enough, it seems there is an inherent political message in deciding to call a country which designated itself "socialist" - as "communist". I speculate local political considerations come into play. Two users have expressed reservations against the move (and no doubt will do so again), but I personally found that their objections were not based on policy, and presented strong personal conviction more than any objective reason not to follow WP:NAME. -- Director (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support per above (as nominator). -- Director (talk) 23:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support per Director, above. The current title sticks out like a sore thumb as a peculiar hybrid. Is it supposed to indicate a formal name? It doesn't. Is it supposed to be descriptive? It isn't (as far as I'm aware none of the 'socialist' states have ever claimed to be 'communist' - not least that Marx for one seems to suggest that under communism there would be no state). Is it supposed to be a shorthand common name? It isn't that either, in that the shorthand in almost all contexts would be 'Romania'. Perhaps a better title might be 'Romania under socialism' (at least to those who consider what went on there as 'socialism' - not an universally-held perspective), but that has its problems too. One could I suppose rename the article 'Romania 1947–1989' (or '1945–1989'? - I'll not offer an opinion), and avoid any label at all. Per what seems to be the norm for similar articles though, I cannot see any serious objections to Director's proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support changed to Neutral. The formal name of the state seems the correct choice, and I'm willing to ignore the fact that this only one of the formal names during the time period covered by the article. Interested parties should note that this was previously suggested in 2009 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Communist_Romania/Archive_2) and closed as "no consensus"). I'm just mentioning it in case anyone wants to re-use the same arguments for or against. Dingo1729 (talk) 01:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • The question is, what is the name of the period 1945-1989 as referred to in current scholarship, not which one of three state names should take WP:UNDUE precedence over others in choosing a title. Do you feel it's proper that you are "willing to ignore" that the proposed name only partially applies when the existing name wholly applies? How much do you know about Romanian history? Not asking to be pointy, if the answer is not that much, some reading is likely to lead you to understand while the title is a period, not a formal country name. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the article should cover the whole period 1945-1989. I understand Peters' point that this particular renaming might push people to split the article inappropriately. I think that none of the titles Communist Romania, Socialist Republic of Romania or Romania (1945-1989) is absolutely perfect. They all have pros and cons. My personal preference has come around to the last of the three. But as this is a minority view (possibly a minority of 1), I won't push it. Dingo1729 (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Strong oppose - to begin with, Director's contentions are invalid.
  • The raw Google count is indeed (substantially) higher for "Socialist Republic of Romania", but that's not especially relevant (see WP:GHITS for that). I don't expect participants or the closing administrator to weigh through the entirety of the exhaustive informal move discussion, but let me reiterate that many if not most hits for "Socialist Republic of Romania" fall into one of three categories:
    • Scholarly work from ca. 1980 ([66], [67]). Needless to say, this is superseded by work from the last few years, if we're trying to determine current usage.
    • Official publications of the regime ([68], [69], [70], [71]). Beyond our normal skepticism about government sources, we're talking about a strongly authoritarian regime that systematically abused human rights — these don't exactly qualify as reliable sources.
    • Primary sources like treaties, laws and the constitution ([72], [73], [74], [75], [76]). In determining usage, we look at contemporary scholarly works, not legal documents from 22+ years ago.
  • Tellingly, Director has failed to present any post-1989 scholarly works using the term "Socialist Republic of Romania". I have managed to unearth a wealth of references to "Communist Romania" (or "communist Romania"): [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108]. No fewer than four works ([109] [110] [111] [112]) use "Communist Romania" to refer to the state. Also here are sources in Romanian using România comunistă, just in the title: [113], [114], [115] and [116].
• As I have repeatedly pointed out to Director without receiving acknowledgment, sources also refer to Greater Romania and to the Romanian Old Kingdom without claiming these as a name for the state. The name may be slightly informal (then again, so are East Germany, Soviet Union and Congress Poland), but it has the virtue of being all-encompassing, as well as being used by, inter alia, Oxford University Press.
• WP:WAX is also not a valid argument. Only two other Communist countries in Eastern Europe changed their name from one "Communist" name to another, and as I've said several times, Communist Albania and Socialist Yugoslavia would be far more appropriate titles for those articles.
• The state was not communist in Marxist-Leninist terms, but it was both striving for communism (on paper) and governed by a communist party. However, that's not so relevant as the salient fact of more consistent use of "Communist Romania" in scholarly works.
• The end of Director's message displays a startling absence of good faith, verging on a personal attack. I cannot speak on Vecrumba's behalf, and I know he will respond ably, but for my own part, let me state emphatically that I find this kind of witch-hunt distasteful and demeaning, and that this is the third time it happens in several days. I have objected time and time again based on policy. I have never tried to use this discussion (or indeed this encyclopedia) to send a "political message". I have never claimed "personal convictions" as a basis for keeping the present title. I demand that Director keep his speculations to himself, commenting on content, not the contributor.
• Finally, I would like to state my own reasons for wishing to keep the present title:
  • It occurs most frequently in reliable sources — more specifically, in the reliable sources germane to a discussion on a title.
  • It is more accurate and more comprehensive than any alternative. If Communist Romania lasted from 30 December 1947 to 22 December 1989, by calling the article by the entity's second name, we exclude the name it had for 42% of its existence. There is no justification for this when a perfectly acceptable name that is all-encompassing is available. Moreover, if we consider that the Communist era in Romania began on 6 March 1945 (and there are ample sources making this very claim), then the new title is labeling a monarchy — which Romania was until 30 December 1947 — as a "socialist republic". I need not underscore how blatantly inaccurate that would be. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I would also confirm per scholarship of the period that "Communist Romania" starts in 1945 at Stalin's behest in January of that year, not with King Michael's abdication and declaration of the people's state in 1947. Biruitorul is correct in this regard; this is another POV issue on the part of some editors who insist on 1947 in preference to the more appropriate 1945. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose The formal name of the state proposed refers to only a fraction of the time period. The proposal that the title must be the name of a state ignores that the historical circumstance and scope of the article refers to a contiguous period, no part of which should be given WP:UNDUE weight over the other, which is precisely what the proposed title accomplishes. That current scholarship is universal in its preference for "Communist Romania" and also "post-Communist Romania" validates the use of "Communist Romania" to refer to the multi-regime multi-constitutional multi-sovereignty period from 1945-1989. There was no consensus before on a rename for valid reasons. The Google searches presented as evidence purport that the requested move is in regard to the title of an article about a country and attempt to present the proper country title choice. Unfortunately, DIREKTOR's proposal poses a wholly inappropriate question based on a completely faulty premise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And I resent DIREKTOR's speculations on WP:IDONTLIKEIT (in prior discussion), "presenting personal conviction" and completely ignoring that the title is a period not a country and ignoring all scholarly evidence in support. That he needs to resort to personal attacks to deride those that disagree with him as part of his proposal rather points to the weakness of his editorial position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • And, quite frankly, the absence of "Communist XYZ" as period in wider use (or "Socialist XYZ") has led to all sorts of artificial bifurcations of content along formal name of state lines. Communist Hungary, for example, is inappropriately split to Republic of Hungary (1946–1949) and People's Republic of Hungary and inappropriately redirects to the latter. The former article drops right off a ledge instead of leading to anything. WP is a poor precedent for itself in this case. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support None of the maps I ever looked at had a place called Communist Romania (although they had different spellings for the country) and it was never called that during the period. TFD (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support the proposal per consistency with other similar articles at Wikipedia including communist Yugoslavia, Albania, and RSFSR which had multiple official names without a regime change. However, of more concern to me is that this article does not fully represent the state during the relevant time (note the numerous empty sections here). Instead it is a straight history article. Ideally the article should be expanded to cover other aspects of the state or split into one article on the state (Socialist Republic of Romania) and one on the history (e.g., History of Communist Romania or History of Romania (1945-1989)) along the lines of East Germany/History of East Germany or Czechoslovak Socialist Republic/History of Czechoslovakia (1948–1989). —  AjaxSmack  03:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ummm, there has been a misguided attempt to (IMHO) guide discussion to country name by inappropriate expansion of the article. All those holes are of recent making. I suggest you review this earlier fairly stable version and see what you think. Until such stable content grows to more than is appropriate for a single article, there's no particular need to make multiple articles for the period. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree with Vecrumba here. I think this article can cover the period adequately. -- Director (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the link to the earlier version. Based on that, I feel that this is not an article about a state but about a historical period (once again, cf. History of East Germany vs. East Germany). As such, I no longer support the move proposal. I support a renaming to History of Romania (1945- [or 1947-]1989) (preferred) or History of Communist Romania to clearly show that this is a history and not a full accounting of a state. I would also support a new separate article on the Socialist Republic of Romania if content warrants it (once again, along the lines of other similar cases). —  AjaxSmack  02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
        • I'll consider History of Communist Romania, as this could set an appropriate precedent for other Eastern European countries whose history of the equivalent is currently split in multiple articles because of the must-be-declared-name-of-regime non-WP:RULE. Since Communist Romania is not a country but a period covering multiple regimes and constitutions, the title is a bit of a tautology from my perspective, but I'm not unreasonable. I'd be interested to hear what other proponents of the current title think. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support I support renaming the article - "Communist" seems faintly POV and inaccurate if the state itself used "Socialist", and I don't have overwhelming objections to the proposed name, but, if there is serious objection because the state had differing names during the period, and we are groping for a term for the period, an off the wall suggestion might be "Cold war" - but I'm sure that might start as many arguments as it solves - as I say, just a passing thought, and possibly not useful. Begoon ^talk 06:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas, there is no "groping," the title has been stable for a long time. To yours and others here, the title is not the name of a country. And of course "Communist Romania" does not appear on a map, that's the ultimate misdirection regarding what's under discussion here. Please all raise your hands to indicate whether you're expressing your opinion based on:

