Talk:Corneliu Vadim Tudor

message: I realize that "Great Romania" is a more literal translation of România Mare than "Greater Romania", but I think the latter is more common in English, probably because of the analogy to expressions like "Greater New York". It wins the Google test about 4-1. Is there some basis other than the Google test to choose "Great Romania" (e.g., does the party itself use this as its official English-language name or something)? I don't really care so much, it's just that I've often heard "Greater Romania" and can't recall any native English speaker using "Great Romania". -- Jmabel 05:11, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
: I think these are officially enough http://www.cdep.ro/pls/parlam/structura.gp?leg=&cam=2&idg=&poz=0&idl=2
http://www.senat.ro/PaginaPrincipala.aspx?tdID=46&divID=3&b=0&adr=%2fgrupuri.aspx
--Vasile 14:24, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I always love this one someone chimes in (anonymously, no way to judge his her credentials) to tell us something "must" be translated a particlar way and that the translation used, for example, by the New York Times "must" be wrong. - Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Great Romania Party"

message: Here are some articles, in Romanian. If anybody is willing to write about it. (if nobody is interested, I'll write myself, but in a few days) Bogdan | Talk 22:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's scandal involving CVT 

message: Alright, I'd just like to state that I'm NOT a supporter of Vadim Tudor or the PRM. However, it is just foolish to use the word "irredentism" when talking about his stance on Great Romania. I quote from the article:
"Of no less importance is Tudor's irredentism: the ideal of a Greater Romania is what gives the party its name, and Tudor has campaigned several times around the notion that he is the only Romanian politician to have maintained this particular goal. The reference is mainly aimed at the Republic of Moldova, a state whose legitimaty has been questioned by Tudor on numerous occasions."
Now that is obviously POV. Supporters of a unified Romania (that includes Moldova and all other territories that were taken by force after World War II) are not irredentists in any way; irrderentism refers to the attittude of someone who desires territories that never belonged to his country in the first place. Wanting to reclaim historical territories that have belonged to your country and that were taken by force (ie: such as the Soviet ultimatum) is not irredentism in any way. When Lazlo Tokesh wanted to separate Transylvania from Romania, that was irredentism. To rally for a unified Romanian state is not irredentism, and anyone who would claim that is obviously against Romanian national interests. Thus, using this word is just intolerable (as is "expansionism", "revanchism" and all that crap) and the sentence should be formulated differently. -- Voievod 18:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm confused: László Tőkés (who probably would love for Hungary to take back Transylvania entire, but whose current overt goals seem to be some sort of autonomy for certain parts of Transylvania) is an irredentist, but Vadim Tudor is not? Your distinction of "never belonged to his country" doesn't seem to hold: Hungary certainly has included Transylvania for significant periods of history. One seems to me exactly as irredentist as the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, yes, but who sttled in Transylvania in the first place ? And who came and invaded it ? You people throw the word "irredentist" around too much without refelecting on its impact. When Iraq invaded Kuwait before the Gulf War, that was irredentism. When Germany annexed Poland, that was irredentism. When the Austro-Hungarian empire took over Transylvania, that was irrdentism. For a country to want to take back a territory that is rightfully theirs, I can't see how that is irredentism. Apparently, France taking back Alsace-Lorraine after it was conquered by Germany would count as irredentism under the definition you give it. Why don't you look at the big picture instead of always protectinc the holy and sacred "political correctness". -- Voievod 23:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For starters, using the term "irredentism" to refer to anything before the rise of the nation-state is an anachronism. When the Austro-Hungarian empire took over Transylvania, that wasn't irrdentism, because they weren't a nation-state. Second, "rightfully" is always in the eye of the beholder. Third, arguably, French ambitions in Alsace-Lorraine after 1871 could be called irredentist, especially insofar as they were used to stir anti-German feeling. I don't know what "political correctness" you think I'm defending, except to say that it is "correct" to speak of things in the same terms regardless of on which side of the matter the interests of a particular country may fall. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: After some though I think my use of the word exclusivly is probbbly wrong.  It can be on the bassis of ethnic majority or historical reasons or both.  As poined out above this is the textbook case.  If the word does not apply here it does not apply anywhere, since we coudl just use the word invasionist instead. Dalf | Talk 22:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irredentism ? What are you talking about ?! 

