Jump to content

Talk:Romania/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14

Wikipedia:Reverting

dear hungarian friends, please read Wikipedia:Reverting article before reverting changes i have made in Romania article. While i have no high expectations on the standards of this disastrous encyclopedia, i will revert reverts that do not follow the rules of Wikipedia. thank you Criztu (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted you, I'm not Hungarian, not that would matter, please stop dragging this into nation-baiting because is against the rules, I hope an admin would tell you so too... your edits are sub-par, you didn't even capitalized "Romanians" and you used POV language like "This beautiful land" if you want to be taken seriously you should give that up. man with one red shoe 13:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
to revert because i wrote "this beautiful land" is absurd. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives on a topic". Do you seriously think my formulation "this land is beautiful" is a perspective on a topic ? do you think i offended a group of people that live with the opinion that territory of Romania is "this land is ugly" ? do i need to bring you "verifiable sources" to "prove" that a forest or a hill is beautiful ? Does it induce a false opinion about Romania to an innocent reader of this article ? However, if u really think "the land is beautiful" will provoke a massive outcry, feel free to remove, but reverting, seems like u have something else in mind Criztu (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
that was only one example, and it's not about POV as about sounding like an ad (all lands are beautiful by the way) I don't like your edits in general, I'm not going to discuss each and every one or try to keep only the edits that are reasonable. As I said start small and wait for people to accept your edits. If you follow my advice you'll see that you'll have more success than trying to twist the arm of the editors to accept your edits. man with one red shoe 16:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
I will follow your advice when you'll defeat Technoviking Criztu (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
About the "all lands are beautiful part", i'm afraid i have to disagree. Hungary is pretty ugly.--91.200.122.230 (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} In Romania, the Chief Justice isn't Lidia Barbulescu; the position is currently vacant and Lidia Barbulescu is on an interim presidency of the High Court (President of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and NOT Chief Justice). Therefore instead, at least, of Lidia Baarbulescu I think it would better be written "Vacant" until a new president is appointed.


Mark 90bt (talk) 18:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source to verify?  fetchcomms☛ 01:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Historic population

"As in the previous 900 years, Austria-Hungary, especially under the Dual Monarchy of 1867, kept the Hungarians firmly in control even in the parts of Transylvania where Romanians constituted a local majority." Source needed. Because Romania wasn't exists before 1862, there was no "romanian" earlier in Transylvania. AFAIK most of the vlachs appeared in Transylvania and Partium during the ottoman invasion. Before the 16th century, I don't know any realible source about the whole Transylvanian population so the 900 years of vlach majority sounds like a propaganda. Aries (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Romanian Senate

The romanian Senate have 137 members! (http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Senate_of_Romania)

It appears so, but Wikipedia can`t be taken as a source to other articles on itself. Can you present a source for this? Thank you. Adrian (talk) 07:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

formation of romania dates needs to include restoration in 1945

the end of world war 2 restoration... even switzerland had to be restored from forgein rule added to its formation years. its came in 1815. 99.164.34.159 (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


International Map

Just a commentary on the map that is being used for this article. The one in the box on the top right, which shows Romania's location in the world. It is rather obnoxious. Having a dark green blob be in the middle of a green area and a grey area is hard on the eyes, and doesn't really increase the viewers knowledge. At the very least I think different colors should be used, but I see no reason to highlight any other countries or regions other than the topic of the article. Harley peters (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Important Alert to the readers of this article about Romania

Important Alert to the readers of this article about Romania, because at least part of the currently presented article as it is composed raises important reasons for critical, even controversial commentary, in particular regarding Transylvania and the Hungarian Kingdom.


Example #2: the current article states the Hungarian population of present day Romania as 6.6%, but generally it is silent about the fact that those Hungarians overwhelmingly are Transylvanians, and they represent a much higher population %-age relative to the Transylvanian population. Such distinction as Romanian vs. Transylvanian population distribution is quite significant and appropriate to know and to be presented as such.

The above examples show the kind of subtle “spin”, one of the characteristics of this Romania article, presenting facts selectively or out of full context, perhaps due to oversight or perhaps as part of an agenda. Therefore, the readers will serve themselves well to read this article with critical reservations, and also read the Wikipedia or other articles about Transylvania and the Kingdom of Hungary, illuminating also Hungarian points of views, in order to get a fuller insight into these topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myterrace (talk • contribs) 21:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


You probably meant in the tittle False alert to the readers of this article. All data , especially the sensitive one is present with valid reference therefore your comment or this "alert" is false. Transylvanian population, from it`s creation till today always had a Romanian plurality at least. Today the population of this region can be seen at Transylvania -19.6% or 6.6% in Romania. Please refrain yourself from this kind of nonconstructive comments that express your personal opinion or POV and please read what is Wikipedia WP:ISNOT. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 06:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Romani_people#Requested_move

Please comment on the requested move. Nergaal (talk) 06:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

parliamentary vs. semi-presidential republic

Romania is a semi-presidential republic, and not a parliamentary one. Wikipedia presents two contradicting data - I would change the article myself, but since it's semi-protected, it seems I have no access to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accercel (talk • contribs) 08:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

citation? Nergaal (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=hgXk5r1WtZcC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=romania+semi+presidential+republic&source=bl&ots=6pZRFZYrAD&sig=40zKyW_nSTV2qToJCxHbOy1M-ug&hl=en&ei=wCwPTdSINMyu8QPhl7CGBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=romania%20semi%20presidential%20republic&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accercel (talk • contribs) 10:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

not convincing enough...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Accercel (talk • contribs) 20:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

History of Romania 1944-1989

I'm not seeing very much about the History of Romania from 1944 to 1989 here in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenexp (talk • contribs) 02:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess that is the Communist era, beside Causescu`s dictatorship there is nothing else important :). Just joking. What events are you referring to that are not presented in the article? Adrian (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mămăliga is not of Ottoman origin

quoting: A plate of sarmale with mămăligă and sauerkraut, a traditional main course of Ottoman origins.

Mămăliga is made of corn and Ottoman/Islamic people consider sinfull to eat it, as well as pig meat. It cannot be Ottoman at origin. I have my doubts about sauerkraut, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tct13 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it too but you should present some references to change it. Adrian (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The sarmale are Ottoman, not the mamaliga. CaptainFugu (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

A few issues...

