Talk:Romania/Archive 2

message: "Daca am invata din fiecare infrangere am fi o natie de intelepti" = "If we would learn from every defeat, we would be a nation of wise people". - Nice words, who may have been told by some famous Romanian, but this expresion isn't the Romanian national motto. From what I know we don't have a national motto. If anyone knows otherwise, please come with some proofs/links. MihaiC 06:43, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the mid-19th century, the motto was "Unirea face puterea!" ("The Union Makes the Strength"), then the royal motto was "Nihil Sine Deo" ("Nothing Without God") and then the Communists had the classical motto "Proletari din toate ţările uniţi-vă" ("Proletarians of all nations, unite!"). bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 21:33, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  National motto 

message: ***Wikipedia is an amazing www, but HOW CAN I TRUST YOU PEOPLE? If anyone can modify and reedit your postings ? (just a humble visitor)Thank you very much indeed !!!***
:Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Please visit the Main Page or the Community Portal for more links about Wikipedia. A short answer to your question is that the history page is always available, and editing someone else's comments' substance is considered incredibly poor taste. Anyone can prove that their post has been edited, using the history page, and the author of the comment would be discredited. So, after all, it's a social solution as opposed to a technological one. Wikipedia is full of such curious social and human paradigms in the internet environment, and you already found one -- have fun exploring them! --Gutza 07:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Concerned Visitor

message: A tiny bit off-topic for this article, but I don't know where else to ask or remark. There seems to be no article on the present day portion of Romanian known in English as Moldavia. Moldavia is about the historical prinicipality, most of which is now part (most) of the Republic of Moldova. Is there an article somewhere that I am missing? If not, we should probably start one at Moldavia (Romanian province) or some such. Is there a better word to use for this than province? -- Jmabel | Talk July 8, 2005 05:31 (UTC)
If you look at the regional color map, it's pretty clear that the split between the Republic of Moldova and the region in Romania by the same name is about 50/50. Most people that I speak to on the subject refer to to both as Moldova these days, not Moldavia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TMLutas (talk • contribs) 15 Dec 2005
: 3,150,000 Google hits for Moldavia does not suggest strictly historical usage. The article previously at Moldavia is now at Principality of Moldavia. There is also a Moldavia (historical region) (which perhaps should be merged into Principality of Moldavia) and Moldova (Romanian region), which was more or less the article I was asking for, though it is little more than a stub. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Present-day Moldavia 

message: Recent edit roughly doubled the claimed percentage of Hungarians in the population, from 3.6 to 6.6. Also increased the percentage of Gypsies, from 1.47% to 2.5%. The new numbers actually sound more plausible; however, like the old numbers they give no citation. Citation would be good. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:51, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
:The new numbers (percentages) seem correct, see the link for the 2002 census at the bottom of Demographics of Romania (3rd external link). --Gutza 06:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Population

