Talk:Romania/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


The following were anonymously added to the talk page Aug 2005 along with some obvious copyvios. These seem short enough not to be worth tracking as possible copyvios, but not useful, so I am archiving - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)


Romania is a beautiful country nestled between the Danube River and the Black sea at the edge of South East of Central Europe. The country has a long and rich history of culture and commerce stretching back to its proud position as an entry point to the European continent in ancient times. Romania derives its distinct language and name from the Romans who first occupied their land in 105 B.C. Over the last two millenia Romania has continued to be home to a highly diverse population who together are well-known for their kind hearts and indomitable spirit.

Romania is a fertile and beautiful country

Romania is a fertile and beautiful country with a very friendly population, and this is particularly true of Transylvania, the plateau within the arc of the Carpathian Mountains. To the south and east of the Carpathians lie the plains of Wallachia and Moldavia stretching to the Danube and the Ukrainian/Moldavian border. To the north in Transylvania live various ethnic minority groups with lively folk customs and beautiful churches.

Language of the romanians

Romanian is the main language, similar to Italian and Latin. It is relatively easy to pick up the basics and as in most countries any attempt at speaking the local language is much appreciated. English, German and French are the most common foreign languages but also Spanish and Italian.

Bucharest, the capital of ROMANIA

Bucharest is the capital of Romania and its most important city, with a population exceeding 2.6 million. It is a blend of Oriental and Western civilizations, with noisy little streets and remote cafes, crowded beer saloons and cosmopolitan restaurants, with monumental buildings and romantic parks that recall the Parisian air, with a western-like cultural life, with museums and an exuberant nightlife, with numerous clubs and casinos. It is also the most developed capital in South East Europe.

Romania is a beautiful country, and the people very warm, friendly and hospitable

Romania is a beautiful country, and the people very warm, friendly and hospitable. Names like Nadia Comaneci or Constantin Brancusi are now part of the world heritage, but not a lot of people know that they, amongst many others, are Romanians.

Older Comments

A question about spelling: something I had heard is that "Romania" is used to highlight the country's historical links to the Roman Empire, while Rumania is used to highlight its links with the Byzantine Empire. Is this true? If so, then it can be included at some point. Danny

  • Another very small point about how to spell the word "spell". Could you use the past participle as "spelt" rather than "spelled" in the opening description of the name? Although the dictionaries say that either version is acceptable, I would suggest that the former is more common and therefore easier to digest for those of us (from the UK only?) skimming the article. JPF
    • Indeed... "spelled" is US, "spelt" is UK. --L33tminion | (talk) 14:39, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)


It is not true, Rumania is an old version in English for Romania. Bogdan Stanciu

Maybe we should mention that as well, then. In fact, I'll do that now. Jeronimo

Didn't we first use to call our country Rumania, and didn't we at first call ourselves Rumân, instead of Român? I know that our scholars changed it to Romania, later. They looked in previous documents and found that at times, the Wallachians refered to themselves as Roman, and sometimes as Ruman. --Anittas 17:47, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


Just a thing about the wikipedia standard for Romanian places names' of the articles:

  • cities' articles should be named just like the city (like Iaşi), except for international names like Alexandria, Vulcan or Roman which will be named like Vulcan, Romania
  • for villages put after a comma and space, the judet (county) (like Măneşti, Dâmboviţa)
  • No diacriticals in article names (some Romanian diacriticals in URL may cause compatibility problems with older browsers), but the diacriticals should be used as displayed name.


Population data is according to the latest census - please don't change it unless quoting some relevant link. (IulianU)

The pop. data is from I dont know where the area is from. --Jiang 10:48, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Area is quoted from Romania's 2001 Statistical Yearbook: - page 12. Population is from the March 2002 census: (Romanian only) Hope you agree that these sources deserve more credit than the CIA World factbook. (IulianU)

What don't you trust about the CIA's data? How often do they do a census?

once every ten years. CIA updates their figures once every few years. The 2002 census data was available about a year ago, but CIA didn't used it.