Recently I've noticed the tendency of certain users to add endless numbers of images and scores of info sourced from online news and magazine articles. While I appreciate their good intentions, I must admit I believe such efforts are made in the wrong direction. To this end, I've identified some problems which I feel should be dealt with properly before any more major changes are made:

1. The article is long enough as it is, and if we are to add any new sections, I believe we'll need to start thinning out existing ones.

2. Please, STOP adding tons of images without proper context or reason. Yes, photos are nice and pretty, but there are so many of them that they are becoming redundant. If, for example, the page contains a picture illustrating Mamaia, there's absolutely no reason to add another one that does the same thing.

3. I suggest consulting WP:MOS before editing. Certain paragraphs tend to be magazine-like ("Romania can be proud of", "whatshisname is the pride and joy of the country" etc.)

4. We need to paint a more complete picture of Romanian music. Yes, mentioning Inna is appropriate, because she is famous. Mentioning random DJs with average success on YouTube is not. And keep in mind that those people only make up a fraction of Romanian music as a whole: there's also hip-hop, rock, folk, jazz, electro, manele, classical music, traditional music, easy listening and so on, none of which are mentioned here, though they definitely should.

That's all I can think of right now. Cheers CaptainFugu (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Mihai Viteazul had no intention of "unifying" Romania. See "History and Myth in Romanian Consciousness" by Lucian Boia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.140.80 (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:"from it's creation"

Please always refer to the idea of Dacian-Romanian as a theory unless you have proof that it is fact. So Adrian, don't accuse someone of being biased when you present a tenuous theory as proof. Here is a great link for a Lucian Boia book which discusses the topic and makes mincemeat of the theories of Cantemir, Hasdeu and Xenopol you read in school http://www.scritube.com/literatura-romana/carti/LUCIAN-BOIA-Istorie-si-mit-in-651021223.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazio gio (talk • contribs) 04:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mitropolia Iasi.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mitropolia Iasi.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
What should I do?
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Mamaia above.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Mamaia above.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Quote from Cassius Dio

There is a quote from Cassius Dio in the Antiquity section, which I reproduce below:

I consider it worthy of keeping, yet everything CaptainFugu had to say to justify removing it a while back is that it has no "value". There are other things this user has removed to which I would object, but the quote seems the most important. I have since reintroduced the quote. Please discuss, as I think it is most welcome. sfaefaol 16:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems like too detailed info about too far past, shouldn't this be in the History of Romania article instead? man with one red shoe 16:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Cute "romanian" English

Eastern Europe strikes again. Soon there will be no articles and pronouns left in WP ;) Also cute is the PoV used in parts of the article, but such is its cuteness that I'm not even going to challenge it. --92.202.77.215 (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you make the corrections instead of complaining here? I don't think the page is protected. man with one red shoe 23:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

added a geography box

I included the countries, and can someone make links for them at the bottom box I created, 9/1/2011, please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.166.151 (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

File:University Square, Bucharest.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:University Square, Bucharest.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Statue-of-Decebalus.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Statue-of-Decebalus.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Fountain-and-cathedral-at-night-in-timisoara-roml206.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Fountain-and-cathedral-at-night-in-timisoara-roml206.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011 Census

Whoever edited the data based on the recent census, please read the INSSE press releases and revert it back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.115.126.119 (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

National Institute of Statistics of Romania (INSSE), Press Release, 1 November 2011: In order to avoid any misinterpretation: These results do not represent the population of Romania! First partial results of 2011 census are going to be published at the end of January 2012 and first preliminary data in April - May 2012!
Source: INSSE Press release - 1 November 2011 (in Romanian)
(Rgvis (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC))

To 81.229.43.123: are you that thick? Read the frigging INSSE site and get a clue about what an encyclopedia means. (comment added by initial poster) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.115.126.119 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I noticed this issue when reading over page protection requests. Using edit summaries such as "vandalism" or comments like above, is unhelpful to discussion. The issue as I see it here is the altering of population figures, using a source that has been noted as incomplete. Given the fact that the census data indeed is noted by the publisher as incomplete, thus unreliable, so I think that using it at present would not be advisable. It should be made clear in the article that the current data is as of a certain date (2004 from what I saw) but until full results of the 2011 census are published, they shouldn't be used. Hopefully this helps, but I've added this page to my watch list so will see further developments. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 21:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you check this: 81.229.43.123 and this: User contributions you will understand what "type" of editor is this guy (and how many articles have been already altered).
On the other hand, on Romanian Wikipedia the same person was immediately stopped and reverted (ro.wiki contributions)!
Rgvis (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And still, it makes no sense to dismiss the preliminary October 2011 census results, yet insist to use that random July 2011 estimation of 21,904,551 people which is even further from reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.254.150 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the official data of the 2011 already available? The article says total pop. stands at 21.9 mil which is 2.9 mil over the number officially released. Dapiks (talk) 06:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The data are provisional, but there is no reason not to update statistics with the latest data, as per first (2 February 2012) official (2011 census) data releases from the National Institute of Statistics [1]. Anyhow, provisional census data are more accurate than old data estimates.

On Wikipedia, it is a common practice to have statistics (provisional, preliminary, or final) data updated, for example: 2011 census of India#Census report + India#Demographics.

Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC))

Somebody should also update the economic indicators such as GDP/Capita to reflect the population changes from 2011 census. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.97.161.66 (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the article since my views on this might not be shared by most, but an external history link about the number of jews killed in Romania during the second World War? Really? That's the history of a country? Two years? I'm not trying to minimize the importance of it or hide anything, but the article already mentions it and there are several other dedicated articles about it where the editor also included that link. Not to mention the tone of the linked webpage. So my question is, should that link really be there? Because it doesn't sound neutral to me. I'm not sure about some of the others, but that one stands out. 82.208.147.138 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with your POV, but this is not presented as an entire history of Romania, it is just added as an external link (section). It doest point out that much and this link can be very useful since contains many important information about the Jewish population in Romania. Maybe a new subsection under external links, something like Jews in Romania during the second World War and add this link there? What do you think? Adrian (talk) 09:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Why? There's a whole article, see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Romania. If that warrants a separate section, what doesn't? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.147.138 (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
Ok. Clear enough for me :).Adrian (talk) 11:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.opticmovie.uv.ro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.117.240.2 (talk) 16:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox uses a title "President of the Senat." This should be "President of the Senate" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanAshany (talk • contribs) 01:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Adrian two (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Poiana-Brasov.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Poiana-Brasov.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Poiana-Brasov.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Social welfare

I don't have much knowledge myself, but the "Social welfare" section seems badly written (many grammatical errors), and also somewhat subjective to my eyes. 80.202.225.34 (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It was initially removed for just those reasons, but reinstated again by the initial poster. RashersTierney (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Best country status

In the first sentence of the article it is claimed that Romania is the best country in the world. This claim seems to be disputed by Kazakhstan, the national anthem of which starts:

Kazakhstan greatest country in the world. All other countries are run by little girls. Kazakhstan number one exporter of potassium. Other countries have inferior potassium.

