Talk:Romania/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Gesta Hungarorum

@Rgvis:, the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum is debated by almost all specialists outside Romania. If we do not mention this fact, we contradict WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, I understand that you have a desire to express your personal (debatable) opinions, but we have to make edits accordingly to WP:COPO. (Rgvis (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

No, the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum is questioned by most specialists outside Romania. Please read the following studies: (1) Deletant, Dennis (1992). "Ethnos and Mythos in the History of Transylvania: the case of the chronicler Anonymus". In Péter, László (ed.). Historians and the History of Transylvania. Boulder. pp. 67–85. ISBN 0-88033-229-8.; (2) Macartney, C. A. (1968). The Magyars in the Ninth Century. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-08070-5.. You can also read a Romanian historians' thoughts about the reliability of the Gesta here: Curta, Florin (2001). "Transylvania around A.D. 1000". In Urbańczyk, Przemysław (ed.). Europe around the year 1000. Wydawn. DiG. pp. 141–165. ISBN 978-837-1-8121-18.. If we do not mention that the reliability of the Gesta is at least dubious, we hide an important fact, which contradicts WP:NPOV: we cannot presents theories as facts. Borsoka (talk) 07:06, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to debate all kind of historical opinions (anyway, in any matter, the opinions of the Romanian historians are as valid as those of the Hungarian historians). (Rgvis (talk) 07:21, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

You are right, we are not here to debate all kinds of historical opinions. Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Hungarian historians. I have not referred to a single Hungarian historian. We are here to fairly present facts and scholarly PoVs: we cannot present a theory as a fact. The existence of Gelou and his principality is highly debated by many historians, including the ones I mentioned above. Borsoka (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

In history, almost any subject is debatable. (Rgvis (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

If there is a debate, it should be mentioned or present the events in a neutral way. This is our task as editors. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that, in practice, many times, your "neutral way" does not coincide with Wikipedia rules. (Rgvis (talk) 08:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC))

If you think my edits do not coincide with Wikipedia rules, you should report me on the relevant notice board. Please remember that baseless accusations of misconduct can be interpreted as uncivility: so report me, or stop accusing me as per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

It is not an accusation, it is a constatation (and it's not only mine). Unfortunetely, in the last years, Wikipedia steadily lost quality objective editors, and therefore misrepresentations, manipulations, misinformations, and half-truth statements have become more and more part of the articles' content, especially those articles prone to such actions (such as historical ones). However, there is always hope that things will be resolved, at some point (Time solves everything). (Rgvis (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

OK. I understand you are unable to prove that my edits are not in line with Wikipedia rules. Sorry, I do not have time to discuss your personal impressions. Borsoka (talk) 06:54, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Many of your editings speak for it. Anyway, we are not in a court, but anyone with common sense will notice it. (Rgvis (talk) 07:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC))

I already informed you above that I understood that you are unable to prove your accusations. You do not need to repeat it. Borsoka (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

The Gesta Hungarorum is a PRIMARY source, and only Reliable, Scholarly secondary sources should be referenced as interpreting it anyway in this article. 104.169.29.171 (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I am a Romanian, but yes, I am afraid that Borsoka is correct: at the international level (worldwide academia) GH has not been established as reliable. So all facts derived from it are dubious, and I don't speak of the kind of doubt as in doubting that we're having this discussion here. It is true that Wikipedia only trusts modern scholarship, but we may agree that the case of the modern scholars who think that GH would be reliable has not convinced a majority of their peers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu:, not really, things are more complex, than adepts of the Hungarian historiography tends to suggest: [1] + [2] + [3] (as simple examples).

On the other hand, in these cases, one of the main roles of Wikipedia is not to favor any of the sustained theories (as, unfortunately, it now happens, in many such historical articles). (Rgvis (talk) 07:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC))

Rgvis, please try to understand what other editors write. Nobody says that Romanian historians (for instance, Salagean and Tiplic) deny the reliability of the Gesta. We only say, that outside Romania, the reliability of the Gesta is questioned by many specialists. Do you really think that Dennis Deletant and Carlile Aylmer Macartney are Hungarian historians?? Borsoka (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

It is very well known that C. A. Macartney served the Hungarian (and Austrian) interests and he is for the Hungarian historiography what R.W. Seton-Watson is for the Romanian, Slovak, Czech, Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian historiographies.

Thanks to a well-organized group, English Wikipedia project has come to reflect, in the case of many historical articles that involves specifical subjects, only the position of the Hungarian historiography. This is certainly not a singular case, but the lack of objectivity in these situations is one of the most serious problems the Wikipedia project may have at present.

As for the chronicle in discussion:

Many Hungarian studies about the work of the Anonymous Notary denote a high scientific level, but sometimes it seems they were written with a clear purpose: to prove a foregone conclusion, namely that Romanians did not live in Transylvania before Hungarians. Denying the credibility of GH is commonplace in the propaganda carried out by professional and amateur Hungarian historians. They might not be aware that this disapproval excludes from the Hungarian heritage a valuable work of which 18th and 19th centuries Hungarian scholars were proud (and they were certainly right to think so).

In their turn, the Romanian historians invoked GH in order to prove the presence of the Romanians in Transylvania before the Hungarian conquest, but, surprisingly, they produced few studies focused on the credibility of this source, which in most cases is not questioned, but postulated as a definitive and obvious truth.

Historical science cannot operate with such generalized judgments. A historical source is by definition subject to criticism. GH should be studied according to the usual internal and external source criticism methods.

The total rejection and the absence of any criticism are both erroneous.

— Alexandru Madgearu, The Romanians in the Anonymous Gesta Hungarorum. Truth and Fiction, [4]

(Rgvis (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC))

I do not want to discuss your views about British historians allegedly serving "Hungarian propaganda", because WP is not the proper venue to start such a discussion. If you think there is a well-organized group working against WP:NPOV or other basic WP rules, please report it on the relevant notice board. If you think that a specific article is not in line with basic WP policies, please discuss this issue on its Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

The reference was to C. A. Macartney, not to "British historians", as you try to insinuate (anyway, in these cases, nationality does not matter). As for the other problems, let the honest stakeholders to find the way to solve them. (Rgvis (talk) 10:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC))

I referred to at least two British historians and you were still writing about Hungarian propaganda. I always let the honest stakeholders to solve all problems. Sorry, I think we should not continue this strange discussion. Borsoka (talk) 10:43, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Gesta Hungarorum is not contemporary Chronicle, it was written 300 years after the Hungarian conquest.. The genre of Gesta is not even chronicle, just a Gesta. Gesta meaning "deeds" or "acts", which is a medieval entertaining literature. In our modern era, the Gestas were often medieval equivalent of modern comics books.--Draguler (talk) 12:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

