Talk:Romanians/Archive 4

The map
Ok, so we`ve all finally reached a conclusion. Indeed, it`s uselessness isa clear, it`s pseudo-scientific, subjective, and pathetic. For the one who made it and insist in wasting my bandwidht, three words: Quality, not quantity!. Removed. Greier 17:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why was this picture removed? 213.75.12.76 20:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Romanians in Canada
NorbertArthur, can you please say where you are getting your figures of over a million, and 400,000 from? The census disagrees. Jayjg (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Jayjg, one of the sources which Norbert and others have been relying on (although they seem reluctant somehow to actually cite it) is the RoMedia commercial site- a network of media outlets in the US which broadcast Romanian materials. It is from here that he gets the 400k figure for Canada, and the 1.5mil total for Nth Am. However, as has already been discussed above, the reliability of this estimate is quite doubtful- the only source RoMedia gives for these figures is Ethnologue, and firstly they are only concerned with languages, not ethnicities, and secondly the Ethnologue 2005 figures for Romanian language estimate only 23.5mil only total for all countries. As a media organisation, it might be expected that potential audience figures are - shall we say, maximised for attracting advertisers (the actual purpose of that RoMedia page).
 * With these changes and additions to estimates continuing now for more than six months in this article, I think that we need to make more explicit the requirement that any and every change or addition of a number must be accompanied by a direct source citation, or else it may be reverted on sight.--cjllw | TALK  03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Moreover, given the overwhelmingly accurate nature of the Canadian census, outlandish figures from biased sources (such as the RoMedia commercial site) should be immediately dismissed as inherently unreliable, and contrary to our reliable sources policy. Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups
How do French, Italians, Portugese, and Spaniards relate to Romanians on an ethnical level? --Candide, or Optimism 18:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think is because there are all Latin peoples, have Latins origins and Romance languages are spoken by all these ethnic groups. NorbertArthur 31 March 2006


 * Eastern Romance peoples ("Vlachs", an odd term), French, Italians, etc are all branches of Latin peoples. So they are all related groups. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 10:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They are not ethnically related. Are they? If so, how? --Candide, or Optimism 16:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Romanians are closer ethnically (traditions, customs, etc) to the Bulgarians and Serbians than to the French. bogdan 16:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * And to the Hungarians and Ukrainians, and other people that we might have mixed with. Someone should remove that part. --Candide, or Optimism 16:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, they shouldn't. Romanians are ethnically more similar to other Latin peoples, based on common origin from Romans (OK, this hypothesis is to an extent controversial). Customs are a quite superficial thing when considering ethnicity. Greeks have similar customs to Macedonian (Slavs), but that does not mean that they are related ethnic groups at all. When looking at ethnicity, we're looking at origin. And if we trace history back, Romanians and Spanish and Portuguese were once part of the same ethnic group (the Romans). Of course, a lot of this is abstract and theoretical. If we look at gene pools, it is true that Romanian genes are probably closer to Bulgarian and other Southeastern European peoples than, say, Walloons or Romansh Swiss. Then again, many Finns have similar genes to Russians and to an extent to Swedes. That doesn't make any of those three groups "related ethnically". [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What Romans? Our origin is from the natives of the Balkans. And even if we did share a Roman ancestry, so do the Brits and other people. That doesn't mean that we share their ethnicity. It is wrong to say that we share ethnicity with those people and it should be removed. --Candide, or Optimism 16:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Romanians are a mix of Dacians and Romans, are they not? At least the concept of "Romanian" was formed as a result of the fusion of those two peoples. Now, South Slavs, the groups you allege we're related to, are Slavic. Majoritarily Slavic people who mixed in with the local proto-Balkan people (including the Dacians). So there is a degree of shared heritage, but very little overlap. On the other hand, the other Latin peoples are also descended from the Romans (and mixed in with their respective populations). No, it doesn't mean we share their ethnicity. It means that they're the closest people to us on an ethnic level (not a cultural level, though we are quite close to other Latin people culturally). But Romanians are a Latin people, that is by far the majority viewpoint. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Important paragraph was deleted
The Romanians, (Romanian: români), or the Romanian people, are a nation in the meaning an ethnos (in romanian: popor), defined more by a sense of sharing a common Romanian culture and having a Romanian mother tongue, than by citizenship or by being subjects to any particular country.

The concept of who is a Romanian has varied. Until the 19th century, it denoted the speakers of Romanian, and was a much more distinct concept than that of Romania, the land of the Romanians. In the last two centuries, Romanian and Romania have more and more come to be connected with a succession of Romanian states -- but the borders of those states have fluctuated so widely during that time that the language-based definition of Romanianess remains perhaps the most useful. While there are approximately 40 million native Romanian speakers in the world, only about 35 million considers themselves to be Romanian.
 * It duplicated (and often contradicted) other material in the article, and was completely unsourced. How often must it be explained to you that you need reliable sources for your insertions? Jayjg (talk) 19:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Romanians
The term Ethnic Romanians may be used in several ways. It may serve to distinguish Romanian citizens of "foreign" immigrant heritage, or it may indicate members of the Romanian culture living as minorities in other nations. In English usage, but less often in Romanian, Ethnic Romanians may be used for assimilated descendents of Romanian emmigrants. A today more controversial usage of the term Ethnic Romanians refer to people with Romanian mother tongue and culture but citizens of other countries than the Romania, as for instance Moldova.

Ethnic Romanianss form an important minority group in several countries in central and eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Romania) as well as in Spain and in southern Brazil....

For different reasons, some groups may be noted as "Ethnic Romanians" despite no longer having Romanian mothertongue or a distinct Romanian culture. Until the 1990s two million Ethnic Romanians lived throughout the former Soviet Union, especially in Russia and Kazakhstan. In the United States 1990 census, 3 million people are fully or partly of Romanian ancestry, forming one of the largest single ethnic group in the country. Most Americans of Romanian descent live in the Mid-Atlantic states (especially Pennsylvania) and the northern Midwest (especially in Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, North Dakota, South Dakota, and eastern Missouri.)


 * Look, there's absolutely no way that in The world are just 23 mill. Romanians, just in Romanian 22, in Moldova 2, in America de Nord 1,5 mil., in Italy 1 mill and in Spain 1.5, and also in France 0.5 mill.

Just please tell you (Jayig) waht you want anymore???? To destroy this article or what? We gave you the sources, I tried to explain you, but you don't wanna understand. You and that ******* admin of SlimVirgin are both complaininng together against this article. And I want as all the users know, I was block by the administrator SlimVirgin becasue i reverted the supid lies of Jayig and because it's a vandalism editing what Mr. jayig wrote.''' NorbertArthur 2 April 2006

'''WE have to do something, these to users (==Jayig and SlimVirgin==) will destroy the article, they put lowest figure than the most negative estimations. I invite you all to start procedures against them.''' NorbertArthur 2 April 2006


 * First of all, you need to stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Next, you need to find reliable sources for your claims.  It's quite simple; a government census is a reliable source.  An off the cuff comment by an Italian Prime Minister is not, and you can't keep making up higher numbers than government censuses simply because you like higher numbers. Abide by policy, or you will find that "procedures" will most likely have to started with you instead. Jayjg (talk) 19:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Aha, now you try to do the innocent guy, that it no? If you want as all knows, you or SlimVirgin deleted the external lniks were we had the proofs of that figures. can you explain that please?

NorbertArthur 2 April 2006


 * Sorry, I can't explain your actions; they completely violate policy. You don't have any reliable sources for any of your claims, and you delete information that you don't like that actually comes from reliable sources.  Census information is reliable; speeches by Italian prime ministers are not. Jayjg (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What I am seeing is that people on all sides seem to be cherry-picking which numbers to look at. Jayjg is entirely correct in what he is saying about Norbert's behavior, but we've also (for example) now got a citation that would justify an estimate of about 800,000 Romanians in the U.S. as the (only) citation for the official census number of 367,000.


