Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 6

Photos again

[This is an abbreviated version of a section now on Wikipedia talk:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive5]
Photos still needing identification:

Once again, I'm trying to ID some photos I took in Bucharest. I'll start out with two of them. These are in the Lipscani district. - Jmabel | Talk 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Making progress, so let's try a couple more. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lipscani 2.jpg		& this maybe 100 metres southeast of the corner of Calea Victoriei and Regina Elisabeta (give or take). But I can't remember in what street; pretty sure I was on the south side of an east-west street, looking at the north side. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC) Still unanswered - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC) It is located on Lipscani, right before it intersects Calea Victoriei. It sits above a former sporting-goods store. If you continue on Lipscani towards C. Victoriei, you get to the "Victoria" stores. Eugen Ivan 10:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Image:MTR Ceramic 4.jpg		Amphora? - Jmabel | Talk 04:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Still unanswered - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

A tiny but intriguing Romanian diaspora

Talk:Val d'Aran#Romanians: the Val d'Aran is a small, Gascon-speaking region mainly on the north side of the Pyrenees, but within the borders of Catalonia, Spain. Apparently, there are several hundred Romanians living there. - Jmabel | Talk 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The most Romanians in Spain are in the Castellón Province, 40-80,000, of which around 20,000 live in the capital, Castellón de la Plana. (figures taken from random sites/newspaper articles) bogdan 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But legally there are only 28,000, of which 15,000 in the capital (9.1% of its population). [1] bogdan 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Duble standarde la Wikipedia

Am observat că Greier tocmai a luat o blocare de 2 săptămîni pe baza unui raport 3RR făcut de Jmabel, după ce pe exact aceeaşi încălcare se făcuse raport 3RR şi de Khoikhoi. Probabil îşi merită pedeapsa, dacă a încălcat regula.

Ceea ce mă miră pe mine este dublul standard aplicat de Wikipedia. Pe articole legate de Transnistria am avut de a face cu edit wariorul User:William Mauco (colaborator la ziarul on-line "Tiraspol Times" vezi sfîrşitul articolului), la care numai eu am numărat 6 (şase) cazuri diferite de încălcare a 3RR, la care am şi făcut raport. Nu a fost blocat niciodată. În două cazuri a fost "atenţionat" [2], [3], odată s-a respins raportul că n-am indicat "Previous version" [4], al 4-lea caz pur şi simplu nu s-a răspuns [5], iar la ultimele două cazuri care au fost ieri un admin rus (nu întîmplător rus) a blocat articolele respective la care se încălcase 3RR dar nu şi pe userul vinovat [6], [7]

Semnalez acest caz de dublu standard (de fapt de lipsă a oricăror standarde) în care un utilizator primeşte 2 săptămîni pentru încălcarea 3RR iar altul încalcă regula de 6 (şase) ori fără să fie blocat nici măcar odată. Eu însumi am ajuns să încalc odată 3RR din cauza respectivului edit warior, nu m-aş mira să primesc vreo două săptămîni suspendare.--MariusM 19:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Translation (thanks to User:Biruitorul)

I've noticed that Greier has just received a two-week block for a 3RR report made by Jmabel, after Khoikhoi too had made a 3RR report for the exact same violation. He probably deserves his punishment, if he violated the rule.

What surprises me is the double standard applied at Wikipedia. On articles related to Transnistria I've had to deal with edit warrior User:William Mauco (a correspondent for the on-line newspaper Tiraspol Times see the end of the article), for whom I alone counted 6 different cases of 3RR violations, which I reported. He was never blocked. He was "warned" twice [8], [9]; once, the report was rejected because I did not indicate a "Previous version" [10]; I simply received no reply in the fourth case [11], and in the last two cases, which took place yesterday, a Russian admin (not coincidentally Russian) protected the repsective articles on which the 3RR had been violated but did not also block the guilty user [12], [13].

I am calling attention to this double standard (in fact to the lack of any standards) in which one user receives two weeks for violating the 3RR while another violates the rule six times without even being blocked once. I myself have violated the 3RR once because of said edit warrior; it would not surprise me to receive a block of about two weeks.

Weird. Surprising, even. William Mauco should doubtless have been blocked. Yes, admins can be very inconsistent about this.

FWIW, the reason I reported Greier rather than block him myself is that I was involved in the dispute. Except in cases of outright vandalism, I don't use my administrative blocking powers in situations I'm involved in.

You might want to call people's attention to this on the Administrators' notice board rather than just here. If there is a pattern of someone repeatedly violating 3RR and never being blocked, that is a problem, and admins should be made aware of it. - Jmabel | Talk 22:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you an admin (I really don't know)? Then, instead of saying "Weird. Surprising, even.", why don't you apply the rules? Indeed, you are not involved in the dispute there. Dpotop 19:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am an admin. If you look at the record, you will see that I rarely block anyone other than blatant vandals and the occasional sockpuppet. I've also very occasionally permablocked an inappropriate user name. But (unlike some admins) I don't block people working in areas where I am involved, unless the case is really blatant vandalism, etc. As I just said, that is why I simply reported Greier and let someone else decide what to do about it. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Pleven

Undocumented material about abuse of prisoners on both sides was added to Siege of Pleven. See Talk:Siege of Pleven#Abuse of prisoners. I know very little about this, and would appreciate if someone more knowledgable would weigh in. - Jmabel | Talk 20:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

More, similar problematic stuff; renamed it as Siege of Pleven#Abuse of prisoners and other matters. Would someone knowledgable please take a look? - Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Religious education

