Talk:Romania/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Limiting editing to registered users?

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

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

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

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

Geography

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

Numaru7 01:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

HELP!!!

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

Relgion

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

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

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

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

Images

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

Bucharest

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

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

Sources for Rumania

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm waiting for a explanation for that sentence "Now, the reason the province was called Rum is because at the time it included Greece, and the Greek was the France lingua in the region." Was Greece part of Romania, was Romania part of Greece, Greek was lingua franca of Romania or Ottoman Empire? This doesn't make any sense at all to me. By pushing your original research on this page I suspect that you want to incense Romanians editors and having fun in the process -- that's why I said "trolling", but I would go beyond my instinct of not assuming good faith in this case and I will respond if you provide a reference and an explanation to this claim (not a rant or copy/paste from other articles). So please, the explanation and reference. -- AdrianTM (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

sub

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

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

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

• "Now, the reason the province was called Rum is because at the time it included Greece, and the Greek was the France lingua in the region." I didn't say Wallachia was part of Greece, but that the Ottoman province of Rum included Wallachia and what is now a part of Greece (northern). The shape and names of the Ottoman provinces changed almost as often as the Sultans. I'm talking 16th Century CE. At this time there were no such countries as Greece or Wallachia and certainly not Romania. Greek had been the Lingua Franca in the Eastern Med since Byzantium days (Lingua Franca means trade language).--mrg3105mrg3105 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I tell you, Foundation of Wallachia is all lies; it actually occured when ussr took its troops away in 1956, which was only days before the formation of such countries as russia and ukraine in 1991. i am talking 22nd Century CE. at this time there were no such countries as russia or ukraine, only provinces called "tzarist (aka: vodka) r'us" and "little r'us". Nergaal (talk) 10:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• "original non-Latin native speakers coming from the same linguistic tree as the Bulgarians and Albanians, something modern 'Romanians' find racially unpalatable" please provide reference about your "unpalatable" claim. What references would you like? The many conflicts with Bulgarians and the Arnauts being pretty much thrown out of Rumania in the 19th century? The linguistic reference can come from almost any article on study of Balkan linguistics that have found the root structuring of some non-Latin based verbs in Wallachian that have same structuring as Bulgarian and Albanian. To tell you the truth you can think whatever you want, but I don't have the time or the inclination to look for this.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• albanians are slavs therefore they are the same people as russians. QED! what references do you want for a qed?! almost any article on eastern slavic linguistics show that they have some penguinian based verbs normally spoken in antarctica, but using the common transportation technique of riding a whale, they migrated to the arctic, and eventually disembarked into siberia because anywhere else it was way too warm. eventually they tried to go to their slav brothers romanians, but they kicked them out into albania. and so, the albanians were born, the only eastern slavs to be sober enough to run away from siberia. Nergaal (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• AdrianTM:"also I think you should stop using quotes when you talk about Romanians, I find that offensive. No matter you personal opinion about how Romanians should be called please try to be respectful and don't mock official name of the country/people that's used by most of the people."
  
• I got news for you, I only used your own quotes! I have not used one quote from anywhere other then those found in the etymology reference section; those I could translate into English. This is something that should have been done by the article editors, this being an English Wiki.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I bow to you master; you surely are a grandmaster in every language on Earth and in their histories. there is nobody more knowledgeable than you masterNergaal (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I also have no personal opinion about Rumania, Rumanians, or whatever they choose to call their country. I just think that if you are going to do it here online in Wiki, all the evidence should be presented, and in English, rather then 'voting' a name in! --mrg3105mrg3105 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• I also have no personal opinion about russians/ukrainians and how they choose to call their oligarchies. I just think that each one of them is born in Siberia and the lack of food drives them into moving west and say hi to their brothers romanians who are less cool for not being born in Siberia.Nergaal (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Rumanians may not like the fact that they are not by and large descendants of Roman settlers in Dacia, but a Slavic tribe that heavily borrowed from Latin vocabulary, but this is a fact since there is no record of a mass migration of Latin speakers to Dacia.--mrg3105mrg3105 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• and Romanian language is a slavic language. and Romanins are a mix of ukrainians (not that this is their actual original name) and bulgarians; since Romanians were sorrounded by slavs, they got bored and decided to steal the vocabulary of countries over 1000 km away just because they got tired of a stupid, akward cyrillic alphabet and near-sighted neighbours.Nergaal (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• LOL, don't forget that they also stole the grammar, it's funny how a nation of peasants and shepherds can decide to latinize the grammar of their language, sure, they can borrow Latin words (and don't actually plan to return them), but hey, I give it to them, to steal the grammar was a nice move... they fooled everybody including themselves. -- AdrianTM (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• They may not like that the root for the name of the country comes from the Arabic (its even in the Koran!) used by the Turks to name the region for Greeks who represented one half of a fractured Roman Empire, but that is the fact. --mrg3105mrg3105 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• ukraine actually comes from the zimbabwean interjection "uk" (meaing prick) and the english archaism "rain" (meaning seeder). same way rus comes from when Marx and Engels travelled to rural moscow and with their german english smiled and said "they r'us". you find truth insulting? the I suggest this is your problem and not mine Nergaal (talk) 09:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• Changing history by renaming Rumania into Romania and saying that all Rumanians are descendants of Romans may wash with Mozilla and Microsoft, but fortunately they do not write history, only OS code. If you find truth insulting, then I suggest this is your problem and not mine--mrg3105mrg3105 09:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

