Talk:Romania/Archive 6

History
"The population that would later become the Romanian people cannot be identified either geographically or historiographically from 275 until about 1200. Several competing theories have been generated to explain the origin of modern Romanians."

This is really annoying. That population can be definitely identified geographically based on archaelogical evidences.( see the numerous TV news about archaelogical discoveries in Transylvania.Azdfg 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC) When you find in Transylvania archaelogical evidences from the 10th century,to mention several competing theories it is clearly anti-Romanian. If this article about Romania must mention several theories,it can mention the possibility that Romanian nationalist time-travellers from the future traveled back in time and planted archaelogical evidences in Transylvanian soil. Except this theory,I don't see what other competing theory can be supported by archaeological evidences. Why are other theories mentioned on wikipedia,if those theories are in contradiction with archaeology? If it is OK with wikipedia policy to mention theories that are in contradiction with archaelogy,then hundreds of competing theories about the history of every people can be mentioned.Azdfg 14:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, OK. I apologize ahead of time if I'm showing my American (i.e. definitively non-Romanian) stripes here, but - wouldn't "archeological evidence" just prove people were living there? Unless you give more specific details from research into it, how will we know? (Saying "see the TV news..." doesn't help, as many countries' news programs don't give a damn about most archaeology, sadly, and plus, you don't even mention when these discoveries were made and reported about, or even in what languages they were reported in). Plus, I have to say, there ARE multiple theories about the origins of at least some segments of the Romanian population, and some of these, such as the "Daco-Romanian" theory, are supported by some and contested by some; support isn't universal, especially given that a lot of ancient or even medieval history is somewhat difficult to piece apart accurately enough to definitively say something like "yes, most of the dominant ethnic group in this country is descended from such-and-such people". Regardless, there ARE multiple theories as to the origins of some ethnic groups in Romania. Whether or not anybody outside of Romania believes them, or whether they can even be proven, I can't really say, but they certainly exist. Poke around a little more on Wikipedia, you'll find them eventually. 4.238.26.206 05:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * When I wrote that message I had in mind the discovery of a burial ground in a city from Transylvania. Usually,a tomb offers valuable information about the people who lived there. If 2000 years in the future alien archaeologists will excavate an American cemetery,they will be able to understand more than the simple fact that people were living there. Azdfg 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

History section too LARGE
Pardon my a-screaming! As AdrianTM have pinpointed more than once above, the article on Romania writes too much on the history, while the article History of Romania is a little too stubby and small (observe and admire the pathetic smallness that I achieved by HTML-tagging!). Everything else on the article is good, almost pleasureable. Said: Rursus 08:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for support. I do like the article except for history obsession of it. Hard to cut it down though, I'm not brave enough. -- AdrianTM 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Location maps available for infoboxes of European countries
On the WikiProject Countries talk page, the section Location Maps for European countries had shown new maps created by David Liuzzo, that are available for the countries of the European continent, and for countries of the European Union exist in two versions. From November 16, 2006 till January 31, 2007, a poll had tried to find a consensus for usage of 'old' or of which and where 'new' version maps. Please note that since January 1, 2007 all new maps became updated by David Liuzzo (including a world locator, enlarged cut-out for small countries) and as of February 4, 2007 the restricted licence that had jeopardized their availability on Wikimedia Commons, became more free. At its closing, 25 people had spoken in favor of either of the two presented usages of new versions but neither version had reached a consensus (12 and 13), and 18 had preferred old maps. As this outcome cannot justify reverting of new maps that had become used for some countries, seconds before February 5, 2007 a survey started that will be closed soon at February 20, 2007 23:59:59. It should establish two things: Please read the discussion (also in other sections α, β, γ, δ, ε, ζ, η, θ) and in particular the arguments offered by the forementioned poll, while realizing some comments to have been made prior to updating the maps, and all prior to modifying the licences, before carefully reading the '''presentation of the currently open survey. You are invited''' to only then finally make up your mind and vote for only one option. There mustnot be 'oppose' votes; if none of the options would be appreciated, you could vote for the option you might with some effort find least difficult to live with - rather like elections only allowing to vote for one of several candidates. Obviously, you are most welcome to leave a brief argumentation with your vote. Kind regards. — SomeHuman 19 Feb2007 00:17 (UTC)
 * whether the new style maps may be applied as soon as some might become available for countries outside the European continent (or such to depend on future discussions),
 * which new version (with of without indicating the entire European Union by a separate shade) should be applied for which countries.

