Talk:Romania/Archive 10

Remove the semi-protected status
Would you consider doing it? I'd love to work on the article. Purpleturple (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yay, I can edit it now. :) Purpleturple (talk) 17:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Fix this?
An instance of horrible grammar: "From this period comes also George Enescu, probably the best known Romanian musician.[153] He is a composer, violinist, pianist, conductor, teacher, and one of the greatest performers of his time,[154] in whose honor is held the annually in Bucharest, the classical music George Enescu Festival."

I can't fix it because the article is protected. Can you do it instead? Purpleturple (talk 04:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC))

Location classification
While I realise that this is a contentious subject, I believe we should change Romania's geographical location from the NATO-sourced 'South-East Central Europe' to just 'South-Eastern Europe' to bring it into line with these classifications in the rest of Wikipedia. The UN classifies Romania as Eastern (though they don't have the South-Eastern category) and the majority of other classifications call Romania South-Eastern. If one clicks on the wiki link to Central Europe from this page, one sees that Romania is not one of the de facto Central European states and is listed as a state to which the label is sometimes applied. Romania appears on the South-Eastern Europe page and the Eastern Europe page. 145.116.237.195 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

actually the geographical location of romania is somewhat of a problem. the western part of romania is geographically part of central europe. the southern part of romania is geographically part of the balkan peninsula while the eastern part of romania is geographically part of eastern europe. from my point of view "south-eastern-central" classification is the most accurate one, geographically speaking. Adijarca (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds like WP:OR we should use the most common classification found in reliable sources. Period. man with one red shoe 17:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

it is not original research, it is 5th grade geography. if you want reliable sources: every serious book regarding the geological history of romania will say the same thing i said.Adijarca (talk) 12:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

5th grade geography is not the same everywhere. Purpleturple (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dated: Rumania, Roumania
What is the evidence that Rumania and Roumania are dated and not alternatives? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a long discussion about this issue, including a vote and this was the result of that discussion. I think that if you look in the last those forms are prevalent, however now those are clearly a minority and disappearing fast -- that's why "dated". Another proposal was "less used" or "uncommon". However, in English official documents the form Romania is the one that's used nowadays. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer removing Rumania. Pilsner Desk (talk) 14:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary notes that "Until recently Rumanian was the dominant spelling in the twentieth century, but now Romanian is the officially preferred form." Purpleturple (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Using Rumania or Roumania internationally helps distinquish from the the Romani ethnic group who are known throughout Europe & the Americas
The Romanian word Romani which uses Romanian grammar often gets confused with the English word Romani which is used for an etnic group in Europe (and spread to the Americas and Australasia) who originate from India.

The Romani are a people originating from India and their word Romani also originates from India - from the word "Raman". In the language a Rom (from the Sanskrit word Raman meaning the same) means Husband who is honourable and respected. Someone of the ethnic group who is not a respectable married man is called a Chavo / chavoro. This is from the Sanskrit word Sava meaning someone of likeness / kinsman and also shows connection to Rajastani Choro = son & chav = like. A wife is a Romni and a daughter is a chai. Within the culture it is tradition to be a Rai (gentleman) but unfortunetely due to hundreds of years of persectution and racism many Roms are down trodden and poor or have turned to crime and give the majority a bad name. In the UK and North America manty Roms are very rich and get alot of respect within the communities which they live in. There are other Indian words such as Lali meaning 'red' also have had the 'a' changed to an 'o' = loli as in where the English word lollipop comes from - It is an English word picked up from Romani living in England hundreds of years ago. Unfortunetely the corrupted word Romani (from Ramani) is spelt exactly the same as the Romanian word Romani, which is creating confusion for many Romanians who are coming into the English speaking world. 77.96.254.123 (User talk:77.96.254.123) 17:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

It does not help in any way. Romani is often pronounced as 'rəʊmənɪ, to the extent that it appears as such alongside 'rɒmənɪ in the Oxford English Dictionary. And so, it often has its own u in speech, granting little benefit to using Rumainian or Roumainian in writing as a means of distinction.

Moreover, the word Romanian has occasionally been used to refer to the Romani themselves. One of its entries in the OED, in fact, is "belonging to the Romany or gipsies," and the quotations offered are these:

''1841 Borrow Zincali II. iii. ii. 104 The curiosity of some learned individuals induced them to collect many words of the Romanian language, as spoken in Germany, Hungary, and England. 1857 Borrow Romany Rye v, An iron bar, sharp at the bottom, with a kind of arm projecting from the top for supporting a kettle or cauldron over the fire, and called in the Romanian language, ‘Kekauviskoe saster’. Ibid. xii, The word for leaf in the Romanian language.''

However, the link between Romani and Romanians is much alike the link between Romani and Romans. A cursory look at their names may seem to indicate some relation, but going any further than that should reveal that they are different entities. Purpleturple (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Communism period
Hello. I have a suggestion regarding the part of the article concerning the communist period. I think that at the start of the second paragraph it should be said:
 * "After the negotiated retreat of Soviet troops in 1958, and the withdrawal of Soviet advisers until late 1964, The Socialist Republic of Romania was established in 1965. Under the leadership of Nicolae Ceauşescu, who became head of the Romanian Communist Party in July 1965, Romania started to pursue independent policies."

It`s more precise, altought it occupies more space. (Daniel1918 (talk) 16:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC))

Can someone please do something about the Communist section? It's clearly written out of emotion, and anti-communism. If your priority is accuracy, you'll change it. 208.101.153.234 (talk) 11:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Crime sentencing
Romania leads the world with the longest average prison sentence served, at 37,488 years. Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sen_len-crime-sentence-length

by comparison this is more than double the runner up: Burma: 16,616 years served, and 37,488 times the lowest country on the list, Canada.


 * How can be anybody be convicted for 37488 years? I bet those are days (or hours?), and even if they are days this is clearly wrong, I highly doubt the average sentence in Romania is over 100 years. I'm pretty much sure that's a mistake. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thats what it says at http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_sen_len-crime-sentence-length which is a pretty reliable source.

Its not days or hours or else Canada would have an average sentence length of 1 hour or day. Further down the staff editor says that Columbia has an average sentence length of 137 years, which is reflected in the chart. This is not such a surprising statistic. Finland has an average of 2,762 years, which is basically the same as Romania since nobody lives that long. The average for the 46 countries in the list is years 1,673.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.238.19 (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To me it looks like nonsense. I haven't heard of 37488 years sentences, it's probably a statistical abnormality, probably accounting in a strange way for life sentences. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since 37,488 years is the average, your question should be who is giving out 100,000 year sentences? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.205.190 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond the absurd numbers cited above, Romanian legislation does not have, nor have I ever encountered a mention of, an imprisonment period that exceeds the life of the punished. The death penalty is forbidden since Romania changed regime in 1989 (I will not comment on European Union proposals regarding its reinstate as they are speculation for now). Even the maximum possible penalty, which is explicitly titled "life-time imprisonment" in the Penal Code (in Romanian: închisoare pe viață - Codul Penal, art. 56-59) is reduced to 30 years if the subject is over 60 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.114.64.146 (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

to do

 * find references for the 25, 22, 17, 11 0 'citation needed' tags that are throught the article (in Arts and Foreign relations)
 * Check external links Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for Article Expansion