 * I've said this before and I'll say it again: uncited numbers should only be used where no decent cited numbers are available, and we should be very ready to get rid of them. And where reliable sources contradict each other, we should report all of them, at least in footnotes.


 * Also: it is virtually certain that Romanians in diaspora are undercounted in official censuses, so those should not be the only numbers reported. Certainly, for example, the U.S. census notoriously undercounts virtually all European ethnicities. Similarly, given that, by all accounts, large numbers of Romanians are illegally in Spain and Italy, official numbers for those countries are almost certainly low. But, conversely, if half a million or a million Romanians are illegally in Italy, that doesn't magically add to the total number of ethnic Romanians in the world: it just means that half a million or a million Romanians are in Italy rather than in Romania. - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to put the notes near the numbers in the wikisource, I am about to make a "strictly mechanical" edit switching over to the cite.php approach. I'd appreciate it if no one else edits while I do this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. - Jmabel | Talk 20:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just shut up! What I deleted??? You're head maybe? I have a lot of reliable sources but if I will give it to you, you'll say surely that :this isn't a reliable sources for our policy. Now you say that I delete things because you have nothing to say in your defense.

I agree with you that census date are reliable sources, but we gave you a lot of other websites that confirms our estimations. Look, in not you the boss here, ok? Jmabel: you are putting your long nose in all the romanian topics. But did you forget something? You're not a romanian. You lived a couple of months there and magically you know all about that country, people, language, diaspora... And what's you're problem about my behavior? Did know to read at least what this stupid Jayig id? You're writing things without using you're brain. His partner, user:SlimVirgin blocked me because I dared to revert what Jayig wrote. OOoooo, that was so a fair procedures, no??? NorbertArthur 2 April 2006


 * I consider that tone entirely inappropriate, and I will not engage with this. I have gone over to WP:AN/I and asked that NorbertArthur be blocked by an uninvolved party. I have also asked that if they see anything wrong with my conduct, they should say so. - Jmabel | Talk 20:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Here in Spain there are 1,100,000 romanians
Here in Spain there are 1,100,000 romanians, only in Seville there are 30% romanians. Romanians can even vote here.

I agree that there are around 35 millions romanians in the world. There are more than 1,500,000 romanians in US. 84.77.241.69 21:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree me too that in Spain there surely over 1.000.000 + Romanians and more than 1.2-1.3 mil. in U.S.A, but in the world me I would say that there around 32-33 mil. Romanians. The only thing we have to do is to find more proves than we gave before to show to the people here that our afirmations are true.

NorbertArthur 5 April 2006

Negotiations

 * Guys, I got a good idea. Instead quarelling here without sense, let's fit something. I would say to write official figures of the censuses, gov. websites..., and write after the etimations, how it was before. i think is the best solution, because everybody sustain his point of view. I mean it will be a neutral way fot this article. Just an example: for U.S.A, we leave there the off. 367,000 and we add the estimation, in concordance with our cited sources. I already found a lot of them. Surely we will fit the numbers for each country. What do you say abput this?

NorbertArthur 11 April 2006

I think it's a good idea. We have to have also the estimations along the official data. Traian Basescu said that there are 35 millions romanians in the world. How many romanians there are in the world? Many estimations admit to have more than 30 millions. It may be 35 millions as well as 33 millions. I would rather accept the biggest estimations. Romania 19:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * yes, me too I think the same, but we must wait till the others will accept it. In my point of view, there are more than 32 mil. I have a couple of websites if anyone want them.

NorbertArthur 12 Aprilie 2006

Can someone show me the citation about "35 million"? I have to say, I'm very skeptical, especially if that the meaning is ethnic Romanians. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It's very easy: you can make the sum of all the romanians abroad. It's pretty much sure that you'll get the sum. --Iasi 05:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Norbert. Bravo Norbert! Romanian 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, about all this, I forgot something very important: the sources! I know it's my fault, but... Now, anyone who wants sources about what we sustain (U.S.A 1.200.000+, Italy 1,000,000+, Spain 1,000,000+, France 300,000+ and Canada 300,000+), just tell my and I will be pleasured to give it.

NorbertArthur 13 Aprilie 2006

Norbert, you've been around here long enough to know that explicit provision of sources is precisely what is required before changing or adding any number in this peculiarly contentious article. It's quite simple - anyone wishing to add or change a number (particularly where they have been much debated) ought to present it here on the talk page first, accompanied by checkable sources; otherwise, uncited changes will be (quite validly) reverted on sight. For those that you mention above, we already cover the 1.2M est for the US in the body of the article, and we're all well acquainted now with the Ro Am and RoMedia sources - as well as their deficiencies. I'd recommend a re-read of User:Ronline's wise counsel a little further above, before embarking upon yet another round of plucking numbers from the aether.

BTW, the tag-team chorus of support from Romanian and Iasi above is a little unconvincing- if I didn't know better I'd reckon that our indefinitely-blocked comrade Bonaparte is walking among us once more...--cjllw | TALK  06:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * cjllw, I agree what you said that we need surces. We, I mean who is familiar with the truth of Romanian Diaspora abroad, we don't need surces to convince ourselves if this is the truth, but if somebody who doesn't really knows what is the Romanian Diaspora, it's sure that we need to show surces. It's exactly for that I created this section, to negotiate what to put there. Me I'm perfectly agreeing the census numbers, but those aren't accurate at all. I want to say that is not honest to put a figure which is much smaller than the tru one. I accept what you said, but we need estimations, that the most agreable point that me I found. Official figures and estimations.

NorbertArthur 14 April 2006


 * OK, I am usually never on the side of Khiotkoi or whatever but this time I have no other choice. There is no way that in Bulgaria there are over 500.000 Romanians and in some countries too the numbers have been inflated like the range of people in Ukraine. Why does it read 409.000 to 459.000? THe 459.000 figure is a figure that was taken at the previous census almost 20 years ago and 409.000 at the last census in 2001, so please let's try to stick with official data as much as possible. Also for the 1 mil Romanians in Italy and Spain, don't forget that that these people are seasoned-workers (they presently work in Spain and Italy but they still reside in Romania) which have already been counted in the 2001 Romanian census so let's try not to do any double counting.


 * Also have you considered that Ethnologue estimates the number of Romanian speakers at 23.5 million and yes they do count Moldovans as Romanians. How can it be that they are about 16.5 million people off?Constantzeanu 06:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanians abroad.
An interesting piece about Romanians abroad is published in "Le Monde", the most important French newspaper. It gives estimates for the number of Romanians living abroad. The data must be taken with caution, for most of these people still hold Romanian citizenship (and therefore are already counted in the Romanian census). The link is http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3214,36-762892,0.html. I suggest you make copies of it, for Le Monde gives free access only for a limited time (after which you must pay for it). User:Dpotop