plz change it fast!
Could some one change the coat of arms of romania! cause i don't know how is the "clever" person who put the old coat of arms(communist) thanx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cezarsab (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Average? Which?
Does the phrase, "The average gross wage per month" refer to the mean or median average per month?  Signature brendel  07:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd assume that "average" is used for "mean" not median. -- AdrianTM 12:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

wrong numbers
The average gross wage per month in Romania is 2918 lei as of December 2005,[21] equating to €1419.38 (US$1745.36) based on international exchange rates and $2046.06 based on purchasing power parity.[22]

This needs to be reviewed. The average gross wage per month is not 2918 lei (or close to this value), nor 2918 lei equals 1745.36 US dollars (or close to this value). Please check the numbers. Rosebudx 12:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Troll much? -- AdrianTM 12:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism/No religion
I'm confused, what' the difference between atheism and not having any religion. I mean, atheism is (according to Atheism): "Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism". Sooo, if theism is _having_ a religion, then atheism is _not having_ any religion. I wonder what all the people who declared themselves as no-religionists thought atheism means. Not editing anything, since this might be a matter of perspective. - Amenzix 02:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Theism is having a theistic belief,not having a religion. Buddhists are having a religion but are not theists. Atheism is the lack of theism or not having a theistic belief. The difference between atheism and not having any religion is that someone who don't have a religion may believe that there is something out there. For example,Alexandru Mironov is a freethinker and without religion but he is not an atheist. Azdfg 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The fact that you are an atheist only means that you do not belive in gods and supreme being. The idea of supernatural (a metaphysical universe for instance) is not in contradiction with atheism, it is only in contradiction with positivisism (and ignostics, in particular). However, I belive I understand what you mean. There are people who belive in a god, but not a generally accepted one, so they're not part of any of the existing churches. However, since that _is_ theism (see the article if you disagree), I belive it would be more correct to say that he simply is a theist, without specifing any religion. Nevertheless, it makes a lot more sense now, thanks. - Amenzix 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP per capita of Romania
What is the sourse of the present ($10,152) GDP per capita of romania? In CIA World Factbook it is 8,800 as well as here. So I am going to change it now to 8,800. --Gligan 10:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's the IMF estimate for 2007: GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (as of September 2006). See also Economy of Romania. Mentatus 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP and growth again
I removed this because $11,000 PPP is unsourced, neither is growth of 7.7% according to neutral sources.  /FunkyFly.talk_  15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Two observations
Romania has a long, complex history that is very interesting from an ethno-cultural point of view. I'd like to offer two observations:


 * 1. The main article fails to mention Nicolae Ceauşescu's execution in 1989, which I remember as one of the signal events of the collapse of Communism, along with the opening of the Czech border, the "fall" of the Berlin Wall, and Lithuania's declaration of independence.


 * 2. The history section of the main article lacks any reference to the sizeable ethnic-German population of Transylvania and some other regions, such as Bukovina, and their resettlement or expulsion in either 1939-40 or after WWII. I noticed also that the sub-entry on Braşov, for example, fails to mention that it long was known in German as Kronstadt. See Transylvania Saxons.

Sca 14:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, the observations are correct, would you like to contribute by making the edits yourself? I feel though the history section is too long, but I don't know how to cut it down without making somebody unhappy because their favorite piece of history was removed -- AdrianTM 15:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A quick inspection of the dozen or so books — most in German — I have on the expulsion of Germans after World War II does not reveal any detail on the Germans of Romania, other than some eyewitness reports (Augenzeugeberichte) of individual cases.


 * De Zayas, in his book A Terrible Revenge includes a table estimating the prewar ethnic-German population of Romania as 786,000. Hans Lemberg and K. Erik Franzen, in Die Vertriebenen (Weltbild Verlag, Augsburg, 2001 — ISBN 3-8289-0409-2) indicate that 253,000 ethnic Germans were expelled from Romania, while 136,000 died in the war and its aftermath, leaving some 400,000 ethnic Germans in postwar Romania. A chart in Geflohen und vertrieben: Augenzeugen berichten, by Rudolf Mühhlfenzl (Athenäum, 1981 — ISBN 3-7610-8142-1), indicates about 165,000 ethnic Germans from Romania lived in West Germany in the 1970s.


