Talk:Romania/Archive 6

message: "The population that would later become the Romanian people cannot be identified either geographically or historiographically from 275 until about 1200. Several competing theories have been generated to explain the origin of modern Romanians." 
This is really annoying. That population can be definitely identified geographically based on archaelogical evidences.( see the numerous TV news about archaelogical discoveries in Transylvania.Azdfg 14:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, OK. I apologize ahead of time if I'm showing my American (i.e. definitively non-Romanian) stripes here, but - wouldn't "archeological evidence" just prove people were living there? Unless you give more specific details from research into it, how will we know? (Saying "see the TV news..." doesn't help, as many countries' news programs don't give a damn about most archaeology, sadly, and plus, you don't even mention when these discoveries were made and reported about, or even in what languages they were reported in). Plus, I have to say, there ARE multiple theories about the origins of at least some segments of the Romanian population, and some of these, such as the "Daco-Romanian" theory, are supported by some and contested by some; support isn't universal, especially given that a lot of ancient or even medieval history is somewhat difficult to piece apart accurately enough to definitively say something like "yes, most of the dominant ethnic group in this country is descended from such-and-such people". Regardless, there ARE multiple theories as to the origins of some ethnic groups in Romania. Whether or not anybody outside of Romania believes them, or whether they can even be proven, I can't really say, but they certainly exist. Poke around a little more on Wikipedia, you'll find them eventually. 4.238.26.206 05:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: When I wrote that message I had in mind the discovery of a burial ground in a city from Transylvania. Usually,a tomb offers valuable information about the people who lived there. If 2000 years in the future alien archaeologists will excavate an American cemetery,they will be able to understand more than the simple fact that people were living there. Azdfg 14:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for support. I do like the article except for history obsession of it. Hard to cut it down though, I'm not brave enough. -- AdrianTM 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Pardon my a-screaming! As AdrianTM have pinpointed more than once above, the article on Romania writes too much on the history, while the article History of Romania is a little too stubby and small (observe and admire the pathetic smallness that I achieved by HTML-tagging!). Everything else on the article is good, almost pleasureable. Said: Rursus 08:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for support. I do like the article except for history obsession of it. Hard to cut it down though, I'm not brave enough. -- AdrianTM 16:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section too <span style="font-size:175%">LARGE</span>

message: Could some one change the coat of arms of romania!
cause i don't know how is the "clever" person who put the old coat of arms(communist)
thanx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cezarsab (talk • contribs) 23:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  plz change it fast! 

message: Does the phrase, "The average gross wage per month" refer to the mean or median average per month? Signaturebrendel 07:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd assume that "average" is used for "mean" not median. -- AdrianTM 12:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average? Which? 

message: The average gross wage per month in Romania is 2918 lei as of December 2005,[21] equating to €1419.38 (US$1745.36) based on international exchange rates and $2046.06 based on purchasing power parity.[22]
This needs to be reviewed. The average gross wage per month is not 2918 lei (or close to this value), nor 2918 lei equals 1745.36 US dollars (or close to this value). Please check the numbers.
Rosebudx 12:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Troll much? -- AdrianTM 12:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong numbers 

message: I'm confused, what' the difference between atheism and not having any religion. I mean, atheism is (according to Atheism):
"Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods. Atheism is commonly defined as the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism". Sooo, if theism is _having_ a religion, then atheism is _not having_ any religion. I wonder what all the people who declared themselves as no-religionists thought atheism means. Not editing anything, since this might be a matter of perspective. - Amenzix 02:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Theism is having a theistic belief,not having a religion. Buddhists are having a religion but are not theists. Atheism is the lack of theism or not having a theistic belief. The difference between atheism and not having any religion is that someone who don't have a religion may believe that there is something out there. For example,Alexandru Mironov is a freethinker and without religion but he is not an atheist. Azdfg 14:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact that you are an atheist only means that you do not belive in gods and supreme being. The idea of supernatural (a metaphysical universe for instance) is not in contradiction with atheism, it is only in contradiction with positivisism (and ignostics, in particular). However, I belive I understand what you mean. There are people who belive in a god, but not a generally accepted one, so they're not part of any of the existing churches. However, since that _is_ theism (see the article if you disagree), I belive it would be more correct to say that he simply is a theist, without specifing any religion. Nevertheless, it makes a lot more sense now, thanks. - Amenzix 19:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atheism/No religion 