I protest
I protest for having Dracula included in the photos that represent the Romanian people. After reading two books about him, plus the book about Stefan by Iorga, I can say that he was evil, even for the standard of that day. I would like to have him removed. We could replace him with Mircea or Cantemir. In addition to this, of all the four personas that represent the Ro people, no-one is from Moldavia. This is totally unacceptable. --Candide, or Optimism 01:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I support Anittas in his request to include a Moldovan. I believe that he exagerates, however, when considering Tepes evil. It's just that he is unrepresentative of Romanians, as perceived by themselves. I would suggest:
 * Eminescu -- cannot be omitted (whatever you say, it's what most Romanians identify with). Both literary and political figure.
 * Brancusi/Grigorescu/Enescu -- arts.
 * Babes/Coanda -- science.
 * Mihai Viteazul or Brancoveanu or Stefan cel Mare -- Medieval figure. Dpotop 01:30, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding a Moldovan would be controversial. There is nowhere in the Moldovans page that it says "Moldovans = Romanians" for one thing. I just have a hunch that it would start an edit war. &mdash;Khoikhoi 02:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He meant to say Moldavians. One-forth of the Romanians are Moldavians (me included); in addition to this, Romania was created by Moldavia. About 25-percent of the Romanian territory compromises Moldavian land. See Alexandru Ioan Cuza. Yes, I know it's ironic, considering those weirdos across Prut. But don't worry: we won't add any of their people. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't. They have nothing. --Candide, or Optimism 02:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh, of course then! :) I've made the pictures on the Pashtun, Scottish, Tajik, Berber, Assyrian, and Azerbaijani people pages, so if no one else wants to do the image, I'd be happy to. &mdash;Khoikhoi 02:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, you could create the photo, but first, we need to decide on what personas we should include in the new photo. I propose we include six Romanians: two Moldavians, two Wallachians, and two Ardelenians (Transylvanians). --Candide, or Optimism 05:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop please. This is a gross breach of the WP:NPA on both sides. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 08:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Judecand dupa cele spuse, ii dau dreptate lui Candide in majoritatea afirmatiilor. Alegerea-mi pare sustinuta chiar de tine, NorbertArthur. Ai avut niste argumente penibile...Nu numai ca nu relationau cu subiectul, dar erau si false... Mai mult nu am nimic de zis. Nu ma bag in discutia voastra.... Greier 10:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have nothing against inserting 2 Transylvanian, 2 Moldavian and 2 Wallachian personalities, but I think we're getting into a bit of Belgian (or Bosnian) style compromise here. Remember that Romania is not a federal state and that the divisions between Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania no longer exist, at least officially. However, there are increasing refereces - mainly from Anittas - about how Romania is made up Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia, as if these were rivalling regions that need to come to a compromise that can only be achieved by quotas. Ideally, the six most famous Romanians should be chosen, no matter what region they came from. I don't know why you're making such a big deal of dividing Romania into these three regions. I suppose at the moment this proposal will work, though. I think the following people should be included:


 * Eminescu (Moldavian)
 * Brâncuşi (Wallachian)
 * Coandă (Wallachian)
 * Babeş (Transylvanian)
 * Enescu (Moldavian)
 * Mihai Viteazul (symbol of unity between the regions, originally Wallachian)


 * [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 13:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The list looks satisfactory, tho we could replace Eminescu with someone else. I don't know who, to. --Candide, or Optimism 15:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Eminescu should remain. About the others I say Mihai Viteazul is ok. I don't know Eliade, Brancusi? Maybe someone from the modern Romania?

--Andrei George 16:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Mai Anittas si NorbertArthur, voi nu sunteti intregi la cap? Eu credeam ca e o gluma, dar voi o luati in serios cu argumente de doi bani:
 * Arthur
 * Las-o moale cu istoria, moldovenii si muntenii si-au pastrat intr-adevar organizarea politica, in timp ce ardelenii si-au pierdut-o complet. Pana si religia s-a dus, si numai prostia ungurilor a facut ca mai sunt romani in Ardeal. Acuma, Transilvania e multi-culturala, ceea ce multi apreciaza, insa nu e meritul romanilor transilvaneni. Cum s-ar spune in franceza, "ils n'ont pas agi, ils ont subi". Si sa nu incep sa imi aduc aminte de "buna intelegere" de la Targu Mures si alte locuri memorabile in care "multiculturalismul" despre care vorbesti s-a dovedit in mare parte o vorba goala. Cand romanasii au putut, i-au caftit pe unguri cum au putut. La fel si ungurii pe romani.
 * Poti sa te lauzi cu economia. Desi Ronline ti-a explicat ca e cam stravezie afirmatia ta. Desi au si comunistii o contributie la diferenta in nivelul de trai, mai multe investitii ducandu-se in Ardeal comparat cu Moldova. Sau te poti lauda cu contributia culturala a Scolii Ardelene, insa fara a minimiza ce s-a intamplat in celelalte parti, asa cum fac unii.
 * Anittas
 * Las-o moale cu superioritatea absoluta a moldovenilor. Moldovenii au multe lucruri cu care sa se laude, nu e nevoie sa o iei global. Daca vrei, lauda rezistenta impotriva turcilor, ungurilor, si polonezilor. Lauda contributia moldovenilor la Unire, faptul ca s-au sacrificat la acel moment. Insa nu-mi vorbi de "Iubire de aproape", ca nu-s mai iubitori de aproape moldovenii sau iesenii decat e bucuresteanul mediu (iti sugerez, daca vrei, sa revezi istoria anului 1941, daca nu ma crezi). Poate sunt mai credinciosi, asta da. Sau conserva mai bine traditiile, ceea ce poate deveni un atu in viitor.
 * Iar saracia din unele zone din Moldova e saracie. N-are rost sa te ascunzi dupa deget.

Am impresia ca propaganda cu "regionalizarea" vi s-a urcat la cap la amandoi. Insa dati-va seama ca nici o tara nu devine mai mare facandu-se bucati. In general, e exact invers. Dpotop 18:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

THE ROMANIANS OUTSIDE THE COUNTRY BORDERS
Estimates put the number of Romanians living abroad somewhere between eight and ten million persons. This figure includes several layers from different chronological levels. The oldest dated to the beginnings of the Romanians' history and is made up of descendants from the Romanians south of the Danube, dislodged by the great Slavic wave in the 7th-8th centuries. These branched out into three groups, the Aromanians, the Megleno-Romanians and the Istro-Romanians, all living in the Balkan Peninsula. Today they constitute ethnic minorities in different Balkan states. The following layer comprises the Romanians who remained within the borders of other states after the last territorial amputations inflicted upon Romania. Most of these, about 4 million, live east and north of the Prut, in the regions detached under the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, today included in the Ukraine and the Republic of Moldova. --Bombonel 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A report made in October 2005 estimates that 1,061,400 Romanians are living in Italy, constituting 37.2% of 2.8 million immigrants in that country. If someone eventually puts together a good citation apparatus for this article, that's Mitrica, Mihai Un milion de romani s-au mutat in Italia ("One million Romanians have moved to Italy"). Evenimentul Zilei, 31 October 2005. Retrieved 31 October 2005.
 * IN ITALY

Also when The Prime Minister S. Berlusconi visiting in 12.10.2005 Romania said that there are at least 600.000 (http://www.guv.ro/presa/afis-doc.php?idpresa=42228&idrubricapresa=&idrubricaprimm=&idtema=&tip=&pag=1&dr=).

These were the numbers for Italy. According to them there are at least 1,000,000 romanians in Italy. --Bombonel 07:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Everywhere

http://news.softpedia.com/news/1/2004/May/8239.shtml

Peste 10 milioane de romani peste granita Guvernul Romaniei s-a declarat neputincios cind s-a pus problema furnizarii unor date estimative despre numarul de romani stabiliti legal in afara granitelor, desi Departamentul pentru romanii de pretutindeni, din cadrul executivului, ar trebui sa aiba detalii despre situatia acestora. Ca atare, am fost nevoiti sa apelam la site-uri neoficiale pentru a intra in posesia acestor date. Rezulta ca aproximativ trei milioane de romani sint stabiliti legal in Europa si America, iar numarul celor care se afla in strainatate fara forme legale se ridica, potrivit datelor furnizate de Oficiul pentru Migratia Fortei de Munca, la peste 600.000, dar exista posibilitatea ca cifra sa fie mult mai mare. In afara Romaniei traiesc insa in jur de 10 milioane de romani. In fosta Uniune Sovietica se afla, cu forme legale, in jur de 300.000 de romani. Aproape trei milioane de romani sint cetateni ai Republicii Moldova. In Ucraina traiesc 459.000 de romani, iar in Bulgaria doar 80.000. Calculele noastre nu ii includ insa pe romanii care au intrat in Europa dupa ridicarea vizelor. --Bombonel 20:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.romanii.ro/romanii din diaspora/index diaspora.htm

