Talk:Greater Romania/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

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)

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)


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)

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)

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)

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)

No references

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

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Request for Article Expansion

  • Greater Romania - Although it is the designated section of history for Romania covering the span between WWI and WWII, it has absolutely no coverage of events between 1920 and 1940, other than a reference to its borders staying the same during this period. As this is also the referential case for the main article on Romania itself, as it now stands Wikipedia has no historical coverage of Romania in any general article from 1920 to 1940. This article requires content - even if perfunctory - for this period... Examples would include who was president, dictator, was it a democracy, what were some political, economic or social events during this period, etc.? This article would also need an extension into the main article on Romania - at least a summary. Stevenmitchell (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
A separate article about Romania during the interbellic period (call it "Romania between the Wars") would be the best idea. The "History of Romania" timeline is missing a history article for this time period, this geography article ("Greater Romania generally refers to the territory...") acting as a sort of surrogate. Now for the real challenge: Who's gonna write the article? 86.124.210.219 (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Number 57 15:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


Greater Romania → Interwar Romania – WP:Title. In modern context, "Greater Romania" is rather a political concept aimed at the restoration of the frontiers of Interwar Romania. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose - it is simply fallacious to assert that "Greater Romania" is no longer preferred by modern academic works to refer to Romania as it existed between 1918 and 1940, as demonstrated not only by the Livezeanu book, but also by source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source upon source.
  • Any concrete data, as opposed to fact-free assertions, suggesting that "interwar Romania" is preferred, would be welcome. - Biruitorul Talk 04:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I have never stated that the "Greater Romania" expression is not used by modern sources. I only referred to the fact that "Greater Romania" is rather a concept, not a period in the history of Romania. Your second source (Nationalism and Territory) deals with "constructing group identity in Southeastern Europe", not with the history of Romania in the interwar period. Your third source (Romania: The Unfinished Revolution), which deals with the history of modern Romania, uses the "Greater Romania" expression when referring to a party (Greater Romania Party 2x) and to Livezeanu's book (2x), and twice when describing the boundaries of interwar Romania. Please note, that the title of your fourth source is "Eugenics and Modernization in Interwar Romania". Your sixth source (Balkan Strongmen: Dictators and Authoritarian Rulers of South Eastern Europe) uses the expression "Interwar Romania" 14 times and the expression "Greater Romania" 12 times. Your seventh source (Boia's book) deals with the "myth in Romanian consciousness", not with the history of Romania. Your eighth source (Ideologies and National Identities: The Case of Twentieth-century Southeastern Europe) uses the expression "Interwar Romania" 15 times and the expression "Greater Romania" 13 times (especially when it refers to Livezeanu's book). Your ninth source (Nationalist Politics and Everyday Ethnicity in a Transylvanian Town) uses the expression "Interwar Romania" 27 times, and the expression "Greater Romania" 19 times (including its references to the Greater Romania Party). Your other sources are specialized in the history of Moldova, the history of post-1989 Romania and the citizenship policies of New Europe. Taking into account the above list, I think you should revise your view. Borsoka (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
My position was and is that neither name predominates, and that even if "Interwar Romania" is slightly ascendant since about 2002, there is no clear preference in scholarly works for that term. Let me remind you of the famous Kiev/Kyiv debate: "Kyiv" is clearly gaining ground, but not enough for us to consider it more prominent than "Kiev". - Biruitorul Talk 14:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Biruitorul, which name describes the subject of the article more precise, according to you? What would you think of the subject of an article named "Greater Romania" if you were a WP user born somewhere far from our region? And what would the title "Interwar Romania" suggest you? Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I will start by drawing a comparison with Greater Serbia. That term, made famous by Milošević et al., is both well-known and unambiguous, since in modern times, it has always been an aspiration rather than a reality. (Well, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia was a sort of Greater Serbia, but even that was cloaked in a pan-Yugoslav exterior.) When one mentions Greater Serbia, there is no doubt as to what one is referencing.
Greater Romania isn't like that. The term usually refers to the interwar state, and much less often, to the project (such as it is) for recreating that state within its precise borders, perhaps minus the Cadrilater. Of course "Interwar Romania" also suggests the state, and we should mention the term in the article. I see what you're driving at, that the term is ambiguous, but it really isn't in common practice - "Greater Romania" so often and so consistently refers to the state that the possibility for confusion is scant. I doubt it's happened much since this page was created in December 2003. This is a solution without a problem. - Biruitorul Talk 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. This page is about interwar Romania. The concept of "Greater Romania" is a related but different subject. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ridiculous request. The term Greater Romania has a broad scope, covering the unified Romania (1918 and 1940), as well as the aspirations and struggles of Romanians to achieve this goal prior 1918 and after 1940 till now. It also has a higher notability and 55k hits on Google as opposed to 9k hits for the Interwar Romania. The proposed name is very narrow in scope, of low notability and doesn't cover pre-1918 and post-1939 periods. It simply covers a small slice to time and doesn't make much sense. At most, two articles with the two names could coexist. --Codrin.B (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Dear Codrinb, please read the article before commenting a proposal: "This article is about interwar Romanian state", and "Greater Romania (Romanian: România Mare) refers to the territory of the Kingdom of Romania between 1919 and 1940." I agree with you that the chauvinistic concept of "Greater Romania" should also be presented in an article, but it is an other issue. Borsoka (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
"Dear" Borsoka, easy with the tone and the comments here. I read the article many times and I know exactly what it is about and what could be expanded further through. If there is something chauvinistic, those are your bogus and ultra-nationalistic dominated requests and edits on Wikipedia. --Codrin.B (talk) 19:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Codrinb, would you please again read the article and the above list of references (which proves that "Interwar Romania" is the term preferred by reliable sources). Would you please refer to at least one of my "bogus and ultra-nationalistic dominated requests and edits". Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Antidiskriminator and Avpop, taking into account the above list, I think your position should be substantiated. Would you please list the reliable sources proving that the expression "Greater Romania" is preferred to "Interwar Romania". Why are you sure that those who do not live in this part of Europe would better understand the first expression than the second one. The title "Interwar Romania" makes it clear for the 80% of WP users that this article is about the history of Romania in the 1920s and 1930s. Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
We have 3800 Google Books results for "Greater Romania was" and only 553 Google Books results for "Interwar Romania was".
Professor David Phinnemore writes about post-1920 Romania that "the new state became known as Greater Romania". Other quotes from reliable sources: "the so-called Greater Romania existed between the two World Wars", "United Romania (called "Greater Romania") ", "The expression, "Greater Romania" is a concept which describes a geopolitical reality which emerged immediately after World War I" Avpop (talk) 05:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your above list. As you see "Greater Romania" is not a period in the history of Romania, but a "concept". That is the first reason that I suggest that the article should be renamed. And the second reason is that there most people in the world do not understand that "Greater Romania" = "Romania in the 1920s and 1930s". Borsoka (talk) 12:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Both of your premises are faulty. For one, "in Greater Romania" gives roughly as many hits as does "in Interwar Romania", and those clearly refer to a place, a state that existed for over two decades.
For another, claims beginning with "most people in the world do not understand" are unfalsifiable, given that there are 7.162 billion people on earth and we have no idea what they know about this topic. Moreover, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. I may not know anything about, say, Saccharopine dehydrogenase (NAD+, L-lysine-forming), but by reading the article on that topic, I will hopefully be enlightened. Those who don't yet know about Greater Romania, in similar fashion, have only to read the article to find out what it was. - Biruitorul Talk 14:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
:) :) :) Thank you for your above comment. However, according to WP:Name we should use "commonly recognizable names". Interwar Romania clearly refers to Romania in the 1920s and 1930s, that is to a well-defined period in the history of a state. On the other hand, Greater Romania may refer either to a state which was larger than it is now, or to a state in dreams which should be larger than it is now. If both denominations (Interwar Romania and Greater Romania) are used in reliable sources (and this is the case), we should prefer the one which can be recognized with less difficulty, that is Interwar Romania. Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Your claim that "Greater Romania" is a potentially vague term is a rather thin reed. It pretty unambiguously refers to a state that existed in the past. The fact that it may also refer to the ideological underpinnings of that state means the present article should include a theoretical discussion, not that there is some grand distinction to be made between the two. - Biruitorul Talk 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Biruitorul, which term is more recognizable for a non-expert WP user, Greater Romania or Interwar Romania taking into account the subject of the article (Romania in the 1920s and 1930s)? I think this is the decisive point in this discussion. Borsoka (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
It is certainly an important consideration for me, but not the only one. Vote below. Andrewa (talk) 19:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Antidiskriminator, Biruitorul and Codrinb. -- Saturnian (talk) 17:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, on balance but quite clearly. The current title is far more recognizable to readers... it gives me a good idea both of the territory and of the politics. The move rationale that the term is rather a political concept is a counter-argument; if this term is in use then we can use it, and it's unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources, and that hasn't been called into question. No real contest. Andrewa (talk) 19:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The lead section