message: What is the sourse of the present ($10,152) GDP per capita of romania? In CIA World Factbook it is 8,800  as well as here . So I am going to change it now to 8,800. --Gligan 10:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the IMF estimate for 2007: GDP per capita based on purchasing power parity (as of September 2006). See also Economy of Romania. Mentatus 10:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP per capita of Romania 

message: I removed this because $11,000 PPP is unsourced, neither is growth of 7.7% according to neutral sources.   /FunkyFly.talk_  15:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDP and growth again 

message: I've added the suspension of the President to the Politics of Romania page.   Please don't forget to update that page as news progresses. Sentineneve 17:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current News 

message: I don't like the interim president, but shouldn't he be on there as well? Maybe not so important, but just a thought.
Luddz
:I don't like him too. And I don't like the previous one too. --Marksed 13:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Current News 

message: I have added a link to treasures of national library of Romania  Hope this is okay. Greetings, Fleurstigter 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The European Library

message: Romania will have 30 million people by 2070. --195.154.148.3 08:52, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Romania will have 30 million people by 2070

message: Isn't it possible to spell Romania as Rumania?  Emperor001 19:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is possible ;-) but it's not correct, that's an old spelling (see etymology article), the correct, current one, in English is "Romania". -- AdrianTM 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spelling

message: You're invite to discuss a new series of vector maps to replace those currently used in Country infoboxes: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries#New European vector maps. Thanks/wangi 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New European vector maps 

message: Good job on the article, but too many images. You can create a gallery on another page (preferred on Wikimedia Commons) and link it to this page for more images of Romania. But not so many!!
Good luck --Arad 05:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gallery or an Article? 

message: In the "Literature" section shouldn´t we mention Tudor Arghezi, Lucian Blaga or Ion Barbu as authors who, between the two world wars, intented to synchronize Romanian literary efforts with European ones ? Also Nichita Stanescu, Marin Sorescu or Marin Preda could be mentioned as valuable authors who tried to escape Communist censorship, especially in the 60's, when a small "Renaissance" took place in Romanian literature. I had problems creating an account, this is why I sign with IP. At RO.WP I can be found here  and at ES.WP here . And what does George Enescu have to do with literature ? Thank you for your time.--84.121.63.206 12:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not protected, you can edit it even if you don't sign in. Enescu is there because that was part of "Culture of Romania" and whoever partitioned that into subheadings didn't pay attention. -- AdrianTM 13:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arghezi, Blaga, Barbu 

message: If Elie Wiesel is from the north of Transylvania, then he is a survivor of Holocaust, but not Romanian Holocaust. --Venatoreng 12:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanian Holocaust 

message: Couldn´t the article say a few things about Romanian music and dances ? --Venatoreng 19:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culture 

message: Under the History section of this article, the first sentence was the following: One of the fossils found - a male, adult jawbone - has been dated to be between 34,000 and 36,000 years old, which would make it one of the oldest fossils found to date of modern humans in Europe.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3129654.stm http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/20/11231. This is out of context. What fossil? Should that have even belonged there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.255.229.66 (talk) 14:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: It seems everyone wants to put here a photo of his town/region etc. But I think there are far too much. This should be an article, not a gallery.07:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The photos should portrait the unique things of the country, but they put photos of skyscrapers and other places which are at best, of average importance. I will try to trim it down. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inflation of photos 

