Talk:Greater Romania Party

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Moldova Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Moldova, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Moldova on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

Contents 1 Sources 2 Correct translation 3 Citations 4 Comment: using google is bad 5 Ideology: why is anti-Romanyism excluded 6 Fair use rationale for Image:Partidromare.png 7 Fair use rationale for Image:Partidromare.png

[edit] Sources

I would like to know which are the sources for the phrase: "It promotes strongly nationalist policies and is seen as the most right-wing of the major Romanian parties. The party's philosophy has often been characterized as xenophobic, anti-ethnic Hungarian, anti-Roma, homophobic, Antisemitic, and irredentist. " Thanks -Paul- 22:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't, for the love of me, get why you post your last messages at the top of the page.

Sorry about that. I thought there might be some rule like "newest first". I mostly visit wikipedia to read, not write, so I'm not used to all the rules and convetions regarding contributing.-Paul- 10:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I also don't get why you are switching the paradigm as we go: now you "care" about something else entirely. But no matter: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17],[18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]...

For a comprehensive study (which we should look into more, perhaps), see [29]. More scholarly works include, off the top of my head, Lucian Boia, Maria Todorova and Katherine Verdery. See also: Michael Shafir.

But, hell, we could just hold hands and visit the archives on this site and this one. Although perhaps "original research", it may yield some important results in stopping people from posing questions with obvious answers. Are we just about done here? Dahn 22:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It is easy to see why I raised this issue: because KhoiKhoi reverted my (proposed) change invoking it had no sources (which was not true but this is not the point now). Then I realised that much of this article does not cite sources anyway, so I asked myself why sources are required only for some... Now it does not matter anymore. I gave up, since I have no motivation and... the majority always wins, ain't that so? -Paul- 10:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Correct translation

As I already wrote I do not agree to the current translation. Khoikhoi, please read the talk page before doing reverts. You will find (below) that I clearly specified my sources - 1. The Romanian Parliament website and 2. It is about a TRANSLATION, so actually you do not really need SOURCES for that. Just lookup the words in a dictionary, will ya? :) Or you can take ME for a source. I nativley speak Romanian. As a consequence to the above said, I reverted your revert to my version. I hope you UNDERSTAND. This is already a concesion. In my opinion even the article title is wrong but I do not have the time and motivation to teach Dahn Romanian and English, although he might need it. You should also note that I dont argue about the lack of NPOV of this article because I don't care about politics. But I belive some will see this article as biased against PRM (GRP). Any sources for this pararaph?

"It promotes strongly nationalist policies and is seen as the most right-wing of the major Romanian parties. The party's philosophy has often been characterized as xenophobic, anti-ethnic Hungarian, anti-Roma, homophobic, Antisemitic, and irredentist. "

It seems that in this case the lack of sources does not bother you at all...

-Paul- 08:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This page should be moved to the correct URL "Great_Romania_Party"

"Partidul Romania Mare" means Great Romania Party. "Mare" is not a comparative, it is the normal form of the adjective and it means simply "great". The comparative in Romanian is done by adding an auxiliary word: "mai" and greater is "Mai Mare". -Paul- 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Greater Romania is generally used in English to define the conceopt of "România Mare", and it is the most common English-language reference to the party. This has already been discussed many times by now. Dahn 22:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the policy of naming things and places like they are named in the country of origin? Grammer is grammer and Mare is GREAT not GREATER. What is common in English is WRONG and irrelevant because it changes the real word used. MARE it is NOT comparative. It should be translated more like "FULL" or "COMPLTETE" than GREATER -Paul- 22:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

One word: no. Dahn 22:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems I have less time to spend (or am more clever than you and give up) on this parody, because if your "one word" does count more than a plugged nickel here then wikipedia really does not deserve to be called an encylopedia. Normally I could argue and prove you are soo wrong, but it does not worth it. You do not worth it. -Paul- 22:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. Dahn 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, the reason why we decided to use Greater Romania instead of Great Romania is twofold: firstly, the term "România Mare", as a term, is translated as "Greater Romania" in English. This is in order to form a parallel to other terms such as "Greater Hungary", "Greater Russia", "Greater China", etc. Secondly, "Greater Romania Party" is by far the most common English translation of the name, and it is part of Wikipedia convention to go by the most common name in English. So, while you're right in saying that "Great Romania" is a more correct literal translation of "România Mare", "Greater Romania" embodies the concept much better in English. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Your arguments are wrong. Recall the discussion we had one year ago on the matter. There are only 2 decent arguments in favor of "Greater Romania":

1. Foreigners translate it this way
2. The "Greater Romania Party" and Romanian irredentists use "Romania Mare" with an irredentist meaning today, in politics.

But, "Romania Mare" has not been used with an irredentist meaning before 1940, so that all historical references to it are not correctly translated with "Greater Romania". Dpotop 10:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop, sources contemporary with Greater Romania have translated the words as "Greater Romania". The annoying persistance on one meaning of the term makes me question if you are aware of the facts you delve into: for one, it was probably mainly used as such for being greater than the pre-war Romania. And let's establish this: we are not inventing language. Please start doing something constructive for a change instead of following me around and spamming talk pages. Dahn 11:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Paranoid someone? Look at my edit history. Dpotop 14:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Currently, when not involved in that quarell on Transnistria, you are involved in articles on Greeks of Romania, where you have just created a subjective, unilateral and absurd fork. This aside from Talk:Geo Bogza (on an article I had just expanded) and this page (a debate in which I was involved)... I frankly don't mind you following me; I mind you not helping wikipedia as you used to. Dahn 14:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you think I'm stalking you. I don't have much time for wiki and most of it goes into that piece of disinformation called Transnistria. Otherwise, I'm taking a look on my watch list, and when I see interesting stuff I can edit a bit. I presume this is how I found Tariceanu (don't recall where) and Geo Bogza (the last one in the list of Romanian communists, I presume). For Tariceanu, I think the definition of Greek Romanian is not clear from the category. Is there a way to include a short text in the category itself? BTW, my browser still displays my version of Greek Romanian, even though I reloaded it. Dpotop 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for snapping and presuming.

About the Greek Romanian issue: you have been looking at it from one prespective, and have involutarily been distorting the matter. If you accept that a Greek Romanian is a person of Greek ancestry (and you were leading me to believe that you did not, originally), then for sure the definition would cover a person that is 100% Greek and Greek speaking - as well as being a citizen of Romania. As a side: the real problem would be defining those who were not citizens of Romania as "Romanian" - I have avoided doing that in categories, but have kept the examples on the list - under a clear subheader. A different subhader is what I had used for Tariceanu.

Now, an issue to ponder was, in fact, when the issue of ancestry ends - Mateiu is the son of a Greek, and Ciprian is allegedly the same (ask Andrei, who added the info - sometimes, I just work with I'm guiven). My reason for removing Tariceanu (whom I had added) was that it has been questioned whether his mother is 100% Greek - in which case, the issue of origins bacame a tad more subjective (note my debate with Hectorian, where I had asked him where he would place a limit). Again, I would disagree with calling Tariceanu a Greek-Romanian based on that, but whatever criterion is agreed I will agree with - as long as it is rational and applicable (that is, as long as it has considerd not just what to disagree with, but what to agree with and why). Dahn 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, wouldn't you come a bit to that Transnistria page? Dpotop 15:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't. I have and want to have little knowledge of facts in Transnistria, and I cannot get involved in that lengthy and infuriating a debate... Dahn 15:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I earlier said that I am out of this parody, in a moment of irritation regarding that... (ok no offensive words...) Dahn. However, the arguments seems to be looking for me. I just came across this official page of the Romanian Parliament / the Chamber of Deputies and guess what? The "Partidul Romania Mares" was translated as it SHOULD - "Great Romania Party". I got a message for the non-Romanians: you are just victims of those - I won't say who :)- who like to pretend Romania has expansionist tendencies. For the Romanians who keep on insisting for the wrong translation I got only this message: learn some English. And grow up a little. Oh, I forgot the URL: http://www.cdep.ro/pls/parlam/structura.gp?idg=3&cam=1&leg=2004&idl=2 -Paul- 19:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I don't care much what your contacs and theories on my supposed dhimmitude are.

