Jump to content

Talk:Romania/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Religion section

The last two sentences of the first paragraph are problematic. First of all, Orthodox also make the sign of the cross with the right hand, though we reverse the direction of crossing. Whether this is the "most striking detail" a visitor (especially a visitor from a non-Christian country) will notice is questionable. Second, to call the candle stands the "most picturesque detail" is POV--I do find them picturesque, but I and others may well find other parts (iconostasis, painted walls, etc.) of a church building more picturesque.158.143.162.119 22:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Jidn

I think in Romania are living ca 15.000 Jews. But how many are living in zhe capital Bukarest? Is in Romania a region where a lot of Jews are settling? Simon Mayer

According to the 2002 census, there were 6000 Jews in Romania, of which about 2600 in Bucharest, 2000 in Transylvania and 1000 in Moldavia. bogdan 16:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that in Romania are living only 6.000 Jews? I have read that there are living 15.000 Jews!? (It was a very sure information about Romania).

Yes. Here are the official figures regarding "religious affiliation" of the 2002 census, from the National Institute of Statistics. Your figures could be older. The number of Jews in Romania has been plunging mainly due to emigration to Israel (several hundreds of thousands Romanian Jews went there since the 1950s). bogdan 19:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My informations are from 2005. But perhabs you are right.(it´s from Der Weltalmanach , I don´t know witch word used in English. It is a book where all information about all states around the earth are standed.?????)

We'd use "almanac". There is a well known English-language World Almanac and Book of Facts.
I believe the official count of Jews in Romania is probably low. It is based on self-identification, as reported to the census-taker. I personally know at least one Jew in Bucharest who I'm sure tells the census takers he's Romanian (he also took advantage of post-revolution chaos to alter documents about his background). His friends know he's Jewish, but he'd never say that to a government official. I'm sure he's far from the only one. Historically, in Romania, it has not been very safe to be a Jew, and I'm sure my friend is one of many who simply do not want any official government records identifying them as such. - Jmabel | Talk 04:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You're living in the past. No-one cares if people in Ro are Jews. Some Jews just prefer to identify themselves as Ro. Nothing wrong with that. Just look at all the Hungarian Jews who identified themselves as Hungarians. The relations between Ro and Israel are fine. Many Ro work in Israel. I see no conflict here. --Candide, or Optimism 21:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

VAMPIRES

vampires live in romania its true dont revert my edits please--193.13.56.17 11:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

They probably do. But you will still be reverted :-) Alexander 007 11:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Slack citation

"(see the six volumes: CICERONE IONIŢOIU et al., Victimele terorii comuniste. Arestaţi, torturaţi, întemniţaţi, ucişi. Dicţionar. Editura Maşina de scris, Bucureşti, 2000)" This effectively says: "read all six volumes, it's in there somewhere. Oh, and, by the way, you're going to have to read all six volumes in Romanian." This is not useful for verification. -- Jmabel | Talk 19:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Images

There are way too many images in the History section - as interesting as they are, it's starting to ruin the layout of the page. Schizmatic 00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Total Area

From the article: Romania's surface area has changed over the past few decades, generally increasing. The number has increased from about 237,500 square kilometres (91,699 sq mi) in 1969 to 238,391 square kilometres (92,043 sq mi) in 2005 [citation needed].

I could not find a source for the growth in total area. Most other online encyclopedias/atlases use 237,500 sq km (91,699 sq mi). Instead of changing the figures, I placed the citation needed tag in the infobox and article. Hopefully, somebody has a verifiable source for 238,391 sq km. —MJCdetroit 16:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

238 391 sq km is the oficial surface of Romania. So my guess is that this in the correct number. You can find the data in the book "Enciclopedia Statelor Lumii (2000), Horia C. Matei, Silviu Negut, Ion Nicolae, Caterina Radu, Ed. Meronia, Bucuresti" wroted by professors at the University of Bucharest. I think they should know best. You can find the same data on the official tourism site for Romania http://www.romaniatravel.com/index.php?lng=ro&tree=5 —Madroxana

Romania GDP per capita

The article lists several conflicting values for the Romanian GDP per capita. Though I realize that the numbers simply represent estimates, the divergences are too great to attribute to varying methodology and sources are missing for most numbers. The main economic indicators table lists the GDP per capita (PPP) for 2005 as €8500. Another part of the economy section lists the amount as $9700 which is actually less than the value from the table. The info-box number lists the gdp per capita as $10625 (this value is actually expected to be higher as some months have passed in 2006 during which period the GDP was expected to grow). Nevertheless, the IMF data for 2005 lists Romanian GDP per capita at $7,641 while the CIA factbook places the value at $8300. The values listed in this article seem greatly exaggerated and do not correspond to the data from credible sources. The $10625 data from the info-box seems especially suspicious. The IMF puts the Romanian GDP per capita in '06 at $8,873. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_estimates_for_2006_%28PPP%29 I believe that the CIA factbook figures should replace the dubious estimates found in the article and the info-box value has to be drastically revised. TSO1D 17:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

