Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 2

Roma Minority in Romania
Hello everyone!I recently tried to get involved in the Improvement Drive for the "Roma people" article by suggesting to extend the number of articles related to the Roma subject and eventually creating a new one regarding Romania's Roma Minority(Talk:Roma_people.Apart from the fact that the subject is highly controversial and I believe some of you have already taken part in the hot debates in the past I want to call for your advice and attention on a subject that is obviously very difficult to treat in the limits of what Wikipedia actually stands for.As Romanians we all know the temptation of going very subjective on the matter.So what do you think?Can it be done?--Radufan 20:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm all for it. There is also a Test Wikipedia for the Romany language, and I think it's good to have as much coverage as possible on Roma issues. Romanians should be leading the way in this. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest
I just heard that a Japanese man died from a dog bite. It happened near the Parliament House, where the lawn is awful and where your corrupted politicians try to ruin the country even further. You can't even secure the area around the Parliament House. When will you understand that you are useless people? It doesn't matter if you have 1 billion or 100 billions - the problem will continue to exist as long as you exist - because you are the problem! Do everyone a favour - including yourselves - and forfeit your status as capital city. Let's move the capital to Iasi where the people are pretty and cultivated. You've had more than a century at your disposal and you have failed. How much more do you need? A millenium? Enough is enough! --Candide, or Optimism 20:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What a strange entry! While it is great that people talking at this board start finally to use English (Just like Russian and Ukrainians do at wikiboards to accommodate others interested in what's going on there), what does this have to do with Wikipedia, improvement of articles and settling the content dispute. Could this be continued at usenet:soc.culture.romanian? --Irpen 20:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We can discuss anything here. We've told you this before. Anything. --Candide, or Optimism 20:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I am not sure that comments like that have a place anywhere on wikipedia. Dalf | Talk 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is near Goverment Palace (Victoria Square).
 * http://www.libertatea.ro/index.php?section=articole&screen=stire&sid=145635 So it happened. But when you're saying "you" Anittas whom do you exactly refer to by this? If you need to make political statements, you can make them offline (have a petition signed, run for presidency, then move the capital (to Iasi? why not to Cluj? :) it is more cosmopolitan than Iasi :p etc.) or online, but elsewhere than wikipedia, which is not your tribune (whereas you seem to consider yourself a "tribun"). --Vlad 23:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that by "you" in a context like this, Anittas means anybody born south or west of Iaşi. And also anybody born north or east of Iaşi. And also anybody born in Iaşi who is not an ethnic Romanian, has a name that suggests he or she might not be an ethnic Romanian, or holds one or more political opinions that are at odds with Anittas's. But sometimes he uses the term "you" more narrowly than that, referring (for example) only to people born outside of the former principality of Moldavia, or, more narrowly, only to people who either are from Bucharest, have visited Bucharest, and/or don't hate Bucharest. Hope that helped. As we all know, no one ever died in Iaşi in any manner that could possibly be a disgrace to the city. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Antonescu was not Moldavian, so don't blame us for the pogrom. The pogrom started by his orders. --Candide, or Optimism 01:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Haven't you blamed Bucharest for Ceausescu in the past Anittas? At least you blame Bucharest for all things bad happening in the whole of Wallachia and Dobrogea, so it's obvious that getting the facts straith is only important to you at certain points. Anclation 15:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Jmabel, for the explanation. Now... "us"?!? Us... who? :) I'm confused. --Vlad 10:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you know the term "the editorial we"? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, no I don't. --Vlad 13:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Resources
http://www.show.ro/bucuresti/index_5.htm

Stray dogs
Stray dogs are a problem in many cities of Romania, including Bucharest. They exist, are a real problem, and we should mention them somewhere.

Every day people are getting bitten, and in some cases the victims die or are disfigured. The quality of life of the people living in these cities is highly impaired, by both the psichological pressure, and by the different other inconveniences (such as poo). The origin of these dogs can be traced back to the demolition programs of Ceausescu, which left many dogs on the streets. However, placing the guilt on the communist programs only is a mistake. Part of the population itself bears a part of guilt for feeding these dogs (due to charitable feelings). The intervention of animal protection groups having no contact with Romanian realities is another (e.g. Brigitte Bardot). Finally, local authorities did not conceive and implement good-enough sanitation policies, as they were continually harassed by the foreign-paid animal rights groups. Dpotop 16:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * We should mention them in the article about Bucharest. It's rather funny that the article doesn't mention any of the problems that exist in the city; not the dogs and not the orphans and beggars. Write about the city as it really is. Right, Ron? --Candide, or Optimism 19:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure Bucharest is the place to put it. It's not just Bucharest, but several cities.Dpotop 20:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anittas, you're right that the dogs aren't mentioned, and probably should be. But just read the Crime section for a bit and you'll see that all of the other urban problems are mentioned quite a lot - beggars, homeless people, street children, etc. However, everything must be put into context. Street children are not more of a problem here than in other major cities in terms of numbers (though the conditions may be worse). Dogs may be a bigger problem. However, the article needs to deal with this in a balanced way: it needs to state how many dogs there are and the overall situation, but also what the City Hall has done to combat the problem, particularly the recent action of euthanising the dogs and introducing strong fines for people who release them again, etc. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here it is:   . Si totusi, nu pot sa nu ma intreb. Cat de firav era japonezul asta si ce colti de fier si masele de otel avea javra noastra neaosa de a putut sa-l composteze (prin pantaloni de iarna) in halul asta? Nu-ti trebuie un doberman bine hranit ca sa duci la bun sfarsit asa o treaba? Dpotop 21:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It was filmed by a CCTV camera of a nearby bank, so no it was not a doberman. bogdan 16:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

In caz ca nu s-a inteles deja: Sunt pentru "adormirea" tuturor javrelor din Bucuresti. Numai eu stiu ce-am patimit cu ele cand eram mic. Bun, daca Brigitte Bardot ii vrea, sa-i ia pe toti in Franta, cred ca statul roman ar putea chiar inchiria un marfar pentru ocazie. Pe de alta parte, cred ca cei mai interesati tot chinezii vor fi, ca fac manusi din ei. Dpotop 21:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Poate şi coreenii ar fi interesaţi, pentru hrană. --Vlad 18:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the Bucharest article already mentions community dogs enough. Additionally, the problem is currently being solved right now. However, if you feel that the article should talk more about this issue, then feel free to expand on it, but remember NPOV language and verifiability. I don't see why people are making such a big fuss of this. Talk about "defending Romania's interest". Riiiight. Take back what I said. The article doesn't mention community dogs at all. It should, though. But I don't know in what section. Any thoughts? [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, how about right under the section about culture? --Candide, or Optimism 07:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear Anittas, if you didn't notice, you're doing now the job of Romania-bashers. And take this remark as coming from one who prouds himself of being Moldovan (from Romania, of course). I did not edit any article yet because I am trying to figure where to put the info in order to have the least impact. The info must appear somewhere, because it is relevant to Romanians (maybe on ro.wiki), but I see no need to say "Romania stinks" in flashy letters. Let's just hope that the current media coverage will finally get the government and local administration do what they should have done years ago.Dpotop 09:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would think that the câini comunitari in Bucharest are/were probably notable enough to deserve not just a mention, but an article. They've certainly generated enough comment, both in Romania and out. I say one sentence somewhere in the Bucharest article (and not just a mention of the English-language film The Wild Dogs), with a link to an article that really treats the subject. Probably also should also be linked from Taxi (band), because with Dan Teodorescu's permission we quote his song "Comunitaru". There's a mention at Traian Băsescu, too. And it shouldn't just be on the fact that they are occasionally dangerous: it should be on how there came to be so many, about the politics between euthanizing and spaying, about the degree to which dogs have and have not been adopted, about how some have certainly been informally adopted by neighborhoods and are câini comunitari in the best possible sense of the word. There's probably a lot that could be written, and I'm willing to guess there would be an enormous amount that could be cited. - Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ron and Jmabel
When are you going to start a RfC against Denmark? They refuse to apologize! --Candide, or Optimism 05:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anittas, I haven't a clue what you are talking about. - Jmabel | Talk 06:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * But Ron does. In fact, he and Orioane are enriching their user profile by adding boxes with "Buy Danish" messages. LOL! --Candide, or Optimism 14:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yep, of course we are. It is very worrying what's happening in regards to Denmark and the cartoons controversy. Jeg elsker dig, Danmark! [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 11:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I too have added that message to my user page, as a clear way to display my personal POV about this matter. At least Ronline, it shows again how far a country like Romania has come in terms of acceptance of free speech, remember "The Evangelists" play you made an article about? Though many religious Romanians were disgusted by it, they didn't resort to violence or death threats, showing that most Romanians accept in essence that freedom of expression includes having to accept expressions one might dislike. This vital acceptance has come quite quickly, all things considered. Anclation 13:35, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate Section in Nastase article
I'm sorry, but I find the section in the Adrian Nastase article regarding his alleged homosexuality to be incredibly offensive. While Nastase clearly has many faults, so what if he's gay or bisexual? And quite honestly, if he were open about it he could never be elected to office in modern-day Romania. The bombonel comment is akin to using the word faggot or fairy in English. I urge that the homosexuality section in this particular article be deleted. MisterMan 12:38, 11 Feb 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not the same thing. Bombonel comes from bomboana, which means candy. It has the same effect as the word gay has in English. Fag, on the other hand is offensive because (not 100 on this) it's taken from the days when homo-sexuals were burned alive. The bombonel remark should stay because that's his nickname given by the press. And it is significant to write about someone's homo-sexual orientation. --Candide, or Optimism 10:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's not the same thing as "fag", because "Bombonel" is not actually used to mean "homosexual", as generally it is used to refer to Năstase only. Also, the more offensive nickname for Năstase is "poponel". (cf. poponar, offensive slang for "homosexual"). bogdan 14:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's offensive towards the person Adrian Nastase, and it's discriminatory toward homosexuals (why shoul be be the sexual orientation of a politician a controvery? and think about who made this accusation in the first place and when: the leader of an ultranationalist party during the campaign). And the nickname is used mainly in two ocassions: an entertainment show, and in S.O. Vântu's press trust (i.e. Academia Catavencu). It is not widely used, not by the press, not by romanian people. That section should be definitely deleted. Anonimu 13:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * At least in here, in Bucharest, almost everyone knows it and it's rather often used. :-) Academia Caţavencu used this nickname for more than a decade, but other newspapers/journalists use it, too: (cotidianul 1) (2) (Gândul/Dinescu), evz (1), evz (2) Gardianul, (RL), (RL2), (RL3), (RL4), (RL5) etc. I can find dozens (hundreds?) of instances where it is used in newspapers other than Academia Caţavencu, Plai cu Boi or Aspirina Săracului.
 * bogdan 14:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was aiming for defamation here. I resent the whole circus of the thing, especially since the nicknames are so gross. I also think that his sexual preference is an the subject of an insult only in the minds of primitive people (the fact that Ac. Cat, uses it is one of the inconsistencies that have made me vow not to buy that paper again - a paper as "cosmopolitan" should not be as anti-Gypsy and anti-Gay). However, I think that the myth/insult/prejudice in circulation should be mentioned (see for comparison Ralph Nader). Dahn 14:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call the whole Ac. Caţavencu as being anti-Gypsy and anti-Gay, although some of the writers are indeed prejudiced. However, lately, it appears that they toned down this aspect. bogdan 14:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * of course you won't call them, since you're also a bit anti-gypsy Anonimu 15:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? How did you arrived to this conclusion ? bogdan 16:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the section should be deleted, or at least taken out of the "Controversies" section because it does make it look as if Năstase's sexual orientation is some sort of negative thing. Additionally, it's no longer that big a deal anyway (it isn't really a controversy). Additionally, Năstase is (unfortunately) quite anti-gay; I remember with regret what he did during the election campaign regarding Băsescu's same-sex marriage issue. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it should be merged in the biography section. BTW, during the electoral campaign Bucharest walls were filled with posters with two men kissing and with a text like "Să trăiască ei bine." It's interesting that, unlike in Romania, in most countries the right-wing parties are homophobic... bogdan 08:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Toata chestia cu denuntul din 1975 e un rahat tipic pentru inceputul anilor 90 si pasajul ar trebui inca mai mult redus. Nu am auzit ca Nastase personal sa se fi pronuntat cumva fata de homosexuali, desi a produs multe glume proaste. --Vasile 03:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo removes Russian Democide
Ghirlandajo removed the Russian Democide section in the Anti-Romanian discrimination article. The section is supported by sources, yet, Ghir called it a nonsense and removed everything. I reverted, but he may try to remove it again. Someone with diplomatic skills (not Ron) may try to reason with him and explain to him that the info is backed up with neutral sources that are not Romanian. --Candide, or Optimism 09:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no diplomatic skills that can be used in order to talk with Ghirlandajo, once he has start to edit an article he own it, his only scope is to make edits, therefore Ghirlandajo does not talk about the quality of his articles. If someone quote a source he will prefere to ignore it, because talking is not a good way to increase the number of edits.For exemple in the Suvorov article he state that the russian Suvorov statue is not remarcable, and he prefere the kitch with Suvorov depicted as Mars the God of War, in his Seven Sisters article he denied the existence of Casa Scanteii as a copy of Lomonosov, in Russo-Turkish War he denied the russian call for help adressed to king Carol even if the fasimile of the letter was put on the talk page for his consideration. Every article touched by Ghirlandajo it is a dead article.