Could someone remove this outrageous claim from the article or start a section about controversies regarding this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.65.173 (talk) 16:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Strange behavior of references

This drives me crazy, I see the following reference when I click edit 

population_census        = 19,042,936<ref name="http://www.indexmundi.com/romania/demographics_profile.html" />

but when I click on it it redirects me to the correct reference (a PDF file), what goes on here? By the way indexmundi has the old estimate which is incorrect. -- man with one red shoe 03:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like the reference has been 'named' using a url format. That 'name' may not reflect the actual reference provided. At least this seems to be the case to me. I have a bit of an aversion to playing with 'named' refs, so will let someone else correct/rename. RashersTierney (talk) 07:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I will let somebody else correct it because I don't know much about named references, but this needs to be corrected because indexmundi.com provides different numbers and might be at the source of edit wars regarding total population numbers. man with one red shoe 13:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Who keeps crapping over the article?

I left this article in decent shape and I got back now only to find it full or unreferenced garbage. It is almost twice the size an article like this should be. Nergaal (talk) 04:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:AGF and all that... I agree it's oversized, but it's not really twice the right size, it's just slightly larger than the US article. Silvrous (talk)
I've realized I was wrong, the article size is way too large compared to the good and featured country articles. An effort should be made to reduce the bloat, ideally only the most important elements should be mentioned, and then developed in their respective main articles Silvrous (talk) 11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
It's too fucking large. Is it too hard to be concise these days?

For Mr. Store

Mr. Store, I noticed that you have a wide knowledge on Wikipedia rules. As such personally I'm a bit surprised to find the rejection of my edit regarding Traian Vuia. Traian Vuia is know in the main stream as the first person to take-off autonomously on a self powered monoplane! This achievement has nothing to with Wright brother's first flight in a heavier than air machine and is not contesting their previous flights at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.100.97.4 (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

That may be, but please state so in your edit(you only stated that he achieved the first powered human flight, which is what the Wright brothers did), and, most importantly, attach a reliable reference. Silvrous (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Please read correctly: "first person to take-off autonomously"! This is huge difference to the catapult take-off airplane of Wright brothers! Is basically as different as a self launching gliders and self sustaining gliders of today. Vuia's flight is not negating the priority of Wright brother's first heavier than air machine to fly, Vuia's plane is the first to take-off without external help! Please check this video of the replica of 1905 plane, I hope you can see the catapult behind the rails. What can be more reliable than the scholars of Vuia from | The Romanian Academy?--109.100.97.4 (talk) 07:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Your link is dead. I'm not contesting the validity of your information, but it needs to be stated more clearly, and with a reference. Silvrous (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The difference between self-launching and self-sustained. On the Wright Flyer page is absolutely correct stated "the first sustained and controlled heavier-than-air powered flight". It would have been a physical impossibility to put in the air 338 Kg plane with a 12 hp engine.
Which of the links are dead? From the academy? Is the main page of the Romanian Academy Library working http://www.biblacad.ro/? Vuia archive is a link under the main page: http://www.biblacad.ro/Vuiaeng.htm. Another link from | Montesson--109.100.97.4 (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

RfCInfobox heads of government

Should the heads of the legislative body be listed under "Government" in the infobox? Also, should the name of the legislative body be in the native language or in English?Silvrous (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the heads of the chambers of Parliament from the government section of the infobox; The parliament is a separate branch from the government, the fact that they are next in line of succession doesn't change the fact that they are not relevant to the leadership of the government, in that they do not hold any power in it in normal circumstances. I also urge those who disagree with a more elaborate edit not to revert it completely, but to only change the part they disagree with. I'd like to see more opinions on this. Silvrous (talk) 18:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I ask you to look at almost any country article; None mention the leaders of the houses of Parliament. In the Constitution of Romania, the Parliament is clearly presented as separate from the Government. I urge you to start discussing this issue, it's only this way that we might reach a consensus. And I also urge you to not revert the whole edit, since it contains several improvements aside from the disputed edit; You may simply edit what you disagree with the normal way if you wish. Silvrous (talk) 07:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
No heads of legislative body (these positions are of mere organizational nature), English name of the body (this is English Wikipedia). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

real and PPP GDP/capita

I have updated the real and the PPP GDP/capita values using the latest population data from the 2011 census. The values are obtained using the same IMF GDP and PPP GDP data (from the reference link), but dividing it by 19043 instead of 21412. Even if not perfect, I think these updated numbers are closer to the true value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.53.197.185 (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, unfortunately, what you have done constitutes original research. Wikipedia does not admit information you yourself have obtained, only second-party resources, such as reports, articles, journals etc. Since the previous number is referenced, it is best left alone, unless you can find a reliable source that reflects the new information after the referendum. Silvrous Talk 11:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Within and outside the Carpatian arch

I find the inclusion of that wording to be non-relevant, as the borders are already clearly stated. As I see it, the structure does nothing but confuse the reader. Silvrous Talk 19:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Regional languages

With great sadness,I inform you that there's no such thing as regional language in Romania.The only language that the state recognizes is the official one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 14:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That part of the infobox doesn't necessarily require official recognition from the country's government. It only needs reliable sources who state that there are significant numbers of native speakers of those languages in some or all regions of the country. And there are such very reliable sources.- Andrei (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

then don't make it look official.Put it at the demographic section or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vldtheimpaler (talk • contribs) 23:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean, "look official"? No official sources are cited there.- Andrei (talk) 14:36, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


