Talk:Alliance for the Union of Romanians

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

Neutral point of view[edit]

The article only cites press released by the party itself or known right-wing nationalist outlets. The article fails to mention the sexist and homophobic positions adopted by the leadership of the party. I recommend that an editor with experience in research on Romanian political parties should attempt to edit this article to eliminate the biases resulting from the fact that the article has only one author - a self-declared right-wing nationalist.

Cscescu (talk) 13:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cscescu, I can do it myself if you find me (or at least help me to find) some sources about it. Super Ψ Dro 14:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of sources about it on the news. Please leave the tag for as long as there is a neutral editor who is willing to take on the project. 46.193.0.163 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have delayed weeks in responding and you have still not given a source. I feel like you think I share their beliefs (untrue on those fields) and therefore you don't want me to fix it or something. Provide a source and I will add those sexist and homophobic positions, as simple as that. Super Ψ Dro 09:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sexist and homophobic I guess all major Romanian political parties are so. Same applies for anti-communist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hungarian sentiment[edit]

Hello. This party is an anti-Hungarian, because i've readed in the Hirado.hu website, and the Kuruc.info website. https://hirado.hu/kulfold/cikk/2020/12/07/nincs-keresnivaloja-az-rmdsz-nek-a-roman-parlamentben-a-szelsoseges-nacionalista-part-szerint# So, this party is hates the Hungarians, because their leader is saying, that he is wants to ban the RMDSZ Hungarian-Romanian political party in Romania. It's not fake, it's real. If you speak Hungarian, or English, you can read it, and you can see this party why hates the hungarians in Romania. --TomFZ67 (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The founding members are also anti-Hungarian. George Simion is one of the provocateurs of the Valea Uzului scandal in 2019 [ro] and Dan Tănasă encouraged in his instigating speech against the Hungarian minority in Romania.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only provocateurs were from Budapest and the Hungarians but let's not talk about sensitive things. I agree the Romanian mayor was not diplomatic and really stupid, but the Hungarian ethnics ejected the Romanians from the cemetery and proclaimed it Hungarian. Additionally they abolished the graves of the Romanian soldiers, but their bones remained there in the ground. I also want to remind you that Hungary is considered the most extremist country in the European Union, and the level of extremism in Romania being one of the lowest. I just want to talk about you not having any proof that Simion was a provocateur. The party was formed by Simion, Târziu and Lavric. Târziu and Lavric and writers, humanitarians and Orthodox Christians. In Hungary unfortunately truths will never be known as long your media is not free and manipulates for reintegration (that meaning picturing the Romanians as "evil"). The Hungarian press is held by extremist historians. I really don't want to be involved into your wars, I have just wanted to express here the real truth.--End-of-season-updates (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Simion wants to ban the UDMR if that is a form of AntiMagyarism. But every Hungarian ethnic will still have the right to join any party and even to candidate. UDMR is a sort of party only for Hungarians, in Romania. They want all the ethnicities to be united in Romania like in the US. Because UDMR disbands Romanians. UDMR disbands Hungarians from the Romanians. UDMR is a Socialist creation, Romania wants to be modern and certainly not extremist. All the Hungarians will live much better under AUR. End-of-season-updates (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Hungarian press, even the Romanian press does it, will now lie about AUR. Because one of the leaders declared he wants to disband any ethnic party. Even these UDMR are bunch of corrupt politicians like the main parties of Romania. Simion from what I saw is not against the Hungarians at all, he also knows a lot of history, is only against extremists. AUR will be a party for Christians, including Catholics (Hungarians). They don't promote any AntiMagyarism on their social sites, so it's pathetic to believe that. It's a party that is similar to your Fidesz in some matters. In the good matters. The Romanians have a very good opinion about Hungarians, if Budapest would be better our opinions would only be great. UDMR you must understand is an AntiRomanian party. This is what you don't understand, UDMR is corrupt and evil. Cares about Trianon and not about present, lacks modernism, and also disbands Hungarians from Romanians. You should live in Romaniato understand, but between us. Not in a cave like of the others who are raised with hate against us. Because personally the Romanians have no interest in Hungary and we consider the Hungarians as good people. Minus those extremists. End-of-season-updates (talk) 01:18, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide proper sources to support the claim that the party is Anti-Hungarian. The president of the party rejected the accusation, and there is no official policy in their program that appears Anti-Hungarian. Requesting that there should not be an ethnic requirement to join political parties in Romania is not Anti-Hungarian, so please provide concrete evidence. Liviu- (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a battleground, in addition to being misinformed about the Valea Uzului case and others, I recommend you to read about Valea Uzului scandal in 2019 [ro]. The article is in your native language.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think clearly the above discussion is political and not really about a Wikipedia article. However, just saying the party is not "anti-Hungarian" is not really the end of the issue. There's no reason why "anti-Hungarian" has to be the centre of that discussion - there are many other terms that can be used. The point is whether their policies toward the Hungarian minority are notable.
The party's program on its own website (here) openly opposes autonomy for the Hungarian minority, it specifically highlights Harghita, Covasna and Mureș (the areas with the largest Hungarian population) and says that Romanians in these areas have to live with "public policies that pursue territorial separatism on ethnic criteria, ethnic segregation" and "anti-Romanian xenophobic content" then it calls for "unification" (i.e. reasserting Romanian identity over these areas and doing away with policies that promote Hungarian interests). The point is not whether we agree with any of these policies or not (I'm not Hungarian or Romanian, it doesn't affect me in any way) it's whether that adds up to a "policy" that is worth mentioning in a Wikipedia article. In my opinion, I would say that it does - a program that is basically arguing for ending Hungarian autonomy, reasserting Romanian identity over the areas of Romania where most Hungarians live and accusing Hungarian political leaders within Romania of committing something like ethnic cleansing on Romanians who live in these areas is notable. They are always careful to say "we don't hate Hungarians, we just hate the people who represent Hungarians" but that doesn't make it any less notable, it just means you have to describe it using more encyclopedic language than "anti-Hungarian". 119.24.200.63 (talk) 06:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

