Talk:Romanians

Romanians Of Italy

I think the numbers of romanians in Italy is wrong. It should be 1,000,000 something if you read the article of the demograhpics section of italy

Vlad Ţepeş

Sometime in the last few weeks, "the historic Transylvanian figure of Vlad Ţepeş" became "the historic Wallachian figure of Vlad Ţepeş". Given that he was born in Sighişoara, I would have expected that the former is more correct, though I realize that he ruled for a time in Wallachia. Comments? - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

In fact he is a Rumanian figure. He was born in Sighişoara, but giving the fact that all his purpose in life was to reign over Wallachia, you could say that he was a historic Wallachian figure. And considering his family background …
There are a lot of Rumanian books on him, but I’m afraid that your language skills must develop before you can get a first raw biographic material. If you have questions about historic Rumanian figures, I’m open to answer. Koga, 10 August 2006.

I have no problem with characterizing him as "Romanian", but "Wallachian" is a rather narrower designation, at least in English (even if it is etymologically related to "Vlach", equivalent to Romanian. And what precisely do you find inadequate about my "language skills"? - Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Since he ruled Wallachia....I think he was Wallachian rather than Rumanian (or had Wallachian origins). And I would like to point out that the concept of Rumania didn`t exist at his time yet. Obviously Wallachians were ancesters of Rumanian people. He was born in Sighişoara in 1480 which back then was part of the Hungarian Kingdom. It is hard to know his nationality based on his birthplace, since back then the Rumanian population was scarce compared to the Hungarian/German population in transilvania. csabap=username 11:46 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Let us first secure some linguistic and historical facts:

"Wallachian" was a foreign-designation (exonym) of "Romanian"

"Romanian" is a self-designation, an endonyme: Romanians never having called themselves other than..."Romanians" (români/rumâni)

In the time of Vlad the Impaler, Romanians living in what was the Principality of Wallachia, called themselves Romanians. Moreover, the name they gave to their own country was "Ţara Româneascǎ" - "Romanian Land".

Thus, both ethno-linguistically and politically, the name "Romanian" was long well-established in the time of Vlad the Impaler.

Calling people and countries according to their own name (endonyme) is usual and appropriate.

Hence, designating Vlad the Impaler as a Romanian Prince isn't but legitimate.

--Vintila Barbu 08:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree with u! People back then didn't think in nationalities. The most important was the person in charge and religion. Obviously Wallachia and Moldovians had the same religion. I agree with the language too. But politically back then they were definitly separate untill Michel the Brave was elected by the congregates of the two part. Really Wallachians are ancestors of Romanians! is User:csabap 3:22 7 September 2006 (UTC)

States and ethnicities

From the article:

The Romanians were part of different statal entities: with the Moldavians and the Wallachians being split off and having shaped separate political identities, possessing states of their own, and with the rest of Romanians being part of other states. However, they all retained their Romanian cultural and ethnic identity.

In this period, would Eastern Romance speakers south of the Danube (Aromanians, for example) have shared this ethnic identity or not? I'm just wondering if, in leaving them out, we are writing history backwards, working backwards from modern states that are based on Daco-Romanian national identity. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue of what "Romanian" meant prior to 1877 is very blurry: if we would take "Romanian" to mean a speaker of Romanian (which, according to Britannica, is divided into four dialects: Daco-Romanian, Macedo-Romanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian) than yes, they could also be counted as Romanians. Furthermore, even common self-designation "rumân", and the common exonym "vlach" supports this approach. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.249.155.244 (talk • contribs) 31 July 2006.

Ridiculous Numbers

As of right now, the article states that the total number of Romanians in the world is 21 mil. + est.(something that sounds ridiculous because most other nationalities on Wikipedia do not have this “+est.” added to their total number, even though most of them are estimates anyways). However if you look closely at the Romanians in each country and you add them up, you get something close to 21.5 mil. (the only estimated number is the one for Brazil: 33.000).

Another issue is the Moldovans and the question over their inclusion in the total number of Romanians. As of right now, the article is POV since it leads the reader to believe that “Moldovans are 100% not Romanians”. This is done under the disgusting cloak that “official census data is the only data to be used” and certain pov anti-Romanian editors go as far as to block the article from being edited if someone tries to include the Moldovans. Perhaps those people have forgotten that this is an encyclopedia and that a respectable encyclopedia includes ALL points of view, even if they do not agree with them. Since a great deal of people DO include Moldovans as part of the Romanian ethos, I propose that the article be unblocked and that the total number for Moldova be given in brackets, right beside the “official data” and that the total number of Romanians be changed to correspond with the numbers in each country.Dapiks 17:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is only semi-protected. Established users can edit it as it stands. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 18:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I know that Asterion, but if someone will try to make any of the changes I mentioned above (which in my opinion are not pov at all, if anything they are trying to correct the article and make it more NPOV), they will get reverted by a minority of users who do not allow for any other opinion on wikipedia other then their own on.Dapiks 23:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You should consider placing a Request for Comments, so other uninvolved editors can voice ther opinion on this. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 23:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazing. Before we were getting absurdly high numbers (like 35 million!). Now we're getting absurdly low ones.

The notion that somehow "Romanians" (as an ethnicity) end at the river Prut seems pretty silly to me. It's like saying that a Jew in Vancouver, BC has a different ethnicity than a 300 km away Jew in Seattle, because one is an "American Jew" and the other is a "Canadian Jew".

Can't we just make it clear that in terms of numbers we are talking about a reasonably broad ethnic classification of, basically, Daco-Romanians, which includes Moldovans (but not, for example, Aromanians)? It's not like there are any magic, well-defined categories, and these matters will always require that articles discuss the penumbra of a classification. - Jmabel | Talk 07:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I compleetely agree. Numbers should not be exagerated or distorted in order to achieve a political gain. This sort of stuff is disgusting and has no place on wikipedia.Jeorjika 19:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Should Moldovans be included in the figure?

It is clear that there are two contradictory POVs about the Moldovans, on whether they are or not Romanians. Current version, just changed by User:Jeorjika, includes again just the POV that the Moldovans are Romanians.

I propose listing both POVs:

Total population: 21-24 million¹

Moldova: 75,000-2,638,000¹

Any comments? bogdan 09:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would be very curious to know how do the people that have the "POV" that Moldovans are 100% not Romanians, would back up their statement (other then by going on about the "2004 Census" which had so many irregularities that no organization or encyclopedia in the world takes them seriously). Jeorjika 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The POV that Moldovans ≠ Romanians is the POV of the government of the Rep. of Moldova and of various other former Soviet countries (e.g. the Ukraine). I think Bogdan's proposal is fair enough. --Telex 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

But if you find Bogdan's proposal fair, then why did you revert it to the previous equally POV version with "21+est"?? Dapiks 23:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Shoo, shoo! —Khoikhoi 23:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't talk like that. It's not nice. How would you like it if someone told you "shoo, shoo"? I don't see you telling Irpen "shoo, shoo" even though he is disruptive. Is it perhaps because you have a bias? Jeorjika 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, much better. ;-) —Khoikhoi 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a proposal as to how to handle this, but first I'll make it clear where I'm coming from.

I doubt the intellectual honesty of the claim that there is a change of ethnicity at the River Prut. I can see the case that says that all Moldavians are ethnically distinct from Wallachians, but the one that says that Romanians in Transylvania, plus Wallachians, plus those Moldavians who live in Romania are of one ethnicity—Romanians—and those Moldavians who live across the border are of a different ethnicity strikes me as mere sophistry. Now, it happens that the Moldovan government engages in this sophistry, so it is notable sophistry, but (like any other minority view) it should be noted and moved past.

Here's how I would handle it:

1. In the section Subgroups and related ethnic groups we should have exactly one paragraph mentioning this controversy, indicating the Moldovan government's position on the matter, and indicating that virtually no anthropologist or demographer outside of Moldova agrees with the Moldovan government's position on the matter.
2. In the places on this page where we give a count of Romanians in Moldova or total number of Romanians in the world, we give a number in the body of the article that includes Moldovans, but we link the number to a note that explains that the Moldovan government describes the numbers differently, counting Moldovans as a distinct ethnicity. We also mention in the note that demographers in other countries do not make that distinction, and that numbers for other countries include an indeterminate number of Moldovans, but we don't link this note from every statistic that we mention for other countries.
3. In the Subgroups and related ethnic groups section and in the note, we say See Moldovans for further discussion.

Note that this is not an attempt to say that all articles should handle the matter this way. In particular, the articles on Moldovans and Moldova should take this up at greater length, expanding on the controversy itself, and discussing both the theory and the politics of the matter. But this article should not. It should be here to inform a reader about the Romanians, in the sense that a typical anthropologist or demographer today would use that term, which includes Moldovans. It should also discuss that in dealing with older history, this ethnic group may be defined to include Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians, and Istro-Romanians, but that in dealing with matters since roughly the mid-19th century, these are generally considered related ethnic groups rather than part of the same ethnic group as Daco-Romanians. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

There are Moldovans that live in Romania (Moldavia) and Moldovans that live in Rep. Moldova. Both are 100% Romanian, there's no doubt in my mind. Believe me I know many Moldovans from the Republic and all of them consider themselves Romanian. Saying Moldovans aren't Romanians only plays in the hands of the communist regime in Chisinau that still stands by the history written by soviet 'scholars'. Giuseppe86 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Self identification issue

This below is written in response to the post above by Jmabel.

Jmabel, personally, I take no position on whether Moldovans and Romanians are the same ethnicity or not, while I agree that the division is caused purely by political developments at some point of time. Nevertheless, what you suggest discounts the ethnical self-identification, an important factor. The census results in Moldova (and in Ukraine) are available. People answered who they are as they chose and these numbers should be the basis from which we proceed. If we have significant and referenced allegations of census fraud, coersion and counting falcification, we should add them as well. If those allegations would have warranted the reputable observers to call an entire census so unreliable that its numbers are totally meaningles and useless (a stament I have yet to see), we would say so, of course, and use other sources as the primary ones. If we have only occasional and isolated complaints, we can add them too, but as occasional and isolated and those won't affect the census as a whole. The only source cited for now on census criticism, putting aside any issues with this source, does not make a sweeping statement on the census numbers being totally unreliable. Note the statement "The expert group has not yet completed its work on the assessment of the census as a whole." Whatever that group is, even they made no statements recommending to disqalify in their entirety the census results, particularly on the nationalities issue.

As such, I beleive, the main number should be census based. Now, if other respectable sources state numbers that are different from census, fine, we cite those numbers too, referenced of course. But those alternative numbers have to be referenced to a respectable source that cites them as the numbers of Romanians. Wer can't have in an article a number based on the mathematical exercise of one or the other Wikipedia editor, who from time to time pops up in the article to demonstrate he can add numbers. Especially nonsensial is that those fellows add the numbers taken from the very census they claim compromised, add them and produce in their view "true results" based on a "compromised census".

For the language questions self-identification is of course less important. Linguists are qualified to judge whether two languages are in fact two names of one and the same language. But substituting people's self-identification by the opinion of antropologists is highly controversial to say the list. --Irpen 08:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Still, I would conjecture that most people who identify as Moldovans consider that to mean a subset of Romanians, or consider both to be a subset of Daco-Romanians. This whole thing seems such a tempest in a teapot.

I rarely say "let's look at how Britannica handles this", but… has someone got a Britannica? How do they handle it? - Jmabel | Talk 06:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here are some relevant quotes:

From Romanian language article:

"Romanian language: Romance language spoken primarily in Romania and Moldova. [...] There are about 23,680,000 speakers of Romanian, of whom about 20,500,000 live in Romania, 2,700,000 in Moldova, some 350,000 in Ukraine, and about 40,000 in Yugoslavia and 10,000 in Hungary. "

From Moldova:

"The Moldovans, who ethnically are kindred to the Romanians, are the indigenous people of the republic..."

"...thereupon began a heated debate over whether the language should be called Romanian or Moldovan."

From Vlach (they lumped together the article about Romanians with the one on the Southern Vlachs):

"Vlach, also called Romanian, or Ruman, member of a European people constituting the major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova, as well as smaller groups located throughout the Balkan Peninsula"

bogdan 09:06, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not confuse the language issue with the national identity. Austrians and Germans speak German. Here is another quote from EB:

[Chernivtsi Oblast]'s complex political history has led to a very mixed population, including Russians, Poles, Jews, Hungarians, Romanians, and Moldavians, although Ukrainians form about three-quarters of the total.

--Irpen 09:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So, in short, I gather that Britannica splits the difference: one language, two ethnicities. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Moldovans(Moldavians) consider themselves a separate ethnic group within Romanians. A minority (75,000) consider themselves directly Romanians, without considering Moldavians specific, the majority (2,700,000 in Moldova + 200,000 in Ukraine) consider themselves also specifically Moldavians. In any census you can answer only one way. Answering Moldavians does not excludes Romanians, answering Romanian excludes Moldavian.

Now, this is what I know that the people in the country think. Of course I am only one of them, so yes, theoretically I can answer only for me. But as you can see, this is what all the political parties say. Does Britanica have authority over the country? Just asking in general. In this case, Britanica says exactly what I and 3 million others know to be the truth.

A little history: if you go back to before 1988, just calling yourself Romanian was forbidden, you could get arrested for "nationalism" for that. (Not that you would be punished much, but spending 15 days in prison when the authorities threaten to move you in cell with common criminals, is sufficient to keep your mounth shut for a while.) There are 3 major political forces in Moldova (although names have changed, aliences broken and remade during the last 16 year), people are generally supportive of a specific one (the swing vote is under 20-30% max). One of the three supported adopting "Romanian" right away in 1989, since then it moderated a bit, accepting that "Moldavians" is a legitimate designation within "Romanians". The second rejected the term "Romanian" up until 1996, and accepted it openly since 1998, emphazising that being Romanians does not mean that the country should loose its independence. The third, having about 47% support at the last ellections, and including most of the minority vote (around 20-30% is the minority vote, depending on the show-up) was against the term up until 2003. Then from 2004, it again supports the same thing: "Moldavian/Moldovan" means either citizen of Moldova, or a member of the ethnic group; "Romanian" means either citizen of Romania (only a small portion of population has double citizenship), or the larger ethnic group, containing "Moldavians", and based on a common culture, traditions, etc, but primarity based on the common language. In view of the population, the reason for considering ourselves also Romanians is linguistic. However everyone agrees that this implies nothing about politics. Now, noone can say that in 100 year borders would be the same, but for now everyone accepts that the language issue solely can not be used as a political agrument, and at least so far only a minority wants to see Moldova within Romania. :Dc76 21:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Times

 I think there is no proof of the people called Dacians(correct me if I`m wrong...) (the romans called
people from Dancia province Dacians, regardless of their nationality) being the ancestors af modern
Romanians. After the Roman rule there were a lot of Romans that remained there, but after there was a
few hundred years that we do not know anything. There were Slavic, Germanic(Gepid,Goths,), Avars,
Scythians and Sarmatans. The presence of these people is proved both by references and archeology. If 
there is archeological proof for eg. of the Carpi...could u. help me out...I`m really interested in 
this complicated and fascinating time of history :)....Thanks!!! Csabap 4:00 9 Sept
2006 (UTC)

Well, what we know about the pre-Roman ancestors of modern Romanians is about a couple hundreds words, most of them with cognates in Albanian. (for example, Romanian "moş"=old man, cognate with Albanian "moshë"=age) We also know from the phonetic evolution that Albanian and the Romanian substrate were distinct, but closely related dialects in Ancient times.

The three important languages in the region were Dacian, Thracian and Illyrian, each with their dialects. Illyrian is almost ruled out because it seems it was a centum language, not satem. There is little evidence for choosing Dacian over Thracian, but it seems that more Dacian toponyms can be explained with Old Albanian.

We know very few ancient Dacian or Thracian words and there is one known correspondence between an ancient Dacian word ("manteia", blackberry) and a modern Albanian ("man", mulberry).

So, no, there is no actual proof of the Dacian origin, but it's just a "very likely" hypothesis.

But Dacian tribes also lived outside what is now Romania, so, it is possible that the Romanians originally lived in the area of the city of Naissus (now Niš, Serbia) before the Hunnish invasion (5th century). bogdan 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Intresting! So is it possible that Romanians are of partly of slavic origins? Ty!
Csabap 05:07, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Romanians in contemporary Bulgaria

According to the last official census in 2001 (concrete results could be seen here):

1. Vlachs 10 566

2. Romanians 1 088 - Jackanapes 14:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible alternate image

Four Romanians

Four Romanians

Anittas (who is currently banned, for reasons that do not bear on his trustworthiness) sent me the image I have now uploaded as Image:Four Romanians.JPG, and suggests that it might make a better choice for the Infobox here. From left to right, Stephen III of Moldavia (Ştefan Cel Mare); composer George Enescu; scientist Victor Babeş; and jet aircraft pioneer Henri Coandă. All images should be public domain. And of course we could mix and match. Just passing it along. - Jmabel | Talk 20:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I am certain that Anittas is not happy with the current image because it has no Moldavians, but it has three Wallachians. :-) bogdan 20:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

That I remember... —Khoikhoi 20:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is just a POV-push over Stephen "as Romanian". I myself think that the idea of having any pictures, in any infobox, is sheer stupidity (as it forces people to agree on whan particular chart). If I have to chose, I say: drop all pictures of people living before 1829, not because Romanianness is necessarily flawed before that date, but because it is problematic. Dahn 21:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Master Yoda: "Unlearn what you have learned, drop all pictures of people living before 1829, and you will find peace". :) Dpotop 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While the proposed image is better than the current one, I think there are still two personalities not included: Constantin Brâncuşi and Mihai Eminescu. Brâncuşi is arguably the most prominent Romanian of the 20th century in the non-political sphere (aside from Comăneci, another possible candidate). Even though I'm not a particular fan of him at all, Eminescu is widely-acclaimed within Romania, and in the cultural world he is probably seen as the greatest single figure and contributor to Romanianism. So, I suggest replacing Stephen the Great with any of these two. Ronline ✉ 00:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no "Romanians list" without Eminescu. Dpotop 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Anittas wanted to include Brâncuşi, but couldn't find a PD or free-use image. And there is really not much argument for fair use in something like this. - Jmabel | Talk 19:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He also remarked on wanting to include a woman, but couldn't think of anyone appropriate for whom a free-use image would be available. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind again about this issue: I don't think the existing 4 people make a faithful example of Romanians. Above there is a suggestion by someone: Stephen III of Moldavia (Ştefan Cel Mare); composer George Enescu; scientist Victor Babeş; and jet aircraft pioneer Henri Coandă. First I have a question, do there have to be exactly 4? can there be 8 or 10? If 4, then I support this new list. If 8-10, then I suggest to add a few more names, such as biologists Nicolae Paulescu and George Emil Paladi, poet Mihai Eminescu, politicians Avraam Iancu, Mihail Kogalniceanu and Iuliu Maniu. I would rather see scientists at least at 1/2, so 2 of the 3 politicians would have to go unless we add other scientists. The problem is, we want to add only top-top scientists, and only dead ones, so 6 might be too much. As for the regions, I don't care, and noone should care - they made contributions much beyond their region. Assigning numbers to regions is the most stupid form of "positive discrimination" I can think of. Comaneci is a good candidate, but the non-scientists non-politicians are 1/4, and she cann't come close to Enescu or Eminescu. Also we might want to include people who are in the 28 million but not in the 24 million, such as Hermann Oberth. Even in USA he still considered himself proud to be Romanian (he did not see it to be an exclusive term - he was also Saxon, German and American, and somehow he produced much more for the mankind than all people arguing on wikipedia about that all together.).:Dc76 00:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

No rule on the number of images. For what it's worth, I'd venture to say that Nadia Comaneci would, in fact, be the first person many English-speakers would name if they were asked to name a Romanian. - Jmabel | Talk 20:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to venture to say that, I have experienced it first-hand at least a dosen times. :) The reason is simple, Enescu and Eminescu are dead, you don't hear about them in the press. I don't have anything against including living people in the pictures, except the fact that it gets very tricky with living scientists (I don't mean here, I mean in general.) Specificaly, I suggest to replace the existing picture with yours. Then, if someone would compile one with these 4 + others, we will discuss again. I only want to support the idea that approx. 1/2 should be scientists, inventors, technicians, etc, approx 1/4 politicians, approx 1/4 others. Of course, approximately.:Dc76 20:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I will upload this image instead of the current one. I hope nobody has anything against it, I tried to include people that are well-known on both an international and a national level. There is no such thing as a perfect choice of the most representative Romanians, but in my opinion the previous image was not even close. Hopefully, this one is better. At least in my opinion it is. I included people from a fairly wide choice of fields and I ordered them chronologically. Alexrap 22:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice to me. Good job! Turgidson 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Protected

