Talk:Romania

Archives
Archive 1 through January 2005. Archive 2 April2005 - August 2005. Archive 3 June 2005 - June 2006. Archive 4 June 2006 - October 2006 Archive 5 October 2006 - April 2007 Archive 6 April 2007 - October 2007 Archive 7 Reviews (FA,GA,peer)

Romanian Flag

Nu ati vrea sa punem negru in locul albastrului?? Vad ca deja toate le faceti pe dos. Nicaieri nu am vazut ca steagul tarii mele sa arate in asa hal. Vreu sa vad exact si de unde ai scos voi bleu-marin-ul, ala ie drapelul Chad, nu al Romaniei. Hai go ahead si arati sursele unde zice ca steagul ieste asa daca sunteti asa de corecti. ComUSSR 9 October 2007

I posted here: Talk:Flag_of_Romania#Flag_colors nobody responded. -- AdrianTM 05:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok...the only words i got were "Nu = no; asa = like this; drapelul = flag; Romaniei = Romanian?; etc"...seriously use English when communicating on English Wikipedia talk pages...it makes it easier for all of us who edit the English-language Wikipedia...anyways...using the very very limited Romanian I know and my knowledge of the French language, I am guessing that ComUSSR is complaining about the flag using the shades of Blue, Yellow and Red that Chad uses and not the actual shades that Romania uses, and he wants it corrected?...am I on the money? nat^tang 06:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I should have translated, but it sounds like a rant rather than an argument so I passed... simple, he/she says that the flag colors are wrong, I posted a link to my comment about the issue. -- AdrianTM 06:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I requested the change of the currently wrong Romanian flag. And I think Im right. Go wherever you want on any site and I guarentee you that this isn't the Romanian official flag. Thanks Adrian. You should change it right now. We'll see what others will say. ComUSSR October 10th, 2007

I asked User:AdiJapan the user who created that flag for permission, we can wait to see what he has to say. Thanks. -- AdrianTM 19:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely not an expert in conversion from Pantone into RGB, but as far as I know there is no unique widely acceptable conversion table. So in my opinion we shouldn't try to use by all means the numbers that are currently listed in the article, since they might be wrong. I would rather try to use RGB colours that look more like what we all know our flag looks like. An to be honest, the 'Flag_of_Romania.svg' (darker version) looks a lot more like the real flag than the 'Romanian_flag.svg' (lighter version). This second version (the lighter one) is just too light. For all three colours. In conclusion, I would stick to the old version. Alexrap 08:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we need consistence in that article, probably the numbers are wrong (I used the numbers provided in article) -- AdrianTM 12:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. Someone with more experience in these issues should probably take care of it. Alexrap 13:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What's happening then? At the moment an unregistred user changed the image in this article (linking to the file with the new ligher version). Shall we keep this new image or we should rather use the previous one? (I would go for the second option) Any comments? Alexrap 11:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I created that file based on the numbers in the article, but I don't necessarily advocate using it -- I have limited knowledge in this field, I will let other people decide, I do advocate for consistency between numbers and colors of the flag. -- AdrianTM 11:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Limiting editing to registered users?

In the last day there were at least 5 edits by unregistered users that were reverted due to vandalism. Is it possible to do something?Nergaal 18:35, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I actually think that entire Wikipedia should allow only registered users to post. You can't ban millions of IP addresses of each vandal, creating an account is not painful but at least would deter some lazy vandals. -- AdrianTM 18:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

5 edits is nothing, and no there is nothing practical to do about it. If there's an admin around he or she might be persuaded to semi-protect the page so that only registered users could edit, but I doubt it, 5 is really mild. Some of the Agricultural pages like Domestic pig or Chicken go for scores of edits without any change to the substance, just vandalism/revert over and over again. Still can't get semi-protection for some of them, because "it's not serious enough" or by the time you get an admin to look at it, it's not recent enough. Just deal with it and watch the page so you can keep fixing the vandalism.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how, but yes, there is. I think we should limit editing privledges. It's a mess. Basketball110 (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Geography

Romania, as i learned in school in in central-south Europe. It is... 2000 km from the western most point of Europe, it it 2000 km from the eastern most point of Europe ( the Ural mountain chain), it is 2100 km from the northern most point of Europe , and 1000 km from the southern most point in Europe. So.. why does it say in the first sentence it's in eastern Europe?. I don't think it's wise for me to change it without approval, but i am kindly asking you guys to look into it.

Numaru7 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, and this has been discussed before, however we are not allowed to introduce "original research" and besides Romania has already placed in "Southeastern Europe" by... guess who.... Western Europeans, on basis that it's at East from them and on the basis of old political considerations that are now mostly irrelevant, however this geographic travesty unfortunatelly will stick unless you find couple of good references that place Romania in other geografic category, which I doubt... (also, Europe is not a square to make things easy to place) -- AdrianTM 01:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I knew about "south-east of Central Europe", but if you can find some other references that's great. --Venatoreng 11:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

I am sorry to say that this article still needs a lot of work to get it up to GA standard

• The thing that sticks out the most to me is the lack of refs in the article. Many sections do not have refs. It is ok to not have refs if the daughter article is reffed but in most cases teh daughter articles have no refs

Just to clarify: from your comments bellow, I see only the last ~half of the article (Culture, Government & Sports) suffering from this issue. Is that right? Or your statement was referring to more than the last half?Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The last half suffers more than the first half, but the first half still has a few places thin on refs. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• On many refs, the full date, author, accessdate, publisher is not recorded. Please record this where applicable

Wasn't full editing of references a FA standard? (a good part of the references do have significant details but stuff like full date and publisher are not allways awailable.)

That's true, but in some cases there was info but it wasn't included. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

also, what is accessdate supposed to show exactly?Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The date that you inspected the webref basically. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• In the sport section, I find it unusual that you have gone into detail of listing individual players as then it would be very hard to balance and work out which people deserve personal mentions. eg, what about Gabriela Szabo and so forth. In most articles, specific players are not mentioned unless they tower above all others. In any case, it is not necessary to note the clubs that Hagi played fro, that is irrelevant to Roomania at large. Noting ever grand slam winner is not feasible and secondlt the Romanian rugby team is not competitive at all. But anyway, the entire section there is unsourced. ACtually there is nothing about sport culture among the people, it is just a list of a few famous sportspeople

the statement rugby team is probably superficial and borderline snubby. If the information hereby is not well presented then state that and before you go ahead and make statements ilke "it is not competitive at all" it might be wise (at least as and admin) to do a little bit of research before denigrating. I am just going to say that in Rugby union, the country is usually rated atound 15th place.Nergaal (talk) 11:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe that is because I am from Australia. I just checked the results of the 2007 WC again and losing 85-8 to NZ and then 42-0 to SCO is a sign that they are a weak team. Even if they are a good team on a bad day, conceding 50 points once is what would be expected. In 2003 they lost 90-8 to Australia and 50-3 to Argentina. This shows that they are not causing much problems for a world-class team at all. These scores are about the same as losing 4-0 or 5-0 in a soccer match, which is a lot.

