Talk:Greater Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Romania This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Romania, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Romania-related topics. Please visit the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Greater Romania:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

Contents

[edit] "Romania Intregita"

The article now says, 'The politically correct Romanian term "Romania Intregita" has its closest meaning in English as "Whole Romania".'

  1. Shouldn't this be "România Intregita"?
    România Întregitā indeed.. it's a plague, romanians are using Western European Encoding Keyboard instead of switching to Central European keyboard, i'm plagued by this too -- Criztu 19:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  2. A few questions: how common is this usage? I get less than 200 Google hits.
    Romania Mare (greater romania) was hijacked by a political nationalistic party. (Criztu, unsigned)
    • Yes, I added had already added a statement to that effect to the article, but that doesn't answer how common is România Întregită. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  3. As a native English speaker, "Whole Romania" is certainly something I would never think to say. What is the basis for saying this is "its closest meaning in English"? I would say "Integral Romania" or "Undivided Romania".

-- Jmabel | Talk 18:38, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

in 1919 Romania was "whole again", not "integral", and now is "incomplete", not "divided" . romanian word "intreg" means 'whole; entire' -- Criztu 19:41, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'd misread, even while copying: I'd thought the root was integrală.
Perhaps "The Entirety of Romania" or "The Whole of Romania"? "Whole Romania" just isn't likely English. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:41, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias?

This recent pair of edits strikes me as deliberate introduction of anti-Romanian POV. From everything I'm aware of, what happened in 1918 is generally considered union, not annexation. I am reverting. If anyone has a solid citation for considering this an annexation, please present it. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irredentism, my arse...

I've removed the categorisation template that qualifies Great Romania as "irrdentism". That is obviously anti-Romanian bull. Irredentism refers to the desire to annex territories that never belonged to your country in the first place, thus it is an act of aggression. The 1918 unification of Romania can in no way be called irredentism, as it was the unification of historical Romanian territories that were unjustly taken away by various other nations. If I see the word "Irredentism" here again, I'm deleting it on the spot. So behave ! -- Voievod 18:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see my comments where I responded to your similar remark at Talk:Corneliu Vadim Tudor. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
My answer to your comments would also fit well as a reply to this discussion, but cutting and pasting the whole damn thing seems like overkill at this point. -- Voievod 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


"nification of historical Romanian territories that were unjustly taken away by various other nations"

thats what every iredentist says. Romanians used their alliance with the West, and with Hitler later, to forcebly expand into territories with mixed populations and to annex them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.68.95.200 (talk • contribs) 5 Feb 2006.

"nification"? I presume "unification"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you can't expect much from a revisionist, let alone how to spell ! ;-D - Voievod 17:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] The whole Romania is greater than the 1920-1940 border in the original 'Greater Romania' idea

This idea said, that every land is a Romanian territory, whereever the great rivers (Tisza with the river Bodrog and Dnister) of the Romanian Carpathian Mountains (Eastern and Southern Carpathians) spread out their alluvial deposit. So Greater Romania is the territory between the River Tisza and River Dnister. It consist of the Carpathian Ruthenia and North-Bukovina (nowdays in Ukraine and East-Slovakia - Presov and its vicinity), the Hungarian territory east of the river Tisza, Republic of Moldova (without Transnistria), Lower-Moldavia (nowdays in Ukraine) South-Dobruja (nowdays in Bulgaria), and West-Banat (nowdays in Serbia: East part of the former Province - Vojvodina) and - naturally - Romania.

[edit] POV pushing

References to irredentism is repetedly being edited out of the article. This may be an example of POV pushing and additional attention concerning the issue is warranted. -- Domino theory 22:58, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The greatest Romanian state on traditional Romanian land

Dobrogrea can be disputed as "traditionally Romanian", and the Cadrilater is certainly not one. Moreover, "greatest" can be disputed when taking into account Antonescu's annexation of Transnistria.

I believe that this article needs a rewrite, I am willing to participate in it. The points that make me a bit nervous are the lack of explanation of the fact that "Romania Mare" was not an irredentistic term before 1940. It could not have been, for the term appeared after 1918, when the unification was completed.

Also, I already deleted the "politically correct" nonsense with "Romania Intregita". I have never heard of this stuff, and I can assure you I'm reading Romanian journals every day.