-- The data in the infobox is definitely wrong. It should be around $8000-9000 (PPP). Check the IMF and CIA sources. (MD 09:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC))


I totally agree with TSO1D. It is very annoying and wrong to constantly change economic Romanian Economic indicators to values that do not correspond to reality. As stated above, 3 different credible sources, IMF, World Bank and CIA calculate a GDP per capita of $7,641 (for 2005), $8190 (for 2004) and 8400(for 2006). Now clearly, regardless of the methodology used, Romanian GDP per capita ranges between $7500-$8500 and is WAY below the $11,000 value that some people persistently use. They tell us it is the official Romanian Government data. This sounds like a joke, because a government always tries to make things look better than they actually are. Besides that, what really counts is what credible organizations say and not the Romanian Government. Last but not least, everyone who knows some basic economics can understand that there is a BIG difference between a country with GDP per capita of $8000 and a country having a GDP per capita of $11,000 and Romania clearly is not the $11,000 case. Myway

yes, I agree with you, there is no way to Romania have a GPD/capita of 11,000$, 'cause everybody knows what's tha situation there. The thing that is annoying is why the Romanian Government is not a credible source? I mean, is the "organization" that knows all about Romania. I personally think that the Romanian GPD/capita doesn't exceeds 10,000. Actually why somebody removed the 10,025 $? It was ok there for months.

NorbertArthur 7 April 2006

I wish I could at least see a figure presented by the Romanian government. I looked on various sites but could not find the government estimate for the GDP per capita by PPP. On the official statistics site I could find the value of the present GDP but this is not enough for figuring out the PPP. Their link to that did not work. If someone has a source to that information I will be thankful. TSO1D 14:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


I just noticed that the IMF has issued the final figures for 2005. For Romania, the data are:

total (PPP): $ 190,760 Million (44th)
per cap (PPP): $ 8,785 (67th)

Greetings, MD 10:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Romania and the WWII

What was exactly the role of Romania during WWII? Did Romania influenced the War in closing it quicker?

I don't really understand your question. Are you unfamiliar with its involvement in the war? Initially Romania fought on the side of the Axis powers and in a way this might have prolonged the war by aiding the advance of the Axis forces towards the East. By 1944, however Antonescu was brought down and Romania fought for the allies and this might have helped accelerate the end of the war. What the overall effect of Romania's involvement was is a subjective quetion and I don't believe that a definite answer can exist.TSO1D 18:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Rank 69th for GPD/capita???

Guys, there are two countries which shares the same rank on GPD per capita, Romania and Bulgaria. What's this???

NorbertArthur 7 Aprilie 2006

Cable TV subscription

In Romania, as a developed country of EU has an estimated cable television subscription base of up to 3.3 million, the fifth largest in Europe.--StabiloBoss 15:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Economic Indicators, Again

I must say that this page is a textbook example of Wikipedia's flaws. 6-7 months after I've posted my comment about the overwhelming bullshitness (pardon the language) of the economic indicators, and nobody tried to edit them. Not even the economic forecast commision under the management of the Romanian state couldn't come up with such overbloated fantasies. It was probably an overpatriotic Romanian trying to paint a rosier picture than the plain reality. Going to try and edit/remove some of them. Pirlinho 16:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2006? Sommet de la Francophonie?

You'd better stick wit the floods. It is irrelevant (and it is going in the naive idea that world is going faster than ever). I could just delete it, but I want first to address this past-and-future-ignoring problem which is also affecting Bucharest.--Luci_Sandor  05:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Section "Romanian heads of state (from the Unification of 1859)"

Do you think this is needed on the main article for Romania? I would expect it to be in a separate article, currently it simply interrupts the text w/o too much of a usefull information on the subject. Yuzz 23:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Romanians from Moldova want to unite with Romania

Romanians from Moldova want to unite with Romania for 2 reasons:

  • economical

As an EU member Romania attracts young people from Moldova to work for better wages. Now, the difference between Romania and Moldova are as high as 5 times. In Romania wages are around 500 € while in Moldova only 100 €.

  • cultural

A Moldovan identity doesn't exist. There is now a stronger unification movement that supports a future re-union. All political parties are becoming EU-Romania friendly

Too many pictures

There is an overabundance of pictures in the history section. In one area there are six pictures for five lines of text. These pictures are not even relevant to the text and only make reading more difficult. My view is that in the history section, the emphasis should be on useful maps and diagrams, whereas most images should be moved to the gallery section. TSO1D 17:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And many of them no-source copyvios... bogdan 18:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I know. They even added a photo of the world trade center, as if that's something to be impressed by. And check the Bucharest article where they added photos of some club and a chick dancing. Haha! Buta Bucharestneans. --Candide, or Optimism 18:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio's

At least two of the pictures on the site (both posted by NorbertArthur) are copivio's and should be removed at once (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oradeapanorame.750px.jpg - labled Oradea - claims to be in the public domain, however, on the site claimed as source, the copyrights are clearely assigned to a Stetco Bogdan with all rights reserved, while the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Danube-delta._07.750pix.jpg is copyrighted to Tatiana Murzin - again all rights reserved). --Xanthar 12:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Relations?