Page protected. Again. Best, Mackensen (talk) 01:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly is there an edit war over this article? If we add up all of the current figures, we get slightly over 21 million, so I suppose "21 million +" is correct. However, wasn't there consensus that a second figure would be added, including Moldovans. I think this would not only settle the revert problem but also present multiple points of view, which is the essence of NPOV. Ronline ✉ 06:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Dapiks 12:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To Ronline: I cannot begin to fathom how that would be "NPOV". I too hold the view that the Moldovan ethnicity is invented, but we. have. the. fact. that. those. people. do. not. describe. themselves. as. Romanians. For God's sake: I do not have the right to tell them what they are, and this article should only refer to people that invest in the fact that they are Romanians! I mean, we don't go counting people whom we, or I, or whomever believes are Romanians, but those who declare themselves Romanians. Dahn 14:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is useful to read the talk pages as this was explained a couple of sections above at #Self identification issue. --Irpen 23:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the talk page, but for the amount of edit-warring going on, it seems there hasn't been much discussion. I'm personally disinterested in this whole issue of the number of Romanians around the world, since I don't believe it's particularly better for there to be more Romanians (if anything, it is arguably worse, since a large diaspora indicates internal problems). Ronline ✉ 06:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

But whether there are a lot of romanians or a few romanians outside romania is not something you or Dahn or Ipren can control. I would also just love it if there were few Romanians outside the country but unfortunately for me and you things are not this way. We cannot just manipulate facts and data in order to please us or our views. To return to the question of "who is Romanian" first of all let me point out some facts

• Dahn says that "these people do not consider themselves Romanians but Moldovans" That is very, very superficial. In fact due to the manner in which the census in 2004 was conducted (and please note that international observers pointed out major irregularities when it came to the lang/eth questions) and due the fact that not all Moldovans view their "Moldovan Identity" as "100% non-Romanian": one cannot say beyond any reasonable doubt that "in Moldova there are 75.000 Romanians only". That is why, the suggestion that we put a range of 75.000 - 2.8 mil. seems to me like the best way to reconcile both points of view, which is after all what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Dapiks 00:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Dapiks, nobody has been pointing out "how many would have declared themselves Romanian but couldn't", and nobody could. We have official data, even if that data is partly questionable (I use Occam's razor against the view that "all of it questionable"), over Constantzeanu's data (whereby every person in the world who did not send him a letter saying "I'm not Romanian" is in fact Romanian). Dahn 10:37, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Constantzeanu, first of all, please choose which of the two accounts Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Constantzeanu you choose to use and stick to it from now on. We can return to the issue then. --Irpen 01:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Whatever buddy. When you and your buddies have nothing to say, you turn to cheep comments like that. It's really getting disgusting. Dapiks 02:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

"In addition to these colours, each historical province of Romania has its own characteristic animal   
symbol:

   * Oltenia: Lion
   * Dobrogea: Dolphin
   * Moldavia: Aurochs/Wisent
   * Transylvania: Black eagle
   * Wallachia: Eagle

The Coat of Arms of Romania combines these together."

There is an ommision here: "* Oltenia: Lion" . Although the characteristic animal of Oltenia IS a lion, the lion is also the ch. animal of Banat. As described on the presidentil web-site the lion on the coat-of arms represents both Oltenia and Banat http://www.presidency.ro/?_RID=htm&id=3&lang=en Please make the necessary changes. Thank you

Actually, that very section is redundant, simplistic, and ill-defined (symbols of Romania=symbols of the Romanians...). Plus, most articles on national symbols in Romania need to be copyedited. The section is also without parallel, and disregards the fact that symbols such as Transylvania's have never stood for "Romanians". Dahn 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Outragious

Why is that we are not allowed to put an estimate for the number of Romanians. The article on Greeks and Roma people give official data as well as estimates. In our case, we are compelled to give just the official data for Romanians in Moldova and Ukraine. Why is it that the page is being blocked right now? And why can't we give estimates as well, besides the so called "official data" which some pro-Stalinist editors love so much? Jeorjika 16:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lack of standards on other pages

While you are right about the Greek page, the lies and nationalist propaganda on it are a disgrace: they insist on counting as Greek the 700.000 immigrants in Greece, for example. Is it such a problem that the Romanians and Romanian pages are kept to a higher standard of integrity than the Greek ones. Ir shows that Romania has a better claim than some other countries to be in the EU, when a sense of self-discipline is visible. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.103.147.55 (talk • contribs) 28 September 2006.

I really do not see what the EU-membership and Wikipedia content and/or editors have to do with this dispute. First of all, even if we consider the current numbers (i.e. Moldova with 75.000 Romanians), the number should read 21.5 million, not 21 million. Just do the math! Another point I want to bring fourth is that, not everyone agrees with offical censa, so in the spirit of NPOV and respecting wikipedia rules and norms, this article should reflect that. As mentioned above, not only Roma and Greeks have estimates but Georgians do as well.Dapiks 21:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Population overestimates

They've been rampant on wikipedia: Poles, Croats, Irish people. It's not unlikely that "foreign" embassy statistics drive their numbers as high as possible. There are several reasons for this. One, most such sources tend to put emphasis on "Romanian nationals abroad" rather than Romanian ethnics. Two, they further tend to include any foreigner who can lay trace to some Romanian blood in their heritage, long after that emigre has died. So the Romanian diaspora will probably include someone who has a Romanian grandmother, perhaps even great-grandmother. If we did that for all ethnicities, we'd probably double the world's population.

Go and change the articles on Greeks, Roma people, Hungarians and Croats first and then come here and change these numbers.

Secondly, there are sources which point to a much much lower number. Joshua Project for one which stauncly includes only the most ethnic of Romanians estimates the population to be around 19 million: http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php?rop3=108398&rog3=RO

This Joshua Project seems to me a little bit of a joke. Its numbers are nothing like the numbers from official censa. On what base, do they make their approximations?

We're giving the benefit of the doubt by simply totalling up as many census numbers as we can. Most such articles on wikipedia do the same. I see no reason to overestimate using possibly biased estimations. Horvat Den 06:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Nobody sees any reason to overestimate but nobody wants to underestimate either. What is your base for the 21.5 million people? Do you have a reliable source? Usually official censa is taken into account (NOT SOME WEIRD JOSHUA ESTIMATE thats based on pure fantesy). Even if we take the official censa, then the numbers add up to 23 million, not 21. However the issue of the Moldovans is a very touchy one, hence it has to be mentioned in brackets, just like other articles on wikipedia do it.

Furthermore, you might be thinking that this number should be higher because we should include Moldovans. I definitely agree with you there. I think this whole ethnogenesis bit is a little too POV for wikipedia. There's little we can do to change that unless there's some type of mass movement to remove the population statistics on Moldovans. Otherwise, we're just repeating numbers. Horvat Den 06:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The Issue at Moldovans is explained very well. That article deals with the notion of moldvoans and what that term means in a number of cases, not with an ethnicity per se (note that the article is almost exclusively talking about the controversy on the identity in itself).Dapiks 08:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What seems to be based on pure fantasy is the notion that the ethnic Romanian population nearly tripled over less than a century. I hope everyone here realizes that "Romanians abroad" simply refers to Romanians who are currently living/working in another country. Many of these Romanians are not citizens of those countries, and are included in the 19 million ethnic Romanian census of Romania. By including these are extra Romanians, you are counting each person twice in the census, which is hysterical to say the least. The censuses of each independent country is the only source reliable enough to come to a total ethnic Romanian population abroad. Several of the sources used for the "28 million" estimate aren't even referring to ethnic Romanians (such as the million estimate in the US). Pay attention to exactly what the sources say and don't guess. The number of 21-22 million was pretty stable until now, what sparked this huge addition of 6 million Romanians? Horvat Den 21:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Romedia includes non-ethnic Romanians into their numbers. This is a page for ETHNIC Romanians. We shouldn't make any mention of "400,000" Romanians in Canada or "1,000,000" in the US because this page runs on the idea that a Romanian is an ethnic Romanian. Horvat Den 21:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

to horvat den, the 6 million figure is derived from the source evenimentul zilei, which estimates the number of romanians in different countries. For example, they estimate that their were 600,000 romanians working abroad before the 2002 census.

And have these people been subtracted from Romania's population? Have they? Because that is where they legally reside, and that is where they are counted. Aren't you counting them twice? Dahn 08:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, we dont know if this so called 600,000 illegal romanians were in romania in 2002, so their is no way of knowing if we are counting them twice or not. However, i would assume that not all of them would have been in romania during the census, maybe not even half of them. My fellow friends, i believe we should place the old figure back of 21 million, as that is derived from censuses. We can not give a proper estimation for the number of romanians, as a large number of them left illegaly during and after communism. (BaNaTeaN 07:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC))

Allow me to shed some light. The 28 mil people figure was not made based upon a total of the 1.1 mil in USA and the 400.000 in Canada,which I totally agree with you that it should be taken out and replaced with the census figure. The total of 28 mil. was given based on a number of sources(check them out -> there are quite a lot of them), mostly the Romanian presidency (which by the way is the ultimate source of Romanian foreign policy) and just like a census (which is government sponsored and by no means perfect), the President of Romania as the supreme source of foreign policy, has made it clear that Romania as a state considers 8 mil ethnic-Romanians to live outside its borders. I find it sort of silly to revert to the 22 mil people. Based on what sources will you do that? Can you find a reliable source that says, "In the world Today there are 22 mil ethnic-Romanians and not a single mil over that number". If you do, by all means make the change. Ethnologue is the only one that comes close but even Ethnologue states that there are 23.5 mil. Romanian native speakers in the world. Dapiks 12:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Dapiks, The Romanian article should include only primary information (eg: census), and not what the president of romania believes the figure is. BaNaTeaN

To answer both of you (while welcoming and endorsing BaNaTeaN's non-speculative approach): in 2002, you were required by law to say if you had relatives who were citizens but lived abroad. Even if many people were not aware of this, that count was the basis for all estimates of Romanian citizens (citizens, nota bene) living abroad. So: no speculation regarding workers abroad is allowed. Dahn 13:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn:Wait a little Dahn, of what you explained, that you were obligated by law in the 2002 census to say if oyu have relatives abroad, that means there about 19.4 millions Romanians in the whole world??? No offence, but this is absolutely out of discussion. When I had the 2002 census, there was no place in the questionary for that.

Again you mix terms, Arthur, in an issue that is relatively simple. The census says there are 21 million and something citizens of Romania (throughout the world). Inside Romania, there are 19 million ethnic Romanians of the total population. The latter number includes, per what I've just told you, those who are out of Romania on business or whatever (but are still Romanian citizens); various systems were used to count them and compare data - if your entire family was not at home when the census-taker came to visit you, you had, to the best of your knowledge, to provide the data for the rest of your family (that is what I did). All those present abroad of the 19-21 million are thought to have been counted, and, rest assured, we don't all have to go to Bethlem for that.

What you have to add to that is the number of ethic Romanians that are citizens of other countries (and are not also citizens of Romania), and list only those places where this applies. Please, see my point.

Welcome back, btw, and please stand by the pledge on your talk page. Dahn 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Banatean: although your explication makes no sense, let's see. You say that we should include only primary source information that means censuses. Come on, take a look at Poles, Italians or other large diasporas. At Poles by exemple, only USA, Canada and Poland are using census official infos. All others are unofficial sources, but they're however put there. Even for USA, when at the 2000 USA census, they were 8 997 000 Poles declared, they decided to add the unofficial larger figure of 9 300 000. Why this doesn't apply here??????? If you all sustain this stupid explanations, then answer my question: WHY AT ROMANIANS ARTICLE WE DON'T LIKE OTHERS, InCLUDE ALL KIND OF DATA?????????????? Come on guys, what is your proof for sustaining that?

Arthur 28 October 2006

We cannot include self-contradicting data, Norbert. Estimates, perhaps - only if they are attested by sources. Adding hundreds of thousands of people twice is unacceptable. Dahn 19:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Dahn, I really don't understand what you mean by saying that the people are counted twice. I agree that the 1.5 million Romanian workers in Spain and Italy we ca't really count them as residents of these countries. That's ok. After my opinion, the 321 000 for Spain and 300 000 for Italy are ok and we don't need to touch at that. What me I propose, and I'm asking all of you to express your opinion, against of for. I would like that we find for the estimations, after the official dates, the so-wanted reliable, attested and exactly figures on websites for each country and we decide here if the wbesite is ok or no. I waiting your propositions and arguments.

Arthur 28 October 2006

Arthur, again: if those people are not citizens of Spain or Italy, they were already counted in Romania. Secondly, as a rule, we are not counting and adding people ourselves. Dahn 20:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well the 1.5 million Romanian workers in Italy and Spain is most certainly an exagerated number given by newspapers such as Evenimentul Zilei and we all know that newspapers have an affinity for the dramatic (i.e. articles that stand out). So we can't really take these sort of data seriously.
• What we have is the official data: 321.000 in Spain in 2006 and 297,500 in Italy at the beggining of 2006. It is not likely that these numbers would be actually higher since there is no reason for Romanians to work iligally ihose two countries (Romanians can go there without much trouble ever since 2002). In other words these numbers probably represent the true figures as far as Romanians working abroad are concerned. What Dahn is saying is that even these numbers might actually count Romanians twice since many of them came during the 2002 - 2006 period. It would be great to get official data about the numbers of Romanians in Italy and Spain prior to 2002 (the year of the Romanian census as well as the year when mass-emigration to Italy and Spain started).Dapiks 20:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What I am saying beyond that is that those people (migrant workers et al) were already counted at home, and they would have to be deducted from the number of people in Romania, not added to it. This in itself is not a welcome gesture, IMO, since migrant workers are not really residents of another country, anfd since (nota bene), the figures for migrant workers et al are based on citizenship, not ethnicity (so we don't know if they should be deducted from 19 million or from 21 million). Dahn 20:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true. Subtracting them form the 21.7 mil would do us no good since it would not help us determine the total number of ethnic-Romanians, which is what this article is about. Well I managed to determine that the number of Romanians residing in Italy prior to the 2002 Romanian census was 70,000. The source is here: just press forward to get all the regions of Italy: [1]. So I guess we could state that 397,500 - 70,000 Romanians (already there) = 327,500 Romanians that are counted twice. But then again, like you pointed out, these might not really be all ethnic-Romanians since we must subtract them from the 21,7 mil number. I haven't gotten the number for Romanians in Spain in 2001 or 2002 yet. So if anyone can help, that would be great. Dapiks 21:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know Romania's specific standards in doing its censuses, but international standards are well summarized in a UN document called Principles and recommendations for populations and housing censuses. It's a PDF, and unfortunately Google doesn't offer an HTML version.

It's actually a pretty interesting read, discussing a lot of the difficulties in getting anything like accurate (and internationally comparable) numbers. There is a lot of discussion of "place of enumeration". It discusses how a census may be based either on where a person is on one particular day or on their usual place of residence, and recommends that if a country is trying to count both, they should keep the concepts distinct and produce two sets of numbers (p.52). Hence (p.63), "the total may comprise either all usual residents of the country or all persons present in the country at the time of the census."

There are a large number of issues identified where countries may have different policies, and each should document their policies. Page 63 has an interesting listing of many classifications of people that may present difficulties with these numbers, and says that each country should be clear how they address each of 14 categories, getting down to things as subtle as "Transients on ships in harbour at the time of the census." My guess is that, with some research, one could get good information on how each relevant country handles these cases in their censuses. I bet that someone could get some good information out of this, and probably a few things worth writing about in articles about censuses. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

May I bring to your attention that all these tallies are original research? There should be an authoritative Romanian body that counts/estimates total Romanians, accounting for all these problems mentioned by jmabel, reports somewhere in a reputable publication, and then wikipedia reports these numbers (possibly various estimates from various sources)? `'mikkanarxi 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the moldoban/romanian issue must be clearly divided: you may present the total daco-romanian count, but mention that of these so many millions are reported themselves as Moldovans, whatever this may mean. `'mikkanarxi 02:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Map Proposal

There is currently a map for Romanian grais but none for ethnic Romanians. Here is a map inhabited by Romanians, in case someone feels that it should be placed in the article. Dapiks 01:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Caption should probably be "Territories inhabited by ethnic Romanians in the 21st century"; what are the sources that are the basis for the map? (It looks basically right, but it is still making substantive claims, so it should cite sources.) Assuming it can be decently cited for, I'd be all for adding it to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 03:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The map should read something like "territories inhabited majoritarily by Romanians". In many of the areas highlighted yellow, there are also several other ethnic groups living, some of which form sizeable minorities. More importantly, in some of the areas which are not shown as being inhabited by ethnic Romanians, there are still ethnic Romanian minorities (e.g. the Szekely Land). Ronline ✉ 04:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And,at the risk of sounding monotonous, might we remember something called "Moldovans"? I'm not going to repeat my arguments (they seem to be ignored by each and all), I'm just going to say that that is reason enough for that map not to be in this or any other article. One more time (and not for the Bonaparte socks who are about to insult me over what I have just said): it. does. not. matter. what. you. or. I. think., it. matters. what. people. in. the. Moldovan. census. think. Dahn 04:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

How about "Romanians (and Moldovans)"? Biruitorul 04:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

But the said census still makes a distinction. Since that distinction is, in all likelyhood, also grounds for a map, we'll just be moving the problem around. And, if the connection is intended as neutral, why not also make a map for, say, "Territories inhabited by Romanians, Serbs, and Eskimos"? Dahn 05:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Then again, the censuses themselves may not be neutral either; a whole lot of Moldovans materialized between 1930 and later decades. The point, though, is that both Romanians and Moldovans make clear that the identity of the Moldovans as a separate ethnic group is controversial, and the map aims to present both together because there is a general consensus that the two ethnic groups are in fact the same, and that those who think otherwise do so for primarily political reasons, etc. I've fought this battle too many times, though; tragedy has become farce by now. Biruitorul 05:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said elsewhere, it is universally known that the Moldovan identity was created artificially (I should say "more artificially than others"). That,however,does not concern this map. What concerns this map is the fact that many citizens of Moldova consider themselves "Moldovan" in the ethnical sense - when taking the census, they were presented with a simple question, to which they gave a direct answer. Of course, the result is questioned - it is not, however, questioned in toto; it is not, however, questionable in toto (it takes quite a stretch to say that the number of Romanians is ten times or so what the results say it is). According to that definition, people want to be seen as different from Romanians: that definition is not subject to academic arguments (because it is an ever-subjective notion, whatever the reason behind it may be); at the same time, it certainly does not become the subject of decisions taken by outsiders on the basis of empiricist approaches. Of course someone profits from the results (as if someone else wouldn't profit from the opposite results...), but that is not to say that: a. that someone has [successfully] interfered in recent times - that remains to be proven; b. most Moldovans are brainwashed, most Romanians are rational; c. political motivation is a bad thing in defining one's ethnicity (I can prove that it is the motivator behind virtually every case imaginable). I personally don't feel that ethnicity is ever an objective and/or necessary criterion. While I do believe that "Moldovan" is in fact Romanian, while I do understand and evidence all the criminality involved in getting that country where it is today, I cannot either believe that I should tell others that I know better than them what they are, I cannot tell them that any ethnicity is ever objective or even relevant, and I cannot turn back the time to reflect choices they would have made "were it not for". Dahn 05:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

To turn the tables a bit: what would your ideal map look like – which areas would you shade? Or would you not include one at all? Biruitorul 05:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't include one, I suppose. Dahn 05:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I, for one, like the current map, provided accurate labelling is given. But let's wait for some consensus to develop. Biruitorul 05:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

And what about Timok Vlach.. do we have a consensus? ~~

Oh, I see, it wasn't surreal enough without the Vlachs... Dahn 14:31, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems that this map will cause yet again another row of arguments over who is a Romanian. Irony has it that the Moldovenists theory is now being advokated by our very own people (as if the Russians and their buddies were not enough). I thought it would have been better for the article to have the map there but I see that it will only bring more controversy so I am going to erase the map. What does bother me is that user Mikka and Khoikhoi follow edits related to Romanians almost as if they are set to disprove what Mikka calls "Imperialist expantionist and irredentist Romanian propaganda". I guess everyone else here thinks that is a perfectly normal thing to do.Dapiks 04:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Irony has it that Constantzeanu/Dapiks, Bonaparte, and Mikkalai use the same Leninist reasoning of "who is not with us is against us". I'm genuinely sorry that you view my actions as "advocacy of this or that theory". Although I've had months to do it, it is still hard getting across a message about what an encyclopedia is and what it is not. In the words of Jmabel: "if this is a pissing contest beteween x and y, there are those of us whiping off the piss and making this an ancyclopedia". Being "my very own people" should not prevent me from seeing the puddle and from whiping it out. Dahn 12:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Right.... Dapiks 13:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Dahn 14:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

My oppinion: A map of majority Romanian inhabitation exists and is long accepted, under Daco-Romanian. From here, everything goes astray:

1. Old stalinist theories are enforced by some Russians and Sovietophiles
2. Some "positive action" Romanians want to achieve consensus at any price and therefore reuse dusty ethnic constructions, such as "Daco-romanian" just to avoid saying "Romanian" (even though the actual sense of these constructions is not the wikipedian one).