Finally, I would put the irredentism tag not on this article, but on the RM party one. Dpotop 15:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The Irredentism category is put on all of the "Greater" movements, be they Greater Albania, Greater Hungary, Greater Armenia, Greater Finland, etc. The Romania Mare party is just a party, and should therefore not have the tag on it, particularly since, despite its name, it hasn't really pushed for any reclaim of "Romanian lands" actively (its rhetoric is more confined to pro-ethnic-Romanian action within Romania). Ronline ✉ 04:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
<<The Irredentism category is put on all of the "Greater" movements>>
But I don't think there is such a movement at the present time. As you have already observed, even the Greater Romania Party focuses its attention mainly on the present teritory of Romania. It looks to me the article is about a teritory, not a movement. At least that's how it begins: "Greater Romania (România Mare) generally refers to the territory of Romania in the years between the First and Second World Wars."
I will modify the following phrase: "In 1918, at the end of World War I, Transylvania and Bessarabia united with the Romanian Old Kingdom" to "In 1918, at the end of World War I, Transylvania, Bukovina and Bessarabia united with the Romanian Old Kingdom". I will also include a bit lower in the text the following fragment: "in Bukovina, a National Council representing only the Romanian population of the province, voted for union with Romania". Bukovina deserves to be mentioned along with Transylvania and Bessarabia, sincee it represented a separate administrative unit and it united with Romania independently of the other two regions, so it's a separate case.
P.S. As a politically correct alternative to Greater Romania/Romania Mare, I propose România Dodoloaţă. :p At least that's an expression I've heard before.Bogmih 09:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I will delete the mark, for no such "Greater Romania" movement exists right now outside the Greater Romania party. Dpotop 09:53, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I think a Greater Romania movement does exist in a quite widespread fashion. Many NGOs, including associations like the Fundaţia Naţională pentru Românii de Pretutindeni, seek to bring about a Greater Romania, or at least view Moldova and parts of Ukraine as "Romanian lands". Sure, the movement isn't particularly well-planned, but there is quite widespread sentiment among some people that Romania should reclaim some adjacent territories (particularly the Romania-Moldova union movement, which is quite popular). Ronline ✉ 09:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, then you can create a "Greater Romania movement" article. :) But frankly, it's quite artificial. Dpotop 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I had not read this when I made my recent edits. I believe that, even without reading it, I correctly handled the issue of extent by using the phrase "largest peacetime extent".

I had restored the România Întregită thing because it was removed without an edit summary. I did not restore it from any specific knowledge. If it is not, in fact, used, please remove from the article (but I suggest that this time you add an edit summary, "See talk." Two little words, very useful. - Jmabel | Talk 01:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Irredentism, again

"România Mare was seen (and is still seen by many) as the natural national Romanian state, and a symbol of national renaissance." So, given that quite a few of the eastern territories are not currently part of the Romanian state, how is this not, today, irredentist? - Jmabel | Talk 20:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In a historical context, "Greater Romania" is not irredentist. It's just like talking about the British Empire in a history book. In a political context, as the article says, the term is irredentistic whenever it is taken as a goal. Dpotop 20:58, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that, but does that mean that it shouldn't be in Category:irredentism? Is there an article that would be more relevant than this one to Romanian irredentism? If not, I think this should be linked in the category. - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Whom, exactly, did that council represent?

I'd like to call people's attention to quite significant, if small edit with no summary or citation by an apparently new contributor. There is quite a difference between "a National Council representing only the Romanian population" and "a National Council representing the population". I've never been entirely clear on what happened in Bukovina at that time, and no sources are cited either way. - Jmabel | Talk 17:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No references

Added the unreferenced template.  DOONHAMER | BANTER  23:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Not in an expansionist sense"

Who is it that makes the "reassuring claims" in the "Name and its meanings" section, and based on what? First of all, the "expansionist sense" implies that the editor or editors in question lack vocabulary skills: the "-er" does not have an expansionist sense in Greater London, Greater New York, two instances of Greater Armenia etc etc. It just means to make a comparison between a small Romania and a large Romania. Furthermore, with or without the supposed meaning in "-er", the term this article discusses is nationalist (and irredentist): as I have shown before, the term was used before 1916 by people who wanted Romania to be "Greater" (ie: comprise Transylvania, Banat, Bessarabia, Bukovina) - see an instance of this in the article on Take Ionescu. This makes the phrase "Nowadays, the term is most often used in English to convey a nationalist meaning, though it does not have expansionist meaning in Romanian" utterly absurd. All the assessment about the Greater Romania Party and how anti-Slav it is or isn't (why would it matter?) have little business here.