 * Most of the works dealing with the German expulsions I have seen concentrate on the German territories ceded to Poland and the U.S.S.R., and on the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. Perhaps a German Wikipedian could contribute something detailed about the fate of the German communities in Romania.


 * Sca 22:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You talk about "expulsions", as far as I know most of the Germans left willingly the hell Romania was during the Communism, actually Germany paid (bribed?) Romania Communist government to let Germans go, as far as I know... -- AdrianTM 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm no expert on Romania, but: I think you may be referring to Germans who left later on, perhaps in the '70s, when the West German government arranged for the resettlement of many of the ethnic Germans who remained in Eastern Europe after the more brutal expulsions of the immediate postwar period were finished (by 1950). In the case of Poland, at least, these later transfers took place as a result of Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik and the abandonment of the Hallstein Doctrine, which perviously forbade any formal recognition of East Germany. I would guess something similar took place with regard to the Germans who remained in Transylvania, but I don't know the details.


 * Sca 03:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Current News
I've added the suspension of the President to the Politics of Romania page. Please don't forget to update that page as news progresses. Sentineneve 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see the vandals are popping up. Somebody is a much faster fixer than I am!

RE: Current News
I don't like the interim president, but shouldn't he be on there as well? Maybe not so important, but just a thought. Luddz
 * I don't like him too. And I don't like the previous one too. --Marksed 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The European Library
I have added a link to treasures of national library of Romania Hope this is okay. Greetings, Fleurstigter 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Romania will have 30 million people by 2070
Romania will have 30 million people by 2070. --195.154.148.3 08:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide your source please? --Eurocopter tigre 09:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I actually beg you to keep your source covered, we don't need to see THAT! -- AdrianTM 00:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling
Isn't it possible to spell Romania as Rumania? Emperor001 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it is possible ;-) but it's not correct, that's an old spelling (see etymology article), the correct, current one, in English is "Romania". -- AdrianTM 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

New European vector maps
You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Gallery or an Article?
Good job on the article, but too many images. You can create a gallery on another page (preferred on Wikimedia Commons) and link it to this page for more images of Romania. But not so many!!

Good luck --Arad 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Arghezi, Blaga, Barbu
In the "Literature" section shouldn´t we mention Tudor Arghezi, Lucian Blaga or Ion Barbu as authors who, between the two world wars, intented to synchronize Romanian literary efforts with European ones ? Also Nichita Stanescu, Marin Sorescu or Marin Preda could be mentioned as valuable authors who tried to escape Communist censorship, especially in the 60's, when a small "Renaissance" took place in Romanian literature. I had problems creating an account, this is why I sign with IP. At RO.WP I can be found here and at ES.WP here. And what does George Enescu have to do with literature ? Thank you for your time.--84.121.63.206 12:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is not protected, you can edit it even if you don't sign in. Enescu is there because that was part of "Culture of Romania" and whoever partitioned that into subheadings didn't pay attention. -- AdrianTM 13:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please check if the changes I made are OK ?--84.121.63.206 13:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Romanian Holocaust
If Elie Wiesel is from the north of Transylvania, then he is a survivor of Holocaust, but not Romanian Holocaust. --Venatoreng 12:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Culture
Couldn´t the article say a few things about Romanian music and dances ? --Venatoreng 19:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it could, so go ahead and write few things about Romanian music and dances.. --Eurocopter tigre 21:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

History
Under the History section of this article, the first sentence was the following: One of the fossils found - a male, adult jawbone - has been dated to be between 34,000 and 36,000 years old, which would make it one of the oldest fossils found to date of modern humans in Europe. . This is out of context. What fossil? Should that have even belonged there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.229.66 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Inflation of photos
It seems everyone wants to put here a photo of his town/region etc. But I think there are far too much. This should be an article, not a gallery.07:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The photos should portrait the unique things of the country, but they put photos of skyscrapers and other places which are at best, of average importance. I will try to trim it down. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

