text:
Talk:Romanian Communist Party

Initial comments

 * After Romania's liberation by the Red Army

That was not liberation, but occupation. The Romanians opposed the government imposed by the USSR, and the Red Army had to used force.

Anyway, much of your contributions here are POV and I don't agree with some deletions of my stuff. I'll try to reintegrate them in your version. Bogdan | Talk 08:44, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC) ---
 * ...view on the Romanian state (that was considered "a colonialist and predatory power") -- from my deleted contribution

This is not POV, but a quote from pre-war manifests of the party. Bogdan | Talk 08:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think one should say that the Red Army liberated Romania from fascist occupation but then the Soviets occupied the country for several years.

 * That's wrong. King Mihai decided to change sides and fight against the Germans. Russians had nothing to do with it, but later propaganda tried to minimize Mihai's contribution. Bogdan | Talk 12:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Otherwise we should find a neutral word between liberated and occupation or invasion. Certainly many Romanians at the time did see the Red Army as liberators, at least at first.

As for the colonialist mention, I think its fine to say that the Communist Party had that view but I think you were expressing a POV in stating that this was a reason for the party's lack of success. AndyL 21:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * It's not ? One of their goals was to divide Romania into Transylvania (see relations with Hungarian minority), Wallachia and Moldova (they were arguing that Moldovans were a different nation -- It's interesting that the Moldovan (pro-Russian) Communists are using the same slant nowadays). Probably by the old saying 'Divide and Conquer'. :-)
 * I think it's damn obvious that this was the reason. Imagine in the US a party that would say "US is a evil colonial power and must be divided into its states" it wouldn't have much success, won't it ?

Well, I think one should say that the Red Army liberated Romania from fascism but then the Soviets occupied the country for several years afterwards and installed a pro-Soveit government.

 * There was no liberation.

 * On the evening of 23rd August 1944, the king Mihai read at radio a proclamatiom through which he announced to the whole world the political changes, the forming of a new govern, the going out from the war against United Nations and the joining of our troops to antihitlerist coalition. Till 28th August, Bucharest was released by german forces and on 30th August 1944 get into it the soviet army. from here

Otherwise we should find a neutral word between liberated and occupation/invasion (is there such a word? I can't think of one which is why I now have both liberation and occupation in the article). Certainly many Romanians at the time did see the Red Army as liberators, at least at first.

 * I doubt that they were really many. You see, most Romanians, usually dislike Russians for some reasons. :) Bogdan | Talk 12:22, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for the colonialist mention, I think its fine to say that the Communist Party had that view but I think you were expressing a POV in stating that this was a reason for the party's lack of success. There is a lot of both pro-Communist and anti-Communist propaganda out there and we have to be careful to sift through it. I've listed two external links on the site that look like they might be helpful. I haven't read through them entirely myself but perhaps we can both look through them and see what we can use for the articleAndyL 21:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Look at http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/romania/romania196.html

 * The Red Army refocused its strategic attention on Romania in mid-1944. It sought to occupy Romania, knock it out of the war, and from there advance across the Danube Delta through the Carpathian Mountains into Yugoslavia and Hungary before wheeling north to roll up the right flank of Nazi Germany. Having penetrated northern Bukovina at the end of 1943, the Red Army launched the IasiKishinev Operation in August 1944 by sending eight armies with more than 1 million men across the Prut River along two convergent axes from Iasi and Kishinev in Bessarabia to drive through the Focsani Gap to capture the Ploiesti oil fields and Bucharest. Soviet armies driving from Kishinev pinned down the remnants of the German Sixth Army and seven divisions of Romania's Third Army on the Black Sea coast. Meanwhile, the bulk of Soviet forces driving from Iasi encircled the German Eighth Army and the remaining fourteen divisions of the Romanian Fourth Army. On the first day of the operation, Red Army forces destroyed five divisions of the Fourth Army in fighting northwest of Iasi. Remaining Romanian divisions simply disintegrated as their troops deserted the front.

 * After the August 23, 1944, coup d'état against military dictator General Ion Antonescu, King Michael arranged Romania's surrender to the Red Army. The following day, Hitler ordered 150 German bombers to attack Bucharest in a vain attempt to force Romania to rejoin the war. Romania then declared war on Germany and put its scattered forces under the command of the Red Army. These forces included parts of the Fourth Army; the four divisions of the First Army, which guarded the disputed Romanian-Hungarian border during the war; and the Tudor Vladimirescu First Volunteer Division, a force recruited by the Red Army from Romanian prisoners of war taken at Stalingrad who were willing to submit to communist indoctrination. These forces helped to liberate Bucharest and clear German forces from the rest of Romania, and they finished the war fighting alongside the Red Army in Hungary and Czechoslovakia. In all, Romania suffered an estimated 600,000 casualties during World War II.

 * Under the terms of the September 1944 armistice signed in Moscow, Romania accepted Red Army occupation of the country at least until peace negotiations commenced, agreed to pay US$300 million in war reparations, and put its oil production, rolling stock, and merchant fleet at the Soviet Union's disposal. Given the situation on the ground, the Soviet Union dominated the Allied Control Commission, which administered Romania for three years after the war. The Soviet Union also retained the right to maintain its occupation of Romania in order to keep open its lines of communication to Soviet forces occupying Austria. Under the 1947 peace treaty, Romania permanently surrendered large tracts to Bulgaria and the Soviet Union (see Armistice Negotiations and Soviet Occupation, ch. 1).

So I will concede that my impression was incorrect, however I think also that the situation was somewhat more complex than you are portraying 1) there were already more than 1 million Red Army troops on Romanian soil when the King's coup occurred 2) The King arranged Romania's surrender to the Red Army shortly after the coup 3) by the terms of the armistice Romania accepted Red Army occupation, at least temporarily.

I'm also wondering how many German troops were still in Romania after the coup? It would have been rather unrealistic to expect the Red Army not to continue to send troops into Romania if the Nazis were still present.

Saying simply that the Red Army occupied Romania in 1944 is misleading without a reference to the war and German forces. As for "liberation", well, given that the initial entry into Romania was as part of the war in order to push back German troops and that the royal coup did not occur until after the Russians had a major military victory against the German and Romanian armies on Romanian soil I'm hard pressed to deny that the Red Army had a role, indeed the leading role in liberating Romania from the Nazis.

BTW, I know that Romania was for a long time the only Warsaw Pact country with no Soviet troops within its borders. Do you know when the Red Army left (sometime in the 1950s?

 * In 1958. Bogdan | Talk 19:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As for the colonialist point. As I said, i have no problem with the article saying that. I thought the way it was said was a bit POV which is why I removed it - I was going to rewrite it but I didn't have time (so I probably should have just left it alone for now, my apologies). I think Romania's small working class and lack of industrialisation was probably a more central reason but I don't see why both can't be mentioned. I think some care has to be taken when talking about "foreigners" in the party before 1945 since a) a large percentage of Romania's population, particularly prior to WWII, was not ethnically Romanian

 * Yes. 70% Romanians, 5% Jews, 25% others.

and b) these "foreigners" while not ethnic Romanians were Romanian citizens and Romanian residents were they not?

 * Some of them were not citizens.

I think I've explained why the pre-war party had more success recruiting ethnic minorities than ethnic Romanians and it is certainly valid to point out that the fact that the party was, as a result, largely made up of ethnic minorities prior to 1945 would have made it seem like an alien force to ethnic Romanians and thus unappealing but I think we have to be careful with the language used.

On a related point, I've changed some of the pictures at Nicolae Ceausescu. I thought the first photo was too obviously airbrushed and propagandistic and didn't look much like him so I switched it with a more realistic photo. I've also added an example of Ceasescu visual propaganda and a shot of Ceasescu at trial. Please take a look and tell me what you think. AndyL 15:09, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * Certainly many Romanians at the time did see the Red Army as liberators, at least at first.

 * I doubt that they were really many. You see, most Romanians, usually dislike Russians for some reasons.

I think you're confusing what Romanians think *now* with what many Romanians thought in 1944. At the time many Romanians did view the Red Army as liberators. Certainly the Jews and Gypsies who would likely have been deported to death camps had the Red Army not had its victories against the German Army when it did viewed them as liberators as did other anti-fascist Romanians.

Let's think about this for a second. Do you think the German troops left Romania simply because King Michael changed sides and told them to leave? From my reading the Wehrmacht was never that polite. Clearly the German troops were forced out of the country by the Red Army so it is fair to say that the Red Army liberated Romania from Nazi troops and then occupied the country.

Unless, of course, you're suggesting Michael descended onto the field of battle on his own, waved a sword around, and scared all the Germans into fleeing ;)

 * The Germans were given some time to withdraw peacefully all their troops from Romanian territory. They couldn't afford to lose these soldiers, since they needed them badly at home, therefore, they agreed with the proposal. Bogdan | Talk 19:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You claim "there was no liberation". Certainly King Michael did not liberate the country from German occupation, he didn't have the ability to do so and in any case he didn't switch sides until 1 million Red Army troops were already in Romania and it was clear which way the wind was blowing. Even had he not acted the Red Army still would have driven the Germans out so I think you give too much credit to King Michael.

 * These troops were in Basarabia (which, after their "liberation", it became part of Soviet Union) Fighting their way into Muntenia/Wallachia and Transylvania wouldn't have been an easy task: military experts estimated to 9 months the time needed for the Red Army to occupy the whole Romania, if fighting would be involved. Bogdan | Talk 19:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Objectively there was a liberation, someone drove out the Germans, and it was the Russians who did it - it is accurate to say that the Red Army liberated Romania from the Nazis even if saying this is "politically incorrect". That does not stop us from also saying that the Soviets then continued to occupy Romania for several years and essentially installed the Communist Party into power, but to deny the Red Army its role in pushing out the Germans is just to deny a historical fact.

It may not fit Romania's modern political opinion to give the Red Army any positive role in Romanian history but regardless of what followed the end of World War II the fact remains that it was the Red Army that defeated the Germans on the eastern front and drove them out of the country. AndyL 17:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The definion of "liberation": I think you understand by this word "to set free from foreign control", right ? It was not a liberation, because the Romania was not under "foreign control": Antonescu's government was allied with Germany because of policial afinities, not because they were forced. Then it is the "set free" part: Romania was not set free, but was occupied. Therefore, it was not a liberation. Bogdan | Talk 19:45, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've added some more material - in rewriting I went into more detail about the end of the war and have omitted the word "liberation". I've also added references to the party's "anti-national" policy from before the war and its ethnic composition. AndyL 00:51, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Colonial power

 * In all the party membership was largely derived from regions which had recently been added to Romania, regions which saw Romania as an occupying and colonial power.