I ask all the editors not to change the lead section of the article before reaching a consensus about its content. Avpop (talk) 22:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Vasile Pârvan quote

The national is something biological-political; it is the unitary self-awareness of an independent organism, in the struggle for existence with other organisms and employing for defense even the animal form of struggle that is war. (…) The culture of a nation is born from the clash of foreign ideological influences… with the creative national instinct.

(Vasile Pârvan - source: http://www.icr.ro/bucharest/identity-and-destiny-ideas-and-ideology-in-interwar-romania-29-2007/ideas-and-ideology-in-interwar-romania.html)

How is the above quote relevant for the article? Avpop (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

File:Steagul de la Darniţa.svg

What's so special about the Darniţa Banner that it has to be included here? Avpop (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that we have a banner from 1917 in connection with the idea of "Greater Romania" (the quote is quite emotional, IMO). Fakirbakir (talk) 23:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
First of all, I am disappointed that an experienced editor like yourself does not follow the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process. The protocl states that when you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war.
The image depicts the "Darniţa Banner", while the article text doesn't say anything about its significance. An uniformed reader is rather confused, he wonders what Darniţa Banner represents.
The description of the image is the following: Reconstruction of the "Darniţa (Darnytsia) Banner", first flown by ethnic Romanian turncoats from the Austro-Hungarian Army, who formed a Volunteer Corps of the Romanian Army. They were held as POWs in Kiev area, and were progressively moved to the Romanian front in Moldavia. The original banner, designed in early 1917, is kept at Romania's Banat Museum, and is the only one to have survived. It is ostensibly based on the Romanian tricolor, with the words Trăiască România Mare ("Long Live Greater Romania") sewn in golden thread
The only article where the image fits is Romanian Volunteer Corps in Russia, which treats the topic in detail. If still want the image here, I will ask for a WP:3O, cause I amaintain my view that it should not be here. Avpop (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that the banner has no connection with "the dream of Greater Romania"? Fakirbakir (talk) 07:45, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course that it is connected, there are tens of pictures related to Greater Romania, but this image is not illustrative for the current article text, which does not explain what happened at Darnita. It isn't anything written about Romanians from Austria-Hungary that fought as volunteers in the Romanian Army. The image can be kept only if we add a paragraph about these volunteers. Avpop (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The point is that the quote from !1917! "Long live Greater Romania" describes the desire for "Greater Romania". The article deals with Romanian nationalism. The people, the politicians had the idea that "Greater Romania" was something they wanted. Following your logic, I could say the pic from Bolliac "Hypothetical map of Romania (1855)" has nothing to do with "Greater Romania" because it was designed in the 19th century, HOWEVER, it clearly shows the "seeds" of the concept of "Greater Romania".Fakirbakir (talk) 09:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

