Talk:Romania/Archive 13

Gesta Hungarorum
, the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum is debated by almost all specialists outside Romania. If we do not mention this fact, we contradict WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand that you have a desire to express your personal (debatable) opinions, but we have to make edits accordingly to WP:COPO. (Rgvis (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC))
 * No, the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum is questioned by most specialists outside Romania. Please read the following studies: (1) ; (2) . You can also read a Romanian historians' thoughts about the reliability of the Gesta here: . If we do not mention that the reliability of the Gesta is at least dubious, we hide an important fact, which contradicts WP:NPOV: we cannot presents theories as facts. Borsoka (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the place to debate all kind of historical opinions (anyway, in any matter, the opinions of the Romanian historians are as valid as those of the Hungarian historians). (Rgvis (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC))
 * You are right, we are not here to debate all kinds of historical opinions. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Hungarian historians. I have not referred to a single Hungarian historian. We are here to fairly present facts and scholarly PoVs: we cannot present a theory as a fact. The existence of Gelou and his principality is highly debated by many historians, including the ones I mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * In history, almost any subject is debatable. (Rgvis (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC))
 * If there is a debate, it should be mentioned or present the events in a neutral way. This is our task as editors. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The problem is that, in practice, many times, your "neutral way" does not coincide with Wikipedia rules. (Rgvis (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC))
 * If you think my edits do not coincide with Wikipedia rules, you should report me on the relevant notice board. Please remember that baseless accusations of misconduct can be interpreted as uncivility: so report me, or stop accusing me as per No personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not an accusation, it is a constatation (and it's not only mine). Unfortunetely, in the last years, Wikipedia steadily lost quality objective editors, and therefore misrepresentations, manipulations, misinformations, and half-truth statements have become more and more part of the articles' content, especially those articles prone to such actions (such as historical ones). However, there is always hope that things will be resolved, at some point (Time solves everything). (Rgvis (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC))
 * OK. I understand you are unable to prove that my edits are not in line with Wikipedia rules. Sorry, I do not have time to discuss your personal impressions. Borsoka (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Many of your editings speak for it. Anyway, we are not in a court, but anyone with common sense will notice it. (Rgvis (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC))
 * I already informed you above that I understood that you are unable to prove your accusations. You do not need to repeat it. Borsoka (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The Gesta Hungarorum is a PRIMARY source, and only Reliable, Scholarly secondary sources should be referenced as interpreting it anyway in this article. 104.169.29.171 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I am a Romanian, but yes, I am afraid that Borsoka is correct: at the international level (worldwide academia) GH has not been established as reliable. So all facts derived from it are dubious, and I don't speak of the kind of doubt as in doubting that we're having this discussion here. It is true that Wikipedia only trusts modern scholarship, but we may agree that the case of the modern scholars who think that GH would be reliable has not convinced a majority of their peers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , not really, things are more complex, than adepts of the Hungarian historiography tends to suggest: +  +  (as simple examples).
 * On the other hand, in these cases, one of the main roles of Wikipedia is not to favor any of the sustained theories (as, unfortunately, it now happens, in many such historical articles). (Rgvis (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC))
 * , please try to understand what other editors write. Nobody says that Romanian historians (for instance, Salagean and Tiplic) deny the reliability of the Gesta. We only say, that outside Romania, the reliability of the Gesta is questioned by many specialists. Do you really think that Dennis Deletant and Carlile Aylmer Macartney are Hungarian historians?? Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is very well known that C. A. Macartney served the Hungarian (and Austrian) interests and he is for the Hungarian historiography what R.W. Seton-Watson is for the Romanian, Slovak, Czech, Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian historiographies.
 * Thanks to a well-organized group, English Wikipedia project has come to reflect, in the case of many historical articles that involves specifical subjects, only the position of the Hungarian historiography. This is certainly not a singular case, but the lack of objectivity in these situations is one of the most serious problems the Wikipedia project may have at present.
 * As for the chronicle in discussion:

"Many Hungarian studies about the work of the Anonymous Notary denote a high scientific level, but sometimes it seems they were written with a clear purpose: to prove a foregone conclusion, namely that Romanians did not live in Transylvania before Hungarians. Denying the credibility of GH is commonplace in the propaganda carried out by professional and amateur Hungarian historians. They might not be aware that this disapproval excludes from the Hungarian heritage a valuable work of which 18th and 19th centuries Hungarian scholars were proud (and they were certainly right to think so).

In their turn, the Romanian historians invoked GH in order to prove the presence of the Romanians in Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest, but, surprisingly, they produced few studies focused on the credibility of this source, which in most cases is not questioned, but postulated as a definitive and obvious truth.

Historical science cannot operate with such generalized judgments. A historical source is by definition subject to criticism. GH should be studied according to the usual internal and external source criticism methods.

The total rejection and the absence of any criticism are both erroneous."

- Alexandru Madgearu


 * (Rgvis (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC))
 * I do not want to discuss your views about British historians allegedly serving "Hungarian propaganda", because WP is not the proper venue to start such a discussion. If you think there is a well-organized group working against WP:NPOV or other basic WP rules, please report it on the relevant notice board. If you think that a specific article is not in line with basic WP policies, please discuss this issue on its Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The reference was to C. A. Macartney, not to "British historians", as you try to insinuate (anyway, in these cases, nationality does not matter). As for the other problems, let the honest stakeholders to find the way to solve them. (Rgvis (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC))
 * I referred to at least two British historians and you were still writing about Hungarian propaganda. I always let the honest stakeholders to solve all problems. Sorry, I think we should not continue this strange discussion. Borsoka (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum is not contemporary Chronicle, it was written 300 years after the Hungarian conquest.. The genre of Gesta is not even chronicle, just a Gesta. Gesta meaning "deeds" or "acts", which is a medieval entertaining literature. In our modern era, the Gestas were often medieval equivalent of modern comics books.--Draguler (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * What does not understand it that we apply WP:DUE to international scholarship: no consensus means no consensus, no majority view means no majority view and so on. Some facts are agreed, others are not. Also, there is the obsession that historical studies could change the borders of 21st century Romania: that's a phantasm. E.g. Ze'ev Herzog wrote Any attempt to question the reliability of the biblical descriptions is perceived as an attempt to undermine "our historic right to the land" and as shattering the myth of the nation that is renewing the ancient Kingdom of Israel. But Herzog, Israel Finkelstein and others have debunked the myths of Biblical archaeology and are not seen as the enemies of their own country (Finkelstein is politically a Zionist, but for him archaeology is not the servant of Zionism). In this respect, the Israeli academia is wiser than the Romanian academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"that historical studies could change the borders of 21st century Romania: that's a phantasm." No, it means just a long-lasting nation-wide (laughable) paranoia in Romania until this day, which is nothing more than a fantasy in the 21th century.--Draguler (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Yup, Herzog and Finkelstein think that historical truth trumps the nationalistic ideology of their own country. And, yes, many Romanians have the paranoia that Transylvania could be lost if historians do not toe the line. To the extent that for a Romanian historian is has become impossible to rationally discuss Ancient or Medieval Romanian history without being called a traitor to the country. Even for debunking the most far-fetched historic myths (e.g. that the Pelasgians conquered Japan) there will be someone to say that the historian is an agent of a foreign power. Many Romanians have the conception that Ancient and Medieval historians are propaganda warriors defending the territorial integrity of the country. To most Western academics that seems as an utterly ridiculous POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I would recommend this study to better understand the concept of myth in the European history - (full text: ) - and who promotes them, further (as a fact, there is even a reference to Gesta Hungarorum).