message: There seems to be a problem regarding the location of Romania within Europe.  The article Eastern Europe locates Romania there.  I found the Romania article with "South East Central Europe".  I corrected it, it was changed back and I was accussed of vandalism by an unknown user.  If this is a controversial topic, I recommend removing any reference to Romania's location in Europe.
:Reading the two articles, it seems that Romania can be described as either in Eastern Europe or in Central Europe, depending on how you define those areas. I think it's important in the intro to narrow its location down more than just Europe - but how best to phrase it? OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 16:39, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
::Apparently this is a matter of controversy.  The same user has changed the article back to "Central Europe".  I was trying to maintain a NPOV and again I am accused of vandalism.  Either the a banner questioning the neutrality of the article is needed, or this user needs to be blocked.
::To User 86 105 72 251, author insisiting on calling Romania in "Central Europe".  I can concede there is information to support your claim, however others have supported "Eastern Europe".  I have only modified the content to reflect Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View.  Continuing to refer to me as a "vandal" is not behavior, as I understand it, that is acceptable with Wikipedia.  It will be reported if it continues. (anon 11 Aug 2005)
::: "East" vs. "Central" in Europe is a bit loaded. "East" tends to emphasize "former East bloc": no one ever calls Greece "Eastern Europe". Romania was geographically well within the region in question, even though it was, at least from the late 1960s, not part of the Warsaw Pact. Let's remember that during the Cold War "Eastern Europe" often included East Germany, but never West Berlin, or any part of Scandinavia: it was a political more than a geographic term.
:::"Central Europe" tends to emphasize connection to the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, of which Transylvania, now part of Romania, was an integral part. Many Romanians (and Poles, and Hungarians, and certainly Czechs) today wish to be identified more with that history than with that of the Communist States.
:::Consequently, the term East Central Europe has been coming into vogue the last decade or so to refer to Poland, Slovakia, Romania, sometimes Hungary or even the Czech Republic (which are more simply "Central"), occasionally Moldova and the western (formerly Austrian) parts of Ukraine (which are more commonly just called "Eastern"; I've occasionally heard this used in a way that includes Slovenia, also once part of Austria-Hungary.
:::"South" doesn't carry much political connotation, so it's just a relatively uncontroversial, geographically accurate claim that within what might be called East Central Europe, Romania is in the southern part.
::: To complicate matters further, Romania is occasionally classified as "Balkan" even though it is mostly north of the Danube, because Wallachia and Moldavia were long part of the Ottoman Empire.
::: In short, all of these words are often more political than geographical: East = Russia, Central  = Austria-Hungary, Balkan = Ottoman. Given Romania's complex history, "South East Central Europe" is probably a good compromise. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
:::: In the same way, Ukraine can be considered "central Europe" too. But the "Central Europe" is more like a political concept. The Viségrad group countries considered themselves as "Central Europe". Romania was not invited in the club, so it can't use the trademark "Central Europe". --Vasile 14:44, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect, I find this a very pointless argument. I have changed the sentence to Southeastern Europe. This is NPOV, and it's the location used by the majority of Internet sources. It's also accurate. Central Europe is accurate only for Transylvania, which is undisputably Central European, but the rest of Romania is not Central European in geography (and usually not in culture). I am Romanian, if you want to know. Eastern Europe is a term that is fairly old-school and has negative connotations. Today, it mostly refers to Ukraine, Russia, Moldova and Belarus. It's wrong to place Romania in Eastern Europe. South East Central Europe is a stupid compromise term! Let's not use it. This article had Southeastern Europe before and it should stay that way. Remember though, that SE Europe does not equal Balkans. Southeastern Europe includes the Balkans + Romania, Romania not being a part of the Balkans geographically but being Southeastern Europe since that's the region it fits in best. Ronline 13:30, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Location of Romania

message: Guys, don't violate others' copyrights. I'm talking about this (this time). KissL 16:40, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about (this time)? --Vasile 01:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Compare these additions to the external site. Olessi 03:46, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation 

message: Should we mention annual occasions that are generally observed/celebrated, but are not days off from work, such as Marţişor or International Women's Day? (Hey, no article on Marţişor, did I spell that wrong?) -- Jmabel | Talk 07:21, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I think we should. Some companies do give days off, and organize parties on those holidays. Oh, and it's spelled Mărţişor --Xanthar 20:36, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holidays 