I think Anonimu's version is a good starting point for any discussion. His version is logical and coherent. This page does not really have to deal with history of "Greater Romania" because page of Kingdom of Romania covers well the interwar period. Therefore we should only focus on the "concept of Greater Romania". Fakirbakir (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

We should only focus on the "concept of Greater Romania"? My impression is that you want to replace this article with the older Greater Romania (political concept) and to merge the older Greater Romania into Kingdom of Romania. Avpop (talk) 16:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
If a detailed history of interwar Romania is important for you then I assure you nobody restrains you from editing. However, the interwar period is well treated in the article of Kingdom of Romania. Fakirbakir (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
It is funny how you first support the renaming of this article as Interwar Romania, and a few days later you redirect Interwar Romania to another article (Kingdom of Romania) Avpop (talk) 08:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Because, this article -currently- has very little content about interwar Romania. Kingdom of Romania deals with the period much better. Where can you read more about interwar Romania? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Ideology

The nation-building based on the French model became an all time priority especially in the interwar and the Communist periods - which is the French model? Shouldn't this be rather included in Romanian nationalism article? It does not seem to be a irredentist afirmation. Avpop (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

NO, it should not. The nation-building is based on the French model of a unitary nation-state (read the source). How do you explain the concept of Greater Romania without its nationalist ideology? The concept itself belongs to Romanian nationalism of course but is only one part of it. The article of Romanian nationalism, for instance, should be about the belief that Romanians originate from ancient Dacians. Actually, I proposed at the AFD debate that the concept of Greater Romania could be merged with article of Romanian nationalism. The decision was dissimilar from my proposal and actually Romanian nationalism was a redirected article, there was nothing to merge. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources discussing pan-Romanianism refer to the possible union of Romania and Moldova, not to the pre-WWI Romanian irredentism. I wasn't able to find any author affirming that before WWI Greater Romania was a pan-nationalist goal Avpop (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Pan-Romanianism wants "greater unity" among Romanians. What do you think? What did Romanians want before WW1??? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
"The historical expression Greater Romania refers to the idea of recreating the former Kingdom of Romania which existed during the interwar period. Having been the largest entity to bear the name of Romania, the frontiers were marked with the intent of uniting most territories inhabited by ethnic Romanians into a single country; and it is now a rallying cry for Romanian nationalists" Greater Romania Party. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
Some research needs to be done, but I'm not sure that each irredentist movement is pan-nationalist:
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. [3]
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. [4]
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 [5]Avpop (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The term "Greater Romania"

"I begin with the Jewish community in Greater Romania, as Romania was called after the unity of territories Walachia and Moldavia in 1859" p. 5

Also, the term "Greater Romania" was introduced by Bratianu in 1852.[6]

Therefore, "Greater Romania" has multiple meanings. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What an absurd statement the first one is. The country within its borders of 1859-1918 is usually called the Romanian Old Kingdom or Regat, and occasionally "România Mică" (Little Romania). Nowadays at least, the term never applies to the 1859-1918 entity.
If you read through the text, you will find much confusion about the significance of 1859, 1881 and 1918, with claims that all three inaugurated the Greater Romania period. The author may know something about the history of Romanian Jewry, but geopolitics is not her strong suit.
In any case, that document is a master's thesis, and per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, only PhD dissertations are permitted as sources, and even then with reservations. - Biruitorul Talk 22:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I am not convinced. "Little Romania" and "Romanian Old Kingdom" are latter expressions, or, to put it otherwise, they are not contemporary terms as opposed to "Greater Romania" (Bratianu, 1852). I am going to seek proper sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 07:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It would be good to check the original Bratianu phrase, but I doubt that we could be able to find it. I can speculate that he talked about the creation of "a great Romania" (common nouns). In 1852 Romania hadn't been founded yet, so for sure he was not referring to a "Greater Romania", as opposable to a Lesser Romania. Avpop (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree it needs to be checked. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

What this article is about?