First of all, the 'new' regions of Romania (Transylvania, Bessarabia, Banat) had a Romanian majority and of course most people of these regions did not see Romania as a 'colonial' power. Bogdan | Talk 17:36, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communists
That section is supposed to include members that had an influence within the Communist Party, not just party members without any activity. We should remember that a quarter of the adult Romanian population was member of the party and for some jobs, it was prerequisite.

 * Băsescu -- he joined the party in order to become a ship captain.
 * Constantinescu -- he joined the party in order to become a university professor
 * Năstase -- actually had some activity with some ideological articles, but he was not at all influential
 * Iliescu -- th only one that was actually part of the nomenklatura, but Ceauşescu tried to give him less power, that's why he was made the head of the Editura Tehnică.

83.103.181.182 11:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Do not agree with you for Constantinescu, Basescu, and Iliescu. Constantinescu was Propaganda Secretary of the University of Bucharest, far more than he needed for a regular career. Constantinescu was a real nomenklaturist. Basescu has been even involved with Securitate. You can say that it was for good reasons, but I cannot see how you can distinguish "good communists" from the "bad communists". Wikipedia is about facts. Also, please sign your comments. Dpotop 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I said nothing about Nastase, for I know nothing sure about him.Dpotop 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also added a known nomenklaturist: Octavian Paler.Dpotop 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY think this topic is absurd. Ok for self-declared communists like Elena and Patrascanu (since this may help people who have no knowledge of the subject get to see who acted inside the Party without being at the top). But "Basescu, Nastase, Iliescu, Constantinescu, Paler" is just a whitch hunt. Stop it. (BTW: it could do with a Dascalescu, or even a Parvulescu). Bottom line: Basescu, Nastase might (if they must) be included, only after this list covers ALL county Party leaders. Wanna get your hands dirty with that kind of business? I think not :). But really, be NPOV. Or at least try.Dahn 17:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What I wanted to show is that the Communist party was a true "mass organization" that included most of the nation's smart guys. :) It was no more a political party. As proof, I included a lot of guys that after '89 proved to be very different ideologically from one another.Dpotop 11:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I also re-included Iliescu and Paler. The first has been associated for decated with post-communism (even though I do not agree with this), and the second is a politruc (he coined the term "epoca de aur", see his bio on ro.wiki) that turned anti-communist. These two I want in the list, and it's justified by any measure. Both were members of CC al PCR. Dpotop 11:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Need for clarification
I'm translating this to French and I'm not sure about how to translate the following part of a sentence:

Communists who had initially evaded arrest or the need for self-exile (...) became known later as the "Secretariat faction" (...)

Here the different ways I can understand this, assuming there might even be a mistake in the usage of a word or the use of an unknown (to me) meaning of a word:
 * Communists who had avoided to be arrested by going to self-exile (...) became known later as the "Secretariat faction" (...)
 * Communists who had evaded from prison and went to self-exile (...) became known later as the "Secretariat faction" (...)
 * Communists who had evaded from prison or who had evaded the need for self-exile (whatever that might mean) (...) became known later as the "Secretariat faction" (...)

Thanks for your explanations. --Defrenrokorit 14:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for pointing that out. I was about to rephrase it in accordance to your need for clarifications, but I had no way of seeing what I would have to turn it into. What I had meant to indicate was that the Secretariat faction was comprised of those who had not been imprisoned as well as those who took to self-exile in the USSR (while taking in view that being persecuted, jailed etc. were not reasons for self-exile in all cases; for example, Ecaterina Arbore only left because she wanted to). Can you find a better way to rephrase that? If so, edit it into this text as well. Many thanks. Dahn 19:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

 * OK, I understand now what you mean. Then this sentence is repeating something from 2 paragraphs above: Most of the party leadership and a large percentage of the membership were either arrested and imprisoned during the 1920s and 30s or went into exile. I could rephrase the second sentence into Communists who had initially avoided to be arrested or went to exile for various reasons (...) became known later as the "Secretariat faction" (...). Which would be clearer for me and other readers. But since I'm not that proficient in English like you, you might want to fine-tune my sentence. And still, I think that this repetition of the same theme (the "survivors" of the 1920's and 30's) should be treated at the same place. What do you think? --Defrenrokorit 20:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * In my view, the part about the Secretariat faction is not necessarily repetitive. The section prior to it establishes that many communists and most of their leadership were not in the country and/or free during the 1920s-1930s. The Secretariat section was one of the three, not just two, possible ways to go (Muscovite, Prison, and these guys). The most confusing word here may be "initially": I used it to indicate that even the Secretariat went to jail in the 1940s (using that in the first mention of the wings would, IMO, hurt the chronological setting of the article - since it would have to mention Ion Antonescu without going into much detail). I will add more and sourced details in the future to make this more explicit (the thing is, although I have read several books on the topic, I have none of them around to reference; I've just gotten hold of a rather large and accurate book, but I will need some time to actually get to use it to make the minor improvements this article needs - such as mention of when splits occured and what they meant). For now, Communists who had initially avoided to be arrested or went to exile for various reasons (...) became known later as the "Secretariat faction" (...). is a bit confusing (it may be read as: those communists who went into exile bacame known as the "Secretariat faction"). I think the best way to go is Communists who had initially evaded arrest or had not left the country became known later as the "Secretariat faction" and move the indication about place of refuge (ie: usually to the Soviet Union) to Most of the party leadership and a large percentage of the membership were either arrested and imprisoned during the 1920s and 30s or went into exile (as Most of the party leadership and a large percentage of the membership were either arrested and imprisoned during the 1920s and 30s or went into exile (most of them, to the Soviet Union)). Is this ok? Dahn 20:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that sounds much better. I'm looking forward to the improvements you are going to make after reading that new book. Maybe I'll come back with other questions as I move forward with my translation (currently at a very slow pace...) --Defrenrokorit 21:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Great. Dahn 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just realized that I have made an error in my initial reply (I had meant to say, as you may have realized since, that the faction was comprised of those who had neither taken refuge nor went to jail). Sorry for adding a new layer of confusion... Dahn 21:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Haia Lifschitz & France
Haia Lifschitz never set foot in France. She was a local Bessarabian komsomol leader, who died on hunger strike while imprisoned in Cluj in 1929. See details in the Russian Wikipedia article on her. --SimulacrumDP 18:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I misread the a bit of text in the reference provided, and I do apologize for it. Dahn 19:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification and reference. I see that my revert has already been undone, which is the right thing to do. Truthanado 22:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Emerged as a successful political force?!?!
I think this statement of the lead is a bit POV. The correct statement would be "was imposed by the Soviet occupants as a main player", or something like this. Two points:
 * 1) It did not "emerge".
 * 2) Its "success" was not due to internal causes, which the lead fails to mention.

Dpotop 13:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks, Dahn. Dpotop 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Communist Romania - was it ever declared, or not (question by Anonimu)
Actually, the 1952 constitution talks about the "power which belongs to MAN and the pupular councils". Councils, meaning Soviets. Also, the citizens have the right to create associations, sindicates, but not parties. In fact, the PMR is the only party mentioned in the constitution. So, yes, the 1952 constitution defines Romania as a single-party republic of the councils (i.e. Soviet/Communist state). Dpotop 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, do you know where I could find the Electoral Law of 1948? That's because the constitution of 1948 mentions nothing concerning parties. The first visible level is the MAN, and the election is delegated to an external electoral law. OTOH, it also fails to mention PCR or PMR. Dpotop 18:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW2: The Soviet constitution of 1936 did not explicitly define the Soviet Union as a Communist state. The term "Communist" is related to the state ideology, and all serious historians label the SU and post-1948 Romania as Communist.
 * That's because those "serious historians" don't know what communism means. I don't know any state who ever proclaimed itself communist... some degenerated/deformed workers' state proclaimed themselves socialist (the Soviets in 1936, Romania in 1965) but not one had the audacity to proclaim itself communistAnonimu 19:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What you see is what you get with the commies: those "degenerated workers' states" were the real McCoy: it doesn't get any better, no matter how you spin it. Or as they say in Romanian, şi-au trăit traiul, şi-au mîncat mălaiul: they had their go at it—now they rest comfortably on the asheap of history. It's how the world goes.   Turgidson 20:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW: don't take my previous reasoning too seriously. It's intended as a reply to another not-very-serious and mostly rhetoric question by Anonimu. Dpotop 18:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Categories
OK, I now see that Category:Ruling Communist parties is a subcat of Category:Parties of single-party systems, which I guess is due to the (obvious) fact that (practically by definition), Communist states are single-party systems, where the PC holds absolute power. But I was going by the cat scheme for other PC's -- eg, Bulgarian Communist Party, Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, etc -- where both cats are in place. Doesn't this mean that those cats should go, too, or was there any difference between the various flavors of Eastern Bloc PCs in their heyday that would warrant such differing standards for WP categories? Turgidson 20:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such difference. I think this situation was sparked by either an editor not paying attention to the cat tree when creating the cat (which happens a lot), or by somebody who added them there not noticing it. I think they should be streamlined there as well (I'm a bit tied up in other copyedits at the moment). Dahn 20:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, I've deleted parent cats for bg, cz, cu, vn PCs; let me pause and wait for reactions, before chopping more twigs from the cat tree. While at it, Category:Romanian Communist Party is a subcat of Category:Ruling Communist parties. Shouldn't then the latter go, too, by the same kind of logic? Turgidson 20:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure about that in the first place; if you think it's incorrect, feel free to remove it from the cat and keep it in the article (I assume that is what you're suggesting). Dahn 20:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Communism and nationalism
Two days ago I listened to the Soviet Anthem (it's fun), and it seemed to me I heard "Russia" in the lyrics. I don't know Russian, so I couldn't tell for sure, but still, it seemed weird enough to make me take a look on wikipedia. To my surprise, the Soviet Anthem does mention Russia. In fact, it mentions "Greater Russia". Nice proof of nationalism at the peak of the Communist regime in the USSR (the anthem wa created in the 1930s).

 * Update: The reference to Greater Russia was introduced in 1944, during the war. Dpotop 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I presume Dahn already knew it, but for people that were not aware, this is funny information, I presume. Dpotop 10:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * From the 1938 version: "Rotten breeds of lowly treachers/You wipe from our way with a formidable hand".  Hmmm...  I wonder what does this refer to.  Turgidson 12:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ermmm.... Sorry, Dahn, but the image does not serve your purpose. From the 3 words of Russian I know, "Rodina Mat'" means something like "Mother-country". No mention of Russia, except in the image name, which is misleading. So, you have here a clear example of all-Soviet Patriotism/Nationalism, as opposed to Russia-centric stuff. Dpotop 15:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure... Dahn 15:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure this discussion will help improve the article...Anonimu 16:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Why, Anonimu, you of all should be atached to these symbols. There's a super-site I can recommend you: http://www.sovmusic.ru/english/top20.php . Cool stuff, even for the non-believer. Dpotop 19:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Good find, Dpotop, but a bit too bombastic for my taste. I'll stay with The Battle Hymn of the Republic, thank you. :)  Turgidson 20:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

 * For my part, I don't like the contemporary american arrangements, "a capella-like", "soul-like", and the company. They remind me of Romanian "folklore music" being sung by opera players during the Ceausescu regime. Imagine a super-soprano singing "Trei iezi cucuieti". The wikipedia version of your hymn reminded me of that. Similarly, the Red Army choirs singing Ochii Chornyie is a massacre. Of course, all of this is a question of taste. Dpotop 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet Anthem says (as you can see in the article):
 * Unbreakable Union of freeborn Republics,
 * Great Russia has welded forever to stand.
 * Created in struggle by will of the people,
 * United and mighty, our Soviet land!

