Talk:Romania/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Size

After two years at 240 thousand bytes, we’re now at 252, with the growth starting April 1. FA Germany is 198, and FA Bulgaria is 208. It seems an ideal size is around 200. — Biruitorul ^Talk 08:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ninhursag3: the article is about Romania, not about the History of Romania or about the Origins of the Romanians. Why do you think that this article should present less important details of the history of the country or the ethnogenesis of the Romanian people? Please read carefully WP:Summary before answering my questions. Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I wanted to add some context to the Vlachs/Romanians that were mentioned in the History section but I get it, I will resume to the "Romanians" wikipedia page. I was wondering if it was too much. I saw quite a few paragraphs that should have been in the "Origins of the Romanians" in the "Romania" page that took valuable space as well.

Sorry for adding so much on "Romania"'s "History" section >.< Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the circa 7000 characters referencing Vlachs/Romanians mostly living in the South of the Danube in the Middle Ages in "Romania" wikipedia page. However, the Simon of Keza and the Pechenegs text referenced Romanians living in the territory North of the Danube, hence why it's important for "Romania"'s "History" section. Plus, the text is brief and concise, it doesn't expand much on the topic. Ninhursag3 (talk) 14:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, I didn’t say what should be cut; I don’t necessarily have a preference on that score. But there should be cuts, as a general matter. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello, @Borsoka deleted a perfectly good link for reading online "History of Transylvania Volume 1: From Dacia to Transylvania: The Period of the Great Migrations (271–895); The Hungarian–Slav Period (895–1172) chapter 6: "Southern Transylvania under Bulgar Rule": https://mek.oszk.hu/03400/03407/html/49.html

This part was written by Hungarian Historian István Bóna.

That clearly talks about Balkan Latins/Vlachs under Bulgar Rule (that covered most of the territory of Romania today) in the 8th and 9th centuries, not the 11th century. What authority does @Borsoka have to deny my link? What other links where I can read the book online does she have? This seems like an abuse of power on the part of @Borsoka.

What she kept is: " Scholars who reject the Daco-Roman continuity theory say that the first Vlach groups left their Balkan homeland for the mountain pastures of the eastern and southern Carpathians in the 11th century, establishing the Romanians' presence in the lands to the north of the Lower Danube." They give reference to the same book written by the same Hungarian Historian, István Bóna. So is it "rule for thee, not for me"? Why is the 11th century claim coming from István Bóna, accepted but the 8th and 9th century coming from István Bóna, not accepted? Ninhursag3 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

1. Bóna does not write of Vlachs/Romanians living in Transylvania in the 8th-9th century. 2. I fixed the citation template with the link. Borsoka (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. HE does. He also mentions a local Balkanic population in Southern Transylvania in the 8th and 9th centuries based on grave sites:

"The Bulgar empire on the Danube had a mixed population that consisted principally of Bulgaro-Turks (whose language began to acquire Slavic characteristics in the 9th {1-269.} century), various Slavic tribes, and the Balkan Latins (Vlachs). One of the fundamental goals of the early Bulgar khanate's empire-building policy was to resettle the various ethnic groups. In the case of Transylvania, the answer lies in burial rituals, for the graves contained skeletons; and there is general agreement that in Danubian Bulgaria's 'pagan' cemeteries of the 8th–9th centuries, these graves held the remains of Bulgaro-Turks. To be sure, cemeteries of this type were less numerous than those that cremation and double rites identify with the Slavic and local Balkanic population; but they reflect the ornate, 'nomadic' attire and wealth of a dominant group. It is therefore likely that Bulgaro-Turk soldiers and their families — the ethnic group that gave the empire its name — were present in Transylvania, a militarily and economically insecure border zone." Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:10, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Could you please read the last sentence from your quote? It contains Bóna's conclusion and there is no reference to Slavs, Vlachs or "local Balkan population". Borsoka (talk) 09:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence yes, the conclusion concerns only Bulgaro-Turk soldiers, and he uses words like "likely".

That doesn't mean we should ignore what he said above: "The Bulgar empire on the Danube had a mixed population that consisted principally of Bulgaro-Turks (whose language began to acquire Slavic characteristics in the 9th {1-269.} century), various Slavic tribes, and the Balkan Latins (Vlachs)." And " In the case of Transylvania, the answer lies in burial rituals, for the graves contained skeletons; and there is general agreement that in Danubian Bulgaria's 'pagan' cemeteries of the 8th–9th centuries, these graves held the remains of Bulgaro-Turks. To be sure, cemeteries of this type were less numerous than those that cremation and double rites identify with the Slavic and local Balkanic population; but they reflect the ornate, 'nomadic' attire and wealth of a dominant group." Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Nobody ignores the quoted text. Borsoka (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

He does not wrote that Vlachs was in Transylvania but he emphasize the local Slavs, presence of Bulgaro-Turk soldiers, (also I think Daco-Roman theory does not claim that the Bulgarians would bring the Vlachs to Transylvania), Balcan Vlachs clearly shows us the location of that Vlachs = the Balcan:

"Fortunately, there are other, archaeological sources that throw light on Bulgar rule in Transylvania"

"the Slav-Bulgar finds reveal the links between Bulgaria and Transylvania."

"Danubian Bulgars established outpost settlements as they advanced towards Transylvania."