What Rgvis does not understand it that we apply WP:DUE to international scholarship: no consensus means no consensus, no majority view means no majority view and so on. Some facts are agreed, others are not. Also, there is the obsession that historical studies could change the borders of 21st century Romania: that's a phantasm. E.g. Ze'ev Herzog wrote Any attempt to question the reliability of the biblical descriptions is perceived as an attempt to undermine "our historic right to the land" and as shattering the myth of the nation that is renewing the ancient Kingdom of Israel. But Herzog, Israel Finkelstein and others have debunked the myths of Biblical archaeology and are not seen as the enemies of their own country (Finkelstein is politically a Zionist, but for him archaeology is not the servant of Zionism). In this respect, the Israeli academia is wiser than the Romanian academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"that historical studies could change the borders of 21st century Romania: that's a phantasm." No, it means just a long-lasting nation-wide (laughable) paranoia in Romania until this day, which is nothing more than a fantasy in the 21th century.--Draguler (talk) 13:16, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Yup, Herzog and Finkelstein think that historical truth trumps the nationalistic ideology of their own country. And, yes, many Romanians have the paranoia that Transylvania could be lost if historians do not toe the line. To the extent that for a Romanian historian is has become impossible to rationally discuss Ancient or Medieval Romanian history without being called a traitor to the country. Even for debunking the most far-fetched historic myths (e.g. that the Pelasgians conquered Japan) there will be someone to say that the historian is an agent of a foreign power. Many Romanians have the conception that Ancient and Medieval historians are propaganda warriors defending the territorial integrity of the country. To most Western academics that seems as an utterly ridiculous POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I would recommend this study to better understand the concept of myth in the European history - [5] (full text: [6]) - and who promotes them, further (as a fact, there is even a reference to Gesta Hungarorum).

The problem is that on Wikipedia, some myths have come to be promoted as absolute truths (in various forms), while others are completely rejected (in various forms), only because some serve and the others do not serve certain interest groups. Well, this is the present-day reality: "Fake News" (aka manipulation), promoted in various forms, wherever possible. (Rgvis (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2019 (UTC))

Nope, scientists and scholars debunk all myths. I mean: no myth ever is safe from the modern academia. The purpose of post-Enlightenment science/scholarship is the euthanasia of all myths. Our allegiance is to WP:DUE of worldwide scholarship. We are not a WP:BATTLEGROUND between Hungarian propaganda and Romanian propaganda. Here we serve academic learning in its purest form (see WP:CHOPSY). What is taught at the best 100 US research universities about the history of Eastern Europe is by default WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not want to get involved in ethnic quarrels and those who push a nationalist POV are either taught to keep their POV to themselves or banned from it. See why at User:Moreschi/The Plague. We are indeed biased for WP:MAINSTREAM academia, this is no secret, see WP:GOODBIAS. So, Wikipedia does not debunk only Romanian myths, but myths in general. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure, theoretically, everything is fine, but in practice, many articles become, more or less subtly, politicized. It is increasingly evident that, for a while, the Wikipedia project has basically no effective methods to counteract web brigades/social bot type editings. This is a big problem, for the stated purposes of Wikipedia. (Rgvis (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC))

You can help WP to fight against illegitim methods. Anytime you suspect that a group of editors abuse their privileges, you can report them. Furthermore, if you think that the content of a specific article contradicts a specific WP policy, you can fix the problem in accordance with well-established WP standards. According to my experiences, our community is experienced enough to deal with such problems: editors with extremist views or behavior are sooner or later banned. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

All these problems - related to content manipulation of Wikipedia articles by web brigades - are meant to be solved by the Wikimedia board, not by ordinary contributors. Wikipedia is the subject of the same manipulation experimented by all social media, and it is the responsability/interest of the Wikimedia Foundation to find solutions, if they want to keep the project viable. In the meantime, the good thing is that the civil society is becoming more and more aware of all these intoxication practices. (Rgvis (talk) 06:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC))

Do you think members of the board read this Talk page? If you think that this is a serious problem, you should inform them. If my understanding is correct, you have detected the activities of a dangerous web brigade, but you do not want to fix this issue. Sorry, this is a strange approach. Outsiders may conclude that you are only making baseless declarations, or you are one of the few editors who are convinced that our world is directed by secret societies/powers. Borsoka (talk) 07:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation is aware of all these hoaxes and practices of manipulation, disinformation, or astroturfing. And, (what you guys name) the "outsiders", too. :-) (Rgvis (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2019 (UTC))

That's a weird POV. WMF does not WP:CENSOR Wikipedia, basically because of safe harbor (law). It rarely intervenes, generally only to redress violations of US laws. Also, accusing others of WP:PROPAGANDA without providing clear-cut evidence (i.e. diffs) means Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. ARBCOM is the board which analyses such issues, so you might want to start an arbitration case. Beware of WP:BOOMERANG. So, either you start such case or desist forever from accusing others at this talk page. We don't admit that you eat your cake and still have it. What you do is the same as bickering at Talk:Julian Assange that the article has an un-British or un-American POV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 08:04, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

My opinion is very clear stated above. I do still believe that, in this article, the statement A legendary late-9th-century Transylvanian duke, Gelou, is solely mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum (the reliability of which is debated); a contemporaneous source mentions the first Romanian polities (in Muntenia and Oltenia) in 1247 is pure WP:OR (in order to reflect only the Hungarian historiographical position). But, faced with many other articles written in a similar way, this seems a minor problem, indeed.
On the other hand, the problems Wikipedia face are not a secret (it is very simple to look for on the internet for all sort of opinions: [7], [8], and many others).
By the way, you may also reflect on your childish threats. It does not bother me, but it may seem that you also have forgotten the Wikipedia:Five pillars. (Rgvis (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC))

Have you realised that nobody has referred to a single Hungarian historian? Two British historians were mentioned. Do yo still think that they serve Hungarian propaganda? Can you refer historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247? Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Rgvis: Per WP:RGW, Wikipedia isn't the venue to undo the lack of international WP:RS/AC for the Romanian nationalist agenda. WP:NPOV means that Wikipedia does not pander to the national interest of any country, including Hungary and Romania. Tell any Western scholar that your agenda is to defend "our historic right to the land", and that will be a reason to mistrust everything you say. Too much patriotic agenda makes the scholarship suspect. What nationalists usually don't get about Wikipedia is that too much pro domo WP:ADVOCACY means shooting yourself in the foot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka The term Historiography has a different meaning than the Historian term (see [9] versus [10]). So, when we talk about historiography, it does not matter the nationality/ethnicity (or race, religion, etc.) of a scholar who is (totally / partially) affiliated to a specific historiography, or one who is not necessarily affiliated, but occasionally shares common ideas with that historiography. (Rgvis (talk) 07:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

@Tgeorgescu Beyond the personal prejudices you may have on certain subjects, you can not deny that, in the last decades, the Romanian historiography has constantly evolved and developed in several directions than other historiographies have done (which rather, have continued to emphasize their ideological character, in the same period of time). For example, in a recent interview, the historian Florin Curta expressed his opinion that:

... the re-evaluation of the Hungarian archaeological research on Slavs remains an unfulfilled desiderate to this day, because Hungary (Hungarian historiography) has no (equivalent of) Lucian Boia.