The problem is that on Wikipedia, some myths have come to be promoted as absolute truths (in various forms), while others are completely rejected (in various forms), only because some serve and the others do not serve certain interest groups. Well, this is the present-day reality: "Fake News" (aka manipulation), promoted in various forms, wherever possible. (Rgvis (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC))


 * Nope, scientists and scholars debunk all myths. I mean: no myth ever is safe from the modern academia. The purpose of post-Enlightenment science/scholarship is the euthanasia of all myths. Our allegiance is to WP:DUE of worldwide scholarship. We are not a WP:BATTLEGROUND between Hungarian propaganda and Romanian propaganda. Here we serve academic learning in its purest form (see WP:CHOPSY). What is taught at the best 100 US research universities about the history of Eastern Europe is by default WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not want to get involved in ethnic quarrels and those who push a nationalist POV are either taught to keep their POV to themselves or banned from it. See why at User:Moreschi/The Plague. We are indeed biased for WP:MAINSTREAM academia, this is no secret, see WP:GOODBIAS. So, Wikipedia does not debunk only Romanian myths, but myths in general. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, theoretically, everything is fine, but in practice, many articles become, more or less subtly, politicized. It is increasingly evident that, for a while, the Wikipedia project has basically no effective methods to counteract web brigades/social bot type editings. This is a big problem, for the stated purposes of Wikipedia. (Rgvis (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC))
 * You can help WP to fight against illegitim methods. Anytime you suspect that a group of editors abuse their privileges, you can report them. Furthermore, if you think that the content of a specific article contradicts a specific WP policy, you can fix the problem in accordance with well-established WP standards. According to my experiences, our community is experienced enough to deal with such problems: editors with extremist views or behavior are sooner or later banned. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

All these problems - related to content manipulation of Wikipedia articles by web brigades - are meant to be solved by the Wikimedia board, not by ordinary contributors. Wikipedia is the subject of the same manipulation experimented by all social media, and it is the responsability/interest of the Wikimedia Foundation to find solutions, if they want to keep the project viable. In the meantime, the good thing is that the civil society is becoming more and more aware of all these intoxication practices. (Rgvis (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC))
 * Do you think members of the board read this Talk page? If you think that this is a serious problem, you should inform them. If my understanding is correct, you have detected the activities of a dangerous web brigade, but you do not want to fix this issue. Sorry, this is a strange approach. Outsiders may conclude that you are only making baseless declarations, or you are one of the few editors who are convinced that our world is directed by secret societies/powers. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation is aware of all these hoaxes and practices of manipulation, disinformation, or astroturfing. And, (what you guys name) the "outsiders", too. :-) (Rgvis (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC))
 * That's a weird POV. WMF does not WP:CENSOR Wikipedia, basically because of safe harbor (law). It rarely intervenes, generally only to redress violations of US laws. Also, accusing others of WP:PROPAGANDA without providing clear-cut evidence (i.e. diffs) means Casting aspersions. ARBCOM is the board which analyses such issues, so you might want to start an arbitration case. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. So, either you start such case or desist forever from accusing others at this talk page. We don't admit that you eat your cake and still have it. What you do is the same as bickering at Talk:Julian Assange that the article has an un-British or un-American POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is very clear stated above. I do still believe that, in this article, the statement A legendary late-9th-century Transylvanian duke, Gelou, is solely mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum (the reliability of which is debated); a contemporaneous source mentions the first Romanian polities (in Muntenia and Oltenia) in 1247 is pure WP:OR (in order to reflect only the Hungarian historiographical position). But, faced with many other articles written in a similar way, this seems a minor problem, indeed. On the other hand, the problems Wikipedia face are not a secret (it is very simple to look for on the internet for all sort of opinions:, , and many others). By the way, you may also reflect on your childish threats. It does not bother me, but it may seem that you also have forgotten the Five pillars. (Rgvis (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC))


 * Have you realised that nobody has referred to a single Hungarian historian? Two British historians were mentioned. Do yo still think that they serve Hungarian propaganda? Can you refer historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247? Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Per WP:RGW, Wikipedia isn't the venue to undo the lack of international WP:RS/AC for the Romanian nationalist agenda. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia does not pander to the national interest of any country, including Hungary and Romania. Tell any Western scholar that your agenda is to defend "our historic right to the land", and that will be a reason to mistrust everything you say. Too much patriotic agenda makes the scholarship suspect. What nationalists usually don't get about Wikipedia is that too much pro domo WP:ADVOCACY means shooting yourself in the foot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka The term Historiography has a different meaning than the Historian term (see versus ). So, when we talk about historiography, it does not matter the nationality/ethnicity (or race, religion, etc.) of a scholar who is (totally / partially) affiliated to a specific historiography, or one who is not necessarily affiliated, but occasionally shares common ideas with that historiography. (Rgvis (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)) @Tgeorgescu Beyond the personal prejudices you may have on certain subjects, you can not deny that, in the last decades, the Romanian historiography has constantly evolved and developed in several directions than other historiographies have done (which rather, have continued to emphasize their ideological character, in the same period of time). For example, in a recent interview, the historian Florin Curta expressed his opinion that: "... the re-evaluation of the Hungarian archaeological research on Slavs remains an unfulfilled desiderate to this day, because Hungary (Hungarian historiography) has no (equivalent of) Lucian Boia." (Rgvis (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC))
 * If my understanding is correct, your above remarks imply that you do not think that the cited two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda and you cannot refer to historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. If this is the case, we should not continue this debate, because we can conclude that the sentence in the article is neutral and does not contain original research. If I misunderstood your above sentence about historians and historiography, please try to refer to reliable sources which prove that the two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda. Please also refer to historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice try :) but all your argumentation has a standard name: straw man. And, by the way, the expression "two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda" is yours entirely; you really like to put words in someone's mouth and then insinuate all sorts of things. (Rgvis (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC))
 * Two British historians have so far been mentioned, but you have been writing of Hungarian propaganda. Do we agree that the two cited British historians do not serve Hungarian propaganda? If yes, we can conclude that the first part of the sentence - "A legendary late-9th-century Transylvanian duke, Gelou, is solely mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum (the reliability of which is debated)" - is neutral. You should now only refer to historians who write of contemporaneous sources mentioning Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you basically selected certain words from their context, and then combined them into a fabricated statement, in order to produce a certain meaning. OK.