Ghirlandajo only scope in this space is to only prove that Wikipedia is pointles, because soner or latter every article and and informtion will be biased by a nationalis or an extremist. ( not necessary russian but also romanian or whatever). User:CristianChirita
 * In that case, a RFC against him might be in order. Ron?Brazzers Accounts DigitalPlayground password  --Candide, or Optimism 10:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Trolling and revert warring again? Anittas, you should have understood by now that Wikipedia is not a proper place for rabid Russophobic, Anti-Semitic and homophobic crusades. Please find something more useful to do, or you may share the fate of your Bonny friend. Mais il faut cultiver notre jardin, you know. --Ghirla | talk 17:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You're a funny guy, but as I said: I backed it up with sources and the info stays. --Candide, or Optimism 01:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo it is not about being in one way or other, it is about minding, about bringing arguments, and responding with arguments to anyone else without being rude. Even if your point of view is right and you have arguments for your point of view, it is not necessary thate everyone else to share you point if view. Look from time to time in a mirror, it seems that you are in love with your edit whitout considering that in some day your article will be edited mercilessly. I'm here on the wWikipedia because I'm in great need of you in order to improve my english. Here I can improve my english daily for free. In a way you are working for me Ghirlandajo so thaks you. If you think that you daily war with the others counts you are a fool. I like to tease Ghirlandajo with his own words and atitudes, especialy when he mention about the Ramna monument that is insignifiant, I've erased the battle from the article, because for me the monument and battle hve no meaning, but for russians the meaning is bigger then a Suvorov depicted as MArs good of war. I was sad about not letting the picture there,but I've my revenge, Ghirlandajo will never hear about the Suvorov death legend, and neither the song about the monument.It is stupid to fight Ghirlandajo because Ghirlandajo fight with himself, most of the edit I have seen are POVish, poorly documeted, and very artistic pictured. Also Ghirla is the bigest rusofob I've ever meet, because he picture in his articles the ugly face of russia. I do belive that russia has something better to offer then Ghirlandajo.CristianChirita 18:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all I would like to thank Anittas for switching into English. Now, as to the article, it is horrible and adding some random stuff backed by random clippings is not helping it. I tried to moderate an article from some nonsense (like it claimed that the service in Romanian churches was switched to Russian, while Russian isn't used in Chrurch service even in Russia itself) only to find someone reverting my hour-long work. Whoever started that article, his goal was obviously to create a hotspot and aggravate the relationship of Romanian community with the Russian, Hungarian and Ukrainian communities. No coinsidence, it was started by an open proxy IP. We all know which Romanian editor had a habit to engage into malicious activity through open proxies, don't we? Now, that he is permabanned, the issue is still raging.

Finally, Anittas and CristianChirita, please avoid attacking others. If you have a thing or two to say about Ghirlandajo's edit, say it at the article's talk but be specific. --Irpen 01:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Where did I attack him? He called me a troll for adding that info to the article. Where did I attack him? Show me, please. --Candide, or Optimism 05:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not in my intention to attack Ghirldanjo, sometimes I like to teease him... My point is that there are 58 493 russian articles and 22,601 romanian articles, it is plenty of space for everyone till we will achieve 1000.000 of articles.My poiny is that wikipedia is not quite yet a serious surce of information, and that some users take way too serious wiki articles, without considering that the edits can be performed mercilesy. What will be next? A wikifilter? A filter that will remove any offensive word or image for muslim viewers, that will show only prochoice or prolife articles to some users, that will show only the politicaly right thing for the people in one region of the world no no one will be offended. That will kill the wikipedia. I do belive that the force of the wikipedia is that people can found the truth. If is amaizing if you will see the how articles related to history are modified by politics,wikipedia is a chance to pass the artificially created borders.CristianChirita 15:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nationalism is bad?
Hello, after wondering a bit through the world and through the Internet, I realized that nationalism and patriotism are considered by many Romanians as negative values, whereas most other countries (including the USA and France, which I know best) consider them to be quite positive. In discussions with Romanians, the word nationalist/nationalism brings systematically suspicion.

