Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current project page.

Insecurity and Romania

This isn't directly relevant to any topic on Wikipedia, but I think it's of key importance in preventing any future disputes and lengthy polemics that we've had in the past. I've noticed that some Romanian users get very worked up over all sorts of minority rights issue, be it relating to LGBT people, ethnic minorities, etc. Some people seem to think that taking an anti-minority point of view on these issues will somehow strengthen Romania's image. To me, that only highlights a sense of insecurity about Romania's place in the world, a sense of insecurity that Romania shouldn't have. Articles which document the Hungarian minority in Romania, and which contain Hungarian alternative names, can only strengthen Romania's image as a multicultural country where human rights and tolerance are core values; it is only through these values that Romania can promote itself throughout the world, it is only through these values that secure Romania can reaffirm itself as a country of leadership. I don't see how having a Hungarian name in the infobox of Oradea, for example, is "anti-Romanian". The old pre-1989 politics gave us a totalitarian, zero-sum view of Romanian culture, with Hungarian culture perceived as mutually exclusive - i.e. what was good for Hungarians in Romania was proportionally negative for Romanians. Whatever LGBT people gained in rights would mean that non-LGBT people would correspondingly lose. This outdated view no longer applies today, and I think that everyone in Romania has to gain from minority rights; minority rights is not a zero-sum game. Everyone in Romania gains from bilingual signs, everyone in Romania gains from the GayFest, everyone in Romania gains from promoting Roma rights. So, to me it is actually contradictory that the very people who claim to be "patriotic" are the ones going against Romania's interest by forming an image of a country that doesn't tolerate minorities, or that is insecure about accepting alternative viewpoints or cultures. So, next time you make quick decisions and get worked up over "gay Hungarians" who come to "subvert Romania's place in the world", think to yourself: is it them or is it you who is anti-Romanian?. Ronline ✉ 11:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC) PS: For those who are curious, I'm neither gay nor Hungarian (I don't even speak Hungarian, but I try to be as aware of Hungarian culture as possible). My focus at the moment is indeed on LGBT rights and Roma rights, since to me this is where most work needs to be done.

Well said :) Certain users are concerned about minorities "proselytising" their culture. I think this smacks of insecurity rather than anything else. It is as if they feared that unless something is done, everyone will turn gay (or Roma, or Hungarian)! [Disclaimer: I am also not gay, Roma, or Hungarian — definitely not Hungarian!] - FrancisTyers · 11:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The first article in the Constitution says Romania is a nation state. I don't understand how we can make foreigners think Romania is a multicultural state when the Constitution says the contrary. As for gays... i have the right to consider them people with psychic disorders (after all, american doctors had to vote to decide if it is an illness or not.. not very scientific if you'd ask me). The will to reaffirm Romania as a country of leadership seems the sign of insecurity and of inferiority complex to me. And i really can't see how someone (even gays) can gain from Gay Parade.. i think it attracts more hatred toward them. [I'm not gay, or member of a national minority, and i don't consider myself a nationalist. I have friends members of the Roma, Tatar and Turkish national minorities.(alphabetical order)] Anonimu 13:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The first article of the Constitution is, however, quite controversial, and there is an increasing movement to repeal it. This is because of the contradiction between the nation-state and minority rights: unlike France, Romania has a significant minority rights framework, which IMO is incompatible with the nation-state. Additionally, the Romanian definition of a nation-state is more similar to the French than the German definition - i.e. it's not necessarily "ethnic". For that reason, even if Romania is a nation-state, it doesn't mean that Romania is only for ethnic Romanians, or that ethnic Romanians should somehow gain more rights than the other ethnic groups in the country. Romania is multicultural based on demographics, and the minority rights laws do take this into account. As to gays, I think it's very superficial to argue that the declassification process for homosexuality as a mental disease was unscientific. It was not only in the US that it was declassified, but also by the WHO in the 1990s, and by China in the 2000s. If so many countries and organisations have declassified it as a mental illness, I think you're pretty much going against mainstream science in your views. But, laissez=faire. As to reaffirming Romania as a country of leadership, I don't see how that's an inferiority complex. I think the idea of constantly promoting and even exaggerating about Romania to the detriment of its minorities suggests an inferiority complex, and some sense of fear about Romania's current situation. What I'm proposing is that Romania focus on confidently promoting itself in the world, and becoming a regional leader (i.e. soft power), through its values, which should centre on human rights and tolerance. Romania can only become a country that generates stability and has "soft power" if it is secure about itself and gets rid of the inferiority complex. As to the gay parade, my point is that I don't see why people oppose it. It's not only the LGBT people who benefit from its staging. Rather, society benefits because the right of free expression is strengthened, and it also benefits quite directly because Romania's image in the world is improved (Romania would become a "model" for the region). And there really is no disadvantage; irrational people, or those who do not respect other people's rights do see disadvantage, and thus the whole situation disintegrates. But the idea that the gay parade doesn't have any benefits because it provokes hatred among intolerant people is absurd. There are actually very few rational arguments against gay parades, as there are against same-sex marriage, as there are against minority rights in general. As clicheed as that may sound, tolerance doesn't actually cost anyone anything, yet a lot of people gain from it. Ronline ✉ 13:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

To call homosexuality a mental illness is frankly absurd. I presume you're ignoring the last 50 years of scientific thinking on the matter and instead taking the lead from material written when the majority of people still thought black people were inferior. Ronline is right, Romania has a lot to gain and nothing to lose from encouraging freedom of expression and minority rights. Do people hate anti-war protestors because they parade? Only the same people who hate them even if they don't parade. Going on parade probably won't convince the most hardened anti-homosexuals, such as yourself, but it might show others who have doubts that yes, these are people, and fun people at that :) Probably the same people who are against gay pride events are also against carnivals and mardi gras. Boring!! :)) - FrancisTyers · 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The only one supporting the repealing of the article is UDMR. Of course some would support it's repealing just because political reasons (like Basescu-lead PD). I guarantee that if UDMR wouldn't be part of the gvt, nobody would support this. And who are you to say that in Romania nation-state is closer to the french definition... are you a political analist? do you have studies in romanian politics? I think not. Anonimu 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason no one else except UDMR supports it is because of childish nationalism. There seems to be this idea in Romania that if you're Romanian, you can't possibly support a law that helps the Hungarians, because that would be anti-Romanian. The same people believe that if you support Hungarian rights, you must be Hungarian, if you support LGBT rights, you must be gay, etc etc (because "oh no no, a Romanian wouldn't support that, it's anti-Romanian"). This is only created by irrational historical hostilities, not by any logic. And the reason I say that the Romanian idea of a nation is closer to the French model is because it was based on that model. Or are you trying to tell me that "nation-state" implies "ethnonationalism", that Romania is the land of ethnic Romanians where ethnic Romanians somehow have more rights? Wouldn't that be even more racist ;) ? Particularly since anti-minority-rights people say that in the Romania nation-state, every individual is equal, regardless of their ethnicity, and thus minority ethnicities should not have collective rights (that's the French model). And I don't know why you picked PD as a particular example, because it's the PD's fault that the new minority rights law wasn't passed. They're an example of quite regressive stances on social issues. I think PNL is the better example. Ronline ✉ 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you expect? We're eastern europeans (a thing you seem to forget quite often). And if I remebr well, there was a conflict between PD and PNL becuase PD supported minority laws (at party level, while some individual members were against), while PNL opposed it. Anonimu 15:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

