Talk:Corneliu Vadim Tudor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents

[edit] "Jewishness-related attitude"

Recent addition by Vasile: "In 2003, Tudor's Jewishnes related attitude and declarations were marked by a dramatic change." I'm assuming this means to say something like "In 2003, Tudor's attitude toward and declarations about Jews [or perhaps 'about Judaism'] changed dramatically," but what was the nature of the dramatic change? From anti-semitism to tolerance? Or something else? -- Jmabel 17:07, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

From anti-semitism to philosemitism. (that's what he claims) He even hired an Israeli company to handle his public image. See: [1] Bogdan | Talk 17:21, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Jews, Judaism, Jeweshness - Now, I think that "Jeweshness" is a better word. As my knowledege, Tudor didn't do any difference between Jew or Judaic. --Vasile 21:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The English word is "Jewishness", but it has tricky connotations: it refers mostly to what traits are typical of Jews. I think it's the wrong word here. I think "Jews and Judaism" is probably better. Is there some particular Romanian word that you have in mind for which you are seeking an equivalent? -- Jmabel 01:58, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

The Romanian word I remember is "evreimea". --Vasile 02:27, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I can see that would have an etymology exactly parallel to "Jewishness", so maybe that is the English-language word you want. Do you think so, given my remark about its connotations? Do have a look at the edit I came up with, let me know if you think I misunderstood rather than clarifying. I suppose another possibility would be "attitude toward things Jewish", but that seems less straightforward than what I've written. -- Jmabel 04:57, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think that the following paragraph of the Haaretz interview can show what he is thinking about Jewish religion and ethnicity: "Look what happened to Hitler. [...] God smote him very quickly because he bullied the wrong people." --Vasile 14:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Then in English, "attitude toward Jews and Judaism" is exactly right. -- Jmabel 20:39, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Great Romania Party"

I realize that "Great Romania" is a more literal translation of România Mare than "Greater Romania", but I think the latter is more common in English, probably because of the analogy to expressions like "Greater New York". It wins the Google test about 4-1. Is there some basis other than the Google test to choose "Great Romania" (e.g., does the party itself use this as its official English-language name or something)? I don't really care so much, it's just that I've often heard "Greater Romania" and can't recall any native English speaker using "Great Romania". -- Jmabel 05:11, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

I think these are officially enough http://www.cdep.ro/pls/parlam/structura.gp?leg=&cam=2&idg=&poz=0&idl=2

http://www.senat.ro/PaginaPrincipala.aspx?tdID=46&divID=3&b=0&adr=%2fgrupuri.aspx

--Vasile 14:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yup. Interesting: the U.S. press usually goes the other way. In the article on the party itself, I'll give both, because it's useful information for someone attempting to find out more (helps in Web searches, etc.). -- Jmabel 20:48, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Actually "România Mare" must be translated in English as "Great Romania". "Greater Romania" means another thing, that could create missunderstanding.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.232.184.200 (talk • contribs) 16 February 2007.

I always love this one someone chimes in (anonymously, no way to judge his her credentials) to tell us something "must" be translated a particlar way and that the translation used, for example, by the New York Times "must" be wrong. - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Today's scandal involving CVT

Here are some articles, in Romanian. If anybody is willing to write about it. (if nobody is interested, I'll write myself, but in a few days) Bogdan | Talk 22:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?

I tried copy editing some recent additions, but some of it I can't understand well enough to edit. Here's what I've got:

He fired Israeli counselor (and Romanian senator) Nati Meir due to allegations of bribery (according to Tudor) or old habits of hating Jews (according to Meir). The Romanian press discovered that Meir had been convicted in Israel of banking fraud, thus incompatible with the function of senator. No action has been taken yet.

After stepping down as president of PPRM for a short while, he returned in a storm, firing Corneliu Ciontu (appointed president of PPRM by Tudor) and resetting his hate for everyone.

