In this section Romania is considered largest country in South Eastern Europe but this is false Turkey is the largest country in South Eastern Europe. [[User:Onlyloss6973|Onlyloss6973]] ([[User talk:Onlyloss6973|talk]]) 20:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
In this section Romania is considered largest country in South Eastern Europe but this is false Turkey is the largest country in South Eastern Europe. [[User:Onlyloss6973|Onlyloss6973]] ([[User talk:Onlyloss6973|talk]]) 20:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
== Disruptive sock ==
14.8% irreligion is made up of whole cloth by [[User:Herplas]], who is indeffed as [[WP:SOCK]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]]) 03:08, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Revision as of 03:08, 11 September 2024
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Romania was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 26 March 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CountriesWikipedia:WikiProject CountriesTemplate:WikiProject Countriescountry articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Eastern Europe, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Eastern EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject Eastern EuropeTemplate:WikiProject Eastern EuropeEastern Europe articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
According to the sources given, Romania is a developed economy. By far, all the sources support the fact that the country is developed, including the GDP Per capita (nominal). It is time to accept it (for whoever keeps editing it).
Also, Transylvania is part of Central Europe, so the previous version of the page was more accurate.
There is a difference between "high human development" (e.g. Romania) and "very high human development" (countries traditionally considered "first world" countries). tgeorgescu (talk) 00:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. Romania is not recognized as being very high income, or an advanced economy. Romania isn't even part of the OECD. HetmanWL (talk) 04:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
May I inquire, @HetmanWL, why did you remove two references that I added, with the curt comment "Unreliable sources cited for Romania being in Central Europe removed"? The first reference ("Romania – a Central-European country") is from a scholarly journal article published by Radu Săgeată, a researcher at the Institute of Geography of the Romanian Academy, thus presumably a real expert on this matter, while the second ("Romania as a Case Study for a Dynamic Central Europe") is a report from the well-known strategic intelligence publishing company Stratfor. On what basis did you dismiss these two sources as being "unreliable"? Turgidson (talk) 06:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Researchgate is not a reliable source, it's a hub pretty much anyone can publish in. Stratfor is a company for hire and not listed as a reliable source AFAIK, furthermore, the article doesn't state that Romania is Central Europe, it's about the Three Seas Initiative, the Bucharest Nine etc.
Consider Ukraine. Would you also say that it's at the crossroads of Central, Southeastern and Eastern Europe? It has Lviv (formerly Lwów), "culturally in Central Europe" which makes Ukraine a partly Central European country, right? No. Consider Bulgaria. It's plainly stated - Southeastern Europe. Consider Spain. It's plainly stated - Southwestern Europe.
Also User:Shqian made an interesting observation: "The source you provided puts Romania in southeastern Europe, not in the southeastern part of central Europe:" "From it’s creation up until 18:14, 8 April 2018, this article placed Romania solely in southeastern Europe." "At 01:04, 11 April 2018, the user made another edit described as: a minor linking edit in the beginning of the article. This edit put Romania in central Europe, as well as southeastern and eastern Europe." HetmanWL (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Researchgate is not a reliable sourceHetmanWL, you don't get it at all. ResearchGate is not a source in the first place, it's a paper-sharing website. The Romanian Academy is the most prestigious and authoritative academic institution in Romania. Someone working at its Institute of Geography is definitively reliable. By the way, your examples like Ukraine are WP:OTHERSTUFF which shouldn't be affecting the discussion regarding Romania. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that region of Ukraine is historically and geographically part of Central Europe. It's not about putting it in one SINGLE box, and in these cases one can mention 2 or 3 regions if needed. The leading paragraph allows one to say that Ukraine is a the "crossroads of Eastern and Central Europe". Razvan Valentin Marinescu05:16, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
what has oecd to do with it? the sources for being categorized as developed point to an UN study which states the the country is Developed. Can someone who isn't completely illiterate read that study? 85.221.16.108 (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the sources after the paragraph. There is a disparity between the sources (mentioning Romania as being "developed") and the paragraph (mentioning it is "developing"). We need to agree with the sources we state in the article itself. This has nothing to do with Hdi, but with the mentioned source. 85.221.16.108 (talk) 21:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I personally never edited anything related to Croatia. But it has to be noted that Croatia is included into Central Europe much more often (sometimes/rarely) than Romania (which is pretty much never). I think I'd use "Balkan" for Croatia still. The latest EU summit this month, concerning that region was called the EU-Western Balkans summit. Romania could be thought of as Eastern Balkans. But I digress. A look at the map is enough. HetmanWL (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Croatia belongs to Central Europe as much as Romania does.
