Talk:Romania

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Romania article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is part of WikiProject Countries, an attempt to formulate a template for country articles. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Romania is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Romania is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page. Nomination date: 22 August 2006

Archives
Archive 1 - 46KB, through January 2005. Archive 2 roughly through the end of August 2005. Archive 3 end of August 2005 - beginning of June 2006.

Contents 1 Semi-protected 2 Royal encyclopedia of 1938 (a.k.a. Dimitrie Gusti Encyclopedia) 3 Iaşi's population 4 suggested addition to tourism section 5 suggested addition to section on political parties 6 Salariile romanilor in 2008 / English: Wages of romanians in 2008 7 Bucharest GDP 8 Transylvania "annexed to Romania by force" 9 Romania's GPD, again 10 Seventh largest in EU? 11 Culture section 12 Copyright infringement 13 ARIS predictions 14 Please expand 15 History of Romania 16 Bucharest & tourism 17 Trivia in lead 18 Please nominate for good article tag 19 Very opinionated 20 Economy of Romania - GDP is 95 Billion Euro for 2006 21 Culture of Romania 22 Long article, very long history section 23 Dubious Numbers for Wages 24 POV about Securiate and events after 1989 25 The deleted fragment 26 Summarising 27 It is scandalising 28 petrache poenaru,the inventor of first fountain-pen 29 Today accession to EU on 1.1.07 approved 30 Miserable Country 31 Disputed 32 Central Europe 33 How long is too long? 34 Discrimination 35 GDP 36 Whoo keeps playing with the map?

[edit] Semi-protected

Per a request at WP:RfPP, the article has now been semi-protected to deal with vandalism. Once you believe this to no longer be necessary, drop me a note or request unprotection. Thanks. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone should correct the per capita income in the economy section to match the one in the info box: $8785. Also the GDP(PPP) in the info box should be $186,7 billion. Keep the article protected until some Romanians realize that credible data should be presented.Mywayyy 20:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. The previous figure for GDP for approx. $9400, which is the 2006 estimate. I think it may be better to insert that figure. But $10,000+ is clearly incorrect and serves no purpose. Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

It's Bonny as usual, coming with his bs. --Candide, or Optimism 05:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonnie was going even higher by the time he was blocked. Look at one his last statements on the topic: "You can compute very easily the GDP in Purchasing Power Standards: 11551 EURO." In the past he was more harmless, just adding Romanian instead of Moldovan once in while, but now he's involved in intensive vandalism, inserting his strange figures and maps into roughly 12 articles. Vox Populi (TSO) 14:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you compute PPP GDP when nominal GDP is 4500 Euro? 93 Billion EURO/22 millions romanians? --193.109.91.134 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

PPP GDP is not per capita GDP, it is purchasing power parity GDP. - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, he's getting more vocal. I have nothing against adding Romanian instead of Moldovan. But I see that now he's interested in a whole other array of topics, even economics. Boni, you really have too much time on your hands. Don't you have a Ph.D. to study for? Constantzeanu 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal encyclopedia of 1938 (a.k.a. Dimitrie Gusti Encyclopedia)

My father has in his possession, a 1938 romanian encyclopedia that literally was saved from the communist book burners by being picked up off the street and smuggled away. It would likely provide a great deal of material for matters romanian. The big question is whether the thing is out of copyright or, if not, who owns the copyright. Anybody able to help out on this? TMLutas 20:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

It's out of copyright. It's older than 1940 (or, if we take the literary period... before the WWII). So... I see there's no problem in posting contents of the book. As well, for insurance, u can put a copyright with the name of the book and all the dates. ;) D39 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)D39

Yes, I do have it, too, and it falled into public domain. I've been thinking about digitizing it to make a nice CD and sell it, but it's a lot of work for one person (4 thick volumes). :) BTW, it's commonly referred to as the "Gusti encyclopedia", not the "Royal encyclopedia". Dpotop 11:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. The Gusty Enc... COOL! This is the best ever made romanian Enc. (alongside with the Minerva Enciclopedia). Take very much care of it! ;) And... abt the idea of digitalization... dunno, what to say. To take some parts of it... I understand, but to SELL the whole book... I think it's illegal. D39

It's not illegal. Once one book is in public domain, anyone can digitize it and sell this digitized version. There's no GPL on it, once in public domain, you know. :) I also presume (I'm not sure) that you can place a copyright on the digitized version. Dpotop 13:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Aha. Well... do as u think. If u do it... let us know, ok? I'm interested in that. Good luck!D39 12:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)D39

[edit] Iaşi's population

The population of Iasi is estimated to be over 340,000, here are my sources:[[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. I would like to hear your opinions about this. Arthur 10 June 2006

We should only use census counts or census estimates as a source. From 1992 and 2002 census counts, we find the population of the city as 344,425 (1992) and 320,888 (2002). An official 2003 midyear estimate from here indicates a population of 313,444 (2003). The growth rate between 1992 and 2002 is -0.68% per year. The decrease in population appears to have accelerated from the 2003 estimate. It is unlikely to suddenly increase to 348,000. Polaron | Talk 19:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible that the population drop in 1 year about 7 000 persons, because Romania's population had increased since the 2002 census. I don't believe the 2002 census, simply because there are too low figures (ex. Roma population of Romania was 500 000 at the census, in reality is about 1.5 mil). Open your mind, Polaron, and read others sources than you provide, becuase not just yours are credible. Here is the official site of the Romanian tourism: [[4]]. Check all the cities population and you will see that in reality they are bigger than the census. Arthur 10 June 2006