'second tier' IRBNergaal (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Personally I'm for removing the reference to rugby, Romanian team is not good and the sport is not even popular in Romania, I think somebody introduced that because they play (or they like) rugby and wanted to support the sport, but this is pretty much useless and doesn't provide info. -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

...simiarly, all the references to gymnastics and tennis should be removed since neither of them are actually popular (and not really successful anymore either). Therefore the section 'Sports' should be renamed to 'Football'. Nergaal (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your attempt of humor, ha ha ha, I don't think that Romania is really known for Rugby, but even if temporarily the gymnastic team is not _very_ good (it's still better than 99% of other countries) I still think that many people when they think of Romania they think of Nadia Comaneci and Romanian gymnastic team, but be my guest include info about any sport you wish, that was only my opinion... -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

That was not my point. IN THE PAST Romania was competitive in both gymnastics and rugby. I agree that in gymnastic (only feminine though) is more competitive than rugby. But in rugby union, it is still only one of the 12 countries that has participated in all of the world cups (which by the way is the only statement about rugby). Anyways Romania is definetily more competitive in rubgy than in tennis (and if you ingnore 2 people, tennis means and meant nothing to Romania). As far as popularity, gymnastics is not even really broadcasted anymore. Leaving all of this aside, I believe that this is an encyclopaedia, where stereotypes should not be propagated, but where facts are presented. Therefore, keeping gymnastics for the sake of stereotypes (see Quintuplets 2000) and not for the sake of encyclopaedic relevance is a bit off. Nergaal (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, in case the stereotype is of encyclopedic proportion it should be mentioned, in case of football Romania never reached the success of gymnastics, but I would actually like to see both criteria used: success and popularity, both with references: for example number of gold medals in Olympiads for gymnastics and number of practicants (if we have such a number for football) I don't think that rugby meets any of these two requirements: no medals and not too many paricipants (unless I'm wrong about that) -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• POV like "when the "Golden Generation" was at its best." no sources and describing specific mathces.
• Foreign relations section is completely unsourced
• Counties section is not sourced
• Ditto for politics
• Science is not really part of culture and suffers from teh same type of problem that the sports section does in that it talks about personaliteis rather than the bigger picture, eg, how much is the research budget etc. It mentions an astronaut bbut does not talk about the general space program at large.
• Monuments is again not sourced directly or in teh daughter article
• The Arts section is again heavily dependent on a list of personalities rathe than discussing the cultural art picture of Romania at large.
• Culture section unsourced
• The economy section is relatively good
• History section has undue weight on post CEaucescu. Most of the events in this period were normal electoral transitions, so there is not that much to say in that respect. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some of the sections in the last half are geared too much towards specific people rather than general trends. I also agree that some sections in the last half do suffer from underreferrencing. Thanks for the input but seriously, this was a GA review not an FA one.

ps:This is rather simply my curiousity: the GA-review are done by a single person or by a group of people? I am asking this because last time this was GA-reviewed the feedback did notseem to be this overwhelmingly negative.Nergaal (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

GA is done by a single person. Unfortunately, I do tend to be one of the harsher markers in GAC. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

left to do

• The thing that sticks out the most to me is the lack of refs in the article. Many sections do not have refs. It is ok to not have refs if the daughter article is reffed but in most cases teh daughter articles have no refs Not done
• On many refs, the full date, author, accessdate, publisher is not recorded. Please record this where applicable Not done
• The Arts section is again heavily dependent on a list of personalities rathe than discussing the cultural art picture of Romania at large. Not done
• History section has undue weight on post CEaucescu. Most of the events in this period were normal electoral transitions, so there is not that much to say in that respect.  Not done

HELP!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diplomatic_missions_of_Romania --Sambure (talk) 14:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Relgion

I would like to contest the "secular state" statement. Religion is taught in school, and Orthodox priests do the teaching. Recognized religions in Romania receive government money, the Orthodox church receives much more than any other religion, and Orthodox leaders are on the board that decides new applications for a religion to be recognized, so that they can dictate who is and is not recognized and who does and does not receive money. There is only a small handful of recognized religions, and those that are not recognized must operate as non-profit organizations, paying high property taxes, making it almost impossible for a religion to grow to an officially recognized status without a massive international organization behind it. So I would hardly call Romania a secular state.

I think that the December 27, 2006 law mentioned in the article is also a manifestation of this problem. Requiring 20,000 members for a religious organization implies a need for an organizational structure which is inhibited by the property tax laws I just mentioned. I do not know of the official statements made by Romanian government that it is a secular state, but if such a statement has been made then it is very contestable. Jacobjojo (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe the constitution defines Romania as a secular state Nergaal (talk) 21:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in general, Religion teachers teach religion, people that finished Theology, but are not priests. --Venatoreng (talk) 16:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

This page has had about 45000 hits

during November and is in the top 500 of wiki charts Nergaal (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

on 438 place from 500. Treaba buna Nergale.Edgesusedarea (talk) 15:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Treaba buna, indeed.

136,800 views per day in January? Wow! Nergaal (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Too long?

I don't think the article is too long. I think the longer, the better! Basketball110 00:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

TWSS. Actually, I think it's a bit too long, especially some of its sections. The history section needs to be trimmed quite a bit. Other sections seem fine lengthwise, although some sections (such as tourism) should exist, and others should be merged, for instance geography and administrative units. 21:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion-Maybe we should turn it's sub-sections into sections. Basketball110 22:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Latins

Are Romanians part Latins? They were -- obviously, even the name gives it away, part of the Roman Empire.

I'm Romanian; most of the people there consider themselves Latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.59.228.131 (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I think they're culturally Latin in the sense that they descend from a Romanized province. --Venatoreng (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What would their ethinicity be? Latin still? I've checked the Latin Union website and it says so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.70.135 (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Images

An anonymous user made some of the images huge. --Venatoreng (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Bucharest

I think it's best to write the whole population of Bucharest which is about 2.5 millions. Român (talk) 17:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was 2.2. Basketball110 16:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Internet Penetration

The last two paragraphs in the Economy section contain unverified and possibly inaccurate information.

The percentage of computers connected to the internet in the country reaches almost 70% and more than 50% have broadband connections reaching a 4 Mbit/s (megabits per sec) average. From this aspect, Romania is the 10th country in the world with a bigger percentage of people connected to the internet than the USA.

The only reference given is to a poll conducted in Romania. The numbers claimed here are not supported by the numbers in the poll. And according to a more reliable source the second claim about Internet penetration is blatantly wrong. Can somebody please verify these claims, fix them if they are wrong and provide adequate references? Hritcu (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree—this sounds like a very dubious claim to me. Note that there is a Category:Broadband Internet access by country, with some 30 countries listed, but Romania is not there (I would imagine it would be, if it would be in the top 10, no?) Also, note the article on Broadband Internet access in Europe, where we only find out that "Broadband internet has been available since 2000" in Romania--no other claims there. Finally, take a look at Communications in Romania#Broadband Internet access: there are all sorts of details there (how current are they? are they reliable -- no source is given), but I can't find a Top 10 claim there, either. All in all, I think the claim, "Romania is the 10th country in the world with a bigger percentage of people connected to the internet than the USA" (which is not even grammatically sound) should be removed from this article, pending serious verification. Turgidson (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up comment: According to this source, as of July 2006, "Romania was approaching the average European rate of internet use", which hardly sounds to me like Top 10 in the World. Maybe things have changed since, but note that the reference given in this article, "Românaşul High-Tech" (hardly a title inspiring confidence, at least for encyclopedic purposes!) is from February 2006, so — what gives? Turgidson (talk) 22:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I have heared recently something like there are 6-7 millin internet users in Romania.Nergaal (talk) 11:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternate names

Both Rumania and Roumania redirect here; both have been (recently) used of Romania, and Rumania happens to be my idiolect. I see no reason not to include them, if only as an assurance to the reader that she is in the right place. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be "imprudent for a foreigner to dogmatize on English usage", especially for "someone whose fluency in English is not that of a native speaker", and is graciously encouraged to "read the English literature, if you can". But yes, it's Romania, not Roumania or Rumania, regardless of what your idiolect says. Next question? -- Turgidson (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is all three. Roumania is a Gallicism after fr:Roumanie; I say idiolect because I believe Rumania is British English, which I normally do not speak. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Roumania and Rumania can be found in older maps and international documents. All three are acceptable, but "Romania" is much more common nowadays. nat.utoronto 21:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nat -- I'm not sure what you mean by "acceptable". Of course, it's a free country, one can write anything any which way—even Roomania, I guess. But in all modern international dealings and documents, scholarly journals, all serious newspapers and magazines—in other words, the vast majority of reliable sources—and, last, but not least, here at Wikipedia, it's Romania. The other spellings are way obsolete and musty. As for the above claim that "Rumania" is (current) British English, well, how so? Just ask BBCRomanian.com, or check Country profile: Romania at the Beeb. -- Turgidson (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is proposing to rename the article; merely to note that these names, which do occur in current writing, do in fact mean Romania, and not, say, Rumelia. As far as I can tell from the Google result, Roomania doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

And no one with a basic understanding of Logic and the English language would mistake my comment as implying that I thought someone is "proposing to rename the article". This kind of argument is called a red herring, or setting up a straw man. What I said (if one is to read carefully what I said), is that Rumania and Roumania are "obsolete and musty" spellings, with no current usage in reliable sources. Period. -- Turgidson (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Which is nonsense; reliable sources which use them in the title are cited. If Turgidson would explain why this matters to him, we might be able to converge on a solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, this is discussed (and referenced) in the section on Etymology, and in Etymology of Romania. That's the proper way to do it—not bolded, in the first sentence of the lead. See WP:POINT, WP:MOS, WP:UNDUE, etc. Turgidson (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The only bold word in the first sentence is Romania. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If fr:Roumanie is "now deprecated", someone had better tell the French Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you have no basic knowledge in French and at least you should know that country names in French are very different from English. For example: Etats Units - States United. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's your point? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add Rumania/Roumania in the article. Sources added by me contradict your claims clearly. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 21:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. The fact that most people use Romania, which nobody disputes, cannot contradict the fact that some English-speakers use something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Yes, some people mispronounce the name of the country. So what? Some avid golfers call it Rumenia. Should we also have that in the lead? And some people mistake Bucharest for Budapest, and vice-versa (especially in English-speaking countries). Should we mention all the possible confusions in the leads of the articles on Bucharest and Budapest? Where would that stop? Turgidson (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If you check Google Scholar for the word "Rumania", there are 18,400 results with most of the material publish from the 1940s to the 1990s. "Rumania" had been a popular form with scholars and international diplomats. nat.utoronto 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• A third of it is published in the 2000s; the first page here contains a result by one Oprescu, published in Bucharest. To insist further on this minor matter is to be more correct than the Romanians themselves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Nat: Of course, I don't dispute the fact that "Rumania" was used in English in the old days — to do so would be silly of me. What I argue is that (1) essentially no serious, reliable source would use that spelling nowadays, unless they want to expose their ignorance (please do correct me if I'm wrong in this assumption); and (2) the proper place to discuss the etymology of the name, its various variants and spellings, etc, is in the Etymology section (and, of course, in Etymology of Romania). What I argue against is cluttering the lead (especially, the first sentence) with such a discussion, which sounds very peripheral to the real subject of the article. Turgidson (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who reads the first sentence will see that the "clutter" consists of four words, which are part of a parenthesis which exists anyway - for the Romanian spelling and the pronunciation. If it makes for compromise, I would be willing to place some of them ("less common" and perhaps Roumania, which is less common than Rumania) inside the footnote, but that would mean removing the express acknowledgement that Romania is indeed the most common form. Let me know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NCGN In the lead "Any archaic names in the list (including names used before the standardization of English orthography) should be clearly marked as such, i.e., (archaic: name1)." Rumania is an archaic spelling for Romania (both in English and Romanian, in English it seems that most of the recent results point to Romania while old ones point to Rumania which support the idea that's archaic usage) -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also be content with "now largely historic"; archaic in WP:NCGN is intended to have its common meaning, of terms no longer in use, which is not true here. The standardization of English orthography, after all, took place while Rumania was still Moldavia and Wallachia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pmanderson, you have been reported for breaking the 3RR in this article. Here's the link - [1]. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The most simple way to end this useless discussion would be to start a poll in which editors would support/oppose the inclusion of the so called "alternate names" in the article. Anybody agree? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, m:Polling is evil and slow, and the combination of an offer to poll with an effort to get the other side blocked has its dubious features.

There are two ways for Eurocopter to settle this right now. I have made no less than three compromise proposals immediately above. Eurocopter can either specify which of them he finds most acceptable and we can install them; or he can explain why he declines all compromise and insists on acknowledging only the official name, to the inconvenience of our readers and against our policies. If we understand his reasons, we can accommmodate them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please stop talking as I would be the only who opposes the inclusion of those "alternate names". In fact, I think you are the only one who supports their inclusion. Your so called "compromises" are unnacceptable for me and other users involved in this discussion. Also, you are the only one who terribly seaks to add these "alternate names", as a revenge resulting from the discussion on Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive. Let's see if somebody would agree with a poll, so we would stop this endless discussion. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please answer my question: which of these compromises would you find acceptable? ("None" is a perfectly good answer, but please stop delaying; a poll will take five days.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Which of your comments do you actually call them "compromises"? And why you would not accept a poll? --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• To exclude "less common" or move it to the footnote.
• To include "now largely historic"
• To move Roumania, as least common of the three, to the footnote.

Polling will take days, and has all the evils mentioned at m:why polling is evil; nor can it really justify suppression of fact, see WP:NPOV. But if Eurocopter can bring himself to accept any combination of the proposals above, we can end this now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Eurocopter; a poll would be best (once Pmanderson has served his block). Epbr123 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Pmanderson received only a 24 hours block, so he would post his opinion in the poll tommorow. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, a poll seems the way to go, otherwise I would remain with the impression that only one person pushes something on this page and complains if the rest of the people don't "compromise" -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Another element to be taken into consideration, given the fact that "rumân" has a specific (rather negative) connotation in Romanian, I think that "Rumania/Rumanian" is to be avoided even by English speakers (just like other terms that were initially pure ethnonyms but for one reason or another are considered offensive by the people who are called that way) -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A poll would be fine. Rumania and Roumania are in a gray zone somewhere between being common alternative names and historical names. Until the middle of the 20th century Rumania was decidedly the standard name of the country in English. Since that time, almost all usage has shifted to Romania, but there are still some holdouts using Rumania, as well as many existing works that have not yet accumulated enough age to be called "archaic." I think it's fair to say that Rumania is an acceptable and established alternative, but one that's dated and on its way out. As such, it's sensible to mention it in the intro, but it doesn't necessarily need equal billing with the now-standard spelling. It would be fine to put it in a later sentence in the intro. Connotations of related Romanian words are irrelevant, as it's only English-language usage that matters here. --Reuben (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Roumania is not /that/ old a variant, certainly it was still in use when I started school in the 80s though it seemed to quickly fall out of use in the 90s. Rumania is a term I have only heard from my great grandfathers generation, and up until his death he still referred to 'Mesopotamia' and the 'Fuzzy Wuzzies'. Then again, I still know people (and still use myself) the pronunciation 'Keenya' for Kenya. Alot of what might be termed archaic terms are still used in British English at least. Narson (talk) 08:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly why "archaic" is not the right word. Something that was in common use 30 years ago may be dated, but it's not even close to archaic yet! I've seen Rumania in histories of WWII, so it was still common as recently as 60 year ago. Again, dated, but not archaic. --Reuben (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrian's argument is the best against including Rumania, and is therefore worth answering. The encyclopedic thing to do is to include it and include a note on usage, with a source. Many English speakers will not know this, and should be told; I suspect that includes most of the diplomatic historians who do use it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As per the explanation in Etymology of Romania Romanian had two spelling too "Român" and "Rumân" the second one came to mean bondsman (bondservant) only, I do not have any proof that the English use of that form could be considered offensive by Romanians (besides the "u" form is used by many other languages), but it's not a big stretch to imagine it's not necessarily a pleasant association (it would be offensive if it were in Romanian, but that's probably irrelevant for English use), but in any case I'm pretty sure it's considered dated (I haven't seen any official English document that uses that form recently) -- AdrianTM (talk) 00:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My God, do you people just make this up as you go?! The document that the article points to as being the original mention of Romania is simply a mis-spelled error. EVERY Ottoman map since the 14th century calls the region in which Wallachians lived 'Rum', and Rumania was simply the post-Ottoman Latinisation of the name. In the Christian Europe the people of the region, where they were ethnicaly different, were referred to by their ethnic names, Magyars, Walachians, Ukranians, Ruthenians, etc. Rum is a Turkish word for the province, and has nothing to do with Roma, the Italian city, or Romans who were long gone by the time Wallachians settled by the Black sea. Now, the reason the province was called Rum is because at the time it included Greece, and the Greek was the France lingua in the region. Rum is STILL the name for Greeks in Turkish!!! Enough with this nationalistic busines snad trying to make like the Italians! It just happens that Wallachins chose to Latinise (Romanise?)their language in the same way the French did to distinguish themselves from the Greeks, so they now fall into the Latin language group.--mrg3105mrg3105 13:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is a poll in which editors are invited to express their support/oppose regarding the inclusion in the main article of the alternate names for Romania, as proposed by User:Pmanderson.

• Oppose - per discussion above and WP:Naming conventions. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support-ish - Per bullet point 1 in section 2 of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). However with the caveat that, per that point, they should be labelled as archaic. They have fallen out of general use. I would also support an expansion of the Etyomology section rather than putting it in the lead. I do not buy the argument that people looking for Rumania or Roumania would be confused if they arrived at this page and didn't see those names in the lead. I think the etymology section can be expanded into the English name for the country as well as the Romanian name. Narson (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - Per Narson and per the fact that "Rumania" was a popular anglicized form of the name used by scholars and diplomats from the c.1940s (or earlier) to the early 1990s. Label the term as archaic. nat.utoronto 16:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Those spellings are obsolete, "Romania" spelling is used in 99% or more (actually many instances of "Rumanian" provided by Google are from other languages than English) of the cases and 100% in official communication in English language -- since that's the official standard. If we mention "Rumania" we need to clearly label it as archaic per WP:Naming conventions -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support as above. An approval poll seems the best way to do this, since there are a number of options. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment: the phrasing of this poll is unfortunately very vague. It's quite hard to tell what exactly I'm being asked to support or oppose, and the opposes seem to have in mind something quite specific rather than just any "inclusion in the main article." I suggest we start over with a list of specific proposals, and ask editors to support as many as they find acceptable. I suspect there's an acceptable compromise lurking here somewhere. --Reuben (talk) 18:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Please feel free to modify it. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
    • See approval poll below, and do add other suggestions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Approval poll

Poll scheduled to close 00:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC). The current time is 23:34, 3 January 2025 UTC [refresh].

Which of the following should be the text of the article (feel free to add other options) Please indicate any you can support; reasons to oppose should go in the discussion below:

Please indicate all you can tolerate, with brief comments. (Each form of text would presumably have footnotes also, which would include evidence, and should include the claim Rumania is derogatory if a source can be found.)