Transylvania and Bukowina sum up to be 50% of the country territory, just like Slavonia in Croatia, most governmental sources regard Romania as a country in the SouthEastern part of CENTRAL Europe, so denying both East and South-Eastern.
I think it's fair to hold an obiective approach because both geographically and culturally Romania has ties in Central Europe, whole or partially. Andymxm (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a personal opinion, it is a fact, a fact that most people agree to before countless times. Romania is not an omogenous country and each region belongs to a different cultural and Geographic group, therefore we shall classify it as such Andymxm (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with @HetmanWL and agre with @Andymxm. I think the previous formulation that Romania is at "the crossroads of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe" is the most representative and balanced towards all regions of Romania. Razvan Valentin Marinescu05:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to hold that opinion, dear Razvan Valentin Marinescu, unfortunately no institution puts Romania as a Central European country. Here on Wikipedia we're based on facts, not opinions or feelings. But we can all dream! HetmanWL (talk) 07:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The point of this thread is to reach consensus, we're not going anywhere that way because it feels like it's one person versus everyone else, there are sources and maps placing Romania is Central Europe as well, at least culturally speaking, even the Romanian official touristic site places Romania in Central Europe.
Hey folks, I see there is a lot of talk regarding the region and much less about the developed/developing part. This has led to statements in the article which are simply not reflective of the sources used (references 20, 21, 22) of the currently protected version, so I would like to separate the two in order to more easily build a path forward.
For the developing/developed statement, my suggestion would be to go forward with a text that strictly reflects the sources, such as: The UN considers Romania as a developed country,[20][21][22] while the IMF is still including it in the developing and emerging group.<ref>https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/weo-database/2023/April/groups-and-aggregates</ref> The country is emerging to be a middle power in international affairs[...] (of course, better sources are welcome).--Strainu (talk) 22:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the regions, I support the "crossroads" version. We definitively don't need "institutions" saying whether Romania is in a certain region or not, institutions like the UN have zero say over abstract topics like the regional subdivision of Europe. No instituion has any authority over this, and as long as we can find reliable sources attributing a region to a certain country I think we're fine.
Regarding the developing/developed I am pretty sure Romania is right now in the transition between the two, having recently been declared a World Bank high-income economy and being in the process of joining the OECD. I find it normal that some sources say Romania is still a developing country and others saying it is already a developed one, I think a good solution would be to mention both to reflect that currently there is no consensus or just use one of the two because it doesn't matter anyway as Romania will be universally considered developed in some years. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 12:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with @Super Dromaeosaurus. Regarding the developing part, in my opinion Romania has domains that are already very developed, such as the internet network system(one of the best in the whole Europe), while other economy areas require more concern and development. I believe that the statement that says that Romania is in transition between the developing/developed part is the most correct. RaduGiurca12 (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus not achieved yet User Turgidson pushes changes to the lede
As above. There is no consensus. Wikipedia operates on consensus. Try for an RfC in this situation or stand by. This edit pushing is in line with Mrazvan's confirmed case of brigading/canvassing of Wikipedia 79.191.151.137 (talk) 06:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mrazvan22 is banned, see WP:CANVASS. What you say is irrelevant, as there is no such rule. There is no consensus and of the 3 references for Romania being in Central Europe, one is unencyclopedic/not reliable and the two other do not refer to Romania as being Central European at all and are false citations. 79.191.151.137 (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@79.191.151.137 I don't know if things have changed in the meantime, but now the sources for Central Europe and the idea of crossroads between regions are:
A research paper published in the Romanian Review on Political Geography (scientific journal from the University of Oradea), written by a professor at the Institute of Geography of the Romanian Academy in Bucharest. It opens with: "Romania – a Central-European country. The mathematical coordinates of Romania’s geographical position, the distances separating it from the extreme points of the Continent and the big natural domains individualising it, place this country in the south-eastern part of Central Europe. This reality is confirmed by the geographical works published during the inter-war period..."