— About Transylvania, Bucharest, Bessarabia, medieval Slavs and many more ..., [11]

(Rgvis (talk) 09:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC))

If my understanding is correct, your above remarks imply that you do not think that the cited two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda and you cannot refer to historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. If this is the case, we should not continue this debate, because we can conclude that the sentence in the article is neutral and does not contain original research. If I misunderstood your above sentence about historians and historiography, please try to refer to reliable sources which prove that the two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda. Please also refer to historians who say that contemporaneous sources mention Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. Borsoka (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice try :) but all your argumentation has a standard name: straw man. And, by the way, the expression "two British historians serve Hungarian propaganda" is yours entirely; you really like to put words in someone's mouth and then insinuate all sorts of things. (Rgvis (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2019 (UTC))

Two British historians have so far been mentioned, but you have been writing of Hungarian propaganda. Do we agree that the two cited British historians do not serve Hungarian propaganda? If yes, we can conclude that the first part of the sentence - "A legendary late-9th-century Transylvanian duke, Gelou, is solely mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum (the reliability of which is debated)" - is neutral. You should now only refer to historians who write of contemporaneous sources mentioning Romanian polities in the territory of Romania before 1247. Borsoka (talk) 03:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

So, you basically selected certain words from their context, and then combined them into a fabricated statement, in order to produce a certain meaning. OK.

Regarding the subject of this topic, I remain at the opinion that, as long as, in what it should be a regular country infobox, there is an affirmation formulated in such a way as to induce (through multiple repetition) the idea that something is false, while something else must be true, it can not be said that the minimum editing rules are respected (WP:IMPARTIAL, WP:MNA, and so on). (Rgvis (talk) 07:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC))

Sorry, if you are repeatedly writing of Hungarian propaganda although only British historians were referred to I do not need to make efforts to conclude that you are accusing them of being agents of Hungarian propaganda. What is the text you propose? Borsoka (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, if we take a look at the discussions on this topic, it seems that you are the one who has repeatedly used the term "Hungarian propaganda" (eight times, so far).
For those whose original text is not legible enough, what I said was that (the British historian) C. A. Macartney is for the Hungarian historiography what (the British historian) R.W. Seton-Watson is for the Romanian, Slovak, Czech, and Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian historiographies. Also, that C. A. Macartney served the Hungarian and Austrian interests in the same way as R.W. Seton-Watson did it for the Romanian, Slovak, Czech, and Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian interests.
As for the proposed text, this is how it should be: The legendary late-9th-century Transylvanian duke, Gelou, is mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum; the Voivodeships of Litovoi and Seneslau, in Muntenia and Oltenia, are mentioned in the Diploma of the Joannites, a contemporaneous source from 1247.
As long as the words that give rise to all sorts of interpretations (which do not relate to the content of this article's infobox) and allusions are not removed, we can not talk about any balance in this context. (Rgvis (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC))

And you were the one who started to refer to Hungarian propaganda, although a single Hungarian scholar had not been mentioned. Thereafter, you changed to Hungarian historiography, although a single Hungarian historian has not been referred to. I have several times explained to you that we have to mention that the reliability of the Gesta Hungarorum (and also its reference to a Vlach duke in Transylvania) is highly debated by scholars. We cannot pretend that the Gesta is deemed to be a reliable source. You have not referred to a scholar who thinks that there are contemporaneous sources which refer to a Vlach polity in the lands now forming Romania before 1247. Furthermore, four Vlach polities are mentioned in King Béla IV of Hungary's 1247 diploma for the Knights Hospitaller. Borsoka (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Everything you said is nothing but sophism. Completely predictable, otherwise. :) (Rgvis (talk) 17:30, 21 May 2019 (UTC))

Did you know that there had been four Romanian polities? Why did you write of two polities? If my understanding is correct you are still unable to refer to a scholar who thinks that there are contemporaneous sources which mention a Vlach polity in the lands now forming Romania before 1247. If this is the case, why do you want to change this part of the sentence? Borsoka (talk) 17:38, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep on trolling, you do this perfectly.
By the way, your text also omits to mention the Voivodes Menumorut and Glad (to have the complete context of "highly debated"). So many obvious things that the wording and the content of this text do not meet WP:NPOVHOW and WP:SYN. (Rgvis (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2019 (UTC))

I have several times experienced that you accuse me of trolling or other form of misconduct when you cannot answer questions. So I understand you again are unable to answer simple questions. Otherwise, Menumorut, Glad can of course be mentioned. You obviously do not know that the reliability of the Gesta is not challenged by almost all specialists outside Romania because of these 3 peesonalities. Outside Romania scholars noted that the late-12th-century Gesta does not write of the rulers fighting against the Magyars around 900, according to late-9th-century and early-10th-century sources. On the other hand, the Gesta writes of the fights of Gelou, Glad, Menomorut, Salan and other otherwise unknown rulers against the Magyars. You should read some basic literature before conmenting this subject. Borsoka (talk) 11:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

By definition, historical facts are widely accepted by reputable international scholarship. If they aren't so accepted, they aren't facts, so they should not be mentioned as facts. According to WP:RGW it isn't our task to manufacture a make-believe consensus where there is no consensus. This has nothing to do with Romanian or Hungarian propaganda, but with the fact that those purported facts aren't widely accepted by reputable international scholarship. Convince Ivy Plus and US state universities and Wikipedia will follow suit. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." So, Rgvis, your task is to convince Ivy Plus, it isn't to convince us — in the end our own opinion does not matter, the teachings of Ivy Plus matter very much. Convince them or admit your failure. There is nothing anti-Romanian in noticing that Romanian scholars failed to convince Ivy Plus about Gelu, Glad, Menumorut. Since that is an objective fact and will still be there regardless of whether you like it or not. Stating otherwise would be jejune editing on your part. I have warned you of discretionary sanctions and jejune complaints of violating WP:NPOV will lead to arbitration enforcement. Our task is to tell it as it is told at Ivy Plus, it isn't to whine that Ivy Plus engages in anti-Romanian propaganda. We do side with Ivy Plus, see WP:CHOPSY. At this website we don't serve Romania, we don't serve Hungary, we serve academic learning based upon reputable international scholarship. Ivy Plus is our light on the path. We treat the mentions of Gelu, Glad and Menumorut as unconvincing because Ivy Plus and US state universities consider them unconvincing. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

References

@Tgeorgescu In terms of articles on historical topics (and not those in the field of medical research or from the exact science area), Wikipedia has an appropriate guide to choosing sources: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history).
So even if this aspect is not liked by some editors, the references to the Romanian academic, university and professional historical works are as valuable as any similar references to works coming from other schools/professionals in the world.