I wonder: am I the only one to have this impression? Also, can you give me your impressions on the word? To clear the setting, I will tell you that I consider nationalism and patriotism to be good. The bad notions for me are: xenophobia and chavinism, ethnic cleansing and ethnic purity, anti-semitism, islamophobia, russophobia, and other ethno-phobias. These are the notions that came to be associated recently with the words "extremist nationalism" and (in Romania) even nationalism. Dpotop 14:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about odd indenting here and a late reply, but if you are bored I suggest you read this essay by George Orwell, kind of highlights some interesting trends in nationalism. Btw. I'm biased, George Orwell is one of my favourite authors, but still, worth a read. - FrancisTyers 23:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, nationalism is bad. In the sense that it is counterproductive when attempting to write anything but propaganda. Also, it takes many, many forms. You could not cite x as a parallel for y in nationalisms, since x is a completely different outlook on the world itself. Cf.: Magyar nationalism vs. Romanian in the XIXth century. Hungarians relied on "cultural dominance", without ever arguing about majority (simply because they did not consider it something to keep in mind). Also, a single nationalism takes countless forms for countless generations (the differences between Maniu and Ceausescu strike me as greater than the ones between Kossuth and Maniu). And: "French nationalism" is an oxymoron, since the Revolutionary concept makes anyone born in France as French as the next guy. (There are numerous exceptions, such as the conquest Alsatia, Lorraine, and Savoy, or that established by the Scarf Laws. But you'll see my point, I'm sure of it.) Dahn 14:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I indented your text. Could you do it in future posts? Thanks. Dpotop 15:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * My impression is that Hungarian nationalism and Romanian nationalism are more similar than you think. Even though xenophobic episodes existed in both Hungary and Romania, nationalism in both countries mainly tried to maintain the unity of the state and promote respectively "Hungarity" and "Romanity". And you are wrong in saying that Magyars never argued about majority. The fact that in 1910 they managed (by counting many Jews as Hunarians) to achieve a majority has been seen as an important victory. The differences are in the way the two nationalisms developed, and in theis respective current statuses. In Hungary, nationalism is still very much state business, whereas in Romania nationalism has bad fame.
 * Hungarians introduced the "majority" criterion in their perspective only after everyone else was doing it. In 1848, they were genuinely dismayed that Romanians had something else in mind (and, admit it, that "something else" was loyalty to the Habsburgs rather than "national unity" or whatever notion retrospect has forced on our minds). As to what "they" are doing now, I don't see how it relates to what we are to avoid doing ourselves. I find annoyance in the Hungarian attitude, but I'll not go and teach them about it. If Hungarian nationalists do it here, I'll do my best to mend it (in accordance with NPOV, not patriotism). Dahn 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Doing just this will make you a patriot in my sense (which is probably shared by many). Dpotop 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In France, the situation is even more simpler, as everybody is a French national. If you promote France, you are a patriot. If not, it's not good. In Romania we have the notion of "ethnic minority", and in fact we only have problems with the Hungarians (because their allegiance goes to Hungary). I sincerely believe that a Hungarian minority that supports the Romanian state would have no problem in having all the autonomies it wants. :) Unfortunately, the Hungarians do now exactly what they did from the 1920s on, which is to refuse integration in its political system. PS: you don't say "Revolutionary", but "Republican and Laic".
 * The fact is that Romania mixes forms of nationalism, and has encouraged its adversaries to do as well. Consider that Romania declares itself a "national state" on the French citizenship model, but then legislates minorities. Watching from the outside, the immediate implication is that Romania interpreted "national state" to mean "of an ethnicity" - which, although established one, is illogical. One or the other. Of course, the concept is not harmful to anyone as a rule. It just shows that Romania does not guide itself by a clear ideology in this matter, and invites subjectivism. See the sophistry: you talk of loyalty for a community. But a democracy should rather judge individuals, and by their actions. Don't get me wrong, the fault is innate to nationalism, ever since Herder argued that "ethnicity contains the real identity" (i.e.: is an individual itself - which remains to be proven). PS: "Revolutionary" was refering to the legacy of the French Revolution and, by default, the First French Empire (as opposed to that of the Ancien Régime etc all the way to Action Française and Vichy France). It is perfectly synonimous with "Republican and Laic". Dahn 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course there's a problem in mixing the two forms of "nation" in the constitution. But we have a French-like political system and mentalities (hence the French-like constitution), but nobody would have let us not mention the minorities in the constitution (I believe this was forced upon us when the constitution was drafted by minorities protection groups).
 * Also, when speaking of "loyalty", I am actually talking about fulfilling the political contract: Representatives of Romania should represent the interests of all Romanian citizens, not just Hungarians. This is how it works in a "Republican" system.
 * For "loyalty demanded", I have answered on the bottom of the page. Again, my point here was strictly about the ambiguities of the Romanian construct - which I can excuse and explain, but I think this is not to be done here and now. Dahn 17:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And "Revolutionary" is actually a bit different from "Republican and Laic". The current French Republic is "Republican and Laic", as a result of evolution since the revolution. Laicity is a state value only since 1905, for instance. "Republican and Laic" is what has been taken from "Revolutionary" to make the state. In "Revolutionary" you also had Jacobinism, and the ideas that finally lead to the Paris Commune. Dpotop 16:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. This is faulty logic. You yourself state that Jacobinism is not the Revolution itself. Consider that many think of the Napoleonic Code(s) as text made possible by the Revolution. Consider that the Revolution gave a Constitutional Monarchy, a then a Girondine dominance, then the Jacobin episode, then the renewed Convetion, then the Directorate, then the Consulate, then (perhaps) Napoleon. See the place that Jacobins occupy? Let's leave the Marxist cliche and move on. All Republics claim the Revolutionary legacy (with more or less fallacies). You have two major synteses for the Napoleons and de Gaulle. But "Republican and laic" is the Revolution itself - first laic (the Girondins), and then Republica (cause Louis thought fleeing was a good idea). In that sense. Dahn 17:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe I don't get it, but "laic" in France is 1905. Even if the ideas existed before, the moment where it worked and was imposed as a law through a long fight in which the Freemasons were deeply involved is 1905. This is what people remember as starting date. It's a different figth than the Revolution. The Republic, on the other hand, is considered a direct Revolution product. This is from my discussions with French guys, as well as from books and media.
 * Maybe you are right from a more historical point of view, but in the head of the French I talked to is like I'm telling you here. The symbols (not the history) are organized like this. Dpotop 20:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * As concerns Maniu and Ceausescu, even the idea of comparing them seems weird. Both of them were nationalist in some sense. Both of them took at some point very bad decisions for Romania. Both of them have fan clubs and detractors. And of both one can say that they were not true nationalists, in certain senses (one had Communist faith, and the other was regionalist). :)
 * I am not judging their actions in this context. I wanted to point out that, if you were to look into things, two ideals inside a nationalism might have less in common than they have with the target(s) of their wrath. Dahn 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can also see the countless forms nationalism takes. You have in most states an "official" history. You can also have extremist organizations that create propaganda (you can find lots of stuff like this at Corvinus library, or in Romania Mare), but also individuals that make their country known at its true value (not more, but not less, and certainly using the same values and measures used for other countries).
 * A rose by any name would smell as sweet. Call it "nationalism", if you will. This is not a bad attitude (though I can see risks in here as well). The term "Nationalism" invites ambiguity, and assimilation to concepts which you don't mean to display. If you still want to call this "nationalism", go ahead. But you'll ignore the textbook definition. Dahn 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * For me, nationalism and patriotism are the desire to promote your country and nation. If we talk only about history, a nationalist can write true history, or falsify it to achieve his nationalistic goals. The guy that tells the truth is for me a good nationalist/patriot. The second is not well informed or misinformed or an extremist or simply a liar. The difficulty here is that many editors are not well informed or misinformed by state propaganda. The situation is worse when the editor is an extremist in the sense where he/she refuses the dialogue. Dpotop 15:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See, that's what I mean: we are discussing what they mean for you (to which I can't contribute much). But yes, you're right up to a point. Up to a point, because "promotion of one's country and nation" do not make one free from being wrong. Which is not to say that one would be wrong on principle. Dahn 16:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Exactly what I said earlier, mind you. Dpotop 16:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You did not get all of my point. And it is of no relevance how many agree with you, since this is your very own perspective. My assessement was that, with this attitude, you have equal chances of being right or wrong. Plus, "nationalism" has a meaning that we use for communicating. You want to give it another meaning, then go ahead. But do not assume that others should make an exception because you make one. Dahn 16:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I concur with Dpotop almost 100%. The only bit of disagreement is that I wouldn't say we have problems with the Hungarians.  I would say we have problems with some Hungarians, and also add we have problems with some Romanians too (see C. V. Tudor). Dmaftei 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody understands me... :) What I wanted to say earlier is that all Hungarian representatives tend to represent only the Hungarian minority even when they are official representatives of Romania, or when members of the Romanian government. They do this overtly, but I believe this is not normal, and unacceptable by any standards. This is why the integration of Hungarians in the political and educational systems cannot be done normally. They want rights, but no obligation or restriction on using these rights. Dpotop 16:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The basic tenet of democracy is that you represent your constituency. There is no clear way of "representing Romania" - that would imply we ALL already agree on all topics. If this is about Frunda, then I have to agree with him even more: if someone wants "Romania" represented (and not "options within Romania"), then (s)he shouldn't allow for SEVERAL representatives for the country. That is democracy. I'd rather not fight against the principle on the basis of how much I would mistrust Magyars. Dahn 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, isn't the Hungarian representatives' tendency to represent the Hungarian minority an expression of their nationalism? Isn't that as good (according to your opening statements) as any other nationalism? Dmaftei 16:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So in your view of the democratic political game there is no limit in the advantages one side can obtain, as long as it can obtain them legally? Dpotop 17:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no "one side" vs. "another". There is the principle of me representing the people who voted for me (my constituency, however it may be defined). If the others are likely to give me a position I received on the basis of the votes I gained, I see nothing wrong. I really don't see your point. Dahn 17:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dahn. Using my locality in the US as an example (as I am not familiar with Romania's system), John E. Peterson represents the 5th Congressional District of Pennsylvania in the United States House of Representatives. His responsibility is to represent the 5th District citizens (both those who voted for and against him) in a higher body and do what he can to improve their standard of living. Unfortunately, that system of government can lead to varying levels of corruption (see pork barrel politics and earmarking). If the citizens are unhappy with his representation, he will be voted out of office during elections. Olessi 17:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Olessi. I would also like to make a specification, before the other side of the debate attempts to use it against me. The Romanian law is a bit complicated, in that it places most representative institution on a national level - i.e. parties understood as constituencies of sorts (a parliamentarian would most likely represent the party). But, if you leave details aside, you'll notice that the principle is still the same, only carried to another level. The procedure for a person getting out of Parliament because (s)he did not fulfill the electorate's wishes is the same, only more complicated (while the accent on who the electorate is might fall on a more abstract constituency). Dahn 18:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that all established democracies not only have fundamental laws, but also informal "common sense" rules governing what I would call the political contract.
 * No, they don't. There's a social contract that the invidual is required to abide by. And the duties stated are merely sketched, and subject to change (if the majority agrees). No one would require you not to say certain things (except for denying the Holocaust, if appliable, or other such things - all of which do not regard an individual's opinons, and not even his/her goals. Dahn 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The establishment cannot function outside this system-specific common sense. And I feel no such rules exist in Romania. It's a situation that very much resembles the one in pre-WW1 Austria-Hungary. If you look at parliament debates from that period (e.g. in A. Mares: Histoire des Tcheques et des Slovaques), the different positions of Slavs and Germans very much resemble what happens today. And the problem is that I know of no state that survived with such a system. The problem is that the simple principle of representation cannot serve as the sole basis of a democratic system. There must exist a basic declaration of principles everybody (or everybody that counts) agrees with. The limits of the political game must be limited, in a very broad, but somehow defined way.
 * Romania is not Austria-Hungary. And even a state resembling Austria-Hungary, Belgium, is doing just fine. The principles that you refer to are respected - that's why you have to go to such lengths explaining what you dislike about the UDMR. The limits have been defined, by democracy itself. Any other "requirement" is invasive of another's opinions. That a state is not an army should be clear by now; what I also want to point out is that neither is a nation. What if I were to tell you (let's pretend) that I agree to territorial autonomy? (I don't really, but neither do I go out of my way to oppose it.) What then? You fall into the fallacy of assigning responsabilities to an ethnic group - but I, as a Romanian, would express an opinion as an individual! (Hopefully, you would not assume that I am a traitor to the country.) What say then you start treating people who support certain opinions as individuals, and accept that you cannot limit the options by law? There is no "stately common sense" - you use the notion to limit specific things. Countless Romanians have walked this path of sophistry, and, quite frankly, it's getting old. Dahn 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand this is not clear, but until now I have seen no clear statement from the Hungarian minority on what kind or Romania they would support. The current parties (except UDMR) clearly share some fundamental ideas in what concerns the Romanian state.
 * Parties don't share ideas by law (indeed, that could never be). So what if they do? Good for them. Dahn 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a federal system the Hungarians want? Sometimes I think the best solution is to take Harghita and Covasna and grant them autonomy (if not independence as "Szekelyland"). But this would not solve the problem, for most Hungarians are elsewhere in Transylvania.
 * Maybe "they" have the right to want whatever it is "they" want. Good for them. Dahn 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * To me it seems that all Hungarian claims cannot be satisfied, for they would include either:
 * Hungarian sovereignty over most of Transylvania.
 * Granting autonomy/independence to 20% of a population without a territorial basis seems to me anti-democratic (much like Indian casts).
 * But then, how do you live with people that would not have less, but won't integrate in the establishment otherwise? Dpotop 19:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If they have gone through due process of law and won, good for them. Your comparison with castes is kinda pointless (since the problem there is that individual castes don't have autonomy (and are everywhere privileged or underprivileged). If anything like that is in the cards, I'll cross that bridge when I get to it. I trust the reasoning of most UDMR politicians. Dahn 19:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * PS: If by "establishment" you mean the "cultural establishment", I think Romanians as well should get off their high horse. Dahn 20:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I mean "political establishment". Culturally, we are quite separated anyway. Dpotop 20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no political estblishment. This is a democracy. You can't be asked to abide by certain principles in order to get to the top. You either do it because you want to, or you don't. Dahn 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Are there places in the world where this was tried and/or worked? Dpotop 20:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, not that I think it's in the cards, but check out Belgium. Or Finland. And systems that transcend that particular "common sense" now include the centralist France. Dahn 20:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying here to several of Dahn's posts. Actually, in France politics and media coverage is very consensual. Few subjects opened at a time, few actual discussions, not much variety of subjects. In the US, I see that federal politics also seems quite consensual. The Belgian system is indeed different, and know close to nothing about it (practically, I say) except that there are still tensions about budget redistribution, hence pushes for even more autonomy.
 * You missed my point. IF a system is consensual (and who is to say for sure that it is or isn't?) that is by default, not by law. Furthermore, I could say the "quite consenual" you see is far from it. The US: would you see as consensual the fundamental difference between Republican States' rights and the Democratic Big government? In France: regional language rights are all over the place (for Franco-Provençal, Norman etc.); Corsica has developed a degree of autonomy; the Scarf laws have shown a deep divide in the understanding of community rights, and the compromise reached (which I critcize) was nonetheless meant not to favor any ethnicity or culture. Belgium is a federation on two levels: territorial and cultural (which not even Austria-Hungary was). This is not about tensions arising, it is about how they are claimed to have been solved. Dahn 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, you say that "This is a democracy. You can't be asked to abide by certain principles in order to get to the top. You either do it because you want to, or you don't.". This phrase contains (I believe) the same fallacy as the "equality" principle of many democracies.