  • "thus incompatible with the function of senator." Verb? Is his conviction in another country legally incompatible with him holding the office? If so, say so. If the "incompatiblity" is just political difficulty, say so.
  • "No action has been taken yet." Well, according to this, some action has been taken: the matter has been published. And I presume that suggestions have been made that he resign. What specific action is contemplated and has not been taken? Impeachment?
  • "resetting his hate for everyone." I have little idea what this means, and suspect it is just an incoherent POV slam. If it means something, please say it in clearer words. If it's just an incoherent POV slam, it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk July 9, 2005 00:52 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from article

(The writer of this article shows the typical signs of the globalization's praisers malady. An empty diatribe, full of idiocies and innuendo, underlying minor aspects and completely ignoring relevant information. Example of an idiocy: "Tudor tended to be friendly with stunt performers". Even if it was so, what is the relevance? By the way, the only stunt performer with a certain notoriety about whom C. V. Tudor had words of appreciation (in public) belongs to the Hungarian minority (<- hint about the accuracy of Tudor's "xenophobic" attitude).
"This country [Romania] could only be governed through the mouth of a machine gun," 1998, quoted by CNN on December 9, 2000. (<- a stupid misinformation. Obviously mentioning CNN as a reliable source could bring an extra smile on the reader's lips.)

(by User:195.7.2.23)

[edit] Irredentism ? What are you talking about ?!

Alright, I'd just like to state that I'm NOT a supporter of Vadim Tudor or the PRM. However, it is just foolish to use the word "irredentism" when talking about his stance on Great Romania. I quote from the article: "Of no less importance is Tudor's irredentism: the ideal of a Greater Romania is what gives the party its name, and Tudor has campaigned several times around the notion that he is the only Romanian politician to have maintained this particular goal. The reference is mainly aimed at the Republic of Moldova, a state whose legitimaty has been questioned by Tudor on numerous occasions." Now that is obviously POV. Supporters of a unified Romania (that includes Moldova and all other territories that were taken by force after World War II) are not irredentists in any way; irrderentism refers to the attittude of someone who desires territories that never belonged to his country in the first place. Wanting to reclaim historical territories that have belonged to your country and that were taken by force (ie: such as the Soviet ultimatum) is not irredentism in any way. When Lazlo Tokesh wanted to separate Transylvania from Romania, that was irredentism. To rally for a unified Romanian state is not irredentism, and anyone who would claim that is obviously against Romanian national interests. Thus, using this word is just intolerable (as is "expansionism", "revanchism" and all that crap) and the sentence should be formulated differently. -- Voievod 18:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused: László Tőkés (who probably would love for Hungary to take back Transylvania entire, but whose current overt goals seem to be some sort of autonomy for certain parts of Transylvania) is an irredentist, but Vadim Tudor is not? Your distinction of "never belonged to his country" doesn't seem to hold: Hungary certainly has included Transylvania for significant periods of history. One seems to me exactly as irredentist as the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, but who sttled in Transylvania in the first place ? And who came and invaded it ? You people throw the word "irredentist" around too much without refelecting on its impact. When Iraq invaded Kuwait before the Gulf War, that was irredentism. When Germany annexed Poland, that was irredentism. When the Austro-Hungarian empire took over Transylvania, that was irrdentism. For a country to want to take back a territory that is rightfully theirs, I can't see how that is irredentism. Apparently, France taking back Alsace-Lorraine after it was conquered by Germany would count as irredentism under the definition you give it. Why don't you look at the big picture instead of always protectinc the holy and sacred "political correctness". -- Voievod 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
For starters, using the term "irredentism" to refer to anything before the rise of the nation-state is an anachronism. When the Austro-Hungarian empire took over Transylvania, that wasn't irrdentism, because they weren't a nation-state. Second, "rightfully" is always in the eye of the beholder. Third, arguably, French ambitions in Alsace-Lorraine after 1871 could be called irredentist, especially insofar as they were used to stir anti-German feeling. I don't know what "political correctness" you think I'm defending, except to say that it is "correct" to speak of things in the same terms regardless of on which side of the matter the interests of a particular country may fall. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Dear Jmabel, I’m afraid that you are mixing up things. "Your distinction of "never belonged to his country" doesn't seem to hold: Hungary certainly has included Transylvania for significant periods of history." Hungary has never included Transylvania. You may refer to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, but the inclusion of Transylvania lasted only for a few years. Transylvania was under Hungarian suzerainty, which is a totally different thing. Walachia was under Ottoman suzerainty but it would be absurd to consider Walachia as being a part of the Ottoman Empire. Even more, Romanians were always a majority in Transylvania, just like they are in Moldova. --RS.ro 17:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm Romanian, and I wrote down that "forbidden" word. Let me be clear about it:

  • 1. Not the issue at hand, but what the hell: Hungary has included Transylvania, as its souzerain and then in 1848 as independent, and after the Ausgleich as the on-its-own part of Austria-Hungary. "Only a few years"? May I remind you that Transylvania became part of Romania in 1918? Did it belong to Romania prior to Romania's existance? Transylvania does not belong to Romania on the basis of legal precedent, but on that of ethnical majority (otherwise, it would be completely nonsensical).
  • 2. The word was meant to indicate not his attitude towards Transylvania (which is a part of Romania, meaning that the outside-gathering purpose of irredentism would not apply). It was clearly aimed at Bessarabia and Bukovina, which Vadim has indicated he wants back.
  • 3. "Irredentism" is the perfect word to define his attitude, in the sense that no other can be found. You are looking at a person who argues for new, extended, borders. Since he does that following a nationalist principle, he qualifies as an irredentist (the word originated with Italy's claim to Trieste, Fiume, etc., as the notion of "an Italy that would not be bleeding" - the parallel is exact, considering that the ethnical majority criterion is secondary in both versions: Bukovina is now majority Ukrainian, and it is of little relevance for the topic how that came about).
  • 4. Vadim's claim of Hungarian irredentism is idiotic on all accounts, since all his charges against the UDMR are made-up. Vadim is not just "worried about moves towards autonomy" (which may be a healthier debate), he has repeatedly claimed that Hungarians were arming themselves in Harghita etc. (I also should mention that Vadim has backed people who armed themselves, namely Ilascu. I will not judge Ilascu's reasons as unfounded, but you get the idea.)Dahn 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not argue with you as I'm not interested in a dialogue. Transylvania has always been an independent Principality under Hungarian suzerainty. Only for a couple of decades has Transylvania been incorporated in Hungary, but still the Romanians formed the majority. That is all I have to say. From my point of view, this discussion has ended here.--RS.ro 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com you have it backwards. Irredentism is exclusivly the recovery of lands that use to in some historcal sens be associated or part of a country.

ir·re·den·tist   Audio pronunciation of "Irredentism" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (r-dntst)
n.
   One who advocates the recovery of territory culturally or historically related 
   to one's nation but now subject to a foreign  government.

I cant think of a more text book example of irredentism than the notion that Moldove should be part of romania. Dalf | Talk 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

After some though I think my use of the word exclusivly is probbbly wrong. It can be on the bassis of ethnic majority or historical reasons or both. As poined out above this is the textbook case. If the word does not apply here it does not apply anywhere, since we coudl just use the word invasionist instead. Dalf | Talk 22:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great Romania?!

"Greater Romania" is a direct reference to the historic "Greater Romania" that included Bessarabia, etc. When PRM says "Romania Mare" it means this type of Greater Romania.

I agree that "Great Romania" is a better literal translation from Romanian to English, but the only place it seems to be used with reference to the PRM is here.

C'mon ..... change it to "Greater Romania" and stop with the crusade to encourage usage of "Great Romania" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.102.251.199 (talk • contribs) 15 Jan 2006.

http://www.cdep.ro/pls/parlam/structura.gp?leg=&cam=2&idg=&poz=0&idl=2
http://www.senat.ro/PaginaPrincipala.aspx?tdID=46&divID=3&b=0&adr=%2fgrupuri.aspx
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vasile (talk • contribs) 16 Jan 2006.
This is one of those weird things where all the native English speakers who have knowledge of Romania and Romanian want to say "Greater Romania" (for both 1918-1940 Romania and the party), but the Romanians, including the party itself, almost all seem to favor "Great Romania". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Being a native english speaker as well I though I would chime in aswell. I agree with what Joe just said but would also add, Great Romania I could see and understand as a translation of the party name; political party names can be anything. However, I cant imagine the term as a refrence to a geographic concept, this will confuse most english speakers. Dalf | Talk 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further to the above

The first link provided above also refers to the Conservative Party as the "Conservator Party," hardly correct.

Common usage in English remains the Greater Romania Party.

Otherwise, superb articles on Vadim and the PRM. Congratulations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MIsterMan (talk • contribs) 16 Jan 2006.

"Conservator Party" is clearly not a good sign. Either "Partidul Conservator" or "Conservative Party". I assume your point is that these sites, though at least semi-official, should not be trusted for translation into English. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[2] (The Guardian says Greater), [3] (The Beeb says Greater), [4] (Yahoo, quoting Lonely Planet, says Greater), [5] (NY Times calls it Greater), [6] (Washington Post calls it Greater), [7] (CIA calls it Greater)

Let's not bother, just google for both of them, and you'll see two orders of magnitude in favor of greater. It means they have really bad press or they actually are The Greater.--Luci_Sandor (talk, contribs)   06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


Furthermore, a large number of the relatively few google hits with "Great Romania" use Wikipedia as the source. Historically, "Greater" has been used in English in the context of a country at its maximum expanse, including "Greater Austria" and "Greater Hungary." PRM's nationalist political perspective would indicate that this is the intent of the adjective "Mare" in the party's name.