 * Greater Romania - Although it is the designated section of history for Romania covering the span between WWI and WWII, it has absolutely no coverage of events between 1920 and 1940, other than a reference to its borders staying the same during this period. As this is also the referential case for the main article on Romania itself, as it now stands Wikipedia has no historical coverage of Romania in any general article from 1920 to 1940. This article requires content - even if perfunctory - for this period... Examples would include who was president, dictator, was it a democracy, what were some political, economic or social events during this period, etc.? Conversely, this article would also need an extension into the sub article on Greater Romania - at least a summary. Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * While all these issues would be interesting to be addressed in History of Romania and Greater Romania articles I think that Romania article is already overloaded with history (personal opinion, take is as that). -- AdrianTM (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with those articles being not detailed enough, but this page as of now contains enough information already. In the near future I plan to chop down some of the things from the article, but probably not from the GR part. Nergaal (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

article visits
#471 with 208k! Nergaal (talk) 04:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Foreign relations
Xasha is trying to remove any causality between the Moldovan government's pro-Russian attitude and Moldova's lack of interest in unification with Romania in section Foreign relations (see here, here, here, here, and here). The phrase in dispute is "A movement for unification of Romania and Moldova appreared in the early 1990s after both countries achieved emancipation from communist rule, quickly faded away with the new Moldovan government that adhered to CIS" (formerly worded as "with the new pro-Russian Moldovan government"), which Xasha would prefer to read "with the new Moldovan government". He's motivating his changes with WP:SYNTH, whereas the causality between the government's orientation and Moldova's lack of further interest in unification with Romania is presumably being artificially construed by Wikipedia editors, and as such would amount to original research.

Even though it's difficult for me to refrain from stating that the causality is common knowledge for anyone even remotely familiar with the topic (it's like challenging the claim that Imperial powers wanted to expand their colonies for profit), let's stick with the source shown in the article (for your convenience, it's here). The source states:
 * [From] 1991 until 1994 the relations between Romania and the Republic of Moldova went all the way from excitement and enthusiasm to a situation of tension and public accusations with adverse effects on both states. The causes of this situation include [...] certain political decisions of the authorities in Chişinău which affected the situation of the Romanian population in [Moldova]. There is no doubt that some pressure from outside the two states is partly to blame for the change in the Chişinău Government's opinions and in the way they are expressed.
 * However strong the desire for it, the Union cannot be accomplished without Moldova's consent, without a strong economic foundation, without an adequate international (and regional) context. One should not forget either Moldova's very diverse ethnic map - including a large number of Russian-speakers - or the fact that Russian troops are stationed in Moldova, or else the Republic's membership in the CIS.

Please bear in mind that Xasha is not contesting the accuracy of the statements in themselves (that the government was pro-Russian or that it was indeed the one to adhere to CIS), he's only contesting the causality between its being pro-Russian/adhering to CIS on one hand and the way RO-MO relationships progressed on the other hand -- instead, he's claiming the causality is being falsely construed by Wikipedia editors, with the source never acknowledging it. In my opinion the source does link the two together in more than one way in the fragments above, but I would appreciate other opinions. --Gutza T T+ 09:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As you can see from the quotes above, words are cherry picked from the source to reach the adequate POV. The source mentions reasons for the lack of accomplishment of the "union" (and not for fading of a movement for "unification") the following: minorities, Russian troops and CIS membership. Since the minorities and the Russian troops never left Moldova, Gutza has to ignore them, and concentrate only on the last "argument", and then link it to an ambiguous phrase somewhere above to obtain the interpretation he desires. This is clearly an original synthesis, which is against Wikipedia policies. For the "common knowledge" claim, I have to remind Gutza that in a referendum proclaimed by a pro-Romanian president, the overwhelming majority of the Moldovan citizens decided they wanted to live in an independent Moldova, so trying to blaim Russia for the lack of "unification" is tendentious. (I know the Romanian media tends to forget that referendum and supports a certain interpretation of events, but we're not here to sell a newspaper by stimulating the sensibilities of the audience, we're here to build a neutral encyclopedia) Xasha (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The referendum, of course, did not express hostility to joining Romania, but to being re-absorbed by Russia. At a time when Russia was seriously threatening Moldova's independence, of course almost everyone voted to preserve an "independent and unitary state" and maintain territorial integrity. Biruitorul Talk 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, no... the referendum was actually for independece from Burkina Faso, obviously. You have more of these ludicruos claims?Xasha (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Very funny, but that's how it was - Russia (then as now occupying de jure Moldovan territory) was the real threat, not Romania. Even Charles King calls the results of that confusing referendum "highly suspect". Many people didn't know what they were voting on, but for those who did, Russia was more on their minds than Romania. Biruitorul Talk 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey man, just search in GBooks for "1994 referendum moldova romania" and you'll see against whom/what was the referendum directed. As for Russians, they were statitioned in Transnistria and never intervened in Moldova proper.Xasha (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You have asked for hand-picked extracts, otherwise simply pointing you to the source should have sufficed, so please don't accuse me of doing precisely what you asked me to do. You fail to notice the progression "from excitement and enthusiasm to a situation of tension and public accusations" the source is stating -- did the Russian minority increase in the meanwhile or did Moldova join CIS in the meanwhile? 'Cause something must have happened to trigger that, you know -- and the source does explain that it came from outside. --Gutza T T+ 11:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I urge the parties of this dispute to create a compromise draft of the 'Foreign relations' section here on the Talk page. It can't be very difficult to come up with wording that does not draw any further deductions from the words of the source. EdJohnston (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I asked for a consistent paragraph to support your position, and I didn't expect you to take a word from here and a word from there and then tendentiously claim you proved your point. Sorry, but your personal deduction ("'Cause something must have happened to trigger that, you know ") is just pure OR, and not based on the source.Xasha (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think stating our goals would be a good start for reaching a compromise: I want the phrase to make historical sense. In the version Xasha is promoting, the reader can't understand why the movement for unification "faded away with the new Moldovan government". We say that it faded away, but we don't give any hints as to why. And I believe the "why" itself is the real dispute here -- so I suppose we need to find a wording that would make everybody happy. Xasha, how would you put it as to achieve both goals? (i.e. so that you'd be happy with it, but we would still explain to the reader what happened) --Gutza T T+ 13:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this article is about Romania, not about the political situation in Romania. As to "why" it faded, is simple: the nationalist People's Front lost its popular support after violence against Russophone minorities, economic disaster and especially after it started (and lost) the war in Transnistria.Xasha (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Popular Front did not commit violence against anyone. With economics you have a point, but Druc (the last Frontist PM) left office in May 1991, and the war starter in March 1992, so the Front cannot be held responsible for that. Biruitorul Talk 16:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know what happened in Moldova in the early 90s. And the government was of People's Front (albeit under their new name FPCD) until Snegur had to accept Agrarians in the aftemath of the Transnistria war in summer 92.Xasha (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you wish to cite examples of the Popular Front committing violence against Russophone minorities, fine. Otherwise the claim has no validity. Foreign and defence policy was in the hands of the executive. Snegur (as President) was the executive. Snegur, an anti-Unionist, used the remaining Frontists as a scapegoat for his failure. Biruitorul Talk 18:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the place, but I will add some references to the proper article. The government is the executive by definition. Snegur was the most "unionist" president Moldova ever had since 1917, but he decided his seat is more important when it became clear that "unionism" didn't have popular suuport, that is after the Transnistria War.Xasha (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the Moldovan government is not as much pro-Russian as it is anti-Romanian and we could probably find references for that. The anti-Romanian stance explains the RO-MO developments better then the pro-Russian claim. -- man with one red shoe (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Recent Moldovan governments have indeed expressed anti-Romanian views we could use, but I'm not sure that's also the case for the period in question (early 1990s). If however we can find specific anti-Romanian declarations from that government then I would be ok with using that ("anti-Romanian" may be a bit too strong for the article -- and as a Romanian I have no ulterior motive in toning that down --, but something along those lines might work, if supported by sources). --Gutza T T+ 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For example (BTW, this supports both interpretations since it talks about "Russification policies"), this is about Spring 2002 period, what is the period that you are looking for? http://www1.law.nyu.edu/eecr/vol11num1_2/constitutionwatch/moldovia_print.html