The website of the Romanian Embassy in the US. It says: "Geographic position: in the south-east of Central Europe."
An older article published by Stratfor, which is an american organization for strategic and geopolitical intelligence advisory. They write: "Romania, an important Central European country, can serve as a case study..."
Supporting this issue there are now additional sources I've added:
A general NATO introductory report, from Romania's accession in 2004. Their 'Geographical Location' section mentions: "Romania is located in South-East Central Europe, north of the Balkan Peninsula, on the Lower Danube, [...] at the contact of Central Europe with Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula, at the junction of major west-east and north-south European routes. [...] its territory constituting a bridge between Central and Southeastern Europe and the Near East." (with added explanations)
The website of the Presidential Administration of Romania which states: "Geographical Facts. Romania lies in the northern hemisphere, in the south-eastern Central Europe at the junction with Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula..."
Also, the United Nations geoscheme places Romania in Eastern Europe, while the CIA Factbook and Britannica consider it Southeast... In contrast, the National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies in France (and European institutions in general) square it in the "Central and Eastern Europe" category. I would say that all this is sufficient to showcase the statement: "Romania is a country at the crossroads of Central, Eastern and Southeastern Europe.". There are very specific arguments as to why because of the main regions that formed Romania (Transylvania, Moldavia, and Wallachia + Dobruja in the South), with their respective history plus geographic position – added source briefly touching on that.
I don't understand this pedantic never-ending argument that has started. I don't see the pages of Serbia, Croatia, or Moldova (which is classed as both Eastern or Southeastern Europe depending on the source) having the same issue. Or Italy. -- Dhyana b (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is an oversimplification & misconception. Romania is included in all 3 Central Europe, Eastern Europe and Southeast Europe Wikipedia articles, either in part or in whole, by various definitions. Even a source like Encyclopædia Britannica who places Romania in Southeast Europe, describes the kingdom of Dacia as: "Ancient country, central Europe. Roughly equivalent to modern Romania".
So it's clear the current classification has modern political reasoning behind it (they even classify Moldova as Southeastern Europe even though most sources would place it in Eastern Europe). Nevertheless, historically, geographically and culturally Romania's territory is tied to all 3 European regions. Dhyana b (talk) 05:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
High income misrepresentation
I think it should read "Romania is rated by the World Bank as a high income country, while most of the population is severely underpaid." 178.138.33.220 (talk) 09:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section "Economy", subsection "Infrastructure", please change the paragraph "Bucharest Metro, the only underground railway system, was opened in 1979 and measures 61.41 km (38.16 mi) with an average ridership in 2007 of 600,000 passengers during the workweek in the country" to "Bucharest Metro, the only underground railway system, was opened in 1979 and measures 80.1 kilometres (49.8 mi) with an average ridership of 720.000 passengers during the workweek in the country".[1]
The info in its current form is very outdated and needs this update. (I provided the source above). (the old info that is still in the article is from before the opening of the new M5 line and the extensions on the other existing lines). 2A02:2F0F:B308:E300:8C0F:B011:D7F6:D7AD (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ninhursag3, that is the proper talk page to talk about your edit. You changed the stable version of the article, then started an edit war when I restored the classic Vlad image and the earlier establishment history as I commented in the edit logs [1]
Personal union does not mean union of states, before Michael the Brave, little earlier Sigismund Bathory also had the title together Prince of Transylvania+Moldavia+Wallachia (this can be also an establishment history by your logic?). Principality of Transylvania was not part of Principality Wallachia just because Michael the Brave was the prince of both state in a short 1 year period during a wartime, morover Michael was under the suzerainty of Emperor Habsburg Rudolf II as Principality of Trasylvania belonged to the land of the Hungarian crown. Many kings were crowned kings of many countries together, it does not mean union of those states. I dont see any country articles where if a ruler ruled A and B countries that would establishment event of A and B country. Like King Louis I of Hungary was king of Poland too, and I dont see that it would be establishment event in Hungary or in Poland. Habsburgs king also ruled many countries, like Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor ruled Netherlands and Spain, why would be this the establishment history of Spain and Netherlands? And there are many more examples.