The Romanian parliament website is, indeed, poorly translated into English, with many grammatical and word errors. Am not sure if that site should be relied on for an official translation of anything.

It is surprising that Vadim hasn't come out with a precise translation. Until that time, I'm a strong advocate of a switch here to "Greater." - Mister Man""""


??????? In light of the above discourse, any objection from others if I change all references -- inlcuding in other articles -- to give preference to "Greater Romania" over "Great Romania"? This includes in Great Romania Party. Would still include "Great Romania" as an alternate term, giving due respect to the fact that there are differing translations. I think at the core of differing views on the issue is the fact that "mare" has many translations into English; and "greater" has an additional meaning in English beyond the superlative "more great than". MIsterMan 12:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and change it. I for one think you're absolutely right. However, could you change it everywhere (including on the Party's page and those of Ilascu etc. - search it and change it subsequently)? Also, please make sure you do it for all references on the page. The main reason I didn't do it already was the sheer innanity of the task. I would be indebted if you do it. Thanks. Dahn 13:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally for this. "Great Romania" always stuck in my craw as unlikely English. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm against, and even though the change has been performed, I believe we should discuss this further. Are there Wikipedia policies that apply here? I mean, when a party translates its name, on its web site, in a way, who has the right to say that the correct translation is different? For the country name, it's disputable, as the people in that country should decide, but for the party... Are we a PR agency for PRM? No! We are here to use sources and provide the info as it exists, not spin it.Dpotop 11:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The source is called The English language. Need we discuss this further? You already have the "in Romanian it is closer to Great than Greater" reference on the Party page. We get it, everyone does. Do you believe that languages perfectly match each other? Cause they do not. This topic has been chewed to death. Let it go: you CANNOT and SHOULD NOT invent language. Dahn 11:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm repeating what I posted on Jmabel's page:
Dear Jmabel, I'm surprised by your remark that "Great Romania always stuck in my craw as unlikely English". Does it also happen with "Great Britain"? I believe not, and I feel somehow discriminated. FYI, "Romania Mare" is not a term coined after 1944, but in the period Romania was infdeed great. At the time, it conveyed the same greatness idea as "Great Britain" does. And the country name is used today as a historic reference.
Let's now take a look at the "Greater Romania" party, where you voted for a name change (actually, the vote took place on the "Vadim Tudor" page, a page that I don't really follow). It seems to me that there are some problems with this vote, given that its subject was the change of the official name of a party. There must be some wikipedia rule against changing official names and their official translations.
Since you are quoting what you said to me elsewhere, allow me to quote my reply (and Markalexander100's followup:
[begin copied material]
I'm not saying that nothing in English has this form ("Great"); there are also a few things called "Grand" (Grand Cayman Island, for example). I'm saying that it is unusual. I believe (though I'm not sure) that the etymology of "Great" Britain is that it is the largest of the British Isles; similarly for Grand Cayman. This is not parallel to that. This is more like (for example) "Greater Germany" (a term that is somewhat discredited by its Nazi associations, but a Google search will easily show is used by friend and foe alike).
I believe that what I said in that vote is that if it is official for the party, then we are stuck with it, but it goes against my instincts as a native speaker, and if it is official then the party chose poorly. - Jmabel | Talk 17:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
("Great Britain" is as opposed to "Little Britain", i.e. Brittany.) Mark1 21:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
[end copied material]
BTW, I think Mark's last remark is almost certainly correct; I'd always presumed the "little Britain" was Ireland, but Brittany makes more sense. - Jmabel | Talk 00:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Dpotop, the naming policy says to use the most common English name. bogdan 11:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought wikipedia was about facts, not "most common". It's not democratic, remember? For instance, even though most people in the world believe god exists, we don't state it. We may say "most people believe that", but the info is put in perspective. And we don't say here "Romanian language=Moldovan language", we say "Moldovan is official in Moldova". Facts, remember?Dpotop 11:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Please read the policy more careful. "Most common" policy applies only to choosing titles, not on content. This policy was chosen to be like this because choosing one of two or more title is often arbitrary. bogdan 11:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And what the hell is the fact here? That Romanian uses kinda like Great for the two usages? Let me remind you that we never use the form for Greater to express anything on this topic. Will we ever say Romania mai mare or Germania mai mare?! What I have already said is that the languages do not cover each other's areas to perfection. For all purpuses, the Anglo-Saxons would use Greater, to render THE SAME MEANING. Stop your sophistry. Plus, it is really absurd to say that we can vote on what others may know, just because we brushed with the subject. You are making no sense. Dahn 11:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The anglo-saxons also use "Great", as in "Great Britain". And please explain me why, if you're so good in english.Dpotop 11:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that it is in the same sense? It has a purely geographical meaning: it referers to the Great Island of Britain (which is why the name does not cover Northern Ireland, included in the United Kingdom together with Great Britain). As such, it is medieval reference to the largest land inhabited by Britons/Bretons. It does not mean that something aims to/has/will expand to cover something else. Greater is not used just for a Greater Romania or a Greater Japan: see where Greater New York gets you. Is this topic covered now? Dahn 11:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Greater Hungary, Greater Germany, Greater Austria, Greater Albania, Greater Romania, Greater Serbia, Greater Greece, Greater Poland etc bogdan 11:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting. It seems that I am the only Romanian here that does not support irredentist positions. And it's the exact reason why I tried to support the name for inter-bellum Romania. Just look at the Greater Hungary link above. The name does carry irredentist conotations. :) Ok, I give up. It seems that you are aware of it, and assuming it. Dpotop 11:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