About gays, have you ever heard of political influence. USA could convince UN to attack 5 countries since 1945. Do you think that they couldn't convince others to wrongly accept gayness as something normal? Human rights and tolerance don't make you a power. History proved that on numerous occasions. So if US again arbitrarily decides that pedophilia isn't an illness, should we accept it just to have Romania's image improved in the world? Gay parade won't help us becoming a regional model, just we gain support from american fags. You forget(again) that Romania isn't in USA or in western Europe. There were enough rational arguments against gayness, but they simply vaporized in the last years just because political pressure. That's way capitalism is wrong: because people with money can impose their personal POV, even if this is against the nature. And then of course poorer people would accept it, not because they believe it, but because they risk being condemned by those wealthy people controlling the gvt. The last 50 years of scientific research were supported by wealthy people, so, like in Romania Elena Ceausescu appeared on all chemistry books. so these scientific researches supported the POV of their "benefactors". Some people would consider an exercise of the right of free expession and even find funny a guy performing oral sex on a dog in front of the Palace of the Parliament. But since wealthy people from USA don't consider this normal (for now, at least), that guy would be arrested and would be confined in an asylum. Anonimu 14:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Wow. "Fags". I assume that you know that in a context like this, that is a really insulting word. I really can't say any of what I'd like to say in reply, because all of it would violate Wikipedia's rules on civility, but I do suggest that you mind your mouth. - Jmabel | Talk 03:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the "political influence" theory is only used by people as a way of justifying their homophobia - it's similar to a conspiracy theory ("gays rule the world, thus we have to stop them", I've heard that conspiracy many times). And I see Romania very much as part of the Western world, particularly due to EU accession, where, like it or not, Romania will have to be part of the Western-values family [I had a similar debate about this with some Latvian friends, about the Latvian gay pride march]. I don't know how you see it, but being anti-Western is not natural for Romania (what's the alternative? either isolationism or "Eurasianism"); not to mention that this isn't really even about the West, but about values of liberty and tolerance that be good for Romania even if it decided to pursue isolationism. And you're somehow insinuating that wealthy people are to blame for the gay rights movement. Well, just take a look at countries like the US, where the wealthiest people, and those who have power, are opposed to gay rights, and it is mostly the middle class - not particularly wealthy, but comfortable and educated - who spreadhead the reform movement. Reform has mostly been driven by the middle class, not by the overly wealthy "capitalists", neither by the poor (with a few exceptions). This doesn't even have to be about world strategy; the discussion was about maximising the welfare of as many people as possible. And tolerance - including accepting LGBT people - doesn't cost anything. US-imposed or not, wealthy-imposed or not, accepting gay people costs nothing but helps them a lot (i.e. it maximises welfare). Ronline ✉ 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, Ronline, for the most part, the wealthiest in the U.S. have always been quietly tolerant of or indifferent to homosexuality. At most, they would have been uncomfortable with public displays of gay affection as a breach of decorum. The enormous change within my lifetime has been that the vast middle class and, to a lesser extent, those below that level, have largely gone from seeing gay sexuality as something "sick" or "perverse" to something that is within the range of human normal. Some are comfortable with public displays of gay affection, some not, but the predominant view has certainly come to be that what happens in private (or even relatively private) is people's own private choice. Washington State where I live is probably pretty typical of the politics of the moment: in the last year or so, the state legislature passed a law specifically prohibiting discrimination against gays in employment, housing, etc.; an effort to bring an initiative (referendum) to repeal that law could not gather enough signatures to get on the ballot, despite support from conservative Christian denominations; conversely, the State Supreme Court voted 5-4 to uphold the constitutionality of a 1998 law that says that marriage is specifically between one man and one woman; equally clearly, the grounds of their decision would leave the legislature free to change that latter law in the future. - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually think that the US was behind the times when it came to recognising that homosexuality was not a mental illness. You are talking like there is some kind of "gay" conspiracy going on, which although entertaining is horribly inaccurate, as is your equating homosexuality with capitalism. the German Democratic Republic repealed Nazi era laws and decriminalised homosexuality before West Germany. Again, the "Science is a homosexual conspracy" thing is hilarious. Keep it up. - FrancisTyers · 14:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yup. For which, see our own featured article Paragraph 175. - Jmabel | Talk 03:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If Savescu would gather support from some US senators, in 50 years his theory would be the only one accepted by world historians :). And it's not true that wealthy capitalist don't support gayness. Even if Bush thinks he's a prophet of God, the ones who paid for his campaign think otherwise. So Bush didn't reject any gay right law. And if Western countries are wealthier, this doesn't mean they have better values.Anonimu 15:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting if true... - FrancisTyers · 16:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, this reminds me of a film I saw, Occident. One of the characters in that (a Romanian guy) was horrified that this rich Italian who had come to marry his daughter was a Black guy. He was pretty racist about it actually. Now, consider, is this kind of racist parochial attitude good for Romania? Actually the attitude of this guy (maybe 50 years old) reminded me of the attitude of some 70-80 year olds here a few years ago. Its good that its finally disappearing in the UK! Do you think it reflects well on Romanians as a whole? The film was pretty good though, it had Anca-Ioana Androne in, and she's really pretty ^___^ - FrancisTyers · 14:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that film too. Actually, there is somewhat of a debate currently in the media about refugees in Romania, which is only set to bigger after EU accession. It was actually very saddening to read an article and personal account from some African refugees that had come to Romania and intended to reside here permantly but have instead been denied a work permit and live off the ONR's welfare payments, and have been discriminated against. To me, the fact that Romania becomes a destination for refugees (and the fact that these refugees are committed enough to learn Romanian) is a very good sign, and Romania's image can only improve if it can adequately deal with them and set an example for the world. That's why the Uzbekistan episode (the 400 Uzbek refugees airlifted here by UNHCR) was good for Romania. Of course, the refugee issue is always more controversial than indigenous ethnic and sexual minorities. Ronline ✉ 14:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Curios how, durring communist times a lot of africans and arabs studied in Romania and some even settled here and formed families with romanians. But now, under capitalism, racism has gone high. About films, there's a film right now on HBO Romania about two guys pretending to be a gay couple just to get some tax allowance. It illustrates pretty well how gayness came to be accepted. Anonimu 14:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

And it is a good thing that gayness is accepted in Romania! Incidentally, I agree that racism (at least publically expressed racism) has been on the rise after the fall of communism. Although still during communist times, there was racism too. - FrancisTyers · 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Racism has been on the rise, IMO, due to an accompanying rise in right-wing-style nationalism (as opposed to communist nationalism). After communism, and particularly during the transition, there was a resurgence in "refinding Romanian values", in the context of politics swinging to the right. And hence racism went up. This was the case all over the former Eastern Bloc. It's actually quite a lot more pronounced in countries like Poland and Latvia; Romania is quite moderate in this respect. Ronline ✉ 15:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:

1: About the matter of minority rights, I’d consider it to be overly simplistic to split the users into one camp supporting them, and one camp opposing them. For example, I myself support minority rights as I believe every individual should be judged based on his or her’s personal merits, not on ethnic background. Nobody should be persecuted or treated as a second-class citizen because of factors outside of their control, and if their origin is not the traditional Romanian one, they should have the opportunity to learn about it, be it the culture, the language etc.

However, supporting minority rights does not neccecarily mean supporting special treatment for minorities, be it in the form of affermative action (i.e ethnic quotas), special autonomy arrangements for counties solely due to their ethnic composition or opportunities to isolate themselves from Romanian society. The last example is far from unrealistic, in fact, some places it actually seems to be occurring.

Rights do not imply benefits :) - FrancisTyers · 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I remember a TVR-report from one of the Hungarian-majority counties, where a reporter visited a Hungarian school and asked the students in one of the classes something simple in Romanian. Only a few in the classroom actually understood the question, as far as the majority was concerned, the reporter could just as well have been speaking japanese. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that in Romania, Romanian citizens are fluent speakers of the Romanian language (of course, it’s no problem if they are also fluent in Hungarian).

This also affects the ethnic Romanian population, as there weren’t (according to the state-channel) many Romanian schools available in the county in question (in this case, Romanian schools meant schools teaching proper Romania), and the Romanian students as a result were not learning their native language properly. As a consequence, by learning Hungarian as the first language and being unable to make much headway in the society using Romanian, one can imagine a reversed assimilation going on, ethnic Romanians being assimilated in Hungarian enclaves, within the Romanian state! When Romanians around the country (and even around the world) hear about this, there is no wonder that they oppose concepts such as territorial autonomy, or abolishing the nation state article, especially if it's pushed through as a form of political blackmail by a party only 6 % voted for. That doesn’t mean that they are anti-Hungarian, suffer from insecurities or oppose minority rights.

What was the news report about? I wonder how many schools and classes they had to go through in order to get there ;) - FrancisTyers · 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, there are enough of chauvinists out there as well (like a couple of anonymous users recently seen here), but they should just be ignored alltogether.

Those users are User:Bonaparte ;) - FrancisTyers · 16:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

2: The still widespread homophobia around Romania is of course stupid (I have yet to seen any good, rational arguements been made against allowing gay-parades to take place, or against legalising gay marriage), but it is far from uncommon in relative poor countries, especially those where religion still plays an important role. Poverty often produces a scapegoat-seeking mentality, and when adding common prejudice against what differs from”normality” and anti-homosexuality texts from the Bible to the mix, this is what you get. However, I’m for one impressed by the rapid changes going on, as while only a few years back, an anti-homosexual article was still part of the law, while now, a gay parade has become an yearly event in Bucharest. It probably won’t take too long before homophobia in Romania has gone from being something mainstream, to being something only a few really care for. - Anclation 16:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who considers gays scapegoats? And scapegoats for what? That is just a prejudice. If something is not natural doesn't mean that it becomes a scapegoat. But huh... capitalist mentality... Anonimu 16:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One of the most frequent arguements made in the US 2004 election against gay rights was that it would further the break-up of families, undermine traditional values and so on. Basically, gays were made into scapegoats for the perceived moral decline in the US. In regards to Romania, I have read enough comments made by the anti-gay camp (from forum-posts to official BOR-statements) to see that similar rethoric is used. Anclation 16:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course the erroneous decision that gayness it's not an ilness had some negative effects on the society. Most important is that it changed the mechanism of becoming gay. Until some 30,40 years ago, except the very few people "born" with that ilness, most gays were the result of abuse. Now, because of the promotion of gayness in the media and because psychiatric are not supposed to treat this ilness anymore, teens in the adoloscence crisis have more chances to becoming gays, even if with proper treatment they would become happy heterosexuals after adolescence. Anonimu 17:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are so deluded it's sad....the reason there were less openly gay people before than now wasn't that the percentage of gays was lower, but because coming out of the closet would mean you'd become a social outcast, at best (some places you'd might be lynched, or submitted to forced "treatment"). Suicide-rates among gays are even today still far above that of hetrosexuals, so this alledged homosexual propaganda you're babbling on about can't be all that effective. - Anclation 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're a medium. Otherwise, i don't understand how could you know how many gays were in those times. Okay, they might have been some more gays than the declared ones, but since it was voted not to be an illness, the rate of gays in western states (number of gays/population of western countries) has grown too much to be explained by gays previously hiding their ilness. Anonimu 17:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You hardly have to a medium to figure out how the official number situation works. Take the numbers of Roma in Romania for instance; Do you trust the official census numbers, or do you believe there are many describing themselves as Romanians, Hungarians etc to avoid discrimination and prejudice? And if you don't know how many homosexuals were hiding in the closet before, how can you determine whether the increase of admitted homosexuals makes sense or not, based on numbers you don't have? Anclation