better references[edit]

Today 2020-12-09 most of the references on this article are from the last 3 days, this undermines the credibility of this article, older references would be better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisexistswelp (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see whats wrong with that, the party got a lot of popularity after the legislative elections and now lots of newspapers are talking about it. Super Ψ Dro 14:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is simply easier to use more recent references, especially since this party wasn’t given much attention (I would say none at all) by mainstream outlets. I did a very shallow search on a television station I suspected might have results on the party and found two results: one from a local subsidiary of the station, talking about the inception that was about to take place on the 1st of December 2019 in Alba Iulia (the article is from the 29th of November of that year), and another one about a protest against the government’s measures taken during the pandemic (George Simion talked about wanting schools to be open, and the protest was announced on social media in a way that implied that conditioning children to wear masks in schools is dictatorial, Nazi, and that pupils are reeducated that way from having to wear, and I quote: “muzzles”).

Fun fact: That said station also had Viorel Cataramă talk about how the pandemic is the fight between two camps - the one of the EU and the socialists from the Democratic Party of the US, against Donald Trump (so that he wouldn’t win a second term). Cataramă endorsed Donald John Trump and also talked about herd immunity in the case of COVID-19. Near the Orthodox Easter, an actor named Dan Puric named those who protested to tell the Ponta government to resign in the aftermath of the Colectiv nightclub fire from October 2015 “scoundrels” (the closest term I can think of to “haimanale”), implying that they had received orders from to desecrate the Orthodox Church. The station had existed for 19 years already, and it is on television, which makes it pretty mainstream.

Anyways, there are sources from before the election, they just need to be found (like this article from Romanian news agency News.ro, talking about a protest against illegal logging from June 2020).

Those sources just need to be found after carefully searching them deeply into various newspapers and websites.

Even if there were no sources prior to election day, a party gaining 4 percentage points above the minimum 5% threshold in its first attempt into the legislative body of a nation is huge. - Victor P. (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too many vicepresidents[edit]

Every political party in Romania has at least 4 vicepresidents but none of theire wikipedia pages mentiones them. They usually mention the most important of them and mostly only if he has a wiki page. I see that mentioning AUR's vicepresidents is irrelevant because they are not known, they don't matter too much and don't have a wikipedia page anyway. The only reason they are there is because someone looked on their site on "team" section and copy-pasted them here. - User:Barumbarumba (User talk:Barumbarumba) 09:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this. Not even the Romanian Wikipedia page mentions them. I've removed them. Super Ψ Dro 09:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

President of the Senate of AUR[edit]

