Talk:Romania/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Summarising

Hi. I've worked on summarising the Economy, Demographics and Administrative divisions sections, in order to make the article "tighter". The problem remains, however, the History section, which makes up nearly half of the article. The history section should have no subdivisions; it should be significantly summarised to touch on all of the main points, like Belgium or Canada. Once this is done, this article will be closer to FA standard, and we should really be working towards this (Bucharest is much closer to FA status and will be renominated soon). The problem is that there are a lot of good-faith editors here who are willing to add new information and photos, but in this case that will just clutter the article and make it far too long. Extra information needs to be added in the sub-articles. Ronline ✉ 12:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is scandalising

how some editors try to impose their version of recent events in Romanians history, namely the seizing of power by the communists in the early 1990.

More precisely, the way the Mineriade are described as 'riots' and 'civil war' remembers exactely the communist propaganda of that time, which outrageousely transformed executioners into victims and victims into criminals.

It is inconceivable, how these peaple dare to pursuit the propaganda on the wiki

--212.54.107.6 09:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC) from Bucharest

Take a chill pill, come again and sign in. -- AdrianTM 12:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Is this all what you can, adriantm !?

--212.54.107.6 12:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC) from Bucharest

petrache poenaru,the inventor of first fountain-pen

Maybe you should mention in Culture section/romanian inventions that Petrache Poenaru invented the first fountain-pen.Some time ago there was a general reference about invention of the "pen",but this term is too confusing and this is why it was deleted,I suppose.A link to Petrache Poenaru and "fountain-pen" would be more accurate.

I understand that pens are somewhat related to culture, but I fail to see how invention of pens has anything to do with "culture". -- AdrianTM

The article about Culture mention inventions and discoveries,quote:"Romanians are very proud of their inventions and discoveries. These include the Coanda Effect (Henri Coanda is the parent of the modern jet aircraft).." I thought that invention of fountain-pen might have something to do with inventions and discoveries..Obviously I made a mistake.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.33.71.50 (talk)

Thanks, indeed it mention inventions. I still hope somebody will take charge and improve the culture section which looks pitifully. -- AdrianTM 14:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Bravo,AdrianTM. I have just saw wikipedia article about Hungary. This is a quote from the Culture section:"Hungarians are very proud of their inventions. These include the noiseless match, Rubik's cube and the aforementioned non-Euclidian geometry. A number of other important inventions, including holography, the ballpoint pen (invented by Bíró, who gave his name to the invention), the theory of the hydrogen bomb, and the BASIC programming language, were invented by Hungarians who fled the country prior to World War II. "The Hungarians are proud that a Hungarian invented the ballpoint pen but the Romanians don't think that the article about Romania should mention that a Romanian invented the fountain-pen or the jet plane. In fact,the article about Romania should not mention Romanian inventions or discoveries at all. Everyone who visits Wikipedia should know that only Hungarians and other nations invented things,Romanians invented nothing.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.33.71.58 (talk)

I was not aware that Wikipedia is a pissing contest between Hungarians and Romanians. You are free to add those inventions, I just expressed my opinion that culture section is not the appropriate place to write that, but if other people think that's fine than it's fine by me. (by the way that doesn't change the fact that culture section is very poor quality, it seems like Romanians are obsessed with history, and that is reflected in how much of the article is about history and how little is about current and relevant facts). -- AdrianTM 16:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Today accession to EU on 1.1.07 approved

Material for changes in the article: speeches by Olli Rehn [1] and José Manuel Barroso [2] --Michkalas 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Miserable Country

Romania is REALLY a pitiful and miserable country, and I am not joking, I MEAN IT!!!!!!!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gligan (talk • contribs) .

Disputed

The citation of a book from written in 1985 as the source for the number of deaths during the first years of the deformed workers' state is extremely dubious. Giving the conditions of the time (Romania was under the Ceausescu neostalinist regime, the author lived in western europe, and was probably considered an enemy by the romanian gvt) the number can't be based on any document, and it's pure fantasy. This refference should thus be removed, and if the other sources (written BTW by the same author, after the fall of the ceausescu regime, but most likely with the same anti-communist bias) can't confirm the numbers, these should also be removed. Anonimu 22:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Central Europe

Adrian, look closely at your source, then look at the Central Europe article. "AllExperts" appears to be a Wikipedia mirror (i.e. they take all their content from Wikipedia). Do you have any reliable sources that say Romania is usually considered to be in Central Europe? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 01:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, any European map, take a ruler and measure. The distinction between Central and Eastern European countries was purely political and it's obsolete. Also your argument about "AllExpert" is flawed, if it were a mirror from Wikipedia it would not contain that info + explanations since it that was only recently introduced into this Wikipedia page. BTW, AllExpert service dates from 1998 and Wikipedia started in 2001, if it uses some sources from Wikipedia very well for them, but this one is not from Wikipedia. Again, the best resource is a map -- try that sometime when you have time. -- AdrianTM 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Adrian, your comments are bordering on uncivil, and there is no consensues for you to make the change to Central Europe. Find an independant source that cites that first. I am reverting you because things like this should be worked out on the talk page first. pschemp | talk 01:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the first (and only one) to make that change, I think it was reverted without any comment in the talk page saying that it lacked references, I provided two: the web page and any European map + a ruler. What's uncivil about that? -- AdrianTM 01:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For further consideration regarding my geographic argument please read Geographical centre of Europe where 3 proposed location (the most commonly used) are either in Lithuania, Estonia, or Belarus all of them to the North of Romania (but not to the West of Romania). No matter how you consider Romania is geographically in South-Central part of Europe. The East/West, Center/Eastern demarcations were merely a political gimmick that doesn't have geographical basis. (remember that all Communist countries were called Eastern Europe at some time). As a compromise I propose we include "geographically situated in the South-Central part of the European subcontinent" at most we could say that starting from January 1st it will be at the Eastern border of European Union, but I think geographical position is what should be used to define a country position since borders and politics change, while continents take millions of years to shift positions. -- AdrianTM 02:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should use geographic location. That being said, if you have reliable sources that say Romania is "geographically situated in the South-Central part of the European subcontinent", then please cite them. I cited the Romania article from Britannica. Also, Columbia says that Romania is in SE Europe as well. I'll restore the Britannica reference for now until new sources can be provided. —Khoikhoi 00:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is interpreting a map "original research"? Or interpreting a fact "center of Europe is at North of Romania" that I can document -- it's only a very simple deduction: if the center of Europe is at North of Romania and not to the West, then Romania is situated in South-Central part of Europe. I will try to find some geographical sources that are not politically biased. -- AdrianTM 01:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. Note that my National Geographic atlas says, "Romania lies on the Black Sea coast of southeastern Europe". —Khoikhoi 03:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, interpreting a map is original research, because terms like "Eastern Europe", "Central Europe", etc. have connotations in English beyond the geographical. Bizarrely, Greece and Finland, which are about as far east as Lithuania, are never referred to as Eastern Europe, because that has such a strong connotation of East Bloc during the Cold War years.

