Talk:Romania/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

NPOV Dispute

(De ce este pusă engleza la limbile minorităților? Am văzut că este o legătură la un articol(http://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/148/declarations?p_auth=63PpH3zN) dar nu pare că zice ceva de engleză la România în afară de faptul că este scris în engleză. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.115.215.111 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

The History of Romania section lacks a NPOV, especially for the modern and contemporary era (starting 1950). The sole point of view presented is that prevalent in mainstream western media and western-affiliated groups.

The section on the Communist period for example is biased by presenting as fact allegations against the regime of that, without clearly stating in the text which group claimed those opinions. Furthermore, the content is misleading in that it omits any mention of the numerous economic and industrial achievements of Romania during those times, achievements which are undisputed by any scholar, if not that popularized recently in media. Some sources cited, like the Tismaneanu report are openly biased anti-communist, pro-Western and probably financed by foreign agent NGOs. Regardless of the source of funding, the Tismaneanu report cannot be considered an impartial, scientific review of that period as its purpose was a political statement adopted in the Romanian Parliament condemning communism. It is as if the prosecutor's request is claimed as evidence at a trial.

The destruction of the industry and economy of Romania following events in 1989 is an important issue missing from the section. The reality of such destruction is sometimes talked about in Romanian media, like [1]. Its reality is uncontested by most Romanians and can be verified by studying the current state of former enterprises, most of which closed or were sold. For this particular issue I have corrected the section. But it still remains overall biased. The NPOV dispute tag is warranted.

The sections titled "Democracy" and "NATO and EU integration" are also biased. For example the 2012 recall referendum of then-president Traian Basescu where people overwhelmingly (>88%) voted to oust him but which was invalidated by the countries constitutional court is omitted. Furthermore, the tone of the section is biased, far from impartial. Furthermore, the selective presentation of content would lead to the idea that Romanians are nearly unanimously pro-western, pro-NATO, pro-EU, which is NOT the case among the population, even if major political forces represented in parliament are all pro-western. By the term Western I refer to the ruling political forces of the USA, UK, Germany, France and other such major countries.

Mircea D. (talk)

WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAPBOX, basic stuff like not referring to individuals as "Mr." or correctly spelling "Băsescu" or not quoting Russian propaganda - the whole thing is a mess. And it's an article viewed by thousands of people daily, so it embarrasses us by staying in the mainspace. Try writing a proper text, if you can, and only then including it in the article. - Biruitorul Talk 15:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
<-- I again dispute the claim the content I added were based on WP:FRINGE or WP:SOAPBOX. Regarding WP:SOAPBOX I personally would rather feel the tone of the article as a whole (in the history and politics related sections) could be considered under this policy, towards the opposing view. Which is part of the original NPOV dispute. Furthermore, information about such things as the impeachment proceedings against Mr. Basescu (if you want to edit to include some true title for him, I have no objection; personally I considered Mr is sufficient), protests against Rosia Montana exploitation and Chevron fracking, degradation of Romanian industry are widely available and often times have been talked about in the media, including TV media. It is very difficut for me to understand how such things could be claimed to be fringe theories. As I said below, if you believe the references are not good enough (I think they are pretty well spread - for the content I added I mean), maybe the proper course would be to add further references rather than remove the content? I have no objections to improving the text I added with stuff like spelling Basescu as Băsescu. As a Wikipedia policy of being brave - if you see something wrong, you fix it. That's what I did and am trying to do. Mircea D. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You are definitely an WP:ACTIVIST editor, unable or unwilling to comply with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, meaning that we favor the viewpoint of mainstream independent scholarship and media instead of propaganda outlets. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
<-- This section covers political subject of practical importance. I wish that all views be included, including those which are unfavorable to the pro-Western current regime. The fact I have political opinions of my own plays no role in judging the fact that the content you ('non-activist' right?) people keep removing is sufficiently widely sourced and discussed so as to be included as at least as a non-mainstream viewpoint. You judge all its sources to be "propaganda" (you mean deceitful propaganda probably). You could say this no matter who sources it. The western propaganda machine, if I may, promotes a view divorced from reality through ALL its mainstream channels (like CNN, Fox News, etc.), who are all privately held by people and controlled by people like Rupert Murdoch, George Soros with direct interest in shaping public opinion. However I do not demand that their claims should be completly deleted from the content of the article, as blatant propaganda as they may be - which is not the case here. Even you yourself, Mr. Georgescu, below admit that factories and industry was closed but attribute this fact to "lack of competitiveness". But this information about closing of industry is currently not present in the body of the article under ANY cause. Instead of removing content, I think a fair approach was to add content to reflect your personal view (and source if of course) about the cause of this deindustrialization. Furthermore, I personally consider that you yourself and a few others are biased probably due to financing by western groups or pro-western political parties to maintain the current tone of this page. But this does not mean to me that you should not include your own sourced content here. The core of Wikipedia is to include all relevant, non-fringe claims in the body of the article so that the reader gets an informed decision. And what I added are not fringe theories. Since I am not sure what the procedure is for such a dispute to be resolved, I will be bold right now and add the content back for the moment. Mircea D. (talk)
By "undisputed achievements" do you mean the fake official statistics of the Ceausescu regime? Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
<-- So we can admit "as fact", as properly sourced content only the official statistics / viewpoints of a particular regime but not the other? Not merely in stating that that said regime claimed those statistics and based on what? This is the core breaking of the NPOV. I did not intend to have the statements about destroying Romania's economic output neccesarily claimed as fact (although they are true), but that view needs to be included so that readers are aware of it and can make further investigations on their own to decide what to believe. Mircea D. (talk)
Yeah, like it were a state secret that they were faked, rather the secret of Polichinelle, we might say. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Claim of the official propaganda of the Ceausescu regime: "our country reached the heights of progress and civilization". Reality check: at the same time there were food shortages and shortages of most other goods of mass consumption. Official statistics were part to that deceitful propaganda: unrealistically high objectives and fake ways of reaching them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I was about to forget: challenging official statistics was crimethink in Socialist Romania. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
See e.g. http://adevarul.ro/cultura/istorie/a-fost-n-a-fost-romania-granarul-europeie-masluiau-comunism-productiile-planul-cincinal-ajungeau-cerealele-noi-1_5342776c0d133766a89242c0/index.html Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dubious sources