History section
I urge people to trim down info in history, not add more, it's already too long, please add anything related to history in History of Romania page. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE! Do not remove/cut information from the present form of the article
I spent a great deal trying to make the article more fluent and I am planning on asking for a review and probably get at least an A-level for this article. Feel free to add comments and suggestions. ps: do not make any comments (unless really specific) about the length of the history section. If you are not happy that Romania has a rich history, then go ahead and be unhappy. I have just checked the length of similar FA (i.e. Featured Article) and they aren't that much shorter. I am pretty sure that for example, Germany's section of history is very similar in terms of length. Thank you for understandingNergaal 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Not every decision on Wikipedia is based on existing articles. In general, we make decisions about articles based on consensus.  So you shouldn't always base what you write on existing articles, even FA articles, because each situation is different.  Anyway, I think the history section is fine as it is right now, but some extra sources could always be helpful. Also, you may want to add inuse to the top of the page while you are editing so that you won't have as many edit conflicts. SmileToday☺(talk to me, My edits) 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "ps: do not make any comments (unless really specific) about the length of the history section. If you are not happy that Romania has a rich history, then go ahead and be unhappy." -- I will comment about whatever I please, there's a History of Romania where all this wouldn't constitute junk, in the Romania article people expect to read information about today Romania not pages about history of Romania, any country has "rich history", if you don't know that much you shouldn't contribute to a "history" section to any country. I will give you couple of days to work that out, afterwords I will try to reduce from the irrelevant stuff. -- AdrianTM 03:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to be as nice as possible: who the hell did put you in charge? who are you to decide what people are going to read? Before you make any more comments, at least put the energy into reding the god damn article in the present form! THIS IS A GOD DAMN ENCYCLOPAEDIA! It is not a publicity magazine! who comes to the page to read about the politics of Romania or about the how many counties it has? do you think they care about reading armed forces, or better said, the lack of it? As I said, I actually did put the article for review (for other people outside of Ro to read) and I got really positive feedbacks. There's no need to be this uptight and bosy about something you have little right to speak about. I saw you posting messages from at least an year ago, and I am probably right saying that you took some overseeing role. The result: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT EVEN RATED AS A B-LEVEL ARTICLE!!! At least prove first you are basing your opinions ON RESULTS! My bet is that people want to read FA articles, or anything that is reviewed and accepted. Please next at least have the dignity to wait what people think of the present form of the article before trying to impose your hasty, narrow views.Nergaal 04:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have the right to express my opinions like any other person on Wikipedia, I think that's bad form from you to ask people to keep their opinion to themselves. Please mind your language too, there's no need for shouting and using expressions like "GOD DAMN". -- AdrianTM 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"I will give you couple of days to work that out, afterwords I will try to reduce from the irrelevant stuff" This is supposed to be an opinion? I wonder what other 'opinions' do you have. Anyways, I did not ask ppl to keep their opinions for themselves. I just said: "Please do not remove/cut information because..." With regards to the length of the history section, I believe that if there is a problem with it, reviewers will make coments on it. Ah, and one more thing, I am not a believer of political corectness with people that assume it is ok to be bosy and expect everybody to confirm. ByeNergaal 05:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "I did not ask ppl to keep their opinions for themselves" -- let me see: "do not make any comments (unless really specific) about the length of the history section. If you are not happy that Romania has a rich history, then go ahead and be unhappy", I also don't see any "please" there, so if you talk about "bossy" people contemplate first about how you write, also, what "really specific" comments do you want when we talk about the length of the history section? It is lengthy, that's my opinion, you can decide which specific part can be cut and which can be preserved, I think a general opinion gives you freedom instead of limiting you to any specific part of the history. Asking people to not comment and be "very specific" is at very least "bossy" if not impertinent. As for not being "believer of political correctness" I hope you are a believer of addressing people in a civilized manner without shouting at them and using cursing, if not I think Wikipedia has ways to deal with that lack of belief. -- AdrianTM 06:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Projects Romania: rating?
"This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale." When was this assesment made, and who do I need to contact to re-review/rerate the article? Thanks Nergaal 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallery
As a reply to the review, it has been suggested to remove the gallery sections. Here are some of my suggestions: Nergaal 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * first take all the pictures about monasteries and put them in a big one with a caption relating to the Northern Moldova Monasteries.
 * add some pictures to the tourism section see bellow what i've added about the Toourism section
 * move some pictures in the largest cities subsection
 * make suggestions here what to do with the remaining ones