"the Romanian government announced the creation of a group composed of representatives of the foreign, defense, and interior ministries to monitor the situation in Moldova and issued a communiqué accusing the Moldovan government of anti-Romanian rhetoric and "deliberately creating a climate of confusion and false tension in the area." Romania was then accused of meddling in Moldova's domestic affairs, a charge backed, obviously, by Russia. On February 22, the Russian Duma adopted a resolution accusing Romania of infringing on Moldova's "sovereign right to an independent linguistic policy and the safeguarding of Russian as the traditional language of interethnic communication." Romania responded angrily to the Russian statement. While the final outcome of the crisis, both in Moldova and internationally, remains unclear, it does seem certain that MCP's efforts to introduce Russification policies have further destabilized the already shaky former Soviet republic." -- man with one red shoe (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For now I want to stay out of the debate, but I want to point out a question: how much of the anti-Romanian and the pro-Russian (or some better worded last part) are linked together? Whatever the connection is, I believe it is important for readers to clearly understand weather they are or are not linked together. Nergaal (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as Moldova is concerned, everything pro-Russian is inherently anti-Romanian (politically speaking, of course -- for a broader view, read a couple of paragraphs into the source mentioned above). I suppose the opposite is also true to an extent, although I can't tell how much a decision to despise or hate Romanians automatically leads a Moldovan into the welcoming arms of Moldova's big brother. --Gutza T T+ 15:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's nothing but classical Romanian nationalist Russophobia. It's like claiming that every pro-Serbian attitude in Romania is inherently anti-Hungarian. Xasha (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I'd appreciate a few examples of unionist Russians (or pro-Russian politicians) in Moldova. I find it very doubtful that in a country whose territory was stolen at gun point by the Soviets from Romania you can find pro-Russians who are also pro-Romanian (or at least Romanian-neutral). Again, I'm only talking about politics -- I'm positive many unionists enjoy Dostoevski and Tchaikovsky, but that's besides the point. --Gutza T T+ 16:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it has any importance, but Stalin's father was Ossetian (just for the sake of accuracy). As for Russians being so happy with their leaders that's a bit scary, I think it shows what are their values... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Unionism" is a fringe movement in Moldova today, so I couldn't name much unionist politicians (even PPCD seems to have dropped the idea of "union" in favour of EU membership, which is as union with Romania as is it with Sweden or Portugal). Sorry, but that land was not Romania's to begin for. Stealing from a thief is not too fair, but is not specially unfair either. Also, (pro-)Russians are not necessarily (pro-)Soviet. Just look at the official position of the Transnistrian separatists.Xasha (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from obviously untrue statements. I'm not sure what you're hoping for, but I expect you're hoping to elicit an emotional response -- calling Romania a "thief" in relationship to Bessarabia fringes trolling. As for the first point, what can I say -- q.e.d.? --Gutza T T+ 17:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly true, just it isn't the traditional view in Romania's historiography. I wasn't the one to start claiming someone stole something.Xasha (talk) 17:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's not sidetrack this discussion, ok? If you have any respect for historical truth I propose a useful exercise you can try in private: explain why the union with Romania is called union, while the previous annexation by the Russians is called annexation. Oh, and for the record I was being quite civil when I said the Russians stole the territory -- the source we've been discussing calls it "territorial rape". --Gutza T T+ 17:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Simple. Because there are more Romanians on Wikipedia, compared to Moldovans (some dozens vs a couple). Obviously any attempt to change those titles is futile ab initio. As for that source, you don't want to get me started with Soviet or Moldovan nationalist sources.Xasha (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I though it was unuion because the legislative body adopted/agreed t it, and annexation because soldiers agreed to invade. you are right, they are synonyms. Nergaal (talk) 11:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Neither of us wants to get the other started with nationalistic "sources" -- if you had the curiosity to actually read that document you would've been surprised at how neutral it is (it's bashing the Romanian authorities and their silly nationalistic perspective more than once). I won't even go near the other topic, we'd end up in a silly debate. --Gutza T T+ 17:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

