Talk:Romania/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

ROMANIA'S GDP to reach 100 BILLIONS €

Replacing copyrighted material with link:

• Romania's GDP estimated to advance 8.3 pc in 2005 Oh, and the site has some really lovely pictures in a Macromedia Flash animation, mostly nature photos, but also an excellent interior view of the Ateneul Român. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

National motto

"Daca am invata din fiecare infrangere am fi o natie de intelepti" = "If we would learn from every defeat, we would be a nation of wise people". - Nice words, who may have been told by some famous Romanian, but this expresion isn't the Romanian national motto. From what I know we don't have a national motto. If anyone knows otherwise, please come with some proofs/links. MihaiC 06:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Guys I'm glad someone is doing this job. Keep up the good work!

P.S. That's right, we don't have a national motto.

Paul Ivan Cluj, Romania

In the mid-19th century, the motto was "Unirea face puterea!" ("The Union Makes the Strength"), then the royal motto was "Nihil Sine Deo" ("Nothing Without God") and then the Communists had the classical motto "Proletari din toate ţările uniţi-vă" ("Proletarians of all nations, unite!"). bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 21:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

So, that means we are a nation of idiots? When we will have more dignity we will be treated better as a nation. Look how distorted is our history in this encyclopedia. It is written by Hungarians, Bulgarians and others, not by us.

Antonio Agoura Hills, CA

History

The term dominator used for Alexandru I. Cuza is not right and definitely does not convey the right meaning. The correct term (and I see it has an entry in en.wikipedia) is domnitor translated either as "ruler" or as "prince" (the former i saw in K. Hitchins, the later in some Cambridge books). Another error : PD was formed in 1991 (october) as FSN-Roman (after old FSN split up in FSN-Roman and FSN-Iliescu that later became FDSN, PDSR and PSD) and changed its name in 1993 as PD (after a merger of FSN-Roman with a number of parties). The swap of Dobrudja versus Southern Bassarabia was agreed upon. It was not an invasion as portrayed in the article, but it was written in the Berlin Treaty --Xanthar 23:11, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It may have been agreed upon, but Romania was not asked its opinion about it. Romania was not allowed to participate in the negotiations and it was not one of the signers. Actually, there was even a treaty with Russia in which Russia promised not to take any territory that was before the war part of Romania, but they simply ignored it. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

So, FSN-Roman was indeed formed in 1991, but the PD was officially formed in 1993. Also, the swap of Dobrudja vs. Southern Bessarabia was not agreed upon, it was imposed through a peace conference where Romania had very little to say.

"During the 1989 revolution (the term "revolution" is contested by many)" --What does this mean? Who contests the term, and why? 131.104.249.87

You have a link to a separate article about the Romanian Revolution of 1989. Check that out and mabye it will clear up things. --Orioane 05:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Slightly longer answer: contested from two directions. Hard-core communists who consider it a counterrevolution, and a broad swath of people (not easily characterized) who consider it a coup d'état from within the old regime. Many of the latter doubters consider the actual overthrow of the old regime a gradual process over the next several years. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

A Concerned Visitor

• • • Wikipedia is an amazing www, but HOW CAN I TRUST YOU PEOPLE? If anyone can modify and reedit your postings ? (just a humble visitor)Thank you very much indeed !!!***

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Please visit the Main Page or the Community Portal for more links about Wikipedia. A short answer to your question is that the history page is always available, and editing someone else's comments' substance is considered incredibly poor taste. Anyone can prove that their post has been edited, using the history page, and the author of the comment would be discredited. So, after all, it's a social solution as opposed to a technological one. Wikipedia is full of such curious social and human paradigms in the internet environment, and you already found one -- have fun exploring them! --Gutza 07:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The language section

I'm not sure I agree the way this part is formulated:

The official language is Romanian, a Romance language of the Italic subfamily of the Indo-European family of languages, which are also called Romanic or Romantic languages. This language family includes French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese; its languages are spoken by about 670 million people in many parts of the world, but mainly in Europe and the Western Hemisphere.

I believe Romanian counts as a Vulgar Latin language and not as an Italic language. I believe there's a significant difference between the two language groups.

Classical Latin is not a Romance language, but both are Italic. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 07:16, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And I think there are more people in Latin America who speak these Romance languages, than there are in Europe. No biggie though...

--Anittas 22:26, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

• RE: First of all! Vulgar Latin is not a Romance language group…it was the Vernacular Latin (non-classical Latin) dialect spoken in the Roman Empire.

Romanian language (Daco-Romanian) is part of the Eastern Romance group.

Besides,Romanian language and grammar is the closest “proximus” to Classical Latin,keeping declensions and the neuter gender, unlike any other Romance language!!!

• I don't agree with the following part:

There are about 35 milion people in the world that speak romanian

I found sources that still don't agree on the number:
[1] - 28mil
[2] - 26mil
[3] - 39mil!!!
[4] - 26mil
[5] - 28mil
List of languages by total speakers - 23-24mil

Personally, I think no matter how we do the count, there's no way there are 35 mil Romanian speakers.