1. interpretation WP policy and standards regarding "name of country",
2. "Communist" is a "bad" defamatory word, or
3. knowledge of Romanian history.

I regret I have to wonder how the most common name applied to a period in Romanian history as the title regarding that period can be considered "bizarre." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support As per Director & Andy the Grump. "Communist Romania" is just, frankly, bizarre. Walrasiad (talk) 08:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support I already presented my arguments in the 2009 RM (which I had started). Basically the current title is inconsistent (see all other East European countries, and the treatment of "common" names such as Soviet Russia), POV (goes against the self perception of the state, which never considered itself "communist", and presents an exclusively Western Cold War era perception), and fails most Google tests. No reason to use an attribute (just like "Buddhist Tibet", "Communist Soviet Union" or "Post-Communist Romania") instead of the country's name as article title.Anonimu (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, "Communist Romania" and "post-Communist Romania" are scholarly usage after the death of the USSR and end of the Cold War. The title is regarding a period, not the name of a country. The same misnaming as is proposed here exists for other post-WWII Communist/Socialist states. The proposed naming does not bring the title in line with some mythic standard, it impedes the ability to create informative historical articles. If the rename is approved, I predict the next action will be to propose splitting the article so that the rest of the historical period is not mis-named. This renaming effort here is a gross disservice to serious, objective, scholarship of post-war Eastern Europe. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

A period? I thought this was an article about a defunct state. If it's "a period", then it should be "History of Romania, 1947-1989" or something like that. I know the difference sounds subtle, but it makes a difference. It's like the difference between "Duchy of Burgundy" and "History of the Upper Rhone". Many articles relating to historical topics refer to defunt states and consequently need to link to articles titled the "Duchy of Burgundy" and the "Socialist Republic of Romania". The shouldn't be directed to some densely-written prose chronology of the "History of Romania, 1947-1989" or "History of the Upper Rhone". A page on the old state is needed. And the state's name should be used. It should be clear enough once in the article that the same state had a cosmetic change in its title along the way. Walrasiad (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba does not want an article split and thinks the proposed title will somehow force it, so he's opposing it with a whole variety of constantly changing objections, none of which have much to do with policy. Now he contends that this article isn't about a historical country, which I think is obviously not the case. -- Director (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, again, your policy-based argument is totally misguided, see my section below. As to what happens after, that's just experience talking, and the law of entropy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@Walrasiad, it's not about a (single) defunct state, as it includes (1945...) a constitutional monarchy prior to declaration of a people's republic prior to declaration of a socialist Romania and including socialist Romania. These separate entities, bound by Communist control of the state, are best grouped under the period "Communist Romania" and not under the name of a particular defunct state. I hope that helps. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support - "Communist Romania", while accurate, is a remarkably unencyclopedic title - it sounds like the title of a child's 8th grade history report. The name of the country during this time period should be used - as at, for instance, French Third Republic. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Which name? It had two or even three, if one includes 1945-47. And what about Vichy France, East Germany, Greater Romania or Romanian Old Kingdom? We use the most common name in reliable sources, not necessarily the official one. As for the "unencyclopedic" claim, if you don't care to wade through the preceding weeks of discussion, at least see my comment just below. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - it's quite telling that when one performs a proper search (books with preview, descending date order, extraneous phrases removed), one finds a plethora of occurrences for "Communist Romania" (or "communist Romania"), but one finds essentially no results (particularly post-1990) for "Socialist Republic of Romania", outside a narrow legalistic or official context ("Monograph of the Social and Political Sciences Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 With Respect to the Socialist Republic of Romania", etc). It's also telling that for works from 2009-11, i.e. those reflecting current usage, "Communist Romania" has ~150 hits, while "Socialist Republic of Romania" has ~50 hits. Does this scholarly evidence not matter, or are we going to move based in part on one editor's personal opinion that the current title is "just, frankly, bizarre"?
• Some sample phrases of what I mean: "Ana Pauker, communist Romania's foreign minister"; "Born in Communist Romania of parents who were Holocaust survivors"; "Egon rose to high positions in postwar Communist Romania"; "Although he is not, as the literary critics of Communist Romania considered him"; "Communist Romania tried to introduce regular working hours", "while also creating important disturbances in the power machinery of Communist Romania"; "In communist Romania, Sora never held a teaching appointment"; "writers from Communist Romania were allowed to participate in the International Writing Program";"the authorities in charge of food distribution in communist Romania".
• A wealth of recent works - scholarly in nature, published by respected presses, peer-reviewed, you name it - freely and unreservedly applies the "Communist Romania" label when discussing this state or (not that the distinction matters a great deal) this time period. That is simply not the case when it comes to "Socialist Republic of Romania", and I challenge anyone to disprove me on these grounds. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes apparently even if, for some very strange reason, we were to decide to exclude all publications Google Books cannot preview, "Socialist Republic of Romania" still has an advantage over "Communist Romania". Biruitorul, I'm sure that if one puts in a lot of effort, one can surely find some settings and new "criteria" that favor "Communist Romania" - or just about any title one personally favors for that matter. Imo what is "telling" is that you put in all that effort, and still haven't managed to produce such a test result. On the other hand, here are the Google Scholar test results: Socialist Republic of Romania 2,600 hits, Communist Romania 942 hits. It goes without saying that you are also consistently ignoring or brushing aside all other numerous objections to the current title. -- Director (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Well, no, you are consistently ignoring that the article is about a period not title-of-country and dismissing all evidence regarding "period" as immaterial to "title-of-country". Well, of course it's immaterial, the two are completely different concepts. Your accusations of denial are a syllogism at best. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
      • No, I'm consistently ignoring your claim that has no "evidence" at all. And besides, you may be shocked to learn that the scope of Wikipedia articles is determined by user consensus, not by your personal interpretation of its current article title. -- Director (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Does the notion of contextual relevance - being able to tell the relevance of a phrase in context, in other words not looking just at snippets - not resonate at all with you? Regardless, I'm going to perform the same search again, including no-preview results, and repost my comment in modified form.
    • Oh, and how about, since we're supposed to reflect current usage, searching for papers from 2000 on? Communist Romania not only surpasses Socialist Republic of Romania by 723 to 384, the latter results are uniformly extraneous - things like "6th WP Military Medical Conference held in Socialist Republic of Romania during September 18–27, 1967" or "Treaty of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance between the Socialist Republic of Romania and the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic". We already knew the official name; a focus on context would be very welcome, even at this late stage. Contrast with meaningful results (those actually discussing the entity, not reprinting official documents) like "one of the most notorious camps for political prisoners in communist Romania" or "Practically every monograph on Communist Romania deals with the destruction of the urban elite". Quite a difference. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - it's quite telling that when one performs a reasonably proper search (books, descending date order, extraneous phrases removed), one finds a plethora of occurrences for "Communist Romania" (or "communist Romania"), but one finds essentially no results (particularly post-1990) for "Socialist Republic of Romania", outside a narrow legalistic or official context ("Monograph of the Social and Political Sciences Academy of the Socialist Republic of Romania", "Waiver Under the Trade Act of 1974 With Respect to the Socialist Republic of Romania", etc). It's also telling that for works from 2009-11, i.e. those reflecting current usage, "Communist Romania" has ~150 hits, while "Socialist Republic of Romania" has ~50 hits. Does this scholarly evidence not matter, or are we going to move based in part on one editor's personal opinion that the current title is "just, frankly, bizarre"?
• It's also quite telling that the individual requesting this move is still pushing raw Google counts on us, without even pretending to grapple with contextual issues.
• A wealth of recent works - scholarly in nature, published by respected presses, peer-reviewed, you name it - freely and unreservedly applies the "Communist Romania" label when discussing this state or (not that the distinction matters a great deal) this time period. That is simply not the case when it comes to "Socialist Republic of Romania", and I continue to challenge anyone to disprove me on these grounds, rather than throwing diversions our way. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Ugh... Didn't I address all this before 13 times already? Fine, you oppose the move and probably won't stop posting various objections until the RM is done. I think people got the message. -- Director (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • No, this objection has never been addressed, and it lies at the very heart of this discussion. A plethora of recent scholarly works freely and unreservedly applies the "Communist Romania" label when discussing this state or this time period. That is simply not the case when it comes to "Socialist Republic of Romania", and I continue to challenge anyone to disprove me on these grounds, rather than throwing diversions our way, or pretending to get around this fatal flaw in the "move" argument without actually even trying to get around it. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. The article is about "[...] the period in Romanian history (1947–1989) when that country was a Soviet-aligned communist state in the Eastern Bloc." Are you seriously asking to name that period as "Socialist Republic of Romania"? Because all through your request you kept saying "country" instead of "period". Well the country is Romania, and this article isn't. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comments for the "Supporters":
  • AndyTheGrump, why don't you ask the sources whether what they use is supposed to be a formal name, a descriptive one, or a shorthand? The title should "[serve] to give an indication of what the article is about, and to distinguish it from other articles". How is Communist Romania not doing that?
  • TFD, maps don't tend to show periods.
  • AjaxSmack, the History of Communist Romania seems a valid choice, but i still wonder what does the "Communist Romania" in that title refer to.
  • The Bushranger, the French 3rd Republic only had one name. This isn't the case here.