break
This sort of discussions have happened too many times in the past! Can people get away from their personal opinions and present references (the more the better) for the statements (i.e. not opinions)? Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Gutza: can you bring more sources that support the idea that you are trying to insert? Even if you were interpreting the source right, it is still a single source, which might or not be relevant to the real situation.
 * 2) Xasha, can you bring sources that disprove what Gutza believes should be inserted? Just saying that is OR is still subjective, so unless you bring sources showing the opposite, you are still POV-ing.
 * For the record, I'm not trying to insert anything, I'm trying to preserve the information that was there before Xasha decided to remove it (see article history). Anyway, I'll look for other sources (although that is a pretty solid, well-researched and highly regarded document, I'm not sure I'll be able to find something of the same caliber). --Gutza T T+ 16:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Every source has its limitations. If other sources, independent of the original source show the same thing, than the statement gains more wight. Nergaal (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To bring source to disprove something?!? Sorry, but that is ludicruous. Should I begin to write some imaginary things in this article and then ask for source disproving my assertions? And I'm not claiming the opposite to anything, I'm just saying let's leave that part out, since the view is not supported by any source.Xasha (talk) 17:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you making this hard? My point here is: you believe that the text does not say that, while Gutza does. They are both subjective views (btw, I did not read the actual ref yet so don't assume I am interpreting the source) and no-one is a priori right. But if Gutza brings multiple refs that imply what is he saying while you simply discredit them all and refuse to be constructive and/or to bring references that disprove his interpretation/view of the refs, you will not receive support. Nergaal (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The curent source doesn't support Gutza's POV and no other source has been brought. So there's nothing to discuss at the moment.Xasha (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"The parliamentary elections of February 1994 brought about a political realignment. Shortly before falling into decline, the Agrarian Democratic Party won an electoral majority, defeating parties that favoured either unification with Romania or a close alliance with Russia. In March of that year, Moldovans voted overwhelmingly to maintain independence, and in April the parliament approved limited membership in the Commonwealth of Independent States. At the same time “Moldovanism,” an ideology of self-determination emphasizing the country’s distinctiveness from Romania, became a significant force in political and cultural life." Is that enough to support the phrase as I proposed it? (i.e. "A movement for unification of Romania and Moldova appreared in the early 1990s after both countries achieved emancipation from communist rule, quickly faded away with the new Moldovan government that adhered to CIS.") The fragment is from Britannica. --Gutza T T+ 18:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Britannica is not considered reliable... Nergaal (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how Britannica could support your POV.Xasha (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it is not relevant since it is not reliable. Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Xasha, if you fail to see that (irrespective of the source's merits), then maybe you're misreading my intentions. In case you haven't noticed, I didn't say the government in question ended up governing Moldova as a result of a criminal Russian coup or anything odious like that -- I'm just trying to give the reader the right impression, i.e. that there was a shift in the government's attitude regarding a possible union with Romania; I find the decision to join the CIS explanatory enough for the purpose of summarizing the whole thing. However, you never had a chance to reply to my invitation to propose a wording of your own. --Gutza T T+ 18:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey man, that paragraph says that both "unionist" and Russia-supporters were defeated in the 1994 elections, that Moldovans voted for independence and that the Parliament approved a limited membership in CIS. None of these has any relation to your interpreatation of causality. You are not supposed to join disparate facts just because you find their combination "explanatory". Xasha (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's called summarizing, you have all the facts in that fragment and I believe they correlate nicely. I'm not saying we should use that, but if that isn't enough then nothing will be. Personally I think it's a no-brainer that a government actively seeking CIS membership will not also pursue a unionistic policy, and I doubt you'll find any serious source spewing truisms like that one. But you still haven't come up with a concrete proposal. --Gutza T T+ 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's called original synthesis and it's not allowed on Wikipedia. Britannica doesn't put state any casuality between the facts as you do. You can keep your personal thoughts for your blog, this is Wikipedia, which has WP:NOR as one of its core policies. You have my proposal in the edit history of the page (the one you have reverted so many times).Xasha (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything short of copy/pasting can be called original synthesis if you don't like the result -- logical summarizing and good faith synthesis is allowed, or else the entire Wikipedia would be a collection of quotations. I have addressed the version you support here. --Gutza T T+ 19:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Attaching random facts to convey a certain interpretation is original synthesis under Wikipedia policy. Personal logic, especially here where there's no way to ascertain the faultlessness of this logic, fails WP:OR. So, since you brought no source to support your correlations, I have to unwillingly assume you're tendentiously disregarding Wikipedia policies, which is regrettable for an admin.Xasha (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe Xasha is trying to support something on these lines. 18:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The region east of the Dniester river, Transnistria, which includes a large proportion of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians, declared independence in 1990, fearing the rise of nationalism in Moldova and the country's expected reunification with Romania upon secession from the USSR. This caused a brief military conflict between Moldovan and Transnistrian secessionist forces in 1992. Russian military stationed in the region (14th Army) intervened on the Transnistrian side and remained on Moldovan territory east of the Dniester after the end of the military conflict, despite signing international obligations to withdraw, and against the will of Moldovan government.[32][33] As of 2006, approximately 1200 of the 14th army personnel remain stationed in Transnistria. Negotiations between the Transnistrian and Moldovan leaders have been going on under the mediation of the OSCE, Russia, and Ukraine; lately observers from the European Union and the USA have become involved."
 * huh?!? Xasha (talk) 18:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, how about this, I think it's neutered neutral enough: "A movement for unification of Romania and Moldova appreared in the early 1990s after both countries achieved emancipation from communist rule, but quickly faded away with the new anti-unionist Moldovan government." --Gutza T T+ 19:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's reduntant. A more acceptable version would be: "faded away when the Pro-unionist forces lost political support in Moldova".Xasha (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If that's indeed the case, I'm all for it -- but please provide some sources. I have provided sources which explain what the new government has done, and as such we can draw conclusions about it, but I haven't found any sources supporting your proposal. --Gutza T T+ 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here: "While in the beginning reunification seemed for some time like “the natural course” of things for the Romanian speaking two thirds of the population (according to the 1989 census) of the Moldovan republic, this changed rapidly after 1994. Since then there have been parties in power whose agenda is to preserve a Moldovan republic independent of Romania." I think that's decent support for "anti-unionist government", which in itself is more than reasonably neutral. --Gutza T T+ 20:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * From the same source (which is a surprisingly fascinating read):
 * "Both historiographical currents focus on two different spaces: the Romanianist focuses on the wide Romanian space, while the Moldovanist narrative looks towards Russia and the CIS space."
 * "Another aspect is the description of the ‘external others’ – those countries and peoples surrounding the RM. Both narratives paint a similar picture of the ‘external others’, which could be summarized like this: surrounded by enemies and one friend. In the case of Romanianism, all surrounding peoples and powers want to prevent the unification of all Romanians in one state. The natural friend of the ethnic Romanians in the RM is Romania. The narrative of Moldovanism mirrors this by characterizing all surrounding peoples as hostile, because they want to subjugate Moldova – especially Romania. Here it is only Russia, which has been exhibiting a friendly and supportive attitude towards the Moldovans."
 * I think this answers a few of the questions above and positions the "two narratives" in their proper place. --Gutza T T+ 20:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But "anti-unionist" has a more negative connotation than "agenda to preserve a Moldovan republic independent of Romania".Xasha (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, but if you prefer that specific wording I'm fine with it. Deal? --Gutza T T+ 21:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine.Xasha (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great -- I'll make the necessary adjustments and unprotect the page (Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy). --Gutza T T+ 21:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, please review. --Gutza T T+ 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yikes! The page was protected because of an edit war in which Gutza was one of the participants. Please request an uninvolved admin to do the unprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, except the edit war Gutza was involved in has ended in consensus, why would we need a third party? Again, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Gutza T T+ 21:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, EdJohnston, but this is silly, the parties involved in a war edit have agreed to a compromise, why don't you just unprotect the page? -- man with one red shoe (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already done that (I'm an admin), and that's typically a big no-no, since I was involved in the edit war in the first place. But since the dispute is over I strongly feel I was in my right to operate the unprotection myself (if only as to avoid unnecessarily bothering other admins). I'm sure EdJohnston will agree after reviewing the conversation above. --Gutza T T+ 21:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Review
Given space restrictions, the review is not transcribed and can be found here: Talk:Romania/GA3 Best, epicAdam(talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Economy
The economy section is so POV that it makes me wonder if the authors deny certain realities out of sheer patriotism or are simply unaware of them. I see no mention of how poorly the middle class is represented (the majority of the population still struggling to make a decent living, while few are outrageously rich), of the corruption and bureaucracy, the discrepancy in standard of living and purchasing power between Bucharest (and perhaps few other cities such as Cluj) and the rest of the country. Other sources seem to tell a slightly different tale (take a look at the article about the European Union): "There are substantial economical disparities across the EU. Even corrected for purchasing power, the difference between the richest and poorest regions (NUTS-2 and NUTS-3 of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) is about a factor of ten. On the high end Frankfurt has €71,476 PPP per capita, Paris €68,989, and Inner London €67,798, while the three poorest NUTS, all in Romania, are Vaslui County with €3,690 PPP per capita, Botoşani County with €4,115, and Giurgiu County with €4,277.[129]" 81.101.19.67 (talk) 21:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please add information that's relevant and sourced. Do it yourself, don't wait for other people... -- man with one red shoe (talk) 22:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cough, cough!... And which of the above is irrelevant and/or unsourced?81.145.166.130 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Cough, cough! I didn't say it's not (although I don't see any reference), but the main point of my post was "do it yourself" So, as long as info is well sourced and relevant to the article what keeps you or the previous poster from adding it? man with one red shoe 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

IMF
With regards to Romania's Per Capita PPP and Nominal for each year, Romania should have the information for Per Capita for the current year e.g. 2009. It is ridiculous how people continue to put Romania's Per Capita information from the year before. Its makes sense to do it for the same year. The year is the year it is 2009 is not 2008. It doesn't prove anything and it gives misleading information to readers.Pryde 01 (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We need to use accurate numbers, 2009 numbers are just predictions. They shouldn't be used in any country page. man with one red shoe 14:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

These numbers may be right but...
These numbers may be right, but how can the numbers change without the citation changing? - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

legal - > legislative
The correct names for the 3 branches of government are : legislative, executive and judicial. Please replace legal with legislative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cloghin (talk • contribs) 00:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to know how to edit pages. Why not just fix it yourself? I've made this change but don't just talk about it, join the fun. Henryhartley (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Romanian history
Hey, I just want to notice that at the part with romanian history it should be writen the international recognized version of the origins of romanians based on language evidences and historical proofs, wich is the accurate version. The other theories should not be given much importance. Otherweise people might get confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smeny (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor Typo
Under the subsection "World Wars and Greater Romania," there is a typo within the caption for the image "Romania territory during 20th century.gif." The line in question reads: The small Hertza region, aslo purple but delimitted...."

I would fix it, but I'm only a casual editor of such minor mistakes (usually without logging in) and therefore do not have the permission to do so myself. Xataro (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * , ty. – Capricorn42 ( talk ) 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Constitution states that Romania is a semi-presidential democratic republic where executive functions are shared between the president and the prime minister." Where in the constitution does it state that Romania is a semi presidential republic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.204.42.211 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Population
(Numaru7 (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)) I noticed that the population numbers are bad. The population is, according to eurostat, 21 496 700, which means that the current value is out of date. You can find proof for the population change if u click on "50th", next to the actual population number which brings up the "list of countries by population", where the correct value is given ( and also the link to eurostat which confirms it is also there).