"There is no information in historical sources regarding the background of the settlers. The Bulgar empire on the Danube had a mixed population that consisted principally of Bulgaro-Turks (whose language began to acquire Slavic characteristics in the 9th {1-269.} century), various Slavic tribes, and the Balkan Latins (Vlachs). One of the fundamental goals of the early Bulgar khanate's empire-building policy was to resettle the various ethnic groups. In the case of Transylvania, the answer lies in burial rituals, for the graves contained skeletons; and there is general agreement that in Danubian Bulgaria's 'pagan' cemeteries of the 8th–9th centuries, these graves held the remains of Bulgaro-Turks. To be sure, cemeteries of this type were less numerous than those that cremation and double rites identify with the Slavic and local Balkanic population; but they reflect the ornate, 'nomadic' attire and wealth of a dominant group. It is therefore likely that Bulgaro-Turk soldiers and their families — the ethnic group that gave the empire its name — were present in Transylvania, a militarily and economically insecure border zone."

He mentions only settled Bulgaro-Turks and local Slavs in Transylvania: "There is some significance in the very fact that the sparse traces of the Bulgaro-Turks who had been resettled into Transylvania do not reveal much about their relations with the local Slav population." OrionNimrod (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Also I think Daco-Roman theory does not claim that the Bulgarians would bring the Vlachs to Transylvania), Balcan Vlachs clearly shows us the location of that Vlachs = the Balcan"

If "you think" and don't know for sure means you mainly read anti-Daco-Roman continuity theories and didn't bother much with the pro-Daco-Roman continuity theory. Who said I'm pro Daco-Roman continuity? I just said that saying Vlachs migrated to Transylvania in the 11th and 12th centuries when Béla IV of Hungary's land grant to the Knights Hospitallers in Oltenia and Muntenia mentions that the local Vlach rulers were subject to the king's authority in 1247. That means they have been "local" before the Hungarians. So the Vlachs of the 8th, 9th centuries being brought by the Bulgarian Empire to mine, sell and transport salt justifies the Vlachs being called in 1247 "local".

Take into consideration that István Bóna's only sources in that period are archaeological finds. Since the archaeological finds show that Vlachs and Slavs were part of the Bulgarian Empire of course those "settlers" that mined the salt and sold it throughout the Bulgarian Empire were a mix of Vlachs and Slavs that had cultural influence from the Bulgars.

István Bóna is a bit too vague when he talks about those "settlers", it makes sense for the conquered Slavs and Vlachs to be those "settlers". Especially because the Vlachs spoke a form of Latin that helped a lot in selling salt throughout the Bulgarian Empire and Latin still held a lot of importance as a lingua franca and language of the church throughout Europe. Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR editors cannot share their own thoughts and conclusions in articles, and they are especially forbidden to present their own views as scholarly views. As Bóna's conclusion differs from your conclusion, we have no other choice than paraphrasing Bóna's words in the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

So the settlers' ethnicity will not be mentioned. I will edit that out. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

@Ninhursag3: could you refer to modern works about the history of Romania published in English that do not mention the concurring theories about the Romanians' ethnogenesis? Why do you think that the fact that the Romanians' ancestors possibly appeared in the lands now forming in Romania in the 11th-12th centuries is irrelevant in the article's context? Borsoka (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I just think that we have the wikipedia page "Origins of the Romanians" to write those theories, pro or anti Daco-Roman continuity. What we know for sure is that the Vlachs inside the Bulgarian Empire and that in the 8th, 9th centuries they conquered Transylvania and exploited the salt mines and used the conquered people to do that job (the Slavs and Vlachs were conquered people in the Bulgarian Empire).

Take into consideration that István Bóna's only sources in that period are archaeological finds. Since the archaeological finds show that Vlachs and Slavs were part of the Bulgarian Empire of course those "settlers" that mined the salt and sold it throughout the Bulgarian Empire were a mix of Vlachs and Slavs that had cultural influence from the Bulgars.

István Bóna is a bit too vague when he talks about those "settlers", it makes sense for the conquered Slavs and Vlachs to be those "settlers". Especially because the Vlachs spoke a form of Latin that helped a lot in selling salt throughout the Bulgarian Empire and Latin still held a lot of importance as a lingua franca and language of the church throughout Europe. This was before the Bulgars adopted the Slavic language as their state language in 893 (end of the 9th century). Ninhursag3 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• 1. Yes, those theories are presented in that article such as the History of Romania is presented in a separate article. 2. Your above words about the First Bulgarian Empire are not verified by scholarly works. Indeed they contradict scholarly works cited in the article. 3. We are not here to share our own thoughts but to share knowledge based on scholarly works. Borsoka (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  The scholarly work mentions " "The Bulgar empire on the Danube had a mixed population that consisted principally of Bulgaro-Turks (whose language began to acquire Slavic characteristics in the 9th {1-269.} century), various Slavic tribes, and the Balkan Latins (Vlachs). One of the fundamental goals of the early Bulgar khanate's empire-building policy was to resettle the various ethnic groups. In the case of Transylvania, the answer lies in burial rituals, for the graves contained skeletons; and there is general agreement that in Danubian Bulgaria's 'pagan' cemeteries of the 8th–9th centuries, these graves held the remains of Bulgaro-Turks. To be sure, cemeteries of this type were less numerous than those that cremation and double rites identify with the Slavic and local Balkanic population; but they reflect the ornate, 'nomadic' attire and wealth of a dominant group."