Jokes Free4Me, I can see someone told you otherwise, but I have only one thing to say: this is article is not about the period. Period. :) And I submit that fact is plain obvious from the article itself: the infobox, the lede, the structure ("Ceauşescu government", "Demographics", "Military", "Downfall", not to mention the fact that Socialist Republic of Romania redirects here. Apart from the very first lede sentence, which of course had to be engineered around the phrase "Communist Romania", the entire article centers on the country.

This is just the latest in a loong line of completely bogus arguments used by the two opposing users to try and have their way. I invite everyone to read through the discussion in the above section and you will see Biruitorul talking about this as a country article and how "Communist Romania" is the WP:COMMONNAME title for this (quote) "country". Now that we know the latter isn't the case, suddenly "raw hits" aren't important and this article is a bout a "period". Vercrumba, on the other hand, does not realize Wikipedia articles are about what we decide they're about. In my view, their shifting position cost them a lot of credibility in this issue. -- Director (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobody told me anything, i am perfectly capable of reading the article (and the debate) myself. Infobox mentions both states, so it's not about SRR; the history template mentions it as CR in a list of other chronological entries; the sections you name are empty and thus pretty much irrelevant. As for your stated interpretation, it is (quote) "completely bogus", and does not agree with what i HAD read in the above section. Actually, i went further and checked the archives too, to be sure i'm not missing anything, and all i can say is: my position is not changed. I still oppose the suggested move. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, the infobox simply mentions both names of the same state. And if you ask the other two fellas who support the "period" idea you may note that they heartily oppose the notion that these were two states. In fact, Br specifically stated this article is about was about one state. They're just trying to shoot this down by any means necessary. I repeat: the infobox, the lede, the structure ("Ceauşescu government", "Demographics", "Military", "Downfall") all point to the fact that this is a former country article. I can see no consensus anywhere that would point to this article's scope having been changed to a "period". B&V simply came up with the claim in the past several hours, and started repeating it loudly over and over again. Whereas before they explicitly stated this was a country article. -- Director (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In such a case, i'll be in disagreement with them when they'll try to state such facts (that Communist Romania was a state) in the article. I'm willing to accept your infobox argument when you'll provide a version of what the lead should really look like, supporting the country viewpoint. Also, please stop talking about B&V, my assertion that the article is about a period instead of a country was independently reached from simply reading the lead, trying to check if your only stated reason, WP:NAME, had merit. You need to make a case for the name change, preferably without using ad hominems on each paragraph. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you should meet Yesterday Biruitorul and Yesterday Vecrumba :). In writing up a modified lede for the suggested title one need only look to every other similar article. As I said, numerous countries, even numerous Eastern European countries changed their names in this period. Virtually all communist country articles use the last official name as the title. Only Romania has to use this childish name format. We can simply write-up a lede that will be consistent with the rest of Wiki. -- Director (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Putting smiley faces after deriding editors doesn't improve it. In fact, other Eastern European countries have multiple articles (per more than one title of country during the period) which should be united in a similar fashion for the post WWII period. Romania is the model, not the exception. (I've already noted bifurcation of content regarding the Communist period in Hungary as a specific example.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You certainly seem to be the expert on derision. And writing something doesn't make it true, nor are people supposed to take your word on anything at all. Romania is the exception, not the model. [117][118][119][120]. -- Director (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you let other editors speak for themselves. WP is not a monolith of rules, it is a wondrous and diverse amalgam of informative and appropriately titled narratives. Appropriateness is determined by content, not by invoking WP:RULES based on on-the-surface comparisons to other cases you contend apply. I expect Romania to be the model, not the exception. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per Biruitorul sources and argument. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Support per arguments set forth by DIREKTOR. It is absolutely absurd to manipulate the google test results as PETERS V has done to apply arbitrary date limits and limiting the search to apply only to titles of books. -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 23:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Limiting to book titles was not my own first impulse — in my own ideal search, I looked through the full text. But paying attention to the date of publication, if not actually excluding works from before a certain date (1990 or 2000 both work), is vital. You need to understand that basic principle if you are to have an informed opinion on the matter: this encyclopedia reflects current usage, not usage over all time. In the last three years, not only have published scholarly works used "Communist Romania" three times as often as "Socialist Republic of Romania", they have done so many times more often when one looks at actual discussions of the state and eliminates purely legalistic or official occurrences; and moreover, the pattern holds steady when looking at the earlier 2000s, and even the 1990s. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • This is not a factual dispute - this is an RM. Research is a good thing in general, but what does you reading a few texts have to do with WP:NAME and the most common English-language term? I've already explained to you twice that we are dealing with hundreds of thousands of sources not the few you happen to prefer, and that posting a dozens of links for dramatic effect seems to be entirely for show. Furthermore, due to the fact that you have switched your argument three times already in support of this title, as the occasion may warrant, personally I seriously question your objectivity in this issue. -- Director (talk) 00:44, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Just because you've demonstrated an apparent lack of interest in what constitutes academic scholarship on this subject doesn't mean that scholarship doesn't exist. Simply invoking claims of "hundreds of thousands of sources" and throwing around allegations of your content opponent acting for "dramatic effect" shouldn't impress anyone. The fact remains that recent scholarly works far prefer "Communist Romania" to describe this entity, and you cannot get around that; indeed, you have never even tried. You are entitled to your own opinion about what the best title for this article may be, but you are not entitled to your own set of facts — and the facts demonstrate a clear preference for "Communist Romania" in scholarly discussions of the subject published in recent years. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment - lest I be accused of canvassing, I'd like to disclose that I've posted a note at ro.wiki: "For those interested, there is a discussion on moving the article on CR to SRR. Your opinions would be appreciated." I believe such notifications are permitted under WP:CANVASS, and I also believe that Romanian editors might have pertinent insight into this topic. - Biruitorul ^Talk 00:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I thought as much. You will, however, be accused. Nice try with the preventive measure though. -- Director (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Yes, let's see how that accusation plays out for you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I refuse to be intimidated by your threats and posing as my prosecutor. Allow me to quote WP:CANVASS: "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following... A central location such as the Village pump... Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". If you believe I have violated any provision of that guideline, please report me to an appropriate forum. If not, please drop the insinuation of misconduct. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Support and Split into People's Republic of Romania and Socialist Republic of Romania.