Are you saying that the National Institute of Statistics population figures are less accurate than the figures provided by the Romanian Tourist Office? In any case, figures for all the cities in the table must come from a single reliable source for easy verifiability. Polaron | Talk 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Man, I'm not saying my sources are perfectly accurate, neither yours. I'm saying just that the Romanian census of 2002 is not very accurate and a sure and reliable source. I mean, the population of the cities is too low in comparision with estimation provided 2 years from that time, in 2002. There's no way that the population of Braşov or Constanţa for example drop in space of 2-3 years about 50-60 000.Come on, neither in Ukraine, were the population's declining rate is much over Romania's cities population don't discrease like that. Iasi could have 340 000 inhabitants, because I'm sure that its population was undercounted in the 2002 census. Arthur 10 June 2006

Arthur, I would also be skeptical in giving preference to any other source other than the official census data when describing the population of a place. You have to understand that the census takers and analysts are professionals who have taken into account all the data that they have accumulated. And considering the number of people choosing to leave the country for permanent or temporary work in other parts, the numbers do not even appear that unexpected. TSO1D 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the population of Romania may have risen, or at least dropped less, since the 2002 census (or most likely since 2004) but sadly enough we have no better data for these cities then the one in the 2002 census.Dapiks 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

How about the students? UAIC (The Univerisity Al. I. Cuza) has over 25000 students every year... and there another 4 state univerities in Iasi: (Technical (20000 or more...i think), Medicine&Pharmacy(20000 - i think... there are 6 faculties, and 8 colleges and courses are longer - 6 years), Agricultural Sciences, Arts... A private univeristy like "Petre Andrei" (UPA) enroles 5000 students every year. From all these students let's say that about 33% are locals... but the rest... about 50.000 people... where are they listed??

--O mores 11:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

We could also count the turist in constanta... during the summer, at any time there are more than 350,000 people in constanta, even if they are not the same 350,000 every week ;) Anonimu 20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think tourists are ever counted in statistics when somebody talks about population. -- AdrianTM 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

As for this kind of arguments "There's no way that the population of Braşov or Constanţa for example drop in space of 2-3 years about 50-60 000" you ignore that many people left Romania temporarily or for ever, emigration can easily explain that drop. -- AdrianTM 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that most of the ones who left temporarily still show up in statistics. Anonimu 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

They should, but they won't if they are not there to be counted during the census. -- AdrianTM 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] suggested addition to tourism section

Although the ifnrastructure for cultural tourism is slow being set up, the museums of Bucharest and elsewhere are comparable with some of the major museums of Western Europe. The National Art museum in Bucharest shows a collection of medieval and modern Rumanian art which is complete and impressive. The "Village museum" in Bucharest shows a couple of hundred traditional peasant houses built according to traditional methods which differ greatly from one province to another. IN Constanta, the (smaller) historical museum features a Roman mosaic unmatched in Europe and various statues from Pagan periods which are extremely well copnserved and not to be missed by people interested in that era.

[edit] suggested addition to section on political parties

There exists also a small extreme right party the "New right", notorious in particular for having organized in June 2006 demonstrations in Bucharest of a few hundred people on a violent anti-gay theme, in response to Bucharest's third (smallish) Gay Pride demonstration.

New right is an organisation, not a party.

Yup. Noua Dreapta is a nationalist organisation.

Noua Dreapta is a hate organization against anything other than the Romanian Orthodox Religion, publishing material in the name of the mentioned church. They are violent and verbally abusive. Adepts are found in every major city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.42.16.146 (talk • contribs) 23 September 2006.

[edit] Salariile romanilor in 2008 / English: Wages of romanians in 2008

12 iunie 2006

Pina cel putin in 2008 salariile vor continua sa creasca, dar nu in acelasi ritm ca acum citiva ani. De asemenea, nu vor mai exista diferente la fel de mari intre regiuni.

Salariul romanilor va creste anul acesta la nivel national, in medie, cu 11,8% fata de 2005, urmind ca in 2007 saltul sa fie de numai 10,4%, se arata intr-un studiu realizat de Comisia Nationala de Prognoza. La un an dupa aderare insa ritmul de crestere va fi similar cu cel din acest an, adica de 11,1% raportat la 2005. Altfel spus, conform estimarilor, salariul mediu net la nivel national va ajunge anul acesta la 817 lei noi, urmind sa creasca la 1.002 lei noi in 2008. In anul aderarii, un roman va cistiga in medie 902 lei noi. Cele mai mari salarii se vor inregistra in continuare in Bucuresti, iar cele mai mici in regiunea de nord-est.

Diferente mai mici intre regiuni/Smaller differences between regions

Daca pina acum remuneratia romanilor depindea foarte mult si de regiunea unde lucrau, specialistii Comisiei estimeaza ca in urmatorii doi ani diferentele dintre zonele geografice in ceea ce priveste nivelul salarial se vor estompa. Aceasta in conditiile in care in toate regiunile tarii cresterea economica va fi apropiata de media nationala estimata la 6% pentru anul in curs, la 6,2% in 2007 si de 6,3% in 2008. La nivelul anului trecut decalajul dintre regiuni a fost de 33,7%, in scadere fata de 2000 cind acest procent se ridica la 42,1%. Atunci salariatii din doar doua regiuni au fost remunerati cu sume situate peste media nationala. Este vorba despre Capitala si despre regiunea de sud-vest, unde salariul mediu net a fost cu 23,4% si respectiv 0,3% mai mare decit media pe tara. In schimb, cu 10,3 procente sub media nationala s-a cistigat in nord-est, in vreme ce in centru si nord-vest salariul mediu net a fost cu 8,2% si respectiv 6,5% mai mic decit media pe intreaga tara.