  Not only István Bóna mentions Vlachs as being part of the Bulgarian Empire but also that "'One of the fundamental goals of the early Bulgar khanate's empire-building policy was to resettle the various ethnic groups". Also that the conquered people of the Bulgarian Empire mined in salt mines in Southern Transylvania. While István Bóna remains vague about the people who worked in the salt mines and sold and transported the salt, the only logical conclusion is that they were the conquered Slavs and Vlachs that had Bulgar cultural influence. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  So by adding "likely" in "the conquered people of the Bulgar Empire the Slavs and Vlachs)" becoming "the conquered people of the Bulgar Empire (likely the Slavs and Vlachs)". Would that be accepted by you? Because the Bulgarians were the conquerors and would make the conquered do the salt mining and transport. The only conquered people that still lived in that region were the Slavs and Balkan Latin/Vlachs. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Just so you know, I'm not pro Daco-Roman theory but I'm not for anti-Daco-Roman theory either that says the Vlachs settled in Transylvania in the 11th and 12th century. That's very convenient since Hungarians conquered the Carpathian Basin in 907 AD and established the Kingdom of Hungary in year 1000. So just a little bit before the Vlachs, which is very convenient. Vlachs couldn't have just settled North of the Danube in the 11th or 12th century and be called "local" in 1247. (Béla IV of Hungary's land grant to the Knights Hospitallers in Oltenia and Muntenia mentions that the local Vlach rulers were subject to the king's authority in 1247.) Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No, Bóna does not verify the wording you suggest above. That Vlachs may have lived in Transylvania before the Magya conquest is already mentined in the article. That an editor prefers a scholarly theory is not a problem as far as they follow our community's basic rules, such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the ethnicity of the settlers/miners, is that now okay? Also, the images from the Prehistory and Antiquity section were all put into the Middle Ages section, needs fixing. Ninhursag3 (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

No because the statement in the article is not verified by the cited source (Bóna). Borsoka (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"The First Bulgarian Empire had a mixed population consisting of the Bulgar conquerors, Slavs and Balkan Latins/Vlachs but the Slavicisation of the Bulgar elite had already begun in the 9th century." Is what you rewrote.

Tell me what is wrong with my sentennces: " Following the conquest of Southern Transylvania in the 8th and 9th centuries based on archaeological finds as well as a document from 892, settlers from the Bulgar Empire mined salt from mines in Turda, Ocna Mureș, Sărățeni and Ocnița. They traded and transported salt throughout the Bulgar Empire."

It's almost word for word from István Bóna: "Following the conquest, which must have occurred around 830, the Bulgars established settlements along the Maros. The settlers, who enjoyed military protection (grave with spurs at Tatárlaka), were charged with the task of putting back into production the salt mines at Marosújvár, Mezőakna, Sóvárad, and Torda, and to organize the transport of salt on the Maros River. Some of the shipments, towed along the Tisza to Csongrád, went to the Moravians, but most of them were directed downstream towards Belgrade. Since the bulk of the salt was probably shipped to the Bulgar khanate on the Lower Danube, the settlers had easy access to Bulgar products and luxury articles (jewellery). The Bulgar empire on the Danube had a mixed population that consisted principally of Bulgaro-Turks (whose language began to acquire Slavic characteristics in the 9th {1-269.} century), various Slavic tribes, and the Balkan Latins (Vlachs). One of the fundamental goals of the early Bulgar khanate's empire-building policy was to resettle the various ethnic groups. "

Please tell me what is wrong with my wording (on English wikipedia the names of the salt mines are in Romanian, not in Hungarian if that's the problem). Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The rest from István Bóna: "Only a single piece of information, dating from 892, evokes the Bulgars' rule in Transylvania. King Arnulf's envoys requested that the Bulgar Khan 'Laodimir' (Vladimir) 'not allow the Moravians to buy (and transport) salt' ('Ne coemptio salis inde Maravanis daretur').[20] This indicates that in the 9th century, the Bulgars had taken possession of some of Transylvania's salt mines and traded in the salt mined by their subjects.

Fortunately, there are other, archaeological sources that throw light on Bulgar rule in Transylvania: the recently identified traces, dating from the 8th and 9th centuries, of the Bulgar khanate." Ninhursag3 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Bóna does not write that the Bulgars seized Transylvania before the 830s. Borsoka (talk) 05:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Actually he does: "Fortunately, there are other, archaeological sources that throw light on Bulgar rule in Transylvania: the recently identified traces, dating from the 8th and 9th centuries, of the Bulgar khanate. "

And then he says: "Perhaps it was a unit that veered away from the Tisza in the direction of Transylvania; one of its chiefs, Tarkan Onega(bon) of the Küviar clan, drowned in the Tisza. Or, perhaps, it was another detachment that came up along the Olt River. Following the conquest, which must have occurred around 830, the Bulgars established settlements along the Maros."

You could say he contradictis himself. He says archaeological Bulgar finds are from the 8th, 9th century but that the Bulgars conquered Transylvania in about 830. Maybe some Bulgars were already in Transylvania before the official conquest of it around 830? István Bóna implies that. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:41, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

But yes the official conquest of a big part of Transylvania in István Bóna's opinion was in 830 AD. I adjusted it. Hope now there's not gonna be any problems. Ninhursag3 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

He specifically says "archaeological sources that throw light on Bulgar rule in Transylvania: the recently identified traces, dating from the 8th and 9th centuries"

Since he said "Bulgar rule" and not "Bulgars walked around the region for a picnic" it does imply the Bulgar rule was before 830 according to archaeological finds in István Bóna opinion. That's why I wrote 8th, 9th century Bulgar rule and not 830 AD Bulgar rule. Ninhursag3 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why is the intro history section so misleading?

