Talk:Unified state power

More descriptive title as "unified state power"?

TheUzbek, would it be more descriptive to call this article "unified state power"? "Unified power" by itself strikes me as somewhat vague and does not capture the concept as tightly as "unified state power" would. Thoughts? - Amigao (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Amigao I am neutral here. On one hand, unified state power is used by both scholars and by communist themselves. On the other end, it is called separation of power and not separation of state power, fusion of power and not fusion of state power (or most specific, the fusion of executive and legislative power). So while I do concur that it will become more accessible, it must me noted that the current name is in line with the naming convention of the other power principles. I'll support whatever the WP community reaches, and I do see your point. It's a good point! TheUzbek (talk) 16:03, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

If "unified state power" is what WP:BESTSOURCES tend to use, we probably should be using it here as well. - Amigao (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Unified power is probably most commonly used, both by communists and scholars. But you've moved it, and that's fine! TheUzbek (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Two Tiers?

Under the section 'Administrative Extension of State Power', the following line can be found: "Romania restructured the local state organs of power in 1967–1968 by consolidating into two tiers—communities, towns, and counties—and by aligning party leadership with the state organs of power, as party first secretaries were elected to head them." This seems to me to be three tiers ("communities, towns, and counties"), not two. As this line does not appear to be sourced, can anyone more familiar with the topic edit? Chansiuming110 (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Everything in the article is sourced, and it's sourced by cite 46. But I can check it out :) TheUzbek (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2026 (UTC)