It would be inappropriate for us to put in 10 year old data, so we must rely on the estimated figures from the CIA. This is how it is done for all countries. --Jiang 19:45, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The difference of 2.64% is pretty big, so maybe we should start making our own estimations. :-)
Bogdan 20:22, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I agree with Jiang - i think we should use the CIA World Factbook 2003 data for the population and area, due to the fact that it is standardized across all countries. By using the RO census data, we have fairly accurate figures. HOWEVER, if we were to use census data for all countries, then we would get to a point where one country would have population figures from 2002 (their latest census) and another from 1998 (their latest census). In this way, especially to harmonise country populations with the ranking at List of countries by population, it would be best to use 2003 CIA Factbook data. Rronline

So should we turn Wikipedia into a mere replica of the CIA Factbook, just because the latter is (supposedly) 'standardised'? The 2.64% difference in population arises from the fact that said Factbook uses RO population figures from 1992 (!). Jiang: the figures in the Factbook are not estimates, they're simply old data (at least as far as RO is concerned) -- Romania's population has declined steadily over the last 20 years, so a 2.64% increase of population in only one year is highly unlikely. (IulianU)

If the CIA factbook states "2003 est." then it is. I still don't see what's wrong with the CIA factbook. How is the Romanian census right? There's statistical error in that too. --Jiang 19:51, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Actually there is no statistical error in a census, because that's what a census is about: they actually count every single individual ;-) But maybe the CIA actually counted the Romanian pop. on their own and found 600,000 missing persons -- who knows... :) --IulianU
Of course it's impossible to count every single person. Some people just ignore the surveys, fill in two, or run away from the surveyor. I believe in the US, they add some number to the actual number of persons counted. --Jiang 21:40, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Look - I don't want to interfere too much with this, but put it this way - all other countries use CIA Factbook data, RO should too. Also, Wikipedia needs standidization, especially because it uses tables and rankings, etc. CIA Factbook seems to be the norm, it might be innacurate, but it's the norm. The census data is great to use in for other purposes (such as population of minority groups of RO, religions, provincial cities, etc.) but not really for the country. Yes, there is slight error in the census, but, overall, census data is very accurate. Yet still, I think we should use CIA Factbook. -User:Rronline, 29 Oct 2003
Can we use both data specifying the source?

Regarding the Roma population, the expresion "undercounted in national censuses" could be interpreted as an action/policy of the government, which is not true. I added an explication of the fenomenon. MihaiC, 16 Mar 2004

I think this encyclopedia need to be accurate in its statistics, in order to be a serious thing. You may copy/paste from CIA website the information for each country, no more intelectual complications. In this way, every country will obey to the one source of information, the norm. --Vasile 04:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Discussion moved to: MediaWiki talk:EU countries and candidates

Can we please limit the number of navigational bars to 2 or maximum 3? 5 is way too many, especially with such obscure ones like Latin Union. andy 16:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

German is an officialy recognized and promoted minority language, predominantly in the Siebenbürgen region