Looking at the intro section of this article, especially the history paragraph ("Romania was formed in 1859 through a personal union of the Danubian Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia...") is very misleadning. It makes it sound as though Romania is a country that basically developed spontaneously, with little mention or tie-in to the history of the predecessor states or the region as a whole (e.g. Dacians, Celts, Roman occupation, founding of Wallachia, etc.). Compare this to the introduction sections of articles dealing with other nations (e.g. Germany: "Various Germanic tribes have inhabited the northern parts of modern Germany since classical antiquity. A region named Germania was documented before AD 100. In the 10th century, German territories formed a central part of the Holy Roman Empire." or Italy ("During the Early Middle Ages, Italy endured the fall of the Western Roman Empire and barbarian invasions, but by the 11th century numerous rival city-states and maritime republics, mainly in the northern and central regions of Italy, rose to great prosperity through trade, commerce, and banking, laying the groundwork for modern capitalism."). The treatment of Romania's history in this way is inconsistent with that of other states that have had similar historical patterns (unification in the 19th century). -MirDavEsc (talk) 2021.10.08 — Preceding undated comment added 13:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Anti-romanian tone in the article

There is a quite strong anti-romanian tone coloring the whole page. Generally at every point the aim was to reduce the relevance of the country. Based on this later edits were aimed to deconstruct these narratives. So the article is written in apologetic tone, trying to proof misconcencptions. I wonder whether those who are editing this page have relevant knowledge about Romania, or their knowledge is based on what they self-learned on the web The article deserves complete overhaul, to eliminate the perception that it looks like 100 fake facts about Romania Phillipe de Roy (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Religion in Romania

Who did the math in the section “Religion” from the table? According to the cited source [1], the number people who responded that they have no religion (Atheists + No religion + Agnostics) in the [2021 Romanian census] was roughly 0,8%, not 9% as the table shows. I think this needs to be looked upon and fixed.—2A02:B021:8011:DC86:AD10:D5BE:8B7B:3A7E (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, if a Christian does not declare that they are a Christian, that is very close to apostasy. So if one who is assumed to be a Christian refuses to declare their religion, that is a huge reason to doubt that they are Christian. Shintoists, by and large, do not have this problem, they will summarily declare themselves atheists, instead of explaining for half an hour what Shintoism is about.

Besides, our table does not even claim those people are Atheists + No religion + Agnostics, but clearly states that they refused to declare their own religion.

So, yeah, for 4.94% data upon their religion was simply missing, because they have not been directly counted and were never asked which was their own religion in 2021. But 9% simply refused to declare their own religion. Again, we are not counting those people (9%) as Atheists + No religion + Agnostics, but we are not counting them as Christians, either. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it’s not our job to interpret data as per WP:No original research. The information on wikipedia should be precise. Whoever edited that clearly lacks a source that points that “if a Christian does not declare that they are a Christian, that is very close to apostasy” and instead decided to become the source himself. Moreover, there’s literally a section dedicated for those who didn’t declare their religion named “Unanswered”. It’s clearly the intention behind this edit was to falsely claim that 9% of the Romanian population has no religion. I think we need an administrator to fix this. —2A02:B027:8011:5E4E:A5D4:AD3:50DC:1F5A (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no original research involved. "9% refused to declare their own religion" is WP:V in the WP:RS. WP:CALC says so.

"If they are Christians they have committed a terrible, terrible sin by not declaring their own religion" is information for the talk page, it is not rendered in the article.

It is a reasonable argument for the talk page, but I would not include it in the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, “9% refused to declare their own religion”, but the on the article some editor wrote that9% have no religion while 5.8% did not answer. Your source does not say anywhere that 9% of the population is non religious. And how come 5.8% who didn’t answer aren’t considered non religious by the same original research argument? And if they didn’t declare their religion at all how do they know they were Christians to start with? It doesn’t make sense, please stop trolling or I will report it to an administrator.—2A02:B023:8012:561D:FC6C:FE5D:329B:4A3A (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm only responsible for what I do, not for what others do. If you are so overconfident that I ruined the article, please do report me to WP:ANI.

14.7% irreligion was introduced at [2]. Not my edit.

I have problems understanding what you write: where it wrote "9.0% no religion" was not a table, but an infobox. In the table (percentages chart) about religion, it wasn't claimed the 9% have no religion. I have searched for "have no religion" and I could not find anything in the article. Similarly, searching for "9%" only showed the chart (the character string "9%" is different from the string "9.0%", so searching for one of these does not find the other). In the future be more precise in how you write.

I did not state either that the 9% were Christians, nor that they weren't so. My argument is: if one claims that they are preponderantly Christians, such a claim should be met with a high dose of skepticism, since such behavior is quite uncharacteristic for Christians. It lies at a more basic level than forgetting to love your neighbor as yourself or forgetting to do good deeds.

