Talk:Corneliu Zelea Codreanu/Archive 1

Untitled

This article reads like agitprop for the founder of a fascist organization that ultimately destroyed the independence of Romania. One cannot use patriorism or religious fervor of a cause to excuse that cause if immoral or amoral, whether the cause is the (Russian) Black Hundreds, the American Ku Klux Klan, the Croatian Ustase, or al-Qaeda.

The Iron Guard is generally recognized as a violent, terrorist, racist, anti-democratic movement that ultimately pushed Romania into an anarchy that caused the nazis, of all people, to mediate in favor of leaders supposedly more 'moderate'. I sympathize with the Romanian people (including its Jews) who endured a tragedy that began with the rise of the Iron Legion and culminated in the communist takeover of the late-1940s, whose horrors ended only with the fall of the communist dictatorship that lasted until 1989. I'm not picking one nation over others; I find fascist tyranny and violence objetionable wherever and whenever it arises.

One can be religiously devout without being a bigot. One can be a patriot without polarizing a society into armed camps. One can be an anti-communist without adopting the demagoguery and dictatorial tendencies of communists.

This article is thus in dispute for fairness.

Heh, nice speech - too bad you sound like agitprop too. Then again, the Talk pages aren't supposed to be NPOV, so there's nothing wrong with it. And for the record, you are absolutely correct regarding the Iron Guard - although I wish you would have presented your arguments in a less emotional manner.

I am Romanian myself, and I will begin editing this blatantly pro-fascist article right away.

- Mihnea Tudoreanu

Nice re-write. Not a Romanian, and having an extreme antipathy to all forms of totalitarianism, I could never have done what you did.

Dispute

I overhauled the article, can the dispute header be removed? Sam Spade 22:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks like it is NPOV and yes, the dispute can be removed, since the original reason it was added was that there were some POV 'epithets' used when describing him. But I can't tell whether it is really a 'fair' article because I don't think I know enough about the subject. bogdan | ^Talk 23:47, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The only question I have is antisemitism. Some secondary sources have him listed as an anti-semite, but they don't refer to any evidence, examples, or primary sources, so I think the accusation should stay out until someone can explain it. The antisemitism of certain Iron Guardsmen after his death and a number of purges is far more clear, however. Sam Spade 01:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well... I found some of his writings in Romanian on P2P. Here's an article written when he was a student:

Cine stăpâneste orasele, stăpâneste scolile si cine stăpâneste azi scolile, mâine stăpâneste tara.

"Who rules the cities, rules the schools, and who rules today the schools, tomorrow shall rule the country"

"Here are some statistics for 1920:"

"University of Cernăuţi, Philosophy Department: Români: 174 / Evrei: 574" (...and so on -- he brings statistics from all Moldavia and Besserabia.)

and as a conclusion, he said that tomorrow's leaders of Romania, in politics, culture, etc, would be the Jews.

There are also some other articles published by him in which the same ideas are detailed and some others that propose a "reconquering of the country from the hands of the Jews." bogdan | ^Talk 09:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it was always clear for Romanians that the Legionnaires were nothing if not anti-Semite, with the distinction that theirs was more medieval than racist: the Jews were viwed as a creed, at least in the begining. Nagy-Talavera points out not only the notion of a "numerus clausus" that they tried to enforce in Universities, but also their very loose association with Western European Fascism (which did not mean they didn't admire it and didn't copy it at times! but Codreanu is quoted saying something like: "Mussolini is good, but the Italians didn't yet see that the Jew is the enemy").

Talavera deems their economical proposals as "Archangelic Socialism" rather than pure Corporatism. And some are populist or merely idiotic (the proposal called "omul si pogonul" - "to every man his 0.5 hectare plot of land", which would've meant a couple of Romanias of private property). There is no adulation of the State (at least, not until Horia Sima), and no racial hierarchy, but rather: a religious/racial division of Romanians vs. Jews (a very traditional one - and one that was partly, and less violently, part of a approach in Romanian politics that was already present in the attitudes Liberals and Bessarabian Socialists to traditionalists in the "Semanatorul" group to A. C. Cuza and Nae Ionescu; Ionescu has made the distinction between Romanians-proper and "good Romanians", ie: the Jews, that can never be anything other than good subjects of the Crown), some suspicion of Hungarians in Transylvania (that made any alliance between them and very similar mass movements in Hungary), and a notion of Romanian peasents supremacy over the city (the city being percieved as corrupt, corrupting, and foreign. Dahn 19:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Legacy