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 00:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • You lose 1945 to 1947 in proposing a split. Not to mention that where such splits have been done for other content--an issue I hope to address--it has resulted in confusing discontinuity in historical narrative. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I honestly never believed such an obvious RM as this one would get this this ugly, apparently it takes a lot of desperate effort to make it so. There has been some WP:CANVASSING at roWiki concerning this issue. Imo that's only the tip of the proverbial iceberg. Wikipedians who oppose the move are almost exclusively Romanian and mirror the views of User:Biruitorul. -- Director (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest you strike your clear accusation that ethnic background means bias against neutral and accurate content. You're the one being ugly here. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • I am not interested in what you consider "clear accusations". I suggest you strike your personal attack above. -- Director (talk) 01:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • You've stepped over the line. Telling that you maintain that personal attacks are in the eyes of the beholder, but only if it's you and not the editors whose integrity you call into question. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Please substantiate allegations of canvassing, especially taking into consideration the wording of WP:CANVASS - "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following... A central location such as the Village pump... Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief". Otherwise, please refrain from making such allegations.
  • Please read WP:NPA - "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views" is an obvious example of a personal attack. Disparaging references to ethnic background of editors is strictly forbidden. "Opinions" about non-existent misconduct create a poisonous editing atmosphere. Accusations of desperation are another personal attack. So is the thinly veiled accusation of meatpuppetry. Please stop. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:43, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Anybody who has kept an eye on Romanian topics knows that usually posting a message on a ro.wiki resulted in massive support (generally without arguments or very weak ones) for the message poster over here. As WP:AGF states that it "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary", and there are precedents of "non-canvassing" messages on ro.Wiki provoking a massive response over here, I think it's safe to assume that the authors of such messages are not at all disinterested, and are clearly in violation of the spirit of WP:CANVASS (indeed, not in its letter). Anonimu (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Split or Rename to History of Romania (1945–1989). I would support the Socialist Republic of Romania name only if the article is Split into People's Republic of Romania and Socialist Republic of Romania. If splitting is considered inappropriate, then Rename to History of Romania (1945–1989). It seems to me that this article is not about a former country; it's rather about a specific period in the history of Romania. It is mentioned above that "it is general practice to use the latest official name of a country as the title". This would apply if we would merge the contents of this article in the Romania article, because this is the latest official name of the country. Of course, this would probably be inappopriate, because the history of Romania between 1945 and 1989 is rather distinct from the post-1989 history (although it is the same country). Comparing Socialist Republic of Romania with Czechoslovakia is not correct, because Czechoslovakia doesn't exist anymore, while Socialist Republic of Romania changed it's name to Romania. The article People's Republic of Poland covers only the period while the country had this name. The #History section only provides some context about the period when the 1952 Constitution was adopted. The main article about the entire period is History of Poland (1945–1989), where the 1945-1952 period is covered in the #Stalinist era (1948–1956) section. Razvan Socol (talk) 08:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Again, I think only the very first lede sentence can arguably give the impression this article is about a "period" - and that is because it of course had to be engineered around the faulty title. Imo if we had a different lede sentence nobody would get the impression this is a period article. This article is I think quite plainly about a historical state. And even if it were not, we would still need the Socialist Republic of Romania article for it. -- Director (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The lede describes the content, which (1947 being inaccurate) refers to Communist Romania from its inception with Stalin's personal go-ahead January 1945 (two full years before the monarchy was forced out) to its end. Three historical states (regimes/constitutions) makes for a period, not for the name of the last state. History of Communist Romania has been suggested elsewhere; while a bit of a tautology, it may prove useful. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Yes indeed, it seems you prefer any title that imposes said political label on a country which designated itself "Socialist" (not "Communist"). There is a marked difference between those two terms, you know. And "Socialist Romania" is still three times more common than "Communist Romania", lest we forget. And both are completely unnecessary in a period article title. But I'm certain elaborate "arguments" can surely be concocted once again to advocate the political label you apparently wish to impose at all costs. -- Director (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • As mentioned multiple times, your results do not factor in timeframes of usage. You ascribe "political" motivation. There is no motivation in ascribing political control. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
          • I am not interested which timeframe you demand we use so that the results turn out in your favor. Particularly since I've heard no such demands when you thought the current title is more common. There is a political message in unnecessarily emphasizing political control. -- Director (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Ah, so you can derisively contend I'm stuck in yesterday, while it is you whose results are stuck in the self-same past. As the article is precisely about the period of political control, nothing is being "emphasized." Personally, I am not advocating for any "message", just a title reflective of content and of current scholarship. I cannot speak to your personal feeling of a negative sensation in this regard. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Straw man :)

• Haha.. You have some skill "interpreting" what I "really" mean, Vecrumba. :) After every post I write you feel the need to construct these obvious straw men. But then, who am I to spoil your fun? Its not like anyone could possibly not see through them. "Ah, I see what you really mean is you're Napoleon Bonaparte and you want us all to swear allegiance to you, interesting..." -- Director (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not only the lede sentence. The entire article is about the history of Romania in a certain period of time. Adding a few empty sections won't change this. Razvan Socol (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Clearly the Socialist Republic of Romania existed only between 1965 and 1989, while this article spans the period 1947 to 1989. --Nug (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • While I respect your vote, I feel I must point out that the consensus (see above) is that the "People's Republic of Romania" and the "Socialist Republic of Romania" are one historical state. Many Eastern Bloc countries, when they underwent reform, felt it necessary to replace, add, or remove a particular "socialist prefix" in their official name. This is the case with several EB countries, the articles of all of which use the last official name of the state [121][122][123][124], which in this case happens also to be pretty much mandated by WP:COMMONNAME. Many of these countries underwent equally thorough and profound reforms at the time their name was changed. -- Director (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • There are seperate articles for the First French Republic, Second French Republic, Third French Republic, Fourth French Republic and Fifth French Republic. --Nug (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Indeed, but they can hardly be considered one state being separated temporally. I do not see the analogy -- Director (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Period versus country

Really, the charges of "unencyclopedic", "bizarre", etc. regarding the current title are unfathomable to anyone deeply familiar with Romanian history. (There's Anonimu who disagrees, but then we pretty much disagree about everything regarding Romania, so the exception proves the rule, there.)