What does "President of the Senate of AUR" mean? I mean, it's not "Leader in the Senate" like other parties have. I believe it is a party position, but i have never encountered something similar to this. Is it the Executive President, the president of the National Committee or what? Even it's site is very vague about it: https://www.partidulaur.ro/echipa
If someone knows please explain it to me too. - User:Barumbarumba (User talk:Barumbarumba) 17:41, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The administrative organization of the party as well as the role and the responsabilities of the AUR Senate President are described on their page: https://www.partidulaur.ro/statut_aur (see e.g. Art. 46. 5) Hope this helps. Liviu- (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source explaining what is it. Hopefully it is now clear. Super Ψ Dro 14:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputation of Anti-Magyarism[edit]

There have been several edits disputing whether it's appropriate to append "(alleged)" to the claim that the AUR party should be ascribed Anti-Magyarism as a political ideology. The user who has removed the "(alleged)" addition three times is Kun Kipcsak, providing as evidence several newspapers that cite a controversial dispute between the Romanian and the Hungarian communities that occurred on June 2019 (details from an impartial source: https://news.yahoo.com/romania-hungary-trade-barbs-scuffles-war-cemetery-165525377.html). The connection between the AUR party and the dispute appears to be that the co-founder of AUR joined the Romanian community in the aforementioned dispute. However, the event had occurred before AUR existed and outside of the activities of any political party, so it is unclear how this event should be used as evidence of Anti-Magyarism being a political ideology for AUR. Additionally, the president of AUR rejected Anti-Magyarism accusations--adding that they have Hungarian party members in the parliament--, and there is no Anti-Magyar policy in their program. However, Kun Kipcsak refused to engage in the Talk discussion, called edits "nonsense", and proceeded to add "(alleged)" to other ideologies as a direct response to others using "(alleged)" for their accusation (see edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/995138454?diffmode=source ).

I don't believe that the participation of one of the AUR co-founders in a controversial dispute before AUR existed should stand as sufficient evidence to claim that the AUR party adopts Anti-Magyarism as a party ideology, especially when the claim has been rejected and there is no policy or declaration that can be pointed at to be Anti-Magyar. Additionally, I believe Kun Kipcsak is editing in bad faith and refusing to engage with the other editors while aggressively overwriting their claims.

Please provide your opinions on the issue. Liviu- (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe something like Anti-Magyarismsources here (disputed)sources here could work. Super Ψ Dro 00:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Super Dromaeosaurus. This was also my proposal here, but the user Liviu- preferred to take from the context my wording about "nonsense" and bringing me into a bad light in this misunderstanding. Also, their Anti-Magyarism is not based on the facts before the founding of the party, but on subsequent ones. It was not discussed in the Romanian press and in other languages (after my searches), but it exists in the Hungarian language press (I found it some time ago, long before legislative election). I do not know Hungarian and it is quite difficult for me to find out those analyzed statements to prove something that is already mentioned in the central and reliable press in Romania. Can a native Hungarian help us with these sources?--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 01:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the proposal. What do you think about it? Super Ψ Dro 01:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"This was also my proposal" Your proposal was that it should be "written in the article, separately", meaning outside of the infobox in the body of the article. If you meant that it should be written next to it, you should've said that or accepted my invitation to elaborate in the Talk section. I cannot comment on the rest of your response as it discusses sources you failed to provide. Liviu- (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this proposal. Liviu- (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On Wikipedia we must follow WP:NOTADVOCACY and WP: CIVIL, when we use talk pages. Twisting words of the participants does not fit here.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox - ideology; March 2021[edit]

Alliance for the Unity of Romanians
Ideology
Political positionRight-wing to far-right

