I must stress again that this template includes all teritories that for a certain period of time, from 1862 until now, were part of Romania. The irredentism accusations have no base. I believe we are in the XXIth century, not the XIXth or XXth. The censorship of history and extremist views should be left apart. --Alex:Dan (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply Other countries have similar templates: Template:Ukrainian historical regions

It's only history, not claims. --Alex:Dan (talk) 19:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply Not meaning to get involved in this clash of wits, I wish to point out that there is a difference in approach here, and that whoever is unsatisfied by a template listing all regions that were ever part of Romania would have to revisit all similar templates and start global discussions about revisions there and everywhere. Shortening the template for the Romanian case is borderline WP:POINT. I also have to say that, even if this were to be attempted, a reductio ad absurdum is just sitting there for the beholder: reducing the templates to include only present-day regions will not only be untrue to the rather obvious notion that these are "historical" regions, but would also make the whole experiment look idiotic when applied to templates that are themselves historical (Prussia is one instance outlined by Alex above). Not entirely similar to the situation here, but quite relevant to the point itself: click on Wallachia and scroll down until you come across the "Fiefs of the Polish Kingdom" template. You will perhaps notice that this works, and works both ways. So why raise the issue of irredentism? Dahn (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply Both templates given as examples are essentially different from this one. First, they make it very clear when the region were part of the respective subject, not implying one moment that the regions may be part of the subject today. Second, most of the elements listed were what in modern speech is called administrative divisions during the time frame mentioned, which is not the case for any of the regions listed here. Third, none has any irredentist map to show the supposed rightfull territorial extent of the subject. There's nothing wrong about presenting historical region in present day Romania. A historical region means a territory that historically has shared cultural, political, social, religious or ethnic traits and that, without having any administrative importance today, still has characteristics that differentiate it in a modern state, be it a dialect, a custom, or any other idiosincrasy. The Polish templates shares the same traits as the other two templates, and makes it clear that it has nothing to do with territorial extension of modern Poland.Xasha (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Xasha, is there anything preventing you from restructuring the template to reflect periods of rule, in case you feel something is amiss, instead of a blind delete? Should I give it a go myself? Dahn (talk) 22:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply I can't see the utility of mentioning that some lands were part of Romania for 21 (Bessarabia and subregions) to 25 (S. Dobrudja) years. Also, periodization is not my only concern.Xasha (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)Reply Is this 1935 irredentist map ok? It's not my fault that Romania has this name since 1862... --Alex:Dan (talk) 22:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply Considering that the annexation of Bessarabia by Romania was never recognized de jure, it's not OK. Romania was called Rumania until the 60s or 70s. But this has nothing to do with the above.Xasha (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

*ahem* the UK, France and Italy recognized it. See Treaty of Paris (1920). bogdan (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)Reply That treaty had no validity, and none of the signing powers considered it binding. Xasha (talk) 08:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)Reply