Talk:Romanian Land Forces/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Romanian Land Forces. 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 talk page.

Archive 1

Jews in the Army

The section on Post World War I says Jews were allowed to serve in the Armed forces before Antonescu took power.

This implies that the situation changed under Antonescu - but this is not stated at all.

Maybe it was stated, but subsequent editing deleted it. I don't know - this is not an area where I have any knowledge, but there's no need to drag any group into the story without a good reason.

Humvees

It would be interesting to know more about current Romanian Army equipment, like jeeps, AV, tanks, light armament etc. For example, on the Humvee page it says that Romania are users of HUMVEEs - is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.84.210 (talk • contribs)

Yep, they have 8 of them. HAHAHA!!! No but seriously, it seems that ze Amyerikans will give them a few more. I think they signed a contract to buy about 50 or 100 of them (I am not quite sure). Dapiks 04:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The Humvees were given to the Romanian Military Police by the US Government, according to this article: Humvee pentru Poliţia Militară (Humvee for the Military Police), Ziua, November 13, 2006 (only in Romanian). Mentatus 20:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Check also this link out: http://www.mapn.ro/fotodb/20061113 Mentatus 11:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Ranks

I may be wrong, but OF-7, OF-8 and OF-9 are not named “General-maior”, “General-locotenent” and “General” anymore. They're “General de divizie”, “General de corp de armată” and “General de armată” respectively. Also, as far as I know, there is an equivalent to OF-1o and that's “Mareşal”, although nobody has that rank at the moment (and very few people had it throughout romanian history). 86.125.112.87 15:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You're partially right, the General ranks were named like that but only until 2001, when the Government Ordinance 90/2001 modified the Law regarding the Status of Military Personnel (80/1995), 2nd article:

"Gradele cadrelor militare în ordinea lor ierarhică în Ministerul Apărării Naţionale sunt:

[...]

c) generali şi amirali:

- general de brigadă- cu o stea, respectiv general de flotilă aeriană - cu o stea, pentru cei din arma aviaţie şi contraamiral de flotilă - cu o stea, pentru cei din arma marină;

- general-maior - cu două stele, respectiv contra-amiral - cu două stele, pentru cei din arma marină;

- general-locotenent - cu trei stele, respectiv viceamiral - cu trei stele, pentru cei din arma marină;

- general - cu patru stele, respectiv amiral - cu patru stele, pentru cei din arma marină."

The Marshal rank is mentioned in the Law 80/1995, at the end of the 2nd article: "În afara acestor grade, pentru merite militare excepţionale, în timp de război, Preşedintele României poate acorda generalilor de armată gradul de mareşal, care este cel mai înalt grad militar", so it is only a wartime rank. However, this paragraph is not mentioned in the Government Ordinance 90/2001, so I'm not sure it is still valid. On the other hand, there is no Marshal rank insignia displayed on the Romanian Ministry of Defense website (see http://www.mapn.ro/fotodb/album25 or http://www.mapn.ro/download/grade.pdf), that's why I didn't add it to the template. Mentatus 10:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for clarifying that. 86.125.101.118 00:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Graphic of the Army Structure

I'm currently working on a project to create graphics of the structure of the most important Armies. i.e. French Army; German Army; Italian Army I also want to make a graphic of the structure of the Romanian Land Forces, but the information at this point is not sufficient, as there is no information how the units are structured (i.e. What Regiments/Batallions belong to which Divisions/Brigades, what type the units are; and so on) Does anyone have this information- and also the Regiments/Battalions names and/or numbers and where they are based? Thanks noclador

Good article

I see some huge potential for this article to become a good article or maybe a featured article. If anyone is interested to help, please don't hesitate. The history sections need a little attention and the current structure needs to be completed. Eurocopter tigre 15:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Also equipment and training sections should be a little expanded and a summary is needed for the ranks and insignia section. Eurocopter tigre 20:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we remove the subordinated units from the brigades who currently have their own article? I think the structure section is becoming to long and boring. Please note that if we remove those subordinated units we may have insufficient space for all the images - and a gallery section would be created. Any thoughts? Eurocopter tigre 21:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