• Agreed that you hardly need to be a medium. More tangibly, the Kinsey Report (which came out well before the public and legal situation for gays in America began to loosen), which involved one-on-one interviews in a generally non-threatening atmosphere, estimated a higher number of male homosexuals (the term of the time) than are publicly out as gay today. Also, when hundreds of thousands of adult men and women in American cities "came out" in the years following Stonewall: do you think they just suddenly "turned gay"? (In exactly one sense, a few did: they were able to leave behind their sham marriages.) - Jmabel | Talk 04:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

A few more points:

Romania should have a sense of insecurity. It's about to join the EU, which will most likely increase godlessness, Western and third-world influence, and a move away from agriculture; Romania would do best as the heavily agrarian, devoutly Orthodox, authentically Romanian country it was before 1947. With more Muslims living in Romania, its proximity to the Muslim world, and its participation in wars apt to be taken as Crusader-like, Romania is vulnerable to Islamic terrorism, something its close alliance with the supine nations of Western Europe will not help to alleviate. Russia remains a threat. Global warming will cause the Black Sea to swallow up more Romanian territory, while shrinking oil supplies foreshadow a distinctly involuntary return to the backward, religious, agrarian society I dream of.

What's so great about multiculturalism? I'm not necessarily anti-minority, but state-enforced, soft-headed, touchy-feely multiculturalism hasn't always been a success: witness Yugoslavia*, Canada, Belgium, Spain, the French car burnings & Danish cartoon jihad, the various stories about Muslims in Britain (including the 7/7 bombings) and Canada, etc.

• I'm aware that the break-up of Yugoslavia was not caused by an excess of multiculturalism, but its formation in 1918 was, and without that formation, the conditions for the 1990s breakup would not have existed.

The US government doesn't look that highly upon Romania's human rights record: [1].

It is only through these values that Romania can promote itself throughout the world. Definitely untrue for two reasons. One, there are other ways to promote oneself; just look at Hassan Nasrallah, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, etc. Two, people in the West (which I assume you mean by "the world") don't know that much about Romania–Ceauşescu, orphans, and Dracula, and that's it. That won't change any time soon.

Here's what I suspect to be the truth: you modern, sophisticated, Westward-looking Romanians see "the world" as being cocktail parties in Brussels. Sure, people like Mihai-Rãzvan Ungureanu, clean-shaven, suitably secular and "progressive", do get invited there and will continue to do so, particularly once they have seats on the Council of Ministers, in the European Parliament, etc. They'll stand beside Günther Verheugen with his fish-like lips, Guy Verhofstadt will flash his horrid smile at them, and Margot Wallström will be the most attracive person in the room (!). They'll be fingering their glasses of champagne, purchased, of course, with Commission funds, and greedily wolfing down the baklava remnants in the far corner near the fake fireplace. But beneath their cheap polyester suits, behind the clean-shaven, cologne lathered faces, beside their thickly-accented English, they'll still be Romanians–and the others will know it. The poor, poor cousins of the French will be gently mocked by their Western European "protector", and sharing a laugh with the Gauls will be the Germans, who regard Romania with contempt, as do the Austrians, the Hungarians, and so forth. Believe me, the march to respectability will be a long one indeed.

Not everyone in Romania gains from bilingual signs. First, they cost more, so taxpayers lose. Second, practically everyone knows Romanian, so no one actually gains. Not everyone gains from "promoting Roma rights", I'm sure, but you'd have to define that before I knew exactly what you meant. Finally, the GayFest is a definite loss to everyone. It is a loss to homosexuals because it helps confirm in their minds that their sexual practices are somehow normal, when in fact they are very harmful to themselves, physically, mentally, and spiritually. It damages Romania as a whole because it needlessly inflames passion, because it places Romania on the path toward secularisation the more such an event becomes "normal", and because it creates a climate of fear wherein decent opponents of homosexuality are reluctant to speak out and try to lead homosexuals away from their practices.

Any evidence that Article I is "quite controversial" and that there is an "increasing" movement to repeal it? I, for one, have never heard of it, and I do follow these matters.

I actually do see Romania as being primarily for ethnic Romanians. I know this is controversial, so let me flesh it out. I have no problem with stable, long-established minorities (a flexible term, I know) being in Romania, as long as they accept the authority of and are loyal to the Romanian state and speak Romanian. However, if a Hungarian wanted to emigrate to Hungary, a Jew to Israel, or a Turk to Turkey, I would certainly encourage it. Furthermore, I bear no hatred toward any minority group. Not only do I have friends who are Jewish, Chinese, African, etc., but hatred is a distinctly un-Christian sentiment; I love my neighbours as myself. That being said, I do believe that, by and large, peoples have by now settled where God intends them to be (this is what we call o teorie de chibrit), and consequently they do not belong in countries inhabited by people of a different blood and creed. So just as I oppose the presence of recent Romanian arrivals like Arabs, Africans, and Uzbeks, I strongly oppose the presence of Romanians in Spain, Italy, the UK, etc. (though I of course understand the rationale for it very well). To me, a Romanian in Gabon, Namibia, Thailand, or Malaysia, is even more out of place due to the foreignness of their cultures, and if he settles down and marries a local, his descendants will likely soon retain no Romanian-ness, which would be tragic in its own way.

Again, I do emphasise: never would I advocate violence or hatred toward anyone, but I do advocate a sensible approach of staying home whenever possible and avoiding cultural and religious clash.

Clearly, if a disease can be classified and declassified by decree, the science of psychiatry is not terribly precise. After all, why is homosexuality not a disease but pedophilia, cannibalism (even by consent), necrophilia, incest and bestiality are? The root of this is political. There are two great non-theological reasons to think of homosexuality as a disease. First, anatomy: the male sexual organ is designed to be inserted into the female one. Male-female perversion (like fellatio) is certainly possible, but male-male or female-female sexual behaviour is clearly far more deviant from what the human body is designed for. Form follows function. Second, since only about 3% (maximum) of people are homosexual, and since their tendency to their conduct is not willed but determined by outside factors (whether genetic or environmental),

[Romania's policies] should centre on human rights and tolerance. Says who? I think they should focus on the peasantry, on monarchy, on promoting strict adherence to Orthodoxy. Let's remember that some of those promoting pro-Western policies are militant atheists and have a vested interest in leading Romania away from God. Anyway, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948) makes no mention of homosexuals–when it was written, there were more people cu scaun la cap.

Romania's image in the world is improved by the GayFest? Are you joking? First, it's not improved among 90% of religious people, and there are quite a few of us in the world (see the Muslim countries, for instance–to them, Romania is looking more and more like a haven for decadent infidels). Second, what you really mean is that it's improved among the Euro-elite in Brussels and among upper-class elitists in Western Europe and North America generally. But I really don't give a fig what those fools say. Sometimes you have to do what's right and what God wants, not what Martin Schulz or Danuta Hubner will approve of. Free expression is quite strong in Romania with or without that mockery of decency. Furthermore, the regional trend in places like Poland and Russia is, as Anonimu noted, not very "progressive".

Romania will have to be part of the Western-values family – meaning what, exactly? First off, the EU will most likely be dead by 2020, if not a lot sooner, so it really doesn't matter who is or is not a family. More importantly, though: Western values evolve, and different values are held by different people in the West. Some Western countries practice capital punishment, others don't; some ban contraception, others don't; some ban sodomy, others don't; some ban divorce, others don't; etc. To me, the cardinal Western values are those expressed by Christianity; in any case, opposition to homosexuality was mainstream everywhere until the last few decades, and it's still quite common in the West. We ethical people are not yet vanquished, try as you might.

Romania certainly does have alternatives to the EU. It should open up bilateral trade agreements with EU countries; these will come in especially handy once the EU collapses. It should generally pursue isolationism. However, despite Romanians' understandable wariness toward Russia, I do see Russia, the Third Rome, as a natural leader of Orthodox powers, so Romania should ultimately look to Moscow for political guidance and inspiration, particularly if and when the Romanov Dynasty is restored to its rightful place at the head of Russia.

I'm disappointed about refugees in general being admitted to Romania, which is (relative to Western Europe) quite poor and has enough problems of its own. I'm disappointed about Africans coming to Romania and living off Romanian taxpayers' money rather than trying to make a living for themselves (of course, the reason they couldn't do that very well rests quite heavily with the EU, ie the CAP). I'm disappointed about Muslim Uzbeks being brought to Romania instead of Kyrgyzstan or at least a wealthy Muslim country like the UAE. None of this stems from hatred or dislike of these people, against whom I have nothing, but rather because, as I said earlier, people should try and live in the countries where God directed that their ancestors settle; by coming to Romania, Romanian culture is diluted bit by bit, and their own cultures are also chipped away steadily, both of which are unfortunate.

It is a good thing that gayness is accepted in Romania. No, sorry. Sodomy is a mortal sin and people should be taught to stop doing it.

It probably won’t take too long before homophobia in Romania has gone from being something mainstream, to being something only a few really care for. Ah, the Tocquevillian fable of liberalism, that ancient customs and practices, along with religion, will fade, giving way to an enlightened, post-materialist, post-religious, post-ethics world! A world where everything is rational, scientific, mechanized, where there is no place for God or the soul or love or dissent from the new elitist orthodoxy! Well, no. We're pushing back–liberalism will soon be confined to a few small enclaves, the rest of us living in accord with human nature and Divine command, scorning those who wilfully and unrepentantly deviate from what is normal and good. Biruitorul 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, is your argument meant to be a satire? It certainly looks like that, because the state you are proposing is nothing more than theocratic Iran-style dictatorship. But, just to correct a factual error - homosexuality was never declassified by governmental decree, but rather by (independent) health organisations. The people who made the decision to declassify it were professional scientists and doctors, not government bureaucrats. Ronline ✉ 01:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

My argument is certainly not meant to be a satire. And I never proposed a theocratic Iran-style dictatorship. I am in favour of elections that are fully free, fair, and competitive, perhaps under the framework of the 1923 Constitution of Romania. I oppose the death penalty for sodomy, I oppose discrimination on the basis of religion (though I don't consider having a state church to be discriminatory, assuming other faiths are allowed to function), I oppose the repression of women, I do not seek to export Orthodoxy through state-sponsored terrorism, etc. All I want is the pre-Communist Romania back. An impossible dream, perhaps, but one can always hope. So the straw-man you have set up is very empty indeed.

When I said that homosexuality had been declassified "by decree", I did not mean to imply by governmental decree. Rather, my issue lies with the fact that it was a politicised vote, done after intense lobbying by homosexuals, and thus not truly grounded in scientific reasoning. Biruitorul 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, you support the DUP. LOL - FrancisTyers · 08:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with the DUP? They're the only party that will stand up in a vigorous way to the IRA/Sinn Féin terrorists. Furthermore, they are good Christians and show great loyalty to the Crown, to Parliament, and to the Union that has for so long bound Ulster to Britain, and must continue to do so. Plus, I am a great admirer of Reverend Doctor Paisley, a truly great man who has spent his life fighting for a just cause, defending Ulster from Republicanism and exposing the evils of Roman Catholicism time and time again. Biruitorul 16:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

<irony>Forward, into the past!</irony> While I disagree with almost everything you sais, at least I'll give you credit that you don't sound like a hater. By the way, though, that 1923 constitution did a pretty good job of perpetuating the disenfranchisement of a lot of Romanian Jews. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? I thought Article 133 of that document enshrined the Jews' status as citizens, and that by 1938, some 80% of Romanian capital was owned by Jews (so their right to own property was respected), which is why the economy went into a near-total collapse when the Cuza-Goga government passed anti-Semitic legislation and Jews quickly closed their businesses. Nevertheless, I don't pretend that inter-war Romania was a paradise, and it is quite true that (at least) the Liberal governments of the period could have done something to instill in Romanians the types of values that existed in Bulgarians and led to very different outcomes in WWII regarding their Jewish populations. However, there are few Jews left in Romania today (and evern fewer young ones) so the best we can do is make sure they live safely and securely, free from attacks or prejudice–for better or for worse, rebuilding the pre-1940 Jewish community in Romania is probably impossible... Biruitorul 05:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

In theory the constitution of 1923 made Jews citizens; in practice, they (unlike other people living in the country) were given a high threshhold of documentation to prove they'd been born there. I've read from several sources that tens of thousands of Jews born in Romania remained disenfranchised. One of the places I read it was A.L. Easterman, King Carol, Hitler, and Lupescu, London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. (1942); I'm afraid I don't have a more precise citation offhand. As for ownership of capital: I have no references on this (nor have you provided any), but I really doubt it. I've heard too many claims like that about too much of Europe, and in the places where I have been able to find solid analysis, they've always turn out to be false.

Obviously, today, it would not be Jews who would be likely to suffer under a highly nationalist Romanian administration, because there are probably only about 10,000 left in the country, mostly in Bucharest (the census says fewer, other estimates say more, but no one seems to disagree about the order of magnitude). It would probably be the Roma and/or the Hungarians. - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

So, as I see it, the Constitution's flaw primarily lay in its weakness and ability to be exploited, allowing as it did government officials to discriminate against Jews (though the worst abuses came only in 1938 and after, when the 1923 Constitution had been abrogated. Undeniably, a spirit of egalitarianism did color Romanian politics in the early 1920s, but that quickly withered as economic problems set in and as that idealism ran against more entrenched anti-Semitic attitudes. A similar analogy might involve the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution, which was well-intentioned but largely ignored in much of the South until about a century after its passage.

I have a quotation and a citation for you. " 'The appointment of the present nationalist anti-Semitic regime has checked the gradual economic improvement of the two last years. The situation is growing worse each week of its existence. If it lasts six months Rumania will be completely ruined.' This is the verdict pronounced to this correspondent by one of Rumania's leading non-Jewish industrialists, who emphasized that he was devoid of pro-Jewish interests and speaking purely as a business man. It is self-evident that when 80 per cent of a country's commerce–the proportion in Jewish hands here–stops dead from whatever cause, it means national disaster." G. E. R. Gedye, reporting from Bucharest, Rumania, February 2, 1938, New York Times.

The author provides no source for his number, but that's where I got mine. Biruitorul 22:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. The NYT tends to be a good source on things like this, but I have no idea how accurate their sources on Romania were. Certainly citable unless we had something more solid to contradict it. And no question that Goga's policies were an economic disaster.

The disfranchisement I was referring to (pace A.L. Easterman) was right off the bat in the 1920s. But I agree, a constitution can do only so much. As Benjamin Franklin said, "A republic, if you can keep it." - Jmabel | Talk 03:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:Ukrainian historical regions

Please check the new template which includes Marmaroshchyna as part of modern Ukraine. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Satu Mare county model

I think the Lead section of Satu Mare can lead to a formulation that would make the Lead NPOV. The fact Satu Mare has a significant hungarian minority could be considered a relevant feature for this county, and others like it. I think mentioning the Hungarian minority in the lead is NPOV and relevant, and will make the mention to the name by which hungarians refer to this county natural. I would formulate Satu Mare county of Romania, capital Satu Mare. The county has a significant Hungarian minority. Hungarians refer to Satu Mare with the name Szatmar. Thus providing the name by which Hungarians refer to the county does not have the weight of an alternative name in english sources. Criztu 18:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is an approved wikipeda custom for minority language names in the lead - brackets and italic. There are countless examples for this all over here. In the meantime - while preaching about Satu Mare County model - Criztu deleted Hungarian names from every Transylvania county articles. The whole problem was created by Criztu who is not able to accept the wikipedia customs which give some weight for minority language names. There are rules and values on this site that are non-compatible with chauvinism. Zello 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I second Zello, and am simply tired of humoring Criztu with replies. Dahn 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

We are tired of your replies...HAHAHA--211.180.51.14 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

After all, how old are you? Twelve? No, you can't be twelve - your English is partly acceptable. Then, you must have had problems growing up. Not enough iodine in the water? Please, seek help or compensate by drinking a tall glass of iodine. As for the rest, my name is Dan Anton Dima. Anyone can find that out by sending me emails. That you have both the audacity and the idiocy to assume that it would do more than merely annoy me by making that public is beyond me; that you have the lack of human decency to ignore a common sense rule you promised you'd abide by, and then attempt your hand at some skrewed-up form of blackmail, is beyond all comprehension. You are a disgusting fascist cornered into mental prostitution. I would not even defecate on you or your supposed army. Dahn 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA, we were just bluffing....and you so stupid you are Dan Anton Dima, well, well...HAHAHAHAHAHA, where do you work ?--203.106.52.102 15:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Criztu so far has been polite and civil (unlike some of the IPs who have contributed to this discussion), but I think his arguments are on the whole rather illogical and go against a Wikipedia policy established by months, if not years, of consensus. Remember that Wikipedia has always been more pluralistic than Britannica, and for that reason, it tends to accept a broader range of information, rather than just dealing with nation-state POVs on certain issues. Ronline ✉ 08:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Criztu will delete every Hungarian word, which in my view is perfect. Hungarian is not official language in Romania. --211.180.51.14 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Y'know... when I see "HAHAHAHA" or its equivalents in someone's remarks, I read it as "I'm a schoolyard bully, probably ignorant on the topic at hand, and for that matter probably ignorant on everything else. I've found that taunting people often gets them to throw the first punch, so I can pretend I didn't start the fight. I might or might not know how to be civil, but I don't respect anyone here enough to try. Don't waste your time taking seriously anything I say." - Jmabel | Talk 03:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia

I intent on renaming all articles of Rulers of Wallachia and Moldavia as follows: instead of Vlad III the Impaler, Vlad III of Wallachia. i know my actions are not the most diplomatic, and i just moved Vlad III Dracula to Vlad III the Impaler, but i think Vlad III of Wallachia would be better Criztu 18:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's not and say we did. Dahn 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative words for Germans

Does Romanian have alternative words for Germans, as in slang? If so please add them, with a small explanation and perhaps translation at the following article: Alternative words for Germans. Thanks in advance, Rex 15:01, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Names of cities in their infoboxes

Hi. There is currently a dispute going on at Talk:Oradea and Talk:Satu Mare about which names should be placed in the infoboxes of the respective articles. I support placing both the Romanian and Hungarian names in the infobox, considering Hungarian is an officially-recognised language in both of those cities, because the Hungarian population makes up more than 20% of the population. Thus, according to Romanian minority rights law, the local government is obliged to use Hungarian in public administration, justice, education and signage, alongside Romania. In Oradea, for example, the City Hall discloses its monthly newsletter in both Romanian and Hungarian, inscriptions on public institutions are in both languages, and the signs you see when entering Oradea also have the Hungarian name under the Romanian name. For cities which have another officially-recognised language alongside Romanian, I have inserted the name in the respective language in the infobox; see Budeşti, Salonta, Miercurea-Ciuc, Sfântu Gheorghe, Târgu-Mureş. The Hungarian names have been removed persistently at Oradea and Satu Mare by User:Anonimu and Criztu. I feel that this is misleading since the public administration in both of these cities in bilingual, and not unilingually-Romanian. What is the overall opinion here? Ronline ✉ 11:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, as you know (and as I have mentioned on at least some relevant talk pages) I agree with you completely here. - Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me paste what i've already said about this (from the archive and from oradea talk page)

1. I don't think it's a good idea, since they aren't "officially" official names. The comparison with cities in countries like Finland or Ireland is irrelevant, since those countries are officially bilingual, not the case of Romania. currently, only the romanian parliament has the right to change or modify the name of a city in Romania. If you show me any law adopted by the parliament that says "the name of Rom city is changed to Rom-Hun/Rom-Rro/Rom-Ser" i'll accept alternative names used by local non-romanian population in the infobox.
2. There are cities in Europe that have officially 2 names . see Bozen-Bolzano, Aoste-Aosta, Donostia-San Sebastián, Abanto y Ciérvana-Abanto Zierbena just to show some examples. This is not the case for any city, town or village in Romania. Btw all the cities i mentioned have the two names stated in the english version of their site. While the site of Oradea doesn't even have a hungarian version, while oradea is the only nane used in the romanian, english and french versions. So i'll leave only the official (ie romanian) name in the infoboxes of cities of romania. It's not like i want to hide any alternative name, since they're all present in the first sentence of the articles

So until you find some document that explicitely says these towns& cities officialy have two names (and i mean no original research like "in that doc says bla bla, and that's almost like saying its official"). Don't worry about those other cities. I will deal with them later. I have edited only Satu Mare and Oradea for now because they're in my watchlist. Anonimu 06:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am actually neutral on the infobox issue (unlike my full support for including Hungarian etc names in the lead). I don't think the problem was ever posed as to what level of bilingualism the town needs to have for the alternatives to be included in the infobox, and I would support any decision that would lead to a resolution (by resolution, I mean a version of articles that both Ro and Hu contributors revert to when Bonaparte creates himself yet another sockpuppet). Dahn 13:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree to have hungarian names in the articles. I will agree when New York and all the american cities will have in spanish and chinese. Don't agree with double standards. A magyarized process in 2006 is not welcome here. So, you may talk as much as you want "you smart guys like Dahn...."--222.109.87.130 07:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte, that is just lame - as is your abhorrent threat on a recent edit summary. Now git. Dahn 13:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Shut up and fuck off, do you understand Dan? We are smarter than you, so I don't give a dime on you. Now git Dan. Don't challenge us! --195.78.228.23 14:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

If I promised you something we'll tell you now that not any more. Things will change if you challenge us, do you understand D.A.D.? --195.78.228.23 14:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The New York and "Hungarian names in Romania" situations are very different. The only official language of New York (though in fact there is no legislated official language AFAIK) is English. That is to say: Spanish is not officially-recognised, no matter what percentage of the population Spanish-speaking people make up. In Romania, however, Hungarian is officially-recognised in those territorial-administrative units where Hungarians make up 20% or more of the population. So, the situation is rather more similar to that of Louisiana or New Mexico, where French and respectively Spanish are the second official languages, and both are listed in the infobox. In Louisiana, there are in fact very few French speakers, but the French name is still there because the language is officially-recognised. Also look at the example of New Zealand, where Maori speakers make up less than 20% of the population, but where cities like Dunedin, Christchurch, Invercargill all have the Maori name in the infobox, because Maori is officially-recognised along with English. So, I hope you can see that this is not about double standards, and it is also not about Magyarisation. That the Hungarian name is listed in the infobox does not make the Romanian name any less visible, and in any case this is simply a reflection of the current situation and the law. Ronline ✉ 10:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hungarians have the right to use their mother tongue at local level, but this doesn't change the official name of that locality. As for New Zealand, i'll already told you to stop giving examples of officially bilingual states, i.e. a thing that Romania it's not. As for Us states, from what i know they don't have official language, i.e.e again not the case of Romania. And since the law didn't change any official name of a settlement in a double name (Romanian+national minority), the only name present in the infobox should be the one approved by the Parliament (the only one who was the right to decide). This doesn't make the name used by national minority less visible, since in most cases is the second or third word of the article) Anonimu 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, we're really getting into the subtleties of law here, and I agree that concepts like official language, state religion, etc, are significantly more complex than they appeal to be at first sight. I think where our opinions differ is that you see the local government as an extension of the nation-state's national government, with the national government having supreme authority and national laws automatically overriding any local laws in all areas. The way I see it is a bit different. New Zealand is a political entity, in the same way Oradea is a political entity; Oradea is just lower down the hierarchy, but both can be responsible for official language policy. So just because Romania officially legislated Romanian as the only national official language doesn't imply that there can't be other official languages at local level (in fact, since 2003, the constitution has been amended to state that minority languages are to be recognised - i.e. can be used in official institutions - in Romania at local level). The other point that needs clarification is this idea of a "bilingual name". There is actually subtle difference between a bilingual name and having an official name in two languages. A bilingual name (double name, compound name) is a name which is generally hyphenated or slashed, and would be used as the official name of the city in all languages (this is similar to Vitoria-Gasteiz or Donostia-San Sebastian, and in Romania would bear the form "Oradea-Nagyvarad" or "Oradea/Nagyvarad". I'm not trying to argue that this is the case - that is, I'm not saying that Hungarian name has any official recognition in the national language, Romanian. Rather, the Hungarian name is officially-recognised alongside the Romanian name (i.e. it is written under the Romanian name on signs). The name that has officially been endorsed by the Parliament in Romanian - Oradea - is supplemented according to the law, on all signs, by the name in the minority language. So, in conclusion, we are not saying that the name Nagyvarad is officially-recognised as an alternative Romanian name, or as part of a compound name. Rather, since Hungarian is an officially-recognised language of the municipality, then, according to Wikipedia convention, the infobox should list the Hungarian variant of the name. Ronline ✉ 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

As i already said, there's no real devolution in Romania. That means national government still has a lot of authority at local level, and local laws can't have dispositions against national law. (For example Mazare's barriers were removed because the DA gvt said so; he couldn't buid a higway inside the administrative area municipality because the same gvt refused; also the local council decided to change the local CoA.. the national DA gvt refused again... devolution? i don't think so)Oradea doesn't have the right to adopt an official language. But on the other hand it is obliged BY THE NATIONAL GVT to have official document translated in hungarian for the local minority and have sign in Hungarian. This doesn't make Hungarian OFFICIAL in the municipality, since the local gvt doesn't have the right to decide on it, unlike the national gvt of New Zealand. Anonimu 13:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hungarian gay Ronline, let me tell you something. If a law says that for some cities is allowed to have billingual signs that doesn't mean that the second language is official. Read the constitution and until there it's writen Hungarian, any Hungarian word will be deleted. So be it! Capisci? --195.78.228.23 14:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely you don't understand the concept of devolution. In Romania, there is more than one tier of government. Local governments have a series of powers, including the use of minority language policy. Officially-recognising Hungarian in Oradea doesn't mean that the language becomes an official language of Romania. It doesn't mean that the Romanian Consitution has to be written in Hungarian. In the Val d'Aran, for example, Aranese is officially-recognised. This does not mean that the Spanish Constitution is written in Aranese or the Spanish Government gives any recognition whatsoever to this language. Another example is that of Wales, where Welsh is official, even though this doesn't mean that the UK government has any obligation to recognise or deal with the language (in practice, they do, but it's not an obligation). So, no, not so be it; languages can be official at any level of government, not just national. Ronline ✉ 08:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (I'm a gay Hungarian, according to you, so a change of signature is pertinent, eh?)