Still, I have to acknowledge that the last solution seems the only one on wikipedia (which is why I edit less and less here). What we write here resembles more a armistice convention than an encyclopedia. Dpotop 13:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

On much of this, I agree with Dpotop that "Daco-Romanian" is more to the point, and elides present-day nationalist arguments. As for wording discussed above ("territories inhabited majoritarily by Romanians"): "majoritarily" is one of those things that's just barely an English word; more natural English would be "territories with a Romanian majority" or, if Dpotop's suggestion is adopted, as I think it should be, "territories with a Daco-Romanian majority". It's also sometimes useful on these things rather than just a majority/minority approach to code in successive color bands, e.g. <5%, 5-25%, 25-50%, 50-75%, 75-100%. But I don't know if there is decent data to do such a thing. - Jmabel | Talk 22:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a quite chiselled map: http://terkepek.adatbank.transindex.ro/legbelso.php3?nev=17 unfortunately copyrighted --fz22 22:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You daydream. :) As User:Biruitorul already noted below, this map is from 1910. Dpotop 18:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

The information can't be copyrighted, only the presentation. So it would be possible for someone who is good at maps to make something similar, starting from the usual basic GFDL or PD maps. - Jmabel | Talk 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

But aren't the data on that map from 1910? How relevant would they be for today? Biruitorul 23:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

How are there 19 million people in Romania? You got to be kidding! Just look at the official site of the 2003 census, there are over 21 million! And according to the last citation of the total number, there are 10 million people living abroad. This wouldn't surprise me at all, there are almost 3 million in Moldova, a lot in Ukraine (many not even recognized by some), millions of aromanians and a lot emigrated in Spain, Italy, USA, and Canada. 19 million people in Romania and 28 million Romanians in total is stupid. But following the same difference, if we go after the normal, good, proved source, there are over 21 million people in Romania, so the estimated number adds up to 31. 35 million is stupid, it's a clear overestimate, but so is 28 (edit: just as wrong, not also an overestimate!).

21.5 Million???

Who said that there are 21.5 Million Romanians in the world? And where is a source for that? I ask that an admin add the {fact} tag until a source can be provided. 24.200.37.102 03:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

New picture

I have changed the picture: the new picture was introduced by Jmabel on the talk page, and was discussed. Hopefully, the discussion about the pucture would stop the stupid edit war about the numbers. Before you edit, please, read the Talk page, try to discuss, don't just revert. Other people, unlike you, have disscussed issues and have arrived civilizedly to solutions. If you can not behave civilizedly, please do something else, give us a break from you.:Dc76 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what has been proposed is (and I quote) "to include both POVs", at a time when the debate was aboout Moldovans and Romanians. Other issues since have involved overcounting and educated guesses. No number was produced to reflect an adequate minimum.

I have been present on the talk page with these exact issues. What I received instead was a call for help for "more sources" on what the number apparently should be. I do not see them here. Therefore, I would say that 21-21.5 is a working number for a minimum, as Romanians authorities do not bother to indicate what the hell they are talking about.

Back when this was happening, NorbetArthur, who had promised not to engage in such sycophantic name-calling any more, was, presumably, paying attention. Since the whole topic revolves around someone having to explain where they came with such numbers, calling for a source for the minimum is a farse - let them produce a relvant, well-documented, authoritive, and non-repetitive estimate of ethnic Romanians living inside and outside Romania. Until then, we could all do without the lectures. Dahn 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, how about the picture, do you agree that the new picture is better? Noone so far has raised any objections (in the talk page, since it has been proposed a long time ago)about the new pictute, and noone has even tried to defend the old one. Agree to change?
• Second, data in proemenent places in an article (especialy in the very-very top), must be soursed, just adding them is original research. That is wikipedia's policy. So, the request for sourse is absolutely legitimate. On the same token, a user using very rude words is absolutely intollerable. But let's not confuse the lack of tact of some users with the issue. I will obviously support you if you are being named as you've been, but I will also support the request for sourse, because otherwise it is original research.
• Third, there is a better way around this problem: do not indicate any number, but write "see the article about the discussion for the number of Romanians". At the very begining of the article, we can then discuss this issue: "If the term Romanians is inclusive, then there are x million Romanians. If the term is exclusive, i.e. if y,z,t,v are excluded, then there are w millions". How about that?
• Finally, please, don't take the following personally, I only object about the issue:

I object against not counting Moldovans within Romanians, and I will give you the most simple and direct of the reasons: I am Moldovan, and I consider myself Moldovan and Romanian simmultaneously. The same do my family, my friends, my neighbors, etc. Noone sees in this a contradiction. Yes, it was a discussion before, but after 2003, noone objects to this. Everyone in Moldova (politicians of all three major idiologies, teachers, linguists, and all people of all ethnicities) agree that Moldovan is a political name, and Romanian is a linguistical name. Even the people who prior to 2003 advocated against Romanian language, now agree that it's a nonsense, they agree that everyone speeks Romanian, and there is no language Moldovan. And they see no contradiction between having the same language and living in two differnt countries. Now, when you and others, who I suppose have never been in Moldova, don't speak the dialect, don't understand the culture, politics of a small country, try to dictate us what to say and what to do, I see this attitude as rude, very rude. I am not teaching you and others in what language you speak and who you are, why do you teach us? Just because you come from a bigger country, this does not give you the right to behave rude and agressive, and hate poeple from small countries! :Dc76 22:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I hope you don't mind if I answer you pointwise::Dc76 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually do. You have split my point. Dahn 00:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. Do you see a better way of organizing? :Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that you can speak for the people registered as "Moldovans" in the poll, no matter what your background is - unless you are an official taking an alternative poll.

I can not speak for any users registered somewhere in some poll I don't even know, I only claimed I can speak as a Moldovan, as the majority of those that think they are big specialists in the issue can not! By the way, what poll are you talking about?:Dc76 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We are talking about the official census. And what are you on about with "speaking as a Moldovan"? Everyone who can speak Romanian can do that: you just have to add the accent. And, again, the issue of language is irrelevant in attesting identity. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

In oredr to "speak as a Moldovan", first, you'll have to be registered ethnically as a Moldovan in an official census. The issue of language is not relevant for being Austrian, Walloon, Flemish or Moldovan, because there are no such languages, but it is relevant for being German, French, Datch or Romanian. The notion is inclusive, not exclusive, the sum will obvioulsy add up to more than the population of the earth. Like for example a person is Russyn or Hutsul, and simmultaneously Ukrainian. Just try saying to a Russyn he's not Ukrainian! :Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Er... What? Where did you come up with that theory? Again, speaking the supposed klanguage or not speaking it adds no relevancy to ethnicity - people who answer "Moldovan" in the census do not have to speak a different language. They just have to believe that they are not Romanians - and they apparently do. Once and for all: you are using a false premise.Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

My whole point here is: What appears to you is not true in reality. Is it so difficult to understand that they believe they are Romanians and Moldavians? If they would have specified in the census only "Romanian", that would not necessary mean also "Moldavian". Every child in Moldova understand this! :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Btw, the issue of the language would be as "connected" to the issue as it is for Walloons and French people or Germans and Austrians.

I agree with you 100% here.

Er... I'm assuming you believe that I think Walloons and French people are the same. Please try and see my point. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Waloons would be counted for the number of French worldwide, but you can surely add "if Waloons, and Swiss French are not counted, then the number of French worldwide is ...". I see your point as "such a sentance should be present". I have nothing against including it or smth similar. :Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, this is not about what you would do to the worldwide French census, it's about the definition of ethnicity (whereby speaker of x language =/= member of x ethnicity). And I don't knoew what "point" you are referring to. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Who has the right to define what an ethnicity is? Shurely not you and me. Most of the countries don't have "ethnicity" in hte census, only "language", and there where this is not yet illegal to ask (as in USA, etc) relegion.

By "your point" I mean your objection: you want something like "If the term Romanians is inclusive, then there are x million Romanians. If the term is exclusive, i.e. if y,z,t,v are excluded, then there are w millions". in the text. Otherwise, you don't agree to simply write "x million Romanians". Do I understand you correctly? :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

You are not addressing the issue of what people have apparently decided to declare themselves - and, instead, make the same disortion wherby you are somehow able to speak for them. Since this is about the 30th time I am explaining these obvious facts, I am stating for the record than any future response from me on this page and others will be presuming that everybody is aware of my position, the reason for it, and the factual background I am addessing.

Sorry, I am not your secretary. I have no intention of reading all you wrote on wikipedia, and have no way of guessing what "factual background" you have in mind.

I damn well exopect you to read what I have written on this very page, just above where you started theoretizing aboout what reasons other have in opposing the version you endorse. It is common curtesy. And the factual background is people who answered the census-takers. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe you don't want me to to hold you responsible for "hell" and "damn", as you hold NorbertArthur. It is common curtezy not to use such words.

Do point out why I wouldn't be allowed to use the words, and do tell me why this is equivalent to NorbertArthur calling users "motherfuckers". Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Because such words are rude and offensive. I don't use them, please don't use them when talking to me! You are free, by mutual deed, if you wish to call names with other people, if that is the vocabilary or level of education at which you two want to speak. (It was much simplier to simply point out to NorbertArthur he is rude, without being explicit - that would have shown you are educated. But apparently you don't like that path.) I will however kindly ask you again, to stop using them, even indirectly, when talking to others.:Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I read what you wrote on this page, but you wrote about your relation with NorbertArthur (which I was not interested in), and where you made your point, I told you why you have to give a sourse (original research) if you want a statement up front in the article.

I am part of that factual background.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No true Scotsman... Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I only claim what I know, and what I know from my countrymen, I don't claim to speak in their name. You however, pretend to speak in their name, mine including, by denying us the right to be countied as Romanians as well. You are here the person who introduce the "true", for you Moldovans are not "true Romanians", right? If yes - then, with all due respect, you are racist! :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

There are only two issues here: the picture and the inclusion of Moldovans in the number of Romanians. More than that, we only have to discuss specific suggestions, as the one I made above:

Third, there is a better way around this problem: do not indicate any number, but write "see the article about the discussion for the number of Romanians". At the very begining of the article, we can then discuss this issue: "If the term Romanians is inclusive, then there are x million Romanians. If the term is exclusive, i.e. if y,z,t,v are excluded, then there are w millions". How about that?

You want to talk about specific issue/propostion - fine, you want me to read everything you write during a year - help yourself, i have something better to do.:Dc76 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't need to bother answering to those concerns, since they are largely based on a fallacy: for one, the term is defined as exclusive by the Ro authorities, who count the total number of citizens and then deduct ethnic RomaniansDahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Provide a sourse that says this (do you actually have a sourse, or it's just what you heard?), and I would believe you for the number of Romanians in Romania (which I do anyway). As for the number of Romanians outside Romania, Romanian authorities have no legal right over them.:

...so, you do not believe that Romanian census-takers are asking people to provide their ethnicity? And you do not believe that "ethnic Romanians" =/= "Romanian speakers" =/= "Romanian citizens"? And I need to provide a source for that?

As for the number of Romanians outside Romania: several numbers regaring them provided in sources on this page are provided by Romanian officials (plus: there is an entire ministry directorate dealing woith Romanians abroad...). Of course you are right about "what Romania cannot do": that is why all these sources, in contradiction to the census, count citizens, ethnics, and, if need be, descendants, together. Do go and ask them to account for the dichotomy before you expose me to your intricate theory on inclusive ethnicity. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You say the Ro authorities, who count the total number of citizens and then deduct ethnic Romanians I for once don't even understnad the meaning, what should one deduct from the number of Ro citizens? A sourse would definitevely help.

So unless, there is a universal definition of ethnicity we should not use the word ethnicity and count any ethnicities? And one should not be allowed to teach in school quantum mechanics and theory of relativity, because when you go deeper they partially contradict each other? Of course the term can be only inclusive! If you agree that this is our only point of difference, we should simply try to ask more people from other nations, how do they count when writting on wikipedia, and that would settle the problem. Agree? :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

- but, of course, the theory of inclusiveness persisently surfaces with every frustration people have about the Moldovan census; Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

speak about yourself as being "frustrated". don't generalize to others unless they told you they are:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You could at least do me the favour of not splitting a phrase into two. " don't generalize to others unless they told you they are" - 1) I did not generalize - use when applicable; 2) thank you for yet another theory on what I should and shouldn't do; 3) I don't care. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you are, I grant you this "favour"! :) :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

even if the term would be inclusive, it still wouldn't actually include Moldovans, because those who answered "I'm Moldovan" excluded themselves! What you want to keep your perspective focused on is the [0.01% likely] probability that these people were coherced en masse to do so,Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

in some localities, due to lack of funds, there was no census, or only part of the locality. The officials filled the data according to the best sourse they found (id cards declarations, previous census), but there was no masse cohersion as such.

Appeal to probability. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This was an info, I did not comment here. Where do you see appeal to probability when only the premise is present? Where did you learn logic? You can say that a syllogism is false, you can not say that a premise is false!!! :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

not that they meant something else Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

They ment they are Moldovans, and that's not exclusive of being Romanian:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Appeal to probability. Well, if they wanted to say "both" an "either/or" choice, but could not, they are for sure something: they are morons. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Before you call Moldovans "stupid", now you call them "morons", just below you call "they're cretins, all 3 million of them.":Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dahn,

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)

Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

but had all waken up stupid the day the census came to see them! Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't call 3 million people stupid, be civilized! If you have some hatred towards people different from you, try at least to keep it inside.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have a certain aptness to twisting points. I'll say it again: if they could noyt understand the choice, if this is the reason why this happened, then they're cretins, all 3 million of them. Of course, that eventuality is unlikely. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you agree that that is unlikely (although even doubting it sound as discrimination), then in the same degree your argument about Moldavians not having the right to be Romanians is unlikely. I don't twist anything, I only tell what I know from living there. If you see this as a twist, consider the possiblity that your original view might be twisted.:Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Therefore, the lower estimate, unlike the higher, would have to exclude Moldovans.

By the way, I would not object to that solution, if it is said clearly at the top of the article that they are excluded. But I object to exclude and hide this fact in 100kb of text.:Dc76 00:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, sure. We should also say, in clear lettering at the top of the top of the article that the article does not deal with and the numbers do not include Samoans, Khoisan, Lao people, Norwegians, and Númenoreans. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because Samoans, Khoisan, Lao people, Norwegians, and Númenoreans do not speak Romanian as mother tongue. But for all ethnicities that do speak Romanians as native language, if you don't include them, you should write.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense? Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That Samoans, Khoisan, Lao people, Norwegians, and Númenoreans do not speak Romanian as mother tongue is a nonsense to you?:Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

I dislike profoundly when I have to disculpate myself in front of strawmanship, but here goes. I have no idea what the hell you are talking about with "hate", "rudeness" and "teaching others". The "bigger country" I come from is Romania - if you had that in mind when you were posting, I have to admit that you are original

I had in mind all people that deny Moldovans the rights that are granted for everyone else. Romania is a much bigger country by Moldova, and I am by far not original in saying this.

Er... Interesting spin. But I'll avoid the Noid. Dahn 00:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no spin - That is the truth, you have some hatred towards Moldovans, and you are not the only Romanian as that. Many Russians also do, but the majority of Russians are neutral towards Moldovans, they don't hate or dispise them as you (the user), I see (from our discussion), do:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense? Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

That you are not the only Romanian that profoundly dislikes Moldovans is a non-sense? That the majority of Russians are neutral towards Moldovans is a non-sense? That the majority does not hate or dispises as you do is a non-sense?:Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

(no one has ever implied that it's Romanians who deny Moldovans the right to be Moldovans).

You do deny to Moldovans the right to consider themselves simultaneously Moldovans and Romanians:Dc76 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't deny them anything, pal. I deny the asumption that they did that. Especially since its POV can be smelled from a distance. Dahn 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in the past, when there was Soviet Union, the mojority did not consider themselves Romanians, after the taw of 1988-89 that started changing. The process took 15 years. From 2003, the last of the left-wing political parties which held that Moldovans are not Romanians droped that (some did in 1998). The general population accepted this gradally - from pre-1988 till 2003. I would not vouch for 100%, because there are always exceptions, but please do ask and see that 99% of Moldovans consider themselves Moldovans (ethnically) and Romanians (that being the language they speak). Your impression might be correct if you speak about prior to 1998 or/and if you heard the oppinion of a selected group. I am glad my POV is clear from a distance: I am proud to be a Moldovan and a Romanian, as my compatriots are. We are not frustrated. It is you who might be frustrated because you did not get to have your old province back, but sorry - with all due respect, don't confuse your problem with ours.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated before, I have no interest in obtaining your province, and I have even less interest in your assumptions. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a country, not a province. Since all the world recongnizes it, please abide to this rule. If you wish, at least as long as it is a country.

You have interest in denying Moldovans rights that they have, that all the world recongnizes! Please, stop your discriminatory attitude. :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Not that it matters much, but I don't really believe you are from Moldova - I may be prepared to believe that you are from Moldavia (which, even by your standards, would add nothing to the debate).

I am from the north of the Republic of Moldova:Dc76 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Good for you. Dahn 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

---

As you will note, I fully support the idea that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language. But that, as noted, has no connection to ethnicity. If I generally think that all ethnicity is subjective and ultimately whimsical, I also think that a certain (high?) number of Moldovans may have meant to indicate they were Romanians, and that the Moldovan identity is, almost exclusively, the result of a Soviet tactic. But that, as noted, has no relevancy here in front of the data that we do have.

Moldovans consider themselves Romanians, because they speak Romanian, and inside that category they consider themselves Moldovans, which is an ethnical designation within a larger group. They do not see that as a contradiction, which some people who have heard at some point something about Moldovans from gossips think. Sorry, you are not Moldovan; if you have some Soviet-era information, consider the fact that it might be outdated and wrong! :Dc76 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not taking the census, and neither are you. For the rest, you are projecting stuff from your mind, and I have no intention of recording them. Dahn 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

We have no right to conduct private censa and pretend they be considered "official". Respect what people from Moldova believe, and don't hate them because they consider themselves ethnically Moldovan. As for my mind, yes I am thinking with my mind when I talk to you, I don't take stuff from thin air, from false impressions you get when you read oppionionated and frustrated press, from outdated info, or from your emotions. Unlike you, I speak calmly, because I speak the truth, as I know it, and 3 million other people know it. :Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Again with this nonsense? The Moldovan state has conducted the census, not we. The rest is justt another ad hominem. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The census results are correct, those poeple are Moldovans, an ethnic group within Romanians. If they would have declared themselves Romanians, they wouldn't be Moldovans. :Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

---

As I have said, we could all do without the lectures. Dahn 23:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So, just asnwer my two propositions:Dc76 00:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I did. Dahn 00:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, so

1. We are in agreement to change the picture, aren't we?
2. We are in agreement to write "see the article about the discussion for the number of Romanians" and "If the term Romanians is inclusive, then there are 28 million Romanians. If the term is exclusive, i.e. if Moldovans,y,z,t,v are excluded, then there are 21.5 millions." ?