ISRAEL Cu toate ca nu exista statistici oficiale complete privind provenienta emigrantilor din Israel pe tari de origine, din datele oficiale rezulta ca in Israel ar trai in prezent 450 000 de evrei originari din Romania. Ambasada Romaniei in Israel ii estimeaza ca fiind 10% din populatia intregii tari, adica in jur de 500 000. Evreii originari din Romania sunt organizati in diferite asociatii etnice si profesionale la nivel national si regional. Fundatia noastra nu a stabilit nici o legatura cu vreo asociatie romaneasca din Israel. Totusi cea mai importanta forma asociativa este "Organizatia evreilor originari din Romania" (HOR), infiintata in anul 1954. Conducerea organizatiei este asigurata de un comitet central, un comitet executiv, presedinte si vicepresedinti pe ramuri de activitate (cultural, financiar, organizatoric, etc.). Are in compunere 4 regionale (Ierusalim, Haifa, Nazareth-Illit si Ber-Sheva), care acopera intreg teritoriul Israelului, dar doar regionalele Haifa si Nazareth-Illit recunosc autoritatea centrala. „Cercul originarilor din Romania” (COR) – membri in Histabrut (Confederatia Generala a Muncii) – a aparut din necesitatea sprijinirii evreilor originari din Romania care actioneaza in structurile de conducere sindicale. Exista o stransa colaborare intre HOR si COR. Asociatia Culturala Mondiala a Evreilor Originari din Romania (ACMEOR) reuneste in randurile sale evrei originari din Romania avand ca activitate principala cercetarea istoriei evreilor din Romania. Ziarele si revistele in limba romana sunt cele mai numeroase publicatii care apar intr-o limba straina in Israel. Se remarca in primul rand ziarele in limba romana "Viata noastra" si "Ultima ora", care are un numar important de cititori (aproximativ 50 000). Se mai editeaza "Facla", publicatie de tip magazin saptamanal, "Adevarul", "Revista familiei", "Secolul XX", revista lunara cu caracter artistic, "Izvoare", revista trimestriala editata de Asociatia scriitorilor israelieni de limba romana, "Revista mea", etc. Evreii originari din Romania au emisiuni in limba romana la posturile de radio si televiziune. --Bombonel 20:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

As per above information:


 * Italy: more than 1,100,000 romanians
 * Israel: 450,000-550,000 romanians

Bombonel 20:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Mah omeni buni, voi nu intelege-ti ca nu sa poate in lume sa fie numa 26 de milioane de Romani? Fi-ti atenti aici. Deci voi afirma-ti ca, in USA nu depaseste mai mult de 500 mii Comunitatea Romaneasca, da? Buuuuuuun, sa o luam incetisor. Sunt peste o sute de parohii Romanesti acolo, sunt gramezi de organizatii Romano-Americane, centre culturale, consulate, muzee, manastire si alte sute de dovezi ca suntem multi, fratilor. In Italia acuma. Pt voi nu sunt multi Romani acolo, adica in cel mai bun caz cifra ajunge pe la 100,000, da? Acuma voi veniti cu argumente ca cica aia un milion is muncitori sezonieri care numa vin, culeg capsunele, i-au banii si sa cara acasa unde ii bine si frumos. Problema ii acuma ca sezonul asta ii un pic cam lung de vreo 3-4 ani, dupa care "capsunarii" se duc acasa ca sa isi vada familiile si merg inapi. La Spania acelasi lucru. Da nu vii sa pare voi olecuta' ca astia s-or stabilit acolo si nu mai traiesc in Romania? Iara afimrati ca domnii muncitori is deja numarati printre "victimele" recensamantului roman din anul 2002. Pai atunci oameni buni, inseamna ca Romania are o populatie de vreo 24-25 de milioane, deci suntem mai multi decat credeam. Explicatii sefu'? Apropo, mai am sustinatori, nu-s is singur, deci suntem mai multi care dovedim asta: user:BaNaTeaN, user:Bombonel, user:Andrei George...

Arthur 23 Aprilie 2006

Statistics
It's a fact that there are more romanians than the statistics will ever say. I happen to belive that maybe there are more than 8 million romanians abroad. Arthur say that it must be at least 10,000,000 romanians. It may be well 12,000,000 like the romanian government said it's hard to make a real census. That's why most estimations are saying that there may be around 10-12,000,000 romanians abroad. That means a total of 32-35,000,000 romanians. --Andrei George 21:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I've upgraded the page to full protection as a result of a request by Khoikhoi and checking out the edit war you guys are having here. If anyone objects to the classification of an "edit war", please bring it up with me on my talk page. I suggest you discuss the problems here and when you think you've reached consensus let me, or another admin, know and the page can be unprotected. - FrancisTyers 23:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem we have here is that some people want to inflate the numbers of Romanians without providing sources. As it stands, the current statistics are well-cited, unlike this version of the page. If we want to show that Romanians range in the 30-millions, we have to back it up with reliable sources. &mdash;Khoikhoi 00:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Khoikhoi said that some people want to inflate the numbers of Romanians without providing sources. HUH? Sources have been provided, but you didn't bother to read them. There are some sources just 2 paragraphs above dude. --Andrei George 09:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would like to know why the sources provided by this Arthur dude, and the people in his support, are not deemed as credible. Why is that? I thought that on Wiki, one can post different sources that contradict each other. According to the rules of Wiki, he has the right to make his statement as long as its sourced. That means that you can provide your source and he can do the same. In that case, you would have to write that the number of Ro in Country X range between 10-15 (example). --Candide, or Optimism 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a guideline for sources at Reliable sources, I suppose the people opposing the insertion of the sources would have to make their case based on that. - FrancisTyers 09:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The sources they provided are credible. I mean, sure, use the official census sources, if you will, but if someone comes with sources that estimate higher numbers -- and if that source uses the words of the Ro President -- then why turn it down? --Candide, or Optimism 10:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's impossible to have only 26,000,000 romanians. Don't you think? Read the above sources, there are at least 12,000,000 romanians abroad. --Andrei George 10:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you like me to mediate this dispute? - FrancisTyers 10:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not involved in this dispute, but I think it would be good if you took to mediate this conflict. I hope the parties involved accept you as their mediator. --Candide, or Optimism 10:15, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I accept him since I know he is a friend of romanians. He also speaks romanian :)...

Yes I accept you Francis ;) --Andrei George 10:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll wait to see what the other guys think, and then we can get down to it :) - FrancisTyers 10:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Francis Tyers, i accept you as well. (BaNaTeaN 11:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Guys, my purpose was not to insult or to make here a dispute, ok? I know that I insulted people here (they did that too...), but I agree the proposition of Francis Tyers, to mediate this dispute. I mean, guys, is just impossible that there are 26 mil Romanians abroad, the number is two small. Look for example in USA how strong is the Romanian Community there, or in Italy, Canada, Spain... I think every number up to 30 mil is acceptable. Now, for those who didn't read the sources that me and the others had provided, just tell and I will post all of them right here. I accumulated a lot of them.I perfectly in accord to put the Census figures, which are always represneting very smaller numbers than the reality (remember that the 2002 Romanian census said that there are 500,000 Roma in Romania), but we have also to add the true numbers, that means cited sources. We have to remediate this problem as soon as possible, because is not very fair to ban the editing of an article. I propose to do a kind of Reform at our page, to discuss here all the figures and sources. I made an article about the Romanian diaspora, and you can look here that the Romanians about 10 million officialy abroad, even this figure is taught by many of us to be larger. The majority of my sources to indicate the Romanian diaspora in USA are coming from the Romanian Emabssy in USA, which is for sure a very, very credible source.

Arthur 24 April 2006
 * Since Arthur thinks that Moldavians/Moldovans are not Romanian enough, the numbers will drop to about 16 million. Let's change it to that. Lol... --Candide, or Optimism 19:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Listen guys, I don't care how many Romanians there are, last time I was in Romania I saw a maximum of say 10,000-20,000, any more than that is just guess work. - FrancisTyers 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL :)--Andrei George 20:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What a fuck came on you again stupid, did I said that, hadicapated? I understand now that you don't have brain between your ears. I said that the History of Transylvania is not the same as in the other part of Romania, capiche? You would do everything to drop the number, no?