Most of the ideologies in the infobox aren't even cited, and it's just a mess, 10+ ideologies. This can be sorted out easily, I'd like to hear opinions from others. Vacant0 (talk) 22:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, although not with removing all of those. We should keep some like Romanian–Moldovan unionism and Romanian irredentism. Super Ψ Dro 08:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well Romanian nationalism, Right-wing populism and Romanian–Moldovan unionism are very important and should be kept. We also need to adres their stance on the European Union so Soft Euroscepticism should be kept as well. I think Romanian irredentism, National conservatism, Christian nationalism and Economic nationalism (implicit in Romanian nationalism and not cited) should be removed.
We should still keep Social conservatism because Conservatism as a hole is a very general term and implise some polices that are not aligned with the party's values. I mean it is more of a nationalist party then a conservative party.
Anti-communism shoul also be dropped as it is an attempt to draw a parallel to 20th century Fascist parties self descriptions. I see it as unnecesary because we already have a Neo-Legionarism faction.
We should also remove Anti-Magyarism but we have no chance of doing that :))
I would personaly keep Anti-globalization as everything this party sais implise it (but it is also quite implicit for nationalist parties so we can technically drop it). - Barumbarumba (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unionism can also stay in my opinion, however, we will need citations for all of these ideologies. Refs for Anti-Magyarism can be moved into the lead, Anti-globalism isn't an ideology however it is a part of the broad "European Right-wing populism" so refs for it can be moved up to right-wing populism, same goes for Anti-establishment.
My proposal would be then to include Romanian nationalism, Right-wing populism, Social conservatism, Unionism (or irredentism), Environmentalism, Euroscepticism and the Neo-Legionarist faction. Vacant0 (talk) 13:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Barumbarumba (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think irredentism should be kept somewhere. The party has repeatedly held claims over Bessarabia and Bukovina and many of their supporters are typical Romanian irredentists as well. It could be shown along nationalism, so it would look like "Romanian nationalism and irredentism". Super Ψ Dro 14:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If those claims are cited then we can add it. Vacant0 (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We should also remove Anti-Magyarism but we have no chance of doing that :)) That ideology is supported by 3 sources, Barumbarumba's claims falls under WP:OR.--Kun Kipcsak (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be removed from the article, instead it should be removed from the infobox because it's not an ideology. References can be moved into the lead. Vacant0 (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian irredentism[edit]

Åttiotrean 226, what are you even complaining about? No one denies that the party promotes irredentism. Also, this is your last warning against edit-warring accusations against me. Super Ψ Dro 18:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you to take suggestions to the talk page when users disagree with you instead of just reverting to your own version, but you persist in doing so, despite my numerous attempts at pointing out that other users have a say on the same terms as you. Why would you give me a warning for telling you to stop doing something that is clearly disruptive? Disagreeing with me or other users is completely fine, but talk pages are here for a reason. Why not just use them right away if someone disagrees?
From now on someone else will have to deal with this, though. I am tired of being accused of making groundless accusations against you and I see no point of ever getting into such a situation again.
On the actual subject: the Alliance for the Unity of Romanians are, as you claim, claiming land from Moldova (and also from the Ukraine, but if that is so, then the Ukraine should be included rather than the words about Moldova be removed). You have been removing the note in which the reason for the use of the term “irredentism” is explained, which I see no reason for. Irredentism is “the policy of advocating the restoration to a country of any territory formerly belonging to it”, according to a lexical definition; I believe this can be used to describe the Romanian views on unification with Moldova; especially in this case. I see no reason to remove it without further discussion. I welcome other users to join the discussion and share their views. I perceive Romanian irredentism and unionism as two very close concepts. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 19:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"You're disruptive, you're edit-warring, you are harmful, you don't listen, I'm actually not edit-warring because x reason" blah blah blah blah. This is everything I hear from you. I can't imagine what makes you lack so much self-awareness. Today I have created an article and you have started to change things, which I have nothing against, and to revert me over small irrelevant details such as the word "new" added to "union". Then I edited this page and you have started reverting to me once again. How am I edit warring if I am getting my edits reverted!? Are you even aware that you broke WP:3RR here? I could report you right now, although I will chose not to because I don't want to continue wasting my time on long, exhausting discussions.
There is no need to explain what irredentism is or the territory of which countries this party claims land from in the infobox, for that we have the main body of the article. And yes, the support for union with Moldova is similar to Romanian irredentism, but it is not the same to unite with a territory than to actively claim it. Was the German unification German irredentism or something like that? And I have already linked other pages which mention support for the unification movement as an ideology in the infobox, so it is not standard to remove it or relegate it to a note. It also makes no sense to remove "Romanian irredentism", so the only logical solution is to leave both separately. This is something that did not by any means require a discussion with lengthy messages, but it is apparently what you were looking for. Super Ψ Dro 20:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we leave this discussion for good. I am pretty tired of having it. I never called you anything (least of all harmful), by the way; I merely took issue with your approach to editing in some articles, calling those disruptive. I have no interest in reporting you either and as I said, I believe it is not my business to do so. You are free to do as you wish unless some other user disagrees. Now, I resign from here. Åttiotrean 226 ☭ 20:27, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AUR is not actually promoting irredentism, that is just a form of populism and national nostalgia. To promote irrendentism means to be capable of invading another country. United Russia can be considered such after the Annexation of Crimea. On the other hand AUR has not shown any hostility towards Ukraine or other country. The peaceful unification with Moldova is the only thing this party strives towards when it comes to teritorial changes and everything else is just supposition with no actual support. - Barumbarumba (talk) 6:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Do we then remove it or merge it with some ideology like "Romanian nationalism"? I'm not opposed to removing it, by the way. Super Ψ Dro 11:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fake date[edit]