IMHO all units below brigade level should be removed. They are already covered in each brigade article as you said and in the organization chart. BTW, pics size should be left unspecified according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. --Victor12 21:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest to keep them on the main page for now and at a latter time (when the article gets even longer) move them to their own article, as we did with the French Army. noclador 21:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

current structure

I finished removing the subordinated units and reorganizing all the strucuture. If you have any better ideas regarding the format please don't hesitate to tell me. Eurocopter tigre 19:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks better now. Perhaps you can move Joint HQ (operations and logistics) to the top of the section instead of the bottom. Also pics size should be left unspecified according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images. --Victor12 20:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if I'll move it at the top I'll screw-up everything. Could you please do it? Eurocopter tigre 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I made an update to the Graphic of the Romanian Army structure; but I have some questions to further refine the graphic:

282nd Mechanized Brigade: As the image shows, it has TR-85M1 tanks- are they part of 280th Infantry Battalion or is there a Tank Battalion in the Brigade too?
15th Mechanized Brigade: I added the symbols for the units that were mentioned in the article; does someone know the names and dislocations of these units? The same applies to the 61st Mountain Troops Brigade.

I will update the graphic every other day, as long as new information about the Brigades is posted.

By the way: excellent work Eurocopter tigre, this is really becoming an fantastic article! How you reorganized the Brigade listing is also very good and I will tranfer this approach to my pet article (Italian Army) soon too.Keep up the good work, noclador 21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the Romanian Land Forces has exclusive tank units. Those tanks could belong to a mechanized btn. or to a mechanized infantry btn. Regarding the brigades of the 4th territorial army corps, I couldn't find much infos about their structure, btn. names and dislocations. Also, I couldn't find any infos about subordinated units of the 69th Mixed Artillery Brigade.

Thanks Noclador, I told you I'll do my best, anyway there's still a lot of work to do. Eurocopter tigre 21:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I requested this article to be peer reviewed, so maybe you would like to leave some comments. Eurocopter tigre 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking good. My feeling though is that we need more text (narrative, if you wish) to counterbalance and provide more context for the excellent graphics and visuals. By the way, in the related articles on either 2nd Mountain Troops Brigade (Romania) or Vânători de Munte, I could add some historical context that I put in the article on Mihail Lascăr when I started it a couple of months ago. Any thoughts on that? Turgidson 00:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, anything that will expand this article or the articles about the brigades is welcome. Eurocopter tigre 05:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

To do list

expand history section (especially WWI) - it would be good if anybody could provide some sources;
expand equipment section - 1. describe the new acquisitions and the native made equipment; ~~2. make a small chart (see the one in the Russian Ground Forces article);~~
expand training section - describe better the training ranges and military schools (including a short history summary);
complete the summary in the Ranks and insignia section;
provide more references (always welcome)

Eurocopter tigre 17:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

GA Nominee

I reviewed many times this page, I compared it with some 'Good Articles' and I realised that it might become a GA article. Eurocopter tigre 18:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article in accordance with the Good Article (GA) criteria. There are seven main criteria that the article must comply with to pass:

Well-written: Pass
Factually accurate: Pass
Broad: Pass
Neutrally written: Pass
Stable: Pass
Well-referenced: Pass
Images: Pass

I have concluded that, in my opinion, the article has passed all categories and I therefore award it GA status. --Eurocopter tigre 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Eurocopter tigre, according to the guidelines set by Wikipedia:Good article candidates Choose an article to review, noting you cannot choose an article if you have made significant contributions to it. I don't think you can pass an article you are so involved with as this constitutes a case of conflict of interest. --Victor12 16:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Victor 12, the GA review process is a very, very slow one (there are unreviewed GA nominalized articles since March 2007), and frankly, very few users are contributing to this page - if I'll wait for other users to do this, the article would probably never become a GA. If you think this article is not meeting the GA criterias and I listed it abusive, please feel free to revert my edits and delist it. Best, --Eurocopter tigre 17:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Even so, it is not elegant, to say the least, to promote an article which you have so heavily edited. If you want to help with the GAC process you can review another article as is proposed in the intro to Wikipedia:Good article candidates. Anyway, Romanian Land Forces is now under GA review. Greetings, --Victor12 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