I am sorry, this is not a matter of official or subversive, it is simply absurd and confusing. What is listed under "regional languages" is called "Minority languages", basta. Or can you tell me to which "region" Bulgarian belongs? Or Ucrainian, etc? Why confuse the people? When I read the name, I expected I will find something like Oltenian or Moldavian raised to the status of a regional languages, the "graiuri". But the language of some minorities which hardly have delimited regional extension, CANNOT be regional. I wanted to change that, but cannot find out why!PredaMi (talk) 00:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

GDP per capita

Czavoianu, I see your point, simple arithmetical division is not OR. Choosing the operands of that division, however, is. It's not at all obvious why the GDP per capita in 2012 should be calculated by using the GDP estimates of 2012 and the census results of 2011. We should leave that to reliable professional statisticians.- Andrei (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Reply.
The primary reason for which I presumed the division would be OK for everybody is that, in this way, we would maintain consistency. Now, we display an up-to-date total GDP, an up-to-date total population, and per capita values that are obviously not up-to-date (they are way too low). Since there seems to be a consensus regarding what is the "right total GDP" and what is the "right total population", I did not think the we needed "reliable professional statisticians" in order to perform a simple division. But if these are the strict wiki requirements, I guess we can wait for the next IMF, World Bank or Eurostat update.
The secondary reason for which I made the modification is that, although Romania is, undoubtedly, one of the poorest countries in the EU, I believe that the most up-to-date values of the GDP per capita, HDI, and Gini indicators reflect a little better the magnitude of the socio-economic differences: i.e., Romania itself seems to be actually not that poor compared to several other of its Eastern Europe neighbors, but the country also seems to display a quite unequal distribution of wealth.
I'm quite a newbie here and I'm sorry if I caused any inconveniences. I'll try to adhere to the wiki rules better in the future. (Czavoianu (talk) 12:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC))
Don't worry, you didn't cause any inconvenience, you are clearly of good faith; this is a case of a less than intuitive interpretation of WP:NOR which requires a bit of extra explanation, especially to someone not very familiar with Wikipedia. Here, we try not to impose our own opinions or conclusions on the readers, but rather to give them the facts that they need to draw their own conclusions. When it comes to numbers, we're even more thorough. That is why we insist on having the figures from reliable sources, especially when it comes to economical indicators.- Andrei (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Vlach is actually written as "Blac" in Gesta Hungarorum

Quotation: "Gesta Hungarorum mentioned the existence of three voivodeships in Transylvania in the 9th century: the Voivodeship of Gelou, the Voivodeship of Glad and the Voivodeship of Menumorut. The anonymous author describes the first as Vlach." WRONG: Anonymous mentioned "blac" people, starting it with letter B(anyone can check the original, it is mentioned always with "b" and never with a "v" at the beginning of the word). Only some modern scholars (mis)interpreted the original text and tried to identify those people with Vlachs.

"Blak" were actually the "bulach" people, which are identical to oguz-turk people. 81.183.245.214 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

This is very strange. Nistor Chronichle mentions them too at the same time. And the variants of the same name for the same people include "Blachos, Blachi, Welsch, Wallach, Vlah, Olah" and very obviously, the Blac people that you speak about. Blac and blaci seems to me closer than blach and bulach, or am I wrong? By the way, did anyone mention or encounter these bulach in the area in any other context? This seems an other indiosynchrasy of some nation, and nothing more.PredaMi (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:EddyVadim

This editor is making multiple unsourced changes to the Romania article today. Would someone more knowledgeable than me keep an eye on them as none of them are sourced or have an edit summary except one, which asks for proof of a statement already in the article. Britmax (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Subjective

Sure it's good to be proud of one's country, but to state that after the 'revolution' (most would agree that there was no such thing), "As of 2010, Romania is an upper-middle-income country with a high human development index", grossly misrepresents the country's economic situation. By any measure, the human development in the country has fallen, as for income levels, with the huge disparities that exist, averages mean little. Romania has one of the highest percentage of people living in poverty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.113.194.96 (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, until the recession Romanian economic growth was among the fastest in Europe. Alongside the Polish one. The human development in Romania has fallen since then but the country bounced back in only 3 years because of the IMF healthy measures which corrected the economy. So the human development index was high as of that year. For 2013-2014 the prognosis is good again indicating +3-3.5%. Check Europe's situation over the past years. All countries dropped. The lines are cited. And there wasn't a single article in the international press. I don't see any problem with it, it's not really exaggerated. Best regards. Christiangog Talk 17:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the HDI is not subjective at all, is it? The HDI is an indicator published by the UN, with a solid methodology, and we include it in articles about any country in the world. The numerical indices for the individual countries are broken up into categories, named "very high", "high", "medium" and "low". In 2011, Romania placed third below the breaking line between "very high" and "high". We could state that most other EU countries have a "very high" HDI, but these are not subjective opinions, they are classifications made by the UN, and are in line with our verifiability policy.- Andrei (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


The article on Romania is politically biased and contains questionable information, thus being unreliable, mostly in areas regarding current issues such as the living standard or the freedom of the press, but also in areas dealing with Romania's recent history. I strongly advise an urgent revision of this article, and please avoid the involvement of any presidential party members in the writing of this article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.137.13.151 (talk) 22:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Lex_Antiqua_Valachorum

Please comment on repeated massive deletions Staszek Lem (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add proper citations. Borsoka (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Batalia de la Chiraleş

The Romanians and the Pechenegs fought against Magyars in 1068 at Chiraleş, in Transilvania and finally lost the battle

Sources Русскій хронографъ, 2,Хронографъ Западно-Русской редакціи,in PSRL, XXII,2, Petrograd, 1914, p.211