For similar historical geopolitical reasons, Transylvania is generally counted as Central Europe; the rest of Romania is not. Historically (and, again, for equally dubious geopolitical reasons), Wallachia and sometimes even Moldavia were counted as part of the Balkans. These days, as the term Southeastern Europe has supplanted Balkan States, the inclusion of historic Wallachia and Moldavia seems more reasonable.

In short, as a native English speaker with a strong interest and a reasonable knowledge of the region, I'd call Transylvania part of Central Europe and the rest of Romania part of Southeastern Europe. But, no, I don't have a proper citation for that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

How long is too long?

I'm growing tired of the tag at the top of the page and I'm sure others are too. Before we cut this article down to size, though, I thought it would be useful to compare the sizes of a number of Eastern European countries. To wit: the following had no size warnings: Czech Republic, Slovakia, Croatia, Slovenia, Albania. The others were as follows:

• Lithuania 30 k
• Hungary 34 k
• Serbia 35 k
• Latvia & Estonia 36 k
• Moldova 37 k
• Montenegro 39 k
• Belarus 40 k
• Bulgaria 46 k
• Greece, Ukraine, Macedonia 45 k
• Romania 50 k
• Turkey 54 k
• Russia 57 k
• Bosnia & Herzegovina 62 k
  

I don't think having a specific target number in mind is the right idea, but 35-45 is probably doable, with some effort (I think the photos take up lots of space). Also, let's watch out for presentism: the 11th Francophone Summit is important, but in an article that goes back to 513 BC and covers 275 AD to 1018 in about 50 words, it may be out of place. On the other hand, maybe almost everything is necessary and we need no great cuts. Thoughts? Biruitorul 07:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

That tag annoys me also, so I've made some small cleanup around (removed countless see also links, way to many photos in the gallery, removed tourism external links, etc.) - and we're down to 55 kB.

The next big problem is the History section where at least the last two subsections are way too long (at least Romania since 1989 is half the length of that specific article). Both parts are important, but as there are specific articles can be largely reduced. For example - what's the point in detailing HERE the Contract with Romania thing, also the structure of the current coalition should be at the gouvernment and politics section. Also the tourism and National holidays sections can be dropped, the Junior Eurovision Song Contestparagraph can also be dropped and the media section rewritten as it is only a list of TV stations. Mihai -^talk 11:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

History has to be trimmed down there's a separate article about that. -- AdrianTM 13:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Down to 51 k (same length as Pakistan, which was an FA)! Demographics, economy, and especially history can be trimmed, with important content moved to the respective articles, along with maybe a couple of images. That should take us below 50, when the tag probably becomes unnecessary. Biruitorul 17:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of removing images, they don't even count in those 51K. -- AdrianTM 18:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, now it's exactly 50K I removed that tag. Remains to be seen if people are happy with my changes. -- AdrianTM 19:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if in 1 day the "Romania since 1989" section doesn't become NPOV, i'll have to re-add the disputed tag. Anonimu 19:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you contribute to make it NPOV? Please add relevant and referenced info. -- AdrianTM 20:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be added.. some things should eb substracted or made clearer (like the fact that yes, police attacked some hunger strikers and students, but those hunger strikers and students were violent and were destroying public property)... Anonimu 20:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe hunger strikers were violent, no matter how weird that sounds, but it's a fact they were attacked by the police, now, if you have some info that's referenced that they were violent feel free to add it. -- AdrianTM 21:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any source? i'll go ahead an delete everything unsourced that i don't like Anonimu 10:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the procedure is to ask first for reference using {{fact}} template for things that need references, and then give reasonable time for people to add the references needed. Nevertheless I agree with your edits, I will just add "partial democratic" back, if you really want I can document that, there are enough critics about the measures that FSN took. I would think that "partial democratic" is something that would meet a consensus, which is what we look for, right? -- AdrianTM 13:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a problem with wikipedia's {{cn}}/{{fact}} tempaltes policy... statements can stay for years with this template... An about "partial democratic measures"... who can say what is "democratic", and specifically , "partial democratic"? Anonimu 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You can remove immediately anything that's clear POV, but you have to take into consideration that other people might not agree with your assessment. It is only civilized to give time for people to find and add references (depends on the nature of the claim though). As for "partial democratic", I would say that for example letting opposing parities to run for election (as opposed to none) but making it unfair by keeping the mass-media in your control could be considered "partial democratic" (or calling miners to take care of the opposition, political influnce in the act of justice, and examples can continue) I don't think even the FSN members would claim that the democracy in Romania was perfect at the moment when they finished their mandate. It's like saying that somebody started to say half-truths after they lied continously: it's a partial truth, but is not truth, therefore we can't say "they started to tell the truth" -- same in this case, not everything they did was democratic, I would have a bad feeling to leave it to "they implemented democratic reforms" because that would really be a half-truth. The best thing would be to detail what kind of reforms they implemented and where they failed democracy, but the space is too limitated for such detail, that's why "partial democratic" has to do it for now (before it was "seemingly democratic" which was more POVish in my opinion). -- AdrianTM 20:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Adrian; good work. Anonimu: if you want to rephrase things, go ahead; just make sure they come from reliable sources and are cited, if you make contentious claims. Biruitorul 00:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination

Romanians are currently discriminated against in much of western europe. the EU plans to make RO. a member, but they won't give us equal rights.. i think romania should simply reject joining the EU until they are given equal rights.. we're not in any way stupider than any other member of the EU.. maybe we should add a few sentences to the article about Ro. joining the EU, and also talk about the discrimination. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.210.89.169 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, I perfectly agree with you. Romania is very discriminated among West EU and we should write that. They are all, mostly English people, very against us, even if I can't understand why. But anyway we Eastern Europeans we are much more above their intelligence level, we don't do what they do with all of us.

Arthur 30 October 2006

Obviously, you are not a Romanian; you seem to be well below anyone's intelligence level. It may be true, maybe we, as Romanians are discriminated. But then again, maybe it's our own fault, because we are unable to promote true values in a more efficient way in our society. As for not giving Romania equal rights... you are probably talking about the restrictions that some countries such as the UK will apply for Romanian workers. It's only normal for them to impose such restrictions for a certain period, it's their right after all. Besides, why would they leave their own people unemployed, just for our sake?