So... if somebody would change it, it would be nice.

External Link
Official government website for Romania is http://www.gov.ro/ Vlad003 (talk) 02:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Communes
The link under Administrative divisions needs disambiguating to Communes of Romania. 84.68.69.250 (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Leujohn  ( talk ) 02:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Coat of Arms
I saw a lot of coat of arms, especially historic and old ones that were beautified by adding a transparency effect. I tried this on the Romanian Coat of Arms and because I didn't want to alter the current Coat of Arms file I created a new file based on it. Do you think that we should alter the original Coat of Arms by adding the transparency effect?

Please tell me what do you think. Thanks! Scooter20 (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your altered coat af arms may be better looking, but is worthless because is not the original. the coat of arms is not like the nike mark, it's full of history. if you take that out is worthless —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus orha (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

First unification took place in 1600 not in 1599
First unification took place in 1600, made by Mihai Viteazul (Michael the Brave) and was valid for 1 year (1600-1601). Please edit this error —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dionysus orha (talk • contribs) 17:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

jkk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.241.152 (talk) 23:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Environment section redundancy?
Isn't this sentence redundant?

"A high percentage of natural ecosystems (47% of the land area of the country) is covered with natural and semi-natural ecosystems." Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to reformulate like this: "A high percentage (47% of the land area) of the country is covered with natural and semi-natural ecosystems." not sure if it's much better... man with one red shoe 03:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is better, thanks. The statement itself wasn't all that clear to begin with, and maybe it should be adjusted whenever the next major work is done on that section. For now it isn't a significant issue, and can remain as-is. Jo7hs2 (talk) 11:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

South Eastern Europe
According to 90% of the maps, Romania is not part of Central Europe, because it is part of South Eastern Europe.--Celebration1981 (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the introduction is said: "is a country located in Southeastern Europe" where do you see Central Europe? man with one red shoe 13:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you changed it, that's fine... man with one red shoe 13:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the surface 237 500??
I was told in school in Romania that Romania surface is 237 500, while this article shows 238 391. Why this difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.238.108.175 (talk) 14:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The 238,391 figure is the current official figure according to INSSE. See also this old discussuib for additional information. --Polaron | Talk 14:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. You can remove my comment then.  It should however be useful in my opinion to make a link to that page (or something similar), for people who still have the same question.

Romania in Central Europe?LOL.Who's then in Eastern Europe?Mongolia?:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.3.245.201 (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not Mongolia, but Ukraine, Belarus and Russia!
 * Scooter20 (talk) 10:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Population
According to the Cia world factbook 2009, the population of Romania is 22,215,000 and not 21,5. Please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotzi (talk • contribs) 15:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Parliamentary not semi-poresidential
The page about semi-presidential regimes says "prime minister and a president are both active participants in the day-to-day administration of the state". This is not the case with Romania, where, according to its Constitution, the president doesn't have any administrative rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.186.180.201 (talk) 22:11, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

wrong. in a parliamentary republic the parliament and the prime minister are elected. and the parliament elects the president. in romania's case the president is elected and he appoints the prime minister not the parliament. here is what the semi-presidential system article says: "It differs from a parliamentary republic in that it has a popularly elected Head of State who is more than a purely ceremonial figurehead. It differs from the presidential system in that the cabinet, although named by the president, is responsible to the legislature, which may force the cabinet to resign through a motion of no confidence." both these conditions are also encountered in the romanian system. the romanian president does participate in the day-to-day running of country. he is the supreme commander of the military, he appoints the heads of the national agencies and most importantly he is promulgates laws enacted by the parliament and endorses new ministers. a law cannot be adopted unless it promulgated by the president. in a parliamentary system the presidency is only a ceremonial position, it has no power and no obligations. Adijarca (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

--167.128.62.127 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)You need to get a better job than writing stupid things like this.yes mentatus you are right. however this does not change the fact that the romanian president is not just a figurehead, and as such romania is not a parliamentary system. Adijarca (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Fully agree, Romania is *NOT* a parliamentary republic and our "player-president" not a figurehead either. Mentatus (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Romanian culture
Some Fun Facts Some of Romania's delicacies are polenta or mamaliga, stuffed cabage with rice and meat or Tsarmaleh, and a special vodka made in Romania called Tsoyke. Romania is also known for her famous count Dracula story. Dracula was known as a vampire that invited people to his castle and drank their blood. In villages in Romania people started disappearing, so the story originated from the villager's fears. Many people do not know that Romanian is one of the five romance languages and it is very similar to Italian and Spanish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.172.244.105 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

SE vs C Europe
I don't want to start an edit war, but Olahus keeps changing my wording (part of SE Europe...Also part of Central Europe according to some sources) to his version (part of SEE and CE). I argued my changes: See each article (CE, SEE), Romania is only considered in Central Europe by a few sources because Central Europe, even in it's extended (historical) definition only includes Transylvania, supported by the article Central Europe and this map ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CentralEurope.png ). He changed it back to his version saying: From political reasons yes, but from the geographical point of view only Dobruja. This is of course incorrect just by looking at the article.