Until we find a credible source, I think this line should go.
mouseman 20:38, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Our own page Romanian says 26 million. We should use that number here. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

name of Romania

• The name of Romania (România) comes from Rumân (which means in fact "serf" in the Romanian language, being a derivate of the word "Roman" from Latin). Also, "Ţara Românească" (The Romanian Country) is the Romanian name of the former principality of Wallachia.

the name Romania was adopted in 1859. By that time Rumân and Român were very clearly differentiated (actualy i think Rumân wasn't even circulating by that time) . so the name Romania does not come from Rumân (serf) but from Român (romanian). If anyone wants to state that Romania comes from Rumân (meaning 'serf') as opposed to Romania comes from Romanian, from latin Romanus/Romania, better bring solid evidence/theory. -- Criztu 3 July 2005 14:27 (UTC)

The name Romania was officially adopted in 1866. Until then the official title was "Principatele Unite ale Ţārii Româneşti şi Moldovei". Român comes directly from Roman and the term was coined in the late 18th century (although it has been in use designating Wallachia since the late 15th century). Romania comes from Românie/Rumânie, meaning village/community, which in term comes from Romanus/Romania. (Rumân (serf) also comes from Românie, first meaning villager, later being used only for serfs). Therefore, you can assert a common ethymology, but nothing more.

History

Someone with more knowledge about that era could maybe have a go at rephrasing the parts of the History section that deal with what happened after WWII - it seems much more emotive than desirable. I removed a reference to "Bolshevism in Hungary and Russia" which at this point seemed only an overemphasis of the importance of the Hungarian Soviet Republic.

KissL 6 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

Present-day Moldavia

A tiny bit off-topic for this article, but I don't know where else to ask or remark. There seems to be no article on the present day portion of Romanian known in English as Moldavia. Moldavia is about the historical prinicipality, most of which is now part (most) of the Republic of Moldova. Is there an article somewhere that I am missing? If not, we should probably start one at Moldavia (Romanian province) or some such. Is there a better word to use for this than province? -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:31 (UTC)

If you look at the regional color map, it's pretty clear that the split between the Republic of Moldova and the region in Romania by the same name is about 50/50. Most people that I speak to on the subject refer to to both as Moldova these days, not Moldavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005

3,150,000 Google hits for Moldavia does not suggest strictly historical usage. The article previously at Moldavia is now at Principality of Moldavia. There is also a Moldavia (historical region) (which perhaps should be merged into Principality of Moldavia) and Moldova (Romanian region), which was more or less the article I was asking for, though it is little more than a stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

The Romanian map

I must say that I don't care too much for the CIA map that depicts Romania. On that map, the two historical regions of Wallachia and Transylvania are both represented in writing, however, Moldavia is not.

That map is biased. It leaves many Moldavian cities out. Suceava and Botosani are not showing, though their population size is not too far from the size of Targu Mures and Sibiu.

Is it possible to find a better map, or do we have to stick with this one?

History site?

I notice that Bogdangiusca recently removed, without comment a lint to the Romanian Group for an Alternative History Website. Bogdan, was this a matter of the site being a bad source, or too narrow to be attached to this article, or what? Should it be linked somewhere else? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit too narrow. The link would be more appropriate on the Romania in the Dark Ages article, but the only problem is that all the articles are in Romanian. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, let's stick it there. And we can say "mostly in Romanian". We do that more with Spanish, French, and German, but we have plenty of regionally-specific articles with foreign-language links. (I'll do this.) -- Jmabel | Talk 18:26, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

What is Romania's Surface ?!??!

-- All Romanians know it as 237,500 km²
-- Encarta says: 237,500 km²
-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania says: 238,319 km²
-- http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roumanie says: 238,390 km²
-- The Foreign Office says: 238,391 sq km
http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1007029394365&a=KCountryProfile&aid=1019744931956
-- BBC says the same:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/country_profiles/1057466.stm
-- The French Foreign Ministry says: 237,500 km²
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/fr/pays_zones_geo_833/roumanie_238/presentation_roumanie_1268/donnees_generales_1120.html
— CIA Factbook says: 237,500 sq km
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ro.html

This f----ng country has no OFFICIAL site with official data!!!!

Please make some effort to find the real number. Thank you.

Currently, the surface of Romania is 238,319. This is the number used by the Government. This is after the 1999 Tisza floods, and some changes in the borderlines with Hungary, after the 1997 treaty. The 237,500 is 1975 data. Too old!

WHERE does the Gouvernment say that??? The URL please!!!! Then: the UK is right. The CIA and the French are wrong. Geez. No matter 237,500 is 1975 data, but this is about SURFACE, not People! Don't make me sick, the 1997 Treaty has NOT CHANGED any border!!! I'm Romanian and I live in Romania and I should know this better than you!!! Where comes this extra terrirory from??? REFERENCE PLEASE!!!