How does Romania relate to the rest of the outside world? I came here looking for info on Romanian foreign relations, but couldn't find such info (if it is in the article at all). Could someone with more knowledge on the subject please insert a section on Romanian foreign relations?

Try Foreign relations of Romania TSO1D 02:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments

Please note that my latest edit on this (not the last at this time because of a vandal and a rev), along with previous changes by an anonymous contributor, push estimates for population and density in the infobox, as opposed to the previous numbers extracted from census data. Please comment on whether the edits are appropriate. --Gutza T T+ 00:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Romanian Diaspora to Latin America?

people I've a question, I extracted this from the spanish version:

La mala situación económica también ha provocado la emigración: se calcula que desde 1986 unos 400.000 rumanos han abandonado su país con destino a Alemania y Hungría preferentemente, además de España, Italia, Chile y Argentina.

Translation:

Economical situation has provocated emigration: since 1986 about 400.000 romanians have left their country, their main destination are Germany and Hungary, also Spain, Italy, Chile and Argentina. I'm Argentinian and I've never heard about this, thats why Im asking you to confirm this information. Marting00

population estimates

Someone keeps putting the CIA World Factbook figure, which is an outlier compared to other reputable sources for population estimates. Here are figures for various sources:

Romania has had negative population growth rate since 1990 and is highly unlikely to suddenly jump up to 22.3 million. I think for consistency, we should use the UN figure which is what the List of countries by population uses. Polaron | Talk 20:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Herodotus & Romanians

Herodotus of Halicarnassus (Greek: Ἡρόδοτος, Herodotos) was a historian who lived in the 5th century BC (484 BC-ca. 425 BC). He is known for writing The Histories, a collection of stories on different places and peoples he learned about through his travels. It includes the conflict between Greece and Persia.

What do you know about his writings on romanians/dacians/thracians? --Preacher, or Princelet 20:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Independence day

I'm not pushing monarchists here, but the declaration of independence should be set to May 9, 1877. This is the date when Kogalniceanu read it in the parliament. Dpotop 12:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Romania: Consolidated Budget Revenues at €9.23 bln in Jan-April '06

14:55 - 01 June 2006 - Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance.


The country's spending in the first four months of 2006 stood at 29.2 bln lei (€8.27 bln), which is 9.1% of the country's GDP. Tax on profit generated 3.1 bln lei (€877.9 mln) of the country's consolidated state budget revenue during the reported period, while collection of income tax generated 2.8 bln lei (€792.9 mln), value added tax (VAT) contributed 8.1 bln lei (€2.29 bln) and excise tax generated 2.9 bln lei (€821.28 mln) of the total.

The Romanian Government had initially envisaged a budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP for 2006, which increased to 0.9% of GDP after the first budget revision in April 2006.


Source: http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 --212.227.101.15 13:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

So GDP is 92,30 Billion EURO in 2006. --212.227.101.15 13:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I reverted my work of one day for references. I hope in the future one should be more careful in reverting. --212.227.101.15 18:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that these are reliable sources and can be taken into account.--GDP 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Guys, the GPD/capita in Romania is over 10.000$, for the simpple fact that Romania is experincieng an economical boom, and the GPD rised enormly in th epast few years. Personally I approved GPD's figures.

I am simply using the '05 IMF data like virtually all other countries do. If you can provide the updated IMF data or sourced data from another credible source I will agree to the change but don't just randomly choose a number and substitute it in. I don't see how Romania's GDP can be above 10000 as it was lower than 8800 at the end of 2005 and it's growing at roughly 5 percent. At this rate it would be $9240 dollars at the end of 2006. For it to be above 10000 at the end of this year, it must be growing at a rate of 14% per annum which is simply impossible .Vox Populi (TSO) 22:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That's because you don't take into account the strong appreciation of RON. If you see that at the end of the year it will be 1 Euro=3 RON you'll see even more bigger GDP. --GDP 07:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Vox Populi here. 92.3 billion euro (~120 billion USD) is even less than the 191 billion USD already listed in List of countries by GDP (PPP) for 2005. Please use only official sources for statistical data. Polaron | Talk 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

PPP GDP and Nominal GDP

Guys, you don't know economics. GDP expressed as nominal GDP is 92.3 billion euro (~120 billion USD) and the PPP GDP as expressed in PURCHASING POWER PARITY is 240 Billion Euro. --GDP 07:49, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The main point is that the figures you are citing have not been confirmed by other organizations. Statistics like these should only come from reliable sources. Polaron | Talk 14:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.mfinante.ro/venituri.htm Official sources, and latest one directly from taken from the ministery of finance from Romania. --GDP 16:44, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
So, all the above information was correct. Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance.
The country's spending in the first four months of 2006 stood at 29.2 bln lei (€8.27 bln), which is 9.1% of the country's GDP.
Tax on profit generated 3.1 bln lei (€877.9 mln) of the country's consolidated state budget revenue during the reported period, while collection of income tax generated 2.8 bln lei (€792.9 mln), value added tax (VAT) contributed 8.1 bln lei (€2.29 bln) and excise tax generated 2.9 bln lei (€821.28 mln) of the total.
The Romanian Government had initially envisaged a budget deficit of 0.5% of GDP for 2006, which increased to 0.9% of GDP after the first budget revision in April 2006.
So GDP is 92,30 Billion EURO in 2006.
Should we keep old data? No, we should keep the new data, official from Romanian Government. --GDP 16:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, GDP, we will use the IMF data from '05 as that is the best credible source, at least for GDP per capita. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

No. We will use the latest data, it's more credible the official one of the Romanian Governemnt than the one from IMF. You trust more an organization 10,000 miles away from Bucharest? That's sound bias from me. --GDP 17:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, do you have a source that shows that the GDP per capita PPP of Romania was above $10k? Don't flood this page with other indicators, just provide a source for this number. The IMF source does and CIA factbook does and the numbers are relatively close and around $8600, I don't know where you got your numbers and don't just say the Romanian government like you did in the past. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are. --GDP 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Look Bonaparte, I am not trying to make any of these two countries look bad, I just want to include credible information from the IMF, CIA, Worldbank, or other sources. The numbers you provided are simply not rational and you know it. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Look Vox Populi, you should accept the official data provided from the official governmental sources. You can trust those data and you know it. They are very rational and you know it. GDP 17:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
That GDP per capita data is obviosly not from the Romanian government. The Finance Ministry employs competent people who would never fabricate such non-sense. Stop trying to give your data some legitimacy by claiming that it stemms from the Romanian government, because it does not and you cannot provide a single source linking the Rom gov to the GDP per cap data. Vox Populi (TSO) 17:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Man you're in bad faith... http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 see here http://www.reporter.gr/fulltext_ENG.cfm?id=60601145531 what does it says? That the GDP is 92 Billion Euro as expressed as nominal GDP. How come? It cite an official source that I've found here: http://www.mfinante.ro/venituri.htm. So, stop telling me that this info is not good and is not given by Romanian Government because it's from the official web site of Romanian Governement. --GDP 17:48, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep giving the link of the Finance Ministry that discusses "PRINCIPALELE VENITURI BUGETARE" or Principal Sources of Revenue??? I am asking you where exactly you found the $10,900 GDP per capita value from because it is not found on any of those Greek sites you gave. Do you even know what the GDP per capita is?Vox Populi (TSO) 17:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Man you're again in bad faith...you either don't know English or you just annoy me. Romania collected revenues of 32.6 bln lei (€9.23 bln) to the consolidated state budget in the first four months of 2006, accounting for 10.1% of the country's GDP, said the Romanian Ministry of Finance. You can compute the GDP. That's the nominal GDP. --GDP 18:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Initial figures (even official ones) are always adjusted after the end of a fiscal year. Let's not use preliminary figures because they can change. Also, all other country articles use IMF figures for GDP data in their infoboxes. Put a link in the Economy section to this report if you want but please leave the infobox to the standard figure used throughout Wikipedia. Polaron | Talk 18:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

When I will find the document from the www.europa.eu I will modify accordingly, however the GDP in nominal data can be used without any restrictions. --GDP 18:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I told you repeated times that I am not talking about the nominal data, although I find it strange to find those values indirectly from a proportion regarding other economic indicators rather than finding the value directly on some official source. But I am mainly talking about the GDP per capita and my point is that unless you can provide another source that directly states what the GDP per capita in PPP is, do not change that category. Vox Populi (TSO) 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protected

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

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

Yes, agreed. The previous figure for GDP for approx. $9400, which is the 2006 estimate. I think it may be better to insert that figure. But $10,000+ is clearly incorrect and serves no purpose. Ronline | Today, solidarity and hope 03:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
It's Bonny as usual, coming with his bs. --Candide, or Optimism 05:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Bonnie was going even higher by the time he was blocked. Look at one his last statements on the topic: "You can compute very easily the GDP in Purchasing Power Standards: 11551 EURO." In the past he was more harmless, just adding Romanian instead of Moldovan once in while, but now he's involved in intensive vandalism, inserting his strange figures and maps into roughly 12 articles. Vox Populi (TSO) 14:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you compute PPP GDP when nominal GDP is 4500 Euro? 93 Billion EURO/22 millions romanians? --193.109.91.134 17:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
PPP GDP is not per capita GDP, it is purchasing power parity GDP. - Jmabel | Talk 04:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, he's getting more vocal. I have nothing against adding Romanian instead of Moldovan. But I see that now he's interested in a whole other array of topics, even economics. Boni, you really have too much time on your hands. Don't you have a Ph.D. to study for? Constantzeanu 18:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

It's out of copyright. It's older than 1940 (or, if we take the literary period... before the WWII). So... I see there's no problem in posting contents of the book. As well, for insurance, u can put a copyright with the name of the book and all the dates. ;) D39 11:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)D39
Yes, I do have it, too, and it falled into public domain. I've been thinking about digitizing it to make a nice CD and sell it, but it's a lot of work for one person (4 thick volumes). :) BTW, it's commonly referred to as the "Gusti encyclopedia", not the "Royal encyclopedia". Dpotop 11:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha. The Gusty Enc... COOL! This is the best ever made romanian Enc. (alongside with the Minerva Enciclopedia). Take very much care of it! ;) And... abt the idea of digitalization... dunno, what to say. To take some parts of it... I understand, but to SELL the whole book... I think it's illegal. D39
It's not illegal. Once one book is in public domain, anyone can digitize it and sell this digitized version. There's no GPL on it, once in public domain, you know. :) I also presume (I'm not sure) that you can place a copyright on the digitized version. Dpotop 13:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Aha. Well... do as u think. If u do it... let us know, ok? I'm interested in that. Good luck!D39 12:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)D39

Iaşi's population

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

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

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

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

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

Arthur, I would also be skeptical in giving preference to any other source other than the official census data when describing the population of a place. You have to understand that the census takers and analysts are professionals who have taken into account all the data that they have accumulated. And considering the number of people choosing to leave the country for permanent or temporary work in other parts, the numbers do not even appear that unexpected. TSO1D 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It is true that the population of Romania may have risen, or at least dropped less, since the 2002 census (or most likely since 2004) but sadly enough we have no better data for these cities then the one in the 2002 census.Dapiks 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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

We could also count the turist in constanta... during the summer, at any time there are more than 350,000 people in constanta, even if they are not the same 350,000 every week ;) Anonimu 20:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't think tourists are ever counted in statistics when somebody talks about population. -- AdrianTM 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
As for this kind of arguments "There's no way that the population of Braşov or Constanţa for example drop in space of 2-3 years about 50-60 000" you ignore that many people left Romania temporarily or for ever, emigration can easily explain that drop. -- AdrianTM 20:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that most of the ones who left temporarily still show up in statistics. Anonimu 21:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
They should, but they won't if they are not there to be counted during the census. -- AdrianTM 22:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

suggested addition to tourism section

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

suggested addition to section on political parties

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


New right is an organisation, not a party.

Yup. Noua Dreapta is a nationalist organisation.

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

Salariile romanilor in 2008 / English: Wages of romanians in 2008

12 iunie 2006

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

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

Diferente mai mici intre regiuni/Smaller differences between regions

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

Cele mai semnificative cresteri, in vest

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

Mai putini someri

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

Topul salariilor, pe regiuni 12 Iunie 2006 Alexandru Gugoasa

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



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

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

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

Capitala, responsabila de deficit

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

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

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

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

Populatia ocupata creste

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

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

Mai putini someri

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

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

File:Graf pag 12.jpg

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

That's pretty good stuff; can we add this map along with this data? Dapiks 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe so as long as we mention the source. --Brasoveanul 06:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Then we should put this in the article. It's really good infoDapiks 23:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest GDP

Bucharest spearheads economic growth Ciprian Domnisoru



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

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

Transylvania "annexed to Romania by force"

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

It's strange that nobody caught that yet. I checked and it turns out that a Hungarian by the name of Mashu pushed his POV here but no one saw this because at that point a certain user... was changing the economic data. TSO1D 16:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Despite popular opinion, Transylvania did not willingly become a part of Romania, regardless of ethnicity. Today, after 87 years of "re-unification" a significant number of us Transylvanians (Romanian, Saxon, Hungarian, and Svab) would prefer to be independent, autonomous, and free. 08/18/06
Oh I think it's perfect that way. It had been forced upon them to "join" all right. Of course my opinion has nothing to do with the fact that I'm a Hungarian. It's a sheer fact. The territory belongs to Romania now, that's not in question here.
Good point. It's ours now, and the locals haven't formulated any requests to become independent (apart from the minorities who really don't matter in the grad scheme of things). But truth remains, Transilvania was Hungaria's for ~850 years. During that time, the Romanian **majority** made countless requests for equal rights, some form of local government, and finally outright independence and unification with Romania (see 1848, "Petitunea Nationala" and "Printipiurile noastre pentru reformarea patriei"). You can say they annexed forcibly after the First World War, but it's not like they hadn't asked for it! If memory serves, they actually formed a council and voted for unification. Scvalex 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Freedom is priceless. Szabadság most!!
And what's this talk about freedom? The local administration is in Hungarian, local schools teach in Hungarian, there's even a state-funded Hungarian university. They have the same rights as all other Romainian citizens. You have as much freedom in Romania as you would have in any other half-civilised country. Scvalex 09:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Romania's GPD, again

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

Well, I think what's happening is that a lot of countries are picking and choosing what sources suits them best. The Czechia article uses World Bank data, which give rank 41, as opposed to IMF (rank 46 for Czechia) and CIA Factbook (rank 44). Romania's GDP is higher than Czechia according to all but the World Bank, which, however, places Romania at rank 42. The Romania article lists a GDP of $204.4 billion, which is the IMF estimate for 2006. Romania's rank for 2005 IMF is actually 44th (in front of Czech 46th). For World Bank, Romania's rank is 42nd (behind Czech 41st). Ronline ✉ 23:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
GDP per capita tells you more than GDP for the whole country. Who cares that Romania has a higher GDP when per capita it's like in Bangladesh?
Well GDP per capita is not like Bangladesh. Romania is an upper-middle income country, while Bangladesh is low-income. Romania's GDP per capita (PPP) is $9400 while Bangladesh's is closer to $2000. In nominal terms, the difference is even larger. You fail to see it? Ronline ✉ 06:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, size matters. This is why India is important worldwide, and Luxemburg is not. Dpotop 12:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any problem here. Both total and per capita GDP are indicated in the article. I haven't checked the sources, but PPP data (as in the infobox) are usually considered a good means to compare different economies. --KIDB 13:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Seventh largest in EU?

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

Culture section

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

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

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

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

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

ARIS predictions

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

Please expand

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

History of Romania

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

I think this is unnecessary nitpicking. I think it would be too wordy and strange "History of the present territory of Romania in the Dark Ages" not to forget that this would ignore that Romanians existed before 1878. I would be for changing to "History of Romanians" but this would screw up Dacia history and would change the focus of the article -- AdrianTM 21:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is nitpicking. Prior to the official recognition of the Kingdom of Romania as a state it would be inaccurate to refer to the people inhabiting the region as Romanian. Vlach, Moldovan, etc. would be more accurate. Just as with Canada. There are many references in historical documents to "les canadiens" but prior to 1867 it is relavent only to distinguish the French colonists of North America from the rest of the population. Even after the Conquest, the term Canadian did not have any real ethnic or political relevance until 1867. As far as the history of Dacia goes and the impact that this position would have on it, the history of Dacia and the whole continuity theory is highly contentious. Given the revisionist and irredentist position of most Hungarian and Romanian "scholars" I would call into question any references cited by either group (wasn't communism wonderful??)08/18/06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.195.26 (talk • contribs)
In general, we do more or less the same with most European countries. - Jmabel | Talk 17:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Bucharest & tourism

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

Trivia in lead

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

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


Please nominate for good article tag

Hi all,

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

Cedars 15:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Very opinionated

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

Economy of Romania - GDP is 95 Billion Euro for 2006

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

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

Culture of Romania

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

Only that's not the first thing that comes to mind when I think about "culture". It's also not Romanian culture, it's world "culture". -- AdrianTM 18:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
:It isn't really Romanian at all - it just happened that Transylvania was used as the location of the fictional "Dracula" character (regardless of the fact that the Count Dracula of horror legend is obviously influenced by Vlad III the Impaler... it's still not Romanian in origin) The Incredible Moo 09:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (signed now that I have a login)


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

Long article, very long history section

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

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

Dubious Numbers for Wages

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

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

POV about Securiate and events after 1989

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

The deleted fragment

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

So what? (unfortunately)They didn't apply Communist theory anymore.Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
So what? So, you do acknowledge that they took power again. It's not a conspiracy theory anymore then, it becomes fact.Fsol

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

Implying that Securitate had a very important role in the events is a conspiracy thoery.Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, it is a conspiracy, but so was the Jewish Shoa. A conspiracy against Jews, should we not speak about it in Wikipedia? Fsol
Stop this comparation of those events with the Holocaust. There's nothing similar. Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
It is very similar, because Romanians were to victims of a genocide, only we didn't but our oppressors to trial yet, because they were the ones who took power when a trial could have been made. Fsol
Yes of course.. if i'd recommend psychiatric counselling i'm breaking wiki's civility policy? Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
When you are faced with the lack of arguments you find insults comforting...Don't worry I won't "report" you to wikipedia or anything by using this kind of language you are discrediting yourself enough.Fsol
It wasn't an insult.It was just a counsel. And i still recommend you to do it... Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Yes they were mineriads, but the fact that the miners attacked the opposition parties because the then governing party told them to is still a theory. From what i know they may have attacked them because the manipulators that staged the anti-democratic protest (since they opposed the results of a demcratic vote) took refuge there. Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Again you are right in your reasoning. But there are some facts which deny the possibility you speak of. During the Mineriades the house of opposition leader Ion Ratiu was vandalised and 10000$ were stolen by a group of coal miners led by a person in a police jacket. Ion Ratiu sued the Ministry of Interior of the time and during trial the person recognised had admitted he "was under orders". The trial was won by Ratiu and no appeals were made.Fsol
I have my doubts about ratiu too. A man who lived 50 years in UK suddenly comes back (with lots of wealth) and puts up a mass demonstration after he doesn't win the presidency...Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are free to have your doubts about anybody, but the fact is that Ratiu won the trial intended to the Ministry of Interior after the mineriads which show that the State was coordinating the miners and was engaging in attacks against the opposition. So the conspiracy theory isn't just a theory anymore.Fsol
First, i don't know what you're about this, so i'll have to believe your word. Second, if some guy received some orders, this doesn't mean a governmental conspiracy. Should we blaim queen Elizabeth II and the UK for what some british soldiers did to iraqi prisoners? Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
No, but Tony Blair and a few Ministers did apologize. The close involvement of the 1989 authorities in the mineriade's isn't proven by just one man working under orders, there are several other facts pointing this out. As you well know Iliescu is filmed while telling them what to do, and also a lot of state infrastructure was made available to the miners to come promptly to Bucharest.Fsol
It was just an electoral scheme. You really think they care about some iraqis? You haven't still pointed to those facts that should prove the involvement of the gvt. In the video, Iliescu is thanking them and telling them to go to stop the street war. You can't prove he told them to kill people or destroy the opposition. And did i deny that miners we're called by the elected power to Bucharest? Please read my version (the NPOV one). Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