The problem is that in practice it's not that simple. To be able to go to the top, everywhere in the world, it helps a lot if you are part of certain organizations and/or social circles of which you do not choose to be a member. And your beliefs actually count. As well as your skin color, accent, origin, and all the politically-incorrect stuff that shouldn't count. And even if you forget all this, most democracies are representative, and based on party systems. You do not vote a person, but a party. And a party is (today) an essentially undemocratic structure. And the party system is the political establishment, for all parties usually accept a set of key principles.


 * Again: you cannot turn "what we all (as if ever we all!) feel" into law. This is the sophistry I made reference to. Let me assure you that, if indeed present in other countries' establishments, this is done so in shadowy corners, with the fear of a law in action being much more present there than it is with their adversaries. In Romania, it's all "matter of fact". After all, I don't get your fear: is it good or bad for an "establishment" to exist? Because, in your initial answers, you favored generic principles that the Hungarians should learn to abide by. Now, you're telling me that such a requirement is the result of corruption. My sense is that you're telling me our own corruption can never be as bad as a different point of view seeping in. And, by the looks of what Mr. Boc is doing, it looks that the politics of Romania would tend to follow that guideline. Dahn 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is talking about corruption? Not me. My theory is that the political system of every established democracy (as well as stable system) has such an establishment that is formed by the formal political system (the law), the official parties, and the informal networks that together define the rules of the political game. And I believe that in Romania this "establishment" will need a very long time to form and that it will be unstable because the interests of one player (the Hungarian minority) are quite different from those of all other parties, and because we are continually pushed to satisfy these interests by international organizations lobbied by the Hungarians. :) It's not conspiracy theory, it's quite simple. Dpotop 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Read again what I posted about the US, Belgium, and France. Otherwise, the system you are describing is corruption itself. If it does exist in other countries, it is a matter for criminal investigation. Also, since you posted that "politically-correct things do not matter in practice", and now you seem to advocate that system, I am to assume that you think people shouldn't have access because of skin color, background etc. In that case, as a Romanian citizen, I demand that organizations representing Hungarians lobby the international forums to fight the Entente Cordiale between the first-class citizen political choices, and the "unwritten law" that governs this country. Dahn 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A party is as good a representation for its voters as any other. Which is to say: a party is as democratic as its voters. If they would all accept the same principles, we wouldn't be having this conversation about how one of them doesn't. If they all "should" accept the same principles, then why have them around? Dahn 22:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What you say is the fundamental theory of democracy. In practice, communities count. Dpotop 21:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In principle as well as practice, on this particular topic, they shouldn't. Even if you say that they do, they still don't: where you see "communities", I still see people. As I have already mentioned, the reflex of always trying to find communities, the secondary value ascribed to the individual (even when proven that, no matter what, we still face each other as individuals), the belief in a communal good overriding free expression - all have been getting in our way for hundreds of years. Dahn 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In practice, they do count today. Whether you are looking at the military and energy lobbies in the US, or the Trade Unions in France, to speak of only two, undemocratic (in your sense of individual-driven democracy) influence exists. It's normal, this is how democratic systems work. Individuals count much less and get less advantages as individuals, and more as members of such organizations, large-enough lobbies, etc. And we are talking here about the oldest democracies in the world. Unfortunately, I know of no example of direct democracy, to make a comparison.
 * What I have said is that wherever communities form, people remain people. The US has indeed legislated lobbies (which I disapprove of, and do not equate with trade unions), but did not legislate one lobby in favor of another. Even there (and the American system is the exception), the same basic value of the individual engaged in politics at worse diminishes - it does not disappear. It is as simple as this: all concepts actually comprise people. Sure, you could see organizations, and ideologies etc - but you cannot single them out. The basic relation is voter-elected person, wether or not the voter can intervene immediately to sanction. AND we have steered away from the main point: the Hungarian representatives were elected as well. There is no better, more valuable, electerate than another. No matter what the electoral system may be, no matter if a person represents a geographical constituency or a party, it's one person-one vote. And that's that. Dahn 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Arent't you, just a bit, living in a ideal world? Did you hear about French strikes? Do you know that they cancel contracts, change legislation, a.s.o.? These are not individuals. Nor the US lobbies. And these lobbies are not obtaining what they want by vote. The obtain it by paying. Money. Not democratic. No vote. Dpotop 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Again, unions/lobbies/etnical communities/parties are congregations of individuals. There is no elluding that. Also, whatever is done by them is sanctioned by a law provided by the people. If the people feel that they should change that, they would. Consider that (for as much as we know) a slight majority of Americans are for electoral college or state rights, even if these imply artificial levels betwen them and leadership. Dahn 00:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And in Romania: don't you feel that European pressure tends to change legislation faster than the votes? Not democratic, either. There are limits to democratic (vote) power. The farther they are, the better the system is. But all existing systems have limits. Dpotop 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Same thing over here. The people have been asked in advance if they would approve of Romania joining the EU WITH all the giving-in to higher authority that's implied. If they didn't know, then, frankly, tough luck. No less democratic - democracy does not mean sanctioning the law whenever somebody realizes that things went past him. This attitude, unfortunately, sits tight with Romanian legislators. For example, the PSD (and especially Iorgovan) made a habit of saying that a law that was easily interpretable should have been read with what they had in mind. (Why not just have Iorgovan sit on a throne and become the living law?) Its what happened when people declared the UDMR illegal according to that particular article in the Constitution, without noticing that they had voted in favor of another one, that was in perfevct contradiction with the first. I also remembered when I found out that the Constitution had an article (don't know if they kept it in the new version) which read that no one can replace the Constitution. Aside from the moronic wishful-thinking, these people didn't even consider that all one would have to do in order to replace the Constitution is get that article repealed. Taking such things in view, the European "pressures" (again, not really pressures - or, if so, not ones not agreed through previous democratic procedures) can only benefit this country.