Wikipedia in Romanian language says 237,500 !!! http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geografia_Rom%C3%A2niei

mailto:beranger5ca@yahoo.ca

http://www.insse.ro/anuar_2003/zip_rom/CAP1_GEOGRAFIE.zip - Romania's official statistical yearbook says it is 238,391 sq km. Hope this satisfies you. IulianU 16:09, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the appropriate thing for Wikipedia to do is not to pick one number and claim it as TRUTH, but to report the conflicting numbers given by reasonably authoritative sources, and cite those sources clearly in a note. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:51, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The extra territory comes from changes in riverbeds considered as the border. Romania has a lot of natural borders, so variations in territory are quite significant (especially in regards to Tisa/Tisza that changes its riverbed about every 10 years and the deltaic area, where canals change their riverbed each spring). The treaty of 1997 DID change territorial sizes, as it reduced the size of the "neutral zone" (that was previously made excessively large by the former communist regimes), so both Hungary and Romania won some territory (you can calculate how much, both Romania and Hungary won the same - even if "it makes you sick"). Plus, there's a Delta, that's constantly expanding towards the sea, about 2-5 linear meters yearly, adding to the territory. Plus, there is a maritime exclusion zone, that's also considered Romanian territory, different than in 1969, when the 237.500 was correct. This figure was used in the 1971-1972 textbooks, that continued to be reprinted and used in schools until 1996. That's why this figure is used so much. CIA uses approximations, and it's been wrong countless times. Encarta uses CIA data. I think we should believe the Romanian data. After all, it's used in all calculations, including taxes. The reference is Institutul National De Statistica al Romaniei, INSSE. Or any other Romanian governmental site. And, because you live in Romania, that doesn't make you a guru in Romanian problems or geography.--Xanthar 12:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• I don't live in Romania, and I don't claim to be a guru. I'm just saying that where there is a complex picture (and, Xanthar, your paragraph here shows that there is), we ought not disguise the complexity. Probably much of this belongs in Geography of Romania, probably not Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

River beds cannot responsable for almost 90,000 extra hectares!

Actually, the reason why the surface increased is that during the Communist period, some communes and counties sent false reports of their agricultural areas to the central administration, so their agricultural productivity reports would look better. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 10:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I know this is not scientific data because I don't have the documents but my high school Geography teacher told me some years ago that the 238.391 sq km is the correct figure because in the comunist period there were people reporting smaller figures in order to pay smaller taxes. So I think Bogdandiusca is right. Either taxes or agricultural reports (or bouth). Paul I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.19.6 (talk • contribs) 24 January 2006

Actually, any source which claims that level of precision (to the nearest sq km, presuming the decimal point above is meant as a 000's separator) for the surface area of any physical territory is having itself on. It is simply practically impossible to uniquely and consistently measure the area of practically any region on that scale to within more than a few hundred sq km or so. In particular, when any of the borders follow the meanderings of some natural formation like a coastline, river and/or mountain range, the path approaches a fractal and the related mathematics tells us that its length will vary depending on the size of the unit measure chosen. Similarly, different values of unit area measure will produce different total area estimates. It is important to remember that all such figures arrived at are, and can only ever be, estimates —hence the discrepencies in the figures above are due more so to differences in measure, scale and technique rather than any other factor, and none of them represents the "true" figure (which is literally practically impossible to obtain). Only in the very rare case when all the borders form some regular geometric curve (eg a quadrilateral) approximated on the earth's surface can a calculation be done for area independent of unit measure chosen, and even that is an idealised figure.

Thus there will always be conflicting figures of this nature, and it's certainly not unknown for authorities and governments to prefer values which serve a purpose to them. Changes in claimed territory and changes in terrain such as altered river courses, deltas and coastlines theoretically can have some effect of course, but I don't think that the differences in the figures given above is mainly attributable to these. And the total surface area is not obtained by totalling together all the plots of freehold land (which do not make up all of the country in any case), so the bit about being due to efforts in reducing land taxes sounds to be a bit of a myth. --cjllw | TALK 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

INCSDMPS

Recent addition says INCSDMPS claims that in 2014 Romanians will have an average gross monthly wage of 1,400 euro, but there is no citation. Please, I presume they said this in some published work, cite it. Or cite a newspaper report. Or something! -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Population

Recent edit roughly doubled the claimed percentage of Hungarians in the population, from 3.6 to 6.6. Also increased the percentage of Gypsies, from 1.47% to 2.5%. The new numbers actually sound more plausible; however, like the old numbers they give no citation. Citation would be good. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

The new numbers (percentages) seem correct, see the link for the 2002 census at the bottom of Demographics of Romania (3rd external link). --Gutza 06:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

It seems that are error (ordering and data) in this table. Please correct it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania#Largest_cities Paulnasca 19:05, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Location of Romania

There seems to be a problem regarding the location of Romania within Europe. The article Eastern Europe locates Romania there. I found the Romania article with "South East Central Europe". I corrected it, it was changed back and I was accussed of vandalism by an unknown user. If this is a controversial topic, I recommend removing any reference to Romania's location in Europe.

Reading the two articles, it seems that Romania can be described as either in Eastern Europe or in Central Europe, depending on how you define those areas. I think it's important in the intro to narrow its location down more than just Europe - but how best to phrase it? OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently this is a matter of controversy. The same user has changed the article back to "Central Europe". I was trying to maintain a NPOV and again I am accused of vandalism. Either the a banner questioning the neutrality of the article is needed, or this user needs to be blocked.

