Talk:Relationship between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Iron Guard

A Chronological Approach ?

There is a fair amount of recent research available and I'll keep adding material over the following weeks. I'm considering re-organizing the article along the lines of a chronological approach rather then the hybrid thematic/chronological structure it has now... Any feedback is more than welcome. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 07:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

A note on Boldeanu

I based the account of Boldeanu's rise in the Parisian émigré community on two academic secondary sources of indisputable reliability: Shapiro and Popa. But the story is much longer, much deeper and has ramifications I'm not comfortable presenting right now because I feel it would entail either original research on my part or use of sources I judge unreliable. Thus I'm leaving a note for future editors of this article.

The first thing the article doesn't say is that Puiu and Boldeanu did not get hold of the Church of the Archangels (the oldest Romanian Orthodox church in Paris and a symbol of prestige) without resistance, they had to fight for it in court. Interestingly (with respect to the article's focus), at some point a legionnaire commando descended in the church and stripped a rival priest of his vestments. I chose not to include this event in the article because I would either have to use primary sources (hence conduct original research), use sources close to the Church which I judge unfit or use legionary sources which any sane editor would judge unfit.

More importantly, Boldeanu's victory in court against the French League Against Antisemitism (LICA - future LICRA) in 1975 should be in the article. It's important and I might get back to this myself but for the time being I'm not comfortable with the sources. I would prefer to rely on an academic source rather than the French press of the time or Church hagiography.

Finally, Boldeanu's name resurfaced in the press as late as 1980 after an émigré Iron Guard summit meeting in Madrid. If I had any formal proof this article was indeed written by historian Matei Cazacu I would probably use it (even as a self-published memorial account). It does read like something Cazacu would have written but, again, it is hosted on a blog I judge as unfit for wikipedia (and not belonging to Cazacu himself). Thus I won't include it (even as an external link). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

State of the article July 15, 2021

I've expanded the article and won't make anymore substantial improvements in the next couple of weeks. I might nonetheless adapt the header, hunt for typos or try to smooth the narrative here and there. I do plan to tackle the following issues sometime in August or later this year.

• Elaborate on Predania. This is interesting since it is both an example of the Church trying to influence Legionary ideology (push for anti-Catholicism/Protestantism) and an example of grassroots vs. central leadership (both for the Church and the Legion).
• Clarify and elaborate on Crainic. Crainic eventually chose LANC over the Legion in the 30s which makes the topic rather delicate. However he was immensely influential and deserves better coverage.
• Try to elaborate on how the Church and (Orthodox) Christianity was seen from within the Legion, rather than merely pointing out connections and narrating events.
• In relation to the previous comment, also try to include some general conclusions on the relationship. In its present state the article has quite a narrative form.

The post 1989 section could be improved but it's something I'm not particularly fond of. Will nonetheless do it sometime in the future if no other volunteers exist, however writing an article dedicated to the Prison saints phenomenon should be a priority.

Additional remarks:

• I tried to rely exclusively on academic sources from scholars of international standing, given how divisive this topic is in Romania. The only exceptions are Fati, which I cite essentially because her newspaper article brings forth some details of an event already described by Popa, and an official statement of the Romanian Patriarchate from 2019. A consequence of this is quality over quantity, some recent instances of elements of the Church associating with the far right were certainly overlooked.
• Important comment. This article is meant to follow the dynamics of the relationship between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Legionary movement (Iron Guard). It's not meant to cover antisemitism in the Orthodox Church (I plan to do a separate article on that), nationalism in the Orthodox Church or the Church's role in the Holocaust. I do believe it is important to stay true to this in the future.

Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

State of the article October 12, 2021

I've addressed the issues listed above. Obviously the article may still be improved but I'd rather work a bit on articles about the individual clergymen connected to the Legion to avoid the tendency of pooling up information here. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Relationship between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Iron Guard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 21:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Reading now, comments follow soon! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

• per WP:Lead, we don't have inline citations in the lead because all information + references should appear in the main text anyways (but exceptions may apply).

Comment: Per WP:Lead [c]omplex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations. The topic isn't controversial to me, the numerous academic sources cited in the article are in agreement. However, the Romanian Orthodox Church itself has, for decades, carried out an organized effort to hide its interwar links with the fascists and its role in the Holocaust (Ion Popa wrote two book chapters on this). The article, particularly the last section (which is current) is potentially inflammatory for Romanians and has deep political implications. I would keep the citations in the lead. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 18:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• link National Legionary State in both lead and body?

Done.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• You capitalise various nouns that should not be capitalised, e.g. communism (not Communism), orthodoxy (not Orthodoxy).