Cele mai semnificative cresteri, in vest

Chiar daca diferentele dintre salarii pe regiuni nu vor mai fi la fel de vizibile, bucurestenii vor beneficia in continuare de cele mai mari salarii. In Capitala, cresterea economica prognozata este pentru anul in curs de 6,6%, urmind sa ajunga la 6,8% in 2008, ceea ce va face ca peste doi ani salariul unui angajat intr-o societate bucuresteana sa fie in medie cu peste 200 de lei noi mai mare decit media nationala. Cu toate acestea, cele mai semnificative cresteri salariale se vor inregistra in vestul tarii. Este vorba despre un avans de 12,2% in 2008 raportat la 2005. La polul opus, angajatii din regiunile de sud-est si sud-vest vor beneficia peste doi ani de un plus la salariu de numai 10 procente fata de anul trecut. In rest, in celelalte regiuni ale tarii majorarea salariului mediu net va fi de 11,1%.

Mai putini someri

In ceea ce priveste rata somajului, Comisia Nationala de Prognoza preconizeaza o reducere moderata la nivelul intregii tari pina in 2008. Mai precis, pentru perioada 2006-2008 se preconizeaza o reducere cu 5,4% a numarului persoanelor aflate in somaj, ajungindu-se la o rata de 5,6%. Cel mai ridicat nivel, de 7,5%, va fi consemnat in acest an in regiunea de sud-vest - 7,5%, iar cel mai scazut in regiunea Bucuresti (2,7%). Alina Stanciu--Brasoveanul 12:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Topul salariilor, pe regiuni 12 Iunie 2006 Alexandru Gugoasa

Produsul intern brut pe cap de locuitor se va mentine dublu in Bucuresti fata de restul tarii.

Salariile in perioada 2006-2008 vor creste in termeni nominali cu 37,1%, ceea ce se traduce printr-o crestere de 17,5% a salariului real (ajustat cu inflatia), arata un studiu al Comisiei Nationale de Prognoza (CNP).

Locuitorii din regiunea Bucuresti (inclusiv Ilfov) vor continua sa se situeze pe prima pozitie in topul celor mai bine platiti romani, urmand sa primeasca 1.212,2 lei in 2008, fata de 1.001,8 lei, nivelul prognozat pentru acest an.

Totusi, diferenta fata de media nationala va continua sa fie de 20%, desi PIB pe cap de locuitor este dublu in Capitala.

Capitala, responsabila de deficit

Ca urmare a faptului ca au cele mai mari salarii, bucurestenii cheltuiesc cel mai mult. Iar acest lucru se reflecta in deficit. Dintr-un deficit comercial total de peste 13 miliarde de euro, aproape 75% este realizat in regiunea ce cuprinde Capitala si judetul Ilfov.

Oricum, dezechilibrul balantei comerciale va creste in urmatorii ani intr-un ritm sustinut, precizeaza studiul CNP.

Daca anul acesta diferenta dintre importuri si exporturi va atinge 13 miliarde de euro, aceasta urmeaza sa creasca la peste 15 miliarde in 2007 si sa ajunga la 17,3 miliarde in 2008.

Regiunea Bucuresti va continua si in anii urmatori sa realizeze aproximativ trei patrimi din deficit.

Populatia ocupata creste

Pana in 2004, populatia ocupata a scazut continuu, ajungand in acel an la 8.238.300 de persoane. Dupa 2004, ca urmare a faptului ca efectele cresterii economice sustinute au inceput sa se faca simtite, numarul persoanelor ocupate s-a inscris pe o tendinta ascendenta.

Astfel, in 2008, populatia civila ocupata va numara nu mai putin de 8.295.000 de persoane.

Mai putini someri

Pe fondul cresterii populatiei ocupate, numarul somerilor se va restrange treptat. Daca in 2000 rata somajului era de 10,5%, in 2006 va fi doar 5,9%, urmand ca in 2008 sa ajunga la 5,6%.

Cea mai mica rata a somajului in 2008 se va inregistra in Bucuresti, doar 2,2%, in scadere de la 2,7% in 2006.

Image:Graf pag 12.jpg

Source is: http://www.evenimentulzilei.ro/article.php?artid=261820 Brasoveanul 13:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty good stuff; can we add this map along with this data? Dapiks 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe so as long as we mention the source. --Brasoveanul 06:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Then we should put this in the article. It's really good infoDapiks 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bucharest GDP