To User 86 105 72 251, author insisiting on calling Romania in "Central Europe". I can concede there is information to support your claim, however others have supported "Eastern Europe". I have only modified the content to reflect Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. Continuing to refer to me as a "vandal" is not behavior, as I understand it, that is acceptable with Wikipedia. It will be reported if it continues. (anon 11 Aug 2005)

"East" vs. "Central" in Europe is a bit loaded. "East" tends to emphasize "former East bloc": no one ever calls Greece "Eastern Europe". Romania was geographically well within the region in question, even though it was, at least from the late 1960s, not part of the Warsaw Pact. Let's remember that during the Cold War "Eastern Europe" often included East Germany, but never West Berlin, or any part of Scandinavia: it was a political more than a geographic term.

"Central Europe" tends to emphasize connection to the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, of which Transylvania, now part of Romania, was an integral part. Many Romanians (and Poles, and Hungarians, and certainly Czechs) today wish to be identified more with that history than with that of the Communist States.

Consequently, the term East Central Europe has been coming into vogue the last decade or so to refer to Poland, Slovakia, Romania, sometimes Hungary or even the Czech Republic (which are more simply "Central"), occasionally Moldova and the western (formerly Austrian) parts of Ukraine (which are more commonly just called "Eastern"; I've occasionally heard this used in a way that includes Slovenia, also once part of Austria-Hungary.

"South" doesn't carry much political connotation, so it's just a relatively uncontroversial, geographically accurate claim that within what might be called East Central Europe, Romania is in the southern part.

To complicate matters further, Romania is occasionally classified as "Balkan" even though it is mostly north of the Danube, because Wallachia and Moldavia were long part of the Ottoman Empire.

In short, all of these words are often more political than geographical: East = Russia, Central = Austria-Hungary, Balkan = Ottoman. Given Romania's complex history, "South East Central Europe" is probably a good compromise. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

In the same way, Ukraine can be considered "central Europe" too. But the "Central Europe" is more like a political concept. The Viségrad group countries considered themselves as "Central Europe". Romania was not invited in the club, so it can't use the trademark "Central Europe". --Vasile 14:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if you check the articles on Central Europe and Eastern Europe, they describe fairly well what the English-speaking world means by these terms. The statement "Romania is in Central Europe" is just factually misleading. "South East Central Europe" is a bad compromise, because not only does it still suggest that Romania is in Central Europe somewhere, but it also confuses the reader totally, and sounds patent nonsense (see Ahoerstemeier's edit summary).

My version was "lying partly in Central, partly in Eastern Europe" (referring to Transylvania and the rest of Romania - and I deliberately avoided mentioning the Balkans, because that is a culturally loaded term, and is not entirely appropriate for Wallachia). I'm as sure as anything that this was perfectly NPOV, and I can't see what's wrong with it (apart from some people being taught in school that Romania is in Central Europe, but this just doesn't change facts, does it?)

Oh yes, Greece is not called Eastern Europe because it is called Southern Europe instead. Similarly, Scandinavian countries are Northern Europe (which is pretty straightforward IMO, if you look at the map). That's got nothing to do with the fact that "Central Europe" and "Eastern Europe" are politically loaded terms. KissL 16:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

With all due respect, I find this a very pointless argument. I have changed the sentence to Southeastern Europe. This is NPOV, and it's the location used by the majority of Internet sources. It's also accurate. Central Europe is accurate only for Transylvania, which is undisputably Central European, but the rest of Romania is not Central European in geography (and usually not in culture). I am Romanian, if you want to know. Eastern Europe is a term that is fairly old-school and has negative connotations. Today, it mostly refers to Ukraine, Russia, Moldova and Belarus. It's wrong to place Romania in Eastern Europe. South East Central Europe is a stupid compromise term! Let's not use it. This article had Southeastern Europe before and it should stay that way. Remember though, that SE Europe does not equal Balkans. Southeastern Europe includes the Balkans + Romania, Romania not being a part of the Balkans geographically but being Southeastern Europe since that's the region it fits in best. Ronline 13:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'll be more than happy to leave this matter to you guys. I just came around this page via the contribution list of one of the anons who happened to vandalize Hungary population figures and percentages first before turning up here and copypasting web content... If you feel that Southeastern Europe is neutral, I'm ok with it, though my English-speaking self inside cries "Balkans" when I hear that (and that's where it redirects too) - which is even somewhat less appropriate for Romania than "Central Europe", IMO. KissL 16:10, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Guys, don't violate others' copyrights. I'm talking about this (this time). KissL 16:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about (this time)? --Vasile 01:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Compare these additions[6] to the external site[7]. Olessi 03:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Holidays

Should we mention annual occasions that are generally observed/celebrated, but are not days off from work, such as Marţişor or International Women's Day? (Hey, no article on Marţişor, did I spell that wrong?) -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should. Some companies do give days off, and organize parties on those holidays. Oh, and it's spelled Mărţişor --Xanthar 20:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Right now, I don't have the patience

There have been a lot of very poor (mostly anonymous) edits to this article in the last 12 hours or so, lately, and right now I don't have the patience to sort through them. If someone else will step in, it would be greatly appreciated.