There are Christians who are racist, hateful, or commit felonies, but those aren't reasons to deny that they are Christians. But not reporting that themselves are Christians is a very good reason to doubt that they are Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

The problem is fixed now. And by the way, there are religious people who decide not to declare their faith for different reasons and I think we shouldn’t decide what makes someone a Christian or not. Sorry for the delay in reply.—2A02:B023:8012:BF66:1560:F5E6:37DA:3CA9 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Privacy about being a Christian, except for countries such as Saudi Arabia, China, and North Korea, never was a part of Christianity. Hiding that one is a Christian means denying Christ with their own mouth. Of course, some other religions do not have this problem. But Christianity has it. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Demography in Romania

Who calculated the demographic distribution in Romania? Rromani people are only 3,3% of the population, not 8,3%. So, if we are adding 89,3+8,3+6+1,2= 104,8, which is not possible... Who made the change needs to replace the mistake asap. CristiGeorge08 (talk) 09:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Mentioning corruption in intro section is over-the-top

Intro says "Romania is the third-most corrupt country in the EU". A few observations: 1) the CPI has a high elite-bias, because hegenomic countries better control information flow, hence don't expose corruption in their own backyard, while they label all others as more corrupt in order to keep their hold of power. Some of this is mentioned in the wiki article of CPI, search Alex Cobham). The Global Corruption Barometer is a slightly better index as it surveys actual citizens, although still affected by narratives. 2) Hungary, which is a more corrupt country in the EU according to the CPI index, doesn't have an intro section mentioning corruption, perhaps due to more recent backsliding. 3) Wiki articles of other non-EU countries (Columbia, Turkey, Albania), with even significantly lower scores in CPI or Global Corruption Barometer, don't mention corruption at all throughout the article (not just in intro). Unfairly singling out Romania is causing a vicious cycle, causing harm, and enforcing stereotypes. Razvan Valentin Marinescu 19:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

No conspiracy at all. Humans have a tendency to think the same and copy one another, hence narratives form, and sometimes these narratives become disconnected from reality. CPI is basically following the narrative, because those experts doing the evaluation are living in US, Singapore, etc .. and have no idea what is really happening in each country, apart from the public news sources. Have a look at this: https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/22/corrupting-perceptions/ Razvan Valentin Marinescu 23:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The foreginpolicy.com article does not support your narrative. It says CPI is biased for international elites, which is not the same as hegenomic countries better control information flow, hence don't expose corruption in their own backyard, while they label all others as more corrupt in order to keep their hold of power.

And I would bet that China has better control of the information flow than the US and the UK. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you, let's ignore that part in red (I can strike it through if I figure out how). Shall I assume you agree with all the other points? Razvan Valentin Marinescu 03:23, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree with those points, rather I consider them moot. Meaning: your considerations of fairness have no ground in WP:RULES. Your points address a general (unspecified or ill-defined) and rather arbitrary notion of fairness, instead of being germane to Wikipedia.

These being said, I'm bothered more by your arguments than by the actual deletion. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Look, I really understand your perspective and where you're coming from. And I am not saying that there is no corruption in Romania. I actually wrote a lot of wiki articles about corruption on the Romanian Wikipedia since 2016, to bring this issue to light and how to combat it. I was not against deleting any text mentioning corruption in the *main* article. My problem here (and I mentioned it in the section header) was just about mentioning corruption in the *intro* section, which I find is over-the-top. Razvan Valentin Marinescu 22:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Romani percentage of 8.3%

Why is it 8.3? when recently it was 3.3% as per the census in 2011 in the 2021/2022 census the percentage is 3.4% the second minority in Romaia is Hungarians, not Romani why use an estimation from 2007 when you have census data?? this is done on purpose Gab886 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2023

This article mixes spelling systems (WP:ENGVAR), which is never a good idea. In the words Romanization, organization (3 appearances), modernization, and privatizations, please replace the "z" with an "s", so that they match the rest of the article. I can't find any other American spellings (aside from proper names), but Commonwealth spellings are consistently used other than these six words; for example, "labour", "Urbanisation" (a section title), "privatisation", "modernised", and "centre". 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: Since World Trade Organization, Palestine Liberation Organization, and World Intellectual Property Organization are proper nouns, the standard here is to keep the spelling used by the organization (Proper names use the subject's own spelling from MOS:ENGVAR). I've changed all the other American spelling cases. The page was already tagged "use British English" so this hopefully shouldn't be a controversial ENGVAR change. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 03:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Original research

@Historylover233: Unless you WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES, you will be mercilessly reverted. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Hostory

Michael the Brave was killed by the allies, he did not abdicate. Săndiță Toma (talk) 14:56, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Establishment History and misleading characteristics

At 19:00, on the 4th of August 2023‎, I provided a multitude of sources and my addition understanding the history and the development of Romania. All of this information is provided within the article's history section (if otherwise "unsourced"), so arguments against it's neutrality conflate with standard across all Wikipedia articles. What was included in this edit was the Aurelian retreat -which has it's sourced mention within the article (Opreanu 2005, pp. 105–107) and does not constitute personal research- as well as Romanian political polities historically acknowledged (such as the 13th century leadership of Litovoi, figures such as Bezerenbam and Miselav etc.), for which I provided two academic sources. Besides, the mention of the Asen dynasty was removed (although I provided 5 academic sources) and so was the personal union of Michael the Brave, for which I provided two sources. I also explained the reasoning behind the addition of this element, extrapolated from the sources themselves (as to broadly explain my edit, not comprising in any sense personal research); sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica which can be accessed by everyone independently, as well as academic publications. This does not constitute personal research, my edit is entirely neutral and academically sourced. I don't believe silencing historical understanding is justified, and from a strictly academic point of view, if the legitimacy of my sources are questioned then it should have been brought up in Talk. The Establishment History section is generally comprised of information that is referenced within the article, such as for example the formation of Wallachia, which doesn't necessitate a referenced source as it is covered in-depth within the article itself.—Trideeglass (talk) 15:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

The origin of the Romanians is disputed. I'm not saying that the Hungarian school is right, just that neither school could muster enough evidence to convince most historians at the international level.