Excuse me, HOW YOU DARE TO SAY I'M NOT ROMANIAN??? I AM A ROMANIAN AT 100% AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S YOUR PROBLEM WITH THAT, HA? IF YOU ARE NOT ROMANIAN, THAN, DON'T INSULT ME, OK? Arthur 1 November 2006

OK, nobody is perfect. Now, can please go and edit something on you level: MySpace or something like that, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a forum where people bitch about different stuff. -- AdrianTM 21:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the good Romanian people working in western europe are "promoting our true values" (and believe it or not, there are Romanians that are good). But when an Italian, for example, meets 20 good, hard-working Romanians, and then meets one that steals or begs for money, he doesn't say "oh, most Romanians are good, but there are some bad ones", he says "those dam Romanians, they need to be kicked out" :).. fact of the matter is, they are discrimitaded agains OPENLY by the west, and the article doesn't mention that.. should it mention it? I'll let you decide.. [proof and citation of the discrimination is those English newspapers that said Romanians will bring diseases into the U.K., and many other (even more harsh) insults]

I don't think it's the privilege of Romanians to be discriminated against; I've seen Poles, Hungarians, Slovaks and Italians discriminated against in other countries, as well as (even more often) Brazilians like me (who, if female, are sometimes described as practicing prostitutes, and, if male, as lazy soccer-addicted samba dancers). When I look up the Romanian press, I often find statements (often about Hungarians, sometimes about Ukrainians) that seem to me blatantly discriminatory. The French wrote worse things about the Poles than simply 'bringing in diseases'. The sad truth is that cultural stereotypes are everywhere, and the Romanians aren't the worse case (just look at anti-Moslem stereotypes!...). We don't get rid of that by bitching around and pretending to be better than other people, but by developing ourselves, doing the best we can under the circumstances, and showing by example rather than by heated speeches what the truth is. (And even that is not guaranteed to work, as the Jews and the Roma will be happy to explain.) In the meantime, I certainly agree this is an encyclopedia, not a chatroom. --Smeira 11:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I must say, as an Englishman I'm quite shocked to read this. Most of us have absolutely no opinion of Romania one way or the other - besides a slight resentment of the national football team for being difficult to beat, so frustratingly often. In fact a lot of people aren't sure if the country is called Romania, or Rumania. The only negative opinions of Romania or Romanians I've ever heard have come from Poles, Czechs, Austrians, Bulgarians and Slovaks, all of whom lived in London at the time. One Slovak in fact told me that if you have to drive from Slovakia, through Romania, and have to stop the car for any reason it's likely to be stolen by a "mob of gypsies". Other central European friends have remarked "Oh, Romania, that's where all the gypsies come from" etc etc. The bottom line is that most English people are delighted to be able to work and live alongside people from allover Europe, especially here in the South East, and we're often extremely puzzled by the fact that half of them seem to hate eachother - and not in the good natured way we "hate" the French either! --JamesTheNumberless 10:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I think what James just wrote is true in a sad sense; the fact that most central and eastern europeans are talking in a demeaning manner about their historical neighbors is plain wrong and educated people that encounter such behavior should treat them at least with ironical replies. Assertions like Hungarians and Poles are superior to each other and both towards Slovaks or that Romanians have a greater historical destiny than Bulgarians or Ukrainians are deeply rooted in the collective memory of each central and eastern european nation. Find people that do not read too much and are in direct competition with each other for the EU labor market and you will find Poles or (voila) Slovaks stating that Romanians are a filthy poor and lazy nation. One thing Romanians lack - and I feel sorry about that - is a greater sense of self-esteem: We've been labeled for so much time as poor and continuously subjected to the "funny" reports about gypsies, orphanages, low time prostitution, endemic corruption or petty crime that we started to doubt our own historical verticality as a nation. While economy continues to grow and standards of living have already begun to increase, the self esteem is somewhat at the same level as during dictatorship, and will remain an issue for the years to be.Crissim99 13:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I am happy to have read what Crissim wrote above - I had started to think that this self esteem problem is an illusion of mine. Yes, Romanians suffer from a chronic lack of self esteem, worse than any other nation I know of. We are the most anti-patriotic people I have ever come in contact with. This thing has grown indeed far beyond being realistic - and even a little beyond being pessimistic about oneself. For many Romanians, "well yeah, after all we're in Romania" has become a usual comment to a nasty situation of any kind that takes place somewhere within this land. If we are to do anything with ourselves, this attitude is the first thing we have to change. Jb0000000000 14:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Romanians may be discriminated against in Western European countries, but they could at least try to stop discriminating against the Hungarian minority in Transylvania. The recent firings at the University of Cluj because Professors attempted to hang up multi-lingual signs show the connections to the Ceacescu past. The number of physical attacks on ethnic Hungarians is still shockingly high, as well as demeaning graffiti on Hungarian town name signs. Tolerance should start at home.

I am a British Citizen of Romanian Desent - my mother moeved to Britain in 1979 ( my father was German. I have not seen in Britain any discrimination towards Romanians at all. There is, rather, a concern of learning from past lessons with regards to current immigration problems wether that be a fault of the British government (which in any case has handled this very badly). I don't think that the media helps in it's reports of gypsies queing to enter Britain illegaly and naming their children 'Anglia'. One fact is that there are many skilled workers in Romania who are eager to work, more so than British workers who are in fact in my experience far lazier and less skilled. I think that talk of discrimination should be left out as far as the UK goes - since I have not seen or heard of it from the general public. The deal with equal rights is a result of the British people expressing concerns over immigration and the British government belatedly acing on this issue at a time when two new countries join the EU. What would one say to the treatment of Gypsies in Romania by Romanians? Which I know happens having lived in Romania for a couple of years.

I'm from Romania, and first of all, I really belive that all this discrimination is merely an illusion. I mean, really, there are stereotypes about absolutely every nation of this world. Take, for example, Italy. They're often used as an example of mafia and corruption, but that doesn't mean they're discriminated. No cultivated person would actually take this seriously. I mean, come on, just because an English tabloid has written something bad (be it with regard to the roma, or to AIDS), about the romanians, why do we have to label the whole country with that particular opinion. It's just like what the muslims did with Denmark and I really hope you don't agree with that one. Maybe if we weren't so obsessed with what other "nations" think about us, as a country or as a people, we could actually deal with the issues we have. - Amenzix 21:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

GDP

I have a question to all those who edit GDP data. Do you actually know what PPP stands for? Honestly, without looking it up?

After you answer honestly, please look here List of countries by GDP (nominal) and here List of countries by GDP (PPP). Every economist will tell you, that you should list BOTH numbers for all countries where there is a significant difference. You convey insufficient information about one of the MAIN INDEXES of a country's economy if you don't list both. In fact, the size of the difference tells much more than the absolute value. I am very-very surprized wikipedia did not yet made a standard to list both. Of cause, it is redundant for USA or Western Europe, as the base relative to which PPP is calculated, resp. the differnce between the two is small: therefore you will never see both numbers there. But if the difference is as little as 40-50%, it is considered concealing of data if you don't list both.

As for what year's figure should be used, it does not have to be the same year for all contries. Noone is going to change the data simmultaneously for all countries. Wikipedia is not an accounting bureau, IMF and WB will always do that much better than Wikipedians. The only things to keep in mind:

• list the most recent for which you have a soursed data
• if possible, nominal value and PPP of the same year
• if the differece between nominal value and PPP is negligible (under 20-30%), list just one of them. It is more honest then to list the nominal GDP, although some lovers of bureaucracy for bureaucracy will list PPP
• give the sourse of the data for each: should be either IMF, WB or a very trustable statistic bureau (US's would do, but China's - no) Data provided by the national government would do only if IMF / WB do not report it or use very rough estimates (e.g. a county during civil war, e.g. Somalia - of course you first have to have a government :), or a very closed contry, like North Korea. E.g. Syria would not be considered closed, but Burma might sometimes be.)