AFAIK, Romanian is the official language and there are no other officialy recognized languages, except locally, when more than 20% of a town's population speaks a certain language (according to the data from the census), that language becomes automatically official of that place. (ie. education + you should be able to speak that language to the autorities). If you know something else, please say the source. Bogdan | Talk 19:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I also didn't understand that he/she wanted to say. Bogdan pointed correct the situation and AFAIK there is no policy of supporting a certain minority in a special way. All laws and regulations (like free air time on national public TV channel to promote minorities culture) are general, not specific. I there will be no clarification I think that that edit should be removed. MihaiC 08:09, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand why Vasile made that change about romanian national day. 1st Dec 1918 isn't the day when Romania proclaimed its independence. MihaiC 08:17, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that's wrong. I reverted to 9 May 1877 Bogdan | Talk 08:50, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Independence for a country [...] is the same as self-rule, as opposed to being ruled by someone else." In fact, on Dec. 1, 1918, finally Romania achieved the self-rule.
No, Romania achieved self-rule after the independence war of 1877 against Turkey.
If you read the resolution of Dec.1, 1918, you may see that the National Assembly proclaimed the foundation of a new Romanian State. It's nothing wrong, independence (union) is December 1, 1918. --Vasile 15:59, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It was not a new Romanian State. It was the same, just that also included Transylvania. It had the same rulers, same constitution, it was organized the same way.Bogdan | Talk 17:45, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The resolution of December 1, 1918 has been a proclamation that imposed the changes in Romania. The new state (having a new Constitution, new laws, new social structure and new rulers) was made between 1918 and 1923. --Vasile 03:26, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Romania achived independance in 1877 and union in 1918. The fact that after WWI Romania changed the Constitution doesn't means that it wasn't independent before. And why are bring into the discussion the new ruler? It was a normal succesion inside the same dinasty after a natural death. MihaiC 14:31, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I didn't say the old kingdom of Romania wasn't independent before the WWI. The king wasn't the ruler, he had limited powers. I didn't think on kings writing about new rulers. The king was not the ruler, anyway not under the new Constitution of 1923. --Vasile 19:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't agree with your argumentation. The forced abdication of King Michael imposed big changes in Romania - new state, new Constitution, new laws, new social structure(!) and new rulers. Should therefore 30 December 1947 be Romania's "independence day"? IulianU 18:51, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In 1878, after achieving independence, Romania lost another part of the country. May 9, 1877 it was important, that doesn't mean that Dec. 1 is not independence day. It couldn't be union without independence. And the Dec. 1, 1918 resolution is about union. Somehow unfortunately, for the old Kingdom rulers, it was not just about union. In 1947, Romania was under ocupation, we can't talk seriously about independence in 1947, that was not the case in 1918. --Vasile 19:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The political entity named Romania achieved self-rule (therefore independence) in May 1877, and its self-rule was recognised internationally by virtue of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. So, as long as we're talking about Romania's independence day, the most appropriate day for this is 9 May 1877. 1 December 1918 was certainly an important date in Romania's history, but at that date Romania was already an independent political entity. 19:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Even, we like it or not, the Dec.1, 1918 resolution was meant to create a new sovereign state in order to replace the old kingdom. It doesn't mean that the old kingdom was not independent. In 1878 (after May 9, 1877), the independent state of Romania had to cede a part of its territory not to Ottoman, but Russia. --Vasile 19:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
According with your logic, Vasile, in 1918 the sovereign state of Romania suffered some changes that resulted in a new, also sovereign state of (bigger) Romania. We call "independance day" that day in which a country/region previously under someone else soverenity gain de facto independance. Romania proclaimed itself independent on May 9, 1877 and we (romanians) consider that day as Romania "independance day" because we acctually gain de facto independance in the following war. December 1th 1918 is the day when the unification of Romania was finished by attaching Transylvania (Banat included). As an example, France was in the last 200 years and so kingdom, empire (twice) and now they call themselves the 5th Republic. They suffered major changes regarding rulers, social structure and teritory, but France gained independance much, much earlier. It is obvious that you have a different point of view (and definition), but I think that the majority (of romanians) consider otherwise. MihaiC 12:51, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I wrote a "new sovereign state" not a "bigger state". My definition is here: independence. On Dec. 1 1918, the unification was far from finished, the new sovereign state just has been proclaimed. Are you agree that it was (proclaimed) a new state or not? --Vasile 14:53, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No. Romania remained - politically - the same state. The only thing that changed was its territory. The form of the state (national state, not federal), the form of government (monarchy, not republic) was preserved. There is _no_ reason whatsoever to claim that after 1 Dec 1918 Romania was a radically new state. Your reasoning may apply to the United Arab Emirates, for example; the 1971 unification of the 7 emirates _did_ indeed create a new state. 1918 was for Romania a mere annexation of territory. I'm asking you again, why don't they choose 30 December 1947 as Romania's independence day? Because that event brought on much deeper political changes to Romania than 1 Dec 1918. IulianU 16:15, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Following USA example, almost every modern state has established its sovereign state under a Constitutional law.

1. The first modern Romanian state was created by the union of January 24, 1859. In fact, that was the date of fundamental change in political status of Romanians. After the union of 1859, everything changed. Romanian state established a Constitution in 1866 and Romanians brought a foreign prince to rule the country. The Romanian state of 1866 or 1876 had a foreign administration, or some kind of militar occupation? In their state, Romanians had the right to have their own government, administration, justice, educational system in their language etc. Could anybody explains the exact nature of "sovereignty" gained by Romanian state in 1878? What was that concrete precious thing that state has missed in 1876 and gained it after the war of 1877-1878? By the way, after the war, Romania ceded the South of Bessarabia. This was meant to be the independence?

2. From 1916 until November 1918, a large part of Romanian territory has been under military occupation. In 1918, since November, was Romania an independent state? The Dec. 1, 1918 resolution proclaimed -in the name of the Romanian nation- a new sovereign Romanian state. Transylvania was not a royal annexation. In 1923, it was adopted a new Constitution that included a lot of requirements of December 1, 1918.

3. On August 23, 1944, the Constitution of 1923 was restored. But, at December 30, 1947, in reality Romania was not an independent state. From March 1945, all political changes were influenced by the presence of Soviet Army on the Romanian territory. Indeed, the day Dec. 30, 1947 induced another Constitutional change in 1948. (Romanians communists tried harder to look "independent" from Soviet Union, especially Ceausescu enjoyed playing this game until 1985.) But the fundamental system change of government was started on March 6, 1945 with the first communist-dominated government. --Vasile 06:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The definition of which you work on is broader indeed. But usually "The Independance Day" for a country means that the day before that, that country wasn't idependent. Of course there is "de jure" independance - which is usually remembered and celebrated, and "de facto" independance. It is much harder to establish a day of "de facto" independance, especially for smaller coutries that will always depend on bigger countries, more or less.
The foreign administration that Romanian state had between 1866 or 1876 was the same as after 1918 (I asume that you are thinking of non-romanian king). The "sovereignty" gained by Romanian state in 1878 means (between other things) that Romania could sign treaties with other countries on their own and could have its own currency. From 1916 until November 1918 Romania was a sovereign country with some of its teritory under enemy occupation, the same as Belgium, France, Italy etc.
In conclusion, Romania was after Dec 1st 1918 independant "de jure" as much as it was before that day. That is way we celebrate on that day the "(great) Union" and not independance. MihaiC 11:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
There are few reasons Romania doesn't celebrate December 1, 1918 as independence day. a) Old kingdom's politicians and the kings disliked the radical way that the nation proclaimed the new state sovereign. It seems that the original of the resolution was "lost" by some king. b) Today, it is still considered May 9, 1877 as independence day. That was independence day for the Carol I. In this way he tried to change the alliances. He has been made the treaty with Russia before May 9, 1877 anyway. (The subject of 1877-1878 war and the peace treaties that followed is very interesting. Austria, having no direct participation in war, received Bosnia. For Romanians, the major fights took place in Western Bulgaria. The natural question is: What the German was looking for in Bulgaria? Evidences of Western Balkans origin of Romanians, maybe. By the peace treaty, the independent state of Romania lost territory.) The establishment of the currency was made in 1867 (BNR). c) The "independence day" of May 9, 1877, was a part of cult of personality that Romanians politicians organized for the king Carol I in exchange of his favours. In Ceausescu era, the celebration was used to aliment the cult of personality for Ceausescu, another "independence" fighter.
In the year 1918 until November, Romania was under German occupation, having a puppet government. After 1866, Romania wasn't under a foreign administration, but the king's influence on politicians was big. --Vasile 23:41, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
More or less independant 'de facto', since 1877 Romania was independent 'de jure'. No matter about the personality cult of Carol I or Ceausescu I consider more apropiate to call May 9, 1877 as independence day and December 1, 1918 as unification day.
About the romanian currency in 1867, my economic history teacher in college told us an interesting fact : romanian government had to ask Ottoman empire permision to issue currency, as it was its vassal. Turks wanted that on the coins should be something written about their sovereignty over Romania, while romanians wanted no such signs. In the end it was reached a compromise : on the coins with the value of 1, 2 and 5 lei (big value at that time) there would be turkish mentions. On the smaller coins (5, 10, 25 bani) there would be no turkish mentions. Romanian government issued a few thousand coins of 1, 2 and 5 lei and keept them on the BNR coffins as many as possible and floded Romania with milions of smaller coins.MihaiC 15:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In 1867, the new prince starts fooling around preparing the independence from Ottoman Empire. To re-make the union for him it was too difficult. For Romanian currency, all that Carol had to do was to respect the Constitution of 1866 ("Art. 93. - Domnul ... are dreptul de a bate moneda, conform unei legi speciale." ). In 1856, Romanian principates already had granted the right to have independent Constitution and assemblies. --Vasile 17:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Romania is an independent state since 1877 (Moldova and Tara Romaneasca), so that is the date that should be inserred in th table, like by other countries. Transilvania joined the state later, but that doesn't mean that the independence was granted when Transilvania did so. Still, the national day is not 9 mai. On the national day we donnot celebrate independence, because it would be no hollyday for romanians from Transilvania. We celebrate union of Transilvania with Romania. It's something like West Germany unifying with East Germany on October 3 1990, though both had their independence. And I guess it's kind of the same, as the national day in Germany should be October 3. Still, in the article of Germany we don't find independence in the table, but about the formation/unification. So the independence was granted in 1877, but the national day is The Union on 1st December (i'm shore about that, and I know PROTV was launched on the national day). As I can see in other articles, Independence should be included in that table (in the article Germany you donnot find any info about independence, because Germany was everytime independent). I hope i helped a bit in claryfing the problem. --ro.Danutz | pt.Danutz Vive o 2004!