Bucharest spearheads economic growth Ciprian Domnisoru

The Bucharest region will be the only one whose economic growth rate for 2006-2008 will exceed the national average and next year the capital will see a record rate, according to a study of the National Forecast Commission. The commission this year estimates a 6.6 percent gross domestic product growth for the Bucharest region (capital city and Ilfov County), compared to 6 percent for the whole country. In 2007, the growth will reach 7.1 percent in Bucharest and 6.2 percent for Romania while in 2008 the economic development will register a slight slowdown to 6.8 percent in the capital and 6.3 percent nationwide. This year, the southwest area will rank second in top regions with a 6.1 percent increase while the northwest region is last, its economy increasing by only 5.4. The western part of Romania is expected to place last both next year and in 2008, with increases of 5.7 percent and 5.9 percent respectively. Last year the economy in the region was up 5.6 percent after higher increases in 2003 and 2004, of 9.6 and 8.5 percent respectively. The Forecast Commission explains that the western and central areas of Romania were advantaged by being closer to Western European markets and by a lower dependency on the primary sector, thus benefiting from larger foreign direct investment. For 2006-2008, the commission forecasts an increase in the GDP per capita for the Bucharest region from 8,875.5 euros to 11, 416.3 euros, this being the largest level in the country. The western region comes next in the top, as the GDP per capita is expected to amount to 6,204.9 euros in 2008, followed by the center of the country, with 5,799.5 euros. For 2008, experts have forecast a national GDP per capita average of 5,450 euros. The less developed regions are the southeast (4,609 euros), south (4,454 euros), southwest (4,454 euros) and northwest (5,022 euros). The northeast is the least developed region, with a GDP per capita of just 3,733.6 euros. According to the National Forecast Commission, the reduction of economic gaps between regions will be noticeable in 2008, even for those regions with a low growth rate for 2005. The slowest growth last year was registered in the northeast (2.2 percent) and in the southeast, southwest and northwest. Analysts are predicting growth rates over the national average for the construction sector, especially in less developed regions like the northeast, southeast and south, where significant funds will be allocated from the non-redeemable EU grants and from the state budget for large investment projects. The construction sector is expected to reach a 12.2 percent increase in the Bucharest region, compared to the national average of 12 percent. For 2007 and 2008, the growth rate in Bucharest will fall under the national average, 9.9 percent compared to 11.1 percent for the whole country. This year the northeast regions will see the largest increase in the construction sector at 13 percent. The region will stay in the top for the next two years, with a 12 percent increase in 2007 and 12.5 percent in 2008. In the services sector the Commission expects the largest increases in Bucharest for 2006 and the following two years: 7.1%, 7.8%, 7.2%. In agriculture, increases for regions do not vary much from the yearly national average, in normal climate conditions. Slightly higher increases are forecast for the regions where the vegetal sector has a larger share, like the south, southwest and southeast. Exports and imports are expected to keep the current structure. The largest share of the volume of Romanian foreign trade is conducted through the Bucharest region, with 22 percent of exports and 40 percent of imports. As for the trade balance, in the south and the southwest the volume of exports will exceed that of imports.

http://www.daily-news.ro/article_detail.php?idarticle=27350

[edit] Transylvania "annexed to Romania by force"

The term "annexed by force" (history, 6th paragraph) is not what most romanians think about the event. Some of them (us) may find it a very provoking POV, even insulting. Please take some time and re-formulate that phrase.

It's strange that nobody caught that yet. I checked and it turns out that a Hungarian by the name of Mashu pushed his POV here but no one saw this because at that point a certain user... was changing the economic data. TSO1D 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Despite popular opinion, Transylvania did not willingly become a part of Romania, regardless of ethnicity. Today, after 87 years of "re-unification" a significant number of us Transylvanians (Romanian, Saxon, Hungarian, and Svab) would prefer to be independent, autonomous, and free. 08/18/06

Oh I think it's perfect that way. It had been forced upon them to "join" all right. Of course my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Hungarian. It's a sheer fact. The territory belongs to Romania now, that's not in question here.

Good point. It's ours now, and the locals haven't formulated any requests to become independent (apart from the minorities who really don't matter in the grad scheme of things). But truth remains, Transilvania was Hungaria's for ~850 years. During that time, the Romanian **majority** made countless requests for equal rights, some form of local government, and finally outright independence and unification with Romania (see 1848, "Petitunea Nationala" and "Printipiurile noastre pentru reformarea patriei"). You can say they annexed forcibly after the First World War, but it's not like they hadn't asked for it! If memory serves, they actually formed a council and voted for unification. Scvalex 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Freedom is priceless. Szabadság most!!

And what's this talk about freedom? The local administration is in Hungarian, local schools teach in Hungarian, there's even a state-funded Hungarian university. They have the same rights as all other Romainian citizens. You have as much freedom in Romania as you would have in any other half-civilised country. Scvalex 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Transilvania is Hungarian and was taken BY FORCE, and the whole Dobrudja is BULGARIAN.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gligan (talk • contribs) .

Dobrogia might have been Bulgaria's, but it's now, and always has been, populated by a majority of Romanians now. Get over it! Scvalex 09:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Romania's GPD, again

Fellows, I've noticed a thing that seems a little unclear. Here it says that Romania has a GPD in 2006 of about 204.4 billions, and is ranked as the 43rd in the world. If I go for example to the Czech Republic, its GPD is less than the Romanian one, but the rank is 41st. If we consider all this, Romania's rank has to be more further. Arthur 23 June 2006

Well, I think what's happening is that a lot of countries are picking and choosing what sources suits them best. The Czechia article uses World Bank data, which give rank 41, as opposed to IMF (rank 46 for Czechia) and CIA Factbook (rank 44). Romania's GDP is higher than Czechia according to all but the World Bank, which, however, places Romania at rank 42. The Romania article lists a GDP of $204.4 billion, which is the IMF estimate for 2006. Romania's rank for 2005 IMF is actually 44th (in front of Czech 46th). For World Bank, Romania's rank is 42nd (behind Czech 41st). Ronline ✉ 23:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

GDP per capita tells you more than GDP for the whole country. Who cares that Romania has a higher GDP when per capita it's like in Bangladesh?