Would someone please have a look at Religious_education_in_Romania#Post-communist_developments? I did some copy edits; I have no clear idea what to do with the last paragraph. I am extremely skeptical of the claim (next to last paragraph) that "the number of people without any belief… is very low, under 0.1%." That would mean less than 23,000 atheists and agnostics in the entire country. Since I know there are about that many atheists and agnostics in the (not terribly large) city where I live in the (very churchgoing) United States, I find this almost impossible to believe, and there is no citation. At the very least, if conflates belief with background and practice: surely not everyone who was baptized is a believer. - Jmabel | Talk 01:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be reworded to reflect the actual census results, which are #6 here; those results do show just 23105 of 21,698,181 (.10648%) being atheist or without a religion. Biruitorul 06:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Romania is rather odd in the field of religious identification, in that a significant amount of people identify with a given religion (usually the Orthodox Church) for cultural rather than religious reasons. Surveys conducted show that less than a third of the population actually attends church weekly, with a significant amount of people only attending church at main events such as Christmas and Easter. Additionally, according to polls, significantly more than 0.1% of the population don't believe in God (though Eurobarometer does say that more than 90% of Romanians believe in a divinity, one of the highest rates in Europe). However, for some reason (cultural/nationalistic), there seems to be a tendency for these people to still declare themselves as "Romanian Orthodox", particularly in formal surveys such as the census. This may be because, unfortunately, the word "atheist" or "no religion" still has a negative connotation in Romania, so you tend get responses like "I'm Christian but... [I don't believe in God and I never go to church]." In fact, some friends of mine, both of whom self-identify as atheists (but who declared Romanian Orthodox on the census) recently had their child baptised in church because "copilul nu poate să fie păgân". o_O. Ronline ✉ 08:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say your discourse is a bit (but just a tiny bit) biased towards atheism. I think there is one main figure in what you cited: "90% of Romanians believe in a divinity" which is probably true, as I seldom met actual atheists and true agnostics. Given this figure, I don't see why you cannot adhere to a church according to tradition. First of all, the orthodox moral and way of life is specifically Romanian. You probably know that Catholicism and protestant/reformed/other christian churches correspond to other ways of life. The art is closer to me, the music, too, and the priest understands my problem, which allows me to concentrate on my belief. I don't see why I should randomly choose my church (as you seem to suggest). There may also be atheist nationalists, but they are part of the 10% of people that do not believe. Dpotop 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

As to your friends, the "pagan" argument is funny. I'd say they boast a bit atheism, but still fear something immaterial when it comes to important moments in life. I've seen it a lot, too. Aren't there many older people coming back to the church? Dpotop 09:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I do admit that Romania is one of the more religious countries in Europe (along with Poland, Greece, Ireland and Italy). Despite this, there is still is a significant atheist minority that often masks itself as "Orthodox" when it comes to some form of formal identification. I'm not suggesting that people should randomly choose their church, but rather that they only affirm a certain religion if they actually believe in it. I don't see the point of declaring that you're Romanian Orthodox when you don't believe in God, don't follow biblical morals or never go to church, and yet a lot of Romanians do just that. There's nothing wrong with affirming an atheist identity, and I really don't see the point of maintaining an Orthodox identity just as a "token gesture". As to the baptising children and the like: I don't think it's so much to do with an actual "fear of God", but rather a socially-ingrained custom. Once again, I don't see the point of doing something that you don't believe in just for the sake of tradition. This includes baptising, church weddings or religious funerals. Indeed, in recent years there seems to have been an Orthodox resurgence, with more people affirming a Christian identity, etc. Personally, I think it's counterproductive to Romania's progress in terms of civil liberties and tolerance ("Romania for all"), since the Romanian Orthodox Church - not necessarily individual believers, but the church leadership and clergy - is profoundly anti-progressive. Ronline ✉ 10:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I believe the Orthodox Church has all the rights to be active as a conservative force. I believe this conservatism is much needed, given the willingness of all our post-1990 governments to satisfy any western requirement, regardless of the Romanian public oppinion. Mind you, democracy means "majority rules, without harming the minority", but also "the minority accepts the decisions of the majority", and the whole contract is ruled by common sense and law.

As concerns the progress of Romania, I have to note that tolerance, as you understand it (GBLT, etc.) has never been discussed by Romanians. It was imposed. And while no discussion will exist, you cannot expect true tolerance, because the actual social contract has not been negociated. Dpotop 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Orthodox Church has any right to be conservative as long as this hurts people. When cancer sufferers die because stem cell research is opposed by the church, people suffer. When gay people are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation, and are physically-assaulted with the support of the church, people suffer because of the church's conservatism. When other religions are socially-persecuted because of the Orthodox Church's opposition, people suffer. As long as these people will continue being hurt, I, as a humanist, can't support what the Church stands for and can't regard it as a valid force in Romanian society. As to Romania's government: while Romanian governments are rather progressive, I don't think they have been progressive enough for there to be a need for a conservative counterbalance. As to democracy, the idea is not that "the minority accepts the decisions of the majority" but rather that everyone is represented and can affirm themselves, including minorities. I agree that in many ways tolerance has been imposed externally, but this is not particularly relevant - democracy is also not a Romanian invention, neither is our current justice system. In an open society, foreign ideas should be accepted if they have merit. And tolerance is in any case better than Orthodox-patriarchal social norms. Ronline ✉ 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. You reject negociation as long as it hurts what you call "minority rights". Do you understand that this is not democracy, but something more related to the enlightened monarchies of the past centuries? For my part, I say that any decision applied in Romania must be discussed and accepted by a majority. This is why, for instance, I am for participative democracy. Because I feel the current representative paradigm has practically insulates citizens from debate.