Regarding the subject of this topic, I remain at the opinion that, as long as, in what it should be a regular country infobox, there is an affirmation formulated in such a way as to induce (through multiple repetition) the idea that something is false, while something else must be true, it can not be said that the minimum editing rules are respected (WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:MNA, and so on). (Rgvis (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC))
 * Sorry, if you are repeatedly writing of Hungarian propaganda although only British historians were referred to I do not need to make efforts to conclude that you are accusing them of being agents of Hungarian propaganda. What is the text you propose? Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we take a look at the discussions on this topic, it seems that you are the one who has repeatedly used the term "Hungarian propaganda" (eight times, so far). For those whose original text is not legible enough, what I said was that (the British historian) C. A. Macartney is for the Hungarian historiography what (the British historian) R.W. Seton-Watson is for the Romanian, Slovak, Czech, and Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian historiographies . Also, that C. A. Macartney served the Hungarian and Austrian interests in the same way as R.W. Seton-Watson did it for the Romanian, Slovak, Czech, and Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian interests . As for the proposed text, this is how it should be: The legendary late-9th-century Transylvanian duke, Gelou, is mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum; the Voivodeships of Litovoi and Seneslau, in Muntenia and Oltenia, are mentioned in the Diploma of the Joannites, a contemporaneous source from 1247. As long as the words that give rise to all sorts of interpretations (which do not relate to the content of this article's infobox) and allusions are not removed, we can not talk about any balance in this context. (Rgvis (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC))
 * And you were the one who started to refer to Hungarian propaganda, although a single Hungarian scholar had not been mentioned. Thereafter, you changed to Hungarian historiography, although a single Hungarian historian has not been referred to. I have several times explained to you that we have to mention that the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum (and also its reference to a Vlach duke in Transylvania) is highly debated by scholars. We cannot pretend that the Gesta is deemed to be a reliable source. You have not referred to a scholar who thinks that there are contemporaneous sources which refer to a Vlach polity in the lands now forming Romania before 1247. Furthermore, four Vlach polities are mentioned in King Béla IV of Hungary's 1247 diploma for the Knights Hospitaller. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything you said is nothing but sophism. Completely predictable, otherwise. :) (Rgvis (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC))
 * Did you know that there had been four Romanian polities? Why did you write of two polities? If my understanding is correct you are still unable to refer to a scholar who thinks that there are contemporaneous sources which mention a Vlach polity in the lands now forming Romania before 1247. If this is the case, why do you want to change this part of the sentence? Borsoka (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep on trolling, you do this perfectly. By the way, your text also omits to mention the Voivodes Menumorut and Glad (to have the complete context of "highly debated"). So many obvious things that the wording and the content of this text do not meet WP:NPOVHOW and WP:SYN. (Rgvis (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC))


 * I have several times experienced that you accuse me of trolling or other form of misconduct when you cannot answer questions. So I understand you again are unable to answer simple questions. Otherwise, Menumorut, Glad can of course be mentioned. You obviously do not know that the reliability of the Gesta is not challenged by almost all specialists outside Romania because of these 3 peesonalities. Outside Romania scholars noted that the late-12th-century Gesta does not write of the rulers fighting against the Magyars around 900, according to late-9th-century and early-10th-century sources. On the other hand, the Gesta writes of the fights of Gelou, Glad, Menomorut, Salan and other otherwise unknown rulers against the Magyars. You should read some basic literature before conmenting this subject. Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)


 * By definition, historical facts are widely accepted by reputable international scholarship. If they aren't so accepted, they aren't facts, so they should not be mentioned as facts. According to WP:RGW it isn't our task to manufacture a make-believe consensus where there is no consensus. This has nothing to do with Romanian or Hungarian propaganda, but with the fact that those purported facts aren't widely accepted by reputable international scholarship. Convince Ivy Plus and US state universities and Wikipedia will follow suit. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." So,, your task is to convince Ivy Plus, it isn't to convince us &mdash; in the end our own opinion does not matter, the teachings of Ivy Plus matter very much. Convince them or admit your failure. There is nothing anti-Romanian in noticing that Romanian scholars failed to convince Ivy Plus about Gelu, Glad, Menumorut. Since that is an objective fact and will still be there regardless of whether you like it or not. Stating otherwise would be jejune editing on your part. I have warned you of discretionary sanctions and jejune complaints of violating WP:NPOV will lead to arbitration enforcement. Our task is to tell it as it is told at Ivy Plus, it isn't to whine that Ivy Plus engages in anti-Romanian propaganda. We do side with Ivy Plus, see WP:CHOPSY. At this website we don't serve Romania, we don't serve Hungary, we serve academic learning based upon reputable international scholarship. Ivy Plus is our light on the path. We treat the mentions of Gelu, Glad and Menumorut as unconvincing because Ivy Plus and US state universities consider them unconvincing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu In terms of articles on historical topics (and not those in the field of medical research or from the exact science area), Wikipedia has an appropriate guide to choosing sources: Identifying reliable sources (history). So even if this aspect is not liked by some editors, the references to the Romanian academic, university and professional historical works are as valuable as any similar references to works coming from other schools/professionals in the world.

Back to the subject, once again (for the last time, on this thread), it is not about the debates that take place over this specific subject (the debate is reflected in the proper article in question), but how this aspect (of the debate) is highlighted in a place where it should not be (by repeatedly using, in the same sentence, words and structures that have the same connotation, such as, "legendary", and "the reliability of which is debated", accentuated by the "only" adverb, induces the idea that something (the first part of the text) is false, while something else (the second part) must be true). Of course that the word "legendary" implicitly means something related to a "legend", and that is why I consider that using only the word "legendary" is enough to imply the "questionable" aspect of the subject, in an honest mode. Of all these words and phraseological constructions comes the antithesis of the first part in relation to the second part of the text in discussion. My opinion remains that, in this context, the two parts of that text do not provide a balanced picture of the subject in question.