The argument to Mircea85's view is based upon WP:BLOGS and other dubious sources. The Voice of Russia is certainly notable, but it should not be rendered in Wikipedia's voice, instead it should be done like: "According to the Russian propaganda organization Voice of Russia, <insert claim here>". Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

<-- I dispute that the view were based on WP:BLOGS. The quoted sources are various media outlets in Romania. The Romanian branch of Voice of Russia is only one of such outlets covering the topic. I have no objection to rephrasing to something like, "According to some news outlets, like Jurnalul, PSnews and including the Russian Federation backed Voice of Russia, ...". The claim that Voice of Russia were "a propaganda organization" is almost nonsensical. It disseminates true information and openly admits backing by the Russian Federation. It was a recognized international media outlet like other Russian media outlets such as RIA Novosti, Sputnik News, Russia Today, and others. Placing such a claim for Voice of Russia would entail also placing it for CNN, CNBC, Fox News and others. And even regardless of this, Voice of Russia was just one of several cited references for the specific claim.
Furthermore, the claims are openly disseminated in the Romanian media and references to them are widely available. Maybe effort could be directed by those who dislike the quality of the refences (with no reason as far as I believe) towards citing other sources too. Mircea D. (talk)
There are several problems with your edits: WP:NPOV, WP:PROFRINGE (anti-Western propaganda) and WP:SPS (which is the same requirement as WP:BLOGS). Russia admits no real freedom of the press, journalists working for the Voice of Russia have the foremost task of pleasing Putin and his party. This is widely known. So, stating it in Wikipedia's voice is a violation of WP:NPOV. Please note that it is nothing wrong with criticizing the West objectively, but see the germane WP:PAG at WP:NOT#SOAP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
<-- And if you exclude all outlets which publish ideas critical of the west - or even factual content (like lists of factories closed) - as 'russian propaganda' (even if many of the references I included are from Romanian outlets, like Jurnalul, PSnews, etc.), how might one source the criticism of the West? Mircea D. (talk)
It might amaze some Russians, but Westerners have the liberty to criticize the West. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
The article "Bankrupting Romania" is a piece of communist propaganda, anyway, it has a definite POV to push. That's what I meant by WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
<-- Regardless of the tone of the article, the factual claims it makes to substantiate that tone remain. And those claims were included in the article. Furthermore, every news story reported by someone has a certain tone to it, which may reflect the point of view of the publisher, the reporter, etc.. But what is important is that the factual information on which that view point is substantiated is presented. And this is the case with this source. Mircea D. (talk)
The term "economic lynching of Romania" is telling of its viewpoint. The most down-to-earth explanation for closing those factories is their lack of competitiveness (unprofitable businesses are destined to bankruptcy in a free market economy). The contrary claim, namely of the web outlet, is a paranoid conspiracy theory. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
<-- Please see comment above. Mircea D. (talk)
Comparing the Voice of Russia with Western "propaganda": Western "propaganda" is neither state propaganda nor monolithic propaganda, instead it is privatized and diverse. We may clearly state that a viewpoint expresses the voice of Russia, but it is not at all clear which of the main US TV channels would represent the official propaganda. The motto of Russian propaganda is: "And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." While the West does the contrary: its power is in diversity and debates between opposing viewpoints. About closing unprofitable factories see Creative destruction#Examples: in a free market economy factories do not produce for the mere sake of producing, but in order to make profit. If those bring no profit and there not a chance on Earth of ever making profit, they go bankrupt. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
<-- The mainstream channels (like CNN, Fox News, etc.) are ALL part of the western propaganda machine, fact supported by their being owned and controlled by private individuals and groups with direct interests in promoting certain conception in the public (like Rupert Murdoch, George Soros, etc.). Furthermore, regardless of the reasons an outlet publishes certain information, what is important is weather it is of sufficient quality and notoriety so as to be included as a view point. Both western-propaganda, Russian media outlets reports and Romanian outlets (like Jurnalul) meet these standards by a wide margin. Therefore they should all be included, of course, preferably mentioning the affiliation of the sources (which is currently absent for things such as the Tismaneanu report). Mircea D. (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
When the North Dakota oil boom came to a halt, Americans did not blame the Rockefellers, Freemasons, and "economic assassins", since they are used to think about prices and markets. Confronted with a similar situation, ignorant Romanians developed paranoid conspiracy theories fueled by nostalgia for National-Communism in order to account for the quite banal realities of their lives. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
<-- 'ignorant Romanians developed paranoid conspiracy theories'?? Like what? Like the fact most factories and industrial branches were closed? Like the fact people have the worst food for such high prices when Romania has the same agricultural area as Italy, with a third of the population? Like what core industries remained in Romania are now owned by western capital? Are these the 'paranoid conspiracy theories ignorant Romanians developed'? These are facts. They are not mere theories. And again they are widely talked about and sourced, which you, Mr. Georgescu, as a Romanian could know if you follow on-line or TV news, not to mention if you tried to have economic activity in Romania. Mircea D. (talk) 09:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
As it might already be clear, I don't have a problem with the facts, but with the fringe POV of the dubious sources cited in order to verify those facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I meant economic hit man, as in Confessions of an Economic Hit Man. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
These being said, I have no reserves in respect to calling the Voice of America an US propaganda outlet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no mention of fact checking, nor of any editorial control, nor of having a redaction (excepting the three people from dcnews, two of them being one director and one manager), nor are public the names of the redactors.