I'm basically just looking for support from other users occupied with this article, so the edit conflict doesn't continue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayceman (talk • contribs) 06:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted back to Olahus version for these reasons, first of all that sentence "It is also considered part of Central Europe by some sources" was out of place there. Second, "some sources" without presenting the sources sounds weaselly. Third, and probably most important argument, if some sources consider Transylvania part of the Central Europe it means exactly that that Romania is situated both in SEE and CE since Transylvania is an important part of Romania. man with one red shoe 13:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Only one cold-war source puts Romania in Central Europe, and of the 8 post-cold-war sources presented in the CE article, only 2 place Romania in a grey zone, possibly in CE, but no certainty.
 * 2. According to the pre-WWI definition of CE, Transylvania was included because it was part of Austria-Hungary, so it a part of the historical Central Europe
 * 3. Positioning Romania in CE is more of a political statement, than a geographical one.
 * So I'm going to simply remove the 'part of Central Europe' part, if you say that some is weaselly, though Encarta and Katzenstein could be included in the refs for 'some'.--Ayceman (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ayceman, didn't you notice that nobody cares about your original research? --Olahus (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The northern limit of the Balkan Peninsula is the Danube river. Only 6% of Romania is located in the Balkans. Since Transylvania and Bukovina are undoubtely Central European regions, we come to the conclusion that 46% of Romania's surface is Central European. Besides, check the source from the article. It says clearly Southeast Central Europe. --Olahus (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If Transylvania was part of the "historical" Central Europe what makes you think it has migrated somehow to other parts of Europe? Just because the Romanian capital is at South-East of Transylvania doens't mean that Transylvania has become less Central European than before. Also, since you claim that the positioning is more of a political issue then we can't use any cold-war source since the political situation is clearly different now. In the past even countries like Poland were called "Eastern European countries" which is absurd in the current context. man with one red shoe 15:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Olahus: What original research are you talking about? South Eastern Europe isn't the same as the Balkans, it includes the area to the north of the Danube, the concept was designed specifically so to counter ambiguity in this region. And Transylvania and N Bukovina are not undoubtedly CE. They were, but borders changed, countries shifted positions somewhat. This is about the geographical position, not historical or political allegiance. And I know, in the Ro educational system, Romania is placed in CE, but that's obviously a political „moft”.
 * man with one red shoe: Transylvania is part of a country, and a country can not be part of two distinct geographical groups, unless it's very big, or split into two distinct sections, either by it's shape, or by continent borders. When the border moved westward, so did the border of CE. It now ends at Poland-Slovakia-Hungary. Also, Poland, when it was independent, was generally considered as part of Central Europe, and that doesn't mean that because the section of it's territory that is now part of Ukraine was in CE, makes Ukraine part of CE, just like the fact that Transylvania, as part of A-H, was in CE, doesn't make Romania part of CE. All that matters is the present (borders + geographical position). And I don't think you understood what I was saying in my previous comment. Only one cold-war source, of many placed Romania in CE, and of the post-cold war sources, only 2/8 place Romania in a grey area, meaning somewhere in between being and not being in CE. The others don't place Romania at all in CE. This basically means that placing Romania in CE too, in the article, is both non-representative of the given sources and logically incorrect. --Ayceman (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Southeastern Europe is the recent political denomination of the Balkan states. Depending on the source, Romania is considered to be Eastern European, Southeastern European, Central European and East Central European. I can show you sources for all those claims. But from the geographical point of view it is only 6% Balkanic. See also the article Serbia (notice that 3/4 of Serbia's surface is located in the Balkan Peninsula, 2/3 if we exclude Kosovo). --Olahus (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You ask why Olahus keeps talking about Balkans? Guess where Southeastern Europe redirects, as you can see in that map that only Dobruja is geographically part of it. man with one red shoe 19:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Southeast Europe is the real article, I don't know why Southeastern Europe redirects there, probably an unfixed redirect. I also see that the article has been edited by Olahus to suit his view. This was how the article looked like before his revisions: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southeast_Europe&oldid=286122989
 * The important phrase is this: "Southeastern Europe is a section of the continent which mostly corresponds to the Balkan peninsula, according to the minimalistic POV.[1] In a more broader sence it can extend to include areas associated with the Balkans outside the peninsula itself. Many scholars agree that the two terms- the Balkans and the Southeastern Europe are not identical. Likewise, the term Southeastern Europe can thus also apply to Vojvodina (Serbia), Romania, Slavonia (Croatia), and sometimes also Slovenia, Moldova and Cyprus. Therefore, the Balkans could be considered a part of the broader Southeastern Europe." Those statement were well documented.--Ayceman (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What scholars are you talking about? --Olahus (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I reverted the SE Eur article to the old version and tidied it up stylistically. Fixed the redirect too. I'm waiting some other people to solve the CE dispute here, so it doesn't become an edit war, but I will report Olahus if he remodifies the SE Europe article.--Ayceman (talk) 16:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You dind't improve the article at all. You just deleted referenced information. --Olahus (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reference
See this reference for quality information: The Library of Congress —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damian Radu (talk • contribs) 20:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

First Unification
It's NOT 1599, it's 1600. That's common knowledge. Please rectify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.123.204.34 (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Map of the historical regions in Romania & its neighboroughs.
Those regions are NOT "all of Romania", BUT "of Romania AND ITS NEIGHBOUROUGHS" and the legend are clear about it. All countries have parts of historical regions in common with their neighboroughs : for exemple, the Hainaut is partially french, partially belgian. Thank you for not misunderstanding our intention, faithfully yours,--Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't particularly like the map and there are already too many images/maps in the article. The map is confusing, debatable and probably incorrect. man with one red shoe 19:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

This map is surely correct, precise and not debatable since all this historic atlases & more other old maps ("Westermann Grosser Atlas zur Weltgeschichte", 1985, ISBN 3-14-100919-8, "DTV Atlas zur Weltgeschichte", 1987, ISBN 2-7242-3596-7, "Putzger historischer Weltatlas Cornelsen" 1990, ISBN 3-464-00176-8, "Atlas historique Georges Duby", Larousse 1987, ISBN 2-03-503009-9, "Atlas des Peuples", André et Jean Sellier, La Découverte : "Europe occidentale" : 1995, ISBN 2-7071-2505-9, "Europe centrale" : 1992, ISBN 2-7071-2032-4, "Orient" : 1993, ISBN 2-7071-2222-X, Történelmi atlasz, Hungarian academy, 1991, ISBN 963-351422-3 CM Atlas istorico-geografic, Academia româna, 1995, ISBN 973-27-0500-0.), but if we consider the actual political boundaries as historical retroactive borders, you're right : this map may be confusing, debatable and probably incorrect. This is a great fashion in the english Wikipedia : a powerful Newspeak who organize the present, prepare the future and edit the past ! Proshchay, comrades !, --Spiridon MANOLIU (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hy! I am from Romania and i want to make a suggestion in terms of driving on the streets; the driving in Romania is on the left side not on the right such is indicate on the main page! I realy hope the change wiil be done! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.164.64 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Population
According to CIA Wolrd Factbook, Romania`s population estimation for 2009 is 22,215,421. Please edit the wrong data —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.34.220 (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If someone could correct where it says "egetation" instead of "vegetation" on the page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.84.86.54 (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ANCA
Anca Mueller is arguably one of the most influential people currently living in Romania. She has devoted her time and labor for the satisfaction of many all over the world. Thank you Anca! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdog317 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Romania Abandoned
The article says that Romania was the first Roman province to be abandoned, but they had already abandoned Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Germania Magna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.128.38 (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First romanized province, ge it through your thick skull already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.122.230 (talk) 13:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Something else
Asianhordes (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I recommend some addition after the following lines, at the end of the PREHISTORY AND ANTIQUITY article. After this: Several competing theories have been generated to explain the origin of modern Romanians. Linguistic and geo-historical analysis tend to indicate that Romanians have coalesced as a major ethnic group both South and North of the Danube.

The addition should be: But there are other theories of origin which suggest that romanians migrated into the Danube area from the south in the early middle-age, from other part of Balkan, as their language shows connections with albanian language. Overmore the name Romanian didnt exist until the 19th century. It was created in the era of nationalist movements in Europe, to replace the missing continuity of national-consciousness from the potential ancient roman anceptors lived in Dacia province.


 * Source? Pcap ping  20:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Beside the lack of reliable sources and your try to push your personal opinions let me comment on this blatant misinformation: "Overmore the name Romanian didnt exist until the 19th century" -- Rumanian/Romanian is attested at least since 1512. man with one red shoe 20:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * per above.  fetch  comms  ☛ 02:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

International rankings for Romania
Someone with the right authority should add International rankings for Romania ( example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phenoz (talk • contribs) 11:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Fondul Proprietatea
Besides the somewhat awkward English, I don't see a major problem with this paragraph (I was not the one who add it; not sure who User:Biruitorul is addressing in the edit summary). The nationalization and compensation via the fund are well documented; perhaps omit the numbers from here if they are disputed? The "attack" or NPOV nature of the FP article should be discussed on its talk page. Removing the link to it from here doesn't solve the problems in that article. WP:PRESERVE should be observed here I think. Pcap ping  07:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have reverted user:Biruitorul deletion. It is the second time I have to do this and the second time what I write is deleted by the same user. I am the author of this small paragraph and also of Fondul Proprietatea article. There may effectively be an English level issue since I am not fluent in English, but I do strongly believe this issue related to nationalization must appear in the article. The non restitution of confiscated real estates has still a big impact today in Romania. I am beginning to think that Biruitorul is politically biased since there is no valid reason to weep out this part.--Cbrajon (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cbrajon, I really don't care what you're beginning to think about me. Now, to the substantive issue. It is appropriate to include links to the relevant articles (nationalization in Romania and collectivization in Romania). It's not particularly appropriate, in an article that is intended to be a broad overview, to stress what is, at base, a footnote. That is to say: the main story is the expropriation that took place in 1948. That an attempt at restitution has been going on in the past few years is interesting, but hardly relevant to the history of communist Romania.
 * And by the way, Cbrajon's text links directly to decrees: I again ask him to review WP:PSTS. - Biruitorul Talk 17:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a commend about WP:PSTS since I see it's used as a club here, it clearly says that "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." I don't see anything wrong with using a decree as a reference as long is used to make descriptive claim and is not interpreted by the editor. man with one red shoe 20:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but there are plenty of WP:SECONDARY historical sources documenting the nationalization, so citing the law, and arguing over whether it's appropriate to do so is quite superfluous. Pcap ping  08:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC) E.g.:     (law II/1948 mentioned explicitly in the last one). Pcap  ping  08:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The links that have been added to the specific articles fit perfectly. I am glad that "nationalization" and "collectivization" are mentioned here because it is an essential part of communism policy and explains most of its consequences. Basically, I was not asking for more. If I had known since the beginning that there was an article dedicated to this subject, I should have added my text there. I wonder why did I not found it before? I would like to add that I am not obsessed by this subject (property of nationalization in Romania) as user:Biruitorul seems to believe. I am only obsessed by truth and facts. Now that this article has met an acceptable equilibrium, at least on this point, I'm fine :) --Cbrajon (talk) 17:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedea is not a place for debate! Yeh, he deleted your thing, get over it, and heed my username & Don't look back in anger J 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don't look back in anger (talk • contribs)