 * Sing to the Motherland, home of the free,
 * Bulwark of peoples in brotherhood strong.
 * O Party of Lenin, the strength of the people,
 * To Communism's triumph lead us on!

In 1991, a new anthem was introduced. In fact the old "God save the Tsar" tune without words was declared the hymn. For some time there was a competition for the best words. However, when Putin came to power, he chaged the Russian National Anthem to the old Soviet tune, but new words were composed (interestingly, by the same person wo has composed the Soviet ones above).

Rodina-Mat' means exactly Patria-mama. No more and no less. Since Rodina is also sometimes translated (equaly correctly) Fatherland (cf. "rod"=clan, gender), I pospose an equally correct Mather Fatherland. In fact, I am going to change it now. :-)

Rodina Mat' Zovyot [read Zaveot, "eo" together, emphazis on and "Ro" and "veot"] means Patria mama [te] cheama / [Mother] Fatherland is calling [you]. The woman has in her hand the text of the military oath (voyennaya prisyaga). Suring Soviet time, they used it extensively were appropriate and were not to the extent that it bothered the eyes just as Lenin's portrets and statues. Some confused and thought it was from the OCtober revolution, b/c of the shape of the weappons in the background - which is WWI non-automatic ones, standard issue in 1941, but already not in 1943 (they had to introduce an automatic one, as you can see in some pictured from Stalingrad, b/c the German automatic gun, very imprecise at >100 meters, was ravaging at 30-50 meters, and the old guns took long time to load by people who first touched a weappon 5 minutes before the battle, as was usualy the case) Any more questions? :Dc76 19:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You should already know this, but let me remind you: wikipedia is not a forum  Anonimu 10:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Laocoon
The current edit war is a perfect illustration of why I originally left the details out of the lead. (And, btw, if one of the editors feels like he is entitled to accuse me au "hiding causal relations", that person better look at what I did for the article as a whole.) Dahn 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy is pretty clear: "The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article"... but some people come and think they can impose their own rules... and they're not even newbiesAnonimu 15:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to me perfectly OK to mention in the lead how the PCR came to power at the end of WWII: the August 23, 1944 coup, the Petru Groza government, the fraudulent 1946 elections, and finally, the forced exile of King Michael I.  That sequence of events is not a "tease", but rather, a crucial piece of information in the article.  Omitting any one of those events from the lead paragraph would give a skewed picture of how things unfolded. If there were something to polish up in there, it would be the phrase "it became involved, together with other parties, in the 1944 toppling of the pro-Nazi German Ion Antonescu".  I'm not quite sure how this could be said better (while keeping it brief), but, as is, it just doesn't flow too well, plus it has some debatable aspects. For one, "other parties" leads to "King's Michael's coup", which sounds kind of funny (was it a coup led by the King, or by the PCR and some other parties?)  For another, the coup didn't just topple Ion Antonescu, but his whole government (including Mihai Antonescu, who was arrested at the same time -- incidentally, both being taken away from the King's Palace by Emil Bodnăraş, a PCR member). And, finally, it may we worth spelling out precisely the date (August 23) in there -- after all, this used to be an important date in the history of the PCR (and the RPR/RSR)...  Anyone else agrees that that phrase could use some fine-tuning?  Turgidson 02:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The current wording ignores the fact that the election were won by BPD and allies and blames all responsabillity for the partial fraud on PCR. Anyhow, our article about those elections shows that BPD won the relative majority, even if we ignore the alleged manipulation of data. SO yes, it's a "tease" because it tries to impose a very partial truth on the reader.Anonimu 16:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Dpotop 14:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * To Dahn. I remember myself, on the article Valter Roman, which I created, proposing to leave some controversial "details" out of the lead (the nationality of the guy, whatever it is). Of course, you reacted violently. Now, you seem to take pride in doing the same thing I did. Hiding important information under the carpet for the sake of consensus. Funny how the wheel turns. Dpotop 14:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dptop, there is nothing "controversial" about a person's nationality, no matter how much you spin it. If a person had Romanian citizenship, he was a Romanian. Furthermore, my point here was not "leaving controversial details out", but leaving secondary details out, and condensing detail into one phrase. If you're building on the fantasy that I would consider this details "controversial", then perhaps you should inquire as to who wrote the article on the elections in question. And again, please refrain yourself from heckling, or keep a diary to express these feelings.
 * Are you aware of the fact that "controversial" comes from "controversy", meaning not agreeing on something? Like, for instance, Dahn and Dpotop on the nationality of Roman? So, you do not decide alone of what is controversial and not. And, if I recall well, I was not the only one puzzled by your position (which you managed to impose, finally). BTW, if you still think that "nationality" is an exact science, I point you to Albert Einstein. Not to mention that even exact sciences are not as exact as you might think. Dpotop 16:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * My reasoning, for those who are not here just to make chitchat, was never in relation to "hinting at but not explaining important facts", but to keeping in mind the focus of the article and the fact that the lead has to be an overview. Let us note several things: both the article and the lead are about the party (which means that, in theory at least, significant events for Romania as a whole are not automatically significant enough here); as it is, the late 1940s are disproportionately covered in the lead, and I fail to see why (for this topic, one could easily find "essential" mentions of Doftana, of the Griviţa Strike, of the struggle for power between NC and various, of the Prague Spring, of the Pârvulescu speech etc. - whereas one gets the same effect by simply condensing all the events into one sentence); Groza in power was not the first hold on gvt positions for the reds - we can all agree that Groza is the most significant for the country, but, for the party itself, wasn't it equally significant that the PCR was part of other gvts before?; the lead currently mentions six people by name, only two of them party members; all the gestures mentioned in relation to the late 1940s involved more than the PCR and its Soviet backing. Dahn 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. So you want to have an article about the Party, not Romania. But I remind you that the goal of a political party is politics, which includes, as fundamental elements, elections, government, and the means to attain ideological goals (including electorate and/or foreign support). So, precising that PCR was during the 1940s a puppet party for the soviet occupants is fundamental. But I bet you would see a mention of "puppet party" as POV. So, we need to include facts. Otherwise, the picture is not correct.
 * You cannot expect to have in a Wikipedia article lead only abstract statements, because in many cases the abstraction step has not been done in a reliable source. In such cases, there are only 2 alternatives:
 * when all editors agree, make the abstraction step (there are lots of articles doing this sort of mild OR)
 * when not, include a few pieces of raw information to balance the image.
 * Dpotop 15:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn makes a couple of good points above: (1) what was important for Romania as a whole between 1921 and 1989 was not necessarily as important for the PCR (and of course, conversely), and (2) as is, the lead does put quite a bit of emphasis on the 1940s, probably to the detriment of other periods in that time interval. On second thought, I agree that Groza was not that important to the history of the PCR per se, so mention of his name from the lead could easily go.  Right now, there are only two party leaders mentioned by name in the lead (Dej and Ceauşescu, of course); it may be appropriate to mention another name or two besides the General Secretaries -- perhaps Pătrăşcanu? or Pauker? As for the extra weight given to the 1944-1947 events, I'm not sure what to do, but a bit of pruning, or shift of emphasis could help. At any rate, this is all a matter of fine-tuning, more than anything else, looks to me...  Turgidson 21:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed lead change
I agree with Dahn that the current lead is too long. I suggest we cut it down to **one short paragraph**, following the example of the articles covering the Czechoslovakian and Polish parties. We could actually modify the Czech lead, which seems to me pretty balanced and NPOV. Dpotop 16:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While I agree that the lead could use some pruning and editing, I don't find the Czech or Polish leads very inspiring—too short and bland, not very informative. The lead for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union looks pretty reasonable—quite short (given the history of the subject), yet to the point, and of medium length. Also, just for stylistic comparison, take a look if you wish at Republican Party (United States) and Democratic Party (United States).  The leads there are of comparable length to the one for the PCR, though perhaps with a bit less detail.  Any useful lesson one can draw from such comparisons? Turgidson 22:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * OK, here is a stab at shortening the lead. Instead of putting it in the article, let me put the first 3 paragraphs here, see if a consensus can be achieved.

The Romanian Communist Party (Romanian: Partidul Comunist Român, PCR) was a communist political party in Romania. Successor to the Bolshevik wing of the Socialist Party of Romania, it gave ideological endorsement to communist revolution and the disestablishment of Greater Romania. The PCR was a minor and illegal grouping for much of the interwar period, and submitted to direct Comintern and Soviet control. During the 1930s, most of its activists were imprisoned or took refuge in the Soviet Union, which led to the creation of separate and competing factions until the 1950s.

The Communist Party emerged as a powerful actor on the Romanian political scene in August 1944, when it became involved in the Royal coup that toppled the pro-Nazi government of Ion Antonescu. With support from Soviet occupation forces, the PCR was able to force King Michael I into exile, and establish the Romanian communist regime in 1948, becoming the dominant, and later single ruling party until 1989.

In 1947, the Communist Party absorbed much of the Social Democratic Party, while attracting various new members. In the early 1950s, the PCR's dominant wing around Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, with support from Joseph Stalin, defeated all the other factions and achieved full control over the party and country. After 1953, the Romanian Communists refused to apply De-Stalinization, and, in time, theorized a "national path" to Communism. This nationalist stance was continued under the leadership of Nicolae Ceauşescu. Following an episode of liberalization in the late 1960s, Ceauşescu again adopted a hard line, and imposed the July Theses. At the time, the PCR massively and artificially increased in size, while being entirely submitted to the will of its general secretary. Its disappearence was a direct consequence of the 1989 Revolution.