They are popular news websites, that's all we know about them. We don't know how they get their news, we don't know where they get their news from, we don't know if they even check those news, we don't know who checks those news, and so on. The only sources cited by Mircea85 which could eventually fulfill WP:IRS are http://rtsa.ro and http://jurnalul.ro . Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Falimentarea României. Lista celor 1256 de mari întreprinderi distruse în 25 de ani". DeCe News. 2014. Retrieved 03 Iun 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.227.57 (talk) 00:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2018

link this expression ``Notable mathematicians to the wiki page on Romanian mathematicians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Romanian_mathematicians Alberttamazyan (talk) 08:39, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done  spintendo  02:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2018

This request is for changing the spelling of "Scaninavian-Baltic" to "Scandinavian-Baltic". Thanks. Oris1024 (talk) 23:13, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

External links

Sometimes thing just "creep in" and some trimming is required but in this case, with 16 links and subsections, there needs to be a major overhaul. This ia a B-class article and has more links than would normally be allowed on any class.
If someone can look into this (possible with a chainsaw) it would prevent a)- mass deleting of a random number, b)- hiding the bottom maybe 12 until someone has more time or interest, or c)- reassessing the article. Surely some can be incorporated into the article and improvements may help facilitate an assessment for A-class or better. Otr500 (talk) 13:04, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2018

"sculpter" = "sculptor" 2605:E000:1301:4462:BC5B:56AD:9030:2526 (talk) 08:40, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Section 2. History

For the time being, the section dedicated to the history of Romania is highly unbalanced and contains original research. For instance, the section refers to (unspecified) "migratory peoples" invading the territory (in accordance with the traditional narrative of Romanian historiography) without mentioning that many of the allegedly "migratory peoples" (Carpians, Gepids and Slavs) formed sedentary communities for centuries in the region. Likewise, the article refers to the late 12th-century anonymous chronicler's report of a late 9th-century Romanian principality in Transylvania, without mentioning that the reliability of the chronicle has been questioned by many historians (including Carlile Aylmer Macartney and Dennis Deletant). Furthermore, the article describes Transylvania as a "principality" which was a "largely autonomous part of the Kingdom of Hungary" from the 11th century. However, Transylvania did not form an administrative unit in the Kingdom of Hungary. The voivode of Transylvania (who was an appointed royal official, not an autonomous ruler) only administered the Transylvanian counties, but about one-third of the region—the Saxon and Székely seats (districts)—were administered by other royal officials. The first elements of autonomy appeared with the Diploma Andreanum which granted privileges to significant groups of Transylvanian Saxons in the 1220s. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the article of Romania, not the article History of Romania. It's general stuff (you will have to present your theory on the History of Romania). Regarding Transylvania you will have indeed to agree with other historians, including Romanian I hope. But notice we must respect eachother and keep opinions agreed by all, and most likely use the universal history! Britannia? Regards, Cristina Christina (talk) 09:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above answer. Do you agree that the section contradicts basic WP policies, especially WP:NPOV and WP:NOR? Borsoka (talk) 10:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Ulpia Traiana

First of all, we do not need to present all Roman towns. Nevertheless, we could place a picture about Ulpia Traina instead of Potaissa, but we should choose a better one. This picture shows the roofs of modern houses in the background. Borsoka (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I did it, Borsoka! Found another one. I also shortened up the Comperorary and NATO and EU integration sections. But in my opinion the World Wars and Communism are well written. Please have some good breeding and don't touch them. Hungary also has a lot on history, still maybe more. Christina (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I think the two sections are still too long. They should be shortened. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
But look at your Hungary. What if I go there to do the same? It would not be nice and I want respect between us. On Hungary article they are much longer. We have communism + Kadar era, a little bit more than on Romania. Moreover the World Wars part is huge. We have Between the World Wars 1918–1941 + World War II 1941–1945 (on Hungary article). Christina (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. I have never stated that you cannot edit other articles. Borsoka (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I said Hungary has a lot more info on those history sections than Romania. I compared it. And in my opinion we shouldn't shorten up. Regarding Latin, where do you see Latin on that? It says Romance language, even Britannica agrees. Can you explain me please? Christina (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
If you do not want to shorten it, why do you write of it? Latin is not a Romance language. Borsoka (talk) 08:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
But where do you say LATIN written? You added "dubious" on Romance. Christina (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Do you suggest Romanian is a Romance based creole language without directly inherited Latin words? Could you refer to books substantiate this claim? I know of a hypothesis describing Romanian as the direct descendant of the idiom spoken by Slavic peoples and deliberatelly transformed into a Romance language, but this is a quite marginal view. Borsoka (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cristina neagu: could you refer to the relevant WP policy prescribing or proposing that the same piece of information should be repeated twice in the same article and in the same section? Sorry, I do not understand your reference to Hungary. Do you think the skull is connected to Hungarians? Yes, there are Russian scholars who say that the oldest inhabitants of Europe spoke Uralic languages, but this is a quite marginal view. Borsoka (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Not at all, I said it's harmless if we also mention the dating year. And if you want you can also add its localisation. You wrote it on first place, and you did it very well. They rarely also read the lines, that why I think it's good to specify. It doesn't matter on which territory it is or would be such remains, I would be totally happy to find out they are the oldest and to go visit them. As tourism and major history part. PS. I am not into theories. Regards Christina (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, I understand you cannot refer to a WP policy. The problem will be sooner or later fixed. Borsoka (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

PISA

Buna ziua,

PISA a fost introdus abia in 2011 in Romania.

Dar de ce PISA e irelevant cu adevarat? Nnimeni nu stie cum aleg aia scolile in care se organizeaza testul, pe cale de consecinta "rezultatele" sunt irelevante. Procesul nu este 100% transparent e 100% opac. Un exemplu, daca alegerile din Romania s-ar face prin alegerea aleatorie a unor colegii de la tara, din Moldova, ar castiga PSD-ul.

Citez "Testarea internaţională PISA se desfăşoară odată la trei ani şi evaluează nivelul elevilor de 15-16 ani la matematică, ştiinţe şi la înţelegerea textelor. 5.103 elevi români, cu vârste cuprinse între 15 ani şi 16 ani la data testării, din 185 de şcoli au susţinut, în luna aprilie 2015, testarea PISA propriu-zisă."

5000 de elevi de unde si au lucrat aceste teste inainte cum se face in Vest de foarte multi ani? E o bazaconie prin care Vestul sa fie deasupra Estului.

Nu vi se pare o ANTITEZA uriasa? O scoala dezastruoasa conform PISA nu are cum sa ofere an de an performante la olimpiadele de matematica, informatica, fizica sau geografie.