Personal unions mean nothing. There were lots of personal unions in the Middle Ages, which have nothing to do with nationalism. Positing Romanian nationalism in the 16th century is wholly anachronistic. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

My reference does not pertain to the origin of the Romanians. In-fact, my edit had corrected a previous one addressing the issue. The Aurelian Retreat implies the beginning of the Medieval Period in modern-day Romania, as well as the formation of Dacia Aureliana south of the Danube, therefore contributing to the development of the Romanians as per an Immigrationist ethnogenesis. It appears, ignoring elements of ethnic character (which would, by that logic, attribute the Principality of Transylvania to the Romanians on grounds of relative majority population), to be a significant event in light of the Migration Period.

Michael the Brave's union is, by convention, deemed to mark the start of the Early Modern Period in Romania, thus it is used as a pertinent marker of the last major "Anti-Ottoman Crusades" (Cruciadele Antiotomane), as well as the downfall of the Drăculești dynasty, which dominated the Middle Ages in the Principality of Wallachia. Downplaying the historiographic role of the Prince's reign because it had been also associated with 19th century Romantic Nationalism does not contribute to general understanding of the region's history. Societal changes following Michael the Brave's death were significant.

"During Michael the Brave's brief tenure and the early years of Turkish suzerainty, the distribution of land in Walachia and Moldavia changed dramatically. Over the years, Walachian and Moldavian princes made land grants to loyal boyars in exchange for military service so that by the seventeenth century hardly any land was left. Boyars in search of wealth began encroaching on peasant land and their military allegiance to the prince weakened."

- The Ottoman Invasions in U.S. Library of Congress country study on Romania (1989, Edited by Ronald D. Bachman).

Trideeglass (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Trideeglass, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Romania&diff=prev&oldid=1168745754

Aurelian Retreat 271 as establishment event of Romania?

I do not understand that the abandon of Dacia province by Emperor Aurelian how can be any state establishment event of modern Romania. Any explanation? Do we know about any state establishment instanly in the same year after the retreat? Capital? Cities? Organization? Ruler? Anything? Which is same as modern Romania?

By the way, I do not see the Roman Empire as establishment event of Italy (Romance language speakers) (or before the Etruscan civilization because Romans adaped and mixed their culture?), I do not see Gallia province of establishment event of France (Romance language speakers), I do not see Hispania province of establishment event of Spain (Romance language speakers), I do not see Britannia province as establishment event of England (English language has a great Latin impact), I do not see Pannonia province of establishment event of Hungary (I do not see the Avar Khaganate here which ruled the same place just short before Hungary and their population mixed), etc...

First Romanian polities in 900, 1240? It seems you are unable to decide which date is the first, it would be good to decide. I see there are 340 years gap between 900 and 1240, which means it is just a speculation. Any details about that Romanian state in 900? Rulers? Capital? Cities? Warfare? Trading? International relations? Archeology? Any?

The national-communist dictator Ceaucescu celebrated the 2050th anniversary of the state of Romania in 1980 in North Korea style :D Fake map: Dacia! in the 9-13th century [11] Example fake map from 1980s from the national-communist times, Romania 9-13th century: [10] If we see international Europe maps, we will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12][13]

I do not think in 2023 we need adapt any old communist state propaganda in the English Wiki.

I have many examples, I show 2 modern academic historians:

British-Romanian historian Dennis Deletant [3]

"More extreme in its fancy and tone is the assumption by Lieutenant-General Dr Ilie Ceausescu, brother of the former President and until late the historian with the highest political profile in Romania, that the voivodes Gelou, Glad and Menumorout were Romanians who "succeeded, behind the resistance organized by the communities" population on the border, mobilizing the entire army of the voivodship and meeting (896) the Magyar aggressor shortly after the latter had invaded the Romanian territory. Such abberations by champions of Anonymus serve not only to provide ammunition for the opponents of Gelou and the Vlachs, but also bring us back to the realm of the mythos."

British historian, Martyn Rady

"During the late twelfth century, however, the balance of forces on the Danube changed. The nomadic Cumans commenced not only a series of irruptions into both Hungarian and Byzantine territory, but also participated in the Bulgarian revolt, which led to the reestablishment of the Bulgarian empire and to the subsequent loss of the Greek forts on the Lower Danube. Around this time too, Cumans began to settle in large numbers east of the River Olt in the area which would later be known as Cumania. Just a little later, Vlach chieftains are first recorded in this region. A number of these and of their successors bore such Turkic names as Karapeh and Bazarab, while the toponymy of some of the earliest and most densely populated areas of Romanian settlement shows strong evidence of Cuman place-names. All this suggests an early Romanian symbiosis with the Cumans and points to a possible Cuman role in establishing the first Romanian political organizations."

"The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."