V. Spinei, The Romanians and the Turkik nomads North of The Danube Delta from the Tenth to Mid Thirteen Century, Brill, 2009, p.118 Eurocentral (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read what WP:NOR means and read the cited reliable source again: the latter says that a late source (the Russian annals) refers to "Cumans and Vlachs" as fighting agains the Hungarians, but those who in fact fought in the battle were Pechenegs. Borsoka (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please do not mangle the true. It is obvious the chronicle wrote about pechenegs (Kun) and Vlachs. Even very known chronicles assimilated Cumans with Pechenegs. Why do you deny a chronicle ?Eurocentral (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And remember: Pechenegs took Romanians as auxiliary troops in all their campaigns. They dominated Romanian lands and forced local inhabitants to assist them in wars. Even Magyars forced Romanians to fight in their army ! Eurocentral (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read what WP:NOR means. Please also read carefully what Spinei actually state: "A west Russian chronograph misdated the raid to 1059, but blamed it on Cumans and Romanians. ... Historians now agree that the marauders... were Pechenegs ..." 1st statement: a late primary source writes of Cumans and Romans; 2nd statement: modern historians agree that they were in fact Pechenegs - consequently Spinei cannot be cited in order to substantiate that at Pechenegs and Vlachs fought together in the battle, because he does not state this. Accordingly, the above statement is OR which is not based on the seemingly referred reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Please cite all ! missing text may show your intention to hide the history ! The chronicle clear shows the participation of Romanians. Spinei discussed only the Pecheneg/Cuman confussion ! He never denied Romanian participation ! Eurocentral (talk) 08:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We need Spinei's clarification; the chronicle reference furnised by Spinei is not in a usual format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 08:07, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Please read again ! The discussion is about marauders Cuman/Pecheneg identification ! No word about Vlachs ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 08:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


Another Chronicle denied ! Readers, we have an interesting moment ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurocentral (talk • contribs) 08:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Facts:

1. An old Cronicle wrote about Romanian and Cuman participation in the Chiraleş battle.

2. Spinei showed that it is about Pechenegs and not Cumans. Cumans arrived later near Carpathes.

3. ERASING references shows subjective interpretation and "original opinions" about history.

Eurocentral (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The disputable TEXT:extracted from Spinei work:

One thing seems to be certain, namely that the marauders of 1068 were notUzes. A west-Russian chronograph misdated the raid to 1059, but blamed it on Cumans and Romanians (Валахи). The unknown authorof the Russian chronography then explained that Cumans were also called Половцы and Кум Historians now agree that the marauders of 1068 were Pechenegs and that those medieval authors who wrote of Cumans made a mistake, given that the ethnic name Cuni did not have a very clear meaning in the Latin-Hungarian chronicles.

So Spinei discussed only Cuman/Pecheneg confusion! Eurocentral (talk) 08:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

We should also add that there is only one source writing about the Vlachs plundering Transylvania with the nomads. All other sources (the Hungarian chronicles) do not refer to them. Borsoka (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


FINALLY THE HISTORY ELIMINATED THE MISINTERPRETATIONS. After Dux GELOU's battle, this is the second battle between Romanians and Magyars !. And it is not the last.

Anna Komnenos wrote in the Alexiadis about an expedition (1087) of the Scythians, Sarmatians and Dacians, at the North of the Danube against Magyar kingdom and against Roman Empire. Dacians may be Magyars or Vlachs after Anna. Usually the Vlachs (Romanians) were forced by Pechenegs and by Cumans to fight in their wars as auxilliary troops. So this is the third confruntation. The new debate will start soon. Eurocentral (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

??????????????? Please use reliable sources and read them more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 11:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Romanian film critic and translator Irina Margareta Nistor

To the editors on this page: I am trying to set up a new page on Irina Margareta Nistor. I understand she was well known during the Communist regime, for translating Western films for illegal distribution on VHS tapes. She now works as a film critic and seems to be well regarded in the Romanian film industry. However, my knowledge of Romania is limited, and I am hoping to find sourced material about her. What I can find[2] tends to be in Romanian, so I can't read what it says. I would appreciate any help from editors knowledgable about Romania. The WP page I am working on is at Irina Margareta Nistor. Thanks M Stone (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)


Longest Average Prison Sentence

How come there is no mention of the longest average prison sentences in Romania? The average prison sentence is 37,488 years as reported by http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Sentence-Length. This is a huge outlier and should be addressed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.19.99 (talk • contribs)

What do you mean? I've read a lot of Wikipedia articles about countries and in none of them is this indicator shown. Also, the page you indicate does not specify the methodology by which this indicator is calculated, nor does it specify the unit (what makes you think it's in years? or is it years/convicted person? or total years of sentence of all convicted criminals?). As the website you cite states, it is a compilation of data from multiple sources, but the exact sources of this statistic data is not specified anywhere, so it generally fails WP:VER, so we cannot include it in any article on any country. If it is a huge outlier, I think it should be best addressed and explained by the authors of Nationmaster.com, especially since the Romanian legal system is not too different from the ones in other EU states, whose number is a few orders of magnitude smaller.- Andrei (talk) 14:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Facts about economy and democracy in Romania

After the Soviet Union fell, the Romanian Revolution did one thing to separate themselves from Soviet rule: they executed Caucescu. Problem solved. In fact, among the Soviet "satellite" countries, Romania's transition to self-rule was the "cleanest" in executing Caucescu, the Soviet puppet leader. I can't imagine why those facts are not a part of the article. In addition, Albania is the only European country that's "poorer" or has a "weaker" economy than Romania, another fact that the article glosses over or ignores. 2601:7:1C80:28:B079:25BF:80E2:9408 (talk) 05:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding economy, I think your facts are a bit old. What you say may have been valid in the early 1990s, but things evolved a lot in terms of economy. First of all, there are other European countries with poorer economy than Romania, many of which are in its vicinity. Montenegro, Serbia, Macedonia, Moldova and Ukraine spring to mind, while Bulgaria is about on par. It's hard to compare two economies to see which is richer, that is why there are indicators for that, each with its own methodology and with different values depending on the data used to compute them: one of them is the GDP (PPP) per capita. There are also other indices to measure the quality of life, indices that take into account aspects of the society other than economy: the HDI, the Press Freedom Index, the Corruption Perception Index. What we can do in the article is state these indices and make obvious observations based on them, but we cannot extrapolate too much, as we could wander into OR teritory.
How "clean" was the transition to democracy in Romania and the role of Ceaușescu's execution is a matter of debate. What you call here a fact sounds more like your own opinion, especially since you're not backing it with any sources. In any event, in Romanian society many of those who wrote on the subject of the 1989 revolution argue that the execution of the Ceaușescus was the result of a typical communist-style power-struggle, by which the second echelon of the RCP purged the top leadership in order to grab power for itself while keeping an appearance of liberalism ("communism with a human face"), while the students' demonstrations in the following year, coupled with the split of the NSF and with the slow but steady ascension of the democratic opposition and the independent press through the 1990s were also key factors that actually pushed Romania towards democracy.- Andrei (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Go read Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia. Nergaal (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Romania/GA5. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 13:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


I'll leave some initial comments within 48 hours and will mainly focus on copyediting issues, but given the article's size I'll be doing a full review. Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 13:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the wait, I'll read through and leave some comments now. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 20:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Lead

  • Opening sentence can be improved. "Romania formerly also spelled Roumania and Rumania" - not grammatically great. How about something like Romania, formerly spelled Roumania, and also Rumania
  • "Since then, the living standards have seen a vast improvement" - since when? Since the 1989 revolution? Or its independence from the Soviet Union?
  • "Romania has an economy predominantly based on services" - what kind of services?
  • Overall the lead is well written and proportionate, however bearing in mind the size of this article make sure that the lead summarises almost every section. As far as I can tell, it adequately summarises the article well (improvements since last time), so this complies per WP:LEAD and meets the GA criteria.