Cheers,:Dc76 23:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought that just purchasing power parity is needed since it is the ppp that tells you what you can do with ur money. You can perhaps buy 2 pencils in country A, while only 1 pencil in country B - with the same buck. As far as Romania's GDP per capita (ppp) is concerned, the countries that use the 2005 numbers are a minority. Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Macedonia and others all use the 2006 data. I don't see why, we should keep the 2005 data? Or is it just because Mikka says so? and of course what Mikka says, must be done :)) Dapiks 00:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said in the edit comment I don't care what data is used, 2005 or 2006 as long as is consistent. You can't have some data from 2005 and some from 2006. Also, the statement that "all countries use 2006 data" was false since a quick check reveled that Germany, France, Moldova and I'm sure many more use 2005 data. Again, using 2006 data is perfectly fine by me, I like the point that "Wikipedia is not an accounting bureau" As for PPP I think most of the countries use that because it's the most relevant measure when you compare things internationally: otherwise is apples and oranges. -- AdrianTM 00:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sounds fair enough. Then let's change all the data to the 2006 numbers, instead of reverting it to 2005.Dapiks 01:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, take a pill against paranoia. I have nothing against Romania. I even entered the largest number of three options listed in List of countries by GDP (PPP). `'mikkanarxi 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad everyone knows what PPP means. The problem with calculating this index is that the basic set of things does not have necessarily the same meaning in different countries. For example, in USA the price of gas would have to enter havier because the average person drives much more than in an African country. Or, in Asia the price of rise is more imporant than in europe. Or, the proportion of beer/wine would definitevely create problems within Europe. :) The criteria and methods for calculation PPP are under continuous revision. This is the reason the world does not simply switch to PPP - it is unreliable because it can not be mathematically defined. No matter how unfair nominal GDP is, it is an important index. Just as important as GDP(PPP) is. If we have the numbers for both of them, why not list both? Anyway, for Romania, nominal GDP is about half the GDP(PPP), and this says exactly the fact that with one dollar you can buy in Romania what you can with $2 in US... on "average". Do you have objections about listing both numbers?

As for the years, since we have the 2006 data, why not use it? What do you mean by "consistent"? Consistent with what? You mean that 2006 is not finished? No problem, write the 2005 figure, and the 2006 estimate one. So what if you write 3 or even 4 figures (2005 nominal and PPP, 2006 PPP and nominal) for one country? Those who understand what they mean will be thrilled you gave them all info. And wikipedia is to be read by people in search of info. Ok, maybe 4 is too much. suggestions?

• Over here List of countries by GDP (PPP), 2006 I see $196,263 mil. But over here List of European countries by GDP PPP I see the same 2006 estimate $204,412 mil.
• Over here [3] I see 2005 PPP $190.760 mil. But I also see $199,184 mil in the World Bank data, and $183,600 mil in the CIA report. But ok, the later is not an economic institution. So, all right, we disregard the last one. Yet, whom do we trust, IMF or WB?
• Over here List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita I see $8,785 per (2005)
• Over here List of countries by GDP estimates for 2006 (nominal) I see $113,693 mil
• Over here List of countries by GDP (nominal) I see the $98,566 mil
• Over here List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita I see $4,539 (2005)

All right, all this gave me headacke, so I went directly to the sourse: [4], and I have this very nice table:

IMF[5]

Country	Subject Description	Units	Scale	2005	2006 est.	2007 est.
Romania	Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) per capita GDP	US dollars	Units	8784.991	9446.433	10152.334
Romania	Gross domestic product based on purchasing-power-parity (PPP) valuation of country GDP	US dollars	Billions	190.760	204.412	218.926
Romania	Gross domestic product per capita, current prices	US dollars	Units	4539.201	5254.079	6391.379
Romania	Gross domestic product, current prices	US dollars	Billions	98.566	113.693	137.824

So, in 2005 Romania's GDP (nominal) was, according to IMF, $98,566 mil, or $4,539 per capita. In the same year GDP (PPP) was $190,760 mil, or $8,785 per capita. For 2006, the IMF's estimates are GDP (nominal): $113,693 mil, or $5,254 per capita, and GDP (PPP): $190,760 mil, or $9,446 per capita, all in "international dollars".

By "consistent" I meant having the data from the same year, we had per capita from 2006 and the total GDP from 2005 -- AdrianTM 03:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

These issues must be discussed in Template talk:Infobox Country or territory, since clearly these numeric headaches are the same for all countries. `'mikkanarxi 02:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I see that "GDP_nominal" is present in the info box, why not present that info too? -- AdrianTM 03:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No problemo here. I am talking about these different numbers: different years/different sources of estimates. E.g. I am non at all sure that all country articles take the GDP/PPP frokm the same of three sources tabulated in List of countries by GDP (PPP). `'mikkanarxi 03:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. I think any one is legitimate as long is documented and presented clearly. Actually from what I understand both 2005 and 2006 are estimates so if both are not precise it makes sense to pick the newest. Besides, as Dc76 said: "Wikipedia is not an accounting bureau" -- AdrianTM 03:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"bureau": there is no such policy. I wouldn't suggest to allow for sloppiness in an encyclopedia. It is one thing to present approximate/estimated numbers. It is totally different thing to throw in chaotic numbers one from here another from there, for better confusion of readers. `'mikkanarxi 03:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there's no standard, why should we pretend there is, and even more, be uptight about it (at least from what I've seen from the revert wars). That by the way come in supporting your idea to talk first about it in Template talk:Infobox Country or territory and then act on it, not pretend there's a standard or policy when there isn't. -- AdrianTM 04:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have time to edit pages for all 200 countries, and I don't know how to bring an issue up to Template talk. If you do, you have my support. Just let me know when you drop a message/request there, and I will come and sign it as well. I am not speaking of a wikipedia standard - you have been longer than me around, and should know better. If you don't, sorry, I don't know either, we'll have simply yo ask more people, maybe someone knows what standards wikipedia has. But I was talking about a common sense standard that exists in economics: to present both numbers whenever possible and necessary.

I understand that all of you agree to present both numbers, GDP(nominal) and GDP(PPP), in absolute value and per capita, 2006 estimates according to IMF. Is that right? Anyone has objections to this? We do this for Romania now, and then someone brings the issue up for all contries, we support it, and whoever will take the decision for all countries will be able to see how it looks in practice, e.g. for Romania.

P.S. I understand now the "consistancy" argument. Yes, it is very odd to give the absolute value for one year and per capita for another. I did not notice that. Cheers, and bye:Dc76 14:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I too understand but shouldn't we give all the values for 2006 then?Dapiks 17:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, go ahead. Especially that the other countries that use 2005 data will have to migrate to 2006 not the other way round. -- AdrianTM 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, nice to collaborate with you all here. My part here is done. I assume one of you will do the changes, of course when you have time.:Dc76 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have a standard for this, wouldn't it? There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries, if someone wants to make a specific proposal. Right now, the de facto standard is driven by {{Infobox country}}, which leans toward giving numbers only for a single year. It has the following relevant parameters; one would hope that GDP_PPP_year is typically identical to GDP_PPP_year:

• GDP_PPP_year
• GDP_PPP
• GDP_PPP_rank
• GDP_PPP_per_capita
• GDP_PPP_per_capita_rank
• GDP_nominal_year
• GDP_nominal
• GDP_nominal_rank
• GDP_nominal_per_capita
• GDP_nominal_per_capita_rank

- Jmabel | Talk 01:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoo keeps playing with the map?