"În toate ţările care participă la PISA 2015, alegerea şcolilor şi a elevilor se realizează de către Consorţiul PISA, cu ajutorul unui software specializat."? Ce anume face programul ala? Care sunt criteriile pe care le ia in calcul? Difera ele de la tara la tara?

PISA este o testare foarte controversata, indusa de UE.

Si nu cred ca accentuarea pe pagina Romania ne este de folos. Se discuta la nivel de minister si la UE. N-are rost sa ne taiem craca singuri, pagina Romaniei are mai mult scop turistic si de informare.

Christina -- message received from User:Cristina neagu in my talk page

Hi. First off, let's speak English, as we're here at the English language edition of this project. We both speak this language and it should be a courtesy to anyone else interested in this article, so they can openly enter the discussion.
The Wikipedia article about Romania, like any other Wikipedia article, does not have this purpose. We are bound by WP:NPOV to cover neutrally all subjects, so it's definitely not a showcase for touristic self-promotion. So I'm hoping you're not suggesting trimming the reality to paint a beautiful, but false or incomplete image.
I'm not sure how well you're informed about PISA tests: you mention the European Union in relation to them, but I don't see how the EU is involved; this is a project of the OCDE that goes far beyond the EU or Europe. You call them controversial, but they are extensively covered in the press (including the specialty press) and they are called "of national and international public interest" by the Romanian government itself. This warrants a mention, just like we can mention them in any country. Saying they're something that puts the West above the East is really strange, since the top spots usually taken by the Eastern education systems in Japan and Singapore.
You're asking if that doesn't look like a huge difference. It does, but we're not here to judge that. We generally let sources do that. Anyway, I'm sure you know the answer to that question: the results at the scientific olympiads are not always great, those that are good are usually reported as great, and they're achieved by training in advance already high-performing students from good schools; something that can't be done with PISA tests, that selects students at random, without human intervention, to give a generic sample. That's why they're worth mentioning as a counterpart of that: we're trying to paint the whole picture. We can expand on that in different articles. - Andrei (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2019 (UTC)


Svend Kreiner, a statistician from the University of Copenhagen in Denmark thinks the study is not reliable at all. He argued that although it is possible to find a task in which Denmark does significantly better than England for example and another task that Denmark does worse than England the tests were still a valid way to compare performance.
David Spiegelhalter wrote: "Pisa does present the uncertainty in the scores and ranks - for example the UK rank in the 65 countries is said to be between 23 and 31. It's unwise for countries to base education policy on their Pisa results, as Germany, Norway and Denmark did after doing badly in 2001."
It's a very controversial study, actually both PISA and OECD are. I can find dozens of articles against them. In my opinion we should solve the problem, by not mention them here (because it's the page of Romania) and if you can re-add them on Education in Romania but we must add they are controversial.
Or the statisticians are not more important than our opinions? They don't even know how many pupils are tested, 4000 or 5000, from where. And each one is tested differently.
Don't you think from such a score to Olympiad medals is too bigger step?
Christina (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, if PISA and the OCDE are controversial, we can mention that in relevant articles. But they are both highly relevant. We're not going to remove them just for that.- Andrei (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, reliable sources and policymakers are more important to writing this article than our opinion.- Andrei (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
According to Forbes, PISA selects a sample that "represents the full population of 15-year-old students in each participating country or education system." What this means in practice is the ability of some education administrators choosing their top-performing students from smaller samples in cities or city-states such as Chinese Taipei, Macao, Hong Kong and Singapore. While most of the other results came from a sample of scores around nations, some countries such as Argentina and China were allowed to take their sample from their most educated cities or regions.
I don't see how PISA and OECD are relevant. It's like wrong and non-transparent survey. Most of the countries on Wikipedia didn't publish such a thing on main article, and even Education pages.
WHY DON'T YOU MENTION THEM ONLY IN THE EDUCATION OF ROMANIA? To be fair.
Christina (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Andreas Schleicher & OECD and Pisa tests are damaging education worldwide - academics

Administered every three years, Pisa results are anxiously awaited by governments, education ministers, and the editorial boards of newspapers, and are cited authoritatively in countless policy reports. They have begun to deeply influence educational practices in many countries. As a result of Pisa, countries are overhauling their education systems in the hopes of improving their rankings. Lack of progress on Pisa has led to declarations of crisis and "Pisa shock" in many countries, followed by calls for resignations, and far-reaching reforms according to Pisa precepts.

We are frankly concerned about the negative consequences of the Pisa rankings. For example, in the US, Pisa has been invoked as a major justification for the recent "Race to the Top" programme, which has increased the use of standardised testing for student-, teacher-, and administrator evaluations, which rank and label students, as well as teachers and administrators according to the results of tests widely known to be imperfect.

In education policy, Pisa, with its three-year assessment cycle, has caused a shift of attention to short-term fixes designed to help a country quickly climb the rankings, despite research showing that enduring changes in education practice take decades, not a few years, to come to fruition.

ETC

Christina (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Uncivility

@Cristina neagu:, your constant reference to my ethnicity is highly uncivil. Please edit the article in accordance with basic WP policies (WP:NOR, WP:NPOV), because there is no specific WP policy dedicated to the "sensitivity of your Hungarian friends." Borsoka (talk) 15:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

I do apologise, you haven't explained very well and you made jokes with childless Trajan. :)) To be honest, I am only giving you credit for it partially but I said to satisfy you. And I will replace it with a photo of the Romance languages. Hoping it's fine for you. Universal history is via convention, even though we many not like things. Then regarding the Wikipedia policy, it's slightly different than the universal history of Britannia. :D Christina (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Origin of words

I do agree, Borsoka, it's not from Latin. Although Romance comes from Vulgar Latin, we talk about "elements of Romance". Over 20% are French words, around 5% are Italian, only the rest. Do you mind keeping the table? It's well documented. And usually we don't go to Hungary to rewrite your page and history. If you would have been fair, you should have only erased the Latin "word". Not hiding the truth of universal grammar conventions. I think we can still prove we are respectful. Christina (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Please respond us, Borsoka, Rosenborg also doesn't understand! Where we are wrong and if we are against the universal conventions. If the words are not elements of Romance, from where do they come? Is the table rigged? Christina (talk) 15:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I have several times explained it. Latin is not a Romance language. Inherited Latin words cannot be mixed with Romance loanwords. Borsoka (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Cristina neagu:, I have never asked you to edit pages dedicated to Hungary or Hungarian history. If you do not want to edit those pages, it is your choice. Please, concentrate on issues relating to this specific article on this specific Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 15:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
I understand now. Do you agree for a photo of Romance languages? Our "universal" brothers at least? Christina (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not? Borsoka (talk) 15:25, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