Arthur 25 April 2006

PS
Any citizen that has a valid Romanian Identity Card is romanian? --Andrei George 20:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it depends, is this page about Romanian ethnicity, or Romanian citizenship? Or both? - FrancisTyers 20:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ethnicity. from the article: The Romanians [...] are an ethnic group. So, no, we don't include the Hungarians in this number. bogdan 20:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, most of you are the delightful Bonaparte. Will users who are not Bonaparte let me know if they are still interested in me mediating this dispute... - FrancisTyers 10:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, well. I was sure that user:NorbertArthur was not, but uncertain about Andrei and Bombonel. Francis, even though these last two have it seems been fingered as Bonaparte, there may still be some need for your assistance. There has been considerable debate on this topic here for more than six months now, not all of it emanating from Bonaparte Proxies Inc. The exercise you had started in detailing the sources might yet prove a useful one, if there yet remain (as I believe) non-Bonapartes with a similar concern re the numbers. Arthur, BaNaTeaN, what say you--cjllw | TALK  13:27, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We'll see what people think... - FrancisTyers 21:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

WARNING: Population table fork
I'd like to bring to your attention a recent article, Romanian diaspora, with population numbers differing from those in the Romanians article. `'mikka (t) 00:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that should be changed in line with census data. I will do that soon. It's unfortunate that people seem to think that exaggerating the numbers of the diaspora somehow does any good for Romania. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 01:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. The info deviates too much from the official data, or even estimates. And it's not clear what it counts (assumed ethnicity, ancestry, spoken language, or all three together). Dpotop 06:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Since at present all the Romanian diaspora article does is present an alternative list of numbers to the one appearing on this Romanians article, I question what purpose it is meant to serve. Perhaps if it described the migration history and other particulars it might have a right to exist as a separate article from this one, but if all it is going to do is reproduce information already accessible from the Romanians article (differences of opinion over numbers notwithstanding), then why should it not be removed altogether? Quite clearly, maintaining two different sets of numbers supposedly for the same entities is not appropriate.
 * As for whether it is clear or not about what is being counted in the estimate, that is precisely the point that I and a few others have had concerns about- the sources of some of these estimates (where they are provided at all) either do not say, or even explicitly mention that they are throwing in a few other tangentially-related ethnicities and nationalities for good measure.--cjllw | TALK  06:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, exactly. The estimates are either exaggerated because of commercial gain, or nationalistic sentiment, or both. And sources like the FNRP are too controversial to be acceptable. On the other hand, there may be some legitimiate cases where estimates would be helpful (mainly countries like Spain and Italy, where the numbers of Romanians raplidly increased in the past few years). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 11:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ronline, to me that seems like a national foundation, not a "nationalistic foundation". To say that it is controversial, well sorry, but that is your POV, not mine or not everyone else's. I understand you are an atheist, a non-Unionist and a sort of Romanian that is in love with the EU and the west. Well sorry but not everyone thinks like you so please try to take note of the opinions of others before claiming that this and that site is controversial. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.83.95.50 (talk • contribs) 26 April 2006.


 * I think its safe to say that 70.83.95.50 is User:Bonaparte. Salut Boni, ce faci?? :)) - FrancisTyers 23:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there is objective evidence to show that the FNRP has quite a nationalistic doctine. For one, it believes in Romanian-Moldovan unionism, which is quite a nationalistic point of view. Even more so, it basically fails to recognise the sovereignty of the Republic of Moldova, with its RGN Press service referring to it as "Basarabia" (implying it is a province of Romania). As a Romanian national organisation, it's quite fishy also that the map of Romania on the front page is that of Greater Romania, not contemporary Romania.


 * Secondly, it believes in the the Orthodox church as a pinnacle of Romanianism. Thirdly, it has actively campaigned against devolution in the Szekely Land and the granting of any further rights for the Hungarian minority, and has stated that the Romanians in that area are akin to a persecuted minority. Objectively, I'm not blaming it for these things, just pointing out that its view is quite nationalistic. It is also not purely a "Romanian national foundation" for all Romanians, regardless of other characteristics, but only represents Orthodox Romanians, as is obvious from its webpage. Its opposition to the repeal of Article 200 (it sees maintaining the reprehensible Article 200 as a good thing) also makes it, in my opinion, an organisation with a right-wing, broader political doctrine rather than just promoting Romanian culture worldwide and being simply a "national organisation". All of these points show that its estimates cannot really be trusted as reliable, as the organisation has every interest to try and present an exaggerated number of Romanians worldwide. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 11:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ronline, sorry but Unionism is not a nationalistic doctrine. I think a lot of people mix up unionism with the nationalistic rhetoric of Romania Mare. I for example am a unionist. I am not however a nationalist that claims former-Romanian territories in Ukraine and Bulgaria since that would be unattainable.


 * If you think that Unionism is a nationalistic rhetoric, don’t forget that our own government and president which is neither rightist nor leftist claimed "that Romania sees the reunification of the Romanian nation inside the EU as a minimal solution ". So I don’t think that I have to explain to everyone here what a maximal solution would be.


 * About the Orthodox church, sorry but facts are facts: according to the 2001 referendum 88.5% of Romanians are orthodox. If we subtract the Hungarian minority, then we see that almost all Romanians are Orthodox, so regardless of whether we like it or not, the Orthodox religion is very much part of a Romanian identity. Constantzeanu 16:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Constanteanu. The fact that Ronline is an atheist is not reason enough for all Romanian-related articles to promote the atheist-militant point of view. Dpotop 17:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a remark to Constanteanu, too. Saying that you are not nationalistic because you do now want territories from Ukraine is logically incorrect. Nationalism and irredentism are different notions, don't make confusions. And again, just because Vadim says he is nationalist, does not mean nationalism is bad (so that there is no need for replacing the word with politically-correct ones). I remind you that probably all your preferred inter-bellum Romanian political figures claimed some form of nationalism. Dpotop 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally, I did not read the site Ronline is talking about, but I do believe that Romanians in Szekelyland are an endangered minority. This is why I support the creation of an autonomous Hungarian region, to whom the same criteria are applied as are in Romania. Dpotop 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ronline, but I believe you reject info for the wrong reasons. Being nationalistic is not good reasons to reject info. Providing wild estimates and adding plums with cherries is a good reason to reject. Dpotop 17:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * An additional remark in support of Constanteanu: as page 1 of the 2002 Census data on this subject shows (http://www.insse.ro/rpl2002rezgen/18.pdf), 18251823 of 19399597 -- 94% -- of Romanians in Romania are Orthodox. 158.143.162.119 23:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, 94% of the Romanians are Orthodox and a third of them are actually going to church. Most people who filled in "Christian Orthodox" in the census record because they consider Orthodoxy a tradition, just like the ethnicity. I was counted an Orthodox, too, on the last census, but, excluding weddings/baptisms/funerals, I never entered in an Orthodox Church. :-) bogdan 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then would you support removing the 86.5% number from the article? I believe it comes from the exact same census source. Perhaps we could mention the 94% number and then, if we found data on church attendance, include that as well. 158.143.162.119 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and I'm down as Anglican on the census. Census reporting of religion is pretty insignificant. You should look at figures published by the church for "attendance". And then halve that number because they're bound to be overestimating. - FrancisTyers 23:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * To respond to Dpotop - that fact that a source is nationalistic is not good reason, by itself, to dismiss its data. However, the fact that FNRP is nationalistic makes it more likely (in fact, very likely) to exaggerate data in order to meet its cause. This exaggeration is what makes its data unreliable. As to Orthodoxy - as long as the BOR isn't the established church of Romania, I feel that organisation which promotes Orthodoxy alongside Romanianism has a distinctly religious POV. A true, inclusive Romanian national organisation would not promote Orthodoxism to the detriment of other religions, neither would it oppose gay rights causes (which have absolutely nothing to do with the promotion of Romanian culture around the world). Its discriminant would be solely "Romanian ethnicity" or even "Romanian nationality". At the moment, however, FNRP is a Romanian, Orthodox and anti-gay organisation. That makes it lose a lot of its "universality" as a Romanian national organisation - in any case, it can not adequately say it's representing Romanians "from all over the world". That doesn't mean Romanian organisations should support Orthodox churches in other parts of the world. However, they should do this because the churches hold masses in the Romanian language, not because they are Orthodox. If the FNRP were secular, it would support both Romanian Orthodox churches and other churches which would hold services in the Romanian language. In that way, the emphasis would be not on denomination, but on serving the Romanian (language) community, and should thus be a means to an end, not a goal in itself (the FNRP, however, seems to have the promotion of Romanian Orthodoxy as its goal).