You pointed out that the Aurelian retreat in 271 means the start of the middle ages in Romania and it is important to mention. However in the history sections of every countries we can see detailed things under the time periods (history in the ancient times in Britannia, high medieval period in England...) time periods are just time periods, it does not mean establishment history of a country. Morover the beginning of the Middle Ages is 476 (fall of Rome) which is universally accepted and not 271. How possible the middle ages started earlier in the territory of future Romania than in the other part of Europe? For example, the Huns dwelled in the region of today's Romania, for example the most richest Hun graves found in the territory of future Wallachia, but the Hun empire collapsed in the Carpathian Basin before 476. The Hun-Roman wars are ancient history of Europe, but the Huns in the territory of future Romania would be the history of the middle ages? I do not understand this logic.

OrionNimrod (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for having not responded faster.

I had already explained why the Aurelian Retreat is an establishing event. The reasoning is in it's relevance to Romanian historiography. It had initiated the first wave of the Migration Period (which lasted between circa AD 300 and 500), exemplified through the coming of the Goths (and subsequently the Huns and Gepids). Thus, this led to a gradual transition into the Medieval Period. The time frame of the Middle Ages varies depending on region, as it implies certain sociopolitical criteria. This subject is already covered within the article on Romania about which we speak, in the history section. As for Italy, it's Establishing History section doesn't bare any relevance here. The same section on the articles of Sudan and Egypt include information on the civilizations prior to the Arab conquests that lent each their respective cultures and language, and so why would it be unjustified to approach Romanian history in the same manner? I do not imply at any moment that Romanians correspond to any particular ancient civilization, thus I listed a strictly historiographic event that bears no ideological or revisionist character.

As for the first Romanian polities, I based my dates on the sources provided. I cannot simply "decide" which one is correct. Historians have not reached consensus on what qualifies as a Romanian political establishment. Other preexisting information in the Establishment History section may also present two dates, because the criteria on which scholars judge historic events widely varies (take for example the establishment of the Great Union, for which two possible dates exist). You challenge provided sources, while attempting to incite an ideologically motivated debate.

I do not see the relevance of Nicolae Ceaușescu in this conversation.

Communist dictator "Ceaucescu" did not invent historiography. His revisionism corresponds to an ideological trend, and criticism of it doesn't equate to criticism of historiography, particularly since the Daco-Roman continuity theory is rooted in 17th century academia. The map you show to be a ":D Fake map" strictly refers to the region of Dacia, not a supposed country that you believe Communist ideology to have invented. If you were to pay attention to this provided map, you would realize several polities are represented within it's territories, such as the Voivodeship of Maramureș, alongside the Cuman and Pecheneg lands held south and east of the Carpathians. I also wish to showcase another relevant factor, namely that the map itself does not originate from the 1980s, but rather from the / Historical Geographical Atlas of the Romanian Nation compiled in the year 1920, some 60 years off to the date you had provided. Thus, the then-two-year-old Nicolae Ceaușescu couldn't have left his ideological imprints on it's educational character. Also, several maps exist highlighting the "Dacia" geographic region, from several different cartographers of different backgrounds. I again fail to see their relevance in this discussion.

This tangent strictly is in response to your attempts of discrediting provided sources through defaming their character, which is fallacious and incongruous. I had at no point expressed my personal stance on any subject, and have sourced each one of my affirmations in an unbiased manner.

The quotes provided by you correspond with an admigrationist stance, which does not conflate with the edits I had made on this article. At no point did I attribute a homeland to the Romanians, I do not understand the relevance of the quotes provided by you and how they stand against any of the sources provided. From your very sources you had directly omitted crucial information:

"A Vlach presence in Transylvania at the time of the Magyar conquest of their homeland in the Central Danubian basin at the end of the ninth century is mentioned in a late twelfth-century chronicle known as Gesta Hungarorum. In their advance into Transylvania the Magyars are said to have encountered resistance from a certain Gelou who is described as dux Blacorum 'leader of the Vlachs'. The arguments over the historical precedence of Romanian over Magyar and vice versa in Transylvania have led advocates of the rival views to appeal to the Gesta for support in their contentions. An analysis of the Gesta shows that it is too naive to claim them as an impeccable source, just as it is foolhardy to totally discredit their reliability."

- Ethnos and Mythos in the History of Transylvania (Dennis Deletant)

Thus, to discredit the existence of 9th century Romanian polities is (in accordance to your own sources) quite irresponsible. This particularly in the context of my edit, wherein I had at no point insinuated the location of these polities, or where the Romanians may have developed. I provided for said addition on Romanian Polities only two dates and two sources (and no geographic area within which I state for them to have developed), which should be reinstated unless you can provide any reasoning against doing so. I had opened this topic as to avoid an WP:WAR, and so my edit should be reinstated if there is no further reasoning provided.— Trideeglass (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Trideeglass, thanks for the feedback!

I think the majority of European countries does not follow the provided Sudan and Egypt example, Egypt is a very old country, however there are many missing informations, no mention the several ancient Egypt eras, Persian, Macedonian, Roman rule, etc and I am not sure that the modern Egypt state would be the same as the ancient one. Greece is also an old country, but it seems they considers only the modern Greece. However I know what do you want, these country infoboxes contains historical things of the countries, many articles use them: Template:History of Romania, Template:History of Hungary, Template:History of Germany, Template:History of Greece (I hope this is a solution for you)

Voivodeship of Maramureș: I do not know how can be this an establishment event of modern Romania that in the medieval times the Hungarian king donated estates to Romanian nobles from the land of the Hungarian crown from the Kingdom of Hungary for some decades. Hungarian kings donated many lands to many kind of nobles everywhere in their realm, this was the nature of the feudal system. Even Fogaras in south Transylvania was donated to the Wallachian voivode for a certain period by the Hungarian king as he was his overlord, this would be also an establishment history of Romania?