Kingdom of Romania? Greater Romania concept ? You erase my map based on the XX ideology of Greater Romania. What the hell is with all that stupid maps of Kingdom of Romania. My map is not a irredentist map is a map witch shows the project for a new Romania, a proper Romania. For what reasons the map is rong? That is the correct map of Greater Romania, as Romanians wanted her at the start of XX century. Kingdom of Romania was not a concept ,was not a full victory, it was a compromise, Betwen Greater Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Hungary based on Wilson points . This should be about the nationalist movements of Romanians, not about Kingdom of Romania. All maps who not show Tisa as west border are rong ! That was the objective of Greater Romania . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasile iuga (talk • contribs) 19:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

About my map

Represents historical or just fictional provinces of romanians(Tribalia concept). The yellow border represents the border of Greater Romania, as seen by national movements in XIX century(From Dniester to Tisa);the geographical border . What argument is this" Romanian state never claimed " . This is not about Romanian state is about what Romanians wanted and see as theirs ,(modern Dacia). Not all provinces from the map wore seen as part of Romania, for example Tribalia and Transnistria. And about Pocutia, Romanian Army occupied her, but the king chose to retreat ,Poland wanted to give her to Romania, all the opposition claimed that region, but the goverment fear a war on to many fronts(Hungary Ucraine Russia). So Pocuţia was seen as Romanian, it was a dominion of Moldova in Middle Ages, but for strategic reasons the goverment not accepted the deal with Poland. If you are a strager to romanian national movement stay the hell out of this , don't erase maps. This is about Greater Romania (Political Concept ) ,watch the map of Cezar Bolliac, read national poems ,read right wing press, don't come and play smart if you know 0 about Romanian National Movement. What the hell have the politics of Romanian State with the wish of the nation? You catalogated my map as modern irredentism , no smart ass , that map is about XIX and early XX century, is not my vision of today .Read Romanian poets ,politicians, read memorandums, see maps! Also the Greater Romania was projected to have a new capital(A capital of all Romanians), so if that was not built we should not talk about that project ? Please make arguments when erase material, or you will get a report for abuse ! You have question about what apear on the map , i will respond you. Vasile iuga (talk) 09:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Pocuţia was seen as Romanian" - by whom? Plase provide sources for this claim. Avpop (talk) 09:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I was a national movement like any other movements. Any movement of this kind wants a PERFECT BORDER, a natural one. So ispired by Ancient Dacia , romanian movements wanted a border on Tisa and Dniester. And in the north to ,the map should follow natural lines. There are many variations of what the border should be in Maramureş/Marmaţia, many wanted Bodrog river as border http://enjoymoldova.org/wp-content/gallery/map-of-moldova/map-of-modern-dacia-1868.jpg ,others more moderated wanted the border betwen Bereg and Ung as Romania border with smaller variation(some parts of Ung county, east of Laz river to Romania) ,https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Rumânia_văzută_de_Cezar_Bolliac.jpg , http://earth.unibuc.ro/file_download/309 About Pocutia, the border of Bucovina was not natural and fail to link Maramureş Tartar Pass to Moldova in north ,so Pocutia was seen as a necessary, natural, part of Romania, there wore some study witch reveals the moldavian past of Pocuţia Jancu J. Nistor. Die moldauischen Ansprüche auf Pokutien. Vienna 1910 , so on those base all maps of a Proper Romania included Pocutia. Many see Pocutia as a natural province of Romania(modern Dacia)betwen Dniester an the mountains based on this map https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocuția#mediaviewer/Fișier:Ukraine._Pokutia._Beuaplan_1648.jpg, and seen on this maps of Proper Romania http://earth.unibuc.ro/file_download/309 , http://enjoymoldova.org/wp-content/gallery/map-of-moldova/map-of-modern-dacia-1868.jpg , others just a former historical province of Moldavia witch started from Bystrytsia river and Bystrytsia-Prut highlands ,containing Prut spring. This view was influenced by this map https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocuția#mediaviewer/Fișier:Moldova_Stefan_cel_Mare.png, and we can see in Bolliac map Prut as the border https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dc/Rumânia_văzută_de_Cezar_Bolliac.jpg. So there wore many opinions of how the Proper Romania should look , but none excluded Pocuţia . Also we should see this as a project for a Greater Romania, not as the claims of the Romanian Kingdom,the kingdom haved a moderate view of the problem ,but that not means that the view represents the view of the national movements.

Pocutia was close to be taken by Romania in 1919, I C Brătianu ,wanted to stop Hungary linking with Russia, the project was sustained by Poland, jew comunity of Pucutia and by some politicians at home. But Romania chose to focus on Banat (to take it all) and chose to give away the fight for other gains. If you want a map of the official claims of Kingdom of Romania, we have that to http://roncea.ro/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Great-Romania-Mare-Harta-de-G-Pop-cu-Basarabia-si-Bucovina.jpg , but that map not represent the Perfect Border concept, it represent the claims of Romania. Vasile iuga (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I have started to understand the aim of the map however we do need proper sources for it. Fakirbakir (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Pocutia is not included in Bolliac's map. The map from http://earth.unibuc.ro/file_download/309 is named "Modern Dacia" (not "Greater Romania"), so it is out of topic. In 1919 there was only a strategic military occupation over Pocutia, not a territorial claim. Your allegation about Pocutia remains unsupported.
What about "Transnistria" and "Tribalia-Timoc"? Where are the borders taken from? Avpop (talk) 15:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC) I think i lose my time , Bolliac map has Pocutia inside Bucovina, Prut is the border on that map,not Ceremuş the actual border of Bucovina. About Transnistria ,the people wanted in Greater Romania, and is a land with romanian population and was a claim for Romania latter . I put the form from interbelic period because Antonescu claims are latter, and the borders of USSR province contain the area with Romanians. But clearly is out of the yellow line so Transnistria was not seen as a core region. Tribalia was never a province in that form ,but Romania tried to go south after the Balcan war so it was a propagandistic move to revive the national movement south of Danube, the region was allocated a coat of arms and there wore maps with the Romanian area , so the region contains the so called "romanian" villages. https://cersipamantromanesc.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tribalia.jpg ,http://www.formula-as.ro/magazine/attachments/829/harta_1217251476-large.jpg https://cersipamantromanesc.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/tribalia.jpg