Back to the subject, once again (for the last time, on this thread), it is not about the debates that take place over this specific subject (the debate is reflected in the proper article in question), but how this aspect (of the debate) is highlighted in a place where it should not be (by repeatedly using, in the same sentence, words and structures that have the same connotation, such as, "legendary", and "the reliability of which is debated", accentuated by the "only" adverb, induces the idea that something (the first part of the text) is false, while something else (the second part) must be true).
Of course that the word "legendary"[12] implicitly means something related to a "legend", and that is why I consider that using only the word "legendary" is enough to imply the "questionable" aspect of the subject, in an honest mode.[13] Of all these words and phraseological constructions comes the antithesis of the first part in relation to the second part of the text in discussion.
My opinion remains that, in this context, the two parts of that text do not provide a balanced picture of the subject in question.

Finally, all these discussions that do not relate to the essence of the problem are completely useless, and, like it or not, my point of view (argued) is different from yours and so it will stay. (Rgvis (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2019 (UTC))

• I think we are now at the point where we can discuss the issue without writing of Hungarian propaganda and historiography if no Hungarian scholars are referred to. Now, I understand your concern. Yes, we do not need to suggest three times that most specialists regard the Gesta as an unreliable source. My proposal is the following: "A Vlach duke ruling Transylvania around 895, Gelou, is mentioned in the late-12th-century Gesta Hungarorum (the reliability of which is debated); a 1247 royal charter mentions four Romanian keneziates (or polities) in Muntenia and Oltenia." ([14]) Borsoka (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Of course Romanian scholarship matters. But Romanian scholarship does not WP:OWN this article. We are a global encyclopedia, not thes encyclopedia of the Romanian state. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

• Could you guys get some outside help here...and forget terms like "Hungarian propaganda" as it makes any editor look as if they are the bias problem because no academic writer speaks like this. SO....Do we have modern books that cover this topic (hard to tell what that is here)...be they American, British etc... I will have to agree a 300 year old publication does not hold much merit here.--Moxy 🍁 20:47, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If the top 100 universities in the US do not overwhelmingly teach your point of view, it is a lost cause. You must first convince Ivy Plus and the top 100 universities in the US, only then can you claim that Borsoka & co. do not edit neutrally. Because if it turns out that Borsoka is correctly and balancedly rendering their views, you will be the one who banned from Wikipedia. As Turbojet wrote "Don't call on Wikipedia and its users to do what the ministry does not do, because Wikipedia only reflects, does not complete / explain / correct (point 1) the real world." For Wikipedia, extremists are those who deny what is being taught at the top 100 universities in the US. The fact that Romanian historians have not imposed their point of view internationally is neither extremism nor conspiracy. And it's not even my fault. So: refrain from these inane accusations that I would be responsible for what they teach in the top 100 universities in the US. And of course, Wikipedia sides with the top universities, these are the rules of the game. If this considers the IP to be a defect, he/she should quit both en.wiki and ro.wiki, because we have already chosen our side and we do not need trolls. Tgeorgescu (discuție) 1 august 2019 02:17 (EEST)

Quoting myself when I replied some accuses on my own talk page at ro.wiki. It was a reply to 79.115.205.59. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Errors in Romania site

I suggest the following two changes, which are in accordance with cited resources and information on other pages of wikipedia. Thank you for editing it!

'Romania is the 12th largest country' → 'Romania is the 12th largest country' OR 'and also the 7th most populous member state of the European Union' → 'and also the 10th most populous member state of Europe' 'forming the Danube Delta, which is the second-largest and best-preserved delta in Europe' → 'forming the Danube Delta, which is the largest and best-preserved delta in Europe'

You can fix them yourself, if you'd like. Editoneer (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

How to fix pictures to make like other pages?

Please check, WP:File. Editoneer (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

military - picture: Romanian marines landing, tag "when?" can be removed

If followed back to the source, it is easy to find that it shows soldiers of the 307th marines battalion disembark from a Dutch landing boat during the bi-national exercise "cooperative lion 09", and that took place in the first half of April 2009, this exact landing on 9 April, see https://financiarul.ro/2009/04/02/romania-netherlands-carry-out-cooperative-lion-09-drills/ or more officially https://www.navy.ro/media/revista_mr/numere/rmr133.pdf (other pictures of the same scene on the last and second-to-last pages) --91.41.35.230 (talk) 23:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2020

On the sidebar it says Romania is the 59th largest country by 2019 estimated population, the reference article says Romania is 60th. Benmsch (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2020

Please change "One of the most iconic athletes" to "Some of the most iconic athletes". Thank you. 86.107.68.88 (talk) 18:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Goldsztajn (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Overseas territory

As an answer to User:Borsoka undoing my revision:

Do we need to mention this?

Yes, we do need to mention it, since it is a part of our country's history, first of all. That's why I've added it to the History section. Secondly, it's a very little known part of Romanian history, so by adding it there (as a little side note), more people are going to become aware of it.

Most countries own real estates in the territory of other countries

Would you mind giving me some examples? I am not sure what you mean; are you referring to enclaves and exclaves, like on the Dutch-Belgian border, for example? If that's the case, then yes, I do agree with you that some (most?) countries own such territories, but that's not a reason not to add Romania's overseas territory to the WP page, it's part of our history and should be mentioned. I've also given two reliable sources, so there shouldn't be any problem with adding that piece of history there.

Before undoing my edit again, let's have a discussion and also see what other Wikipedians think about this. Then we'll see what happens to that piece of information. Thank you. Lupishor (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

No, I am referring to embassies and cultural institutes. Quite common. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I guess I will stop undoing your edit for now, since you're right, two editors have opposed me so far, although Biruitorul war probably rather disturbed by the fact that I had added the information in a much too detailed way.

Back to the topic: Embassies and cultural institutes surely are common, but as it is stated on the Wikipedia article about them, contrary to popular belief, most diplomatic missions do NOT enjoy full extraterritorial status and – in those cases – are NOT sovereign territory of the represented state. Rather, the premises of diplomatic missions usually remain under the jurisdiction of the host state while being afforded special privileges. So there you have it. Your argument is not valid, since contrary to most diplomatic missions, the one we are talking about was built on Romanian soil.

Now, I am not sure why you're so concerned about that institute itself, since I am obviously not talking about the institute, but about the whole piece of land, which was part of Romania and was thus a Romanian overseas territory, which gave Romania a coast on the Adriatic, as these two reliable sources state. Embassies and institutes are not considered overseas territories, thus your argument is, like I've said, not valid.

Remember, we are not talking about an institute built on Albanian soil, but about a piece of land donated to Romania by Nicolae Iorga, which had nothing to do with the institute that was later built on it 3 years later.

What's your argument now...? Lupishor (talk) 15:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you say Iorga was the sovereign of the parcel and he ceded his sovereignity rights to the Romanian state? Borsoka (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Iorga was the owner of that land, that's obviously what the sources say. The territory was gifted to Iorga, which made it his own property. He donated half of it to the Romanian state, which meant it was now a part of Romania. Lupishor (talk) 10:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Please, be serious. If I bought a piece of land in Romania and donated it to (the state of) Hungary, would the territory of Hungary increase? Borsoka (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I see you are getting away from the subject again. I never said anything about whether Romania's land area increased or not, I simply mentioned that overseas territory that was once part of our country. Lupishor (talk) 18:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

No. You are transforming a private transaction (a grant of an individual's property to a state) into a transaction transferring sovereignty. States can own property in the territory of an other country, but only transactions between states can change sovereingty over lands (Nemo plus iuris ad alium transferre potest quam ipse habet). Borsoka (talk) 17:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

See Concessions and leases in international relations. I don’t think these are generally mentioned in country articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Biruitorul, thanks for answering.