However, I see no point continuing editing this article if it isn't promoted. At least you could leave a comment at the GA review. --Eurocopter tigre 18:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review

I've asked for a review of this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has been delisted. It CLEARLY does not meet GA standards, it was not promoted after review, which is required at this time. There are multiple issues that disqualify this article. I suggest a peer review to help bring this article up to standard before it is renominated at which time it needs to be posted to WP:GAN and wait for review like everyone else.

Regards, LaraLove ^T/_C 19:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination on hold

I think the article holds great potential however there is still major work to do to get it to GA level. I have put it on hold so that standing issues can be resolved. They are a lot, however I think they can be done within the 7 days allowed per Wikipedia:Good article candidates guidelines as it is backed by hard-working editors. Anyway, this is how the article, as of May 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. As for the first requirement (It is well written):

Per WP:Lead section, the lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article. This requirement is not met as the lead fails to summarize the rest of the article, for instance it mentions minor facts (Gepard AA systems) while ignoring major ones (the whole history section for example). It would be useful if the editors check out the lead of United States Marine Corps which is a featured article. IMHO the lead needs to be totally rewritten so that ir can provide an adequate introduction for a reader with no prior knowledge of the article's subject. Done - ~~although I'm not sure if it's good~~
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings should not start with articles (such as 'the') as in The Bucharest Garrison - HQ Bucharest. Done
Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), words in headings should not be linked as has been done in all subheadings in the Present organization section. My suggestion is that they should not be tagged as subsections. Done
The structure of the article itself should be reorganized. Current sections are confusing (for instance there is a Current state section as well as a Present Organization one; also while almost most combat units are listed under Present Organization, special forces are not). Check the organization of the United States Marine Corps article. Done
In the Manpower subsection, numbers are used inconsistently: eight combat brigades, 4 combat support. In 2005 should be replaced with As of 2005. The first mention of the word brigades is redundant and should be eliminated. Personell should be replaced by personnel. Also in this section the use of Romanian Land Forces and Romanian Army is confusing for readers who have no idea that Romanian Army actually means Romanian Armed Forces. That should be explained and Romanian Army wikilinked. Done
In the Modernization subsection, a three stage restructuring is mentioned but not explained. What comprises each stage? If that is not mentioned there is little use in mentioning when are they gonna be completed. Also no mention is made of when did Romania join NATO. Done
In the World War I subsection, the main article reference should be before the first picture and not after it. This section is also in need of copyediting so as to make it more clear. For instance: the Brusilov Offensive is mentioned in the first sentence but not explained, a reader with no prior knowledge of the Eastern Front in WWI would be lost; Transylvania is mentioned but not that it belonged to Austria-Hungary at that time; Rommel is mentioned, but this mention is quite irrelevant for the present article, it should be erased. Also why is Romanian Army used in the history section instead of Romanian Land Forces? That needs to be explained. Done
In the World War II subsection, there is need of copyediting for clarity and to avoid redundancies such as fought many battles right next to saw lots of action. Also could run in excess of 200,000 should be replaced by probably exceeded of 200,000. Finally the Although, in retrospect, the royal coup has been estimated to have shortened the war by as much as six months makes no sense as the sentence structure should be Although something happened, another thing happened. - Done
In the Cold War subsection, why is Valter Roman mentioned? No clue is given as to his significance. who was to serve as Minister of Defense should be replaced by who later served as Minister of Defense as it is better to write about history in past tense. The word Defence is written in this section with an S (Defense) but in other places in the article it is written Defence, spelling should be standarized. Also why is Sovietization capitalized? - Done
In the Present organization subsection, why is the Joint Task Force HQ mentioned if it is not part of the Romanian Land Forces? This also seems an awkward place to mention the Land Forces official day, it would be better in the Lead section and it should be explained why this day was picked. The whole The current Romanian corps are smaller than the regular corps sentence is unclear, what are regular corps? Those previously used in Romania or those of other armies? If the latter, which armies are those? The third paragraph of this section is made up of a single sentece, it should be either fleshed out (for instance mentionin the higher levels of the chain of command: President - Ministry of Defence - C-in-C or the equivalent) or merged with the second paragraph. The words battalion and btn are used inconsistently throughout this section, perhaps it would be better to standarize on battalion. - Done ~~(the official day will be moved soon)~~
In the Equipment subsection, the first sentence needs a footnote like the one used in the lead section. The second sentence looks like POV and is in contradiction with the lead (which mentions Gepard instead of Jder). ~~partially~~ Done ~~(the second sentence still needs to be done)~~
In the Special Forces subsection, how can a battalion in formation be the most famous one? Has it undertaken any decisive military operation to deserve such fame? The whole section on which countries have trained with Romanian Special Forces seems irrelevant for this article it should be reduced to one sentence or even erased. Done
In the International missions subsection, does this listing refer to only to current deployments? If so, the first sentence should be The following troops are deployed abroad. - Done

2. As for the second requirement (It is factually accurate and verifiable):

Per Wikipedia:Footnotes, footnotes should be located after punctuation marks such that there is no space in between; several footnotes in the infobox have been wrongly placed. - Done
Some of the footnotes from romanian sources are tagged (in Romanian) but others are not, that should be standarized. The same goes for access dates for web pages, some have it, some do not. Done
It looks awkward to quote a romanian source for the statement they are one of the most modern armies in Eastern Europe and one of the most important newest NATO members. It looks like POV. - disagree with this, the romanian news article is based on an AFP article which clearly shows that Romania is the biggest and most important country acceding NATO in 2004.
No source is mentioned for the Equipment Summary. Done

3. As for the third requirement (It is broad in its coverage): it looks good enough for a GA.

4. As for the fourth requirement (It is neutral): there are a few instances that look like POV, as mentioned above.

5. As for the fifth requirement (It is stable): the article seems compliant.

6. As for the sixth requirement (Any images it contains are appropriate): the article seems compliant.

Good luck on your endevour, I'll check again in 7 days. For questions or comments you can contact me on my talk page. --Victor12 02:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning: You signed the "In the World War II" point as Done, but you reedited my changes in the sentence: "Although, it has been estimated that the royal coup shortened the war by as much as six months." If we leave the sentence like this it is a grave grammatical error! If you use "Although" you must have a contradicting statement that follows. i.e.: "Although he does not like carrots, he ate them to please his mother." As it is now the "Royal Coup" sentence must be changed into either:

"It has been estimated that the royal coup shortened the war by as much as six months." or
"Although, it has been estimated that the royal coup shortened the war by as much as six months, ... (contradicting statement here) ..." I changed it to the first sentence, but if you actually have a contradicting statement, you must insert it!

Also in the same section: to link to the German Army is wrong. The German Military was the Wehrmacht then and the modern day Heer refuses to see itself in any way linked to the former. Therefore linking to German Army is an erorr. It is as if you write "Red Army" and the link is like this: Armed Forces of the Russian Federation I corrected this.

another point in the section "Present organization": The strucuture is more like the Italian Army The French Army has one command for all Brigades, whereas Italy has three Commands (COMFOD 1, COMFOD 2, COMALP) that are like mixed Corps (and are indeed command by a Generale di Corpo d'Armata (OF-8)). I changed that point to. noclador 08:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry noclador, yesterday I started to edit the page before you submited your edits. Eurocopter tigre 16:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Victor12, is there anything else to be done in the article? Eurocopter tigre 16:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Just some issues:

Subheadings in the "Present organization" section have been delinked, however why is most of the listing of units in bold letters? It would be better to use Bold letters only for corps and the Bucarest garrison. I would suggest following noclador's proposal to use a shorter listing as in the Structure of the Canadian Forces Land Force Command article. I think the main units are looking much better bolded, however, is it really necessary to be de-bolded?? (please note that the main units in the Spanish Army, Italian Army, German Army, US Army etc, are also bolded)
The following observation has not been addressed, despite being marked as "done":