"after he was assassinated by the King Carol II on November 30, 1938, the Iron Guard decayed quickly." - in a sense, it is true; but you would have to explain to the untrained eye how come they ended up in gvt. in 1940 (remember that articles are for people to get full info). "went underground to re-emerge etc." - does this sound good? Dahn 23:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, your wording is much better, I was already thinking that section needed some work, its not perfectly accurate. Sam Spade 01:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Opposed to Nazism?

"but on the other hand, he also stated that he was opposed to Nazism."

News to me. Can anyone elaborate? —Morning star 03:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Translation of "Totul Pentru Ţarǎ"

I think that a more correct translation would be "Everything for the Country" as the word "patrie" in Romanian would translate to Fatherland. Since I haven't contributed to this article before, I wanted to make sure that there were no objections.Ro mlc 21:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Hm. I don't know. Ţarǎ does have more meanings than any word in English. You make a good point, but I think this does stress what was meant by the name (plus, I think it is standard translation of the name; by "standard" I mean "most used in sources, comments etc."). You could add the alternative version to the Iron Guard page (although I think it is already there).Dahn 23:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

The Iron Guard page has the following explanation "Legion changed its official name to the Totul pentru Ţară party, literally "Everything for the Country", but commonly translated as "Everything for the Fatherland" or occasionally "Everything for the Motherland". I think all of that is a little too long to insert for the translation in this article. One of the things that bugs me is that ţarǎ is a feminine noun, so in some ways Motherland is almost a better translation(though there is the phrase 'patria mumǎ,' which is even more confusing. I would rather have a more correct translation than have a flawed standard. Ro mlc 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is the norm to go by the most used variant in English (flawed or not). Plus, you yourself have said that the term "Ţară" is not properly covered by any one word in English: it should mean it is not "more correct". The point is not wether it is feminine in our language, but wether Fatherland is the point of reference for our "Patria". It is. In fact, Motherland is a bit contrived. We want to see the country as a lady, they want Thor or whomever :). But, then again, this article does not need to display all alternatives, since the interested reader may find them there. Compare: Socialism with a human face only has its Czech and Slovak equivalents on its own page (and not reference to it in other articles). There are a million other examples, and many are for alternative reference in the same language. In short, reference unspecified goes on all pages, alternatives on the main one. Is this topic covered now? Dahn 00:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly enough about it to go back and forth about it anymore. :) Thanks, mike 01:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research (OR) or original thought. This includes speculations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

I hope you realised you made a mistake Dahn... let's improve the articles instead of argue with eachother Adrianzax (talk) 13:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You are repeatedly deleting sources, and adding info from a non-reliable source that is not scientific in nature, nor quotable on wikipedia, and setting itself against the opinion of at least one professional historian. The book you add as a reference in place of references which you remove is a book of interviews, in which one Iron Guard member claims that historians such as Francisco Veiga are wrong to argue that his mother was German. Needless to say, that "source" is not quoted through secondary material of a scholarly nature - adding to its manifest and sickening bias, that means it does not belong here as a "reliable source". Even if we were to leave that aside, the interview does not cite any proof for this statement, and is just an irrelevant opinion. As for the crux of the matter, I will add here as well other sources who mention Codreanu's non-Romanian origin, for better or worse. See these prominent historians:

• Royal Institute of International Affairs, Enemy Countries, Axis-Controlled Europe, 1945" "codreanu, the founder of the movement, is of Ruthenian origin"
• R. J. Crampton, Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century, 1994, p.113-114: "[Codreanu was] born of a German mother and a Polish-Ukrainian father"
• Barbara Jelavich, History of the Balkans, 1983, p.203-204: "[Codreanu's] father, who was probably of Ukrainian or Polish national origin, changed his original name of Zelinski to Zelea and then added Codreanu, from the word codru, meaning 'forest'."
• Stanley G. Payne, A History of Fascism, 1914-1945, 1996, p.271: "Szalasi, like Codreanu [...] was far from a full-blooded offspring of the group he championed"
• Hugh Seton-Watson, The East European Revolution, 1961, p.206: (drawing a parallel between Codreanu and Bodnăraş no less!) "Both the fascist tough and the communist tough, both the Rumanian super-patriot of the right and the Rumanian super-patriot 'anti-imperialist fighter' of the left, had a Ukrainian father and a German mother."