I've looked at the article you mentioned. According to it, "[international concessions] are governed by the municipal law of the conceding state", the conceding state being Romania in our case, so it means that the territory was

in the possession of Romania, right? Because that's also what the two sources I've mentioned above say: "[...] granting Romania an overseas territory and a coast on the Adricatic."

Also, you've said that concessions are not mentioned in country articles, which is not true, if you look at the pages of some countries. The Italy article, for example, mentions the Italian concession of Tientsin and no

one is against it. So, if we take it like this, it means the Romanian concession can also be mentioned on the Romania article, right? Lupishor (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

You have not proved that it was in concession. The transfer of a piece of Albanian land between an individual (Iorga) and a state (Romania) does not and cannot establish a concession - it is a transfer of property. Iorga had no sovereignty rights, so he could not transfer them to the Romanian state. Borsoka (talk) 13:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a concession according to these three credible sources, so there is nothing I have to prove. Lupishor (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Lupishor: And... surely you can WP:CITE the international treaty which established this concession... Iorga's donation won't do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

The first source is a primary source, the second source is a tertiary source. We need some coverage of this topic in secondary academic sources to include (and to dedicate an article to it). Borsoka (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: I haven't found anything about such a treaty, but who says that a treaty is needed to establish a concession? Can't a concession be established in the way it's explained in the article? Because that's what the three sources say.Lupishor (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

So, what's going on? Lupishor (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2020

In 2.8.1 section "NATO and EU integration" the first phrase says "eventully joining NATO in 2007" which is erroneous. The correct year is 2004. Even the reference article associated with the statement mentions 2004. Kmbogd (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done, 2007 enlargement of the European Union with many references said no. Editoneer (talk) 18:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2020

I would like to place a vocal Romanian anthem where the current instrumental anthem is. FlagsWorldwide (talk) 22:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done:

@FlagsWorldwide: Can you be more specific? What do you want to add? Analog Horror, (Speak) 01:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Analog Horror:, He meant beside the instrumental version, a version that the lyrics are actually being singed. Editoneer (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Romania/GA7. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 22:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

A country article! I haven't reviewed a country article yet. Alright, and away we go!

• " It borders on the Black Sea to the southeast, and with Bulgaria to the south, Ukraine to the north, Hungary to the west, Serbia to the southwest, and Moldova to the east." - I'm sorry to be picky, but would it really border a large sea? I'd say it's "located on the Black Sea", but it borders the rest of the countries, at least in my sense of the term "border"
• The bit about climate in the first paragraph of the lead feels like it would go better in the second, when you mention the geography more
• "Following World War I, after declaring its neutrality in 1914, when Romania fought on the side of the Allied powers beginning in 1916, Bukovina, Bessarabia, Transylvania as well as parts of Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș became part of the sovereign Kingdom of Romania." - this should be two sentences - one about WW1, and then the aftermath in 1916
• "It has the world's 47th largest economy by nominal GDP and an annual economic growth rate of 7% (2017), the highest in the EU at the time." - are there any 2018 or 2019 estimates?
• "The name has been in use officially since 11 December 1861." - why that year? Who made it official? Also, the part later in "Official names" says 1862 was when the name Romania became used. Later you say "The united principalities officially adopted the name Romania on 21 February 1862."
• You switch between using "6th millennium BC" to " 6050 and 5900 BC". I suggest using the same year format
• "but the Roman army annihilated his troops in 106 AD." - feels dramatic. Did every troop really die?
• "According to scholars who accept the Daco-Roman continuity theory, the Romanians' ancestors, known by the exonym Vlachs in the Middle Ages, lived in densely forested areas, separated from the Goths, Huns, Gepids and Avars during these centuries." - what was the basis of such forest dwellings? That part sounds like Legend of Zelda shit, living amongst the forest.
• "Place names of Slavic origin abound in Romania" - I think you're missing a verb

• The grammar is off. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done? Editoneer (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• There is far too much history, considering how many history articles there are. I just feel some of the medieval history is a bit lengthy. Specifically:

• "Centuries later, the Gesta Hungarorum wrote of the invading Magyars' wars against three dukes—Glad, Menumorut and the Vlach Gelou—for Banat, Crișana and Transylvania.[70][71] The Gesta also listed many peoples—Slavs, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Khazars, and Székelys—inhabiting the same regions.[72][73] The reliability of the Gesta is debated. Some scholars regard it as a basically accurate account, others describe it as a literary work filled with invented details."

• Have you considered trimming any of the history section? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk

) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but I feel that is still needed and I don't know what articles are there, I will need help here. Editoneer (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Roman Catholic bishoprics" - is this the same as a bishop? If so, I think that term is a bit better known
• "But most Wallachian and Moldavian princes paid a regular tribute to the Ottoman sultans from 1417 and 1456, respectively." - don't start a sentence with "but"
• "Reformation spread and four denominations—Calvinism, Lutheranism, Unitarianism, and Roman Catholicism{—were officially acknowledged in 1568" - that's a mistaken {
• "about 132,000 (mainly Hungarian-speaking) Jews" - I feel like Hungarian speaking should go after Jews

• I think the sentence is worse now. I suggest using a dash, like: "After the German occupation of Hungary in March 1944, about 132,000 Jews – mainly Hungarian-speaking – were deported to extermination camps from Northern Transylvania with the Hungarian authorities' support."

•  Done, thanks. Editoneer (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In 1947 he and others forced King Michael I to abdicate" - I'd add the month (and a comma after 1947), since you mentioned Feb 1947 in the previous section
• "of which almost 50% voted for Iohannis" - do you mean Johannis? (you said "Klaus Johannis " before)

• The article is still inconsistent whether it's Iohannis/Johanis. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done, replaced with "Iohannis". Editoneer (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• I feel like the "Contemporary period" and "NATO and EU integration" sections should be merged, since there's a bit of jumping around with the dates. Editoneer (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
• Parts of "Geography and climate" are unsourced
• "There are almost 10,000 km2 (3,900 sq mi) (about 5% of the total area) of protected areas in Romania covering 13 national parks and three biosphere reserves" - are there links to a list of these national parks, by chance?

• No wikilinks for this? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done. Editoneer (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• " Some 3,700 plant species have been identified in the country, from which to date 23 have been declared natural monuments, 74 missing, 39 endangered, 171 vulnerable, and 1,253 rare." - missing?
• "Romania's 2007 entry into the EU has been a significant influence on its domestic policy, and including judicial reforms, increased judicial cooperation with other member states, and measures to combat corruption. " - source?
• "Past, recent governments have stated that one of their goals is to strengthen ties" - did you mean to add an "and" instead of a comma?