BTW, I saw below that you mentioned the abortion ban and systematization, but not cooperativization (doesn't sound English, but still...). Is this intentional, or you just forgot it. I have my oppinion on the subject, but I'd like to have your oppinion first. Dpotop 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Orthodox Church has every right to be conservative as long as this hurts people who deserve to be hurt for some transgression they have committed. The church is not against adult stem cell research, which is where the really useful medical advances are being made. I'd like to see a citation on the church supporting the beating of homosexuals. As for discrimination against them: the church has nothing at all against people attracted to the same sex; its problem is with those who have sex with others of the same sex. As long as they don't have sex or do it (within marriage) with people of the opposite sex, no problem. The church encourages the persecution of other religions because there is only one way to Christ (the Orthodox Church), so it is doing this out of love and for people's own good, that they may achieve eternal salvation. I have no idea what "progressive" means in this context, but I'm assuming it means "left-wing", in which case I disagree, given the active participation of many Romanian government ministers in the Communist party (one of the most left-wing parties in existence). There are two variations on democracy: majoritarian and consensus. You favour the latter; I, the former; you may disagree with that, but it doesn't mean I'm less democratic, just a different sort of democrat (remember, Gerhard Schröder has called Vladimir Putin a "flawless democrat", so the term is open to abuse). Ah, but there is a difference between how tolerance came to Romania and how democracy did. There was no 1989-style revolution to bring tolerance to Romania. There have been no referenda on approving tolerance, no elections centred around tolerance. It has been imposed from above by a maniacal European Commissiion and mindlessly accepted by the madmen who have governed Romania since the madman who once governed it was shot. Anyway, you are correct that democracy too is a foreign invention, which is why I favour a unique path (o cale unică) for Romania. The seduction of Becalism remains strong; after Steaua's defeats, Ferentari was a very shrewd move indeed. And no, as I see it, tolerance is not better than Orthodox-patriarchal social norms, although it all depends on your definition of tolerance. I'm a pretty tolerant fellow myself, and I think partriarchal social norms are too (what's wrong with patriarchy anyway?) but that's by my definition; the beauty of this is that there is no objective definition of tolerance. Biruitorul 07:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of re-igniting previous debates: precisely! The Church is a strong bulwark against progressivism, civil liberties and tolerance, and that is overall good, because those things undermine the real Romania as embodied in the poor, semi-literate peasant of a simple, child-like faith. Woe be to Romania if she becomes more like Western Europe, a post-materialist continent that has become too weak to even have children, much less stand up for its timeless values, and consequently is being devoured from within by a rising Moslem tide that preys upon its weakness through its unashamedly pre-modern values. As a continent, Europe is dead, but it is precisely by not giving in to crass modernity that Romania can remain strong, that the mystical light of Christianity can continue to flicker for some time yet in a land where the darkness is rapidly setting in, where civilisational suicide is already well advanced. Romania's moral compass has been fine-tuned by centuries of experience and guidance from the Orthodox Church; "progressives" seek to destroy that equilibrium and bring her into the degenerate supine state that characterises her rapidly-disintegrating Western neighbours. It is the Church that is leading the counter-revolution, the retreat into the past, and it is through her that Romania shall continue to be a spiritual force and serve as a light to the world, especially the now hopelessly lost world to her West. Biruitorul 23:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"the real Romania as embodied in the poor, semi-literate peasant of a simple, child-like faith" I'm not sure whether you understand that:

1. These people didn't choose to be poor. They should be given a chance to live better. And if you say no, I suggest you live like them for one year, and then we talk again.

Well, there's poverty and there's poverty. I'm not arguing for Ethiopia-style poverty. But give a man a certain amount of opulence and it usually corrupts his soul. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1. These people make a nice political manoeuvre mass exactly because they are dependent on the government due to their poverty and simplicity.

Right, and that dependence should be transferred to the Church as the state withers away. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1. These people are bound to change. And the first generations after change are not necessarily so moral.

Nothing is inevitable. In 1984, the USSR was "bound" to keep on going for many years. In 1991, inter-ethnic violence was "bound" to happen in the Baltic states. In 2003, Iraq was "bound" to become a stable democracy soon. Etc. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Living decently and being educated does not mean being materialist, as proved by all the Christian theologians which were, for the most part, neither poor, nor illiterate. On the contrary, education and a decent living is a pre-requisite to actual free will, as specified by Orthodoxy.

True, but upper-class urban life does tend to produce more secular individuals. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid you mistake current "education" practice and "popular culture" for all democracy and freedom have to offer, and then turn to religion to find your solution. But no, the problems you see are social problems, that need social solutions.