1) Romania (Template:Lang-ro, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is... (and then add names in Etymology section)

• This should suffice for the first sentence of the article.Nergaal (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Third choice, providing there is expansion of the etymology to cover the various English language names that have been used for the country. Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Now we have seperate options for inclusion with etymology and such, this option becomes unacceptable, IMO Narson (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• First and only choice. Any other "alternate names"should be posted in the Etymology sectiion. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Second choice, this is fine too, simplicity is fine and etymology section and redirects take care of other spellings. AdrianTM (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Alternate names have to be mentioned in the leading section. Besides, they are not a matter of etymology. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

2) Romania (also Rumania, Template:Lang-ro, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is...

• Last choice, but the shortest acceptable option. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Both alternate names have to be mentioned. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

3) Romania (less commonly Rumania, Roumania; Template:Lang-ro, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is...

• First choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• First choice. Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Third choice, that's OK too, but I prefer simplicity in introduction. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. --Reuben (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• First choice. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, this should pe posted in the Etymology section. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  Could you please explain why the variants of an English word should be described in a section about the etymology of a Romanian word? — AdiJapan ☎ 19:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

4) Romania (Rumania, Roumania are now largely historic; Template:Lang-ro, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is...

• Second choice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Fifth Sixth and final choice. The last of the current six I consider acceptable. It is starting to get horribly long for a simple bracketted bit after the most common name. The whole "Rumania, Roumania are now largely historic" bit makes it look like Rumania is alternative, Roumania is historic. Would be better if it said "Rumania or Roumania, though both are now largely historic" but then its even longer. Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Dated covers much the same ground, although there is a slight difference; this would say, correctly, that the less used terms are now used about the nineteenth century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Narson, can you see any acceptable way to shorten or abbreviate the wording? --Reuben (talk) 08:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. First choice. --Reuben (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Awkward wording. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

5) Romania (archaic: Rumania, Roumania; Template:Lang-ro, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is...

• Dubious. Normal usage as late as 1950 is not archaic; but if we must. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Dated is better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• "Archaism, the use of a form of speech or writing that is no longer current" Since 1% of Google results point to Rumania and 99% point to Romania and 100% current official documents and communiques use "Romania" (AFAIK) I think "archaic" describes the situation pretty well. Notice that archaism means "no longer current" it doesn't mean that you need to use archaeology tools to find such words... -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see discussion here. There are still (a few, mostly older) people who use these versions of the names, so "archaic" is too strong. In 50 or 100 years that may not be the case. Right now, "dated" is more accurate. --Reuben (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, "dated" is better choice. AdrianTM (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

There may be other, better choices too... --Reuben (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• second choiceSupport As Rumania and Roumania are pretty much historically used forms, I believe this is the best option to go with. nat.utoronto 23:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Second choice. Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not archaic. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

6) Romania (dated: Rumania, Roumania; Template:Lang-ro, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is...

• First choice. nat.utoronto 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support as first choice. -- AdrianTM (talk) 23:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Fourth choice. Perhaps "somewhat dated", since there is a touch of original research here; but it accomplishes my primary purpose. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
• Fourth Choice. Though I dislike inventing a new form (dated) in the intro, sometimes deviating from the guidelines is necessary for the 'greater good' of an article (For example the use of a spanish second name in the Falkland Island articles (despite the native language not being spanish), as it stops there being a constant fight over how much should cover the spanish name) Narson (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It's not quite invented, see here it's a clear needed category between "archaic" and "current" since it seems that "archaic" has a nuance of "really old", we need a word for "used in the past, nowadays not used in official documents anymore and rarely used in other settings" -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. --Reuben (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• So-so. If you need a link to the Wiktionary, it's not the best wording. Ambiguous and inexact too. — AdiJapan ☎

7) Romania (known also by several alternative names; Template:Lang-ro, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is...

• Support, with the possibility of changing the wording. --Reuben (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Third choice Narson (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Alternate names are not a matter of etymology. Also, why use 6 words and a link when you can explain it there, in 4 words?... — AdiJapan ☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

8) Romania (Template:Lang-ro, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is... [later sentence in intro] Romania has also been known as Rumania or Roumania, names which are now found chiefly in a historical context.

• Support. Changes in wording of this suggestion are entirely possible. --Reuben (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Fifth Choice Narson (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, this is not bad either. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Last choice. It has the disadvandage of going back to discussing the name. — AdiJapan ☎ 12:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, second choice. --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 14:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I cannot support this. It is wordier, less visible for those who need it, and yet more obtrusive than any of 2-6. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Data

• WP:NCGN and other naming convention pages dislike raw www.google.com results, preferring Google Scholar, and Google Books. Googlefight comes under this, especially since it makes no effort to sort for English pages. Please note that the question here is not, and never has been, which name is most frequent; but which are frequent enough to be well-known. The case for Roumania is that it is pointless to exclude it if Rumania is included; it is the spelling used by and of Queen Marie, both in her own writing and in, say, Dorothy Parker. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree to this view as per what I stated below.Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Google Scholar:
  • Romania (and country, to force English results): 91,200 hits
  • Rumania (and country, to force English results): 19,000 hits
  • Roumania (and country, to force English results): 6,480 hits

• Google Books:
  • Romania (and country): 4020
  • Rumania (and country): 3600
  • Roumania (and country): 1760

Discussion

I don't think any of these gives equal billing to the less common spellings; they're certainly not intended to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously now

Is it really necessary to put all the outdated names that the country has been known as in the introductory paragraph? There is a Etymology section. In that section all the older usages can be added and it can even be stated around what period were they in use. Nergaal (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See paragraph 2 of WP:NCGN: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages,... We would include even names which are neither English nor Romanian, if they were used by 10% of the available sources (Rumania is used by some 45% of Google Books). The three words required to do so are much shorter than an express link to the Etymology section would be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Why do sources in the English language have to refer to Google Books counting and not simply Google? Maybe it is the case that the country was more often debated among scholars in books in the past (i.e. around its independence, or around the time it was on the frontline of the two World wars) and now it is simply a subjet of less 'interestingness' to write about. This would count towards a skewed view on the present situation of the naming.
   • Because raw Google is notoriously unreliable; see WP:GOOGLE. One quite common difficulty is that it does not accurately filter texts in English, and hits on Romanian and Italian are irrelevant to the question at hand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Please read paragraph 2 again.

   Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves. Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".