Finally, all these discussions that do not relate to the essence of the problem are completely useless, and, like it or not, my point of view (argued) is different from yours and so it will stay. (Rgvis (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC))
 * I think we are now at the point where we can discuss the issue without writing of Hungarian propaganda and historiography if no Hungarian scholars are referred to. Now, I understand your concern. Yes, we do not need to suggest three times that most specialists regard the Gesta as an unreliable source. My proposal is the following: "A Vlach duke ruling Transylvania around 895, Gelou, is mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum (the reliability of which is debated); a 1247 royal charter mentions four Romanian keneziates (or polities) in Muntenia and Oltenia." Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Of course Romanian scholarship matters. But Romanian scholarship does not WP:OWN this article. We are a global encyclopedia, not the s encyclopedia of the Romanian state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Could you guys get some outside help here...and forget terms like "Hungarian propaganda" as it makes any editor look as if they are the bias problem because no academic writer speaks like this. SO....Do we have modern books that cover this topic (hard to tell what that is here)...be they American, British etc... I will have to agree a 300 year old publication does not hold much merit here.-- Moxy 🍁 20:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)




 * Quoting myself when I replied some accuses on my own talk page at ro.wiki. It was a reply to . Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Errors in Romania site
I suggest the following two changes, which are in accordance with cited resources and information on other pages of wikipedia. Thank you for editing it!

'Romania is the 12th largest country' → 'Romania is the 12th largest country' OR 'and also the 7th most populous member state of the European Union' → 'and also the 10th most populous member state of Europe' 'forming the Danube Delta, which is the second-largest and best-preserved delta in Europe' → 'forming the Danube Delta, which is the largest and best-preserved delta in Europe'

You can fix them yourself, if you'd like. Editoneer (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Question
How to fix pictures to make like other pages?

Please check, WP:File. Editoneer (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

military - picture: Romanian marines landing, tag "when?" can be removed
If followed back to the source, it is easy to find that it shows soldiers of the 307th marines battalion disembark from a Dutch landing boat during the bi-national exercise "cooperative lion 09", and that took place in the first half of April 2009, this exact landing on 9 April, see https://financiarul.ro/2009/04/02/romania-netherlands-carry-out-cooperative-lion-09-drills/ or more officially https://www.navy.ro/media/revista_mr/numere/rmr133.pdf (other pictures of the same scene on the last and second-to-last pages) --91.41.35.230 (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020
On the sidebar it says Romania is the 59th largest country by 2019 estimated population, the reference article says Romania is 60th. Benmsch (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020
Please change "One of the most iconic athletes" to "Some of the most iconic athletes". Thank you. 86.107.68.88 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Goldsztajn (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Overseas territory
As an answer to User:Borsoka undoing my revision:

Do we need to mention this?

Yes, we do need to mention it, since it is a part of our country's history, first of all. That's why I've added it to the History section. Secondly, it's a very little known part of Romanian history, so by adding it there (as a little side note), more people are going to become aware of it.

Most countries own real estates in the territory of other countries

Would you mind giving me some examples? I am not sure what you mean; are you referring to enclaves and exclaves, like on the Dutch-Belgian border, for example? If that's the case, then yes, I do agree with you that some (most?) countries own such territories, but that's not a reason not to add Romania's overseas territory to the WP page, it's part of our history and should be mentioned. I've also given two reliable sources, so there shouldn't be any problem with adding that piece of history there.

Before undoing my edit again, let's have a discussion and also see what other Wikipedians think about this. Then we'll see what happens to that piece of information. Thank you. Lupishor (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I am referring to embassies and cultural institutes. Quite common. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess I will stop undoing your edit for now, since you're right, two editors have opposed me so far, although Biruitorul war probably rather disturbed by the fact that I had added the information in a much too detailed way.

Back to the topic: Embassies and cultural institutes surely are common, but as it is stated on the Wikipedia article about them, contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do NOT enjoy full extraterritorial status and – in those cases – are NOT sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges. So there you have it. Your argument is not valid, since contrary to most diplomatic missions, the one we are talking about was built on Romanian soil.

Now, I am not sure why you're so concerned about that institute itself, since I am obviously not talking about the institute, but about the whole piece of land, which was part of Romania and was thus a Romanian overseas territory, which gave Romania a coast on the Adriatic, as these two reliable sources state. Embassies and institutes are not considered overseas territories, thus your argument is, like I've said, not valid.

Remember, we are not talking about an institute built on Albanian soil, but about a piece of land donated to Romania by Nicolae Iorga, which had nothing to do with the institute that was later built on it 3 years later.

What's your argument now...? Lupishor (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you say Iorga was the sovereign of the parcel and he ceded his sovereignity rights to the Romanian state? Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Iorga was the owner of that land, that's obviously what the sources say. The territory was gifted to Iorga, which made it his own property. He donated half of it to the Romanian state, which meant it was now a part of Romania. Lupishor (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please, be serious. If I bought a piece of land in Romania and donated it to (the state of) Hungary, would the territory of Hungary increase? Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you are getting away from the subject again. I never said anything about whether Romania's land area increased or not, I simply mentioned that overseas territory that was once part of our country. Lupishor (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No. You are transforming a private transaction (a grant of an individual's property to a state) into a transaction transferring sovereignty. States can own property in the territory of an other country, but only transactions between states can change sovereingty over lands (Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet). Borsoka (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

See Concessions and leases in international relations. I don’t think these are generally mentioned in country articles. - Biruitorul Talk 17:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey, Biruitorul, thanks for answering.
 * I've looked at the article you mentioned. According to it, "[international concessions] are governed by the municipal law of the conceding state", the conceding state being Romania in our case, so it means that the territory was
 * in the possession of Romania, right? Because that's also what the two sources I've mentioned above say: "[...] granting Romania an overseas territory and a coast on the Adricatic."


 * Also, you've said that concessions are not mentioned in country articles, which is not true, if you look at the pages of some countries. The Italy article, for example, mentions the Italian concession of Tientsin and no
 * one is against it. So, if we take it like this, it means the Romanian concession can also be mentioned on the Romania article, right? Lupishor (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You have not proved that it was in concession. The transfer of a piece of Albanian land between an individual (Iorga) and a state (Romania) does not and cannot establish a concession - it is a transfer of property. Iorga had no sovereignty rights, so he could not transfer them to the Romanian state. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a concession according to these three credible sources , so there is nothing I have to prove. Lupishor (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * And... surely you can WP:CITE the international treaty which established this concession... Iorga's donation won't do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The first source is a primary source, the second source is a tertiary source. We need some coverage of this topic in secondary academic sources to include (and to dedicate an article to it). Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I haven't found anything about such a treaty, but who says that a treaty is needed to establish a concession? Can't a concession be established in the way it's explained in the article? Because that's what the three sources say.Lupishor (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So, what's going on? Lupishor (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020
In 2.8.1 section "NATO and EU integration" the first phrase says "eventully joining NATO in 2007" which is erroneous. The correct year is 2004. Even the reference article associated with the statement mentions 2004. Kmbogd (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

❌, 2007 enlargement of the European Union with many references said no. Editoneer (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020
I would like to place a vocal Romanian anthem where the current instrumental anthem is. FlagsWorldwide (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Not done:

Can you be more specific? What do you want to add? Analog Horror, ( Speak ) 01:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

, He meant beside the instrumental version, a version that the lyrics are actually being singed. Editoneer (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Small error
The page contains the following sentence:

"It has the world's 62th largest economy by nominal GDP, with an annual economic growth rate of 3.5% as of 2020.[16]"

"62th" is not proper English; it should be changed to "62nd", representing the proper "sixty-second". "62th" would read as "sixty-tooth". ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmroy3 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Greetings, did you try to fix the issue yourself? Editoneer (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2020
In the chapter "etymology" i wanted to add after "Romania derives from the Latin romanus, meaning "citizen of Rome".[18], the sentence

"Citizens of the Byzantine Empire" used to call their state as "Eastern Roman Empire" or "Romania" until 1453. 2A02:587:1216:7D00:694C:6066:B203:360B (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&action=submit
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The term "citizen of Rome" includes both Western Roman Empire as well as Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire. It is not clear to me why such specific disambiguation is required. Melmann 18:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

7th largest member of the EU by population
should be 6th now that the UK is no longer part of the EU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.143.126 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, just go on.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC))
 * Please source this change as other changes do not mean that it will automatically happen. Britmax (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no source for seventh anyway so I've directly changed it. Super   Ψ   Dro  16:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Definition of romanus
According to its Wiktionary definition, romanus simply means "Roman", not "citizen of Rome". Shouldn't both be added to the Etymology section and have the sentence as "Romania derives from the* Latin romanus, meaning 'Roman' or 'citizen of Rome'"? According to the Roman people article, Romans are referred to as an ethnicity or nationality; a "citizen of Rome" could belong to any ethnicity, thus not necessarily be a Roman. Additionally, the DEX definition of român doesn't state that romanus means "citizen of Rome". Scriban's definition from 1939, although outdated, simply states that romanus means "Roman", as either a noun or adjective.

* "the" should probably be removed. Lupishor (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with this and doubt anyone is going to oppose it, so you can change it already. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for approval. I am also going to remove "citizen of Rome" altogether as it's simply wrong. Lupishor (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Romanian overseas territory (?)
This has also been discussed some time ago, I believe it was last spring, but since time has passed, I want to see what people think about it now.

According to some Turkish and Romanian books, Romania had an overseas territory from 1934-39. It even has a Wikipedia article. When this was discussed last year, some users said that land was not actually owned by Romania, which is contradictory to what the quoted sources state, apparently. Romania had even built an institute there, which kept on functioning for some years after the territory was not part of Romania anymore.

If people agree with the sources' claim, I'd propose making a reference to it here on the Romania article, to spread awareness about this unknown chapter of Romanian history. Given the chapter's obscureness, it would, of course, be a one-sentence reference, not a long detailed one, since this article is too "big" for it. Lupishor (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I again agree with this, but you should probably wait a bit for this one in case somebody wants to oppose the change. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing as two people are in favor of this, and nobody else has said anything in three days, I guess I am going to make the edit later today or maybe wait a bit longer. Lupishor (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Albania didn't create a sovereign territory for Iorga and thus he was not in the position to cede that territory to the Romania state. It was just a piece land privately owned by the Romanian state outside Romania, which is the case for many of the country's embassies. So no, no "overseas territory".Anonimu (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's perhaps incorrect to qualify it as an overseas territory, but I don't think there is a problem with mentioning the concession. Do you agree with this, Anonimu? Super   Ψ   Dro  11:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no problem at all with mentioning the concession. Your comment seems to make sense, however, why would those sources claim Romania had an overseas territory if it wasn't the case? Lupishor (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The article was created by a banned user using mostly fake information. I could identify two of the sources, and both discuss the Romanian Archaeological Institute in Albania, not a "concession".Anonimu (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wasn't aware of this, good thing you reworked it. That Prefectul guy actually seemed to have some useful edits. I guess I didn't know him well enough, then. This talk section can be archived. Lupishor (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021
I want to put the sculptor Pavel Bucur in the section of Culture, near the other sculptors. Matteobucur (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. See WP:WTAF. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 00:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: section education
In the section education, please change the text "Kindergarten is optional between three and six years. Since 2012, compulsory schooling starts at age 6 with the "preparatory school year" (clasa pregătitoare)[390] and is compulsory until tenth grade.[391]" to the following text:
 * "Kindergarten is optional between three and five years. Since 2020, compulsory schooling starts at age 5 with the last year of kindergarten (grupa mare) and is compulsory until twelfth grade."

This update is needed, because the law has changed, and since 2020, there are 14 years of compulsory schooling. So please implement this update.2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:672A (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021
add names of olympic athletes in the section: The Romanian competitors have won gold medals in other Olympic sports: athletics, canoeing, wrestling, shooting, fencing, swimming, weightlifting, boxing, and judo. { swimming: Noemi Lungu, Diana Mocanu, shooting Sorin Babii, weightlifting Nicu Vlad, kaiak racing Ivan Paizaichin, fencing Ana Maria Branza, distance runners Mariuca Puica, Doina Melinte, Gabriela Szabo, judoka: Alina Dumitru, Boxing Nicolae Linca Veraaaadaaam (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please provide sourcing for this. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Hitchins ref issue
The Hitchins 1991 refs are at odds with the bibliography which has 2014 as the year. I'm not sure which is correct, but at the moment, sfn is not linking due to this discrepancy. Best - Aza24 (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The issue is now fixed. Somebody had changed the year from 2014 to 1991 for some reason. The actual year of the ref is 2014. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Declining population
, India and China are completely different worlds, but I'm sure it wouldn't be completely beneficial for both if they just lost 1/6-1/7 of their people. In Romania, declining population is always termed as a crisis, sometimes as the worst crisis of the country. Here are some examples of newspapers referring to it as a crisis. I'll cite something from the second newspaper:

"Declinul demografic din România a intrat și pe agenda coaliției de guvernare. Subiectul a fost discutat la ultimele întâlniri dintre președintele Klaus Iohannis și liderii politici, au declarat pentru G4Media.ro surse politice. O proiecție realizată încă din 2017 de Institutul Național de Statistică anticipează că, dacă evoluția demografică își păstrează cursul actual, România ar putea ajunge la 16 milioane de locuitori în 2050. Declinul demografic afecteaza toate sectoarele economiei: PIB, buget, sustenabilitatea fondurilor de pensii, fondurile europene care se alocă în funcție de numărul de locuitori." (The demographic decline in Romania has also entered the agenda of the governing coalition. The topic was discussed at the last meetings between President Klaus Iohannis and political leaders, political sources told G4Media.ro. A projection made since 2017 by the National Institute of Statistics anticipates that, if the demographic evolution keeps its current course, Romania could reach 16 million inhabitants in 2050. The demographic decline affects all sectors of the economy: GDP, budget, sustainability of pension funds, European funds allocated according to the number of inhabitants.).