In Romania there's no real devolution. local councils don't have the same power as the assemblies in devoluted states (Italy, Germany, Belgium, some parts of UK). And they don't have the right ot change names of the settlement. The use of a name used by national minority in local documents written in the language of the national minority doesn't make that name official. And to say a city name it's official at local level, but not at national level is pure nonsense. Anonimu 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand your point there now being a particularly significant devolution in Romania. But, I don't see why it's nonsensical for a local government to make its own laws and for those to be recognised. A city in Romania can, for example, institute something like a congestion charge or a pedestrian zone, and the national government has nothing to do with that. I don't see why it's "nonsense" for a congestion charge to be "official" at local level and unofficial at national level. It's the same with languages. The minority rights law talks about languages in the framework of cities, municipalities and communes, not the central government, regions or counties. I think it's actually very normal for a city to have additional official languages, but for the national government to not see these as official. That is, if Bulgarians make up 50% of the population in a commune, Bulgarian should be official there, but that doesn't mean that it should be official in the rest of Romania or that the national government should see it as such. And this doesn't conflict with the constitution, since the 2003 amendment clearly makes provisions for minority rights languages being officially-recognised and used at these levels of government. Ronline ✉ 07:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I've already shown that the DA national gvt decision overidden the decision of PSD-led local council and PSD mayor of Constanta. If the national gvt doesn't se it as official, it's not. Let's see what the constitution says:

1. ARTICOLUL 6 - Dreptul la identitate
   (1) Statul recunoaste si garanteaza persoanelor apartinand minoritatilor nationale dreptul la pastrarea, la dezvoltarea si la exprimarea identitatii lor etnice, culturale, lingvistice si religioase.
   (2) Masurile de protectie luate de stat pentru pastrarea, dezvoltarea si exprimarea identitatii persoanelor apartinand minoritatilor nationale trebuie sa fie conforme cu principiile de egalitate si de nediscriminare in raport cu ceilalti cetateni romani.
2. ARTICOLUL 13 - Limba oficiala
   In Romania, limba oficiala este limba romana.
3. ARTICOLUL 23 - Libertatea individuala
   (8) Celui retinut sau arestat i se aduc de indata la cunostinta, in limba pe care o intelege, motivele retinerii sau ale arestarii, iar invinuirea, in cel mai scurt termen; invinuirea se aduce la cunostinta numai in prezenta unui avocat, ales sau numit din oficiu.
4. ARTICOLUL 32 - Dreptul la invatatura
   (2) Invatamantul de toate gradele se desfasoara in limba romana. In conditiile legii, invatamantul se poate desfasura si intr-o limba de circulatie internationala.
   (3) Dreptul persoanelor apartinand minoritatilor nationale de a invata limba lor materna si dreptul de a putea fi instruite in aceasta limba sunt garantate; modalitatile de exercitare a acestor drepturi se stabilesc prin lege.
5. ARTICOLUL 128 - Folosirea limbii materne si a interpretului in justitie
   (1) Procedura judiciara se desfasoara in limba romana.
   (2) Cetatenii romani apartinand minoritatilor nationale au dreptul sa se exprime in limba materna in fata instantelor de judecata, in conditiile legii organice. [So the accused has the right to speak in his mother language, but the judges and lawyers have to speak in romanian]
6. ARTICOLUL 152 - Limitele revizuirii
   (1) Dispozitiile prezentei Constitutii privind caracterul national, independent, unitar si indivizibil al statului roman, forma republicana de guvernamant, integritatea teritoriului, independenta justitiei, pluralismul politic si limba oficiala nu pot forma obiectul revizuirii.

SO no word about any language being official in any part of Romania, except Romanian of course. Anonimu 13:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Who cares about those examples if this is not the case? You may push your POV but will not be accepted. Do you know now the difference between official and not official? --211.180.51.14 12:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You don't read what it says in Constitution. Only official language is Romanian. As for the gays you may fuck who you want. Or you may let be fucked as you want. --211.180.51.14 11:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ronline. If a version of a city's name is used by over 20% of its population, written in official documents on the city limits plaques and on the official buildings, then it is official enough to be written in its infobox. --Andrei 09:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Ronline, do you realise the implication of a formulation Hungarian is officially-recognised in those territorial-administrative units where Hungarians make up 20% or more of the population.? on Oradea talkpage i copypasted the articles of laws dealing with the use of the language of minorities in Romania, and there it is said, the use of the language of an ethnic minority is not used in official documents, only romanian language is used in official documents Criztu 17:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

And what is so wrong with the implication? What is so wrong about official recognition of a language in territorial units (UTAs) where Hungarians make up 20% or more of the population? Are you saying that's not the case. Wel, I propose to you this: the law also states that in those UTAs where a minority makes up more than 30% of the population, council minutes can be recorded in the given language, provided that a version is also kept in Romanian. AFAIK, the municipal councils of Miercurea-Ciuc and Sfântu Gheorghe work predominantly in Hungarian, with translations in Romanian provided, of course, according to the law. I don't really want to get into a minority rights debate here, but why do you see that "implication" as so outlandish? Ronline ✉ 08:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that non-romanian minorities have to right to read the documents of the local administration in their mother tongue doesn't change the official name of a city. The Parliament is the only authority in Romania that can establish the official name of a city. And there no law stating that Oradea should be named also nagyvarad or any other thing. Any local decision that changes the name of a populated place without a law passed by the Parliament is unconstitutional, and thus illegal. Putting a name that is not ackowledged as official by the Parliament, and thus by the International Community (including UN, US and EU) it's just original research, and it's a threat to wikipedia's (not very high at the moment) credibility. Anonimu 11:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anonimu. Well said. Mr. Gay do you agree with him? --195.78.228.23 14:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Law number 215 is a law. Passed by the Parliament. It acknowledges ethnic minority languages (that includes toponyms) at local level. As I said, they even put the name in the minority language on official buildings and at city limits. It's official, and it is according to the law.--Andrei 13:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)\

No. The language is not official. No law acknowledge this. So, Hungarian it's not official in Romania. Basta cohones! --195.78.228.23 14:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not about Hungarian being official "in Romania". I'm really tired of people trying to twist what I have said into "Romania" rather than "a territorial-administrative unit". I've never said that Hungarian is an offically-recognised by Romania (i.e. the central government). If it were, the Romania article would have to list "Hungarian" in the infobox. Rather, minority languages are officially-recognised by the local governments of territorial-adminsitrative units such as municipalities, cities, communes, etc. The reason why I call it "official recognition" is because the local government is obliged to provide a series of services in Hungarian, which I have mentioned before. It thus, quite literally, officially recognises the given language. And the reaction and personal attacks this has provoked leads me to belief that this is less about impartiality and "correcting the evil Hungarians" than it is about Romanian chauvinism and nationalism. Down with the Magyarophobia, down with the homophobia. This is Romania, guys, and in Romania we respect minorities and human rights. Ronline ✉ 08:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The law says national minorties have the right to use their mother tongue were they are at least 20%. There's no formulation of any other language being official. These may seem the same for some, but if the law would have wanted to say "official", i see no reason for not saying it. Anonimu 13:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

So what if you're tired? Go fuck yourself with your gays... HAHAHA This is Romania and you have to obey its laws. Now, it says in Constitution what? So, go fuck yourself with your Hungarian language.--211.180.51.14 12:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You think that's an insult? It would be like me saying to you go "fuck yourself with your women" (I presume you're male). Please stop trying to use sexual orientation as a form of insult, it's not only homophobic but also simply doesn't work (and if you're really bent on "obeying Romania's laws", then remember that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in Romania). And yes, in Romania the law and the constitution say you have to respect minority rights, thank you very much. So, if anything, you're the one "disobeying Romania's laws" with your anti-Hungarian crusade. Romanian law has changed since 1989, in case you haven't realised. Ronline ✉ 07:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE

I talked to a guy who worked with this law in Ghindaresti (a village of the commune with the same name in Constanta where the Russian population has the right stated in Law 215/2001 ). First, he pointed out that the decision if a administrative division should have bilingual signs or not is based on language data, not on minority data. Thus in Budesti, even if he has a population of 21% ethnic gypsies, under 2% of the population speak romanes [2]. So the law doesn't apply in Budesti. Moreover, the names to be used on bilingual signs are established by the Romanian gvt in the rider (this should be the (en) for the (ro) anexa) no 1 of H.G. 1206/2001, modified by H.G. by 1415/2002. Unfortunately I couldn't find this rider on the net, but i could find the "sub-riders" modified by HG 1415/2002. Anyway, there are 23 of these "sub-riders", one sub-rider for one county (I could bring you the list of the counties who have a sub rider, but Calarasi is not one of them). Second, he pointed out that this name to be used in bilingual inscriptions isn't quite official. Here's the proof:

H.G. 1206/2001

Art 10.

(2) Inscriptionarea în limba materna a denumirii unor localitati are caracter informativ, neputand fi folosita în corespondenta sau în documentele oficiale.

The inscription of the name of a locality in the mother tongue has an informative character, and can't be used in official corespondence or documents

If that's not enough, from the same law:

Art. 18

(1) Constituie contraventii urmatoarele fapte, daca nu sunt savarsite în astfel de conditii încat, potrivit legii penale, sa fie considerate infractiuni:

h) folosirea denumirilor de localitati prevazute în anexele nr. 1/1-1/23 în corespondenta sau în documentele oficiale.

(2) Contraventiile prevazute la alin. (1) lit. a)-d) se sanctioneaza cu amenda de la 5.000.000 lei la 15.000.000 lei, iar cele prevazute la lit. e)-h), cu amenda de la 25.000.000 lei la 50.000.000 lei.

(1). Are considered contraventions the following , if not commited in such condition that, according to the penal law, they could be considered offences:

(h) Using the names of the localities established in riders 1/1-1/23 in official corespondence or documents

(2) Contraventions established at point 1, (...) letters e)-h) are punished with fines from approx. 1000 USD to approx 2000 USD

I'll let you judge if this means they're official.

