Talk:Socialist Republic of Romania
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Socialist Republic of Romania article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 60 days ![]() |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 30, 2004, December 30, 2005, and December 30, 2006. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
Deletion
@
For me it is useless to poke holes in your opinion, since it is sheer
- Still, I actually lived in that period, of SR Romania and it was not a totalitarian state at all. Why to give the people fake information?! With all my respect, I ask you to remove " under a totalitarian dictatorship" references. Detective Chief Inspector Endeavour Morse (talk) 16:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
- Who cares about what you think? Or about what I think? Personal opinions are unwelcome at Wikipedia. We follow WP:RS, we don't ventilate our personal opinions.
- So: WP:RS, since we aren't prepared to trust editors on their word of honor. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)]
- Who cares about what you think? Or about what I think? Personal opinions are unwelcome at Wikipedia. We follow
Title is wrong
Romania was socialist, not communist. Communism was never achieved. KnowledgeKeeper161 (talk) 19:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
- Start a discussion at WP:RM if you object. — Biruitorul Talk 19:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)]
Requested move 17 April 2024
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved, based chiefly on consistency with other similar states, and to avoid a POV slant to the title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bensci54 (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
This article deals with all of Romania's communist regime. During this time, Romania was known by two names, Romanian People's Republic (1947–1965) and Socialist Republic of Romania (1965–1989). The current title, using the last of the two names, leaves out 40% of this period. This is not based on any policy, convention or common practice.
"Socialist Romania" gives 4,890 results in Google Scholar, while "Socialist Republic of Romania" gives 4,950 (and "Romanian People's Republic" gives 711). The proposed title is practically just as common (
Thus, "Socialist Romania", while not violating
- Support for the well-reasoned argumentation above, with a fall-back position in favor of Communist Romania as a second choice. — Biruitorul Talk 20:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. Attempting to stay in line with the aforementioned Marxist terminology (no Communist Party-run country is ever truly communist) is a textbook example of falling in line with the No true Scotsman fallacy. Turgidson (talk) 21:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- A core tenet of Communism is the abolishment of any private ownership of the means of production, which are turned into the community's property (hence the name, Communism). This was never fully implemented in Romania as far as I know, where small private businesses were allowed to thrive. Other than a few Western politicians and media, nobody in Romania at the time claimed that the country was Communist; not even its government. — kashmīrī TALK 14:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, sure thing. By the same token, the Soviet Union was never Communist, nor is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea: they all are (or used to be) on the Shining Path towards les lendemains qui chantes. It's all a moving target, never falsifiable. The No true Scotsman fallacy lives on. Turgidson (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Well, maybe that's why we don't have country articles titled Communist Russia or Communist Korea. Agree that Communism served as the ideal that was to be marched to, and the fact that it wasn't there is one of the reason why we shouldn't name countries as "Communist" in Wikipedia voice. — kashmīrī TALK 18:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, sure thing. By the same token, the Soviet Union was never Communist, nor is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea: they all are (or used to be) on the Shining Path towards les lendemains qui chantes. It's all a moving target, never falsifiable. The No true Scotsman fallacy lives on. Turgidson (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- A core tenet of Communism is the abolishment of any private ownership of the means of production, which are turned into the community's property (hence the name, Communism). This was never fully implemented in Romania as far as I know, where small private businesses were allowed to thrive. Other than a few Western politicians and media, nobody in Romania at the time claimed that the country was Communist; not even its government. — kashmīrī TALK 14:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:TITLECON with almost all other former socialist/communist states around that period. The current title works and is clear. Move is believed to be unnecessary. Cfls (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2024 (UTC)]
- Oppose. Unless exceedingly common, we normally use official names of countries, and not a given government's ideology – see free-market economy, which Romania began to implement since 1990, nor we can say that socialism ended in Romania on 10 December 1989, given that many EU countries embrace socialist policies even today (incl. democratic socialism, popular socialism, etc.). — kashmīrī TALK 13:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)]
- This is starting to get ridiculous. We all know very well "communist"/"socialist" refer to the 1947–1989 regime in Romania. Let's stop playing around with words that have a very clear meaning for the vast majority of the population. I could understand it on the last RM but now? Really? Romania now is, quite obviously, not socialist. There is no imprecision, no misleading.