I have left out other other authors, such as I. C. Butnaru (The Silent Holocaust: Romania and Its Jews, 1992, p.36, calling Codreanu Sr. "a Ruthenian" and his wife "the descendant of a Protestant family from Munich"), Anatole Shub (An Empire Loses Hope, 1970, p.200: "The Iron Guard's handsome leader, Corneliu Codreanu, was half-Ukrainian") and Ioan Hudiţă (Jurnal politic, 2002, p.219: "Tatăl lui Corneliu, Zelea Codreanu, s-a numit Zelinski, ucrainean din nordul Bucovinei" - "Cornelu's father, Zelea Codreanu, had the name of Zelinski, [being] a Ukrainian from northern Bukovina"). Even the raving antisemite Douglas Reed states: "Codreanu, son of a Polish father and a German mother" (Disgrace Abounding, 1940, p.394). Dahn (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ioan Hudiţă says in (Jurnal politic, 2002, p.219") that "Cornel's father, Ion Codreanu, TOOK the name of Zelinski, not HAD the name of Zelinski, but I guess you already know thatAdrianzax (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. My original edit was due to haste: I had just reproduced by hand the text where it said that he took the name of "Codreanu", and I mistyped the Hudiţă translation out of some Freudian slip. Hudiţă clearly says "s-a numit", which is an antiquated equivalent of "avea numele de". Nobody in recorded history ever used "s-a numit" to say "a luat numele de". Furthermore, with or without the supposed foreign origin, it is very well known that both Codreanus were born Zelinski, and that the father adopted the name Codreanu after settling in Romania. Dahn (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

His father, Ion Zelea Codreanu was not born under Zelinski name, according to the biography of Corneliu, his father original name "Zelea" was Polonised due to the Austrian administration of Bukovina,which was controlled by Polish bureaucrats and nobles (Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, Pentru legionari, Vol. I, Editura Totul pentru Ţară, Sibiu, 1936)

Nope. First of all, what is really dubious here is that, in none of the online editions of Pentru legionari published by any of the neo-Legionary organization, Codreanu does not touch on the aspect of his origins and name at all. This means that whoever added the reference (still incomplete) most likely lied about the text being in there at all. Furthermore, when I checked the online edition of the book, I also stumbled upon a text by Codreanu's apologist Lisette Gheorghiu, where it is clearly indicated that Zelinski was his father's family name, and theorized that the family was originally named Zelea way before Ion was even born. Third-party sources such as Nagy-Talavera and Jelavich and, for all the attempted word jugglery, Hudiţă (the latter two of which you can reread above) also indicate that Zelinski was the family name in written records before Ion changed it. So no more smokescreens. Dahn (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lisette Gheorghiu was his lawer during his process from 1938 when particulalry it was stressed and proved with documents that him, his father and his mother had romanian origins Adrianzax (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. First of all, the trial did not pass, and could not have passed, a verdict on that issue, so whatever Gheorghiu did is irrelevant. Second of all, this account is not mentioned in any reliable source. Third of all, Gheorghiu was a Legionary and the text above is from a Legionary site - meaning that they are not reliable sources (Gheorghiu's version could only merit inclusion if it is cited from a reliable source). Fourth of all, you can clearly see for yourself that even this piece of Legionary apologetics says that Ion Zelea was born Zelinski, which, as i can see above, you were contesting was the case. And finally (for the forth time), the article clearly indicates that the statements about his origins are not certitudes, and that the authorities' discourse was propaganda. Dahn (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

we already talk about the reliabily of the source in Bogdan talk page don't repeat the same things over and over again, and stick to what your citations "speculate" in the text, and I hope you understand you need links which can aprove your citations from those books Adrianzax (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax, I don't expect readers to follow your statements on wikipedia, this is why I am clarifying here what sort of nonsense you were adding to this page. I don't need any sort of links for anything: I gave exact citations, and you can check them yourself on google books. Furthermore, as long as published sources are properly cited, there is no implication that they should be made available on the internet (in case they aren't, that is) just because Adrianzax needs to "check" them, or just because the information is questioned by a handful of neofascists whom Adrioanzax thinks he can quote. Dahn (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