If you do a book title search since 1990, post cold-War, post-Communist Romania, which encompasses scholarship during and after the period in question, you get:

• 1,270 book titles regarding "Communist Romania" and "post-Communist Romania" referring to the period and after-the-period
• 6 book titles which include "Socialist Republic of Romania", which, of course, would not discuss the entire period; and two of those are Wikipedia clones (so, 4)
• and, to be fair, I checked "Socialist Romania", that's another 6 titles, again, of course, nor necessarily of the entire period

Using the DIREKTOR Method, that's still more than 100 to one (1,270:10) in favor of retaining the current title (even ignoring that the alternates do not apply to the whole period in the first place). The wailing and gnashing of teeth that this is the only article about a country that doesn't have the proper name of a country (patently false contention at any rate) is entirely misguided, that misguided position best expressed by TFD, paraphrased, that "'Communist Romania' doesn't appear on any map, anywhere, ever." Well, that's utterly and completely not the point. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And why should we use the VECRUMBA Method and exclude pre-1990 English publications in the first place? Are you saying all English-language publications before 1990 should be considered communist until proven otherwise? I refuse to even begin discussing something under the premise of some nonsense personal "criteria" you're attempting to impose to have your way. When you filter sources in all these various ways, provide a policy-relevant basis or don't bother. All English-language sources are relevant to determine common usage. (And, for the record, I'm not buying those unsupported "test" results for a second.)

Look Vecrumba, you stated you oppose the proposed title and you explained your reasons, what's the point of this new thread of yours? -- Director (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Lost on (ec), to keep the conversation about a title needing to appropriately reflect the entire period versus pick-closest/last-title-of-country misrepresenting the period in question in one thread as opposed to responding to multiple editors multiple times. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You are misreading the results. The Google Book search may show 1,270 hits, but actually returns only a few dozen results, most of which are about "post-communist Romania". The books about "Communist Romania" appear to be all written by anti-Communists, mostly ouside academic publishing. So it is definitely a POV term and therefore fails as an article title. TFD (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@Director. We focus on newer sources because these reflect current usage, which is what this encyclopedia is supposed to do. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you go ahead and find the period that best supports your view, and we can pretend that hundreds of thousands of English publications don't exist. Perhaps we can only take this month's publications into consideration and ignore all others? Btw, I would appreciate it if you did not disrupt my posts in future. -- Director (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(ec) @ TFD: Whether "Communist Romania" or "post-Communist Romania", all refer to the 1945-the end period as "Communist Romania."

• Communist Romania
• Socialist Republic of Romania
• Socialist Romania

Scrolling through results appears to return 43 titles versus 10 none of which apply to the whole period. Google works in mysterious ways. You have to do better than allege that anything you don't agree with is POV, that anything about "Communist" Romania or after is written by anti-Communists, etc. But thanks for checking. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. "Communist Romania" is descriptive, not derogatory. There is no POV involved. That you appear to believe the word "Communist" applied to anything during the Soviet era is derogatory is, in fact, the POV position. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

@Direktor, that there are gizillions of sources including primary source documents that name Romania by its specific title for a specific time span doesn't mean it applies to a longer period which already has a perfectly accurate name used in scholarship (as even confirmed by those that still agree with your proposal because they accept your underlying thesis that the article title MUST be the title of a country, which thesis I contend does not apply to this article). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• As far as I know, WP:TALK forbids "editing or deleting the comments of other editors"; it says nothing about inserting a relevant comment between paragraphs.
• That said, this encyclopedia reflects current usage. It is not a matter of cherry-picking dates. You cannot seem to understand why focusing on sources from 2000-2011 makes more sense than lumping them in with sources from 1965-1989. I am trying to make it as clear as possible: it's because those sources reflect current scholarly norms. Am I clear enough? My assumption is that we are both trying to gauge what historians and political scientists use most often today (i.e., in the last 5-10 years), not to win a battle. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) Since we all like pretty pictures, if you look at

• this graph, the...
• mountain at the center supports DIREKTOR's gizillions more mentions of "Socialist Republic of Romania" (only starting when it was named, of course, we're missing nearly two decades prior) versus "Communist Romania", while...
• current scholarship, most often refers to the entire "Communist Romania" period.

Again, whether used in the context of "post-Communist Romania" or "Communist Romania", both uses refer to the contiguous period of Communist dominance/control from 1945 to 1989, passing no value judgement ("POV") on "Communist." Both uses validate "Communist Romania" as the only scholarly term which refers to that contiguous period of 1945-1989. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Vecrumba, I am not calling them "anti-Communist" because I disagree with them but because that is how they describe themselves or are normally described in reliable sources. Incidentally, "anti-Communist" refers to someone whose opposition to Communism is so intense that they fall outside mainstream consensus. One of the authors, Nicolae Rădescu, for example, was leader of a far right party that broke from the Iron Guard. Once stripping away the self-published books and Wikipedia reprints, there are only about half a dozen books, all by anti-Communists. There is no evidence that a mainstream scholar would use this title. TFD (talk)

The graphs reflect popularity of term, not having to do with your contentions that all books with "Communist Romania" in the title are authored by anti-Communists. They support DIREKTOR's mountain of evidence (the hundreds of thousands), but also show that the mountain has come and gone. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You also have to do better than tarnish all sources as anti-Communist by invoking one example which suits your purpose. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Well again you need to look at how it is used. The first Google book hit and a significant number of hits for example are for a re-print of this article. Could you please provide examples of books by mainstream writers that have "Communist Romania" in the title. TFD (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Reeducation Trials in Communist Romania, 1952-1960 Mircea Stănescu 2010 212.183.128.38 (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Another Romanian source? TFD, I suggest you not waste too much effort in this venue. If you read through the preliminary discussion you'll notice that the two users shift their argument continuously and always look for new angles to keep this specific title, even though there is no real objective reason why it should be superior to any of the three proposed terms (in fact it is decidedly inferior). When they thought it was the most common, all you could hear is WP:COMMONNAME, now they're trying to disregard "gazillions" of sources. Their activities do not focus on real sources research, but rather anything that would support the current title. A title which, as has been stated, among other things also carries a distinct unencyclopedic political POV. -- Director (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I also just independently ran across this source. So, to be clear, you would black-list it based on the author's name, ignoring that it is published by Columbia University Press? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Shall I quote from my own user page? "Everywhere Wikipedia policy states that articles must be written based on reputable sources. Yet in the Baltic and Eastern European sphere, sources are apparently immaterial. Here, 'nationalist' is not a term denoting patriotism or love and interest in one's heritage and history, it is a term of derision. Patriotism itself is scorned as an intellectually debased POV affliction. Sources are denounced based merely on the surnames of authors." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Director, can Romanians a priori not be trusted to write about their own history? And are you constitutionally incapable of holding a debate without some underhanded trick, in this case poisoning the well by asking TFD to ignore opinions contrary to yours?