New Chapter: Tourism
Someone should start a new chapter containing some official figures of tourists, with palces they usually visit (i.e.: touristic cities, monasteries, black sea, Danube Delta, Fagaras Mountains, etc). I do not feel informed enough about this subject to be able to construct a well balanced segment on this topic. Nergaal 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Referencing the culture section: Anybody?
Can someone help me and reference the culture section? Thanks Nergaal 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for trimming down the article
The article is almost 93k now, and is getting quite huge (although i bet a quarter are references). Since several important (see also the GA comments above) still need expansion, I believe there should be a 'vote' of what to trim down and what to take out completely. My suggestions are to cut out completely Popular media and Armed forces. Comments and suggestions? Thanks Nergaal 11:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to trim the article down, I don't think that armed forces should be in the main article about Romania -- AdrianTM 22:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Romance
Is it due to the fact that the native tribes during the Dacian wars fled to other regions that Romanians are speaking a Romance language now? It seemed very strange to me that a country 170 years under reign, probably one of the shortest in the Empire to adopt the language so "quick" and never discarded it. Are there more reasons? Mallerd 13:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For considerations about origins of Romanians see this article: Origin of the Romanians. -- AdrianTM 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, as a personal remark (this is not encyclopedic stuff): 170 years is a lot, how many generations is that? (considering that people at that time had children at younger age, probably 15-18, and life expectancy was probably very low). I think that 8-10 new generations grown in a different language environment is more than enough to impose/transfer a language especially if there's intensive colonization and if the ratio colonists/natives is in favor of colonists (many Dacians died in war, and many were executed afterwords) But ultimately is a matter of culture and resistance to change, some countries have been occupied for more than 400 years and didn't adopt the language of the occupier (see History of Greece) while in this case Romans probably represented, to use a non-PC term, "superior" and probably desired culture (in political power, legal, organizational, and strict cultural sense).


 * It's also probably important to point that at that time there might have not been a uniform language in that area -- there were not only Dacian tribes, and even Dacian tribes might have spoken different dialects, so Latin might have been the best communication mean among Dacians, Romans, and other different people settling or traveling through the area at that time. It's also a matter of using the Occam razor: what is simpler to explain the presence of the people who speak a Romance language in Romania? A massive and sudden migration that is not attested by anybody, or the simple explanation that the population in the territory of Romania is composed of people of mixed ancestry: descendants of Roman colonists and Dacians and other people who adopted the language of the rulers and colonists. Both hypothesis have been used to serve cheap political and nationalist points, I would go with the one that doesn't invent an event to explain a state of fact. -- AdrianTM 19:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is filled with extra links. If anybody bothers to click on links like Origins of the Romanians, or Romanian Language, then you would find more details. You will see that around the 19th century there has been an intense period or re-latinisation and some other stuff. But till then, the language has survived in the area of the present-day Romania probably the same way Basque has survived in a region sorrounded by languages that are completely different. Or say Estonian: Estonia has had less than 20 years of independence throughout its entire history, yet a few millions still speak Estonian. Check other languages and you will find similar examples of unusual survival. Furthermore, until the 18th century there has never really been an orientation throughout the empires to impose a specific language (maybe because there were no schools! and therefore what did your parents teach you that is what you spoke). The idea of a national language, and not just a governamental-use language is rather new, and I believe it appeared in the 18th century. Only then states have started to impose the language at an efficient level.


 * Also, 170 years is NOT quite a short time, even for antiquity. Take Moldova now: it has been under soviet rule for only 50 years, and there is allready a significant debate about the fact that the language spoke there is not Romanian anymore. And this is a case where a well-developed language,etc,etc was allready present. [User:Nergaal|Nergaal]] 02:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a significant debate, but it's true there are Romanians (or Moldovans if you wish) who are more comfortable speaking Russian and this took not more than two new generations (people had children and grandchildren in that period), I think it's a fundamental difference between 50 years of occupation when there are still people alive who have lived in a different regime and more than 160 years occupation when the last free Dacians (at least in that territory) had died a century before the end of the Roman regime. -- AdrianTM 02:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I was saying the same thing, but forgot to write the "NOT"