The map Europe location ROM.png is by far better than the gray-green one LocationRomania.png. Good job for who made it. Who keeps removing it? And why? ES Vic 17:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Please expain this kind of changes that are not obvious better. -- AdrianTM 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It does look better, but it's a mixed map, it should e a pure political contour map. Should not display rivers as well, and the grid is annoying (if not downright ugly).

I thought the gray-green map was standard... And breaking standards is not quite uor solution. I think it should be reverted. Danielsavoiu 08:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you point us where it was decided to become a standard? And who's guilty for picking such an ugly map as standard anyway? -- AdrianTM 08:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

World Map

Firstly, I said I thought (i.e. supposed, assumed) it was standard, as every country's page on WP I've viewed in the past year has used the map on the right. As for your comment on it being ugly, I see you tend to push your POV on others without arguments, and I quote: "changes that are not obvious better". Changes are never obvious better unless you argument. I speak against the map used currently for Romania as it features rivers as well, and is not pure political. Quote 2:"guilty for picking such an ugly map as standard". Whether it is ugly or not is not the issue. I reckon it is better for it to be understandable and easily readable. Like the map on the right, which has an obvious key to reading it: gray = territories ; white = borders and seas, whereas by introducing a new color, blue for rivers the average user becomes confused. Another point: Maps in green-gray are easier to print on black-and-white printers. The yellow, red, orange and blue present on the new map is harder to print and uses up more cartridge ink. To sum it all up, I am not against this kind of map, I just think it should be implemented everywhere or nowhere. Danielsavoiu 08:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with this kind of standardization, if it's not a rule, let's not make a rule about what is standard or not or if it should be. As for POV, that's true, it's my personal opinion that that map is butt-ugly and this one looks better. I'm also not responsible for how much ink people use. Having rivers on a political map it's also not a capital offense, it's good for people to be able to place things on maps. -- AdrianTM 08:55, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Talking about standardization, a quick look and I see that this kind of map is used for France, Germany, Greece, Bulgaria, Italy, Hungary so your argument is wrong from that site too -- AdrianTM 09:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I, however said, and I quote myself: "every country's page on WP I've viewed in the past year", meaning the changes you described are recent and it is them and not only the change made to the map of Romania that I spoke of above. You again fail to see the point to our discussion which is: Countries of the EU use the colorful map as an exception to Non-EU countries, which being in the majority tend to influence the minority (i.e. the EU-Countries) to change their maps according to the more widely used green-gray Map. Should EU-Countries continue to use the colorful map, I would have nothing against that. However, I would like you to see that introducing a new format of maps which is outnumbered by the old ones will only cause unnecessary complications. The standard was invented precisely for the purpose of compatibility, not for the sake of tradition. And in the standard industry the rule that is valid most of the time is: "The first one gets it all" and not "The best one gets it all". Sadly, this is the reason why the first one always stays/wins. Nevertheless, the new colorful map is not substantially better than the old one in terms of usefulness and not beauty, so speaking about a "best" one would be too much seeing as the two maps are closely resemblant. Therefore, changing the style of the maps would prove senseless. I for one vouch for the solution of leaving both maps in the article as thumbnails, and let the user decide which to use. In any case, it is not what is more beautiful for you nor for me that counts, but the consensus we will reach. Danielsavoiu 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Migratory peoples

It seems to me that the claim of little influence (before my edits it was no influence!) by the migratory peoples amounts to an endorsement of the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity. That is, to put it mildly, not a universally accepted theory. - Jmabel | Talk 07:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's POVish and uses weasel words, what is "little" influence, what is "big" infuence and who determines how big it is? Any references, by the way? I think it should just be removed, that's what I'm going to do. -- AdrianTM 14:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Culture section please

Can anyone help with the culture section? It contains some poor English and all kind of strange claims that are not referenced. "Romanian literature and Romanian poetry remained very known outside Romania" or "Traditionally Romanians appreciate poetry more than Romanian prose", I'm not sure what that means and on what is based. Also, what does "true classics" mean, and why are quotes used, are they true clasics or not? I think that's very confusing. -- AdrianTM 09:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

and why are Tourism and Sport incuded in Culture section? -- AdrianTM 09:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I bet "remained very known" is someone's clumsy rework of "remained very little known", which (sadly) is far closer to the truth. The simple fact is that Romanian literature has not traveled widely or well. Most educated Americans could rattle off a quite number of Russian or French or German writers, and could probably name at least one Polish or Czech writer; I'd be willing to venture that most could not name a Romanian writer (unless the playwright Ionesco counts, and they would think of him as French). - Jmabel | Talk 09:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Numbers

What is it with numbers in this article?

In the past few weeks, the 2005 unemployment rate was changed from 4.1% to 7.1% without any change of citation (I have no idea which was correct) and a November 2006 average gross wage was added but still cited to a piece entitled "Câştigul salarial mediu şi efectivul salariaţilor în luna septembrie 2006". The short of it: until someone takes responsibility for keeping this sort of thing accurate and well-cited, no one should trust this sort of numbers in this article. - Jmabel | Talk 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

can we add this to the article?

The official nationalist ideology revived and accentuated the nation-building myths of the prewar period. Thus the ethnic Romanian nation and its state were represented as an organic unity; the Magyars were depicted as historical interlopers in the process of Daco-Romanian continuity, as the fundamentally alien oppressors of Romanian Transylvania in the past, and as unassailable, crypto-revisionist threat to the integrity and cohesion of contemporary Romania. The Magyars’ claim to cultural autonomy implied that a distinction could be drawn between cultural and civic allegiance, but Romania’s rulers emphatically rejected the civic form of nationalism in favor of the essentially xenophobic dogma of organic Romanian nationhood. By the early 1980’s, the regime’s favoured authors were publishing virulent diatribes against the Magyars. Thus ethnic Romanians were encouraged to believe that all their troubles, past and present, were due to the presence of Magyars. The latter, on the other hand, were too conscious of their history and too rooted to a community to accept the status of unwanted, second-class citizens. To be sure, cordiality was not wholly absent in daily contact between Transylvania’s Magyars and ethnic Romanians; and the autocratic Romanians were generally less hostile than those transplanted from Moldavia and Walachia. But the fact is that the nationalistic propaganda struck a responsive chord among the mass of Romanians. The few active Magyar dissidents soon lost hope of conciliating the latter or the rulers; their efforts were aimed more to raise minority spirits and alert public opinions.[3]

No, this is POV pushing. -- AdrianTM 17:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This could hardly by more POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Keeping article of reasonable length

I cut some redundant and irrevant stuff, the article is still big 51 Kb that's probably fine as long as people don't add irrelevant stuff. -- AdrianTM 08:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

National holidays

Both 1st and 2nd of January are official holidays (non-working). The article mentions only the 1st of January. Mariushm 14:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