 * I'm not saying that individuals do not count. It's in these systems that they count most. But communities, organizations,... count, too.
 * So? They don't form shadowy conspiracies, they are out in the open, and act according to law (please, no "UDMR is un-constitutional"). What I said is that they too are formed by individuals, and that's what we should care about before crying wolf. Dahn 22:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No, UDMR is just a nationalistic political party like the PUNR or the PRM. But there are also all sorts of Szekler organizations, that pressure European groups, a.s.o. This is not democracy. Dpotop 23:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, this too is democracy. People have the freedom to not please "the establishment". Plus, you assume that the European institutions are biased against Romanians. If you don't, then I REALLY can't see the problem. We have agreed to have transparent and monitored government (not only by adhering to the EU, simply by being a democracy). If the "pressure groups" are wrong according to regulations that we too abide by, then they can attempt pressure all they want. You needn't even worry about lobbies: the EU frowns upon them. In fact, it's Romania (and only it) that has attempted to naively use lobbies (they even used the word "lobbies"!, and we all were supposed to applaud succesive governments for being such şmecheri). But, of course, when good Romanians do it, it's patriotism. Dahn 00:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And just to make this clear: I am not making good/bad judgments about these organizations. I just say it's like this. I just believe it's the way it works in practice. And we'll have to do the same (or invent something new, but I'd prefer not participating in yet another political experiment after the experiences of the last century). Dpotop 22:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop, you said "I consider nationalism and patriotism to be good" (at the very beginning of this discussion), and also said "UDMR is just a nationalistic political party like the PUNR or the PRM" (a few lines above.) Therefore UDMR, PUNR and PRM are good, right? Dmaftei 00:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * :):) Not extreme nationalism, as I already said. You noted that there are many types of "nationalisms". And in the "promoting the historical truth as best known at a moment" sense, I believe that all three parties have done bad things (propagation of distorted versions of history) and good things (I have learned a lot from their disputes, on Romanian, Hungarian, and Transylvanian history). Dpotop 00:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Strictly for Romanians
Cine poate sa spuna -- fara sa caute pe Internet sau in Wikipedia -- ce inseamna "circul foamei"? Dmaftei 15:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Pietele lui Ceausescu. Sau ce "inseamna" etimologic? In ultimul caz, cred ca sursa e doar ironia observatorului. Dahn 15:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Nu, nu etimologic. Ce inseamna in vorbirea de zi cu zi. Incerc sa inteleg cat de comuna e expresia asta. Eu am auzit prima data de "circul foamei" ieri, in articolul Hunger circus, si sunt destul de batran sa stiu din experienta personala sintagme din vremea lui Ceausescu ("nechezol", de exemplu.) Dmaftei 16:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Daca nu esti din Bucuresti, nu e. Sunt alea care sunt facute Mall-uri acum. Arata toate la fel. Dahn 16:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me, quite obviously, that the expression is a reference to the domes those structures had, as the article states. Alexander 007 16:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Multumesc de clarificare, Dahn. Deci e o expresie comuna in Bucuresti. Stie cineva cat de veche este? Cat am fost in facultate in Bucuresti, intre 1981 si 1986, n-am auzit de "circul foamei". Altcineva care nu e din Bucuresti, ati auzit de "circul foamei"? Dmaftei 16:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Avand in vedere ca majoritatea erau neterminate la Revolutie, cred ca sunt relativ noi. Urma sa fie folosite ca locuri de distribuire a alimentelor, mai degraba decat vanzare (deci, in ultima faqza a regimului). Banuiesc ca le spuneau "circuri" pentru ca semanau cu cladirea Circului de langa Stefan cel Mare. Dahn 16:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Se pare că s-a început construcţia mai târziu, prin '87-88. bogdan 18:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Da, numele aparuse abia prin '89, si se referea la aprozarele acelea imense si in care nu gaseai nimic. M-am intrebat de multe ori: oare Ceausescu era (1) nebun (2) complet neinformat (3) un dictator sadic, sau (4) asemenea jucatorilor acelora ce nu se pot opri, si care tot timpul isi spun "las' ca maine o sa fac asta". Nu de alta, dar daca magazinele alea ar fi fost pline, alta ar fi fost situatia. :):) Dpotop 18:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * All of the above :-) Dmaftei 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Bun, m-am lamurit, multumesc pentru raspunsuri. Dmaftei 20:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanians in Northern Transylvania - Archive
Can someone give me some numbers on the ethnic composition of Northern Transylvania just before/after the 2nd Vienna Award (a.k.a. the Vienna Diktate?). I've seen some data from magyar source putting it at ~1000000 Romanians, ~1300000 Magyars. I remember some Romanian source speaking of "a slight Romanian majority". Related articles: Hungarian minority in Romania, Northern Transylvania, etc. Dpotop 15:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have a quote for you:
 * In Vienna on 30 August Hitler's decision was formally read. Only then did the Rumanian delegation learn the full extent of their country's losses. Hungary was awarded a large salient carved out of northern Transylvania beginning from Oradea in the south and Maramures. Rumania was thus deprived of 42,243 square kilometres of territory and approximately 2,600,000 inhabitants, roughly 50 per cent of them Rumanians and 37 per cent Magyars and Szeklers
 * Hitchins, Keith (1994) Rumania : 1866-1947 (Oxford History of Modern Europe). Oxford University Press p. 450
 * bogdan 15:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bogdan. However, they come there with nice figures from (of course) a Hungarian source. Can you tell me where Hitchins took his data from? I hate doing this, but it appears that we have to keep an eye on every article related to Transylvania, Moldova, a.s.o. Dpotop 15:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * No idea. But these are probably pre-Vienna Diktat Romanian census figures. AFAIK there were quite a few Romanian refugees, *after* the treaty. bogdan 15:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest concerning the aforementioned articles? What should we do? Dpotop 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * There's another quote several pages later:
 * Far from settling matters, the Vienna Award had exacerbated relations between Rumania and Hungary. It did not solve the nationality problem by separating all Magyars from all Rumanians. Some 1,150,000 to 1,300,000 Rumanians, or 48 per cent to over 50 per cent of the population of the ceded territory, depending upon whose statistics are used, remained north of the new frontier, while about 500,000 Magyars (other Hungarian estimates go as high as 800,000, Rumanian as low as 363,000) continued to reside in the south.
 * bogdan 15:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This is better. Dpotop 15:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest some more editors come to Hungarian minority in Romania, Northern Transylvania, etc. There are some fresh revisionist editors (a la Erdelyiek). Dpotop 09:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is there a Northern Transylvania article to begin with?! I'll propose the removal of this article. Dmaftei 12:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, don't do that. That in itself is not Hungarian POV. Lemme ask: why is there an article for the Italian Social Republic, or one for Vichy France, or one for Sudetenland? It's WWII geography. And to be fair, if you erase this article, then go and erase the one for Hertza region. The reference itself makes neither biased. It's what's in the article. Dahn 12:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Northern Transylvania article has a reason to exist. It should not be deleted, but presented in an NPOV fashion. Dpotop 13:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Dpotop, what exactly is the reason for this article to exist? (BTW, what does the "D" stand for?  Dan, Doru, Dumitru?  My "D" stand for Dan.)  Dahn, Italian Social Republic and Vichy France were political entities; Hertza is a historical region.  Sudetenland, it's true, was neither a political entity nor a historical region, but at least it was a widely recognized term in its time.  Northern Transylvania is none of these; it's a quite arbitrary (in my opinion) swath of land that happened to anexed by Hungary in 1940, and that doesn't have any kind of significance in itself.  This bit of history does have its place in the history of Romania and the history of Hungary, but I see no reason for its current standalone status.  Oh, and I'm not going to erase, I want to propose it for deletetion.  If the prevailing opinion turns out to be against deletion, so be it... Dmaftei 15:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * D stands for Dumitru, but stick with my nick, it's simpler to search for it.
 * Northern Transylvania is the name of a territory that is clearly identified and which made the object of a international treaty. By this treaty, the term has become a historical notion, just like Hertza. To use your terms, Northern Transylvania is widely recognized today as described in Northern Transylvania. Dpotop 15:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure "Northen Transylvania" is widely recognized today as described in Northern Transylvania. I lived in Romania for the first 36 years of my life, and the only times "Northen Transylvania" had that meaning was in the context of the Vienna awards ("Dictatul de la Viena" to be precise.)  Otherwise "Northen Transylvania" was more or less Maramureş. Dmaftei 16:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What about the term "Ardealul de Nord"? Ever heard that? The border was indeed arbitrary (as it was for Hertza, Sudetenland etc, and yes, Vichy France), but what's that to say about the concept? We should be able to refer to it in a distinct fashion, since it was refered to as such. Dahn 16:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, if all of this is on order to get Hungarian POV (which I have stood out against already - see this) with the common Romanian POV, then count me out. Dahn 12:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I expect you and other Romanian editors to replace the Hungarian POV with NPOV. If you believe my POV is too Romanian, feel free to change the text, and explain us why. I'm really open to discussion. However, figures like the ones I replaced there seem to me blatantly false (see the above discussion, and the talk page at Hungarian minority in Romania). For instance, if you take the census data for Transylvania in 1930 or 1941, you obtain some 1400000 Hungarians. Saying that there were 1300000 Hungarians just in Norther Transylvania is plain dumb. This is not history, it's not NPOV, it's just what I call "Nationalistic history", Hungarian flavor. Dpotop 13:17, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't refering to anything specific. I have not seen your article yet, and I have no reason to doubt your good will and knowledge of the subject. However, if someone proposes erasing the article because of the "Transylvania is one" routine, and if I am to expect the usual "Fascist-Horthyist gangs" and "gendarmes with rooster feathers" (all of which add nothing, but are common in the Romanian perspective), you can see why I become skeptical of the endeavour. I'm asking that the welcome care be applied to such statements as well, because two wrongs don't make a right. Dahn 13:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look at my posts before mixing them with the posts of extremists. What you did is not nice, and I expect you to do repentance :) by reading the aforementioned articles (also look at the edit history and the talk page). Dpotop 13:52, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You got me wrong: again, I was not refering to you. I was refering to whomever might have the bright idea that your articles are not "edgy" enough. Especially since such a person could make use of of in the majority of sources in Romanian: the biased ones (it's not uncommon that an official history book in Romania would display this pattern). This was my message to people who would feel they have a free ticket to the other POV. And we both know that they're in abundance (probably not on this forum). Sorry you got me wrong. Dahn 13:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Strictly for my Gangstas
Does anyone have info on street gangs in Romania? Alexander 007 21:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the police, in Bucharest, in 2004, there were 146 gangs ("găşti de cartier") (evz, 2004) (Adevărul, 2001) (Adevărul, 2005) My quarter appears to be well represented by its gangs, although Ferentari, Rahova, Giuleşti, Ghencea have probably much better ganging records. :-) bogdan 23:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * 146? Cool. I'm gonna do a C-Walk now :-) I wonder if they roll in '64 lowrider Impalas. Alexander 007 23:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Diacritics
I have intriguing news for some Romanian contributors (and not just): diacritics EXIST. Yes, I know, it sounds implausible, but the recent adoption of the Latin alphabet did create some unexpected side-effects. These are the letters (for those of you who have not noticed them at the bottom of, well, their computer screens, copy-paste them from here): Ăă Â(in all-majuscule letterings, before you ask)â Îî Şş Ţţ. Now, there will be problems of adjustment, so I suggest you adopt them slowly: perhaps, in the very first week, you could at least use an ă. Dahn 09:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, at ro.Wiki there is a policy of always using diacritics. You could check out the article ro:Wikipedia:Limba română conţine diacritice. Mabye we should translate it for english language romanian speakers :D. Mihai -talk 10:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've started working on this issue, putting them wherever I see they are lacking. --Vlad 12:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I always use diacritics in articles, ever since Bogdan moved my Dragos to Dragoş without including the history. --Candide, or Optimism 12:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I do my best to use them, but as a non-native, if they are lacking in my sources and I haven't heard the relevant word spoken (or haven't recently heard it spoken) I may be unaware of them. I've certainly made a number of mistakes in this respect, but not for lack of good intentions. - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Anittas, nice little troll... :) So, which Bogdan is that? Giuşcă? :) Maybe when he did that he wasn't an admin yet and both pages existed: unfortunately, there isn't any automatic way of moving text from one article to another that would keep history... :) Don't worry, manually moving the text doesn't take you from the history, it's just left at the old article (but anyone knowing how to read history will understand from it what happened...)