message: I urge people to trim down info in history, not add more, it's already too long, please add anything related to history in History of Romania page. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 20:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: I spent a great deal trying to make the article more fluent and I am planning on asking for a review and probably get at least an A-level for this article. Feel free to add comments and suggestions.
ps: do not make any comments (unless really specific) about the length of the history section. If you are not happy that Romania has a rich history, then go ahead and be unhappy. I have just checked the length of similar FA (i.e. Featured Article) and they aren't that much shorter. I am pretty sure that for example, Germany's section of history is very similar in terms of length.
Thank you for understandingNergaal 23:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not every decision on Wikipedia is based on existing articles.  In general, we make decisions about articles based on consensus.  So you shouldn't always base what you write on existing articles, even FA articles, because each situation is different.  Anyway, I think the history section is fine as it is right now, but some extra sources could always be helpful. Also, you may want to add  to the top of the page while you are editing so that you won't have as many edit conflicts. SmileToday☺(talk to me , My edits) 23:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "ps: do not make any comments (unless really specific) about the length of the history section. If you are not happy that Romania has a rich history, then go ahead and be unhappy." -- I will comment about whatever I please, there's a History of Romania where all this wouldn't constitute junk, in the Romania article people expect to read information about today Romania not pages about history of Romania, any country has "rich history", if you don't know that much you shouldn't contribute to a "history" section to any country. I will give you couple of days to work that out, afterwords I will try to reduce from the irrelevant stuff. -- AdrianTM 03:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have the right to express my opinions like any other person on Wikipedia, I think that's bad form from you to ask people to keep their opinion to themselves. Please mind your language too, there's no need for shouting and using expressions like "GOD DAMN". -- AdrianTM 04:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: "I did not ask ppl to keep their opinions for themselves" -- let me see: "do not make any comments (unless really specific) about the length of the history section. If you are not happy that Romania has a rich history, then go ahead and be unhappy", I also don't see any "please" there, so if you talk about "bossy" people contemplate first about how you write, also, what "really specific" comments do you want when we talk about the length of the history section? It is lengthy, that's my opinion, you can decide which specific part can be cut and which can be preserved, I think a general opinion gives you freedom instead of limiting you to any specific part of the history. Asking people to not comment and be "very specific" is at very least "bossy" if not impertinent. As for not being "believer of political correctness" I hope you are a believer of addressing people in a civilized manner without shouting at them and using cursing, if not I think Wikipedia has ways to deal with that lack of belief.  -- AdrianTM 06:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PLEASE! Do not remove/cut information from the present form of the article

message: "This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale."
When was this assesment made, and who do I need to contact to re-review/rerate the article? Thanks
Nergaal 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Projects Romania: rating?

message: As a reply to the review, it has been suggested to remove the gallery sections. Here are some of my suggestions:
*first take all the pictures about monasteries and put them in a big one with a caption relating to the Northern Moldova Monasteries.
*add some pictures to the tourism section see bellow what i've added about the Toourism section
*move some pictures in the largest cities subsection
*make suggestions here what to do with the remaining ones
Nergaal 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery

message: Someone should start a new chapter containing some official figures of tourists, with palces they usually visit (i.e.: touristic cities, monasteries, black sea, Danube Delta, Fagaras Mountains, etc). I do not feel informed enough about this subject to be able to construct a well balanced segment on this topic.
Nergaal 05:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Chapter: '''Tourism'''

message: Can someone help me and reference the culture section? Thanks Nergaal 01:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing the culture section: Anybody?

message: The article is almost 93k now, and is getting quite huge (although i bet a quarter are references). Since several important (see also the GA comments above) still need expansion, I believe there should be a 'vote' of what to trim down and what to take out completely.
My suggestions are to cut out completely Popular media and Armed forces.
Comments and suggestions? Thanks Nergaal 11:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a good idea to trim the article down, I don't think that armed forces should be in the main article about Romania -- AdrianTM 22:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions for trimming down the article

message: A picture from Craiova would be nice, I think. Also I don't see traditional costumes - I guess we don't have many in Commons. --Venatoreng 11:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: This is a talk page, I should get an answer even if I didn't contribute to the article. In my opinion too much Transylvania is represented, so Hungarians will be glad to see we don't have any culture in Wallachia or Moldavia. --Venatoreng 07:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eh 

message: I'd like to propose this external link about today's Romania after entering the European Union
*Romania, new European neighbour
Please, let me know you oppinion. Panex 08:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Disregarding what this site is about and how it makes EU look, it should not be added because it's against the style recommendations of Wikipedia: it's a photo-blog type of site that doesn't have encyclopedic merit. -- AdrianTM 13:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link proposal 

message: I believe they don't really fall into wikipedia's style, but what do ppl think about posting any of these videos?
  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 11:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe one made by the Romaian Ministry of Culture would do - but we really must get second opinions. --Venatoreng 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External video?