 * Please consider the fact of fast communication and language spreading present nowadays. Back then, in the antiquity, there were also many mountain peoples who were even less in contact with the rest of the province than those places are now. So in modern time, the spreading of Russian can be attributed to the fact that Eastern Europe was in a totalitarian state when Russian was implemented upon E.E. and Romania was between those communist influenced countries. And yes, your "I think it's a fundamental difference between 50 years of occupation when there are still people alive who have lived in a different regime and more than 160 years occupation when the last free Dacians (at least in that territory) had died a century before the end of the Roman regime." statement has truth in it, but as Nergaal pointed out, you learn what you parents teach you. Schools were for rich kids. The poorer and probably only Dacian-speaking people did not have contact with the rich kids, let alone the Latin upper-class which migrated to Dacia, because that's what true Romans were in the provinces. So the poorer, Dacian-speaking nation did not actually learn Romance language just because of the Roman military presence, that's why I believe that either the Dacians were at some point seriously outnumbered either by slaughter or, mainly by migration (see also: Russification). That this perhaps led to Latinization or Romancation that the Dacian-speaking part díd make contact with Romance speakers at for example when they visited the market. As for the absence of an uniform language, it may be true, but then you must also say that there could not be total different languages, but more dialects, which have many common words. I hope I have stuck to the subject Mallerd 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that Dacian and Thracian languages didn't survive is sad, but not a mystery, while one would expect that for example some isolated villages in Bulgaria might have preserved the Thracian language the matter of fact is that people were not as isolated as we might imagine they were. -- AdrianTM 19:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but still you can't say that 160 years is a long period for the antiquity. And isolation, in what degree whatsoever, contributes to the survival of the traditional languages. I am now more interested why, as stated in the other articles, the different languages such as Byzantine Greek, Gothic, any Slavic language have not replaced the Romanian. It still isn't that clear in my opinion. The other articles mainly discuss the genetic ancestors of the Romanians, which as said above, is often a political issue. See also Greece and Macedonia. Now genetics do not have anything to do with the language people speak, so it in fact IS a mystery to me AdrianTM :) Mallerd 21:32, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who defines what is "long" or "short" period? This is pretty subjective, the real question is if it is enough time, and in history we've seen both cases: languages that hold for 400 of years under occupation (for example Greek) and languages that disappear in less than couple of hundreds of years (many Native American languages for example, and I'm sure there are many other examples) it's possible that both things happened with Romanian in succession and there are explanations for why that might have been the case, but anyway, aside from the argument from personal lack of belief do you have anything else to add, I think both major theories are explained in the article about the origin of Romanians, do you have any other sources that add more info about this issue? Don't get me wrong, this is not a "challenge", I really am very interested to read something new about this issue. -- AdrianTM 21:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The answer to my lack of belief is not discussed in the origin of romanians article as I've mentioned. It discusses the people of Romania and what they really are. As my first question makes clear, I was wondering how the language in the Roman period, long or short what you wish, could have been set. Indeed Greek always stood strong through literature, poetry, lecture etc. Native American languages I suppose it includes Latin-America :) good example of decimation and seperation of the population of that continent. You must know it is hard to not get you wrong, you said what you wanted to say on such a way that it seems like you are tired of me (Argument from ignorance is to me very condescending but not your fault). Nonetheless, I try ;) I don't have sources like books, on the internet it mainly is about the people and not the survival of the language. Maybe I am looking in the wrong place.

Whether a period is long or short, I mean like you said Greek survived the Latin of the Romans and even became the franca. That's because I think that 160 years is in the Roman period short. Mallerd 22:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The analogy that you use with Greek in the Roman period is false, Greek never lost its status and Greece was not colonized by Romans AFAIK. -- AdrianTM 22:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not tired of discussing with you (or with anybody) but the fact is that neither one of us can bring new elements to the discussion, you think the period is short, I think that the period is enough (8-10 new generations grown in a Latin environment) moreover the theory that I kind of support doesn't need any additional event to explain the exitance of Romanians in Romania and thus doesn't fail Occam Razor as I think the other theory does. Anyway, neither of our opinions is important since we are not specialists in the field, and I have to admit don't know much about the issue, issue which is pretty extensively presented (for and against arguments for each theory) in the article that I linked to... so... what remains to be said here? -- AdrianTM 22:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right and I will look in the mentioned article again. But may I remind you that it is quite normal for several generations to live simultaniously :), (see Imperial China/Confucianism), I am not saying that you do, but people tend to think they succeed eachother in the sense that the former disappears. As for the Greek and Greece, every province was colonized by people from the Italic peninsula, whether they all spoke Latin in the days of Roman expansion towards Greece, I don't know, sure thing is, there were Latin-speaking people migrating to Greece and the East. Greek just did not disappear. This is due to the vast area that spoke Greek and the timeless works of philosophers and playwrights which inspired the great Romans, I myself think of Scipio Africanus. But indeed I am not following a Culture and Language of Romania study, so everything is not entirely certain :). Mallerd 23:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand what's your objective over here. If you want to learn stuff about history, posting in a talk page on Wikipedia is probably not the best thing to do, if you want to add info to an article you need to bring some referenced material, if you request people to modify something that's not clear or needs more details, again this is not the right page to ask -- as I mentioned before, this issue is dicussed in a  separate article. -- AdrianTM 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures
A picture from Craiova would be nice, I think. Also I don't see traditional costumes - I guess we don't have many in Commons. --Venatoreng 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh
This is a talk page, I should get an answer even if I didn't contribute to the article. In my opinion too much Transylvania is represented, so Hungarians will be glad to see we don't have any culture in Wallachia or Moldavia. --Venatoreng 07:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and expand the culture section with information from Moldavia and Wallachia. Don't just request for information to be added. If you believe it is important, then edit the paragraph yourself, or at least write some explicit points you want to be added on this discussion page. Nergaal