Nothing is more social than the Church. And the Church has great capacity to solve social problems; government should step out of the way and let the Church do her work. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm also afraid you mistake the current Romanian peasant with the one of before 1950. They are not the same. Dpotop 23:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. They are not the same; it is up to the Church to turn back the clock, Pol Pot-style, and restore the peasants to their earlier mentality. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I still can never tell when you are sarcastic and when you are serious. TSO1D 23:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You're not the first one. Even I have trouble sometimes. (I'll give you a clue, though: the bit about Pol Pot was not entirely serious.) Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"too weak to even have children"? Are you kidding? Romania has a lower natality rate than the Atheist Scandinavia. :-) bogdan 23:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Norway and Denmark have state churches; Sweden did until recently, and Finland has not one but two national churches. That being said, Romania is unfortunately not immune from the maladies that afflict her Western neighbours. I once told my aunt, a devout Roman Catholic, that the Communists did two good things for Romania: they banned abortion and banned the Greek Catholic Church (the second part enraged her). And I stand by that statement (though I personally would not persecute the BRU with such harshness): the abortion ban, while improperly executed, was a great idea that, with a little tweaking, would work nicely if tried again. Biruitorul 01:30, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the state church, at least in Norway, is pretty irrelevant as far as gauging the general religiosity is concerned. For example, about 85% of Norwegians are members of the Protestant state church, yet less than 50% of the overall population identifies as Christians (and many of them define the word pretty loosely). The system of a state church also means than the state has a big say in the teologic direction of the church, for example through appointments of various bishops. Because of this, a number of liberals have prominent positions in the Norwegian church. And due to this, many religious conservatives actually oppose the system, even though they probably appreciate the idea of Christianity being the official faith of the country. Anclation 17:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My point, though, was twofold: a)it's an over-simplification to call Scandinavia "atheist"; b)among native Scandinavians, birthrates are equivalent to those in other European countries; it's the Muslim birthrate that drives the numbers up. Biruitorul 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The abortion ban, along with systematisation, were perhaps the most painful effects of Communism and led to the most significant social problems. Not only is maternal health placed in peril because of illegal abortions, but people also have more children than they can support, leading to the creation of Romania's orphanage problem in the 1980s and early 1990s. If you really want to encourage fertility, there are other ways to do it, such as social security. Overall, however, it is fallacious to argue that there is a direct relationship between levels of religiosity and fertility. Despite having had a state church until 2000, Sweden is among the three most irreligious states in the EU, and yet it has a rather high fertility rate. France also has a high fertility rate despite being very secular, while Italy, far more religious, has a fertility rate far below replacement rate. Ronline ✉ 05:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree on systematisation. The proper way not to have children is not to have sex. It's not that difficult and also healthier, because abortion has significant physical and psychological effects on women (not to mention that it kills their children), while extra-marital sex in particular can easily transmit disease. Also, generous welfare subsidies are a disincentive to reproduce because they have the effect of making people marry later and seeing children as a burden (which they are, on a micro level, but anyway). The reason Italy has a lower birthrate is because it has fewer Muslims (according to our data, 1.7% vs. 4% for Sweden and 7.5% for France, though I suspect the real numbers are higher for all three). Non-Muslim French women have a fertility rate of 1.2, while in the EU as a whole, the rate is 1.4 for native Europeans versus 3.5 for Muslims. If you welcome a Muslim Europe, then those numbers should be encouraging. Personally, I fear the implications of these numbers and would rather that Europeans of all religions had children at least at replacement level. Biruitorul 07:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

yeah, its great to have slums and having to pay on reinforcing old buildings five times more than on raising up new ones.Anonimu 14:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you say straw man? Biruitorul 20:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