 * How's that? Turgidson 22:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree with the lead you propose (it appears to be very much like my original proposal). Unlike the "one short paragraph" suggestion, which is in breach of MoS guidelines (yes, even if they do it elsewhere), it summarizes the article well. There is the matter of the small "St. Gheorghiu Academy" and press paragraph, which I suppose we could add to the present proposal. Dahn 23:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition, if the present lead is to be expanded within the limits of MoS, as improbable as that may seem, I would accept that solution. From my part, even the present lead could do, but it seems to have created a sterile and purely territorial battle over matters not relevant to either the article or, ultimately, the lead. Dahn 00:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I left out the last paragraph, since I did not have anything to add/subtract to it -- I did not mean to suggest taking it out. See how it goes, either way is fine with me, though ending with a bang (the 1989 Revolution) could be better than ending with a whimper (România Liberă).  Then again, as T. S. Eliot said, in The Hollow Men: "This is the way the world ends/Not with a bang but a whimper."  — Turgidson 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wanted to get some sheer party essentials into the lead (I suppose it was inevitable for them to cause the whimper in question) - I may need to fit some (more) details about the three institutions into the text, just so we don't end up with the problem indicated by Anonimu in relation to these other details.
 * Are the post 1950 purges significant enough for the party to be briefly mentioned in the lead? I could go either way, but they strike me as rather important (that's why I made room for them in one of my versions). Dahn 01:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I propose the current lead should be split in two, as following: --Eurocopter tigre 00:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * a new short and comprehensive lead - 1-2 sentences;
 * an "Overview" section which will come up immediatly after the lead (with the rest of the current lead's text);
 * Two things: the lead itself should be comprehensive, per MoS (in other words, it should be the overview); the text expands on all issues discussed in any lead, so your proposal would in effect lead to creating three overviews. Also allow me to note that I already condensed all split up info into the history section, precisely because it impossible to create a section on the PCR that is not about the PCR's history. Dahn 00:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it was just a proposal. This thing worked in the F-4 Phantom II article (currently an FA), where the lead was also way too long. --Eurocopter tigre 00:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Interesting article, the one on the F-4 Phantom. (It's one of the greatest fighter planes of all time!)  I didn't know about this style of splitting the lead from the overview -- I don't know how it fits with the general guidelines, or whether it could be used elsewhere, but right there, in the F-4 article, it works quite well. But here, I don't see why we would need that -- after all, if there is no split for major parties like the Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., or, more to the point, the CPSU, it would quite hard to argue for a split for the PCR... Turgidson 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, you can't compare a party article with an aircraft one. The aircraft is quite comparable with our flying coffins (MiG-21 LanceR. :-) --Eurocopter tigre 07:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree in principle with Turgidsons proposal, with some minor edits de bun simț: add "multinational" before "Greater Romania"; drop the "minor" in the 3rd sentence: an illegal group was never a major organization; drop either the "Comintern" or the "Soviet" from the same sentence, since that's a tautology; i don't know if "single ruling party" is factual: PCR membership wasn't one of the conditions to get elected in the National Assembly; also the "refuse" in the third paragraph is not the best word: no one told them to do that.Anonimu 20:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record: All I did was copy-paste the present lead, broke the first (long) paragraph into two, shortened the middle one (as per the discussion above), and tweaked a few words here and there. I didn't try to further copyedit things, since it wasn't clear what the reaction would be, but surely things could be polished further.  Eg, looking at it again, "Comintern" and "Soviet"  in that sentence does seem like a bit redundant, yes; since "Soviet" is already used a lot in the lead, and since "Comintern" is more precise anyhow, I would keep that one. As for the other ones, I don't really get the point of "multinational" (what does that refer to? Romania was a single state, after all); "minor" -- maybe yes, maybe not, not sure; "single ruling party" is factual"; "refuse" perhaps could be replaced by "did not".  At any rate, as I said above, this is all very doable, with a bit of give-and-take.  After all, the hard work is to marshall the facts, and write the body of the article.  What we're talking here is just the "abstract" -- it shouldn't be so hard to come to a quick conclusion...  Turgidson 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All states are multinational, and it would be weasel-wording to imply that the PC(d)R opposed Greater Romania because it was multinational (since that would mean that they were necessarily right, for example, in stating that Moldovans were a nation apart). Not to mention that the Soviet Union was multinational etc.
 * But PCR opposed Greater Romania because it was multinational. And some Moldavians considered themselves something apart... even Creanga's Mos Ion Roata asks the francophile boyars to speak moldavian, not romanian. But they were other numerically important non-latinophone nations in Greater Romania: Hungarians, Ukrainians, Bulgarians, Germans, Turks, Russians... 30% of Romania according to the official census, the real number being obviously bigger. You can mention Soviet Union was a multinational state (in the relevant context).. that was Lenin's dream and they were pretty proud of that.Anonimu 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OR. Dahn 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What;s OR? That PCR considered Romania a multinational state? That's what was written in my 12th grade history schoolbook ( i think it was the first post-coup edition). That Moldavians considered themselves something apart? Imperial Russian censi counted Moldavians separate from Romanians. That Romania had 30% minorities? You can find that everywhere... That the official results were not totally right? i can bring references at least for the undercounting of ukrainians. That Lenin didn't want a Russian Soviet Union? Read Trotsky at least.Anonimu 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu, I don't have the energy to debate all half-truths you bring along for the ride. I answered to your specific indication that Greater Romania was multinational because the PCR said so (it is ultimately irrelevant to me what the definition was and what the reasons for it were, since it is a pointless interference of POV). OR is this: fusing several debatable points in one sentence, making reference to issues that have no connection to this subject as a means to deduce stuff about this subject, and claiming that "multinational" applies because the Romanian Communist Party claimed it applied (btw, until it claimed the opposite). Dahn 00:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I could bet you'd say that. So if respecting a definition is POV, what else is NPOV? only what Cioroeezza says? And about your parantetic indication: Romania was much much less multinational after ww2, so they were right. (Of course Ceasca wasn't in his last years)Anonimu 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Anonimu, I'll be continuing discussions on this when you manage to push "the NSDAP was against the Jewish bloodsucking Untermensch" in the National Socialist German Workers Party. Your point about Cioroianu is futile, for all the energy you invest into it, since not trusting the PCR to be right about the allegations it makes does not rely on quoting someone else. Dahn 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You can't compare the two. The fact that GrRo was a multinational state is clearly visible on a correct ethnic map. The fact that Communist said so it's only to further support that point. But there are non-communist authors who say the same (especially hungarians).Anonimu 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you pretend not to understand my answers, i suggest you stop. If you cannot understand my answers, I'm afraid I don't contribute here to educate you. Dahn 15:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * i'll let you decideAnonimu 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dahn 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all illegal movements are minor - in 1938-1945, Romanian parties did not suddenly become "minor" just because they were outlawed. I think the lead should reflect that it was a minor grouping even on the left (though probably not so on the far left, for all of Cristescu's moves to create a competing revolutionary Marxist grouping).
 * Some of them did. And it had enough members to fill the prisons and provide intensive work for executioners after the Axis aggression against the Soviet Union.Anonimu 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, the non-Jewish PCR members were collected into two or three facilities throughout the country. You have the number provided for its members in 1944: under 1,000; you have similar numbers for 1940. It may have had, comparatively, many sympathizers; estimates I've seen place them at ca.2,000, but let's say they were 5,000 in all. That would still be ridiculously low. by all standards of the time.
 * Proofs? Of course there were few declared communists in 1944... during the war you could be killed simply for being a commie...
 * You have several clear-cut references in the text. Dahn 00:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are they all-knowing?Anonimu 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to follow you into Fallacyland. Dahn 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably those books were written by God himself (since you implied an affirmative answer)Anonimu 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I merely said that discussing a subject in this manner is fallacious. Dahn 15:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The way you do it, yesAnonimu 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The simple point is not about sources being "all-knowing", it is about them being reliable - the numbers are all from reliable sources, and this is the only thing that matter here. What you can speculate about and deduce in addition to the numbers does not interest me. Dahn 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lie by omission is still a lie.Anonimu 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Omitting stuff you or anybody decide to speculate about on various talk pages from the body of articles is certainly not a lie. Of any kind. Dahn 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If that "stuff" is a fact and is sourceable, it's a big lie.Anonimu 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Speculation does not interest me. Dahn 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * People who actually worked for Antonescu were the Jews, including most Jewish members of the PCR, and probably most of its sympathizers. Comparing Vapniarka to Târgu Jiu is in bad taste. Dahn 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The relative majority of the communists executed during ww2 were Jews. This is how they worked for Antonescu?Anonimu 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I misread your comment about "provide intensive work for executioners" and missed the "for executioners" part, so I thought you were talking about the labor camps in general (this is what my Vapniarka comparison was referring to). But let's not play with words here: for one, the majority of people killed by Antonescu were Jews; a significant number of communists were Jews; as you yourself indicate, most of the executed communists were Jews. Can you see the pattern forming here? It's here: a racist regime tends to kill people on the basis of their race. You will find a similar logic works for the Transnistrian camps, were all kinds of Jews went to be killed or used as slaves, as opposed to the camps for communists, were life was peachy to the point where Gheorghiu-Dej just walked out of there when he decided to settle the score with Foriş. Dahn 00:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about communist jews killed in Transnistria or in the progroms of Iasi, Bucuresti, Dorohoi and other towns and villages. I was talking about jews in the Regat who were sentenced to death explicitely for being commies.Anonimu
 * 1. Antisemitic policies were applied throughout Romania, with varying degrees. 2. I already answered. Dahn 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How many non-communist Jews were sentenced to death in Romania in 1940-1944?Anonimu 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How many communists were not executed? Dahn 15:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The rest.Anonimu 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, what does that tell you? Dahn 15:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That if you're a communist and you don't want to die, either keep a low profile or gain the power.Anonimu 16:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Again: the number of Communist Party members did not significantly modify until the late 1940s - the first significant modification involved absorbing the PSD, which, as I suppose you can tell, does not precisely give the same effect to your monumental argument. Over the same period, the PSD had known a spectacular rise in membership (to 500,000, in comparison with the peak of, let's be generous, 5,000-10,000 PCR members); in 1947, a large section of the PSD (250,000 in one account) refused to join the PMR.
 * You didn't risk to be executed by being a Social Democrat.Anonimu 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The period I was talking about is, of course, 1944-1947, when nobody risked being executed on any such grounds. Dahn 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, this last twist in your argument omitted a main point: that Jews, communists or not, were killed or sent to special camps for being Jews (with the added conclusion that communist Jews were more likely to be executed than ethnic Romanian Jews over the same real or imagined deeds), and that, for all his fantasy about all Jews being Bolsheviks and vice-versa, Antonescu allowed ethnic Romanian communists to be imprisoned in very humane conditions. The only exception to this rule that I know of is Chişinevschi, who joined Dej and the others in the regular camp. Dahn 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Show me one jew executed by Romania in 22 june 1940 - 24 aug 1944 whose sentence didn't include membership in/ simpathy with the communist party. And Antonescu reportedly chosed not to apply the final solution because "not all jews are bolsheviks" ;)
 * I have already answered, within the confines of logic, why that particular conjecture is irrelevant (I should perhaps write it down again: I can show you a significant number of Jews who were killed for being Jews, and I can show you a significant number of communists who were not killed at all). And, if you want to cite your sources properly, note that it was a German ambassador who had to explain the event, and that the very quote stresses that Antonescu did believe that (just that he stopped relying on it at some point). Furthermore: Antonescu's beliefs on the subject are backed by several other sources, while his decision not to apply the Final Solution as advanced by Germany, as well as his decision to put a stop to his own version of the Final Solution are generally attributed to his acknowledgment that the war was lost. Dahn 17:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Not told to do that"? They were told repeatedly, in fact. But if "did not" works, I won't object.
