Talk:Noua Dreaptă

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organisations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion. This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.

What exactly makes it "the leading nationalist organization in Romania" ???

Regarding the modification made by Ronline. Actually, Noua Dreapta describe themselves as militants on their website. At 2005 Gay Event in Bucharest, they also initiated violence and were arrested. If that does not qualify as militant, it is hard to know what does.

Yes, I understand what you're saying, but militant can also be interpreted in the sense of "using military force", such as terrorist attacks, which the ND does not engage in. Their reaction to the GayFest 2005 is explained in that article, but I think it's more correct to call them "radical" than "militant". Their overall "style" and reaction should be explained in this article. Ronline ✉ 07:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I note that "82.77.250.42" edited out a bunch of material from this page on June 7, 2006. It's not clear to me why this material was removed. Comments on whether it should be put back? Richwales 22:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

82.77.250.42 apparently did it again. In fact, it looks like he's been reverted four times on this article in the past two weeks. Does this perhaps indicate that the text of this article should be reworded a bit to make it seem more neutral (even to supporters of ND)? Or should 82.77.250.42 be considered a vandal? There are already three warnings in this user's talk page (including a lengthy plea from me), but these efforts are clearly not accomplishing anything. Suggestions? Richwales 22:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Reputation 2 Anti-"sect" campaign 3 Semi-protection? 4 Mention genitive/dative form?

[edit] Reputation

I've set up a new section in the article, into which I've attempted to move the material that has been the subject of the revert wars. I've marked the section as "disputed". More work is needed in this section to substantiate the allegations, and perhaps also include any sources opposing the allegations. Hopefully people can contribute constructively to this section, rather than simply going back and forth deleting and reinstating the material. Richwales 06:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure which "allegations" are disputed. That they are identified with the legionnaires? According to their website, their doctrine is the legionnairism! http://www.nouadreapta.org/doctrina.php bogdan 22:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Bogdan. This was not a question of disputed facts, but rather repeated vandalism, perhaps by an individual or individuals seeking to whitewash the realities of what Noua Dreapta represents and the organization's actions. I recommend returning the article to its previous complete form and removing reference to disputed information, as this text had been developed and documented by many individuals in a constructive manner over a long period of time. Snoopdog1 12:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough(!). I agree that the "disputes" have really been just deletions/reverts. I'll remove the "disputed" tag. I think it couldn't hurt, though, to rephrase sentences that currently use words like "clear" and "clearly", since some could accuse these of being weasel words. And the sentence about "incidents of physical attacks" would probably benefit by being converted into a bullet-point list describing each individual incident or allegation in more detail. The list of associated organizations in other countries could/should be reworded to mention that ND's web site includes links to these other groups (identified as "legături de interes"). Richwales 14:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement that some members were arrested during the Gay Pride in May 2006 has no solid ground. No official source announced such thing!!! 85.204.113.27 22:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The GayFest article says that some violence did happen around the time of the 2006 parade, as well as during the 2005 parade. I haven't checked out the external links on the GayFest page, but I wonder if something here might point to a suitable source for the claim regarding 2006. Keep in mind that the source needn't be "official" (e.g., coming from a government agency) to be credible — though it would be good if an impartial source can be found (something other than the organizers of GayFest, or Noua Dreaptă, or anyone clearly aligned with one or the other of these). Richwales 06:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Dozens of Noua Dreapta members were never arrested during either GayFest parades, nor was there violence during any of the parades..Citations will be required for the article to be impartial..Snoopdog1, as a non-romanian living on romanian soil, you sure seem to want to be believed..Even though, unless you're gay, I see no point in believing your GayFest allegations..So unless anyone can find reliable sources that say "Noua Dreapta members A,B,C,... (up to the several dozen that were mentioned) have been arrested", that part is to be deleted..