Can we agree on the last two, at least, if we don't seem to agree on anything else? If we find common ground on these two issues, then even the discussion above was not in vain - it helped each of us to see and learn the oppionions of other people who disagree with us, and learn not to hate them.:Dc76 02:04, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I made two very constructive propositions. 1) You rebuffed the picture without any argument, although other users as you see from the talk page, support it. 2) You did not give any counter-proposition, so as to try reaching a consensus for the article. Please choose:

• you want to reach a consensus for the number of Romanians, and would bring a counter-proposition
• you either are not interested in this article any longer, or are interested but do not wish to reach a consensus

Dc76 20:16, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In case you want to carry this discussion further, I suggest you open a sandbox and do it there, by yourself, as I have better things to do than to answer to wave after wave of cheap sophistry. Dahn 10:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have said: enough word-twisting. Start a sandbox, I may even read it when I feel like it. Dahn 20:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Fully Protected

The page has been fully protected until all namecalling has ceased and disputes have been resolved. Thank you. Nishkid64 00:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I, and other users, have never called anyone any names! If someone is rude and un-educated, this should be dealt on a case by case personal basis. The fact that some user who does not know how to talk normally happens to support the same POV, that does not mean every person supporting that POV is rude or calls names. I strongly object against categorifying users in rude and not rude according to POV. The truth of the matter here is that the other POV is ill-intended, is artificially invented here, and consequently some less educated users feel "free" to use uncivilized words. But the fact that someone does not abstain, does not mean that the vast majority does not. This strategy happens to be employed on a regular basis in several articles: bring in some non-sense, wait for an edit-war, be agreesive to provoke someone uncivilized to use a name in order to categorify everyone with logical POV rude. The vast majority is civilized and disagrees with the ill-intended POV without ever calling anyone any names. Please, deal case by case, don't categorify everyone! Thank you.:Dc76 23:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Total number of Romanians at 21.5 ?

How can there be a minimum based on the sum of the minimum numbers of all countries listed, when the countries listed are not the only ones where Romanians live. The min is small and has no source, therefore an admin should add a {fact} tag to that number.Dapiks 05:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To address one point: the article should explicitly mention the view that Moldovans are a distinct ethnicity from Romanians: I find it ridiculous, but as long as it is held by the government of a sovereign state, we can't just walk away from it. We should give distinct total numbers, with and without those who are identified as "Moldovans" rather than "Romanians". Similarly for Aromanians (who are considerably more distinct than Moldovans); there really aren't enough Megleno-Romanians or Istro-Romanians to affect the worldwide total within the accuracy to which it can even imaginably be measured, but they also should be mentioned in this respect.

Constantzeanu/Dapiks: are there any specific countries that are missing from the count that you believe have even 100,000 ethnic Romanians? If so, then, yes, the number would be significantly off. Barring that, doing simple arithmetic is not objectionable original research. - Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"It's sourced"

What matters isn't whether something is sourced or not, but rather whether something is sourced CORRECTLY. All 8 references used to "source" the 28 million figure are either comlpetely irrelevant or using figures that include non-ethnic Romanians or Romanians working abroad (double counting). Further many of the sources only reach the 28 million mark if someone adds "Romanian diaspora" numbers to the current population of Romania. So I can't see why that should be allowed but the "totalling of census figures" shouldn't. The 21 million mark does not need a source because it is the total number of all recorded censuses on this page. This has nothing to do with original research - as someone mentioned its just arithmetic. The population boxes are not here to tell people how many of an ethnic group there is in the world, because that would be impossible; it is simply a rough estimate using census figures. I might agree that it is silly to have this type of estimate but nearly all ethnic group pages do it, so its become a sort of standard we can't escape. It has just become a recent phenomena by nationalists to try to boost up their ethnic group's total population. I'm not suggesting this is happening here but it might be (or at least was once). Nobody is saying that this figure is complete utter fact - we have the (est) right next to it to show that the number CAN easily be off ---- but not by 7 million. Horvat Den 02:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the discussion academic

I would like to point to everyone's attention that a few hours ago, 66.36.157.0 put herethe following comment:

ooo yeah??? so then when we gave our official data from the Romanian goverment you all rejected it! WHY???????? If we can't walk away from official govermental datas, why did refused that??????? Arthur 23 Nov 2006

This comment was erased by User:Khoikhoi. Then, 66.36.156.91 has put it back, and commented in the subject line:

what a fuck is your problem mtf KHOIKHOI TO REVERT MY EDITS????? SUCK MY DICK

This kind of comments are offensive to everyone. I would like to point specifically, that although some of the users, me including, think that part of the coments above about usage of data has true merit, the second remark is offensive to everyone, reagrdless of POV. Dear user that put the last comment, with all due respect, you comments are way beyond those of a normal person, even in the most heated of the discussions. I would like to remind you that we try here to keep an "academic" discussion, independent from any hate or seek comments. Every person is entitled to an oppionion, and has the right to keep it, even if the oppinion might be wrong, without any personal atack, especially of such a rudeness. You forget that civilized people are able to conceed in a civilized academic discussion. The sole reason why we discuss is to reach a common ground and learn something: if we all are sure noone will conceed nothing, noone can be convinced by arguments, then we simply would not engage in the discussion in the first place. The simple fact that a person engages in a civilized discussion means that he/she wants to hear other side arguments, that he/she admits that if solid arguments are provided, he/she can change part or all of his/her oppionion. On the same tokken, he/she can strenghen his/her oppinion if arguments are more solid for hois/her POV. Everything depends of the solidness of arguments, as understood by civilized users, who are patient to read and understand even an oppinion that might be wrong.

Specifically, the comments that you put back, those signed by 66.36.157.0 will stay here, I vouch for that. They will not be errased. Whoever put them, is entitled to oppinion. Moreover, I even agree with part of those comments.

But now, let's turn to your cooments, 66.36.156.91. Unless you come here, withdraw them, and sincerely appologize for them, you don't have to be blocked, there is something worse that that: I ask everyone, simply to ignore you, never talk to you, everywhere. See how you feel then! Come here, and say something like I am sincerely sorry I put those comments, and noone will hold you for anything. I am sure Khoikhoi will not wish you "dead" for your comments. Fail to put this appology, very-very simple appology, and sorry, we have to isolate you, and refuse to talk with you, ever. It is you choice, take your time, think, and do what your conscience tells you. But know, your answer will show what kind of person you truly are. :Dc76 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

3 Wallachians and one Austrian

I am sorry, but I do not understand the selection for the image collage. 3 of the four individuals are Wallachian and one was born in Austria. I don't believe that this is the most representative view of Romanians. And Ţepeş was born before the onset of modern nationalism, so including him at all is questionable, especially considering his infamy. I would propose adding a Moldovan (or Moldavian if you want to call it that) and a Transylvanian. How about including Eminescu, Liviu Rebreanu, and Caragiale. Then the last one could be from any region, we could stick with Victor Babeş (who was born in Austria) or someone else. This way the three principalities will be represented plus a foreign-born Romanian. TSO1D 22:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My opinion would be Ştefan cel Mare, Caragiale, Eminescu and Babeş. If you adjust the definition of "Transylvanian", Babeş can be considered one. (his family is from Banat)

It just happens that the Wallachians and Moldavians have in the 19th century more important people in Romanian arts and culture than the Transylvanians.

Other variants include Constantin Brâncuşi (Oltenian) and Lucian Blaga (Transylvanian). bogdan 23:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

My favorite version would be your first suggestion. TSO1D 00:26, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Uncited change of a number

[2]: anyone have a clue? - Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Contribution to humanity

I have some qualms about the following sentence in that section: "Mathematican Ştefan Odobleja is considered to be the ideological father behind cybernetics." Is this an established fact? First, I am not sure how much can one consider him to have been a mathematician -- he looks like a serious scientist, but his training was in medicine, not in mathematics, and he has 0 publications listed on MathSciNet. If an example of an internationally recognized Romanian mathematician were to be picked for this section (and it does seem appropriate to do so), there surely are more adequate examples. And second, the issue of whether Odobleja iniated cybernetics is very debatable, to say the least: the consensus seems to be that Norbert Wiener was the founder of cybernetics. Maybe the history of the subject is worth exploring further, and maybe there is merit to the claim that Odobleja did some of the pioneering thinking on cybernetics, but in the meantime, why emphasize this not-clear-to-everyone contribution? Finally, on a lesser note: why use the word ideological in this context? I know, some people do, but I still find it silly. There is enough ideology floating around, why drag the word in here, too? Turgidson 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

In a different, yet somewhat related vein, I have a comment about the population numbers in the template: While I understand those numbers are very approximative, and subject to debate and interpretation, maybe one could move beyond that kind of numbers game, and get into a more detailed discussion of what impact those people have on the rest of the world, in particular, in this section on "contribution to humanity". Besides the famous -- or not-so-famous -- names that are mentioned, here is a piece of concrete information that I just found about. On the NSF site, one can find a report on Science and Engineering Indicators, 2006 here. If you look at this table, for example, you will see that, out of those 367,310 Romanians living in the US (according to the 2000 Census), 21,400 have a Science or Engineering degree, and, of those, 3,900 have a PhD. Note also the high percentage of those people that got their degree outside of the US. At any rate, I'm not quite sure what to make of all this, but maybe it's relevant to look at numbers like these, and try to interpret them, maybe even to incorporate some of the info here or elsewhere. Turgidson 21:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What to make of the U.S. census numbers is simply that the U.S. census is based on residency, not citizenship, and that a lot of the Romanians in the U.S. are techical professionals who are in the country on H1-B visas. - Jmabel | Talk 00:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Amateurism

This nonsense discussion about the Romanians-Moldovans question let us see that Wikipedia still needs to ameliorate itself in drastic way. It is a given fact that Moldovans are not another people than Romanians. For that you need to have facts and the next essential correlations between those “separate” people show us that in fact there is no difference.

First, the language: in both countries is Romanian the spoken language by the local population (excluding ethnic Hungarians of Russians). The difference between those two languages is in fact nihil. So we can say that “people” speak the same language.

Second, the common history: it is true that Romania as a country doesn’t exist for centuries. It’s independence was gained in the 19th century, but the county’s within the Romanian speaking-people area’s have a lot in common over lots of centuries. A perfect example is of course the existence of Principality of Moldova. This Principality, which existed till 1812, stretched from Transylvania in the west to the Dniester River in the east. That shows us that regions within Romania ànd Moldova had till 1812 a common history within a Principality that partly or in whole proportion made part of Romania. This shows us that Moldovans have a common heritage with Romanians till 1812 and between 1919-1945.

Third, cultural and religious aspects: People like Mihai Eminescu, Stefan cel Mare or Dimitrie Cantemir are national heroes of both countries. The church of both countries is in fact the same; the Romanian Orthodox Church.

This shows us that the majority of the population of Moldova, are of common ethnicity with Romanians.

Besides those important correlations there exist of course much more, just look at the flag or national currency.

I just can conclude that those who think that Moldovans are a separate native population, are people with a major identity crisis.

Greets

The number of Romanians

The number of Romanians mentioned in the article are totally wrong. In fact, they're not even close. I'm not going into disputes about the numbers of Romanians living outside Romania. Let's take a look at Romania, instead. Okay, so we have some 4-million Romanians in Moldavia and perhaps some 5.3 million in Transylvania. Let's be generous at put the number at 10 million. Where do you get the remaining 11 million from? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

For starters, let's clarify a simple issue: the number of ethnic Romanian Romanian citizens is not 21.6 million, but exactly 19,409,400 [3] (this is just a quick search for a site mirroring official content - please check for an official source). It is also common sense that this number includes people temporarily living abroad, so all those figures for various diaspora groups may be subject to over-counting ("Romanians in Italy" does not mean "Italians of Romanian ethnicity", but rather all people residing (or even present, working, camping, marauding etc.) in Italy. Can anyone find a source that is aware of these facts, or are we destined to deal with faulty logic from here to eternity? Let's also note, gentlemen, that the "Romanian World Council" is an NGO, not an official source. Dahn 21:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Found an official source backing the number: [4]. Dahn 21:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get the remaining 9 million from? --Thus Spake Anittas 21:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't. I am as puzzled as you are. I can only hope that someone will at least wake up and change the number of ethnic Romanians in Romania to 19,409,400, because I don't feel like touching this article with a pole (whenever I do, I turn into a sort of Penelope). Dahn 21:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually: if we are talking about Romania strictly, you have the census results, indicating 19,409,400 (I presume that, for all its arguable faults, it respects a methodology and relies on what people themselves declared). However, presumably, the number also includes at least some Romanians who are not residing in the country. Dahn 21:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

To add to the complication: as I have said before, not all Romanians living abroad are self-declared ethnic Romanians, so estimates based on "the number of Romanians [i.e. Romanian citizens] in Italy/Spain/Uganda" are twice flawed. Dahn 21:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can only suppose that, in the above, Anittas is actually pulling everybody's legs by inducing the notion that "there are Romanians, and then there are Wallachians (and Oltenians, Dobrujans etc.)". I'm sorry for not catching on sooner, but I can only hope somebody is making note of the serious issues I raised just above, instead of wasting their time with witticisms of the type usually attributed to Wallachians. Dahn 21:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, serious talk. If we really have to include the Wallachians in the census, we get some 19 million ethnical Romanians, but what do we do about the minorities that declare themselves as Romanian? Not just on a legal level, but on a identity and ethnical level. --Thus Spake Anittas 04:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Anittas, everyone who declared himself/herself Romanian is included in the 19,409,400. I have no idea how you distinguish between "identity", "ethnicity" and "legality", but: this particular distinction is not made by the authorities, and, as far as can see, not made by anybody else but you; the "legal" level for declaring oneself "Romanian" in this country is actually entirely abstract and carries no consequence. Dahn 10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I view ethnicity as your origins and identity as what you choose to view yourself as. For example, a minority may adopt a Romanian consciousness, even though they are aware of their roots; thus, their ethnicity may be Minority X, but their national consciousness is Romanian. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You may draw whatever conclusion you want about whatever subject, but that particular conclusion means nothing to either the census or this article, which is what we are discussing here. Dahn 11:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone should really just step up and remove the "28 million" upper estimate once and for all. It's been repeated time and time again how the references do not refer to the ethnic identification outlined in this article. There's no point of leaving it on just to extinguish the rampant nationalism. Horvat Den 23:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

More POV-pushing anomalies

I'm not even going to go into the WP:OR contained in the grotesquely large lead paragraph, but I am going to point out more outrageous stuff I found in the infobox alone.

I glanced through the Spanish-language material given as reference for Romanians in Spain. Granted, I may have missed the place page where the info is claimed to be, but, from what I have seen so far, it appears that not only did the person producing such evidence base his estimate on seasonal presence of workers et al., but also that he, get this, summed up the number given for several years in a row, not noticing that these may yet be the same people (who, again, were probably all counted in the Romanian census, as various ethnicities).

The "Foundation for Romanians from All Over the World", an NGO of some sort, is neither official nor scholarly, and does not reference its own data. All its estimates count both Romanian citizens and Romanian diaspora. Not only is the source dubious, but it was manipulated by some user: there is a citation given from it for the number of Romanians in either Turkey or Greece (I can't really tell, because the number shows as between the two with my display settings). This is to say that the Foundation claims either that there are 30,000 Romanians in Turkey or 29,000 in Greece (in itself, this absurd gematria is enough to catch the eye). What the citation actually says is 800 Romanians in Turkey, with no data given for Greece! For the 9,000 in Slovakia, it clearly states that the entire number refers to ethnic Slovaks who left Romania.

Both of the links for Italy are inactive, but, from the caption accompanying one of them courtesy of some editor, one can clearly see that they referred to people who are simply present in Italy, not even living there, and all of them probably counted at home, in Romania.

The number given for Kazakhstan is actually what a journalist concluded from census data. There are no clear figures for anything after 1999, but the article actually says that there are about one hundred and something Romanians and the rest up to aprox. 20,000 declares itself Moldovan. I guess we do not need citations for the alleged 100,000 in France, nor for the 20,000 in the UK, the 30,000 in Brazil etc. Nay, we're fine, right?

The one I loved most is the citation referring to Israel. It cites nothing, but is rather formulated as a warning for those readers who may be utter idiots. You see: "The number for Israel does not count 450,000 Jews of Romanian origin, who still speak Romanian." Never mind the essay-like emphasis, but this is like saying "this article is not about Bulgarians, but about Romanians". Of course it doesn't count them. And of course no other such confusion between origin/citizenship on one side and ethnicity on the other should be made. Not that I personally care about ethnicity, but, heck, what do you gentlemen think this article is about? Dahn 00:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Objections to removing data?

Unless sound objections are voiced over the following days, I am going to remove all the misleading content from the infobox. Dahn 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you define as "misleading content"? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What I have pointed out in this very section, just about this subsection. Dahn 23:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Here we have one user who does not, in his own words, "personally care about ethnicity". But he nevertheless contributes to an article about an ethnic group. Grotesque, isn't it? Icar 12:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Still stalking? Dahn 15:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I must take exception with the above statement by Icar. Perhaps I do not quite understand its meaning (please correct me if I'm wrong), but it seems to imply that only people of a certain ethnicity should be able to edit an article about the corresponding ethnic group. I completely disagree — of course, everyone can edit at WP, that's by definition. And the contributions should be judged according to their quality, relevance, and verifiability, not according to ethnic criteria, I'd hope. Turgidson 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure Turgidson! Everybody can contribute by definition to every ethnic group article. However User:Dahn writes 15 lines above that he does not "personally care about ethnicity". In other words, he is not interested in the topic. Then why engage in edit conflicts? In fact he has a strong Trotzkist POV that he freely admits, which gives him prejudice against ethnic groups (they are not legitimate categories under Trotzkist ideology). He seems to have a particularly strong hatred of Romanians, which I find offensive. A few examples. Here he describes a well-known writer, an ethnic Hungarian citizen of Romania, as "a Romanian citizen, one of the leading Hungarian contemporary writers." Fine with me! But here a major communist figure, ethnic Hungarian, born like Suto in Austria-Hungary, who was a member of the Supreme Soviet of Ukraine, who actively fought against Romania for more than 20 years and then was one of the leaders of Soviet-occupied Romania, is described as "a Romanian communist politician". Same trick [here]: introducing a Soviet NKVD general of Jewish ethnicity, born outside Romania, as "Romanian communist activist". Examples also include Valter Roman and Gheorghe Pintilie. In short, all the Soviet agents who became leaders of occupied Romania after WWII are disguised as "Romanian", while Suto is "Hungarian" (as he should). Why the double standard? That's what propaganda is about. Don't you find this practice abhorrent? Icar 06:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I find him a very destructive member, but I urge you to watch your step. He has connections. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's it, Anittas. What say we revisit your attitude in the past weeks? Dahn 10:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that you're not invited to make any revisits. :p --Thus Spake Anittas 10:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, my personal opinions (which you continue to misrepresent) are no business of yours. Second of all, none of this is even remotely related the point, since, when someone manipulates data to push a POV (as you did on other pages, and as someone did on this page), whether you care about the subject or not does not weigh in on the truth. Additionally, wherever you go, you seem to be unable or unwilling to make the difference between ethnicity and nationality as concepts, and you do not seem to compute the very notion that the former concept is subjective, while the second one isn't. Now, you were repeatedly warned about mudslinging, following me around, canvassing, associating with a banned vandal, and disruptive editing, so I will not bother even assuming that your views and theories are relevant to anyone but yourself. I can only hope I made myself clear, because I will not be posting replies to your inflammatory posts every time you move your nonsense to another page. I thank Turgidson for his reply, but I think think that the best way to deal with your venom is to ignore it and avoid feeding the troll. Dahn 10:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Remarkable reply. "Ethnicity is subjective"! This is precisely the type of original research, extremist POV, that should not be tolerated in WP articles. Even less on a page about ethnicity. Or should WP be allowed to become a little red treasure of Trotzkist knowledge? Icar 14:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Failed good article

The following problems exist.

1. The lead needs work. WP:LEAD does allow for up to four paragraphs, but this article is not long enough to require four such long paragraphs. In addition, there is some restructuring required: for example, the Moldovan vs. Romanian ethnic question, while important enough to mention in the lead, should not be almost the first thing mentioned. The topics of the second and third paragraphs (roughly: "what does it mean to be Romanian?" and "what is the history of Romanian identity?") are reasonable topics but the latter gets too far into linguistic details that should be left to the body of the article. The fourth lead paragraph can probably be simply dropped.
2. The map is a good idea, but the dark colours, the lack of country names, and the lack of any dates are all problems. The latter could be addressed to some extent by associating a clear narrative in the article with the map. Before improving the map, I'd suggest considering exactly what the map will be used to demonstrate, as the purpose of this map is not clear. The answers might lead to two or more maps, showing, for example, historical migrations, and current populations and their numbers. This map is not easy to read and is not well put into context.
3. More references are needed. Very few references are provided outside the infobox; everything should be sourced.