There also are journals talking about this as a crisis:. So how to put the edge where the arrow should be green or red? By analyzing each case individually, I'd say. Maybe China or India losing 1/6-1/7 of their people won't actually be that much of a problem for them, but it for sure is for Romania. Super  Ψ   Dro  21:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You cannot weigh up whether something is more positive or negative for things with an absolute claim. This belongs to a section in which different opinions are represented, e. g. the reception section in a video game article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point here. Super   Ψ   Dro  10:34, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me as if you are trying to convince me that the arrow for population decline should be red for Romania. I don't think so because weighing up whether the arrow should be red or green is subjective, which is why it should be neutral (gray).-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:35, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021
Change driving side from “right” to “left” 109.99.180.16 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌ Romania drives on the right, see c:File:Countries driving on the left or right.svg.  dud  hhr  Contribs 21:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021
"between 5th millennium BC and 4th BC" would be better written as "between 5th and 4th millennium BC" 2600:1702:40:2E70:D473:648E:A3EA:D527 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, and thank you very much for your input!  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 18:37, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2021
109.166.134.185 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC) I want to help this page
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2022
I want to fix what is wrong. Ericpaun98 (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Central, Eastern, Southeastern Europe
I noticed there’s been some dissension as to what part of Europe Romania is situated in. Given that this is stated in the very first sentence of the article, it may be worthwhile to try and achieve a consensus wording here. — Biruitorul Talk 21:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's widely accepted that Dobruja is part of the Balkans (pretty much the same as Southeastern Europe), so I believe that's not controversial. Some sources also describe Transylvania and Bukovina (I'd disagree with this one, but whatever) as part of Central Europe (abstract)  (p. 16). "East Central Europe" appears to be an often used term . And finally, sources also agree on that other regions in Romania like Wallachia are part of Eastern Europe . I personally agree with the current description. It reflects the history of Romania after all, always in between of empires consolidated in certain geographic parts of Europe.  Super   Ψ   Dro  23:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I prefer it with the "Crossroads" type of wording, and to explain it later on more full in-depth. But I don't feel so strongly about it. Dunutubble (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Croatia is in the same situation, its regions being devided in multiple areas and the general consensus is that they are also placed at the crossroads, I don't see the people fuming over the location of croatia, though, and I assume placing Entire Romania in the southeastern part doesn't respect the culture of transylvania or bukovina at all. Andymxm (talk) 08:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Romanian translation request on 12 March 2022
Wouldn't it be good if the article would also be translated into Romanian? Rugoconites Tenuirugosus (talk) 08:48, 12 March 2022 (UTC)User:Rugoconites_Tenuirugosus
 * România. CMD (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022
Changing Soviet propaganda into facts, country missing 1000 years of history, providing facts , not soviet controlling propaganda , which is used until this daz to magnify a nation which didn’t exist in a wqy depicted here Psychohun (talk) 00:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Tochitura
please change ((tochitura)) to ((tochitură)) 2601:541:4580:8500:6873:CD56:6A6F:FB1E (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 00:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2022
There is conflicting information for the 2022 GDP. I think the error might be the first numbers being for 2020 and the second set for 2022, but not sure 73.76.228.224 (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:14, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2022
He coat of arms should be changed to File:Stema Romaniei.png as the crown is misplaced in the current one. 2607:FEA8:31E1:8200:C390:A271:B064:BD20 (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RealAspects (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Why romania is considered occupied between 1945-89?
Why romania is considered occupied between 1945-1989? By this logic, western Europe is occupied by USA.Is it not? Kartheek 1789 (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2023
In established_event10, change spelling to "Communist" from "Comunist" Just a names (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed, thanks! aboideautalk to me! 16:18, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the Principality of Transylvania shown in the infobox
Quote from the article of Principality of Transylvania: "ruled primarily by Hungarian princes" The rulers were not of Romanian origin. Bocskai, Bethlen, Rákóczi, Báthory, Rhédey, Székely, Barcsay, Thököly: None of the Transylvanian princes were Romanian

How could the Principality of Transylvania be Romanian if the Romanian language was not official? The official languages were Latin, Hungarian and German. On this basis, the Germans had more to do with the Principality of Transylvania than the Romanians. Just because Romanians lived there did not mean that it played a role in Romania's history In addition, in the Middle Ages, the Hungarian-Saxon-Saxon population was abundantly outnumbered in Transylvania

These are the reasons why I suggest removing the Transylvanian Prince from the infobox Netpartizán (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree: Romania was established through the union of Moldavia and Wallachia. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Hunyadi's Romanian origin theory
Hunyadi's origins are still disputed. Several theories exist. Some believe that he is Romanian, Kun, Greek, but Slavic origin has also been suggested. Therefore, in my opinion, we should not state in the article that he was Romanian Netpartizán (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That he was born to a Vlach/Romanian family is not debated by mainstream literature. Yes, his family may have been of Cuman origin. Should we say that King Charles of UK is not English just because we know that his family is of German origin? Borsoka (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Borsoka!
 * The origin of the Hunyadi family is highly debated, there are many theories, so it is incorrect to declare "Romanian origin", even John Hunyadi page say: "he was the member of a noble family of Wallachian ancestry." And Wallachian does not mean that everybody was only Romanian in that region in the 14-15th century, all medieval states were multiethnic. Thúróczy Chronicle writes about Hunyadi as origin from "noble, famous family of Wallachia", Origin from the area is not the same as nationality. The region between the Southern Carpathians and the Lower Danube was at one time part of Etelköz, later a conflict zone between the Kingdom of Hungary and Byzantium, then the Ottoman Empire. In order to protect the southern territories of the Kingdom of Hungary, the area that has always been in focus was inhabited first by the Pechenegs, and then after 1055 by the Cuman-Pecheneg population, whose leading stratum was of Cuman origin. The name of Wallachia was Ungro-Wallachia in medieval times, i.e. Hungary-Wallachia, which had a Hungarian population until the 19th century. Family of Hunyadi was also Catholic while Romanians were Orthodox. Anyway Hunyadi considers a great Hungarian hero and clearly a main character in Hungarian history and not in Romanian history, so it is a Romanian nationalism declare Romanian a historical Hungarian character with debated origin.

Cumania:
 * The genetic legacy of the Hunyadi descendants – Published: 16 November 2022: https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(22)03019-5
 * The Y-chromosome is passed only from father to son. Closest Y-chromosomal haplogroups samples around the world:
 * - Sample from the Otrar-Karatau culture of the Iron Age Kazakh steppe (245–343 AD)
 * - Sample from Medieval Sardinia (1300–1400 AD)
 * Closest Y-chromosomal haplogroups samples from the Carpathian Basin:
 * - Sample from an Avar person (650–675 AD) (Onogur, so-called "griffin and tendril" culture) (Székkutas-kápolnadűlő Avar cemetery).
 * - Sample from an elite Hungarian conqueror (895–950 AD) (Karos Hungarian conqueror cemetery) (This conqueror person had blue eyes and light hair. According to the contemporary paintings and descriptions, John Hunyadi and King Matthias have also blonde hair).
 * - Sample from a medieval Hungarian nobleman who was buried in the Hungarian Royal Basilica of Székesfehérvár.
 * Talking about the result by the scholars, according the DNA result his origin is not Romanian: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=glNx8uuBgOI OrionNimrod (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, that he was born to a Vlach family is not debated by standard literature. (His son's courtiers fabricated the Roman origin of the Hunyadi family based on their Vlach connections.) That this Vlach family may have been of Cuman origin is an other story. Could not we mention the House of Windsor as a British family? We know that the Windsors descended from German princes and British monarchs married German princesses till the early 20th century.