message: There have been a lot of very poor (mostly anonymous) edits to this article in the last 12 hours or so, lately, and right now I don't have the patience to sort through them. If someone else will step in, it would be greatly appreciated.
* I removed 2 more copyvios pasted here, at least the third time in a few days I've removed significant recently added plagiarized materials. It makes me extremely suspicious of all recently added text.
* I am sick of daily fighting a lone battle to restore "formerly also spelled Rumania or Roumania". I believe it is very useful information for someone who is trying to do a search for documents: the spelling "Romania" in English is relatively recent. The person who is removing them had provided no explanation. Furthermore, "Romania (spelled Romania…" may qualify as the least appropriate article opening in all of Wikipedia, at least on a serious article: it makes it extremely hard for me to believe this person is acting in good faith rather than trying to make a laughingstock of the article. I would appreciate the opinions of others.
* "Romania is an island of Latinity that has survived in a Slavic sea, an area devastated for over a millennium by waves of migratory peoples and invaders." True, in a sense, but "devastated"? The whole sentence seems a very POV and nationalistic wording, out of keeping with Wikipedia style.
* "Archaeological founds reveal that the territory of Romania was inhabited from the ancient times of the early Palaeolithic. The earliest written record of the people who lived North of the Danube comes from Herodotus, who, in the middle of the first millennium B.C., notes that this area was populated by related Thracian tribes. The most important of their descendents, the Geto-Dacians, formed in the first century B.C. the first centralized Dacian state by the unification of the various tribes under king Burebista." "founds" ==> "finds", I presume, 
* The passage including ". ... National socialism may refer to: Nazism, the political ideology of the German Nazi Party of the 1930s to 1940s. ... Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. ... Revisionism is a word which has several meanings. A high public office A regent, from the Latin regens who reigns is anyone who acts of head of state, especially if not the Monarch (who has higher titles). ... Miklos Horthy in 1921 Miklos Horthy de NagybÃ¡nya (VitÃ©z NagybÃ¡nyai Horthy MiklÃ³s in Hungarian) (June 18, 1868 – February 9, 1957)" looks like a near random, screwed up cut-and-paste from elsewhere in Wikipedia.
* A could go on—this isn't exhaustive of the bad edits in the last 12 hours—but as I said, right now I don't have the patience. I don't want to just revert, because with about half a dozen different contributors during this period there were probably some good edits, too. Would someone else please sort this out this time? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
: Thanks Jmabel for taking the time to go through it. I added back the mention about former spellings and the location, filtered the two paragraphs about Romania being an "island of Latinity", and deleted altogether that long, screwed-up para which begins with a reference to Nazism. IulianU 19:47, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Last two edits by Yodo are copyvio from http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_30/b3944003.htm . IulianU 10:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Right now, I don't have the patience 

message: :being the only descendants of the Romans to have preserved in their ethnic name the word "romanus"
Not true. There are the Rumantsch people in Switzerland and also the people of Romagna in Italy. bogdan | Talk 18:52, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correct :-) I got a bit carried away while correcting some other nonsensical edits. IulianU 19:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only descendants to preserve name 

message: These recent edits made it through, being immediately followed by vandalism, which got reverted without this. I don't know about the exact inflation data, but I somehow don't trust anon editors on this page these days... KissL 11:32, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation 

message: Someone recently and anonymously and with little comment "corrected" all the statistics about international rankings. Since the citations were vague before (no year given) and are unchanged, I don't know what to make of this. Someone may want to follow up and see if they can improve citation here so this is more easily checked. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:37, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
:All are confirmed as accurate, except the Wall Street Journal where I was unable to locate the data, and the UN link which has the report itself screwed up: at one point they say "Romania is ranked 72 in the human development index, but its Roma population would rank 128" -- but Romania does indeed appear on the 69th place in the overall ranking table... But that's the report's fault, not the contributor's. --Gutza 19:52, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: Thank you!
Let's leave it Europe though. --Gutza 20:26, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Short Message To The International Group Of People Who Think That Romania Is A Central European Country 

message: Someone added a bunch of random remarks about Romania from around the web to this talk page. Mostly tourist brochure stuff, none of it particularly illuminating. I am in the process of removing those that are long enough to constitute clear copyright issues; while I normally do not remove material from talk pages, this is egregious and amounts to abuse of a talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
While I'm at it: these several very similar anonymous "I'm from…(fill in the blank)…and I just love Romania…" or "I'm from…(fill in the blank)…and I'm neutral about this topic…" remarks seem somewhat suspect to me, especially one from someone claiming to be from the U.S. but not written in very good English. Between that and some of the weird recent pasting of obviously copyrighted material into the article and talk page, I am not extending my usual supposition of good faith to edits on this article and talk page, unless they come from a signed-in user with a track record. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:24, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
You have my blessing, if it helps. --Anittas 07:49, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The last two items in the talk page (Romanian Intelligence and Romania, intre primele 50 de puteri economice ale lumii) are copyvios (Ziua, 13 iulie 2005 - ). Deleted them. This talk page looks horrible. Needs cleaning up. --Xanthar 22:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird additions to this talk page