Talk:Greater Romania (political concept)

Is this article really necessary?

This looks like Wikipedia:Content forking to me. What's the difference between Greater Romania (political concept) and Greater Romania?

I'd like to ask the editors User:Codrinb and User:Biruitorul from Wikipedia:WikiProject Romania what they think. Avpop (talk) 22:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The article has nothing to do with interwar Romanian state. This page is about the evolution of an irredentist concept after WW2. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. It has do to very much with interwar Romania. Cause the irredentist aspirations aim exactly the expansion of the borders to the extent from those years (1920-1940). Also, Romania and Moldova can't be re-united, cause the boundaries of Bessarabia (the historical Romanian region) do not overlap on the boundaries of Moldova. Transnistria, de jure part of Moldova, was never a Romanian territory. Avpop (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So, do you think that Basescu's statements about "possible unification" belong to article of interwar Romania? Fakirbakir (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it belongs to Unification of Romania and Moldova. Basescu did not say anything about Greater Romania. There is no significant movement for the unification of Romania with other territories lost in 1940, like Northern Bukovina or Cadrilater. Avpop (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I invite User:Fakirbakir and User:Biruitorul to comment on the deletion request Avpop (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

That page is a very "nicely" phrased Romanian POV. I am going to propose a more appropriate name for that article because it should refer only to the period of the "possible unification of Romania and Moldova" (the early nineties) and the rest of its content rather belong to this page. Moreover it does not discuss the concept itself. Why do "Greater Serbia" or "Greater Hungary" exist? The ideology of "Romanian revisionism" is not discussed properly on Wikipedia. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I think a section inside Greater Romania would be better. Avpop (talk) 09:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Asimilation policies ≠ Expansionist policies

We should not mix up things. Avpop (talk) 12:18, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Renaming?

User:Fakirbakir and User:Biruitorul, what do you think about renaming this article as Romanian irredentism (in a similar with Spanish irredentism)? Avpop(talk) 16:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Extremists

Here is the ideology of PRM:[1]

• "The historical continuity of the Romanian nation (defined in a purely ethnic way) and the need to protect the territorial integrity of Romania and to return to its pre-1940 borders constitute the key markers of the PRM discourse"
• "On the other hand, the PRM states as one of its key goals the unification of Romania with its lost territories in Bessarabia and Bukovina."

Ideology of TPT:

• "the movement is also a supporter of unionist claims concerning the lost territories of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina.Fakirbakir (talk)

I don't know if it's the fault of the late hour, but I don't remeber in this moment what TPT comes from. Avpop (talk) 21:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Present-day Romanian extremists (such as members of PRM) aim to take possession of territories of northern Bukovina and Bessarabia.

1. Does the source "The Extreme Right in Eastern Europe and Territorial Issues" mention PRM as "extremists"? Or is it just a peacock term of the editor?
2. The source "Ethnic Politics in Eastern Europe: A Guide to Nationality Policies, Organizations, and Parties." mentions PRM as "Romanian nationalist" political party.

So in the best case we have 2 contradictory sources but only one (the "extremists" one) is mentioned in the article!

Then following the "extremists" theory as it appears now in the article, all parties involved in the reunification of Germany should be considered extremists too comparing the situation West Germany-East Germany to the situation Romania-Bessarabia/Moldavia. That is a non-sense theory. -- Saturnian (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"extremist Greater Romania Party"[2][3][4][5][6], "xenophobic PRM"[7][8], "extreme-nationalist, chauvinist and xenophobic Greater Romania Party"[9], " ultranationalist/xenophobic Greater Romania Party (PRM)"[10] Fakirbakir (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that in the current form the article suggests that only extremists support the union with Moldova, which is a doubtful. Surveys indicate that a majority of Romanians endorse the union, most likely a big part of them are not extremists. Avpop (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course, the article should mention (and it will, soon) the whole spectrum of political attitudes in connection with this matter.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As Avpop said the current content is clearly biased and it has to be revised. -- Saturnian (talk) 07:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the extremism of PRM, perhaps there should be a distinction between supposed "extremist" PRM policies and what Corneliu Vadim Tudor is saying wildly on TV. For example what was the the last "extremist law" proposed by PRM? I guess the labelling "extremist, xenophobic, etc." PRM is only due wild words of Vadim; so only words. I do not remember any extremist law enacted or proposed by PRM. -- Saturnian (talk) 07:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Combination of material from multiple sources

The first sentece of the article is as follows:

The concept of Greater Romania[1][2] (Romanian: România Mare) is a Romanian nationalist and irredentist ideology. Its main goal is the (re)creation of a "Greater Romania"[3][4]

What should I understand? That the the subject of the sentence is referred by sources 1 & 2, and the predicative expression is referred by sources 3 & 4? Avpop (talk) 11:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the theoretical goal of the concept? The (re)unification of Romanians through establishing Greater Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I still don't understand why sources 1 and 2 are placed in the middle of the phrase. Avpop (talk) 13:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

They lay emphasis on the existence of the "concept of Greater Romania". Fakirbakir (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir, please provide here the precise quotes from sources with the index 1,2,3,4 and 5 that you are regarding. It is quite strange to have a different source for each word from the phrase, and I am afraid that we have original research here. When all the quotes will be posted here, we'll be able to ask for extra opinions about how the article text reflects the ideas from the sources. Avpop (talk) 09:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"The concept of Greater Romania consisted of the idea of uniting all ethnic Romanians and all the adjacent areas where they lived into one ethnically pure state."[11] Fakirbakir (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so where it's written that The concept of Greater Romania is a pan-nationalist idea or something equivalent? The quote above refers to a single ethnic group (the Romanians), while pan-nationalism would imply the connection of more ethnic groups ("a ‘‘cluster’’ of cultures and ethnic groups" as you wrote above). Avpop (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Erwin Kessler