 * By whom? There was neither a plea, nor an order. After all, Romania was a sovereign state.Anonimu 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * There were specific requests from Khrushchev, which Dej refused, using precisely that lil' argument of yours about "sovereignty". That the same Dej was not really sovereign at any time before should perhaps add to the irony. But discussing this is pointless. Dahn 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dej was not the party, so if he refused Khrushchev in a personal conversation, it was his problem. And Romania was sovereign at least since the death of Stalin.Anonimu 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I cannot comment any further on the implication that the PCR/PMR was some sort of democratic body where decisions were put forward for approval. Dahn 00:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read an article some time ago about the discussion in the CC after a meeting with Khruschev. It was taken from the stenograms, not from a Scinteia article, but it looked quite democratic. I'll try to find it if you want.Anonimu 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that's okay. Dahn 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Single ruling party" is factual (were there any other parties after 1953? moreover, were there any other parties in power after 1953?).
 * But independents could be and were elected in the National Assembly.Anonimu 22:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I like pie. What does that have to with the bit of text you are discussing? (I don't want to waste my time explaining the obvious about the "independence" of political candidates back in the day...) Dahn 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * OR.Anonimu 23:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I said I did not want to waste my time. Whether I consider them independent or not does not matter in the least, since, with or without them, the single-party regime notion still applies. Dahn 00:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh.Anonimu 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Spare me the wus. Dahn 14:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wu tang?Anonimu 15:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. The killa bees. Dahn 15:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to other changes (but please remember that delinking a word in one sentence should be, where applicable, accompanied by linking it in another). Dahn 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think, what Communist Parties meant was "multinational" as opposed to the Wilsonian notion "nation-state". Communist idiology resented everything Versaillesq, everything Wilsonian, and explicitely the notion "nation-state". Perhaps a separate sentence can explian this and the sense that Communist Parties were giving to the word "multinational". (it was against the state being a unitary state).:Dc76 22:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Insert it where? I think the matter is already discussed in the text, throughout one section, from what sources say, and keeping in mind what is relevant to the topic. The "through Wilson" explanation is incorrect in respect to Romania, since Romania was not a nation-state because of Wilson, since Greater Romania was not created on the basis of Wilsonian principles, and since the Comintern/Soviet Union were not against Romania on the basis of Wilsonian principles (i.e. they had many other and more obvious reasons to clash with Romania). Add to this that Wilson lost his train by 1919, and that a certain Mr. Brătianu (unlike, say, a Mr. Maniu) was very much glad to leave him behind. Yes, the Soviets did have a consistent and opportunistic revisionist policy, which was both complementary and adverse to the Comintern line, but I see no need to add explanations of such developments in an article about the PCR. In addition, explaining that the pro-world revolution Comintern was "anti-Wilsonian" would be like explaining that it was a communist organization... Dahn 22:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not propose exactly where to insert, b/c I did not find a proper place, reformulation. I thought you guys are going to do something, but I misunderstood (you see, i'm not following all of this discussion, b/c it has a big backlog) forget it.
 * Only one detail (not directly related to editting). Wilsonian principles (he has advocated them throughout WWI, not only at the end) were essential to recognizing the right of the peoples inhabitting Ausria-Hunagry and the Russian Empire to self-determination, which was essential e.g. for Transylvania (it wasn't Romanian conquest, Romanian army only entered it after union was declared). But personally I'm not a fan of Wilson, I sympathize with Th. Roosevelt.:Dc76 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the last paragraph of your post: that is a popular misconception, which overlooks the essential aspects of what the world was like before 1914 and after 1919. As much as Romanians like to measure 1918 by the Wilsonian principles yardstick, the fact is that the latter were largely irrelevant (most of all, they were irrelevant to the authorities in Bucharest). I personally have no particular sympathy in what concerns that moment in time. Dahn 00:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the decision to recognize the principle of self-determination of peoples (not 100% identical to everything Wilson proposed) was irrelevant in Bucharest. E.g. mountain lands of Wallachia and Moldavia, lost by the May 1918 treaty, would remain attached in Transylvania and end up in some other country - at least Romania would have not got them back automatically. And frankly, I don't think at all it is Romanians who particularly like the principle, I am thinking about Czechs, Slovenians, Latvians, etc. I am thinking about the principle in legal terms, not in political terms, where I agree with something very close to what you said. But we are out of the subject, my appologies. :Dc76 01:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think Dahn makes a good case for keeping "minor" in that first paragraph in addition to "illegal": although the two notions are correlated, the latter does not necessarily imply the former. As for "multinational", the objections above all look valid.  Furthermore, Romania does not appear on the list of Multinational states (rightly so), and it's not clear to me that Greater Romania would have belonged there, either -- perhaps it's a debate worth having, but not in the lead to the PCR! Finally, for those more attuned to current events than to what happened a long time ago, the word multinational brings to mind the Multinational force in Iraq (or, the "coalition of the willing"), much more so than the "prison of the peoples", the Dual monarchy, or other such quaint concepts, which is what I guess (perhaps wrongly) the intended implication was. Turgidson 22:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, are yous sure? I would have never imagined that. If Russia and the UK appear on that list (both with about 80% "polinymous" population), Greater Romania with its official 70% can surely get a place there. Multiethnic is also an option Anonimu 22:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Russian empire had something like 42% Russians in 1914. Russian Federation had 70% in 1991, which made it local minority on huge chunks of land out of its 17,000,000 sq km. And don't every call a McDonald clanman Englishmen, they'd kill you. :Dc76 00:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Russia was 81% Russian in 1989, so no chance for 70% in 1991.Anonimu 09:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Multiethnic society applied to Greater Romania: sure, I feel comfortable with that notion, it does reflect reality at that point in time to a good extent (though note that Greater Romania is not listed under Multiethnic society -- if you feel so strongly about this, why don't you add it there?) But, once again, my objection is to Multinational state, especially here in the lead paragraph of the PCR article, where it would be dissonant. If you want to pursue this aspect of the  discussion, why don't you port it to the talk page of Greater Romania, where it would be much more relevant?  Turgidson 23:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Press
The lead proposed by Turgidson seems OK to me, as it is. Dpotop 05:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, I don't see what the "UTC and press" paragraph adds. All great parties in the world have youth organizations, media outlets, and some way of preparing their cadres. Is somebody interested in saying that "PNT" directs "Tineretul Taranist" and "Dreptatea"? Similarly, does the article on the French Communist Party mention their cadre preparation program? The answer is NO. Therefore, this info doesn't belong to the lead. Dpotop 05:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I added similar data for all parties where the info was readily available. Dahn 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may add it wherever you want, but it's irrelevant. All parties have youth, propaganda, and ideological means. By definition. It's the article that must give these, not the lead. Dpotop 07:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1. I want to se where you got your "must" from. 2. Clarifying the links between the PCR and its notable affiliates is one of the most essential requirements, and one of the details a reader not familiar with the subject should have handy. Dahn 09:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Affiliates. Right. Then, you also talk in the lead about gospodaria de partid which is as affiliate as the youth organization, the party academy (yes, this is how it was called), and the party journals. Dpotop 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The official title of Stefan Gheorghiu seems to have been: "Academia de partid pentru invatamant social-politic", per http://www.iccv.ro/romana/biblio/c.html . Dpotop 09:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, and since you talk of "notable affiliates", I presume that "Gospodaria de partid" was more notable for Romanians than "UTC" was. And, it seems you forgot "Soimii patriei" from your list of notable affiliates. Dpotop 09:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Man, don't you understand that these were all parts of the party, not affiliates? Dpotop 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * And you claim you want to simplify the lead? Dpotop 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that UTC and Soimii Patriei were constituent parts of the Communist Party. By law, people under the age of 18 can and could not be members of political parties. Ok, I agree that the case of UTC is special case (the youth organization of the Party, just like Komsomol and Hitler Youth), since it included both people under and over 18 (therefore the usual numbers for membership that you find in the press: 18% of population if not counting UTC, 21% if counting UTC). But Soimii Patriei were children. They were not politically involved, so I think that at least in reference to SP - it was an affiliate, not component. Was membership in SP compulsory or at choice? I don't think you had any choice, and noone at age 8-10 (?) can be asked to take an "informed" decision.:Dc76 13:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The UTC could be mentioned along the way. Eg, "In 1947, the Communist Party absorbed much of the Social Democratic Party, while attracting various new members, and expanding its youth organization, the Union of Communist Youth". Or later: "At the time, the PCR and its youth organization massively and artificially increased in size...".  If there was a hierarchy of what to mention in the lead, I think the UTC is more important to mention than others--if nothing else, due to its sheer size in numbers, which argues for the second alternative, if we are to go that way (also, it was called UTC in 1947, but UTM from 1949-1965). The Ştefan Gheorghiu Academy strikes me as of secondary importance (I mean just compare its article to that of the UTC -- what can one say about it, except that the Party guys were indoctrinated there?)  Speaking of which, and as aside — the article on the Academy stops at 1989, with its dissolution (actually, the official announcement was made on January 19, 1990, see here). But I heard it's been re-instated (transmogrified?) as a Sciences-Po school, and in fact it's among the most competitive higher-education institutions in Romania in terms of acceptance rate. Anyone knows more about that? Turgidson 12:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The buildings of Stefan Gheorghiu are now used by several universities, including the Science-Po. It's normal, given that these were the best university infrastructures in Bucharest. :) Dpotop 13:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Look Dpotop: I want to indicate to the reader how articles relate to one another, which is a basic tool on wikipedia. I'm not interested in how you rate them, I am not interested in what another articles real or imagined can be fit in there, I'm not interested in you splitting hairs over the meaning of "affiliates", I'm interested in the fact that the subjects exist, and are important enough to mention so that the reader gets a sense of what they were to the party. It is a simple short paragraph detailing a common sense thing. Dahn 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Party vs. State
The lead of the article on the USSR communist party contains a very pertinent remark we could make here, too: The fact that there was little difference between the organization of the state, the party, and the mass organizations. Dpotop 15:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there was: the state and the mass organizations were subordinated to the party, they executed what party decided, they "translated into life" party directives. And yes, that should be mentioned somewhere on top: "a party comanding and giving orders to the state and the society", not "a party in a multi-party system".:Dc76 18:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and such a remark makes all reference to UTC, a.s.o. useless. Everything was seen as an affiliate to the party, not just the youth organization. Dpotop 18:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, this corresponds to the clear division of the lead proposed by Turgidson in 3 paragraphs corresponding to the 3 steps in the existence of the PCR:
 * Illegality
 * Occupation tool
 * Party-state
 * Dpotop 18:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, let me explain this to you one final time: when sizable topical articles exist about subjects closely connected to the PCR, it is a common sense thing to list them and shortly clarify their relation to the party. Like the "key terms", if you will. Why? Because our reader does not have to read our minds, he has to get the basic information on how articles relate. Just as the UTC, Ştefan Gheorghiu and Scînteia articles clarify the connections to the PCR, so should the PCR clarify its connection to its most important party sectioons/affiliates/institutions/whateverwordDpotopfeelshecanspeculate. Your analogy with other party institutions is faulty for several reasons; one of them, which should be clear to you by now, is that the UTC existed long before the PCR was in power. I hope we're done here. Dahn 20:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dahn, you mistake content and form (RO: fond si forma). Links to related articles are provided in the "See also" section. The lead must provide links when they are needed to explain the content of the current article. The subject UTC adds no useful information to the understanding of what PCR was at the shallow level represented by the lead. Nor does Stefan Gheorghiu. You may have written nice articles (at least this is what I understand from your push), but our goal here is not to link to the articles you wrote. The subject is PCR. A Chinese that reads this article doesn't give a damn about Stefan Gheorghiu and UTC. Let me give you an example: when I have 3 minutes for browsing Wikipedia and I want to learn about the Communist Party of X, I want to learn what it did important, how it appeared/disappeared. I don't give a damn about his newspaper or youth organization, unless these were implicated by themselves in some main event of the party life. Dpotop 20:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Providing basic info about the most important organizations within the party structure should find a place in the text, not outside it, and preferably in the lead.
 * I will not turn this debate into the forum you desire, and therefore will not gratify your "Chinese reader" sophistry with an answer - because it is sophistry. Furthermore, since the lead already clarifies how the party "appeared/disappeared", the argument you make is not addressing reality, but some parallel logic.
 * And no, Dpotop, I did virtually no editing for those particular articles, so your fantasy about me promoting my babies is purely inflammatory. Aside from being trite. Dahn 20:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See below. I think you don't understand what you need. Dpotop 20:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Create a "Political party" infobox
Dahn says he needs some way of marking standard relations between political organizations, even when these are not notable. There exists a tool for doing this on Wikipedia: Infoboxes. For instance, a "Political party" infobox would have a "Press outlet" field (Scanteia, maybe RL), a "Youth organization" field, a.s.o. These things are not necessarily important, but they may be mentioned like, for instance, the succession of prime ministers of a country. Some of them are not important, but it's useful syntactic information.