• I removed 2 more copyvios pasted here, at least the third time in a few days I've removed significant recently added plagiarized materials. It makes me extremely suspicious of all recently added text.

• I am sick of daily fighting a lone battle to restore "formerly also spelled Rumania or Roumania". I believe it is very useful information for someone who is trying to do a search for documents: the spelling "Romania" in English is relatively recent. The person who is removing them had provided no explanation. Furthermore, "Romania (spelled Romania…" may qualify as the least appropriate article opening in all of Wikipedia, at least on a serious article: it makes it extremely hard for me to believe this person is acting in good faith rather than trying to make a laughingstock of the article. I would appreciate the opinions of others.

• "Romania is an island of Latinity that has survived in a Slavic sea, an area devastated for over a millennium by waves of migratory peoples and invaders." True, in a sense, but "devastated"? The whole sentence seems a very POV and nationalistic wording, out of keeping with Wikipedia style.

• "Archaeological founds reveal that the territory of Romania was inhabited from the ancient times of the early Palaeolithic. The earliest written record of the people who lived North of the Danube comes from Herodotus, who, in the middle of the first millennium B.C., notes that this area was populated by related Thracian tribes. The most important of their descendents, the Geto-Dacians, formed in the first century B.C. the first centralized Dacian state by the unification of the various tribes under king Burebista." "founds" ==> "finds", I presume,

• The passage including ". ... National socialism may refer to: Nazism, the political ideology of the German Nazi Party of the 1930s to 1940s. ... Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. ... Revisionism is a word which has several meanings. A high public office A regent, from the Latin regens who reigns is anyone who acts of head of state, especially if not the Monarch (who has higher titles). ... Miklos Horthy in 1921 Miklos Horthy de Nagybánya (Vitéz Nagybányai Horthy Miklós in Hungarian) (June 18, 1868 – February 9, 1957)" looks like a near random, screwed up cut-and-paste from elsewhere in Wikipedia.

• A could go on—this isn't exhaustive of the bad edits in the last 12 hours—but as I said, right now I don't have the patience. I don't want to just revert, because with about half a dozen different contributors during this period there were probably some good edits, too. Would someone else please sort this out this time? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Jmabel for taking the time to go through it. I added back the mention about former spellings and the location, filtered the two paragraphs about Romania being an "island of Latinity", and deleted altogether that long, screwed-up para which begins with a reference to Nazism. IulianU 19:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Last two edits by Yodo are copyvio from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_30/b3944003.htm . IulianU 10:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Only descendants to preserve name

being the only descendants of the Romans to have preserved in their ethnic name the word "romanus"

Not true. There are the Rumantsch people in Switzerland and also the people of Romagna in Italy. bogdan | ^Talk 18:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Correct :-) I got a bit carried away while correcting some other nonsensical edits. IulianU 19:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Ignorants should be stopped

A short message to KissL: you either are either you are too ignorant, but no way you like Romania, I've read that you are HUNGARIAN so I see that you hate Romania very much since you still change the name of Romania in Rumania, not other people to understand that our name shows that we are a LATIN people, and belong to Central Europe more than other people which doesn't have any connection with Europe, more with Asia like your people and came on horses only 800 years ago, STOP INTERFERING WITH THE PEOPLE OF ROMANIA, why you hate us so much? and as a hungarian you keep try to modify the reality from another country that is not yours, more you try to change the actual state between countries, saying that Transylvania belongs to Central Europe but the rest no? THIS IS A NON-SENSE, now that also Romania will joint EU from 2007, you are just A HUNGARIAN IRREDENTIST, you should lern some facts:

1. Romania is a central european country (just look on the map) and learn some history man! romanians were here from more than 2000 years, and were christians from the beginng, when other people were still under developed in the steps of Asia drinking hourse milk!

2. Our name is ROMANIA not Rumania, and shows our latin origin, our brothers are italians, french, spanish, portugal, don't try to change our name at least this RESPECT to have

3. don't forget that Romania is 3 times bigger than Hungary and we will be the 7th nation of the EU

-- Someone ban this Monor! --Anittas 17:43, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather have him/her edit from an account so we can make a better effort at educating them on Wikipedia policy. Besides, he/she edits from a number of IP's so banning the username won't help much. The above is far from NPOV, and isn't making much of an effort to represent facts, but we can all improve. If he/she doesn't stop this vandalism campaign I am going to block the IP's though. - Taxman ^Talk 18:10, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

If you can block his IP, then please do it now. Block everything you can block: IPs, his motherboard number, if you have access to it; and whatever. And you should have let my insult stay where it was. --Anittas 19:11, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