Since this is a technical GA nom, rather than one inspired by an editor who wished to see the article reach GA status, I won't proceed with an exhaustive list of problems -- the lack of references is reason enough to fail the article, I'm afraid. I will add that the article would also benefit from some reworking of the structure; history and historical definitions of Romanian identity are probably better considered first, for example; and the subgroups might more naturally be associated with the population section. A good example article to compare to would be Macedonia (terminology), which, while not strictly comparable, has excellent organization and some good explanatory graphics. Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

At the top of this page, it says the article is A-class. I suggest that part to be removed. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Vojvodina

Romanian is an official language in Serbia's autonomous province of Vojvodina, and the article bears no mention of it... --PaxEquilibrium 16:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, because this is article about Romanian people, not about Romanian language. Just check Romanian language article. PANONIAN (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

But again - this article should bear at least some reference to Vojvodina, where the Romanians are an autochtonous people. --PaxEquilibrium 23:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's already mentioned in the Romanians of Serbia article. You'll notice that this page doens't really go into detail about Romanians in every single county, that sort of stuff is usually talked about in sub-articles. Khoikhoi 23:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion

I wonder why is "Atheism" included under the religions, when according to all the polls I've seen (and all the maps here on wiki!) it's the country with least Atheists in Europe, after Malta and Turkey (which is not fully in Europe anyway). I'm sure there's at least one Buddhist family, why not include Buddhism too?

It is includead because 1 atheist (bogdan) feels they should be included. Since atheism is not a religion, I will remove it immediately.

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 17:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Atheism

bogdan, if you registered yourself as "orthodox" in the census, then you are an orthdox (not atheist) for the sake of this page. We are talking about offcial figures here, not your original research. How do you know that there are "many" people in your alleged situation? How do <it>we</it> know that you did indeed declare yourself orthodox? Please leave original research and personal feelings aside when contributing here.

As for the statistics you provide about church attendance, they come from an obscure poll conducted by an NGO, while the way people define themselves comes from the official census. Most foreigners visiting Romania notice the high church attendance rate (churches are packed and so on). Should the NGO's opinion deserve much space in the article? I believe not. Icar 09:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the 2002 census, there are no less than 23,105 atheist people in Romania, so we are not talking about "1 family" here. This should evidently be included. Additionally, rates of church attendance and "actual belief" should also be included aside from census data, since this gives a more complex insight into religion in Romania. The OSF survey that was previously cited is not from an "obscure NGO", but rather the Open Society Foundation. This poll is not challenging the census results in any way, because it records an entirely different thing. The census records self-identified religion, while the OSF survey records church attendance. You can still declare a certain religion in the census, and even believe it, but not go to church. They are two different things, and thus not in contradiction with one another. Ronline ✉ 01:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In fact, there are 9271 self-declared atheists, and a further 13,834 "without religion". Those are fairly irrelevant numbers and it's hardly "evident" that they should be included, but they do make a lot of noise, so I suppose that gains them inclusion. Biruitorul 04:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture replacement

Well, the pic was deleted, and that was in the cards - since several photos were not at all PD. If someone should want to reconstruct it somehow, here's some suggestions to fill in the non-PD gaps:

• some Library of Congress photos of Brancusi might be PD, depending on several factors; you might want to look into this. See here and here. Check against the status available from the links.
• you may consider supplanting at least one photo with a PD one - for instance, one of Ion Creangă, or a close-up of this bust of Titulescu (this one, unlike other photos of NT, is bound to be in the public domain), or, similar to the above, this LoC photo of NT.
• the chance of photos of Nadia or Hagi being PD is zero, unless wikipedians photograph these people themselves. Even obtaining a release on a photo is bound to be problematic, since you would have to make it clear that you intend to crop it in a collage.
• there is no clear PD status for interwar photos, but, in case we get that sorted, consider a Maniu or a Brătianu.
• I know you wanted women to be represented - consider older photos of Marthe Bibesco, who is universally representative (isn't she?) and whose early life coincides with the PD heyday.
• at the risk of "aging" the overall result and making it look like a history textbook - an Avram Iancu, a Bălcescu perhaps? If the goal is "people known abroad", then this would be counterproductive. Consider this a last resort.

Now, as I have said, I find the whole idea of such group portraits to stand for entire nations to be terribly maladroit and inextricably POVed. But, if you have to have one, do it right. Dahn 20:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with the above sentiment, though I note that the pages on Spanish people, Italians, Germans, etc manage to have such group portraits without being gaudy or maladroit. On the other hand, the French kind of overdo it, while the British — as always, masters of understatement — have no group portrait. At any rate, yes, the bottom line is that one needs pics that can pass muster with the PD Cerberus, and that's no easy task. How about waiting another 50 years until all those pics get into the public domain? Time flies, after all. Turgidson 03:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I take back the comment about the British: the page on the English people has a gaudy and maladroit gallery, which includes Damon Albarn (who is this guy?) and Kate Winslet (OK, OK, I know who she is, but still), yet no Sir Isaac Newton, or Sir Winston Churchill, or .. ah well. OK, maybe it's better after all to drop the whole thing than going the Franco-English route. Turgidson 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't you diss Damon :). On the other hand, I really think that a resolution on pictures should be passed at a higher level, and result in simply removing the picture field from the infoboxes. The only thing theses pictures illustrate are: how hard Victorian mentalities and the Volkgeist theory fade away from the collective mind; how hard it is to reconcile the different perspectives on what a nation is (consider that the previous collage had the Greek Caragiale in it); how very few wikipedians have seen the limitations of their own views of the world. Dahn 10:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Dahn: it is better to not have any photo at all. Nice to read on Marthe. I didn't know about her. --Thus Spake Anittas 10:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Popor

Actually, popor is a word reconstructed in 19th century from Latin populus and Italian popolo. The older Romanian word was neam, but as this is borrowed from Hungarian, the nationalists didn't like it for obvious reasons. There's even older word, nat, from Latin natio, nationis (cognate with modern borrowing naţiune), but this was confined as a regional word in Banat, unknown throughout the rest of the country, which apparently replaced it with neam. bogdan 15:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Related ethnic groups

Again, I find the information included there problematic. Can someone give me a source which links Romanians to Italians? That assumption is most likely based on the idea that Romans are the common ancestors of the two people. I'm don't want to argue that point, but if that were the case, then all Latin people in Europe should be linked to one another. That, of course, would be a stupid thing to do. The other problem is to add Moldovans as a related ethnic groups. Ethnic Moldovans are counted by most for being Romanians. Those who argue against that point would probably not settle by saying that they are a related ethnic group to Romanians; and if one wants to argue that they are not to be counted as Romanians, then that same person should source the claim that they are a related ethnic group. Basically, the two schools of tought say that Moldovans are either Romanian or not: and there is nothing in-between. There is no compromise to be made. --Thus Spake Anittas 11:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Surnames

We are missing the suffix -lea, which stands for (al lui) I think. As for -escu, isn't that suffix specifically Wallachian? --Thus Spake Anittas 19:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

What about Nicolae Milescu]? Anyway most -escu names appeared in the second part of the 19th century, when those names imitating boyar ones were forced upon people by the gvt (for example Ion Creanga is called in his school registers Ion Stefanescu).Anonimu 19:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that and I forgot about Milescu, but I read that the -escu suffic is mostly found in Wallachia. --Thus Spake Anittas 19:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Romanians in Italy

There are almost 600000 romanians in Italy. The 1% of the entire italian population. [5] --Alessandro.pasi 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

They are not citizens of Italy, and only a part of them are residents of Italy. That means that, until data that makes the difference is made available, most of those Romanians are counted elsewhere. Hope you see the importance that counting twice has on the reliability of this article. Dahn 02:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, if they show up in a census, then they are obviously residents there. Dapiks (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

They don't show up in any census. The quoted source says: "On December 31, 2006, there were 555,997 Romanian citizens living in Italy, representing 15.1% of all foreign citizens." And of course some of them or all of them are residents, but they are of the number counted in Romania. Dahn (talk) 00:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Map of Regions Inhabited by Romanians

Many users have complained that the map exagerates the number of Romanians as well as the size of the regions inhabited by them. I propose that the map be changed. Does anyone know of any maps already on the web, that we could use. Here are some maps that I found:

• [6] - pretty reliable - i've seen this in a history book.

• [7]

• [8] - a more modern map

• [9] - a map from 1940 but still pretty good

Dapiks (talk) 21:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Despite being overexagerated, the current map has other important flaws:

1. It shows as Romanian the population self-identified as Moldovan.
2. It implies Vlach=Romanian, despite the self-identification of a part of this group.

The maps you have brought are often contradicting eachother, and moreover are severly obsolete (just consider that Dobruja has nowadays only 3 communes with non-romanian majority, those communes being not turkish, tatar or bulgarian, but russian).Anonimu (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest something based on the envsec map, but with a hachure or a shade for the region where Moldovan is the majority reflected in the censuses, and, if they are to be included at all, with a shade for the various Aromanian enclaves (not shown on that map, afaict). It could be glued with maps of a similar reliability that would show the situation in Bukovina/Budjak etc. (with the Moldovan proviso). Dahn (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get into the romanian/moldovan conflict all over again. Suffice it to say that in most western sources, Moldovans are considered of romanian origin.

here is another map i found

[10].

Dapiks (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What should matter first and foremost is what they consider themselves. National identity is a subjective thing, and nobody has the right to determine it for anyone else. What I proposed above is the perfect compromise version, which would include both views without favoring any. Dahn (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

In light of no reliable data (the census of 2004 was considered unreliable by observers when it came to language and ethnicity), I think "what they consider themselves" might be a little problem since we can't determine that for sure. The last map I have posted here is exactly what you are saying - take a closer look. Dapiks (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if the census were indeed unreliable, that unreliability would only go so far as to establish that people who declare themselves Moldovans may not be as many, not that they are not a very large number. As for the map: though it seems correct, could we have a more reliable source for our map than some highly dubious collection of attack pages? Dahn (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Civic media is a "highly dubious collection of attack pages"? Dapiks (talk) 08:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It does not count as a reliable source (it is basically a blog), and was singled out by several as a tool catered for calumny and attacks. The only sources who back its credibility are themselves subject to the same observations. Dahn (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Romanians in Italy (Again)

Dahn, I think you are too quick with your revert. I don't think the chart refers only to populations of a foreign country's citizens with Romanian background. The sources cited (confirmed from the BBC) state "residents"... How is this different from those listed for other countries where Romanians do not constitute part of the historic population?? They came from Romania and now live in Italy. Period. They are NOT there passing through or on vacation. I'll let you explain yourself before any revert back. Mariokempes (talk) 23:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is absurd. For starters, the BBC article clearly indicates that these people are subject to the deportation law, which means that they do not live in Italy permanently. It also says, verbatim: "The number of Romanians in Italy is estimated at more than 550,000, about 1% of the total population." No "Italian-Romanian citizens", but simply people who work in Italy. These people were counted at home, as Romanian citizens. They were not subtracted from the census, and they will not be subtracted from future censuses unless they all obtain another citizenship. They are most likely among the ones counted as popolazione straniera residente. As long as they are not counted as part of the census of Italians and not subtracted from the Romanian census (if the Romanian census subtracts temporary residents in other countries, and I seriously doubt that it ever does), they cannot be added up in the total or presented as part of the diaspora, since they would be counted twice!

Of course there is a difference between them and the historical population elsewhere, and this is obvious to the naked eye. The historical population in, say, Canada or, say, Poland, is not counted in the Romanian census. And of course the absurd number of 300,000 should also go away if someone where to apply a rational approach - it too is a bewildering confusion. I reverted your edit not because the original was any better, but because two wrongs don't make a right.

All my comments and questions in regard to such ridiculous mistakes were already on this page. Had you read and pondered on them before posting the above message, this whole thread would've been pointless. Dahn (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey did any1 see my comments about the map? Dapiks (talk) 00:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dahn, you obviously know a lot more about this subject than I and, no, I did not see previous threads (this is a long talk page!). However, this reference[11]] clearly states 550k "officially registered as living in Italy", i.e. "Residents". The BBC article, unfortunately, is about the deportation of some 1000 "criminal" Romanians and refers to the 500k only in passing. I point to it only because it corroborates the numbers... The first article clarifies this comment, and as official residents they DO live in Italy permanently. Yes, you are correct in that many or most were not subtracted from the census, but that issue applies to most western european and overseas countries listed. If you are going to take this approach with the Italian figures, you must also take it accross the board (For example, the Spanish reference takes "residents" from Romania, NOT Spanish- Romanian citizens). Mariokempes (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

No, there is no source saying that they live there permanently. And again, this doesn't matter much, since, at the present moment, they are counted among the 19 million ethnic Romanian citizens/23 million citizens at home and will likely be counted so in the future.

I have demanded that the same criterion be applied in respect to all those numbers and references, and it is as a result of this (unanswered) demand, and not just, that I added the tags at the top of the article. Conflating the numbers in this article was done to the level of insanity, and several criteria have been applied indiscriminately (for example, I doubt that any person counted among the Romanians in Israel identifies as an ethnic Romanian - they are simply Jewish people of Romanian provenance). Dahn (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your points... and thanks for your patience with me. This is indeed a recipe for insanity. While it would be difficult to establish a uniform list of criteria for the table, I think for clarity it should be attempted or the table should be modified to clarify this "doubling up". Please keep demanding. Again, I haven't looked at the article's history- I can understand how this has already been a contentious source with infinite inconclusive results! Nonetheless, the article would benefit from a section on this large population migration to Italy... they are by far the largest minority group there today. Best of luck! Mariokempes (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

THis article is full of tags but nobody actually bothers to explain the reasons as to why they are there or suggest how to address the issues. I propose they should be taken down until we can clearly point out specific issues (if they exist). Dapiks (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have made the reasons clear for a while now, and they only deal with the very basic info in the article (the tip of the iceberg). What you propose is exactly how not to deal with tags, and ignores their very purpose (which is to note that the problems have not been dealt with). Dahn (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK Dahn, then please, by all means, if you think that changes are needed, make them. Dapiks (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the case would be in Romania, but for Spaniards, if you move abroad and register either as permanent resident (Residente) or transient resident (Transeunte), you are taken off the census in your last known address in Spain. The question is whether the half a million Romanians in Spain as for the local Spanish census ("padrón municipal") would be in the same position (i.e. not being listed twice, both in their current residence in Spain and in their native country). I guess this would also apply to Italy and other countries. Personally, I would err on the side of caution and risk counting them twice. Regards, Asterion^talk 20:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

disclaimer

I didn't want to just delete it and look like a troll (again), but do we really need that disclaimer at the top of the page, stating that Romanians are "not to be confused with the Romani people"? K. Lásztocska^talk 03:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

That disclaimer looks out of place to me. I mean, why not add "not to be confused with the Romans (inhabitants of Rome)", or "not to be confused with the Romans (inhabitants of the Roman Empire", or Romansh, Romand, Romanic, or a gazillion other words from the Roman disambiguation page? Turgidson (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly, I just needed somebody to agree with me before I unilaterally deleted it--this disclaimer is spillover from a rather odd debate yesterday in which I nearly got myself in some hot water, so I just wanted to be on the safe side. Anyway, it's gone. K. Lásztocska^talk 06:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

On one hand it seems obvious, on the other for some people which are unable to make the distinction, leaving it might be a good idea. But I think, if we are to have a disclaimer about Romani people, we should also have one about Romans, Aromanians, Rome (the city) and Romania (the Roman Empire in the East). Dapiks (talk) 15:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Better distinction between peoples having similar etnonims

Top lines meant to dissipate the confussion with peoples having similar etnonims like it is shown in the following articles : Bulgarians with Bulgars, Macedonians with Ancient Macedonians and which are designating separate peoples with no connetion among themselves will be added. Adrianzax (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK. How about you start by putting "Not to be confused with Australians" at the top of Austrians? When I was little I used to mix up Poland and Portugal. Maybe we should put a disclaimer there too? In all seriousness, I don't think it's our job to anticipate every possible misunderstanding or instance of ignorance among our readers--if they read the article, they would be quite clear that Romanians are not Roma and vice versa. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

An important thing here is that both ethnic groups are found in the same place. Also, their ethnonyms (what they call themselves) are similar. This is not the case with Österreicher and Australians. Most people know the Romany as "Gypsies" so when they see Romani/Romany they assume it means Romanian. Some people have even placed Romanian language articles on the Romany Wikipedia. If you read the articles of course it becomes obvious, just like ethnic Macedonians and Macedonians (Greek), but this confusion here warrants a dab. BalkanFever 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, then, maybe best would be to have some third-party opinion? I mean, I'm with User:K. Lastochka on this — I cannot for the life of me see how anyone could mix two different names like that. But in all honesty, I must say I've seen literally hundreds, if not thousands of instances of people mixing Bucharest and Budapest — even notable academics, not to say journalists or reporters! :) So maybe someone who can fathom how anyone with some kind of education can mix those two capital cities would be better able to figure out what to do? But, if you guys do decide to go ahead and put those disclaimers (about Romanis, Romanche, Aromanians, Romans, whatnot) at the top of the articles, then I'll have to insist, at least half-jokingly, to add "not to be confused with Budapest" at the top of the Bucharest article, and "not to be confused with Bucharest" at the top of the Budapest article. At least, that's not a totally red herring worry about a bogus possible confusions, as I can certify, or prove by gazillion links and quotes if anyone wants to challenge me on this. Just google "Bucharest, Hungary" and "Budapest, Romania" for starters, to have an idea what I'm talking about. Turgidson (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation should be used when "a single term can be associated with more than one topic", which is not the case. "Bulgarians" are called "Bulgars" in some older sources and the Turkic "Bulgars" are also called "proto-Bulgarians", while Slavic Macedonian and Ancient Macedonian share their name so it's not the same thing. bogdan (talk) 10:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Under the english version of the name "Romanians" it is written the romanian version. Romanians call themselves "Români" with differit accent on "a" which for a foreigner has exactly the same form as "Romani" people. Romanians are often confussed with Romani people because of the simmilarity of the names. Please do not remove this anymore. Adrianzax (talk) 10:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

No source is going to use Romanies for Romanians or the other way around! There's no point to add a disambiguation when two names are just similar. See the guideline:

adding disambiguation links to a page with a name that clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term is discouraged -- from Wikipedia:Disambiguation bogdan (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

why won't you remove it from Bulgarians with Bulgars and Macedonians with Macedonians then? ? Adrianzax (talk) 10:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Because, like bogdan already said: Bulgars are historically related to Bulgarians, and Macedonians (from Ancient Macedonia) and Macedonians (from former Yugoslavia) have the same name. Romanies and Romanians are not historically related nor do they have the same name. --Kuaichik (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This edit-warring over that dab link is getting ridiculous. Why not try and improve the article, add content to it, or to some of the many other related articles that could use improvements and some TLC, instead of this rather pointless, disruptive, and ultimately sterile exercise? I just don't get it. Turgidson (talk) 18:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to add something. A quick Google search for "romani" with the intent to find info about romanians, written in romanian without diacritics gives these results:

1. Romani.org Home Page (This site provides accurate information about the Roma (aka Gypsies) - their origins, history, language, culture, persecution, etc., and hosts pages of ...)
2. Romani language - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Romani or Romany (native name: rromani ćhib) is the language of the Roma and Sinti. The Indo-Aryan Romani language should not be confused with either ...)
3. Romani - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (The Romani people · Romani language, the language of the Roma. "Romany" was the pseudonym of a ... Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani" ...)

That is concerning, because it only creates confusion, providing erroneous info to those who in turn mistype or don't know the etymology of the word. The dablink has to stay there to ensure no such confusion is made by the readers.

Iulian28ti (talk) 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Such claims are nonsense, no matter where they were picked from: the two words are not homonyms in any one language. If a person would be looking for Romanians on the English wikipedia using the Romanian word without diacritics (and leaving aside that the person in question would have to be an idiot), chances are that he or she already knows what the difference between Romanians and Romani people is. Also, it is quite clear that even a contrived "homonym" such as that one could not possibly work for the Romani language (Romanians never call their language "limba români" or any such thing).