Well GDP per capita is not like Bangladesh. Romania is an upper-middle income country, while Bangladesh is low-income. Romania's GDP per capita (PPP) is $9400 while Bangladesh's is closer to $2000. In nominal terms, the difference is even larger. You fail to see it? Ronline ✉ 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, size matters. This is why India is important worldwide, and Luxemburg is not. Dpotop 12:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any problem here. Both total and per capita GDP are indicated in the article. I haven't checked the sources, but PPP data (as in the infobox) are usually considered a good means to compare different economies. --KIDB 13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seventh largest in EU?

France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Poland, Britain, Finland, and Sweden are all larger than Romania. So it would be the ninth largest. Presumably what is actually meant is that Romania will be the seventh most POPULATED country, so I'll change it to that.

[edit] Culture section

To me the culture section if very poorly written. Can anyone clean it up?

• Who invented the pens? A person? Romanians? (and why the dangling link?)
• "Traditionally Romanians appreciate poetry more than Romanian prose". Really? Traditionally? WTF does that mean? And why so many generalizations anyway?
• "remained very known outside Romania" -- strange sentence.

Anyone else? --AdrianTM 11:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright infringement

As I have said on the Featrued Article Nominations page, I have contacted the holder of Copyright for those images from [[5]], and am awaiting an answer as to if the images will be permitted to stay on Wikipedia. Please do not change or remove the images until a clear answer will have been received. -Danielsavoiu 08:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. --Eliade 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ARIS predictions

According to ARIS (Agentia Romana pentru Investitii Straine) [6] ("ARIS estimeaza, pentru anul in curs, un record al volumului investitiilor straine, de aproape 7,5-8 miliarde de euro."), ARIS estimates for the year 2006, a volume of foreign direct investments of about 7.5-8 billion Euro. --Eliade 07:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please expand

Please exapand my new template. Wish you good work.--Noisettes 15:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Topics in Romania		edit
History	Timeline | Dacia | Roman Dacia | The Dark Ages | The Middle Ages | Early Modern Times | National awakening | Kingdom of Romania | World War II | Communist Romania | Romania since 1989
Geography	Counties | Development regions | Cities | Islands | Mountains | Protected areas | Rivers | Ecoregions | Flora & Fauna
Government	Constitution | Government | Parliament | Ombudsman | Foreign relations | Military | Law | Law enforcement | Courts | Electoral system
Politics	Political parties (PNL, PD, PSD, PRM, , PC, UDMR) | Elections | EU accession
Economy	Agriculture | Companies | Communications | Mining | Tourism | Transport | National Bank | Bucharest Stock Exchange
Society	Demographics | Languages | Minorities | Religion | Media | Education | Holidays | Folklore | Middle class | Educational attainment
Culture	Romanian language | Art | Cinema | Cuisine | Education | | Literature | Music | LGBT culture | Public holidays | Media | Sport
Other	List of Romanians | Human rights | Gay rights | Immigration | Crime

[edit] History of Romania

The titles of some chapters, as „Romania in the Dark Ages” and „Romania in the Middle Ages” are untrue because Romania didn’t exist before 1878. More accurate to use „The present territory of Romania…” or geographical terms. Kuruc, 10th of Aug, 2006, 22:45 (CEST)

I think this is unnecessary nitpicking. I think it would be too wordy and strange "History of the present territory of Romania in the Dark Ages" not to forget that this would ignore that Romanians existed before 1878. I would be for changing to "History of Romanians" but this would screw up Dacia history and would change the focus of the article -- AdrianTM 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is nitpicking. Prior to the official recognition of the Kingdom of Romania as a state it would be inaccurate to refer to the people inhabiting the region as Romanian. Vlach, Moldovan, etc. would be more accurate. Just as with Canada. There are many references in historical documents to "les canadiens" but prior to 1867 it is relavent only to distinguish the French colonists of North America from the rest of the population. Even after the Conquest, the term Canadian did not have any real ethnic or political relevance until 1867. As far as the history of Dacia goes and the impact that this position would have on it, the history of Dacia and the whole continuity theory is highly contentious. Given the revisionist and irredentist position of most Hungarian and Romanian "scholars" I would call into question any references cited by either group (wasn't communism wonderful??)08/18/06 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.57.195.26 (talk • contribs) .

In general, we do more or less the same with most European countries. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bucharest & tourism

The lead refers to Bucharest as "a major tourist attraction". I like Bucharest, myself, but what is the basis for calling it a major tourist attraction? As European national capitals go, it's certainly not in the top 10 for tourism. - Jmabel | Talk 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia in lead

The lead section of an article is supposed to be a short digest of the most important information in an article. Are brown bears and chamois really more worthy of mention than the fact that it was both a monarchy and a Communist state within living memory, or that it is the only state in Eastern Europe with a Romance language for its national language (and that the country's name reflects that Latin heritage)? Sorry if I'm being species-ist here, but I think countries are generally more notable for their people than their bears - Jmabel | Talk 02:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I do see that the Latin heritage is the next topic we take up after the lead. I still don't think the bears and chamois belong there. - Jmabel | Talk 02:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please nominate for good article tag

Hi all,

I noticed Petre Buzdugan added a good article tag to this article. To add this tag, the article must first be nominated and then promoted by a neutral observer. I know sometimes tags get misplaced and are then readded by concerned Wikipedians, but in this case I would ask you to renominate as I am unsure whether this article meets the good article criteria.

