Talk:Romanians/Archive 9

Original research on genetic issues

Btw. The Alexandru Varzaru source (current ref 32) used for genetic stuff (which, btw, is cited in such a way as to infer original research), fails WP:RS. It is a thesis (presumably PhD), not published as a volume by a publishing house. it is therefore self-published, so it does not meet one of the minimum criteria. Also, as I think was pointed out before, the whole World Haplogroups Maps source (current ref 33) says nothing about ethnic Romanians - the editor who added it made it say so, based on some racialist theory or another - which, again, the source does not back. In fact, the source does not even identify any single ethnic group with a genetic characteristic, but simply divides the world and European maps into regions that don't even coincide with countries, let alone ethnicities. Neither does ref 34 back up any claim about Romanians as a group. The other sources cited alongside this are unavailable, but they seem to have been brought there either through the same mechanism or at some later stage, when these manifest problems still went unnoticed. I refer those unfamiliar with why this is a problem to WP:SYNTH.

I will say this in all seriousness. The editor who originally added those here, who is responsible for every controversial aspect of this article, and who has played an active part in every discussion on this page, has manipulated citations in several articles, despite repeated warnings. He or she has also been warned and several times around blocked for edit warring on such issues and for trolling. In my opinion, we are dealing with an extremely aggressive POV-pusher who will not be dissuaded from breaking wikipedia policies in order to reach his disruptive goals. I call this case to the attention of admins on this page, and, if I see more evidence of this, will personally kick-start the procedures to have the editor blocked and on his or her way out of here. Enough's enough. Dahn (talk) 08:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely about the source and it's OR interpretation, I will try to remove this. man with one red shoe (talk) 08:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Someone, please achieve this page, it loads too slow.
• Dahn, I would prefer if you'd address issues and areas only when you refer to Hasdeu. You have a reputation of a person capable of badmouthing persons - Alexandru Vaida-Voievod, Paul Goma, now Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu. If one reads you, Hitler is a small girl comparatively. It all looks very much like a pattern to remove reputable people you disagree politically from WP. It is an example of POV-push, just as the one you are critisizing above. (And yes, I support you on that one! Including the fact that a PhD thesis is not a scholarly work. They only become when you publich them in journals.) Enough is enough. :)
• No, I am not refering to the data from this thesis. I actually remember to sea a scholarly article, maybe even by the same author + several others. Plus, most of the things I know are from National Geographic publications (online, and on paper), and links from there. But I said them for this discussion, I do not claiim I remember exact numbers. I have not added anything of that in the article, as I did not even attempt to bookmark the webpages when I was reading. If I will finish other stuff, than maybe after a year or two, but not now. Dc76\^talk 04:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Dc76, I was not referring to you in my earlier post, so you may rest assured I don't hold anything against you.

About people I agree with and don't disagree with. For starters, you are again pushing me into a straw man, and I'm sure I've told you I do not appreciate it. In other words, you are the one building a paradigm where my opinions are turned into what they are not.

Let's take them one by one.

First of all, it's demeaning to imply that I have "a reputation" for using a type of argument when what you mean is "I don't agree with your arguments". Especially because I have bothered to answer to your claims with arguments, based on outside resources. Yours is an ad hominem. Of the civilized and excusable kind, but still tiresome and demeneaning in presuming that I should put up with it. Let me clarify something: I will not put up with any argument that questions or derides my reputation, and I tend to lose my respect for any person who questions my reputation while misquoting me (it's the second time this has happened in conversations I had with you, if I remember correctly).

Also, don't glue to together three past disagreements, each with its context.

Hasdeu. What I have told you in my argument above is the reflection of scholarly opion, as far as I am able to discern that scholarly opinion. You have not even denied this is the case; you have instead claimed that his standards were high for his day - at least a quick glance through the source I offered for viewing, which deals almost exclusively with that, will show you that your argument was, at best, wishful thinking, and that Hasdeu was discredited even in his lifetime.

About Paul Goma. What I have told you, beside whatever intellectual displeasure I have when being confronted with Goma's trashy, rabidly antisemitic pamphlets, is that the man has: a. no standing in the scientific community, not even as a primary source; b. the reputation of an antisemite, which even he seems to have embraced, and which even his few quotable supporters don't deny.

About Vaida-Voevod. Here, you're projecting entirely. I know people commonly and spuriously see the word "fascist" as an insult, but it is ridiculous even beginning to argue that it applies at such to a man who, in addition to other things he did, founded a fascist party. It's not a case of badmouthing, not a case of passing judgment. It is a fact, however you may chose to relate to it.

And, let me add, I don't recall you having been upset about pages other users were active on, ones that I know you have seen, and where organized libel attacks degenrated to the point of scandal.

One last thing: I hope you won't flog these old horses every single time we get near these subjects. I assure you I don't enjoy having to explain my generic opinions to you like I did something wrong and like you'd be the designated authority. Even more so when I'm confronting you not with these opinions per se, but with a concise version of easily sourcable facts. And even more so when you present every bystander with a twisted version of what I have actually said. I remember you mentioned chivalry once - please practice what you preach. Thank you. Dahn (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh and: if you have to lead me into a reductio ad Hitlerum, please do me the favor of noting at least that you have almost never seen me write about Hitler in comparison to anybody, so you have absolutely no idea about who it is I consider worst than whom and for what reaons. In short: of course I consider the man who organized the Holocaust worse than those who helped make it feasible (Hasdeu), those who cheered from the side (Vaida-Voevod) and those who excuse it (Goma). But how does that even begin to matter here? Dahn (talk) 21:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I won't comment on anything else, but I think it's an extraordinary claim that Hasdeu (who died some years before the start of WWI) helped to make Holocaust feasible. I think this is an ignominious attack. I don't know much about him, you surely do more, but to claim that some guy living in Romania, who died in 1907 made Holocaust feasible is at best an exaggeration (similar to how some guy in this talk page accused me that I made mob-lynching of Romanians possible -- from what I can gather you detest such kind of discourse, but somehow you match it, even if from the other side) man with one red shoe 22:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

And Goma (since he's still living and should not be denigrated even in talk pages) didn't try to excuse Holocaust in my view, he explained some of the attitudes, for example if somebody kills me because let's say my political views, and somebody points out that that was the reason that lead to my killing that would be no "excuse" it would be an "explanation", it doesn't make it any less of a crime. The fact that Romanians were pissed on Jews (for some true or false reasons) it's an explanation, not an excuse for mass-murder. man with one red shoe 22:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Ignominious" and "matching discourses" aside: I hold the opinion that any person who recommended the persecution and expulsion of Jews contributed to the Holocaust in more ways than one. In fact, investigations into this prehistory of the Holocaust hold an important part in academia.

One: any such "explanation" is not only a manifest fallacy, it is also an excuse ("they had a reason to"). Moreover, your argument seems to be constructed in the absennce of actual insight into what Goma said and keeps saying, as well as, which is most important here, what scholars have said about his statements. In short, Goma constructed a theory according to which Jews are responsible for their own killing, building in part (and quoting) nazi propaganda that alleged Jews deserved to die because they were communists. If you want to engage me further on this subject, I suggest you use another venue - this secondary debate already takes took too much space here the moment Dc decided to revitilize it here. Your reply only confirms that it is easy to detour and infer a bias into what others say here because of what they said elsewhere - which I presume was his intent all along. Dahn (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and: when you see me actually breaking WP:BLP, feel free to report me. In the meantime, I refer you to the post where I mentioned the "prerequesite of any discussion I'm willing to have". Dahn (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

By gathering together the three I wanted to point out explecitely the places I disagree with you. I did not intend to make a strow man argument, which in retrospect and if you look at things a certain way I might have made. If I did, I am sorry, it was not intentional. About the three, 1) I wanted to draw a "red line" of our agrements. In the latest months I do not remember other disagrements with you, at all. So, in order not to be confused with your POV, I wanted to state clearly where we stand. 2) The three are a common trend you exhibit, your stand on them has common features. - So, in fact we do not disagree about 3 distinct things, but about one single thing. In my understanding you jump way to fast from "nationalist" and "sometimes (not always) far-right" to "fascist" and "antisemite". You present your POV in this jump as if it were scholarly settled, which IMHO is not true. But you are smart, and one must proceed very detailed to show which things you are saying are indeed commonly accepted, and which are your well-known exageration. I would like to remind you that one of the 3 people is still alive, and the language you are using to describe him (no matter how must you disagree with him) breaks WP policy on living persons. As I do not have now physical posibility to allow so much time as proving your wrong on those 3 people, I would like for now to simply draw the "red line". About chivalry: as you see I am only hitting you in one area, the area where you have first-rate armor to defend yourself. I am not hitting you anywhere else. On the opposite I support you more often than I support most other users (that because you have a wider specter of interests than the vast majority). Moreover, whatever the end result on "nationalist"/"far-right" vs "fascist"/"antisemite", the result would stay local to those areas. Your reputation in other areas it well-recognized, and I would gladly stand by to defend you on that. Is it clear now? Dc76\^talk 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I am not a supporter of intervantion in admin forums, so don't worry, I am not going to "hit" you without warning. A warning means that I first tell you how far I want to go with it, then we actively discuss for a month or more, and only if that does not lead to anything, we might ask outside oppinion. (As you see, I never mentioned punitive action. I would very much dislike to see it against you. What I want is you conseeding on the content! I know I am aiming way too high, but now I said it: I want to prove you that your oppinion on those 3 people is singular. And although I will perhaps be unable to make you change that oppinion, I have a non-trivial chance of proving you are alone (or small minority) holding it. Dc76\^talk 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the very last time I am answering to such accusations coming from you, and this because I am still ready to admit that you don't read/don't understand my posts rather than that you are willingly distorting my points. Again: all of us reading this page must have gotten the notion that you disagree with me on, say, three (or more, or less) topics; what I don't get, and is not even made explicitly clear by you in any of your posts is why does it matter as much as to make it into a prolonged and tiresome debate? On each of those topics, I have supported my arguments with sources. Not exhaustively so, not in every instance - simply because I'm utterly tired of having to paint a larger picture for people who won't get informed on their own, tired of debunking notions that are enthusiastically supported for their truthiness value, and especially tired of editors who won't accept that a comparison is not ever made between a reliable source and an editors' opinion.

Before you engage me on such subjects, what say you walk the extra mile yourself? What say you look up, say, the antisemitic measures premiered by the Vaida-Voevod administration? What say you look no further than George Călinescu's ILR or the very source we were discussing earlier to have a more complete image of who Hasdeu was and what he did as a "historian" and politician? Let me quote a relevant tidbit from the former, just in case you're still positing that "small minority" image: "Ramanea totusi ideologiceste un antirus si un antisemit: 'in veci voi fi contra evreilor. Pe evrei si pe muscali eu nu-i voi cruta nici chiar pe patul de moarte.'" And about Paul Goma: I'm not saying you should have a look over the stuff he wrote and still writes, over his commonplace reference to the Jews "controlling the world" and his eternal denial of the Holocaust (you will find both and much more in just his everyday writings, but I'm letting you know I'm not gonna be part of a discussion that would even refer to those writings - I feel more at peace just ignoring that stuff). No. Instead, bear in mind that, as happens in post-war civilized societies, his writings on historical subjects were explicitly rejected and abhorred by each and all relevant cultural venues (from academia through foreign commentators to the Writers' Union), and that the only reliable third-party sources who quote him on anything are those who nominate him as a Holocaust denier and an antisemite. If you're aware of that but you still pester me about this being "my opinion", then surely it must mean that you have a greater calling, access to esoteric truths and a perception of things that defies scrutiny. And any of those characteristics would also make the conjecture you produce irrelevant for all wikipedia purposes.

For the love of me, I still don't understand why you would challenge me to discuss such intricate issues on this page and in this context. I mean, do you think I have nothing better to do than to dig around for you on secondary subjects, and this always knowing that you're treating them as if your personal take on public subjects should be the most relevant thing to me? And even more so, when I simply cannot be aware that you have ever sought to actually inform yourself on any of the topics we're discussing, but that you feel free to be prosecutor, judge and jury in a trial I never even agreed to take part in? What's more, don't you think that, even if I'd want to spend my editing time untangling the nets you cast (and which implicate me directly), don't you think I'd be growing tired after doing the same for just about one in every two Romanian editors that come my way? Really now!

And, no, I'm not sure I will follow you into the argument about me being right in all cases but the ones where you say I'm not right. As I have said before, I'm perplexed that you would even imagine I invest you or anyone with that kind of authority over what I can and cannot opine. What's more, I completely reject the implied notion that we are here to pat each other on the back and agree or disagree about what "we" find acceptable and what should not make it into articles: there'll be no racket and no omerta here.

I also apologize for not getting the image of "chivalry" as you presented it the first time around. Let me say that I find the wikipedia rules good enough as to make any "superseding" chivalry irrelevant, so I don't feel responsible in front of rules that my fellow editors come up with on the spot. And I shouldn't. But, to humor the notion, let's add that, by any definition, what your chivalry is proposing is not honor and good intentions, but more patting each other on the backs and less transparency. In any case, I'm sure you can find other patsies to put up with it.

And lastly: above, you continue frivolously accusing me of breaking rules. What's funny is that you manifestly haven't read those rules yourself, because you'd then know that nothing of what I have said breaks any part of any policy you could possibly cite. And, no, I have no qualms about the possibility of being reported, regardless of whether you are a "supporter of interv[e]ntion" or not: I really mean that you should go and report me when you can prove it is the case (which, as far as I can tell, is never). In fact, I would prefer you do it instead of inferring your bogus claims about "bias" and "breaking the rules" whenever you discuss not just (or not even) my edits, but also my opinions and, willy-nilly, my overall integrity. Dahn (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, in any case, getting back to the original discussion I tried to eliminate the non-scientific part with genetical "studies", is the current form acceptable, anything else to eliminate add in this section? man with one red shoe 23:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I only looked over the article in a haste, so I cannot confirm or deny anything for now. I also can't look into it at the moment, for practical reasons (and, frankly, because I'm quite tired of it). I'll follow up with more when I get the time and mood, but I'm sure there are more users who would like to weigh in now that we're actually cleaning it up. Dahn (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean entire article, I meant the genetic issues section. But yeah, take your time. man with one red shoe 23:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The tags

Hi. Let me summarize the issue in clear terms, better than my edit summary could. For one, the article is obviously about the Romanian ethnicity; the statistics cited are not, they are about the citizenship. While I could stop right there, allow me to elaborate on an even more obvious point: the statistics in question refer to migrant workers, who are counted at home as citizens, and who reside in other countries for variable periods, but always non-permanently. If they were to live there permanently, they would not be included in those statistics. Hope you see that this has resulted in hundreds of thousands of people being counted twice. No, the issue is not even about "deducting from the total", but, if anything, about deducting a specific number of migrant Romanian workers (those who are ethnic Romanian) from the 19 million ethnic Romanians living at home. As if such a thing were feasible... and, even if it were, invitations to modify other numbers are invitations to original research.

The numbers are there just because, long ago, a group of rudimentary trolls pushed them in, in order to make the total number of Romanians seem gigantic. The only reason these "references" survived for so long was illustrated only recently by you: once they got their foot in the door, people need to be explained the exact problem that posed. In the absence of reliable data about even a worldwide total of ethnic Romanians, we are left with "verified sources" that verify whatever other information, none of which is actually relevant for the article. Dahn (talk) 12:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Romania is like 90% or so inhabited by Romanians, so your claim that the number of citizens living abroad, especially in Spain and Italy is not an accurate measure of Romanian ethnics living there is splitting hairs. Calling other editors "rudimentary trolls" pretty much disqualifies you as credible dialog partner. Pcap ping 14:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That may or may not be (it would be original research to claim any conclusion), but it is not the only thing I have said. I also very clearly told you that the current mix of apples and oranges conflates the census numbers (for Romanian ethnics) with numbers of Romanian citizens working abroad (counted only as workers, not as residents, and thus resulting in a manipulated citation). What this does is to count hundreds of thousands people twice. And I'm calling "rudimentary trolls" those editors who were since banned for gross incivility and POV-pushing. Dahn (talk) 14:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Linkspam

One more issue for now: all the scribd pages cited are linkspam (equivalent to linking to mailing lists). Add to this that their publishing is a likely copyright violation. The texts, once full citations are determined and provided (which is not the case as we stand), one could establish if those texts were previously published in a manner compatible with WP:RS and WP:V. In short: the links to scribd need to go; the material they refer to needs to be reviewed and possibly removed. Dahn (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

how can there only be 22-25 million romanians in the world, theres more than that (~~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.234.50 (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyeditting and combing

There is one small problem with this kind of edits: there is a high risk that certain information and biblio links are being removed from WP simply because they were not put in the correct article in the first place. That's unfortunate. First, let me remark that the end result for this article is clearly very good. Second, however, let me remark that one should now take all removed passages and try to fit them in articles they desearve to fit in. Then one should copyedit those articles, and continue the process, removing only when there is repetition. I like to call this combing. It would ensure that info is not being lost for the encyclopedia, but is being better re-organized. Dc76\^talk 21:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, allow me to note that removing the fragments was not based on it having too much bearing on the article, but on it being blatantly against several wikipedia rules. By "it" I mean not just the tone and the structure, but also the way the info was selected, and what it says. For the "sources" deleted: 1) the outside links referring to genetic studies were cited in bad faith (I have explained why already); 2) the primary sources (no-no) used in this article, which are ridiculously antiquated and virtually untraceable (and, considering the Romanian and wikipedian tradition of "patriotic forgeries", probably made up), stem from the same Protochronist user who tied other articles up in knots - in this case, the one I remember (not fondly) was a rant on the basis of some Latin source, which made the ridiculous Ceaşist claim that the Romanian flag can be dated back to Dacia (my edit summary doesn't reflect that, because I had a technical problem while saving it, but that's why if you were wondering). Btw, it dates back to the Freemasonry, and let me add that anti-scientific claims of this type are still the bulk of many articles I don't even have the stomach to visit for now (one good example cited here is Name of Romania, which contradicts even a study by Nicolae Iorga, where it is explicitly said that the name may also originate with the Freemasons, and were we also have to rely on someone's amateurish WP:SYNTH instead).

And no, i don't see any need to rescue the, well, idiotic statements the article made about Dacians, Burebista's "state" and whatnot - they too are staples of Protochronist propaganda, none of which belongs here (yes, before you say it: I know it's contradicted by other articles, but that's just because those articles were edited in much the same way, by users with the same agenda and the same ability to discern RS from nonsense and fact from fiction).

Moving on. I for one don't think and don't mean to imply that the article should stop at this informative level. Quite the contrary, it's not even halfway to square one yet. This not just because it's still partly ungrammatical and exceptionally messy. It's because it should mainly discuss the major cultural implications of Romanian identity, the avatars of Romanian consciousness in its relation to state, individual, dogma and faith (from 1848 inclusive liberalism to ethnocentrism to fascism, from Latinism to Synchronism to Protochronism, from Greek-Catholic activism to Legionary Orthodox theocracy to Blaga's Neo-Paganism, from Marxist-Leninist internationalism to national communism). That requires good faith, time, care, attention, and proper sourcing.

Oh and, btw. I left this out of my edits, because it's not that important, but it seems to me that the referencing on the whole Moldovan issue is yet another proof of WP:SYNTH. I may be wrong, but in any case I don't want to return to this subject just yet. Dahn (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Dahn, good edits. Thanks. man with one red shoe 22:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1) I looked more deeper into your edits. All but one (which I don't understand) are ok.

2) The one I don't understand is this: Do you consider this sourse to be "protochronistic" (BTW, what exactly do you mean by that): Neigebaur J. F. - Dacien. Aus den Überresten des klassischen Alterthums mit besonderem Rücksicht auf Siebenbürgen, Kronstadt 1851. Just trying to get my facts right. Dc76\^talk 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

See Protochronism for the general meaning. As for the source: presuming it actually exists, it was not it that was cited, but a Latin text within (I refer you to WP:PSTS). Now, not only would such an (obscure) source be barely creditable, but it is also out of date, sending wikipedia back into the amateuristic Romantic period. That aside, it was cited in violation of WP:SYNTH, since not even such an antiquated source would explicitly (or even implicitly) spell out that the colors of the Romanian flag relate to anything beyond the 19th century - it simply says (computing the variables: apocrypha or no apocrypha, forgery or no forgery, stupidity of the interpreter or no stupidity) that some colors were attributed by Justinian to a region that, hey, he didn't actually control. I for one have met the speculative claim according to which that is the origin of the flag only in some Protochronist manifestos of the Ceauşescu era, but it may date to the Iron Guard's attempts to dissociate Romanian symbols from their traceable source - the Freemasons, whom they despised. The mainstream accounts attribute the symbols to either the Freemasons (who helped organize each and every 19th century rebellion) or, simply, to the Ottoman rulers (who are known to have granted red-blue and yellow-blue flags to Moldavia and Wallachia respectively, the two banners being made one by the 1848 revolutionaries). If the first account is true, then (and this is my speculation) there is a vague possibility that the flag colors were "rekindled" by someone who looked up the Justinian thing and said "hey, 'Dacia' already has a flag"... Either way, this would be the sound of a falling tree.

Let me squeeze in a word of advice for all editors: when you look up sources in the future, don't go by "which source reflects my POV?". Try finding proper and reliable sources for the generic info, form an idea of what those sources have to say about the generic info (in this case, about the flag itself), not how much they agree or seem to agree on the POV (in this case, that the flag is "Dacian"). That is called editing in good faith and producing a relevant text, not a collection of stuff you hold dear no matter how singular or extremist. The opposite of doing that, which is what happened here, means squeezing in an extremist position based on an extreme source, and, even then, it most often involves editorializing from your part. It also means that other editors, who will inevitably notice it, will have to deal with a false dilemma courtesy of you. Dahn (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've know of two explanations for the flag, one is that it is inspired by the French flag and the other one that unites the colors of Wallachia and Moldavia, I haven't heard of any credible info that it was designed to match any Roman or Dacian flag, it's also not very credible. And for extraordinary claims we need extraordinary proof... using an obscure source that nobody seems to be able to check is not such a proof. man with one red shoe 19:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, what makes you think I have any oppinion about the origin of the flag?

In general, I had the experience of searching a lot for sourses, and it wasn't easy. The last thing I think of is sourses supporting "my" POV, when in fact I am hunger for any information. I "eat" information, so I tend to ignore nothing. After I read it, it generally takes me several days to digest it. For most of the time I editted WP, I forced myself not to edit until those few days pass. Overstating "your POV" is not only bad morally, it is also "diplomatically" wrong, for when it would be discovered, a shade of doubt would fall over correct info as well. Also, let me answer you: "A collection of stuff you hold dear" has nothing to do with honest editting. Moreover, a honest man does not hold dear "singular or extremist" things, but only truth he/she is aware of.

Specifically, about the flag. I was under the impression that the colors were used from the middle ages in the medieval flags of Moldavia, Wallachia, and Transylvania, but not in the modern sense, simply as shadings of different animals, objects, representations, background, etc. It wasn't until early 19th century (after 1821-22) that Romanians have considered to create a flag only with colors, like the French one. So, they took the colors most frequently found on the traditional flags of the principalities. Let's not forget that for the first decades the colors were positioned in all possible orders. To me this indicates clearly that the flag was assembled at that period. Impression, Dahn, not oppinion. Dc76\^talk 22:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, my final message in that post was impersonal, as my personal advice to all editors. It was a gentle reminder of the guidelines and rules on wikipedia, and how and why they relate to this case. I am not accusing anyone and, to be frank, I don't know who added the info (though I can safely presume, I wouldn't like going through a humongous article history just to check, and it's really not that important).

All flags have a documented history that stops at one point when retraced - it usually stops in the relatively recent past, particularly in Europe. France's is the reunion of Parisian colors (of which I once read go back to the Jacquerie years, when the bourgeoisie wore them on their clothes) with Bourbon schemes (blue and white has something to do with the Virgin Mary, I believe). Everybody knows how the UK got started, and only some of the symbols on that flag trace back to the Middle Ages. Germany, which borrowed its present flagfrom older imperial colors, bases it on a wannabe unionist flag from the 1840s or so, which was strongly rejected by the Prussians. Etc, etc. Romania's flag dates from the early 19th century, like most other Romanian symbols (from coat of arms to, yes, name). Nothing is certain beyond that time. Also: while the medieval symbols were assigned some colors, these are virtually impossible to track down - pictures were colored by hand, reflecting in themselves a diversity of colors which may belong to what uninformed colorists thought they should/could be; tinctures on coins, medals etc. may or may not reflect the system of "special tinctures as special colors" used in Europe (if they do, they most often show green and gold variations, at least in Moldavia - such was the verdict of one old article in Magazin Istoric, whose author tried to reconstruct Stephen the Great's flag); in those more modern flags that were kept, the colors accompanying the heraldic symbols also vary greatly; from the 16th century or so, locals usually went into battle under Ottoman flags, as we well know (except in cases such as Michael the Brave's, who reportedly carried a white banner with the insignia on it); heraldry was a Catholic habit, and had marginal use in all Orthodox countries, being also addressed to and perfected by the highly literate of their day (which most Romanians were not) - as a reflection of that, note that Wallachia's coat of arms moved between some sort of crow and some sort of eagle. So far, the recorded fact (and probably the only recorded fact) is that the Sultan granted the two countries special banners, and this happened (I think) only during the Regulament rules.

What's more: you will find paintings by Romantic Wallachian/Moldavian artists (I cannot emphasize the word "Romantic" enough) which show historical scenes from, say, the 16th century, in which Wallachians and Moldavians carry their respective post-1830 flags. At that time, you will find, people like this guy had a virtual monopoly on historical depictions, the 1848 radicals were just beginning to translate the first sources on Romanian history (which no one had bothered with by then, because it is much more fun to speculate about a fairy tale past than to find out more down-to-earth stuff), and the notion of critical distance from the sources wasn't even an issue (it took Junimea some 30 years of struggle just to get some to admit this it was). Decades later, our old friend Hasdeu, frustrated that few portraits of medieval Moldavian rulers survived, drew at least one himself and presented it as a contemporary work.

Let me stress again: the issue I take is with speculative history and obscure or biased claims, particularly when they pollute historiography in the name of "patriotism" (not my definition of patriotism, btw). It is the issue I expect all editors to take eventually, so we can contribute a balanced account and an accurate image of this country, not a fantasy playground. Yes, we all can speculate at will about "what actually happened", and the notorious absence of sources for much of Romania's history offers all of us a chance to enter that kind of mindset, but all of that stays in our minds and out of wikipedia. Hope I answered your question, and I assure you yet again of my respect. Dahn (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ok, sorry that I took some of your observations personally, I shouldn't have. Because it is much more fun to speculate about a fairy tale past than to find out more down-to-earth stuff - Fortunately, the modern technology makes it more fun to dig out information from fossils, scrolls, etc + the increasing possiblity to compare with findings from all over the world to get a more real picture, not taylored to the needs of any nation. It is more interesting and informative to read "what actually happened" from the interpretations found in modern quality research publicaitons (not that I read them directly). They won't exagerate b/c they have a reputation to defend (and often it is not only their personal reputation, but that of an entire school). I did not know about Asachi and paintings, I even had no idea he was also a painter! Thank you very much for your information. I do appreciate your knowleadgeability and openness to share it. Dc76\^talk 00:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Counting Romanians twice

I see a low-intensity edit war between Constantzeanu and Dahn about the number of Romanians in Spain, Italy, etc. Question to the rest of the editors: how can we go and solve this? Maybe we can add a footnote, right under the numbers, stating clearly the problems one runs into when adding numbers for different countries. And here I would like to give one example of a problem. As far as I know, last Romanian census took place in 2002 (and I did use some of its results in editing WP, so I dare to say I am not wrong about the year). I looked more carefully at the source given for Spain. It looks very ok as a source. However, I notice it contains the number of Romanians for 2007 at 500,000+ and for 2008 at 700,000+. Only from these two numbers I conclude that most probably at least 200,000 people which are currently in Spain were in Romania in 2002. Now, obviously, we will never have census data in the same year for all countries. Also, we can not take a given year as a standard and count for all countries only that year, because we will run into problems such as having very reliable data for say 2005 and very rounded and dubious for say 2008. Obviously we should use the reliable data for 2005 until we get as reliable data for the same country for example in 2010. My conclusion is: we should verify each source for each country for credibility, but when counting the total number of Romanians worldwide, we should not add, but should rather find a source or two. Addition should be used just by us and for us in order to check reliability of a source (for example we will automatically reject any sourse stating there are less than 20M or more than 30M Romanians worldwide), use addition only as an auxiliary. Dc76\^talk 19:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, I think we need to include the most recent numbers that we have for Spain and Italy and other countries and making a note that part of the people were already counted and the numbers shouldn't be added. For total number we should find one-two reliable sources and use that rather than adding the numbers from different countries. That makes total sense to me, we presents true info: in 2002 there were "x" number of Romanians in Romania, in 2008 there were "y" number of Romanians in Spain -- there's no contradictions, both numbers are correct, the only problem appears if you add them, so a note should be sufficient. man with one red shoe 21:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Dc76\^talk 21:59, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I misunderstand something about Spain: Is this not reliable? Otherwise, what is the objection? Dc76\^talk 03:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems reliable enough to me; if I tagged it when reverting, I have no problem with untagging. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Spanish. So maybe Dahn has some objection but I don;t understand it... I tried to find the same in English in the last 10 minutes, but failed. The site is simply enormous. In the Spanish file, I see clearly the number of Romanians for 2007 and 2008. So, I don't know what kind of verification this needs. If Dahn means "are these people not countied in 2002 Romanian census", as I said the answer is "Some of them ARE counted." And therefore a footnote should be added: Due to recent work migration from Romania, many Romanians in countries such as Spain, Italy, etc. are likely to be counted both in the Romanian census of 2002, and as Romanians living in Spain, Italy, etc. in 2007, 2008 etc. Also, in some cases of Romanians in other ocuntries, people of Romanian citizenship regardless of ethnicity are counted as Romanians. etc. etc. Dc76\^talk 03:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the comment in my edit summary referred to the source invoked in the other entries. The problem I see with the Spanish source is that it was originally cited in ignorance or bad faith (per my hidden comment on the page, which does go with a rationale I have explained on this page many, many times by now).

Here is the exact problem: none of the censuses for migrant workers counts the Romanian diaspora in Spain (Italy etc.), but people who are temporarily residing there, as estimates that will serve economic goals. They do not estimate the numbers of Romanians who are permanently out of Romania, but tho very mobile population who is here today gone tomorrow. The group of Romanian Spanish citizens is not counted in such sources - it is bound to be numbered in thousands (tens of thousands?); the same goes for Romanians who are permanent residents (expatriates) in Spain, and who would be counted there instead of here. The thing about temporary residents is that they were counted at home in 2002, and will probably be counted at home in every census Romania takes from now on (remember that the count relies on one report per household, not on tracking down persons individually); the source used does not allow us to count them in Spain, since they are neither residents nor citizens of that country. To be very clear: the source (clearly named "Provisional Data", btw) counts guest workers for the purpose of counting guest workers, as data outside those recordable by the censuses, and not for the purpose of positing on "the Romanian diaspora". The obvious consequence, especially since the overall estimates are deduced on the basis of such computations (read note 1: "The lower estimate is the sum of the countrywide estimates listed") is that the article casually and blindly adds as much as 1,200,000 peopleto the total number of Romanians (and that's counting only the Spain+Italy exaggerations)! Pristanda would've been proud.

Let's also note that, while most numbers which do carry a citation (some simply don't, and some others can't) refer to ethnic Romanians living abroad, and compliment this article being about ethnic Romanians, the others (Spain and Italy included) use no such criterion. Indeed, they can't and shouldn't, since they are counting/estimating people by citizenship and temporary residence. Note how ethnicity is suddenly a no sequitur when it helps inflate the number of Romanians around the world... And I'm not even getting into the irrelevancy of statements made about how many Germans and Israelis still speak Romanian (?!).

In one of his edit summaries, Constantzeanu states: "there is nothing wrong with placing estimates in brackets; many other ethnic articles do have '(est.)' placed besides certain #s without resorting to the 'verification needed' tag". Now, I'm not sure if he noted my actual objections, but, if he did, it means that he is comfortable with at least a million people being artificially added to the total number of Romanians just for the fun of it. Because, you see, it's an "estimate", even if it's not an estimate made by the sources he misquotes, but by himself. Using the same reasoning, I could say that there's an estimate 1,000 people on Earth - people, it's an estimate. To top it off with a joke, let me quote Lionel Hutz, when the judge asked him if he had any evidence for one of his cases: "Well, your honor, we have hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence..." Dahn (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And I was not yet able to find any reliable Spanish or Italian source that would count citizens by ethnicity (the censuses appear to be ignorant of that aspect), so the entire "Romanians in Spain/Italy" thing is very likely a dead trail. Dahn (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

How about adding a note "temporary workers" for those numbers? man with one red shoe 05:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Consider: Is the article about them? Is the infobox about them? This whole thing started with a meme whereby some clever users decided there a loophole to making Romanians seem like one of the larger European peoples (consider the obsessive anonymous posts here, of which the latest is "how can there only be 22-25 million romanians in the world, theres more than that" (plus some since-deleted Romanian-language garbage) above). On wikipedia, I can track this down to a single user, who, as we say, threw the stone down the well - this guy was blocked for ever some time ago, but he still returns as an IP to cuss me and others on our talk pages. If it weren't for this guy, and for some clueless users who never bothered to consider what they were reverting to (since I won't presume that they share as absurd an agenda), we wouldn't have to deal with that information at all - it would be meaningless to either the total number of Romanians or the number of Romanians in those countries. Now, if, outside of this meme, they are relevant to this article in any way, the only manner I could see for fitting in that info is outside the infobox, in the main text, as, say, a separate section about "21st-century dynamics" or smthg. Dahn (talk) 06:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's about "them", in an article about "Romanians" I think it is a relevant piece of info that you can find millions of them in Spain and Italy, don't you think? I also measure things with the true/not true yardstick not through the "who wants to use that info" deforming lens that I've seen people using many times on this page (and in general in pages related to nationalities and Eastern European countries) man with one red shoe 14:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And let me clarify something about "temporary" issue, yes, they were probably already counted in 2002 in Romania, but we have no way to know if they will remain in those countries or not, just like we have no way to know if Romanians will remain let's say in US or Serbia -- things are fluid, nothing is permanent. The important thing is "there are millions of Romanians living in Spain and Italy now" and we need to present this info because it's both relevant to this subject (in my opinion) and of enough magnitude (because beside Romania these are the countries where you can find the most Romanians from what I can see). man with one red shoe 15:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The point to remember is that the populace in question does not live in those countries (though it probably includes a small[er] segment which does - it's yet unattested). If you read that, come summer, thousands will be vacationing in Bulgaria, you won't go adding the numbers to "Romanians in Bulgaria", would you? And they aren't counted at home just because the census took place before the "exodus" (which, btw, isn't chronologically exact); they were counted at home, and will be, if and because they are not permanent residents of other countries - the census figures included those on temporary leave at the time.

The phenomenon may be relevant, but that still doesn't mean it is infobox material, nor does it imply that Romanians who are abroad in February and back in June count as diaspora (especially when the overall estimate is created by adding them to themselves). A separate section of the article can deal with that (I won't say "should"), and discuss things as far they can be discerned from the sources, not interpreted to make apples and oranges produce one special fruit. One could write there about the migration being short-term and seasonal, and could indicate swiftly that we're dealing with Romanian citizens in general (not Romanian ethnics by default), while evidencing the importance of the phenomenon through the numbers. That would also "solidify" the info, since the phenomenon would be attested by the text regardless of what comes next (i.e.: presuming that it will eventually be less of a current event and more of a historical development). See my point? Dahn (talk) 15:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And, btw, I wasn't making a case for "who wants to read that?" - I was pointing out that neither the article nor the infobox associate with that kind of info. The infobox especially, since the info placed in there would urinate all over the criteria for inclusion, would inflate the numbers to absurd levels (again: the overall estimate is deduced from these numbers), and would manipulate the sources cited to say what they don't say. Dahn (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

As for the Spain & Italy vs. US & Serbia comparison: the basic difference is that those people in the US and Serbia form part of the diaspora, stable communities in which most members are not Romanian citizens, and in which all members are citizens of the country in question (in fact, they are defined by being citizens of that country). Yes, they could all die or leave for the Moon tomorrow, but they are not ever counted in Romania. Dahn (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

"The point to remember is that the populace in question does not live in those countries" -- I had the impression that people who left for Spain/Italy live in those countries at least 10 months/year, comparing that to a vacation in Bulgaria is misleading. Now that Romanians are EU citizens I don't think it makes much difference if they are counted as Spanish citizens or not, they can stay there for ever if they want so. How do you define "living" in a country, by the papers you have or by the act of... well... living there? Most of those people do live there and go to Romania only on vacations if at all, if they were merely tourists in those countries they wouldn't have been counted by the Spanish/Italian authorities. man with one red shoe 16:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What's misleading is telling readers that, just because you've read a count/statistic where it says there are so-and-so Romanian workers in Spain and Italy at a certain moment, there are that many Romanians living outside Romania; what's more misleading is allowing them to be counted twice, and to imply that we can tell the exact percentage of self-declared ethnic Romanians in the groups (or automatically set it at 100%).

No, they are not tourists, but the immense majority of them are as good as tourists, as far as the article and the infobox are concerned. That is a matter of principle. And it matters naught how I define "living" - what matters is that these ladies and gentlemen, once leaving for as long as they do, are not subtracted from the local numbers unless they become citizens or permanent residents of some other country - not by the state, not by us. I frankly don't know, and neither do the censuses imply, for how long they are there, and how and when they return - they count either working population at a certain date of the year (Spain) or people with a visa at a certain date of the year (Italy). They count them (and count them separately) because those perishable numbers are economic indicators. It is also worthy to note that none of those censuses appears to count its citizens by ethnicity - Spain gets closer with "by ability to speak provincial languages"; add to this that the crisis is making the Romanians come back in huge numbers - "here today, gone tomorrow". I have suggested and will suggest that, if one really needs to explore the topic in this article, the only (and by definition best) way to address that is in a section of the text. Also: I don't know what the "EU citizens" bit is supposed to contribute to this conversation, but if it means "now we can caount them twice", let me tell you that it matters all the more - a sudden increase in the possibility of erring will not justify erring. Dahn (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

And please, MwORS, if we have to carry on on this path, would you reply to more than one point in my posts. I don't claim absolute knowledge, but it appears that you're ignoring much of what I say and periodically ask me to answer things I already answered to. For example, of several posts where I took your arguments one by one, you quoted me saying "The point to remember is that the populace in question does not live in those countries" without even bothering to copy the bracketed bit that came right after and considering what I was telling you there. It's very annoying and doesn't help your point. Dahn (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree that we don't need to count them twice, this is what we talk about here, right? I already agreed with the initial suggestion to not count them and add a clear explanation that they were most likely counted in 2002 in Romania and also an explanation that the number might include other nationalities. As for responding to only one of your points, I usually respond to the point that I don't agree, I don't feel necessary to respond to others that I agree with. As for the bracketed bit I didn't consider it relevant to the point I was raising, it only presents an exception that I wasn't contesting, and I simply didn't want to lengthen the quote too much, but if you think that's a relevant item that I omitted you can always reply by pointing to that, but as I see it, it doesn't change the issue that I was raising at all. Let me assure you that its omission was not because of bad intention it was simple a matter of space consideration. But let's not get into discussions about quoting and discussion style and stay focused on the issues at hand. Oh, as for the subtraction issue, it's not a matter of citizenship, it's a matter of reporting, people who are in Spain the next time there's a census in Romania they will not be counted, this is to show that reporting has nothing to do with the citizenship -- issue that you keep raising). I also don't agree with this idea that citizenship is the defining or definite item when it comes to counting "people living in a country" To my understanding in the Infobox we don't present info about "Romanians who are citizens of other countries" we talk about "Romanians who live in other countries" (the title is "Regions with significant populations" there's nothing there about citizenship) Hope I haven't missed anything relevant from your post regarding the subtraction and citizenship issue. man with one red shoe 20:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I still don't understand how these figures would add to other populations, but fine. Then the following should happen: 1) remove mention of the total population being based on the subsequent numbers, and find an RS estimate for the total number of Romanians worldwide; 2) add the notes you propose, with clear mention that the numbers are fluctuating and don't refer to either Romanian ethnicity, permanent residence abroad or foreign/dual citizenship (in fact, it appears that citizenship is excluded from those numbers). I still believe that this is best dealt with by the article itself, but, provided the necessary amendments are made (and made properly), I for one am not going to oppose the changes in question. Dahn (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and, not to leave this hanging: my comment in the edit summary and my other main concern is the use of this as a source. It's some self-publishing ONG of marginal importance, with what looks to be, whichever way you relate to it, a strong nationalist agenda. I refer you to WP:RS. Dahn (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Totals

Concerning the issue of the Romanians total. I looked it up on google books using several search items, and the only source that turned up with an estimate for such a figure so far is: Christophe Gontard, "The Experimental Programme Organised by France to Facilitate the Reintegration of Romanian Migrants", in Migration Policies and EU Enlargement. The Case of Eastern and Central Europe, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 2001, p.182. It says: "The number of Romanians living abroad is estimated at 12 million: 6 million in counties bordering Romania and 6 million elsewhere. The total number of Romanians in France, permanently or otherwise, legal and illegal, is likely to be less than 20 000." Note that the number refers to all Romanian citizens (maybe the 6 million in "neighboring countries" are just ethnics?), and probably to all sort of presences abroad (since the similar numbers in France cover "permanently or otherwise, legal and illegal"). Provided nothing more definite is found, I suggest using this as a reference for a "ca. 30 million" estimate in the "total population" section of the infobox (adding to 19 million of ethnics, but minding the variables). What say you? Dahn (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty clear that it doesn't refer to citizens because there are not 6 million Romanian citizens in the neighboring countries by far, even if we include the Moldovans who become citizens recently, this clearly refers to Romanian ethnics. I guess we could use it, it's anyway better than trying to add different unreliable numbers, the total would be even less reliable. man with one red shoe 21:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Although I still don't see how they count 6 million Romanian ethnics in neighboring countries -- that seem an overestimation no matter how you look at it. man with one red shoe 21:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I share your concerns. However, it seems this estimate reflects at least a popular notion - be it just an old wife's tale, this is the number also put forth by a 1998 Magazin Istoric article which claims to be corroborated by official sources (btw, it seems to make the claim specifically for ethnic Romanians). I have my doubts, particularly since it is not the most reliable author one can find, but it goes as it goes. Dahn (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, given your hostile and aggressive tone displayed towards me, I seriously doubt that you are in any position to consider your self an authority on this article, which is what you're constantly doing for some time now. I am putting some effort here in finding reliable sources regarding the Romanian population in states for which verification is needed. Indeed I am finding out that for some of these states, the numbers previously displayed were simply-put, fictitious. However, I would like to ask you to refrain from your aggressive comments towards me in the future, or I will take this case beyond this simple warning here. Dapiks (talk) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

And I find your entire comment an insult (not the first one you aim at me) - if you want to base your report on my letting you know that wikipedia can't be used as a source on wikipedia, please go ahead. On the other hand, if you are just now bothering to verify the numbers, and especially given that you find them to be "fictitious", it's sure gonna be entertaining reading your explanation of why you have been periodically and silently reverting legitimate calls verification and citation for a year now! And, btw, the main assurance of quality writing is the recognition of such quality: you might consider reading WP:MOS, and, in this special case, make more effort to turn embedded links into some palatable form of citation. Because someone is gonna have to it either way if this article is to go anywhere. covering at least that minimal aspect of tidiness is what I would call a "serious effort"; simply picking up quotes from readily accessible sources (all of which have been accessible throughout the time you were endorsing the fictitious numbers, and preventing others from doing what you're doing now) is a "minimal effort". Dahn (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Dahn, again I would like to point out that your aggressive tone as well as your continuous and harassing accusations claiming that "I am insulting you" must stop. As for my "minimal effort", perhaps if you would actually help me in finding resources instead of turning this into a campaign against me, then maybe this article WOULD go somewhere. Dapiks (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, you're finally doing something constructive, I'll give you that. Though I have some appreciation that it's happening (in the twelfth hour, no less), I'm not gonna let your self-righteous claims just slide by. So feel free to read my comment above as a reminder that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones - I'm open for scrutiny, but are you? Also: It's because of you and some users very close to you that, for months on end, none of my edits could endure in the article, so please don't lecture me about how I can help here. And I urge you to re-read my comment about embedded links to see what I really meant about copyedits (clue: splashing the embedded links don't go with the MOS). Dahn (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Listen, I admit that I have been suspicious of your edits in the past - although now when I looked carefully at the sources that some of these numbers had - which often is actually just 1 source - I do realize how outdated and perhaps even inaccurate this source may be. I likewise see the problem with Italy and Spain - although I don't think that the "verification needed" tag correctly corresponds with the problem - which is double counting. Perhaps the best way to indicate this issue is to actually mention in brackets that these people may have been double counted in the Romanian census of 2001 as well). All-in-all, yes I do agree that this article needs work, however just filling it with tags is not the best way to do it. Dapiks (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, as you may read above your first comment in this last series, I'm open to alternatives - Dc and MWORS outline one such alternative. As for the tags: they're meant to be used precisely for that - if an article is hijacked by questionably sourced info and original research, and if it's propelled by an agenda, it's the least one can do for constructiveness. The alternative is our readers falling for that flawed info. Note that I'm not questioning for the pleasure of questioning, and that once the info is properly sourced I don't hold on to the tags. As for the main tag (cleanup), let's just say that any experienced user will tell you that it is validated: the poor use of English, the non-compliance with the MOS (ahem), the lack of focus, the accumulation of trivia etc. - they all play a part in this. Dahn (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the footnote suggested by Dc. I also think that for Israel, we should take out that number altogether since I've noticed that these numbers reflect migrant workers with 2 year contracts in 1995. I am not aware of any Israeli demographic data that reflects any recent romanian population. On the other hand, as we all know, 450,000 Israelis are of Romanian-Jewish origin and I believe they should be counted as Romanians. Dapiks (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"I believe they should be counted as Romanians." Yes, but Wikipedia believes otherwise. Dahn (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

One could also consider adding a ≤ in front the Italy and Spain numbers, which would be expanded by the note (the possibility of major overcounting is pretty solid, and mention of this should perhaps not be "exiled" to some note). Dahn (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of improvements and basic tidiness: check out what note 17 gives, now that you've deleted its first mention without removing or adapting the others in the same template. In my view, the reference should go altogether, but as long as you keep it... Dahn (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

yes 17 was a problem. I have just found a more reliable source.

The countries that are problems still are Italy and Spain for which I suggest placing a footnote, Israel for which I suggest citing the 450,000 Jewish-Romanians and Brazil which even the "Romanii din Diaspora" site only mentions about 1500 people - i have so far found nothing for Brazil. Dapiks (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I again voice my strong objection to citing the est. 450,000 Israelis as "Romanians", since that would really stretch the limits of the term and would make sources say what they don't say. If there is more definite reliable data about any of those people considering themselves Romanians, with a number attached, then that attached number should be cited. Any other assumption is abusive. Abusive and ironic in the worst way, since most of those people chose Zionism when confronted with an explicit denial of their Romanian identity by Romanian authorities, and since many of them are survivors of a Holocaust based on that denial. Zionism itself means the explicit adoption of Jewishness as an ethnicity (not just as a religion), and of Israeli nationality to go with it. In fact, the whole process whereby these people become "ethnic Romanians" by default is equivalent to the Mormon baptisms of the dead.

Brazil is probably bogus altogether. Dahn (talk) 00:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree on Brazil. I also agree on your comments about the Jewish-Romanian population in Israel, however no data exists that would definitely indicate the self-identification of the 450,000 people in question. Perhaps we can mention "Jewish-Romanians"? Dapiks (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

If we start adding the diaspora of various minorities, we would never see the end of it, and we would use the vaguest, most optimistic criterion possible (ponder: how many Hungarians in Hungary trace their lineage back to what is now Romania? how many Turks in Turkey do the same?). The only contexts where we blur the lines (for all my reservations) are those were Romanian citizenship at least is involved, and were we know that many people may be/may consider themselves ethic Romanians. Note that for Romania, where we know for sure how many citizens consider themselves ethnics, we use that number - which implicitly excludes those who consider themselves ethnic Jewish (or ethnic Hungarians, Germans, etc). For Israel (and other countries), we don't know if anybody does consider himself/herself an ethnic Romanian, so let's lean on the side of caution. Dahn (talk) 01:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright so we delete the Israel and Brazil numbers?Dapiks (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I for one would suggest that. Dahn (talk) 01:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, that makes two of us, at least until some reliable sources can be provided for these countries. I have also added a footnote. Tell me what you think.Dapiks (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It needs some copyediting, but it's fine overall. I'll have a go at fine tuning it in the near future, if you don't mind. Dahn (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

May I just remind everyone that we have an article called Romanian diaspora and, in the interests of consistency, the numbers in the infobox (once we achieve a reasonable level of accuracy) probably should coincide with the ones there. - Biruitorul ^Talk 01:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps we should start changing those numbers there to coincide with these ones here. Dapiks (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm a "one at a time" guy, but do go ahead with the changes. Btw, I also see that article as a proper venue for expanding on "Romanian Jews in Israel" and other issues, since it is the meeting point between ethnics and citizens - of course, a separation between the two categories should be made clear if this is feasible. Dahn (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

List...

I propose we write down a list of things still left to be done for this article.Dapiks (talk) 03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the total number of Romanians, the second source (http://www.presidency.ro/?_RID=det&tb=date&id=7048&_PRID=) claims that there are 8 million Romanians living abroad. Given that it's a statement made by the president, I'm not sure how reliable it is, but it's pretty obvious that there are far more people of full or partial Romanian descent living abroad than the numbers in the article currently imply. Other 'people' articles also state very large numbers, such as the Irish people article which claims there are over 80,000,000 people of Irish descent currently living although Ireland's population is much, much less than that. As a result, I think we should stick to the 22-30 million statement. It seems more realistic IMHO. CaptainFugu (talk) 17:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I would say the the presidency is not a very reliable source :) In any case the numbers don't add up, if you add the numbers in the info box should add up to a total, it's not OK to differ by 5-6 million from the sum of the numbers. man with one red shoe 19:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but some of those numbers include Romanians of mixed descent (e.g., Canada), while others do not, and some are outdated or underestimated anyway (e.g. UK and USA, these sources add up to 1,241,000, as opposed to less than 500,000 in the article). CaptainFugu (talk) 22:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why underestimate the number? It's a long time accepted fact that Romans were a subgroups of Daco-Pelasgians, along with the Ainu, the Sumerians and the Olmecs, and given the fact that Daco-Pelasgians are nothing but Romanians, I think we should include all Latin-speaking people... NOT! Seriously now, all sociologists acknowledge that the number of residents in Romania is quite exaggerated, so it compensates underestimates of Romanian ethnics abroad (also take into consideration that a lot of those estimates are of the number of Romanian citizens, irrespective of ethnic identification). Moreover, if you go by the racialist criteria this article uses to define Romanians, you should exclude the quite large number of self-declared Romanians with South-Asian heritage.Anonimu (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In any case I don't see a reliable reference for the extra 5-6 millions. And including people of mixed decent is not OK, unless they declared themselves Romanians, just assuming that people with a Romanian parent living in Canada or US consider themselves Romanians (as probably the residency.ro does) is not going to cut it. And again, it's millions, they are not hidden anywhere, if anybody can come with a reliable reference that there are twice as many Romanians in US and Canada then we can add that to the total, till then let's keep the total the sum of all the parts. man with one red shoe 23:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Romanians are a nation, they are native to romania, and they speak romanian.

Romanians are a nation, they define themselves as such in their Constitution. ROmanians are also a people, and an ethnic group, and so on. Please do not mistake the term "nation" with "national extremism". Criztu (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vuia was not first

several other aircraft got off the ground before him without the help of catapults, rails, inclines. And Vuia's hop wasnt as long, or as high either. If you have some evidence that every one of these other accepted claims are false, let's see it. Just pointing me to some website where an unsupported claim is made obviously is a waste of time.70.231.252.197 (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC) 70.231.252.197 (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Genetics of the Romanians

Should be included a section about the genetics of the Roumanians as almost every ethnic group has dedicated a section to this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.144.84.177 (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Mircea Eliade's picture

I believe a picture of Mircea Eliade should be put between other pictures in the box on the right. He is definitely one of the people Romania can be proud of. I study anthropology and we hear about him all the time. Greetings from Poland Lukasz.lozinski (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Genetic relations of European nations.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Young Romanians.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Young Romanians.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The Picture

The picture "Three Romanians arrive in New York" is not representative for the Romanians, and in case no one will delete it soon, I will do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.56.223 (talk) 17:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

number of romanians in romania

someone changed the number of romanians in romania which is according to the 2002 census 19.4 million to 18 million which is a reference to an article that talks about the number of romanian speakers in romania and in the countries bordering romania. Furthermore, the article makes no references to where it got the figure of 18 million, and the number seems to be incorrect, as according to the 2002 romanian census, the number of romanian native speakers was 19.7 million. Please dont change any numbers until the results of the 2011 census are published, as the 2002 census results are the best numbers to work with until we have fresh data. It is reasonable to expect that a decrease in the number of romanians has occured since after 2002 millions of romanians have immigrated, and the prelimanary results of the 2011 census show a decline of population to 19.6 million inhabitants, however, until the results of the 2011 census on ethnicity are published, do not remove the 19.4 million number for romanians in romania, as that is a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.33.194 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

About a postcard.

That postcard "Romanians from Câmpulung Moldovenesc in national costumes" represents costumes from northern Muntenia, Muscel type. For sure it's from Câmpulung Muscel and not Câmpulung Moldovenesc. It's obvious if you have any knowledge about the Romanian folk costumes. Not to mention it is hand painted from imagination and has little to do with the actual colors. It should be removed, IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adr2ian (talk • contribs) 06:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Origins of the Romanians

Please IP, do not remove sourced content fro this article only because you did not like it. Discuss the changes you want to do here and gain a consensus. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Pictures of Romanians

Both versions suck and should be changed. I believe we used to have a decent version a few years ago, when active members gave their input and we selected the best candidates. First of all, athletes have no place on that list, unless they've contributed with something remarkable to the betterment of society. Second, Stephen should not be removed--ever! Thirdly, where's Palade, Babes and Nicolae Iorga the likes? Were they replaced by Dahn's lame avant garde 'intellectuals'? Such a shame. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Nastase vs Zamfir

I proposed Gheorghe Zamfir instead of Ilie Nastase, as he has more international notoriety. How did you determine that Nastase, who is most likely a Gipsy, has more coverage? --Codrin.B (talk) 11:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

"Most likely a gipsy" is irrelevant as well as unsourced. He is a Romanian national. As far as who has more "coverage", that isn't the test. It's a matter of consensus who goes in the infobox. As Nastase is the consensus position, it's for you to put forward the arguments for the change. That's how WP:CONSENSUS works. DeCausa (talk) 11:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Codrinb, please note that your edit summary could be construed as bigoted, whether you are aware of it or not. I'll take it as WP:AGF, and indicative of your grasp of English language nuance being poor, considering that you're proposing that Zamfir is 'notorious'. Notorious does not mean notable but, "Famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed" (per the Oxford dictionary). Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. I thought the same. I don't like to throw around the R-word, but some could consider his comment racist. I chose to think that it is not, and that there is some other explanation, such as the one you have given. DeCausa (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Benefit of the doubt/AGF for the moment. If the contributor makes a peep in that general direction again, I think we wouldn't be overstepping the line in considering it to be the big R. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Who is a Romanian?

So i may ask ho is a Romanian as nation ? Because Hagi is aromanian , Halep aromanian and many others there. What make you a romanian ,if you come from India you are part of Romanian nation or just a citizen of Romania? So Lazlo Tokes is a romanian because, i will put him to pictures. What is the difference betwen Hagi and Tokes , please respect the aromanian minority , then Queen Mary ? What is rong with you? (cur | prev) 21:10, 13 June 2014‎ Avpop (talk | contribs)‎ . . (49,646 bytes) (-76)‎ . . (except Queen Marie, who was an English lady) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:07, 13 June 2014‎ Avpop (talk | contribs)‎ . . (49,722 bytes) (+484)‎ . . (all those are Romanian) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 17:01, 13 June 2014‎ Vasile iuga (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (49,238 bytes) (-88)‎ . . (And try to ad others, not only the good ones, peoples like Brătianu, Ceauşescu,Antonescu, Dej , should be on this list. Not all romanian citizens are Romanians.) (undo) (cur | prev) 16:50, 13 June 2014‎ Vasile iuga (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (49,326 bytes) (-396)‎ . . (Try to stick to romanians only not romanian citizens Hariclea Darclée-Iris(greek origin watch wiki)Queen Mary of Romania(not romanian)Alexandru Macedonski(not romanian, aromanian ,serbian)Gica Hagi(aromanian)Simona Halep(aromanian)) (undo) Who the heck is this guy that in all the pages decides what is rong or right ? All those i putt aside are stated in wikipedia pages not of Romanian origin or family. If you are born in Romania not means you are a Romanian, only a Romanian citizen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasile iuga (talk • contribs) 10:26, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The personalities from the infobox

@Vasile IUga Hariclea Darclée was a Romanian with Greek roots, but still Romanian. She was born in Brăila, Romania.

Alexandru Macedonski had non-Romanian ancestors, but he was a Romanian.

Please wait for some more opinions before removing Hagi. I'd like to ask other editors if they think Hagi should be included here Avpop (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC) This is not about romanian citizens is about romanian nation, Hariclea was a romanian citizen of Greek nationality. So you can include her in the pages about Romanian State not about Romanians. Hagi is a aromanian ,what proofs you want? Read the wiki pages. You have other ideas please change there. All romanian citizens are romanians but in a legal way, Tokes is a romanian as citizens, what is your criteria patriotism? This is about the nation , many nation have no states, so they have no personality's ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasile iuga (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox pictures

I am asking UseR:Cei Trei to explain the removal of famous Romanians from the infobox. PersecutedUser (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

• Tepes was a psychopath (Florescu) and evil (Iorga), and shouldn't be on the list;

• Sadoveanua, Macedonski, Cioran might be notable in Romania, but they are mostly irrelevant to the outside world and should therefore not be included;

• Palade should be included, but the photo was deleted (I posted about this issue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Romania);

• Inna -- whoever added her is a dumb ass;

• Nastase and Hagi are cool, but their accomplishment in sports is not enough to justify them being listed;

• Maria Tanase -- relevant only to Romania.

In short, there should be a criterion for what Romanians should qualify to be on the list, and also what the size of the list ought to be. We lack such a criteria, which is why different users try to enforce their personal view. My edits were more of an emergency measure against silliness. --Cei Trei (talk) 15:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nastase and Hagi are two of the best known Romanians worldwide. But if the criterium is high performance, we should include instead Elisabeta Lipă (the most decorated rower in the history of the Olympics) or Octavian Bellu, declared by World Record Academy in 2007 as world's most successful coach. PersecutedUser (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the criterium should be high performance in sports, unless that performance left an everlasting legacy (example). Comaneci has somehow done that and she's a symbol for gymnastics worldwide, which is why I didn't remove her. Hagi was internationally known during mid-90s and early 2000s; today, he is mostly known to Turks and football fans. Mind you, we have scientists and mathematicians who could easily replace any of these people. Thanks for the fun fact about Elisabeta Lipa. Unfortunately, rowing is no big deal. --Cei Trei (talk) 16:05, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

"Rowing is no big deal?" Don't you think this is quite WP:POV-ish? Hagi and Nastase are very notable, but you say that they are not good enough in their area; Lipa is the best in her area, but you say that she is not notable enough. You should be more clear about what criterion you prefer. PersecutedUser (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Hagi and Nastase are notable in their field, but that doesn't mean they should be included. Rowing is not a very popular sport, just like curling is not a very popular sport. The criterion that I prefer is notability first in 1) science and mathematics; 2) arts and literature; 3) statesmanship; 4) musicology; 5) sports. The last category should be represented in a lesser proportion than the other categories (say, 1/10). We shouldn't have the number of scientists and mathematicians equalling the number of athletes. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've got a CD of Maria Tanase's songs. Does that make me Romanian? No. Tanase has been the subject of many articles around the world, for instance Australia, Germany, Moldova, and more. When Tanase toured the U.S., she was called "the ambassadress of Romanian singing."[1] France honored Tanase in 1965 with the Académie Charles Cros Grand Prix du Disque award. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If you got a CD of Tanase's songs, then we must include her in the list. --Cei Trei (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

How many pictures?

The 30 June 2014 version of the article had 40 pictures in the infobox. That's too many! For guidance, other similar articles have fewer images:

• 36 – Americans (too many!)
• 27 – French people
• 21 – English people
• 28 - Indian people
• 30 – Bulgarians
• 11 – Yugoslavs
• 16 – Russians
• 0 – Soviet people
• 0 – Chinese people

So the question is how many photographs should this article have in the infobox? I think we need to trim down to 30 or less. Binksternet (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to Chinese people, there are photographs for Han Chinese. Yes, Americans have too many, and I don't understand what Nicholas Cage and Colbert are doing there. We should decide for a number and also for the proportions of categories represented (as posted above: 1) science and mathematics; 2) arts and literature; 3) statesmanship; 4) musicology; 5) sports). --Cei Trei (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Aside from being unwarranted (visual clutter), it seems to be the cause of multiple unexplained changes with no WP:ES. I think contributors would do well to settle for a reasonable number of representatives with a view to a balance of areas/disciplines (authors, scientists, statespeople, actors, sportspeople) and some form of lipservice to women other than one in the 30, plus tacking two on to make it 32 'Romanians'. Once the representatives are established, changes should be made through discussion on this talk page, not executive decisions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, however, it seems the few Romanian editors that are still active are avoiding this article. I posted about this issue on April 20, hoping to initiate a discussion: no one replied. Is there a Wikipedia guideline that could help us getting on the right track?--Cei Trei (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

These infobox picture montages in "foo people" articles serve no useful purpose other than to be the subject of a POV-fest and squabble. Wouldn't it be great if we could just get rid of all of them? How much editor time could be switched to making real improvements to the article? Why not lead the way with this article and delete it....dream on! DeCausa (talk) 21:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and I can come up with many arguments in favor of not having the infobox photos. But how can we remove them? What are the necessary steps? --Cei Trei (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

It can be achieved through consensus on this talk page. As DeCausa suggests, we could go WP:BRD and delete the lot, but that's definitely a 'dream on' approach. Alternatively, we could state a figure (10? 15? 20? maximum) and make a decision as to which fields should be represented, plus who the representatives should be. It doesn't need to be a convoluted procedure and, once it's established, every time there's a random change we simply revert it pointing to 'Per consensus: see talk page'. If a contributor is actually interested and has a genuine case for changing a representative, they'll bring it to here. Considering that most of these changes are 'just because I can', I doubt there will be terribly many attempts at discussion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

How about 16 photos, with 4 women and 12 men, and somewhat balanced representation between sports/politics/science/culture? Binksternet (talk) 04:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned some millions years ago on this talk page, I would tend to favor a moratorium on this entire "peoples illustrated" thing -- the very habit is somewhere between showing off cultural imperialism and racial anthropology; galleries like these are only attractions for jingoistic editors, and their only benefit is that they keep those jingoistic editors occupied with something while the rest of us are building an encyclopedia. The galleries have no encyclopedic information between them.
I realize that is not the consensus, and I have tried repeatedly to at least establish consensus as to how big a picture we should have and who should be in it. This was way before the gallery swelled to the ridiculous proportions in the current version.
Any rational compromise will do by me, just remember, when we do reach it, lock this page down to prevent the usual edit war, or at least add a notice that people who revert without discussion will be blocked.
That's provided we don't actually build consensus on removing this nonsense from this and every other article it has crept into.
Thanks. Dahn (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, since there are five of us adamant about at least having a small number who'd constitute representation for the basic fields of human endeavour (although I'd be just as happy to hold a moratorium on a 'showcase gallery'), I'd say we have consensus for Binksternet's maximum of 16 (4 women, twelve men). If names could be put to the representative Romanians, we could simply "support" the choices and, as I noted above, revert any changes pointing to the consensus per talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

For now I don't agree with either of User:Binksternet's proposals. I don't understand which was the calculus that produced the total of 16 personalities. Was the choice made ​​based on the dimension of the ethnic group (23 mil. people)? I can see that we have in the infobox no less than 25 Dutch people, 25 Greeks, 30 Serbs, 30 Poles. 30 Bulgarians and 24 Portuguese people. We even have 16 items in the infobox for a small-sized group like the Székelys.

And I don't see why we should have a pre-set number of females. Gender is not an objective criterion, just a feminist one. What will be next? To include x homosexuals not to be said that we are intolerant?

I consider that the debate must be carried out in a broader framework and that we should get a consensus regarding all ethnic group infoboxes, not a separate consensus for each one. It is preferable to create a standard that would work everywhere. PersecutedUser (talk) 08:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

PersecutedUser, see Template:Infobox_ethnic_group. Please show me where the field for individuals representing the ethnic group is. Is there one? No. Why? Because it is cruft that has been introduced and is now assumed to be an integral part of the structure. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ethnic_groups/Template. Is the addition of 'representatives' even discussed? Personally, I don't really give too much of a hoot about gender issues, but I think you'd better pull back on predictions about some form of absolutes being imposed on who is to be represented and who is not: that is a POV issue. If you could provide me with NPOV secondary RS arguments as to why one individual is that much more relevant than another, I'm a monkey's auntie. Debate? In a broader format? For what: something that's a matter of personal taste and priority. There is no debate for ethnic group representatives for the ethnic group infobox because it a peripheral that ends up as an energy sink. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

We could debate about the number of photos to include and their size; and also the ratio of the sexes and the identity of the individual, along with their prominence and the industry they represent...but in doing so we waste a lot of time that could be used otherwise. There are some small advantages in keeping these photos, but the disadvantages are greater. And let's not forget that even if we come to an agreement, the time-consuming process would not end there. A month from now, another user could nominate two Romanians that he or she wants to be added, and then we'd have to restart the evaluation process: a) to evaluate the worth of the nominee how they weight against the other individuals listed, and b) to decide the individuals that ought to be removed from the list. I therefore say we reach a consensus of removing the photos and instead focus on articles that cover specific subjects pertaining to Romanians, for instance, Romanian scientists or Romanian Computer Scientists. That would be more productive. --Cei Trei (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

People who self-identify as Romanians

User:Anonimu affirmed that "people who didn't clearly self-identify as Romanians have no place here", so I am asking him to provide sources where Mircea Eliade, Sergiu Nicolaescu etc affirmed that they are Romanians. Or when did Joan of Arc, who is included in the infobox from the French people article, say that she is a French woman? Similarly, when did Aristotle say that he was a Greek? PersecutedUser (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Anonimu is correct to say this about individuals that belong to the modern age, if the individual in question has alternatives for a different identity. This can be said about people who, a) may have different or mixed origins, and b) have been living in a foreign country for a long time. I'll give you a couple of examples. Palade confirmed his Romanian identity, which is why we list him as Romanian. Daniela Rus hasn't done that, which is why we say she's a "Romanian born American". --Cei Trei (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of inane discussion that this nationalist parade is bound to prolong for ever. Especially so when it comes to the Romanian case, where the Romanian identity did not emerge as explicit and fully fledged until the times of Neculce and Cantemir. Concerning the "parallels": Joan of Arc is a bit tricky, granted -- though she did fight for the French as a sort of mercenary, she was most likely a Lorrainian; Aristotle may never have said it explicitly (I just don't know...), but he did fit a very precise requirement of Greekdom, one that has no parallel in cases such as Romania -- he believed in Greek gods.