Romania etymology

Romania : "Roman Realm", referring to the Romanization of Dacia (Ancient Romania)

If anyone wants to explain the history of the names Romania/Rumania, there's a detailed section on it here at Saintswithin 14:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's wrong. Both forms (Român and Rumân) were used long before there were any theories about there were any theories about the origins of Romanians and the o/u alternation has nothing to do with them. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 14:20, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
All those professors of history at the bottom of the page are wrong? Oh well, perhaps someone can find something about the history of the two forms elsewhere, as it would be interesting to know. Saintswithin 14:26, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)
Since questions about the etymology of Romania keep coming to this page, I created an article at Etymology of Romania. :-) bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 17:02, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Significantly common mistakes

Here are some examples of misunderstanding or deliberately denigrating the etymology of “Romania”…Completely ignoring the Roman ancestry and the Latin origin of Romania and ridiculously associating Romania with Roma (gypsy)

Dear wikipedians,

Isn't the following quote from the article The name Romania comes from Rome or the (Eastern) Roman Empire and represents the country's origins. In Late Antiquity the Roman Empire was often called simply Romania in Latin. The official language is Romanian. the total nonsense?

As far as I know, the name of Romania is traced not to Rome, but to Roma (Gypsy).

In turn, Roma has nothing to the Rome too. Merriam-Webster: - Etymology: Romany, married man, husband, male Gypsy, from Sanskrit domba, doma low caste male musician.

If nobody objects, I will fix the article. Thanks.

Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:37, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Do you have other occupations other than being a troll and insulting people ? Bogdan | Talk 20:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • I am sorry but I must say that you are very far from the reality and your comment is by far subjective…”Romania” comes from our ROMAN origins, proudly pointing at our LATIN history…And by the way, ROMANIAN is the closest national language to Classical Latin despite the Slavic loan words…Really, try some amateur forums!***03:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I ignore the personal attack.
Considering that you are from Romania, you should know more about this issue, can you please write more? Considering your reaction, it is a sensitive issue in Romania. Thanks. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I've met quite a few trolls on the Internet that used this idea on some Romanian forums. That's why I thought you were one, too. Sorry for that. :-)
No problem, trolls are really boring, I agree! Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 21:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, answering to your question, it would not possible to derive România from Gypsy "Roma", according to the linguistics. ("â" is pronounced like Russian yeri) "-an-" transformed into "-ân-" early in the Romanian, probably in the 3rd-7th century, before the contacts with the Slavs generalized, so that Latin words have this transformations, while words borrowed later (from languages like Slavic) after this moment do not. (Roma Gypsies reached the balkans only in the 14th century.) Bogdan | Talk 21:27, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Your explanation should be included in the article, I think. --Vasile 02:23, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thank you! Wouldn't you oppose if I will move your explanation into the article, because it (i.e. tracing of Romania to Roma) is significantly common mistake? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 21:42, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
You offer no reason to take in consideration what you assert to be a "significantly common mistake". Maybe you try to say something, and I don't understand you. Anyway, I think a more detailed etymological explanation is required. --Vasile 04:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
See the first response of Bogdan! The trolls promote this information, and the only way to fight wrong information is to mention that it is wrong one in the authoritative sources. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 08:36, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If you think it is a "common mistake", please explain here your point of view, if you have one. --Vasile 23:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
What do you exactly mean? That it is uncommon? I've heard this version (of tracing Romania to Roma) several times, in several languages. I think it is a good reason to suppose it to be a common one. As for my POV, I think that this information should be mentioned in the Romania#Name section (after Bogdan's comments, I see that this information should be attributed as mistake). Have I answerred your question? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 23:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
The fact you find very similar the words Romania and Roma is not enough for a theory. Maybe you should pay more atention to the upper "â"-explanation and please explain the reasons make you think it's a mistake. --Vasile 00:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Dear Vasile, you probably didn't read my text thoroughly. I understood Bogdan's explanation, and agree it. I see it is a mistake is to trace Romania to Roma. As for the false theory, it is probably promoted by some Gypsy. Repeating, I've heard it several times in several languages, it's not my invention. Therefore I conclude it's significantly common. Therefore it should be mentioned in the article as false theory. Do you agree? Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 00:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It doesn't have enough substance to be consider a theory.--Vasile 00:53, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
It is not a theory, it is a mistake. But enough popular, and therefore we should mention it as a mistake, I think. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 01:20, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If it is just a common mistake, I think it should be mentioned and attributed somewhere in the article. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
"Romania" indeed comes from "Rome", but how is connecting it to "Roma" insulting people? Zocky 09:58, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I suppose, it's a pride of Romanians to trace their roots to great Rome, and any attempts to show that their country's has nothing common with the Roman glory is no surprise insulting, I think. However, for foreigners, links between Rome and Romania are not evident (there are many countries in former territories of the Roman Empire, and the foreigners has no cause to think why this name is survived in Romania and in Romania only). On the other hand, many foreigners know that the most large population of Gypsy (Roma) in Romania. Therefore, the version that Romania comes from Roma doesn't sound wrong for the foreigers. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 10:18, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
This kind of explanation "for foreigners", assumes that this article is (or should be) a piece of Romanian touristic brochure. The connection between Romania and Roma sounds insulting if a hierarchy of nations is accepted. Anyway, an etymological approach of the names (România, Romînia) would be interesting. --Vasile 12:57, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Romanians shouldn't forget that the letter "â" is just in romanian and and you need special fonts to write it. All those who use standard keyboard doesn't make any difference between "Romania" and "România". An warning about the posibility of makeing that mistake would be a good idea - better too much information than too less. Romanians don't like that confusion because 1) Yes, we like to take pride on our link with Roman empire and 2) Usually the regards toward gypsies is rather low (for good and bad reasons). MihaiC 06:40, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
the term 'roma/rroma/romani' designating the tzigan(in romanian)/cigany(in hungarian) (gypsies) seems to be a form of propaganda/image war. either the tzigani associate themselves with Romania, or the western Europe reacted to the "invasion" of the tzigani/cigany (gipsy - from the country name Egypt) and are punishing Romania for that. however, i read <rom/rrom> in tzigani/cigany language means "man". criztu
This name did not survived only in Romania. There are also the "Romansch" people of Switzerland and the "Romagna" region of Italy. Bogdan | Talk 10:26, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Also Rumelia in Bulgaria and Sultanate of Rum in Turkey

Rumelia and Rum are in no way related to "Roma" (relating to Gypsies). Rum is the name the Turks gave to the lands owned by the Byzantine Empire (as the Byzantines were calling themselves "Romans" and their land "Romania"). I admitt that I do not know the etymology of the name Rumelia, but I DO know that it was created by the Ottomans and is probably a diminutive of "Rum". Chronos Yildirim

the name Roma(the capital of Roman empire) might have an indo-european or sanskrit origin "Rhama" meaning power/man ... something like that. while the gypsies call themselves Rom only after they reached Romania(Byzantium). Rumelia and Rum are related to Roma(roman empire) just like Istanbul is related to Constantinople - capital of Romania(Byzantium) ... Rome is the english form of Roma(capital of Roman Empire) Criztu 23:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Concision in "History" section

Hi guys, I appologise for the recent edits I made without discussing them first.

what I noticed is that the "History" paragraph grew into a detailed info on how and when exactly Transylvania changed its Suzerainty. I propose the following paragraph :

I think it is concise, not a source for dispute, and detailed info on what happened to each province of Romania in the past can be read in "History of Romania" full article. What do you say ? -- criztu


I have something to say about the Gypsies in Europe (yes, the Gypsies) and the way many choose to refer to themselves as "Roma". First of all, it should be noted that only the Gypsies in Europe have a tendency to call themselves "Roma". In India, the Middle east, & North Africa, they still call themselves DOM, with a D, which is the original spelling from India(other designations are also common; Sindi in Pakistan, etc.). The Gypsies in Armenia began to call themselves Lom, hence Lomesvar. Now, pay attention: when the Gypsies migrated into the eastern ROMAN empire (through Anatolia & Greece), they began to call themselves Rom instead of Dom, & also changed any dom-based words in their language to fit their new identity. They of course saw the lucrative possibilities of changing Dom into Rom---it would be easier to blend into the Roman empire if you called yourselves "Rom" instead of Dom, as the Gypsies originally called themselves. Now, of course, Gypsies continue to see the lucrative aspects of calling themselves Rom, & perhaps soon Gypsies outside of Europe will begin this practice. In the West, the "Rom" name has given them an increasing popularity, unlike Gypsy, which (rightly)has many negative connotations. It's unfortunate for the Romanians, real descendants of the Roman Empire & true bearers of the name Romanian, that we have these Gypsies calling themselves "Rom". Confused by the fact that many Gypsies live in Romania ( there are more Gypsies in Hungary, though), & confused by the similarity in names, many people in the west, who don't know much about our region, fall into the trap of confusing Romanians with "Roma", a confusion encouraged by many Gypsies & also encouraged by many Hungarians,& others who wish to denigrate (yes, denigrate) Romanians. I never call them "Rom", I call them Tsigane. And I realize Gypsies have their own version of why they call themselves "Rom", but they have no evidence & the scenario I've outlined fits reality. The confusion is often very deliberately carried out. Back in 2003, an episode of a canceled ABC show "The Practice" featured a (fictional) story about a 'Romanian' girl in America whose 'Romanian' parents were planning on sending her back to Romania to force her to marry a young 'Romanian'man. Then there was a big discussion about this "barbaric Romanian practice"(this is actually not a Romanian practice);then it was revealed that her parents were of the Roma 'faith'. Well, the problem is, that in the course of the show, one is led to assume that Romanian=Roma. There was not the slightest attempt to differentiate between Romanians (who are primarily Eastern Orthodox Christian Europeans) & Roma, who are Gypsies, who usually practice their own faith, whatever that is. I noticed that the producer of that episode had a Hungarian name. (Decius)

Dear Decius, can you please tell me why do MOST of the Romanians consider that there are some demonic occult forces out there whose only purpose is to "denigrate" the Romanian people? Yes, some people make mistakes; yes, some of theese mistakes are intentional, but that doesn't mean that "many Gypsies" and "many Hungarians" "wish to denigrate" the Romanians. Your message shows very clearly that your conclusions are rather a result of frustration than of rational analysis. Anyway, I believe that your explanations regarding the origin of the names "Roma" and "rrom" for Gypsies may be accurate up to a point. Chronos Yildirim


Romanian Wikipedia

I think a link to the romanian version of Wikipedia should be included in Romania article, so that the romanians to be aware there is a romanian version where they can read the information in romanian. Criztu 00:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There is one such link, on the quickbar. --gcbirzan (talk) 22:22, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gypsies in Romania

about the use of the term "Roma" designating the population known in East Europe as Tigani/Cigany/Tsigani and in the West Europe as Gypsies. Please explain why the terms "Gypsy" or "Tsigani" are not apropriate. Criztu 21:17, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Becauase, as Roma and Gypsy state, it's a pejorative designation.
On that note, I've removed the (people) from the page, only showing Roma, but still linking to Roma (people). --gcbirzantalk 12:15, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
yes, but so does Romanians consider that the term Roma or Romani designating the people known as Tsigani is damaging the image and name of the Romanians. In Romanian language the Tsigani are designated as Tsigani, and only officialy as Rromi, while using Roma or Romanies to designate the Tsigani is considered simply offensive for Romanians. -- Criztu 12:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
That's the first time I've heard that calling Roma that is offensive for Romanians. That's like, say, Italians complaining Romanians using that name is offensive for them. --gcbirzantalk 13:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
well, you should have watched the Nastase - Basescu confrontation in the presidential campaign, when they had to pass a subtle exam having to speak about the Tsigani. Bassescu spelled Tsigani when reffering to them, in order not tp offend the Romanians, as opposed to Nastase who avoided using either Roma or Tsigani, and reffering to "alte minoritatzi" -- Criztu 14:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is there a Declaration of an official organisation of the Roma people stating that 'Tsigani' is considered as a pejorative term ? -- Criztu 12:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Try this.
But. Is there a Declaration of an official organisation of the Romanians stating that 'Roma' is considered offensive for Romanians? --gcbirzantalk 13:02, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
the romanian official term Rromi and Tsigani designating the Tsigani speaks it self for the "offensiveness" of the term Roma or Romany designating the Tsigani -- Criztu 14:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Not following you on this one, sorry. --gcbirzantalk 10:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I understand that "gypsy" is offensive, i don't see the offensiveness of "tsigani"... hmm... it's a delicate matter indeed.