• That's still a little unclear. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Done, oof. Editoneer (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Because it has a large Hungarian minority, Romania has also developed strong relations with Hungary. " - source?
• "As of August 2019, its acceptance into the Schengen Area is hampered because the European Council has misgivings about Romania's adherence to the rule of law,[256] a fundamental principle of EU membership." - any update as of 2020 by chance?

• Any update? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

•  Not done, I can't find any updates about this subject. Editoneer (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The Air Force currently operates modernised Soviet MiG-21 Lancer fighters, which are due to be replaced by twelve recently purchased F-16s." - when? This source was accessed in 2016, so it's not exactly recent

• So the F-16s aren't happening? I saw you remove that part. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

I didn't saw any news about it, so I considered deleted it. You can't suggest something that you can't prove. Editoneer (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In 2019, Romania has a GDP (PPP) of around $547 billion and a GDP per capita (PPP) of $28,189" - as of 2020?
• A lot of the "Economy" section feels outdated
• First paragraph of "Science and technology" is unsourced
• Ditto first paragraph of "Languages"
• Ditto 2nd paragraph of "Arts and monuments"
• Ditto last paragraph of "Sports"

So the article has a lot of issues. But I see it's on its 7th GAN, so I won't fail it yet. I stopped a thorough review as of the "Economy" section, so if you get to my issues, I can continue, but there are a lot of issues to address first. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Greetings! Awwwww even the guild didn't detected those "bugs", but anyways thank you but I want to know if you have finished the review? Editoneer (talk) 14:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I stopped an extensive review by the time I got to "Economy", because I noticed a lot of issues (namely sourcing), and since it's on its 7th GA review, I wanted to wait til these issues were addressed before I continue with a thorough review. Hope that's alright! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I suggest you can continue your review, not below the last reader's comment but in continue where the review last off, it's not like there will be any problems with the way you are resuming the review. Also I'm pretty sure that everyone's mentality is: I shouldn't comment maybe he has something to say that might result in an edit conflict or it will be swept above the other half of the review. or something like that where users wait for you to finish what you started. Editoneer (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't foresee there being any conflicts. In fact, I'd rather wait to continue reviewing in case any of the content changes, considering how much is unsourced, and how much is out of date. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to call the Guild of Copyeditors again as I'm afraid of doing something wrong. Editoneer (talk) 09:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

It seems that it will take a while until they review this article again... should I do all of those myself? If yes, let me know if another grammar mistake arises because I tried to correct the past mistake or do you want to delay the article review until they have perfect time to check the article thoroughly again?. Editoneer (talk) 09:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure, I'll check your edits. However, most of the problems aren't in the grammar, it's sourcing, which the GoC won't be able to help with. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, there weren't many grammar errors in the article. It's an issue of there being not enough sources, or some other minor issues. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2020

Well, my request is premature so they can't do it, I'll just start around this time. Editoneer (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I did everything on the list please continue and you can tell us if new mistakes appeared or citations are a problem. Editoneer (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• I see three tags for citations needed in "Languages"

 Not done Done Done, Oh come on, I consider that the Istro-Romanian and many similar language are common sense. Anyways is Parolando reliable? Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• Last sentence of "Religion" is unsourced

 Done, I couldn't find anything to convene that phrase so I deleted it, not even typing in Romanian helped me. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Romanian kids love basketball almost as much as they love association football.[465] Gheorge Muresan has been the most prominent basketball player as he gained popularity off the court as well as on the court. Yet, the Romanian national basketball team has had only modest success. " - the first sentence seems unencyclopediac. The second sentence is unsourced

 Done Done, Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "GDP has been growing by over 2% each year since." - the source is as of 2014. Is that still the case?

 Done, not really the case now, Johannis did something it seems. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Romania still had one of the lowest net average monthly wages in the EU of €540 in 2016,[286] and an inflation rate of −1.1% in 2016." - update?

 Done, just check in case I wrote it wrong. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Industrial output growth reached 6.5% year-on-year in February 2013, the highest in the EU-27." - why "EU-27" here?

 Done, changed to "Europe". Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• " Exports have increased substantially in the past few years, with a 13% annual rise in exports in 2010. " - any way to make this more timely?

•  Done, yes... but I couldn't add the reference because tradeconomics.com is blocked. Editoneer (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• "The account balance in 2012 was estimated to be −4.52% of GDP" - how can it be a negative percentage of the GDP?

•  Done, Based on the sign, it wasn't a minus sign, it was the dash used for pause, but anyways, I removed it.

• "Romania's FDI outward stock amounted to $745 million in December 2018, the lowest value among the 28 EU member states." - maybe I don't know what "outward stock" is, but this sentence is confusing following the previous one

•  Done, I explained it in branckets. Editoneer (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Since 1867 the official currency has been the Romanian leu ("lion") and following a denomination in 2005, it has been valued at €0.2–0.3." - this isn't backed up by the source at the end of this paragraph

•  Done, Deleted the value at euro0.2-0.3 and added reference to one before that. Editoneer (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• "In January 2020, Romania's external debt was reported to be US $122 billion according to CEIC data." - most of the article refers to the Euro as the currency, so why the switch here?
• "According to the Romania's National Institute of Statistics (INSSE), her total road network" - I'm not sure the poetic "her" is correct here

 Done, In Romanian, "Romania" is at the feminine gender, I presume is a translation error. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Romania's rail transport experienced a dramatic decline after 1989 and was estimated at 99 million passenger journeys in 2004; but has experienced a recent (2013) revival due to infrastructure improvements and partial privatisation of lines,[249] accounting for 45% of all passenger and freight movements in the country." - semicolon should be a comma

 Done. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Bucharest Metro, the only underground railway system, was opened in 1979 and measures 61.41 km (38.16 mi) with an average ridership in 2007 of 600,000 passengers during the workweek" - add "in the country" somewhere. Also, any more recent estimate than 2007?
• "There were almost 18.3 million connections to the Internet in June 2014.[311] According to Bloomberg, in 2013 Romania ranked fifth in the world, and according to The Independent, it ranks number one in Europe at Internet speeds,[312][313] with Timișoara ranked among the highest in the world." - again, any more recent estimates?
• "Romania was estimated to have the fourth-fastest-growing travel and tourism total demand in the world, with an estimated potential growth of 8% per year from 2007 to 2016" - the growth potential doesn't matter much since we're already after 2016
• "as well as well preserved medieval Transylvanian cities " - I had to read the first four words a few times to get the meaning. I suggest rewording

 Done, very well very well. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "Hunedoara Castle is another famous structure. " source?

 Done, removed. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "In 2014, Romania had 32,500 companies active in the hotel and restaurant industry, with a total turnover of €2.6 billion" - I don't get the economic value of the "turnover". Is that profits?
• "More than 1.9 million foreign tourists visited Romania in 2014, 12% more than in 2013" - a few paragraphs earlier, you said there were 9.33 million foreign tourists in 2016. Could you reorganize the "Tourism" section? It feels a bit mish-mashed
• "During the 1990s and 2000s, the development of research was hampered by several factors, including corruption, low funding and a considerable brain drain" - are you doing the Oxford comma or not?