message: "Greater Romania" is a direct reference to the historic "Greater Romania" that included Bessarabia, etc.
When PRM says "Romania Mare" it means this type of Greater Romania.
I agree that "Great Romania" is a better literal translation from Romanian to English, but the only place
it seems to be used with reference to the PRM is here.  
C'mon ..... change it to "Greater Romania" and stop with the crusade to encourage usage of
"Great Romania"
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.102.251.199 (talk • contribs) 15 Jan 2006.
:http://www.cdep.ro/pls/parlam/structura.gp?leg=&cam=2&idg=&poz=0&idl=2
:http://www.senat.ro/PaginaPrincipala.aspx?tdID=46&divID=3&b=0&adr=%2fgrupuri.aspx
:—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vasile (talk • contribs) 16 Jan 2006.
:: This is one of those weird things where all the native English speakers who have knowledge of Romania and Romanian want to say "Greater Romania" (for both 1918-1940 Romania and the party), but the Romanians, including the party itself, almost all seem to favor "Great Romania". -- Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a native english speaker as well I though I would chime in aswell.  I agree with what Joe just said but would also add, Great Romania I could see and understand as a translation of the party name; political party names can be anything. However, I cant imagine the term as a refrence to a geographic concept, this will confuse most english speakers. Dalf | Talk 23:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Romania?! 

message: Yesterday there were some news regarding Nati Meir being accuesd for tax evasion and fraud related to some illegal work permits in Israel. I saw it on TV and on Medifax' agency website (old URL: 
http://www.mediafax.ro/articole-free/Nati-Meir--pus-sub-acuzare-de-Parchet-577101-5.html ). I've inserted this in the article but unfortunatelly the URL is not valid anymore. Someone more interested in the subject might want to correct the reference. -Paul- 07:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nati Meir accused

message: In the ideology section, for months there has been a citation request for "with the approval of Romanian leaders Ion Iliescu and Petre Roman". No one has cited anything, so I have removed it. If there is a basis for it (and there may well be), please restore with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Approval" 

message: The award in was questioned in a hidden comment by  instead of discussing it here - on the article's talk page - where it belongs:
Firstly, hotnews.ro does not strike me as being a reliable source for refuting the existence of the award. If AGERPRES, the actual source that attributes him with being awarded, is known to be a WP:BIASED source, please explain to other editors why you believe this to be the case. Articles are written according to reliably sourced content, not on an WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis, so could editors please use the correct venue for sorting fact from fiction in a transparent fashion. Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hy ! I have removed twice this award from the page, because it seems so, that such an award doesn't exists. I searched on Google and I searched here too. No exact matches found by me. This article is only published on hotnews.ro, but it is written by the Deutsche Welle correspondent Vlad Mixich. Mixich explains the story:
A newspaper headline in Bucharest stated, that Tudor was decorated by the Pope. The truth is, that Tudor was on a visit in Italy with some parliamentarians, and they visited the Vatican too, where he met the Pope. The group of parliamentarians and Vadim Tudor were accompanied by the ambassador of Romania in Vatican at that time, Marius Lazurca, who explained this "award":
"The medallion, referred in the mentioned article is not an award, it's not part of the orders, decorations and awards of the Holy See."
(In Romanian: "Medalia la care face referire articolul pe care il mentionati nu este o decoratie, ea nu face parte din sistemul de ordine, distinctii si decoratii a Sfantului Scaun.")
As the ambassador explains, the medallion was an anniversary bronze medal from the Pope, which celebrated the 3rd year of his papal reign. I think many news agencies and papers took this information from the Wiki page.
Last but not least: I highly doubt that the Vatican gives an official award to a politician considered to be nationalistic. --Fmvh (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with Fmvh: there's no such thing as a "bronze medal of the Vatican" decoration, only commemorative gift bronze medals. I also wonder about the relevance of the golden medal given by the "Albert Schweitzer World Academy of Medicine". I couldn't find anything about this academy beyond mentions of said golden medal on some CVs. It appears to be tied to the University of Warsaw, but unrelated to the Albert Schweitzer Prize for Humanitarianism despite the mention of Vadim Tudor in that list. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 11:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this: http://www.schweitzerfellowship.org/about/awards-tributes/ ! No Tudor there... On his official Facebook page i found this: https://m.facebook.com/corneliu.vadim.tudor/about?expand_all=1 He is enumerating a lot of awards and memberships there. For ex. Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, a pseudoscientific organization.--Fmvh (talk) 12:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: While that url only mentions some of those who have been awarded, according to the claim on this article he was a member of the Albert Schweitzer World Academy of Medicine in Warsaw (2000), and I've found this... which knocks that claim on the head and out of the content. I've been searching around and can find nothing but his Facebook page claiming the two Schweitzer awards, and Facebook is only a reliable source for statements made by the person (see WP:SELFSOURCE). Any articles and obituaries I've found using these claims are either WP:MIRRORs of Wikipedia, or have copied the content from his Facebook page. On the strength of this, I'm removing both of these dubious claims. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, having looked into the "Bronze medal of the Vatican", I agree that there is no evidence of its being an award of any shape or form. The AGERPRES article reads as a synopsis of this article, therefore I'm removing it. If truly reliable sources can be found, then they can be added with convincing citations. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bronze medal of the Vatican 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Corneliu Vadim Tudor. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?data=2007-05-28&id=221358
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150929201324/http://www.realitatea.net/vadim-tudor-ramane-cu-steaua-romaniei_72355.html to http://www.realitatea.net/vadim-tudor-ramane-cu-steaua-romaniei_72355.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified