Talk:Romania/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Economic Indicators

Whoever wrote those got them (mostly) wrong. They are blown out of proportion for 2005 and 2006 and there's a couple of mistakes in the previous years as well (# of cell phone users for example). Pirlinho 18:55, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be great to have some sourced statistics. Some of them sound made up. The number of mobile phone users is indeed an exaggeration. Connex and Orange have each somewhere between 5 and 6 million clients and the other companies have less than a million together. So, there's no chance to be 16 million. bogdan | ^Talk 19:32, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Population

Like the economic statistics, the population data seems blown out of proportion. The last official data [1] states 21733556 for 2004 (data for June 1st 2003), a slight drop from June 1st 2002. With a negative growth of 0.2% per year the correct figure for 2005 should be around 21.600.000, no way over 22.000.000 --Xanthar 13:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

With so many Romanian citizens living abroad, I suspect that there could be two quite divergent numbers, depending on who is counted. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, what do you mean when you say, "With so many Romanian citizens living abroad, I suspect that there could be two quite divergent numbers, depending on who is counted"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.138.17.78 (talk • contribs) 5 Oct 2005

I mean that right now the number of Romanian citizens is probably greater than the number of people living in Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"In the Middle Ages, Romanians lived in two distinct independent principalities" - nonsence. In medieval ages there were not romanians. No one ever called 'romanian' in midle ages. Only  were wallachians and moldavians.

I do not know how to edit the little set of tables where there's teh basic information on the country, but this should be of some note:

"22,303,552 (July 2006 est.) "

Source: CIA World Factbook [2]

Seems the population has gone down - probably due to emmigration, as I'm always hearing (from Romanians themselves, mind) that a lot of Romanians "want to learn English and go to America". But, that's speculation on my part, so I'll just leave you with that most recent... I'm guessing estimate? Since July 2006 hasn't happened yet, obviously. But, since it is from the CIA World Factbook, I'm guessing that's the most accurate or one of the most accurate estimates. - RW 63.21.91.97 22:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"It is expected"

From the article: "Romania now has one of the most liberal taxation systems in Europe, and it is expected that this, along with increased foreign investment, will boost economic growth in the coming years, as well as lower corruption and bring to light the grey economy."

• "…it is expected…": by whom? As it stands, this is effectively stated by the narrator of the article, pure POV.
• If I parse this correctly, it is asserting that a liberal taxation system and foreign investment will lower corruption and bring to light the grey economy. That makes no sense to me at all. I can't see why a liberal taxation system would even imaginably do either of these things, and foreign investment would only do so if the foreigners can be presumed to be more honest and less currupt than Romanians; I see no particular reason to presume they are; again, this needs attribution.

Jmabel | Talk 03:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Both precedent and theory has shown that a liberal taxation system reduces corruption. This is because it brings to light parts of the grey economy, since more people are encouraged to pay tax. In this context, liberal can be understood to mean "low tax" not "poorly-enforced taxation". While Romania has lowered its tax - hence, its taxation system is more liberal - it has also strengthened punishments against tax evasion. This is expected to lower corruption - the incentive for corruption will be much lower. As to the parsing of the sentence, it doesn't mean that a lower taxation system = more foreign investment = economic growth + lower corruption + less grey economy. What it means is lower taxation system = foreign investment = economic growth; lower taxation = lower corruption + less grey economy. This is implied by "as well as". As to sourcing this claim, there are quite a few sources. It is also sound in theory - lower tax boosts foreign investment, since there is more incentive, which results in economic growth. Higher economic growth results in less corruption, due to more disposable income, while the lower tax itself also reduces corruption and lowers the grey economy. Actual sources include: [3] (claims that investment rose because of taxation system change), and [4] which states:

Within the international report on foreign direct investments, UNCTAD appreciated that the rise of this indicator in Romania had been triggered by the introduction of the flat taxation rate of 16 percent.

A source which links lower taxation to a small grey economy is [5],

which states:

It is essential to lower the unbearable burden of taxation for both employers and employees. By levying a lower tax on a higher taxable income black or grey market can be suppressed. This means surplus receipts for the budget and, at the same time, an income growth for employees and companies.

[6] is a source relating to flat tax and its effect on lowering the grey economy and corruption, stating that:

The changes have two main aims: to simplify a currently Byzantine fiscal system, and to lower the overall tax level so that tax-dodgers have more of an incentive to pay up. The shake-up also sends a message to the world that Romania is serious about competing for foreign investment. It is taking place in the context of a general regional trend towards lower flat tax rates in Eastern Europe. Now Romania is joining the bandwagon, and at a very competitive level.

So, that's about it. Foreign investment has rised significantly in 2005, which has been attributed to corruption by various organisations, including the source above. As to corruption and reduction of the informal economy, that can be deduced logically and there are also some sources to explain it. I don't think it needs to be explained in the article - it could be (and probably is) explained in the flat tax article. Ronline 08:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

There have been quite a few liberal reductions in taxation that have had this effect in large black/grey market afflicted countries and no counter-examples that I am aware of. Some of those experiments were in Romania itself so it's reasonable to expect that trends will continue. TMLutas (15 Dec 2005)

Tourism hype

I have now twice removed a section called "Tourism in Romania" (well, the first time it was "Turism..."). It's a perfectly valid topic, but the content was nothing but unencyclopedic hype. For the record, here is what it said. Someone needs to cover the topic a lot better than this if they want it in the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[begin deleted text]

Tourism in Romania is a very riched source of value for the romanian economy. Often Romania is characterized by the followings:

• "… why should you go to Romania? The straight answer is because it is one of the most beautiful countries of Southeast Europe." (The Blue Guide)
• "Few regions offer a more dazzling display of cultural and artistic treasures than Romania." (Smithsonian Journeys)
• "Considered by many the most beautiful country in Eastern-Europe, Romania still claims regions that seem bastions of a medieval past long since lost elsewhere." (Fodor's Eastern and Central Europe)
• "Romania has majestic castles, medieval towns, great hiking and wildlife…" (The Lonely Planet)

[end deleted text]

---

I think this is the proof that you JMABEL have something against ROMANIA, you keep deleting the lines about tourism in Romania and you told us that you try to be neutral and not BIAS, but look, you are still deleting these very good lines... is there something that you don't like? well I don't care, ok? you don't want other people to discover Romania? Belive me Romania has changed since you left, don't be caught in your trap and own ideas and image about Romania, behave more decently! it was just a perfectly text on turism on Romania, actually I propose you not to interfere any more since you cannot accept the NETRAL POINTS OF VIEW OF FOREIGN PEOPLE on ROMANIA! (The Blue Guide),(Smithsonian Journeys),(Fodor's Eastern and Central Europe),(The Lonely Planet)

I have to admit I am very good in detecting your bias ideas, you should let romanians build their site since we know more about our country than you an ignorant nerd.

I really appreciate your work as a whole but we don't have to agree on all the issues, it would not be democratic, see you next time Jmabel, until then my best wishes.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 18 Oct 2005

Will someone else please weigh in on this? I will not be dragged into an edit war where two people keep alternately adding and removing the same material, but I think this material absolutely does not belong in the article. Will someone else please revert it?

I would have removed comparable material about any country. My removal of this material has nothing to do with my opinion of Romania. This is an encyclopedia. It's not Wikiquote. It's not Wikitravel. This material does not belong here.

I don't usually point in Wikipedia to my writings or achievements outside of Wikipedia, but I am the author of (among other writings on Romania) an online visitor's guide to Bucharest. I have met (quite positively) with Romania's top tourism official in the United States, to suggest to him how Romania could better publicize itself s a tourist destination. I've contributed to numerous Wikitravel articles on Romania. I regularly hook up American visitors to people in Romania. Does this sound to anyone (other than our one anonymous contributor) like bias against Romanian tourism?

86.105.71.34, I'm perfectly happy to discuss the merits (or not) of this or any other material in the article, but if you want to accuse me of bias, start an RfC. Otherwise, if you continue to accuse me on talk pages of bias, I will start and RfC about you, because, despite your polite words, this is beginning to add up to ad hominem remarks and a personal attack. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

86.105.71.34, I just took a look at Canada, Greece and Ireland. None of them have "Tourism" sections. It doesn't seem to be a part of the standard country article. I'd suggest that instead of making accusations here, that discussion of Tourism probably belongs to an Economy of Romania sub-article, which would ideally discuss both facts about the tourism industry and quotes from guides explaining why tourism is a succesful industry there. I offer the above only as a third opinion, but with the strong suspicion that you will find wide consensus on Wikipedia that we should not add a "tourism" section to country articles, given the existence of Wikitravel. Jkelly 01:22, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Same contributor

User:86.105.71.34 keeps writing in a manner that seems to me more like a promotional brochure than an encyclopedia. "Romania has a very good technologically advanced market economy with substantial government participation. With very good natural resources, Romania has intensively developed its agricultural and industrial sectors over the past 20 years. Romania is largely self-sufficient in food production. High-technology, military equipment, software, pharmaceuticals, fine chemicals, and agricultural products (fruits, vegetables, and flowers) are leading exports. Romania possesses extensive facilities for oil refining and semiconductor fabrication. Romania's economy is nearly as large as the economies of all of its immediate neighbors added together."

None of this is exactly wrong, but it just strikes me as boosterish in a way that we don't usually write about countries. You'd never guess from reading this that "immediate neighbor" Hungary has a considerably higher per capita GDP. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

---

I would try to write the Tourism section. But since my english is not very good I would need somebody ti reed'it and correct'it before it's introduced in the article. Should I post this in here first (in the discussion) and then somebody make the corrections and then introduce the section in the article? Regarding the "standard country article", how saised what is and what is not correct? In my oppinion, a tourism sectio could be introduced here, ore if not here, in the "Geography of Romania" article. -- Madroxana

Number of Romanian-speakers

Without a single new source being cited, the claimed number of Romanian-speakers has slowly edged up from 24.5 million to 29 million. I'm almost certain that the new number is too high. I don't have any specific expertise on this, it's just considerably higher than any number I've ever before seen for this. The usually reliable Ethnologue says "population total all countries: 23,498,367." [7]. And, no, they are not counting Moldovan as a separate language. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Romanians remains with 24.5 million, which presumably is intended to include ethnic Romanians in the U.S., France, etc., many of whom do not speak Romanian. Conversely, I'm sure there are many Magyars in Transylvania who are dual native speakers, and I'm not at all sure Ethnologue counts them for Romanian. Again, does someone have a citation for this? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, I agree that there seems to be no basis put forward for this creep, and am restoring the previous value of 24.5m unless/until reliable citations are provided.--cjllw | TALK 02:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dominant regional influence?

Right in the opening paragraph:

'Romania has become the dominant regional influence in economic, political, military, scientific, technological and cultural affairs.'

When was this added? Seems like a fairly controversial statement, and not very NPOV. The Belgain 00:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• [8], on Oct 8, 2005. Same anonymous contributor several of whose contributions I've characterized as hype, and who accuses me of anti-Romanian sentiment. Imaginably, it might have been in the article before and been reverted: I did a quick search through the history, not a comprehensive one. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:09, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

One million romanians in Italy

Romanii au ajuns la 37,2% din cei 2,8 milioane de imigranti din Italia Peste un milion de romani traiesc in Italia, constituind cea mai mare comunitate straina - 1.061.400, adica 37,2% din totalul imigrantilor, releva „Dosarul statistic al imigratiei 2005”, publicat la sfarsitul saptamanii trecute. In premiera, acest buletin anual cuprinde un subcapitol destinat Romaniei si Poloniei, intitulat: „Fluxurile migratorii provenite din tarile din Est: cazurile Romaniei si Poloniei”.

Imigrantii merg la Roma

Potrivit raportului, numarul imigrantilor ilegali din Italia este de circa 2,8 milioane de persoane (aproximativ 5% din totalul populatiei), situand Italia pe locul al treilea in Europa ca numar de imigranti, dupa Marea Britanie - 7,3 milioane, si Franta - 3,5 milioane de persoane. Dupa romani (care ocupa primul loc inca din 2002), marocanii si albanezii sunt cei mai numerosi, 20,1%, respectiv 16,1% din totalul cetatenilor straini care traiesc in Italia. Cei mai multi imigranti se concentreaza in regiunea Romei (340.000 de persoane), Milano (300.000), Torino si Brescia (cate 100.000) si apoi Padova, Treviso, Verona, Bergamo si altele (intre 50.000 si 70.000 fiecare).

Romanii, 40% din strainii veniti in 2004

Fata de anul trecut, numarul imigrantilor a crescut cu putin peste 100.000, iar statisticile arata ca 40% din acestia sunt tot romani. Raportul sustine ca fenomenul imigratiei este in plina dezvoltare si ca se va dubla in urmatorii zece ani, ajungand, in 2015, la 5,5 milioane de persoane. Numarul total al imigrantilor rezultat din raportul sus-citat este combatut de Institutul de Statistica italian, care avanseaza doar 2,4 milioane imigranti. Peste doua milioane de persoane din totalul imigrantilor sunt angajate, reprezentand 9% din totalul fortei de munca din Italia: peste 50% lucreaza in servicii, 44,8a% in industrie si 5,9% in agricultura, marea majoritate avand contracte cu durata determinata. Mai mult de 500.000 de imigranti lucreaza in casele italienilor, ca femei de serviciu, ingrijitori de copii sau de persoane in varsta etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 31 Oct 2005

Doing my best to translate this for the benefit of the Anglophones; please feel free to correct (in place) anything I get wrong:

Romanians have arrived at being 37.2% of the 2,8 million immigrants in Italy

Over a million Romanians are working in Italy, constituting the largest foreign community - 1,061,400, which is to say 37,2% of the total of immigrants, according to the "2005 Statistical Dossier of Immigration", published at the end of last week. [Lacking citation, it is not clear what week.]

For the first time, this annual bulletin includes a subchapter that addresses Romanians and Poles, entitled: "Migratory flows coming from the Eastern lands: The cases of the Romanians and Poles”.

Immigrants travel to Rome

According to the report, the number of illegal immigrants in Italia is about 2.8 million people (approximately 5% of the total population), placing Italy in third place in Europe for number of immigrants, after Great Britain - 7.3 million, and France - 3.5 million people. After Romanians (who came to be in first place as early as 2002), Moroccans and Albanians are the most numerous, 20.1% and 16,1%, respectively of the total of foreign citizens working in Italy.

The most immigrants are concentrated in the region of Rome (340,000 people), Milan (300,000), Turin and Brescia (some 100,000), and also Padua, Treviso, Verona, Bergamo and others (between 50,000 and 70,000 each).

Romanians, 40% of the foreigners who arrived in 2004

Since last year, the number of immigrants has increased a little more than 100,000, but the statistics show that 40% of these are all[?] Romanians. The report sustains that the phenomenon of immigration is in full development [that's literal: presumably this means "undergoing rapid development"] and that it will double in the next ten years, arriving, in 2015, at 5.5 million people.

The total number of immigrants given as a result in the abovementioned report is contested by the Italian Institute of Statistics, which puts forth a number of just 2.4 million immigrants. Over two million people of the total immigrants are employed, reprezentin 9% of the total Italian workforce: over 50% work in services [I assume that is what in servicii means in this context; it can also mean "in office jobs", but that seems unlikely], 44.8% in industry, and 5.9% in agriculture, the great majority having fixed-duration contracts. More than 500,000 immigrants work in Italian houses, as cleaning woman, nannies or caring for the elderly, etc.

I'm not sure where it comes from (User:86.105.71.34 gives no citation).

The citation, FWIW, is:

• Mitrica, Mihai Un milion de romani s-au mutat in Italia ("One million Romanians have moved to Italy"). Evenimentul Zilei, 31 October 2005. Retrieved 31 October 2005.

- Jmabel | Talk 07:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

With a source cited, it would certainly worth mentioning something about this, probably worth more of a mention at Romanians than in this article, since it is more about the people than the country. Note, that this large number of Romanians in Italy is unlikely to be an increase in the total number of Romanians over numbers we have; presumably many these people illegally in Italy are counted as being in Romania. Ethnic populations don't suddenly increase except by births. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Ev.Z. is not a reliable source.--Vasile 12:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

But of course, there is no reliable source in the Romanian press. Gândul has too many sensationalistic stories, Cotidianul has some lousy journalists that are writing without knowing anything about the subject, Adevărul is biased, Jurnalul Naţional has to follow the line of the Dan Voiculescu's party, etc. bogdan | ^Talk 13:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Evenimentul Zilei and other Romanian newspapers

Evenimentul zilei is one of the most liberal and important newspaper in Romania.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.71.34 (talk • contribs) 31 Oct 2005

Ev. Z. is probably less reliable now than a few years back, and I certainly won't have held it up as one of Europe's great papers even then, but I believe it's as good a source for Romania-related news as we've got. Vasile, is there any newspaper in Romania that you would hold up as considerably more reliable? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:10, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

"Dosarul statistic al imigratiei 2005" -no information about the issuer of that statistics. (Newspapers more reliable now: Jurnalul National, Averea)--Vasile 15:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Since I honestly can't say I systematically keep up with the Romanian press: do others agree with Vasile on which Romanian dailies should be considered reliable? --Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Daily newspapers like Evenimentul Zilei, Adevarul, Gandul, Ziua may be considered reliable sources of information, if these are not considered reliable than which are? gg? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.226.7.205 (talk • contribs) 08:46, 2005 November 3

A new paragraph was made

A new paragraph was made namely the Gallery, who is against has no reason to argue, it must accept this fact, it is decided to be like that. Otherwise we will vote for this. If these pictures annoy somebody than go elsewehere. Made by myself Jmabel. ( contributed by user:86.105.71.34; blocked for 24h for impersonating and personal attacks. The user still can edit user talk:86.105.71.34, to explain his behavior. mikka (t) 22:03, 3 November 2005 (UTC))

Actually, I think the Gallery is a fine idea, and I've added to it. But please don't fake being me, even where we agree. Especially, please don't fake me being a high-handed asshole who expresses himself in bad English. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree and I am against everybody who is anti-romanian like Mikkalai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.200.15 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2005 November 3

Note that the above came from an anonymous IP who, a few edits earlier, vandalized this talk page and was reverted -- Jmabel | Talk 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposal of new paragraphs in the page of Romania

"Detailed, accurate, and easy-to-read information for all the people" this is my opinion on the romanian page. I propose you to add some new lines on the following issues:

• The Best of Romania

• The Best Travel Experiences
• The Best Small Towns & Villages
• The Best Festivals
• The Best Museums
• The Best Websites for Romania

• The Regions in Brief (Did you know?...)

• Getting Around
• Recommended Reading
• Fast Facts: Romania

• Romania Calendar of Events
• Romania Outdoors

• Bicycling
• Walking
• Fishing
• Sailing
• Shopping

Also to each important city I propose you the followings:

• (Name of the City)

• A Brief History
• The City today
• Festivals
• Best Place to Eat and Stay
• (City name) Information

Dear Wikipedians any help from you is welcomed!

I don't quite follow. We are building an encyclopedia, not a travel guide (see wikitravel.org for that). And to be a fair and neutral encyclopedia, we essentially have to present the good and the bad, not just "the best of...". IulianU 13:44, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Much of this would be very welcome at WikiTravel—both in English and in Romanian—and only a moderate amount of it is there. But most of it does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

ro:Da, ce propui tu este extraordinar, dar aparţine la Wikitravel! Chiar ar fi bine să avem un ghid turistic român complet la Wikitravel!

en:Yes, what you propose is great, but it belongs over at Wikitravel! It would be great to have a complete tourist guide to Romania at Wikitravel! Ronline 12:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

changed "counties" into "Administrative divisions"

I've made a minor change, such as the changing of the word "counties" into a more general description. Administrative divisions is more appropiate and can be found on many countries pages.  Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Average gross wage

Certainly useful information, but is it really useful to say how it compared to the previous month? Information like that dates rapidly, and fluctuates from month to month. Comparison to one year earlier would be a lot more useful. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason why information comparison is done to the nearest month is because that's how INSSE (the Romanian Statistics Office) provides the information in its monthly factsheets. For each month, it states the gross and net wage, and its increase over the previous month. Of course, the INSSE website also has an archive graph that shows the increase over each month in a table, and that could be used to calculate the increase for the past 12 months (i.e. if the reference date is September 2005, we could say by how much it's increased since September 2004, the next month the date would be October 2005, with a figure saying how much it's increased since October 2004, etc.). The table can be found here Ronline 11:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Foreign language comprehension

We mention that more than a quarter of Romanians understand and speak French. Does anyone have a comparable number for English, and does anyone have citation for either? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

According to [[9]] there are in Romania:

• 5,000,000 - people speak english
• 4-5,000,000 - people speak french
• 2,000,000 - people speak italian
• 1,500,000 - people speak german
• 1,000,000 - people speak spanish
• (plus the regional and national minority)

 Bonaparte  talk & contribs

The numbers sound plausible, French used to be the foreign language in Romania until some 30-40 years ago -- so I expect there still are a lot of people speaking it, but mainly senior citizens -- whereas quite a lot among the urban young generation speaks English. (I don't have any statistics, but I'm a Romanian and that's what I know.) --Gutza ^{T T+} 23:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Mostly sounds right, though I find the number for Spanish suspiciously high based on my own experience: offhand, I've only once met a Romanian with Spanish even at the level of my own, and I'm not quite fluent in Spanish (though I'm close). -- Jmabel | Talk 02:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I was only confirming the ballpark numbers for English and French. Now that you mention it, Spanish and Italian look a little high indeed -- German however I think is underestimated. But then again, I'm just pulling personal impressions out of my hat, I might just as well be wildly wrong. --Gutza ^{T T+} 03:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the Spanish and Italian numbers are based on a fairly low level of comprehension - most people (Romanians) I know have been to Italy or Spain, either to work there or to visit, and the languages are quite similar. Interest in Italian and Spanish culture (literature, music, etc.) is quite high, thus explaining the stats. I think there probably are 2 million Italian speakers who can speak the language conversationally in Romania. Here in Oradea, the most common languages are English, French and German. Despite our membership of the Francophonie, I think a lot of Romanians speak French but they don't speak it all that well. English is actually spoken reasonably well by most people in cities, but French and German to a lesser, more conversational extent. I presume most people in the south and east (including Bucharest) don't speak that much German. I think an important language missing here is Hungarian - a lot of ethnic Romanians in Transylvania (probably half) speak Hungarian reasonably well. In Oradea, at least, I'd say more than half of people speak it at near-native level. Ronline 11:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. I've also met a good number of Romanians professionally who can speak Russian and/or Ukrainian, but I wouldn't even venture a guess at a number.

But at least the above are citable numbers. If there were a better (more comprehensive or more authoritative) set of citable numbers, that would be great. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, russian was a compulsory language taught in schools during the 50's and mabye the 60's. After that, russian was taught to a lesser extent, and was replaced at the begining with french and then with english, and as the number of russian language teacher decreased so has the number of peoples who were taught russian. When I finished highschool, in my county (Sibiu) there were no russian language courses, and a collegue who came from Slobozia had to catch up with us at english because that. At the university I also had some colleagues who made russian in school in the Teleorman county, so as far as I know, the south east part of Romania may still have some population knowing russian. You may count as well moldavian born romanians who have moved here ahter 1990 (I haven't met one who hadn't a native level knowledge of russian). -- Orioane 08:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Slobozia? I assume you mean the one in Moldova, not the one in Romania? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Slobozia the one in Romania. Generaly younger teachers went to the most appealing cityes, and in others there were a lot of old ones, so due to the fact that there were no oter language teacher, russian was taught. -Orioane 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting. Does anyone either have a decent citation for that phenomemon, or would people be comfortable putting it into this article (or some other, more specific, relevant article) without one? Something like "In the 1950s and 1960s, Russian was a compulsory subject in Romanian schools. As the country shifted over the next few decades back to teaching French (and adding English), cities that were considered more desirable postings for teachers generally made the shift earlier and more comprehensively than the rest of the country. Thus, even in the 1990s, after the fall of communism, when any school in Sibiu would have been teaching English and French, a school in a town such as Slobozia would have been teaching only Russian." -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the above (1) would explain why most of the Romanians I've met who spoke Russian were about my age or a little older (I'm born in 1954) and (2) would suggest that the numbers who are conversant in Russian are also probably in a million or more, and should be mentioned if we can find a citation. If, indeed, Russian was a compulsory school subject for a generation or so, that should also be mentioned. Question: would I be correct that through that peeiod, most university-bound Romanians would also still have learned French? -- Jmabel | Talk 17:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is almoast correct your assumption related to French, but between the two, due to the fact that it is easier to speak/undrestand/remember French than Russian, I think the number of peoples who are conversant in Russian is a little bit smaller than one million. -Orioane 20:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It also depends on the region. My father, who is one year older that you, studied French and English in school. (this was in Bucharest). Also, French is still the most taught language in schools (80%, IIRC), compared to English (75%). bogdan | ^Talk 22:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be excellent to get more of this into this article, or into Education in Romania. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Now my father, who is nine years older than you, studied English in school -- but I don't know what the second language was (in Bucharest as well). We were recently talking about this (completely unrelated to this conversation), and he told me that was quite new, as in unheard of, at that time. So we can assume that in Bucharest at least, the transition happened some time between 1945+7+4 = 1956 and 1953+7+4 = 1964 (seven years to get to school, and four more to get in the fifth grade, when they start teaching foreign languages). --Gutza ^{T T+} 11:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

It all depends significantly on regions, because here in western Transylvania, almost no-one speaks Russian. Few people, mostly those in their sixties and seventies, learned Russian at school, but soon forgot it and don't speak it anymore. So I would say that even 1 million may be too many (in contrast to, say, Bulgaria, where Russian is still seen somewhat as an "international language", in Romania you almost never hear it). There are, however, increasing numbers of Moldovan immigrants to Romania (for economic reasons), which speak Russian but aren't citizens of Romania. There is, of course, a Lippovan minority in Dobrogea which speaks Russian, and I would presume people from Romanian Moldova (i.e. Iaşi, Suceava, etc, would have a better knowledge of Russian than Transylvanians). And, after about the 1970s, many people learned French and English. In those times, one could do two languages at school, one advanced and one less-advanced (though still quite extensive). Many people chose French or English, or French and German (at least in Oradea). Nowadays, almost everyone chooses English first, and then either German or French. Many Romanians also attend German-language schools (set up for the German minority but today mainly attended by Romanians), where the main medium of instruction is German. It's a trend to help them improve their job prospects, or I don't know what else, but it's done quite a lot here. Ronline 02:21, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally think all the above numbers are blown out of proportion. Much of Romania (about 40%) is rural after all, with most rural schools having no foreign language teachers therefore resulting in very few people being able to speak anything but their native language in those environments. 5.000.000 English speakers would mean 1 in 4 including infants and children before attending school (that are a considerable part of the population after all - 10.4% of the total population is under the age of 10), illiterate persons (counting to about 200.000), etc. I remember reading in a study made by the University of Bucharest around 2000, claiming (statistically) that there are about 2 million English speakers (all levels) in Romania, some 1.5 million French speakers, with under 1 million speaking both languages. And Spanish, where could they have learned? Prior to 1990 there were maybe a dozen schools teaching Spanish. Some would say that they learned from watching telenovelas (soaps) or working in Spain, but I doubt that one could get such skills by simply watching TV, or that 1 million Romanians have worked in Spain and returned to Romania. In regards with schooling in Romania. Before 1945, the foreign language universally taught was French. Before the second world war it was in a way Romania's second language. English and German were sometimes (rarely) taught beside French, those English speakers who have leaned it prior to 1945 having a strong and very outdated British RP accent. After 1947-1949, French was removed, and under the influence of the Communists and the Red Army, Russian was introduced as a compulsory subject starting with the second grade until the end of the University. Russian courses were also organized in factories, institutions etc. The 1949 Law of Education provided the legal basis for this (Russian being called "The language of our liberators from the East" "The language of Lenin and Stalin" or "The language of the great people of USSR". However, most of the teachers have never done any teaching before (some were even soldiers of the Red Army) and were not qualified to teach. This, combined with the different writing system, and with the Romanians' hatred of the USSR and of communism meant that few actually learnt anything. During this period, studying French or English outside of universities or private homes was a rarity. After 1954-1955, Russian lost its status of compulsory language (initially because there were not enough teachers available, afterwards because of destalinzation and the bourgeoning nationalism of Dej and later Ceausescu). Most schools however continued to teach Russian in the mid sixties, as teachers were readily available by this period, supplemented by a secondary language, usually French. Others taught French with Russian as a secondary language. Russian was removed altogheter from the curriculum in most of Transylvania. English teaching remained, however, for a long time, a rarity, and even when it was taught, most teachers had very little knowledge of the language (most studied it for only a few years during the 50's either in the Soviet Union or with Soviet teachers that replaced Romanian teachers in the universities, as those English teachers available prior to WWII were still deemed as unreliable to the regime), resulting in the students (although eager to learn, mainly because of the western cultural influence) remaining with poor command of the language (most persons studying English between 1960 and 1975, for example, mix tenses, or pronounce "th" as "z"). Between 1969 and 1975, the educational system went through a serious overhaul, with Spanish and Italian being included in a handful of schools, and with English, German and French teaching becoming ever more widespread. Russian was still taught, but mostly in Moldavia (where the closeness with the Soviet Union was somewhat of an advantage) and in smaller cities and towns, where teachers of other languages were hard to find. By the mid 1980s, most schools had switched to English and French/German, with Russian teaching being quite rare. Nowadays English is the main language taught in schools with a trend for letting students choose either French or German as a second foreign language. Spanish became quite popular in the recent years (although not as popular as either French or German), especially in Bucharest, but although there are many learners, most are at a very low level. Russian teaching and studying is also starting to become popular again especially in Southern and Eastern Romania, as there are few speakers left in Romania, most of them quite old, and there are many Russian companies investing here (especially in the oil and gas industry), requiring Russian for employment. --Xanthar 20:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Well I think the numbers are fair enough. You have to take into consideration also the explosion of Internet users from the last years; the boom of cable TV (Romania is the 4th market in Europe after the number of cable TV users) and so on... Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Surprise, surprise: this article says that Romanians are below European average in foreign language comprehension. It also confirms the raw figures quoted here (26% of Romanians speak English), however it also makes the phrase "The Romanian educational system puts a strong emphasis on foreign languages" sound a bit ridiculous, don't-ya-think? Iulian U. 11:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering that Europeans are generally very good at foreign language comprehension (due mostly to connectivity between countries), Romania doesn't fare that badly. 26% of Romanians is quite high, considering that Romania isn't that urbanised. In the cities, the rate probably comes close to 50%, which is high. The survey is also quite misleading since the average is pulled up by countries in which another language was imposed (such as Latvia and Lithuania) or where another language has been historically dominant (Malta --> English, one could argue that Czechia/Slovakia --> German). Additionally, Romania has more foreign language speakers than Italy, Spain and the UK. Ronline 05:28, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It's true. Plus the fact that romanians learn more easily a foreign language than others. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

LOL! Bonaparte, you're cracking me up over here. Romanians learn a foreign language more easily than who exactly? Iulian U. 00:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Than for examples non-indo european people (chinese, arabian...) but also compared with slavic or let's say even hungarians who have a very strong accent. Romanians are learning and speaking very easy a foreign langauge. Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I think an average chinese will be able to learn japanese far easyer than an average romanian, so the examples with the other non-indoeuropean doesn't hold up. Otherwise, Romanians also have a veRRRRRRRRRy (Les connaisseurs savent pourquoi tant des 'R'!!!) strong accent but of which we are not wery aware until we find ourselves in a real situation, and as far as I saw, even if we like it or not, we have a very slavic accent. That can be seen when a romanian speeks a latin language (french as far as I know) when there is little difference of accent between a romanian and a pole or a bulgarian. Anyways, there are differences between each one's accent, but from a native speaker's point of vue it sounds almost the same. --Orioane 22:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Partly you're right. But I still belive that romanians are learning and speaking easier than others. Maybe due to the fact that movies in TV are not in romanian duplicated, this may be a reason. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 22:42, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

This is one reason, but among the fewer differences. The movies policy has the advantage that it familiarises us with the musicality of a language and the right accentuation -in most cases is english. This however doesn't compensate for the vocabulary, and except critical combinations (french-english and viceversa, french-german and viceversa, spanish-englis and viceversa, ggerman-italian and viceversa) at this chapter there is no difference between us and other nations. There is also the fact that if you are not in real contact with a foreign language you cannot improuve the quality of your vocabulary (at most the quantity, but that creates other enormities like english 'th' pronounced 'z' in Romania) and I don't think Romania has a very good situation here. --Orioane 23:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

For someone who claims that "Romanians are learning and speaking very easy a foreign langauge." you're doing a very mediocre job of arguing by example. (Szfski 12:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC))

I personally believe that there is no difference between people of different countries when learning foreign languages, I would rather say it's a matter of motivation, education quality and environment. To say that ethnical Romanians can learn foreign languages easier would be a POV statement, not backed up by any reasonable scientific research. One can argue that it is easier for Romanians to learn some neo-latin languages, such as Italian and Spanish especially. From personal experience I can say that us, Romanians, have a really heavy accent in English, compared to arabs. Anyways, my point is that we cannot state that a certain nation is naturally smarter at learning foreign languages. Sufitul 08:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Peste 250.000 de tineri români învaţă germana

de Delia CHILIANU

În România, 250.000 de copii şi tineri învaţă limba germană, dintre care 20.000 studiază această disciplină ca limbă maternă. La limba germană, atestatele se pot da fie în această limbă, fie în română şi permit accesul în învăţământul superior german. "E un lucru deosebit că în România avem atestat român şi atestat german. Astfel, România beneficiază de un program prin care Germania ne trimite anual 40 de profesori care predau la şcoli cu limba de predare maternă, dar şi cu limba modernă, cum ar fi Colegiul Caragiale din Bucureşti, unde avem doi profesori germani", a explicat inspectorul Silvia Florea din Ministerul Educaţiei.

Translation for the above text:
"===Over 250,000 romanian youngsters are learning German===
by Delia CHILIANU
In Romania, 250,000 children and youngsters are currently learning german, out of which, 20,000 are studying it as their first language. In German classes, tests can be taken in either German or Romanian, and they both allow access to superior education in German. "It's a special thing that in Romania there are both Romanian and German exams. Thus, Romania benefits from a program through which Germany is sending 40 teachers yearly, that teach at schools that have German as the first language, or modern languages schools, like the Caragiale Gymnasium in Bucharest, where there are two German teachers." Education Inspector(from the Ministry of Education of Romania) Silvia Florea has stated."
Sufitul 08:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Photos

I see you guys added two photos of the World Trade Center in Bucharest. What can I say? I'm really bloody impressed. Then I see that you added more photos in the galery of Transylvanian and Wallachian cities. What about Moldavia? You could add a photo of Palatul Culturii of Iasi or something. The Borzesti church is not enough; besides, you could've picked a better church. --Anittas 10:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't have any photos of Palatul Culturii on Wikipedia. We'd definitely need more pictures from Iaşi... bogdan 11:09, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, we could use more from Iaşi, more from Constanţa, and much more from rural and smalltown Romania. I have some great photos I took once of Răşinari, but they are mostly black and white, and anyway I don't have a working scanner at the moment. But if no one comes up with a better solution, I'd try to scan a couple of those. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

We don't need photos of rural Romania, nor do we need photos of smalltowns. Do you see such photos on the USA page? I don't see photos of route 66, rednecks, etc. All countries have rural areas that can be admired, but no one puts them on Wiki - only us. What for? Instead of those churches that were added there, we could have added some castles and stuff. --Anittas 08:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

In my view, United States certainly should have images like that. I don't think I ever looked at it till you just mentioned it. What a visually mediocre page. Pictures of George Washington, G.W. Bush, three maps (two very dull at this scale), the statue of liberty (inevitably and appropriately), bland skyline shots of NYC, Chicago, and LA—it's hard to make the New York skyline look dull, but they found an angle to do it—, a dollar bill, an LA freeway interchange, a highway sign (I-5, not Route 66, odd because 66 would be so much more iconic), an illegible (at scale) chart on ancestry of Americans, a building at the University of Virginia (a nice picture, but nothing to shout about), Elvis on a stamp, and a really cliched (though nicely done) picture of an apple pie, some apples, and some baseball equipment atop an American flag. We've definitely already done much better here. (France, by the way, is a much better-looking page than United States, and the first photo on it is very rural. Canada runs about 50-50 urban/rural. England has only three contemporary photos other than people, and one of them is from space. Spain has a slight preponderance of urban over rural. So, no, I'm not singling out Romania. --

I hadn't noticed that we had Image:BoxeroMunteRO.jpg here, which looks great. I think it hadn't loaded when I was looking at the page before. That with the Maramureş church actually does meet my concern for showing more than just cities. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If people see photos of rural America, they will think it's great that an industrious country still preserves its environmental areas. If they see photos of rural France, people will think of wine, cheese, and romance. If they see photos of rural Romania, they will think it's pretty - and backward. I'm tired of hearing foreigners thinking that we all live in villages; and that we've lived the same way for centuries. I don't want to see photos of villages and stuff. No cute peasant girl smiling and crap. I want to see the statues of Iasi, the great Palace of Culture of Iasi, the Botanic Garden, and so on. Many of the photos added in that gallery are no big deal. Wow, people gathering in a Transylvanian city to drink. Where else could you find something like that? I think the point of having the gallery is to show photos that are unique - not ordinary stuff. --Anittas 21:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Why not Peleş and other castles? There are so many of them! We need to rebrand Romania. Bonaparte  talk & contribs