<joke humor-level=mild>Side note, as to some people identifying as both Romanian Orthodox and atheist: there is an old joke that the first thing you want to know about any given atheist is precisely which God he doesn't believe in. I'm a Jewish atheist, myself, which is a rather different thing from a Christian atheist. </joke> - Jmabel | Talk 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Good joke, Jmabel. I've met Catholic atheists, Ronline has met Orthodox ones, and here you are, a Jewish one. And your case is simple, given that the religion is montheistic. But imagine the complexity of classical Greek atheism. :)) Dpotop 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As a related note: the Buzău County Department of Education has been taken to the CNCD because its schools display (Orthodox) religious symbols. The complainant is alleging this represents discrimination against other religions and infringes Romania's separation between church and state and constitutional provision of religious equality. In any case, this should be written about in the article, particularly since, if the CNCD rules that the religious symbols are discriminatory, it would have implications throughout Romania's education system (the correct interpretation of the law would be to rule against the religious symbols; Romania's law is crystal clear in this respect, and CNCD has a history of applying the law correctly rather than bowing to public sentiment). Ronline ✉ 12:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This Satanic ruling of the CNCD, an institution that must be terminated with extreme prejudice, must not stand! Ziua: Decizia ... ne aruncă înapoi în timp în bezna comunismului ateist". Constantin Bălăceanu-Stolnici, Academician: "hotărarea ... nu face decât să continue practicile comuniste anti-religioase care speram că nu vor mai continua dupa 1989". Dan Ciachir, writer: "În '49 ruşii ne-au scos icoanele iar acum, în numele UE, se incearcă iarăşi acelaşi lucru...[Emil Moise, who brought suit] are un dezechilibru psihic şi ar trebui să fie dus la psihiatru". Eugen Mihăescu, Academician: "cum îndrăzneşte cineva ca domnul Moise să aibă o astfel de iniţiativă?" BOR spokesman: "Decizia aminteşte de situaţia anilor '50, când regimul comunist adusese la nivel de politică de stat prigonirea Bisericii şi credincioşilor". Finally, Radu Varia, art historian: "Occidentul din care facem parte este în declin nu din cauza forţei altora ci din cauza abandonării propriei identităţi. Acelaşi lucru nu trebuie să ni se întâmple şi nouă". One can only hope that the resulting backlash forces Parliament to declare the BOR as Romania's state church and, failing that, that a Becalist-Vadimist coup propels those two into power so they can put a definitive halt to this nonsense. Biruitorul 02:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the CNCD ruling is a monumental step for equal opportunities and religious freedom in Romania. Romania has a world-class anti-discrimination law, and the CNCD has shown that it is a world-class equality body prepared to interpret the law correctly. I have met some of the people who work at CNCD and they're all very much committed to equality and anti-discrimination (as opposed to equality bodies in some other EU countries, such as Latvia). I can't believe how much controversy this has stirred up, with Orthodox leaders saying they are being "discriminated against". Being removed from an unfair position of advantage is not discrimination. It would be just like saying that the abolition of apartheid in South Africa was discriminatory to the white population. Ronline ✉ 04:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, of course you like this decision. It privileges the very small percentage who are atheists (0.1% according to the census, but even if somewhat larger, not very large). Remember too that it's not the BOR that is being privileged. You won't find many Orthodox symbols in Odorheiu Secuiesc or Baraolt. You might well find Muslim symbols in Babadag or Constanţa. It's absurd to argue that religious symbols on a wall do any harm. If I lived in Iran or Tunisia, much as I disagree with the tenets of Islam, I would frankly expect there to be Islamic symbols in my (hypothetical) children's schools. If I lived in Mongolia, I wouldn't object to my children's presence at daily Buddhist prayer. It's called conforming to the will of the majority, within reason. Obviously measures like yellow stars for Jews (as in Nazi Germany) or outright prohibition of non-Muslim religions (as in Saudi Arabia) are a step too far. But an icon or crescent on a wall is simply not a problem for any rational person (Moise clearly being irrational), and this ruling is simply a pretext to promote secularism because Romania's religiosity has long been a thorn in the side of her tiny secular elite, and in order to advance their foul anti-theist agenda, they have created the CNCD, an unelected, unaccountable bunch of Stalinist thugs in nice clothes who day by day chip away at what makes Romania great, most of the time working under the radar to push nefarious decisions down the throats of unwilling Romanians. The CNCD building should be evacuated and detonated, its members being detained for a thorough "reconditioning". I hope Gigi Becali and IPF Teoctist can call their followers to launch a massive series of general strikes that will bring the country to its knees, accomplishing a one-two punch: preventing EU accession and installing a reactionary regime to sweep away this non-"discrimination" pablum. And who's "clearly irrational" again? Biruitorul 05:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the ruling privileges no-one and advantages no-one. You can't say that atheists are priveleged by the removal of Orthodox icons; they would only be priveleged, and positively-discriminated, if there were posters saying "There is no God" on the walls. The point is not that they do any direct harm, but rather that they give undue prominence to a religion that the Romanian state does not recognise as its "state religion", and they discriminate against people who aren't of the Orthodox faith. More importantly, they make the school environment an Orthodox-normative one, where children are made to grow up with Orthodox influence by a secular state institution. There is nothing wrong with parents putting icons in the home, getting their children to wear crosses to school or taking them to church. What is wrong is that a state institution, which must be neutral and representative to all, is basically telling children that Orthodoxy is normative and that it should be held above all other religions - it is equating the Romanian state with Orthodoxy, which is clearly discriminatory to all non-Orthodox Romanian citizens.

The removal of religious symbols from public buildings in effect promotes atheism because absolute neutrality toward religion is impossible; the absence of such symbols is equivalent to the endorsement of an anti-religious ideology. First of all, the Romanian Orthodox Church, while not (yet) the state church, is the church of the great majority of Romanians, so it is fitting that its special place in society be recognised (except in Ţinutul Secuiesc and a few other places, where other religions are in the majority). How do they discriminate? If we go to the dictionary, we find that "to discriminate" means "to make a difference in treatment or favour on a basis other than individual merit"; no one is being treated differently by the presence of a painted piece of wood (albeit holy) on the wall; no one is being favoured in Buzău (where the complaint was filed), where virtually no one is not Orthodox. I missed the part in the Constitution about the state having to be neutral; perhaps you could point it out. I don't see how equating the Romanian state with Orthodoxy is discriminatory; it's merely affirming a fact that pre-exists the state. And I'm very glad that an Orthodox-normative environment is being created, because those who don't follow Orthodoxy risk damnation, so it's for their own good. But really, I doubt non-Orthodox students care very much about the presence of icons, and I highly doubt that those icons alone have caused any of them to become Orthodox. So as usual, this is much ado about nothing. Biruitorul 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, your stance is one of the most "laicisant" ones in the world. They only implemented it in France one year ago, with the ban on "conspicuous religious symbols". And it is not necessary for Romania to follow the example. Not before it becomes more mainstream. Also, when determining "mainstream" don't mix the French ban on "conspicuous religious symbols", which is indeed non-discriminatory (at least the text of the law is), with laws recently passed in other countries banning the islamic burqa (or whatever they call it). The last measure has nothing to do with religion, but with public safety. Dpotop 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As for me, I don't see how individuals posting what they see as auspicious religious signs is "state religion". You can see it as a form of art. The professors should be banned from proselytising, but otherwise where's the problem? Orthodox art is a part of our heritage, and even if you are atheistic or jewish, seeing an icon cannot hurt you (unless you're some kind of vampire). Dpotop 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you're setting up a straw man here. In my statement above, I never said that I support a ban on personal religious symbols in schools, such as crosses or headscarves, etc. In fact, I stated that "There is nothing wrong with parents... getting their children to wear crosses to school". The problem is that when a state institution publicly displays religious symbols, it goes against secularism, since the state institution becomes a vehicle for the promotion of Orthodoxism or Orthodox-normativity. That's when it becomes "state religion", not when individiuals wear crosses to school. As to the icons being a "form of art" – it's all to do with the purpose and context which they are displayed in. I would have nothing wrong, for example, in placing art in schools which includes religious symbols (i.e. Renaissance paintings). But I don't think you can reasonably argue that the Orthodox icons are placed in classrooms as an artistic or historical artefact. And if that were the case, then the artefacts of other religions should also be included, as would secular artefacts. As to "seeing an icon cannot hurt you" - I don't think that the burden of proof. The problem is that there is no reason why the icons should be there, in a public, secular institution. Keeping them there is a symbolic infringement on that principle. More importantly, as I have stated previously, they are a subtle form of prosyletism in that they signal to children that the Orthodox faith is the "normative" faith, the only faith to be displayed in schools, while indicating exclusion for those who are not Orthodox. But it shouldn't even be about that: at the end of day, religion has no place in schools, religion shouldn't be mixed up in the affairs of the state. I don't see the point of putting the icons there. The burden of proof is not on the secularists to show what damage they cause, but on the pro-symbol group to show why they should be there in the first place. And aside from discriminatory, generalised reasons such as "Romania is a Christian country", there is no reason why they should be there. Ronline ✉ 09:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Discrimination, discrimination, discrimination. Like most mantras, it's fairly vapid. Anyway, should religious education also be banned? I know you can opt out, but still, it does have a normative character. And what about state-funded salaries for clergy? Biruitorul 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to the principles of separation between church and state, there should be no religious education in schools, apart from a neutral study of religion (i.e. a subject called "Studies of Religion", taught by theological experts not by priests, and which includes all major religions; I would have no problem with this subject even being compulsory, in the same way that history and geography is). However, considering that people can opt out of the class, I don't have a particular aversion to it. As to state-funded salaries for clergy: that's definitely a breach of secularism, because it's using public money to fund a single religion, and thus disadvanting those who are irreligious (and who must still contribute). As a private institution, the church should raise its own revenue, in the same way that other cultural institutions or charities do, even though, as a non-profit organisation, it should be exempt from taxation. Ronline ✉ 07:29, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

As an anarchist, I'd have to agree. Shut down state schools, end taxation, abolish the state: all your separation of church and state problems vanish that way. Biruitorul 18:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The pro-symbols league has so far not managed to rationally prove just how the removal of symbols is a violation of religious freedom and how it "discriminates" them - i.e. how it actually makes the Orthodox Church inferior to other faiths. Instead, they point to cases like Greece and Italy, and even to the Muslim states, as "other examples". The fact that Italy and Greece do not respect religious freedom in this respect does not mean Romania should take the same path. In particular, Greece has a state religion. The other thing they have done is set up a straw man argument by referring to "Communist atheism" and how Romania is somehow going back to the "dark days". This ruling has nothing to do with Stalinism and everything to do with religious freedom and equal opportunities. I understand that there is an aversion in Romania to anything that is "atheist", because of Communism, but as intelligent people we must be able to discern the difference between the often-violent persecution of the church which took place during the 1950s and the current move towards freedom of religion and secularism. And while we're at it, there should also be debate as to the cross which adorns the parliament and to practice of beginning the school year with a mass. The other issue of course is the oath of office in Romania, which features "Aşa să mă ajute Dumnezeu", even though this is optional, and hence not a violation of religious freedom (for example, George Cristian Maior, the head of the SRI, chose to omit this line when he gave his oath). Ronline ✉ 07:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The removal discriminates because it seeks to deny the special position of the BOR in Romanian society by shunning its symbols from the public sphere. State-enforced atheism inherently takes its place. A religion followed by a predominant sector of society becomes invisible, marginalised, shunned. Religious freedom means the freedom to practice religion, not the freedom of having no one else practice or display religion. That right is respected in Greece and Italy. Again, I don't see how icons on a wall affect "religious freedom and equal opportunities". No Catholic was ever denied a job because he went to a school that featured icons. There is a slight difference between Dej and Băsescu, but not a great one. Just the other day I was reading how Băsescu's constant attacks on the PNL are very much like those of the Communists against other parties in 1944-7. That makes sense, and I wouldn't put it beyond the current regime, dominated as it is by "ex"-Communists, to start persecutions anew–in fact this may be just the beginning. I also see the hand of Tăriceanu in this: he's a Catholic. And of course, we should have a debate about the cross in Parliament, etc. I just hope the debate ends up affirming its position there. I looked at the Constitution and Article 82 says nothing about "Aşa să-mi ajute Dumnezeu" being optional; it would be rich indeed if Mr. Maior lost his job for this (as well he should). Biruitorul 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