The structure of the article itself should be reorganized. Current sections are confusing (for instance there is a Current state section as well as a Present Organization one; also while almost most combat units are listed under Present Organization, special forces are not). Check the organization of the United States Marine Corps article. - the name of the ex Present Organization section has been changed in "Present structure", isn't that enough? Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of the word "defence" is still inconsistent with some instances of "defence" and others of "defense" - Done Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
This sentence "The current Romanian corps are smaller than the regular modern corps" still doesn't make sense, what does it mean by "regular army corps". Also, that should be explained in the text of the article, not commented out. Done Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Why are Territorial Army Corps, the Bucharest Garrison in bold letters in the first paragraph of the "Present structure" section Done Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
In the Special Forces subsection, how can a battalion in formation be the most famous one? The "famous" statement should be removed. -read more carefully, is "the most famous special forces unit", not the most famous battalion; Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Also in this section, Corps' reconnaissance battalions are mentioned, even though they have already been refered to in the "structure section". IMHO this two sections should be merged Done
In the footnotes the tag (in Romanian) should go before the note, not after it per WP practice. Done Eurocopter tigre 19:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
About the Romanian article quoted for the "most modern armies in Eastern Europe statement", if it's based in an AFP article, why not quote directly from that one? It'll save you a lot of headaches when you nominate the article for FA or undergo a peer review. - fixed sentence, Done

That's all I think. Greetings, --Victor12 17:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Great! It finally passed!! Thanks a lot Victor for reviewing this article and thanks to other users who helped me in the improvement of the article. ---Eurocopter tigre 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GA nomination passed

I believe the article in its current form meets all GA requirements so I've passed it as such. Congratulations to everyone involved in this effort! However I also believe there are some outstanding issues which need to be dealt with, even though they don't affect the GA status IMHO. They are as follows:

The "Present organization" section has too much bolded text in it, even such things as "other supporting units" are in bold letters! I know there's a need to distinguish major and minor units, but I don't think this is the way to go. Compare it to the examples that Eurocopter tigre has given above (Spanish Army for instance) and you'll see the difference.
This one is really minor. In the following sentence "The most famous and well trained unit is the 1st Special Ops. Battalion (nicknamed "The Eagles"), which was legally created in late 2005", why is the word "famous" used? Why is this battalion famous for? Is it famous outside Romania? Has it achieved any notable military feat? If the answers are negative the word needs to be removed.
The last issue is that the article structure probably needs to be revamped for clearness and coherence. For instance, why aren't special forces under "Present structure" with all the other units? Why the titles "current state" and "present structure" used simultaneously? An average reader could think that it would be logical to have "present strucuture" as part of "current state". Finally, do Corps and their HQ need to be used as subsection titles? They are pretty long and distort the table of contents. In my opinion they should be just listed, not be made into their own independent sections.

Anyway, those are just my opinions for whatever their worth. Congratulations again on a good article!!! --Victor12 21:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Prince

Yes, Cuza had the title of Domnitor, just as Stephen the Great was called Voivod, or Hospodar, or unficially domnitor; but in English, it is best translated as Prince. I understand that you want to promote the Romanian term, but I think it's best to be consistent and make everyone understand. Cuza was recognized as a Prince, but not under the Ro name of Domnitor. In foreign literature, Cuza is called a prince. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that "Domnitor" term should be kept, because it represents the official title of the ruler of the United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia. (see also Ion Antonescu, "Conducător" of Romania) --Eurocopter tigre 22:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

~~Do not use WWII to abbreviate World War II or the Second World War. Its not encyclopedic or appropriate~~. Done
Lead changes tense and talks about ongoing events in a colloquial fashion. Use the past tense throughout, even for events recently in the past. Also the lead needs updating as it talks about events coming "by the end of 2007". Done
~~Reshape the lead into three simple paragraphs and try to give a clearer picture of what constitutes the Romanian Land Forces - infantry, armour, artillery etc.~~ Done, thus the infantry, artillery and armour are mentioned in the infobox;

I'll accept this, but the infobox should only really be a simple guide backed up by textual references. it should try to stand alone.