TFD, I'm addressing this comment mainly to you, and I would ask that you spend a moment to look it over. Earlier today, I came up with a search of my own, not just for titles, but also for text. The search is for books, and goes in descending order of date. Here are results for Socialist Republic of Romania and for Communist Romania. You'll notice that for works written in 2009-2011 (which are most relevant, since they reflect current usage), "Communist Romania" gets about 150 hits and "Socialist Republic of Romania" about 50. As you go back toward the early 1990s, you'll notice this pattern mostly holding — perhaps you'll find that "Communist Romania" is neither unencyclopedic, nor an anomaly, nor the product of a Cold War mentality. You'll also notice that "Socialist Republic of Romania" is almost exclusively used in legalistic or official contexts (laws, treaties, names of government departments), while "Communist Romania" is used by contemporary scholars using ordinary prose to refer to, well, Romania under Communism.

I'm not particularly expecting to sway your opinion, but I do hope you'll at least see my thinking. There may be something wrong with my approach, but I believe it's at least worth some rational consideration. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

While I am not fooled for a second into thinking this article is about a "period" (which seems to be their latest line), and I would not support such a change, still in such a case the article would have to be renamed to fit that subject. "Communist Romania" is no name for a historical period, and that I think is obvious from the very fact we're having this discussion. This title, "Communist Romania", which Biruitorul in his Pre-"Period" Period had previously compared to that of "Vichy France", is about a country - "Romania". Not only that, but such a perception would change nothing: we would still need to create (and it would be my pleasure) a Socialist Republic of Romania article to cover the country. Thankfully, we would already have all the material written down and ready to go - in this article. :P Its just silly... -- Director (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You know, Director, people's thinking does evolve - there's nothing unusual about that. I've been grappling with this question for four days. I've remained consistent in support of the current title, but have kept an open mind about other titles. And as I discovered new material, I brought it up. Yes, the article is about a country, but what's your point? We need not use the last official name, but the most common one - and I've found a reasonable metric to determine what that is. I know your bad-faith claim that I'm twisting data to fit a preconceived agenda, but you've got it all wrong: I've fine-tuned what I consider the most relevant search in order to determine current scholarly usage. You're free to present your own metric, one that I've consistently shown to be irrelevant, but please stop casting aspersions on my motivation here. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Your thinking however evolves in whatever way is necessary to keep this title you personally prefer. In fact, I've never seen someone's thinking "evolve" so much in such a brief period. -- Director (talk) 02:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that this isn't quite "history". It is current living memory. Most of us were alive and well during this period, many of us quite familiar with that Romania in our adult lives. Walrasiad (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. And I'd additionally urge editors to please focus their comments on the arguments, and not on other editors, or their backgrounds. It won't help anything if this descends into personalized bickering. Walrasiad (talk) 15:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. I am aware that its living memory. And I believe that fact has more than made itself felt in this discussion. -- Director (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) @DIREKTOR and "While I am not fooled for a second into thinking this article is about a "period"", really, when it's about a contiguous time-frame spanning three separate regimes and/or constitutions from 1945-1989, what else, exactly, would that be? @TFD, about self-referential WP results included in searches, per the GoogleLabs ngrams presented, "Communist Romania" takes precedence as the #1 term before leeches start republishing Wikipedia as overpriced books to the unsuspecting. Your contention that the results are biased by WP content here (which IMHO is not bias, at any rate) is in error. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the majority of books are self-published and those that are not are primarily written by right-wing authors. Bear in mind that when neutral readers (i.e., people whose main source of news is not Fox talk shows) come across an article called "Communist Romania", they question its neutrality and truthfullness. TFD (talk) 00:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes indeed. "Communist Romania" seems to be a title preferred by the right in Romania (namely the PDL which is currently in power). That is possibly where politics enters this straightforward editorial issue, and very likely the reason why "Communist Romania" is the only article with such a title on Wikipedia. Its as if every possible means is being expended in a desperate effort to try and ignore WP:NAME in this matter. -- Director (talk) 00:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And I suppose that all the authors who now write about post-"Communist Romania" are all right wing Vulpe Ştiri viewers. WP:NAME per your contentions is not at issue here. Let's avoid speculations regarding Romanian right wing anti-Communist consipiracy theories. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You might instead consider some of editor AjaxSmack's comments. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Such are the nuances of language - "post-Communist Romania" is seen by readers as a neutral description, while "Communist Romania" is not. TFD (talk) 01:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Such are your ruminations. Same suggestion to you as to DIREKTOR just above. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Or rather your "ruminations". Only in your "ruminations" does "post-communist Romania" constitute the same phrase as "Communist Romania". -- Director (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That's post-(Communist Romania). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not see the use of brackets in any of the books in your Google book search. Can you provide any examples? TFD (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Merely an illustrative device that "something" and "post-(something)" does not mutate "something." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. You are dissecting words. The term is "post-communist" + "Romania", not "post" + "communist Romania". "Post-communist" ≠ "communist". There are different words, no matter how much 'emphasis' you use. -- Director (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Alas, for a period, it's commutative, "(post-Communist) Romania" and "post-(Communist Romania)", both divide today (after) from "yesterday" (before), before being Romania for the entire period of Communist control. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

(od) Might have to buy this book, sounds interesting...

Eastward to Tartary: travels in the Balkans, the Middle East, and the Caucasus

Robert D. Kaplan - 2000 - 364 pages - page 19

"Because of Hungary's market- oriented reforms in the period from the late 1960s through the 1980s known as goulash communism, Communist Hungary had always been far more developed than Communist Romania. But now the gulf seemed permanent ..."