• changing history? oh my god, Romanians surely must be overwhelmed to have such an important place in the course of history. the ukrainians surely must be gelous they never had this important role.
  • Note: all my personal coments were very serious and used exactly the same language as user mrg, except with a different dialect Nergaal (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks Narson for reminding us to remain civilized, and no, you are not a dick -- AdrianTM (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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

mrg3105, there are so many inaccuracies in what you say, I don't see the point in debunking each of them them. I just want to say that if you bring any new theories and you want to be taken seriously rather than being considered a crank, you should bring some respectable sources to support your theories. bogdan (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being labled a crank, maybe you can trouble yourself to debunk the one 19th century source I did bring for a starter--mrg3105mrg3105 22:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

19th century sources are often obsolete, unreliable and full of misunderstandings and prejudice, try bringing some more recent references. bogdan (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Which source, this? "1875 Universal Geography by Elisee Reclus, edited E.G. Ravenstein, F.R.G.S., F.S.S., J.S.Virtue & Co., London, Vol.I where on p.155 it says in a note to the title of the chapter on Rumania, "Officially called Romania, and frequently spelt Roumania: in French it is Roumanie". The volume also notes the existence of the Eastern Rumelia, and that the "south-west, and west is Wallachia or the "Plain of the Welsh", i.e. of the Latins." (p.156)."

What do you want us to debunk, that "Wallachia" doesn't mean "Plain of the Welsh"? As you see at most that's a discussion about the term "Wallachia" not about "Romania" (since it clearly states "officially called Romania"), again I'd propose you address the issue of Wallachia in its talk page, not here. And... if your source claims that Welsh means Latin I very much doubt it's a very reliable source, what else? -- AdrianTM (talk) 22:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of that quote was that it was: a) from an English language source, b)that is confirmed the differing spellings for the country, c) that there were alternative theories of the origin of the name, d) that the official adoption of Romania was in Romania only and not World-wide. None of these issues are mentioned in the Etymology or other sections, which is one of the reasons I pointed out the POV of the article. The other point is that until now I have had no rational response to my attempt to discuss. Is rational discussion banned on this article?--mrg3105mrg3105 23:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

a) so what?

b) we already know that they are different spelling used, what's your point?

c) which theories, I don't see any theory about the name Romania in that source, do you?

d) It's irrelevant which form was used worldwide at that time, we are talking here about the use in English nowadays. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sources for Etymology section

Again, can you bring Reliable Sources™ for those alternate theories? bogdan (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so now we are getting somewhere. I did not write this article. It is the task of the author and editors to provide these sources and to respond to any editorial discussion of the article and the sources they provided as part of review. None of the references used either on this page or on the forked Etymology article are even in English, or properly sited (date, place). Besides that, where as my source dates from late 19th century, and was actually an encyclopedia type article from a 19 volume set published during the same time Encyclopedia Britannica came into being, by a relatively well known French naturologist, the major source of the Etymology section in this article is that of an unknown Greek scholar, who published in Saxony, early in the 19th century either in Greek, or German (it is unsaid). If you think my source is a bad one, you may voice your opinion on his discussion page here Élisée Reclus. However I note that the 19 volume work I quote from is said to be "Extreme accuracy and brilliant exposition form the leading characteristics of all Reclus’s writings, which thus possess permanent literary and scientific value."--mrg3105mrg3105 23:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please explain "Wallachia or the "Plain of the Welsh", i.e. of the Latins" The clear part is that it was about a Latin population which "of the Latins" supports, but of course you don't like that and you read your sources selectively (if you don't believe me, since I'm a biased Romanian, document yourself how are Romance speaking populations called by Polish, Germans and others, see how they call Italians in Polish for example, or how they call French speaking population in Belgium) As for sources used in Etymology of Romania they are primary sources and since they were written by Italian travelers in 16-17 century or so it's hard to request from the poor fellows to have written in English too. Again, if there's a problem with the sources you can talk about that in the article they appear not dump all the stuff together with a rant in this talk page disrupting discussions. Before you come with crank theories on this page I suggest you try this: since you claim that Romanian is a Slavic language and I see that you are Ukrainian I suggest you try to learn Romanian to confirm or infirm by own experience what you don't seem to trust when said by linguists or historians. Nobody with a tiny bit of credibility comments on the latinity of Romanian, the only "dispute" is where the ethnogenesis of Romanian people took place: at North of Danube, at South of Danube and then emigrated North, or in both places -- but that has nothing to do with the latinity of Romanian and it has nothing to do with the name of the country or its spelling. -- AdrianTM (talk) 04:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess my source is good after all, and maybe you will apologize for your assertion that I was 'trolling'?
Adrian: "Then please explain "Wallachia or the "Plain of the Welsh", i.e. of the Latins"

It is the job of the author/editors to explain this new evidence, not me. It was apparently considered quite accepted at about the time that Romania came into official use.

Since you introduced that evidence and you based your theory on it I think it's reasonable to explain the part you used for drawing your conclusions, I think in my response I explained that actually the reference contradicts your theory. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

(Note:try to write in short, single idea sentences)

Adrian : sources used in Etymology of Romania they are primary sources and since they were written by Italian travelers in 16-17 century or so it's hard to request from the poor fellows to have written in English too?

No, I would like them properly cited and translated fro the benefit of the non-Italian speaking readers in en-Wiki.

Adrian: if there's a problem with the sources you can talk about that in the article they appear

primarily because the references there are just as bad as they are here, and there are no sources there either.

Adrian: not dump (paste) all the stuff (references) together with a rant (questions) in this talk page (designed for asking questions) disrupting discussions.

The rant was not "questions" it was composed of uninformed assertions. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the discussion was not disrupted. There was a vote going on, but the vote never questioned the veracity of the claims being made in the Etymology section.

It was disrupted, however since I'm not a very good editor and I'm wasting my time it's not such a big lost, but if other editors are caught in this nonsense then it would be really disruptive. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrian: Before you come with crank theories

As you can see they are not my crank theories by common knowledge dating from the time Romania was adopted as official spelling, and seemed to have been well known at least to a very respected academic

You just combine common knowledge (that's accepted without reservations here) with wrong conclusions and original research. There's absolutely no denying that Romania has had different spellings. The rest of your theory that Rumania comes from "Rumelia" is unsourced and constitutes original research. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrian:since you claim that Romanian is a Slavic language

http://linguistics.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/romanian.html

"During the 7th century and throughout the 9th century the Slavs came to the Dacia area. " etc.

So? We are talking here about language not genetics, right? What is crank about your theory? You claim that those Slavs started by they own to borrow Latin words (and they apparently latinize the grammar too) in order to differentiate themselves from Albanians and Bulgarians whom apparently they despise (BTW, for your information, Albanians are not Slavs). You also claim without being backed up by any source that the name "Rumania" comes from "Rumelia", what's next, would you claim that it actually comes from Romani? -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrian:and I see that you are Ukrainian

You assume

I actually don't care what languages you speak as long as you reasonable and understand arguments. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Adrian:I suggest you try to learn Romanian to confirm or infirm by own experience what you don't seem to trust when said by linguists or historians.

Ah, but I know English, and that is all I need in en-Wiki if the Style Guide is followed

Adrian:Nobody with a tiny bit of credibility comments on the latinity of Romanian,

Apparently I don;t care about my credibility, but the credibility of this article, at least in part, is being questioned.

Adrian:the only "dispute" is where the ethnogenesis of Romanian people took place: at North of Danube, at South of Danube and then emigrated North, or in both places -- but that has nothing to do with the latinity of Romanian and it has nothing to do with the name of the country or its spelling.

Is this what I 'dispute'? I don't think I did. It seems the dispute is over "the name of the country or its spelling"

--mrg3105mrg3105 09:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no dispute over the name of the country or spelling (only in your mind) what we dispute here is how to present the info, the name of the country is clear and any Google search (to use the simplest method) would attest it, do you really want to present references that Romania is called "Romania"? If you don't believe me check any current official English publication. Also, here on Wikipedia we use current names, not how things "should" be called, if you don't believe me see the history of talk:Linux where people constantly make a point that Linux should really be called GNU/Linux and they are constantly reminded that that's not the current use. -- AdrianTM (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarifying references

I'd like the references clarified please, in English:

• This introduction tot he Etymology section claims that "The name of Romania (România) comes from Român (Romanian) which is a derivative of the word Romanus ("Roman") from Latin. The fact that Romanians have said the name is a derivative of Romanus (Romanian: Român/Rumân) is mentioned as early as the 16th century by many authors, including Italian Humanists travelling in Transylvania, Moldavia and Wallachia.[5][6][7][8]"
  