History: subdivisions

I consider a rigorous separation of Antiquity into subdivisions as extremely important in the case of Romania, because of the generally poor knowledge of Romanian history both in the country and outside of it, and the very widespread tendency in Romania to mistakenly amalgamate the history of Romania as a territory, with that of modern-day Romanians as an ethnic group. The diversity of ethnicity and cultural identity among the predecessors of the Romanians in what is now Romania is regularly obscured by nationalistic claims of cultural continuity going back all the way to Stone Age cultures. Most Romanians leave school with kind of a goulash (no Hungarian pun intended) of thoughts regarding anything older than the Dacians and Romans.

There are of course problems in defining the periods - prehistory only ends with the arrival of the literate Greeks, but the populations they encounter are at very different stages of cultural development; people who have studied history and archaeology should figure out the boundaries between Stone, Eneolithic/Chalcolithic, Bronze, and Iron Age and Classical Antiquity, after first checking if they all apply to the territory of modern Romania.

The separate WP articles dealing with the History of Romania and distinct periods in the history of Romania, specifically Romania in Antiquity, are not accurately subdivided either. If they were, one could arguably be more casual here in the article about Romania after indicating the proper links. So the job of indicating the historical periods needs to be done in coordination between these two levels. Arminden (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you refer to specific WP policies prescring that 2-6 sentences should be grouped into separate sections? Sorry, I must ignore your above remarks, because they present your own thoughts about the teaching of history in Romania. Nevertheless, you are free to create an article dedicated to the Prehistoric age in Romania, because it is missing. Borsoka (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Borsoka: Logic didn't start with Wikipedia. Even here, tools such as red links are used in order to indicate to the user that some relevant information is missing (users can then look it up somewhere else), and encourage editors to supply it. Once you create the proper frame, by using headings and sometimes red links, the content will follow; that's one aspect on how WP works. The fact that now an important topic is dealt with in just a few lines, doesn't prove it should be further devalued by leaving it hidden in a vague umbrella-paragraph. Inviting me to write an article about Prehistoric age in Romania, a hugely interesting topic not least in the context of the Danubian culture and overall propagation of humanity and different cultures into Europe, is either flattering (I'm not a historian, and I don't have the time to patch it together from sources), or plain rhetorical: the fact that I won't write it doesn't in any way make it less necessary. Arminden (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is not dedicated to the history of Romania, but to Romania. We do not need to explain all small details of the history of the country, because there is a separate article dedicated to it. For instance, the section dedicated to the Geography of Romania is not (and should not) be divided into sub-sections dedicated to the mountains, sub-subsections about each mountain range and sub-sub-subsections for each peak. Borsoka (talk) 09:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, bye.Arminden (talk) 09:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I returned to the original version. England, which is a good article, applies the same approach. We do not need to keep a separate section for 5-6 sentences. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Location

Christina,

it is hard to discuss sometimes in the edit logs, thus I would reply here. The corresponding articles I referred describe the history, evolution & other concerns based on geographical locations of countries, also regarding what is official, what is geographical, what is by view (if there are more etc.).

I don't think I said anything wrong, because:

- I did not told/refer to anything about what would happen if from Iceland to the Ural mountains we mathemamatically would split Europe into three

- I never said Transylvania would not be (or had been as formerly part of Hungary) considered part of Central-Europe, I acknowledged that some parts of today's Romania are nominally not Eastern Europe

- comparison with present-day Hungary is irrelevant, anyway in the Central European region based on the old Communist Iron Curtain still politicians mistakenly confuse the term so "Central-Eastern Europe" vs. "Eastern-Central-Europe", or even using Eastern-Europe, though the Americans are not mistaking such mostly as a surprise, so we should not overargue this question, as well some countries are in complex situation having their territories in the meeting or regions. Romania as before is still counted as an Eastern-European country, and there is nothing dehonestating in this, despite the territorial changes in the past century, by having mostly her territory in theis region, also by tradition, time zone, etc. (Balkan issues are always complex if you mentioned it, part of the southern territories belong there, but Romania is not treated as "Balkan country", who said it? Btw, during the midst of the last century the "Southeastern-Europe" denomination was common even including more western or nothern regions, but they became already outdated, recently I noticed a some debate on Croatia's proper classification)

Cheers.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC))

Hi! It wasn't really my edit, I just also said my opinion. As you saw, I didn't even edit anything. But for me Hungary and Romania are also Central European countries. Half of Hungary and Romania are really in the heart of Europe. Bulgaria is like South. Some agree, some argue. Although in the case of "Romania being Balkan", many professors started to disagree. What's a PENINSULA? It must be a land extension bordered by 3 waters (1-Adriatic, 2-Aegean, 3-Black Sea, 1-2-3). That's why we can say Romania is only Carpathian. That small access to the Black Sea is made up by 2 counties. They must start knowning geography because they don't live anymore with the former Eastern Bloc. I am no guru, rarely pushing for my edits (1 vote in democracy). Invite him to discuss here if he wants. There is no shame we are both still included in East, at all (like some would think), just that we should start a little bit promoting our values. Regards, Christina (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course I know it was not your edit, but you mentioned me thus I reacted here, without any "invitation" any user may express any opinion. I agree that among many circles there are still huge problems regarding proper designations of countries regarding geography, but in this case (as EE) there is not any real flaw if we consider the evidence presented (and regarding the edit case it cannot be exluded). Regards(KIENGIR (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC))

Communism Section

I think this section is the poorest and most biased of the whole article. It is obvious that it is written here by an anticommunist hipster and partial copied from anticommunist authors. To summarize the entire period with lack of consumer goods and revolution, with 3 photographs of the subject, clearly shows the 'good intention' of the person who wrote it.--Kunok Kipcsak (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I found a useful article that could be used to improve the Communism section https://www.newstatesman.com/world/europe/2019/01/romania-land-no-return
Sample quote: Communism had rescued Romania from illiteracy. "Education was the great achievement,” says historian and broadcaster Tessa Dunlop. “You weren’t going to find freewheeling historians. But getting you through the 3 Rs, Communism did that." And while the rest of the East Bloc tottered towards oblivion, Ceausescu kept having new ideas. Unfortunately, they were increasingly insane.
Someone with more experience with Romania should do the edit, however.Peter K Burian (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Image spam?