From a quick scan of the article I see that we need only 2 citations, one is about the vote manipulation and other illegal things that brought Communists in power after the WWII and the other is the about the role Romanian played in the Israel-Egypt and Israel-PLO peace processes, can anyone come up with any of these references? Thanks. -- AdrianTM 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not a citation for every word of what we say here about the '46 election, but the (U.S.) Library of Congress country study on Romania (based on data as of July 1989) has the following:

The Communists did all in their power to fabricate an election rout. Communist-controlled unions impeded distribution of opposition-party newspapers, and Communist hatchet men attacked opposition political workers at campaign gatherings. In March the Communists engineered a split in the Social Democratic Party and began discrediting prominent figures in the National Peasant and National Liberal Parties, labeling them reactionary, profascist, and anti-Soviet and charging them with undermining Romania's economy and national unity. On November 19, 1946, Romanians cast ballots in an obviously rigged election. Groza's government claimed the support of almost 90 percent of the voters. The Communists, Social Democrats, and other leftist parties claimed 379 of the assembly's 414 seats; the National Peasant Party took 32; the National Liberals, 3. Minority-party legislators soon abandoned the new parliament or faced a ban on their participation. The regime turned a deaf ear to United States and British objections and protested against their "meddling" in Romania's internal affairs

It's public domain, by the way, so we can use any of this we want. Navigate to Romania Country Study & click on "Petru Groza's Premiership", or Google a phrase from the above, but unfortunately the way they do this site the URLs to anything other than the main page of each country study aren't reliably stable. - Jmabel | Talk 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if another citation is needed, there is the following paragraph from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

The communists postponed the elections because they lacked adequate support among the population and needed more time to cripple the opposition. When elections finally took place on November 19, 1946, the official tally gave about 80 percent of the vote to the communists and their allies, but strong evidence indicates that the results were falsified in order to hide a substantial victory by the National Peasants.

The page appears to be freely accessible, but I'm not sure this means it is in the public domain. Also, come to think of it, was the Communist tally 80% or 90% in those elections? (Not that it would have mattered much at the time, but it may be good to double-check, for accuracy.) Finally, one more question: Why not be more precise in the first paragraph on Communist Romania, and give the exact date of the 1946 election (November 19), and that of the forced resignation of King Michael I (December 30, 1947)? Turgidson 20:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

On Israel/Palestine here's something interesting from ISRO Press. Govrin was Israeli ambassador to Romania. I believe this may be a passage from a book he wrote, I didn't explore around too much for context. - Jmabel | Talk 01:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks that looks good enough, can you please add the references in the article -- AdrianTM 05:17, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, now it's much better we need only 2 citation one for forced Magyarization and another for vote manipulation, I will add the link to country study for vote manipulation. -- AdrianTM 18:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanians invented tie? Verification needed

I would like to add this information under the head "Miscellaneous data": Romanians are the first people in the world beleived to have invented and worn tie. I am not sure where I have heard this information, but I think someone can verify and add this. This seems to me to be an interesting fact. Kazimostak 17:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Sharif

I think those were the Croatians. Also, we aim to add referenced info, not only pieces that we've heard from somebody else. -- AdrianTM 18:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear brother Adrian, that's why I particularly said: "I think someone can verify and add this", perhaps you didn't notice this urging! Besides, you also have written "I think those were the Croatians", i.e. 'you think', you are not sure. I can't understand what's wrong in there for someone to verify this information!!User:Kazimostak

Why don't you do it yourself, I don't think it's good form to urge other people to do things that you can do yourself. Fom Necktie: "The modern cravat originated in the 1630s. Like most men's fashions between the 17th century and World War I, it had a military origin. In the reign of Louis XIII of France, Croatian mercenaries were enlisted to a regiment supporting the King and Cardinal Richelieu against the Duc de Guise and the Queen Mother, Marie de Medici. "-- AdrianTM 19:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

In my ongoing efforts to try to include every country on the planet included in the scope of a WikiProject, I have proposed a new project on Eastern Europe at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Eastern Europe whose scope would include Romania. Any interested parties are more than welcome to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start such a project. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Demographics:Religions

The main page of the article about Romania claims that,quote :"Based on the 2002 census data, there are also ....and 2,300 people who are of no religion and/or atheist." According to recensamant.ro there are at least 9272 atheists and 13834 people of no religion and these official numbers are much higher than 2300.Azdfg 13:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said,the number of atheists and people of no religion is much higher than 2,300.Can someone fix this and change 2,300 into 23,000 or something like that?(Although the real number of atheists is much higher but unfortunately many atheists didn't declare their real orientation due to family pressure or other reasons). Azdfg 16:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

umm, thats retarted.. lets just put the atheist number to.. u can't just guess on this (DUUHH) 2300 is very little, and 9272 has an OFFICIAL source, so i say that number is the best.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.12.155.116 (talk) 04:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I didn't "guess" on this...According to official census 9272 atheists + 13834 people of no religion= around 23000 people who are of no religion and/or atheists (DUUHH)...or,of course,instead of 23000 people who are of no religion and/or atheists,the article could mention 9727 atheists and 13834 people who are of no religion.

Anyway,the 2,300 number must be corrected,unless this refusal to correct this false number is part of an anti-atheist agenda... Azdfg 11:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

You should've been bold. :-) gcbirzan^talk 16:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Azdfg - you could have corrected the data yourself, because it was wrong indeed. I'm atheist myself, but I don't see why such a big deal was made of this. When there is an error on Wikipedia, the whole point of the wiki structure is that you simply edit the page, correct it, cite sources if necessary, and that's that :) Ronline ✉ 07:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

At that time,the article about Romania was a protected page,so I couldn't edit it so easy.Azdfg 12:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

According to http://www.insse.ro/RPL2002INS/vol1/tabele/t48.pdf, number of people that didn't declare their religion is 11743, not 18492. I modified it. :-) gcbirzan^talk 10:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Southeastern Europe?

According to the main article about Southeastern Europe,this territory is placed south of the river Danube.Romania is placed north of the river Danube.Azdfg 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

One province of Romania is at South-East for Danube though. I think the clasification is more political (and that's kind of obsolete clasification by now) than geographical, however, there's not much we could do about it since Romania is placed in Southeastern Europe by almost everybody. Europe is not a square either, thing that makes is more difficult to say where the center is, there isn't even a consensus from where to measure Europe: from Iceland, from Irland? -- AdrianTM 15:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Geographically I think most Westerners tend to classify Romania as Eastern Europe, rather than South Eastern. Romania's large area and very different neighbours makes it difficult to lump the whole place into one grouping much in the way that Germany is considered North European, Western European, Central European and at one time partially politically Eastern European. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JamesTheNumberless (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Geographically Romania is a Central European country, situated 2900 km from the Ural Mountains (Europe's eastern boundry), 2900 km from north of Norway, about 2500 from Portugal's Atlantic coast and 1000 km from Greece's Southern Coast. Sem

Romanian scientists and inventors

The main page about Romania should mention Romanian scientists and inventors,like all the pages about other countries.Azdfg 13:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Siemens Desiro trains are not high-speed trains

"High-speed trains are a source of pride in Romania" under the picture of a Desiro is embarrassing(see the wikipedia article about high-speed train).Romania don't have high-speed trains or the proper infrastructure.Azdfg 12:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem was solved, text and image has been removed. -- AdrianTM 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

EU

	Welcome to the European Union!