Cedars 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Very opinionated

The two paragraphs beginning with "Despite the desperate efforts of the Securitate…" seem to me to be very opinionated, and very far from neutral. I don't necessarily disagree with some of what it says, but it seems very far from accepted Wikipedia style. I'm not jumping into this one beyond noting it, but it seems to me that the current text of these two paragraphs probably should keep this from getting GA status. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economy of Romania - GDP is 95 Billion Euro for 2006

Reference is http://www.zf.ro/articol_93591/cnp__cresterea_economica_pe_2006_ar_putea_fi_revizuita_la_6_7_.html and also GDP increases by 6.7 % in 2006. One should correct the data accordingly.

Why do you expect that that "one" should be somebody else and not yourself? Please feel free to edit. -- AdrianTM 13:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Romania

I think it should be mentioned that the famous story of "Dracula" is set in the Romanian province of Transylvania. For many people over the world it's the one thing they associate with the country and how many countries can claim that one of their provences is world famous?

Only that's not the first thing that comes to mind when I think about "culture". It's also not Romanian culture, it's world "culture". -- AdrianTM 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

 :It isn't really Romanian at all - it just happened that Transylvania was used as the location of the fictional "Dracula" character (regardless of the fact that the Count Dracula of horror legend is obviously influenced by Vlad III the Impaler... it's still not Romanian in origin) The Incredible Moo 09:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (signed now that I have a login)

Romania has no culture. The culture of Wallachia and Moldova is BULGARIAN and the culture of Transilvania is Hungarian.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gligan (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Long article, very long history section

Maybe it's time to move from history to History of Romania article, not everybody is obsessed of history, many people who want information about Romania want info about the country and current state of things not about history, if they are interested in history they'd go to History of Romania. -- AdrianTM 11:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you: long history article for a state with such a pitiful and short history (I think romania was founded in 1856 or 1859, yes???)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gligan (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Dubious Numbers for Wages

The article currently states that avr. wage is 1217 RONs and it further states that this translates as over 400 EUROs, however under the present currency exchange rate of 3.5252 RONs per EURO, it should be something like 345.23 EUROs. Dapiks 04:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 19:19, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV about Securiate and events after 1989

Please add only referenced material, please make sure the reference is an unbiased source. Also, this article is really long if you want to contribute to the history part it's better to add the info to History of Romania not to this article. -- AdrianTM 13:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The deleted fragment

The political power in Romania went from certain Communists to other Communists after the revolution.Fsol

So what? (unfortunately)They didn't apply Communist theory anymore.Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

So what? So, you do acknowledge that they took power again. It's not a conspiracy theory anymore then, it becomes fact.Fsol

This is not a conspiracy theory, this is fact the acknowledge this themselves. (but they say that they are now reformed and now how to help a state run democratic economy...)Fsol

Implying that Securitate had a very important role in the events is a conspiracy thoery.Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, it is a conspiracy, but so was the Jewish Shoa. A conspiracy against Jews, should we not speak about it in Wikipedia? Fsol

Stop this comparation of those events with the Holocaust. There's nothing similar. Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very similar, because Romanians were to victims of a genocide, only we didn't but our oppressors to trial yet, because they were the ones who took power when a trial could have been made. Fsol

Yes of course.. if i'd recommend psychiatric counselling i'm breaking wiki's civility policy? Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

When you are faced with the lack of arguments you find insults comforting...Don't worry I won't "report" you to wikipedia or anything by using this kind of language you are discrediting yourself enough.Fsol

It wasn't an insult.It was just a counsel. And i still recommend you to do it... Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there was an attack of coal miners on the streets of Bucharest is again not a theory it is a fact, those that they attacked were the members of newly formed opposition parties, among which myself. Romanians call these the mineriade's and they have been covered by networks such as CNN or TF1.Fsol

Yes they were mineriads, but the fact that the miners attacked the opposition parties because the then governing party told them to is still a theory. From what i know they may have attacked them because the manipulators that staged the anti-democratic protest (since they opposed the results of a demcratic vote) took refuge there. Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you are right in your reasoning. But there are some facts which deny the possibility you speak of. During the Mineriades the house of opposition leader Ion Ratiu was vandalised and 10000$ were stolen by a group of coal miners led by a person in a police jacket. Ion Ratiu sued the Ministry of Interior of the time and during trial the person recognised had admitted he "was under orders". The trial was won by Ratiu and no appeals were made.Fsol

I have my doubts about ratiu too. A man who lived 50 years in UK suddenly comes back (with lots of wealth) and puts up a mass demonstration after he doesn't win the presidency...Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are free to have your doubts about anybody, but the fact is that Ratiu won the trial intended to the Ministry of Interior after the mineriads which show that the State was coordinating the miners and was engaging in attacks against the opposition. So the conspiracy theory isn't just a theory anymore.Fsol

First, i don't know what you're about this, so i'll have to believe your word. Second, if some guy received some orders, this doesn't mean a governmental conspiracy. Should we blaim queen Elizabeth II and the UK for what some british soldiers did to iraqi prisoners? Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but Tony Blair and a few Ministers did apologize. The close involvement of the 1989 authorities in the mineriade's isn't proven by just one man working under orders, there are several other facts pointing this out. As you well know Iliescu is filmed while telling them what to do, and also a lot of state infrastructure was made available to the miners to come promptly to Bucharest.Fsol