We seem to have a little WP:GALLERY problem causing some WP:UNDUE bringing attention to one section or another and full of 'unsourced stamtments with some images not even metioned in the pros text. Perhaps best to talk about what images to keep so we can follow our Mos on images and policy of verifiability. Though it best to bring up here as there seems to be a lots of editwaring in this article as of late.-Moxy 🍁 (original post 16:14, 13 February 2019)

First of all, hello! Secondly there is no editwaring, we made a mistake regarding some stats of economics. Regarding your edits, you are not welcomed on the page of Romania since you are bringing up justice on Wikipedia like you are the only user on Wikipedia! REALLY SPAM? When other "countries" have several these kind of galleries. This part of the Romanian ethnogenesis was established by me, Borsoka and Rosenborg Fan. First came the Hungarians who removed parts of our history in order not to be offensive to anyone, secondly you are coming and you are deleting everything. I will probably choose the most important images, because you know nothing about Romania since you are a Canadian trapper. I am just hoping you don't have other users on this page. In rest, you will get respect if you are offering one! Could have discussed first here. Christina (talk) 15:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
WOW that was one of the most ignorant replies I've ever seen. So let's see what others have to say... what would be the best images to keep guys,--Moxy (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


I suggest that the skull or the remains of the Dacian sanctuaries should be preserved. The first picture is relevant for all Europe, the second picture depicts the remnant of a peculiar ancient culture. Borsoka (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good ....anyother one that is representative of the culture of the time?--Moxy (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I already kept what it was the most notable. The Romanian ethnogenesis is Dacian-Roman, plus Skull of the oldest homo sapiens. The Cucuteni culture is mentioned by the next. This part is about our ethnogenesis, that's why Burebista, Decebalus and Trajan rulers should have also be included. All were important but most important are the sancturies of Dacia, of Roman Dacia, the map and the Skull. Christina (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC) NOTE-User:Cristina neagu permanently blocked as a sockpuppet.
The article is not dedicated to the Romanians' ethnogenesis, but to the country. The Daco-Roman continuity hypothesis is only one of the scholarly views about the origin of the Romanians. According to The Cambridge History of the Romance Languages (2013), the "historical, archaeological and linguistic data available do not seem adequate to give a definitive answer" in the debate about the origin of the Romanians. Likewise, The Oxford Guide to the Romance Languages (2016) writes that "the location and extent of the territory" where Romanian originated is uncertain. All the same, the picture about the amphitheatre in Ulpia Traiana or the Biertan Donarium could represent the Roman culture (and the latter also play a preeminent role in the Romanians' national myths, because they traditionally regard it as an important evidence for the presence of a Christian Latin-speaking population in the former Dacia province). Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I see gallery spam is back ...how can we deal with this?? --Moxy (talk) 11:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
No, gallery spam is not back. A gallery was placed in the section and it contains six pictures that are closely connected to the text of the same section. The gallery secures that the pictures are not separeted from the section. Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Lets copy this here...*WP:GALLERY "Generally, a gallery should not be added so long as there is space for images to be effectively presented adjacent to text." ...."Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article"....that links to WP:DUE that says "Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, juxtaposition of statements and imagery"....that links to MOS:ACCIM that says "Avoid indiscriminate gallery sections because screen size and browser formatting may affect accessibility for some readers due to fragmented image display".-- Moxy (talk) 11:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for copying the text of the relevant policies. There is no space for images in each view in the article, consequently the gallery is fully in line with the quoted policy. The six pictures are closely connected to the well-sourced text of the section, consequently they help the reader to understand the text and the gallery cannot be described as "indiscriminate". Without the gallery form, the pictures are displayed near to other sections (namely to sections which are not connected to them) in several views which prevent readers from realizing the connection between a certain picture and the relevant text. Borsoka (talk) 11:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Text should be able to standalone without images. You are correct that the history section of this page has far too many images even without the gallery, with plenty of MOS:SANDWICHING. The solution to that is not to add a gallery, but to be more selective in what is a very high-level article for which WP:SUMMARYSTYLE is an important consideration. The consideration is not whether a picture is closely connected with a specific part of the text, but how the picture helps inform the reader about the topic at hand, which in this case is Romania. CMD (talk) 12:33, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that the text should be able to stand alone without images (and, actually, the text stands alone without images). Gallery form helps to avoid sandwiching. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The gallery does avoid sandwiching, but it also unbalances the article in preference for a specific section. I don't see how pictures of artefacts justifies such unbalancing. CMD (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
If all sections are followed by a proper gallery, the issue of unbalance is also solved. Those artefacts and ruins are directpy connected to the text. How can you select a sole picture to represent hundreds of years of history? Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
With some thought, I assume. It's been done elsewhere. Clearly if the text stands alone, it doesn't need any at all, so we are free to pick genuinely useful ones. Keep in mind that this article isn't about hundreds of years of history. And even then, History of Romania manages to not use a single one of those pictures. CMD (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Why is that article is a good comparison? Is it a FA or GA, or is it mentioned as an good example of the use of pictures? Borsoka (talk) 10:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
So I see things are going backwards here with even more images added. So not sure what to do here. Perhaps reopen the RfC get more experienced editors to voice their opinion. Was just about to clean up the page by removing the images not mentioned in the article and noticed even more added. Ask for an RfC again or move forward with cleaning up the kids picture book?--Moxy 🍁 23:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
There are established guidelines on the matter, an RfC wouldn't change that. Looking at the "History" section, given the current length of text, "Middle Ages" has space for another picture, and with none of the images in the gallery being particularly enlightening, I would use either the Battle of Posada or the Vlad III picture. In "Independence and monarchy" I'd keep the timeseries map, as that is clearly informative, and drop the large Domnitor. In "World Wars and Greater Romania" I'd drop the map of lost territories as that's covered in the previous timeseries. In "Communism" I'd drop Michael I in favour of the other two currently there. In "NATO and EU integration", as it stands, I'd drop the NATO meeting image, which shows not much at all. CMD (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I would keep the pictures in the galleries and add more galleries. I think you should decide what is your problem: sandwiching, unbalancing or kids picture books. Borsoka (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTGALLERY ....have reopened the RfC.....as 2 of us our referencing policies and our Mos vs 2 who juat like lots of pics with one of them now banned and the other suggesting galleries in every section.--Moxy 🍁 02:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Please try to summarize the issue properly: there is a third editor who is not banned, but wants to place pictures in the article ([1]). Please also try to remember that I stated above that your references to WP:NOTGALLERY are not convincing. Thank you for reopening the RfC. Borsoka (talk) 03:08, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy:, I see you was again unable to open the RfC. Can I help you or do you want assistance from a more experienced editor? Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Let's @Rosenborg BK Fan: to have a say... they did not add a gallery but they should be aware their edit caused an accessibility concern by sandwiching the text and should be avoided.--Moxy 🍁 05:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy:, is it you? Please try to always sign your comments. If my understandig is correct, you abandoned the idea to open an RfC. Why did you change your mind? You can always seek assistance from more experienced editors if you are unable to properly initiate a process, because we are a community. My technical skills are also awful, so I can understand your situation. Believe me, seeking and providing assistance is part of our culture, it is not a big issue. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
@Moxy:, do you think that the above request is neutral (and brief) in accordance with Wikipedia:RFCBRIEF? Please try to reword it, otherwise we could hardly accept the results. Borsoka (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks all good to me..... describes the problem of galleries causing undue weight and mentions the unsourced statements all linked to our policies while proposing a solution. --Moxy 🍁 20:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
No, it is not a neutral summary. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Prior RfC question discussion

