Talk:Romanian Communist Party

message: : 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)
thread_title:  Colonial power 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Actually I said nothing about Nastase, for I know nothing sure about him.Dpotop 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I also added a known nomenklaturist: Octavian Paler.Dpotop 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Communists

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Great. Dahn 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Need for clarification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Haia Lifschitz & France

message: 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:
# It did not "emerge". 
# Its "success" was not due to internal causes, which the lead fails to mention.
Dpotop 13:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, Dahn. Dpotop 17:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Emerged as a successful political force?!?! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Communist Romania - was it ever declared, or not (question by Anonimu) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Categories

message: The lead proposed by Turgidson seems OK to me, as it is. Dpotop 05:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I added similar data for all parties where the info was readily available. Dahn 06:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)

text:  Man, don't you understand that these were all parts of the party, not affiliates? Dpotop 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  And you claim you want to simplify the lead? Dpotop 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Press

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: Who was Vladimir Ivashko (CPSU)? Never heard of him. :):Dc76 21:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Suggestion: Create a "Political party" infobox 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Yes, Dpotop, I "got" you, and I answered your question. Dahn 14:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are PCR and PMR the same? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The introduction 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: You're right - it was a misprint (68 instead of 64). Thanks. Dahn (talk) 07:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible error 

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

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:001 O parte a delegatiilor de peste hotare.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:038.Conferinta Nationala a PCR din octombrie 1945 (aspect din sala) (16-21 oct.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gheorghiu-Dej, Ceausescu & delegates in Feb 1948.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Gheorghiu-Dej & Khrushchev at Bucharest's Baneasa Airport (June 1960).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:8 Oct 1944 FND meeting Bucharest (ANEF).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ceausescu receiving the presidential sceptre 1974.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ceausescu & Gorbachev 1985.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Nicolae Ceausescu.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Joseph Stalin.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gorikovo? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There were a few laws banning the PCR post-1989, which doesn't seem to be covered by the article yet:
* 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.
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#Continuatori and Communist Party (Nepeceriști). --MarioGom (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Post-1989 illegalization