 Done, If you meant serial comma. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• In January 2011, Parliament passed a law that enforces "strict quality control on universities and introduces tough rules for funding evaluation and peer review". - why the long quote? Was this the exact wording from the law? If not, could you summarize the quote so you don't need the attribution
• "The nuclear physics facility of the European Union's proposed Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI) laser will be built in Romania." - update? As of 2019 it seems like Romania's involvement is shaky
• "with dioceses for Romanians living in nearby Serbia and Hungary, as well as diaspora communities in Central and Western Europe, North America, and Oceania. " - source?

•  Done, Deleted. Editoneer (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• There seems to be one too many images in the "Demographics" section
• "In 2004, some 4.4 million individuals were enrolled in school. Of these, 650,000 were in kindergarten (three-six years), 3.11 million in primary and secondary level, and 650,000 in tertiary level (universities)." - update?
• " Brâncuși has a sculptural ensemble in Târgu Jiu, while his sculpture Bird in Space, was auctioned in 2005 for $27.5 million." - again you use a dollar figure, but most of the article uses Euro
• "During Easter, painted eggs are very common, while on 1 March features mărțișor gifting, a tradition likely of Thracian origin." - odd grammar

•  Done? Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• You should write out the UEFA acronym on its first usage

 Not done, I really believe I need the exact quote to track it. Editoneer (talk) 17:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

• "The Romanian national team also reached the quarterfinals of the UEFA European Championship three times. Romania's home ground is the Arena Națională in Bucharest." - source?

•  Done, Deleted. Editoneer (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

• "Romania participated in the Olympic Games for the first time in 1900 and has taken part in 21 of the 28 summer games. It has been one of the more successful countries at the Summer Olympic Games, with a total of 307 medals won throughout the years, of which 89 were gold, ranking 15th overall, and second of the nations that have never hosted the games. Romanians participated at the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles and finished second in gold medals (20) and third in total medal count (53). " - source?

•  Done, Deleted. Editoneer (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

So again, the main problem with the article is sourcing and some parts seeming out of date. This completes my review of the prose of the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Small error

The page contains the following sentence:

"It has the world's 62th largest economy by nominal GDP, with an annual economic growth rate of 3.5% as of 2020.[16]"

"62th" is not proper English; it should be changed to "62nd", representing the proper "sixty-second". "62th" would read as "sixty-tooth". ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmroy3 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings, did you try to fix the issue yourself? Editoneer (talk) 14:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2020

In the chapter "etymology" i wanted to add after "Romania derives from the Latin romanus, meaning "citizen of Rome".[18], the sentence

"Citizens of the Byzantine Empire" used to call their state as "Eastern Roman Empire" or "Romania" until 1453. 2A02:587:1216:7D00:694C:6066:B203:360B (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania&action=submit

 Not done: The term "citizen of Rome" includes both Western Roman Empire as well as Eastern (Byzantine) Roman Empire. It is not clear to me why such specific disambiguation is required. Melmann 18:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

References

7th largest member of the EU by population

should be 6th now that the UK is no longer part of the EU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.143.126 (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, just go on.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC))

Please source this change as other changes do not mean that it will automatically happen. Britmax (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no source for seventh anyway so I've directly changed it. Super Ψ Dro 16:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Further reading

Lucian Boia, Romania: Borderland of Europe (2001). 84.94.37.73 (talk) 15:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Eugen Lovinescu, History of Modern Romanian Civilization (1925). 84.94.37.73 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Definition of romanus

According to its Wiktionary definition, romanus simply means "Roman", not "citizen of Rome". Shouldn't both be added to the Etymology section and have the sentence as "Romania derives from the* Latin romanus, meaning 'Roman' or 'citizen of Rome'"? According to the Roman people article, Romans are referred to as an ethnicity or nationality; a "citizen of Rome" could belong to any ethnicity, thus not necessarily be a Roman. Additionally, the DEX definition of român doesn't state that romanus means "citizen of Rome". Scriban's definition from 1939, although outdated, simply states that romanus means "Roman", as either a noun or adjective.

* "the" should probably be removed. Lupishor (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this and doubt anyone is going to oppose it, so you can change it already. Super Ψ Dro 19:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Thank you for approval. I am also going to remove "citizen of Rome" altogether as it's simply wrong. Lupishor (talk) 20:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Romanian overseas territory (?)

This has also been discussed some time ago, I believe it was last spring, but since time has passed, I want to see what people think about it now.

According to some Turkish and Romanian books, Romania had an overseas territory from 1934-39. It even has a Wikipedia article. When this was discussed last year, some users said that land was not actually owned by Romania, which is contradictory to what the quoted sources state, apparently. Romania had even built an institute there, which kept on functioning for some years after the territory was not part of Romania anymore.

If people agree with the sources' claim, I'd propose making a reference to it here on the Romania article, to spread awareness about this unknown chapter of Romanian history. Given the chapter's obscureness, it would, of course, be a one-sentence reference, not a long detailed one, since this article is too "big" for it. Lupishor (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I again agree with this, but you should probably wait a bit for this one in case somebody wants to oppose the change. Super Ψ Dro 20:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Seeing as two people are in favor of this, and nobody else has said anything in three days, I guess I am going to make the edit later today or maybe wait a bit longer. Lupishor (talk) 11:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Albania didn't create a sovereign territory for Iorga and thus he was not in the position to cede that territory to the Romania state. It was just a piece land privately owned by the Romanian state outside Romania, which is the case for many of the country's embassies. So no, no "overseas territory".Anonimu (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

It's perhaps incorrect to qualify it as an overseas territory, but I don't think there is a problem with mentioning the concession. Do you agree with this, Anonimu? Super Ψ Dro 11:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I see no problem at all with mentioning the concession. @Anonimu: Your comment seems to make sense, however, why would those sources claim Romania had an overseas territory if it wasn't the case? Lupishor (talk) 23:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The article was created by a banned user using mostly fake information. I could identify two of the sources, and both discuss the Romanian Archaeological Institute in Albania, not a "concession".Anonimu (talk) 10:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of this, good thing you reworked it. That Prefectul guy actually seemed to have some useful edits. I guess I didn't know him well enough, then. This talk section can be archived. Lupishor (talk) 18:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2021

I want to put the sculptor Pavel Bucur in the section of Culture, near the other sculptors. Matteobucur (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:WTAF. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 00:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: section education

In the section education, please change the text "Kindergarten is optional between three and six years. Since 2012, compulsory schooling starts at age 6 with the "preparatory school year" (clasa pregătitoare)[390] and is compulsory until tenth grade.[391]" to the following text:

"Kindergarten is optional between three and five years. Since 2020, compulsory schooling starts at age 5 with the last year of kindergarten (grupa mare) and is compulsory until twelfth grade." [15]

This update is needed, because the law has changed, and since 2020, there are 14 years of compulsory schooling. So please implement this update.2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:672A (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Super Ψ Dro 11:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2021

add names of olympic athletes in the section: The Romanian competitors have won gold medals in other Olympic sports: athletics, canoeing, wrestling, shooting, fencing, swimming, weightlifting, boxing, and judo. stated that Romania's HDI is 0.821, as it also declines from the previous 2019 UN reported data of 0.832 (There was no such report in 2021) Mattadjwic (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done Snowmanonahoe (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Gelou

@I.cavaleru: It isn't objective knowledge that Gelou has really existed. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, I won't post this again. But why did you delete Transylvania, in your opinion it is not part of Romania's history? I.cavaleru (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That Transylvania was Romanian in 1346 is contested. Adrian Cioroianu's view is that the percentage of ethnic Romanians slowly but steadily increased, till they became the majority in Transylvania. That was a process which took centuries.