~~All sources should be placed after punctuation, after full stops if possible.~~ Done
Please source (and expand if possible) the first paragraph of World War I.
What happened in the army between 1918 and 1940. - nothing important to be mentioned during this period;

Then say so. As it is the article jumps over a 22 year period in which all armies were modernising and reorganising after the First World War. If there really is nothing to say then this is worth commenting on in of itself.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Source and clarify the first paragraph of World War II. - what is unclear in it?

Had a go myself to demonstrate problems. Effectively the article assumed that all readers would know Romania began on the Axis side - I knew that, but you can't assume that everyone will.

What happened between 1950 and 1980? - read the entire section

I have, it talks about reorganisation, but what about action? Were Romanian troops involved in any operations alongside other communist countries? Did they go on exercises with them? If not, discuss why.

Third paragraph of "Cold War" covers several topics and is rather confused. Try to seperate it into clearer themes. - why? in this paragraph is made a comparison of the RoLF structure between 1950-1980.

Because this is the "history" section, not the stucture one. Thus there should be mention of, for example, conscription, leadership, morale, ethos and other aspects of the Romanian Army. I'll probably concede this if you really don't want to do it, but it is something to think about.

~~Source the statistics in manpower.~~ - already sourced;

It is now, it wasn't when I reviewed the article.

~~An image in Special Forces is covering part of the text. See WP:BUNCH for solutions.~~ Done
All websources need publication information.

Some of these have been done, but not all.

~~Please confirm that images from the Romanian ministry of defence are public domain.~~ If so, the image of Romanian snow troops is incorrectly tagged. - I confirm, there is a disclaimer on the MoD official site, but it's available only in Romanian.--Eurocopter (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just an initial list of the bigger problems. I will check back in no less than seven days and if work is being done I will provide more issues to be worked on to bring this up to standard. The article is quite good and does not need a vast amount of additional work to get to GA, just a series of tidying. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

In summary, this article is much improved from when I reviewed it, and I think I'm OK to pass it. I recommend continuing to look at the remaining issues above, and also consider getting a copyedit from the League of Copyeditors, the prose is a little laboured in places. Otherwise this is shapping up nicely and I'm OK to pass it.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Vanatori de Munte.jpg

The image Image:Vanatori de Munte.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Additional data with sources

Is at Import material from User_talk:Eurocopter/Archive 3#Romanian Land Forces and User talk:Eurocopter/Archive 3#Romania in the Cold War Buckshot06 (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

11th Infantry Division

http://www.crisana.ro/stiri/actualitate-13/final-emotionant-al-unei-divizii-care-a-facut-istorie-19585.html

Final emoţionant al unei Divizii care a făcut istorie Autor: col (r) TATAR Zoltan Brigada 11 Infanterie Motorizată a fost urmaşa Diviziei 11 Infanterie, înfiinţată în zilele de14-16 august 1916, în toiul primului război mondial. Divizia 11 Infanterie a înscris pagini de eroism în istoria armatei prin bătăliile purtate pentru eliberarea Basarabiei, în Valea Jiului, la Mărăşeşti, precum şi în alte localităţi. În al doilea război mondial, a luptat până la Stalingrad, iar pe teritoriul naţional a luptat pentru independenţa României şi la Oarba de Mureş şi mai departe, la Tiszaloil, cu sacrificii, fără să cunoască înfrângerea. Revenind în ţară, la 2 august 1951, se reorganizează efectivele şi înfiinţează Divizia 11 Infanterie dislocată în Oradea în clădirea fostei Divizii 11 Mecanizate "Carei" şi Brigăzii 11infanterie Motorizate. În urma proceselor de transformare şi modernizare a armatei, schimbă mai multe denumiri: Divizia 5 Infanterie şi, ulterior, Divizia 11 Mecanizată "Carei". În contextul cerinţelor actuale ca urmare a transformărilor social-politice şi militare ale lumii contemporane, Divizia 11 Mecanizată "Carei" se reorganizează conform cerinţelor NATO, reprofilându-se în Brigada 11 Infanterie Motorizată. În prezent, conştienţi fiind de necesitatea reorganizării şi modernizării armatei, ca membri ai NATO, desfiinţarea Brigăzii 11. Motorizate constituie o măsură firească în contextul actual al reformei armatei. De aceea, consider un moment deosebit de emoţionant ceremonialul de dezvelire, din 22 aprilie 2005, a plăcii comemorative de pe faţada fostului comandament al Diviziei 11 Infanterie care, începând cu această dată, îşi încetează activitatea. Au fost de faţă foştii comandanţi ai Marii Unităţi, cadre în rezervă şi în retragere, reprezentanţi ai Asociaţiei Naţionale a Veteranilor de Război, ai "Cultului Eroilor"şi personalităţi bisericeşti care au sfinţit placa respectivă. 04.05.2005, 00:00