Furthermore: the currently protected version, which was the result of POV pushing from one very persistent user and what I can only assume is his sockpuppet/meatpuppet, removed three valid tags and reintroduced ridiculous spelling errors. Guess who's being disruptive? Dahn (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the dublinks from bulgarians with bulgars, which are not homonyms and neither sinonims and then you will be able also to remove it here. I prompt you to remove that dublink if you're so correct and everybody else is wrong, stop vandalising this page, go vandalise some other pages Adrianzax (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plain and simple reasons why I will not address this person directly (I have already marked his repeated threats over wikimail as spam). I shall however answer one last time to anyone reading this who is still not convinced that Adrianzax is presenting a false dilemma. For one, "I've seen something similar done elsewhere" is not a mature answer. Secondly, "Bulgarians"/"Bulgars" share a homonym in the English language (i.e.: "Bulgarians", occasionally used to stand for "Bulgars"). Dahn (talk) 17:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

from the dictionary: Bul·gar·i·an n. A native or inhabitant of Bulgaria. Also called Bulgar. bogdan (talk) 17:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First I didn't threat you, I asked politely to stop vandalising this page, second why aren't you removing that dumblink if you're so correct, the situation only applies at only same articles chosen by you??? and third preserve your energy, your lies are in vain, your lies are nothing when they stand in front of the truth. Best regards Adrianzax (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good line. You may want to add it to WP:TRUTH. Turgidson (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanians are mistaken with Romani because of the similarity of the name, the proof is this, a romanian fotball player was made romani (gypsy) by italians romanian football player being called romani by italians Adrianzax (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Again with the irrelevant claims and the wishful thinking. The stereotype of Romanians and Romani being the same has nothing to do with the real or imagined homonym, and there is no indication anywhere that it does. The notion, many times voiced by bigoted people who hold an insulting image of both ethnic groups, was also voiced using other ethnonyms for the Romani people: for example, people who lived through the 1990s will remember the fuss caused by Vladimir Zhirinovsky when he said "Romanians are Italienized Gypsies" (no "Rom-Romanian homonym" there!). In what concerns Mutu, the case simply is that, as has been said elsewhere, a large number of Romanian citizens present in Italy are of the Rom ethnicity - the "confusion" is strictly a part of the moronic paradigm that holds Romani people are inferior to others, and claims to soil the Romanian ethnicity through "guilt" by association. The fact that some Romanians, such as Adrianzax, will react in tacit support of this view is simply disturbing. Part of it is also amusing: what Adrianzax doesn't seem to realize is that placing the header he keeps pushing back in will only serve to enhance the supposed connection between Romanians and the Rom ("don't think about elephants"). One would have to note that the word used by some hooligans in reference to Mutu, as quoted by Reuters, is not "Rom" or any other "homonym", but "Gypsy" - presumably "zingaro" in the original. So much for that argument. Dahn (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not just elephants. As the Bard put it, The lady doth protest too much, methinks (Hamlet, Act III, scene 2). Turgidson (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrian, calm down. Calling other people "vandals" and "liars" is just going to get you blocked again. Please refrain from such epithets in the future. bogdan (talk) 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're intentions are so good, why did you removed the picture with Romanians ??that picture was a creation of mine, and the colage contained only pictures unlicensed that doesn't need aproval for their use. Why are you so desparate to remove and revert anything I add if your intentions are so good???????? sistematicaly rejection my statements which are completely true and highly backed up. The readers can search in history and watch the evolution of this "conflict" and judge for theirselves which one is right.I tell you again, stop vandalising this pages, or I see myself obliged to present the truth to the readers of wikipedia from the entire world... do you want this? Adrianzax (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dahn your statement is the actual proof that everyone call gypsies anything but "rom" or "romani" . We can change the romani article to gypsies or zingari if you want to remove the dublink, but i'm pretty sure you don't want that..isn't it? Adrianzax (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind the threats and inflammatory rhetoric - I'll ask other admins to look into what they're worth in block periods. But if the "truth" Adrianzax wants to "present to the readers of wikipedia etc." is the same speculative article with a conspiracy theory ring to it that he found in a newspaper notorious for the way in which it has done away with all journalistic integrity, I'll pass.

As for the "proof" you invoke, it's spurious. Many languages have colloquial equivalents for "Rom" and "Romani" (just as some have ones for "Romanians"), and "zingari" is, obviously, an Italian word. Dahn (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

and what if simmilar articles can be found in very notorius newspapers, what if some romanian journalist actually have proof for their articles? and there are dozens of articles in important romanian newspapers stating the same thing, by the way you should be blocked for reverting this article 6 times without reasons, I almost forgot but you remind me, I will raport you right away Adrianzax (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrian, give it a rest. Your arguments make no sense whatsoever and your behavior is disruptive to say the least. Stop insulting people, cool it on the antiziganist rhetoric, and if you would stop threatening and blackmailing people via wikimail that would be nice too. K. Lásztocska^talk 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

you mean Anti-romanism or anti-romaism ??? what is antitziganism, I don't understand... Isn't it nice to see the same group of people continously rejecting other one arguments? and vandal isn't an insult, it means you are vandalisng something, in this case wikipedia articles. isten veled ;)Adrianzax (talk) 19:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

See antiziganism. It means hatred of Gypsies or Roma or Tziganes or cigányek or whatever the hell you want to call them. If you think I'm a vandal, you're welcome to report me. Let's see how well that goes. K. Lásztocska^talk 20:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So their name is roma and romani but the xenophobic acts towards them are being called “antitziganism”… completely unlogical.And what do you mean by this : "or what the hell you want to call them” I can observe a trace of anti-romaism or antitziganism in that sentence, are you racist or something? . By the way I didn't raport any of you simply because I don't give a damn if you're being blocked or not, I’m only interested that the neutrality to be respected, if you continue like this I have other solutions, you know better which ;) Adrianzax (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't coin the term, so don't blame me. And no, I'm not racist. As for your "other solutions," I don't have any idea what they are but I know you tried to blackmail me via email. I don't even know what you were trying to threaten me with, but it won't work. Wikipedia does not tolerate such childish and mean behavior, and I won't be influenced by it. K. Lásztocska^talk 21:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course Wiki does not tollerate such mean and childish actions, that's why the page remained blocked in the correct form. What I have done it's not called blackmail, it's called "neutrality", an unknown term for you and your friends Adrianzax (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't play dumb. You know perfectly well what you wrote in that email to me and what you meant by it. You should thank your lucky stars that you're dealing with a merciful and warm-hearted Magyar here, or I would have gotten you banned already for threats and harassment. K. Lásztocska^talk 22:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL...who do you think you're talking with missy?I really don't feel like exculpating myself because I don't have reasons. I didn't threat you or harrasead you, I threated you with the truth which is a big difference of nuance. Feel free to raport me everywhere you want, if you were right i'm sure you would have raporteted me by now Adrianzax (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you shouldn't be threatening anyone with anything, even if you are convinced it's The Truth. Try to have a little common decency. And please don't call me "missy." K. Lásztocska^talk 22:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrians's arguments make too much sense, that's your problem. That's the problem of all "big" editors. They make a mistake, then they refuse to acknowledge it. You have been presented with evidence about discrimination (which came from the confusion) and an argument which you did not read carefully. If you can't read then don't write.

The Google search shows how one person, not knowing the meaning of the word seen in a paper, or in an old, lost encyclopedia, searches the word, without bothering to use diacritics, stumbles upon Gypsies. So guess what, a score of 10 might get attributed to a gypsy.

I wish to know where the hell is that POV in clearly distinguishing the two groups, something useful that can remove any confusion. The fact that you keep removing the dablink from this page and leave it in other pages shows you miss the point. There is no anti-ziganism, there is only care for both groups and the clarity of the reader. He did say:

This article is about the Latin ethnic group. For the unrelated Indo-Aryan ethnic group, see Romani people.

If he was saying "gypsies" maybe, maybe it was racial. But even like that the gypsies wouldn't have felt offended, because they care about their culture and use all of their names, even if some meant something bad in the past and some aren't used too often. I don't think the gypsies would want to be called "români", for it is extremely easy to confuse the words in romanian writing.

The acceptance of that dablink would only end the useless dispute caused by a confusion and the easy differentiation of the two ethnic groups. That, plus the tidy aspect of the page without all those templates shows there is nothing wrong with the dablink.

Iulian28ti (talk) 20:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that stating "romani!=romanian" is absolutely necessary. Given that "romani" becomes used nowadays (although I don't find this reasonable), it is only fairness to disambiguate. Furthermore, confusion also comes from the fact that romani are romanian citizens, just like romanians. :) Dpotop (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

"Only fairness"? "Confusion also comes from the fact that romani are romanian citizens"? First of all: what confusion? Nobody was able to produce any single piece of evidence that would say ethnic Romani people and ethnic Romanians are perceived as analogous terms by anybody worth mentioning. Then again, if a confusion is made by x person between Romanian Romani people in y country and Romanian citizens, it is not actually a confusion: Romanian Romani people are Romanian citizens, and I don't see proof of them being considered ethnic Romanians. I certainly don't see any proof that any confusion is made because of the name, in any given language. Where one is discussing the status of illegal immigrants, one always discusses their citizenship, not their ethnicity. In all other cases, one can present ample evidence that the law, society and culture of any given country can and does continue to distinguish between ethnic Romanians and the Romani people. Dahn (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The Italian deputy Roberto Menia (National Alliance) reffered to a Italian Rom colegue with the "ROMANIAN" apelative, after that he apologiesed in a message to romanian newspaper "Adevarul" Link HereAdrianzax (talk) 17:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Protected (tenth time)

Page has been protected for one week so you all can figure out what you're edit warring over. It looks to me like you're disrupting Wikipedia over some templates, an image, the capitalization of Latin, Easter, and Christmas, how to use a link, and the ordering of interwiki links. Continued disruption after the protection expires will warrant a block. Thank you, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion between ethnonyms

Does this help ? BalkanFever 02:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't make any sense out of the message you're posting above. If I got this right, you're telling us that somebody copied (poorly, and with bewildering linking of random words added in the pot) part of an article from the Romanian wikipedia and saved it in the understaffed Romani wikipedia. And? For starters, this would in any case be a confusion between wikipedias, not one between peoples. The person in question (a practical joker? a noob? a person who shares the prejudice about either of or both peoples? someone who is gaming the system?) could not have mistaken the two languages (let alone peoples), because he or she copied the text from the Romanian wikipedia - meaning that the person knows these are different things. Furthermore, the issue of naming is completly out of place here: you see, the name for Romani people/language in, well, Romany, is "Romany" (not going into dialectal variations), so this circumstance will not even begin tio deal with the issue of "alternate names for Romani people" in x other language, and the "necessity" to avoid confusion - unless you assume that Romani people think they are in fact Romanians! Lastly, the existence of such a phenomenon is not to be proven through wikipedia or any form of random private initiative you or anybody else just selected from the all-encompassing web of nonsense that is the lesser internet. Like all phenomenons, it is to be proven by logical arguments and reflection in more than one relevant and credible sources. Dahn (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So it doesn't help then. BalkanFever 10:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this would help alot "Una Confusione " CASE CLOSED. Adrianzax (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A letter to an editor is not a reliable source for anything - it just means some guy decided to write a newspaper and let them know about his feelings. Furthermore, that guy does not actually state that there is a confusion in naming, but rather claims that the people Italy has "problems" with carry the Romanian passport, but that neither of them are ethnic Romanians. Leaving aside the fact that carrying a Romanian passport makes one Romanian as far as common reference goes (because, thank god, we don't live in that racialist state where only ethnic Romanians could be Romanian citizens), that letter simply displays the same prejudice - it excuses the notion that Romanian citizens in Italy are necessarily dangerous, but attributes that danger exclusively to the Romani people among them. Nowhere does the letter say that the two ethnicities are mixed up, nowhere does it say that the name would be reason for confusion of the terms. Case closed. Dahn (talk) 14:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's Corriere della Serra, one of the most impornt newspapers in Italy, it's not "somebody from the street opinion" ;). And yes it does wrote about the cunfusion of the name, it says loud and clear : Vi è confusione tra cittadini romeni e i nomadi rom con passaporto romeno in quanto i «rom» . And the actual proof this name creates confusion is that two romanian officials were retained for having the abreviation "ROM" in their passports, after this Romania changed the abreviaton to ROU . here Case Closed :) Adrianzax (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a letter to the Corriere della Sera, not an article reflecting the opinions of the paper. Letters to the editor do not count as reliable sources. Moving on: what your quote says is no reference to the name, under any definition of the word "name", and thus has no bearing here. It is also nonsensical: if "cittadini romeni" means "ethnic Romanian citizens of Romania" or "Romanian citizens in Italy", then there is no confusion - both Romanians and the Romani people in question (i.e.: those with a Romanian passport) are Romanian citizens, and, as far as other counytries are concerned, both are defined by the fact that they hold Romanian passports, and not by any other detail; if it means "ethnic Romanian citizens of Italy", then I challenge anyone to tell me what the author of that letter is concerned above. Nowhere in that letter is it said that the confusion is made because of the name, but just a claim that a confusion is made, and a claim to solve confusion by complimenting one prejudice instead of two.

The rest of the above conspiracy theory, which is based on some post in a mail thread (again irrelevant), is also irrelevant to this project. Amusingly, even that letter nowhere credits such an episode, and merely states: 'The request to make this change was made by the Romanian government, but no specific rationale was provided, and some conjectured it had to do with shunning the abbreviation "ROM," the Romanian word for "gypsy." ' Furthermore, even if this would be the case (and it does not seem to be), it would still be a unilateral gesture by some wishful thinkers (not validating a confusion per se) and it would actually be an "issue" of abbreviation - which this article, obviously, is not -, and it would not be in reference to any actual failure to distinguish between the two peoples (since, of the two terms here, one is the Romanian word for "Romani person", the other the contraction of a name for a country). Dahn (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I jump back in here? With due respect to all warring parties here, isn't a point being missed? The issue is not whether some ignorant people don't know the difference between "Romani" and "Romanian", the issue is whether we, here on Wikipedia, should put disclaimers all over the place pointing out the difference in bold type. I personally think that we can't write our articles to cater to the most uneducated segment of the population--we have to adhere to a professional standard of writing and content, which assumes at least a literate and intelligent audience. Following Adrianzax's arguments, we might as well put "Note: the moon is NOT made of cheese" to Moon, and "Note: Earth is round, not flat" to Earth. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, at Albert Herring: Note, this chamber opera is not a red herring. Turgidson (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

*snicker*...you and István should form the official Wikipedia comedy team...:) K. Lásztocska^talk 16:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with that argument. I was merely pointing out that, in addition to that pertinent issue that such disclaimers coach the reader, there is isn't even any similarity of names at the basis of that "confusion", merely two sets of prejudiced and fringe views that distort the terms in use to encourage segregation (in one case, that of Romanian citizens in Western Europe - in the other, that of Romani people everywhere). Dahn (talk) 16:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why I have the feeling that you would agree with anything your friends would say? available for the rest of your friends :) Adrianzax (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you turn that question around and ask yourself, why does nobody agree with you? K. Lásztocska^talk 16:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of people agree with me as you can see upper in the page, and coincidente or not, those who agree with me are not part of your "gang" Adrianzax (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no "gang." If you have to postulate the existence of some shadowy cabal to bolster your argument, well, I rest my case. K. Lásztocska^talk 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course there is no such gang but if we look for curiosity at the history page from each one of you,, you may become a little suspicius, isn't it :) ? Adrianzax (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax: when I comment on the English wikipedia, I make a habit of only answering insinuations written in reasonably good English. I tend to ignore all off-topic messages based on threats and fallacies, as I should, but the more they look like gibberish, and the less they adhere to grammatical rules, the least patience I have for trying to make sense of them. That is to say: I could make you aware of all regulations we have here on wikipedia in reference to what is and isn't relevant in a discussion, but, you see, I feel like I would be wasting my time - since you obviously take little interest in what wikipedia is actually for and about, and since none of your contributions coherently spell out anything other than "I came here to disrupt this project". Good day, sir. Dahn (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Radu Vasile, former prime-minister of Romania says the term "Rom" for gypsies creeates confusion with "Romanians"

Radu Vasile, former prime-minister of Romania says the term "Rom" for gypsies creeates confusion with "Romanians". Audio Link Here Adrianzax (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Even presuming that is true (at the moment it is just some audio file up for sharing on a site that I don't care to start an account on): relevancy? Just because a politician speculates about such notions, it does not mean that language has changed and the two words have become homonyms (and which language is he talking about, btw?). Dahn (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In chinese... so you're not even from Romania ? then why do you have this written in front of your page? "Acest utilizator este un vorbitor nativ al limbii române" The same thing was also written in the Magyar girl K. Lastochka who doesn't speak a word of romanian. I smell a diversion over here.... And if not even the prime-minister of Romania is not an enough source for you then I rest my case ;) Adrianzax (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Read again the post you were answering to, and see why you're completely out of line and not to the point. Now, if you and Vasile are talking about the supposed confusion being made in the Romanian language (!), what is the relevancy of that supposed to quote to this here English wikipedia? Dahn (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

the romanian for Roma people is ROM. The english term for for Roma people I see has evolved through time to "Romani". So if Radu Vasile, Prime-Minister of Romania considers that because of the similarity Rom with Romanian this two differit groups are confused, the only logical deduction is the EVEN MORE SIMILAR "Romani" with "Romanian" couses even bigger confussion Adrianzax (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to tell you, Adrianzax: that deduction of yours isn't particularly logical, and any deduction is irrelevant in any such discussion. In English (the language used o'er here), the two words are still not homonyms, and they still aren't so in all other languages you cite. Dahn (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

of course not, but neither is bulgarian with bulgars and I don't see you removing the dubling over there :) Adrianzax (talk) 22:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So what's the problem actually, there were Iberi in Caucasus and even Albania, what's the big deal, in many languages there are similar words and confusions... -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see... some people what to promote a disambiguation between Romani and Romanian and some other people consider that that comes from some racism "fear of being confused with gypsies", while I don't give a damn about the issue, why is so bad in having a disambiguation for similar spelled terms? Do you need a reference that the terms are separated by two letters? I mean why is Moldova and Moldavia disambiguated, it's not like we have references that there's a confusion between the terms... or do we? But in any case, what is the problem? (while Dahn can assume that what stands behind the action of people who want to add the disambiguation is some racial prejudice and not the desire to make things clear and he might be very well right, I fail to see the damage, clarity is not something that Wikipedia should avoid on the assumption that the edit was motivated by bad intentions. Basically, assumed bad intentions that promote something that's not demonstrable bad and might be even useful should not be considered into deciding such issues (personal opinion) -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

AdrianTM: the terms Moldova and Moldavia are both more or less often used to refer to either Moldova or Moldavia in English. As words. "Rom" and its lexical family are not confounded in any given language, and especially not in English. If you want to quote me properly: I assumed that people who identify ethnic Romanians with ethnic Romani have a racial prejudice that they extend to both peoples. Those people do not rely on any supposed similarity in terms, just as people who claim that Sicilians are "Negroids" do not rely on any such confusion - they are making a political statement. The whole shabang in Romania has also involved cases of people who are simply referred to according to their citizenship, and regardless of their ethnicity - which is the normal and standard way in democratic countries, who have not yet learned that Romanians tend to think there are better and lesser Romanian citizens (an inner circle of ethnic Romanians and the rest). This means that, in Italy, most TV broadcasts, newspaper articles, published commentaries, will not go about trying to find out what ethnicity Romanian citizens in Italy have, since it does not interest them in the least. That, of course, is still no "confusion" between the two terms. What I have noted is that introducing these supposed confusions - one of which is racialist, while the other is misinterpreted in manifest bad faith - is based on pure fancy and could only serve to cement the same prejudice (while explaining it away as a lexical confusion). Also note that these issues all involve the Italian language, while this is the English wikipedia - supposed homonyms have to exist in English or in the target (rendered) language - in this case, Romanian or Romani; Italian is neither. As for proper homonymy on this here wikipedia, see for example Roma. Dahn (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said here, but it doesn't address the issue of "what is wrong with (more) clarity and the present dab text", I don't see a problem with having a dab Romani/Romanian (and this has nothing to do with Italians, Italian, or Radu Vasile). -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is disambiguation used only in case of strict homonymy? The words "Romani" and "Romanian" differ only by two letters and I don't think it's evident for an foreigner not versed in these issue what is the difference, I think this is a valid candidate for a disambiguation link/text. (I would consider something similar for Hun/Hungarian although in this case there's a bigger difference and one is clearly an historical term) -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation is supposed to be used when there is something ambiguous. "Romanian" is not ambiguous. bogdan (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nor Bulgars is ambiguous (as pointed by the other Adrian), but there can be a confusion between similarly spelled names. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I don't know what's the best to do, I don't have a strong preference either way, I just wanted to make sure this is not dismissed because of assumption of bad faith. If the rule is that disambiguation is not to be used when the spelling is similar between two names then we don't use it, but it's ridiculous to ask for references to prove that there can be a confusion between two similar names that differ by only 2 letters and in addition they are names of two groups of people who (partially) share same geographic area, I see a chance of confusion there... -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But AdrianTM, as Bogdangiusca pointed out in a discussion above [12], Bulgars is ambiguous, since they are ethnically related to the Bulgarians and are (for this reason) sometimes known as "proto-Bulgarians." But Romanies and Romanians are not ethnically related, and in fact, there is no evidence for any confusion between the two. The only "evidence" the other Adrian has presented is (1) an Italian article where a Romanian soccer/football player was called a "gypsy," (2) an editorial in an Italian newspaper in which a "confusion" was mentioned between (ethnic?) Romanians and Romanian citizens of Romani origin, and (3) a Romanian article about an Italian diplomat who called an Italian Rom "Romanian."