Congratulations! – Alensha ^talk 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, welcome! I'm a slight Eurosceptic but still believe that in the short term at least, the EU will be good for Romania. :) My very best wishes to you in the New Year! K. Lásztocska 18:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I am a foreigner living and doing business in Romania. Romania is a great country, tolerant people, beautiful landscape and a bright future in the EU. Hoping the best for Romania! The only thnig now is to work hard and be positive! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bm79 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Photo Gallery

Can we have some more relevant photos in the Gallery section? I mean c'mon, Borzesti Monastery?... How about Voronet instead or in addition? Also, I strongly disagree with the photos of modern architecture. Unfortunately we don’t have any landmarks in Romania in this respect and I must say that the photos shown are embarrassing. It feels like the the bit about the supposedly high speed trains in Romania when actually speaking about the Siemens Desiro. If there were in Romania some building like the Guggenheim Museum (Bilbao, Spain) or The Gherkin (London, UK) then I think they should be shown. However this is NOT the case. Furthermore, I think that some landscapes should also be shown and not just buildings. If any tourists read this article I can’t see anything they’ll find of interest to visit in Romania... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ovimunt (talk • contribs) 01:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Cum se pot atasa poze? Eu vreau sa atasez, dar nu stiu cum :( . Daciana

Trianon wording

"restored Kingdom of Hungary renounced claims" That is very awkward phrasing to use in this article, and very misleading as well. Perhaps "The chaotic transition government in Hungary was forced to renounce 2/3 of its territory in the Treaty of Trianon, including Transylvania, would sound better." I am open to any suggestions, but the existing standard is very dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lazio gio (talk • contribs) 09:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I`m having problems with a certain Anonimu, who is keen to introduce that IT WAS ILIESCU!!!! (our beloved father..., you know the rest) that ordered the Wiesel Commison (like the most important element is Iliescu, not the commision), and that the Soviet occupation of several years produced a country of geniuses. I would like to know how exactly was that. Was the increase of literacy (if there was such a thing) a direct result of the Red Army, was the result of the new regime, albeit Soviet backed, or was it the result of the schools and cultural climate (yes, between 1918 and 1947, Romanian culture reached a peak) that the former Monarchy created - Yanche

Also, please check his contributions. His only edits are about whitewashing communism. - Yanche

Anonimu 22:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

- "Confindent" - Ce vrea să insemne asta?? Eşti exact ca un ţărănoi analfabet de prin anii 50, fost calic, care s-a trezit mare sculă când au l-au pus comunistii şef de C.A.P.. Sau o mai bună comparaţie ar fi cea cu Luceafărul Huilei? - Yanche

Please, restrict your comments to the content, not the editors. TSO1D 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The one about the disputed paragraph

Concerning the so much contested and disputed paragraph, about the coming to power of the FSN. I am in favor of creating a consensus on the matter, in order to build a good article about Romania. So let's see what the "full" version of the paragraph adds and discuss from there. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

1. The fact that the FSN was an organization composed of former members of the Communist Party

That is true for the majority of its members. Even today former members of FSN make no secret of it. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

That's not important, it's not all, I don't think in an encyclopedia is a good thing to generalize. It is pretty clear that they were accused they were communists there's no need to generalize -- AdrianTM 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

They weren't only accused, they admit it and don't hide it. It isn't generalization to say members of former PCR were now members of FSN. I think such an info has its place on wiki. If you want we can say : "composed of former members of the Communist Party and of others". But countrary to PNTCD, PNL and PSDR they were essentially composed of former Comunists. Kamenaua 6:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

An encyclopedia has to contain accurate information, not information that's "essentially" true, that means no generalization, if you can't prove all were communists then you don't say it. If there were majority the you say "majority" not "all" and you bring credible references -- AdrianTM 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Should I understand you don't agree with the fact that the FSN was composed by the majority of members of the Communist Party (all except the highest ranking ones) or that you are just asking for references because everything has to be referenced? Any history book or article about the FSN can serve as reference.

References can be found on "Theft of a Nation - Romania since Communism by Tom Gallagher" (http://www.vivid.ro/vivid71/pages71/book71.htm) and also on http://en.epochtimes.com/news/6-12-18/49462.html Kamenaua 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You didn't use the word "majority" you wrote "who were former..." that means all. It's also nice to bring references for any material claim. Add them in wiki using <ref> </ref> tags.-- AdrianTM 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, let's use the word majority, I'm fine with it. Kamenaua 22:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

2. "the FSN used the entire state controlled media to discredit any opposition"

Again true, those who lived in Romania during those time can remember, the newspaper articles about how Doina Cornea, Ratiu and other opposition leaders have signed a document selling Transilvania to the Hungarians.

TV broadcast was also full of defamatory remarks about the opposition, yet not about the former communists. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Add non biased refereces and drop "entire" and I'm fine with it. -- AdrianTM 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok for the non biased source, but how can I drop "entire" when in Romania of that period there was only one TV station, one newspaper and one Radio Station, which were all controlled by the State?

The sources could be in detail my memory or that of other people who lived through those events (PNTCD members being called Fascists, police having found drugs and kalashnikovs at PNL headquarters and Doina Cornea, Ratiu and others having sold Transilvania to the Hungarians). But you might not consider me unbiased. So I found sources: on wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Televiziunea_Rom%C3%A2n%C4%83) and also on newspapers (http://www.adevarulonline.ro/2006-12-23/Special/la-revolutie-securitatea-i-a-dotat-pe-muncitorii-din-casa-scanteii-cu-cozi-de-topor_211476.html and http://www.formula-as.ro/reviste_634__22__paradisul-campaniilor-negative.html) Kamenaua 6:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

3. "managed to form after their long absence"

I see no reason for deleting this since again it is a historical fact. Those parties had been absent for a long time. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

4. "The first free elections which took place after the revolution are known as the Blind Sunday ("Duminica Orbului"). They saw Ion Iliescu take power with an overwhelming majority (85%) and have been widely contested as undemocratic by both western media and local opposition"

The first phrase is a fact, which to my knowledge isn't disputed. How can an unbiased encyclopedia not mention the results of the first free elections, especially when they are that high, and the criticism they stirred in the western media. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

known as Blind Sunday is POVish, it's known as such only to the adversary of FSN. Remember that here we promote NPOV discourse. Again, bring credible references and I'm fine with qualifing elections as "undemocratic". -- AdrianTM 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you are right, Blind Sunday is POV-ish because it isn't a name used by all. You ask me to bring evidence the elections were undemocratic, I can't say that the elections were undemocratic because there was no enquiry made into it. That is why I say "contested as undemocratic" not just "undemocratic" .All I can say is that the only ones who said they were democratic were those who organized them. Not the western media and not the opposition, who all said the opposite. That is why I left the score of the election 85% for Iliescu. Kamenaua 6:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

5. The protesters accused the FSN […] of having hijacked the elections

Why should we not mention one of the main reasons why the protesters were out on the streets? Some of them didn't even care that there were former communists in the elections (which by reading the Anonimu version of the article is the only reason they were out on the streets). What they did want are free and fair elections. Yes, if you want to let something in leave that. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

6. the coal miners came "in a surprisingly orderly fashion"

Buses and trains with drivers were waiting for them to take them to Bucharest.