Your statement is biased, this is a page about romanian nationalism ,Greater Romania is not eqoual with the interbelic kingdom, it was just a propaganda by Brătianu and the following goverments to cover up the fail and humiliation at the Peace conference ,when they lost huge territory promised before the war, they even created the concept of Sătmar part of Maramureş to cover the loss of Romanian hart land of Maramureş. Modern Dacia is the name for Greater Romania, that was the driving force of the national movements. If you don't know that please don't involve in this kind of projects. This is not about claims of a state. Great Hungary is Great Hungary even if the Hungarian Stete don't claim all the lands, it's a perfect border concept like Modern Dacia. So that is the border ,Bolliac map has Prut as border, others Bystrica , all included Pocutia ,it was vital to link Marmureş Tartar Pass with north Moldova. The strategic disaster of 1940 was that they fail to understand that without Pocutia and all Maramureş with Bereg Romania north border is a disaster, Polonia advice us to keep Muncacevo at least and take Pocutia to Stryi, and join the war with Russia and claim Transnistria south of Balta. But Romania refuse, but that don't means that Modern Dacia is not the concept for the Greater Romania. Also i posted a map with the claims ,it show clearly that interbelic Kingdom is much smaller as they wanted, but those claims wore moderate ones. Vasile iuga (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and substantiate your claims with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I don't see Pocutia as a part of "Rumania" in Bolliac's map, "Bucovina" is the the northernmost regarded region. Avpop (talk) 12:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I am really bored , you don't see , who are you to decide? You see Prut river as border ? Well that Is Pocutia . You see the other 2 maps , well there you can read Pocutia on them, and the evidence you ask for. Bolliac has a more moderate map ,than the other 2 i posted , but it has Prut as Border not Ceremuş. Verify!. You have 3 maps from XIX century ,that state that in different forms, is not my problem that you cant see Prut river as border on Bolliac map ,is your problem. Transnistria ,Tribalia was never part of Greater Romania aim, Perfect Border Romania, Proper Romania,Geographical Romania, Modern Dacia, name it how you want, but Pocutia was part of that , an important part of that, Ţara de la Cut. Tribalia and Transnistria wore envisages as tools to negociate with Russia ,Bulgaria and Serbia over Basarabia, Cadrilater, Banat. So i am really bored, you really abuse this page, i will create a new page because this is a fiasco, no clear objective as the other pages for other national movements, you confuse Greater Romania(politic concept) with the Kingdom of Romania, you know nothing about Romanian national movements, so is really a waste of time. Is a free world why to waste my time with you? And what is with (")at Rumania, is one of the words for Romania, and Bolliac believe it, and all the people from XIX believe that Proper Romaniais is in that border (De la Nistru pân la Tisa) .You spell Great "German" Reich like this to, ,or you really believe you are smart guy, and you make fun? This is not about claims, border reality or who lived in that area, it's about idealist concepts, is hard to understand? All nations have that, and that not means that the state representig those nations took the policy at state level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasile iuga (talk • contribs) 13:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Vasile made his point. His map would be quite useful in connection with this matter. We could see "the historically unredeemed claims of Romania". Unfortunately his map has been deleted at Wikimedia Commons. Vasile, use a public domain map like this[7] to avoid copyright violation. Beside Bolliac's map he listed other useful and reliable maps. This map from 1908 actually includes Pocutia [8]. Anyway I am pretty sure that Vasile could find reliable studies for his work not just maps.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Fakirbakir how is that 1908 map illustrative for this topic? The only verified fact here is that Pokuttya was once a province of the Principlaity of Moldavia. There is no proof that it became the target of "Romanian pan nationalism". I am looking forward to receiving Vasile Iuga's sources. Avpop (talk) 14:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The majority of Vasile's claims is well sourced. Actually he is right about Romanian claims over Pocutia. The idea of "Romanian Pocutia" existed. "The approach to the setting of the Roumano-Polish borderline should be analysed based on two essential components: the French option and insistence (in 1918-1939) and the will and solution reciprocally settled upon by Bucharest and Warsaw. In this respect, the avoiding of the creation of a "corridor" between Soviet Russia and Central Europe, the concerns of political circles in Bucharest (the Royal House included) and Bukovina, the intervention of the Romanian army in Pocutia in the summer of 1919, the bilateral alliance of 1921 count among the most relevant aspects"[9]Fakirbakir (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the phrase "Romanian claims" in your quote. It was just a military intervention without any annexation intention. The goal was apparently to obstruct the contact beween the Ukrainian People's Republic, on one side, and Hungarian Soviet Republic and the Slovak Soviet Republic on the other side. According to this Ro-language source the Romanians entered the region after they were requested by the Polish leader Józef Piłsudski to eliminate the Ukraininian bolshevik elements. Avpop (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I will try to find proper sources. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Avpop you have issues with your logic, i explained to you, that policy of a state not represent the ideal of a nation. States have issues more complicated to reveal their goals in one stroke.