Partial disagreement. I changed "Communism" to "communism" and "Communist" to "communist" throughout the article. I suppose in some cases "Communist" might be justified if one interprets it in relation to the Romanian Communist Party, but this is borderline IMHO. However "orthodoxy" is the opposite of "heresy" whereas "Orthodoxy" is the denomination (i.e. Easter Orthodoxy). My understanding is that it is capitalized just like Catholicism. Correct me if I'm wrong. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Romanian Orthodox theological education was underdeveloped – not sure, but "underdeveloped" sounds negative and judgmental. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Changed "underdeveloped" to "in its infancy". Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• Legionary death-squads – what does this mean, can you add an explanation?

Linked to Iron Guard death squads. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Throughout the article, there is a problem with comma usage, and this makes the prose hard to follow at times. Examples:
  • praised the legionnaires for their work camps, however – there should be a ; instead of , I think
  • Nicolae Bălan, the highly influential Metropolitan of Transylvania and Archbishop of Sibiu was – comma missing after "Sibiu"
  • Metropolitan Bălan, publicly intervened on behalf of the legionnaires arrested in Sibiu. – does this need a "who" and comma behind "legionnaires"?
  • The priest of Stroești, Gheorghe Doară remained in detention. – comma after "Doară" missing.

Improved. Fixed all the above and two or three other instances. I believe it's better if not perfect. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Bălan grew increasingly displeased with an organization – "the" organization because it is the one already mentioned (if I understand correctly)?

Reworded. It's more concise as well, I hope this is better. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Ion. G. Duca – dot too much?

Dot removed.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• The deaths of prominent legionnaires Ion Moța and Vasile Marin on the same day, January 13, 1937, at Majadahonda during the Spanish Civil War, killed by the same grenade, while fighting for the Nationalist faction led to the organization of massive processions in Romania, particularly in Bucharest where they were interred. – extremely long and complicated sentence, too hard to understand, and I think there are comma problems as well.

Reworded. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I see that the article is waiting for its GA review for a few monthes already. @Plinul cel tanar:, before I continue with the second half of the article, could you please leave a brief note indicating you are still interested in working on this one? Thanks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: I will gladly perform the revision once you complete the review process. Thank you for taking the time to carry-out this work. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 13:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• from Spain, via France and then Belgium, – Excessive detail, in my opinion. In many places, the article could be more concise.

Details removed. Indeed, there is a specific article dedicated to this single event. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• SS and SA squads – link?

No longer an issue. Text was removed to make the article more compact. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• German Nazi Party, of the Spanish Falange and of Fascist Italy – links here, as well?

No longer an issue. Text was removed to make the article more compact. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• 15,000 - 20,000 – en-dashes are used without space: 15,000–20,000

Done.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 18:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• grandiose – see MOS:PUFFERY

Removed "grandiose".Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• "[he] followed the funeral car like a sovereign, with everyone falling to their knees and bowing before him" – we need the source directly with the quotation, with page number, per WP:Quotation

Done. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• Holy Synod – link? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Done.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Codreanu was killed in a staged escape attempt in November 1938 along with other legionnaires.[49] Călinescu was assassinated by a legionary commando on September 21, 1939 – Why is the November event before the September event? I think it should be in chronological order.

Fixed. Section is more concise now. Still, the order was chronological (note the years). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• noteworthy – this word is not suitable for an encyclopedia; if the information isn't noteworthy, it shouldn't be included in the article in the first place.

Fixed. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• In May 1940 it was Visarion Puiu's turn to be deposed as Metropolitan of Bukovina and replaced with Tit Simedrea. – "and replaced with Tit Simedrea", grammar off here, needs comma and reformulation

Fixed. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• The conflict between the Government and the Legion became bloody. – Why and how? This does not become clear.

Improved. I added a referenced description of Călinescu as a committed anti-legionary. I also replaced "became bloody" with "escalated". Plinul cel tanar (talk) 12:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• was at time head – "the time"?

No longer an issue. Wording was changed; paragraph is now more concise. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• suggested the name of General Ion Gheorghe as head of Government, and, when the latter was discarded, the name of Visarion Puiu. – "the name of" confuses, can it just be removed? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Done.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Many priests who had been active in Transnistria faced prosecution. – Why / what is Transnistria? Link or explain? Is it the former part of the Soviet Union occupied by Romania?

Fixed. Changed wording; included link to Transnistria Governorate. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

• After the fall of Communism in 1989. The "prison saints". – No points in headings, maybe use – instead: After the fall of Communism in 1989 – the "prison saints"

Changed to "After the fall of communism in 1989". No point in using "prison saints" in the title. If I find the time to bring the article to FA level I will split this section in two or three subsections with one dedicated to the "prison saints" movement.Plinul cel tanar (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

• Bishop Antim Nica became involved in whitewashing the Orthodox Church's role in the Holocaust. – This needs a bit more context/information I think.