P.S. I'll wait your reply before modifying any article, because i don't want other edit wars. Anonimu 15:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes it seems that the law does complicate matters significantly. On one hand, languages of minorities which make up over 20% of the population can be used officially in dealings with local government and other insitutitions, and can thus be said to be "officially-recognised". On the other hand, the law does not refer to them as "official languages" and mentions that minority language names do not have an official status. In itself, this may not be enough to remove the names from the infoboxes (since Wikipedia is obviously not bound by that law). Instead, it can be argued that because minority languages are officially-recognised, and Wikipedia infoboxes should list names in all officially-recognised languages, the name should still be listed, even if, say, it still has an informative character (for everything on Wikipedia is informative and not legal). I think we need a broader public debate on this before another edit war begins on what is quite a complex matter. As to how percentages are determined, the law implies that ethnicity data is used, not language data, since "in areas where ethnic minorities make up more than 20% of the population, their language can be used..." So, since Roma make up 21% of the population in Budeşti, their language can be used officially. Ronline ✉ 08:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RfC and Bulgaria

I'm ready to write an RfC against a bulgarian user if he's not willing to accept my formulation: Romanians (Vlachs). In that case if it happens, I will ask you for my full support. --Eliade 15:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

1919 Ro-Hu war

Please see [3], [4], [5], [6] Greier 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

All I have to say is that Romania had not "won the war".

Pai da shi normal, tu tot timpul stii ceva ce altii nu stiu... Noi muritorii ne ghidam dupa bunul simt, care spune ca esti victorios in urma unui razboi atunci cand adversarul tau il pierde. Dar zeul Dahn nu se limiteaza la astfel de interpretari vulgare... El tot timpul stie ceva ce altii nu stiu... 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Some people on the face of the Earth (including the Entente Powers) have heard of this thing called Treaty of Bucharest, 1918. But don't tell anyone, Greier... Dahn 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

About the rest: I didn't really look into it, because I couldn't handle the old edits with a straight face after I read "neuter zone". Dahn 16:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Din tot ce era acolo, asta era problema... ca am zis "neuter"... vai vai, ce fel de om esti... 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that is just one of the many things that make me need to take breaks before I tackle long edits by you. Btw, for those who think that you plagiarized long texts, let them note what your English usually is, and how ellaborate the one in articles such as Byzantium after Byzantium and the spurious Lex Antiqua Valachorum (or the controversial-at-best Scythian monks). Dahn 17:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, the Hungarian army did not in fact invade Romania, as far as I know. Dahn 16:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

nu, shi normal ca nu... Shi normal ca cealalta versiune e aia buna, aia in care se spune ca Romania a invadat Ungaria... De fapt putea sa spuna orice, tot era mai buna decat versiunea mea, nu? Altfel, cum mai aveai tu ocazia sa arati cat de dăştept esti... 17:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever that other version was, two wrongs don't make a right. The Ro army did enter Hungary, whatever euphemism you feel like using for it. If you counter a disputable term with an all-out fallacy, your edits are revertible on sight. Dahn 17:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice one, yet again

Please see this and read User:Greier's edit summary on the right. Thank you. Dahn 16:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You welcome. 16:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

^As you may see just above (check the edit history: it's Greier[7]), the author is congratulating himself on having called me "idiot" in the above-quoted summary on my talk page. I believe Greier is familiar with the procedure of getting banned: I want to see if the other side involved in the process of banning has as a good a memory as he does. Dahn 17:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Transylvania

I find the behaviour of User:Criztu on Talk:Transylvania and Transylvania unacceptable. I would like you all to check with the debate and explain to me how Critzu, who, as the only one opposing me so far, supports some narrow, irrelevant, and fallacious additions to the text (additions - he does not really object to the anything already in the article), can possibly use a tag that accuses me of "not being neutral". This, especially since he cannot point out how I would be partisan and of what, and since in reality his objections in the article do not seem to reflect anything neutral (he wants "a Romanian view" to feature more prominently, and hides behind the fact that "no Romanian editor would object to his version" - as if all Romanians ought to have the same opinion, and pretending not to notice that I too am Romanian!). Dahn 11:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No true Scotsman... - Jmabel | Talk 04:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

From Anittas

Anittas has asked me to post this link: It is now official (fact) that Moldavia is superior. I'm posting it, but I think this sort of thing is silly: it's reminds me of my late great-uncle Dave who used to send the family emails listing Jewish Nobel prize winners and the like. - Jmabel | Talk 00:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles about Romania related articles convention/manual of style

I think a comprehensive convention on articles about things in Romania should be deviced. currently I have a lot of issues with articles about Transylvania. with formulations that i consider revisionist propaganda. eg. "84.6% (276,106) of its population is ethnic Hungarian" followed by "Romanians concentrated in a few specific towns" instead of letting the NPOV demographic infobox inform the reader "Hungarians : 84.6, Romanians: 14.1%. or maybe I am wrong, and things have to be put the way they are put now. so, i would like to device a Template of how an article about an administrative division (then rulers) of Romania should look like, in an NPOV way. I cant edit articles about Romania infinately just because there is no convention on how an article of this sort should look like. While every one of us may have biases and POVs or insuficient experience, having a Template article for articles about Romania would make things more easy to settle. Criztu 13:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but how exactly is the statement that "84.6% (276,106) of its population is ethnic Hungarian" wrong? It's just a way of stating "Hungarians: 84.6%" in prose! There is absolutely no POV element in that sentence at all, particularly since the percentage of Romanians is also listed. Also, why is "Romanians concentrated in a few specific towns" wrong or misleading? It offers more information than just saying "Romanians: 15.4%" because it shows their distribution, and the fact that although Romanians are a minority in the county, they form a majority in a number of localities. The fact is that most localities in the county have a percentage of Hungarians above 84.6%. Since Wikipedia is not a statistical database, there is no mathematical convention on this issue. Each articles doesn't have to look exactly the same. But the precedent and convention so far seems to be in favour of maintaining alternative names, and I really don't see what problem you have with the above sentences. Ronline ✉ 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

i told u on Bucharest talk page. Propaganda is when u arrange information or present parts of the information in such a way that u manipulate the reader. Why doesnt the Demographics paragraph starts with "only 14.1 of its population is ethnic Romanian" followed by "Romanians live in localities of.." why do they have to be "concentrated in a few localities", what, are they in quarantine or are they colonized there or what ? why should a statistic be presented in a journalistic way ? isnt "Hungarians: 84.3%, Romanians: 14.1%, etc" clear enough ??? what does the starting paragraph in the Demographics trying to underline here ??? if Romania wants, the county could be reorganised in such a way that Hungarians will not be majoritary . What is the goal of having a proposition in the Demographics of Harghita stating how majoritary are the Hungarians, when there is an infobox, and these are statistics ? :| Criztu 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Concentrated in a few localities" just means that instead of being spread evenly around the county, they are "concentrated" (this is used statistically, here) in certain administrative units where they either form a majority or a sizeable minority. It actually analyses the statistics instead of just presenting them as raw. Saying that "Romanians are a majority in Locality XYZ" is raw statistics, while saying that they're "concentrated in a few towns, mainly Topliţa" uses that information to produce a meaningful sentence about demographics in Harghita. That's why that construction is better than just "Hungarians: 84.3%, Romanians: 14.1%, etc". We could fill all of Wikipedia with numbers like that, but this is not a statistical almanac or a census report. And once again you're saying that the current construction is propagandistic, but the alternative you offer is just as biased, if not more. Starting with "only 14.1% of its population is ethnic Romanian" implies that "there should be more of them", it implies, if you want, some sort of historical injustice and crisis situation. Considering that Harghita and Covasna are unique in Romania for being the only majority non-Romanian counties in the state, I think that's what the demographics section should focus on. Reading that they're an ethnic majority doesn't manipulate the reader in any way - it just presents to them the nature of the situation. It then even says "and one of only two counties where Hungarians form a majority", so that people won't believe that "Transylvania is majoritarily Hungarian", as you alleged they would believe. Your version manipulates them a lot more. And, once again, I really think you're being overly concerned about this. There are better things to do, IMO, to improve Romania's image on Wikipedia if you really want. Ronline ✉ 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

well, the article Hungarian_minority_in_Romania doesnt say "Hungarians are mainly concentrated in a small area in a few counties of Romania" but "most ethnic Hungarians of Romania live in what is today known as Transylvania, where they make up about 20% of the population" so it is emphasised that they make 20% of Transylvania, instead of informing that if u look outside the Szeklers of HarCov, the Hungarians barely make 5% in Transylvania, and there is no concentrated nowhere. the article continues: "Hungarians form a large majority of the population in the counties of Harghita and Covasna" it doesnt say Hungarians are concentrated in the counties of Harghita and Covasna" i could ask for a similar formulation for romanians in Harghita, like "Romanians form a large majority of the population in the cities of Toplitza and others in Harghita" Criztu 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I mean, articles about Romania are in such an error, that the infobox places Harghita in Region Transylvania, when it is in fact placed in Central Region of Romania. It is the Central Region, not Transylvania Region. I think we should all know that Romania is in fact split into Administrative Regions, just like England is split into Administrative Regions, they are not the same as Historical Regions. These are Subdivisions of Romania, not Transylvania Wallachia and Moldavia. victims of propaganda editing articles of Romania, pff ... Criztu 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, OK, I suppose that the development regions could be helpful also. But, the development regions are not administrative. They are simply there for regional development and statistical purposes and for distributing EU funds, and are in this way basically an EU-created institution. The English administrative regions actually have a council and have some legal powers. Ronline ✉ 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I would include a Historical region in the infoboxes, i dont know if this would be the convention regarding the infoboxes. Criztu 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

ok, i edited the Counties of Romania as follows:

Lead paragraph

Mehedinţi (pronounced [meheˈdintsi]) is a county (judeţ) of Romania, in the historical province of Oltenia. Its capital city is Turnu Severin.

note: priority 1 is "Mehedinti is a county of Romania". ordering the information as "Mehedinti is a county in the historical region of Oltenia", would give priority to Oltenia, which is journalistic/beletristic style. priority 2 should be given to its capital Turnu Severin, i am not sure yet tho. I would place information about Oltenia in the History section, but since the lead paragraph doesnt contain too much info, the reader wouldnt be overwhelmed by this info in the lead. I put the population of Turnu severin in the Municipalities section, since it is redundant info, it belongs to Turnu Severin article, which is made accessible from the lead, if one needs to know population of capital city of Mehedinti.