External link proposal
I'd like to propose this external link about today's Romania after entering the European Union


 * Romania, new European neighbour

Please, let me know you oppinion. Panex 08:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to show poverty in Romania, it will do. This is more like "Romania when it entered the European Union", you may even make the European Union look bad if you consider a few months "after". --Venatoreng 09:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Disregarding what this site is about and how it makes EU look, it should not be added because it's against the style recommendations of Wikipedia: it's a photo-blog type of site that doesn't have encyclopedic merit. -- AdrianTM 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

External video?
I believe they don't really fall into wikipedia's style, but what do ppl think about posting any of these videos?

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe one made by the Romaian Ministry of Culture would do - but we really must get second opinions. --Venatoreng 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Can't watch that right now, but it should follow the same criteria as any other links: first and foremost is it encyclopedic? External_links

Links to be avoided:"Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required."

-- AdrianTM 19:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the first one is a beer commercial, and the second one was paid by the Romanian government. --Venatoreng 20:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

A bit amazed
re: Romania: main page - history section and, via User talk:Nergaal

regarding: 09:13, 7 November 2007 Nergaal (Talk | contribs) (102,105 bytes) 19:40, 7 November 2007 Fabartus ((105,448 bytes) [After a succession of improvements] Bytes difference, whoopiee! At least I mentioned Dacia and Rome!

This is the note (following) I left Nergaal, but think the rest of the folks working this page ought to be involved. Please compare the now to the then and discuss which form is better looking and gives a fairer representation of the vast and ancient history of the region to the first time reader totally ignorant of the subject. Which might entice him to click that link for so called "main articles".

In short, I don't think Nergaal should decide. I don't revert as a rule, but would like the project to take this in hand, and did so when mulling this over. Aside from the revised format, there was a single newline which messed up notes after #27, and included text and an image, that may have pushed Nergaal into reverting. Fra nkB 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

''Please do not further expand the history section. It is allready long enough allready. The article is way too long on general (100k), and history is a huge factor. Please do not add large modifications in the history section, unless they are truly relevant and add to the compactness. Nergaal 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)''
 * Posted on Fra nkB

''On the other hand, you are very welcome to modify and expand the history articles (the main one and the subarticles)! Nergaal 01:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)''


 * response
 * 1) So kind of you to give me permission. My "Adds" were modest indeed, being only some glue phrases and more professional section titles. Compare this and this, which took quite a while, but was worth it. The current version has the same problems I set out to solve. You with all your vast experience since July 1st, are so clearly a better judge of what's best than me and 20k edits spread over all eleven sister projects. Glad to know that.
 * 2) Compactness should not be your primary concern, but instead completeness and a professional looking presentation (appearance).
 * 3) I was "Done"&mdash;any expansion was up to the project people, beyond the small amount of glue text I added. You have to trade length for spreading out the link density, and I would urge you to forget any rationale that suggests a main article for a country with as lengthy a history as that one has should meet some arbitrary size cap. WP:IAR certainly applies to some extent. (Try looking at India, if you think you have size issues!)
 * 4) Do you realize undoing my edits, in particular, restoring those obnoxiously long and large section titles is neither encyclopediac, nor professional looking, nor a step forward. I understand your concern on the byte count, but shortening the titles and a few dozens of lines so the article reads intelligibly to the casual reader is not going to kill you folks.
 * 5) ANY important historical era deserves some mention of the high points, and asking a reader to combine millenia is hardly fair to your region... the history is there, it happened, our job is to report on it, at least in a survey form. Putting links (some of us hate to change pages!) is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era&mdash;in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized.
 * 6) More than 3-4 words in a section title is really unprofessional. WHERE in any print encyclopedia have you seen that? Longer subtitles, as per my changes, sure. NOT TOC entries. Perhaps you've got your nose in too many journals and not enough in "Acceptable practices". It's really off-putting.
 * 7) Since I do a lot of tidying up on pages needing fresh input, and most of it stands up, you perhaps ought to recheck the finished copy I left and compare to the current appearance.
 * 8) Removing FixHTML is a bad idea, it does no harm, and solves several different issues on browsers with rendering order issues, especially with regard to infoboxes and the strange effects edit links can have around such.