In addition, the infobox should be removed: the state was never officially "Greater Romania", and an almost exact copy of it is present in Kingdom of Romania. Dahn 07:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

More in-text inaccuracies and arguments that do not hold water. 1) "whereas Greater Romania corresponds to Romania Mai Mare" (ahem, diacritic, and why have "mai" with a capital letter?) - this ignores the fact that all other instances where English uses "Greater" are/would be turned to Mare ("Great"), and there is simply no instance where Romanian would use "mai Mare" for any such concept. The fact is that the two terms are identical, and the difference is provided by the languages not being identical. So, if this tidbit is to stay in the text, it needs to come with a clear indication that it is by no means exceptional. 2) "unexpectedly came to include" - yes, if one looks to Bessarabia (and, if one is to note that the Serbs were on the same side, the Banat); but Transylvania and Bukovina were stated reasons for Romania going into war in the first place, and were tentatively invaded by the Romanian army in 1916. 3) the Cadrilater is considered part of the Old Kingdom, not just something recently acquired. 4) there is no indication that Transnistria was ever "compensation" for anything, let alone for Northern Transylvania - the Romanians simply came in and took it; in fact, there is ample evidence that Antonescu actually believed that he was able to obtain a renegotiation of the Vienna Agreement based on how involved his troops were. Dahn 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I am new to this article -- just started making some edits to it today. It looks to me that progress is being made, though we're not quite there yet ("there" being, say, a B status, which looks attainable with some colaborative editing). Let me try to address now just point 1), leaving the rest for later. I agree that the difference between Greater/Great and mai Mare/Mare in this context is hair-splitting, and has much more to do with the inherent differences between English and Romanian than anything else. Take for example Greater Antilles and Lesser Antilles: unfortunately, there is no corresponding articles on ro.wiki about these, but I think this would translate into Antilele Mari/Antilele Mici, without much political or metaphysical meaning attached to the difference between en/ro. On the other hand, I think the discussion about "România Întregită" is entirely appropriate, though the translation "Romania Made Whole" looks rather funny (is there anything better in the literature?) For comparison, here's what they say at fr.wiki: "Le terme convoie aujourd'hui une connotation irrédentiste en Roumanie et est le même nom que celui du parti politique national. Le terme politiquement correct est "România Întregită", en français quelque chose comme "Roumanie entière"." The French translation sounds much better to me. Maybe something like "Restored Romania" or "Reconstituted Romania" would better convey the meaning into English? Turgidson 23:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Or, "Reintegrated Romania"? (Reintegration: Restoration to a condition of integration or unity). Turgidson 23:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is an example (at ici.ro) where this term is used, exactly in this context: "1922 Alba Iulia. King Ferdinand at his coronation as sovereign of reintegrated Romania". Turgidson 23:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally have no particular opinion on the "Made Whole"; I have no objection to either it or "Reintegrated" or "Restored" or "Reconstituted" - though the latter two may not cover the exact meaning (since they seem to imply that there was no Romania, while întregită means that there was one and it was, well, made whole). There's also "Completed" or "Accomplished" for your consideration.
It's really strange, because, if I interpreted Dpotop's harangue correctly (based on other such comments he made in the past), he seems to think it was me who added the original translation. It wasnae, and I urge him to be more responsible when producing his statements, cause this is getting really old really fast. Dahn 23:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I went with "Reintegrated" for now, since, if nothing else, it sounds closest to "Întregită" (both words I think share the same common Latin root, integer/integrare/integratus). One could also argue for "reunified", but I'll let others ponder this, there is that much I can think of this before my head is starting to spin. :) Turgidson 23:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
"Reintegrated" was probably the best choice. Dahn 23:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, especially given the fact that "integrated" is first mentioned, according to m-w.com, in 1922. :) But why not use inadequate words... Dpotop 01:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep, but also according to m-w.com, "reintegrated" dates from 1626. (Etymology: Medieval Latin reintegratus, past participle of reintegrare to renew, reinstate, from Latin re- + integrare to integrate). Go figure. Turgidson 01:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning in this context that the Romanian Campaign (World War I) was called in Romania "Războiul pentru întregirea neamului", which seems to me must have something to do with the expression "România Întregită" (which, by the way, I think is less common). Also, it's worth noting that a classic on the subject is the book by Constantin Kiriţescu, "Istoria războiului pentru întregirea României", which has been translated into English as "The War for Integration of the Fatherland" in the following reference: Glenn E. Torrey, "Romanian Historiography on the First World War", Military Affairs, vol. 46, No. 1 (Feb., 1982), pp. 25-28. Does this help in any way? Turgidson 01:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Wasn't "integrated" one of the two variants originally in the text? Gee, Dpotop, what does this remind me of? Dahn 07:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