It would have be funny if it hadn't ended up in the tragedy it did. On the site of the Mineriad's victims you can see an interview with a miner and also hear a guy whispering to him what he has to say. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to show your surprise. You can very well say that they were organized if you provide references. Remember, "no original research". -- AdrianTM 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I was not using "surprisingly" as a way to show my surprise, just to give a nuance.

These people are suposed (if you listen to Anonimu's version of what happened) to have come of there own free will after having heared the plea of Ion Iliescu for "people of good will". I'm just saying that for people who just heard the president call on TV they got organised in big numbers pretty quickly and arranged trains to get them from the Jiu Valley to Bucarest and busses with which to travel into Bucarest.

That's what is surprising, that for people who were supposed to be disorganised miners who just heeded the call of the president they were very organized on very short notice. Kamenaua 6:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that, Iliescu called people, they came, that's as much as we have documented (actually I lie, that's kind of personal witness stuff) if you have other documents and especially court material that's great, add that don't use insinuations and nuances, this is an encyclopedia it doesn't deal with nuances and with conspiracy theories, you need to bring credible references not to use your own deductions which by the way are "original research" and Wikipedia has a policy regarding that WP:no original research. -- AdrianTM 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If everything in this encyclopedia has to be referenced or it doesn't go in, you can even put a reference on Iliescu calling the miners, telling them were to go and also thanking them. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6TGuAu-NLo&mode=related&search=)

Let's not forget what Romanian's call the Mineriad's weren't an isolated incident, but one that happend several times, always in favour of Iliescu. Kamenaua 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

7. "stopped the protests by severely beating everybody they found in the University Square, Bucharest"

Again nothing false or disputed about that. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason all these truths which shed light on the important events that happened in Romania shouldn't appear on an un biased encyclopedia such as Wikipedia.

I do not want an editing war, all I want is a true recount of the events that happened in 1989. Kamenaua 9:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want an edit war, don't start it, ask in talk page before you revert your changes for nth time. Another observation, drop the Romanian sentences from your changes, this is English Wikipedia. -- AdrianTM 08:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want an editing war, but not at the price of having an important part of history mutilated and left out. As for Romanian I am trying to put as few of it as possible, but how do you translate "voi n-ati mancat salam cu soia", which is a now popular saying in Romania. If you can translate it I promise I will leave it. Kamenaua 6:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Then don't use it, English speaking people have no idea what that means, even "Golaniad" or "Mineriad" have to go, no matter how much Romanian think that those are understood terms they are not and Wikipedia has a rule agains introducing neologisms in it, personally I think the article about "Mineriad" should be renamed. You are welcome to add those into Romanian language Wikipedia if you consider those are encyclopedic... I doubt though. -- AdrianTM 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

And another thing, History section is HUGE, not everyone wants to read all the details about the political fights in Romania, don't add stuff to History section unless it's really important and relevant for a person who wants to learn something about Romania, otherwise add it to History of Romania article -- AdrianTM 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The main reason I support Anonimu's version for now is that it does not go into superfluous details.However, it should be clear to anyone that this article needs to be copyedited and shortened for relevancy. Dahn 08:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not in favour of a version that goes into to many details either. But I don't think the facts that I am trying to insert into the text are just superfluous details.

The paragraph as it is now, would make the reader believe the elections were democratic (when the only ones saying that they were are those who organized them, not western media and certainly not the opposition). There hasn't been an investigation made into it so I am in favor of saying "the elections were considered undemocratic by western media and local opposition". This being partly proved by the fact the FSN controlled the media from which not only the opposition was banned but in which it was heavily discredited (I say "heavily" because of all the rumors that they started which all turned out to be false) and also by the huge score at which Iliescu won. An important detail in Romanian contemporary history to mention is the ties the FSN had to the Communist Party, which most importantly no one denies. All the possessions of the Communist party became the FSN's, all members of PCR became members of FSN except the highest ranking ones.

The reason I am so keen on changing this paragraph and why I think it represents a POV is because it presents students who were contesting elections that brought to power Communists after an anti-Communist revolution (and that were also deemed undemocratic by unbiased sources) as illegitimate hooligans that had to be brought to order not by the police or the army which was stationed everywhere in Bucharest but by coal miners.

What are we to understand from that paragraph? That the students contesting the elections were the ones lacking legitimacy in their actions and that the legitimate course of action was calling the miner's beating them up and killing them? (I know, sources : http://www.ziua.ro/display.php?id=178146&data=2005-06-10&ziua=100bf6d28b85dd3603096dabbe757459)

This is not a bogus conspiracy theory. The calling of miners to Bucharest didn't happen only once. This has been a recurrent political tool on several occasions (five in total, of which the article almost says nothing). And every time it was used it favored Ion Iliescu. This kind of repetition puts all coincidence aside. So let’s make a short paragraph, but one that doesn't hide facts just because it makes a big part of Romanian politicians look bad. Kamenaua 21:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to establish who had legitimacy and who didn't, you have to revise your image about Wikipedia, we need here to present referenced facts, that's all, keeping in mind that's limited space and limited interest for any specific subject. As I said there's a History of Romania article where I'd suggest you direct your attention. -- AdrianTM 20:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is not here to establish who had legitimacy, but there are facts that need to be presented. And when these facts dramatically change the look one has on romanian political class, they need to be presented. Not a version which only presents half the truth, namely the one that paints the miner's intervention as legitimate.

I am not saying we should speak of all the Mineriads here because I agree this paragraph should be as short as possible. However, I think they should be just mentionned. But this is not the issue here. Kamenaua 22:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

I would like to add an example of a Bacau Car Registration Plate. Image at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Romania-registration-plate-bacau.jpg Danielsavoiu 20:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Image no longer exists, so the request is now void. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

See image on the right, I uploaded it again. Add it soon please. If anyone deleted it I would like to know why... Danielsavoiu 09:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because we should avoid material which may represent self promotion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.171.161.92 (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

"The name of Romania (România) comes from Român ("Romanian"), which is a derivative of the word Romanus ("Roman") from Latin.The fact that Romanians refer to themselves using a derivative of Romanus (Romanian: Român/Rumân) ?.......................................................................................................................................................... This document is also notable for having the first occurrence of "Rumanian" in a Romanian written text, Wallachia being here named "the Rumanian land" - Ţeara Rumânească (modern Romanian Ţara < 1521 Romanian Ţeara < Latin Terra = "land")"

The name of Romania (România) comes from Roumân ("Roumanian"), which is a derivative of the word Roum/man from Turkish, equivalent with walach in german for oriental roman(seeRoumelia)..................................................................................................................................................................(modern Romanian Ţara < BOULGARO-TURKISH Ţara (Ţar)= "land")/in albano-roumano-armenian ..."stan"(stana) = "land"

Is it safe to say that the dispute is over and that we should request for unprotection? A lot of people that might actually contribute to the article are now stopped from doing so. Dapiks 18:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've unprotected it. Grandmasterka 02:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)