The Etymology section here allready states "In the following centuries, Romanian documents use interchangeably two spelling forms: Român and Rumân" and " Wallachia being here named The Rumanian Land - Ţeara Rumânească " This almost covers the issue we are debating here. I believe a simple explicit statement to the two alternate names should be enough, as here.Nergaal (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is intended for cases in which there are at least three alternative names, each in a different language. We could do it here; but the explicit link would be as long as proposal (6) above, rather more obtrusive, and less clear. But feel free to draft a proposed text; if short and clear enough I will support it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it is recomended to be done if there are 3 or more. If there are less, then it is still an option without being explicitly recomended.Nergaal (talk) 04:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, it may be considered; we who wrote that guideline did not want reasonable solutions prohibited by arbitrary lines; but the intention was that it not be done unless there are three, or some other clear reason for the movement (like long explanations for the names in text, which are not necessary here). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

By explicit statement I meant adding a sentence in the Etymology section that clearly discusses the archaic naming and at the same time leave the intro simple as per (1).Nergaal (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That is expressly deprecated by WP:NCGN: In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several alternative names)". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I can understand those editors who maintain that the alternate names should appear elsewhere in the article (or nowhere, if possible). As Romanians, we all want our country to have a uniquely identifiable name, like a brand, with no room for ambiguity, variation, or uncertainty. However, we're writing an encyclopedia here, which should contain all relevant knowledge. Those alternate names do exist, no matter if we like them (I myself don't), they can be found in lots of especially older books, newspapers and scientific articles, and are still in use by a small minority of English speakers. As such, they just have to be mentioned in the leading section. Here's my suggested phrasing:

Romania (rarely spelled Rumania or Roumania, Romanian: România, IPA: [ro.mɨˈni.a]) is a country in Southeastern Europe.

This is not a matter of etymology (see that article), but a matter of alternate names used synchronously with the main form, in the recent past as well as today. Besides, the etymology section only deals with the word in Romanian, not in English. If anyone has data about how the three alternate names appeared and evolved in English, a special section would be very useful. But even then the leading section should mention all those names. — AdiJapan ☎ 09:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I prefer "less commonly" to this variant, "dated" is also a good options since it communicates the idea that those spellings were used before, but now they are less common (especially in official writings) -- AdrianTM (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. — AdiJapan ☎ 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

See above, but the origin of the English Rumania is the Ottoman 'Rum', which actually means Greek in Turkish. So the ONLY logical name to call the country and its people is Wallachia, which is what it used to be called before the Ottoman occupation. Of course why the Ottomans called the Greeks 'Rum', is another story. As another example all Europeans in Turkish were called French :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"Now, the reason the province was called Rum is because at the time it included Greece" What? Are you serious or just trolling this page... AdrianTM (talk) 14:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe mrg3105 can also show us some sources to support those claims? Remember though, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. — AdiJapan ☎ 19:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Rumania

Its interesting that no real sources outside of one document are given for etymology in the article, with the etymology section ending on "The name "România" as common homeland of all Romanians is documented in the early 19th century.[13] This name is in use officially since December 11, 1861.[14]" I beg to differ. Firstly the original appellation of Rum applied to much of the Balkans during the initial Turkish invasion even before the formation of the Ottoman Empire because as I already stated the Lingua Franca in the Eastern Roman Empire was Greek. This is why the word in Turkish for Greece was Rum, but Rum stood for the Political entity so far as the Turks were concerned. At the time the power of the Western Roman Empire lay with the French, and hence all Western Europeans were Fransızlar, that is Frenchmen.
In any case, if Romania was the official name of the region, then why are my looking at the 1875 Universal Geography by Elisee Reclus, edited E.G. Ravenstein, F.R.G.S., F.S.S., J.S.Virtue & Co., London, Vol.I where on p.155 it says in a note to the title of the chapter on Rumania, "Officially called Romania, and frequently spelt Roumania: in French it is Roumanie". The volume also notes the existence of the Eastern Rumelia, and that the "south-west, and west is Wallachia or the "Plain of the Welsh", i.e. of the Latins." (p.156). Of course the Welsh don't claim to be from either Rome or Eastern Europe. The reason is simple. Romans, as a strategy of territorial consolidation would settle their former soldiers all over the Empire, including the ancient Dacia. The Wallachins, or whatever they called themselves arrived to find a small population of Latin speakers already settled there (during Trajan's time), so called the country after these Romans in ignorance of the existence of the Greater Rome, or the Rome of the East, Constantinople. I have no idea why the local Roman settlers called the new arrivals Welsh (Wallach) other then to suggest that the former legionaries may have come from the recently evacuated Britain where they may have encountered Welsh, and the Ancient newcomers to Dacia reminded them of the Welsh. In any case the expression "Romun no pere! is more appropriate for the "eternal city" of Rome then Rumania. Even in the 19th century among Rumanians there was disagreement on their own origins, notably between Shafarik and Miklosich, withthe later suggesting first arrival of progenitors of modern Rumanians in the 5th Century CE (note: Britain was evacuated at the beginning of the 5th century CE).However the earliest mention of populations other then the Latin settlements are of Carpathinas (after whom the mountains are named) in the 11th century CE, suggesting they were in fact Slavic tribes from the etymology of Czerep (scull). The disagreement is not over a name, but over demographics. Rumanian population increased substantially after the 5th century CE (based on archaeological digs). What is also true, is that there had been a persistent attempt by the Rumanians "to "polish their tongue" so that it may rank with Italian and French" (p.162)by abandoning the Russian characters and "their vocabulary is being continually enriched by new words derived from the Latin." Regardless of this, traces of the original language remain that place the original non-Latin native speakers coming from the same linguistic tree as the Bulgarians and Albanians, something modern 'Romanians' find racially unpalatable. The most telling statistic from this source is that at the time of writing of the 4,926,000 population in Rumania, there were 4,288,000 ethnic Wallachians.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this rant doing here? Do you want to push your original research? "linguistic tree as the Bulgarians and Albanians, something modern 'Romanians' find racially unpalatable" what's this nonsense, what has language to do with race? Educate yourself before you open a discussion like this one. read: Etymology of Romania (also that's the article where you should direct your rants, not here) -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Adrian, if you care to look at the Etymology page (and why does a country need one?), you will see that there is not one source in English!. We are trying to decide how to write the name of the country in English after all, this being English Wiki. Most of the sources are in either Rumanian or Italian, Italians having their own reasons for fostering 'Romanisation' of Wallachins. However, calling what I wrote a 'rant' rather then bringing logical counter-arguments only shows the caliber of thinking you are capable of. The reason Wallachians have been Latinising themselves is because Bulgarians and Albanians are ethnically Turkish (as are Hungarians and Finns), and Wallachins have been trying to disassociate themselves from the Ottomans since they were conquered in the Middle Ages. However Bulgarians were Slavenised, and Wallachians Latinised, just like the French, or Ligurians. Stuff happens in history.