Demographics

*Romanians - 00%

*Hungarians - 00%

*Rromas - 00%

*Ukrainians - 00%

*Germans - 00%

*Serbians - 00%

i used official statistics and edrc in ordering minorities. i didnt order them by "a majority of the respective population in a county" but i ordered them as they are ordered in Recensamant 2002. "Romanians, Hungarians, Romas, Ucrainians, Germans." note the order in those oficial links, and note the Development Regions Criztu 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

note: Romania is a Romanian national state, and has a number of Ethnic Minorities. so a reader looking at the demographic paragraphs can identify quickly which country does Mehedinti county belongs to, if say, he didnt notice the information about Romania in the lead. i am not sure how to group the Ethnic minorities so that no one can feel discriminated, but in the same time informing that they are in fact Ethnic minorities of Romania Criztu 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

But does it really matter what their legal status is (i.e. that legally they're "ethnic minorities")? The Demographics section provides information primarily on demographics, not on political recognition and rights. Also, the census, for example, lists all national minorities after Romanians, but they are not placed in a separate category. It just comes up as "Romanians: 80%, Hungarians, 12%; Roma: 3%, etc" in the tables. I think it should stay like that at Wikipedia as well. For this reason, I don't see the point of informing the reader that those ethnic groups are "ethnic minorities", since it is obvious that in Romania, ethnic Romanians are in the majority. Also, it is quite obvious that Mehedinţi is a county in Romania, since the article the person is linked from would provide the necessary context for that choice. And the lead and infobox are obvious enough anyway. Ronline ✉ 11:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

oh, you are right, i will list the demographics in the same style as the Recensamant 2002 lists them, it is a most perfect solution Criztu 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be running through similar arguments (again, with Criztu invoking Britannica rather than our own manual of style) at Talk:Vlad_III_Dracula#Vlad_Dracula. He wants to move the article. I don't think this is all ultimately terribly important, given that we have all the appropriate redirects, but I really don't like the idea that one person, with no significant support from anyone else and some opposition, wants to singlehandedly move articles from their longstanding locations. This seems like a recipe for trouble (what happens when the next person decides to do the same?) and I see no positive value from the point of view of our readers. - Jmabel | Talk 20:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

i would like to ask u the link to wikipedia convention/manual of style regarding the title of the articles such as Vlad III Basarab Criztu 21:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One relevant passage is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Names: "The article title should generally be the name by which the subject is most commonly known". There's also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). -- Jmabel | Talk 00:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

well then, 1,080,000 hits for "Vlad the Impaler" and 726,000 hits for "Vlad Dracula". I think there is somewhere a manual of style settling the precedence of a name with objective connotations over a name with defamatory connotations Criztu 18:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing objective or notable in calling the man "Basarab". That would be POV-pushing, and of no relevance to anyone but you, Critzu. "Defamatory connotations" is a whimsical argument to make - any word that does not comply with a particular POV could be said to be "defamatory", and you have provided no accaptable reason for the "Basarab" thingie to feature instead. Dahn 19:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not pushing for Basarab, I am talking about Vlad the Impaler instead of Dracula Criztu 20:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, other contributors are actually doing productive things. Dahn 20:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Hungarian names for Covasna, Harghita and Mureş

Hi. I am currently involved in a debate with User:Criztu over whether Hungarian names for Harghita County, Covasna County and Mureş County should be listed in brackets in the lead paragraph of those articles. I support such a move, as I consider that Harghita and Covasna have a Hungarian majority, and Mureş has a significant Hungarian minority, and thus it's a no-brainer that the Hungarian name be there. What are your thoughts on this? Ronline ✉ 14:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Significant Hungarian minorities are located also in Satu Mare County [8], Sălaj County [9]and Bihor County [10]. It could be done for them too.---Andrei 16:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur. - Jmabel | Talk 04:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. - FrancisTyers · 10:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Dahn 11:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Britannica agrees with Criztu Criztu 17:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, case closed? Because Britannica agrees with Criztu? Let's all close down then and leave Britannica as the only encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not meant to be a mirror of Britannica and it does not use Britannica as its model. I think you're just blindly following Britannica and trying to justify its content by saying it's doing the intelligent thing politically. I just think not including the Hungarian names in Britannica is an example of its staleness as an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is much more pluralist, tolerant and generally much more informative, even if it may be a little bit inconsistent as times. Ronline ✉ 00:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built from Britannica 1911. so I consider Britannica's style as a guide for Wikipedia Criztu 12:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't built from Brittanica 1911! It was just used as a source for some (read: very restricted number of) articles, just as CIA World Factbook was used as a guide for the country articles. Just because these free-content, public domain texts were used as "fillers" doesn't mean they were used as a style guide or anything. They were just fillers, and something to work from. But most articles don't look anything like 1911 Britannica anymore, and in any case a 1911 text (!) shouldn't be a guide for Wikipedia in the first place (as interesting as it is to read, for its archaic quaintness). Ronline ✉ 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I am saying since Britannica 1911 text was used as a guide in Wikipedia, contemporary Britannica can be used as a guide for Wikipedia. i dont use Britannica 1911 as a guide, as u can see from my removal of obsolete formulation such "Wallachia region" and replacing them with "Development Region Central, or South". Britannica 2006 uses a formulation in the sense i use it. Criztu 13:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ion Iliescu

The part of the Ion Iliescu article about the Mineriad is a bit of a mess. I'm not too knowledgable on the topic, since I had no particular connection to Romania at the time and haven't ever really researched the period. I could start doing some research and sort this out, but I'd rather that someone more knowledgable would step in. In particular, it is unclear what is alleged and what is factual; also the prose is awful. I can probably help with the latter, but I'm usually hesitant to clean up the prose on an otherwise poor passage (it gives it an undeserved veneer of believability). - Jmabel | Talk 19:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for assistance - the forged posts of User:Node_ue

Hello everybody. Following this message I need assistance from a person that could explain me how he forged the message. I have never, ever, sent him something like this. Dpotop 09:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's trivial to forge it. It's just an image. You can put anything in an image. - Jmabel | Talk 19:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

no no! vrei sa stii cum a facut? e foarte simplu.... I-ti voi descrie in pasi cum sa procedezi (si cum probabil a procedat Node):

1. Deschizi TELNET-u (Start→Run→Telnet) sau orice alt shell
2. Gasesti un server web care are shi mail server (SMTP). In cazul nostru serverul de mail in cauza este mail.yahoo.com (alte exemple: mail.home.ro, gmail.google.com, etc...
3. Te conectezi la mail server cu ajutorul Telnetului, prin comanda nume server nume port. In cazul nostru, va fi mail.yahoo.com 25 (portul 25 este portul standard pentru trimis emailuri POP3, asha cum de exemplu, portul 80 este pentru HTML)
4. cand te conectezi, scrii "helo" (nu hello). aceasta e comanda standard cand te "prezinti" pe un server SMTP
5. scrii mail from: - aici pui ce nume vrei: dpotop1@yahoo.com, pula@yahoo.com, traianbasescu@yahoo.com, etc...
5. scrii rcpt to: - aici pui adresantul: node.ue@gmail.com, jmabel@yahoo.com, etc...
6. scrii data - scrii doar atat si dai enter; asta e o comanda de "umplutura" (dar trebui scrisa)
7. scrii mesajul
8. dai "enter" cand termii mesajul. apoi scrii "." (adica caracterul punct). apoi iar dai "enter", si mesajul a fost trimis...

Daca vrei sa-l torni pe Node, zii sa-ti arate headerul de la email, unde apare IP-ul expeditorului, si roaga un admin sa compare IP-ul din asa zisul mesaj trimis de tine, si IP-il cu care editezi tu wikipedia. Sau verifica IP-ul la ripe.net. Daca nu e un IP al unui internet provider din Romania, e clar ca Node e un parshiv... greier 11:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Se pare ca acelasi lucru e scris si la articolul SMTP greier 12:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

True enough: you can forge a header easily enough. - Jmabel | Talk 04:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, after a long wait during which I have refrained from editing wikipedia, here is the answer from the Yahoo.com customer service (good news, as expected):

Hello,

Thank you for writing to Yahoo! Mail.

We have investigated your report, and, based on the information you've

given us, your account does not appear to have been accessed by the

sender of this email.

The sender seems to have forged your email address in the "reply-to"

and/or the "from" field of the message they sent out. Please know that

we are currently aware of this type of spam and are investigating it.

Thank you again for contacting Yahoo! Customer Care.

Regards,

Mike

Yahoo! Customer Care

24402472

So, User:Node_ue posted a forged message. It's official. Dpotop 19:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)