Talk:Romania/Archive 5

message: 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)
thread_title:  Summarising 

message: 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)
replies: text: Take a chill pill, come again and sign in. -- AdrianTM 12:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is scandalising 

message: Material for changes in the article: speeches by Olli Rehn  and José Manuel Barroso  --Michkalas 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today accession to EU on 1.1.07 approved 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Central Europe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discrimination 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Migratory peoples 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: 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)
replies: text: This could hardly by more POV. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  can we add this to the article? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Keeping article of reasonable length 

message: 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)
thread_title:  National holidays 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed WikiProject 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Southeastern Europe? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Romanian scientists and inventors 

message: "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)
replies: text: Problem was solved, text and image has been removed. -- AdrianTM 18:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Siemens Desiro trains are not high-speed trains 

message: Welcome to the European Union!	
Congratulations! – Alensha talk 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: EU

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo Gallery 

message: "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)
replies: text: Please, restrict your comments to the content, not the editors. TSO1D 21:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trianon wording 

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

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