What do you think? With such an infobox, we can concentrate on content. Dpotop 20:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Of course, there are such infoboxes for the current political parties (eg, Infobox Romanian Political Party), but one could use a generic infobox (Infobox Political Party) for a defunct party -- see for example how this is done for the CPSU. I don't see fields there for youths organizations, etc, but I guess one could tweak the standard infobox and add the corresponding fields... Turgidson 21:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think an infobox would be great, but I'm not sure if the current template (used at, for example, PSD) is the best way to go, if only because it doesn't have a line for the dates between which the party existed (it only gives the "founding" date, as it was intended for present-day parties not historical ones). Ronline ✉ 09:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

 * If we restrain to ruling Communist parties, all of them had notable youth organizations (Komsomol, etc), and media outlets. So, I presume it's only natural to create an infobox for them. Dpotop 21:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Who was Vladimir Ivashko (CPSU)? Never heard of him. :):Dc76 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think he was Party boss for a few days during the Soviet coup attempt of 1991, just after Gorbachev resigned. Talk about ending with a whimper!  Turgidson 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Are PCR and PMR the same?
Maybe Dahn will tell me that it's obvious (and I agree with this), but are there reliable sources stating the continuity between PCbR, PMR and PCR (or it's just our consensus making that PMR is seen as a sub-case of PCR)? Dpotop 13:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I'm not challenging the statement (at all). Dpotop 13:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, all the sources used to source this article, and all the sources out there. The only aspect that is being debated by some is whether there was a clear continuity between the PCdR of 1938 and the PCdR of 1944. You see, when such questions are posed, I expect the person who poses them to actually read the article. Dahn 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

 * I think you didn't get me. I'm not talking about continuity as it can exist, for instance, between Moldavia and Romania. I'm talking about continuity of party institutions, the fact that it's **the same party**. Is this stated somewhere? Because, I presume that the founding documents of PMR presented it as a new party issued from the **fusion** of PCR and PSD. Dpotop 14:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dpotop, I "got" you, and I answered your question. Dahn 14:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

In 1965 PMR was simply renamed RCP.--Mazarin07 (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The introduction
I split the intro in a different way (per Turgidson split in the talk page above). We can now compare it with Anonimu's verision:. The differnces appear minor, but they give a different read per whole. Oppinions? Other eidts? :Dc76\talk 18:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Given that Anonimu still reverts the article, could you please, state clearly below what do you think of Anonimu's revert, or what alternative edit you support, so we can end this game once and for all.:Dc76\talk 19:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Typo "appearance"
Please fix the typo contained within this article, appearence -> appearance. Clerks. 14:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed modifications
I am just proposing that we mention one of the horrible ways in which they took by power, more precisely blackmail. This information is as much about the party as it is about the regime it imposed, so I see no reason not to mention it.