Be well, like a moving pen, I generally write just once. For the most part I do it well. OTOH, maybe this one should have a revert. Cheers // Fra nkB 03:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As added food for thought
 * The article is heavily footnoted, perhaps too heavily. Yet all those go against the article byte count which seems to be Nergaal's primary concern. At the same time, no one seems to be using the Named reference technique to keep the cites counts down and re-listing templates parameters instead of that named method, or a terse "Author, page, quote" alternative recitation (see Cite Sm) is also adding a fair number of bytes. There is likely a fair amount of repetition, and at the least, going to terse repeated cites of the same source will minimize memory costs. Hell, I cut over a kilobyte just by packing out the spaces before pipes in Citation templates. // Fra nkB 03:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and shorten the footnotes as long as they do not lose their value. I personally have added a lot of references but did not bother to format them, or to shorten them.

This is childlish.Now the answers:


 * 1) You are very welcome. I am tired of people who show up to a page and think they have the right to add any modifications they feel like. Next time, before you have the intentions of modifying the alticle considerably (or the contents in this case) it would be wise to write down something in the discussion page, otheriwse you work might end up being in vane.
 * 2) Appearance and professional looking? Is that what you are calling the template for the contents section? Come on, try to be objective and agrre that even the contents section on your discussion page is really ugly.
 * 3) I have allready replied to this and I do not feel the need to throw away some of my time to add more reasoning to this rather retarded dispute. Note: The big size also has a real outcome, and that is the article is really annoying to edit because it takes almost 10secs between the press of the save button and the reloading of the page (and it is not my connection)
 * 4) Again I allready explained this. The issue was not the byte count but the length of the contents section that took several pages to scroll down (and I think more than hald of the contents were SMALL entries into the history section).
 * 5) The article is about Romania, not about the History of Romania. Again feel free to click this link and edit. The history is there, it happened, and therefore the history ARTICLE should be expanded. "(some of us hate to change pages!)" Some other readers hate to search stuff about Romania and have to scroll down through pages of history to get to some more present facts." Putting links is not equivilent to giving a reader a recap of the era—in particular, I find the way you did it in that page to be poorly prioritized." This is your opinion. The page has beeen previously reviewed by other users (check the article milistone) and they found it actually really aggreable and felt the need to specify the usefulness of the way it was 'prioritizied'.
 * 6) For exampel in Europa Yearbook (a kind of printed version of CIA Factbook that is printed yearly). Also, your example with journals is at least annoying. Journals are actually reviewed by professionals, which means that people who nt what is happening agree on those formalities. This is not Libertatea where you need to put catchy titles to make people buy your crap. This is an encyclopaedia and should have some professionalism in the way titles are given.
 * 7) I checked and decided the contents section is REAAAAALLY "off-putting". It is unfortunate, but I find it fair to undo edits from people who do not ask first, than to reedit their edits.
 * 8) IT IS UGLY!!!!!! Also, what browsers? Anything that is not Firefox or IE has no weight (i.e. even Opera is a niche browser). It might be that you are not using a monitor that has over 1024px on width. That is why you believe your tempalte looks 'professional'.

Cheers and have fun at not modifying the contents section in a way allready described (why) not to.Nergaal 08:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To user:Nergaal: your massive reverts are inadmissible behavior and may be considered to be disruption of wikipedia. `'Míkka>t 15:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The proper way of solving a disagreement is to ask for opinions of other users, not reverting your opponent. Complete reversal of someone's work is blatant disrespect and allowable only for vandalism. `'Míkka>t 16:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * inadmissible behaviour? never explained!
 * ask opinions of other users? you would do better good if instead of defending your friend blindly, you would also tell your friend Fabartus to ask other users for opinions before going rampart.
 * making threats about abousing administrative privileges to defend a friend is a blatant disrespect and allowable only for vandalism

Getting more and more disillusioned by the attitude of administrators of wikipedia. How long until this will bring wikipedia down?Nergaal 17:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)