You can't access anything other than his IP address. :-) bogdan | ^Talk 20:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And I don't plan to block anything as long as the current diplomacy works. You see, helping someone become a valuable contributor is much more important than blocking someone that isn't creating that big a problem. As I mentioned in the message on the IP address talk page, if the revert behavior continues without properly justifying their position (none of the above 3 points fall even remotely in that category), then I will block the IP's. Finally, your insult qualifies as a personal attack which is not allowed, and not helpful anyway. Standard policy is to remove them on sight. - Taxman ^Talk 20:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

1. About IP's: Please note that not every contributor can log in from any computer. It was not clear for me who (I assume KissL) should be baned / blocked.
2. About emotions: Personaly I think it is an ilusion to assume that Wikipedia can be free of emotions. Anybody can find lots of examples.
3. Many conflicts from "the outside world" are "represented" here. They can not be solved in Wikipedia and Wikipedia is no "arena" for such kind of conflicts. This includes also starting polemics.
4. Not every contributor can express the same way. What I want to say is that the "reaction" appeared after some irritation / provocation. Everybody deals differently with this and I would have prefered if much of the above would not have been written.

Regards Gangleri | Th | T 20:56, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The Romania article is already a mess. Now he came along and make things worse. Our article is often victim of vandalism. Perhaps it would be best to write a clear, concise, and well-written article, and then lock it. Otherwise people will keep adding things that shouldn't be a part of the article. --Anittas 21:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, while "no personal attacks" is policy, "remove personal attacks" is only a guideline, currently even disputed. But if someone prefers to remove personal attacks, they definitely shouldn't choose to leave some personal attacks alone — especially not the ones which are bound to appear in a number of edit histories. (And see Gangleri's comment above to see what this is causing.)

Yes sorry, I actually just ignored the anon's spoutings and didn't notice the personal attack. I certainly didn't mean to be one sided, so now I've removed it too. And you're correct, it is a guideline, but in relatively minor cases like this I'll choose to try to diffuse a situation rather than letting insults lie. - Taxman ^Talk 13:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

My latest edit to this article was four days before the above "short message" was written. I think no further response is needed. :-) I'm happy to leave this article to the numerous sensible Romanian editors who are now active around here. KissL 10:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

---

He started the madness again. We need a Romanian moderator to step in and clean the mess. That Tax-Taxes dude won't do anything. Bogdan, can't you do anything? Can't you ban the guy? It's perfectly clear that he's not interested in compromising with us, nor is he interested in holding a dialogue. Just ban him!

And yes, Kiss, Tax-Texas was doing a double standard there when he removed my insult, yet allowed the other insults to stay. Go figure. These cowboys can be quite funny, at times. --Anittas 11:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said, sorry. And currently this anon's edits don't meet the guidelines for a block, but they will if he keeps it up. Try reading the blocking policy before you complain that I won't do anything. - Taxman ^Talk 13:36, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Inflation

These recent edits made it through, being immediately followed by vandalism, which got reverted without this. I don't know about the exact inflation data, but I somehow don't trust anon editors on this page these days... KissL 11:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

ROMANIA is a CENTRAL EUROPEAN country, and in 2-3 years this will be proved, from GERMANY

Hallo!

Let me tell you some things from my point of view as a GERMAN.

1. ROMANIA is a CENTRAL EUROPEAN country. We, the germans, we thing about us that we are from Western Europe (remember West Germany?) I've been to Romania several times and the people there are not less central europe as their neighbours from Hungary. Since Hungary is considered being part of Central Europe then also Romania is to be considered also. Just a few more remarks, Romania is a diverse country, the biggest in the area and compared with Hungary which I have discovered of incredible small size and flat, just flat, no diversity in population due to the hungarization of the minorities, for example in Hungary the official statistics shows 6.7% Rroma (GYPSY = Zigeuner) but they say that are only 2%, I mean there are more than 600000 people!? where is the tolerance? In Romania every minority has its own man in Parlament, in Hungary? there is not a single one!

2.This will be proved when Romania will joint EU, then Romania will become a fully Central European country, then Ukraine and Russia will become the East. This is JUST A SHIFT IN MENTALITY! But it seems that many peopla still have reminiscens from the PAST! Look at the hungarian KissL, he is a hungarian software engineer and what does he know about history? Nothing, he is a ignorant, but he is a proud hungarian and he wants to change the borders from Central Europe saying that only a part of Romania is a part of the Central Europe. IN WHAT EUROPE DO YOU LIVE kiss laszlo? you are not being tolerant at all with Romanians!

3. Romania is the major regional power in the region. This is proved by the strong economic growth, steady growth, biggest population. We the germans we invest a lot in ROMANIA because the real money are made there, from Auto industry to technology.

Yes well, not much of that makes any sense, nor does it demonstrate in any important or useful way that Romania should be called central European vs anything else, which is why no one has responded to you. I don't happen to care which it is called, though south eastern Europe makes sense geographically. For all I know, culturally or regional wise Central Europe may make sense too. The real problem is that you think that you saying it makes it so, but that's not how this works. If you can find reliable, prominent, reasonably neutral sources that describe it as central European, then that would be great. Otherwise please stop. - Taxman ^Talk 17:46, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

About INFLATION

BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) - Romania's economy grew 5.9 percent in the first quarter this year compared with the same period last year, the national statistics office said Tuesday.