Middle Ages
That map (RomaniansPoliticalEntities.svg) is a joke. It is fantasy, fiction. The map do not have trustworthy source and everybody knows Gesta Hungarorum is a big tale. How does anybody dare to design a map which does not have reliable source and use that in a textbook? The design of map is astonishing because that draws non-existent borders and mentions non-existent persons. Could anybody insert a correct map? Fakirbakir (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hungary forced to sign Trianon Treaty and other stuff
dear hungarian person, who thinks it is a fact that Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty. please read Your first article :"Please do not write articles that advocate one particular viewpoint on politics, religion, or anything else. Understand what we mean by a Neutral point of view before tackling this sort of topic.".

Hungary and Romania and other european countries today have relations based on Trianon Treaty. That means Hungarian state is OK with the treaty. But, if you - dear hungarian person, think Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty, u still have to follow wikipedia NPOV guideline All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. Please provide a reliable source publishing "Hungary was forced to sign Treaty of Trianon" Criztu (talk) 09:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a "published third-party reliable source" as requested. Please note, that I am not interested in this discussion. (A defeated country, whose territory (app. 80% [?]) even its capital is occupied by alien (Romanian, Serb, Czechoslovak) forces was forced or not forced to sign a treaty... ps.: Just think about the Hungarian slogan "Nem, Nem, Soha" (No, No, Never)-- B@xter 9 10:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read Treaty of Trianon: "Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of Roumania all rights and title over the territories of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy[...]Whereas the Allied and Associated Powers are equally desirous that the war in which certain among them were successively involved, directly or indirectly, against Austria-Hungary, and which originated in the declaration of war by the former Imperial and Royal Austro-Hungarian Government". This treaty is still in effect, and Hungary is not forced by anybody today to dennounce it as illegal, if there was anyone forcing it to sign it in the past Criztu (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The formulation "Germany signed a treaty with Romania allowing the latter to occupy Bessarabia" is preposterous and tendentious. There is no mention of such thing in the text of Treaty of Bucharest Criztu (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Criztu (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you dont understand the problem here. 1) The borders of present-day Hungary were established at the Paris Peace Treaties. 2) Germany and Austria-Hungary were defeated and they were forced to signe what the Allies wanted. Anything. Wikipedia is based on reliable secondary and tertiary sources written by historians and not on primary sources, like the text of the treaty, and historians agree that the defeated Central Powers were punished by the Allies and they were forced to do what France, and Great Britain wanted. So Hungary "renounced " of all rights and title over the territories in favour of Roumania as Romania "renounced" of all rights and title over the territories of Moldova in favour of the Soviet Union. Furthermore, I dont know if Hungary "voluntarily" "renounced" all rights and "title over the territories" in favour of Roumania why did they sey "No, No Never", and why did they wanted revision (see Kingdom of Hungary (1920–1946) and Vienna Awards). "This treaty is still in effect, and Hungary is not forced by anybody today to dennounce it as illegal" I dont think you understand the basics of international relationship. Furthermore, the Hungarian government declared, that he has no territorial demands, but as I told you this doesn't mean that Hungary was not forced, as you can read this in that third-party reliable English source you removed.-- B@xter 9 12:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * your sources say "Hungary ceded Transylvania" ,while the Trianon Treaty states "Hungary renounces claims over teritory of Austia-Hungary Monarchy" - a distinct and defunct state, and not "Hungary cedes its teritory", so your source is POV and revisionistic. I repeat - Hungary recognizes Trianon Treaty today, so "Hungary forced to sign" is crank. Trianon Treaty article covers the matter extensively yet there is no "Hungary forced to sign" so please Criztu (talk) 12:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It makes me feel sad that people, for whom it can be a question whether Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty or not, edit the relevant articles in an encyclopedia. The country lost a World War, its territory invaded by foreign armies, etc... The government sent a noname man to sign the treaty, the Parliament was in grief (in speeches 'forcing' is clearly stated), life stopped on June 4, 1920. Let me give some details about this day. The cities were full of black flags, offices, theaters, etc were closed, there was no teaching in schools, just grief and commemoration. The traffic stopped (trains stopped on the rails where they happened to be at 10 o'clock). Courts held a 10 minute pause at 10 o'clock. City council of Budapest stopped for an hour. The Parliament did not work, only the chairman, István Radovszky spoke and said the treaty is unjust, but Hungary has no other choice but to sign it "under force". The Parliament only ratified the treaty in November (5 months later). Then again, black flags of grief appeared on the houses, the parliement's speaking hall was covered also in black clothes. Speech of Károly Huszár, approximate rush translation by me: ... as the Parliament agrees to ratify the treaty of Trianon, it declares before divine truth and to the conscience of humankind that we regard this peace treaty was based on false information, we regard it unjust and going against the universal common interests of humanity and that 'it is not a result of discussing facts and interests, but the forcing of alien will on us, and the Parliament accepts the ratification only under this irresistable pressure...''
 * To tell that Hungary simply signed the treaty just the way you sign a business contract, and was not forced, shows either huge lack of information, or intent of manipulation and faking of history. Qorilla (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not Hungary that lost WW1, but Austro-Hungarian Empire. Hungary that signed Trianon was practicaly a new country, before Trianon it was a teritory of an Empire. Likewise Bessarabia was a new country in 1918, a Republic, before WW1 it was a teritory of Russian Empire. Criztu (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Criztu, 12:33, 2010 January 29 Criztu (talk | contribs) (138,156 bytes) (read Trianon Treaty article, there is no "Hungary forced to sign" please refrain from revisionistic POV Undid revision by (talk)) (undo I hope you know that wikipedia is not a reliable source...-- B@xter 9 12:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Austria-Hungary was a dual monarchy of 2 states Austria and Kingdom of Hungary/Hungary which exist from the 9th century. This is why "the new country" was handled by the Allies as a defeated country.-- B@xter 9 12:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the dual monarchy Austria-Hungary was divided in 1918, and Hungary became independent. But also it became independent with its full territory (some of it was occupied, of course). The ratification of these occupations followed in 1920, when Hungary had no other choice than to sign the treaty but it did not do it voluntarily or as an agreement.
 * Of course, today, there are no territorial claims of Hungary, and it is very malicious of you to mix history and whether Hungary was forced, with the marginal present-day revisionism. And also as Baxter pointed out, it is the 1947 Paris Treaty that is in effect, which says slightly smaller borders than the Trianon one. Qorilla (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * i think that using the Trianon Treaty formulation "Hungary renounces in favor of Romania any claims over teritories of Austro-Hungary" can not be considered POV. Criztu (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Again, the text of the treaty is a primary source (From wikipedia policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources...Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source." 2) "Hungary recognizes Trianon Treaty today" doesn't prove that was not forced to signe the treaty in 1920. 3) The Encyclopædia Britannica is written by historians and it is "not POV and revisionistic", so if you dont give us published reliable, third -party, neutral secondary source which proves the opposite of the information found in my references, I will re-add that referenced sentence.-- B@xter 9 13:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, after I added 2 neutral, reliable sources -you requested them- you immediately removed them and labeled them as "revisionist" (including Encyclopædia Britannica), and instead of these sources, written by well known historians, you want to add a primary source... Interesting POV pushing.-- B@xter 9 13:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting Reliable sources: The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, paper, document, book) [...]. So me using Trianon Treaty text as best source available complies Criztu (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The text is a primary source and it will be forever, so per wiki policy "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." My source is a secondary source written by scholars. Yours is not.-- B@xter 9 13:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well i can provide secondary sources confirming Hungary renounced claims over teritories of Austro-Hungarian Empire, so if you want the formulation "Hungary ceded its teritory" i want "Hungary renounced claims over Austro-Hungary empire teritory" and i am not interpreting or analysing the text of Trianon Treaty by quoting it. Criztu (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You claim Hungary was forced to sign - you cite a source that also states Hungary ceded its teritory which is revisionism, Hungary did not automatically inherited Austria-Hungary's possesions, not until other countries sign treaties with her. I claim Hungary signed and i cite Trianon Treaty which says Hungary renounces claims over teritory of a defunct and distinct state, an empire. Did Hungary signed ? yes, you agree on that too, so i don't have to argument my POV further; was Hungary forced to sign ? no, i don't agree on that, so you have to argument your POV. And as i wrote already, u didn't bother enforcing a formulation "Hungary was forced to sign" in the Trianon Treaty article. Criztu (talk) 13:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) From Britannica Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon, see the reference. Yes, I agree, Hungary signed because it was forced, see reference. 2) My source is neutral and not "revisionist". 3) "was Hungary forced to sign ? no, i don't agree on that" Wikipedia is uninterested about what you think that is your POV. 2 reliable sources proved that Hungary was forced to signe the treaty. 3) "And as i wrote already, u didn't bother enforcing a formulation "Hungary was forced to sign" " And?-- B@xter 9  13:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * well, Wikipedia is uninterested about what you think that is your POV also. So if you want to have "Hungary was forced to sign" so do i want "Hungary signed". Treaty of Trianon is original source and i comply if i use that source. And you having no incentive in correcting Trianon Treaty article until a revert war started on Romania article, give me reason to think you are more interested in the revert war than in achieving a NPOV consensus Criztu (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Criztu's description is more than inaccurate, the facts are
 * The problem is dear Cristu, that "my POV" you say is actually not my POV but a referenced information from historians like the editors of Britannica. I cited the sentence, you removed it. Check Britannica (Chisholm, Hugh (1922). The Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica Co.. p. 418. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.) which states that "Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon". Furthermore you still did not show us any reliable, published third-party source which proves Hungary was NOT forced. BTW, I am not interested in this "revert war", but you are, since you were the one who removed the referenced sentence not me.-- B@xter 9 14:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem dear Baxter is that you didnt bother to clarify how Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty in the Trianon Treaty article or Hungary article (which contains the formulation "Hungary signed Trianon Treaty"), but you popped-up on a revert war on ROmania article, article which doesn't discuss whether Hungary was forced to sign a treaty or not. Criztu (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If we say Hungary had to sign the Treaty of Trianon, this is an euphemism. Rokarudi 13:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Romania was defeated by the Central Powers in 1917,
 * Romania signed an armistice in December, 1917 (I hope Criztu would say that from free will, not forced)
 * Romania occupied Bessarabia from Russia militarily, after this, a declaration on union was made by a Moldavian legislative body,
 * Romania in the Treaty of Bucharest renounced of Transylvania (from free will, not forced as Criztu would say)
 * Romania rentered war 10th November (Austria-Hungary surrendered 3rd, November)
 * only ethnic Romanians declared union with Romania,
 * yes Romania was defeated by Central powers, and signed armistice in december 1917, that is what i wrote also. No, ROmania did not occupy Bessarabia from Russian Empire since they were allies, and after the fall of Russian Empire in 1917, the parliament of Bessarabia proclaimed independence and proclaimed union with Romania in april 1918. No, Treaty of Bucharest does not states Romania renounces Transylvania - you should be able to read it online, yes Romania reentered the war november 10 1918, yes Romanian National Council of Transylvania took over control of the province and proclaimed union with Romania. yes Hungary signed Trianon Treaty in 1920.Criztu (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I point is correct: Roumania did not resign of Transylvania as it did not belong to it, but agreed "that her frontier be given a rectification in favor of Austria-Hungary."Rokarudi 15:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Small mistake
Population .... 51nd. I know that this is a small mistake, but still, can someone replace 51nd by 51st, for the sake of grammar correctness ? Qubix89.44.243.118 (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rumania(n)
In the text English-language sources still used the terms "Rumania" or "Roumania", borrowed from the French spelling "Roumanie", as recently as World War II 