22 June 1941: (Niehorster at http://www.orbat.com) 11 Infantry Division (CO: BG David Popescu)Hqs: Slatina

11 Infantry Brigade (2 Dorobanti, 3 Dorobanti, 19 Infantry)
11 Artillery Brigade (21 Artillery Regiment – 2 x 75mm Gun Battalions – 1 x 100mm Howitzer Battalion; 26 Artillery Regiment – 1 x 75mm Gun Battalion – 1 x 100mm Howitzer Battalion); 11 Engineer Battalion; All others

11 Buckshot06 (talk) 02:41, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

11 Mechanized Division "that" has a glorious past. A fost supranumită "Divizia Neînvinsă", deoarece a fost singura mare unitate care, de la înfiinţarea ei în 1916, nu a pierdut nicio bătălie în sectoarele de front care i-au fost încredinţate. It was dubbed the "undefeated Division" because it was one big unit, from its creation in 1916, has not lost any battle front sectors that have been entrusted. Divizia 11 Infanterie a luat fiinţă pe 15 august 1916, având rădăcinile în Batalionul de Recrutare Dolj, înfiinţat la 1 iunie 1908. 11th Infantry Division was formed on 15 August 1916, having roots in Dolj Recruiting Battalion, which was established on 1 June 1908. Acesta împreună cu Regimentul 41 Infanterie şi Brigada 22 Infanterie au fost comasate în Divizia 11 Infanterie. This together with the 41 Infantry Regiment 22 Infantry Brigade, 11th Infantry Division was merged into. Ostaşii săi au luat parte la luptele din Moldova în Primul Război Mondial, apoi, la acţiunile de menţinere a ordinii împotriva bandelor de bolşevici în anul 1918 în Transilvania şi a curăţirii Budapestei de trupele roşii ale lui Bella Kun, în 1919. His soldiers took part in fighting in Moldova in World War I, then, the law enforcement actions against gangs by the Bolsheviks in 1918 in Transylvania and Budapest cleaning Bella Kun's red army in 1919. În al Doilea Război Mondial a luptat în bătăliile de la Odessa, Transinistria şi Cotul Donului, în campania de eliberare a Transilvaniei şi în luptele din Ungaria şi Cehoslovacia, până în mai 1945. In the Second World War he fought in the battles of Odessa and Don Bend Transinistria campaign, the issue of fighting in Transylvania and Hungary and Czechoslovakia, by May 1945. În acelaşi an efectivele sale sunt distribuite la alte unităţi, divizia fiind astfel desfiinţată. In the same year the herds are distributed to other units, such division being disbanded.

