Talk:Romania

Qz.com article as a source

I have removed the phrase that is sourced from the qz.com article because:

1. Nowhere in the article does the author call Romania a developing country (which is an euphemism for third world). Such a statement is a WP:REDFLAG: it requires exceptional sources, and, again: this source does not support it.
2. For the other part of the statement, qz.com may be a valid outlet, but the article focuses on something other than the statement. It'a about the country's potential for tech startup (not something that one could say about a developing country, is it?). As a reader, when I go to read the source of a statement, I expect it to expand on it and help me understand where it's coming from and what's behind it. Do I get that here? I certainly don't.
3. Also, the statement needs a bit (OK, a lot) more nuance: saying a country is "one of the poorest in the European Union" is a bit like saying that someone is "the poorest resident of Monte Carlo". EU doesn't really have poor countries if you look at them from a global perspective. Indeed, just last year Romania itself was evaluated as having a very high Human Development Index (which basically means it's in the top quarter of the best developed countries in the world). So are we really talking about a poor developing country? Sure, at EU level, Romania is lagging behind in terms of certain indicators, but as wiki-/encyclopedians, we have to come out and say exactly that.

Bottom line, the sourcing of that statement is superficial at best, way below what a statement in a would-be GA should be, so it's not improving anything. If one reads the paragraph without it, one actually gets better information than with it. - Andrei (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

So, two seconds later, what happens? Anon reverts _again_, this time with another URL that's just thrown there. No title, no author, nothing, just an URL. An URL to Google Books where s/he obviously searched for the phrase "Romania developing country". The query string is right there. Seems that to him/her this statement is a purpose in itself. - Andrei (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Romania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170309232753/http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/RomaPM.html to http://www.shsu.edu/~his_ncp/RomaPM.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518065900/http://infomm.ro/ro/detalii/in-maramures-aproape-31-000-ucraineni-petrec-sarbatorile-de-iarna to http://infomm.ro/ro/detalii/in-maramures-aproape-31-000-ucraineni-petrec-sarbatorile-de-iarna
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.zf.ro/zf-ehttp://www.kirinholdings.co.jp/english/news/2009/1221_01.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080821132810/http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/romania.htm to http://ucblibraries.colorado.edu/govpubs/for/romania.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Formation section in the Infobox

The article on Romania is probably the only one that has such an extended "Formation" section in its infobox, to the extent that most of that information is not related in any way to the formation of Romania as a nation state in the 19th and 20th centuries. The connection with the Kingdom of Dacia is especially borderline manipulative, and seems to be influenced by Romanian historiography, rather than Anglo-Saxon or international one. I recommend that only dates related to the foundation of the Romanian nation state and the creation of the modern regime in the aftermath of the Revolution should be kept in the infobox. Cipika (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2017

Dear Wikipedia editor, Please take out the Anthem from Romania page Description - it does not represent our spirituality- romanian nation has awaken long time before-it was just put into fear Thank you Roxannemikaelamarin (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2018

I would like to add the population as if 2018 wich is currently 19,580,634 inhabitants; BoboG (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Is Romania a developing country with a very high HDI?

Given that Romania scores a "very high" HDI, doesn't that make it a developed country, as opposed to a developing one as stated in the article?