That said, you will easily find sources where Eliade and Nicolaescu define themselves as Romanian -- for both, national identity was obsessive. If that is really a meritorious concern. (Now, if we do have to have a gallery, I must urge you not to include Nicolaescu in it. He was a technician that communism helped promote to a director, and he made extremely controversial films that peddled Ceaușescu's personality cult and the sort of ignorant nationalism that we find so parasitical in this very article.) Dahn (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nicolaescu is uncontroversial when compared with Paulescu. No Nazi ideologue is present among the German figures, even if an important part of the Germans at least formally adopted that ideology in a sad period of their history.Anonimu (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

True. Dahn (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

As a side note: do we have to have a picture of Cioran looking like a lizard-man (in Legionary skin tone no less)? Dahn (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Stephen was Romanian. --Cei Trei (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt he was ever aware of that.Anonimu (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, this inanity goes on in a plethora of articles: the details may differ, but the dynamic is equally ridiculous. Nestor the Chronicler, for example, is depicted the first "Russian" writer. Let's not even address the number of notables being claimed as Lithuanian, Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian or Russian. With regards to Aristotle, there is no question that his ethnicity should be Greek linking to Ancient Greece, not modern Greece (as it currently does). You might 'enjoy' going through the 'representatives' for various South American countries. I'd support Cei Trei on the suggestion that this energy be directed into improving the articles about Romanian notables rather than organising a picture gallery that's neither here nor there. Define how a Romanian self-identified a thousand years ago, three hundred years ago, a hundred years ago, and how a Romanian self-identifies now. While we're on the subject, how about that fabulous Italians representatives! As far as I recall, there wasn't an entity known as Italy until Garibaldi, yet there's lovely array of Florentine, Venetian and Roman ethnics sitting side by side. Seriously, they didn't (and still don't) speak the same languages. These galleries need to justify themselves in order to be meaningful. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Identity is actually not that complex as Dahn "and" Anonimu make it to be. Any people will identity with a greater sum of something; that is, subgroups will identify themselves with a the group that they belong to. In only a few cases do you have a sort of spectrum where a group can have more than one identity, but that mostly pertains to nomads. Of course Joan was French, and of course she knew it, just like Jesus knew he was a Jew. Just look at the awareness of Cicero pertaining to the Roman identity and the Roman race. Or the Ancient Egyptians. So again, Stephen was Romanian, in case someone here tries to argue otherwise (subtly as he may). And when I say Romanian, I mean he actually was aware of the Rumanian identity and identified himself as such. But now I'm digressing. --Cei Trei (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Before the modern era, with a few exceptions in the upper strata of the countries of Western Europe (Machiavelli's concept of Italians comes to mind), few people actually identified with an ethnic group. Religion, social class and language were much more important. As late as the early 18th century, Cantemir was describing the Moldavian nobles and Moldavian peasants as two different peoples, while at the same time, in neighbouring Wallachia, "Romanian" meant a member of the disenfranchised peasant class. So no, Jean d'Arc didn't die for the French nation, and Aristotle has little to do with the modern ethnic group known as Greek (unless we start describing Julius Caesar or Cicero as Italians). Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS it doesn't mean we should take nationalist assumptions as granted in this article.Anonimu (talk) 19:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The problem with ethnic identity is even more clear-cut in the Romanian case -- whatever might be contentious in Aristotle or Cicero's case, we're at least discussing preserved literate arguments that will forever be subject to interpretations. We know that those people, and others (Dante comes to mind) had some sort of conception of what they mere ethnically or nationally; and we're divided as to what that conception means in contemporary words. In the Romanian case, literate culture begins in 1400s, literary culture in Romanian begins in the 1500s, a literate class that would even so much as speak about ethnic identity shows up in the 1600s, and a rather more solid concept of shared ethnicity begins to be visible, in very marginal circles, ca. 1700. No amount of special pleading is going to fight off the fact that, were we know "others" had something, we still can't tell if "ours" had anything. Dahn (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't blend class stratification with identity; and not everything that pertains to identity must be about nationalism. I believe we're perfectly capable of discussing the concept of identity without having to refer to nationalism (unless it's nationalism we're discussing). Identity existed before any version of patriotism or nationalism.

What you further mention there is about different classes. Just like Moldavian nobles and Moldavian peasants were two different people back then, today, rich people and poor people are different people, also. (But why mention Cantemir when you have Ureche and Miron?) And you can find plenty of feeble-minded people, today, who are not able to have and contextualize a national identity. Again, I mention Cicero, specifically in his Philippics, where he not only speaks of a Roman identity, but of a Roman race holding unique traits; and he does this on more than one occasion. We don't have to stop there. In the Dark Ages, there came about an English identity, a Scottish identity, a Welsh identity, and of course an Irish identity. So group identity is nothing new. You'd probably have to go back thousands of years in history to find isolated humans not holding a group identity. Indeed, it would be far more interesting to ask when humans developed the mental capacity for creating an ethnic (tribal) identity.

Even though that's not what was being discussed here, I wanted to throw in my take on this. Not everything has to come down to nationalism; and identity is not a modern conception. Identity is not an idea that was developed by an academia or a process that started to shape during the Feudal era and matured during the Industrial Era. Identity is a biological process that belongs to the mental evolution of the human specie. Yes, I believe there are different nuances that identity went through throughout the ages, but that's a different subject altogether. In fact, I'm going to research for relevant literature on this subject. You see, in this case, it's not the sociologist who can give us the answers. It's the evolutionary- biologist and psychologist. ;) --Cei Trei (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no "answers". We should go with what is closest to facts, not to interpretations. Dahn (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is interpretation in everything, even in precise sciences like physics. What are we arguing here? Identity is probably some sort of encapsulation of ancestor worship, which took place in Ancient Rome and is still in place in Asian countries such as China and Japan. Apart from Rome, you had the Greek states that had a strong awareness of their identity, and also the ancient Egyptians who even differentiated between northern and southern Egyptians; and even today, the small minority of Berbers and their language continues to thrive in western Egypt, having been preserved since thousands of years ago. A significant concept of identity is the inheritance from your ancestors, and that can be preserved through language (our case), religion (Judaism is a good example, although not the only one), culture (Hellenism had a certain imprint on the Bactrian identity), and there might be other examples, too. Those who have done some programming probably understand the concept pretty well. :) --Cei Trei (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Not the issue. Ancient identities in literate societies may be interpretable (you are preaching to the choir here), however they stand by some semblance of a point: we know for instance that Cicero said he was a Roman, because he himself wrote it down in Antiquity; we do not know even as much for any individual case in "Romania" prior to, say, the 1600s -- though we may suppose that it existed vaguely as a self-identification before that date, we certainly do not have a "Stephen the Great saying he was a Romanian", which is what would be required for including Stephen in this sort of template. See my point? Dahn (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I see your point. I just believe in a different approach. If an identity existed among a population at a certain period of time, then not every individual must declare himself in writing to belonging to that identity. Moldavians were called Wallachians by the Poles long before the reign of Stephen, and that identity was linked to, more or less, to the modern identity of Romanians. Our boyars and our princes were very aware (keyword: aware) of how other nations perceived Moldavia and of their family roots. This is easy to understand. What is more difficult to understand is, say, when the Hatti began to identify themselves as Hittite. --Cei Trei (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyways, we have two admins who probably haven't bothered to read this talk page, but who decided to revert to the version where Vlad and Inna are included. Since we're all agreeing that the photos should go, can I (or anyone else), go ahead and remove them? --Cei Trei (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

You have my support to remove them. I did note that there had been reverts that certainly appeared to have been from users/editors or admins who don't appear to have been aware of the discussion here. I'm happy to point anyone reverting to this page if they have objections. I'd say that WP:BRD has been fulfilled, and that consensus is for at least reducing the number of representatives, final choices aside. Elimination is a good process by which to narrow down the final list dependent on their credentials. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Votes and opinions

I am having a hard time following this discussion. Let's have some specific discussions. Please add your opinion under each subtitle so things are clear.Nergaal (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mircea the Elder

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Stephen the Great

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Vlad the Impaler

• YES! Why are ppl against him? He wasn't a sociopath, since he did what everybody else did at the time. If you ask a random American to name a Romanian, he might actually say Dracula. Plus, even if he was a sociopath, some 4% of the people are, so if there are 25 entries, then this can be the sociopath icon. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicolaus Olahus

• in one sentence, what did he do?

Michael the Brave

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Constantin Brâncoveanu

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dimitrie Cantemir

• I guess it can pass

Inocenţiu Micu-Klein

• Sure. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexandru Ioan Cuza

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicolae Paulescu

• After reading his article, I am ok with it. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicolae Bălcescu

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicolae Iorga

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mihail Kogălniceanu

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Avram Iancu

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Titu Maiorescu

• Meah, too many people from this period. I would be fine without him. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mihai Eminescu

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ion Luca Caragiale

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Victor Babeș

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicolae Iorga

• Being on a banknote is an automatic pass. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Constantin Brâncuși

• He said he is Romanian so yes. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nicolae Grigorescu

• Sure. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Aurel Vlaicu

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

George Enescu

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Martha Bibescu

• NO! Ignoring wether she was Romanian or not. What did she achieve? Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Henri Coandă

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alexandru Macedonski

• Meah, rather not. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Mihail Sadoveanu

• Ok, one of his novels has a stub article. Still, probably among the rather nots. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Vasile Alecsandri

• Was he on some banknote? If not, I would rather vote no. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Sergiu Nicolaescu

• Sure. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Emil Cioran

• Sure. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Emil Palade

• Sure. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Maria Tănase

• WTF? NONONO! Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Virginia Zeani

• Is she Romanian? Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Nadia Comăneci

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Gheorghe Hagi

• Fine. He actually got awards from FIFA. The only actual issue is that he is Aromanian. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ilie Năstase

• Fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Andreea Răducan

• I think Lavinia Milosovici would be a better choice, but she might not be Romanian? Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Inna

• I am neutral. Personally I would prefer not, but she is really popular on youtube, which makes her among the best known internationally of all the people on this list. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Other candidates

Antonescu

• Due to the Holocaust issues many want to forget about him, but I would say he did have a major impact on today's Romania. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Ceausescu

• Hated, shot, and possibly more notorious than Antonescu. But foreigners heard his name. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Current Romanian researcher

• I am sure somebody reasonably successful could be chosen. Nergaal (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Traian Vuia

• The only negative is that there are already 2 aviation pioneers on here. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Dumitru Prunariu

• Yes, he has only one achievement, but a very limited number of people outside of Russia and US have gone to space. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

John Hunyadi

• Debatable if actually Romanian, but was King of one of the most influential countries at the time. Nergaal (talk)

Mutu

• If Hagi was off, Mutu would probably be better than Chivu. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Cristian Mungiu

• This should be a no-brainer. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Costin Nenițescu

• If a good pic was available, he could be a decent choice of communist-era personalities. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Halep

• If she gets to #1 WTA then she must go on, even if Nastase is already there. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Tiriac

• Richest Romanian should be on here. Nergaal (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)