Talk:Nicolae Bălan

Please, let's stay rational
In 1942 he intervened in Bucharest against the deportation of Romanian Jews to Nazi death camps. That is what he did. "Protesting" is another matter. And he is considered to have succeeded in moving things. Btw, the wikilinks are already present in that paragraph, no need to introduce them in the lead as well.

There is hardly any connection between him supporting the Iron Guard and his policies against the Greek Catholic Church (other than maybe a general ultra-nationalism that saw Romanians as Orthodox par excellence), especially as the first happened during the fascist regime, and the second during communism. So clearly not part of the same paragraph.

Fighting against the Vienna Diktat can in no way be seen as part of his "Iron Guard support and clash with Greek-Catholicism".

Intervening on behalf of the Jews can in no way whatsoever be seen as part of his "Iron Guard support (and clash with Greek-Catholicism)". It actually shows him to be a man of many shades, not just an Iron Guard supporter - or, if one goes into that, more of a Codreanu than a Horia Sima-style Legion supporter.

Considering all this, it should be clear why I insist that it's crucial to have separate paragraphs for unrelated, but MAJOR parts of his activity. The paragraphs are certain to be expanded by others - or by us. Take this as an invitation :)

How "Moța" should be more correct than "Moţa" truly beats me, but that one I most certainly won't fight. I'd have to laugh at myself if I did.

Please, consider refraining from changing things before offering good reasons for doing so. Thank you! Arminden (talk) 01:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * First off, let me thank you for being reasonable yourself, and I want to assure you that I consider your edits here generally constructive. Concerning your dispute with, might I suggest that you gents have had your wires crossed? It seems that the focus of the original sectioning was that we do not have very small sections, which is frowned upon by the WP:MOS; you seem to be under the impression that the topics were conflated to lead the reader on by creating connections between this and that topic. And the fact is that small sections, and one-phrase paragraphs, do look quite horrible. I would certainly argue for an expansion that would render this dispute irrelevant, as the sections would grow organically; until this happens, if ever, could I persuade you to consider a compromise solution, such as naming the sections with very generic names, such as "Before and during World War II"? Would something like that work? Dahn (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Concerning "Moța": while I agree the topic is obscure, the stupidity of the matter was reigned upon us by a random decision made by the Romanian Academy. Please see our article T comma for what happened and why. Dahn (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Dahn, I thank you for your explanations and I do agree with most of your arguments. Still, very short paragraphs looking horrible is more of an aesthetical issue, and Wikipedia should be mostly concerned with offering correct and easily reachable information. Conflating very different topics, like the Holocaust and communist repression against the Greek Catholic Church, can in no way be argued for. If all we can come up for now is just one sentence each, that's still not a good argument against separate paragraphs, especially since wikilinks are taking the user interested in more, to large, specialised articles. I do admit that Wiki rules, which evolve in time and are man-made, do no carry the same weight with me as do logic and the interest of the user. One can always argue that logic is relative, but that's endless and circular :) Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"Protest"
Here's what historian Ion Popa writes about Bǎlan's intervention in favor of the Jews. ''According to Chief Rabbi Alexandre Safran, Bălan, surprisingly, offered to intervene with Marshal Ion Antonescu on behalf of the Jews. Safran describes in a dramatic tone the way in which he approached Bălan and their meeting: [...]. Although Alexandre Safran’s account cannot be supported by other evidence, apart from some unsubstantiated similar claims used in the later Communist narrative, there may be some truth to this story. Bălan’s action, although paradoxical, could be understood in the context of the tensions within the Church and of his quest to exercise leadership.'' Popa, Ion. The Romanian Orthodox Church and the Holocaust (Studies in Antisemitism) (p. 60). Indiana University Press. Kindle ed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinul cel tanar (talk • contribs) 11:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)