I'm sorry, Turgidson, but there was no "reintegration", nor "reunification" because no previous integration existed. The last citation is OK as a source, but I don't quite understand why both of you prefer a scholastic formulation to the one carrying the Romanian main sense: Romania made whole. As for Dahn's remark, it is stupid, not cruel. That word I accepted (probably) as a second variant during some edit process. Dpotop 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

What then were and are you ranting about? Dahn 10:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On the "unexpectedly" issue, because I see the notion is still being pushed around. It was perhaps "unexpected" for Romania to get the deal it got after losing the war. This means that Romania also "unexpectedly" came to include Dobruja and the Southern Carpathians, because it had lost these areas to the Central Powers in 1918. As for the regions: moving the army into Transylvania and then, against Allied instructions, going into Budapest, certainly doesn't look like "unexpectedly"... Moving the army into Bessarabia has much the same effect. And I would really like to see any Eastern European leader who expected the Bolsheviks to gain power in Russia back in 1916, and any such leader who expected Germany to lose the war back in 1917. In case my point is not clear: this means that anything and everything happening in 1918-1920 was "unexpected" in comparison to 1917. Considering the fact that Romania wanted Transylvania as her reason for going into war, and considering that the post-war borders were the result of not just local initiatives, but also deliberate moves (with the two being in tandem in the case of Transylvania), "unexpectedly" is a weasel word. Dahn 12:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A long dismissive comment, and no content, as usual. Let me sum up what you seem to agree with:
  1. "Greater Romania" is Romania between the 2 WW, including all "Romanian" territories
  2. Nobody could have predicted that all Romanian provinces will be united
Then, why on Earth are you marking as dubious my statement that the term was coined after WWI, if the term could not have existed before? I am talking about "Romania Mare", not about "O Romanie mai mare" (A greater Romania). So, it's not just Transylvania, but also Bessarabia and Bukovina. Dpotop 13:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. Not just, as you yourself acknowledged here.
  2. Nobody could have predicted that Bessarabia would be united with Romania back in 1916, and nobody could predict that anything other than Bessarabia would be united with Romania in 1918. And, of course, none of this implies that the reference to Greater Romania, before and during WWI, did not include all Romanian provinces. Furthermore, let's establish clearly that, by the time the war was actually over and before the peace treaties, Romania made everything in her power to obtain all those provinces.
Let's have it. Dahn 13:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
"not just Transylvania, but also Bessarabia and Bukovina" Do you happen to know which country Bukovina was part of in 1916, Dpotop? Dahn 13:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Search of Lost Time

Dpotop, sorry to hear you didn't like my translation of "România Întregită". Though I'm by no means an expert translator, I did my best to come up with a reasonable one. In the hope we can reach a consensus à l'amiable, let me go over this again, with a few more explanations.