Kaplan is a well-known foreign correspondent and author. And not a right wing Romanian as far as I know. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:29, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You are obviously not familiar with his writing. This is someone who's looking forward to a new Cold War with China followed by all out war. TFD (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• With his latest diversion, Director has veered into full-scale baiting, but I will not take the bait; I will respond calmly and logically. If there's just one thing I've been consistent about during this debate, it's that I have grounded my reasons for keeping this title on policy, not politics. You may not believe that I have arrived at my conclusions through apolitical lines of thinking, but I don't care. All I care is that you stop making this sort of baseless accusation before I am forced to seek administrative intervention.
• Anyway, these quotes expose the absurdity of your claims without needing further comment:
• "Communist Romania: Building the Socialist Nation - In communist Romania no major protests 'from below,' on the model of Polish Solidarity...", by right-wing Romanians Konrad Hugo Jarausch and Thomas Lindenberger, Conflicted Memories: Europeanizing Contemporary History, p.38, 2011.
• "Ana Pauker, communist Romania's foreign minister...", by right-wing Romanian Judith R. Baskin, The Cambridge Dictionary of Judaism and Jewish Culture, p.114, 2011.
• "Born in Communist Romania of parents who were Holocaust survivors...", by right-wing Romanian Sheila Jasanoff, Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age, p.163, 2011.
• "Just four years earlier, when the IMO was held in Communist Romania, the Soviet Union had fielded no team at all", by right-wing Romanian Masha Gessen, Perfect Rigour: A Genius and the Mathematical Breakthrough of the Century, p.32, 2011.
• "The status of communist Romania within the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) differed significantly from that of any other of its allies", by right-wing Romanians Jurgen Kuhlmann and Jean Callaghan, Military and Society in 21st Century Europe: A Comparative Analysis, p.142, 2011.
• And TFD, I refuse to sink to the sort of reverse McCarthyism where anyone with the taint of the Right (the horror!) is dismissed as unworthy of consideration, as if the only unbiased stance is a leftist one, but let's just look at one of the authors I quoted, Judith Baskin. I can't say for sure, but there is a vanishingly small chance that a Jewish-American feminist who is in the humanities and in university administration, who went to Yale and has taught at both UMass Amherst and UOregon, is right-wing. And yet she uses "communist Romania" without seeming hesitation, and Cambridge University Press (among the most prestigious academic presses on earth) publishes it. Interesting. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not McCarthyism, just that the terminology "Communist Romania", while extremely rare as the title of a book or article is used almost exclusively by right-wing authors, mostly from Romania. There is nothing wrong with having a point of view, it is that we should not be adopting terminology which is not neutral. In the same sense while some rs talk about "American imperlalism", we would accept that the term is more commonly used by writers with a certain viewpoint. Your first example btw was not written by Jarausch and Lindenberger, but is part of an article by the Romanian DRAGOŞ PETRESCU called "Communist Legacies in the 'New Europe': History, Ethnicity, and the Creation of a "Socialist' Nation in Romania, 1945-1989". You are obviously just Google mining for examples to support your views and this first example shows that you have already made up your mind. Just say that, because it is a waste of my time to follow up sources which you have misrepresented. TFD (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Is "Socialist Republic of Romania" more common for book or article titles in recent years? Are Judith R. Baskin, Sheila Jasanoff, Masha Gessen, Jurgen Kuhlmann and Jean Callaghan also right-wing Romanians?
    • I find your ethnic-based attitude entirely revolting. Petrescu has a PhD in history from Central European University. He is an expert in the field and teaches at Romania's most prestigious history faculty. His recent publications list is not unimpressive — note, for instance, that all have been published abroad. And yet you deem his writing unacceptable because of his country of origin? When you start to exclude legitimate scholars because they have the wrong kind of blood, that calls to mind a certain something.
    • Here's a thought experiment: "we can't rely on the Jew HILLEL COHEN to be objective on Israeli history"; "we can't accept the work of the Black HENRY LOUIS GATES on Black Literature"; "we need to ignore what the Japanese JACK FUJIMOTO has to say about the Japanese language". Any of those would be disgusting, and so is your disparaging reference to "the Romanian DRAGOŞ PETRESCU", and your implicit assumption that he cannot be neutral about his own country's history, regardless of his training and record. If you're going to discount academics based on their ethnicity, there are other places that do that. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • You present a source and claim for some reason that the author is not Romanian and when I point out that he his you say, "I find your ethnic-based attitude entirely revolting". So you have shown that not only do you misrepresent sources but you misrepresent what other editors say. None of this is persuasive or conducive to constructive discussion. If you prefer a certain description, that is fine, but please do not fill this page with untruthful claims. And now you have moved from projection, accusing other editors of McCarthyism, which btw is an extreme form of anti-Communism, to full blown Godwin's Law. I see no further purpose of this discussion. TFD (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • It is certainly not unheard-of in considerations concerning national history (esp. recent history!) to place foreign, international sources above local ones on grounds of distance and objectivity. Indeed it is common sense that a person of one nationality is far more likely to develop a less-objective stance towards said nationality than one who is not. This is a general fact, but of course with many exceptions. The more controversial an issue, and the more connected it is to a national mythos or sense of pride, the less reliable do national sources become as a general rule. This does not apply to all authors, certainly, and not to all issues, but it is a trend nevertheless. To answer your questions, while I certainly would not dare to dismiss any scholarly source without support, in the case of a sources conflict I would far sooner trust a non-African American scholar on African American history, or a non-Jewish historian about Jewish history. Though I find it very telling that you chose these two persecuted ethnic groups to attempt and take the moral high ground. -- Director (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, in that case, let's make sure to discount Dr. Audrey Smedley as an anthropological expert on race and race relations, African Americans in America in particular. (Race and intelligence being another contentious article area I'm familiar with.) That will certainly lead to more objective content. Perhaps we can institute new WP alphabet soup, say, WP:GBPOV, "genetically biased point of view." PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
            • Amusing. :) Though you will note that I said this does not apply to all scholars, certainly not to word-renowned experts. -- Director (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
              • Well, that's what you're proposing. Guilty of genetic bias unless proven otherwise. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                • Haha, is it now? :D -- Director (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                  • Some of us take your attitude seriously even if you don't. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                    • If I were you I'd be a lot more concerned about these strange "genetic" perceptions of nationality, rather than with the suggestion that people generally prefer their own country over those of others. It would be hard to imagine someone would construe that as meaning there is a "genetic" predisposition to personal opinions. Hopefully you were just trying to nazify me and don't really subscribe to such ideas. Now if you would kindly cease with the ad hominems. -- Director (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                      • "Nazify" you? WTF? And why are you attempting to turn around your contention that ethnic group X is less trustworthy a source than not ethnic group X? I'm just holding up the mirror here, don't put your ad hominems in my mouth. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                        • Where did I use the word "ethnic", Vercrumba? You know there is a difference between the terms "nationality" and "ethnicity"? In matters that concern the national history of national group A, where there is a conflict of sources, I would far sooner trust the professionalism of an author from national group K on the other side of the globe - because there is no conflict of interest. -- Director (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                          • Your argumentation is disingenuous as it is quite clear you distrust Romanian (cultural extraction = ethnic group) authors, not Romanian (a national of Romania regardless of ethno-cultural-linguistic background) sources. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
                            • I'm sure it is "super quite very clear" to you. I can't stop you from putting words in my mouth, I can just point out to others that this what you're doing. -- Director (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

We determine objectivity by how writing is received in the broader academic community, not the ethnic background of the writer. However terminology used may vary between scholars of different nationalities, e.g., Malvinas/Falklands, Holodomor/Great Famine, Great Patriotic War/ Eastern Front. A term that is considered neutral in one country may not be in another. A common example is the use of the name "America" to describe the U.S., which is generally used by writers across the political spectrum in the U.S., but is not as widely used in Latin America and Canada, except ironically. Our challenge is to use terminology that is widely considered to be neutral. The fact that Romanian writers across the political spectrum may use the term does not detract from the fact that it is more generally used outside Eastern Europe by Cold Warriors. TFD (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Communist Romania is descriptive of the period regardless of Cold War or post-Cold War. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Those are your ruminations, Vecrumba. It is "descriptive" yes, but less descriptive than other, more common terms that might, for another thing, be one hell of a lot less politically charged. -- Director (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, during the Cold War the country was normally referred to as "Romania". Only China was routinely called "Communist China" and still is by Lou Dobbs and other right-wingers. TFD (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