 * That the majority of Romanians are Orthodox doesn't make "the Romanian religion that of Orthodoxy". IMO, it is dangerous politically to associate religion with nationality. When we're talking about Romanian ethnicity, we should leave religion aside. When we're talking about Romanian Orthodoxism, we should leave ethnicity beside - a Swedish person is just as much entitled to be a member of the BOR as a Romanian.


 * No, but it makes Orthodoxy an important part of the Romanian identity. I do agree with you that Romania is and must remain a secular state (even though it's the Communists who first imposed that and transformed the state structure accordingly). But don't deny that Orthodoxy, in its current Romanian flavor, is defining for Romanian identity. So, I do agree with you that one cannot write here "the Romanian religion is Orthodoxy", or "Romanian ethnicity is defined by Orthodoxy". What can, and should be written because it's true is that "Traditionally, orthodoxy is an important part of the Romanian cultural identity. Among other, Orthodoxy has been the main carrier of the Byzantine cultural incluence in the area inhabited by Romanians. Orthodoxy still is, today, the main religion of Romanians (but it is not a state religion).". Dpotop 09:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The Romanians lived practicing "traditional" Roman Christianity for 700 years. Orthodoxy was brought only in the 11th century. By then, the language and traditional culture was already established. I'd say that Christianity is part of the Romanian identity, not Orthodoxism. bogdan 10:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Polemic part: What you want to say is probably that Romanians were Christianized in Latin, and then practiced a primitive/undocumented form of Christianity for 700 years, until the Byzantine organization was chosed/imposed/brought here. You cannot put the "Roman Catholic" (nor the Byzantine) label on the Christianity of year 300 AD. And then, the years from 1100 on cannot be forgotten. Even our Greek catholic friends were so imprinted that they would not give up the rite.
 * Non-polemic part: I'd say that in a general sense you a right to say that "Christianity is part of the Romanian identity" is the correct statement. However, this remark is misleading when the audience is mostly european. Here, we tend to define by difference. So, maybe the correct statement is something like "Christianity, in its Orthodox form is part of the Romanian identity". Dpotop 10:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * But I still think it's controversial to state that "Orthodoxy is part of the Romanian identity". You can say that "Orthodoxy has significant influences on Romanian culture" or "was important in shaping Romanian culture" and also that "The significant majority of Romanians continue to be Orthodox", but saying that "Orthodoxy is part of the Romanian identity" - making that final link - is POV, as long as one can still be fully Romanian and not have an Orthodox identity. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 11:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your remark: You see the statement "orthodoxy is an important part of the Romanian cultural identity" as a negation of all other christian influence (othdodox, therefore not catholic), whereas I see them as united. A lot of orthodox plus some catholic plus some atheistic today. As I see it, the Romanian cultural identity includes the work of Romanian Jews such as Mihail Sebastian, atheists, catholics like the ones in "Scoala Ardeleana". This is why we had a difficult time understanding each other. You see my phrase as exclusive, whereas I see it as inclusive. For you it limits the realm, whereas for me it merely describes its dominant colour. Dpotop 12:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there is a difference between cultural identity and cultural influence. While Orthodoxy, as well as other religions, as you have mentioned above, have all had an influence on Romania's culture, it is another thing to say that "Orthodoxy is an important part of the Romanian cultural identity" That implies not that "other religios are also, albeit less important, parts of the Romanian cultural tradition" but rather that "Orthodoxy, along with the Romanian language, cuisine, music and Latin roots are an important part of the Romanian cultural identity". It implies that without Orthodoxy, one's Romanian identity is not complete, because it is such an "important part". [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 12:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You got here to a subtle point. You talk about "one's Romanian identity" from the point of view of the individual, whereas I talk about "Romanian cultural identity" as what characterizes the Romanian culture and differentiates it from other cultures. From here, all the differences between our interpretations:
 * You try to define the "Romanian identity" as the true/false criterion saying if someone is Romanian (a limitative approach, as I said earlier).
 * I believe this is not what the "Romanian cultural identity" is about. As a matter of fact, I believe that you will find Romanians that are as American/French/Russian as one can be (in every sense orelated to the lifestyle, including family-related customs and books and music he/she likes), or as sophisticated/primitive as one can be. The cultural identity is more a question of mean, of what is specific to the average Romanian, and differentiates it from the others.
 * This is why Orthodox Christianity is important. Dpotop 14:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Dpotop - I agree that nationalism is just an ideology like any other, and should not be stigmatised. However, nationalistic organisations are bound to be biased in this issue, just like a Roma rights organisation will tend to overstate the number of Roma, or a socialist organisation will downplay the negative effects of communism. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 01:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Or an atheist try to minimize the cultural influence of the church. :) Of course nobody's perfect, but just like you accept yourself as a wikipedia player, please do accept the apriori good faith of a nationalistic organization or person. If and when this organization promotes false info, criticise it for this. And you can only ban it (or criticise it globally) when it only produces false info. Dpotop 09:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I also remind you that an organization does not need to be universal (in your sense, which is the most extreme) to be representative. If an organization represents 90% of a population, I would say it is super-representative for that population, even though the other 10% do not feel represented. But don't mix representativity with (non-discriminating) government. The 90% can have ethics- or religion-influenced convictions (such as considering homosexuality a "sin"). If the 90% keep these convictions for themselves only, I see no problem. What should not exist is religious government, but it's not the issue here. Dpotop 09:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, and BTW. I believe that:
 * few Romanians would like their children to be gay (or be indifferent to it)
 * few Romanians care what other Romanians do in their bed
 * So: Romanians are not homo-philic, but they are not really homophobic either, in the sense of discriminating gays. And you should not make an equal mark between "not being homo-philic" and "being homophobic". And of course (because you will remind me otherwise), you do have homophobic acts in Romania. As you have in most other countries. These acts are illegal in Romania. Dpotop 09:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought caring about neighbours' goat is a national sport in here. :-) Let me remind you the results of a poll which said that 86% of the Romanians would not "accept" having homosexual neighbours... bogdan


 * Well I presume that there are many homosexuals in Romania, like everywhere else. How many cases of homosexuality-related neighborhood problems have been reported? I heard of none. Not that I'm saying there are no problems. There are such problems, the fact is under-reported, etc. But it's not a witch hunt. Most Romanians I know were simply **not** actively interested in the sexual behavior of their neighbors. My grandmother has as neighbor a very vocal, **very** heterosexual woman. And I bet you everybody else it the building would like to have a calm homo instead. :) Dpotop 10:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I think that, like most societies in the world, Romanian society is somewhat homophobic. Of course, the situation may not be as bad as in non-European countries, or in some other parts of Southeastern Europe, but the simple fact that people still discriminate against LGBT people shows that the society is still homophobic. On a world scale, and on a regional scale, however, Romania is doing pretty well. At the same time, accepting that your children are gay, or accepting same-sex marriage, or accepting displays of affection between people of the same sex or between the transgendered is not a sign of a homophilic society. A society that does not accept these things practises discrimination and is homophobic.