As for the "original research" claim made at the top of this section, it is manifest that the person throwing it around has no clue what that is applied to. The fragment in question cites sources, and is neutrally voiced. In fact, even the dubious source cited by Adrianzax indirectly confirms that historians say Codreanu was of foreign origin, since the person interviewed in that book lashes out against one such historian. Dahn (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And I should perhaps add that the actual publisher of the book of interviews pushed by Adrianzax is Marineasa, the publishing house created by and named after the prominent Legionary activist Zaharia Marineasa, on whose "work" you may find details on page 365 here. Dahn (talk) 02:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The Passmore reference

Also incomplete. It was presumably picked up from this excerpt or from the book version in Questia. Nowhere does Passmore back Codreanu's version, and nowhere does he even touch on the issue of Codreanu's origin. The second misleading reference.

Adding false references counts as severe disruption. I shall remove all material added in this manner, and, if it is re-added, I shall duly report the editor who does so. Dahn (talk) 23:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

P1 : Ethnic Romanian students like Codreanu at the Iasi campus in Moldavia were at the forefront of the struggle to 'Romanianize' the new territories - intellectuals in Romania had traditionally seen themselves as the nationalist vanguard. Adrianzax (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat: it does not in any way back anything in Codreanu's supposed account. It merely introduces Codreanu as an ethnic Romanian, presumably based on the way Codreanu referred to himself, and in contrast to the Jewish students. Nowhere does it touch on the Codreanu family's more distant origins, which is what the paragraph in the article is all about. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You can repeat as long as you want, you're personal speculations and original research are not allowed in WIkipedia [1] The text clearly is stating Codreanu was ethnic Romanian, Adrianzax (talk) 23:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not say anything about his father's origins, so you are misusing it to advance a POV. I am very serious this time: if you continue to add misleading references, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Adrian, ethnicity is about self-identification, not about origins. bogdan (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity - An ethnic group or ethnicity is a group of human beings whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry. Adrianzax (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH. Dahn (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The recent edits

No source is given for the new details, and the editor in question claims that this is to be found in a source without providing a citation from a secondary source. Furthermore, a secondary source is what would be needed here, since statements made by Codreanu in pieces of propaganda he wrote should preferably not be taken directly from such a context, but only given importance if historians give them importance. Either way, the other version cites nothing.

I did a quick search on the internet. As it turns out, the only "sources" mentioning that Codreanu's name was "Polonized" are neonazi sites of various hues.

Two more things: 1) nowhere does the text claim that any of the statements about his non-Romanian origin are true or should be taken at face value, but just that they exist; 2) the whole story of supposed Polonization and its context, as introduced by the other editor, appears to be a personal synthesis of the point, based on ulterior assumptions about what may have happened. Dahn (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I repeat my call for a reliable secondary source to be added to Codreanu's supposed claim, since just citing random pieces of his propaganda borders on an infringement of several wiki policies. I have removed the "may or may not be true", which is quite obvious (and was thus weaselly-worded), and I will let the editor know that, unless he provides a full citation (down to page number), his addition will eventually be deleted for good, since it appears that the source was not actually consulted from the edition provided). Dahn (talk) 16:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Lies

This article is full of lies and sionost propaganda and has no value. Lets see what it says a leader of Romanian Police, Florin Şinca inspector principal în cadrul I.G.P.R., in his book about The history of Romanian Police on chapter 5, p. 307-308:

Astăzi constatăm aceeaşi dezinformare din vremea lui Carol al II-lea, Mişcarea Legionară fiind apreciată după manifestările din ultimii ani ai perioadei interbelice, când ajunge o organizaţie vădit teroristă. Ea nu a fost creaţie a fascismului şi este o gravă eroare să culpabilizezi elita interbelică a unei ţări, care a fost implicată în legionarism, pentru acţiunile câtorva exaltaţi.

Corneliu Zelea Codreanu s-a născut la 13 septembrie 1899 la Iaşi, în casa unor părinţi de condiţie modestă dar cinstiţi, tatăl său fiind pădurar, se pare, cu numele Zelinschi. De aceea, opozanţii au spus că nu era român, în timp ce Codreanu declara că acesta era numele dat de ocupanţii austrieci.