The second modification is in fact just a requirement for sources. It's a misconceived idea that the "Communist Party had little influence in Romania due to the country's lack of industrial development". It may be that they had little influence because of their own incompetence and their very pro-USSR image, version which in my opinion is more plausible. Anyway I didn't delete or add anything I am just asking for sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fsol (talk • contribs) 06:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * I took the liberty of moving these comments at the bottom of the talk page, since previous ones are listed in chronological order.
 * That said, yes, that NYT interview with King Michael I looks interesting -- I'd missed it. Some of that stuff should certainly go in some of the relevant articles -- I'll do it when I get a chance. I'd heard before that the King was blackmailed into abdicating, but this is the first time I see it confirmed, by as primary a source as it gets (it would be good though to have secondary sources, as well.  Just as a matter of background: remember that there had been a massacre of civilians on November 8, 1945 (on St. Michael's day), when a pro-monarchy demonstration in front of the Royal Palace in Bucharest was met with force, resulting in dozens of killed and wounded (see here.  So it makes sense to me that the King would take such threats seriously -- though it would be good to have reliable sources explaining this in detail (unfortunately, I don't have such sources at the moment).
 * Finally, yes, that bit about how the "Communist Party had little influence in Romania due to the country's lack of industrial development" sounds like a self-serving, standard Party line rationalizing their lack of influence before they came to power "on the back of Soviet tanks" (if I may say so). The alternative explanations you suggest (incompetence and very pro-USSR image) sound much more plausible to me. Plus, one should mention the very low number of PCR members before 1944 (from about 500 to 1,000 on August 23, 1944), though of course lack of influence and the low membership go hand in hand. It would be very interesting (and would greatly enhance the article, I think), to have a bar graph with the total number of PCR members between 1921 and 1990. To fit those wild swings in membership -- from under 1,000 all the way up to 2.6 million, then crashing down to 0 at the end of 1989 -- one would need a logarithmic scale to properly fit the data in the graph.  Turgidson (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * To Fsol: The party came to power as part of a coalition, which, of course, it controlled, but for whose actions several political movements (including that of the prime minister) were also accountable. The episode you mention is not actually the PCR's ascendancy to power (which had happened even before the elections of 1945), it is that of how the communist regime came to be - and, as indicated by the fact that other sources do not even mention it even when dealing with the event itself, it is rather obscure (presumably, the pressures of the king were many and diverse, and I've heard the king himself also mention that the government told him that Soviet troops were ready to storm in the residence and that Groza had a gun prepared for the occasion). Since the lead expands on the bare essentials, and since the word used is "force", I really don't see a need for going into this much detail.
 * The sources for the whole statement are to be found at the end of that very phrase, and I can plainly see that your take on the matter is also present in that phrase (see the part about the anti-national stance). Further indication of how it discredited itself in front of authorities, as well as in front of other left-wing movements (themselves minor due to the same factor), is present above and below that portion of the text. As you may see, all causes are already indicated, and the lack of industrial development (mentioned in sources), is and is presented as but one of them. Dahn (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * To Turgidson: in addition to my above comments, I'm going to add that what the PCR could hope for in a society such as Romania was to be somewhat larger. It is relevant and sourced that, among the sections of the "working class" (to use their terms), all the more popular socialist movements were still minor. So, yes, it is a relevant factor, among others. And please also look at where the paragraph comes into the text: its allegiance to the Soviet Union is discussed before, in, and after it, and it is already clear to the reader that, on the basis of this, the PCR was rejected even by the other small groups on the far left. This allegiance was even rejected by its general secretary Cristescu, who was expelled from the PCR. Also in the text is a mention of how the PCR was actually able to gain some popularity later, especially during the Great Depression and the strikes - I did not go into more detail when sourcing this, but at least one author cited stresses that they were actually able to appeal to organized labor (presumably, while dissimulating their pro-Soviet stances for populist gains). Dahn (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, OK -- I wasn't actually criticizing the article (I looked at it again before writing the above, and had to delete some of my comments when I realized they were already addressed in the article!), just noting that the standard (is that Leninist?) explanation for lack of support of the "masses" for the communist experiment has been the lack of enough working class people. While there was probably some kind of positive correlation between the two (at some point in history, and in some locales), I don't take this explanation as a given at all — other explanations may be as valid, or even more valid (depending again on the time and space coordinates).  Now, in the specific case of Romania, in the early 1920s (say, in the immediate aftermath of the Dealul Spirii Trial), I think other factors were much more important (such as, association with terrorist acts, and use of IEDs).  But, at the onset of the Great Depression (say, during the Griviţa Strike of 1933), there was a measurable swing in support from among industrial workers towards the Left and the far Left— something that of course happened in several other countries affected by the Depression. But the PCR never manages to gain nearly as much support as the Left got in, say, Spain during the Second Spanish Republic--not by a long shot.  And, I think one could make a case that the industrial development of Spain and Romania was comparable in the 1930s--I'm speculating right now, but, if pressed, I will look into it.  Certainly by 1938, given the boom in the oil industry, and the devastation brought by the Spanish Civil War, Romania must have had a higher GNP per capita than Spain. But again, one would need to research this, and I wouldn't even know where to start -- that's part of the reason I think we have to bring a better economic perspective of history here at WP (one backed up by hard data, relevant color charts, the works), if the WP coverage is going to be something really outstanding and comprehensive. Turgidson (talk) 18:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * In general terms. The info we're discussing (which was already in the text when I edited it, and which I found to be validated by sources) is placed alongside all other reasons invoked by the sources. I do not see how it could, in itself, support any Leninist thesis: I'm not going to feed the illusion that socialists in general entertain about how they represent the working class, but I think we can all agree that communism, and Marxism itself, depends on addressing an industrialized society (I'm not, of course, discussing Maoism in this post). The main issue here is that the Romanian communists could not even pretend to address the economic realities of Romania (we have also clarified that they certainly did not address the political realities). Much of this goes for the socialist groups in general, all of which were minor forces in interwar Romania.
 * In particular terms. In respect to the support for the left-wing: it is documented that Romanian industrial workers had their sympathies with the social democrats (at least initially), and the social democrats were directly interested in keeping communist influence in check. The PSD-PCR conflict is one of the main features in the party's history between 1924 and 1944. This does not mean that the communists could have been a successful force on their own, nor that they could have been much bigger than they were - it means that the majority of their supposed public was already generally committed to a more moderate something else (and was so even during the Great Depression). Personally, though I am by no means informed on this, I would tend to agree with your conclusions regarding the Spain-Romania comparison. However, I'm not sure what we are discussing: the Popular Front, or the Communist Party? Yes, the latter managed to direct the former, but, in its case, it was because they represented Soviet support (which the other parties needed). Most left-wing movements represented other social segments (including the anarchists - who stood for the rural communities - and the radicals - who were basically a middle class party); the Popular Front was only successful after the Republic had voted itself a right-wing government, while Romania never had a Popular Front to begin with. I'm sure that the Communist Party in Spain was more represented than the Romanian one could hope for, but the causes for this may be too peculiar to validate the comparison further (Romania had never been a dictatorship by the time the PCR came into existence, whereas Primo's Spain had arguably succeeded in making more people look for various alternatives; the Communist Party in Spain had important opponents on the far left, was able to simulate moderation much more successfully after Stalin imposed it on them, and entered a partnership with the moderate left - while the Romanian party had many of its adversaries on the moderate left, who denounced the communists for various and entirely coherent reasons). Let's also not forget that support for the Communist Party in Spain was mostly measured after the group successfully organized a purge of all other revolutionary groups - and the latter groups, as stated, were not committed to (or just to) the industrial workers. Dahn (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * To Dahn: I agree that it would be going into detail to say how the king was forced. But I would offer an alternative to render the article more precise and not more cumbersome, by just saying that: "the king was blackmailed into abdicating" (+ reference). This only replaces the word "forced" by a more precise "blackmailed". Would you agree with this solution?Fsol (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * To Dahn and Turgidson: On the second issue that is my asking for sources supporting the idea stated in the article the lack of industrial development is to blame for the communist party's little influence. First of all I totally disagree with that idea, as I already said. I disagree from both sides of the argument: first that the lack of industrial development is a factor to blame for the failure of the communist party to attract supporters, and also that communist parties need (and in reality it is seen that they don't) the bulk of supporters among a so-called working class. Many communist parties have big supporters in middle class or even rich class, especially among the teens of that period. Anyways all this is besides the point. The point is that I think we all (Dahn, Turgidson and me) agree that saying that "the Communist Party had little influence in Romania due to the country's lack of industrial development" is an opinion. So I propose either just limiting ourselves to facts, which is just saying that: "the Communist Party had little influence in Romania" without stating anything else. Alternatively, I agree that some people think that the lack of industrial development is to blame, so source it. It is all that I ask for, either a sourced opinion, either no opinion at all (which I think is better for an encyclopedia).Fsol (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * On the first issue: this is what the king said about himself, and I personally have little reason to doubt it, but it is still a claim that should not be prioritized in the lead (and is not particularly relevant to the lead). Also, as I have said, the pressure on the king was exercised by various political factors, of which the PCR was just one. Let me cite Cioroianu on this (p.99): "Cu putine si incurcate cuvinte, premierul a intins regelui actul abdicarii, cu invitatia de a-l semna pe loc. Retras intr-un salon pentru consultari cu cei apropiati, regele observa ca legaturile resedintei cu exteriorul sunt taiate, iar garda palatului fusese inlocuita. In aceste conditii, acutizate - potrivit regelui - de un santaj fara echivoc [footnote sending to a direct quote from the king, where the threat to kill students is mentioned], regele Mihai este obligat sa semneze actul de abdicare". This is the importance of the quote given in an entire chapter about the abdication - it is a claim, which bears only some importance on the events as they unfolded, and which, if true, had in itself little to do with the party's actions. Let's keep this article focused.
 * On the second issue: again, this is one of the factors, and it is mentioned alongside all others (including one referring to your entirely reasonable assessment that other social classes were attracted to communism - which still says nothing about the fact that communist discourse is intrinsically connected to the existence of an industrial class). Again: all these factors together, and all of them not implying that the Communist Party could've been a much more significant force otherwise (which would be the Leninist thesis). It is just a statement of facts. Dahn (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * First of all, I am not trying to defend my opinion, which doesn't really matter in this encyclopedia. "The main issue here is that the Romanian communists could not even pretend to address the economic realities of Romania". I understand your point, but I don't think that is the reason for their little influence. As I said in my opinion the reason for their lack of influence is their own image and their own pro-USSR stance which was deeply unpopular.
 * Just to give some examples of what I am saying: the US is a perfectly well industrialised country where the communist party had very little influence. Also, in the same time there are other small non-industruiallised countries, mostly central asian and african countries, that became communist although not industrialised.Fsol (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is one of the issues, as the text indicates. The issue of its unacceptable message and leftist competitors on the political scene is also indicated in the fragment you are citing (and, if I may add my opinion, explains the marginal nature of other communist parties all over the world - though it has to be said that the Romanian communists were among the least popular anywhere at the time). The advancement of communist movements in other countries is a post-WWII factor, and has a lot to do with new policies being developed (as well as with the presence of or quest for Soviet influence). Dahn (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

 * First, in my opinion the second issue has been resolved. For the first issue, Dahn, do you agree to use the more precise word "blackmail" instead of the more vague word "force"? Especially since, we both agree that the sources are authentic, (New York Times interview + Cioroianu).Fsol (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Both sources cite the king saying it - his claim cannot actually be confirmed, and it is marginal to the whole issue. In fact, what the NYT uses to define the events is identical to what we use currently ("would eventually force Michael to abdicate"). Cioroianu only cites this as potentially one in a number of factors. That said, I don't know if it is essential to the text, let alone the lead. So, no, I cannot say I agree. Dahn (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, the king's claim cannot actually be confirmed. But the closest source we have for knowing why the king abdicated is the king himself, unless somebody brings a better source stating something different. The current formulation says he was forced, ok but how? I agree it is not essential to the text, it is however more precise without adding any burden to the text. It only changes one word, for which it adds a reference. A situation already better than the current version which has no sources for saying how exactly the king was forced. Turgidson or other users, what do you think?Fsol (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid what you are proposing is in contrast to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Dahn (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but how is it my point of view to make a precision using a sourced term? All that I'm saying is that using the word "blackmailed" instead of just "forced" adds precision to the article with no unnecessary burden. What would you say if I asked how exactly was the king forced to abdicate? The sources say it was blackmail, you seem to say the same thing, but don't agree with making the precision in the text. So be it, I won't try to impose something that doesn't get approved by other users. But I do want to know if there is someone else who favors this term.
 * Furthermore, the accuracy gained through the use of the precise term and of its reference is useful. This is reflected in user Turgidson's comment:"I'd heard before that the King was blackmailed into abdicating, but this is the first time I see it confirmed, by as primary a source". I'm just saying this so, you understand I'm not defending something useless. In any case, if you don't want it and nobody else except me wants it there, it's fine with me to preserve the current version, maybe just add the reference (the interview) for users who want to know how exactly he was forced.Fsol (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The king says it was blackmail, Fsol. He may be right, he may be wrong (I have no reason to doubt that he is right, but what's this to say?). The secondary source doesn't take for granted that he was blackmailed: it cites him saying it. When it comes to describing what it was, the secondary source uses the same term we use. The tertiary source also cites him saying it, and indicates that it was not the determining factor. In this source, it is basically a footnote in an chapter that exclusively deals with the abdication (which, may I add, this article doesn't). Other sources that discuss the event in as much detail as is allocated here do not discuss this at all. We are clearly talking about a forceful thing, and the article mentions it as a forceful thing (twice). Saying more would be POV, and would favor an interpretation that only belongs to the king. The references for this do not belong in this article, since it is not what this article is about - there are plenty of articles where one could go into more detail, and I see absolutely no reason why we should expand on this episode in an article dedicated to the Communist Party. Just like I would see no relevancy for the claim that Groza took a pistol to the meeting. Dahn (talk) 00:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