I am aware my linked map is from that book from 1920 (I have it), it is clearly a fake that presenting Dacia country between the Tisza-Dneister river between 800-1400. But I can see the same on the 1980s map from Ceaucescu times, the caption is same: "9-13th century".

I do not think a speculation can be a reliable establishment history regarding the 2 different dates. There are many historian opinion and debates regarding the Hungarian chronicles and regarding the Vlach content. Only some blurry uncertain words there "blackis, blasij" in the long text with not much info, and Romanian historians translate them as "Vlachs". Hungarian historians views the chronicles critical, and all of them refuse this "3 or 4 Romanian kings thing (Menmarot, Glad, Salan, Gelou)" as the Romanian Deletant as I quoted (btw Menmarot is clearly written a Bulgarian person in the chronicle, I do not know how he became a Romanian person by the Ceaucescu system) those Hungarian historians who translate the text as "Vlachs" they say Anonymus just projected the people of his age, he do not know important real characters, real battles, and he invented characters from toponyms, for example the text mention Cumans however they appearad only 150-200 years later after the real events. And there are an another historian group who identify those "blackis" people with the Turkic Bulaqs/Blac, there are many medieval mention them as Hun related folk in the Caucasus. Morover Simon Keza made a very clear difference between Ulahis (translating as Vlachs) and Blackis just in some sentence difference. You can read the conclusion of Deletant at the end page: "To conclude, then, the cases for and againts the existence of Gelou and the Vlachs simply cannot be proven" But I could show you a lot of examples. British historian Carlile Aylmer Macartney:(page 61, 75) [4] "All Rumanian medievalists refer to Anon, but none of them is worth reading on the subject" "this is not evidence that he introduced the whole person of Gelou or the presence of Vlachs in Transylvania" Modern Polish example about the chronicle [5]"According to the chroniclers they met between others the Vlachs who were characterised in a pastoral context by them. They lived in the same semi-nomadic way of life, as the former Hungarians, however, they occurred in Transylvania only in the 12th century". So it is a really disputed topic than a fact. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

Add coordinates:

 {{Coord|46|N|25|E|type:country|display=title}}

Wiki-ircecho (talk) 09:03, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 06:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Percentage of Roma in Romania

Due to the common stereotype of all Romanians are Gypsies, it has come to my attention that the percentage of Roma in Romania is emphasized much more clearly in this country’s article than in other countries such as Spain and Turkey who have a higher percentage of Roma population. Either this data should be removed (and integrated as other (less preferable though since they are a part of the population)), or the data missing from countries with a significant Roma population should be added. GoldSylveon1 (talk) 09:23, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Let's settle with a geographical position for Romania (once again)

The user @Retois has been changing for the couple of last days the position of Romania in Europe, declassifying it completely as a country with ties in Central Europe, deciding on his own to mention it being only as part of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe This has been discussed several times and it was decided to keep Central Europe because 50% belongs both culturally and geographically to this region of Europe. can we please settle this once and for good? Andymxm (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Romania is situated in the southeastern part of Central Europe and shares borders with Hungary to the northwest, Serbia to the southwest, Bulgaria to the south, the Black Sea to the southeast, Ukraine to the east and to the north and the Republic of Moldova to the east.simple source Moxy- 15:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The source you provided puts Romania in southeastern Europe, not in the southeastern part of central Europe:

https://www.britannica.com/place/Romania Shqian (talk) 00:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

From it’s creation up until 18:14, 8 April 2018, this article placed Romania solely in southeastern Europe.

The user who made the edit described this as: rephrasing one sentence in the beginning of the article. The edit placed Romania in southeastern and eastern Europe.

At 01:04, 11 April 2018, the user made another edit described as: a minor linking edit in the beginning of the article. This edit put Romania in central Europe, as well as southeastern and eastern Europe. Shqian (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Religion in Romania

This problem was brought up once before and settled, but someone misleadingly edited the table section again and it doesn’t correspond to the cited source and the article section about Religion in Romania. The table section says “9.0% no religion 5.7% unspecified” while the cited source and the article section say “Undeclared Religion, or indirectly counted (data missing)13.94% Refused to declare 9% Were not even asked this question 4.94%”. This error needs to be corrected once again. 2A02:2F09:1:8600:A0A6:4CC6:CC7D:20B1 (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

It was an edit by the obnoxious WP:SOCK Nirmest. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! 2A02:2F09:1:8600:DB7:8B0C:4D13:9674 (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Please revert the banned user

According to WP:BANREVERT, please revert anyone conflating those percentages into one lump. Not only are those edits wrong, but any bona fide editor who performs such edits is proxying for a banned user, which is prohibited. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:52, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Just in case: some editors want to make the percentage of Christians higher, other editors want to make the percentage of irreligion higher, I don't want either, I want to preserve the uncertainty present in the census data. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2023

Disparity between the sources and the term used. In the third paragraph, it is mentioned “Romania is a developing economy”. However, the three sources mention the exact opposite (“developed”). 78.128.28.153 (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Request moved below.  Spintendo  22:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)