According to [16], forced Magyarization pushed Transylvania into Romanian hands. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi @I.cavaleru:, Transylvania and historical events there are part of Romanian history. But that infobox lists the establishment of Romanian states, and Transylvania is part of Romania since 1920. Principality of Transylvania was not a Romanian state. After Battle of Mohacs when the Hungarian king died, the Hungarian nobles elected 2 kings, so the country was split in 2, and Eastern Hungarian Kingdom was ruled by King John, then by King John II, and after the Treaty of Speyer in 1570 when Hungarian crown moved to Habsburgs, the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom became the Principality of Transylvania and the Eastern Hungarian king became the first Prince of Transylvania. Treaty of Speyer stressed in a highly significant way that John Sigismund's possessions belonged to the Holy Crown of Hungary and he was not permitted to alienate them. Transylvanian princes maintained their claims to the throne of the Kingdom of Hungary.

Btw following your logic, (I do not agree) you can list in the infobox the Eastern Hungarian Kingdom which became the Principality of Transylvania, Kingdom of Hungary (establishment 1000), Principality of Hungary (895), Avar Khaganate (567), because Transylvania and outside Transylvania many areas from these former states are part of Romania since 1920 (not only Transylvania). Why do you start count only from 1570? Should we list the Byzantine Empire as state of Turkey? Should we list Pannonia province as Hungarian and Austrian state? Should we list the Roman Empire as state of Spain and England? I think no.

Some coins and maps:

Gabriel Bethlen Prince of Transylvania (1613-1629) King of Hungary (1620-1621)

http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/hungary_denar_gab_1621.jpg

http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_denar_1621KB.jpg

http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_1626CC_groshen.jpg

Bethlen Gabor coin 1621 with Hungarian coat of arm:

https://m.eremshop.hu/datadir/termekek/Bethlen-Gabor-Taller-1621-K-B-6525-4756.jpg

Bethlen Gabor coin 1626

http://www.coins.calkinsc.com/images/transylvania_1626CC_groshen.jpg

Bethlen Gabor coin 1627  with Hungarian coat of arm and holy crown

https://m.eremshop.hu/datadir/termekek/d206974deaf9316797fc5b3b833a0f97.jpg

Old contemporary history maps:

1635 map of Europe by Willem Blaeu, a Dutch cartographer, The proportions are overall not so good, Hungary looks smaller than the reality, but we can see what was that Transylvania was part of the Hungarian crown at that time. Hungarian land from Pozsony/Bratislava (Pressburg) to Gyulafehérvár/Alba Iulia (Weissenburg).

https://external-preview.redd.it/rYdkPyeF-bUy_lr9BDdl294yojmJZwifBAeX_Vnz9Us.jpg?auto=webp&s=2dffc358c45b57877c2467e12acf6eda82cc212a

1724 map of Europe from Paris

http://history-maps.ru/pictures/max/0/827.jpg

1751

https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~3914~480119:L-Europe-divisee-en-ses-principaux-

1779, French map

https://www.digitalcommonwealth.org/search/commonwealth:3f462x294

1787, English map, Kitchin

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Europe%2C_1787_%28Kitchin%29.jpg

1800, English map

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_accurate_map_of_Europe_from_the_best_authorities_%283046039588%29.jpg

OrionNimrod (talk) 09:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@I.cavaleru, please stop edit war, morover you just keep reverting whitout any arguments or discussions. Moldavia was founded in 1346 as Hungarian vassal buffer state, after the Hungarian army who was sent by King Louis I of Hungary pushed the Golden Horde behind the Dneister in 1345 and Dragoș, Voivode of Moldavia was sent by the Hungarian king from Maramaros county. Why would be Maramaros county a Romanian state because some Romanian nobles got estates there? Btw, a lot of nobles from different ethnic background got estates in every medieval countries. Should be their estates pre-states of other countries? Follow this strange logic almost all countries in Europe would be pre-state of each countries...

Do you know any international history map which shows Maramaros county inside the Kingdom of Hungary would be Romanian state? It was part of the Kingdom of Hungary in all international maps until 1920. The territory of Maramaros is part of Principality of Hungary and Kingdom of Hungary in every international, English, German, Hungarian, French, etc historical maps.

High Middle Ages: map 1190

Another international map, 1096

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_in_the_14th_Century.jpg

OrionNimrod (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The Maramureș Voivodeship's Wikipedia page says it is a Romanian state, how do you think you know the history of my country better than I do? That's how you are Hungarians as well as Russians, you don't want to admit the truth I.cavaleru (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

That wiki pages has many issues. Voivodeship of Maramureș, anyway it was part of the Kingdom of Hungary. If the Hungarian king appointed some Romanian nobles to manage the area for a short time, then why would be this area a Romanian state? I do not understand.

Please stop personal harrasments. And please check out the international maps, tell to the international map makers and historians that you know it better.

Well, I am Hungarian, and that region was part of Hungary between 895-1920 and between 1940-45, and part of Romania since 1920. Which means this region is quite part of the Hungarian history not only the Romanian history, morover we are talking about the 14th century: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe%20in%20the%2014th%20Century.jpg and not about the present time. OrionNimrod (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Voivodeship of Maramureș

@I.cavaleru: first of all please read WP:3RR very carefully because edit warring may result in your banning from our community. Secondly, could you refer to reliable sources stating that Maramureș was an independent state in the Middle Ages? Please remember that the early 16th-century Moldo-Russian Chronicle says the Vlachs were settled in Maramureș by one "King Vladislaus" (likely Ladislaus IV) of Hungary to fight against the Mongols. (Spinei, Victor (1986). Moldavia in the 11th–14th Centuries. Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Româna. p. 197.) Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree ....removed Moxy- 15:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2023

Romania has reached the status of a developed country in 2021 and has retained its developed country status in UN's Human Development Index in 2022 and 2023 as well. 77.58.168.130 (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Here you go: Romania has reached the status of a developed country in 2021 and has retained its developed country status in UN's Human Development Index in 2022 and 2023 as well. WikiUser70176 (talk) 12:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

References

 Done WikiUser70176 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2023 (UTC)