Accuracy fail. Many of my "learn Romanian" textbooks from the late 20th century (i.e. at least a quarter of a century after WWII) say "Rumania". I even remember seeing the spelling "Rumania" in the UK media during the 1989 revolution. Furthermore see The forms Rumania and Rumanian were prevailing till the second half of the 20th century, when the forms with "o" gradually became more popular, moreover The form Rumân was the natural form used in Rumanian itself till the second half of the 19th century (which would suggest the spelling "Rumania" is not derived from French, but Romanian itself). 91.84.71.207 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your post is either a cripplingly unfunny attempt at humour or a strong display of functional illiteracy. I think I'll go with the latter, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.200.122.230 (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Rumania is undoubtedly the original form of the name, however, Romania persistently tried to make the Romania form accepted in the English-speakin world over the 20th century. As the English habits are more flexible than the more conservative French, Russian, German etc usage, in the standard English usage now became the Romania form accepted, on the basis that if the Romanians are so insistent on it, let's accept it. Note, that the Romanians themselves called originally Romania 'Rumania' and the change only took place as a part of the linguisitic purism in the first half of the 19th century. Obviously, this is a part of the Romanian attempt to emphasize their direct decendance from the Roman Empire as a central historical myth.--Rokarudi 19:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is simply not true, see Etymology of Romania, even in the 16 century documents both form are present. As for the change in language, it has little to do with emphasizing the connection with Rome as much as distancing from the sense of "serf" that rumân came to signify. man with one red shoe 20:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Etymology of Romania is typical example of articles full of ideologically motivated edits, trying to present the fact of Romania's being named Rumania in most languages as a regrettable accident due to the carelessness of 19th century Romanian intellectuals. The article itself refers to Ienăchiţă Văcărescu as one who used the Romanian form, however, anyone can see the fact from the Văcărescu article itself where the cover of the original edition of his Romanian Grammar proudly bears its title as Gramatica Rumănească (with ecclesiastic slav cyrillic fonts). The Romania name was in fact propagated by Romanians from ideological reasons as is shown by the present example. With the same method, they endevour to relpace the name Roma by Rromab (so far internally).--Rokarudi 21:29, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm confused now, there is a quote there that shows that the author used both forms, is that a fake quote? If it is then it should be removed ASAP. And is nothing regrettable about how other languages choose to call Romania. (oh, and don't get me started on Rroma, actually the same kind of people propose to revert to Rumania for the same reason) man with one red shoe 21:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)