Should the article contain two galleries in two sections? Should images be cuddled by being placed beside relevant text if that exists or should more galleries be added to different sections to help with an unbalance of images.

Relevant policies and guidelines:

--Moxy 🍁 05:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
The above request does not properly summarize the debate, because there is no one who wants to place a gallery only in two section. Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes we understand you want galleries in every section....but as of now there is 2....thus we are talking about if those should be retained in their current state or more should be added as per your wish.--Moxy 🍁 04:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no galleries and a few images per section. Those who argued for this offered significant arguments, comparing this article with FA-level country articles, not being the least of these. Those who preferred keeping the galleries offered overall less substantive arguments that bordered on personal preference. El_C 04:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a dispute on how many images should be included in this article, and how they should be placed. A prominent question within this is whether it is appropriate to use image galleries in the various sections/subsections of this article, which was an initial attempt to solve the formatting issues caused by the large number of pictures without removing any pictures, and to which more pictures have subsequently been added. At the time of this comment, such galleries are included in the Prehistory and antiquity and Middle Ages subsections. CMD (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • One gallery in each section (each containing about 6 relevant pictures, closely connected to the text of the section). To place only one single picture in each section to represent thousands or hundreds of years could hardly be in line with WP:NPOV. The gallery form also helps us to avoid sandwiching. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Cuddle galleries -keep a few images related to prose per section like every other section. This is an encyclopedia thus articles should be formed of prose rather than being an indiscriminate collection of out of place small images containing unsourced statements bring undue weight to said section. Image placement and selection should be based on enhancing prose by being adjacent to said prose so there relevance is clear.....as per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Image content - .WP:GALLERY- WP:NOTGALLERY -WP:DUE - MOS:ACCIM - WP:SUMMARYSTYLE......should look professional and follow related topic FA examples like Canada, Australia, Bulgaria --Moxy 🍁 05:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem excessive The galleries are small and appropriate to the sections, containing relevant images that are clearly not out-of-place. I don't see any reason to remove the galleries in question. — OwenBlacker (talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 12:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC), summoned by robot.
  • Keep it as it is - I agree that the article contains more pictures than other similar articles, but they are mostly well chosen to work alongside the prose in giving a better picture of the country. Many of the maps depicted, for example, do a better job at explaining the territorial changes of Romania or the ethnic makeup of the region better than the prose does. Additionally, the page functions better as a gateway to more specialized articles by having so many pictures, with readers having an easier time jumping to a different page by following the hyperlink in the image caption. Some adjustments could be made (there are currently two pictures of the CEC Palace in Bucharest one next to the other, one of which is miscaptioned, there are two images of Romanian military troops etc), but as a whole I think the article would suffer if we were to remove more than half of the images in it. PraiseVivec (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove galleries and generally cut down. This is because of Wikipedia guidelines/policy, and past precedent in similar articles. On galleries, a WP:GALLERY is meant to illustrate the subject of an article, to provide information on the subject that is difficult to express in text. Many images within this article do not do that, let alone the galleries. The article as a whole should be written in WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, and in addition to breaking the spirit of summarystyle in terms of the level of detail, these galleries exacerbate and highlight the existing imbalance of this article to history. WP:MOSIMAGES has a number of guidelines on the size and placement of images, which provide natural limits for the number of images, and given there are probably literally thousands of good images showing some aspect relating to Romania, these limits help craft a good article. MOS:IMAGES is considered for both Good Article and Featured Article status. India is always a useful example, being one of the more continuously maintained FAs, and having faced a similar challenge of deciding which images to include from a large number of possibilities. Last but not least, there is accessibility to consider. Galleries work best on computer screens, but on mobile they create significant break in the text. (I do not know how they are handled by screen readers and similar.) Repeated images do similar, but to a lesser degree. This article should aim to be a concise informative summary of Romania, not aim to hold as much information as it can. CMD (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree- Remove galleries I agree with CMD. The galleries are unnecessary and do not add anything to the article. Tchouppy (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Present approach perfectly reasonable in term of both format and scope. Main articles covering nation states are, by their very nature, lengthy and multifaceted, and a healthy assortment of images augmenting the textual descriptions is typically not just considered permissible, but is indeed the default expectation. In the present case, looking through the images, there are a few here that, in my own idiosyncratic view, could be dispensed with as not adding very much context, but the overall number of images is fairly par for the course for an article of this size and complexity. Needless to say, for the sake of accessibility to our mobile readers and certain other classes of user, the use of galleries sequestering a majority of images together can be helpful and can be of additional use in keeping the article well formatted for conventional displays as well. That said, the galleries needn't be used in every section where the balance of factors argues for preserving more images in the main body. All in all, there's just no way to serve all interests concerned in an article that has, by necessity, such a large number of subsections and for which there are bound to be a high number of iconic and significant images, and I think the present approach and number of images is a perfectly reasonable balance of the implicit concerns. Snow let's rap 05:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