Which are the pogroms where was involved Codreanu assassinated in 1938? See what it says Florin Şinca: S-a vorbit de antisemitismul ei (Miscarii Legionare), dar până la venirea la putere în 1940, ei nu omorâseră nici un evreu

Este regretabil că anumite cercuri interne şi internaţionale încearcă să culpabilizeze o întreagă naţiune (naţiunea română). Deşi în timpul celui de-al doilea război mondial, Ungaria a predat peste 150.000 de evrei pentru gazare Germaniei, un paradox este acela că evreimea mondială simpatizează mai degrabă cu ungurii decât cu românii. Iar campania prin care se prezintă în ţară şi străinătate poporul român ca antisemit este regretabilă.

I know that my references will not be accepted because wikipedia is not a democratic site. It makes a propaganda based on lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacovia (talk • contribs) 07:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, Wikipedia is not a democratic site. Not all sources have the same value. Your source tries to minimize the Romanian involvement in the Holocaust and that's just another form of Holocaust denial. Such a source is not going to be used here.

Romania didn't hand over their Jews to the Germans, like the Hungarians did, but instead it was involved directly in hundreds of thousands of killings. Romanian army, police and gendarmerie being involved directly in 1941 Odessa massacre, Bogdanovka, Transnistria (World War II), Iaşi pogrom, "the trains of death" from all across Moldavia and anti-Jewish violence across Moldavia. bogdan (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

One should not even bother with messages that start with "This article is full of lies and [Z]ionist propaganda". The article as it is reflects scholarly consensus, and draws on a variety of sources of outstanding scholarly standing, published by widely respected Romanian and international publishers, most of whom are academic-level. One of these sources is an official report drafted by a panel of Romanian and foreign scholars set up by the Romanian state. Furthermore, Mr. Şinca is not an academic in any field, the book was not published by an editor - but merely printed by an obscure typography called RCR Print, and thus most likely self-published -, and the only review of the book, which deals with and in fact reproduces an altogether different fragment of the text, was printed in the journal Adevărul and signed... Florin Şinca. Oh and, btw, not that it would matter much (given the author's complete lack of status in academia and the fringe nature of his claims): chief inspector certainly does not make one a "leader of Romanian Police" (whichever way one reads that). The rank is, if I remember correctly, equivalent to that of captain or lieutenant. Dahn (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What follows is a digression based on one of the quotes above. For starters, the lack of reliability and fringe claims in the sample text aside, even it may not have been cited in good faith (we have already seen an instance of this in the article, where a "reference" was added from a non-existing quotation). Personally, I have little willingness to check if they were, since it should already be clear that such a source does not fit wikipedia standards. But, if they were cited in good faith, then three of them would have to be some of the most absurd assertions ever made. I'm discussing them below not because wikipedia should take an interest in such a "source", but just in case readers should want more details on what the "source" actually says.

One of the quotes, which does not have anything to do with the article, reads like a fallacy: it accuses a supposed Jewish lobby of wanting to make the entire Romanian nation responsible for the Holocaust (when this was never an issue - unlike evidencing the responsibility the Romanian state, which the state had hitherto dodged; and while Romania has only recently started paying some compensation to families of Holocaust victims), and then accuses the same supposed lobby of favoring Hungary.

Two other ones read like fairy tales. For example, the author seems to lash out against those who consider that the Legionaries were antisemitic (i.e.: the consensus in the scholarly world, and what can be picked up from virtually any statement made by the Legion itself). I'm saying "seems to", because the quote does not even say that they weren't: it was apparently just read that way by the person who posted it. In any case, if the author is cited for what he says, he relies this on the claim that the Legionaries "did not kill any Jew before they came to power [in 1940]". Dubious. But even if true, there is reason to suspect that this is not for lack of the Legionaries not trying to "accomplish" this. In a functioning state, people are usually not left alone in front of violent squads, which, if taken at face value, would also imply that most antisemitic movements today are not antisemitic, because they do not manage to kill Jews on account of being closely supervised by the police! There were Legionary attacks targeting Jews throughout the interwar, and the Legion was in a conflict with the authorities over this and first banned largely as a result of this. To take this rationale ad absurdum: hey, the NSDAP might not have been antisemitic, because it did not kill any Jews before it came to power! And, btw, it would be a good idea to check out the definition of a pogrom before any more claims about how "the Legionaries did not kill any Jews, therefore there were no pogroms" are fluttered about.