 * Actually, "Dragoş" already existed when Anittas created a duplicate "Dragos", so I merged the content in it. bogdan 09:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but some anononymous dude created it and you could've moved the history to that article because, unless I'm mistaken, it was my content that was used. --Candide, or Optimism 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, Anittas, you should know by now that contributing to an article doesn't make you the owner of the article. And seeing your name to the history is nothing but food for your pride, you're supposed to contribute by giving away time and knowledge for free without expecting anything in return. And what makes you superior to an anonymous user? Maybe the article as it was at the time did contain enough information that made it important enough not to be deleted just to make place to "your" article so that "you" could see "your" name in "your" the history of the article. --Vlad 11:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right; food for my pride! My pride! And why not? --Candide, or Optimism 12:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I merged the histories. Are you happy now? bogdan 12:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, there were like four of them ? :) --Vlad|-> 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What's so amusing? Yes, there were four of them. There could have been just one. What's your point? I don't get it. --Candide, or Optimism 14:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Bogdan, this was my guess. --Vlad 10:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Umm, who told you to guess? --Candide, or Optimism 10:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not feeding trolls. The discussions has already deviated from diacritics to the fact that you still hold grudge to Bogdan for something he did a while ago. --Vlad 11:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I hold no grudge against Bogdan, but I hold a grudge against you for going against my RfC without knowing crap. And if you're not feeding trolls, then feed your self. You sound like an American redneck housewife, and you're supposed to be a man. I've met quite a few feminine Wallachian men from Transylvania and Wallachia. I don't know what you guys are doing there, but something ain't right! --Candide, or Optimism 12:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it is kind of ironic, I was thinking about it (about your Rfc) and I was wondering how it ended. But whatever the end of it was, you haven't learning anything: still attacking people (the american redneck housewife part.) I don't know what you mean by "going against your Rfc", all that I know is that I've endorsed a couple of statements that I'd found accurate. Thank you however for coming out into the open with the grudge, but then again, this is not the place to discuss this (see subject). Thank you! --Vlad 12:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, I have nothing against you intellectual Wallachians and the way you put other people down (see the Death of Mr. Lazarescu - lol), but once in a year, do a push-up and jog a little. It won't hurt you! And I was doing fine until a certain housewife started to whine. LOL. --Candide, or Optimism 12:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Anittas, when I want to be sit back and be amused, I sit back and read your posts and contributions. Congrats, you are indeed the mascot of the circus. Dahn 12:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * What's so funny about my contributions? Sometimes it takes me hours to go through sources and add them to articles. At least I don't go and nitpick on other articles and tell other people that their English is not up to standard, as you did to some guy in the article Stephen III of Moldavia. If you see someone who made an error, correct it. There's no need to insult them. I know, I know, it's hard for you Bucharestneans to be fair to people; you always need to have someone to put down: kids, dogs, homeless people, etc., but this is Wiki. --Candide, or Optimism 12:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Anittas, I don't mean to feed you until you become a big and healthy troll, but I have to explain something: I just checked out the edit history for that page, and, apparently, I wasn't doing it to "some guy", I was doing it to you. I want to express my admiration for your exceptional idea of copying everything in the end of the article to the opening lines, so that people may get to learn stuff by heart. Dahn 12:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you've done to that article. You have made 8 edits and in those 8 edits, you've changed very, very little. And I don't know what you mean by saying that I've copied everything in the end of the article to the opening lines. I took a look at your contributions and I think they are of no value. You just go to articles, change a word, and call that a contribution. Then you pick on people. --Candide, or Optimism 13:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It would serve you to look at all the edits I had made (at least the last ones). As to my contribution, keep looking. I admit I make a lot of minor corrections, but I've translated 3/4 of the articles in Category:Italian fascists from Italian wiki (while making them better). I have translated from Romanian, Spanish, Catalan, and French (check out my contribution with new articles dealing with Fascism). Out of the contributions I created virtually in full, I would like to point out Corneliu Zelea Codreanu. There. That better? Dahn 13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that's not better, and I will explain why. You said that my contributions made you laugh. That gives me the impression that your contributions must be a lot better than mine. But how are they better than mine, apart from their numeric superioty? And you call me a troll? Let me ask you something: did I say anything to you or to that friend of yours? I did not. I made a reply days ago and Bogdan made another short reply; then your friend comes here looking for a fight. Then you join him by insulting me (calling me a mascot of a circus and saying that you laugh at my contributions) and then you call me a troll? And you go around and pick on people's English as if yours were any better. I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed; and even if I were impressed, there's no reason to say that someone's English is not up to standard and then make eight edits that don't add anything of value. --Candide, or Optimism 14:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You say number, I say quality (prove me wrong). This is not about a competition between us: I just wanted to point out that what you focused on was creating scandal (again, prove me wrong - even Jimbo can back me up on thisun). But this is of no importance, really, since I did not include all of your edits in the lower class of edits (though the one about Bucharest snubbery is memorable). About the Stephen III article, use the edit history page properly: | this is how you do that. Notice what my last contributions there really ammounted to? Again, I did not want to cite all my contributions, but I assure you they are significant, and include many articles created, not just edited. If you want to get a clear picture of that, browse through more of my contribution history. As far as I am concerned, this side topic is over. Dahn 23:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You brought up this subject and you should be able to justify your claims. I don't see your edits being of better quality. If Jimbo can back you up on this one, let him do so. If he isn't backing you up, then you shouldn't speak for him. I went and checked on your contributions and I still fail to see this great quality that you speak about. Where is it? Here, it took you four edits to add a tag and a category for an article. Well, I can't compete with that! --Candide, or Optimism 01:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Anittas, can't you discuss anything without picking on someone? First, it was Bogdan. Then it was me (no, I was not looking for a fight, only tried to explain the reason for what you mentioned and no, AFAIK I'm not Dahn's friend (I don't think I've met him offline), then finally it is Dahn you're picking on (oh, he was the one who brought up the subject in the first place.) You pick on Bucarest people (why? beats me!), on wallachian intellectuals (again, beats me). So what is the point you wanted to make? --Vlad|-> 15:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My points are simple: treat me fair and I'll treat you fair. Treat me as an asshole and I'll treat you as an asshole. My reply to Bogdan was no biggie. I didn't accuse him of anything and there was no hostility in my tone. Bogdan moved my version of Dragos a long time ago. Since then, we've cooperated on several articles. He could categorize my articles and I would, from time to time, check on his articles. When I asked Bogdan to create the battlemap for Vaslui, he did; and that, too, was after the Dragos article. I wasn't mad for what he did; it's a minor thing that I only mentioned hoping that I would get a reply from him. The guy keeps a long distance between himself and others, so I tried to make him post. I didn't appreciate your tone, Vladislav, but, I kept my cool by simply saying that "no-one asked you to guess". Next, you called me a troll. Is that fair? Not in my book. Then that other dude comes out of the blue with a bunch of insults. Does this sound normal to you? --Candide, or Optimism 16:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Anittas (I use this because it is shorter than Candide, or Optimism, but I called you Anittas, not Stanislas or anything else. So please don't call me Vladislav. Thank you). This thing with Dragoş and Dragos happened a long time ago, you say. Fine. So why didn't you react then? Why didn't you write to Bogdan? Why didn't you write in the articles' talk pages? Why out of the blue now, in a discussion that had nothing to do with it? This is the normal way to act. I'm sorry, but for me it looks that you crave to be the center of the attention. Don't worry, I'm not trying to deturn the attention from you being the star (this is one of the reason I'm not watching this notice board and for which I start being sorry for getting in this useless and futile discussion). You should really review the meaning of coolness. Yes, you are cool, but that reply of yours about guessing was not cool. Like others. The whole thing has been blown out of proportion, so I propose to stop it here and now and maybe move the non-relevant discussion on the talk page. --Vlad|-> 17:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, the Wallachian sarcasm. Vacanta Mare comes to mind...those guys make me cry. Look, I already gave you the reasons why I said it now, but you are wrong when you say that it was off-topic. It was on topic because it was about diacritics. We can stop here. Tomorrow's a new day and we can start on a new page, or whatever. --Candide, or Optimism 17:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ugh, Anittas' sarcasm. I don't get it. It was offtopic, as none of the Romanian users was supposed to report here if (s)he used diacritics or not! And yet you did. But ok, we can stop here; rest assured, I do not intend to pursue it tomorrow, here or elsewhere. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday. --Vlad|-> 17:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not your contributions that are funny, but you are. You know, everything you say can be said the other way around. You just pick up on people for being from Bucharest. Well I could say something like: "Oh, it's nothing but the complex of the people outside of Bucharest, ("din provincie"), that always rant against the capital, because this is where all the opportunities are, and where all want to go to get a "Buletin de Bucureşti"). Maybe you should live a little in two mediums, too get a more balanced view. --Vlad|-> 12:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * He said that my contributions are funny, so let him answer why he thinks so. Bucharest stole from the rest of the country and Bucharest gave our country a bad image. No-one is jealous of you. You can keep your opportunities to your self. Having said that, I will say that I still support Rapid and Steaua in UEFA. --Candide, or Optimism 12:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This is cute; you thanked him for insulting me. What a people... --Candide, or Optimism 12:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, Dahn meant contributions like these you made today, not in general. And I'm not sure why you talk about "you"? Whom do you refer to? :) For your info, Transilvanian nationalism gives the country a bad image as well. BTW, who do you support: Steaua or Rapid? Because this is deadly really important. --Vlad|-> 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And he didn't insult you... not more than you did it in the first place. I was simply thanking him for the initial mentioning this problem of the diacritics from which we diverted. And the subsequent additions. --Vlad|-> 12:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Jmabel, of course I wouldn't have dreamed of questioning your good intentions! Don't worry about diacritics mistakes: like I've said, I'm a purist of the form and now I've found my long running task... :) When in doubt, running the respective word through Romanian wikipedia might give you the correct Romanian spelling: hopefully, there is a redirection without diacritics to the one with diacritics... --Vlad 07:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Good to see none of us has anything to do on a Sunday. Dahn 09:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Amen! :) --Vlad 10:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Back on the topic
Vlad, the main times I don't get this right, there is no corresponding Romanian Wikipedia article, or at least not with the relevant phrase. This comes us especially when there is an article on line from a Romanian newspaper that uses no diacritics on their site. I try to work out the right diacritics, and I probably am right on 70-80% of them, but it can be subtle to a foreigner's ear (especially a vs. ă). -- Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, as diacritics are not part of standard alphabet on the web, most of the online Romanian sources tend to avoid them, in order to avoid display problems; they relate on their readers' basic romanian knowledge & understanding from the context to grasp the meaning even without the diacritcs. --Vlad|-> 12:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This "to avoid display problems" is a myth. Maybe it was valid ten years ago. All OSes and browsers released since 1997 are compatible with those diacritics by default and probably nowadays 99.9% of the users can read them. The real reason is lazyness. bogdan 14:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Good point, Bogdan. Amazingly though, there are Romanians who take lazyness to a higher level and stubbornly refuse to use diacritics, even where they can. By the way, I must say that even now, 9 years after your 1997 threshold, Yahoo email still doesn't support Eastern European encodings. Shame...
 * Joe, the solution to your problem is simple: Ask us. — Adi Japan   ☎  17:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian population