You mean Marius Oprea, the one who didn't receive the ORNISS certificate (a certificate that proves you didn't have relations to the former secret services, and you don't currently have relations with current foreign or national security services)? I have doubts about what he writes. Anyway, if you could bring proves from his books, we could put them as references. And about Dosariada, until now, the two biggest fishes caught were PNL members (an opposition historical party in 1990). So there goes the myth of pure historical party destroyed by the big Securitate. Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Again you are partially right. Marius Oprea wasn't given the ORNIS certificate by the same security services he fights to democratise. What you don't say about him is that he had been awarded the highest distinction of trust of the Romanian State (ordinul serviciu credincios cu gradul de comandor). So if he didn't receive the ORNIS certificate (which he did not receive without any explanation) it means he must not be worthy of the distinction he has. In a show 100% on realitatea tv he addressed this very issue. The fact that you have doubts about what he writes is fine with me, I don't imply everything he says is true, but it is heavily documented. Fsol
If i remeber right he was given that decoration by the president "defeated by the secret services". Remember Vadim also has some high decoration. Should we trust all the things he "discloses" on OTV or Nasu'? How can it be heavyly documented when he doesn't have acces to the archives? Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying that his distinction means everything he says is true. But it does mean he is not a foreign agent as you implied he was. "If i remember right", so you knew about it? You knew he had the distinction and that he wasn't given the ORNIS certificate, but chose not to speak about it... very honest of youFsol
I didn't consider the fact that he received a distinction important for the subject. As i said, Vadim received one too.
You didn't consider important speaking about a distinction of trust you knew the man had when insinuating he was a spy? "Vadim received one too", again I tell you I am not implying these distinctions are a guarantee of truth.Fsol
A distinction is not a sign of trust! the president has the right to give distinction to everyone he wants. this doesn't mean he trusts the person. So let's get back to the subject. Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Again, I agree, the Dosariada revealed one member of PNL, who is now being excluded. But that just stands to prove Oprea's theory, that the Securitate has infiltrated a lot of political parties. I am the first one to say there are still former Securitate members in PNL and PD, such as Melescanu. But the main Securitate composed parties are the PSD and the PRM. The leader of the PRM has not made a secret of his involvment with the Securitate "I was and am serving my country", I am not judging, I am just quoting the PRM president. Fsol
Who are you to judge what party has more members of the pre 1989 regime in it? Do you have a database of them? Just because a member of a party admited he worked for the Securitate doesn't mean that all party memebrs did. Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, just because one did doesn't mean they all did. But when all the leading members are famous for their cooperation with the ex-political police, and when the party leader publicly states he is wiling to receive any members thrown out of a party as a result of their work in the Securitate, one can reasonably assume that party is inclined towards the Securitate. Fsol
What leading members are famous for their collab with the former Securitate? If you know something that we don't know and you have proofs, you'd better go to the CNSAS. What can one "reasonably asume" could be said in a forum, not in an encyclopedia. And anyway, if you collaborated with the Securitate it means you're bad? Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
On what database? The only one which exists is only now being opened! Don't you think this is the least bit odd? I mean, I'm not telling you what to think. But don't you find it any bit bizarre that a people which is supposed to have suffered under Communism enough to revolt against it decides to just forget everything about it for the next 16 years? Think about it, if you are a true Communist wouldn't you want those who committed their crimes in the name of Communism to be brought to trial? I can see why in today’s society you would want to be a Communist, but don't you think you have a better chance of ever getting your ideas through if the previous false Communists are unmasked? But well this is really not the issue. The issue is saying what is most accurate in a serious encyclopaedia, and as an other user said what you consider to be a POV is "crucial to the understanding of the actual situation of Romania". It is a conspiracy, one acknowledged by former Presidents (Emil Constantinescu), by the current President, Traian Basescu and by other political figures.Fsol
Sincerely, I don't think this "Dosariada" is needed. It's just a political instrument in the hands of Basescu. How come he jumped over 20 categories of people who should be verified (including he, his counseillors and the current governmental structure) and decided the ones to be verified should be the priests? And i don't think there's a better chance, since the media and the post 1992 gvts have demonized communism, without saying that the form applied in Romania was a degenerated one. And anyway , i put a NPOV version, without conspiracy theories. Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
You are obviously avoiding the issue by speaking of the "Dosariada", which by the way is adding proof to what you call "the conspiracy theory".Fsol
WTF? man, you're ... You suffer of amnesia or something? Does "Nowadays in Romania there is a campaign against these Communist remnants which is called the Dosariada" sound familiar to you? Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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