Tsigani, as I understand it, refers to the whole of Gypsies, not only to Roma. Some very absentminded Googling returned this, which was an interesting in itself, but especially this:
In earlier literature it had been accepted that the first mention in Byzantium of Gypsies, under the name atsinganoi is from 1054, in which they are described as sorcerers and evildoers who visited the Emperor Constantine IX Monomachus (Soulis, 1961: 145), poisoning the wild animals that were entering the emperor’s gardens by using magic. The emperor then invited them to do the same with his favorite dog, but a Christian saint intervened and their magic did not work. They were chased from the royal palace and left in disgrace. Not all authors today, agree that the reference here is actually to Roma: according to some, a heretic sect with the name atsinganoi existed between the eighth and eleventh centuries and its name passed erroneously to the Roma, who arrived in Byzantine lands most probably in the thirteenth century (Demeter et al., 2000: 16; Hancock, 2002: 1). Others date the arrival of the Roma in Byzantine domains several centuries earlier, accepting that atsinganoi had always designated the Gypsy immigrants in Byzantium (Speck, 1997: 37-51; Marushiakova and Popov, 2000: 14--15). From the Greek atsinganoi, the Bulgarian “Tsigani”, the French “Tsigane”, the German “Zigeuner”, the Hungarian “Cigányok”, the Italian “Zingari”, the Russian “Tsygane”, and the Turkish “C¸ingene” have stuck as the external appellation of the Romani people.
Either way, I think we should call them Roma/Rroma, as per their English denomination. --gcbirzantalk 10:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps using the official romanian term Rromi when speaking of Roma (people, not the capital of the Roman Empire) in romanian articles would be more apropriate -- Criztu 14:33, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet, but this is the English Wikipedia and the English names should be used. Nevertheless, yes, that's an option, as this article points out:
Members of Rroma associations have recommended the use of double "r", which corresponds more specifically to the pronunciation in most Rromani dialects. Likewise, this spelling may help to avoid confusion between the ethnic designation and other patronymic stems such as Romania, Rome, Romand (a region in Italy), Romanism (Roman Catholicism), etc.
It is recommended that the use of all exonyms referring to the Rromani people (Gypsies, Tsiganes) and their cognates - be permanently eradicated. The process should be accomplished in stages, allowing enough time for the non-Rromani public to become accustomed to the stem "Rrom". Of course, changing everyday speech habits will take time, but references made in the media and other international documents can begin immediately with "Rroma (Gypsies)" and after a couple of years the reference to "Gypsies" can be dropped.
That's © 1995, by the way. Anyway, I think this discussion belongs more on the Roma (people) talk page. --gcbirzantalk 10:34, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Independence date

The parliament and Prime Minister voted for the independence on 9 May 1877, but the Price signed it only the following day, on 10 May 1877. Which should be the independence date? Bogdan | Talk 23:11, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think the article should mention both. As for the factbox, an't remember what the actual situation was, but if the Prince was required to sign it, then it only was valid after he signed it, so it's the latter. If not, the former. gcbirzan 02:12, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Prince was DEFINITELY required to sign. And till 1947 the 10th of May was considered the independence date. But the communists changed it because it to the 9th because the 10th was too... "monarchist" (it was also the day of the Romanian Royal House). Well, I'm not a supporter of the monarchy either, but I believe we would continue communist propaganda if we kept 9 May as the independence day. But on the other hand I have no knowledge of any current Romanian law concerning this subject. So if you want to change it to 10 May, please do it.

Well, I don't know if there _can_ be a law regarding this, as it's not a public holiday. That being said, I'm thinking the best way to do it is to change to 10 May. If anything, we should add a footnote saying 9 May used to be celebrated during the communism regime, as to severe all ties with the Monarchy, or something to that effect. --gcbirzan (talk) 22:23, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)