You not even know the claims of Romania but you talk over and over again, Basarabia was never a Romanian claim, or other areas like north of Ceremuş and Prut river, so Greter Romania will exclude Basarabia? Pocuţia was a goal of the nation, as Basarabia, you have it on all 4 maps(even if you don't know to make difference betwen Prut and Ceremuş on Boliac map). I can present other maps where Pocuţia is , the only argument's wore where Marmaţia(Maramureş) and Pocuţia ends( and there are 2 views). I see the map is erase, that's no problem i can make other in nasa free images, but i will create a new article because, is seems this is taken over by people who know history from TV. Also 90 % of your maps are rong, Maramureş never contain Satu Mare Baia Mare, this was a mistake perpetuated from the lack of know, and still present only in uneducated circles like TV girls or people who made maps for wiki, even they had no book read about History of Maramureş . Also Romania have'd only land(ţinuturi) not regions. Satu-Mare was put ideological in Maramureş because, Bratianu sell claims in Maramureş for Banat, and he fail in Banat to, so people(south ones) wore fooled to believe that is all Maramureş(and they taken all the province), you cannot present a victory with 20% of the most important romanian(not dacian or roman) historical area recovered. :) So to present only the county Maramureş as Maramureş, would have raised important questions from those who fighted and eliberated those areas, and from the people who voted the unifications, so they just say this is Greater Romania, we recovered all , and they introduced Satu Mare on the maps to the now tiny Maramureş. But i not enter in this discutions are to long, and there wore other reasons for Boliac an other to not know the exact border of Maramureş with Crişana. But i expect in 2014 from one who makes maps for wiki to have the decency to read at least 5 books about the main areas of Romania, and not the communist ones, not to make maps form TV weather maps. :) End of talks Vasile iuga (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

United Romania Party

I think Partidul România Unită (United Romania Party), founded by MP Bogdan Diaconu on 17 August 2014, should also be mentioned. Its logo is self-explanatory. 79.117.202.93 (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Misused quote from Kessler

I removed the misued quote from Kessler, after the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Misused_quote.3F, 86.127.5.62 (talk) 08:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the phrase "ethnocentric nationalism" from User:Fakirbakir's version in the given source. Another aspect: Kessler's article is called "Ideas And Ideology In Interwar Romania", so it refers to a period from the past, while the phrase from this wiki article uses present tense: "The Romanian ideology is a typical example of ethnocentric nationalism". 79.117.157.156 (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Kessler's version is much harsher (he uses the term "xenophobic nationalism"). Fakirbakir (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
So A. C. Cuza is described as an xenophobic nationalist. I don't understand how is this related to the concept of "Greater Romania".
P.S. I am not even sure that these terms ("xenophobic" amd "ethnocentric") are synonyms. 86.126.63.196 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
xenophobic: "racist, nationalist, bigoted, parochial, insular, isolationist, ethnocentric, racialist" [10] Fakirbakir (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
No, Kessler says that Cuza's writings are a good example for depicting the Romanian "psyche". Fakirbakir (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, then I have nothing agaisnt the replacement of "xenophobic" with "ethnocentric". But the other problem presists: Kessler's article is called "Ideas And Ideology In Interwar Romania", so it refers to a period from the past, while the phrase from this wiki article uses present tense: "The Romanian ideology is a typical example of ethnocentric nationalism". 86.126.63.196 (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, I have already fixed it. " in the first decades of the twentieth century was " (early decades). Fakirbakir (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Another (the third) editor commented at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Misused_quote.3F and rejected your text. User:Fakirbakir, are you sure that you still want that phrase in the article? 86.124.223.11 (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Fakirbakir, I appreciate your gesture to remove the unecyclopedic quote, but in my opninion the remaining sentence ("The Romanian national ideology in the first decades of the twentieth century was a typical example of ethnocentric nationalism") is still problematic (And I am not the only one, User:Markbassett agreed with me here)

User:Kingofaces43, what do you think? Should this sentence be removed / rephrased? In my opninion, it does not refer to the general concept of Greater Romania and it is also a slight difference between the original text (from the source) and the text added to the article. The original phrase does not refer to "the Romanian national ideology". 79.117.202.93 (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Kindgofaces43 the debate is still on at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Misused_quote.3F. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As I said at RSN, I think it's better just to remove the content and source. The slight difference mentioned is not so much of a big deal. The issue I'm seeing is that a source is being used as an opinion. That's ok in some instances, but for something like the ideals held by a group of people at a certain time, there really should be a more scholarly source being used instead. The snobbish, etc. language is an indication that this source is more of a commentary by a single person rather than a scholarly review of the topic, so just find a source that plainly states what ideals were held without what appears to be more political commentary. I don't have a horse in this race, so that's all I'll say here at least. Kingofaces43 (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Fakirbakir, I agree with User:Kingofaces43 's statement that "it's better just to remove the content and source". If you have no objections, I will proceed to the deletion of the phrase "The Romanian national ideology in the first decades of the twentieth century was a typical example of ethnocentric nationalism". Otherwise, I will keep it as it is and I will try to get more opinions from other users. 79.117.211.5 (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Fakirbakir, I hope that I am right to interpret your non-response in the last days, when you were nevertheless active on the site, as a tacit approval. 86.126.52.131 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
What is wrong with it? I still don't get it. It is a quite neutral statement. "The Romanian national ideology in the first decades of the twentieth century was a typical example of ethnocentric nationalism." Fakirbakir (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greater Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