"Habsburgs king also ruled many countries, like Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor ruled Netherlands and Spain, why would be this the establishment history of Spain and Netherlands?" It's considered important in Romanian history since Michael the Brave was a Romanian ruler and Tranyslvania was ruled for a long time by non-Romanians/Vlachs, the majority ethnicity in Transylvania (not in the cities, but a majority in the towns and villages and became a majority in cities as well). So a Romanian/Vlach ruler having ruled over Transylvania way back in 1600 shows an IMPORTANT precedent in history, taking into account that Transylvania has been part of Romania since 1918. Since the present day country of Romania INCLUDES Transylvania, I would say it's important in Romania's history.
There are many important rulers in all countries, and I dont see them as establishment event in any countries in the articles. And the Hungarian Stephen Bathory was prince of Transylvania and later king of Poland, I dont see nowhere that event would be establishment history of Poland or Hungary.
Michael the Brave is a Romanian nationalists symbol since 19th century from the time of national awakening, but not before. If a Habsburg-Hungarian war story Michael ruled for some months Transylvania by name of Emperor Rudolf, because Hungarian nobles had conflict with their Hungarian prince and elected Michael, if this is important for you, ok. But this is still not a state establishment history. The countries were not united.
Transylvania is part of Romania since 1920, Treaty of Trianon legally. If WW1 loser Romania re-entered the war 1 day before the German armistice and attacked again Hungary when Hungary was 1 week already capitulated and then made the one sided 1918 assembly in December where Romanians claimed all Hungarian lands until the Tisza river, that does not mean any legal thing, Hungarian assembly in Kolozsvár in 1918 also claimed the same. Also the Trianon border got less land to Romania which they claimed in that 1918 assembly. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: Michael the Brave's rule over Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania wouldn't be an establishment date if Transylvania was still part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, it would be a historical event during a certain reign of a certain ruler. However, since Transylvania has been part of Romania since 1918 and Michael the Brave was a Romanian ruler it sets a historical precedent and can be considered an important historical event in Romania's establishment history. As a comparison, it's similar to the Spanish Reconquista, where the Spanish (them being the majority ethnicity in Spain) finally ruled again after almost 800 years (711-1492) of Umayyad and Emirate of Granada Muslim Arab & Berber rule, Spain at that time being called Al-Andalus. Of course, the comparison is best if we take the 1918 union into account but the rule of Michael the Brave would be a historical precedent to the 1918 union.
781 years of muslim rule over Spain is close to the Hungarian rule over Transylvania and Romanians (Kingdom of Hungary 1000-1541 AD, 1541–1699 Ottoman Hungary, Principality of Transylvania (1570–1711) vassal state of the Ottoman Empire; Principality of Transylvania (1711–1867) under Austrian Habsburg rule, Transylvania under the Austro-Hungarian Empire (1867-1918) ). Without the Ottoman and Austrian Habsburg rule, the sole Hungarian rule is 500+ years. I think you should make comparisons with other countries' histories as well and have a more global view of history instead of just focusing on Hungary or Transylvania.
It was not any state union in 1600, but only a personal union (like Stephen Bathory ruled Transylvania+Poland), so I dont know what are you talking about. Morover the population in 1600 is a historical debate, Romanian historians vision "always majority Romanian" while Hungarian historians not. British historian, Martyn Rady - Nobility, land and service in medieval Hungary: page 90 [2] "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."OrionNimrod (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Georgraphy and climate
In this section Romania is considered largest country in South Eastern Europe but this is false Turkey is the largest country in South Eastern Europe. Onlyloss6973 (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