La 2 august 1951, sa reînfiinţat Divizia 11 Infanterie din Divizia 2 Infanterie, iar începând cu 15 octombrie 1951 unităţile ei au fost dislocate în noile garnizoane având comandamentul dispus la Oradea. On 2 August 1951, was reestablished in the 11th Infantry Division 2nd Infantry Division, from October 15, 1951 and its units were deployed in the new garrison commander having ordered in Oradea. La 20 octombrie 1974, primeşte denumirea de Divizia 11 Mecanizată "Carei", iar douăzeci de ani mai târziu, prin ordin al Ministerului Apărării Naţionale, se înfiinţează Brigada 11 Mecanizată "Carei", prin reorganizarea Diviziei. On 20 October 1974 11 Mechanized Division is named "Carefree" and twenty years later, by order of the Ministry of Defence, 11 Mechanized Brigade to establish "who", by reorganizing the Division. Brigada devine operativă începând cu 1 octombrie 1994, iar din 25 iulie 2002 devine Brigada 11 Infanterie Moto "Carei". Brigade becomes operative from 1 October 1994 and 25 July 2002 he became the 11th Infantry Brigade Moto "Carefree." În mai 2005, Divizia din Oradea este desfiinţată. In May 2005, the Division of Oradea is abolished.

The full modernisation of equipment ended at the end of 2007

This is a dubious statement... It should be removed from the article.--Mircea87 (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It should - it was an older verbatim quote from a strategy paper for 2007. Also in the structure, it seems - from the websites of divisions 2 and 4 - that the 10th Eng. and 8th Art. Brigades are not attached to any divisions but rather, much like the 6th Special Ops Brigade, are independent brigades. The 69th Art Brigade is not a brigade but a regiment while three mixed artillery brigades have been created lately (one for each division). The structure should reflect these changes. Dapiks (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

File:TR-77 tanks.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:TR-77 tanks.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:TR-77 tanks.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1919-1920

The current text says:

"After World War I, Transylvania proclaimed union with the Kingdom of Romania. As a result, in April 1919, the newly established Hungarian Soviet Republic vowed to retake the region by force, and Hungarian troops attacked Romanian formations in Transylvania. The Romanian Army defeated the Hungarians and conquered Budapest in August 1919."

This is total nonsense. Firstly, Transylvania has never proclaimed union, and it couldn't have either, as it was not an autonomous entity within the Kingdom of Hungary. It is just as stupid as to claim that East Prussia proclaimed union with Germany in 1939. Transylvania was forcibly detached from Hungary by the 1920 Trianon Peace Pact, which the majority of Hungarians considered an outrage. It was actually Romania that proclaimed union with Transylvania after occupying it by force about a year earlier. In fact most Transylvanian counties were cut into half by the new border, even some cities losing their essential facilities, ie. Nagykároly (Carei). This is certainly not what the locals wanted.

Secondly, the Hungarian Soviet Republic (Tanácsköztársaság) couldn't care less about the fate of Transylvania, and never attacked anyone in Transylvania. They did not care about Hungary's integrity as they were already expecting a world revolution which eradicates borders. Their offensives were merely of military importance, aiming to secure strategic areas for a better defense of the Soviet Republic. There were some armed clashes in Transylvania between Romanian and Hungarian forces, but not in 1919, and the latter were not Communist troops but in fact remnants of the old Austro-Hungarian army as counter-revolutionary forces. These fights mostly involved the Sekler Border Guards, a famed elite unit of Transylvania, and it happened in 1918, not 1919, until the Károlyi-government disbanded these units.

Also to be noted: the Romanian Army has not really defeated the Hungarians, but the Károlyi-government, in a supposedly pacifist move, has disbanded most of the Hungarian armed forces. The remaining ones, or units that refused accepting this order were unable to stop the Romanian advancement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.228.107.43 (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/piranha/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/gepard/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 20:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Structure of the Romanian Land Forces

As the Romanian Land Forces are in the process of a major restructuring I am trying to find detailed infos about the future structure, but so far I had no luck. I created the article "Structure of the Romanian Land Forces" and if anyone has information about the new structure please head there and add it. As soon as we have that article well referenced and sourced I will update the graphic of the structure too. Thanks, noclador (talk) 03:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

-183rd Artillery Battalion is from Lugoj, not Caracal; there is also a 4th Military College, "Tudor Vladimirescu" from Craiova, reactivated in 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvan Mihaeanu (talk • contribs) 00:09, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Romanian Land Forces. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

R-35 Reg2 bucuresti l with Laffly trucks.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)