The first of these sources merely demonstrates the general derogatory nature of the word "gypsy." It shows that "gypsy" is used not only as a slur against Romanies, but just as a general insult, a bit like the verb "gyp" is used in (colloquial) English as an (almost?) insulting word meaning (the verb) "cheat."

The second just mentions a confusion between Romanians and Romanian citizens who are Romani. Even there, the author does not actually say that the confusion has to do with the name. It could (although it doesn't necessarily) have to do with the simple fact that a lot of Romanies happen to come from Romania. (In Italy especially, there are significantly large communities of Romanian Romanies (i.e. Romanies from Romania), and references are made to this particular Romani community in the Italian media). As such, Romanies in general may be associated specifically with Romanian Romanies.

The third source is similar to the second: an Italian politician confused an Italian Romani for a Romanian. Again, this could be due to the immigration of Romanian Romanies. In any case, as Dahn pointed out, neither of the last two sources actually says that the source of the confusion was the similarity between the words "rom" and "rumeno." --Kuaichik (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Guys, have you ever heard about linguistic barriers? i'm not referring to language barrier, but to the symbols and phonetics. When reading the text you interpret things visually, not verbally. That's why the confusions already happened. Keeping a stranglehold on this article, and refusing to understand that a dablink will simply keep confusions away from Wiki readers isn't too bright. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 10:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

excuse me Kuaichik but I think you're a little confuse, in all the sources I gave it points loud and clear that because of the name similarity it's being made this confusion, fact recognised even by the former romanian prime-minister in person....what exactly you don't understand ? Adrianzax (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, excuse me, Adrianzax, but just repeating what you have already said is not going to get you anywhere. You say that the sources say "loud and clear" that the "confusion" is being made "because of the name similarity"? Then tell me exactly what I don't understand: How come not a single one of your sources actually says, "These two words are confusing because they look similar"? The last two of them merely said that somebody made, or that people generally might make, the mistake of calling a Romani "Romanian," even if the Romani in question isn't actually from Romania. They did not say, "The reason why this mistake is made is because 'rumeno' looks like 'rom.'" The first source said that some Italians called a Romanian soccer/football player a "gypsy" (i.e. "zingaro" in Italian), but again did not say, "The reason why he was called a zingaro/gypsy was because he was Romanian and because the word 'rumeno' resembles the word 'rom'." --Kuaichik (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand one thing, how can people claim that between two similar words that differ by only two letters and refer to very similar things: populations that live in the same country (only a part of Romani of course live in Romania) cannot be any confusion. How can anyone who is not familiarized with the subject know a priory that Romani's country is not Romania? (leaving aside all the racism that motivates Romanians and other people... can anyone argue that it's clear that Romani don't come from Romania -- especially that many of them DO live in Romania, can anyone fail to see the source of confusion?) Do you really need a reference for that type of confusion? -- AdrianTM (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AdrianTM, I fail to understand several things. For one, we can all agree that disambiguation is worth having when two things share a name that is spelled the exact same way (e.g.: "Bulgars" refers to both modern Bulgarians and the Turkic tribe, as does "Bulgarians"). But why would it apply to words that are quite distinct, and why would two letters be relevant? Why not three, or, four, or fourteen? As such, if I understood correctly, you assume people would confuse "Rom" and "Romanian", "Romani" and "Romanian", "Romas" and "Romanians", presumably even after reading the article, and even when no such confusion is yet documented. Other than this case (that is simply implausible and as of yet immaterial): the letters that would supposedly induce one to theoretically confuse the two terms are used in no single language, and only one term has anything to do with the English language. In the closest such instance, one term is "Romani" - an adjective used in Romani language and in English; the other term is "români" - used only in Romanian as a designation of "the Romanians", "several Romanians", or "several Romanian males".

Wikipedia is not here to coach people who have no clue and no interest in actually reading the articles, and disambiguation is not used to cover what people may confuse, but what they have been known to confuse. Disambiguation is also not here to anticipate a confusion between words, but to deal with one that is known to exist (and is preferably widespread). Dahn (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the difference is only of one letter in some cases: Romani vs. Romania, of course, for you the difference is clear but for other uninformed people I think it's not obvious that the country of Romani (in general, not the ones living there) is not Romania especially that many Romani do live in Romania. I think that's an honest mistake and more clarification is not bad for Wikipedia, I learned a lot from following dab links why would be bad for people to learn something about Romani when they come to this page? (BTW, in the dab text I would remove the word "unrelated" because that's not necessary). And to respond to your question, I support any dab link or explanation for words that can be confused, no matter if they have one, two, or three letter difference, i.e., Huns/Hungarians is more than 2 letters but since its about populations that lived in the same space it is prone to create confusions, however in this case Huns are not a current living population and the chance of confusion between terms is reduced because of that, but just imagine if there were Huns living in Hungaria besides Hungarians, wouldn't that demand an explanation to make things clear? I don't think my position is absurd... to further clarify my position: I don't support a dab link for "tree" and "three" because of semantic difference, but I do support a dab link for "effect" and "affect", or explanation as you see in effect page: "Please note that although the word "effect" is most commonly found in noun form, it also exists as a verb, and as such is often confused with the word "affect"" Effect and affect are clearly different words, but there's a need for clarification, I think this is the case for Romani-Romania-Romanian -- similar words that are used for similar things warrant a clarification. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

But, again: dab is not meant to classify potential mistakes, and not even to record existing ones. It is used to stress that, when exact or very similar words are used for two separate notions, and when this usage is acceptable (and not the direct result of insufficient familiarity with one subject), the meaning most in use was selected for one article, while the other may be found in x location. In English, is it acceptable (let alone widespread) for one to use "Romanians" in order to designate Romani people in general, or for one to use "Romani [people]" in order to refer to Romanians? Obviously, no. (And, also, obviously, I'm leaving aside that, in cases where ethnicity is not the topic and the partners in dialog are not both prejudiced, Romani citizens of Romania are Romanians). Accepting any other argument would not only be coaching readers and inventing new meanings for English words (such as "Rom", "Romani people", "Romanians" and "homonym"), it would also be a slippery slope. Dahn (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

italian romani people are not romanian citizens and still they are confused : The Italian deputy Roberto Menia (National Alliance) reffered to a Italian Rom colegue with the "ROMANIAN" apelative, after that he apologiesed in a message to romanian newspaper "Adevarul" Link Here Adrianzax (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax, why not take the time to read over before posting the same nonsense. For starters, i do not particularly care about what Mr. Menia said, since it would still not make the two names stand for the same thing, in any acceptable context. If it is indeed based on a confusion between words (and there is yet no indication that it is), it would still be a mistake, and wikipedia is not a directory of mistakes. Even if mistakes were relevant for dablinks, that mistake would involve two words in the Italian language, which Mr. Menia was and is speaking. I will not be caring any further if you repost the same message for a third time (you already posted it below). You seem to meet some particular problems in grasping the full implications of these arguments (it is now the third time I am listing them for you to read, and other editors have already shown they share and understand them). However, I trust that other readers are not as clueless or as determined to disrupt as you have shown yourself. Dahn (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"when exact or very similar words are used for two separate notions" -- but isn't this this case "very similar words are used for two separate notions"? What do you mean by very similar? Romani and Romanian are not similar enough? I found countless examples on Wikipedia where it's not necessary that the word be used interchangeable to warrant an explanation link, see Ford Model T it's obvious that Tin Lizzy and Thin Lizzy are different things and they are never used one in place of another. What about Template:Distinguish would that be appropriate, what is its purpose, wouldn't it fit this situation? -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As subjective as any of those cases is (+for all we know, they might as well be just the result of similar disruption as the one attempted here by Adrianzax), they all at least seem to share: a) a common origin; b) a difference in one sound and one letter (which is below the one you propose here). Let me also add that, if this article would start including all words that are similar to "Romanians" lest for two letters, we would never see the end of it - why not "Romans", "Omanian", "Manians" (which would give us "valid" dablinks to Rome (disambiguation), Omani, and Manichaeism)? Where would one have to stop once he or she has humored Adrainzax's conspiracy theory? Dahn (talk) 17:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

"omanians" or "manians" are not people which partialy live in the same territory with romanians Adrianzax (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to leave aside your claim to have ascribed all peoples borders they cannot transgress, and ask Adrianzax a quite reasonable: So what? How is that even relevant to anyone else but you? Dahn (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The Italian deputy Roberto Menia (National Alliance) reffered to a italian rom with "ROMANIAN" apelative

The Italian deputy Roberto Menia (National Alliance) reffered to a Italian Rom colegue with the "ROMANIAN" apelative, after that he apologiesed in a message to romanian newspaper "Adevarul" Link Here

Where does it say that this is the result of a confusion in terminology, and when did it become relevant to the English language (or for that matter, the Italian language) what an MP allegedly did in office? Mr. Adrianzax, are you actually aware of this policy? Dahn (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It says in the very top of that news : românilor în Italia este asocierea dintre “rom” şi “romeno”. And yes actually i'm very aware of that and because of those reasons this article should stick NEUTRAL, without biases. Adrianzax (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no indication that Menia stated what he stated because of that supposed "word association" - Menia doesn't seem to have himself attributed it to that. And, again, you're discussing something in the Italian language. Try and understand this point, cause I'm tired of repeating myself. Dahn (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First I want to know why, BUT WHY ! it is written in your front page that you are a natural speaker of ROMANIAN language, but you don't know a word....tell me WHY? Second that Vasile is the former PRIME-MINISTER OF ROMANIA, and his opinion weights more then all of the people which are writing in this article, if you don't see the reasons it means you are biased, that you are not neutral and you are not interested in Wikipedia's policies or interesteng in improving this articles, and please answer my questions, thank you. 21:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Adrianzax (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I can very well speak Romanian, Adrianzax, and I do believe I have even translated for others a ridiculous message you had left on KL's talk page. Not that it is any of your business. And, nope, your argument about Vasile still does not make any sense. Dahn (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it reffers to the similarity of the terms of rom with romeno, open your eyes and read it, but I forgot you don't know a word in romanian , instead in your front page it is written you are a "natural" speaker of Romanian.. hehe Adrianzax (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What is the relevancy this has to a disambiguation page on the English wikipedia (let alone to one on the Italian wikipedia, but, hey, we're not discussing this over there)? Vorbesc romaneste ca prima limba, Adrianzax - din nou, nu ca ar trebui sa te intereseze pe tine asta. E clar? Dahn (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

deci vorbesti romaneste. So you are talking romanian, then why are you playing dumb? and the relevancy is all over this topic, you should open your eyes , the obviousness is in front of your eyes. Adrianzax (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

An appeal to emotion. Dahn (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

what appeal to emotion man, are you tired or something ? you don't have to invent thins you know... Adrianzax (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to the red herrings you keep leaving all over the place, but you're of course free not to inform yourself on these concepts. As for the topic: there is this thing called English language (A), and there is this thing called Italian language (B); you intend to state something about words in A based on your own deductions about things that allegedly occur in B; in both A and B, the terms would still be neither synonyms or homonyms. I can see you keep typing stuff in ALL CAPITALS and in bold letters, but your myriad of repetitive and murky posts will still not form a coherent and relevant argument, because nothing in it adheres to logic or the purpose of this project as outlined in the guidelines. Are we just about done here? Dahn (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dan, be a man for God sake, are you whining for "appeal to emotion" because I wrote with bold? :)) Adrianzax (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Adrianzax, I am not "whining" about anything. I am telling you, using a language you're evidently still busy learning, that you're presenting me with a logical fallacy, proposing that something is true because you believe it is true, and that, since we are both Romanians, I should have the same feeling/opinion/hunch/hallucination as you. For a more specific and funnier aspect of what you're outlining here, see truthiness. Dahn (talk) 23:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bottom line, there's a confusion between Romani people and Romanians it doesn't even matter where this confusion comes from if it's from similar names or geographical location and it doesn't matter who makes the confusion. I think a "distinguish" template is perfectly normal here. -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

AdrianTM: above and here, your rationale again turns to the notion that there actually is a confusion, and you specify that it is one referring to "name" and "location". Now, I have already told you that the tag you introduce is not convincing, no matter what the rationale, and I have proceeded to tell you why that is. Even if you choose to disregard this message altogether, care to present one with a source where either community is referred to as the other because of an actual failure to tell them apart? Can you actually present us with evidence that there are people who, because of the names as used in English and/or of the supposed location you have in mind, make a confusion (as opposed to a rhetorical exercise, a bad-faith argument, or an actual reference to citizenship)? If you are referring to the sources invoked by Adrianzax, as insufficient as they are for establishing a relevant fact: those that are not completely irrelevant (expressing suppositions made by Adrianzax himself on the basis of them) still do not back the notion that anyone would have trouble actually telling the two ethnicities apart, let alone that this would be because people (using what language?) are routinely scratching their heads because of: a) name, b) location. And, from what I can tell, they all refer to something which, at best, would be in issue in what concerns the Italian language. Just how clear is this? Dahn (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think sources provided by Adrianzax are sufficient, it's not necessary about confusing the name which might be irrelevant here since sources talk about Italian not English, but since the two people are confused, no matter what the reason is (the name is most likely only a part of the confusion) then a "distinguish" tag is appropriate. If Italians consider an Italian-Romani Romanian then I think we have enough proof that there is a confusion, I wouldn't go as far as to make theories why this confusions exist, it's irrelevant in this case, the fact that there is a confusion is all that matters in deciding if we need a "distingush" tag. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Gedankenexperiment

Assume you're American and that User:Dahn is telling you: It's obvious for everybody that Romani from Romania are not Romanian, and that Romania is named after Romanians. What are you thinking of Dahn? Dpotop (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Dptop, let me cut the loaf into smaller pieces, and we can all hopefully end this charade. For one, you have a clear guideline note, cited by Bogdan, indicating that disambiguating willy-nilly based on obscure criteria is to be avoided. Secondly, nobody is saying that "It's obvious for everybody that Romani from Romania are not Romanian, and that Romania is named after Romanians." Though it should be pretty obvious that different articles stand for different things (a thing any American, Romanian or Japanese person will discover in two clicks of a mouse), it isn't even relevant here what is and isn't "obvious": wikipedia is not a directory, and does not work on the basis of assumptions about how readers may not "get" something. Unless this article or related ones would say that Romanians and Romani people are the same (does it? will it? could it?), then it will be pretty obvious that they are not. If you don't agree, then by all means: go and place a header at the top of the Moon article saying that it is not made of cheese (I'm sure there are people for whom this isn't already "obvious"), go and place a template at the top of any article beginning with the letters "RO" to "warn" people not to think that they are about Romanians, and eventually go and place headers at the top of each and all articles about African fauna to tell people not to think about elephants. Dahn (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The argument of "assuming ignorance" is silly. Do you think it's obvious for everybody that Austria is not another spelling of Australia? bogdan (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If is silly remove it first from bulgarians with bulgars and macedonians and ancient macedonian. Why you don't change those, instead you are disperately reverting this particular one? Adrianzax (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't understand, do you? It's not the same thing! In some English-language history books, Bulgarians are called Bulgars and Bulgars are called Bulgarians. There's no academic book where the Romas are called "Romanians". bogdan (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

but there are many other sources and highly academic sources, even at political level which are making this confussion , you don't seem to get it , do you?  ;) Adrianzax (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrianzax, I'm sorry to say, but you seem to have absolutely no grasp of the terms involved in this discussion, and this is getting really awkward. For starters, I suggest you look up the word "academic"/"academia" and check back with us. Dahn (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

look: [13] [14] articles in New York Times, in which the Bulgarians are called "Bulgars". bogdan (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Look the article in which Italian Roma people are called romanians : The Italian deputy Roberto Menia (National Alliance) reffered to a Italian Rom colegue with the "ROMANIAN" apelative, after that he apologiesed in a message to romanian newspaper "Adevarul" Link HereAdrianzax (talk) 22:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, reposting the same irrelevancy over and over again is exactly what to do in an internet discussion... Dahn (talk) 22:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

because every time you give me the same biased arguments, this article stayed untill recently under this form, now it must be corrected according to the new tendencies of Wikipedia, and also to the main policy, that of neutrality. Thank you Adrianzax (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What relevant part of that policy are you referring to? Could you quote it for me? Dahn (talk) 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This one Adrianzax (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That is not a wikipedia policy, it is a wikipedia article... And I woul like a specific quote that would at least refer to disambiguation and neutrality in one official policy, if you please. Comprende? Dahn (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In what way does it harm the artle to have the DAB link in? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm curious to find out too. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Same here Adrianzax (talk) 18:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling mistakes

Is there any good reason for Iulian28ti and Adrianzax repeatedly inserting spelling mistakes into this article? Latin is spelled with a capital L, not "latin" as these two users constantly revert to. As the page is currently protected, I'd appreciate if an administrator would change this. It is in no way ambiguous, as can easily be checked in any proper English dictionary. I'm genuinely curious as to way two users insert an erroneous spelling more than ten times and why the page is locked afterwards. This is the English Wikipedia, so please follow English spelling conventions. Thanks JdeJ (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an error,I personally made the reversion because of other reasons, you are right, the nouns have to be spelled with capital letters, and I will be the first one to correct this mistake after the block period will be over. Regards Adrianzax (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I assumed there was an error somewhere, I was just surprised to see the same spelling mistake being reverted to so many times. JdeJ (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, enough!!!

Adrianzax, you have made your point. Repeatedly. Your arguments are not supported by any reliable academic sources, and your edits and proposed disclaimers are against Wikipedia conventions. You are simply not going to win this particular battle, so I respectfully suggest you drop the issue and stop wasting everyone's time (yours included.) Regards, K. Lásztocska^talk 22:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

this are not only my arguments, there are other 3 users beside me who are supporting my actions, do you mean their opinions don't count ? and this is not a battle, but if you want to name it this way I want to inform you "the battle" is already won, Regards :) Adrianzax (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I used "battle" simply as a metaphor. And perhaps it may be won, but not by your side. K. Lásztocska^talk 22:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chill "mercifull and big hearted magyar girl" :) there's no need to involve emotionally in this "battle" ,I guess you don't have reasonns to do so isn't it? and think whatever you want, it's not you who decide which parties have won "the battle" :)

I have plenty of reasons to be involved in this dispute, my ethnicity is not one of them. I'm not especially emotionally involved--intellectually yes--and incidentally, it's not up to you to decide who wins the argument either. K. Lásztocska^talk 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW, adding "tired of idiots" to your page when debating with us might be considered an insult. Please don't do that. bogdan (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

haha, look at history my friends it was added yesterday and it doesn't have connection with "this battle" or maybe you are paranormal, you read people's minds ? :) Adrianzax (talk) 22:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday...after we'd all been arguing about this issue for almost a week. K. Lásztocska^talk 22:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

so, actually you really are paranormal? can you prove that I was think to you when I was writing that line in my personal page ? :) Adrianzax (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's just an educated guess, based on the fact that you've called all of us idiots and you aren't involved in any other disputes at the moment. K. Lásztocska^talk 22:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't guess because you are wrong. Your deduction is unlogical :) Adrianzax (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why we're getting into such trivial arguments (i.e. having little to do with the article itself), but first of all, Adrian, it's "illogical," not "unlogical." Second, if you've called us idiots, and you aren't involved in any other disputes right now, then the people you are calling "idiots" are somewhat unlikely to be anyone besides us. (They are certainly not likely to be any other Wikipedians but us!). Not a foolproof deduction, but still logical. --Kuaichik (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd propose to stop the discussion about persons and get back to the discussion about editing issues. -- AdrianTM (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

adding image

I wanted to add this image to the Modern Age subsection but I couldn't. Somebody should add it though.Nergaal (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Territories inhabited by Romanians before WWI

OK. `'Míkka>t 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

simmilar articles in which this dublink is kept

simmilar articles in which this dublink is kept. few examples.