The service sector was the country's main economic growth engine main showing a 6.8 percent rise from the same period last year, while industry grew by 5 percent and agriculture by 1.8 percent.

Romania hopes to join the European Union in 2007. On Monday, Romania's central bank governor said that the economy was growing strongly and urged the government to refrain from further stimulating demand as it could lead to higher inflation.

Governor Mugur Isarescu said the bank expects inflation to drop to 7.5 percent for 2005 and 5 percent for 2006, down from 9.2 percent in 2004.

The IP address of this contributor User:85.18.29.25 is the same as the contributor who made this edit[8]. In that original post he said "Our name is ROMANIA not Rumania, and shows our latin origin", while now he claims to be German. Hör doch auf! Was ist hier los? Er klingt ein bisschen unecht... Olessi 07:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Möglicherweise von Siebenburgen? Auf XVII Jahrhundert? & "latin origin" = "Heiliges Römisches Reich"? But to come back to English, no, claiming two different nationalities does not help one's credibility. And, frankly, as far as I'm concerned, neither does making controversial edits anonymously in the first place. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:11, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

What's funnier is that his IP (85.18.29.25) is from an Italian ISP in Milan :).

Romania may be considered a central european country

Hi, I'm from Belgium.

My point of view is that Romania may be considered a central european country.

The list is like this:

Bulgaria, Greece,+.. --> South East Europe (Balkans)

Romania,Hungary,Slovakia,Czech Republic, Poland, Austria --> Central Europe

good bye

Stats

Someone recently and anonymously and with little comment "corrected" all the statistics about international rankings. Since the citations were vague before (no year given) and are unchanged, I don't know what to make of this. Someone may want to follow up and see if they can improve citation here so this is more easily checked. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

All are confirmed as accurate, except the Wall Street Journal where I was unable to locate the data, and the UN link which has the report itself screwed up: at one point they say "Romania is ranked 72 in the human development index, but its Roma population would rank 128" -- but Romania does indeed appear on the 69th place in the overall ranking table... But that's the report's fault, not the contributor's. --Gutza 19:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Romania indeed is a Central European Country

Hello to all,

here is my view that I express freely, I guess Romania is Central European Country, if Hungary it is then also Romania which is far more cultural and far more attractive, is a central european country, that's all folks, by the way I'm coming from USA, so I guess I'm neutral

A Short Message To The International Group Of People Who Think That Romania Is A Central European Country

Thank you!

Let's leave it Europe though. --Gutza 20:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

That title just made me cough/laugh a good sip of mineral water all over the keyboard. Thank you Gutza, if it breaks, you're responsible . Dunemaire 15:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Some minor points

• "Image:Romani Mare.jpg" seems to be missing.
• "Dobruja" or "Dobrudja" is better-known among English-speakers than "Dobrogea" (Cf. Dobruja).

AnonMoos 23:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Quote: "Dobruja" or "Dobrudja" is better-known among English-speakers than "Dobrogea"

That's true; and when one speaks about the history of the region of Dobruja, then it's best to write it like that, but when we talk about Romania and the Romanian part of Dobrogea, one should use the Romanian version. You can't request us to use Dobruja when speaking about our region, because it would be incorrect. The official name of our region is Dobrogea. --Anittas 07:06, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it wouldn't be correct. This is the English Wikipedia, so everybody should use English. Take a look at Russia, they don't even mention the Russian name of Moscow, let alone use it -- its "proper" name is only specified once within the relevant article about Moscow. --Gutza 13:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

In English articles, they usually mention both versions of the name, though the Bulgarian version gets priority. Either way, this is not about using the English version, because none of the two versions are considered as English version. The Bulgarian version is most often used when describing the Bulgarian part of the region, and the Romanian version when describing the Romanian part of the region. --Anittas 15:37, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Romania is a beautiful country and I love Romanian people

I am Italian and I just speak only few word in Romanian. Romania is a beautiful country and I love Romanian people.

---

Basarabia pe cruce

Basarabia pe cruce

de Adrian Paunescu

Se urcă Basarabia pe cruce

Şi cuie pentru ea se pregătesc

Şi primăvara jertfe noi aduce

Şi plînge iarăşi neamul românesc.

Noi n-avem nici un drept la fericire,

Mereu în casă moare cineva

Şi n-are ţara dreptul să respire

Şi nici pe-acela, simplu, de-a visa.

De-acolo unde s-a sfîrşit pămîntul,

Vin triburi, să ne ia pămînt şi fraţi

Şi-n faţa lor abia rostim cuvîntul

Şi, prin tăcere, suntem vinovaţi.

Ce cale poate ţara să apuce?

În tragica, neconvertita zi,

Se urcă Basarabia pe cruce

Şi nu ştim învierea cînd va fi.