  • Because there is no Sources section, I can not veryfy the references, besides the fac tthat they are not in English. So can I get the full sources and translation of the references please?
  • "nunc se Romanos vocant" A. Verres, Acta et Epistolae, I, p. 243, assume Vatican,, but what year?
  • "...si dimandano in lingua loro Romei...se alcuno dimanda se sano parlare in la lingua valacca, dicono a questo in questo modo: Sti Rominest ? Che vol dire: Sai tu Romano,..." Cl. Isopescu, Notizie intorno ai romeni nella letteratura geografica italiana del Cinquecento, in Bulletin de la Section Historique, XVI, 1929, p. 1- 90 transaltion please, and rest of source information
  • “Anzi essi si chiamano romanesci, e vogliono molti che erano mandati quì quei che erano dannati a cavar metalli...” in Maria Holban, Călători străini despre Ţările Române, vol. II, p. 158–161 transaltion please, and rest of source information
  • "Tout ce pays la Wallachie et Moldavie et la plus part de la Transivanie a esté peuplé des colonie romaines du temps de Traian l’empereur…Ceux du pays se disent vrais successeurs des Romains et nomment leur parler romanechte, c'est-à-dire romain … " Voyage fait par moy, Pierre Lescalopier l’an 1574 de Venise a Constantinople, fol 48 in Paul Cernovodeanu, Studii si materiale de istorie medievala, IV, 1960, p. 444 transaltion please, and rest of source information
    
• This reference "13. The first known mention of the term "Romania" in its modern denotation dates from 1816, as the Greek scholar Dimitrie Daniel Philippide published in Leipzig his work "The History of Romania", followed by "The Geography of Romania". On the tombstone of Gheorghe Lazăr in Avrig (built in 1823) there is the inscription: "Precum Hristos pe Lazăr din morţi a înviat/Aşa tu România din somn ai deşteptat."
  
  • What is the full citation of the work by Dimitrie Daniel Philippide?
  • Was it published in English as "The History of Romania"?
  • Which of the two works and where uses the term Romania?
  • What is the relationship between Dimitrie Daniel Philippide and Gheorghe Lazăr?
  • Is there any literary evidence that the later used Romania in his writings?

--mrg3105mrg3105 09:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You didn't even bother reading the main article on etymology. There you have essential translation into English for every cited fragment. You are delivering a very poor performance on this talk page, making it hard for everyone to take you seriously. --84.153.36.82 (talk) 18:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

tagging

I really would prefer that the tag for Etymology section not be there, and rather that if the references do prove the assertion, that they be "quoted". It looks bad to have such a tag on a country article--mrg3105mrg3105 12:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the useless and irrelevant references have remained, but the tag has disappeared. This is called "making it up as we go". I would therefore suggest that so far Etymology of Romania is based on a lie.--mrg3105mrg3105 21:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for the Russian guy - Etymology of Romania

Romanians share the same name Vlach/Voloch, Olah/Olasz with the italians.What made the slavs and hungarians think the romanians and italians are the same?

here's a clue :

Latin : Dulcis est morior pro patria, frater, et soros.

Romanian : Dulce este sa mori pentru patrie, frate si sora

Italian : Dolce e sa morire pro patria, frate, e suoro

inform yourself about Romanian history first and then came here to vandalise our pages, now go drink some vodka and chill, bye. Adrianzax (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

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

See also Wallachians, Walloons, Welschen etc.

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

cognatus => cumnat

cogitare => cugeta

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

The form with "o" was introduced in Rumania to stress the descendency of the Rumanians from the ancient Romans; this orthographic change happened by the time of the unification of the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia in the unitary kingdom of Rumania. In this period Cyrillic script was replaced by Latin and the language was heavily re-latinized.

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

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

Link Here

Romanians were calling themselves rumanians because the romanian language normally changes the unstressed (Vulgar) Latin "o" to "u", cf.:

cognatus => cumnat

cogitare => cugeta

intro => intru

scribo => scriu etc. The proof romanians were calling themselves rumanians and that Wallachia in romanian language was called " Rumanian land" is officialy attested from the year 1510-1512, see Neacsu letter. Adrianzax (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened, you took a 'nice' pill?! :o)

None of the above is a problem for me. The problem is this opening sentence "The name of Romania (România) comes from Român (Romanian) which is a derivative of the word Romanus ("Roman") from Latin.[5][6]" It asserts that Romanian is directly derived from Roman (Italian city) for which there is no proof that I have seen, If you examine the two references added today, they are in no way related to the assertion. Where is the evidence that Romania was named after Rome before 15th Century?--mrg3105mrg3105 15:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Romania was not named after Ancient Rome. The inhabitans of Wallachia and Moldavia are the descedents of dacians and romans from Dacia. They adopted the latin language and they were calling themselves "rumanian" .The name came from roman soldiers who brought latin language with them. The name Romania is not named after the city of Rome or Roman Empire, the name Romania derives from the inhabitants of this lands Adrianzax (talk) 15:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I don't take pills, neither should you, pills and vodka is a very bad combination :)) Adrianzax (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)