No longer an issue. Text was removed to make the article more compact. This belongs in an article on Nica or in an article on the Church's role in the Holocaust. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• The relationship between the Romanian Orthodox Church and the Iron Guard was one of ambivalence – after reading the article, I don't see any ambivalence; the orthodox church appears to have been strongly inclined towards the Iron Guard, almost always? What makes the relationship ambivalent?
• On hold – Looking at the Wikipedia:Good article criteria, I am worried about 1.a) "conciseness" and 3.b) "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see WP:summary style)." The article does not fulfill these two criteria yet: It uses a lot of words when the same can be said with fewer words, and the article is full with details that often do not seem pertinent to this article. I am not referring to general background information that helps the reader with understanding; this is important. But I wonder if we really need the full life history of all individual priests, for example. I will provide a few examples below illustrate my point:
  • After World War II, Romania came under Communist rule. The clergymen involved with the Legion had very different fates. Some were imprisoned for their collaboration with the fascists, while others became informers of the communist secret police, the Securitate. – This can be much more simply written as: Under Communist rule after World War II, some clergymen were imprisoned for their collaboration with the fascists, while others became informers of the communist secret police, the Securitate. Much shorter, and we do not loose any information.
  • It is worth noting that communist prosecutors were specifically looking for connections to the Iron Guard, rather than investigating persecution of Jews. – "It is worth noting that" does not add anything in my opinion, I would just delete them here.
  • Viorel Trifa (the future bishop Valerian Trifa) was at time head of the Romanian Christian Students' Union. Trifa took part in the insurrection in Bucharest and was instrumental in preparing it, spreading propaganda. – Maybe just The future bishop Viorel Trifa took part in the insurrection in Bucharest and was instrumental in preparing it, spreading propaganda, reducing detail.
  • If you think that keeping detail is necessary, then Footnotes might be a way to do it, see Help:Footnotes.

Improved. I have removed several unnecessary details and the article is more compact now. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So, in conclusion, I think that some significant work is needed to reach GA level, but at the same time I think it is completely doable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Your comments are spot on. I will take the time to calmly address the issues one by one. I have some important deadlines to meet in "real life" but I am planning to submit a revised version of the article no later than January 24. Please let me know if that is acceptable. A quick comment on the issue of unnecessary details and the article not being concise. I was aware of the danger as I was writing the article. Unfortunately most of the related wikipedia biographies or articles on specific, related events are either in poor shape or simply do not exist; I guess I was instinctively trying to compensate. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that is absolutely no problem. Regarding the details, I see where your coming from. As said, footnotes may be a way to accommodate some of this information, but try not to overuse them. See, for example, Lowry War as an example how this works (section "Notes"). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

• Looking much better now, thanks for all the work. A few additional points below, but after that we should be done here:

Thanks. I haven't yet had time to correct comma usage throughout the article. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• "characterised by poor layout and rhetoric that is conspicuously hateful and racist even by (neo-)Legionary standards" – all quotes should have page numbers.

Throughout the article I included page numbers for books but not for short journal articles available online (it's pretty much standard practice in my field of research) however. If I include the page number here I should include page numbers for all articles throughout the article (doable - but huge amount of work). Plinul cel tanar (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not asking you to add page numbers throughout. I was only referring to the quotations, i.e. when you directly cite a particular person using quotation marks. These should come with page numbers for proper attribution. If the source where the quoted sentence occurs is only a few pages, however, I think that is ok. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The source is a journal article and it is available online; the quote can be easily verified. But you are the reviewer. If this is required, I'll do it and do it for all journal articles. Plinul cel tanar (talk) 20:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not strictly needed to reach GA, and other issues are more important. This suggestion is optional. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• generally avoid very short and single-sentence paragraphs. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do...Plinul cel tanar (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: The article has improved a lot, and should meet the criteria now. Good work. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Recent development

@Jens Lallensack: Hi. Since you reviewed this article in the past I thought I'd ping you to ask for advice. There has been a recent development. The Romanian Orthodox Church decided to canonize 2 former Iron Guard members (+ Staniloae known for his proximity with the movement at some stage). There is an ongoing controversy that reached international traction with organizations of Holocaust survivors and various scholars protesting the decision. I don't know how to handle this, it's quite clear that the article is now dated in light of current events. I don't even know if the GA label should stay given the circumstances... Plinul cel tanar (talk) 11:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)