To start off: I think this argument has two dimensions, a legal one and a philosophical one. I understand that philosophically you want BOR to be the state church, but legally BOR has no advantaged status, and this applies to schools as well. In schools, BOR should not have a special position, because schools are state institutions, and the Romanian state gives no religion a special position. As to marginalisation: it does not become marginalised more than any other religion. As I said before, just because BOR was unfairly advantaged up until now, does not mean that returning it back to where it should be is "marginalisation". Religious freedom means the freedom to practice religion, as you said. How is that in any way infringed by the removal of the icons? Children can still practice religion freely - they can wear crosses, they can pray in lunchbreaks, they can talk freely about their religious beliefs; there is no restrict on that and neither should there be. But having the right to see your religion's symbols in public buildings is not part of freedom of religion. You allude to persecutions: this is in no way a persecution of BOR. A persecution of BOR would be a negative action, such as forcibly closing down churches, or banning the wearing of personal religious symbols, or banning people from affirming their religious beliefs to others. Orthodox people are in no way being persecuted by these removals, they are simply being treated equally. As to "Aşa să-mi ajute Dumnezeu", I believe that it's optional, but will research it further. If it's not optional, that would be a significantly graver breach of religious rights than the icons in schools, simply because you would be forcing people to take an affirmation against their conscience if they are not Christian (or do not believe in God). This is unacceptable in a secular state, since it would effectively mean that state positions would only be open to those who are religious (it would be just as discriminatory as saying these positions should only be open to heterosexuals, or men, or ethnic Romanians). Ronline ✉ 09:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: According to several sources, the "Aşa să-mi ajute Dumnezeu" line is optional: "Jurământul poate fi depus şi fără formula religioasă". See [14], [15], [16], [17], [18]. This should be normal in a country where there is freedom of religion, like Romania. Ronline ✉ 10:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll reply more fully later, but let me just note that these provisions are all for lower offices. There is no similar provision for the President, right? Of course, I'm sure no great outcry would ensue if a President refused to say the line, but constitutionally, the President is required to be a theist (not that there's anything wrong with that). Biruitorul 16:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: first, I don't think that even a requirement to say "Aşa să-mi ajute Dumnezeu" is necessarily discriminatory, because those are just words that are ultimately meaningless if there is no state religion. For instance, if I were elected President of India, a secular state, and I had to swear "So help me Shiva, Vishnu and Krishna", I would say those words, even though I do not worship those gods. I don't think they would help me, because Hindu gods have no power (in my view), but it wouldn't actually hurt me to say that phrase either. I'd think of it as just a string of nonsense, much like "'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves/Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;/All mimsy were the borogoves,/And the mome raths outgrabe."

Second, I think the enforcement of strict religious neutrality is prejudicial to the BOR because it seeks to deny the fact that Orthodoxy is the predominant religion of Romania and is intimately entwined with her history. To use an analogy, Israel is de jure secular, but de facto, Judaism has an important degree of influence in Israeli public life, because everyone (except for the 15% or so who are Arabs) is Jewish, so naturally that spills over into schools, the law, etc. Similarly, outside a few regions, everyone in Romania (barring a few eccentrics) is Orthodox, so it's only normal that that be reflected in state institutions, even if the state is formally secular. Put another way: having a "state religion" does not mean any religious involvement by the state. It means, as in Protestant countries, that the head of state heads the church, or as in Orthodox and Catholic countries (besides the Vatican) that some overwhelming preference is shown to one religion; for instance, in pre-Communist Romania (ah! the glory days!), bishops were guaranteed seats in the Romanian Senate. Icons on walls do not rise to that level. Biruitorul 01:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• For comparison: in the U.S., which has pretty strong separation of church and state, the courts have pretty uniformly ruled that certain uses are "ceremonial" and "traditional" and therefore pass muster. Examples are "In God We Trust" as the national motto, or "so help me God" at the end of the Oath of Office of the president of the United States. A more controversial example is the mention of God in the "Pledge of Allegiance", a text of more or less socialist origin (Francis Bellamy, 1892) to which the phrase "under God" was added in 1954. Various jurisdictions have had various rulings as to what degree schools can require students to recite the pledge, and what exactly is acceptable conduct if they demur (stand silently, remain seated, leave the room, etc.). - Jmabel | Talk 19:54, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, though "so help me God", significantly, does not appear in the US Constitution. Those who say it do so by choice. Biruitorul 23:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, the anti-symbols league has failed to rationally prove that the symbols are a violation of someone's rights. Dpotop 09:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That's very easy to prove. They're a violation of someone's rights to not be prosyletised to in a state institution, and to not be presented with a religious value judgement. They're also a violation of Romania's laws which constitutionally separate church from state. Additionally, they violate the student's right to not feel excluded because of his religious beliefs, to not feel as part of a non-normative minority in a state institution which should treat everyone equally, regardless of religion and the ten other factors enumerated in Romania's anti-discrimination law. Ronline ✉ 09:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why you should feel excluded if there's an icon somewhere, unless people pray in the classroom, which would be weird anyway. And I don't see why this other person cannot bring his religious symbol and put it on the wall, too.

Frankly, I've never understood this stance: Having a religious symbol discriminates people of other religions. The only rational explanation to this European prejudice is that it comes from:

1. the colonial period, when anti-colonial nationalisms were using them as targets.\
2. old religious exclusivisms, that existed in all religions.

Anyway, this kind of prejudice has not its place today. Dpotop 09:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"And I don't see why this other person cannot bring his religious symbol and put it on the wall, too." Ummm, because it's a public institution, not your home. I can't go into a classroom and place an anarchist symbol on it, or a Marxist symbol, or an LGBT rainbow flag, or the anarcho-capitalism dollar, or a Turkish flag, or a feminist symbol, or any other symbol that indicates one's identity. Why religion should be treated differently to this fails me. But OK, I would have no problem with having these symbols in the classroom, except that it would be bringing religion into the classroom, and hence acting as a source of division and controversy. The classroom should be free of that, as it's not really a place for political or philosophical campaigning. If Orthodox people want to learn Orthodox values and/or learn in an Orthodox-normative environment, they should set up private schools, similar to the UK model. "I've never understood this stance: Having a religious symbol discriminates people of other religions." It's very easy to understand. People feel excluded when the collective identity of some people is represented or endorsed publicly, and the collective identity of others isn't. Having an Orthodox icon there makes non-Orthodox people feel as if their religion is not as good, as if it doesn't deserve to be placed there. It symbolically makes the Orthodox religion normative and most important. To use a parallel: it would be just like being exposed to symbols of male gender all across classrooms, with no representation of females. Would that not be discriminatory to females and make them feel excluded? Ronline ✉ 10:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

it would be just like being exposed to symbols of male gender all across classrooms, with no representation of females