However, lets have a look a the references in the Etymology article:
1. ^ Der herzoge Ramunch vzer Vlâchen lant/mit Sibenhunduert mannen chom er fvr si gerant/sam die wilden vogele so sah man si varn Das Niebelungenlied MS? from?
2. ^ "Der Nibelunge not", XII, ed. K. Lachmann, Berlin, 1878, p. 174; Francis P. Magoun jr. in "Geographical and Ethnic Names in the Nibelungenlied", p. 129-130; Fritz Schuster cu "Herzog Ramunc aus dem Walachenland", in "Sudost-Forschungen", XI, 1946-1952, p. 284-290)
3. ^ "nunc se Romanos vocant" A. Verres, Acta et Epistolae, I, p. 243 Vatican, date?
4. ^ "...si dimandano in lingua loro Romei...se alcuno dimanda se sano parlare in la lingua valacca, dicono a questo in questo modo: Sti Rominest ? Che vol dire: Sai tu Romano,..." Cl. Isopescu, Notizie intorno ai romeni nella letteratura geografica italiana del Cinquecento, in Bulletin de la Section Historique, XVI, 1929, p. 1- 90 Anything published under Mussolini was politically tainted(a partial quote by a Rumanian in the "News around to the romeni in the Italian geographic literature of the 1500's".
5. ^ “Anzi essi si chiamano romanesci, e vogliono molti che erano mandati quì quei che erano dannati a cavar metalli...” in Maria Holban, Călători străini despre Ţările Române, vol. II, p. 158–161 place, date? (“Indeed they call themselves romanesci,...how is that a proof of anything?!)
6. ^ "Tout ce pays la Wallachie et Moldavie et la plus part de la Transivanie a esté peuplé des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l’empereur…Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à-dire romain … " Voyage fait par moy, Pierre Lescalopier l’an 1574 de Venise a Constantinople, fol 48 in Paul Cernovodeanu, Studii si materiale de istorie medievala, IV, 1960, p. 444 (translated into English "“All this country the Wallachie and Moldavie and more that share of Transivania were populated colony of Romans of the time of Trajan the Emperor… Those of the country say they are true successors of the Romans and names their speech Romanechte, i.e. Roman...“, well, of course!
7. ^ "Ex Vlachi Valachi, Romanenses Italiani,/Quorum reliquae Romanensi lingua utuntur.../Solo Romanos nomine, sine re, repraesentantes./Ideirco vulgariter Romuini sunt appelanti", Ioannes Lebelius, De opido Thalmus, Carmen Istoricum, Cibinii, 1779, p. 11–12 Sorry, this was beyond me to translate! I pity the Wikipedia reader though. 8. ^ "qui eorum lingua Romini ab Romanis, nostra Walachi, ab Italis appellantur" St. Orichovius, Annales polonici ab excessu Sigismundi, in I. Dlugossus, Historiae polonicae libri XII, col 1555 (something about "here the Romini of Romanis, they are Walachi, of Italian pronunciation" Well, sure, a Latinised language will sound Italian.
9. ^ „...Valacchi, qui se Romanos nominant...„ “Gens quae ear terras (Transsylvaniam, Moldaviam et Transalpinam) nostra aetate incolit, Valacchi sunt, eaque a Romania ducit originem, tametsi nomine longe alieno...“ De situ Transsylvaniae, Moldaviae et Transaplinae, in Monumenta Hungariae Historica, Scriptores; II, Pesta, 1857, p. 120 Most books in Europe before 18th century were written in Latin, so naturally the Latin sounding language would be called "Roman".
10. ^ "Valachos...dicunt enim communi modo loquendi: Sie noi sentem Rumeni: etiam nos sumus Romani. Item: Noi sentem di sange Rumena: Nos sumus de sanguine Romano" Martinus Szent-Ivany, Dissertatio Paralimpomenica rerum memorabilium Hungariae, Tyrnaviae, 1699, p. 39.
11. ^ "am scris aceste sfente cǎrţi de învăţături, sǎ fie popilor rumânesti... sǎ înţeleagǎ toţi oamenii cine-s rumâni creştini" "Întrebare creştineascǎ" (1559), Bibliografia româneascǎ veche, IV, 1944, p. 6. "...că văzum cum toate limbile au şi înfluresc întru cuvintele slǎvite a lui Dumnezeu numai noi românii pre limbă nu avem. Pentru aceia cu mare muncǎ scoasem de limba jidoveascǎ si greceascǎ si srâbeascǎ pre limba româneascǎ 5 cărţi ale lui Moisi prorocul si patru cărţi şi le dăruim voo fraţi rumâni şi le-au scris în cheltuială multǎ... şi le-au dăruit voo fraţilor români,... şi le-au scris voo fraţilor români" Palia de la Orǎştie (1581–1582), Bucureşti, 1968. " În Ţara Ardealului nu lăcuiesc numai unguri, ce şi saşi peste seamă de mulţi şi români peste tot locul...", Grigore Ureche, Letopiseţul Ţării Moldovei, p. 133-134. (Translation?)
12. ^ Stelian Brezeanu, Romanitatea Orientalǎ în Evul Mediu, Editura All Educational, Bucureşti, 1999, p. 229-246 (Impartial source?)
13. ^ In his well known literary testament Ienăchiţă Văcărescu writes: "Urmaşilor mei Văcăreşti!/Las vouă moştenire:/Creşterea limbei româneşti/Ş-a patriei cinstire." In the "Istoria faptelor lui Mavroghene-Vodă şi a răzmeriţei din timpul lui pe la 1790" a Pitar Hristache writes: "Încep după-a mea ideie/Cu vreo câteva condeie/Povestea mavroghenească/Dela Ţara Românească.
Its not well known in English!
14. ^ Aşa şi neamul acésta, de carele scriem, al ţărâlor acestora, numele vechiŭ şi mai direptŭ ieste rumân, adecă râmlean, de la Roma. Acest nume de la discălicatul lor de Traian, şi cât au trăit (....) tot acest nume au ţinut şi ţin pănă astăzi şi încă mai bine munténii decât moldovénii, că ei şi acum zic şi scriu ţara sa rumânească, ca şi românii cei din Ardeal. (...)Şi aşa ieste acestor ţări şi ţărâi noastre, Moldovei şi Ţărâi Munteneşti numele cel direptŭ de moşie, ieste rumân, cum să răspundŭ şi acum toţi acéia din Ţările Ungureşti lăcuitori şi munténii ţara lor şi scriu şi răspundŭ cu graiul: Ţara Românească. In De neamul moldovenilor
(Translation please)
15. ^ "Hronicon a toată Ţara Românească (care apoi s-u împărţit în Moldova, Munteniască şi Ardealul) ...", D. Cantemir, Hronicul vechimei româno-moldo-vlahilor, in Operele Principelui Dimitrie Cantemir, Academia Română, Bucuresti, 1901, p. 180.
16. ^ The first known mention of the term "Romania" in its modern denotation dates from 1816, as the Greek scholar Dimitrie Daniel Philippide published in Leipzig his work "The History of Romania", followed by "The Geography of Romania". On the tombstone of Gheorghe Lazăr in Avrig (built in 1823) there is the inscription: "Precum Hristos pe Lazăr din morţi a înviat/Aşa tu România din somn ai deşteptat."
This is funny. The only mention of this Greek scholar is from either Rumanian sites, a single Rumanian site in English, and the German and French versions of Wikipedia articles. Does that make him famous?--mrg3105mrg3105 05:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone stop this guy from copying and pasting irrelevant references from other articles? Please, stop trolling this page, if you are interested to discuss those issues do that in the talk page of the article where the references are provided. -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Would you like me to call in an administrator for accusing me of trolling? The main article has a section on Etymology, but all the sources are hidden away in a 'daughter' atricle, which is somewhat underhanded since this leaves the main article beyond questioning! Iam not really interested in discussion since I see little reason for it. Some one started this rediculous poll as if history can be changed by it. None of your references can change that What you call Romania, was previously called Rumania based on the ar-Rum that the Turks borrowed from the Arabic Ar-Rum (Arabic: سورة الروم ) ("The Romans" or "The Byzantines"). The name was widely applied until recent 19th century times with independence of Rumania, and long after the Greeks stopped calling themselves Romaioi. Look up the Sultanite of Rum in Anatolia (capital Konya) in the 11th-13th centiries. Was that also Romania?