Hello, I'm really puzzled by some info gathered on the "History of Hungary" page. There, in section "Demographics/Historical" they give some data on the "number of Hungarians" at different times in history (900AD, 1222AD, 1242AD,...). And they seem to say that censuses were held at these dates (see my question on the talk page). My question is: can this be true? I mean, censuses (even though not very accurate) in the 13th century? My belief is that the figures are estimates, but the guys give some references: Györffy, György : "Magyarország történeti demográfiája" Für, Lajos: "Magyar sors a Kárpát-medencében" My question: can someone confirm these claims? Dpotop 13:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * One small remark. The discussion mentioned above is interesting, at least to give an idea of the differences between romanian editors and hungarian ones. It occurred to me, while editing wikipedia, that mainstream Romanian editors are really taking the NPOV recommendations very seriously compared to other nations. We easily adopt sets of rules defined by someone else, try to contribute to the new, and try to leave our own rules and impressions outside. The changes in the mainstream historical POV in Romania, in the last 10 years, can be compared to what occurred in France, for instance, in the last 50 years or so. Dpotop 22:24, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would agree. This is interesting from a cultural point of view, but Romania is one of the most culturally-open countries of Europe, I would say. This can be seen both by the high level of support for things like EU accession, but also the readiness to adopt English neologisms, Western culture, etc. This is, IMO, a very good sign, and from a historical perspective, really only a return of Romania to its rightful place as part of the West (cynics would say it's only because of Romania's cultural inferiority complex). In countries like Hungary, there tends to be a much more inward-centric culture (again, some would call this "cultural pride"), akin to other Finno-Ugric or Nordic countries (the attitude to English in Hungary, for example, tends to be more closd). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not cynical, but I would say we have an inferiority complex, as a nation. For instance, when you say "we have to return to our rightful place". Romanians will never the same as France or the US, or the UK, and it has never been so (even between the 2 world wars). Romania is not an Eastern country, either. And it has never been. Actually, I believe that we have our place, and what we should do is try to take as much advantage of it as possible. Dpotop 10:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the inferiority complex can be either a positive or a negative force. As a negative force, it can make Romania insignificant and devoid of culture, but as a positive force, it can make it much more integrated and worldly, and ultimately more successful as a result. As to Romania never being the same as France/UK - I think chances are that it may be quite similar in a few decades. Not so much in basic/traditional culture but in terms of lifestyles. Consider that countries like Sweden, Finland and then Portugal and Greece were very different to the "core West" at various times throughout the 20th century. Even today, Finland and Greece, for example, are culturally different to, say, France. In terms of overall lifestyles, however, they are still part of the West, and one's life in any of those countries is quite similar to that of the rest of the West. The point is that a country can very easily become part of the West even if it hasn't traditionally been seen as such. And I think it's best if Romania opens itself and goes down that way. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 10:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * In my view, the negative part of this inferiority complex is that many Romanians are willing to import without change political systems and/or value systems. Moreover, there is a view of a "unified western" system. Everything "western" is good. But the French, the Danish, and the US political and social systems are incompatible (they cannot operate at the same time in a given country). Like the western countries did, Romanians must adapt democracy to their culture. Otherwise democracy will not be fully assimilated by the society which will remain at the level described by Caragiale.
 * And the point is that we should not be more open than the western countries are themselves. And we should not try to be as open in every field as the most open western society is in that field. And it's up to us to choose and support how open we want to be, and in which field. This is what Hungarians and Poles do.
 * Finally, openness, is not a proven foundation for stable societies. Openness is a very abstract concept originating in the 20th century, and no actual society has openness as its basis. Many democracies have implemented some aspects of openness, but as you see today, protectionism pushes again in the current context of economic and social lack of stability. The problem with openness is that it can only work when everybody is open, which is not the case. It seems to me that you, along with the "mainstream" Romanian political class, are willing to bet on openness, with the future of Romania at stake. I am not suggesting full protectionism, but a controlled openness, assumed by the electoral body (and not just decided by some corrupt politicians threatened or bribed by Brussels or New York). Of course, I wouldn't know how to do it, except participative democracy in some key fields (today, people are directly consulted only on constitutional referendums). Dpotop 20:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally think "we" should stop acting a prescribed way because we belong to an "ethnic group". There is no responsability there: it should rather be with us as citizens. No one can and should demand that I do things a certain way because I am "of the same blood" or whatever the cliche is. Protectionism has nothing to with this, and it can accomodate countless visions on what the social sphere should be. Not even it addresses an alleged "need" for us to certain things the same way: I challenge you to find me an instatnce where the opposite happens. Dahn 20:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
 * To Dahn: When I am saying "we", I am not talking about ethnic Romanians, but by Romanian citizens. I am rather fond of the French definition of nationality. The "same blood" argument is in my view specific to peoples influenced by the German culture, whereas the Romania that I know is rather close to the French model. Dpotop 09:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * There are very little things we are required to do as citizens, and these are already made clear in laws (or, at least, in those laws that are written out of the "gut feeling" Romanian legislators seem to want to impose in front of common sense - such as the ones we still have that attempt to regulate opinion against democracy). Indeed, they are few and specific, and do not include any sort of cultural duty. That said, I think Romania only pretends to be following the French model: you know very well that this country perverted the rather bland term "nation-state" by blending it with ethnic nationalism - an abhorrent mixture that sits at the core of the unreasonable demands that laws here make from the citizens. Indeed, there is no "we" - for any of purposes you use it, you cannot possibly argue that it is needed, nor can you indicate how it can be enforced. In fact, any such attempt would be either doomed, either superfluous, either un-democratical (no matter how democratical the damand may be). Dahn 10:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I understand of the French system, there is much more to being citizen than just respecting the laws. There is the "national pride", the "protection of the national economy", and even some bad guys that misinterpret nationalism in what can be seen as an ethnic sense. Some ethnic groups are identified, but their ethnic autonomy pushes are frowned upon. The difference with Romania is not as big as you might imagine. Only that French are strong enough to upheld their model. Of course, Romania has seen excesses, under part of the rules of Carol II, Antonescu, and Ceausescu (the French had it under Petain). We have also had it the other way, during the first stages of Communist rule. Romania does follow the french model, with the notable exception of the Magyar minority which requires a very special status that destabilizes the entire establishment. Unfortunately, the Szekler land is not the whole problem, because most Hungarians do not live there. Giving them autonomy (which I support, for the regions where they are today a majority) will not solve the problem.
 * And of course there's a "we". This is how organizations and states are created, by individuals grouped around subjective or objective criteria, to protect from aggressions from the exterior, or to promote some interests. Pretending there is no "we" is a simplistic anarchist argument. I already saw that you believe that democracy is the solution to everything, but I just don't buy it because I already saw how a western system works. It's more than just democracy. User:Dpotop 12:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * First off: the basic difference between the French and Romanian logics as passed into law is that there is no need for Frenchmen to forge a cultural identity for themselves, whereas Romania was created on the basis of a cultural identity existing in the absence of a state, which makes ours ethnic nationalism. I had elaborated on this in our past discussion, and this is why I think the comparison, though popular as an excuse, is still not valid when Romania is a term.
 * There is no "we" if we crumbles into differences as soon as we attest our own visions, and there shouldn't be one. Frankly, there is not one single thing we should all agree on, ther is not even one thing we should all think about. It is anarchism: it is reality. You won't find a disagreement on such a topic in Romania only (as opposed to a world which is much more cohesive). You will, and you should find it everywhere. I am quite tired of the very Romanian illegitimate imperative that "democracy is for people who agree on this and that". Dahn 14:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think openness is the only way in which Romania can both 1) increase its image abroad as a positive country and 2) thereby increase its standard of living. The Hungarians and the Poles, I would say, are examples of quite protectionist cultures. Of course, Romania should adapt other value systems to its own culture, but there are many elements of our culture that would be better left by the wayside. The problem is, of course, that Romanians themselves are not prepared for a lot of these changes, even though, in general, I would say Romanians are more culturally-open than neighbouring peoples. At the moment, true participatory democracy could be negative for Romania, because it could mean that positive visions for the future are effectively smothered as a result of popular conservative discontent. This generally applies in a lot of countries, including established Western democracies. An example of this was the abrogation of Article 200 of the Penal Code (the anti-gay article). Had that been put to referendum back in 2001, it would be quite likely that most Romanians would agree to keep Article 200. However, it is quite clear that Romania is a better place without such a law. This can apply to things like minority rights reform as well - ask most Romanians now to vote on Szekler territorial autonomy, and they'll vote "NO". Under the current system, however, politicians can still implement these laws that serve Romania's interest in the long term but which would never be passed if the people were the sole, direct decision makers. That is, of course, if the politicians have a true belief in acting in Romania's interest, which at the moment is far from the case. But the way I see it, a referendum-centric participatory democracy is nothing more than majoritarianism. Of course, a broader, more informal type of participatory democracy could be an amazingly-powerful tool for Romania, particularly at local level (which fits in to the broader need for true decentralisation of the administration). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 08:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Romanian it's a much better place without Article 200... not for romanians of course, but better for foreign fags who come here and can legally have sex with street children ... Anonimu 13:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Just what sort of logic are you on? Is paedophilia less criminalized today? Did paedophiles not come before the stupid article was repealed? In fact, how the hell are the two topics connected? Oh, wait, they're not: you just enjoy demagogy. Dahn 14:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * huh?!?... what could i expect of some capitalist - -- ... Anonimu 14:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually am a socialist, my friend, not a populist like you. As such, I am a believer in human rights (including the right of homosexuals not to be called "paedophiles" or "fags"). Dahn 14:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, i'm a populist, that's nothing bad. Better than being a snob. Human rights aren't right for humans, they work only for philosophers. What you call socialism is just a social doctrine combined with capitalistic economy. This won't help people evolve. Anonimu 14:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ha! So you're saying that keeping Article 200 will help people evolve? And what have human rights got to do with capitalism anyway? And it's not as if the age of consent has been lowered or anything (IMO, it's still too high at 15 years of age). So, no, the repeal of Article 200 did not help foreigners at all, but a sizeable proportion of the Romanian population. As to socialism - why then do you have a big red flag on your user page proclaiming that you're a socialist, if you really think it's all "evil capitalism". [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 09:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't help them evolve, but it prevents them from devolving. human rights were invented by philosophers and adopted by capitalist to fool people they are "free", thus receiving free hand from them for contributing at their own welfare. The age of consent is suficiently low. Go ask a romanian school psychologist about how most kids who've done it before, and ever at the legal age, feel. The repeal of Articel 200 gave a great disadvantage to a part of the romanian citizens. Now people with this kind of psychic disorder don't receive special treatment anymore. Do you think that's fair? And we have a different view of what's socialism, you're the degenerated capitalist type. Anonimu 11:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Riiiiight. Psychic disorder. They should be placed in mental asylums, as should all people who masturbate and look at porn. Yeah, we know the story. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 12:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that, i just said they need special treatment. Porn and masturbation are a different thing. Porn might be immoral, but, as long as it doesn't represent zoophilia, pedophilia, homosexual acts or incest, it's just the animalic lust of humans. It is perfectly normal. Masturbation is also natural, and anyway, it's better than underage sex that could led to psycholgical problems. Anonimu 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no oppinion on Article 200. But Ronline, would you also agree to completely remove the laws concerning indecent exposure? This would be a sign of openness, but no western country seem to be keen on doing it. Wonder why. Dpotop 09:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, maybe we should be open in general, not just in ways considered as openness in the west. Given that sex with 16-year girls is mainstream in some cultures, wouldn't you be for it? I am against it, and in my culture it is considered reprehensible. Dpotop 10:34, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * On issues like this, I think laws should not be defined by culture at all (in fact, I find it dangerous that potential lawyers are taught that "law is based on customs/culture"). Rather, they should be defined by a more pratical considerent. I think, however, that, at the moment, indicent exposure should be maintained as illegal, since keeping it this way is not really infringing on anyone's good-faith rights (on the other hand, prostitution should definitely be legalised fully, Netherlands style). Many Romanians (I'm not saying you did this) seem to think that Article 200 should have been upheld because it protects against indecent exposure. I don't see, however, the difference between a gay couple making their love public and a heterosexual couple doing the same thing. For that reason, Article 200 is in my opinion one of the most dangerous post-Communist laws we've had (not that other countries have done better at it - the US and the UK both had laws of the same style until recently, but that's no reason why Romania shouldn't do better).