Undeclared religion
Undeclared religion should be reported for what it is. It should not be WP:CENSORED. If you want to count them as Christians, what they did at the census is highly unbecoming for Christians. Hiding one's Christian religion because of privacy is a modern heresy. (This should not be construed as an attack upon heretics, as I am myself an apostate.)

Empirical fact is that somewhat less than 3 million Romanian citizens chose to not testify that they have faith in Christ. Whatever their religious beliefs might be, they do not take Christianity seriously.

percentage refers to residents with data strictly from the country, not diaspora (no ethnographic - religious - linguistic data were collected&mdash;true, but wholly irrelevant to the edit which you have performed. Namely, your edit summary isn't an excuse for censoring the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

about No data was collected from approximately 2.7 million people (14%). In the diaspora no data was collected about ethnicity, religion, language or other data.&mdash;true, but inessential. And above all it does not give you the right to state 98.54% Christianity. We take the census data at face value, we cannot change it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with tgeorgescu. Sorry I thought you were messing with the page, but I understand now what you were disputing.  // Timothy :: talk  01:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * And I agree that many people weren't even asked about their religion, since they were unavailable for interview. Only 16397.3 thousands people have declared their religion, the rest either did not declare their religion, or weren't even asked this question.
 * 4.8% of the targeted people were census dodgers. That leaves us with a total of 18138.4 thousands people who were, one way or another, counted in this census. Declaring one's religious confession, ethnicity and maternal language weren't mandatory.
 * This means that 1741.1 thousands people either did not declare their religion, or weren't even asked to do it. That is, without counting the 914.5 thousands census dodgers.
 * The census did not count Romanian citizens, but Romanian inhabitants, i.e. people who domiciled for the past 12 months inside Romania. I am a Romanian citizen and I was not counted, since my home address is in the Netherlands, for longer than 12 months.
 * In order to be completely accurate, we need to know:
 * how many of the counted people weren't even asked the question about their religion;
 * how many of the counted people refused to declare their religion.
 * I'm afraid that the published data does not answer such questions. A safe assumption is that census dodgers and people who weren't even asked the question should not appear in the religion statistics, but people who refused to answer should.
 * So: I don't know the answer to this problem, and neither does.
 * Temporary solution: I wrote "Undeclared Religion, not counted or data missing" for that category. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It is factually incorrect to assert that all the “undeclared” camp chose not to declare: see here. Perhaps “did not declare or were not recorded as having a religious affiliation”. — Biruitorul Talk 06:50, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I think I had already addressed that, there are three different categories conflated into one category: people who dodged the census completely, people who were counted administratively (indirectly), without being asked the question about religion, and people who refused to answer that question. If you find that "Undeclared Religion, not counted or data missing" is not good enough, feel free to change it to something better. So, yeah, there are 1741.1 thousands people in one of the two categories of not being asked the question and of not willing to answer the question. The people counted without interviews, i.e. from administrative sources, were not asked about their own religion. I don't know how many they were, but if we subtract their number from the previously mentioned number we get the people who were not willing to answer the question.
 * In any of the three categories, but in respect to ethnicity, there are 2484926 people. In any of three categories, but in respect to religion are 2656477 people. That means that 171551 people who have declared their ethnicity refused to answer the question about religion.
 * Conclusion: the number of people who refused to answer the question about their own religion lies somewhere between 171.5 thousands and 1741.1 thousands. While it is technically possible that some of them consider themselves to be Christians, they dodged their theological duty of confessing their own faith. That means they are very close to apostasy. They are surely more people than either the Greek-Catholics, the Baptists, the Adventists, or the Muslims. From a sociological viewpoint, people who don't claim they are Christians, are not Christians and should not be counted among Christians. They are somewhere between 0.94% and 9.6% of the census population, but without counting census dodgers. And these percentages are even higher if we subtract the yet unknown number of indirectly counted people. So, they are between 1% and 10% of the directly counted people. That is, from less than the Pentecostals to more than the Catholics. Either way, "nones" have from the 5th to the 2nd place of religious groups from Romania.
 * These are not the same: if I keep mum that I'm Romanian, there is no violation of my own religion. If a Christian keeps mum that they are a Christian, that is a violation of their own religion. Perhaps it is excusable in North Korea, China, Saudi Arabia, but Romania isn't like that. There is no requirement of the Christian religion that a Christian should declare themself as a Romanian, Hungarian, German, etc. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, according to https://www.contributors.ro/un-recensamant-cu-grave-probleme/ :
 * For 1.1 million people which are self-counted (self-reported through the internet), data is missing for those three questions;
 * For 0.5 million people who were directly interviewed, data is missing for those three questions;
 * About 1 million people were not found, so they were indirectly counted, and data for the three questions wasn't available.
 * This leaves us with about 1.6 million people who refused to answer those three questions. So this leaves us with roughly 8.89% of the directly counted people who have refused to answer the question about religion.
 * And, yup, it seems that census dodgers and the indirectly counted are the same people (same category).
 * I was right: people who refused to declare their own religion are the 2nd largest religious group from Romania, immediately after the Romanian Orthodox Church believers.
 * I have entered c. 9%. Justification: https://www.google.com/search?q=1741.1%2F(16397.3%2B1741.1)&client=firefox-b-e tgeorgescu (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for standing up for accurate religious figures. I'm the one that initially edited the figures in the page to account for the 2,895,539 people missing from the percentages. I'm also one of those people that didn't answer that question during the census as I simply wasn't sure what to put (although I answered everything else). Didn't realise unfortunately that not declaring would simply mean people like me would get excluded from the count to boost the Christian percentage. I realise now that the people who didn't declare anything don't make up the entirety of the 2,895,539 people, but similarly the figure does not exclusively refer to people in diaspora who have missing data. Excluding 2,895,539 people from the calculation is disrespectful and simply just statistically wrong. Thank you for the providing the correct figures! I see the figures in the Religion section are still off, should we update those too? Eduardm (talk) 11:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2023
Request to update the GPD numbers based on IMF Report information relevant to 2023: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2022/October/weo-report?c=968,&s=NGDPD,PPPGDP,NGDPDPC,PPPPC,PPPEX,&sy=2020&ey=2027&ssm=0&scsm=1&scc=0&ssd=1&ssc=0&sic=0&sort=country&ds=.&br=1 Rostef1990 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Romania Product Exports (2019).svg

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2023
The HDI part of the page Romania needs to be updated.