History

  • "the territories were inhabited by Dacians, a branch of Thracian people" - a branch of the Thracian people
  • "During the 3rd century AD" - no need to say its AD, this should read During the third century
  • "most Romanians were awarded few rights" - awarded? How about 'given'?
  • "Romania remained neutral for the first two years of the World War I" - of the World War I? You mean of the First World War?
  • There are two citation needed tags in the World Wars and Greater Romania section. Need to destroy them!
  • "Romania ranked second in Europe and seventh in the world. and was Europe's second-largest food producer." - syntax error

Administrative divisions

  • "The municipality of Bucharest is a special case as it enjoys a status on par to that of a county" - how about uses/employs/shares?

Economy

  • "After joining the EU in 2007, Romania is expected to adopt the euro sometimes around 2020" - sometime
  • "There were almost 13 million connections to the Internet in 2012" - internet shouldn't be capitalised
  • "According to Bloomberg, in 2013 Romania ranked 5th in the world and 2nd in Europe in terms of internet connection speed" - "fifth" and "second" respectively

Demographics

  • There's another citations needed tag here
  • The prose appears good here, so no problems in this section

Culture

References

  • Ref 22 is dead since 2008
  • Ref 68 is broken, leads to another page
  • Ref 112 is broken
  • Ref 111 is another 404 error
  • Ref 130, Ref 146, Ref 152, Ref 155, Ref 184 and Ref 196 are all dead!
  • This is the main concern. You can check all of the dead refs here. They all either need to be deleted/replaced before this can meet the GA criteria. However the citations are in the correct places, so that part meets the GA criteria.
  • Make sure all book titles are italicised

WP:ENGVAR

Which variant of English does this article use? For an article of this size, it has to use one form of English (either American or British spelling in this case). I'm seeing British suffixes used in some cases (ie. Romanisation) and American spelling in others ("colonization"). I don't know what form of English this article started in, but it should use one form only.

On hold

This is the 933rd most viewed article on Wikipedia, gaining 160371 views last month. There is much to applaud to this article, it is vastly comprehensive, focused and well referenced (despite the current number of link rots). I note that this is also its fifth GAN, and being Romani myself this article is well deserved to finally become GA. The things standing in the way of this becoming a Good Article are the issues with the references and everything else I had mentioned above. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and once they have all been addressed I'll take another look. Thanks, ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Nergaal: I don't know if you've seen this yet? ☠ Jaguar ☠ 21:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I have just deleted a "source" published in 1896. Ghyka wrote his book more than 150 years ago. Ghyka's work is not a reliable source. It should be deleted too. As you see the early history section is very badly written. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

A little off-topic remark to User:Jaguar: what do you mean by "being Romani myself"? I hope you are aware that the Romani people and the Romanian people are completely differnt peoples. Bagnume (talk) 23:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am Romani (or some might say Roma), not Romanian at all! I don't like usually telling anyone but I like to think on wiki it is a little less judgemental! I am Irish-Romani, or at least my family are. Hope that clears things despite being off topic! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 00:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
User:Jaguar, I don't despise you for being a Romani. I just had the impression that you hinted that Romania would be the motherland of Romani people. I am sorry if you fell offended. I'd like to close this off-tpoic parenthesis. Bagnume (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Close - not listed

I'm sorry to do this, but there has been little movement and responses from this GAN so far and there are still many pressing concerns before this article can meet the GA criteria. But don't worry, this isn't the end. I would love to see Romania gain its well deserved GA status, and if any of you wish to renominate this GAN, you could ask me and I will give it a speedy review (seeing that the concerns I mentioned above are the only things stopping this from becoming a GA). It has been eight days since the review opened and currently it does not meet the criteria, but rest assured it is close.

As I said, if you want to renominate this I promise I would give it a quick review. For the time being it's almost there. Regards ☠ Jaguar ☠ 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Migratory peoples and natives

Does this distinction between the "migratory peoples" and "natives" exist in modern (I mean late 20th-century and 21th-century) academic works? What does a migratory population mean? Who are the natives? Borsoka (talk) 14:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

For Fakirbakir: this is the original quote from Boia (source: Google Books): "Many of the 'migratory peoples' in question did not simply pass through but settled, cohabiting, and finally mixing with, the native population" Bagnume (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Xenopol

Are you sure there is nothing wrong to use Xenopol as a reliable source? His work is only 118 years old. Fakirbakir (talk) 23:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Speculation as to motives of others

The article makes the following statement in Wikipedia's voice:

After the Romanian Revolution of 1989, a significant number of Romanians emigrated to other European countries, North America or Australia, because of better working conditions and academic possibilities offered abroad.

Such a statement needs to be supported by independent sources and WP:ATTRIButed as appropriate, especially since it appears to speculate about the motives of a "significant" number of people. As it stands right now, this statement does not pass WP standards. The only reason why I did not remove it wholesale is because I think there may be sources to support parts of it and is a reminder for myself and other editors to keep an eye out for such sources. However, if none are forthcoming, this claim should be removed. Mihaister (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

About 'Dracula's Castle'....

It's hideously offensive that the page for an entire country lists only one tourist attraction, and the one attraction it does list is the consummate stereotype Dracula's Castle.

Yes, Bran Castle is famous in Romania and abroad, but we should either add more famous attractions (maybe 3. not too hard) or cut the "tourist attractions" out of the header entirely.