1. Bulgars with Bulgarians

2. Macedonians with Ancient Macedonians

3. Romani language with Romanian language

4. Republika Srpska with Republic of Serbia

if you want this dublink to be removed, first remove those dublinks . ok?

Gallup Study - 76 % of the romanians think the terms : rom/romani for gypsies is being confounded with "romanian"

According to a Gallup Study, cited by NewsIn The majority of Romanians 52 % considers that gypsies must be called again by their original name and not "roma or other derivations of this term"

76 % of the romanians consider that the foreigners are confusing the terms "rom" with "romanian" .

[link here] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adrianzax (talk • contribs) 16:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Români and Rumâni both forms used by romanian people

English uses both forms, Rumanian and Romanian, to denote the Romance-speaking population in the South-Eastern Europe north of the Danube, which was traditionally referred as Vlachs (or Wallachians). Both forms were adopted by the mid 19th century when the principalities of Wallachia and Moldova were unified to form a new state, Rumania or Romania. The forms Rumania and Rumanian were prevailing till the second half of the 20th century, when the forms with "o" gradually became more popular.

See also Wallachians, Walloons, Welschen etc.

It seems that the forms with "u" are etymologically justified, as Rumanian normally changes the unstressed (Vulgar) Latin "o" to "u", cf.:

cognatus => cumnat

cogitare => cugeta

ntro => intru

scribo => scriu

The form Rumân was the natural form used in Rumanian itself till the second half of the 19th century. The neighbouring languages (like Bulgarian, Serbian, Russian, Polish etc.) use the form with "u", and French for its part established the spelling Roumain, Roumanie. Spanish adopted the forms Rumania and Rumano and such was initially the practice in Italian. German has Rumänien, Rumäne and rumänisch.

The form with "o" was introduced in Rumania to stress the descendency of the Rumanians from the ancient Romans; this orthographic change happened by the time of the unification of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the unitary kingdom of Rumania.

The Rumanian state since then always promote the spelling with "o", even in the foreign languages, and finally English also accepted it as official. Italian also changed the orthography, from "Rumania" to "Romenia"; modern Portuguese also uses the forms Romenia and Romeno.

On Orbis Latinus the forms with "u" are preferred in order to distinguish Rumania, the modern state, from Romania, the historical name of the Roman empire, which is used now by the linguists to denote all the countries where Romance languages are spoken. These preferences are only technical and are based on the established practices of English. The usage of the forms Rumania and Rumanian are in no way attended to offend the modern state and nation which have preserved through centuries the Roman name.

LINK HERE Adrianzax (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Adrianzax the personal site of an amateur linguist is definitely not a reliable source to base upon. You may be well-intended, but you are definitely ill-informed on this topic. Please, try to inform yourself from scholarly qualified sources about the etymology and uses of Romanian/Romania. In case you are deliberately using wrong sources to push your POV, I have to warn you that this is a wrong behavior on Wikipedia. --84.153.12.225 (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha.... who are you ? since when an anonimus user is "a scholarly qualified source"? nice try Lásztocska hahahaha Adrianzax (talk) 11:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Googling both words ( without accents) Romanian 91,200,000 Rumanian 1,630,000 Romania 196,000,000 Rumania 2,300,000 So It appears to be spelled with an o ~98% of the time and with a u 2% of the time. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes theresa, but this doesn't mean the name with "u" doesn't exist. In the internet you can find the form with o more often because it was widely used in the past 3-4 decades,and after the internet was invented. In any case It doesn't mean that the other form wasn't used or doesn't exist, since the both forms are used or were used to design same people we should also keep the alternative name. For example in prezent spanish people are saying Rumania, link here the french are saying Roumanie link here the germans Rumänen/Rumänien , etc and even the english were saying Rumania.

Look here : Feb 1966 Spelling officially changed to from Rumania to Romania or here or here Time.com etc

just write Rumania in english section of wikipedia and you will be redirected to Romania.

Now the english variant is with O but in other languages the form is predominant with U

and that alternative name wasn't added by me, it was there for months, I just considered that it should be kept Adrianzax (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the form with a u doesn't exist. I was suggesting that it does exist one in fifty times! Thhe u spelling is now rare and I would say therefore, merits only one mention in the article. However it does merit the one mention IMO. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that shorter oxford english dictionary [15] lists both spellings. I'm pretty sure the OED counts as a "scholarly qualified source" for english spellings.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

In English, there is also a third form of spelling: "Roumanians" (for the people) and "Roumania" (for the country). --Olahus (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Could somebody please (maybe an administrator) remove this change made by the unknown user 84.153.36.82? Until the middle of the 19.th century, the romanians designated themselves mostly as "rumâni". (see: Istoria românilor din cele mai vechi timpuri până astăzi, 1975, Constantin C. Giurescu & Dinu C. Giurescu, p.138). I can also show this hypotetical map of Romania from 1833, where the name of the imaginary country was "Rumânia" (not "România"), and the name of Wallachia was "Ţeara Rumânească" (not "Ţara Românească").

Read also this definition from "Dicţionarul Explicativ al limbii române":

• ROMẤN, -Ă, români, -e, s.m. şi f., adj. I. S.m. şi f. 1. Persoană care aparţine populaţiei de bază a României sau este originară din România. 2. (Pop.) Ţăran. ♦ Bărbat, soţ. ♦ Om (în general), bărbat. 3. (În forma rumân) Denumire dată, în evul mediu, în Ţara Românească, ţăranilor dependenţi de stăpânii feudali; iobag, vecin. II. 1. Adj. Care aparţine României sau românilor (I 1), referitor la România sau la români; românesc. ♦ (Substantivat, f.) Limba vorbită de români. Româna comună (sau primitivă) = stadiu în evoluţia limbii române anterior diferenţierii dialectale; străromână. [Var.: rumấn s.m.] – Lat. romanus. source

The self-designation as "rumâni" is still today actual at some romanian populations, especially at the Vlachs of Serbia and Bulgaria.

--Olahus (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection expires in a week, let's do it then. I'd like to give those who were removing it a chance to speak first. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection has expired and I've removed the protection note. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The spelling form rumân is not any longer actual in Romanian for 140-150 years. Even Olahus, who seems to favour very much the rumân spelling form, couldn't produce any evidence of its acual use. He invokes the Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language, where it is clearly stated: 3. (În forma rumân) Denumire dată, în evul mediu, în Ţara Românească, ţăranilor dependenţi de stăpânii feudali; iobag, vecin., which means: (under the form rumân) Designation given in the Middle Eve to dependent peasans by their feudal lords; bondsman; serf. Olahus himself says: The self-designation as "rumâni" is still today actual at some romanian populations, especially at the Vlachs of Serbia and Bulgaria., which means that this designation is not actual any more in proper Romania. To put it clearly: Nobody in today Romania calls Romanian rumân, everybody calls it român. The form rumân is used in historical contexts or when some stilistic effect is aimed at, for instance as an archaism. For non-Romanian speakers it is understandable to be quite confused by this debate between Romanian speakers. I suppose that Olahus and Adraianzax try to push this weird information about a pretended use of "rumân" out of the concern that "Romanian" (român) could be confused with "Romani" (rom) (Gypsy), which is, say, quite naive, as if somebody would care if Austrians could be mistakenly taken for Australians. It is both absurd and disruptive trying to push names which are out of use for 150 years. --84.153.36.196 (talk) 13:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you not call others disruptive please. For a whole week, while the the page was protected you said absolutely nothing about the issue then immediately start edit warring again once the page is unprotected. If the form is only used in historical contexts then say so in the article. Theresa Knott | The otter sank16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Romanians not about demographics of Romania. Romanians from Serbia are calling themselves Rumâni , see Vlachs of Serbia Adrianzax (talk) 15:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Before the modern era, both forms were in use, but in early 19th century, "români" was chosen as a standard because it highlighted the relationship with ancient Romans. This version replaced "rumâni" everywhere, except in a few communities which were isolated from the mainstream Romanian society (that includes the Vlachs of Serbia). I've never seen it being used in modern Romanian to mean "Romanian" except in a depreciative way. bogdan (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So a few communities still use a u in the spelling yes? So having it mentioned breifly in the article makes sense. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here are all the cases in which I heard "rumâni":

1. historical context, but with the meaning of "serfs".
2. a part of the Romanians of Serbia ("Vlachs of Serbia") call themselves like that.
3. Gypsies/Roma people in isolated communities in Romania refer to Romanians as "rumâni" as opposed to themselves "ţigani".
4. depreciatively, on the internet, forums, etc., reminding of the #1 meaning.

bogdan (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor note on point 3: With the Bucharest Roma accent I know, distinguishing "rumâni" from "români" may be difficult (the sounds are closer than in Romanian). So maybe this distinction is yet another intellectual construct of someone who needs to write a paper on Romanian Roma. Dpotop (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I note that there is an anon user who keeps simply removing the term rather than trying to come to an appropriate wording despite evidence being presented on this talk page that the term is still used (albeit rarely) today. He happily accuses all the people he is reverting disruptive but it looks to me as if he is the one being disruptive. So I'd likel to invite him to participate in this conversation. Please anon user, why do you keep removing the term from the page, what have you against the spelling and why do you repeateldly state the spelling doesn't exist? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan, you're wrong. The term "rumâni" isn't used today in a depreciative way. I would like to see a source from you. --Olahus (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I can give you dozens of forum posts where it is used like this, but no, you won't find this kind of stuff in the dictionary. bogdan (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I found a source a bit more academic, but talking about some forums. Dilema Veche has an article named "Unguri, români, bozgori, rumâni": from that title we can see that rumâni appears to be to români what bozgori is to unguri. bogdan (talk) 10:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The Dacodava in the article is the same with the banned User:Dacodava. :-) bogdan (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the term "rumâni" had in the middle age sometimes also the meaning "serfs", nobody do use this word with this meaning today (in this sens, the word "rumâni" is completely obsolate). I proved you with the text from D.E.X. that the term "rumân" is the correct alternative for "român". Thogh it is used today only by tiny romanian groups like the Timok-Vlachs (Serbia and Bulgaria) (highest estimations 250,000-400,000 persons, official only 40,000 in Serbia and 10,000 in Bulgaria), this term is still in use (thought only as a regionalism today), so we must mention this term as it is. --Olahus (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I added also the other two english designations: "Roumanians" and "Rumanians" in the article. --Olahus (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Olahus seems involved in a personal crusade fighting to impose the spelling form "rumân", which is not currently used any more, I'd rather address Theresa, who appears neutral, though with practically no expertise on the topic.

I have to repeat what I previously said:

To put it clearly: Nobody in today Romania calls Romanian "rumân", everybody calls it "român". The form "rumân" is used in historical contexts or when some stilistic effect is aimed at, for instance as an archaism.

Please, verify this in every Romanian dictionary. Romanian Google gives some 19 millions entries "român" against some 7000 entries "rumân", everyone of the last falling into the categories archaisms or historical terms. In Romania, this is self-evidence.

If you are continuing to push this absurdity, I'll make a case of disruption out of it.

My compromise proposal:

• feel free to keep the term "rumân" in the lead, mentioning that it is a 'dated" term
• don't weasel false info, like "rumân is a rather seldom term"; rumân is definitely a dated term
• the term "rumân" has to be removed from the information box, since it is not in use for 150 years now

--84.153.54.19 (talk) 11:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bogdan, concerning this source, I can't see any explicit sentence, that proves the pejorative sense of the term "rumân". Reading the text, I can only conclude that the term "vlach" (hungarian: olah) does have this sense. And I don't doubt it. I also read the explanation in the romanian wikipedia: Cuvântul "valach", în Transilvania a fost mult timp întrebuinţat cu sensul de iobag, şi era considerată de români ca un nume de batjocoră. Din această cauză, Adunarea Naţională de pe Câmpia Libertăţii, a decis ca "naţiunea română să pretindă ca în toate actele oficiale să fie numită cu adevăratul ei nume". În actul de la 5 mai 1848 al împăratului Ferdinand s-a întrebuinţat pentru ultima dată în mod oficial denumirea de "valach", iar de la 1868 legislaţia ungurească a acceptat de asemenea numele de "român". But nothing about the term "rumân". Rumân is a romanian word, used by the romanians for their own designation. Or, you want to say that the romanians designated thenselves in the past with a pejorative term? Well, Bogdan, I really doubt it.--Olahus (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

@ 84.153.54.19: I don't doubt that the term "român" ist mostly used in presen-day romanian language. I do also designate myself as a "român". But it does'n mean that the term "rumân" is out of speech. You just proved above that what I say.

You wrote: "Please, verify this in every Romanian dictionary." Well, I cited from D.E.X. (Dicţionarul explicativ al limbii române). Is there any better source thas this? --Olahus (talk) 12:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

--Olahus (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Olahus, the Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language that you are invoking (the most authoritative source about the use of Romanian, I agree) says exactly the opposite of what you are arguing.

The Dictionary says:

3. (În forma rumân) Denumire dată, în evul mediu, în Ţara Românească, ţăranilor dependenţi de stăpânii feudali; iobag, vecin., which means: (under the form rumân) Designation given in the Middle Age to dependent peasans by their feudal lords; bondsman; serf.

So dear Olahus, according to the DEX the form "rumân" was used only in the Middle Age.

There is no actual commonly use of the "Rumân" spelling form. This form is definitely out of speech. (you're forcing me into these inelegant bold characters, but what can I do to get me understood)

Now, if my compromise proposals are ignored, I'll start a formal procedure against attempts of disrupting WP --84.153.54.19 (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arguing is not disruption. Please assume good faith. Anyway lets try to make some progress here. Am I correct in stating that everyone agrees that rumân was used for serfs in the middle ages? Does anyone disagree with that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes Theresa, nobody disagrees with that. Moreover, rumân was also an ethnomyme in the Middle Ages (please read Etymology of Romania). Nobody denies that. IMHO, Olahus tries pushing the weird idea of a current use of rumân in today Romania. This what we disagree upon. --84.153.2.113 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear 84.153.54.19, please quote the whole text:

ROMÂN, -Ă, români, -e, s.m. şi f., adj. I. S.m. şi f. 1. Persoană care aparţine populaţiei de bază a României sau este originară din România. 2. (Pop.) Ţăran. ♦ Bărbat, soţ. ♦ Om (în general), bărbat. 3. (În forma rumân) Denumire dată, în evul mediu, în Ţara Românească, ţăranilor dependenţi de stăpânii feudali; iobag, vecin. II. 1. Adj. Care aparţine României sau românilor (I 1), referitor la România sau la români; românesc. ♦ (Substantivat, f.) Limba vorbită de români. Româna comună (sau primitivă) = stadiu în evoluţia limbii române anterior diferenţierii dialectale; străromână. [Var.: rumân s.m.] – Lat. romanus.

As you can see, the term "român" has many senses (see also point I.2.). But, as you can see at the end of the definition, the alternative term (variantă) for all the meanings is: "rumân".

You wrote: "There is no actual commonly use of the "Rumân" spelling form.". Well, dear 84.153.54.19, I doubt it. Please read this pages of the Romanian from Serbia:

• http://www.pdrstimoc.org/
• http://www.cnmnr.org/

I would like to present you also this page, but unfortunately, the romanian version is not available (but it will surely be soon available again). There you can read : "Federaţia rumânilor din Sârbie". Hear also some songs: [16] and [17]. --Olahus (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Read here: "Noi suntem rumani"

See also here. --Olahus (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Olahus: You are invoking Romanian language as well as non-Romanian language sources. Non-Romanian language sources are in no way relevant to our discussion, since we are debating about the use of român/rumân in Romanian. Every source you invoked is from outside Romania, namely from Bulgaria or Serbia, regarding the Romanian communities in those countries. I am not ruling out that -especially in Slavic countries - native Romanians living there still call themselves with the old form rumâni. Anyway, I am not acquainted with this topic. So dear Olahus, feel free to amend the article with informations about the way native Romanians outside Romania are called, but for God's sake stop pushing such an absurd enormity like "Romanians are also called "rumâni" in today Romania" ! --84.153.2.113 (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear K. Lásztocska, this article is about ROMANIANS not about DEMOGRAPHICS OF ROMANIA, do you understand this? Adrianzax (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Grr!!!!!!!!!!! Could everyone please watch their tone. Olhouse is it really necessary to say "Well, dear 84.153.54.19". Likewise the anon states "So dear Olahus" Could you both please not do it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well dear Theresa, both Olahus and I are Romanians, people who, except when they are rude to each other, use to be nice and polite :)... We definitely don't belong to your culture and don't know how people in your culture relate to each other. If you feel offended by our tone, you can take whatever measure you please, dear Theresa...--84.153.2.113 (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

you are not romanian dear K. Lásztocska with camuflated dinamic ip.. Adrianzax (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

84.153.2.113, I added the elucidation: "and only regional". Are you satisfied now? --Olahus (talk) 17:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The lead contains now pertinent information, I'm perfectly OK with it. I still am quite uncomfortable with the information box, which contains both Români and Rumâni, as if they were equally used. Rumâni is not used in today Romania. I think that the informations in the lead about the historical and regional use of the Rumân spelling form should suffice...--84.153.2.113 (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I removed those from the box, I think they were cluttering the box and the info is fully explained in the article, hope this closes the issue. -- AdrianTM (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrian, why would that be better can you please explain me? Do you ignore the fact that Romanians from Serbia are designating themselves as "rumani" why we should ignore this information ? Adrianzax (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

no, I have nothing against that, but have a list of 5 different spellings of Romanian in a small table is confusing and looks bad, that's why at least the English variants have to stay out of that table -- they are also explained in the article text. -- AdrianTM (talk) 19:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed the english alternative spellings, this version is most accurate and it looks clean . Adrianzax (talk) 19:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed the romanian ones as well. The info is in the lead anyway so we don't need it in the box. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't doubt about the fact that the term "Romanian" is the mostly used today in english language. This is the reason why the name of the article is "Romanians", not "Rumanians" or "Roumanians". But the terms "Rumanian" and "Roumanian" are still in use today. See the search results on Google News for the term "Rumanian"; see also that even the term "Roumanian" is still in use. The usage of those two terms is not wrong. --Olahus (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Romanians related to Italians

I support the related ethnic group boxes, because natrually, there are populations in the vincinity that are related to each other. I am wondering in the most curious and non-sarcastic sense; How are the Romanians and Italian people related. I guess what they may have in common is language, that both were occupied by Roman (Italic) peoples, and both recieved some Celtic migration. But Romania seems to be a little isolated. Can someone please explain? Galati (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Galati

Related from linguistic and historical POV. What do you mean that population in vicinity are related to each other? Do you mean genetically (like DNA?), because from the point of view of languages they can be very unrelated: see Hungary and all their neighbors and Romania and all the neighbor (except Moldova), ethnic I think means mainly language, and from that POV Romanian is closest to Italian than any other language (except for Armanian if you you consider it a separate language and not a dialect of Romanian) -- AdrianTM (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I am talking in an ethnic sense. Because I noticed Italian people in the related ethnic group box along with surrounding population such as Moldovans, Istro-Romanians, Vlachs and Aromenians. I can understand why those would be in the "related ethnic group" box but why are the Italians? I have read studies where they mention that Italians share similarities with ethnic French, and Spaniards. So as I mentioned earlier, Romania was settled by the Romans, but to what extent?24.150.154.247 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)Galati

Ethnicaly, Romanians(Vlachs) descend mainly from Romanised Dacians, Goths, Thracians, Illyrians the indigenous populations of the Balkans and Roman colonists, Italians ethnicaly descend from Lombards, Goths, Normans and Romans... so beside the language, yes they are ethnicaly related. Adrianzax (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knows what's the percentage of Roman blood in Romanian one, there's Genographic project that uses DNA to show how people emigrated, but ethnicity is not determined by DNA alone since we are not a tribal society anymore (even tribes in antic period were not DNA homogeneous) -- AdrianTM (talk) 14:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

If we are reffering to DNA structure, romanians are most similar to greeks. Link . Adrianzax (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting map, thanks. Interesting that Bulgarians come in between, this comes to prove what I've said that vicinity is not always relevant. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :) Adrianzax (talk) 19:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should actually use it as a reference.Nergaal (talk) 08:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)