Talk:Greater Romania Party

message: The New York Times (whose index I have access to) consistently uses "Greater Romania Party". Thye've had six occasions to mention it (sorry about the sloppy formatting, this is a moderately cleaned up cut-and-paste:
#Romanian Ex-President Winning, but Runoff Is Expected, DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., New York Times, New York, N.Y.: Nov 27, 2000. p. A6 (1 page)
#Tally in Romania Is Official: Crucial Runoff Is Due Dec. 10, DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., New York Times,  New York, N.Y.: Nov 29, 2000. p. A5 (1 page)
#Romania in Retreat, New York Times,  New York, N.Y.: Nov 30, 2000. p. A34 (1 page)
#Some Calm, Some Chaos: An Autumn of Wox Populi, New York Times New York, N.Y.: Dec 3, 2000. p. WK3 (1 page)
#Former Chief Of Romania Retakes Office Over Rightist, DONALD G. McNEIL Jr., New York Times, New York, N.Y.: Dec 11, 2000. p. A14 (1 page)
#Elie Wiesel Asks a Haunted Hometown to Face Up, DANIEL SIMPSON. New York Times, New York, N.Y.: Jul 31, 2002. p. A4 (1 page) 
- Jmabel | Talk 19:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about the only original Romanian source that we have - the Romanian Parliament? In my opinion it is greater importance than those many Enlglish-language sources. -Paul- 22:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that cuts it. If you look at the Parliament's English-language site, you'll quickly notice that it isn't written in standard formal English, but rather in an idiom that all too clearly betrays the fact that it is a second-rate translation from Romanian. I'll trust the preponderance of actual English-language sources over the hacks at the Parliament any day. Biruitorul 23:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And by the way, Velika Srbija and Hrvatska, Großdeutschland, Nagy-Magyarország: these all mean Great Serbia, Croatia, Germany and Hungary, but they are invariably translated as Greater. Your initial effort was admirable, but at some point you should give up, lest you become like this guy. Biruitorul 23:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  LOL. Ok guys I give up. -Paul- 10:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great. Peace. Biruitorul 00:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: IMHO using google to solve such "dilemmas" is not a good ideea. I see some of you are basing much/part of your arguments on that. I said I give up, but I have to tell you that I doubt your methods and your arguments. Actually I might say I consider them fundamentally wrong.
It is like comparing:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=ro&q=%22bush+is+good%22 (34,600 hits)
and 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=ro&q=%22bush+is+bad%22 (891,000 hits)
or better (google fight): 
(761,000 bad vs. 35,700 good).
So Mr. Bush is about 2400% more bad than good, right? (24 times more bad than good)
Ok. According to your "google method" I should go visit the wikipedia article on George Bush and BE BOLD and edit (or create) a Criticism section and write Mr. Bush is a bad person.
Feel free to reconsider your vote when you realise you were wrong :) -Paul- 07:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well it seems that the number of hits vary for reasons I don't really understand, but the number of hits for "bad" are always more than the hits good "good". Trying again I got 762,000 vs. 35,700 (that is 21,3 times more) for "bad". -Paul- 07:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment: using google is bad 

message: It is made quite clear in the text that the party has a racist agenda against Gypsies. So why not include it in the summary of ideology? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.236.144.4 (talk • contribs) 19:00, March 22, 2007 (UTC)
:Well, here is my reasoning:
:*for one, antiziganism is not an ideology as much as it is a tendency (as such, a party may have an antizigan discourse and a socialist ideology, or a fascist ideology, or a conservative ideology etc.)
:*the party will not profess an antizigan agenda, as much as certain elements of its policies or public views would have been considered antizigan (unlike, say, the Nazi Party openly professing antisemitism); it is, to my mind, okay to indicate, in the body of text, that most commentators attribute the party this trait, but it is not okay to make it seem like the party will say that about itself
:*alongside antiziganism, analysts have argued (justly, in my opinion - my opinion), that the party is homophobic, antisemitic, racialist, anti-Hungarian, xenophobic etc (in fact, most analysts will marginalize the PRM's antiziganism in respect to these other traits - anti-Jewish statements made by Vadim are more notorious, and probably meant to become more notorious). All of these traits are not, however, admitted to by the party. Dahn 19:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ideology: why is anti-Romanyism excluded 

message: :Image:Partidromare.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Partidromare.png

message: :Image:Partidromare.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 04:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Partidromare.png

message: It's incorrect to say that the Greater Roumanian Party is a ultra-nationalist party.There is no evidence to prove this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Romanasu (talk • contribs) 00:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistakes

message: Wasn't the original ideology of the party National communism and "Ceaușism"? There is not much discussion of that in this page. Charles Essie (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Communist Party 

message: As his position as President of the Greater Romania Party terminated with his death, and there's been no new incumbent named, it would be misleading to discuss the party as in a manner that could imply that it's somehow been determined that the party ceased to exist along with him. Please read WP:RECENTISM with care, . Contrary to your edit here, the use of his date of death is not a breach of neutrality, POV, or an opportunistic attempt at WP:OR or WP:SCANDAL, etc., etc., etc. It's a statement of fact purely to avoid genuine WP:OR in suggesting that it is known that the party will also cease to exist, or that we have a WP:CRYSTAL ball and can predict that there will or will not be a new president. The content of this article will change according to RS as verifiable information emerges.
How, exactly, does this breach the spirit of the essay on 'recentism'? I'm simply adhering to the WP:KISS principle, meaning that readers don't read information into his death as meaning anything has changed as regards the party. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Tudor's date of death in lead