For one, the constant usage in English to signify the notion of România Mare is, always, Greater Romania, as all the English-language sources conteporary with Greater Romania will show. Since it is obvious that that was the source for the party name, we could just as well stop at this.

Again, even your relative familiarity with English should tell you that the -er in the end does not necessarily indicate "greater in the future", but it is also a comparative related to something in the past. Which is arguably why the term was used as such in the first place, to compare the Romania of 1918 with the Romania of 1914.

In pure ideological terms, it is as obvious as hell that the self-declared cornerstone of that party's ideology is extension of Romanian rule into Bessarabia. You must think everyone a moron for not seeing that. The very notion that the party's ideology would implicate Romania itself is abhorrent, so "who like to pretend Romania has expansionist tendencies", aside from being trolling, makes no sense.

The link you provide for the Chamber of Deputies indicates nothing: I can offer you a torrent of official sites using paralogical and pidgin-like English constructs (of the "how you say? It it's plenty of them, yes?" Balkan colloquialism-type). In fact, let us note, on that very url, somewhere to the left: "Parliamentary Groups of the Senat". Furthermore, the "translations that the site allows itself to propose for other parties are (feast your eyes): "Social Democrat Party" and "Conservator Party" http://www.cdep.ro/pls/parlam/structura.gp?leg=2004&cam=1&idg=&poz=0&idl=2 .

Thus, the only thing parodic about this debate is your irrelevant comment. Please, don't embarass yourself any more. Dahn 20:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep out of the battle as to who thinks who is a moron, but as a native English speaker, I assure you that "Greater" does not necessarily carry an irredentist connotation in English. The New York City area is commonly called "Greater New York", but they have no intention of annexing Westchester. Here where I live, there is a business-oriented civic booster group called Greater Seattle (and was, for some years, a neighborhoods-focused group that jokingly named themselves Lesser Seattle in response). In this case, there was no geographic connotation at all in the sense in which they wished the city to be "greater". - Jmabel | Talk 19:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The main reason I am invoking is the gramatical one. The second one is the semantical one. The word in the Romanian is Great not Greater. This is all I am asking - to use the correct translation. -Paul- 22:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Paul,

I have to say that you are right from the POV of the literal translation.

What these guys try to say, maybe in a heated way, is that Wikipedia is not about correctness, it's about NPOV, and that some rules were invented and are in use. So:

1. If an organization publishes on its web site, or in its statutes, the fact that the official translation is X, then wikipedia must use the name X. For instance, if you find on the PRM site that PRM is translated into English as "Great Romania Party", then you win, they have to change it, and I'll support you (and the other should, too).
2. If no official translation exists, then the most frequently used English translation is the name. In this case, it's "Greater Romania". Don't ask me why people use this name, I don't really know. I don't even know who coined the name but it's not new, it happened before 1940.

So, I suggest accepting it, even if you don't like it. I don't really like it, either. :) Dpotop 22:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

The New York Times (whose index I have access to) consistently uses "Greater Romania Party". Thye've had six occasions to mention it (sorry about the sloppy formatting, this is a moderately cleaned up cut-and-paste:

1. Romanian Ex-President Winning, but Runoff Is Expected, DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., New York Times, New York, N.Y.: Nov 27, 2000. p. A6 (1 page)
2. Tally in Romania Is Official: Crucial Runoff Is Due Dec. 10, DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., New York Times, New York, N.Y.: Nov 29, 2000. p. A5 (1 page)
3. Romania in Retreat, New York Times, New York, N.Y.: Nov 30, 2000. p. A34 (1 page)
4. Some Calm, Some Chaos: An Autumn of Wox Populi, New York Times New York, N.Y.: Dec 3, 2000. p. WK3 (1 page)
5. Former Chief Of Romania Retakes Office Over Rightist, DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., New York Times, New York, N.Y.: Dec 11, 2000. p. A14 (1 page)
6. Elie Wiesel Asks a Haunted Hometown to Face Up, DANIEL SIMPSON. New York Times, New York, N.Y.: Jul 31, 2002. p. A4 (1 page)

- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. government consistently uses "Greater Romania Party", as can be seen from these two Google searches: "Greater Romania Party" site:*.gov, "Great Romania Party" site:*.gov. - Jmabel | Talk 19:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The UK government consistently uses "Greater Romania Party", as can be seen from these two Google searches: "Greater Romania Party" site:*.gov.uk, "Great Romania Party" site:*.gov.uk - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Those were the first three searches I thought to do looking for something to find reasonably authoritative usage in the English-speaking world, and they are unanimous. Normally, if this were not in dispute, I would see absolutely no reason to look any further. - Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Similar searches in .edu domains give 117 to 11 in favor of "Greater Romania Party". - Jmabel | Talk 19:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Great(er) Romania Party" + Reuters gives 10,400 to 128. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Great(er) Romania Party" + "Associated Press" gives 418 to 271, the first that is even close. - Jmabel | Talk 19:24, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"Great(er) Romania Party" + CNN gives 987 to 130. - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In short, as the article says, "Greater Romania Party" is the usual translation, but "Great Romania Party" is sometimes used. At this point the only thing that would convince me that we should prefer "Great Romania Party" would be an overt statement from the party itself that they prefer that usage. - Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

What about the only original Romanian source that we have - the Romanian Parliament? In my opinion it is greater importance than those many Enlglish-language sources. -Paul- 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that cuts it. If you look at the Parliament's English-language site, you'll quickly notice that it isn't written in standard formal English, but rather in an idiom that all too clearly betrays the fact that it is a second-rate translation from Romanian. I'll trust the preponderance of actual English-language sources over the hacks at the Parliament any day. Biruitorul 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, Velika Srbija and Hrvatska, Großdeutschland, Nagy-Magyarország: these all mean Great Serbia, Croatia, Germany and Hungary, but they are invariably translated as Greater. Your initial effort was admirable, but at some point you should give up, lest you become like this guy. Biruitorul 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Ok guys I give up. -Paul- 10:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Peace. Biruitorul 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment: using google is bad

IMHO using google to solve such "dilemmas" is not a good ideea. I see some of you are basing much/part of your arguments on that. I said I give up, but I have to tell you that I doubt your methods and your arguments. Actually I might say I consider them fundamentally wrong.

It is like comparing:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=ro&q=%22bush+is+good%22 (34,600 hits)

and

http://www.google.com/search?hl=ro&q=%22bush+is+bad%22 (891,000 hits)

or better (google fight):

[30] (761,000 bad vs. 35,700 good).

So Mr. Bush is about 2400% more bad than good, right? (24 times more bad than good) Ok. According to your "google method" I should go visit the wikipedia article on George Bush and BE BOLD and edit (or create) a Criticism section and write Mr. Bush is a bad person. Feel free to reconsider your vote when you realise you were wrong :) -Paul- 07:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems that the number of hits vary for reasons I don't really understand, but the number of hits for "bad" are always more than the hits good "good". Trying again I got 762,000 vs. 35,700 (that is 21,3 times more) for "bad". -Paul- 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ideology: why is anti-Romanyism excluded

It is made quite clear in the text that the party has a racist agenda against Gypsies. So why not include it in the summary of ideology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.144.4 (talk • contribs) 19:00, March 22, 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is my reasoning:

• for one, antiziganism is not an ideology as much as it is a tendency (as such, a party may have an antizigan discourse and a socialist ideology, or a fascist ideology, or a conservative ideology etc.)
• the party will not profess an antizigan agenda, as much as certain elements of its policies or public views would have been considered antizigan (unlike, say, the Nazi Party openly professing antisemitism); it is, to my mind, okay to indicate, in the body of text, that most commentators attribute the party this trait, but it is not okay to make it seem like the party will say that about itself
• alongside antiziganism, analysts have argued (justly, in my opinion - my opinion), that the party is homophobic, antisemitic, racialist, anti-Hungarian, xenophobic etc (in fact, most analysts will marginalize the PRM's antiziganism in respect to these other traits - anti-Jewish statements made by Vadim are more notorious, and probably meant to become more notorious). All of these traits are not, however, admitted to by the party. Dahn 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Partidromare.png

Image:Partidromare.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Partidromare.png

Image:Partidromare.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)