 * I think that all consensual sex between people over the age of 14 should be totally legal, including in relationships of trust (the current situation is not overwhelmingly different - the age of consent is 15 in RO, and there are measures against incest - I think - and positions of trust). So, yes, I am for allowing sex with 16 year old girls. Whether I am personally for or against the actual act is beside the point (for the records: I see nothing against it if it's consensual) - people can make up their minds whether they personally see it as reprehensible or not, but the state shouldn't coerce other people with its own moral viewpoint on this issue. To me, anti-adultery laws, sodomy laws Texas-style and all laws against victimless crimes are a gross infringement on individual liberties. It's similar to what Voltaire said - "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 11:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Voltaire didn't say that. Someone else who wrote about Voltaire said that about him. I think this is the second time I'm telling you this. --Candide, or Optimism 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right actually. I have a friend who uses that quote all the time and always attributes it to Voltaire, so it's stuck for me that way. But apparently it was Patrick Henry who said it. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Zuh?, 16 year olds having sex reprehensible? o______O What culture do you come from? - FrancisTyers 11:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm looking right now at this report which shows how many of the United States forbid sex with minors when the age disparity goes beyond a certain limit. But then, who said the US were civilized, anyway. User:Dpotop


 * You might find this site useful. Apparently it seems that most US states are less civilised in this respect than Romania. - FrancisTyers 12:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What's the problem here? If people want to have sex, you mind your own business. --Candide, or Optimism 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more Anittas! :) - FrancisTyers 23:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's a good point. The US is in fact one of the more backward Western countries in terms of social issues. Which is why it's a bad thing when most Romanians are quick to cite the US as an example or role model, when it shouldn't be. Other EU countries - particularly the more liberal ones - should be. I for one admire the UK's growing liberalisation [anti-terrorist laws exempt], as well as the Nordic countries, Spain and the Czech Republic (which shares our post-Communist experience and is hence a more relevant role model). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 12:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What Nordic countries, dude? In Sweden prostitution is not legal, but if you rape a girl, you might get 2 months in jail. If you're unlucky. I told you before: talk about the things you know. --Candide, or Optimism 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking about prostitution only! I'm not saying Sweden is perfect - or even Sweden in particular - but that the Nordic countries in general are liberal and I admire them for that. No country AFAIK has embodies what I see as true liberalism (though the Netherlands comes close). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of all the Nordic countries, only Denmark lives up to (my) standard of "liberalism". --Candide, or Optimism 13:53, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * your personal sex frustrations shouldn't have so much influence on your social and political thinking. Anonimu 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reason US has one of the highest standard of living and Europe will never be able to compete with them (About copying westerners, you can find my position somewhere on the talk page) Anonimu 13:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I take it you've never been to the US :) - FrancisTyers 13:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that Romanians have nothing to gain if laws are made without the population (voters) consenting to it. In Denmark, people are clearly favorable to these liberalization measures. In France, there is no same-sex marriage, because a majority of pleople do not accept it. In Romania, any law would pass with enough external pressure, even though the population opposes it. The laws of Romania do not represent its functioning, and I believe this to be the main source of corruption (the legal framework is bent and trespassed systematically to accomodate the actual functioning of the system). Dpotop 13:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for the record - the majority of people in France (around 60%) would actually support same-sex marriage according to a recent poll. Often, governments are more liberal and "progressive" than the population, but at other times, it's the other way around (case in point: US and Australia and, recently, Poland) [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say that the majority of the population of Ireland were not in favour of the smoking ban when it came in, but the government pushed it through anyway and now most people agree that it was for the best &mdash; even smokers surprisingly. Same goes for congestion charging in London. - FrancisTyers 13:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Like many "democrates" today, you're providing arguments for enlightened oligarchy. Which is normal, given that all political propaganda pushes in this direction, and given that most democracies are in fact oligarchies. On the contrary, I presume that people can be responsible, and should really take part in important decisions. Dpotop 13:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I may be providing arguments for it (really just reporting facts) but I don't say that I agree with it. I opposed both the smoking ban and congestion charging on libertarian grounds, but the fact is that the majority of the population did not want it and then after it was bought into effect they decided they did want it. Personally I would have preferred the smoking ban not come into effect, but it did and people seem to like it. - FrancisTyers 13:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So a girl/boy (for fags) should be encouraged to have sex for money or food, even if she/he(for fags) doesn't want to, instead of being helped by the state. And about adultery, not only it destroys all psychological base for the kid, but also it leads to malformations of babies born from this kind of relation. Anyway, consensual is relative. Normal people aren't so evolved to give real consensus, unless they are philosophers. That's why the state has to preserve order.. people have already much more rights than they need... rights aren't for humans! Anonimu 11:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Adultery is, as defined by dictionary.com, "Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a partner other than the lawful spouse." Now, can you please explain to me how it could lead to "malformations of babies born from this kind of relation"? --Candide, or Optimism 22:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's all genetics... recessive genes and things. probably you could find more if you search wiki Anonimu 17:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I will make a thread on this on Illyria and ask Dankat and others for their medical expertise. I don't see how genetics relate to adultery. Maybe the genes also decide to cheat on each other and create malformations, but in either case, the child cannot become much worse than you. --Candide, or Optimism 18:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, sorry.. i was wrong... mea culpa... bla bla Anonimu 18:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, please stop making references to "fags". Secondly, I won't reply, seeing as your argument is totally illogical and is more an attempt to be stupid than anything else. Lastly, I have written a short article on Article 200. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 11:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, i'll use queer from now on. My argument is not illogical at all... you should see a psychiatrist. Anonimu 12:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, it seems to be that, like many well-intentioned dictators before, you are willing to help people in ways that they did not ask for. My impression is that it is time that Romanians learn that they can make decisions that will be upheld by the Romanian government. After one or two bad decisions, we will learn to choose what helps them most. And I do not care about an abstract notion of "right". Instead, I believe that Romanians should do what helps them most. Dpotop 09:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I was just about to leave this discussion, when a comment list from www.gandul.ro provided the perfect argument to why being too open is actually bad. Just take a look at (in the talk section) and see how a country without a national ideology can be hated by simpler people that cannot understand this openness, or who believe that by spitting on it they will obtain advantages in their respective countries of adoption. It reminds me of a position that was current among people of my age (30), which were saying that they do not owe Romania nothing, because, for instance, the educational system did not help them at all. Of course, they were trying to emigrate, and needed to justify this choice. Funny enough, I've never heard a Hungarian saying that Hungary is fundamentally bad. User:Dpotop 08:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't live here... The identity discussion is totally the same in Hungary. Zello 10:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, can you point me to some edits? In english, if possible. Dpotop 10:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to debate with you I only spoke about my everyday experience because I'm living in Hungary and I hear always the same dialogs as yours. But it doesn't matter. Zello 22:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

At long last, one European official recognized something that I've been saying through my posts here. I cite from "Gandul", which cites Olli Rehn:
 * Referitor la drepturile minorităţilor, Rehn opina că România îndeplineşte de mai mulţi ani criteriile în acest domeniu şi că nu i se poate cere mai mult decât statelor membre ale UE. Comisarul european a cerut totuşi eforturi suplimentare din partea autorităţilor în special pentru combaterea discriminării populaţiei rome.

User:Dpotop Bold text

Romanians
Once again, there seems to be some serious squabbling about numbers in the Romanians article. I tried to sort through it, and all I've gotten for my troubles is a nasty attack from NorbertArthur that did not address a single substantive matter I raised and essentially objected to me, as a non-Romanian, working on Romanian topics. More specifically, he wrote, "you are putting your long nose in all the romanian topics", etc. I actually have a question here: is the "you are putting your long nose in…" a Romanian colloquialism? Because, here in America, "long nose" is a standard ethnic insult toward Jews. I don't want to read anti-Semitism into his remark if it is not there, but that is sure how it reads in U.S. English. - Jmabel | Talk 02:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Damn dude, you're so paranoid! You read anti-semetism in everything. Yes, in Ro you can say "nu-ti baga nasul unde nu trebuie," which in a polite way it could mean "mind your own business". Let's stop this witch hunt against imaginary anti-semetic people. Even Jerry Springfield made a joke about the nose of the Jews and he's a Jew himself. Dude, you simply need to relax. --Candide, or Optimism 04:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hard to say. AFAIK, "long nose" is not an inside way of referring to Jews in Romania, so by "long nose" he may have just meant "a nose that gets around", "has quite a reach", because it involves itself in many Romanian articles (In English, you would just say "nosy"). OTOH, it may have been a jab at the "Jewish nose". I don't know. Alexander 007 04:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The notion of putting one's nose into something ("a băga nasul")is a figure of speech to refer to involving oneself in matters one should not involve oneself in. It is quite commonly used. On the other hand, the argument over the Romanians article is very odd. I really don't see why people take delight in saying there are more Romanians in the world then there really are. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Jmabel was referring to the long nose comment, not just sticking one's nose into something, which is also an English figure of speech. However, sticking your long nose into something is not really used in English. But in Romanian, "long nose" can just emphasize "nosy", not a literal reference. Alexander 007 07:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, many Romanians (including myself) have quite long noses themselves. In this case, they are called "Roman noses", and proudly considered to be part of the Roman genetic heritage. :) Frankly, I don't know whether NorbertArthur intended to be anti-semitic, but the remark by itself doesn'n look like one. Dpotop 10:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, sticking one's nose into other people's business is a figure of speech also quite common in Norwegian, and I do believe I have seen the additional description "long nose" used a couple of times as well. It would in most cases appear only to further emphasize the "nosy" aspect, as Alexander pointed out, but I realize it only being used against a jewish user might strike one as meaning more than just that. However, judging by NorbertArthur's earlier personal attacks, it would strike me as uncharacteristically restrained if it was in fact intended as anti-semitic, so I would personally give him the benefit of doubt on this one. Anclation 14:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I expected to find an example even in English of "long nose, etc", and by chance as I was reading Clancy's Patriot Games, I found it: Chapter 4, where ULA terrorist Kevin O'Donnel is thinking of Jack Ryan:


 * "Luck. That was all. Some monied Yank with too long a nose who'd gotten very lucky."


 * ---Case dismissed. Alexander 007 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK. Just asking. It was a nasty attack, in any case, I just wondered if it was anti-Semitic to boot. I seem to be on the receiving end of a lot of abuse on the talk pages of Romanian topics lately. See, for example, Greier's remarks at Talk:Romania in the Middle Ages. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Good lord. I actually think User:Greier should be permanently banned for that episode, but it's not up to me. An RfC seems to be coming up soon. Alexander 007 06:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Struck out my comments, because he withdrew them, and I'm not sure why I half believe his explanation :-) Alexander 007 08:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * He withdrew them, but only sort of apologized. He seemed to regret only that I was the user he aimed them at, but seemed to feel that there are people it would have been appropriate to address that way. - Jmabel | Talk 01:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * He mistook you for Orioane or Dahn. If he had said those things to Dahn, I would have supported him to 100. --Candide, or Optimism 01:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

This guy, Greier, seems to have a problem controlling himself. However, not every guy attacking a jew is antisemitic. It may just happen he/she is mad. Jmabel, please do not use this accusation lightly. Dpotop 08:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)