Peleş would be excellent. And apparently, from the red link, it could use an article, as well. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Try Peleş Castle. --Orioane 22:31, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Aha! should have a redirect at Peleş, I'll add that if no one beats me to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, if we want to "show what is unique", why two bland photos of the utterly unexceptional World Trade Center in Bucharest? Or a could-be-anywhere-in-Europe Catholic church in Cluj? I think a gallery and other illustrations in an article about a country should be an effort to convey the texture of the place to people who haven't been there. Most of the photos we have are good, but they show a very narrow aspect of the country. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly. There's little uniqueness about those skyscrapers. I guess people wanted to show that we also had them. In fact, there's little uniqueness about Bucharest as a whole, unless you like the lifestyle of Ninja Turtles. Iasi is the craddle of the Romanian civilization, yet we have so little of it. --Anittas 01:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, If I look better, there are as many photos from Cluj-Napoca as they are from Bucharest. Change required!!!!!! I propose to let only Baritiu.jpg, CJROLupoaica.jpg and one cathedral. About the WTC, we should find another apropriate economical domain photo to replace one of them, and I still think what to search for. --Orioane 22:45, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

We should remember that up until the 19th century, Romanian culture and society was essentially rural. <sarcasm> World Trade Center was the headquarters of some traditional Romanian enterprizes such as IBM, but they now moved to a completely transparent building -- probably a PHB misunderstood the term "transparency". :-)

It would be great to have some photos of these things:

• a village with traditional houses spread on the hills of Maramureş or Bukovina
• a thatched-covered house and a shepherd's farm of Apuseni Mountains
• some children in traditional costumes.

bogdan 23:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It would be nice if you would call it Northern Moldavia instead of Bukovina. We're not Austrians, you know. ;) --Anittas 01:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

1946 elections

I'd earlier attempted to change the phrase "...communists orchestrated the biggest election fraud of 1946" to "...communists declared victory in the 1946 elections amid widespread claims of extensive electoral fraud and manipulation", but was reverted by User:Bonaparte. To clarify, my difficulty with the "biggest election fraud of 1946" statement is more one of semantics, rather than necessarily disputing that such a fraud actually took place. By its literal and most natural reading, that phrase implies some comparison with other electoral frauds in that year, which I do not think is what this particular passage is trying to say. The "biggest" compared to what- Romanian elections in that year, any election in that year, Romanian elections of any year, any election of any year...? And if it really is supposed to mean "the biggest Romanian electoral fraud of all time", then by what measure, and according to what source? Does anyone else see a difficulty here, and can re-formulate to remove the ambiguity?--cjllw | TALK 01:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm all for a clearer rewording. FWIW, at Communist Romania we say:

In the elections of November 9, 1946, about 90% of the votes went to the "traditional parties", with Communists gaining less than 10%. However, with the support of the Soviet Army, the Communists and their allies claimed 80% of the vote and as the Rough Guide to Romania has it, "virtually every device ever used to rig an election was put into play". Using Machiavellian tactics, the communists worked with the Iron Guard to eliminate the role of the centrist parties; notably, the National Peasant Party was accused of espionage after it became clear in 1947 that their leaders were meeting secretly with US officials. Other parties were forced to "merge" with the Communists.

That's probably too verbose for here, but I think it is entirely on the mark. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've had another go at rephrasing the passage.--cjllw | TALK 23:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedian's notice board

Welcome to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board! This page is a portal for all Romanian-related topics and a place for Romanian editors to gather and socialize and debate. Discussions are encouraged, in both English and Romanian. Post any inquiry under their relevant category.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Romanian_Wikipedian%27s_notice_board

--Anittas 13:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

În Franţa şi Spania, diaspora română depăşeşte un milion de persoane

http://www.zf.ro/articole/Patriciu-face-cea-mai-mare-achizitie-din-istoria-Romaniei-75992.html

În Franţa şi Spania, diaspora română depăşeşte un milion de persoane. In France and in Spain the romanian diaspora is more then 1 million persons. -- Bonaparte talk 13:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a wide range of estimates. I would suggest that Talk:Romanians is more the place to discuss this. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Holocaust in Romania

According to a report released by the Romanian government in 2004, the Romanian authorities killed at least 280,000 to 380,000 Jews, primarily in the Eastern territories Romania recovered or occuppied from the Soviet Union and in Moldavia (historical region), though some estimates are even higher.

A short rephrase should be made there: while those people were killed with the approval of the Romanian authorities, not all were killed by the Romanian authorities. For example, the German "Death squads" Einsatzgruppe "D", which worked behind the lines of the Romanian/German armies in the Romanian-controlled territories of Bessarabia and Southern Ukraine, killed somewhere around 100,000 people. Any ideas on this ? bogdan 23:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I rephrased it to take into account your point. I tried to take the language from the actual Commission report, "The Commission concluded that Romanian authorities were the main perpetrators of this Holocaust, in both its planning and implementation..." The new language:

According to a report released by the Romanian government in 2004, the Romanian authorities were the main perpetrators in the planning and implementation of the killing of at least 280,000 to 380,000 Jews, primarily in the Eastern territories Romania recovered or occuppied from the Soviet Union and in Moldavia (historical region), though some estimates are even higher.

That should be more accurate. --Goodoldpolonius2 02:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are we adding this to the article? --Anittas 02:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It was in the article already. We just edited it. --Goodoldpolonius2 03:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I was reading the report summary and the wording is not at least 280,000 to 380,000 but between 280,000 to 380,000. I would like to change this to reflect the wording of the report, and use the report as a source since it is the most recent data. I would also like to add that it was an independent comission of Holocaust, and not "the Romanian goverment." Thoughts? --mike 16:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. - Jmabel | Talk 03:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Number of Romanian Speakers

Hi everyone,

I think I have a clue as to why the estimates on the actual number of Romanian speakers vary so wildly. It all rests in how one defines Romanian. There are a number of idioms spoke throughout the Balkans which are either considered to be dialects of Romanian or languages separate from Romanian. Megleno-Romanian is spoken in central Bulgaria by about 10,000 people (estimates are out of the top of my head), and is usually said to be a dialect of Romanian. Istro-Romanian is spoken in Istria by less than 1,000 speakers. It is usually considered to be an independent, albeit dying language. Aromanian (or Macedo-Romanian) is the bone of contention. It is spoken usually in mountainous regions in the Balkans, by (I think) a couple of million speakers. The reason why it is so contentious is most likely official history, as the status of Aromanians as a separate people has been very sensitive in Romania. I would not haste to offer any opinion on the issue, as I'm no expert myself, but maybe the best way of offering an estimate of the overall number of Romanian speakers would be including this caveat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bogororo (talk • contribs) 22 Dec 2005

I'm pretty sure there are only about half a million Aromanian speakers today. Ethnologue says 306,237 speakers, in an ethnic population of "possibly 700,000". [10] In any event, our article on Romanian language is specific to Daco-Romanian; I'm pretty firmly of the opinion that these should not be counted as Romanian speakers, nor as Romanians. Yes, I'm sure that some sources count them in, including counting the ones who don't even speak Macedo-Romanian. (Which for counting the ethnicity may be fine, as long as the definition is clear, but for counting the language-speakers is clearly wrong, and in any event shouldn't be relevant to the Romania article.-- Jmabel | Talk 07:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I've met once a woman from Macedonia (FYROM). I asked her how many romanians there are in Macedonia. She told me, there are 7% Vlachs. If vlachs are aromanians than you have to compute how many there are in Macedonia. Bonaparte talk 10:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wait, Bonaparte we "have to compute" this based on a remark casually made to you by a woman you once met? Not much of a citation. But in any event, we need to be clear whether the scope of this article does or does not include Balkan Vlachs. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Size of cities