Is Erwin Kessler a reliable author for this topic? On Romanian WP he is described as a Romanian philosopher and art historian. (https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erwin_Kessler). I am asking especially Romanian editors (User:Biruitorul or User:Codrinb), who can have an easier access to his Romanian-language biography. Avpop (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a philosophical topic. Philosophers, historians and sociologists are the best sources for it. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pablo Cardona, Michael J. Morley, Manager-Subordinate Trust in Different Cultures,

There are errors in this source. The United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia was the official name between 1859-66; Romania became the official name in 1866 and the country became a Kingdom in 1881. Avpop (talk) 22:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The "paramilitary inclinations" of Noua Dreapta?

Does anyone have a clue about this? Many of the members are just football fans, I never heard that they would have guns. Avpop (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Vasile Pârvan

Why is the quote from Vasile Pârvan relevant here? It is rather about nationalism than irrendetism. Avpop (talk) 13:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Pan-Romanianism

Is the concept of Pan-Romanianism widely recognized? Pan-nationalism refers to a group of nations. Different definitions of pan-nationalism affirm:

The idea of pan-nationalism is that nation-states may participate or even be subsumed under a higher unity based upon ethnic, religious, geographical or other common features. [12]

The idea of pan-nationalism is that several nation states join a supranational governmental authority - for religious, historical, economic or defence reasons - but still retain their separate ethnic identities. [13]

Pan-nationalisms are generally defined as 'politico-cultural movements seeking to enhance and promote the solidarity of peoples bound together by common or kindred language, cultural similarities, the same historical traditions, and/or geographical proximity [14]

The existence of a presumed Moldovan nation is disputed. The doctrine of a distinct Moldovan nation was a cornterstone of the Soviet propaganda [15]. The idea of a distinct Moldovan nation has been described by some as "contrary to the truths of history." [16]

Alexei Mateevici (1888–1917), author of the Moldovan national anthem Limba noastră said at a congress of Bessarabian teachers in 1917: "Yes, we are Moldovans, sons of the old Moldavia, but we belong to the large body of the Romanian nation, that lives in Romania, Bukovina and Transylvania."

The present-day unionists assert the same thing, that the Moldovans are also Romanians. The goal is the unification of the Romanian nation in a single state, not the unity of more peoples that share common features. So the ideology that animates these aspiration is nationalism rather than pan-nationalism. Avpop (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

According to page of Pan-nationalism "Pan-nationalism is a form of nationalism distinguished by the large-scale of the claimed national territory, and because it often defines the nation on the basis of a ‘‘cluster’’ of cultures and ethnic groups". It depicts well Romanian nationalism. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That definition is needs a citation for 5 years. Nationalism and pan-nationalism are distinct concepts. Pan-nationalism refers to a group of nations/ ethnic groups. For instance Pan-Slavism vises the unity of Slavic ethnic groups (Russians, Czechs, Serbs, etc). It is quite illogical to say that Romanians and Moldovans are Romanian ethnic groups. The unionists view the movement as a nationalist one, not as a pan-nationalist one (they don't recongnize a Moldovan identity/ethnic group). Avpop (talk) 09:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Pan-Romanianism" belongs to Pan-nationalism. "Pan-Romanianism is connected to concept of Greater Romania. "Riding to power on a wave of Pan-Romanianism, President Snegur and the Agrarian Democrats, turned their backs on the concept of united Greater Romania.[17] I do not understand your argument. " “Pan-Romanianism” is a catch-all phrase that describes those nationalists, both in Romania and in Moldova, whose understanding of the Romanian nation state is based upon the ideal of unification of those lands in which Romanian speakers form the majority population – the ultimate historical expression of this having been the Kingdom of Greater Romania. "[18]Fakirbakir (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The above quote is a little confusing for me. I found that pan-Nationalism is defined based on the shared assumptions of a supranational community. "Pan-nationalisms are generally defined as 'politico-cultural movements seeking to enhance and promote the solidarity of peoples bound together by common or kindred language, cultural similarities, the same historical traditions, and/or geographical proximity". In my understanding pan-nationalism refers to supranations (clusters of nations) while your quote reports to a single nation (the Romanian nation). This is quite contradictory. Avpop (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. Pan-nationalism is ethnic nationalism, a desire for a united nation. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Have you checked my sources? They clearly refer to "higher unities", "supranational governmental authorities", "solidarity of peoples" - for instance pan-Slavism represents a group consisting of the Slavic nations, and pan-Islamism refers to the unity of Muslim peoples. Avpop (talk) 11:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Pan-Slavism is based on the common roots of Slavic peoples. Pan-Romanianism is based on the common language, culture etc of the Romanian people. Pan-nationalism has many forms. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a difference between peoples (plural of people, represeinting a plurality of persons considered as a whole, as in an ethnic group or nation) and people (the plural of "person"). In the case of Pan-Slavism, we talk about a multitude of peoples, while in your description of pan-Romanianism we talk about a single people (ethnic group), namely the Romanian people. Avpop (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ideologically, they are very similar. Both refer to something "common" (origin, language, religion etc,) in their "subjects" and want "unity". I would say Pan-Romanianism is the "first level" (one nation concerned), Pan-slavism is the "second level" (two or more nations concerned---however they are "related").Fakirbakir (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)