The quotes also seem to willingly confuse fascism, terrorism and antisemitism, and to question all these characteristics at once by questioning one ("the Legionaries were not fascist, therefore they were not terrorist" etc.). He also says: "the Legionaries were not the emanation of fascism" - an assertion for which no argument is presented. Note however that this wikipedia article cites one historian who presents a reasoned account for this in direct reference to the subject of this article, and who concludes that both the Legionaries and the Nazis were phenomenons bordering on, but not necessarily fascist. If they were or weren't has, of course, nothing to do with their record of violence, before and after 1940 - since one need not be a fascist to be violent; or with their attested and self-proclaimed antisemitism - many fascist movements (whatever the definition of "fascist") were not antisemitic, and, even more obviously, many antisemitic movements were not fascist.

Since I expect most of this to be self-evident, and since I have already spent way too much time relating to a text that should not even be taken into consideration, I am not going to comment any further on any issue of Florin Şinca, his book, or how it was cited by the user who accuses me of spreading "Zionist propaganda". Dahn (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Here we go again

In his last edits, Rezistenta returns to his old habits and the same neofascist sources: the book he uses for a source is Legionary propaganda republished by a neo-Legionary outlet. Furthermore, all the stuff about how "other Romanians had their names foreignized" is a gross violation of WP:OR, and, were it even sourced, it would still be in breach of WP:SYNTH. Dahn (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You are exagerating Dahn and I will not follow you into this, it was only an attempt to align that passage according to NPOV policy...

I don't think "Editura Buna Vestire" could be labelled as neofascist source, (I may be wrong i'm not very informed regarding this subject) and I tought the article should be more neutral because I see there are also opposing views available . Furthermore I don't understand how in someone's a biography there is more info available about his father. The "other romanians" statement it's not my personal statement it's cited by the source I would not give my personal opinion regarding the subject of this article because I have no interest in it, and even If I would, I would definitely condemn this person and his views. Rezistenta (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I do believe you have had the time to read WP:RS, which was presented to you before. Also, I believe you are entirely misinterpreting the concept of "neutrality": it means presenting all sources that meet with the RS standard (not simply "all stuff written by anybody from all perspectives", and especially not if that stuff comes from sources with extremist positions) and, from those sources, not favoring any - presenting all, attributing opinions and interpretations. I do believe the present text does just that. If the Legionary POV is presented verbatim, it should come from secondary and tertiary sources that are themselves reliable (preferably scholarly ones), and accompanied by conclusions commentators derive from them - simply because wikipedia is not a tool for distributing unmitigated propaganda. Dahn (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

So many blatant lies...

Wikipedia has a gross bias disregarding anything that doesn't fit nicely within their ideologically limited window of perspective. Should be completely rewritten in this style: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Corneliu_Zelea_Codreanu&oldid=5329632

Origins

"Statements according to which Ion Zelea Codreanu was originally a Slav of Ukrainian or Polish origin contrast with the Romanian chauvinism he embraced for the rest of his life". So what? That doesn't mean anything.93.183.244.35 (talk) 20:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The doubtful origin of Codreanu family, Romenian or Slav, in relation to his nationalism has litlle meaning. Stalin was not at all of Russian origin , Napoleon as well as Gambetta were not of French origin (but Italian), Oberdan was not of Italian origin (but Slovenian), Victor Emmanuel II of Savoy was not of Italian origin (but French), Kemal was not of Turkish origin but Albanian.--Deguef (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Romania anti-semitic??

"according to one analysis, Romania was, with the exception of Poland, the most antisemitic country in Eastern Europe.[61]"

Is this true? Because in Codreanu's writings that has a lot of sources to his info Romania was very anti-nationalistic and many was pro-communistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.248.80.216 (talk) 00:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hah! Dahn (talk) 06:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Which are the countries encompassed in Eastern Europe in your view? Not only Romania and Poland but also Ukraine, Hungary, Baltic countries were antisemitic at that time. Nationalists in these countries were overlapping semitism with communism and jews were often seen in nationalistic propaganda as supporters of soviet expansionism--Deguef (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)