 * The problem in Romania is not acceptation. A family will accept its homosexual son or daughter in Romania, as much as in the other European countries. The problem is that homosexuals want to have the same rights as the hetero to **promote** their way of living, and maybe to obtain some positive action compensation for past troubles. This is what Romanians, like other Europeans, reject. Most Romanians would probably like their children to become hetero, so that they try to limit exposure to the gay community, in the same way they try to limit exposure to gang culture, STDs, a.s.o. But they do this in the limits of the law. I wouldn't call this homophobia, it's just that heterosexuality is today a desirable "feature". Heterophilia does not imply homophobia (the reverse implication, on the contrary, is  true). Dpotop 12:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't believe that's true at all. LGBT people want to have the same rights as heterosexuals in the same way that other minorities want the same rights... because they want equality and they want to put an end to discrimination. Trying to break down the culture of heteronormativity does not mean trying to promote homosexuality or trying to impose it onto others. Please give me one example where homosexuals have tried to actively impose their sexual orientation onto others, in the same way that, say, neo-protestant churches have. A lot of people would answer "the gay pride parades", but those were never designed to promote homosexuality, but rather as an expression of gay culture, in the same way that ethnic minorities have music festivals, etc. Of course, LGBT people would like recognition - in the form of public recognition, memorials, etc - for past troubles, but all discriminated groups have pushed for this, and in fact the LGBT community hasn't really pushed for this at all in Romania. However, again give me one example where they have asked for positive discrimination. In conclusion, gays do not want the same rights as heteros to promote their way of living, but rather because they want equality so that they can adequately live the way they want to. This is not a zero-sum game. Giving homosexuals more rights doesn't mean that heterosexuals will in any way be affected, or that we will somehow give way to a society of heterophobia. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 01:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As to the universal vs representative discussion - the FNRP could be more representative by simply focussing on the common factor between the Romanian community - ethnicity. In this way, it would seek to represent all Romanians in the world (even if some may not wish to be represented). There are many such organisations across the world, which seek to represent Nationality X and focus only on that characteristic, not on anything else. Then there are "composite characteristic" organisations, which represent Orthodox Romanians, or Pentecostal Romanians, or Romanian soccer players, or Romanian music groups, etc. These are all OK. But an organisation by the name of FNRP should be quite a lot broader than that (particularly due to its name - many Romanians tend to confuse it with the DRRP, the government department in charge of diaspora affairs).


 * Finally, I am not assuming bad faith for the FNRP's stats. All I'm saying that is that, as a source, it is not particularly reliable because of its ideological background, particularly when compared to other sources. When a census states that there are X people in Y country, and FNRP comes along and says that there are "4 times X" people in that country, we would trust the census, given the unrealiability of the FNRP due to its ideology. The reason I'm pointing this out is because users like NorbertArthur seem to trust the FNRP's stats and say that the census is unreliable, when I think that the opposite is the case. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 10:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My impression is that bad statistics from FNRP must be rejected, because they are undocumented. But we can do this without making a fuss about "nationalism", "irredentism", "representativity", etc. The statistics are plain false. Period. Dpotop 12:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, agreed. But what you don't seem to understand me saying is that in order to gauge the reliability of a source, it is important to look at its context. And, IMO, it is this context, alongside the undocumented process of collecting the data, that make FNRP stats unrealiable. In any case, I've unprotected the page. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 12:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * "many Romanians are only nominally believers?" The very same survey cited, while it does indicate a mere 39% of weekly or greater urban church attendance, also shows that 92% of respondents believe in God, 75% pray at least weekly and that 85% say that God is important in their lives at least at the level of 7 out of 10. This to me does not indicate "nominal" belief--and keep in mind that the survey did not question rural Romanians (over 30% of the population), who are undoubtedly even more religious. 158.143.162.119 13:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Man, we are a nice mix!
Hello, I found this map of haplogroup distribution across world and Europe (check slide 2). We (romanians) really have a lot of genetic variety, not only cultural. Dpotop 14:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Using my pseudo-scientific skills I'd say:
 * Red is pre-Indo-European
 * Green is probably Eastern Mediterranean (Levantine)
 * Magenta is Indo-European (>500 BC)
 * Yellow is Slavic/Scythian/Iranian (>700 AD)

BTW, note that the Hungarians and Finns have very little in common (some Indo-European and Slavic layers) :-) bogdan 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The link u. cited just sais that everyone is the relative of everyone. To tell how much two genes are alike is a very difficult question.Csabap 3:56, 7 Sept 2006 (UTC)

The numbers
Also, guys, it would be good if we could identify what the issues actually are(that is when speaking about numbers):


 * It seems to me that the main issues are the Romanians living in North America and those which have recently started to leave for Italy and Spain. NorbertArthur says there are millions of Romanians in USA and Canada. I read one of the ref.'s about the numbers in USA. It seems to me that the number of Romanians in 1990 was about 350.000, but if Jews, Germans, Hungarians, Armenians and others are added then we are approaching a number closer to that suggested by NobertArthur. I am guessing that the same is true for Romanians in Canada. So first we have to determine if we are talking about ethnic-Romanians or Romanian-nationals. If it's Romanian nationals then his numbers are fairly right, if it's just ethnic-Romanians then the numbers we have now should stand. As I first understood it, this article is about ethnic-Romanians so all other groups should not be included. But the problem is still not solved: can someone tell me what an ethnic-Romanian is? According to Ronline, religion does not matter. In that case if a Protestant Romanian is a Romanian, I don't see a reason why Jewish Romanians should not be included as ethnic-Romanians too. We should also not forget that most Jewish Romanians in Israel still speak Romanian over Hebrew. This means that automatically the numbers of Romanians would rise from 26 mil to almost 27.


 * I won't attempt a precise definition of ethnic Romanian, but the difference between a Protestant and a Jewish Romanian is that (in most cases) the former will be ethnically indistinct from an Orthodox Romanian (and his ancestors will have the same Daco-Roman extraction), but he (or his recent ancestors) will have converted to Protestantism relatively recently, while the latter will usually be of Jewish and Polish, Russian or German extraction and will only have been associated with Romania by the fact that his ancestors have lived there at a maximum for a few centuries. This is of course a broad generalisation but I hope it helps explain why Romanian Jews are best not counted as ethnic Romanians.
 * "We should also not forget that most Jewish Romanians in Israel still speak Romanian over Hebrew." True, but for instance most Romanian Gypsies probably speak better Romanian than Romany, but we don't count them as ethnic Romanians, do we?
 * I also wonder when an ethnic Romanian stops being one--in other words, if a man's ancestors came to the US from Romania in the late 19th Century and he has a Romanian name, but is only 1/8 or 1/16 Romanian (and also culturally American, ie doesn't speak Romanian and is Protestant), then would he be counted as Romanian? 158.143.162.119 23:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I believe that the only way to solve that problem is to simply count as Romanian those that declare themselves as Romanian. The majority of Jews will not declare Romanian ethnicity, and hence they cannot be classified as Romanian, whereas a Protestant Romanian will, most likely, declare himself as an ethnic Romanian on a given census. To address the other problem - a Romanian stops being a Romanian when they no longer see themselves as Romanian. Up until the third generation maybe, Romanians may declare Romanian ethnicity/ancestry on the census. After this, if they declare, say, "American" ancestry, then they can no longer be counted as Romanian. So, to answer your example - that person who has a Romanian name and is 1/16 Romanian but otherwise culturally American - if he declares himself "American ancestry", then we count him as American. It is unlikely that he will declare himself as ethnic Romanian if he no longer speaks the language, and is "culturally American". [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * About the numbers of Romanians in Canada, I can tell you this much, censuses here don't lie: if only 160.000 said they are Romanians then that is the real number. What may have happened is that some Romanians may not have identified themselves as such and put "Canadian" instead. But that is their choice. Another problem is that the number of Romanians in Canada rises every year by at least 10.000 people so it might have reached 210.000 by now.


 * The third issue is that of Romanians in Italy and Spain. Recently, that is ever since Romanians could travel in the Schengen space (2002 if I am not mistaken), large numbers of Romanians have been identified as residing in those countries. We should not forget however that these people have gotten there after the 2001 census so even if 1 mil Romanians live in Italy (as we know from one Italian study), it is pretty obvious that these people have already been counted in the Romanian census of 2001. I think that it's very tricky to get confused here and end up double counting people -> we should therefore do some research and find out how many Romanians are actually citizens or permanent residents of Italy and Spain (with the intention to stay there) and how many are seasonal workers who came there after 2001 and plan to go back to Romania.