Official court decision is from 19 September 2019. 1 December 2019 is a fake date. I think 1 December is not a working day for Romanian courts (civil law courts, at least). Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion highlighted[edit]

@User:tgeorgescu: I see that you are a scholar so you must know that highlighting a subjective opinion in an (arguably) objective context is not a good idea. If you want, you can edit it and put it as a normal part of the Ideology section but not highlighted in any way. Furthermore, the quote is picked specifically to create an opinion about the subject of the wiki article. Creating a distorted opinion about the subject is in of itself an issue but at least it should not be highlighted in such a way as to be considered the definitive definition of the ideology of the party. Also, warning that no explanation was given to the previous edit, with a clear explanation given is dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.229.214 (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belated answer: not all subjective views are "wrong", especially when using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published sources[edit]

The article cites rather copiously WP:SPS as AUR's own website and YouTube. Nothing against Gâdea, but citing YouTube is generally shunned at Wikipedia, and I was chastised for citing PBS documentaries wherein full professors speak. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideologies in the infobox[edit]

Should we reduce the number of ideologies in the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 10:13, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

doamne ajuta mi România Dumnezeu este cu poporul român George SSimion preseRomâniei României 195.12.232.228 (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, 15 ideologies plus a factions section is far too much. In my opinion we should keep:

Romanian nationalism
Right-wing populism
Conservatism

I'm fine with retaining the factions section if the main ideology list is reduced down, such as would be the case in the example above. Helper201 (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If this ideology section is reduced down what is removed from the infobox should be incorporated into the ideology section of the page. Helper201 (talk) 10:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Infoboxes are for broad strokes, not every single thing a party stands for. Keep the Romania specific ideologies. The rest is more or less implied by the political orientation. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three is too little. We could eliminate some but not so many. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The fact that the infobox "explodes" at my face with 15 ideologies is funny. But that aside, I believe that keeping 5 ideologies would be better. Things like Economic Nationalism and Romanian irredentism/unionism are quite important to mention there. Things that are typical of every far-right party should definitely be removed. Brat Forelli (talk) 18:52, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: is there a source for national conservatism? Also we don't need to remove them rather move them to the Ideology section Braganza (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
romanian nationalism, right-wing populism, modovan unionism, anti-communism, euroscepticism, and christian right are now new ideologies.
Alliance for the Union of Romanians - Wikipedia
Let get @ValenciaThunderbolt to help us. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 23:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Best to just keep "Romanian nationalism" and "Right-wing populism", as they have the most references. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, @ValenciaThunderbolt. let begin editing, but let do Romanian nationalism, right-wing populism and Christian right as ideologies now. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by Canada[edit]

Where is that from? Which WP:RS?

I'm not necessarily against this category, but I am against unsourced information. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Russian vs. pro-Russian[edit]

Welcome to the Romanian politics, wherein nothing is what it seems, and it does not even have to make sense. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit. All extreme right EU parties love Mr. Putin. Why would AUR be an exception from this rule? tgeorgescu (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes needed[edit]

I believe the number of ideologies should be reduced in the infobox as there is far too many. And the party being affilated/running with the European Conservatives and Reformists Party for the 2024 European Parliament election should be mentioned in some way in the infobox.

Reducing it to an amount similar to how the Swiss People's Party has it would be ideal as that is still very legible but also still retains its details. Also the way the European affiliation for the Swiss People's Party is very well done as well with a note.

ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Russophilia[edit]

While the party’s Russophilia is not seriously in doubt, I must say that an editorial (written by a man in personal conflict with the party leader) is not exactly a quotable source, even if it was published in a respected newspaper. — Biruitorul Talk 15:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing ideologies in infobox[edit]

A consensus was recently reached on the Swiss People's Party page. I think one could be done for this page as well. @Autospark:, @Number 57:, @Vacant0:, @Checco:,@Scia Della Cometa:, @ValenciaThunderbolt: - thoughts? ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 05:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, ZlatanSweden10!
romanian nationalism, right-wing populism, modovan unionism, anti-communism, euroscepticism, and christian right are now new ideologies. 174.135.36.220 (talk) 07:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alliance_for_the_Union_of_Romanians&oldid=1220794630"