There was violence during both the 2005 and the 2006 GayFest parade. For 2005, read this article, which explicitly mentions Noua Dreaptă as having taken part in anti-gay violence and states: "Noua Dreapta contraataca. Pe la fostul restaurant Budapesta, s-a lasat cu violenta. Cativa domni bine tatuati si cercelati, rasi in cap, au dat iama in gay, cu pancarta "Nu homosexualitatii" intr-o mana si pumnul strans a pedeapsa." A Reuters article also details the violence at the 2006 GayFest parade, which is also supported by a number of other sources. Ronline ✉ 04:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-"sect" campaign

The ND web site includes some sort of heraldic shield in the "Campania anti-secte" section ([1]). Can anyone identify the symbols on this shield? Just curious. Richwales 14:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not an 'official' shield, but rather a symbol especially crafted by that campaign. 85.204.113.27 22:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought it might be from the coat of arms of some famous Romanian person, but that was just a random guess. What is the significance of the symbols on the shield, though? The top one looks kind of like an Asian dragon, though I suppose it's more likely to be a battering ram. The thing in the lower right-hand portion of the shield looks like it could be a pile driver, though I don't understand why a piece of construction machinery would have anything to do with opposition to minority religions. Richwales 06:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It's probably the coat of arms of some Romanian city. The dragon is the Dacian Draco. bogdan 08:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

it's the (former?) CoA of Cluj-Napoca, see ro:Cluj-Napoca Anonimu 12:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I Don't understand what is the connection. Noua Dreapta organised a peaceful march in the morning of the same day gayfest happened but the so-called viollences had nothing to do with Noua Dreapta. Your claim is not impartial and it isn't based on any information

[edit] Semi-protection?

Would it be appropriate to suggest semi-protection for this article? Richwales 14:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This would make sense. It has become a challenge on such a regular to revert edits from vandals. Snoopdog1 13:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mention genitive/dative form?

Bogdangiusca removed the note about Noii Drepte (the genitive/dative form of Noua Dreaptă) from the article. I would like to suggest that this should be put back in. From the perspective of a reader who may be learning Romanian and is not fluent in Romanian, this particular genitive/dative form will probably not be obvious. I see no real harm in having it mentioned at the start of the article, and I think it would be helpful to include it. Richwales 04:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I added it back. Richwales 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... Wikipedia is not intended to be read by students of foreign languages. :-) Should, for example, Latin words have a full declination? bogdan 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Rich, I think you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. If you are confused about the genitive and dative in Romanian (I know I am), then perhaps you should work on a Wikibook? As bogdan points out, adding declination information for all cases in all languages would be extremely tiresome. - FrancisTyers · 11:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confused about the genitive/dative concept in Romanian, and I'm not proposing to list the genitive/dative form of every Romanian term in Wikipedia. I'm only suggesting that the genitive/dative form of this particular phrase (Noua Dreaptă) is slightly irregular and might not be obvious, and thus it seems appropriate to include it in this specific situation, even if it's not necessary or appropriate to include genitive/dative forms as a general matter of course. To me, it seems no more improper to include the genitive/dative of "Noua Dreaptă" than it would be improper to show non-obvious pronunciations of selected English words (something which is frequently done in Wikipedia). Richwales 05:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's not irregular at all. This is the regular way of getting the genitive/dative form of a "adjective + noun" construction. bogdan 08:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

That actually wasn't the issue I was talking about. I was suggesting that Noii Drepte is irregular — or at least complex — because:

(1) The feminine plural of nou drops the u, and it also ends in i instead of the usual e (thus, the genitive/dative definite form is noii, rather than *noei or *nouei).

(2) Someone with only an elementary knowledge of Romanian might easily overlook the fact that the ea in dreaptă reverts to e when the following ă goes away (i.e., the genitive/dative is drepte rather than *dreapte).

These points would be second nature to Bogdan and other native speakers, of course, which may be why you might not have realized that someone with a more limited knowledge of Romanian is likely to stumble over this form — and why I was suggesting it was reasonable to mention it in this particular situation.

Richwales 17:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)