Here are some possible sources on spain and italy and the wiki Spain,.

A very good source shows Romanians with resident status in dec 31. 2005 :

About Romanians from Italy :.

About legal Romanians from Italy, Spain and Germany -- I would guess that even if there are 2 million non-legals, they have still been already counted in the Romanian census in 2001.

Constantzeanu 23:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

constantzeanu, the romanian census was in 2002 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.134.13.194 (talk • contribs) 28 April 2006.


 * Even if I'm leaving this bullshit of Wikipedia forever, I will observe as well what kind of negotiations you will be able to do here, since you began to talk here about gays and Catholic/Orthodox Chuch, instead of caring of this fucked-ass article. Let me tell you a last thing: if you all will continue on this way, you will solve nothing and never. I hope the only 2-3 users here that are logical and know what's the Romanian diaspora will succeed. Good luck to them...

P.S> you have motivation to be happy now when I'm leaving (to:Anittas, Ronline, Constantzeanu, Greier and many others) Arthur 28 April 2006


 * Man, look I got nothing against you but all I am saying is that if there are 1 mil people in Italy or Spain, these people came from somewhere: and that is the number of Romanians which came up to 19.4 mil in the Romanian census. Come on! Even you can see that.
 * About the Romanians from Canada and the USA, we just established that your numbers are NOT wrong. They just depict a number of people who came from Romania regardless of ethnicity -> that is why it appears that there are 1.2 mil. Romanians in the USA or Canada. But in fact, ethnic-Romanians are less. Look, if you add up all those numbers from all the countries, you get something like 24.5 ml. The article says 24-26 mil. So the 26 mil maximum would also account for any numbers that you might be arguing that have not been included here.
 * And as far as Bonaparte or whoever is concerned, I would just politely ask him to stop.

Constantzeanu 16:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Riiiiightttt....well uhm... could be move on with this article and deblock it???Constantzeanu 15:17, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

And once again an anonymous edit adds 6-8 million Romanians. I'm not reverting, bcause I'm only on for a few minutes right now, an it was a complicated edit, and I don't have time to see if some of it was correct, but could someone please take a close look? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 18:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reverted, it was no more than a reinstatement of the article as it was (briefly) about two months back with the 30-34mil total, favoured by the ghost of Bonaparte. That edit had reintroduced the note/ref citations, changed around some others, and reversed any other changes (including those not related to numbers) to the article made in the last couple of months.--cjllw | TALK  00:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah it was just e revert. But we should still have an image though Constantzeanu 14:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Iliescu
He's labelled a "dissident" in this article; I think that's a bit of a stretch. Yes, he was demoted for a couple of decades, but none of his pre-Revolutionary activities really qualifies as "dissidence." Thoughts? Biruitorul 18:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

35 millions Romanians
I've heard today Mr. President of Romania: he said there are 35 millions Romanians worldwide. --200.46.151.236 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if he did, I see no reason to take him at his word, or to bypass the policy/guidelines of WP:RS, WP:CITE, and others.--cjllw | TALK  01:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Even though I think he is a great president, Băsescu is known for his sweeping statements on the number of Romanians. He sometimes says 40 million ("cei 40 de milioane de români"!), 35 million or 30 million. His statements are not an official source and don't reflect reality. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 08:16, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. How many Romanians there are? There are at least 1,500,000 in USA + 500,000 in Canada. There are 500,000 in France, 1,500,000 in Spain 1,500,000-2,000,000 in Italy. I think there are at least 34 millions. --82.159.137.18 14:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Though it is certainly not possible to keep an accurate record concerning the Romanians abroad, estimates put their number somewhere between 8 and 10 million persons. http://www.itcnet.ro/folk_festival/people.htm + http://www.hotnews.ro/articol_21456-Romanii-din-diaspora-sedusi-si-abandonati.htm

Greece
I'd like to see references for that 29,000 claim for Greece. According to the 2001 census, there are 23,066 Romanian immigrants in Greece, and 5,898 from the Republic of Moldova (of course, it's a question of doubt whether they are all ethnically Romanian and espouse a Romanian national identity - there may be ethnic Hungarians or Russians - not to mention ethnic Moldovans :p). --Telex 17:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

THe 29,000 is from residence permit data: the census undercounts. And no, the permit data are not published, so I cannot give a link. Martin Baldwin-Edwards, Mediterranean Migration Observatory

Bǎ pulǎ verde dacǎ nu ştii nu te bǎga!!!

ETHNIC MOLDOVANS are the same thing as ETHNIC ROMANIANS, stupid fuckhead!


 * That's not what the census says. &mdash; Khoikhoi 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Census does not says that Moldovans are not Romanians.--62.96.77.222 19:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It distinguishes them as different groups. &mdash; Khoikhoi 21:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the census talking about ethnicity or nationality (since there is no clear reference provided, I must ask). - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

THe Greek censuses do not record ethnicity or languages or religion since 1951. So, yes, it is nationality. --87.202.105.94 02:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

10 millions romanians in the world
10 million persons


 * http://www.itcnet.ro/folk_festival/people.htm
 * http://www.hotnews.ro/articol_21456-Romanii-din-diaspora-sedusi-si-abandonati.htm 62.96.77.222 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Either one or the other
I see that the Moldovan numbers have been removed from the total count of Romanians. I suppose this is justified to an extent, but the article is at the moment self-contradictory and inconsistent. On one hand, the lead says that Moldovans are basically Romanians, and also, the count for Ukraine and the former USSR includes people identifying as ethnic Moldovans - these should be removed too, then (i.e. there are not 200,000 Romanians in RU, UZ and KZ - most of these declare as ethnic Moldovans, do they not?). In any case, I think this is quite a big change and should be debated more thoroughly. Ronline ✉ 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The US do not recognize Moldovans as an ethnic group different from Romanians. We discussed this before. I found the proof for the US (from census.gov), and nobody provided data showing that some other nation outside the former Soviet Union recognizes a separate "Moldovan" ethnicity. So, you cannot simply exclude the possibility that Moldovan=Romanian. Now, I would agree with presenting both figures in the infobox, but not just the one of Mikkalai. Dpotop 07:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, well this is not really a matter of recognition but of self-identification. But I agree that the situation is very complex. The former Soviet states, however, can only recognise Moldovan as a separate ethnicity because people declare it as such. And if people declare Moldovan ethnicity, then in many ways they can be seen as Moldovan. Or are you saying that if in the US one writes "Moldovan", they are counted as Romanian automatically? This would really cloud the issue further. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, we're talking here official numbers, not the existence of the ethnic group. So it's about recognition by states. Dpotop 07:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but when the census says there are 100,000 Moldovans and 200,000 Romanians, do we count 300,000 Romanians or 200,000 Romanians? This isn't really about recognition by states, since most states recognise self-identification of ethnic groups (which is why the Jedi religion was published in the census data). So we should really only count as Romanian those who actually write Romanian. If people write Moldovan, then we can't say that recognising them that way is a POV of the state that conducts the census, but rather their own identity. This issue would be clouded, however, if some states were so automatically count Moldovans as Romanians. You said that "[no] other nation outside the former Soviet Union recognizes a separate "Moldovan" ethnicity". Does this mean that other nations consider those who declare themselves Moldovan to be Romanian? I would say it's just unlikely for people to declare themselves Moldovan in those countries. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think states should, in general, be seen as any particular authority on people's ethnicity. Presumably, we are talking here about Daco-Romanians (but in English it is more common just to say Romanians). I'd include Moldovans in that, but I wouldn't include Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians (who would all fit in one large room, anyway), etc. - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I did a little research on some of the US Census stuff. Here's (46.6 KiB). And here is their ethnicity coding: note that PUMS code 048 (Romanian) is broken down into ancestry codes 144 (Romanian), 145 (Bessarabian), 146 	(Moldavian), 147 (Wallachian). - Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)