Weird additions to this talk page

Someone added a bunch of random remarks about Romania from around the web to this talk page. Mostly tourist brochure stuff, none of it particularly illuminating. I am in the process of removing those that are long enough to constitute clear copyright issues; while I normally do not remove material from talk pages, this is egregious and amounts to abuse of a talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

While I'm at it: these several very similar anonymous "I'm from…(fill in the blank)…and I just love Romania…" or "I'm from…(fill in the blank)…and I'm neutral about this topic…" remarks seem somewhat suspect to me, especially one from someone claiming to be from the U.S. but not written in very good English. Between that and some of the weird recent pasting of obviously copyrighted material into the article and talk page, I am not extending my usual supposition of good faith to edits on this article and talk page, unless they come from a signed-in user with a track record. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

You have my blessing, if it helps. --Anittas 07:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

The last two items in the talk page (Romanian Intelligence and Romania, intre primele 50 de puteri economice ale lumii) are copyvios (Ziua, 13 iulie 2005 - [9]). Deleted them. This talk page looks horrible. Needs cleaning up. --Xanthar 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I've archived some material that seemed pointless or ancient; I'm hesitant to singlehandedly archive anything that is even moderately substantive and recent, but I won't object to anyone else archiving any section that his lacked new comments in even seven days. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:24, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Arab debt

Recent uncited addition; I'm not sure of the factuality: "Actually, the several billion dollar debt contracted by several Arab countries from Romania dates back to the same period (but it appears that Romania is today forced to accept a reduction of this debt, for instance in USA-administered Iraq)." I'm confused:

1. Why "Actually", can we just delete that word? It doesn't seem related to what precedes.
2. Do I understand correctly that this that saying that Romania lent money (or sold on credit) to the Arab states? Does anyone have more details?
3. "Forced" seems wrong, except in the sense of forced by circumstances; if agency is implied, it should indicate who is "forcing" and by what means.
4. "USA-administered Iraq" seems wrong: Iraq is no longer under U.S. administration (although it is certainly still effectively occupied).

Anyway, as I say, I don't know much about this, but I don't think I know much more after reading this sentence. Can someone clarify/cite? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:06, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's "common knowledge" that becomes now evident, with recent events from Iraq.

With a "romania debt arab" search on Google I found this: http://www.arabnews.com/?page=4&section=0&article=68683&d=19&m=8&y=2005 which corresponds to several romanian news from the last few days (in romanian): http://www.gandul.info/2005-08-24/actual/aurul_petrolul_si_regatenii http://www.phg.ro/stire.php?id=22333&cat_id=10

From what I know, Romania did a lot of constructions of energy infrastructure, of oil processing facilities (even after 1989 there were a lot of Romanians still working there), and it also sent education and medical staff (professors, physicians, nurses). In the Middle East and in Northern Africa.

I maintain that Romania was forced to do what it did. Can you imagine a poor country giving up 2 billion dollars for "humanitarian purposes" while most of its territory is flooded? I can't. I maintain that this phrasing is correct. You could even say "obviously forced" instead of "forced".

As you pointed out, while Iraq may be no longer formally under U.S. administration, the US certainly have full control. This is what I wanted to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs) 26 Aug 2005

• It's not that I think you are wrong; it's that we shouldn't be imparting on motives with no reference to cite. If you can find someone in the Romanian (or other) press saying they were "forced", we can quote that. In any event, it is certainly interesting that Romania is the first non-Paris-Club nation to do this. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:22, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Romania was forced by the situation. Given the state in which Iraq is now, Romania wouldn't had got any money too soon anyway. I am not sure if Romania could had obtained a better deal - I don't know too much detail about it. MihaiC 06:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, we can do as it is done in many places, by adding "There are opinions saying that...". What do you say? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs) 29 Aug 2005
    • Weasel words for attribution are not an appropriate solution. I would agree with Mihai that they were essentially writing off a bad debt, and that they were "forced by the situation", but the implication that they were forced by the agency of other countries appears to be pure conjecture. My point is that if this opinion is widely held, it should be easy enough to find someone reasonably authoritative who has said this, and to appropriately attribute the remark. If you can't find such a citation, that's a prima facie case that the opinion is marginal. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• • • • I do not agree that writing off bad debt is a good policy. Not for a small country that has no other means of getting money/contracts/etc. We basically get less that 1/3 of the initial debt. Moreover, repayment is scheduled over a period of twenty years, so that inflaton will even more reduce its importance. Recall that the swedish managed to get from Romania (in the 1990's) part of a debt that dated back to the 1940's. As Iraq will become more and more integrated in the international monetary framework, they would have been forced to repay more. Finally, and on a higher level, Romania has no moral debt towards Iraq, whereas the US did assume the responsibility of changing its regime, thus assuming in a certain sense the rights and obligations of a ruling power.
      • Now, concerning the wording of it, I do agree with you. Only facts should be marked here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpotop (talk • contribs) 30 Aug 2005

• In short (1) we agree on the article, which is what we are here for and (2) it sounds like it's not so much that you "do not agree that writing off bad debt is a good policy" as you think that it may not, in the long run, prove to be bad debt. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:25, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Less money now or (maybe) more money (much)later. Without a cristal ball it is hard to say which variant is better. The article should contain just clear facts. MihaiC 06:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)