- On the other hand, the Ngrams are a much more valid point. Super Ψ Dro 18:20, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
We all know very well "communist"/"socialist" refer to the 1947–1989 regime in Romania
Wikipedia is not written for your or for me but for ordinary readers who will be looking for the country of that era whatever you think its system was. Google Trends show with no doubt what is the more common search term. And since that common search term happens to be the same as the official name of the country, the naming choice is obvious. — kashmīrī TALK 18:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)- I was replying to
Finally, the proposed title is imprecise and can be considere misleading: socialism is neither an antithesis of free-market economy, which Romania began to implement since 1990, nor we can say that socialism ended in Romania on 10 December 1989, given that many EU countries embrace socialist policies even today
. Romania is not socialist today. The proposed title is not imprecise in that sense. - Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, "Communist Romania" has been the most popular option for the longest time [3]. Super Ψ Dro 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- I was replying to
- Comment as an uninvolved editor: @Kashmiri, your comparisons are very bad. British Raj (Hindi for British rule) is the modern-day common name of the period of crown rule in India as the opening sentence of the article itself says, not the country. It is about the period, rather than the country. The country was officially called "India" (see the infobox in the article) or "Indian Empire" (see passports, government maps, documents, etc.). The Soviet Union is the common name not the official name. The official name was the "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" (USSR). "Soviet Union" had no legal force and was only a common name. PadFoot2008 (talk) 05:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sounds POV, and causes more problems that it solves. Don't know if it really was Socialist or not - I am sure many would prefer to describe as Communist or Soviet satellite or a Ceausescu dictatorship. Just as I am sure many could describe the current Romanian state as "socialist" as well (indeed, Art. 1 of its constitution explicitly identifies is "a social state"). I would rather not to engage in guessing games. And this "We all know..." kind of argumentation holds no water. The current name is preferable, and happens to also be ]
Let's decide about the title
@Super Dromaeosaurus, Biruitorul, StephenMacky1, KnowledgeKeeper161, Kashmiri, and Accipiter Gentilis Q.: & everyone else: hi! Salut!
The article now starts like this:
- "The Socialist Republic of Romania ... existed officially in Romania from 1947 to 1989"
No it didn't. Blatantly wrong.
It was, however, a constituent part of the
Let's try something else:
Now, what do we notice?
- The topic here is Romania between Dec. 1947 and Dec. 1989. The title must necessarily reflect this, and not just a partial aspect (PRP 1947-1965 and/or RSR 1965-89).
- Nobody pays any attention to Marxist-Leninist doctrine. Even those allegedly following it came up with the concept of real socialism. Selling plots of real estate on the Moon is not politology or encyclopedically relevant. Hitler also declared some remote idealistic goals; we're still entitled to call his state Nazi Germany. Dictatorial regimes don't get to impose their terminology outside their sphere of influence.
- Most Communist block members (not Socialist block members) kept one name from the start of Soviet occupation at the end of WWII until recovering their freedom in 1989, when they quickly reverted to pre-WWII names or similar ones. And they all distanced themselves from - what? Socialism as a provisional step on the enlightened road of the proletariat... blabla, blabla? No, from Communism.
- What term does cover both periods in Romania's Communist period? Hard to guess, right?
- Does anyone care how the Party called itself? No. The Comintern; Partidul Muncitoresc Romîn ("Workers' Party", with "Slavic" î, 1948-1964) and P.M. Român (with "Latin" â, 1964-1965) when expedience required it; and Partidul Comunist Român after 65, when it started becoming more national-communist (or does anyone prefer national-socialist? Fine by me.) To everyone it was and stayed: the Romanian Communist Party, or the Romanian communist party, nobody gives a fuck here about caps or no caps.
Still anyone who disagrees calling the article "
Then the other minor revert in the lead: it wasn't just "officially" this & that, but in every possible way, both de jure AND the facto. So "officially" must be removed. Again, as illustration: fascist Italy wasn't just "officially" Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany wasn't just "officially" a Nazi state, and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was not just an official doctrine, but a real dictatorship, only not of the proletariat, but of Stalin's.
OK, let's cut this BS. Enough of it. Arminden (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- Two more important aspects re. Communist (!) block:
- Comecon
- Warsaw pact.
- Before anyone starts fantasising about Ceauşescu's independence, unalignment and so forth.
- I'm fine with a model similar to the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic, where the last historical name of Communist Czechoslovakia is kept as the title of the article, but the change of official names is made more than visible from the very top of the lead on, and also graphically (separate, framed infoboxes with thick letters for each name). Arminden (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Update
Informations needs to be updated. 2600:1006:B005:6B15:1979:658D:FDD6:5D5F (talk) 20:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Meaning what? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)