Mulțumesc! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.36.136.249 (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting massive changes

Over the past 2 months a lot changes were made to the article by a suspected sock puppet (see here. I suggest we return the page to the way it was prior to the suspected sock puppet went to work changing it.13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

He has indeed been disruptive, but his changes were mostly reverted, and other improvements have been made to the article (not just by me) in the meantime. I think we would lose more that what we gain by reverting.- Andrei (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
He's back.- Andrei (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I apologise. I am not a vandal please believe me. Galleries are not allowed? Why, because I saw exactly the same on France if I am not wrong. I only tried to improve the aspect. So I feld sad because those nice pictures were removed. I just did not know the rules. Gratzian (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the image gallery in the Tourism section and the yellow maintenance tag on the article will prevent Romania from being listed on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 9 for its independence day. —howcheng {chat} 18:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed. Also please note that May 9 is not necessarily Romania's Independence Day. By tradition, Independence Day was celebrated on May 10 between 1877 and 1947. In 1877, Romania was declared independent by domnitor Carol on May 10, which was also his own coronation day. Because of this (and its own anti-monarchical and initially pro-Soviet stance), the Communist regime chose to move the celebration of Romania's independence to May 9 (by professing that in fact a speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the Parliament that took place in that day was the declaration of independence). Recently, the Romanian Parliament reinstated May 10 as Independence Day, and we should probably move that to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 10.- Andrei (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Will do. —howcheng {chat} 07:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The English needs massive editorial work

At the moment, much of the article reads like a translation from Romanian by a non-native, and frankly is pretty dreadful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 08:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured Article

Friends, turn this as a featured article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.9.20.149 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

proposed change

change "the French spelling Roumanie and/or the Greek Ρουμανία, as recently" into "the French spelling Roumanie and/or the Hellenic Ρουμανία (Roumania), as recently". Christina Neofotistou (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

John Hunyadi, Matthias Corvinus and Transylvania

John Hunyadi was regent of the whole Kingdom of Hungary (including Transylvania, Banat, Maramures, Crisana, Croatia, Slavonia) and Matthias Corvinus was king of the same kingdom. Why do we emphasize their connection with Transylvania? Borsoka (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Why not bro? The Hunyadis are heavily mentioned by the Romanian sources because they had Romanian ancestry. SIMPLY because they were rulers of Transylvania too. They were important for the development of Transylvania. Do you want me to write Hungarians of Romanian ancestry? Because I can do that if you want. If it's unclear they were Romanians of Transylvania. Maybe they were mixed or so, but I think the legend is true. Why to make them of Romanian ancestry? In the phrase it's RULERS NOT ROMANIAN RULERS. A bunch of Romanian rulers and these two that we appreciate (they have Hungarian name anyway on the Wikipedia article). E546cuf5 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. I understand. We can say that Stephen the Great was an important ruler of Bessarabia (because Bessarabia was part of the Principality of Moldavia at that time) and Mircea the Old was a successful ruler of Oltenia (because Oltenia was included in the Principality of Wallachia). Borsoka (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Only there was no such title as "voivod of Oltenia" (only ban, but it's completely irrelevant), whereas John Hunyadi was indeed voivode of Transylvania, and he was from Transylvania. I would aso appreciate if you would refrain from disrupting the editing of this article to prove a point. It doesn't help. - Andrei (talk) 08:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above message. Who wrote of a "voivode of Oltenia"? Who disrupted the editing of this article? Borsoka (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody disrupted anything. He is just being self-important.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk • contribs)

Borsoka, that remark was not directed at you. It was for E546cuf5.- Andrei (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Protection of this page

I think this page should have semi-protection due to high level of vandalism. Luigi97 (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 15 external links on Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked links to web archives. All good except numbers 1, 5, and 6. Mihaister (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
updated checked parameter above to true. Mihaister (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Name of the state

See http://legeaz.net/constitutia-romaniei/articolul-1-constitutie : its name is simply Romania, not Republic Romania. It is indeed a republic, but that is not used in its official name. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed "Patron Saint"

Religious item, non relevant for the right side descriptin table, non-standard for other countries.

Almost all the european countries have Patron Saint, so why shouldn't Romania? Luigi97 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Luigi97 - 'Religious item, non relevant for the right side descriptin [sic] table.' The answer is in the premise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.251.195 (talk) 12:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Rumania

Why is the common English alternative spelling "Rumania" not mentioned anywhere in the article? A quick search on Google books reveals thousands of instances of this spelling e.g. Rumania by Kormos (2014), Rumania by the ITA (1975), Rumania's Sacrifice by Negulesco (2010), Dances of Rumania by Grindea (1952), Folk Art in Rumania by Zdercuic etc (1964), Communism in Rumania by Ionescu (1976), What We Saw in Rumania by Johnson (1948), Holocaust in Rumania by Carp (1994), Rumania's violations of the Helsinki final act provisions by CHR (1980), The Great Powers and Rumania by Saiu (1992), The Justice of Rumania's Cause by Leeper (2009), etc, etc. And those are just book titles. Surely it has to be worth a mention iaw WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OTHERNAMES? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Secular

Per WP:BLUE, Romania is a secular state, i.e. not a theocracy. It has no state church or state religion or official religion, although most Romanians are nominally Eastern Orthodox. This means that the state does not rubber stamp the decisions of the Romanian Orthodox Church, nor that the state dictates its dogmas or its policy (but it has to abide by the law, as all inhabitants and local organizations have to do). All recognized religions/denominations receive support from the state, on a democratic basis (i.e. according to membership). The Constitution of Romania stipulates freedom of conscience and religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Romanian Treasure

There is no mention of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 10:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Fake referencing

Dear User:Rgvis, please stop adding fake references, an action that could be easily construed as vandalism. There's nothing whatsoever in the links you provided to support the supposed "jurisdiction" of the Romanian Orthodox Church anywhere. In case you have trouble understanding terms of the English language, please check the corresponding article in simple English. Thank you.Anonimu (talk) 12:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Please be advised that any references provided are based on Core content policies. Unfortunately, it seems you have just started an edit warring. Please, stop WP:VD this article!
Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 14:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC))
Anonimu is technically right: the word "jurisdiction" is missing from both of your sources. My suggestion: use another word. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
See e.g. how the word is used in ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "sources" blatantly fail WP:Verifiability, with the appaent intent to violate WP:NPOV. Being WP:BOLD and removing fake sources is not vandalism, unlike misinforming WP readers.Anonimu (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no evidence of "Fake referencing" in all these sources!
Obviously, the term used to describe these situations is canonical (ecclesiastical) jurisdiction. Actually, the first source [3] is very clear about the general context:

Moldova’s religious landscape is made up primarily of Christians (96 percent), of whom approximately 93 percent are Orthodox and belong to either the Moldovan Orthodox Church (MOC) or the Bessarabian Orthodox Church (BOC) – the latter having received autonomy from the Romanian Orthodox in the late 1990s.