one of the reasons galleries of this nature are discouraged is that on mobile devices the images are fragmented over a few lines and text are so small that they are not accessible to many readers... ..so not a good thing for mobile devices. We should be encouraging full-sized images with legible text that adds to the reader's knowledge because it's visible and distinguishable.--Moxy 🍁 11:46, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Sorry, I do not understand the relevance of your above remark. Do you suggest there are editors who cannot read the captions on mobile devices? I have been wearing glasses for more than three decades, but I can read the captions without difficulty on mobile devices. Furthermore, there is no difference between a single image and a gallery in this respect. Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
An example from another article...Note how the gallery produces smaller images then a normal thumb image.
The galleries in question on this oage produces fragmented smaller images MOS:ACCIM and text that is bellow our threshold for accessibility MOS:SMALLTEXT. This is one of the reasons why this is discussed during GA and FA article reviews. We have all thsee policies and guidelines for a reason. If this article was about an art gallery or famous painter or museum I can see why so many images and galleries full of mini images would be relevant.-Moxy 🍁 16:29, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Those are all reasonable points, and for the record, my response above should be seen as more of an endorsement for the number of images being reasonable than for any one format over another. That said, it's clear that many articles do include galleries and that the MoS sections previously cited expressly contemplate that fact. And an article having them does not disqualify and article for GA or FA status. Clearly a handful of technical hiccups and even some legitimate accessibility concerns do not rob galleries of their perceived utility in many articles, as far as the editorial community is concerned. So the question becomes much sharper, and the question becomes what particular circumstances argue for and against it. I wonder if you can elucidate further on why you think this is a pronounced case where galleries should be avoided in their entirety, despite the predictably high number of images? The only indication of any particular factors you have explicitly mentioned is that if this were an art-based article, it would make more sense to use a gallery, and I'm just not sure why that factor should make any difference as a matter of page formatting. "Gallery" is used in an idiomatic fashion here; there's no particular reason that I can see why the feature should be used only for articles pertaining to literal galleries and museums. Anyway, I just don't think there's ever likely to be a consensus resolved to policy that says that nation-state articles should avoid galleries in the entirety. But that doesn't mean I can't be convinced that they should be reduced or eliminated here; I just still haven't seen the argument. Snow let's rap 01:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi Snow, can you provide examples of some of the other articles that help set the par you mentioned? It'd be helpful to see how they lay things out. CMD (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think any main article pertaining to a nation stands as a decent example, but just to be lazy about the matter and choose a random smattering of other central and southeastern European states, here's the approaches adopted by Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Croatia, North Macedonia, and Poland. They all use a roughly similar level of overall image saturation, relative to text, but they vary with regard to the use if galleries. A couple do not use them whatsoever, but must utilize them in a small handful of subsections, similar to the present format of this article. Snow let's rap 01:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Should follow FA examples from around the world like Canada, Australia, Bulgaria, Japan , Rwanda..as for Croatia for a GA article its need some attention related to WP:SANDWICH..but most GA's follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE and WP:GALLERY related to WP:UNDUE like Hong Kong, Jordan , Malaysia. --Moxy 🍁 04:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sections of the article should contain only a few photos, as other articles do. The remainder of the photos should all be in a Gallery section at the end of the article. Peter K Burian (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine the way it is. It's okay. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hunyadi and Vlad problem.

This wikipedia page is really nice, but i want to point out on the fact that the agnatic ancestry of János Hunyadi is disputed,and there are three theories:According to the first, his father was Cuman (most of the Romanian nobility was Cuman at that time).The second says that he was the bastard of King Sigismund,and he gifted lands to his "father",Vajk,in exchange for his silence. And according to the third,his father was Vajk. But we know one thing for sure:he wasnt Romanian. And i think that Vlad should be mentioned, because he made Wallachia pretty famous with certain...actions. Thats it.134.255.50.220 (talk) 22:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

And Hunyadi's all contempraries knew that he was of Romanian/Vlach ancestry. Vlad is mentioned in the article. Borsoka (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Answer

Borsoka,

- the German name has been already in the article, not I was the one who put it there, regarding the places of Transylvania generally the Romanian, Hungarian and German names are relevant

- regarding Yiddish, see the previous entry

- regarding the Slovak variant of Békéscsaba, or in any article or any langauge, in case a relevant variant is mentioned, than all relevant variants should be mentioned (of course, depending on the context). That means, in a German/Saxon context article in case just the German is mentioned is ok, but in general context of Transylvania in case German is mentioned, Hungarian should be also mentioned. Of course, in this context, under a picture in this article German and Hungarian is not a "necessity", I was driven by the principle stated in the previous sentence.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC))

Why do you think forms other than Romanian are relevant in this article? Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Borsoka, I did not think what you are suggesting, please read back.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC))
I am not suggesting anything. I only want to know why do you think other forms than Romanian are relevant in the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, it seems you did not read back of if you did, did not undertand me properly, then your question is suggesting something that I did not think. I cite myself then: ("Of course, in this context, under a picture in this article German and Hungarian is not a "necessity" -> So, I don't think necessarily relevant other forms than Romanian to this article). I just wanted to express, in case there is a German form lonely and it is not because of a possible Saxon/German relevance/connection, then Hungarian should be also there, as generally these two forms next to Romanian are the most relevant in case. Clear now?(KIENGIR (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Romania/Archive_12&oldid=1152296836"