It was just an electoral scheme. You really think they care about some iraqis? You haven't still pointed to those facts that should prove the involvement of the gvt. In the video, Iliescu is thanking them and telling them to go to stop the street war. You can't prove he told them to kill people or destroy the opposition. And did i deny that miners we're called by the elected power to Bucharest? Please read my version (the NPOV one). Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are also numerous examples of how the former members of the Romanian political police had an important role in taking power after the revolution (all this is covered by historians such as Marius Oprea) and is again fact. Nowadays in Romania there is a campaign against these Communist remnants which is called the Dosariada, in which the archives of the political police are opened to see who was a member of it and who wasn't. Most of those who were discovered as being former members of it were in key positions of Romanian politics.Fsol

You mean Marius Oprea, the one who didn't receive the ORNISS certificate (a certificate that proves you didn't have relations to the former secret services, and you don't currently have relations with current foreign or national security services)? I have doubts about what he writes. Anyway, if you could bring proves from his books, we could put them as references. And about Dosariada, until now, the two biggest fishes caught were PNL members (an opposition historical party in 1990). So there goes the myth of pure historical party destroyed by the big Securitate. Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you are partially right. Marius Oprea wasn't given the ORNIS certificate by the same security services he fights to democratise. What you don't say about him is that he had been awarded the highest distinction of trust of the Romanian State (ordinul serviciu credincios cu gradul de comandor). So if he didn't receive the ORNIS certificate (which he did not receive without any explanation) it means he must not be worthy of the distinction he has. In a show 100% on realitatea tv he addressed this very issue. The fact that you have doubts about what he writes is fine with me, I don't imply everything he says is true, but it is heavily documented. Fsol

If i remeber right he was given that decoration by the president "defeated by the secret services". Remember Vadim also has some high decoration. Should we trust all the things he "discloses" on OTV or Nasu'? How can it be heavyly documented when he doesn't have acces to the archives? Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that his distinction means everything he says is true. But it does mean he is not a foreign agent as you implied he was. "If i remember right", so you knew about it? You knew he had the distinction and that he wasn't given the ORNIS certificate, but chose not to speak about it... very honest of youFsol

I didn't consider the fact that he received a distinction important for the subject. As i said, Vadim received one too.

You didn't consider important speaking about a distinction of trust you knew the man had when insinuating he was a spy? "Vadim received one too", again I tell you I am not implying these distinctions are a guarantee of truth.Fsol

A distinction is not a sign of trust! the president has the right to give distinction to everyone he wants. this doesn't mean he trusts the person. So let's get back to the subject. Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree, the Dosariada revealed one member of PNL, who is now being excluded. But that just stands to prove Oprea's theory, that the Securitate has infiltrated a lot of political parties. I am the first one to say there are still former Securitate members in PNL and PD, such as Melescanu. But the main Securitate composed parties are the PSD and the PRM. The leader of the PRM has not made a secret of his involvment with the Securitate "I was and am serving my country", I am not judging, I am just quoting the PRM president. Fsol

Who are you to judge what party has more members of the pre 1989 regime in it? Do you have a database of them? Just because a member of a party admited he worked for the Securitate doesn't mean that all party memebrs did. Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, just because one did doesn't mean they all did. But when all the leading members are famous for their cooperation with the ex-political police, and when the party leader publicly states he is wiling to receive any members thrown out of a party as a result of their work in the Securitate, one can reasonably assume that party is inclined towards the Securitate. Fsol

What leading members are famous for their collab with the former Securitate? If you know something that we don't know and you have proofs, you'd better go to the CNSAS. What can one "reasonably asume" could be said in a forum, not in an encyclopedia. And anyway, if you collaborated with the Securitate it means you're bad? Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

On what database? The only one which exists is only now being opened! Don't you think this is the least bit odd? I mean, I'm not telling you what to think. But don't you find it any bit bizarre that a people which is supposed to have suffered under Communism enough to revolt against it decides to just forget everything about it for the next 16 years? Think about it, if you are a true Communist wouldn't you want those who committed their crimes in the name of Communism to be brought to trial? I can see why in today’s society you would want to be a Communist, but don't you think you have a better chance of ever getting your ideas through if the previous false Communists are unmasked? But well this is really not the issue. The issue is saying what is most accurate in a serious encyclopaedia, and as an other user said what you consider to be a POV is "crucial to the understanding of the actual situation of Romania". It is a conspiracy, one acknowledged by former Presidents (Emil Constantinescu), by the current President, Traian Basescu and by other political figures.Fsol

Sincerely, I don't think this "Dosariada" is needed. It's just a political instrument in the hands of Basescu. How come he jumped over 20 categories of people who should be verified (including he, his counseillors and the current governmental structure) and decided the ones to be verified should be the priests? And i don't think there's a better chance, since the media and the post 1992 gvts have demonized communism, without saying that the form applied in Romania was a degenerated one. And anyway , i put a NPOV version, without conspiracy theories. Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are obviously avoiding the issue by speaking of the "Dosariada", which by the way is adding proof to what you call "the conspiracy theory".Fsol

WTF? man, you're ... You suffer of amnesia or something? Does "Nowadays in Romania there is a campaign against these Communist remnants which is called the Dosariada" sound familiar to you? Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

By not letting the fragment which explains this stay in the article because of a self-proclaimed nostalgic of the Communist era is a loss for Wikipedia.Fsol

It doesn't explain nothing. It's just a conspiracy theory. And anyway you aren't more objective than me, since you said you were attacked by those miners. So i'd say you're much more biased and prone to accept conspiracy theories. Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, now I really see where you are going. The same would go for the Jewish people, who, from your theory are biased when speaking about the Holocaust. If I am a Jew that has had family murdered by National Socialists then I should not be able to speak about it for I am un-objective. Fsol