This recent edit by NorbertArthur roughly doubles the size of three cities without citation or comment. Can someone explain what is going on here? -- Jmabel | Talk 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted that vandalism and added the user on my black list. --Mihai -^talk 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity and census undercounting

Hi. I've noticed that it has been added that Roma and Ukrainians are undercounted in the Romanian census. It is fine to state this. The problem is, however, explaining this through the fact that "the Government undercounts these people to deny them minority rights", which is not only speculation but logically quite impossible. I admit I have made this same mistake in regards to Ukrainian and Serbian censuses, but under closer investigation, I realised that it isn't really possible. Censuses are voluntary, and in Romania, as well as in neighbouring countries, people can declare whatever ethnicity they want. Some censuses have a tick-box system, others have a blank line where you write your ethnicity. For that reason, any form of undercounting is, if you like, voluntary and can simply not be imposed by the state. These may be state-related reasons to undercounting - for example, some Roma may feel discriminated if they declare themselves Roma. Some don't want to disclose their Roma ethnicity. Others, for example Ukrainians, may not feel ethnic Ukrainian anymore, and for that reason may declare as Romanian. I'm not going to go into the reasons, but I hope you see that it's all voluntary and based on personal perception. We can't say, for example, that there are 2 million Roma in Romania, when only 600,000 Romanian nationals say they are of Roma ethnicity. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 00:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello. This exactly what was the reason for heated discussion in Talk:Bukovina article where we (Ukrainians) were accused in forcing people to list themselves as Moldovans instead of Romanians. Hopefuly the issue is resolved. The arguments used were same as Ronline suggested here. And this is true - nobody is forsing people to choose one or another nationality during censuses. They choose who they are themselves and we are not to judge them here.

The undercounting that is mentioned in this article has different reason. I don't know how Roma explain it. There is a big manuscript on it [11]. In case with Ukrainians this takes place not in cities, but in remote villages, especially those, where population is mixed. There the officials that were carrying out census are accused in using several tricks. 1. They do not ask people to state their nationality and later tick "Romanian" boxes. 2. They do not wisit all the houses but only those that are presumably of Romanians and ask them about their neighbours. It often appears that such willage is 100% Romanian when in fact it is not. 3. They ask husband about nationality but not wife counting her automatically to Romanians. Also there are other claims of misconduct well described in an article published in a governmental newspaper here. But the link was rejected here as it is in Ukrainian. Even though I did not find any mentioning in WP rules on necessity to provide only English links. Moreover - links of different languages are used allower the WP and even in Romania article.--Bryndza 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

What Bryndza says sounds roughly correct (and not at all specific to Romania). This is pretty much par for the course. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza, if there is evidence (including Ukrainian sources) that say that there was some form of meddling with census results (what you described above is just that) then it should definitely be mentioned. Would it be possible for you to translate the relevant segments of that source in English? The PDF report you gave is about the Roma. Just two things, however: firstly, the cases were quite isolated, consisting of discrepancies in several villages of mixed ethnicity - therefore, this shouldn't be mentioned as if it is a systematic attempt to undercount Ukranians, rather it is the actions of a few localised census-takers. Secondly, considering the first point, I don't think it should be mentioned in the main Romania article. It could be mentioned there that Roma and Ukrainians tend to be undercounted in the census. The reasons, however, should be mentioned in a new Ukrainian minority in Romania or Ukrainians in Romania article. Thanks for raising this issue. I'm happy to talk to you about it. Ronline ✉

I'd really like to see us do something in Wikipedia space about interpretation of census data, especially with reference to ethnicity. I don't think we have such a thing yet. Maybe start discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups? -- Jmabel | Talk 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear, and hear! We desperately need to establish some consensus baselines for data of this sort, else risk continuing recycling through population numbers as if in some lottery draw. I'd be all for cited qualifications to census data- and even more so for non-specialist (guess-)timates which seem to abound.--cjllw | TALK 09:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree also. i think the ukrainians and rroma are undercounted. its the same story in Ukraine as well. in ukraine it is estimated that there are 800,000 romanians, but only 409,000 were recorded in the census. However, what ronline said is correct, the estimated 400,000 in Ukraine probably describe themselves as ukrainians, while the undercounted ukrainians in romania, probably describe themselves as romanians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.134.111.194 (talk • contribs)

I agree that if this issue is explained in more details here then it will spoil Romania article. It should be moved to appropriate place and here can be mentioned only as short as possible with redirect to other article(s). May be Bukovina and Maramures as those are two main provinces with Ukrainian minority. But what to do with Roma then? Also do not feel that this is aquisation only against Romania. Im sure this is common practice in many countries. When decision about the place (may be Romanian-Ukrainian ethnic disputes?) for this kind of material is made I will translate according passages from Ukrainian text into English. Then we will be able to clean a lot of similar controvercial issues out from Bukovina, Chernivtsi region, Maramures, Bugeac, Hertsa etc.

--Bryndza 17:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have several remarks here:

1. . I'm not sure what you think, but in Romania the term for Roma (ţigan) tends to be applied indiscriminately to all the inhabitants of low-class suburbs. It is often associated with the low-income classes of high crime indices (much like blacks in the US, except that in Romania they cannot be distinguished from the bulk of the population, and that many Roma don't use Roma languages, so they're easily amalgamated). When speaking of Roma, many Romanians mix ethnicity with social characteristics that have nothing to do with ethnicity. Given this, I would say that public perception is that indeed Roma are undercounted. However, the problem is not as clear as that. I wonder how many in Romania actually speak Roma languages?
2. . I sincerely doubt that the Romanian government deliberately undercounted Roma and Ukrainians. Rather I would think that many of these declared themselves as Romanian, Hungarian (in Transylvania), or other.Dpotop 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Roma, I mean etnicity, not social status. Whether it is done deliberately by government (less likely), or comes from "initiative" of certain individual censors and their coordinators (more likely), such cases have been reported, so they exist. The reasons and sistematicity could be different, of course.--Bryndza 18:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Can you point me to these reports? Don't take it as criticism, I just want to read the reports. I've seen that some links were indicated, but the first two were rather general documents (I didn't have the time to find the exact paragraphs, maybe you can point me to the right section or page) and the last one was short, but in line with what I suggested.Dpotop 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As for ethnicity vs. social status, I wanted to point exactly that in Romania the difference is not that obvious. I mean, there are people that look like Raj Kapoor and speak Romani. However, there are not that many of them. How do you define ethnicity?Dpotop 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that I'm not trying to push some form of nationalist agenda here. I sincerely believe that the form of discrimination to which Roma are subjected is a social one, not ethnic. This discrimination defines a sort of "political nation" formed of very poor population, with hich crime rates. And this "political nation" does not respect ethnic boundaries. You will have Romanians called "tigani" because they look like this, and there are people of Romani descent that refuse to be called "tigani" because it's a mark of social failure. The real problem here is social.Dpotop 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Most Roma do have different physical features than ethnic Romanians, so they can be recognised. It's true, however, that there has been a blending and that there are a lot of Roma that can't be distinguished from the rest of the population. According to the census, about 260,000 (off the top of my head) Roma speak Romany. Ronline ✉ 22:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Dpotop, we are trying to find ethnicities here. A ukrainian may identify as a romanian, but he is still ukrainian. We are trying to find out the number of how many ukrainians live in romania. I have been doing some research on the matter, and with the negative growth in romania, i would presume that there is probably 100-150,000 ukrainians in romania. I would also presume that the 800,000 estimation of romanians in Ukraine is a high-end number, and with the negative growth in Ukraine as well, i would presume that there is probably around 500-600,000 romanians(Moldovans as well) in Ukraine. On the other hand, Rroma ethnicity is very hard to understand. A lot of rroma deny their ethnicity for one purpose or another, so no one knows the actual size of their community. Also a lot of Rroma have assimilated over the centuries into the majority population. I strongly believe that there are not as many Rroma in romania as their leaders say they are because a lot of them go into western europe to make money and they live around there untill they have made enough, so when one rroma comes back to romania, another rroma probably leaves for western europe or vise versa. However, if you count all romanian rroma in romania and western europe, then i would be incline to agree with the E.U., that there are probably around 1-1.5 million romanian rroma. (BaNaTeaN 22:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