The page stated that the HDI is from 2022 but no reports from the UN reflect the data from 2022 yet, so it should be replaced by the 2021 report from the UN, which was published on 8 September 2022. Also, the HDI is false. The current HDI of 0.834 is false as the UN human development report stated that Romania's HDI is 0.821, as it also declines from the previous 2019 UN reported data of 0.832 (There was no such report in 2021) Mattadjwic (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Gelou
It isn't objective knowledge that Gelou has really existed. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Ok, I won't post this again. But why did you delete Transylvania, in your opinion it is not part of Romania's history? I.cavaleru (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)


 * That Transylvania was Romanian in 1346 is contested. Adrian Cioroianu's view is that the percentage of ethnic Romanians slowly but steadily increased, till they became the majority in Transylvania. That was a process which took centuries.
 * According to, forced Magyarization pushed Transylvania into Romanian hands. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Transylvania and historical events there are part of Romanian history. But that infobox lists the establishment of Romanian states, and Transylvania is part of Romania since 1920. Principality of Transylvania was not a Romanian state. After Battle of Mohacs when the Hungarian king died, the Hungarian nobles elected 2 kings, so the country was split in 2, and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was ruled by King John, then by King John II, and after the Treaty of Speyer in 1570 when Hungarian crown moved to Habsburgs, the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom became the Principality of Transylvania and the Eastern Hungarian king became the first Prince of Transylvania. Treaty of Speyer stressed in a highly significant way that John Sigismund's possessions belonged to the Holy Crown of Hungary and he was not permitted to alienate them. Transylvanian princes maintained their claims to the throne of the Kingdom of Hungary.
 * Btw following your logic, (I do not agree) you can list in the infobox the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom which became the Principality of Transylvania, Kingdom of Hungary (establishment 1000), Principality of Hungary (895), Avar Khaganate (567), because Transylvania and outside Transylvania many areas from these former states are part of Romania since 1920 (not only Transylvania). Why do you start count only from 1570? Should we list the Byzantine Empire as state of Turkey? Should we list Pannonia province as Hungarian and Austrian state? Should we list the Roman Empire as state of Spain and England? I think no.

Some coins and maps:


 * Gabriel Bethlen Prince of Transylvania (1613-1629) King of Hungary (1620-1621)
 * http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_denar_gab_1621.jpg
 * http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_denar_1621KB.jpg
 * http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_1626CC_groshen.jpg
 * Bethlen Gabor coin 1621 with Hungarian coat of arm:
 * https://m.eremshop.hu/datadir/termekek/Bethlen-Gabor-Taller-1621-K-B-6525-4756.jpg
 * Bethlen Gabor coin 1626
 * http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_1626CC_groshen.jpg
 * Bethlen Gabor coin 1627  with Hungarian coat of arm and holy crown
 * https://m.eremshop.hu/datadir/termekek/d206974deaf9316797fc5b3b833a0f97.jpg
 * Old contemporary history maps:
 * 1635 map of Europe by Willem Blaeu, a Dutch cartographer, The proportions are overall not so good, Hungary looks smaller than the reality, but we can see what was that Transylvania was part of the Hungarian crown at that time. Hungarian land from Pozsony/Bratislava (Pressburg) to Gyulafehérvár/Alba Iulia (Weissenburg).
 * https://external-preview.redd.it/rYdkPyeF-bUy_lr9BDdl294yojmJZwifBAeX_Vnz9Us.jpg?auto=webp&s=2dffc358c45b57877c2467e12acf6eda82cc212a
 * 1724 map of Europe from Paris
 * http://history-maps.ru/pictures/max/0/827.jpg
 * 1751
 * https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3914~480119:L-Europe-divisee-en-ses-principaux-
 * 1779, French map
 * https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:3f462x294
 * 1787, English map, Kitchin
 * https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Europe%2C_1787_%28Kitchin%29.jpg
 * 1800, English map
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_accurate_map_of_Europe_from_the_best_authorities_%283046039588%29.jpg
 * OrionNimrod (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @I.cavaleru, please stop edit war, morover you just keep reverting whitout any arguments or discussions. Moldavia was founded in 1346 as Hungarian vassal buffer state, after the Hungarian army who was sent by King Louis I of Hungary pushed the Golden Horde behind the Dneister in 1345 and Dragoș, Voivode of Moldavia was sent by the Hungarian king from Maramaros county. Why would be Maramaros county a Romanian state because some Romanian nobles got estates there? Btw, a lot of nobles from different ethnic background got estates in every medieval countries. Should be their estates pre-states of other countries? Follow this strange logic almost all countries in Europe would be pre-state of each countries...
 * Do you know any international history map which shows Maramaros county inside the Kingdom of Hungary would be Romanian state? It was part of the Kingdom of Hungary in all international maps until 1920. The territory of Maramaros is part of Principality of Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary in every international, English, German, Hungarian, French, etc historical maps.
 * High Middle Ages: map 1190
 * Another international map, 1096
 * https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_in_the_14th_Century.jpg
 * OrionNimrod (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The Maramureș Voivodeship's Wikipedia page says it is a Romanian state, how do you think you know the history of my country better than I do? That's how you are Hungarians as well as Russians, you don't want to admit the truth I.cavaleru (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That wiki pages has many issues. Voivodeship of Maramureș, anyway it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. If the Hungarian king appointed some Romanian nobles to manage the area for a short time, then why would be this area a Romanian state? I do not understand.
 * Please stop personal harrasments. And please check out the international maps, tell to the international map makers and historians that you know it better.
 * Well, I am Hungarian, and that region was part of Hungary between 895-1920 and between 1940-45, and part of Romania since 1920. Which means this region is quite part of the Hungarian history not only the Romanian history, morover we are talking about the 14th century: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe%20in%20the%2014th%20Century.jpg and not about the present time. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Voivodeship of Maramureș
first of all please read WP:3RR very carefully because edit warring may result in your banning from our community. Secondly, could you refer to reliable sources stating that Maramureș was an independent state in the Middle Ages? Please remember that the early 16th-century Moldo-Russian Chronicle says the Vlachs were settled in Maramureș by one "King Vladislaus" (likely Ladislaus IV) of Hungary to fight against the Mongols. Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Agree ....removed Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 15:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023
Romania has reached the status of a developed country in 2021 and has retained its developed country status in UN's Human Development Index in 2022 and 2023 as well. 77.58.168.130 (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Here you go: Romania has reached the status of a developed country in 2021 and has retained its developed country status in UN's Human Development Index in 2022 and 2023 as well. WikiUser70176 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ WikiUser70176 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)