A lot of incorrect info added

A lot of incorrect info added by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TheLastOfTheGiants "The biggest source of uncertainity was represented by the fact that the Romanian army did not occupy all of Transylvania and the Hungarian-Romanian border was yet to be determined. The Romanian and Hungarian armies in Transylvania would often exchange fire and the Romanian army was often requested to intervene in order to defend the Romanian population from areas under the Hungarian army. Hungary hoped to keep Greater Hungary, they hoped that all the regions of old Hungary would remain part of Hungary but were not taking into account what the nationalities who lived inside Greater Hungary wanted. In Transylvania, where 54% of the population was Romanian, trying to maintain this region as part of Hungary was an utopia, for the president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, came with his 14 points about the right of nationalities for self-determination, and the Romanians in Transylvania who were a majority, didn't want to be part of Hungary. Essentially, the Hungarian politicians hoped to keep the status quo but the historical reality, the debates during the peace conference and the arguments of the nationalities who wished to break free from Hungary, were the ones that mattered and eventually weighted decisively in favor of creating the eventual borders of Trianon."

It is incorrect to say the Romanians occupied Hungary, because Romanian army needed to protect Romanians in Hungary from the Hungarian army. Or do you know when Hungarian army harmed Romanians in the territory of Hungary? Source? Morover from the disarmed Hungarian army??? 95.77.231.91 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Ip.

Romania’s entry into World War 1, 27 August 1916. Detail from Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania: “In our moral energy and our valour lie the means of giving him back his birthright of a great and free Romania from the Tisza to the Black Sea, and to prosper in peace in accordance with our customs and our hopes and dreams.” https://royalromania.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/romanias-entry-into-the-great-war-27-august-1916-king-ferdinands-proclamation/

Romania joined to Entente and attacked Hungary in 1916 to occupy all Hungarian land until the Tisza river, the Entente promised this land to Romania to ask his help against the Central Powers. During World War 1 Romania attacked Hungary in 1916, but Hungarian and Central Power troops were in Bucharest fast within 3 months, so Romania lost World War, later Romania signed the peace treaty with the Central Powers. On 11th November 1918, World War I ended and Austria-Hungary lost the war, even if at the time of the collapse, all forces (1,4 million Hungarian troops) were standing outside the borders of 1914, so the Entente did not occupy/conquer any Austrian-Hungarian land during the World War I, but soon after the end of the war the Hungarian army was disarmed and the Hungarian soldiers went home. When the war ended Romania attacked again this time disarmed Hungary, on 7th December 1918, Brassó a city in Southeastern Transylvania was occupied by the Romanian Army.

Why? To protect Romanians from the disarmed Hungarian army? This has not much logic.

But inverse it was many atrocities. The attacker Romanians massacred many Hungarian civilians during the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Romania Gyergyószárhegy (Lăzarea) massacre by the Romanians, 22 September 1916: 8 Hungarian civilians The leadership of the village was shot in a mass grave without trial, further 57 civilians only escaped because a high-ranking officer arrived and stopped the massacre. Köröstárkány and Kisnyégerfalva (Tărcaia and Grădinari) massacres by the Romanians, 19 Apr 1919: 108 ethnic Hungarian civilians On April 19th, 1919, Romanian irregular troops and regular units of the Romanian Royal Army entered the village and murdered numerous local civilians. At that time, the population of Köröstárkány was about 99% ethnic Hungarian; not even the census that would be conducted by the Romanian Ministry of the Interior in 1920 questioned the legitimacy of the number. If one acknowledges that the majority of the people who committed the murders came from the Romanian peasantry of the surrounding villages, then one must also assume that the devastation wrought in Köröstárkány was not a spontaneous military retaliation, but a more or less pre-planned ethnic cleansing, the catalyst of which may have been to break the ethnic and economic hegemony of the much more numerous Hungarian population of the Belényesi Basin.

After WW1 it was chaos and coups in Hungary, the new Karolyi government demilitarized the country. But the Romanians, Czechs, and Serbs always violated the demarcation lines, which were in the territory of Hungary and not outside of Hungary! And this impotent and pacific government resigned, then the communist took power in 21th of March. So the Romanians already occupied big Hungarian regions before the communist took power. The Romanian invasion violated already 4 month long many times the demarcation lines and the occupying Romanian army pushed deep into Hungarian land without much resistance, much earlier than the communist took the power or much earlier than they made defensive operations. Actually, the Romanian, and Czech… aggression also emerged the communists in power, because a lot of non-communist ex-soldiers joined red army because the communist promised to protect the country. The Hungarian red army with Monarchy general (Aurel Stromfeld) liberated north Hungary from the Czech aggressors, but the communist wanted to make a Slovak communist state, so the Hungarian people in the army were disappointed. The red army also made operations against the Romanian army which was deep in Hungary, and not against Romania! I assume in other countries this army is named as “home defender”, “freedom fighters”, “liberators”, “partizans”… who defend their land against a foreign invasion. Similar to today the Ukrainian protect their country from the Russian invasion. But Entente demanded to stop the fight, and Bela Kun fleed to Russia, then the Romanians marched and plundered the unprotected country.