There are serious studies of Holocaust written by non-Jews and there are full archives of documents that proven it. But untill now there's no study about the post 1989 events written by a neutral person. Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Why isn't Marius Oprea a neutral person? Did you at any point try to read any of his books just to see if it is biased? Several times he says in his books he doesn't know if a person or an other was a member of the Securitate.Fsol

Why? Because he begins with a theory and then he tries to prove it. This might work in physics but in history it can result only in a biased view on the events. Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If he did do this, you would be right, but he doesn't. If you want to convince yourself read the book "Mostenitorii Securitatii"Fsol

The fragment does not depict a POV, no more than an article saying the Holocaust was bad or that Stalin was a murderer.Fsol

Ask any wikipedian who knows something about contemporaneous romanian history if it's POV or not.Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Except you I don't know any wikipedian. You should ask yourself this: If a conspiracy theory is true should one not speak about it in a serious encyclopaedia.Fsol

Oxymoron! Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Still the question stands, if there are facts showing a conspiracy theory is not just a theory, shouldn't a serious encyclopaedia speak about it?Fsol

What are those facts?!? Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have been stating them over and over. What do you think happened to the Securitate after 1989? Why a people desperate enough to make a revolution failed to open the political police's archive for 16 years? Why hasn't anybody been prosecuted for the crimes committed in Communism?Fsol

You didn't state nothing. You just stated some fact that, interpreted in a certain way, may give a hint about a governmental directed action. This is a typical conspiracy theory. An important part of the Securitate naturally was merged with SRI (you can't create new secret services from nothing); the rest went in private business or were pensioned off. Not all the Securitate action were political police... Why nobody has been prosecuted? I don't know the english term, but in romanian: au fost prescrise. Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This fragment can be seen here. - Fsol

Fsol, I cannot understand why you don't answer to this stuf. I don't have time to answer myself right now. Hope to see your replies soon.

I can't understand why you people try to motivate facts by some conspiracy theories.. there are 3 cases : (1) all the ipss , User:Fsol and User:Ghita are the same person (should i request a checkuser?).. (2) all these people know about those events only what they've heard from members of the opposition, tabloids and and other sources of conspiracy theory (OTV, DDTV etc) (3) these are all members of a party opposing psd. Anonimu

Oh! I have been unmasked... Good job inspector Anonimu the internet is once again a safe place! Oh and I forgot not only am I also an other user I am also a secret imperialist agent sent to this site in order to destabilize the true fight of the people for equality! I thought I could fool you Anonimu, but you were too smart for me and the agencies I work for.

Thanks, but as a former Securitate officer it's my patriotic duty to cover up operations, deny any involvement and demonize people who say otherwise. Anonimu 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(1) All the ips except one are not mine. The one that is mine appears because I didn't log in (I'm not using a personal computer). Your wit unmasked my terrible secret!

So what are you using... You edited from your ip at 11,12,13,16,17,22,23... you must be living in a internet cafe... Anonimu 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(2) I forgot you knew everything I know about the subject and also every source I have...You don't know the identity of each user and thus you can't know what their sources are. Exactly in the same way you say people are mislead you could be mislead.

God speaks to me so i know everything and i can't be mislead. And anyway unsourced afirmations shouldn't be in wikipedia. Anonimu 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

(3) "these are all members of a party opposing psd" LOL I have never been a party member in my entire life, but you don't know that. All you can do is say that I was so you can discredit the things I say without using any arguments. Like Communists and Nazis did.

Man, i'm a prophet of the masses and a former Securitate officer... of course i know. And about your last afirmation, capitalist , imperialist, liberals... you know... everybody's doing it. Anonimu 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You just accuse people of doing stuff or of being things which they aren't and for which of course you have absolutely no proof. Just like Vadim or Becali. No arguments just personal attacks… I really hoped on wiki to find users that debated through arguments and not through personal attacks.

Nu v'ar fi rusine obrazului... Cand o sa ajung la putere (si o sa ajung, ca in sondaju secret facut de presedintie sunt pe primul loc, ma dane) in 24 de ore o sa bag toti mafiotii ca tine din tara care au furat din averea poporului roman asta in puscarie. Cat credeti ca va va mai suporta poporul roman?

The deleted fragment contains fact-based informations which are crucial to the understanding of the actual situation of Romania.

Simply deleting this fragment doesn't appear to be the best idea.

A better approach would be to reformulate the fragment under discussion.

I made an attempt to rephrase it, adding facts in chronological order.

I definitely support the idea of avoiding virulent assessment in encyclopedias, but you cannot prevent calling a pig, a pig.

Better than starting editing wars, users with a better command of English should help to improve this fragment.

--Vintila Barbu 10:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No. It contains supposition-based informations that are still to be proven. Conspiracy theories shouldn't be rephrased, but promptly deleted from a serious encyclopedia. Anonimu 11:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please add historical information to History of Romania this article is already overloaded.
• Please add only referenced matterial. (the reference has to be unbiased and credible). Thanks. -- AdrianTM 13:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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.—The preceding unsigned comment was 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)

[edit] Today accession to EU on 1.1.07 approved

Material for changes in the article: speeches by Olli Rehn [7] and José Manuel Barroso [8] --Michkalas 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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) .

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [9] 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: [10], and I have this very nice table:

IMF[11]

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)

[edit] 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)