There was really no reason to change Rumania to Romania other then to more explicitly point out the linguistic relationship between modern Rumanian and Daco-Romanian of the Renaissance which had greater Wallachian influences still showing--mrg3105mrg3105 06:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to call an admin, don't use empty threats. As for your original research I won't bother to even discuss until you provide a reference. The things that you claimed boggle the mind "Now, the reason the province was called Rum is because at the time it included Greece, and the Greek was the France lingua in the region." When was Romania part of Greece?, "original non-Latin native speakers coming from the same linguistic tree as the Bulgarians and Albanians, something modern 'Romanians' find racially unpalatable" please provide reference about your "unpalatable" claim, also I think you should stop using quotes when you talk about Romanians, I find that offensive. No matter you personal opinion about how Romanians should be called please try to be respectful and don't mock official name of the country/people that's used by most of the people. -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To user mrg3105mrg3105: your interventions are but semieducated spinning. It is of no interest, if you are doing so out of ignorance or you are deliberately trolling. Your behaviour is disruptive. If you continue, you'll be blocked. --84.153.17.16 (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

sub

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.

I have no need to call and admin, but you seem to feel that I am 'trolling' so you may want a second opinion.

Now, pay attention, ok, there is NO original research.
I do not make new claims.

• "Now, the reason the province was called Rum is because at the time it included Greece, and the Greek was the France lingua in the region." I didn't say Wallachia was part of Greece, but that the Ottoman province of Rum included Wallachia and what is now a part of Greece (northern). The shape and names of the Ottoman provinces changed almost as often as the Sultans. I'm talking 16th Century CE. At this time there were no such countries as Greece or Wallachia and certainly not Romania. Greek had been the Lingua Franca in the Eastern Med since Byzantium days (Lingua Franca means trade language).
  
• "original non-Latin native speakers coming from the same linguistic tree as the Bulgarians and Albanians, something modern 'Romanians' find racially unpalatable" please provide reference about your "unpalatable" claim. What references would you like? The many conflicts with Bulgarians and the Arnauts being pretty much thrown out of Rumania in the 19th century? The linguistic reference can come from almost any article on study of Balkan linguistics that have found the root structuring of some non-Latin based verbs in Wallachian that have same structuring as Bulgarian and Albanian. To tell you the truth you can think whatever you want, but I don't have the time or the inclination to look for this.
• AdrianTM:"also I think you should stop using quotes when you talk about Romanians, I find that offensive. No matter you personal opinion about how Romanians should be called please try to be respectful and don't mock official name of the country/people that's used by most of the people."
  
• I got news for you, I only used your own quotes! I have not used one quote from anywhere other then those found in the etymology reference section; those I could translate into English. This is something that should have been done by the article editors, this being an English Wiki.
  
• I also have no personal opinion about Rumania, Rumanians, or whatever they choose to call their country. I just think that if you are going to do it here online in Wiki, all the evidence should be presented, and in English, rather then 'voting' a name in!
  
• Rumanians may not like the fact that they are not by and large descendants of Roman settlers in Dacia, but a Slavic tribe that heavily borrowed from Latin vocabulary, but this is a fact since there is no record of a mass migration of Latin speakers to Dacia.
• They may not like that the root for the name of the country comes from the Arabic (its even in the Koran!) used by the Turks to name the region for Greeks who represented one half of a fractured Roman Empire, but that is the fact.
  
• Changing history by renaming Rumania into Romania and saying that all Rumanians are descendants of Romans may wash with Mozilla and Microsoft, but fortunately they do not write history, only OS code. If you find truth insulting, then I suggest this is your problem and not mine--mrg3105mrg3105 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think I've ever seen anyone break 3RR on a talk page before. Really. Guys. Please step away from the keyboard for a time. Narson (talk) 11:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I have never had to revert anything twice so never new about 3RRs, so thank you for the info. Next time I'll get an admin on the second undo. :o)--mrg3105mrg3105 11:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't acctually realise the Three Revert Rule applied to talk pages until this little spat caused me to check. So, at least we all learnt something :) I often find if something has me so incensed that I still have to revert after 3 attempts, it is usually a good idea to cool off for the 24 hours needed on that article. It also gives other editors a chance to pipe in (And either back me up or tell me I'm being a cock). Narson (talk) 11:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

To user mrg3105mrg3105: your interventions are but semieducated spinning. It is of no interest, if you are doing so out of ignorance or you are deliberately trolling. Your behaviour is disruptive. If you continue, you'll be blocked.--84.153.17.16 (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Things to do:

For those that want to help:

• find references for the 37 31 'citation needed' tags that are throught the article (in Communist Romania, Culture, Tourism, Politics and Foreign relations)
• rewrite the Arts section (to be more about the topic in general and less about several specific names)
• Check external links Nergaal (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2008 (UTC)