The second reference [4] is part of the BOT extended case at the European Court of Human Rights; for example, in the same case, from another source, we have the following:

FACT The first applicant, the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, is an autonomous Orthodox Church having canonical jurisdiction in the territory of the Republic of Moldova.

Although the "jurisidiction" term is already (very clear) referenced in the third source provided ([5]), it also may be found in many other references, too: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc..
Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC))
Perhaps I wasn't very clear: ecclesiastical jurisdiction means something like canon law courts or sharia courts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
:) Please, pay attention to the meaning of canonical jurisdiction in the Orthodoxy; the territorial jurisdiction term according to Orthodox Canon Law as explained by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople ([11]):

The boundaries of the patriarchates are geographical and nothing more.

Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 08:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC))
Sorry, there's no such thing in the first source: the fact that some Christians in Moldova voluntarily agree to accept the decision of the BOC doesn't establish jurisdiction on that territory. So the reference is BLATANTLY FAKE SOURCING.
The second source also makes no mention of any "jurisdiction". So another CLEARLY FAKE REFERENCE.
As User:Tgeorgescu pointed out, there's a clear difference between Jurisdiction and Ecclesiastical jurisdiction. While the first is pretty clear and established in law, the second is based only on the claim of a religious organisation, proved by the many overlapping claims. Unlike jurisdiction, "ecclesiastical jurisdiction" is just part of the internal organisation of a church (not unlike regional representatives of a commercial enterprise). Furthermore, considering there's a conflict between various Orthodox churches regarding who has "ecclesiastical jurisdiction" over Moldova, taking a side and presenting the claim of the Romanian Orthodox Church as fact would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV.Anonimu (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This is not orthodoxwiki.org, we are required to edit according to the fundamental principles of Wikipedia, not according to cannon law as established by a religious organisations.Anonimu (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
There are already more than two sources added, but you prefer to remain in your personal biased opinion, and ignor everything else. :) Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC))
As per, Talk:Romania: Revision history, it seems that User:Anonimu started vandalising this talk section first by changing the order of comments of other users (09:04, 29 December 2016‎ Anonimu), and then, by deleting them (10:20, 29 December 2016‎ Anonimu). This is a clear evidence of Wikipedia:Vandalism. Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 11:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC))
Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is something like debating a marriage in a religious court. Common law countries and Israel have such courts, but not Romania and Moldova. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:16, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
They do not trump state courts, they are more like religious matters and related issues (e.g. marriage) arbitration. See e.g. https://fullfact.org/law/uks-sharia-courts/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It is a criminal offense for Jews in Israel to marry in weddings performed outside the state’s religious authority, and doing so can result in a jail sentence of up to two years. [[Hiddush]] ranked Israel as the only Western democracy that is on a par with Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic states in relation to freedom of marriage. Hiddush also found that almost two thirds of Israeli Jews do not know that Israeli Jewish couples who marry in civil ceremonies overseas can, according to Israeli law, only get divorced through the Israeli Orthodox Rabbinical Courts.<ref>[http://www.timesofisrael.com/in-ottoman-holdover-israel-doubles-down-on-marriage-restrictions/ In Ottoman holdover, Israel doubles down on marriage restrictions] The Times of Israel, June 2, 2016</ref>

— Marriage in Israel
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk)
Once again (it seems, you have not read my previous messages), the meaning of canonical jurisdiction in the Orthodoxy is different. For example (if you are interested in this subject), the territorial jurisdiction term according to Orthodox Canon Law, in the opinion of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, is: Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law.
Anyway, we are not here to debate about the philosophy or customs of different religions; I have already updated the text and added a reference (European Court of Human Rights - Case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia) which (on page 4) is very clear about the published material.
Thank you, (Rgvis (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC))

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Romania/GA6. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FriyMan (talk · contribs) 18:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

I, FriyMan am reviewing this article. I will make the improvements, in case they are needed.

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. 
No issues at all!
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. 
No problems here either.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. 
Yes, this page meets the layout standards.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). 
11 dead links in references! That needs major improvement. (Check external links tool)
2c. it contains no original research. 
As far as I can tell, the page doesn't have any original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. 
It would be hard to plagiarise something here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. 
This article does address main aspects of its topic (Like history, geography, economy and so on)
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). 
This article covers quite a broad topic, but it does not go into unnecessary detail.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. 
This article had some POV issues in the past, but they were fixed. (See talk page)
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. 
This article had seen few conflicts in the past, but they were resolved.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. 
Nothing problematic in this section.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. 
Yes, all the pictures are relevant and have captions.
7. Overall assessment. 
 This article had few issues in the past, but the problems have been resolved. Even though it has 11 dead links, it is still a good quality article.

Comment from Ritchie333

  • As a follow-up to Ritchie333, the article was nominated with a great many "citation needed" templates still active, nearly all of which are still in the article, and was nominated by a new editor to the article who had made three edits (one a reversion) prior to nominating yet without asking the regular editors for their assessment as per WP:GANI. That many "citation needed" templates is grounds for a quickfail per the GA criteria, so I believe Ritchie333 has done the right thing in reverting the above review's passage and failing it instead, since it should have been failed under 2b, or at the absolute minimum put on hold for those sourcing issues to have been fixed. There may well have been other issues. Unfortunately, in his first review, FriyMan did not do an adequate job; I recommend that he gain quite a bit more experience at Wikipedia, and nominate one of his own articles for GA and experience the process from the other side before attempting any further GA reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Pending Change Review

Because I don't know what is legit additions and sneaky vandalism (I can identify the latter, but not the former), I'll leave PCR up to you guys. Ping me if you don't have the right and need something accepted. L3X1 (distant write) 15:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 43 external links on Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania/Archive_11&oldid=1137162680"