All of them are, or some or, or none is irredentist. Stop judging. If you want the semantics, check them out:

  • Italy gave us the word irredente, and it fought on Romania's side in WWI - in order to acheive that goal. Up to this level, the positions are identical.
  • If Greater=irredentism, than check out Greater Poland. They too became "greater" as a result of WWI.
  • Observation: It is precisely this name-calling which has made not edit anything on Ro Wiki. That place is a haven for subjectivism (and extremely poor grammar). At least, I don't want that war spilling on this side. I've had enough with the headbutting between subjectivisms on the Moldavian language page and others. But I'd better stop, lest Dpotop assume that I'm a hireling of Romania's enemies. Dahn 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do you think "irredentist" is an ugly word? It's not. Romanians were irredentists before WW1. Some of them are irredentists even today (w.r.t. Moldova and some Ukrainean territories). But I thought most romanians here were not.
As to the semantic part. I've seen "Greater X" denoting two types of objects: Objects that include X, but are in fact greater than X in a significative way (Greater Poland had few poles on the eastern border), and objects of irredentism. I believe that the historic term "Greater Romania" (not the party name) falls in neither of the two cases.
As I said before, I give up this dispute. But I want to make sure that everibody here understands what position they subscribe to. Look what others wrote at "Greater Serbia": the concept is referred to as "Greater Serbia", suggesting that it is an expansionistic goal.Dpotop 13:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. As I have just said, Greater Romania (not the Party name), was irredentist (in the strict sense).
    Actually, I know of no mention of the term "Romania Mare" before 1918. If you have references, I'd like to have them. If you don't have such references, you cannot say that the term carries an irredentist connotation. What you can say is that it carries a fulfillment connotation. You must know that before 1918 nobody expected that all Romanian provinces are united in the near future. And after that, when the term "Romania Mare" is used, nobody wanted to get more territory. Do not mix the name with the policy of a period where the name didn't even exist. Dpotop 16:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    Dptop, my statement was in the sense of Greater Romania being the product of irredentism (again: by proximity of terms, and in the large sense). Since we're on the subject, I think the term was used by Iorga and his pro-Entente friends before 1916. I can tell you that it was used by the people who signed the Versailles treaties before they signed them. And the term defines the fulfilment of goals that could just go by any other name - the moment in ime is of little importance. Of for incidence of Romanian imperialism before (with or without "Romania Mare"), take a look at Southern Dobruja and tell me what that was. Dahn 17:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    And, before I forget, Romania in 1918-1939 was Great[er] because it had amassed territory, not for some other reason. Greater meant at all times with the said regions. You might remember that some used Rotunda and even Dodoloata. That's because they looked at the map that displayed the regions. Dahn 17:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
    And do not tell me that the term has not been used by people in a sense that could just as well be irredentism ever since 1940/1945. (Since Bessarabia was awarded to the USSR by the Treaty of Paris, and not by the 1939 Pact, it also counts as revisionism. Now, I may be lenient about it, but these are the terms.) Dahn 17:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Greater Romania is more than significantly greater than 1913 Romania, I think it is double, if not more. Check it out on a map.
  3. Vadim does have expansionistic goals, as stated in the article. You seem to consistently forget that Greater Romania does not mean Old Kingdom+Transylvania (and Banat, Crisana, Maramures). It means the two+Bessarabia+Bukovina+was to be-Hertza, I can asure you Vadim did not forget: hence the name, hence his irredentist attitude. He has frequently taken pride in the fact that he is the only politician to remember: remember not just "our brothers", but also the fact that Romania's eastern borders are provisoral. Dahn 15:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, my argument for the party name was different (something related to the fact that an institution has the right to establish its name and the official translations). I care far more for the historic name, let's forget about PRM. Dpotop 16:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You opened the subject, and you clinged on to it. Throughout, you have proven that you do not care to see what my exact oppinon was. Because: most of my points were about the historical name. But now we move on. Dahn 17:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I listened (actually read) very carefully the oppinions of all others. And I believe the following:
  1. If you say [citation needed] that Iorga used the term before the war, then the historic term can be considered a symbol of irredentism, and can be translated as "Greater Romania".
  2. As concerns the term used today by romanian irredentists (w.r.t. Moldova, Bucovina), it can be translated as "Greater Romania".
  3. The translation "Greater Romania" really carries a sense of irredentism, and I presume this is not well perceived by Western politicians, in the sense where they seek stability.
  4. Changing official names and translations on grounds of common usage is not ok (and this becomes even less acceptable when it has something to to with the ppublic image of the party).
    Well, the name of the article won't be changed in any foreseeable future, because the current name ("Greater...") is used by virtually all the English-language press: The Economist, NYTimes, Encarta, BBC, CNN, USA Today, Washington Times etc. bogdan 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Now, I'm entitled to an oppinion, even if it's not the same as yours, am I not.Dpotop 09:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nati Meir accused