Well, according to the census there are about 600,000 Roma. I think it's quite inappropriate to say, "You declared yourself Romanian or Hungarian in the census, but you're Roma - hence, there are 1.5 million Roma". I think only those who declared themselves as Roma can be seen as Roma. A lot of Roma have indeed assimilated, to the point where they consider themselves Romanians. If so, then they are no longer Roma. Nationality and ethnicity are somewhat different to ancestry. Ronline ✉ 22:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, guys, let's limit all by nationality. Ethnicity is to vague to define it in numbers. If person consciously identifies itself with certain netionality (even if his ethnicity is different) - God help, as we say. Dpotop, I have posted the paragraphs on misconduct durins censuses at you talk page. It's in Ukrainian. I hope you manage, if not - let me know.--Bryndza 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Bryndza, would you know how many Ukrainians live in Romania? i dont know if my range of 100-150,000 is accurate, because i have found a ukrainian source which says 240,000 and it was published in 1990-92. However i dont think there are that many anymore (assimilation, migration, etc...) would you know what the range of Ukrainian-romanians is at the present? (BaNaTeaN 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC))

BaNATeaN, there is a discussion going on in Chernivtsi Oblast (see Ukrainian census) on the questions about a number of Romanians in Ukraine. The problem is that you are split into Romanians and Moldovans. Ukrainian census from 2001 is here from the we see: Moldovans 258600 (0.5%), Romanians 151000 (0.3%). I have no link to Romanian Census that would contain data on Ukr. in Romania. But for 1992 officialy it is 66.833 according to this.--Bryndza 03:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

The 2002 Romanian Census (http://www.recensamant.ro/) says 61.098 Ukrainians. Maybe when speaking about Ukrainians in Romania you should take into consideration the different groups (Ukrainians, Hutsuls - hutuli in Romanian, Ruthenians - ruteni in Romanian)

Some links concerning the Ukrainians and Hutsuls in Romania: http://www.divers.ro/files/ucrainienii.html -in Romanian (a good site dealing with minorities in Romania) http://www.rusyn.org/?root=rusyns&rusyns=ethnography&article=107 -in English) http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsules and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutsul http://membres.lycos.fr/beaumontfr/page3.html - in French http://www.gardianul.ro/index.php?a=reportaj2003061804.xml in Romanian - short

Paul I —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.231.19.6 (talk • contribs) 24 Jan 2006

An island of Latinity

"Romanians take pride in being the most eastern Romance people, completely surrounded by non-Latin peoples ("an island of Latinity")."

Moldova is further east and uses the same (let's not get into the moldovan/romanian argument...) language so surely they are further east romance people. --Horses In The Sky 16:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It states Romanians, and Romanians live also in Moldova, so as long as it is not Romania I think it is OK. Mihai -^talk 16:29, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey someone has changed the number of ukrainians in romania to 2.3%(500,000) of the population. I am changing the number back to the original census results. Stop posting up shit you annonymous user, you dont know crap) (BaNaTeaN 07:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC))

A reminder that the policy against abusive remarks toward other users applies to remarks directed at anonymous users as well. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wages

Does this look peculiar to other people besides myself? I mean come on, almost 10% in a single month? And please note the previous growth, which was almost equally outrageous, given the entire country's GDP growth of less than 6% for the entire year... I really don't think that's possible, do we have any sources? --Gutza ^{T T+} 20:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Royal motto

I would like to know why the old royal motto of Romania keeps appearing on an infobox that shows current information. I don't think it belongs there as it is potentially misleading and confusing, and I prefer it be removed and put somewhere else. Alr 03:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Memorial of Rebirth

The so-called Memorial of Rebirth in Bucharest is an extremely controversial work at this moment. Both its artistic quality and its position in the urban context of the area are challenged by major personalities of the Romanian culture. Moreover, the community seems to reject it, too (there already are a lot of jokes about it). I don't believe it could be representative in any way for the Romanian sculpture, architecture or otherwise. Maybe this does not sound like a strog argument. I'll try to find some materials in English, if necessary. On the other hand, there are no pictures, for instance, from Timisoara, one of the largest and most beautiful Romanian cities. Tankard 17:08, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a misguided argument. It is not the function of this gallery to present only picturesque aspects of Romania, the most beautiful architecture and sculptures of high artistic quality; Wikipedia is not a travel agency. If this monument is extremely controversial (I can imagine the jokes), that would be all the more reason to include it. David Sneek 20:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Basically everyone in here thinks it's an ugly monument erected only because some Romanian president wanted it. Anyway, I think that the gallery lacks some views from the countryside. Some images of the hills of Bucovina or Maramures would be a good replacement. :-)

About the jokes: "The potato of the revolution", "the failed circumcision", "the olive on a stick", etc. or drawings like this one. :-) bogdan 21:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that the gallery is not meant to present only beautiful things/places, but I think the images should be somehow representative, which that memorial, in my opinion, isn't. I have no objection, for instance, to including the Palace of the Parliament, no matter how ugly it is. At least it's big enough not to be ignored. Tankard 11:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Do see Talk:Romania#Photos. I proposed having some pictures from rural or small town Romania; Anittas objected; I didn't pursue the matter further. I would presume his objection still stands. - Jmabel | Talk 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Matthias Corvinus

I think the statement that Hungarians deem Matthias Corvin Hungarian because of his mother's lineage is simply wrong. Every King of Hungary is deemed Hungarian in Hungary even if they weren't of Hungarian descent. (Even Franz Josef I had been regarded as a Hungarian king even though nobody thought seriously that he was of Hungarian nationality). But anyway, even if that wasn't true, Hungarians would consider him Hungarian through lineage as well, again, not because of his mother but because of the family's belonging to Hungary's nobility. I remember a Hungarian history textbook, which explains the family's Romanian origin in detail but it avoids the silly question whether he himself was a Hungarian or a Romanian person. I don't think that he's nationality has ever been an issue in Hungary, the ethnicity issue just doesn't make much sense in the case of most European royal and noble families. Cukor 00:35, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Main indicators of the ROMANIA's economy

There are NO citations for any of these statistics. Somebody come up with some or this section is getting removed. GT 08:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hugo Jan Huss

I started an article about Hugo Jan Huss.He was a symphony conductor and music director.He was born in Romania and died in La Crosse, Wisconsin.Hugo Jan Huss was quite prominent in Romania.Would someone please look at the article.I am a little nervous about it.If you have to expand or rewrite the articles, please keep the sources section intact.Thanks.RFD 16:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)