So, if I follow your reasoning on religion, one should ban all images of women and men altogether, so that noone feels discriminated? I'd say we have images of both, if someone asks for it. Just like for religious symbols. Now, discriminatory remarks, both sexist and religion-based should be completely and explicitly banned and repressed. Dpotop 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As to the political signs you cited above. Yes, I believe all political signs should be banned in schools, both in professors and students (and in classes, too). Political signs are proselytising by definition. Dpotop 10:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, would you answer my posts from 14:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC), which I find more fundamental to mutual understanding? Dpotop 09:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Just one more point, if anyone cares: if you look at Romania's post-Revolutionary presidents, I don't know about Constantinescu, but Băsescu is not terribly religious ("eu n-am avut nevoie de preoţi..."), and Iliescu is likely a downright atheist or agnostic. He once told an interviewer, "Doamnă, eu sunt liber-cugetător" (sorry, no citation), and as a high-ranked Party member, he probably retained his non-religious stance after 1989 (though not necessarily: former Soviet FM Shevardnadze was baptised in 1991, some time before becoming Georgia's head of state). Despite all this, he had no trouble mentioning God when he took the oath of office. As Henri IV said, "Paris is worth a mass". Biruitorul 20:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Education in Romania

Education in Romania has had a recent major overhaul. On the whole, it seems to have been good, but there is some poor writing and POV; for example, the very first sentences are "As Romania is strongly committed to join European Union in 2007, the Romanian educational system was drastically reformed to adjust to these new commendments. Many reforms are still strongly required." (What the heck is a "commendment", anyway?). Someone may want to give this a thorough going over; it should probably be someone with good English who knows the Romanian educational system well, and I only meet the first requirement. - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking for Education budget figures

If someone has education budget data, please contribute (or at least post the information here or on Talk:Education in Romania.

Examples of useful info (but don't feel limited by this list):

1. Overall budget:
   1. absolute figures
   2. GDP percentage
   3. Law requirements (I seem to remember that there's a law requiring that a minimal PIB percentage should go to education. This law is never respected.
2. Budget of pre-university, university, and government agencies.

Dpotop 09:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember off the top of my head from the newspaper today that the budget is 5.02% of GDP, which is the highest allocation ever. Ronline ✉ 10:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you, please, be more specific? :) The newspaper does not exist in Romania. Only newspapers. Dpotop 10:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

New intro

Could some of you, folks, take a look at the new intro and "Basic organization" section of the Romanian Education System? Please, add missing info. In particular, I don't really know how to classify language/computers/accounting schools. Are this "postliceal", or "lifelong learning"? Dpotop 10:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

A semi-related point: since there are articles such as United Kingdom debate over veils, would an article on the icons controversy be notable enough, or at least a section in the Religious education in Romania article? Goodness knows there's been enough press coverage for a wealth of citations. Biruitorul 05:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Romanian National Vanguard

I am probably not the best person to be engaging Romanian National Vanguard; would someone else please commit to watching the article and trying to sort it out? The presumably autobiographical User:Ronatvan removed {{NPOV}}, {{notability}}, and {{unreferenced}}, none of which had been addressed, as well as de-linking the Holocaust. I reverted, but I'd really rather not deal with this one on a continuing basis - Jmabel | Talk 01:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Joe, why not just AfD it? The entire article is a piece of crap, and the only google link that is not wiki-related is their goddamn site. It looks like they are only gathering followers in this manner, and wikipedia should not be helping them achieve the notability needed for them to have a wiki article... I mean, you ask for someone to balance the text, but you would have to find someone who has heard of them or cares about them enough to criticize them. I could start the procedure, so it does not seem like you're acting unilaterally against the article. Dahn 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Feel free. As some of you may have noticed, I've been trying on Romanian-related topics to stick mostly to talk pages and uncontroversial changes, since at least two users have accused me of editing out of ignorance or with an anti-Romanian agenda. I think the charges are absurd, but as long as they remain Wikipedians in good standing, I am trying to tread carefully. Again, as I have said to them, I would welcome an RFC where I would have an appropriate place to defend myself, but they seem unwilling to start one, and apparently I cannot start the process myself. - Jmabel | Talk 20:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• It now looks like, through no doing of mine, the two editors who accused me of bias have both been indef blocked (apparently for abusive remarks and - in one case - sockpuppetry). So I will be back to being a bit bolder in these areas. - Jmabel | Talk 05:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hallelujah. Dahn 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To save space, I won't put this under a new heading, but Dan Voiculescu seems in need of attention; the month-old additions should be cited and/or trimmed. Biruitorul 06:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Cutie comune

Exista cumva vreun infobox care ar putea fi folosit la articolele despre comunele din România? Similar celui de la wiki-ro, ro:Format:Cutie Comune România. --Roamataa 15:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Se pare că unii folosesc cutia Template:Infobox City in Romania pentru acest scop. De exemplu comuna Unguriu o conţine. TSO1D 16:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Am văzut-o pe aceasta, dar nu conţine, spre exemplu satele componente, ca şi la wiki-ro. Eventual aş putea să o traduc din română şi să o folosesc aici? --Roamataa 19:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Clar, fără probleme. TSO1D 19:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Leonard Orban

I don't know if you would like to add something to the article Leonard Orban, new Romanian European Commissioner for Multilingualism. I have found adequate information on his plans as commissioner -i have added some of it already at the article, but there are few things known for his pre-Commissioner-designate era. I do not have access to sources in Romanian.--Michkalas 21:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)