It doesn't explain nothing. It's just a conspiracy theory. And anyway you aren't more objective than me, since you said you were attacked by those miners. So i'd say you're much more biased and prone to accept conspiracy theories. Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, now I really see where you are going. The same would go for the Jewish people, who, from your theory are biased when speaking about the Holocaust. If I am a Jew that has had family murdered by National Socialists then I should not be able to speak about it for I am un-objective. Fsol
There are serious studies of Holocaust written by non-Jews and there are full archives of documents that proven it. But untill now there's no study about the post 1989 events written by a neutral person. Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Why isn't Marius Oprea a neutral person? Did you at any point try to read any of his books just to see if it is biased? Several times he says in his books he doesn't know if a person or an other was a member of the Securitate.Fsol
Why? Because he begins with a theory and then he tries to prove it. This might work in physics but in history it can result only in a biased view on the events. Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
If he did do this, you would be right, but he doesn't. If you want to convince yourself read the book "Mostenitorii Securitatii"Fsol

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

Ask any wikipedian who knows something about contemporaneous romanian history if it's POV or not.Anonimu 08:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Except you I don't know any wikipedian. You should ask yourself this: If a conspiracy theory is true should one not speak about it in a serious encyclopaedia.Fsol
Oxymoron! Anonimu 12:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Still the question stands, if there are facts showing a conspiracy theory is not just a theory, shouldn't a serious encyclopaedia speak about it?Fsol
What are those facts?!? Anonimu 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
I have been stating them over and over. What do you think happened to the Securitate after 1989? Why a people desperate enough to make a revolution failed to open the political police's archive for 16 years? Why hasn't anybody been prosecuted for the crimes committed in Communism?Fsol
You didn't state nothing. You just stated some fact that, interpreted in a certain way, may give a hint about a governmental directed action. This is a typical conspiracy theory. An important part of the Securitate naturally was merged with SRI (you can't create new secret services from nothing); the rest went in private business or were pensioned off. Not all the Securitate action were political police... Why nobody has been prosecuted? I don't know the english term, but in romanian: au fost prescrise. Anonimu 07:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

This fragment can be seen here. - Fsol


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

I can't understand why you people try to motivate facts by some conspiracy theories.. there are 3 cases : (1) all the ipss , User:Fsol and User:Ghita are the same person (should i request a checkuser?).. (2) all these people know about those events only what they've heard from members of the opposition, tabloids and and other sources of conspiracy theory (OTV, DDTV etc) (3) these are all members of a party opposing psd. Anonimu
Oh! I have been unmasked... Good job inspector Anonimu the internet is once again a safe place! Oh and I forgot not only am I also an other user I am also a secret imperialist agent sent to this site in order to destabilize the true fight of the people for equality! I thought I could fool you Anonimu, but you were too smart for me and the agencies I work for.
Thanks, but as a former Securitate officer it's my patriotic duty to cover up operations, deny any involvement and demonize people who say otherwise. Anonimu 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
(1) All the ips except one are not mine. The one that is mine appears because I didn't log in (I'm not using a personal computer). Your wit unmasked my terrible secret!
So what are you using... You edited from your ip at 11,12,13,16,17,22,23... you must be living in a internet cafe... Anonimu 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
(2) I forgot you knew everything I know about the subject and also every source I have...You don't know the identity of each user and thus you can't know what their sources are. Exactly in the same way you say people are mislead you could be mislead.
God speaks to me so i know everything and i can't be mislead. And anyway unsourced afirmations shouldn't be in wikipedia. Anonimu 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
(3) "these are all members of a party opposing psd" LOL I have never been a party member in my entire life, but you don't know that. All you can do is say that I was so you can discredit the things I say without using any arguments. Like Communists and Nazis did.
Man, i'm a prophet of the masses and a former Securitate officer... of course i know. And about your last afirmation, capitalist , imperialist, liberals... you know... everybody's doing it. Anonimu 17:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
You just accuse people of doing stuff or of being things which they aren't and for which of course you have absolutely no proof. Just like Vadim or Becali. No arguments just personal attacks… I really hoped on wiki to find users that debated through arguments and not through personal attacks.
Nu v'ar fi rusine obrazului... Cand o sa ajung la putere (si o sa ajung, ca in sondaju secret facut de presedintie sunt pe primul loc, ma dane) in 24 de ore o sa bag toti mafiotii ca tine din tara care au furat din averea poporului roman asta in puscarie. Cat credeti ca va va mai suporta poporul roman?
The deleted fragment contains fact-based informations which are crucial to the understanding of the actual situation of Romania.
Simply deleting this fragment doesn't appear to be the best idea.
A better approach would be to reformulate the fragment under discussion.
I made an attempt to rephrase it, adding facts in chronological order.
I definitely support the idea of avoiding virulent assessment in encyclopedias, but you cannot prevent calling a pig, a pig.
Better than starting editing wars, users with a better command of English should help to improve this fragment.

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

No. It contains supposition-based informations that are still to be proven. Conspiracy theories shouldn't be rephrased, but promptly deleted from a serious encyclopedia. Anonimu 11:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania/Archive_4&oldid=1137162699"