 * Dahn, as I understand, and please correct me if I am wrong, your first argument is: "The king says it was blackmail [...] He may be right, he may be wrong". Sure, maybe the king is wrong, as any source maybe potentially be wrong. But we cannot disqualify sources solely on the basis that they may be wrong, bring proof (other sources) indicating otherwise and then I shall agree with you. But here we're in the situation where we have a credible source (as everybody says, you, Turgidson and me) saying that he was indeed forced through blackmail, other sources indicating that it was blackmail and no other sources saying otherwise. So we can all agree that it was probably blackmail and that we can put it in Wikipedia without it being an obscure POV.
 * Your second argument seems to be: "The references for this do not belong in this article, since it is not what this article is about". As I already said, sure the article isn't about this particular incident, but the term "blackmail" offers more accuracy into how exactly he was "forced" to abdicate, without any additional burden to the text. It serves to do just that, add precision to an article. It also shows what kind of people Romanian communists really were. I think a term which adds precision and is sourced can be put into Wikipedia.Fsol (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We cannot give a statement more credit than the sources who cite it, and there is no reason why any article should validate that particular statement - wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The rest of your argument, as I indicated, does not reflect much about the Communist Party, and this article should not be a listing of all possible irregularities ("It serves to do just that, add precision to an article. It also shows what kind of people Romanian communists really were." - there is plenty to show the reader who the communists were for documented actions that can actually be traced back to them). Dahn (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all I'm ok with leaving the current formulation if no other user sees my precision welcome. I just think that another one is better in that it is more accurate. Especially since wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and we have several sources stating the same thing while having no sources contradicting it, we should replace the word "forced" with the word "blackmailed". You say that who the communists were for documented actions that can actually be traced back to them, and I agree, but why is this any different? Our best source, and our only one towards showing why the king abdicated is the king himself. Unless, of course, you come with another source stating something else.
 * Our simplified situation is, if you agree, this: X did something, X said he did it for a reason, we can't put the reason in Wiki because X is the only one saying why he did it. Of course he's the only one, and in this particular scenario there is nobody stating the contrary.Fsol (talk) 12:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, first of all, we do not have two sources saying it, we have one source saying it quoted by two other sources! The two sources that quote him indicate that it is his opinion, and one of them indicates that, even if true, it was only an aggravating circumstance, not a determining factor. I cannot possibly see how this take would take distance from the facts it reports if it would favor a perspective that other sources do not credit. That should be enough for contradiction. On the other hand, you are constructing your argument backwards: one does not have to find a claim mistrusting the king's (though the official account of how the republic came to be is quite enough of a contradiction), we would need secondary sources to corroborate that claim. They do not, and they attribute this view to the king. With all due respect for the king, the article cannot turn his claims into facts more than it can do for any other person. And the fact that he said because he was involved, not as a third party, only serves to substantiate my point: you do not ask a plaintiff to replace the judge, no matter how much as the opinions about the trial may substantiate the notion that the defense team is right. Also note that he is the only survivor of that meeting, so there is no chance one could ask others how they feel about it. Dahn (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * First, we have one source saying it, which is later quoted by other sources. So its not an untrustworthy source as I think you argue. Second, I'm not constructing my argument backwards at all, I brought forth a precision and I sourced it. You oppose it so I in turn ask you if you have any other source stating the opposite or even something different. By Wiki rules, that you have already quoted (Wiki seeks verifiability, not truth) we should put the precision in the article. I already sourced my claim, which is that he was blackmailed.
 * "you do not ask a plaintiff to replace the judge" We are not talking about someone guilty of something who is trying to defend himself. It's just a historical fact for which I brought forth sources.Fsol (talk) 13:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you read the entire WP:V, you will notice what sources are required (specifically that they have to be third-party). Both third-party sources that are cited do not corroborate the claim, they just present it as an opinion expressed on the matter. Nobody (including the sources who mention it) can verify that this is a fact, so it is not a fact. That is what "verifiability, not truth" refers to. As a guideline, we are expected to be more cautious in reporting the facts than the sources - in this case, you are asking the community to be less cautious that the sources. And, again, there has to be no source contradicting this account for it not to be taken for granted (and, in fact, there could be none - nobody who attended the meeting is still alive). Dahn (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are making a false hypothesis when you say: "there could be [no sources contradicting the account] - nobody who attended the meeting is still alive". It's not because nobody from an event is still alive that you cannot find other sources to corroborate your claim. A quick example of this is ancient history, nobody who lived back then is still alive today, but other sources can still be found. Whether a historical figure is still alive or not doesn't matter on issues such as ours.
 * I agree with you when you say: "there has to be no source contradicting this account for it not to be taken for granted". That is precisely why I was asking for sources contradicting the account (not constructing my argument backwards, as you suggested).
 * I come back to my simplified example: X does something, X explains why he did it, nobody contradicts him, we still can't put the reason in Wiki.--Fsol (talk) 14:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your first argument is precisely why modern historians do not take ancient sources or even ancient historians for granted, and attribute them their opinions. As I have shown, this is also the case here. Otherwise, we might just as well start writing that there were people in Patagonia who rested in the shadow of their own foot or had the heads of wolves, that there really was a place in America where a king would bathe in gold, etc. - there was nobody contradicting these sources back when they were alive, so they "must be right", right?
 * No, because those are physically impossible things. Someone doesn't have to contradict them, they are physically impossible.--Fsol (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * How is it physically impossible to bathe in gold-sanded water or have a foot as large as to cast a shadow over a significant part of your body when you lift it in the air? How is it physically impossible to have a head that would resemble that of a wolf (we don't know to what measure, because we have seen none...). Either way, I was hoping you would get my point. Dahn (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I get your point. But we are not referring to someone who says he has seen ghosts or other physically unprobable stuff. We are just referring to someone who motivates his decision to do something. Not someone saying he saw werewolves or ghosts.--Fsol (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not talking about werewolves or ghosts, was I? Dahn (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you were talking about physically unprobable stuff.--Fsol (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And now impossible becomes improbable... Improbable to whom? Dahn (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I said before: "we are not referring to someone who says he has seen ghosts or other physically unprobable stuff". I used the term before, I haven't just introduce it.--Fsol (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I told you my analogy was not about ghosts or werewolves, but about early accounts of who people claimed to have found or to have existed in Patagonia and elsewhere. Dahn (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read that quote from me again, and you will see my point. As for the sources contradicting it, just pick any of the official accounts from 1948-1989, and you will find plenty of text which gives an entirely different account (a, yes, we fully agree that it is dubious). You write: "That is precisely why I was asking for sources contradicting the account" - but any such primary sources would have been dead by the time the king's comments earned exposure, and the king's comments are not taken for granted in the sources that quote them! This is not a race where the last person alive (who, obviously, is not a third party) gets takes on how to tell the story - no matter how plausible the blackmail seems, no matter how much credibility the king has, it is not a fact, just a claim. How could I possibly be any clearer? Let's be reasonable. Dahn (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, "let's be reasonable", if I asked you how was the king forced, what would you answer? I am not arguing about unsourced information. If you say the king was forced, so be it, I agree, but then I ask you how? And please source your information as I have.
 * "no matter how plausible the blackmail seems, no matter how much credibility the king has" I totally agree with your take, but if I look back on our discussion, I see that you are the one who raised the question of the king's credibility, not me.--Fsol (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any source who makes a claim that is not and cannot be confirmed is not to be taken for granted, Fsol. Any such claim should be attributed to the person making it, if at all taken into consideration. This is how wikipedia works. If you ask me (why?) how the king was forced, I could speculate several things outside of wikipedia; if we are strictly talking about what sources allow me to say, I would say: "He was forced by a number of factors (citing Cioroianu: isolation from monarchist political forces - most of whom were already repressed by then - and from the public, government control over all aspects of stately power, Western indifference, various direct pressures - these he cites as facts verifiable from other sources; in what concerns the actual moment of abdication, he clearly indicates that the king is the only one who makes this claim, and stresses that, if true, it was merely something that worsened the situation)." Dahn (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * "any source who makes a claim that is not and cannot be confirmed is not to be taken for granted", what do you mean by confirmation for sources? Do you require sources for sources? If I take up your reasoning, everything can be put into question. Every piece of sourced information from Wikipedia is questionable without any evidence or any sources, solely on the basis that we need the source to have "confirmation". As soon as I don't agree with someone I ask for a source and then for sources for his source. Where will it stop? You see the absurdity of this kind of reasoning.--Fsol (talk) 15:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do require confirmation of sources: primary sources that are not third-party should be confirmed by secondary sources in order to become descriptions of events; otherwise, they are cited as claims ("according to", "in his words", "in the account of" etc.). The account given by the king is not taken for granted by neither source, both of whom prefer a "vague" wording that is exactly the one we use here. I don't see any reason why wikipedia should give more priority to this claim than the sources who actually cite it! And I do not, for the love of me, see the episode's relevancy in this article! Dahn (talk) 15:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't requires sources for sources as you seem to. It does however require credible sources, which we already have. Two of them state that the king was forced, another doesn't contradict the first two (thus no priority is needed over which one to believe) it only says how exactly the pressure was exercised. In this case blackmail.
 * I propose we seek the opinion of a third user who showed interest in this discussion, like Turgidson, if he also backs the use of the word "forced", instead of "blackmailed" + source then I will let the matter go.--Fsol (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's weird counting. The sources say that he was forced, and quote the king saying that he was blackmailed; no source but the king says that he was blackmailed (or how). The statement belongs to the king, and it is simply incorrect to pretend that his opinion is validated by sources. As for what wikipedia requires, I have already pointed to WP:V (see also Citing sources and WP:PSTS). Dahn (talk) 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand you point. It is true that other third party sources don't corroborate the king's explanation. I'm fine with leaving the word "forced", but I'm adding the king's interview as an additional source to it.--Fsol (talk) 19:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fsol, can you tell me what the title of this article is? Dahn (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I put the quote from Craig Smith's NYT interview with King Michael in the article about the latter, at Michael I of Romania. Perhaps it can be developed further there. Turgidson (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible error
During late 1968, the PMR's leadership clashed with new Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev over the issue of KGB advisers still present in the Securitate, and eventually managed to have them recalled, making Romania the Eastern Bloc's first country to have accomplished this 1. There was no PMR in 1968. 2. I think that KGB advisers have been sacked out well before 1968.--Mazarin07 (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right - it was a misprint (68 instead of 64). Thanks. Dahn (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

TROLOLOL
It still exists, led by Alexandru Pantazi and BTW, Traian Băsescu has a ))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.183.213 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Gorikovo?
Many sources say that the fifth congress (1931) was held in "Gorikovo" (in some sources spelled "Gorkovo", which probably uses a better transliteration of ь).

I can't find any placename near Moscow called like this, apart from the Gorky Park (Горького парк/Gor(i)kogo Park). The park had been just opened a few years before the congress (in 1928), but was the congress really held in the park? bogdan (talk) 17:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems there was a "Ulitsa Gorkovo" but that was street in central Moscow, not a town around it.bogdan (talk) 17:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

...and the Hotel Lux was located on "Ulitsa Gorkovo", the hotel being the place where Communist exiled used to stay. bogdan (talk) 17:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Romanian Communist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008065511/http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?nr=2002-06-24&art=122 to http://www.revista22.ro/html/index.php?nr=2002-06-24&art=122
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061215144130/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAF5.pdf to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAF5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:15, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romanian Communist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007124815/http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1999/current6/mi18.htm to http://www.itcnet.ro/history/archive/mi1999/current6/mi18.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Romanian Communist Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061215144130/http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAF5.pdf to http://www.wilsoncenter.org/topics/pubs/ACFAF5.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Post-1989 illegalization
There were a few laws banning the PCR post-1989, which doesn't seem to be covered by the article yet: There has been multiple attempts to reconstitute the PCR, as well as attempts to establish unconnected communist parties. Both have faced legal issues connected to legislation meant to ban PCR. I'm not adding this myself since I didn't find yet enough reliable sources covering this extensively, but some examples can be found in ro:Partidul Comunist Român and Communist Party (Nepeceriști). --MarioGom (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * On 12 January 1990 the ban of the PCR was announced publicly.
 * Shortly after, the ban was repealed by the National Salvation Front Council.
 * Property of the PCR was transferred to the State.

 * I think that would be very good to bring up in the article. I had just finished reading it, and I wondered whether or not communist parties in Romania were outlawed. I'd support this being included. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Romanian Communist Party