Yesterday there were some news regarding Nati Meir being accuesd for tax evasion and fraud related to some illegal work permits in Israel. I saw it on TV and on Medifax' agency website (old URL: http://www.mediafax.ro/articole-free/Nati-Meir--pus-sub-acuzare-de-Parchet-577101-5.html ). I've inserted this in the article but unfortunatelly the URL is not valid anymore. Someone more interested in the subject might want to correct the reference. -Paul- 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Approval"

In the ideology section, for months there has been a citation request for "with the approval of Romanian leaders Ion Iliescu and Petre Roman". No one has cited anything, so I have removed it. If there is a basis for it (and there may well be), please restore with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

THIS IS MY OPINION:


he is not a sane person... common people get real... he licked Ceausescu all over... and now we let him fool us

Liderul PRM Vadim Tudor a incercat sa isi introduca oamenii cu forta in aula Parlamentului pentru a asista la prezentarea raportului asupra comunismului, ajuns la loja lui Andrei Plesu, Horia Roman Patapievici si Gabriel Liiceanu, liderul PRM amenintindu-i pe scriitori ca-i arunca de la balcon. Ajuns in loja in care se aflau Horia Roman Patapievici, Andrei Plesu si fostul presedinte al Camerei Deputatilor, taranistul Ion Diaconescu, Vadim Tudor a inceput sa urle si mai tare. "Uite cine facea agitatie! Sobolanii de Plesu si Patapievici", a strigat liderul peremist, contrindu-se cu reprezentantii societatii civile. Liderul PRM i s-a adresat lui Patapievici intr-un mod trivial, spunindu-i, intre altele, "limbric nenorocit". In acelasi timp, aflati in sala, citiva liberali le-au luat apararea si au inceput si ei sa strige - "A innebunit Vadim! Halatul! Halatul! Aduceti halatul!", au urlat liberalii. Intr-o atmosfera extrem de tensionata si in plin haos, un parlamentar PRM s-a ridicat si i-a pus pe pupitru lui Basescu, in timp ce vorbea, o sticla cu sampanie. Traian Basescu nu a reactionat, iar la un interval foarte scurt de timp, din directia opusa a salii, senatorul PD Marius Marinescu s-a dus si a luat sticla cu sampanie si s-a asezat la loc in banca sa. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exces.water (talk • contribs) 19 December 2006.


"The owner of a media business, Tudor doesn't use a bank account. He uses the entire amount of his senatorial wage for charitable donations." - I deleted this, as it is clear that it was published by one of his fans... the only proof that he actually does this is that he claims so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.196.222 (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)