It was not at all referendum, so the people of Transylvania did not vote. Nobody asked the residents one by one. In Transylvania lived 5 million people in 1920. Only some people from 5 million and many other Romanians from outside of Transylvania voted in not a secret vote to join Romania in wartime and of course, at the presence of the Romanian army behind this one-sided Romanian assembly. Moreover, the Hungarian partner was not invited at all, so hard to talk about any voting. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated cities, especially next to the today Hungarian border voted to join Romania? I do not believe this. Romania claimed the Hungarian territory until the Tisza river. Perhaps the full Hungarian populated Tisza region voted to join Romania? I do not think so. The borders were decided in Paris, not in the Romanian assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrionNimrod (talk • contribs) 14:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the source did say that the Romanian army needed to protect Romanians in Hungary from the Hungarian army. This is correct. The source is: Florin Critescu, Dorin Stanescu, Oral History Archive, The Treaty of Trianon, 2021
How is the Proclamation of King Ferdinand of Romania relevant?
The Hungarian army was not disarmed as soon as World War 1 ended.
Yes, the Romanians and Czechs violated the demarcation lines, but the material you are trying to remove does not say that "Romanians and Czechs didn't violate the demarcation lines" so again, how is this relevant?
I'm not saying I agree or disagree, my question about everything you wrote is, how is this relevant to the meterial you want to remove? Only the mention of the Hungarian army being disarmed is relevant, which wasn't disarmed as soon as the war ended. TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Hungarian–Romanian War#Aster Revolution, liberal republic, and the self-disarmament of Hungary
"Károlyi yielded to US President Woodrow Wilson's demand for pacifism by ordering the disarmament of the Hungarian Army, which happened under the direction of War Minister Béla Linder on 2 November 1918"
When Romania attacked Hungary in December in 1918, the Hungarian army was disarmed, so it is not true that the Romanian army needed to protect Romanians from the (non exist) "Hungarian army". 2,8 million Romanians lived in Hungary, the Hungarian army never harmed them before and during these days. So it is incorrect statement.
King Ferdinand proclaimed Romanians should occupy Hungary until the Tisza, so Romanians attacked Hungary to occupy that land and not to protect Romanians from the Hungarian army.
"Yes, the Romanians and Czechs violated the demarcation lines"
and not because to protect Romanians from the (non exist) "Hungarian army". OrionNimrod (talk) 20:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
"13 November, the Romanian Army crossed the eastern border. That day, Károlyi signed an armistice with the Allies in Belgrade that limited the size of the Hungarian Army to six infantry and two cavalry divisions". Meaning it began remobilization.
"On 28 February 1919, at the Paris Peace Conference, the Allies notified Hungary of a new demarcation line to which the Romanian army would advance. The line coincided with railways connecting Satu Mare, Oradea, and Arad. However, the Romanian Army was not to enter those cities. A demilitarised zone was to be created extending from the new demarcation line to 5 kilometres (3.1 mi) beyond the line. The demilitarised zone represented the extent of Romanian territorial requests on Hungary. The retreat of the Hungarian Army behind the western border of the demilitarised zone was to begin on 22 March.
On 19 March, Hungary received notification of the new demarcation line and demilitaritarised zone from French Lieutenant Colonel Fernand Vix (the "Vix Note"). The Károlyi government would not accept the terms, which was a trigger for the coup d'état by Béla Kun, who formed the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Meanwhile, limited skirmishes took place between Romanian and Hungarian troops. Some Hungarian elements engaged in the harassing the Romanians outside the area controlled by the Romanian Army."
It says it here too "Some Hungarian elements engaged in the harassing the Romanians outside the area controlled by the Romanian Army". TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 20:32, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
The Hungarian army was disarmed, other sources:
Treaty of Trianon#Aster Revolution and the First Hungarian Republic
https://books.google.hu/books?id=OKDRvNHdraoC&pg=PA34&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Romania was promised Hungary until the Tisza, that is why Romania attacked Hungary in 1916, and again in 1918 when after Austria-Hungary signed the armistice on 3 November 1918.
World War I
Romania occupied Hungary and always pushed forward for the above reason and not because "to protect Romanians" from Hungarian army which did not exist at that time.
"Some Hungarian elements"? What does mean? Where? Who? Which harrasment? Why would they harras local Romanians instead the attacker Romanian army? Where is the logic in that? Source of the convcete events? If some isolated Hungarians tried defend his homeland, it is cleary not the Hungarian army. I assume in other countries these people is named as “home defender”, “freedom fighters”, “liberators”, “partizans”… who defend their land against a foreign invasion.
Your quoted text is incorrect. All article mention "Romanian territorial requests", that is why Romanians pushed westward and not to "protect local Romanians from the Hungarian army". OrionNimrod (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
If you read the comment you just replied to, you will find that I never denied the Hungarian army was disarmed, I argued that it was later rearmed. So your argument with sources that it was disarmed is non-sense because it doesn't contradict my stance.
"Romania was promised Hungary (...)" how is this relevant?
You questioned the source I offered you, in respose, I offered a 2nd source already existing on Wikipedia that says the same thing. I think I have done my job in demonstrating that it happened.
"Some Hungarian elements"? What does mean? Where? Who? Which harrasment?", I don't know, explore the subject in more depth if you want to learn more. I offered you 2 sources saying the same thing, it's not my fault that you disagree with the given sources nor my job to be your personal teacher and explain you further.
"Your quoted text is incorrect", really? do you want me to send you a picture? enter the link below and read the last 2 paragraphs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian%E2%80%93Romanian_War#November_1918_%E2%80%93_March_1919 TheLastOfTheGiants (talk) 13:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Romania/Archive_1&oldid=1190641990"