  • I agree that "Romania Made Whole" is a more-or-less literal translation. But, sorry, it sounds terribly clunky to my ear. To see why, just try translating back (literally!) into Romanian. You'll get "România Fǎcutǎ Întreagă"! How's that for a catchy moniker for a nation-state?
You can't expect language translations to be bijections (otrherwise, all languages will be identical upto an isomorphism and Dahn wouldn't be able to exhibit his mastery of English as compared to the other uneducated Romanians). And, as a matter of fact, I like that translation. It carries the exact sense of the original expression. Dpotop 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I also agree (in part) with your criticism: Reintegrated (and even less so Integrated) do not quite reflect the literal meaning of Întregită. But it sounds better in English (think of "United States", not "States Made United"), while conveying the approximate meaning.
I'm sorry, but are we trying to make it sound good, or to inform the reader? Is form more important than content?! Dpotop 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I gave above two examples of usage (reintegrated and integrated) in this context, one in a scholarly reference. Not a great proof, but it's something. Do you have a sample usage of Romania Made Whole out there?
The dictionary is enough when using a literal translation. As concerns the sources, I already stated they are good enough. But they fail to convey the message. Dpotop 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's not get into an extended historical dispute now, but are you sure that "there was no "reintegration", nor "reunification" because no previous integration existed"? I seem to remember a guy on a high horse, holding an axe in his hand, somewhere around here. Didn't he at least make a valliant attempt at some point to achieve "integration"?
There was no Partium, nor Banat in Mihai's political construction. So no, there is no precedent to uniting all Romanians. Dpotop 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
And neither Dobruja.Anonimu 16:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, I hate Proust. I also did not read "In cautarea timpului pierdut", so I don't know what it talks about. Maybe both titles are good enough (I'll just have to believe you on this, because I have no plans to read that book). Dpotop 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, perhaps we should listen to Proust, and not lose any more time on this? Turgidson 14:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As you saw, I'm less and less interfering with you guys, so you can of course move on on this one, too. My feeling, however, is that you create here an image of Romania that has not a good contact with Romania itself. Dpotop 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, the only reason why this discussion occurred is because you allowed yourself (obviously not for the first time) to introduce pure personal speculation in mainspace. So much for others "moving [in] on this one". I find your expectation for wikipedia to preserve this as a pet project of yours laughable, especially when others have arguments and you have feelings. Get a grip on yourself already. Dahn 09:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing with us your wisdom. Now, get back to your job of editing Wikipedia. You're a true proffessional editor. Dpotop 09:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I really love your conclusion: Just because you manage (by sheer time spent here) to bully me, you claim that my text was "personal speculation"? Dpotop 09:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, well, "professional" is how we spell that word. And, speaking for myself, I'll have you know I have moved and will move on any topic that interests me and where I see readers are being manipulated by people with feelings. Dahn 09:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
You wrote: "Just because you manage (by sheer time spent here) to bully me, you claim that my text was "personal speculation" ". What sort of fallacy are you constructing now, Dpotop? I have provided arguments and sourced statements that nullify various claims you produced in authoring this article. The text as it is (and especially as it was) reflects your stated priority to indicate that, unlike other such concepts, "Greater Romania" has no irredentist meaning. That, pal, is spurious, regardless of how little time you have at your disposal. Dahn 09:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you confirm that Gallagher said "România Mare was seen (and is still seen by many) as the natural national Romanian state" or something similar ? A quote or even a page no. would help.Anonimu 15:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
This question is not for me, but for Turgidson. Dpotop 09:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I delineated more precisely the Gallagher quote, and gave the page number; as for what comes before it in that sentence, I dunno, I just found that in the article, but I don't know a source for it. Maybe someone else can source it, or do something about it. Turgidson 12:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
So I guess you'll have no problem if i put a ref request there.Anonimu
I for one think that: a) the Gallagher quote right after the sentence implies the sentence; b) since the statement is about people who regard it as such, not about how right or wrong they are, the tag makes little sense; c) there are details further down in the text that indicate a major (alas, major) party in Romania has the syntagm for its name, which should further substantiate the claim. In my view, that tag is unnecessary. Dahn 16:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I'll drop it if "many" becomes "some". The one who added the quote from Gallagher acknowledged that it doesn't support the rest of the sentece (see above).Anonimu 16:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Changed. Feel free to remove the label at your convenience. Dahn 16:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great Romania vs Greater Romania

  • Greater Romania has 27,000 hits [1] outside WP (648 on GB)
  • Great Romania has 13,300 hits [2] outside WP (135 on GB)