@DIREKTOR, There's nothing "politically charged" about factual Communist control. Certainly the Romanian people weren't in control. Perhaps if Stalin and the Communists were Smurfs you'd be less inclined to object? Smurfist Romania? You say your Google results trump mine; I say my Google results explain yours and indicate that as of the mid-90's "Communist Romania" came to the fore. You're one to pass judgement on "politically charged" after accusing me of attempting to "Nazify" you. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Communist" is a label with an inherent political charge, that is something it would make no sense to debate. Some sources use it in connection to Romania, the vast majority do not. -- Director (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You appear to cut off conversation whenever your personal contentions are challenged. I've already explained your mountain of Google results elsewhere as not being relevant to current scholarship. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Irrelevant"? :) to you, perhaps. Not so with Wikipedia policy. -- Director (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You fail to acknowledge that it is your term of choice which is stuck in your so-called "yesterday" while my term of choice has enjoyed a steady, if unspectacular, climb for the duration, surpassing yours since the mid-90's. Therefore, policy favors the status quo regarding title. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• • TFD, in the 1686 days since you started editing here, have you never read WP:AGF? How about, instead of automatically assuming that I deliberately "misrepresented" a source by claiming the wrong author, and moreover making that assumption public — how about not assuming anything? The reality, not that it matters, is that I didn't bother to look at the source closely enough — but that neither invalidates Petrescu's scholarship, nor that of his Romanian peers, nor that of dozens of other scholars, Romanian and non-Romanian, right-wing, left-wing, centrist or apolitical, who have used the term "Communist Romania" in academic discussions of the state in recent years.
  • Oh, and there is such a thing as left-wing McCarthyism. It's a term that's been used not just by the right-wing Weekly Standard, but also by the decidedly center-left Independent.
  • And Director, while there certainly are controversial areas in Romanian history — the identity of Radu Negru, the Holocaust in Romania and the precise nature of the Romanian Revolution of 1989 all come to mind from recent years — I can assure you that what to label this period has not been a hot topic. By and large, it's called regimul comunist ("the Communist regime"). The standard high school text on the subject is called O istorie a comunismului din România ("A History of Romanian Communism" or "A History of Communism in Romania"). - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Biruitorul, you've admittedly switched your argument several times, you've even blatantly contradicted yourself - and somehow always in support of one particular proposition. It is hard to AGF under such circumstances. I did AGF at first, certainly. But after you've abandoned WP:COMMONNAME to push this title, after days of only citing that policy over and over again, you must understand that brings your good faith into doubt with the objective observer.
    • All you've done is validated my point, since apparently Romanian scholars hold a view that is not shared in the vast majority of publications. I was not referring to an issue that is controversial in Romania, Biruitorul. Most Croatian scholars, in fact practically all of them, contend that I speak the Croatian language. Most international scholars state that I speak a variant of the Serbo-Croatian language. Who would you trust? The issue is not controversial in Croatia, but it is controversial nevertheless. "Croatians know best which language they speak", or "Romanians know best about Romanian history" is a non sequitur. In fact the opposite applies, since both are far more likely to have a vested conflict of interest than non-Croats or non-Romanians. -- Director (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Having found what I consider to be an accurate metric for determining current usage, I have stuck to that metric and to the claim that "Communist Romania" is the most common name used in contemporary research by experts in the field. If evidence (and no, raw Google hits without context don't count) to the contrary is presented, then I'll gladly have a different opinion. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Biruitorul, I find irritating, because it is time consuming, when editors present incorrect information in support of their arguments. That btw is what Joseph McCarthy did. You present a source which you claim was not written by a Romanian, when in fact it was. You call the Independent "decidedly center-left", when the very name of the publication shows that they have decided no such thing, and you claim that they use the term "left-wing McCarthyism", but the source turns out to be an opinin piece by a columnist. Inevitably, fact-checking by myself uncovers the errors, and then you present another round of arguments leading to more fact-checking and whole cycle begins anew. This is a waste of your time and mine. If you want to present arguments, please check your facts first. Do you think that arguments based on false information can be persuasive to people who take the time to check facts? Incidentally, the accurate portrayal of facts is essential for improving articles. TFD (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I presented five sources (and linked to dozens of others), one of which I accidentally claimed was written by Germans, not that the ethnicity of the writer should matter one iota. Latching on to a small error while ignoring the rest of the argument isn't a valid way of grappling with an argument; it's character assassination. If you want to make a legitimate argument that Communist Romania is not used far more often in recent scholarly publications than Socialist Republic of Romania, in particular in contextually relevant discussions, please do so. But diversions like the Dragoş Petrescu one are not going to carry you very far.
      • Of course that was an editorial, but newspapers tend to print editorials they agree with. Anyway, if The Independent doesn't lean to the left, then please please modify the list of left-wing publications in the United Kingdom accordingly. - Biruitorul ^Talk 21:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
        • There are at least four inaccuracies in your posting. Whether or not the ethnicity of the writers matters, you made a point of it in your previous posting. The list of left-wing publications in the U.K. is not a reliable source and no, the Independent cannot be compared to the Morning Star, which is Communist. I never argued that "Communist Romania is not used far more often in recent scholarly publications than Socialist Republic of Romania". Finally, mainstream newspapers newspapers do not "tend to print editorials they agree with", but publish a range of viewpoints. Your fifth source btw was not written by Kuhlmann and Callaghan, but by Adriana Stanescu in a book they edited. The book btw was supported by the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies and published by Irving Louis Horowitz's Transaction Publishers. If you want me to take your arguments seriously, could you please make sure that you have your facts straight. TFD (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • "Left-wing" is a rather broad umbrella, encompassing not just Harry Pollitt but also people like Nick Cohen and George Monbiot, both of whom have regularly appeared in The Independent and The Guardian. Before removing them from that list, you would have done well to look here and here and learn a bit more about their stances, if not from the Wikipedia articles then from the sources. No one accused them of being Communist, but they're both comfortably on the centre-left, as any literate Briton will be able to tell you. As is, by her own admission, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, the individual who used the phrase "left-wing McCarthyism" in an Independent editorial.
  • Anyway, back to the topic at hand, whatever the flaws in my original posting (and regrettably, because they sidetracked us needlessly, there were some), the salient fact remains that Communist Romania is used far more often in recent scholarly publications than Socialist Republic of Romania. Even taking out books by authors of "unhealthy" ethnic origins or from "unhealthy" presses, you're still left with far more use of the former term than the latter in post-2000, probably post-1990 scholarship, with use of the latter largely confined to reprints of treaties, legal documents and the like, as opposed to actual discussion of the subject.
  • To add something somewhat new to the discussion, let me note that the same pattern holds true (Communist Romania surpassing Socialist Republic of Romania for post-2000 works) on Google Scholar — with results for the former again also being more substantive than for the latter. Even if one doesn't prefer it for a title on this article, there's simply too much academic use of "Communist Romania" to argue that it's somehow fringe or suspect. - Biruitorul ^Talk 05:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
    • We seem to disagree over where the center lies. Judging from your user page, you appear to have views that would not appear to me to be centrist, and may not appreciate that the choice of terminology may show implicit bias. For example, while you may believe that the capital of China is temporarily located in Taipei, we cannot write neutral articles with KMT terminology. TFD (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
      • I tend to be somewhere on the right (no, not the far-right) on most issues, but that hasn't particularly impaired me from editing from a neutral point of view these last 5¾ years. I don't recall editing China-related articles very much, but I don't have any difficulty in separating my private belief that the illegitimate Red Chinese regime is a perfidious tyranny I hope comes crashing down the sooner the better, and the fundamental principle that NPOV must be respected in the mainspace.
      • With regard to the current title of this article (since that's what we're here to talk about), I truly do not see an issue, and it's not a question of wearing ideological blinkers. If the only instances using the terminology were books written by right-wing Romanians and/or published by right-wing presses, then that would make it problematic. Similarly, if the term had gone out of style by the early 1990s, then that too would pose a neutrality problem. But — and you seem to have trouble admitting this, despite my insistence that you check my Google links yourself — that is simply not the case: scholars across the political spectrum seem to have used it, and with increasing frequency since the end of the Cold War. That's one reason I prefer it, the other being that it's all-encompassing, unlike the proposed target. Something like History of Romania (1945-1989) would also work — the point is to be accurate and neutral in our descriptions. I think "Communist Romania" does that best, but it's not necessarily the only solution.
      • I'm sure Peters will agree that this is starting to remind one of the long, arduous and pointless struggle in 2007 to move Soviet occupation of Romania from that title, based on the spurious notion that Romania was not occupied by the USSR between 1944 and 1958. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)