We ought to mention this at least more clearly in the article. The results also show that using Great Romania occasionally, here and there, on WP, without exceeding 20%, should be acceptable. Again, i'm looking at this as a purely technical question. Never thought to edit this article before. Dc76\talk 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And what do you get in that search when you subtract the Romanian sites that translate Romanian quotations by the ear, the various blogs and especially the many exclusive references to the party? (Restricted searches for "great romania party" provide 13,100 results from your 13,300, and "party of great romania" gets 562...) Again, let's not invent language here, especially since the motivation for using "Great" was, is and will be spurious. Dahn (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I did not emphasize enough on Google Books: 648, resp 135. There is nothing spurious, noone inventes here the term, just 82.8% and 17.2%. Based on this, I see no need to rename the article. And if you wonter about Romania Mare Party, believe me, if there would be now a civil war in Romania, I would know exactly in what direction I would shoot. :-) That a source containing Great Romania as a concept contains at least once a reference to Great Romania Party is very natural. I wonder who could the other 200 sources have avoided it.Dc76\talk 23:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
My point were: 1) WP should perhaps be worried about the more common usage and using it consistently - it would be impossible to set an acceptable standard of erroneous, rare or marginal names (it could not be set, enforced, nor explained); 2) Google books does indeed seem to have more references to the concept itself, rather than the party - but, even in that case, the names alternate with the same frequency (especially after subtracting "...great. Romania..." and other such instances); 3) When I mentioned the party, I meant to say that the translation of its name does not validate a translation of the concept - most, or maybe all English-language sources that discuss the party don't make any reference to the concept, and it's probably a word-by-word translation (even in this case, references to the "Greater Romania Party" abound, and are provided by the most knowledgeable of sources). I did not mean to say that the name supposedly used by the party would invalidate the use for the concept because the party is a group of sorry-ass extremists (which it is), but because, however official or unofficial the use in this context is, it does not say anything about the larger concept; 4) The core issue on wikipedia seems to have been (and it still is, partly, in this article) that a loose group of editors got the ideas that - a) "-er" evokes an irredentist meaning; b) the concept [later addition: by which i mean the concept in its Romanian original] never had an irredentist meaning; c) the translation is not literal (even though any instance of "-er" does not literally translate into anything backwards into Romanian). All these reasons are illogical and go against evidence, and all are extraneous to the fact that references to Greater Romania outnumber, have outnumbered and will outnumber those to "Great Romania". That whole debate is nothing other than a byproduct of internet culture. Dahn (talk) 23:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
please note, that a) and b) can not be simmultaneously false. So, at least in a fraction, that group of editos has a point. Strong enough to change the name of the article? Absolutely not. Strong enough to desearve discusion in the sense of "let's look at the concept without the extremist party, (the concept predates this party by 100 years). Is the concept presented in the article fully?" I'd say it's worth discussing that.
with a few (esential :-) ) changes of emphasis (not meaning) here and there, in the rest I agree with you. Dc76\talk 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant "the concept in its original Romanian form", and I will stress that both notions are false. And, btw, if it predates the party by 100 years, than it is definitely an irredentist concept. I have already proven to Dpotop that it is, especially since he was one of the main exponents of the "we're not irredentist" internet meme.
Glad we agree. Dahn (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you have proven nothing. You have imposed your view. And, please, what has your discussion with Dc76 has to do with me? You're a big boy, you can solve your problems alone. Dpotop (talk) 08:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, by "proving" I meant "presented a situation that would make it impossible for the other version to be considered true". If this logical process looks like "imposing a view" to you, so be it. I only summarized the dispute above (you vs. everyone else), because it was not clear to me if he had read it. Dahn (talk) 18:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hungarians and Jews

"The Hungarians from Transylavania, about 32% at the time (32% is disputed, because it included a large Hungarian-speaking Jewish community)...": I understand the point being made here, but as a Jew I find the wording somewhat offensive, albeit probably accidentally so. Jews were the one minority in the Hungarian portion of Austria-Hungary who, for the most part, had voluntarily adopted self-Magyarization. Most Hungarian-speaking Jews at the time would have called themselves Hungarian (more precisely, "Hungarian Israelites" or any of a number of similar terms). May I suggest "The Hungarian-speakers from Transylavania, about 32% at the time (including a large Hungarian-speaking Jewish community)..." - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jmabel. Dc76\talk 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC) I just made that change, since there was noone opposing, and since the change was absolutely rational that in my opinion it needed no asking, just performing it. So that noone gets any ideas, I concur because it is logical and obvious, I have no Jewish roots. On the content, I think that most doubts there, were very much linked to a completely different issue: which territory is considered, since there are at least 3 options: 1) Transylvania as in Austria-Hungary, 2) Bigger Transylvania, up to Tisza, 3) Transylvania as defined by the current border between Hungary and Romania. Plus options to include/not Banat/whole Banat. So just like that you get already 6 numbers! It is totally unclear to me to which territory 32% refers. Whether the Hungarian-speaking Jews should be considered Hungarian or not does not change the fact that they did not elect representatives in the Romanian, neither in the German assemblies, which was the meaning of that sentence as far as I can get it. And this in no way negates the fact that the other 68% did. Thus, mentioning 32% is no problem and absolutely right. Dc76\talk 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)